Agenda item

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding a planning application for an easterly extension of the existing sand extraction area, extend the end date for quarry operations and restoration and amend the approved restoration schemes at Kingsley Quarry, Bordon. Application No. 51188/003. Ref: EH025.

Eastern extension of the existing sand extraction area, extend the end date ot quarry operations and restoration and amend the approved restoration schemes at Kingsley Quarry, Bordon, Hampshire (EIA) (No. 51188/003) (Site Ref: EH025)

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Strategic Planning regarding an application for an extension to the sand extraction area, and extension to the end date for quarry operations and amendments to the restoration schemes.

The Officer introduced the item and the Committee was shown aerial photographs of the site and its location. Access routes were highlighted, as well as the pipeline used to move product between the two site areas.

The constraints for the application were shown, including the South Downs National Pak (SDNP) and various water courses. The dredger used to remove mineral from the lake was shown, along with photos showing the lake used when in operation. Photos of the proposed extension area were also shown. The former railway embankment within the extension area had many trees in poor condition that would require removal, and it was proposed that more tree planting would take place as part of the application.

There were no plans to change any of the operational conditions at the site and the export of sand would continue using the main access to the site. Proposed restoration plans were also shared with the Committee.

It was confirmed that there was a 10 year requirement to extract silica sand as opposed to 7 years due to silica being a specialist mineral. Kingsley and Frith End Quarry were the only two Hampshire sites able to extract and process it.

The Committee received two deputations on this item.

Steve Lamb spoke on behalf of the applicant, emphasising the importance of the sand processed at the site, a lot of which was used by Premiership football clubs and high end sporting venues/events. The dredger used was silent with no noise implications. Kingsley had almost depleted its reserves and so it was crucial that operations started again as soon as possible. The applicant had consulted with many different partners and was looking to implement liaison meetings again with the local community.

Councillor Mark Kemp-Gee addressed Committee on behalf of the Parish Council. It was felt important that the applicant liaise and get involved with the community in order to build and maintain a positive relationship. The Parish Council did not object to the application, but wanted implications for the local community to be mitigated – predominantly lorries travelling through, which was felt to be the biggest issue to residents. There were particular concerns for parents with young children and also older people with the size of lorries and frequency they went through the village. Councillor Kemp-Gee proposed that the output of sand be restricted to 100,000 tonnes per annum and concrete crushing limited to 5,000 tonnes per annum.

During questions of deputations, the following points were clarified:

-       Kingsley was situated on a main road network and vehicles relating to the Tarmac operation formed a very small percentage of overall traffic.

-       Concrete crushing had been considered and found unacceptable and there were no proposals to increase activity going forward.

-       Condition 34 related to how many days a year the concrete crushing took place, as there was not a crusher kept on site. 36 days was felt to be sufficient.

-       The applicant was aware of the proposal to limit the output of sand to 100,000 tonnes per annum but not the request to limit concrete crushing limited to 5,000 tonnes per annum.

-       The concrete crushing could take place elsewhere, but the site was ideal with appropriate infrastructure to do it.

-       No direct application had been made to the community fund for a pedestrian crossing and this had not been prioritised as the applicant had discovered there was potential funding for traffic calming from the Bordon Development, although this had been found to not be sufficient enough to cover the costs.

-       Of the 369 HGV movements recorded in 2019, 52 had been related to sand 16 related to aggregate.

-       The applicant had funded £16 million of projects nationally, but no request had been received by Kingsley.

-       Concerns around traffic calming measures had been raised with Highways, but it was felt that the development didn’t trigger the need for further traffic calming.

During questions of officers, the following points were clarified:

-       Conditions 15-17 were with regards to noise. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) had been involved in the process and raised no subsequent concerns.

-       There was a need for the site to be safeguarded for aggregate recycling. Planning permission had already been granted for the concrete crushing and no complaints had been received.

-       There hadn’t been many issues recently to warrant a liaison panel, but the need had become apparent and this would be re-established to monitor activities going forward.

-       There were a range of measures that could be put in place going forward, including signage and operator protocol around operations and vehicle driver awareness.

-       No noise complaints had been received.

Debate

The site had been visited by the majority of Members, but it was agreed that there was a disappointing history with a lack of liaison between the applicant and local community. There were other successful cases where the community funding has been sought and used well, and this was encouraged for Kingsley.

It was proposed that the Local Member should be Chairman of the liaison panel.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was GRANTED subject to the conditions listed in the update report.

Voting:

Favour: 9 (unanimous)