Agenda item

Lateral extension to north of existing quarry boundary for the phased extraction of approximately 2.7 million tonnes of whinstone and restoration of site to agricultural grassland and nature conservation uses.

Divet Hill Quarry, Capheaton, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Northumberland

NE19 2BG

Lateral extension to north of existing quarry boundary for the phased extraction of approximately 2.7 million tonnes of whinstone and restoration of site to agricultural grassland and nature conservation uses.

Divet Hill Quarry, Capheaton, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland NE19 2BG

An introduction to the application was provided by G Halliday, Consultant Planner with the aid of a power point presentation.  Videos of the site had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting and the Chair advised that he had also visited the site.

J Pearson addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of local residents in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       The proposal was too close to homes and living spaces bringing quarry operations within 125m of the nearest properties at Clay Walls Farm, 250m of homes at Great Bavington and 350m of homes at Newonstead.

·       Great Bavington Conservation Area was something that the villages had worked on with Tynedale Council to establish. The Conservation Area appraisal document set out the important characteristics of the area and what was essential to its preservation. The setting, landscape and views in and out of the Conservation Area were highlighted as key components and these were to be sacrificed to this quarry. 

·       Committee was being told that the impact would be limited due to the 9-10 year timeframe for quarrying, however no account had been taken of the 2 year restoration and up to 15 years for that restoration to be effective, or of the permanent landscape changes. An estimated total of 27 years which would be determined by the sale of the crushed rock.

·       The report stated there was 46 years’ worth of permitted hard rock reserves in Northumberland which was many more times the amount prescribed by the NPPF and the Northumberland Local Plan (NLP), with an argument about productive capacity and flexibility in applying policy. On closer examination this meant that some quarry operators were managing the supply to market by holding some 18% of those reserves in inactive quarries. Residents would argue that this was the natural reaction of businesses in an over-supplied market and yet they were being asked to sacrifice their Conservation Area and residential amenity so that Breedon could have a slice of that pie at Divet Hill.  Applying policy flexibly should also mean examining how the market was operating and not just approving another quarry to attempt to level the playing field. 

·       This application was for permission to quarry 2.7 million tonnes of rock whilst there were three inactive sites within a few miles holding 9.7 million tonnes of reserves. Swinburne, had 5.25m million tonnes with permission until 2036, Mootlaw had 4.1 million tonnes with permission until 2025 and Cocklaw had 700,000 tonnes and permission until 2042.  Balancing those numbers with the impact this proposal would have on local people and places, why was approval needed for the Divet Hill extension?  It was clearly more about who controlled the rights of the reserves and market rather than ensuring a continuous supply.

·       In 2019 residents asked Committee to reject the application for the Divet Hill Farm Extension due to the issues residents were having with noise.  At that time it was stated that the noise conditions being proposed were some of the tightest in Northumberland, however that optimism was misplaced and sadly those same conditions were being presented again for this application.

·       Those conditions did not meet the six tests set out in the NPPF. They were not precise, enforceable or in some cases not relevant to the development to be permitted and in total did not deal with the noise issues residents had experienced for in recent years.

·       Condition 22 set noise limits for day time operations but took no account of the peaks of noise, the crashes and bangs associated with moving rock and loading the crusher and the horns and beepers that were common all day from 6.00 am. The new proposal introduced the use of dumper trucks taking newly blasted rock from the face to the crusher, loading and tipping each time.  Residents dreaded the extra noise that this would create. Impulsive and peak noises were recognised as an issue in Government Minerals Guidance which was suffered already but this was not addressed by a condition in this proposal.

Councillor Peter Ramsden addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of Bavington Parish Council in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       This current proposal to extend Divet Hill Quarry had been an agenda item at successive Parish Council meetings. At the outside in July 2018, the Parish Council received a presentation from the Developers and subsequently arranged a public meeting in December 2020 to canvass local views.

·       One member of the Parish Council was conflicted over the proposal and apart from his immediate family, there was a universal view against the proposal.

·       The local community had lived in proximity to the Quarry over many years and lived with the associated noise, dust and the constant traffic movements of heavy wagons.  However, this proposal, involving quarrying just 190 metres west of the village of Great Bavington represented a new threat of a different magnitude to local residents.

·       The Built Heritage and Design Officer indicated that this proposal would be harmful to the setting and significance of the Conservation Area of Great Bavington and in assessing the application, great weight should be given to the heritage asset’s conservation.   The Conservation status places certain obligations on local residents but it also should offer some measure of protection. The Parish Council is not convinced that the proposals offer adequate mitigation measures to offset this threat posed and had a clear view that if local opinion was to count or if Conservation status was to have significance then this application should be rejected.

Councillor J Riddle, Local Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  His comments included the following:-

·       This was a finely balanced decision the Committee were being asked to make, with its very significant effect on the Conservation Area and there was clearly not a need for this quarry.  There were quarries with reserves with roughly four times what this quarry would produce in the immediate vicinity and over 40 years supply in the County and this extension was not needed.

·       This was a business opportunity and was about profit with residents suffering a loss of amenity for years and he had been and heard the noise which they had to put up with.

·       It had been disappointing that the in person site visit had been cancelled as the videos provided were not a true representative of the noise from the site and he asked Members to defer the application in order to visit the site.

·       As far as he was aware it was not local employment for local residents. 

·       The hamlets of Little Bavington and Great Bavington were very close by and noise complaints had been made for some time now and had now in fact been referred to the Local Government Ombudsman in relation to how the Council had dealt with this.

·       The loss of amenity, the dust and the noise were all too much for something which was not really needed and it was just a financial opportunity for the developer.

J Garbutt, Planning & Estates Manager for Breedon, addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       From his experience Divet Hill was a very well run site, well organised with a good access road and processing plant located to minimise any adverse impacts with an excellent safety record.

·       Restoration works were well advanced and over the coming years large parts would also be restored to provide high quality habitat. 

·       The site was well established and had continued producing construction materials for many years and had the necessary infrastructure to continue operating in an efficient and environmentally friendly way. 

·       Minerals were essential to society and could only be worked where they were found and a degree of compromise had to be used in developing sites.  Maintaining a supply of construction materials in an area was essential to allow economic development.  Divet Hill provided a high quality dolomite stone which could be used in a variety of construction uses and the site also had an asphalt plant to produce tarmac for road surfacing. 

·       The northern extension was an allocated site in the recently adopted NLP and had been identified to produce minerals over the plan period. Whilst it had been suggested that there was no need for the site as Northumberland had a lot of reserves, this did not give a true picture as a large amount was tied up in one site which might not have the capacity to supply more material and 17% of the reserves were in sites which were not active which could be due to a range of issues.

·       This site was needed and had already been considered to be a good site through the planning allocation process, with details submitted to the Council confirming this position. 

·       Almost all statutory consultees accept that, with appropriate planning conditions, to control environmental impacts the development could proceed. The exception to this being the Building Conservation Officer in relation to the setting of the Great Bavington Conservation Area which would only be impacted during the time limited extension to the site.

·       The site had been an important supplier in the past to various works within Northumberland and would supply future important developments in the County.

·       The site had operated in compliance with its planning consent for many years and had more recently undertaken noise and dust monitoring to demonstrate compliance and reports regularly provided to the Council.

·        Breedon was a very responsible operator going beyond the minimum required and who had raised the bar on sustainability issues.  The restoration of the site would include whin grass land which could only be created by quarrying activities.

·       A Quarry Liaison Group would also be established to assist in dealing with any complaints from residents.

·       The retention of the site would secure the 22 full time jobs at the quarry which were local to Northumberland, contributing to securing another 20 contractor/haulier jobs which were linked on a part time basis to the quarry.

·       He hoped that the Committee would agree to grant permission to secure the future of the site and jobs.

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

·       It was not known why the other quarries containing reserves were not operational, but this could be for a variety of technical, economic or geological reasons.

·       This quarry first started operating in the early 20^th century and had operated under planning controls since 1947.  It was originally a much smaller operation but has operated at the current level of tonnage for a number of years.

·       The 40 years supply of reserves related to the whole of Northumberland, however there were no crushed rock quarries in Tyne and Wear and therefore the market area was wider than Northumberland.  The main markets for this quarry were in South East Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, with another operator supplying the main market in the North of the County.  The Local Plan Inspector agreed that this site was appropriate and as such it had been allocated in the NLP. 

·       It was normal to require a restoration bond in respect of high impact schemes of short duration due to the risks involved.  These historically related to opencast coal schemes. The quarrying of crushed rock took place over a greater timescale and used progressive restoration. The risk was lower and therefore a bond was not required.

·       Issues around noise had been looked at by Public Protection with a large volume of Government Good Practice available.  The existing background noise levels were established and limits imposed on how much this could increase during quarrying operations.  Quieter areas would be subject to more restrictions.  Full noise monitoring would be undertaken and the establishment of the Liaison Group would assist in discussions surrounding any noise complaints by bringing the Operator and residents together and such groups had worked well on many open casting sites in the area.

·       There was no technical grounds to refuse the application related to noise as these were within Government limits. The existing plant equipment had been moved in October 2021 further into the site and away from Great Bavington and Little Bavington and away from properties.  Its location would now cause less adverse harm than when the application was originally submitted two years ago. It was made clear that the application could be refused on the basis of the impact on the Conservation Area. This would be a matter of planning balance. The Officer appraisal and advice was however that the limited impact, when balanced against the identified benefits, most reasonably pointed to approval subject to conditions.

·       Bavington Parish Council did not appear at the examination stage of the Local Plan when the Planning Inspector looked at mineral provision as a whole. There was a demonstrable need for crushed rock provision and each site location was looked at to ascertain if it was appropriate to allocation in the plan. The conclusion was that this quarry was appropriate and the allocation was deliverable.

·       The provision of soil mounds around sites was standard practice with the Conservation Officer stating that these would be a manmade element which was not there at present.  Looking out from the Conservation Area a stone wall was a strong element in its setting and apart from the soil mounds the proposed development would not be visible. The soil mounds would be slightly higher and would be visible and this had been judged by Planning Officers that the adverse harm was not sufficient in the planning balance to outweigh the benefits of the working of the site. 

·       Whilst restoration had been undertaken on parts of the site, it was necessary for a new restoration plan to be agreed to allow the plant, office and roads to remain in place during the extended working of the site.

Councillor Hill left the meeting at this point.

Councillor Robinson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to grant permission as outlined in the report and this was seconded by Councillor Wallace.

In debating the application, the remoteness of the site was highlighted.  The Chair advised that on his visit to the site that morning he had found it to be well organised and tidy and that over the last few years the tree planting around the site had helped to screen the quarry.   Members had sympathy with residents, but it was hoped that the new monitoring system and Liaison Group would assist and considered that appropriate assessments had been undertaken as part of the examination of the NLP. 

A vote was taken on the proposal to grant permission as follows:- FOR 8; AGAINST 4; ABSTENSIONS 0.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report.