Decision details

A report was presented on an application for an amendment to Condition 6 of planning permission 8/10/0241, to allow approval of amended restoration contours together with the submission of a restoration and aftercare scheme to comply with Conditions 29 and 31 of planning permission 8/10/0241 at Round O Quarry, Cobbs Brow Lane, Lathom.

The report included the views of West Lancashire Borough Council, Newburgh Parish Council, the Environment Agency and the Lancashire Badger Group. Three representations objecting to the application had been received.

An updated Powerpoint presentation had been circulated to Committee (copy attached).

The Head of Development Control presented a Powerpoint presentation showing site location plans and an aerial view of the application site, plan showing permitted contours, current contours with restoration proposals, and photographs of the view from Cobbs Brow Lane looking south and north, the view over the site, the view of the northern side of the site and the view of the western boundary.

Mr Martin Ainscough, adjacent landowner, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'I own the land to the north east of the south of the site. Despite over 31 conditions imposed in 2012, the operation has totally ignored them. Your team last visited in 2013 and sadly failed to enforce the main tool you, the committee, uses to control development and preserve our environment.

Condition 3 required details of the removal of the perimeter bounds, it's now OK to keep them. Condition 6 stated that levels were not to exceed agreed levels, which you've seen on the screen just now. It's now OK to accept millions of tonnes of hugely profitable over-tipping. Condition 7 stated that the topographical survey shall be submitted to you, the County Planning authority annually; why was this never asked for?

Condition 27 states that the mounds shall be kept free of vegetation; they were never planted as you've just stated. The fact that this was never done is seen as the reason to keep the mounds. As a result, we have a devastating example of overtipping of millions of profitable tonnes up to the top of the mounds, which should have been removed. And when you have an alien landscape scarred by a huge flat 10 metre tall, 50 acre on landscape heap of who knows what, the hydrology of the area has been seriously impacted, despite what you've just said, and with the blocking of historic water courses across the site leading to the runoff in times of flood and constantly waterlogged fields to the north and west. Now, rather than requiring the operator to put things right, you're being recommended to just roll over and recommend granting retrospective planning permission and this is wrong. In your advice, Mr Haine states that you can make a judgment - please make a judgment that this should be put right.

There's no landscape impact assessment; this is the landscape of historic importance. The site, where 2,000 of Cromwell's parliamentarian troops besieged Lathom House in 1644 and 1645; it is registered of local importance. The bunds should be removed, the site reprofiled to be a more sympathetic rolling landscape, which is what it stated in the original application. The landscape plan I think is really poor and is unsympathetic and amateur. Who plants buddleia, an invasive species, it's just ridiculous, and please refuse this and make them do something more sympathetic on this site.'

Mr Steven Faulkner, West Lancashire Borough Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'I'm the planning services manager for West Lancashire Borough Council. The Borough Council objected some 18 months ago to this application, based largely on issues relating to ecological impacts dating back to 2021 and 2022, and we raised points and objection that it's really important to establish whether the proposal can be mitigated based on ecological advice and suggested recommendations.

A considerable period of time has elapsed since our objection was raised, and it's unclear from the report and associated planning conditions what action might have taken place with regard to those details and following our formal objection, and it is concerning that we've not been informed on the more up to date basis and being afforded a further opportunity to comment.

It's also noted that the officer report refers to a restoration statement dated the 6th of December 2023. The report recommendation and subsequent five conditions don't appear to cover whether this or other submitted documentation addresses the specific ecological comments that were provided from me to County in August 2022.

I've also noted that Condition 3 requires various works to be completed within three months of the date of the planning permission, and would ask your officers whether they believe it's realistic for those works to be completed within the express time frame, avoiding what may well be an inevitable breach of condition, whilst ensuring that the site is free at that point of invasive species, and we would also query whether or not the site will be monitored for compliance within that time frame.

We consider this autumn and winter grazing only ought to take place to ensure that biodiversity values are maintained, and we'd also request clarity on the provision of bat boxes to be provided, as the submitted restoration plan did not show this at the time of submission. We'd also ask on what basis your officers have concluded that there would be no impact on badger setts and whether this is informed by the expert advice of County ecologists. It is also unclear to us who has undertaken to be responsible for the habitat works and long term maintenance. It is important that these details are secured, so we believe that the report is lacking clarity over ecological mitigation works and consider if the application should be approved, it lacks a range of further conditions to ensure that biodiversity values are maintained.

So it's recommended from our side as Borough Council that members at the very least defer the application to enable further consideration of those ecological impacts.'

Councillor Katie Juckes, West Lancashire Borough Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'This site has a very long history from being an active quarry to present. In the early 90s, at appeal, the Planning Inspectorate refused permission for domestic waste. In 1999, planning was granted with 44 conditions to infill within inert waste. Those conditions included access via the M58 and dual carriageway within 150 metres of the site. Another condition was to restore the site after 10 years to agriculture at original levels. In 2010, permission was granted for 31 conditions to extend the life of the landfill. This timeline and the number of conditions is very important to Newburgh Village. It is now 25 years that they have endured amenity loss. The conditions were not met, lorries plagued the village and they did not follow the designated route. The developer has not accepted responsibility for abiding by the original permissions and conditions. This is an example of a planning system that hasn't worked.

This application is blatant; it requires you to grant permission to regulate the unregulated.  Simply it was wrong. They don't want to put it right and they want you to say OK. There is up to 10 metres overfill on the northern boundary, around 4 metres over the mound. The six metre earth mounds were not calculated or engineered to hold back saturated waste. They fulfill a purpose they were not intended to. The surface is plateau like, alien to the rolling landscape the previous decisions intended to mimic. The mounds clearly block views and impact on the openness of the Green Belt, in spite of Jonathan's claim that they don't. That's why we're here today.

Activity has been hidden behind the mounds – it's a case of out of sight out of mind. There was no drainage plan, there are rushes on the surface and on fields, down from the site. The mounds leak secrete water into farmers ditches - the developer has never cleared them. The mounds on the western side have slumped. The ditches and local wells run red; this may be iron oxide. It does occur locally, but not when there is a huge void behind full of waste. No agency has tested it. The villagers need reassurance.

The site is shielded from the road by an ancient line of trees planted by the Lathom estate hundreds of years ago. There has been no landscaping since the mounds are otherwise self-seeded because of neglect over 40 years of no control. The damage is done. The developer has made no compromise. Before you is a cheap and simple plan.

Finally, if this Committee is to recommend permissions with conditions, then the public should have confidence that those conditions are to be adhered to and not flouted. Doing so undermines confidence in the planning system.'

Councillor Mike Roughneen, Newburgh Parish Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Round O Quarry has brought problems to our village since the year 2000, when it was granted permission for an inert landfill. We have lost track of the number of times we have written to the county council and the Environment Agency over the years and received no satisfactory outcome. The overwhelming concerns are being with lorries that have used our village as a shortcut from the A5209, instead of using the motorways of the site. Their movements went unrestricted and now we have an overfill problem.

The LCC portal does not show or represent the number of emails we have sent; the last entry from our PC was 18 months ago. There have been a lot more. In July 2022, we drew LCC's attention to our concern of the lack of formal monitoring after 2013, and the absence of the annual topographic surveys that should have indicated the landfill was nearing capacity at that time. We also drew attention to the fact that this village suffers from excess surface water during periods of rainfall. Our concerns went unheeded. In August 2023, we received a letter from Arley Consultants on behalf of Inglenorth. They claim that overfilling does not completely lie with the operator, who then? While this activity has no doubt provided great economic benefits to Inglenorth, it has left the village to endure many thousands of extra vehicle movements.

Now this application is recommended for approval, even though Mr Haine acknowledges that it was the site operator who took the decision to landfill the site to the crest of the perimeter mounding. Arley asked us to withdraw our objection to the restoration plan. Their letter states that the former quarry has been restored with 'primarily' inert waste. They say there is no evidence to suggest that as being excessive settlement, nor would it be likely, given the largely inert nature of its waste disposal. The PCH asked for clarity, but had no answer. Is it largely or primarily inert waste? We want to know what is else is in the site. We do not want the removal of the excess material as we acknowledge it will bring further disruption to our village. However, it is important to us that concerns raised by our residents are met. These relate to regrading the site to create shape, improved drainage and help blend in with the original landscape, plant hedgerows to create fields instead of scrub land. The western bund is slumping, though it appears nobody can see it and needs investigating. Drainage should be improved by positioning the pond and drainage channels to the south and west of the site to alleviate flooding on farmland. The orange coloured water in the ditches needs investigating. A future management plan, not 10 years, but into the future, with a bond to pay for aftercare if the size is necessary - we know what lack of monitoring and neglect means.

We have raised these concerns before but have had no replies. Our refusal today may well be the only solution. Please refuse this application.'

Mr Martin Lovelock, speaking on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'I'd just like to say that we prepared the application in good faith and we feel that the proposals balance the risks of enforcement and removal of material against ecological. You can argue that there's a lot of ecological damage being caused, but the trees around the perimeter whether they're self-seeded or not offer a wide, diverse ecological setting. The planting or landscaping that's on the surface of the site is of far more ecological value than the agricultural field that was proposed. In terms of environmental impacts and pollution, the Environment Agency, as consultee, has accepted that there is no evidence of that. The operator/landowner complies with their environmental permit in terms of sampling, routine sampling and analysis, monitoring, reporting and they have submitted topographic surveys to the council throughout the process. I think that the objectors feel that they want some recourse but they don't want obviously trucks through the villages again, so I think this offers a balanced and satisfactory solution to the situation that has arisen and I hope that you can see that the additional works proposed offer further benefits and that you'll support the application.'

The officers answered questions from Committee.

After a discussion, it was Proposed and Seconded:

"That the application be deferred pending a site visit, and that a copy of the previous planning permission be circulated to Committee, prior to the site visit taking place."

Upon being put to the Vote, the Motion was Carried.

Resolved:

(i)  That the application be deferred pending a site visit.

(ii)  That a copy of the previous planning permission be circulated to Committee, prior to the site visit taking place.