Council and councillors

Nick Hodgett, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the application and gave an executive summary, recommending approval subject to conditions outlined in the report.

Prior to the debate the Committee received deputations from Richard Creasey who spoke as a member of the public opposing the recommendation, Ken Edward spoke as Chairman of Greetham Parish Council, John Gough spoke as the applicant and Councillor Nick Begy spoke as the Ward Member. The Committee also had the opportunity to ask questions of these speakers.

The applicant confirmed with Members that there would be no processing within 350m of any residential property or the community centre.

The applicant listed daily basis suppression measures for dust control such as haul roads will be sprayed, a dust buster which will catch any dust around the mineral processing plant using water spray, a requirement for a weather station on site which historically it didn’t previously have. In terms of wheel wash, vehicles leaving the site would go across a wheel wash and be sheeted when they exited the site.

The Environmental Health Officer explained to members that they had monitored the air quality for a year, and it was measured at a level of 7.9. National data suggested that it would be 16.9 but the measured level was 7.9. If above 17 microns, it had the potential for it to exceed the air quality standard. With the screening process at the level of 7, it was extremely unlikely that the 40 micrograms per metre cubed per day limits would ever be exceeded.

It was explained to Members that conditions were in place in case of any breaches occurred. Conditions 38 down to 42 within the report set out what was required of the operator and to ensure they were being compliant. If a breach did occur, then the operator would need to investigate that breach and notify the Council within two days.

The Environmental Health Officer informed the Committee that the nuisance dust that effected cars and exterior of buildings was not a health risk. The levels of dust would be measured by four frisbee style deposition gauges for nuisance dust deposition, for which the compliance dust-fall limit was 103 mg m-2 day-1. Monitoring would be undertaken periodically, the duration and frequency of which was set out in the Dust Management Plan.

Members raised concerns over the real time data and how any alerts would be reported. They felt the data should be readily available to the Council or even residents of Greetham. Officers responded by saying the real time data would not come to a council office, the data would be kept by the applicant and that the council could access and examine at any time. If a breach occurred or an alert had gone off, they had two days to notify the council.

Monitoring visits would take place on a regular basis to ensure the applicant was complaint with all the conditions and the data they held was sent to the council.

It was suggested by Councillor G Brown to include within the Dust Management Plan to set trigger points of dust at which there is notification, so residents can be satisfied that the operator is taking it seriously and that the information was made readily available, it was not commercially sensitive and that it could be provided online.

It was pointed out by the Environmental Health Officer that whilst PM2.5 can cause health problems, they were not a significant factor within the quarrying industry, the majority was within the 10 micron range from quarries. The PM2.5 level in Greetham was 5.7 micrograms per metre cubed.

Councillor Begy did point out that the recommended figures at the World Health Organisation in 2021, the levels of PM2.5 should not exceed 5 micrograms per metre cubed. He also stated that if the Committee was minded to refuse the proposal it would be on the precautionary principal, it was simply too close with too much doubt on the impact of the residents of Greetham who used the community centre and playing field. 

Councillor G Brown suggested a number of potential conditions should the committee be minded to approve. It was confirmed that the additional conditions suggested by Councillor G Brown would be discussed with the applicant following the deferral.

It was moved by Councillor Cross and seconded that the application be deferred and for it to be brought back to a future meeting. The reasons for deferral were:

-        The technology around the real time management and how it is delivered back to the office.

-        That the phase 4 boundary being omitted from the proposals.

Upon being put to the vote, with 5 votes in favour and 5 against, the motion was carried on the Chair’s casting vote.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2020/0297/MIN be DEFERRED to a future meeting.