Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Shire Hall. View directions

Contact: Helen Barnsley  Senior Democratic Services Officer

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

General

Additional documents:

1(1)

Apologies

To receive any apologies from Members of the Committee.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Jeff Clarke, Councillor Mandy Tromans was present as a substitute.

 

Apologies were also received from Councillor Sarah Feeney and Councillor Adrian Warwick.

 

1(2)

Disclosures of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Additional documents:

Minutes:

None.

1(3)

Minutes of the Previous Meetings pdf icon PDF 392 KB

To consider the minutes of the meetings held on 5 April 2022 and 17 May 2022.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meetings held on 5 April 2022 and 17 May 2022 were approved as an accurate record.

 

2.

Delegated Decisions

Members are asked to note the applications dealt with under delegated powers since the last meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

None.

3.

Planning Application : NWB/20CM015 - Hartshill Quarry, Nuneaton Road, Nuneaton pdf icon PDF 350 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Matthew Williams (Senior Planning Officer) provided a summary of the application alongside planning application NWB/20CM016 (agenda item 4). Both sought permission for mineral processing equipment, plant, and infrastructure at Hartshill Quarry, Nuneaton. He advised that NWB/20CM015 was a retrospective application; NWB/20CM016 proposed development of an aggregates washing plant and ancillary machinery. The applicant, Mr Kashan Aslam of Crown Aggregates, was present at the meeting.

 

Matthew Williams stated that:

 

·       The report provided details of another planning application for residential development proposed at land south of the site. This application was yet to be determined by North Warwickshire Borough Council.

·       A third application at Hartshill Quarry, not presented to the Committee at the meeting, sought an amendment to the phasing and working of the overall site to enable reworking of material.

·       Hartshill Quarry is a hard rock quarry with extraction by blasting and use of excavators. Mineral extraction has taken place at the site for over a century.

·       From the mid-1990s, the Quarry was not in operation. Following its sale in the mid-2010s, operations were re-established.

 

Matthew Williams advised that statutory consultees had not raised any objections ‘in principle’ to planning application NWB/20CM015. However, the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) had sought a condition for dust control. The EHO had expressed an interest in receipt of additional data relating to traffic flows and the impact of traffic on air quality monitoring and management. Matthew Williams advised that most traffic related to the existing permitted use of the site; many of the vehicles accessing the site were third-party hauliers which the applicant had no control over. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to introduce a condition for this consideration.

 

Matthew Williams advised that the Canal and River Trust had considered the proposal and made a request for information relating to the construction and management of the proposed attenuation pond.

 

Matthew Williams advised that Highways officers had acknowledged the limitations of the site access. However, it was recognised that Hartshill Quarry was an historic site; little could be done to improve the access. Highways officers had acknowledged that it was not proposed to intensify operations on site. There was no objection subject to conditions to ensure that vehicles would be clean and covered.

 

Matthew Williams advised that no objection had been raised by WCC Ecology. However, conditions specifying provision of a Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) and Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) were requested.

 

Matthew Williams noted that the WCC Planning Policy response accepted that the proposal was generally in accordance with policy and could be supported. However, observations had been made in respect of production levels at the site. Production output figures had not been provided since the Quarry reopened. As a result, it was not possible to assess whether the application would lead to increased production. Matthew Williams advised that it was regrettable that the applicant had failed to engage with the Policy Team, but this was not a reason to refuse permission.

 

Matthew Williams provided a summary of representations that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

Planning Application : NWB/20CM016 - Hartshill Quarry, Nuneaton Road, Nuneaton pdf icon PDF 484 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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.

5.

Reports Containing Exempt or Confidential Information

To consider passing the following resolution:

 

‘That members of the public be excluded from the meeting for the items mentioned below on the grounds that their presence would involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 3, 6 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.’

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved:

 

That members of the public be excluded from the meeting for the items mentioned below on the grounds that their presence would involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 3, 6 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

6.

Exempt Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To consider the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2022.

Minutes:

The exempt minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2022 were approved as an accurate record.

 

 

The meeting closed at 11:45.