Item C1 - Hermitage Quarry0 Applications Committe… · under ref TM/95/761) – Hermitage Quarry,...

Item C1

TM/03/2782 (Variation of conditions under ref TM/88/295), TM/03/2784

(Proposed Eastern Extension) and TM/03/2787 (Variation of conditions

under ref TM/95/761) – Hermitage Quarry, Hermitage Lane, Aylesford,

Kent A report by Head of Planning Applications Group to Planning Applications Committee on 16 August 2005. Planning applications TM/03/2782 (Variation of conditions under ref TM/88/295), TM/03/2784 (Proposed Eastern Extension) and TM/03/2787 (Variation of conditions under ref TM/95/761) – Hermitage Quarry, Hermitage Lane, Aylesford, Kent (MR. 724 562) Recommendation: Permission be granted subject to conditions. Local Member: Mr G Rowe, Mrs S Hohler, Mrs P Stockell and Mr D Daley

Classification: Unrestricted

C1.1

Background 1. Hermitage Quarry lies within the strategic gap between Allington, to the east, the village of Aylesford, to the north and Barming Heath to the south. It forms part of the 210ha of the Hermitage Farm Estate and comprises agricultural land and woodland as well as the quarry itself. The quarry has a purpose built access onto Hermitage Lane (B2246), leading to the A20 and M20 at junction 5. A site location plan is attached (Plan 1).

2. A Members site visit was held on 9 September 2003 and 14 June 2005 where Members were able to view the site and ask questions. My briefing note for the last visit is attached under Appendix 1. A note of the meeting is attached under Appendix 2.

3. The Quarry is one of only two ragstone quarries within the County, the other being located at Blaise Farm, West Malling. Hermitage Quarry is currently operating under a permission originally granted in September 1989 (ref. TM/88/295).

4. Two further planning permissions have since been granted as extensions to the Quarry, one for a Southern Extension (reference TM/95/761) currently being worked and a Western Extension (ref TM/97/2068) yet to be opened. A site plan (2) is attached for your reference showing existing permissions.

5. In August 2003, Gallagher Materials initially submitted four planning applications. The main application submitted under reference TM/03/2784 made provision for an eastern extension. In addition, the applicant submitted a variation to the already permitted southern extension (ref. TM/95/761) to extend the southern boundary of the working area further south by some 10 metres. This would have released an additional 0.7 million tonnes of reserves. As a consequence of those two applications, it was necessary for the applicant to submit two further applications to vary the terms of the original 1988 permission (Ref: TM/03/2782) and the other to extend the timescale for commencing operations in the western extension (Ref: TM/03/2785).

Item C1




Kent

C1.2

Item C1




Kent

C1.3

Item C1




Kent

C1.4

Item C1




Kent

C1.5

Western Extension, Application to extend the timescale for commencing operations (ref. TM/03/2785) 6. The applicant states that the eastern and southern extensions would in operational terms need to be worked before the western extension given the current progression of quarry development. The original permission for the western extension, permitted under planning permission reference TM/97/2068, required that development commence before 14 June 2004. Since no objections were raised to this application to extend the timescale for commencing operations, the County Council has now issued planning consent under delegated powers, to extend the period by which excavation must commence not later than 1 January 2008. All other conditions imposed on the 1997 consent remain unchanged.

Current proposals 7. Members originally visited this site on 9 September 2003, where a tour of the existing site operations were undertaken and an explanation of the then current planning applications were given by officers. A more recent visit was made on 14 June 2005, when Members were updated on the latest position following amendments to the proposal.

8. Following the issuing of permission TM/03/2785 referred to above, there remain three applications for Members’ consideration. These are summarised individually below and are illustrated on Plan 3, attached: -

Application TM/03/2784 – Proposed ‘Eastern Extension’ 9. The application site itself, known as the “eastern extension” covers an area of some 5.4 ha and consists of a mixture of agricultural grassland and chestnut coppice woodland which lies adjacent to the eastern side of the southern extension boundary of the quarry. The applicant states “the proposed Eastern Extension would add a further 2.3 million tonnes of saleable material (adding) 3 years to the reserves for quality ragstone aggregate production

at Hermitage Quarry”. The proposed eastern extension would be worked as an integral part of the existing quarry towards the southern boundary of the site.

10. In support of their proposal, the applicant draws attention to government guidance as set out in MPG1 and MPG6 which set out criteria against which individual applications should be considered. In particular they draw attention to advice that states:

“Applicants do not normally need to prove the need for a proposed development….although need may be a consideration where material planning objections are not outweighed by other planning benefits”. They consider the assessment of the need for this quarry extension should be based on two factors:

Item C1




Kent

C1.6

i) the life of the remaining ragstone reserves in Hermitage Quarry without the

proposed Extension; ii) an assessment of real need and real supply based upon the range of ragstone

aggregates that are produced at Hermitage Quarry.

In their view these two factors are relevant in the context of:

i) the nature and qualities of the aggregate concerned, such as suitability for a particular end use not met by other available sources in the area or region; and

ii) other considerations on availability of consented reserves that would limit output

for the period of the landbank. 11. They claim, given the quality of the deposit at Hermitage Quarry that they have been able to produce a wide range of materials which have made a valuable contribution to the local supplies of construction aggregates and which have met the same specification as those aggregates which have traditionally been imported into the County. In their view, given that these imported materials travel such long distances, this does not represent a sustainable supply to the local markets whose needs can be met at least in part from Hermitage Quarry. On this basis they conclude that the unique qualities of the ragstone at Hermitage Quarry justifies the need for the landbank of reserves at this site to be considered and maintained as a special case.

12. Annual production figures provided by the applicant for the years 1995 – 2002, demonstrate that an average of some 0.62mt per annum of materials has been produced from the site. Assuming this level of production will continue, the applicants estimate their existing permitted reserves will be exhausted by about 2008. At 0.62mt per annum this equates to some 1.6mt of material remaining to be worked. At this rate of working the proposed eastern extension, which is estimated to contain a further 2.3mt of saleable material would add a further 3 years life to the site (SIC

1). Added to this, the concurrent proposal to work

additional reserves in the southern extension (i.e. a further 0.7mt to that already permitted), would increase the overall permitted reserves at the site to approximately 3mt, extending the overall life of the site to some 7 years (SIC

2).

13. It is proposed that the existing coppice woodland be felled in two stages and a 2m high screen bund be constructed to the north of the site from the stripped topsoil. Remaining topsoil, subsoil and overburden would be removed and stockpiled in designated areas of the existing quarry for use at the restoration stage.

14. The applicant proposes to work to the same methods as the existing quarry operations. Stone would be loosened by blasting, on average between 2 and 3 times per week. Material

1 At this production rate the additional reserve would provide 3.7 years reserves 2 My estimation is the remaining site life would be 7.7 years

Item C1




Kent

C1.7

would then be loaded, crushed and screened on site using existing plant. Vehicles would also follow similar haul routes as associated with the existing quarry. However, the existing quarry offices and weighbridge facilities, which are currently located in the northern section of the site would eventually be re-located to the original area of the quarry proposed to be restored last (ref TM/88/925 and TM/03/2782) as already permitted under the Southern Extension planning consent. The applicant suggests this would reduce any potential noise and dust generation from travelling vehicles. The relocation has yet to be implemented by the Applicant. Access to and from the site would continue via the existing access onto Hermitage Lane.

15. Material would be transported off-site in 18-tonne vehicles which the applicant estimates would generate on average some 260 daily movements (130 in/130 out). In addition, the Applicant has provided evidence that on previous occasions when the quarry has operated during periods of high demand, the highest average daily number of lorry movements both entering and leaving the site during any one calendar month has reached 300 per day. During such production periods absolute daily peaks of 600 movements per day have occurred. These figures would include vehicles associated with backfill material being delivered to the site for restoration purposes. The maximum number of HGV movements to and from the quarry site would not therefore increase above those previously experienced for all activities including backfilling. The existing planning permissions for the quarry currently have no daily restrictions on vehicle movements to and from the site.

16. As quarrying operations advance, the proposed eastern extension would be progressively backfilled with imported inert material. The requirement for up to 1.2million m³ of inert material represents a significant volume of inert material. Backfilling would be undertaken as close behind extraction as far as is possible and in phases in order to achieve restoration to original ground levels. This is intended to be fully complete within 4 years of extraction works commencing in the Eastern Extension. It is proposed to return the northern part of the site to agriculture and the southern part to woodland.

17. As mentioned above, should Members resolve to grant planning permission for the Eastern Extension area, there would be a knock-on effect of the way in which the site is worked as a whole. The following variations of existing consents therefore are sought by the applicant to reflect their wish to work in a sequential manner (i.e. from east to west as shown on Phasing Plans 1-3, pages 26-28).

Application TM/03/2787 (Retrospective) – Variation of conditions of permission

TM/95/761 – Southern Extension 18. Conditions (1) and (2) relate to the approved working and restoration scheme and would allow for the scheme to be tied into that proposed for the eastern and southern extension. Condition (4) and (7), relate to an approved scheme of working and restoration, including pre-settlement levels with a requirement that in the event of the cessation of working for more than 2 years a modified restoration scheme be submitted.

Item C1




Kent

C1.8

19. As a consequence of the proposed eastern extension an amended scheme of working and restoration is therefore required to reflect that this area is to be worked in advance of the remaining reserve in the southern extension. The amended scheme also made provision for extending the working area by some 10m further south releasing an additional 0.7mt of reserves. Corresponding changes are also required to be made to the approved pre-settlement levels and to allow for the delay in the commencement of operations in the western extension for up to 4 years, as referred to in paragraph 6 above.

Application TM/03/2782 (Retrospective) – variation of conditions of the original

planning permission TM/88/295 20. Finally the Applicant also wishes to apply for variation of conditions to both update the original consent, granted under reference TM/88/295 and to ensure Gallagher Aggregates operate to regularise a current breach within its terms. In particular the existing permission requires that the quarry be worked and restored in accordance with an approved scheme of working, restoration and landscaping. (Conditions (ii) and (x)); condition (xi) requires that no more than 6 hectares of the land shall be out of agricultural use at any one time.

21. Therefore the Applicant seeks the following:

• to vary conditions (ii) and (x), amending the approved scheme of working, landscaping and restoration that defers and phases the completion of the southern area of the permission TM/88/295 to allow for the retention of existing plant and machinery until completion of quarrying operations.

• Deletion of condition (xi) as the applicant considers this is no longer relevant to the current open area permitted as a variation of the southern extension consent (Ref TM/95/761), granted approval in March 1997.

• Replacement of condition (xxxvii) to enable working and restoration to original levels to be completed by 31 December 2015 subject to the Eastern Extension being permitted.

22. It is proposed by the applicant that all activity on site would remain within the existing operating hours:

0700 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturdays with no working on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Item C1




Kent

C1.9

National Guidance and Relevant Development Plan PoliciesNational Guidance and Relevant Development Plan PoliciesNational Guidance and Relevant Development Plan PoliciesNational Guidance and Relevant Development Plan Policies

Need 23. Policies providing for the maintenance of landbanks are recognised as an important feature of minerals planning because they enable the industry to respond speedily to increases in demand.

Mineral Planning Guidance Note 1 (June 1996) 24. MPAs should make an appropriate contribution to meeting local, regional and national needs which reflects the nature and extent of minerals in its area and other relevant planning considerations. This may result in a MPA providing more than is required to meet its own area’s need for a mineral.

Minerals Policy Statement 1 (November 2004) Consultation Paper 25. In November 2004, the ODPM produced a draft of new Mineral Policy Statement 1 “Planning and Minerals and its associated Good Practice Guidance. MPS1 will replace MPG1 and has been produced in response to the announcement made by government in the Policy Statement “Sustainable Communities: Delivering Through Planning”, that it intended to proceed with the proposals for review and reform of material planning and minerals policy guidance. Although at present it is only produced in draft form, appropriate weight needs to be awarded to it in the determination of planning applications for mineral related developments.

26. Of particular relevance to this current application, reference is made to the need to maintain appropriate levels of permitted reserves for non energy minerals as far as practicable from outside areas subject to primary planning constraints and which balances the need to meet fluctuations in demand against avoiding the consequences of excessive provision. The consideration of individual applications should also include an assessment of the need to enable the minerals industry, so far as practicable to secure productivity growth and high and stable levels of employment, which are central to long-term economic performance and rising living standards.

Mineral Planning Guidance Note 6 (April 1994) 27. The landbank at any point is the sum of all permitted reserves with valid planning permission at that time, with the following provisos:

i. it includes the estimated quantities of reserves with valid planning permission at dormant or currently non-working sites;

Item C1




Kent

C1.10

ii. it includes the estimated quantities of reserves with valid planning permission irrespective of the size of the reserves and production capacity of particular sites.

28. Government advice, as set out in MPG6, is to aim to provide for the release of land to maintain a stock of permissions for mineral extraction at a local level for at least 7 years unless exceptional circumstance prevail. A longer period may be appropriate for crushed rock. Notwithstanding this aim when fresh applications for mineral extraction are made, Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs) are advised to consider the environmental implications of granting planning permission and all other material considerations. The need to maintain a landbank may therefore be a consideration where material planning objections are not outweighed by other planning benefits.

29. In July 2005 the ODPM published a consultation paper on annexes to MPS1 which provide advice on the planning and supply of minerals. When finalised they will supplement and have equal status to, and should be read in the context of MPS1. Annex 1, which relates to the provision of aggregates in England will eventually replace MPG6. With regard to landbanks, it is expected that the provision of aggregates should be spread evenly across the life of the development plan, with the length of such landbanks generally being taken as 7 years.

30. In terms of how the guidance specifically relates to ragstone, in March 2004 the draft Regional Minerals Strategy for the South East was published. It requires development plans to set criteria against which planning applications for quarries can be assessed which should include policies to reflect the sub-regional apportionment figures for primary aggregate production. For ragstone in Kent, Policy M5 requires the MPA to plan and maintain a landbank of at least 7 years sufficient throughout the mineral plan period to deliver some 1.2mt per annum.

31. Policy NR10 of the adopted 1996 Kent Structure Plan seeks to maintain a 10 year landbank of permitted ragstone reserves sufficient to enable a level of production from workings of about 0.6 million tonnes per annum (i.e. a landbank of 6 million tonnes).

32. Policy NR6 of the Structure Plan requires the County Council before permitting mineral extraction to be satisfied that there is a need which would override a material agricultural, landscape, conservation or environmental interest.

33. On the basis of the amount of permitted reserves already available in the County which is in excess of that required to meet the County’s own landbank, no areas of search for ragstone are identified in the Kent Minerals Local Plan for Construction Aggregates December 1993. Under Policy CA7, the County Council will require, in support of an application for mineral extraction, evidence of the extent and quality of reserves.

Item C1




Kent

C1.11

Agriculture 34. In line with government advice, Policy ED6 of the Structure Plan provides protection to the long term productive potential of agricultural land, particularly that relating to the best and most versatile land (i.e. Grades 1, 2 and 3A). This is reinforced under Policy C8A where areas subject to strategic or primary planning constraints including the best and most versatile agricultural land are not regarded as ‘appropriate locations’ within the terms of Policy NR6 of the structure Plan and will therefore not normally be permitted.

Operational Considerations 35. When considering applications for the working or supply of construction aggregates, the County Council pursuant to Policy CA15 of the Minerals Local Plan, will have regard to the industry’s past record in respect of comparable operations.

36. Policies CA16 to CA26 incorporate the County Council’s requirements for the detailed control of mineral sites.

37. Emerging Kent and Medway Structure Plan Policy T3 requires improvements in the transport network to use the best possible alignment, design and landscaping to reduce its impacts and to enhance and sustain the environmental quality of transport routes and Policy T15: Minor unclassified rural roads will only be improved where safety considerations require it and no other way of making them safe is practicable.

Landscape and Nature Conservation 38. The site is not subject to any national or local landscape policy designations on landscape grounds. However in recognition of the need to protect the countryside for its own sake Policy ENV1 of the Kent Structure Plan applies – development which will adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development which outweighs the requirement to protect the countryside. Where exceptionally development is required in all such cases any adverse impact should be minimised and mitigated.

39. Policy ENV2 seeks to prevent development which would lead to the loss of any valuable landscape features or wildlife habitats unless it can be demonstrated there is a need for development which outweighs these countryside considerations. Similar principles apply under Policies ENV5 and ENV6 where protection is given to Local Nature Reserves and Sites of nature Conservation Interest from development which would materially harm their scientific or wildlife interest, and which seek to conserve existing trees and woodland.

40. Policy MK5 seeks to maintain the separation of Maidstone and the Medway Gap urban

Item C1




Kent

C1.12

areas from the Medway Towns and from town centres, and the separation of the existing settlements on the east and west sides of the River Medway, will be maintained. Provision is made for a ‘Strategic Gap’ to be designated in local plans for these areas, within which development proposals which would significantly extend the built confines of existing settlements on the areas currently identified for development or as housing reserves in local plans will not be permitted.

41. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Local Plan identifies the site as within an area defined as the Strategic Gap on the proposals map. Policy P2/19 applies Structure Plan Policy MK5 which seeks to maintain the open character of such area.

Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan September 2003

Policy M3: Proposals for mineral extraction will be permitted only where they do not have an unacceptable adverse impact on agricultural, landscape, conservation or environmental interests of acknowledged importance or on residential and business communities.

Permission will only be granted if any physical constraints on the land have been properly taken into account and if there are adequate access proposals, measures to minimise harm to the landscape and environment, to protect local communities, to landscape the site, remove plant and buildings after workings have ceased and to restore the land to an appropriate after use, normally as working progresses.

Wherever appropriate a period of aftercare will also be required.

Policy M5: Kent County Council and Medway will review and maintain:

1) a supply of aggregates sufficient to contribute to national, regional

and local needs, in accordance with their agreed share of regional aggregates supply.

2) A landbank of permitted reserves of: § Sand and gravel sufficient for at least 7 years production at agreed apportionment levels.

§ Ragstone sufficient for at least 10 years supply. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Local Plan (Adopted December 1998)

Policy P2/18: Development will not be permitted which significantly extends the built confines of existing rural settlements or urban areas or other areas reserved for development.

Item C1




Kent

C1.13

Policy P7/17: Development which would lead to a significant increase in HGVs should not compromise road safety and should be well served by the existing highway network.

Archaeology 42. Policy ENV17 of the Structure Plan provides for the protection of archaeological sites and their settings, and where development is permitted, the investigation and recording of their archaeological interest.

Economic Development 43. In line with government advice the importance of the need to develop Kent’s own economy is reflected in Policy S3 of the Structure Plan, where it is strategic policy to stimulate economic activity and employment in Kent by the growth of existing industry.

Waste Disposal 44. Structure Plan Policy ENV24 gives priority to using suitable mineral workings rather than other landfill sites, especially where infilling would result in the eventual reinstatement of the land to a beneficial after-use subject to there being no overriding material agricultural, landscape, conservation, traffic and other environmental or land use concerns.

Kent and Medway Structure Deposit Plan (September 2003)

Policy SP1: Seeks to conserve and enhance Kent’s environment and ensure a sustainable pattern and form by reducing the need to travel and reducing growth in dependence on the road network.

Policy E8: Provides for protection and enhancement of biodiversity.

Policy QL8: Provides for protection of archaeological sites.

Policy SS10: Seeks to ensure that gaps between existing settlements are largely maintained.

Policy M5: Kent County Council and Medway Council will review and maintain:

Item C1




Kent

C1.14

1) A supply of aggregates sufficient to contribute to national, regional and local needs, in accordance with their agreed share of regional aggregates supply.

2) A landbank of permitted reserves of:

§ Sand and gravel sufficient for at least 7 years’ production at agreed apportionment levels;

§ Ragstone sufficient for at least 10 years supply.

Policy M12: Development proposals which would sterilise the future availability of strategic mineral reserves identified in Minerals Local Development Documents will be refused. Where possible, know sources of secondary and recycled materials will be safeguarded from sterilisation.

Where development is proposed, encouragement will be given to the extraction of the mineral resource or use of secondary and recycled materials prior to, or in conjunction with, development.

Consultations 45.

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council: The Borough Council has made the following comments:

“Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council raises objections unless a need for the reserve can be demonstrated and the outstanding nature conservation issues are resolved. If Kent County Council considers that these issues have been satisfactorily addressed, and resolves to grant planning permission, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council would wish conditions to be imposed to reflect the conditions on the western and southern extensions to the quarry.”

No objections were raised to the further details received.

Maidstone Borough Council: No views received.

Barming Parish Council: No objection is raised to the application to vary conditions under the original permission reference TM/03/2782. The Parish Council has made the following comments:

TM/03/2784 – Eastern Extension Area “The Planning Committee wishes to see this application approved with 2 conditions:

1. That great care is taken with the removal and replacement of wildlife.

Item C1




Kent

C1.15

2. That the area is restored with native trees

TM/03/2787) – Variation of conditions 1,2,4, & 7 of permission TM/95/761 southern

extension. The Planning Committee wishes to see this application refused for the following reasons: Due to the strength of feeling of the 50 or more residents at the meeting, the Planning Committee decided to object to the application to protect the local amenity of all Barming residents. The Parish Council would also like to see more monitoring of dust and noise levels.”

Aylesford Parish Council: No objections are raised subject to a condition requiring

restoration work to be done as work progresses.

Ditton Parish Council: No objections raised.

English Nature: The following final comments have been received:

“I understand that English Nature’s concerns about the proposed development were satisfied by additional information submitted in support of the applications in late 2003. It appears that none of the details relating to protected species issues have changed with the further details now supplied. Providing this is the case, English Nature has no further comments to make on the proposals.”

Kent Wildlife Trust: The Trust is satisfied that the additional information submitted addresses the concerns on the wildlife issues affecting this site, and they welcome the proposal to link Fullingpits and Oaken Wood.

DEFRA: No objections raised subject to the imposition of conditions to secure restoration and aftercare.

CPRE: Raise objections on the grounds of detrimental impact on the ‘strategic gap’,

impact on local residents and no demonstrable case of need provided.

Environment Agency: No objection raised. Has confirmed that the infilling of the eastern extension will require an IPPC permit.

Network Rail: No comments to make on the proposals.

Transportation Planning: No objections raised subject to conditions restricting HGV movements at peak times of the day and to 6 monthly return of traffic movements.

Babtie (Noise/Dust): No objections raised on noise, dust or vibration issues, however in terms of blasting, Babtie support the intention of the County Council to commission further monitoring.

Item C1




Kent

C1.16

Babtie (Landscape): The following comments have been made: “We had previously raised concerns about the possible adverse visual impact of the extended quarry from long distance and elevated views, such as from the Kent Downs AONB. In such views the quarry is at some distance and in many weather conditions it is not easily discernible. It forms only a relatively small background element of a much wider panorama. Consequently I do not feel that the visual impact of the proposal would constitute a significant visual detractor on the AONB.

Whilst the quarry activities themselves would be unlikely to cause significant impact in immediate and longer views, we also raised some concerns about the loss of skyline woodland. From the AONB, the woodland is not on the skyline, so the main effects are on near and intermediate views. Although there will be some small woodland loss, this would only be perceptible in views from the north and south, as from other directions the remaining part of Fulling Pits Wood would still be the most visible element. The applicant also now proposes to transplant some of the coppice stools to the north of the extension, and to reinforce the existing planting on the southern bund, which would help to mitigate the slight adverse visual effect. In the longer term the replanting of Fulling Pits Wood together with the new belt of woodland now proposed, which extends westwards towards Oaken Wood, would result in an increase in skyline woodland and provide a desirable link between existing woodlands. In the light of the additional mitigation, I do not consider the loss of skyline woodland to now be a significant adverse effect. The applicant has shown revised details of the progressive restoration of the site which is welcomed. In general, the revised details now address our previous landscape concerns and I would not now raise a landscape objection to the proposals.”

Environmental Management Public Rights of Way: No objection.

Heritage and Conservation (County Archaeologist): No objection raised subject to a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works.

Countryside Policy and Projects (Biodiversity Officer): No objection raised subject to the applicant undertaking protected species surveys prior to the commencement of any works on site.

Barming Protection Campaign Association: No objections raised.

Mid Kent Health Care Trust: No comments received.

Item C1




Kent

C1.17

Local Members 46. The Local and adjoining Members, Mr G Rowe, Mrs S Hohler, Mrs P Stockell and Mr D Daley, were notified of the applications on 9 September 2003.

Publicity 47. The application was publicised by the posting of 2 site notices and the individual notification of 619 properties. The Eastern Extension application was also publicised in the local newspaper as a departure to the development plan on 19 September 2003. Following the receipt of further information from the applicant, the same consultation and publicity processes were undertaken in May 2005. and a further 5 letters of representation were received.

Representations 48. A total of 63 letters of representation have been received and are summarised as follows:

§ need § impact on the Strategic Gap

Blasting

• Concerns that blasting is already causing damage to properties and will continue to do so if further working is allowed

• Mechanical extraction is possible rather than using explosives for blasting

• Vibration from blasting at Hermitage Quarry is already experienced in surrounding properties

• Concern that quarrying operations are closer to houses in Barming particularly in relation to the Southern extension area.

Highway

§ Further extraction would increase HGV movements to and from the site § Rocks and other debris regularly dropped onto the public highway by Gallagher vehicles

Amenity Impacts

• Concern at destruction of the habitats and countryside amenities

• Properties are covered in white dust from the quarry

• Extending the life of the existing quarry is not acceptable

Item C1




Kent

C1.18

• Noise nuisance from the existing crusher

• Granting permission would increase noise pollution for residents of Barming

• Reversing bleepers on vehicles are noisy

• Noise nuisance from blasting Other

• Concerns that backfilling with ‘inert’ waste would be a health hazard

• If the quarry has to extend, why doesn’t it go further north where there are no properties

• Granting planning permission will affect quality of life

Discussion 49. Section 54A of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

50. In essence the proposals contain two main aspects: firstly to increase the mineral reserve applied for under reference TM/03/2784 in the area referred to as the eastern extension and its subsequent restoration using imported inert waste. Secondly the applicant proposes to vary the approved methods of working currently permitted under the original consent (ref. TM/88/295) and the southern extension permitted under reference TM/95/761. The applicant is therefore seeking a larger open area of some 15 hectares (3 hectares above that already permitted) in order to accommodate plant, processing equipment and stockpiling space the applicant considers is necessary to reflect their changing needs and requirements, whilst allowing sufficient space for further mineral extraction in the eastern extension to take place.

51. In considering the application for the eastern extension, the proposed variations of conditions to the original planning permission (ref. TM/88/295) and the southern extension (ref. TM/95/761), the County Council will need to examine the proposal in the light of both national guidance and the appropriate development plan policies applying to the site. Having regard to government guidance as set out in MPG1, MPG6, the Regional Statement for the South East published in March 2004 and the emerging Draft MPS1, in assessing individual applications the need for a mineral only becomes a consideration where there are other material planning objections against which need would then be weighed, taking into account of the need to maintain a landbank.

52. At present the total quantity of permitted reserves for ragstone in the County remains in excess of that needed to maintain the 10 year landbank sought in the adopted Kent Structure Plan and that proposed in the Regional Minerals Strategy. A 10 year landbank of permitted reserves is also sought in the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Plan).

53. The most recent guidance to MPAs, in terms of the landbank of permitted mineral reserves

Item C1




Kent

C1.19

they should seek to maintain, is set out in the South East Regional Minerals Strategy Consultation Draft, which was published in March 2004 and on which a report has been produced by a government inspector following the Examination in Public last October. In terms of the landbank of permitted reserves in relation to crushed rock, under proposed policy M5, Kent is expected to maintain a landbank of at least seven years sufficient to maintain an annual production of 1.2 mtpa (i.e. 8.4 million tonnes). Of the two existing ragstone quarries in the County as mentioned in paragraph (3) above, Hermitage Quarry currently has 1.6mt of permitted reserves. The second site which is located at Blaise Farm, West Malling, when first granted in the late 1980s, was estimated to contain over 30 million tonnes of material. However, this site did not open until 2001 and has since closed (see para 53 below), therefore the majority of the permitted reserves remain to be worked.

54. When considering the amount of permitted reserves within the two sites which constitute the County’s landbank for ragstone, there remains in excess of 30 million tonnes.

55. In this context, notwithstanding the applicants case of need put forward in support of the application, a key issue in determining the application for the Eastern Extension, will be whether there are any other material planning considerations against which the current landbank of permitted reserves, including those remaining at this site and those permitted at Blaise Farm, will need to be taken into account. This aspect is considered more fully in the following paragraphs below.

Need 56. Existing Kent Structure Plan Policy NR10 seeks to maintain a landbank of 0.6 million tonnes of ragstone per year sufficient for at least 10 years’ production whilst proposed Policy M5 of the Regional Minerals Strategy seeks some 8.4mt, in order to maintain a 7 year supply. In considering advice set out in MPG6, the landbank is the total sum of all permitted reserves with valid planning permissions, including dormant or non-working sites irrespective of the size of their reserves and production capacity. Having regard to the volume of reserves currently permitted in the County and taking account of the advice in MPS1 which requires a balance between the need to meet fluctuations in demand against avoiding the consequences of excessive provision, there is currently an oversupply of permitted reserves. However in assessing the current application for Hermitage Quarryin the context of the existing landbank of permitted reserves, the position at Blaise Farm has recently changed which in my opinion represents a material consideration. In January 2005, the operator, Hanson Aggregates, publicly announced the impending closure of the site. The reason for the closure was stated as due to “declining sales and weak demand for Kentish

ragstone in local markets” and also to “increasing competition from recycled and other materials” (see appended Hanson press release Appendix 3). However, with considerable permitted reserves remaining at the site, the operators have retained the option of re-opening the site should the market dictate in the future. Indeed during a recent site visit small quantities of stone were being taken from the site.

Item C1




Kent

C1.20

57. Notwithstanding government advice that the landbank should include all permitted reserves including those at dormant sites, the reason stated for the closure of Blaise Farm Quarry in my opinion raises questions over how it should be treated. Advice in MPG6 requires MPAs to consider the question of ‘real need’ and ‘real supply’. One of the reasons for Hanson’s decision is because of increasing competition from recycled products. I have doubts as to whether under current market conditions, the Blaise Farm site will compete with the recycled market. In this sense, it could be argued that the Blaise Farm reserve does not represent a real supply. Gallaghers on the other hand, in recent years, have been able to expand their product range to successfully compete in the local market with imports from outside of the County (see appended product range details submitted by Gallaghers – Appendix 4). However it should be noted that Hanson’s as a company operate on a national basis and as a national company it is easier to switch production from one site to another to reflect market conditions. For this reason, in assessing the County’s landbank requirement against existing permitted reserves, I consider the extent to which the reserve at Blaise Farm is likely to be able to play a roll over the next 7 years towards meeting Kent’s overall contribution for crushed rock, should be questioned. If Blaise Farm is discounted on the basis that it is unlikely to be worked during this period this would mean that the current landbank sought, falls below that permitted (i.e. at Hermitage Quarry), and which is likely to be worked during the plan period.

Minerals Development Framework 58. The whole issue of what future provision will be needed to enable the County Council to meet its required contribution towards the provision of primary aggregates, as set out under Policy M5 of the Regional Minerals Strategy, will be addressed as part of the preparation of the Minerals Development Framework.

59. The County Council is required under the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to review and replace its Minerals Local Plan with a new style Minerals Development Framework (MDF). The approved programme for producing the MDF is at an early stage and the adoption of new planning policies for minerals is not envisaged until May 2008.

60. The MDF will need to put in place a strategy for construction aggregates, which includes ragstone, that provides for the sustainable use of finite resources. The next step in the MDF programme is to publish an Issues and Options Paper in September 2005. One of the issues on which the community and stakeholders will be asked to comment relates to how to maximise the use of permitted ragstone reserves. Maximising use could reduce the need to release further land for winning construction aggregates during the timeframe of the MDF. The outcome from this consultation will hopefully address both the excessive ragstone landbank invested in one ‘mothballed’ quarry as mentioned in para (53) above and the prospect of increased product range being demonstrated by recent investment in plant at Hermitage Quarry that could meet a much wider range of uses for ragstone than envisaged in the existing Minerals Local Plan. The consultation responses will feed into the evidence base that will lead to the consideration of a preferred strategy for planning for future ragstone production that will be submitted for independent examination to

Item C1




Kent

C1.21

Government in November 2006. 61. Whilst the policy base is subject to review over the coming years it remains necessary to make planning determinations against the adopted development plan and other material considerations. Government advises (The Planning System: General Principles (ODPM 2005)) that:

• Where the MDF is at the consultation stage. With no early prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this would impose in determining the future use of the land in question.

• A proposal for development which has an impact on only a small area would rarely justify a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of prematurity

62. Given that the proposed eastern extension represents only what would be a relatively minor extension, in the context of the above advice, in my view it would not be justified to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity.

63. Kent is expected to make an increased contribution towards the provision of primary aggregates as set out under Policy M5 of the Regional Mineral Strategy (i.e. 1.2mtpa) which is effectively double that currently provided for under the Kent Structure Plan. In my opinion, in the absence of the site at Blaise Farm being reopened before the adoption of the new planning policies under the MDF envisaged in May 2008, the eastern extension could be viewed as making a contribution towards the Regional Mineral Strategy targets.

64. The proposed Eastern Extension at Hermitage Quarry, if permitted would add a further 2.3mt of ragstone reserves, to the existing landbank and in my view represents a relatively small increase. Should this eastern extension be refused, Gallaghers feel they would lose the opportunity to work this area in the future which they claim would effectively sterilise the deposit, which in their opinion runs contrary to Policy M12 of the KSP Review. In support of this, the Applicant has stated the following:

“There is a window of opportunity available currently to access the new reserves by simply turning the direction of quarrying through 90 degrees to run from west to east into the new area. However this ‘window’ is time limited. As quarrying progresses in a southerly direction the backfilling activity will follow closely behind. Backfilling is undertaken by constructing containment cells for silt cake against the quarry face and layering fine hassock over the cells to stabilise the material. Eventually the back filled area will pass the point at which access to the new reserves can be gained. Once the backfill material is deposited against the quarry face there would need to be a dead zone of rock left insitu in order to prevent collapse of the infill into the newly generated void and in consequence, to re-enter this reserve at a later date would effectively be starting anew but the loss of the dead-zone rock from the total reserve

Item C1




Kent

C1.22

would render it unviable”. 65. In considering the applicants operational case for working reserves in the Eastern Extension, I have formally consulted with my technical advisor. He advises that in his view it is logical and economical for the operator to work the reserves now, as they would otherwise have to open up a new access to the area and then operate in a more confined space. However, these points alone would not in themselves sterilise future working of the eastern area.

66. Therefore, to conclude I do not accept this particular argument put forward by the applicant.

Blasting 67. Concerns have also been raised regarding blasting at the site and in particular any associated structural risk to housing caused by vibrations.

68. Government advice, as set out under Minerals Planning Guidance Note 9 (MPG9) recommends that individual blasts should not exceed 12mmsec pp. when measured at vibration sensitive buildings. Average levels should not exceed 10mm/sec pp. and usually not be below 6mm/sec ppv, in 95% of all blasts. Accordingly conditions relating to blasting, have been imposed on the latest planning permissions at Hermitage Quarry to reflect these recommended limits. The operator is required to provide the County Council with regular monitoring data to indicate levels of vibration on days where blasting has taken place. To date this data has demonstrated that vibration levels continue to be well below the limits set. Notwithstanding this, the views and concerns of local residents remain and as a result, a number of residents have requested monitoring be undertaken at their properties. In response to these complaints, independent monitoring has been undertaken on various occasions on behalf of the County Council, the most recent being on 7 July 2005. The results indicated blasts remain well within set limits prescribed in the planning conditions and well below levels above which it is considered cosmetic damage may occur.

Amended Southern Boundary

69. In recognition of local residents general concerns at blasting activity and of operations moving closer to existing houses in Barming, albeit by only some 10 metres, the applicant submitted amendments to the originally proposed southern extension boundary. Initially Gallaghers had applied to work further reserves along the southern boundary releasing an additional 0.7mt in addition to the 1.6mt already permitted. However, the proposed southern boundary has now been pulled back to some 25m away from the bund to the extent that workings will come no nearer to housing than currently permitted.

70. However, the County Council recognise there is likely to be continued concern associated with blasting and having regard to the formal approach taken more recently at nearby Blaise Quarry and in line with the County Council’s past approach, I would recommend that

Item C1




Kent

C1.23

independent monitoring be undertaken 4 times a year in the local vicinity at cost to the applicant and secured by way of a formal agreement. In addition, as a safeguard, I would advise that should Members resolve to grant permission, blasting conditions in relation to maximum levels of vibration be imposed, similar to those relating to the existing permissions on this site and which also require a scheme of monitoring to ensure continued compliance with set limits.

71. Notwithstanding the views expressed regarding blasting, I consider that provided levels do not exceed government guidelines, these issues do not represent an overriding objection to the proposals.

Traffic 72. The applicant proposes to continue using the existing purpose built haul road and access currently facilitating the site.

Vehicle Movements 73. In terms of proposed HGV movements, I am mindful that there are no current restrictions on existing lorry movements from the site. The applicant states that the proposed number of HGV movements to and from the site would not differ from that already generated by ongoing quarrying activities. Gallaghers currently generate an average of 260 movements per day. However, during times of high activity quarry operations reached a monthly average of 300 movements per day with absolute daily movements reaching 600 movements on occasions. In response to a request by the Highway Authority, the applicant has recently submitted further information regarding the maximum number of HGV movements encountered at the quarry during times of high activity and in particular during the morning and afternoon peak hours of the day. Following a meeting between the County Transport Operations Officer, Planning Officers and the Applicant, the Applicant was asked to further investigate numbers of vehicle movements generated during peak hours including times when the quarry has reached maximum levels of production in the past. The information was requested to demonstrate whether or not there was any corresponding increase in movements at peak times of the day. The following periods are of particular interest:

0800 hours and 0900 hours and 1700 hours and 1800 hours

This enabled an assessment of any cumulative traffic impact on the junctions of A20/Hermitage Lane and on Junction 5 of the M20 at peak times of the day.

74. Following the receipt of the traffic data received, the transport officer is satisfied that the quarry activities would not have a significant impact on the junction of Hermitage Lane and Junction 5 of the M20 during peak periods of the day. However as a safeguard, the

Item C1




Kent

C1.24

Highways Officer has recommended conditions be imposed on any planning consent to restrict the maximum number of HGVs movements into and out of the site during any one calendar month to 30 (15 in and 15 out) in any one hour period between 7.30am and 9.30am and 4pm and 6pm. I would also recommend a condition be imposed to restrict the monthly average of vehicle movements to no higher than 300 per day with no single day exceeding 600 movements (300 in/300 out) to reflect those levels previously experienced and as referred to paragraph (15) above. Further, Highways have requested that the operator should submit a 6 monthly return of traffic movements to and from the site summarising daily and peak hour movements.

Unsheeted Vehicles

75. A number of local residents have expressed concern that on occasions debris falling from Gallagher’s vehicles have found their way onto the public highway. Notwithstanding a condition already imposed on the existing planning consent requiring all vehicles be sheeted before they leave the site, complaints have been received that un-sheeted vehicles have been seen using Hermitage Lane. The County Council have therefore written to Gallaghers formally reminding them of the terms of their current planning permission requirements and they have responded by issuing a reminder notice to all contract driver leaving the site that their vehicles should be covered before they leave the site. I would therefore recommend that as with the current planning permissions, a condition be imposed on any planning permission requiring all lorries carrying material to or from the site be sheeted. This would continue to be monitored closely by officers of the County Council.

Landscape 76. Although the Eastern Extension application area is not subject to any national policy designations, the site lies in part within Fullingpits Wood, a Local Landscape Character Area currently containing mainly chestnut coppice woodland. Policy ENV1 of the Kent Structure Plan, in recognising the need to protect the countryside for its own sake, applies. Policy ENV1 states that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development which outweighs the requirement to protect the countryside. Where exceptionally development is required, in all such cases any such impact should be minimised and mitigated. Any adverse impact should be minimised having regard to landscape, wildlife and other policy considerations.

77. The current permitted extent of the open area of the quarry currently stands at some 12 hectares in size to accommodate the existing plant, machinery and stockpiles of material. To accommodate the proposed extension, the applicant proposes to fell part of Fullingpits Wood, containing predominantly chestnut coppice woodland before extracting ragstone, backfilling with inert material and then finally restoring to part agriculture and part woodland. Should the eastern extension be granted planning consent given the progressive nature of working and restoring separate phases of the site, a further 3 hectares would be added to

Item C1




Kent

C1.25

the existing 12 hectares already permitted to be open, totalling some15 hectares. 78. In considering the extension area, Babtie, the County Council’s Landscape Consultants, have raised a number of concerns including any potential impact from the loss of ridgeline woodland in the short and medium term, in particular when viewing the site from long distance points, such as Blue Bell Hill. Concerns have also been raised by other consultees as to the short and medium term visual impact of the development in this landscape character area and its impact on the Strategic Gap, along with the timescale in which restoration would take place.

79. Whilst Babtie welcome the reinstatement of a long-term woodland cover proposed as part of the restoration of the Eastern Extension area, they also requested additional mitigation measures to address the impact on the long views including additional and more robust planting. Following a meeting with Babtie, County Council Officers and the Applicant, further landscape details were submitted to address these concerns and consist of the following:

A detailed phased working and restoration plan (see Phasing Plans, pages 26-28) 80. The Applicant has submitted detailed proposals to demonstrate their planned working and restoration of the site to encompass the quarry site as a whole and to include those areas already permitted for extraction. Upon commencement of ragstone extraction in the first phase of the eastern extension (identified as phase 3 on the proposed working scheme and as shown on the phasing plans), the operator proposes to extract material from phase 3, whilst in parallel, commencing progressive infilling with inert material in phase 1. A similar sequence would take place throughout the rest of the quarry site until completion of the Western Extension currently permitted to be commenced by January 2008. Following completion of extraction in the Western Extension area, the fixed plant and machinery would be removed from the site and the remainder of the quarry would be progressively filled and finally restored by 2015.

Tree Belt/Planting along the southern boundary 81. At the meeting with the Landscape Architect, it was agreed that a link between Fullingpits Wood and Oaken Wood be established in the long term. To achieve this it is proposed that a 50 metre wide tree belt be planted between the replacement Fullingpits Wood and Oaken Wood to provide long-term landscape benefit following completion of quarrying activities.

Planting on Northern boundary of the proposed Eastern Extension 82. In considering the longer landscape views during the quarrying operations, the applicant is proposing the translocation of chestnut coppice from Fullingpits Wood to the northern boundary of the proposed Eastern Extension area. This further planting would be planted in a belt to the north of the proposed bund and to establish immediate screening when the site is viewed from the north.

Item C1




Kent

C1.26

Item C1




Kent

C1.27

Item C1




Kent

C1.28

Item C1




Kent

C1.29

83. Following the receipt of the supplementary landscape details, the Principal Landscape Architect has now made the following comments:

“We had previously raised concerns about the possible adverse visual impact of the extended quarry from long distance and elevated views, such as from the Kent Downs AONB. In such views the quarry is at some distance and in many weather conditions it is not easily discernible. It forms only a relatively small background element of a much wider panorama. Consequently I do not feel that the visual impact of the proposal would constitute a significant visual detractor on the AONB.

Whilst the quarry activities themselves would be unlikely to cause significant impact in immediate and longer views, we also raised some concerns about the loss of skyline woodland. From the AONB, the woodland is not on the skyline, so the main effects are on near and intermediate views. Although there will be some small woodland loss, this would only be perceptible in views from the north and south, as from other directions the remaining part of Fulling Pits Wood would still be the most visible element. The applicant also now proposes to transplant some of the coppice stools to the north of the extension, and to reinforce the existing planting on the southern bund, which would help to mitigate the slight adverse visual effect. In the longer term the replanting of Fulling Pits Wood together with the new belt of woodland now proposed, which extends westwards towards Oaken Wood, would result in an increase in skyline woodland and provide a desirable link between existing woodlands. In the light of the additional mitigation, I do not consider the loss of skyline woodland to now be a significant adverse effect.”

84. In addition, our Landscape advisor welcomes the revised details of the progressive restoration of the site which would ensure earlier restoration of the site and the commitment to provide an additional woodland belt to further mitigate the loss of skyline woodland and has now confirmed that the revised details now address the previous landscape objections.

85. In my opinion the need to reduce the potential impact in the landscape is fundamental. In making their comments on the supplementary information, Babtie assume that the additional planting could be physically achieved. Therefore should Members be minded to grant planning permission, I consider such matters would need to be secured by way of s106 agreement. Provided such matters can be satisfactorily secured, in my view this would overcome any overriding landscape objections. I would also however recommend the detailed phased restoration scheme be controlled by way of a condition requiring the operator to phase the working, backfilling and restoration phases before commencing extraction in the Western Extension. I would further recommend that the s106 Legal Agreement also includes measures to secure the management of the proposed replacement woodland in perpetuity.

86. Notwithstanding Babtie removing their landscape objection however, concerns remain as to the impact of the quarry operations on the Strategic Gap.

Item C1




Kent

C1.30

Strategic Gap 87. The application site falls within an area identified as the Strategic Gap and is subject to development plan policies seeking to maintain the open character of this designation free from built development. Objections have been raised on the grounds that the proposal would be contrary to these policies. As discussed above under paragraph (75) above, the quarry is currently permitted to allow up to 12 hectares open at any one time and would require a further 3 hectares open if the Eastern Extension is to be worked in the proposed manner. However in recognition of landscape concerns the Applicant has provided further detailed working and restoration plans to demonstrate any additional impacts above those already permitted would be minimal.

Current Open Area 88. In terms of the current open area permitted at any one time, the quarry has extended the open area from 6 hectares (permitted under the original consent) to some 12 hectares as they have through commercial decisions effectively converted the quarry floor into an operating base with a number of added value facilities being provided on the quarry floor. When the quarry was first permitted in September 1989, mobile crushing equipment worked at the quarry face and surplus hassock as well as imported inert waste was deposited in the void. These two different operations were separated with an open area for safety reasons. At the time of the original consent, the operator was only producing some 6 different types of products. The philosophy of the quarry was to provide continuous restoration following on close behind the operating face.

89. By 1995 a change had occurred in the way quarrying operations had taken place and Gallaghers had invested in additional crushing and screening equipment resulting in an increase in products available from the quarry. The company identified a need for some 5 hectares for quarrying and primary crushing areas, 2 hectares for the stockpiling of products and 5 hectares for further quarrying and backfilling in order to accommodate the substantive range of products then being produced compared to the limited number of products produced when the quarry first opened. Thus in 1996 the applicant applied to increase the open area to 12 hectares and was granted approval in 1997.

90. Currently Hermitage Quarry is producing the range of materials shown in appendix 4. Accordingly the applicant states the following:

“Subsequent to the 1995 consent, Gallagher refined the production process and kept pace with the most technically advanced equipment available within the industry. A significant feature of these refinements was in separation of the two distinct minerals and by eliminating all hassock from the ragstone feed to the secondary and tertiary crushing plant, technically compliant aggregate suitable for use in ready mixed concrete production was produced. This vertically-integrated business commenced and Gallagher now operates what is probably the concrete plant with the lowest ratio of

Item C1




Kent

C1.31

imported materials within the country ensuring that it has the highest sustainable output within the county.

In April 2002, Government introduced the Aggregates Levy at a rate of £1.60 per tonne to apply to all primary won materials, including hassock by products and overburden. The addition of the levy to low priced hassock fill-type materials in particular, resulted in those products becoming unviable in competition with alternatives such as ground stabilisation and imported slag and secondary aggregates, (exempt of levy) and as a result the historic high volume sales of constructional fill type materials, were lost. Historically almost all of the extracted volume was sold in one form or another, but the impact of the levy reduced sales by 40-50% creating a massive surplus for disposal. In addition, in order to remain viable, it was necessary to increase the volume of main-line products that were still in demand. This exacerbated the problem further with a corresponding increase to the volume to be disposed. It was calculated that having regard to the “bulking-factor” it would not be physically possible to return the volume of surplus into the void created from quarrying and other means of dealing with the issues had to be found.”

91. The operator determined that washing the hassock could transform most of the surplus into a new range of products, which are considered to be in high demand from a wider customer base. The addition of this new product range now results in the production and availability of some 60 products from the site. However the applicant acknowledges that as the demand in these different products varies, it is necessary to sometimes stockpile material on site.

92. Therefore in order to maximise the yield from the extracted mineral, including washing the hassock, taking into account the growth in product range and the equipment used to achieve this, the applicant has therefore applied to extend the open area to 15 hectares.

93. Whilst it is recognised that there has been an advance in the way quarry operations have been undertaken since Hermitage Quarry was first granted planning permission, I remain concerned that in investing in considerable plant and equipment to maximise the yield from the extracted mineral, the applicant has not attempted to minimise the open area of quarry floor. This area is currently used as an ‘operating base’ for the remainder of the quarry and plant would not be removed until such time as the western extension has been worked and restored, delaying the completion of restoration until 2015. Specifically, the applicants have placed various other value-added plant in the quarry and propose to relocate their offices and weighbridge facilities to the floor. Despite asking them to justify locations for these facilities on the quarry floor they have failed to do so. I believe that the quarry can be rationalised to release areas for restoration at an earlier date. If Members are minded to approve these applications, I would recommend that it be subject to the applicants urgently reviewing this position with the aim to reduce the area of the quarry floor to an absolute minimum.

Item C1




Kent

C1.32

Timescale for restoration 94. In addition, I have concerns that successful progressive restoration at this site is reliant upon available inert material to backfill the void left by extraction. In addition to Hermitage Quarry, the operator also owns Ryarsh Quarry, which was granted planning permission in 2002 to restore the site to original ground levels. This site has a total void of 800-900,000m³. Gallaghers have encountered difficulties on obtaining an IPPC permit from the Environment Agency in order for them to commence infilling. Since applying for the permit the Quarry has remained closed for some 2 years which has delayed restoration considerably and has warranted a further extension of time in which to complete the site. In considering the proposals at Hermitage Quarry, in the light of the delays encountered at Ryarsh, I am of the view that in order to render the proposal acceptable in the Strategic Gap, a guarantee of the ability to fill the site within the timescale required.

95. As part of the preparation of the WDF, Babtie were commissioned to prepare a report on the current arisings of inert waste. They have established that nearly 2.6mt of inert waste was created in Kent in 2001, of which (based on regional calculated averages) some 36% (i.e. 936,000mt per annum) was landfilled in Inert Landfill Sites or used in non-hazardous landfills for site engineering. In order to predict future void space requirements for inert waste, Babtie have modelled projections based on different scenarios relating to future waste growth. The yearly demand for Inert Landfill has been compared to the possible release of known landfill void. Whilst the model shows a deficit around 2008 under a ‘do nothing’ option, if in accordance with the Landfill Directive and latest Regional Guidance there is an increase in diversion rates, any such deficit may well extend beyond 2011. Based on the estimate of permitted void for inert waste in the County, including that at Hermitage Quarry and Ryarsh, which will effectively compete for this material.

96. I understand from the applicant that a draft IPPC permit has been submitted to the Environment Agency in order to avoid similar delays. Therefore should Members resolve to grant permission, I would recommend evidence of an approved IPPC permit be provided to the County Council before any extraction commences in the eastern extension. This requirement should be included with a s106 agreement.

97. Hermitage Quarry is an existing quarry which would remain operational until the Western Extension is fully worked and restoration commences in the main quarry floor. Given the commitment to progressively work and restore the site over separate phases throughout the duration of operations, in my view the proposal is not incompatible with the objectives of the Strategic Gap. I consider that provided environmental controls are maintained and that the site is progressively restored, the objectives of the relevant development plan policies which seek to safeguard this area from built development would not be compromised. Indeed in the longer term I am of the opinion, given the additional planting together with a commitment to its maintenance in perpetuity, this can only lead to an enhancement to the quality of this part of the strategic gap in landscape terms.

Item C1




Kent

C1.33

Nature Conservation 98. Concerns have been raised by consultees, as to any potential wildlife value of Fullingpits Wood. In particular, it was considered that protected species such as bats and dormice may be present on site. As a result, it was requested that the applicant undertake full survey works on site to establish any presence before determination of the planning application. The applications were therefore held in abeyance for a number of months whilst this work was carried out to the satisfaction of the relevant consultees, including Kent Wildlife Trust and the County Council’s Biodiversity Officer.

99. Surveys have now been submitted to support the proposals and have indicated there is no evidence to suggest bat and dormice presence on site. Following further consultation on the results of the surveys no objections were raised on ecological grounds, I would therefore concur with the views of consultees that the proposal to extend the quarry into the eastern area (Fullingpits Wood) would be unlikely to have a negative impact on any protected species.

Other amenity impact 100. Local residents have raised a number of concerns in connection to the proposed application, including potential noise and dust nuisance. Policy W18 requires the Planning Authority to be satisfied as to the means of noise, dust odour and other emissions particularly in respect of the potential impact on neighbouring land uses and amenity. Babtie have been consulted and have raised no objections on noise and dust grounds. In addition, Babtie are satisfied that no adverse noise impact from proposed HGV movements to and from the site, is likely to occur. I am satisfied that the proposal therefore meets the requirements of policy ENV21 of the Kent Structure Plan and policy W18 of the KWLP.

Conclusion 101. This application has to be considered within the context of an existing consented landbank which meets the requirements of the emerging regional apportionment and the existing but lower county landbank requirement set out in the current Kent Structure Plan. However, given the uncertainty as to the future of the Blaise Farm reserves (which make up a substantial element of this landbank) in the absence of any other overriding considerations, I consider there are planning arguments for granting a relatively modest extension in landbank terms.

102. Whilst the applicants have attempted to justify the ‘uniqueness’ of the deposit through the application, I consider this specific issue needs fuller consideration to be examined as part of the preparation of the new Minerals Development Framework, alongside consideration of the closure of the Blaise Farm site.

Item C1




Kent

C1.34

103. It is noted that the application would result in the temporary disturbance of an additional 3 hectares of the Strategic Gap. Given the observations of our landscape advisors any permission should be subject to completion of a legal agreement providing for its long-term management following restoration. Members have previously visited this site and will be aware that the Company has already restored parts of the existing quarry to a high standard. Subject to restoration and long term management details being secured within a s106 Agreement I believe that the short-medium term impact within the Strategic Gap can be satisfactorily mitigated provided sufficient backfill material can be secured to ensure the site is progressively restored.

104. On balance, I consider that permission should be granted within the terms set out in paragraph (105) below.

Recommendation 105. I RECOMMEND that SUBJECT TO: (A) No direction to the contrary from the Deputy Prime Minister;

(B) Within two months of the date of this committee the applicants providing:

(i) revised proposals for the reduction in area of the ‘operating floor’ of the quarry to

the satisfaction of the Head of Planning Applications Group; and

(ii) the details as set out below to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning Applications Group in respect of a S106 Agreement. Such details to include:

a) submission and approval of a woodland/landscape management scheme

and securing the maintenance of these areas in perpetuity in accordance with the scheme;

b) evidence that an IPPC permit has been obtained from the Environment

Agency before mineral extraction commences within the eastern extension;

c) compliance with a detailed phasing plan; and

d) The funding of the full cost of independent blast monitoring undertaken

on behalf of the County Council up to a maximum of 4 times a year PERMISSION BE GRANTED for the Eastern Extension submitted under planning reference TM/03/2784 and TM/03/2782 and TM/03/2787, SUBJECT TO conditions covering amongst other matters, the standard time condition, noise and dust controls, hours of working, scheme of working and restoration, blasting regime, lorry sheeting, imposition of maximum

Item C1




Kent

C1.35

number of HGV movements during any one calendar month to 30 during peak hours, a restriction on the highest monthly average of vehicle movements to 300 with no single day exceeding 600 movements (300 in/300 out), depth of working and ground water monitoring and archaeological evaluation; and specifically for application TM/03/2787 the open area to be amended in accordance with details as shall be agreed by the Head of Planning Applications Group under B (i) above.

Case Officer: Angela Watts 01622 221059

Background Documents: See Section Heading

Item C1 - Hermitage Quarry0 Applications Committe… · under ref TM/95/761) – Hermitage Quarry,...

Documents

Transcript of Item C1 - Hermitage Quarry0 Applications Committe… · under ref TM/95/761) – Hermitage Quarry,...