SUMMARY OF ISSUES August 2002
|
Key issues which concern residents who may be affected by the quarry can be summarised as follows:
|
|
Home Headlines Contents Images Links
|
|
The Council should have no problem in refusing this application since it is contrary to both existing and proposed Local Plans. The application extends over designated Green Belt, and eliminates an important landscape buffer zone which has been identified by SNH.
Could it be that the recommendation to approve this extension is seen by the Council as an opportunity to rectify previous failings? If this is the case it is essential that the proposed controls over future workings and reinstatement are completely effective.
It may even be that the Tarmac Group is one of the most responsible quarry operators in the country, but it should not surprise anyone that residents have concerns about operation, re-instatement, and timescales when the Council admits that it has not had resources to monitor nor enforce conditions imposed on previous consents.
The fact that the applicant Tarmac Northern Ltd appears to have ceased trading in 2001 is a further worry, which needs clarification, particularly with regard to any Restoration Bond which may be provided.
None of the residents most likely to be affected by the quarry extension received notification of the application (planning regulations did not require this), and Tarmac chose to have a public meeting with residents in South Baljaffray, who, not surprisingly, did not feel very challenged by the proposals, since most people live over 1 Km away. Those living closest to the quarry in North Baljaffray found out only a few days before the end of the consultation period.
Residents are dismayed by the planning department's criticism, which has been reported in the press, of representations made by 'protestors'. The planning department seems to have forgotten that the strong feelings were generated by the original application to extend the quarry in 3 phases, which would have brought workings within very short distances from existing residential communities, devastated huge tracts of Mains Plantation, and produced scarring of the hillside which would have been visible from large distances.
The current proposals are clearly an improvement over the original, but it begs the question why was the original application withdrawn? Would it have been withdrawn without the concerted efforts of objectors?
Unfortunately the planning department would not divulge its views on the original application during the consultation phase. Perhaps procedure prevents this, but it generated great anxiety that the original application was likely to be approved, and gave residents very little time to respond to the detail conditions proposed for a consent. The written report to the Planning Board recommending approval was released to the public only 3 working days before the Board met.
This does not give much time to examine and fully understand the proposed conditions.
Home Headlines Contents Images Links
|
|
The Council should demonstrate that it has investigated all health issues, and can provide reassuring evidence of findings.
The 'one-liner' in Tarmac's Planning Statement does not reassure local residents. If residents have nothing to worry about, why not provide technical evidence based on survey and analysis which can be relied upon?
The fact that the proposed Section 75 Agreement seeks to enforce Tarmac's Planning Statement proposal for reinstatement, which specifies stabilised sewage sludge does nothing to reassure.
|
|
Many residents complain about vibration during blasting operations. Fortunately the distances from residences for the new application are not significantly nearer than existing.
Proposed Conditions refer to monitoring of vibration sensitive buildings. It may allay fears if those buildings could be identified, and if it could be explained how the monitoring would be carried out, for how long, etc.
A recent accident involving a child falling into the quarry continues fears that the quarry is not sufficiently secured by fencing. Mains Plantation does attract children and will continue to do so. Neither the proposed Section 75 nor Conditions appear to deal with the subject of fencing.
Home Headlines Contents Images Links
|
|
Both the present husbandry and the future reinstatement of the quarry concern residents.
This is due, in part, to the history of the quarry, and the apparent ineffectiveness of previous planning conditions. The existing quarry has had very little re-instatement, and recent re-instatement work lies in the path of the proposed extension.
The proposed Section 75 Agreement requires Tarmac to provide a Restoration Bond to guarantee the reinstatement of the completed works. Perhaps more detail of the Bond, its value, who would determine the amount, and how it would work in practice would provide comfort to residents.
We assume the the Council knows that Tarmac Northern Ltd (the applicant) ceased trading in 2001, and will therefore ensure that any Bond is paid for and guaranteed by the parent company Anglo American plc.
Home Headlines Contents Images Links
|
|
If the original 3 phase proposal had been granted, property values would have been damaged in the immediately surrounding areas of North Baljaffray and the Mains Estate. Few, if any residents in these areas were officially notified of the proposed extension, and remained in ignorance until the last moment. Surely the local authority has a responsibility to consider the impact on property values and those likely to be affected when deciding who should be notified of a major development in the area?
The new proposal is likely to have much less of an effect on values, if any at all. A good case can even be made for saying that the remediation proposals bound into the Section 75 Agreement are the best way to put to rights any shortcomings in the past, and, as such, represent a good and finite solution to the uncertainty surrounding the future of the quarry.
The best outcome for residents will be achieved If the Section 75 Agreement and Planning Conditions are demonstrably effective in delivering their objectives. If there is clear evidence that the reinstatement process has started, and an audit trail can be inspected at the Council offices, this will effectively eliminate any stigma which could negatively impact on property values. An enforceable guarantee that the exhausted quarry workings will not be used for landfill of any kind would be an essential ingredient of this process.
An up-to-date record of re-instatement works carried out, with a simple one page summary available on demand from the planning department would satisfy the normal planning enquiry carried out by a solicitor in the course of a property search.
|
If there are any additional issues you feel should be covered please contact us.
