MINUTES of SPECIAL MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on THURSDAY 13 SEPTEMBER
2018 at 2.30 pm
Councillor Alasdair MacPHERSON (in the Chair)
Councillor Maureen BENNISON
Councillor Neil BENNY
Councillor Douglas DODDS
Councillor Chris KANE
Councillor Graham LAMBIE
Councillor Jeremy McDONALD
Councillor Evelyn TWEED
Stephen Boyle, Transport Development Control Officer
Christine Cox, Service Manager, Planning & Building Standards
Jay Dawson, Development Management Team Leader
Tony Mason, Lead Solicitor (Clerk)
Mary Love, Committee Officer (Minute)
PL165 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Apologies were submitted on behalf of Councillor Alistair Berrill. There were no
PL166 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
PL167 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR
There were no items of urgent business.
PL168 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1997 TO REMOVE CONDITION 14 OF PLANNING PERMISSIONTO PERMIT THE IMPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF INERTOFQUARRY AT COWIEHALL QUARRY, COWIE, FK7 7DN -
PATERSONS OF GREENOAKHILL LTD - 18/00190/FUL – HEARING
This was a planning application under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, to develop land without compliance with a condition (Condition 14) attached to the previous permission granted in 1998. The proposal was classified as a ‘major’ development and so required to be determined at the Planning and Regulation Panel in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation. This application would be the subject of a Hearing.
This report formed the Report of Handling for the planning application in compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
The Chair outlined the new Hearing procedures in place.
The Development Management Team Leader introduced the report which provided details of (a) the site; (b) the proposal and (c) previous history d) consultations and (e) assessment.
The Chair thanked the Development Management Team Leader for his presentation.
Agent for Applicant
Mr Kemp Lindsey presented his case in favour of the application. He provided a brief update on the reason for the application and advised the Panel that Patersons had a legal obligation to the farmer who owned Mains of Throsk Farm to return the land and working areas surrounding the quarry back to agricultural land. It was noted that there was a shortfall of landfill to achieve actual restoration to the area, in order to remove a potential hazard of water retention within the site. If the Panel were minded to approve the application, this process would not commence until the end of operations, with restoration being within the allocated timescale. It was noted that 300k tonnes of
materials had been extracted annually, however volume of extraction of landfill would result in a 30 - 50% reduction in traffic.
The Chair thanked Mr Lindsey for his presentation.
Mr Morton presented his case against the application, on behalf of Throsk Community Council. Mr Morton raised concerns around: the number of vehicles travelling through the village; sand blocking drains; lorries not being washed by the machines available to them and who would be monitoring this process and the type of waste being disposed of. He asked why the backfill issue had taken this length of time to occur and whether Patersons were prepared to offer traffic calming measures.
The Chair thanked Mr Lindsey for his presentation and opened up the meeting to questions from the Panel.
In response to a question from the Panel, Mr Lindsey confirmed that the waste would be made up from stones and soil from the site clearance and that under the terms of the Waste Management License, strictly monitored by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the nature of the waste would be specified, therefore SEPA would only grant for this and regularly inspect the site for compliance, should the application be approved. Mr Lindsey added that some waste could include demolition waste, which was classed as inert waste by SEPA.
Discussion took place around Condition 22 to the report: Good Neighbour Agreement and Mr Lindsey advised that should the Panel agree the application, the Company would adhere to the conditions set out and ensure a point of contact to deal with any issues. Steps had previously been taken to address issues of dust, with road sweepers being used in Main Street in Throsk. It was noted that other hauliers would likely be contracted to transport the waste in this instance and would also be required to sign up to quarry managers transport rules, thus adhering to Condition 22. Mr Lindsey added that any complaints received were logged by quarry management.
In response to a question from the Panel, Mr Lindsey went on to explain the restoration process.
Discussion also took place around community benefit following restoration and it was noted that Patersons did not have restoration awards but did grant benefits where appropriate. The surface area was beyond Patersons’ control and there was reluctance from the farmer to allow a water body on his land, therefore, the most appropriate solution was to return it to arable land. Mr Lindsey added that Patersons could look to support a project and suggested that Throsk Community Council liaise with the company regarding this matter. However, he added that as he was not the owner, he was not in a position to specify which project to support.
In response to a question from the Panel to Mr Morton regarding matters he wished to be included within the Good Neighbour Agreement, Mr Morton replied that he would like reassurance that the waste being used for landfill would be stones and soil from the site clearance. It was also noted that it would be beneficial for a representative from Patersons to attend Throsk Community Council meetings to discuss any issues pertinent to this process.
An in depth discussion then took place around the potential for traffic calming measures and it was noted that there would need to be justification for this.
In accordance with Standing Order 80, the meeting adjourned at 3.30 pm to allow further discussion between Officers, the Chair and Vice Chair.
The meeting re-convened at 3.38 pm with all Members present.
The Panel agreed to
approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in Appendix 1 attached to the report and the additional condition that traffic calming measures for Throsk shall be installed following discussion and agreement with the Roads Service; and
the satisfactory review and updating of the current restoration bond to take account of the environmental implications of the alternative restoration scheme and projected costs.
The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 11.40 am