Agenda item

Variation of conditions 1 (duration of operations), 2 (approved plans), 17 (noise) and 30 (restoration) of planning permission 17/04637/VARCCM to extend the duration of consented operations, amend the approved documentation associated with the operation and amend the noise limits applicable to the operation

Divet Hill Quarry, Capheaton, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Northumberland

NE19 2BG

Variation of conditions 1 (duration of operations), 2 (approved plans), 17 (noise) and 30 (restoration) of planning permission 17/04637/VARCCM to extend the duration of consented operations, amend the approved documentation associated with the operation and amend the noise limits applicable to the operation

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 who advised that the variation of conditions was required in order to implement the extension to the quarry which was approved under the previous application.

J Pearson addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       The Conservation Area boundary was less than 200m from the site and 250m from homes.

·       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 and continued to experience.

·       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.

·       Condition 24 stated “temporary operations such as soil striping or placement and the construction and removal of screen mounds shall not exceed a noise level of 70 Db for any longer than 8 weeks in any 12 month period at any residential property”.  The expression “such as” does not pass the test of precision required by the NPPF. While it did set a limit of 70dB, the practicality of measuring over 8 weeks in any 12 months makes it imprecise and unenforceable.  For example, assume that in response to a complaint the noise level was measured and found to be over 70dB, is that a breach or does the monitoring then continue to the next hour and the next etc for the next 8 weeks and potentially for a year?  This has been discussed at length with the Environmental Health Officer who could not advise how that condition could be measured or enforced.

·       If Members approved this application then they were signing up to say that they understood and approved the planning conditions.  If the workings of the conditions were not understood or they thought they needed to be improved then Members needed to reject the application.

·       The second reason that residents had no confidence in the noise conditions was that the Council had a woeful record in dealing with noise complaints about the quarry and dealing with the complaints about not dealing with the original noise complaints.  It was not the Council who measured noise following a complaint, they abdicated their responsibility in the matter and relied on the quarry operator to hire a noise man. 

·       Even following a statutory noise nuisance complaint it had taken one year for the Council to offer noise monitoring at their property and by that time the crushing plant had been moved and operations at the north end of the site that were causing problems were coming to an end.

·       After 4 years, dozens of complaints and raising a statutory noise nuisance complaint, neither the Council or the operator had recorded or assessed the noise which had woken them up from their beds, driven them indoors from their garden and invaded their living room. It was a long complex saga and the Council’s handling of these matters was currently being investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman.

·       Their experience had indicated that these were problems with resources, practice and procedure within the Planning Department and would not be resolved by another noise complaint procedure that did not get implemented or a Community Liaison Group that had no teeth due to inadequate planning conditions.

·       Similar problems were being experienced with dust which was first raised in early 2020 with monitoring put in place in July 2020.  Residents had seen no analysis or assessment of the results, there had been no changes and no less dust.

·       Condition 26 which related to the problems of dust, had the same issue of not being relevant to this proposal as well as not being precise. It was known that the worst operations for creating dust were blasting, crushing plant and the coating plant and yet none of these were mentioned in the condition. Furthermore the measures listed in the condition would not deal with the dust fallout from any of these.

·       Condition 27 stated that dust monitoring would continue, but to what end? There was no objective set other than to monitor. No levels were set therefore no enforcement was possible. This was what had been experienced in the last two years of monitoring, no report, no analysis, no feedback and no improvement.

·       Members were asked to reject the application.

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

·       Officers tried not to be too prescriptive about the cause of noise in the conditions.  The conditions tried to look at the noise experienced at the boundaries of the noise sensitive properties and that was where the numerical decibel values were set.  Normal practice on quarries throughout the Country required the operator themselves to monitor noise, the fall back was that if there was reason to believe that the operator was not carrying this out in a proper way then arrangements would be made for the Council to undertake this themselves.   There had been resource issues with this as Public Protection did not have sufficient equipment to be able to attend when residents had asked. The new arrangement and Liaison Group would set up a working arrangement between the Quarry, the local community and the Council to agree how the site can be worked properly.  The Operator would be doing more noise monitoring and a report would be provided to each Liaison meeting providing details of all complaints received and any actions they had taken to mitigate those problems.  This was an established way of working and had worked well on other sites in the County.  The conditions were in accordance with the six tests.

·       There were two issues in relation to noise, i.e. planning conditions related to noise and also statutory noise nuisance.  The problems in 2021 were in relation to Public Protection investigating a noise nuisance complaint as they were able to do that independent of any planning condition.  The new regime would look at how conditions were complied with and Public Protection would be ongoing consultees on this, and when the effects of climatic conditions were understood then the Council would work with the operator and there could be a cessation of activities when climatic conditions affected the operations and this would also apply to dust from the site as well as noise.

·       The conditions being included reflected the operations in 2022 with standards much stricter than previously.  Government recommendations which had been set out in the report would be adhered to.  The conditions were proper and reasonable and enforceable.  The applicant, as part of their Environmental Statement submitted with the application, had to carry out a noise, a dust and a vibration assessment, which were then assessed by Environmental Health Officers.   The noise assessment showed that there would be the likelihood of two properties who might experience slightly higher levels by 1dB at one property and 2dB at the other, these had been accepted by the Environmental  Health Officer as being realistic and that the limits were appropriate as they were significantly below the 55dB limit set by Government.  The 70dB limit referred to by J Pearson in her address was also in accordance with Government guidance and was a standard practice in mineral operations for putting up soil mounds at the edge of the site which were closer to residential properties and have a leeway of temporary operations for 8 weeks.  The works would be progressive and the condition was a standard enforceable condition. It might be that discussions could be held with the developer regarding continuing noise monitoring during the time that the mounds were being created and a slight tweak of the condition would be discussed with the Chair should Members be minded to approve the application.

·       There were conditions requiring a noise scheme, a dust scheme and a blasting scheme to be submitted and issues would be addressed during this detailed stage.

·       The Liaison Group would allow a direct route for complaints to the Operator when the activities were actually taking place.

Councillor Hutchinson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Stewart.  A vote was taken as follows:- FOR 8; AGAINST 3; ABSTENSION 1.

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