Issue - meetings

Documents in relation to this application can be found via the following link –

WDC/21CM005

Sally Panayi (Senior Planner) presented the report and provided an overview of the application including its location and nearest buildings.  

·        The site restoration end period was originally extended from 2011 to May 2021 to allow gravel extraction to continue into 2016. 

·        The application proposed an extension of time for the completion of infilling the quarry void from May 2021 to May 2024 and for the completion of restoration from December 2021 to December 2024. 

·        The mineral processing facility to the south of the site (controlled and operated by Smith’s Concrete) has permission to process minerals from Wolston Fields Farm until October 2024. 

·        The whole application site will become agricultural land when restored.  

·        An objection was received from Bubbenhall Parish Council and two local residents. 

·        No objections were received from the Environment Agency (EA), Warwick District Council-Environmental Health, Highways England, or Natural England. 

·        Refusal of the application would result in a need for waste clays and silts to be exported from the site for disposal at an alternative site, which would increase HGV movements out of the site. 

In response to several questions from Councillor Jan Matecki, Sally Panayi stated that the remaining void was reserved to facilitate the disposal of waste from the wash facility at Wolston Farm. The original 1991 permission was varied to extend permission for the extraction of minerals from Bubbenhall until 2016. Such extensions are needed to keep up with changing situations in the extraction of minerals and to prevent mineral sites being sterilised.  

Ian Marriott (Delivery Lead Commercial & Regulatory) added that any conditions imposed on planning permissions were subject to the landowner having the right to ask for a variation. Therefore, no condition is permanent/immutable and if the committee wanted applications not to vary then they would need to resort to something like a section106 agreement where there is no right of appeal. A time limit was still meaningful because it required applicants to justify why they need an extension. These developments operate long-term, so circumstances do change.  

In response to Councillor Christopher Kettle, Sally Panayi stated that refusal of the application would mean that waste material from the processing plant would have to be exported for disposal at other sites which would increase HGV movement.  

In response to Councillor Chris Mills, Sally Panayi stated that the void would be left unrestored if the application was refused which would leave the site in an unsafe condition given the nature of the silts and clays. 

In response to Councillor Sarah Feeney, Sally Panayi stated that another planning application would be needed to raise the ground level higher than it was before; the void remaining has capacity for the waste from processing the mineral from Wolston until 2024 to restore to the original ground level. Sally Panayi confirmed that if the application was rejected and work continued beyond December 2021 without another application then there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3