Issue - meetings

Matthew Williams (Senior Planning Officer) provided a summary of this application which sought permission for an additional washing plant adjacent to the location of the existing equipment.

Matthew Williams advised that consultee responses were similar to those of the preceding application. There were no ‘in principle’ objections. Conditions had been specified by the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) in relation to noise and dust. A condition requiring a noise mitigation strategy had been accidentally omitted from the report and should be added if permission were granted. The Canal and River Trust had sought a condition relating to surface water management. Highways recommendations were consistent with the preceding application, acknowledging that there would be no imported material for processing and that there would be no intensification of use of the access. WCC Ecology had sought conditions for ecology monitoring prior to the commencement of work. Planning Policy observations were consistent with the preceding application.

Matthew Williams advised that the previously outlined representation from Tarmac Trading also applied to this application, as did the representation from Hanson. He advised that Policy considerations were consistent with those of the previous application. The proposal was for well-screened, low-level plant which would have negligible visual impact. 

In conclusion, Matthew Williams stated that the proposed aggregates washing plant would be located within an operational area of the site. The plant would allow the sustainable use of minerals and enable an improved, higher-value aggregate to be produced. The applicant had advised that it would not increase production or intensify activities on site. It was considered to be an application that could be supported.

Questions

Members presented questions relating to planning applications NWB/20CM015 and NWB/20CM016.

In response to Councillor Kerridge, Matthew Williams advised that, should permission be granted, a note would be provided directing the landowner and operator of the site to liaise with the Canal and River Trust to determine arrangements for the discharge of water from the site to the nearby canal.

In response to Councillor Kerridge, Matthew Williams advised that general conditions relating to noise had been included; however, the EHO had requested a condition specifying provision of a Noise Mitigation Strategy. Overall, it was not anticipated that the additional washing plant would have an adverse noise impact.

In response to Councillor Falp, Ian Marriott (Delivery Lead – Commercial and Regulatory) provided more information relating to the representation from Hanson. The Company claimed to own mineral rights within the site. It contested that the applicant should have served notices to Hanson prior to submission of the application. This was a technical procedural point; based on the information provided a day before the meeting, it was not believed that evidence had been provided to show that the applicant had acted wrongfully. He stated that, if the Committee was minded to grant permission, issuing of decision notices would be delayed by a few days to provide Hanson with an opportunity to expand on its claim and provide evidence that might alter the view of the Authority. If it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4