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

The Interim Executive Director advised that as Members were aware this item had been considered and approved at the Strategic Planning Committee in November however the S106 Agreement had not yet been signed and therefore the permission had not been issued.  Following the previous Committee the Council received a representation from a member of the public who had not been present at the meeting, who advised that in their opinion the Council had not considered unequivocally the issue of Green Belt and the factors which would justify, if needed, the position that Very Special Circumstances (‘VSC’) were reasonably concluded in relation  to the proposal.  The Interim Executive Director felt that all the issues had been sufficiently covered, however given that the representation was part of a suggested pre-action to a Judicial Review, it was felt that for transparency purposes the application be brought back to Committee to talk Members through the logic in the report and the VSC to allow development in the Green Belt.  Members were reminded that this had previously happened at some Local Area Council meetings when the issue of VSC had not been considered at the outset and Members had subsequently reversed their original decisions.    A copy of the representation was handed out to Members and time allowed for them to read this, it had also been uploaded to the Planning Portal.   A synopsis of the representation was also provided by the Interim Executive Director. 

K Tipple, Senior Planning Officer then provided an introduction to the addendum report which gave the reasons why the application had been brought back and a very detailed and comprehensive introduction to the updated Committee report which provided additional clarification regarding the Green Belt, in order to assist Members in making a new decision.  A power point presentation was also provided. This included details of the processed site compound area and the processing equipment that would be located within that area of the proposed development.

The Interim Executive Director stated the objection was that the ancillary processing of the sand/gravel did not have to be carried out on site and therefore there were no VSC for the processing plant involved in this process to be situated within the Green Belt.  He explained that to grant planning permission for inappropriate development in the Green Belt there must be identification and evaluation of (a) harm of any sort (b) positive and possibly countervailing factors, and a subsequent judgement that the factors at (b) clearly outweighed the harm in (a).  When identifying harm the following must be considered and recorded:

·       Harm by inappropriateness itself

·       Purpose of the Green Belt

·       Harm to openness itself

Members must consider not just if the processing plant equipment was ancillary to the winning and restoration of the site but what harm would be caused by it being within the site compound and what would any positives of its siting at that location be.   Members must also consider the harm to the openness.  The Interim Executive Director clarified that a range of development took place at operation quarries, that was to a greater or lesser degree “ancillary”. He added that this included certain elements, such as weighbridges and welfare facilities had more operational link with winning stone, than say the cutting of shaping of stone or the processing of restoration materials brought onto the site.

The effect of the ancillary development on openness was discussed. It was made clear that this site was next to existing industrial uses and the processing of the sand/gravel for export and welfare facilities could be justified as functional requirements of the site.  The reduction of the number of HGV movements by  processing on site would assist with the climate change agenda by minimising the distance and tonnage being travelled of finished product, this was given as an example  of a wider demonstrable benefit. 

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

·       Members had previously considered the Officer’s very thorough report and recommendation in November which you resolved to grant planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel at Anick Grange.

·       For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme for consideration today was exactly the same as the scheme which had been considered last month and which you had determined to approve. Further there had been no material change in any relevant factor and the substance of the Officer’s advice had not changed.

·       The only comments she would make today were in relation to the Green Belt issue that had been raised by a third party, and these had been prepared based on legal advice on this issue obtained by the applicants from Mr Stephen Morgan, Planning Barrister at Landmark Chambers.  She trusted that these would reassure Members that the advice of Officers was correct and that the correct decision was made in November.

·       National guidance confirmed mineral extraction was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided it preserved the openness of the Green Belt and did not conflict with the purposes of including the land within it. This was confirmed in paragraph 150 of the NPPF.  The principle of mineral extraction in the Green Belt at Anick was not in question and its acceptability in principle was reflected in the Local Plan allocation.  The crux of the question which had arisen since last month was whether the Officer was correct in considering that the processing plant which was a normal feature of a mineral extraction operation could also be viewed as falling under the definition of “mineral extraction” and therefore not inappropriate development. Your Officers remained of the view that it could and we would agree with that conclusion.  In our view the processing plant in this scheme was ancillary to and necessary for the mineral extraction operation, it might be a large piece of machinery but it simply processed and separated out the mineral for sale. 

·       They disagreed with the objector’s statement that the view taken by Officers was against well-established planning precedent, it was not.  On that basis the processing plant did fall under the definition of mineral extraction in the NPPF.  It therefore did not, in principle, constitute inappropriate development.

·       Members were reminded that even if they determined that the mineral processing plant was inappropriate development, or even the entire development was inappropriate development in the Green Belt then there were very special circumstances present to outweigh any harm, as required by paragraph 148 of the NPPF. Very special circumstances did not have to be something unusual or unique to a development. The very special circumstances in this instance were, in particular, the allocation of the site in the NLP, the need for the mineral as set out in the Local Aggregate Assessments and the  biodiversity benefits that would result from the creation of the lake.

·       Members must also consider the development on openness and the purposes of including the land in the Green Belt.  The visual and spatial aspects of the openness of the Green Belt were addressed in the Officer’s report and addendum.  The purposes of including the land in the Green Belt was also covered and it was clear that the purpose of including the land in the Green Belt was not offended.  This development in the long term would also create a lake on the haugh land which would ensure that this area of land was kept permanently open from built development in a manner that would provide an open and biodiverse landscape for ever therefore permanently protecting the openness of the Green Belt.

·       It was important for the Committee to make any planning decision in accordance with the NLP.   The site was allocated for mineral extraction in the Plan and was done with full regard to its location in the Green Belt. The report assessed all material considerations relating to the application and whilst it was right for Officers to make you aware of the further considerations relating to Green Belt in the light of third party comments, it was clear that this had not altered their overall assessment of the application. 

·       Members were asked to again support the Officer’s recommendations.

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

·       The sand/gravel did need to be processed and whilst the amount of silt removed would be variable it would be expected to be a significant quantity of the non-marketable material was factored into the restoration of the land. This reduced to a minimum the amount of material that would be needed to be taken to the site, as well as reducing the volume/weight of material exported via HGV 

·       Confirmation that, outside the climate change benefit of on-site processing, the issue of HGV traffic had been an area of concern in the original debate on the application, and that reducing the number HGVs was desirable to address these concerns

·       If the S106 agreement had been signed and the decision notice issued then the application would not have been able to brought back to Committee, however as this had not happened it was felt that it was appropriate to bring the application back in light of the representation received.

·       As the third party had advised of the intention to issue Judicial Review proceedings and the considerable costs involved it was thought that the most transparent, open and correct way of dealing with this was to bring it back to the Committee.

·       The site was allocated in the NLP in the Green Belt and whilst the Inspector had made the conscious decision it was appropriate and the original report to Committee had stated that the very special circumstances had been met, Members were now being asked if they were satisfied that the very special circumstances had been unequivocally met if they needed to be.

·       The S106 was currently being negotiated and would be to either provide land or a financial contribution as the cycleway had not yet been agreed.  The wording was being agreed and progressed with Legal for drafting.

Councillor Hutchinson proposed that the application be approved in line with the recommendation in the report subject to an amendment to increase the number electric vehicle charging points to be provided on site as had been requested at the last meeting and this was seconded by Councillor Flux.  A vote was taken as follows:- FOR 9; AGAINST 2; ABSTAIN 0.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and subject to the conditions as set out in the report an amendment to increase the number of electric vehicle charging points on the site and a Section 106 agreement to secure the financial contribution towards the establishment of the Hexham to Corbridge multi-user route or land offered in perpetuity/long term lease for a section or directly connected loop to the Hexham to Corbridge multi-user cycle route.