Rejected expansion plans for a quarry near Pontypridd are set go before the Rhondda Cynon Taf council’s planning committee again to clarify queries over its reasons for refusal.
Hanson UK, which runs Craig yr Hesg quarry on Berw Road in Glyncoch, had applied for a western expansion of the site and a separate application for permission to keep operating at the site for six more years.
But both applications were rejected by the council’s planning committee and now, following appeals being submitted against both, the applications will go back before the committee on Thursday, February 10, for it to clarify certain points about the refusals.
Read more: You can find mores stories from across Rhondda Cynon Taf here.
To support the decision of the council at appeal, officers have sought independent external planning advice from a planning consultancy.
The advice from the planning consultancy is that the council has reached a conclusion that is “justified on planning grounds” although the consultants think those grounds cover some wider matters than set out in the reasons for refusal.
These include the question of non-compliance with policies of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and the appointed agent is of the opinion that in defending the decision of members it would be appropriate to make reference to relevant LDP policies.
The application for a western extension of the quarry
The first application was for both a western extension to the existing quarry to include the phased extraction of an additional 10 million tonnes of pennant sandstone, construction of screening bunds and for consolidation of all previous mineral planning permissions at the quarry including an extension of end date for quarrying to 2047 and an overall restoration by 2049.
Planning permission was refused on July 23, 2020, because “the proposed quarry extension encroaches within 200m of sensitive development and the council does not consider that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence of clear and justifiable reasons for reducing the minimum distance in this case,” according to the official reason for refusal.
The applicant suggested an inconsistency in the second committee report from July 9, 2020, as it said a condition could be imposed to regulate the annual output of the quarry (400,000 tonnes per year), which would be accepted by the applicant but a condition was not proposed to stop it from working within 200m of sensitive development.
Hanson disputes the need for such a condition but argues, as an alternative, that such a condition could be imposed if the inspector considers it necessary.
It also said that since the reason for refusal does not specify any LDP policies, it can be deduced that the council is not relying on any alleged conflict with the policies and proposals of the LDP.
But the planning consultancy said it has not been demonstrated that the extension of quarrying operations at the site from 2022 to 2047, together with new operations within the proposed western extension area, could be satisfactorily undertaken without giving rise to adverse impacts upon the amenity of people in the immediate proximity of the site in respect of noise and dust or that suitable controls or compensatory measures could mitigate these impacts in a satisfactory way.
The application to extend quarrying for another six years until 2028
The second application was for the continuation of quarrying without complying with some conditions issued by the council in 2013.
Revised conditions were proposed which would have allowed continued operations to 2028 (instead the current agreed deadline of December 2022) but this was refused on October 8, 2021, because “the additional period of six years proposed for the working of the quarry unacceptably extends the period of mineral operations within 200m of sensitive development within Glyncoch”.
“Glyncoch is a deprived community, and such communities are acknowledged as being disproportionately affected by health problems.
“The continuation of quarrying within 200m of that community extends the impacts of quarrying (especially in terms of noise, dust, and air quality) to the detriment of the amenity and well-being of residents contrary to the well- being goal of a healthier Wales as set out in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
“The need for the mineral does not outweigh the amenity and well-being impacts,” according to the official reason for refusal.
But Hanson has suggested there is some inconsistency between the reasons for refusal for the two applications because the reason for refusal of the western extension is confined to concerns regarding the encroachment of quarrying operations within 200m of sensitive development.
Hanson said there is no reference or concern expressed with regard to issues associated with the ongoing quarrying or processing in the existing quarry with respect to health amenity or well-being issues; or, to the need for the mineral not outweighing amenity and well-being impacts.
Hanson said it considered there is a need to address this suggested inconsistency and members are asked to confirm they were also mindful of the wider health and well-being issues in relation to the western extension application.
Members are also asked to clarify if their concerns in relation to that application were limited to the new western extension area or also applied to the site overall.
Members are also asked to clarify if they consider a condition to stop extraction or processing within 200m of sensitive development would address their concerns.
On the application to extend the time of quarrying until 2028, the planning consultancy said it has not been demonstrated that the quarry operations on the site could be extended without giving rise to an adverse impact upon the amenity of sensitive development in the immediate proximity of the site, or that suitable controls or compensatory measures could mitigate these amenity impacts to a satisfactory degree.
To get the latest email updates from WalesOnline click here.
