Agenda item

Extraction and processing of 5.8 million tonnes of sand and gravel and the phased restoration of the site to a lake and associated wetlands

Land North East of Anick Grange Haugh, Anick Road, Hexham

Extraction and processing of 5.8 million tonnes of sand and gravel and the phased restoration of the site to a lake and associated wetlands

Land North East of Anick Grange Haugh, Anick Road, Hexham

K Tipple, Senior Planning Officer provided a very comprehensive and detailed introduction to the report with the aid of a power point presentation. 

J Halliday addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       The site was within the Green Belt and any operation within it must preserve its openness and not conflict with the purposes for which it was included. The NPPF included the following purpose for Green Belt “to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns”.  This Councils strategic approach to Green Belt specifically states that they will be protected to preserve the setting and special character of Hexham, Corbridge and Morpeth.

·       This scheme fails to comply with both national and local policies.

·       There was a growing trend to refuse quarry applications in Green Belts with Councillors often voting against the advice of their officers.

·       In 1990 there was a similar application related to Anick Grange which was refused on appeal with the Inspector giving two reasons.  With a 10 year land bank at that time he could see no present need, the current north east land bank was 15 years.  He also said that the Grade II agricultural land of which there was only 3% in Northumberland was a national resource which should be protected.  These reasons for refusal were still sound now. 

·       Wheat was needed rather than sand or gravel and it could be produced with a fraction of the emissions caused by the haulage of minerals.  The local family who have farmed the land for generations should be allowed to continue to make their valuable contribution to the Community.

·       The application also failed to meet the cornerstone of the NPPF, sustainability. One economic test asked if it is the right type of land in the right place at the right time, this was not, it was in a Green Belt on a flood plain which was known to flood disastrously and the time was not right as there was no present need.

·       Asthma was on the increase among the young and parents were worried about the effects of wind borne silica on their children.

M Jordan also spoke in objection to the application and her comments included the following:-

·       She was speaking as Chairman of the Corbridge Flood Action Group representing 85 dwellings in the flood zone of Corbridge 2 miles south of this development.

·       The report had not addressed the removal of the soak away upstream from this community and the embankments to stop water going into the Tyne not the other way round which had been suggested in the report.

·       Following Storm Desmond the Environment Agency (EA) had told residents of the farmers who were allowing their land to be used as soak away for flood communities yet here in Flood Zone 3, they were putting in a massive gravel pit the size of Hallington Reservoir. 

·       There had been 2 devasting floods downstream of this development. The report stated that it was safe and it had been modelled, however when Storm Desmond happened the model failed and it was said that the river was higher and went in a different direction and that level of rainfall had not been predicted, so modelling could not be relied upon.

·       The pit would not even have properly engineered banks and the effect of having tonnes more extra water in the river was already known.  Kielder had lowered the water levels following the impact on residents when they were flooded.  The equivalent of 4 Olympic swimming pools could come into the river from that site. 

·       There had been 2 massive 1 in 100 year storm events in 10 years, with 2 metres of water in homes, threats to life, business losses, job losses and displacement.  85 Households had faced these issues and this was a devasting case study right on the doorstep of this development.

·       She asked that members refuse the application and uphold the protection that residents had at the current time and keep them safe by keeping their soak away and not increase the risk.

Councillor Oliver addressed the Committee speaking as the local Ward Member representing residents, Sandhoe Parish Council and Councillor Cessford, he also had a message of support from Councillor Fairless-Aitken.  His comments included the following:-

·       The concerns of local residents could be summarised as the wrong size in the wrong place and an application on the same site was refused following a public inquiry in 1992.

·       Paragraph 213 of the NPPF required us to maintain a steady and adequate supply of at least 7 years ensuring that large landbanks bound up in very few sites did not stifle competition, however this was going much further to beyond 2043, three times longer than required and there were already permitted reserves to 2033. The Council’s own Aggregates Assessment published in April showed a shortfall to 2036 of only 746,000 tonnes and this application was for nearly 8 times more at £5.8m tonnes. 

·       The large number of wagons, not spread evenly through the day at the junction between Ferry Road and the A6079 would cause problems. Large waggons from Egger already used that junction and the cumulative effect crossing the traffic coming into Hexham could be dangerous and cause tailbacks onto the A69.  Over £26m had just been spent on upgrading the adjacent roundabout on the A69 and a new roundabout installed to serve Lidl, McDonalds and the Travel Lodge. The area was already creaking and would get worse when work started on the Egger expansion site and the new industrial estate site next to that. The road also formed part of the Hadrian’s Cycleway or National Route 72 and was already one of the worse sections on that 170 mile route.   The opportunity to find a permanent solution to those problems should be found now and a safe pedestrian access from the industrial estates into Hexham should be provided.

·       He was pleased that wagons would not be able to go through Corbridge as they would not get through.

·       Tourism made a significant contribution to the economy and this site was situated where the valley was most open, was a gateway to Hadrian’s Wall and was close to heritage assets at Corbridge and Beaufront Castle and in Hexham.

·       If the application was granted then over 90 acres of prime agricultural land would be lost at a time when UK agricultural self-sufficiency was more important that it had been since the second world war.

·       Residents of Sandhoe and Anick to the north, and Anick View to the south, would spend the next 25 years looking down on a quarry.

·       Residents in Corbridge had their homes and businesses flooded in 2005 and again in 2015 and were understandably wary of the assurances in the report.  Clarification was requested as to what would happen to the existing flood embankment which had not worked in 2015 and he questioned if there was a risk that water from the new lake would join from water in the Tyne to worsen a flood event and if the new lake created should be subject to the stricter regulations of the Reservoir Act.

·       Issues of harm to health from the dust including the risk of silicosis had been raised and whilst it would be a wet working quarry questioned if there would be a risk to local residents.

·       Also questioned was if there be an issue of noise nuisance for local residents during the 10.5 hour working day; what was the risk of contamination from quarry activities into the river course and what controls would be in place to ensure that didn’t happen; and when quarry operations were complete, who would be responsible for the remediation works, the ongoing conservation costs and how would this be enforced.

·       He urged the Committee to refuse permission unless and until they were satisfied that all the concerns had been properly addressed.

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

·       Anick Grange had been allocated for sand and gravel extraction by the Council and included in the recently adopted Northumberland Local Plan (NLP). The allocation had been fully considered at the examination in public with a specialist minerals inspector appointed by the Government. He heard directly from residents regarding their concerns and having considered all this he concluded that the site should be allocated The principle of mineral extraction was therefore established through the Council’s own Local Plan.

·       Through the environmental impact assessment process, Thompsons had worked to identify all impacts and ensure mitigation was provided within the scheme. This included the impacts of noise and air quality, the visual impact associated with the compound area and the treatment of the lake edges. All operations would be undertaken in accordance with established good practice and an operational management plan and environmental management plan had been designed to be reviewed throughout the life of the site to ensure that site operations and site restoration were carried out in accordance with changing good practice standards.

·       The operational capacity at the junction of Ferry Road and Rotary Way had been considered in detail through traffic reports supporting the NLP. The conclusion had been that the vehicle movements associated with mineral extraction would not have an adverse impact on this junction.  It had been identified that there would a need to widen a short section of Ferry Road between the site entrance and the entrance to Egger. This had been included within the application and a condition included requiring Thompsons to undertake this work.

·       The flooding risks had been modelled and the EA had not objected to the application and the applicant would continue to talk to the EA to protect properties further downstream.

·       Thompson was a respected local firm and local employer who took pride in their sites. They had recently successfully worked and restored Aughton Strother a sand and gravel site on the North Tyne which was originally a very similar site to Anick and was now a large wetland area considered to be of importance for migrating and breeding wildfowl. The intention was to bring all of the experience of successfully operating and restoring this site to Anick Grange to create something that would quickly result in significant biodiverse gains by creating a variety of habitats based on a wetland area and be a positive resource in years to come.

·       The character of the haugh land would change in the coming years and not just because of this mineral extraction. The land to the north of the site had been removed from the Green Belt and had been allocated for employment purposes in the NLP.  The operational and restored lake had the potential to create an open biodiverse landscape that could form the backdrop to this continued development on the edge of Hexham.

·       Minerals could only be worked where they were found with Anick Haugh being one such location. It was a site allocated for mineral extraction for which there were no technical consultee objections and it fully complied with the NLP and the NPPF.  In the absence of any other material considerations, permission should not be withheld and the NPPF stated that permission should be granted accordingly and asked that Members supported the officer’s recommendation.

R Murfin, Interim Executive Director advised that whilst mineral applications were often controversial, Members must consider the views of the technical consultees and give these appropriate weight. On other mineral applications significant weight had been given when the EA objected and had been refused for this reason. In this instance the EA had stated that there would be a marginal net benefit in addressing flood risk from the development of this site.  Sustainability was an important factor in planning and with the amount of growth in housing and the aspirations for job creation within the County there was a need for sand and gravel supplies within the County as for this to be transported long distances was fundamentally not sustainable.  Mineral extraction in itself in the Green Belt was not inappropriate development and there had been a significant amount of evidence provided to the Inspector on need during the public examination of the NLP.  The Inspector had concluded that mineral extraction on this site was justified and it was therefore included in the NLP for this purpose. This did not obligate the Council to grant planning permission as matters of detail need to be considered via the application process.  

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

·       The impact of this development on the junction of Ferry Road and Rotary Way had been considered as part of the traffic assessment undertaken.  Surveys in 2018 and 2021 had shown that there were in the region of 550 vehicles per hour travelling through the junction at peak times.  This development would add a further 5 vehicles during peak times and would not have a detrimental impact on the junction.  If Egger did expand their plant there would need to be a further traffic assessment undertaken with additional movements taken into account at that time.  A traffic assessment had been undertaken to support the preparation of the NLP which advised that mitigation would be looked at when the employment land allocation at Harwood Meadows was developed. The mitigation required would be dependent on the type of use developed on the site which would in turn influence the type and number of vehicle movements associated with it.

·       In response to Members highlighting that information collected from cables on the roads did not give a true picture of how the junction worked as traffic frequently stopped on Rotary Way to allow vehicles to exit Ferry Road, and the possibility of the provision of a slip road directly from the A69, the Committee was advised that the NPPF gave clear guidance that applications could only be refused if it had been identified that there would be a severe impact on the highway and in this instance this would only be marginal.

·       It was confirmed that both the strategic evidence emerging from the Local Aggregates Assessment and the evaluation underpinning the Local Plan EIP both triangulated with current evidence on the high level of construction activity taking place in the County. This included a 250%+ meeting of Central Government housing targets and a significant amounts of inward investment activity. This had resulted, for example, in the employment land portfolio in county being established at a level representing 600% of that suggested by an analysis of historic trend.

·       In relation to there being no requirement for S106 funding to be provided, Members were advised that as the EIA had not identified any harm that was not mitigated via scheme design, then there was nothing to be offset.  The benefit of the development had been looked at as part of the NLP with the implied benefit being that of economic benefit through the need for sand and gravel to meet development needs.  Any development had the potential to cause impact but this had to be significant and demonstrable in order to be able to refuse an application.   As part of the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Project (LCWIP) the Council was looking to improve the connection from Corbridge to Hexham and it was possible Members would like to look to secure this as part of this Development.  As the route had not been agreed, it could be requested that an in principle S106 agreement be added to any permission granted to require contributions either through a financial contribution or in kind  towards  the provision of the LCWIP scheme.

·       Mineral extraction within the Green Belt was not seen as an inappropriate form of development. It was considered that wet sand and gravel extraction and ancillary development did not have the same significant effects on Green Belt openness as crushed rock sites and any impacts would be mitigated by a range of robust environmental conditions including the use of a Site Environmental Management Plan.   There would be regular routine monitoring as there was on all mineral sites in the County and work could be stopped if any issues needed to be remedied.  Highways conditions would control the number of movements and routing of vehicles.

·       This was an area which was known to flood and a large amount of work had been undertaken by the EA on this with their view that this scheme could provide slight mitigation and marginal benefit over the current situation.  Members were reminded that there was a need to be consistent in how responses from statutory consultees were treated.

·       This scheme provided for phased restoration of the site and therefore if work stopped at some point in the future there would already have been progressive restoration undertaken.  Conditions would set out how the restoration would be undertaken and this would be monitored and inventions made if these were needed.

·       The site would be phased and therefore the land would remain in agricultural use until required. 

·       There were 2 EV charging bays to be provided within the car parking area for the site.

·       There was some legacy of historic contaminants in the ground water around the site and therefore the EA permit required levels to be checked in the lagoons prior to being placed in restoration and if these were found to be in excess of permitted levels then these would need to be disposed of correctly.  As part of the flood mitigation measures the compound was on a raised area and bunds provided for increased protection for the silt lagoons.

·       In terms of highways, the biggest pinch point had been identified from the main entrance to Egger to the access point for this development and the road would be widened at this point to allow HGVs to pass.  The road further west towards Rotary Way was confirmed as being sufficiently wide for 2 HGVs to pass.

Councillor Hutchinson advised that to stimulate debate he proposed acceptance of the officers recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report with extra EV charging points to be provided and a S106 agreement be provided requiring    contributions  either through a financial contribution or in kind  towards  the provision of the LCWIP scheme.  which was seconded by Councillor Robinson.  It was requested that as part of the Condition 9 the notice board should also include an email address to allow residents to register any complaints and this amendment to the motion was agreed by the proposer and seconder. 

The Committee recognised that this was a difficult application with a large number of objections.  However in considering the application Members highlighted the time taken in the development of the NLP and huge amount of work that had gone into this and its subsequent testing, and which had identified that this site was suitable for mineral extraction.  

A vote was taken on the proposal as follows:- FOR 11; AGAINST 2; ABSTENTION 1.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report subject to an amendment to increase the number of electric vehicle charging points, an email address to be included in Condition 9 and subject to a S106 agreement being agreed to confirm contributions  either through a financial contribution or in kind  towards the Local Cycle Walking and Infrastructure Project the specifics of which to be delegated to the Director of Planning and the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee to agree.