Decision details

A report was presented on an application for quarry restoration at Dingle Quarry, Long Heys Lane, Dalton, WN8 7RF, by infilling with inert waste.

The report included the views of Dalton Parish Council, Up Holland Parish Council, Wrightington Parish Council, the Lead Local Flood Authority, LCC Ecology Service, the Environment Agency, Natural England, LCC Highways Development Control and LCC Public Rights of Way. No comments had been received from West Lancashire Borough Council. 199 representations objecting to the proposal had been received which had been summarised in the Committee report.

Committee's attention was drawn to the Update Sheet which stated that, although Committee had agreed to visit this site before considering the application, the site visit scheduled for Friday 10 January 2025 had had to be cancelled, due to the weather conditions. However, it was considered that the powerpoint presentation attached to the report contained sufficient visual information to allow members to understand the context of the site and its surroundings to make an informed decision on the proposal.

The Principal Planner presented a Powerpoint presentation showing the site location plan and aerial views, site levels and sections, and photographs of Lees Lane, Long Heys/Back Lane, the site entrance gate, cave/mine feature, quarry face, typical view into the site, trial pit, typical trial pit and excavated material.

County Councillor John Fillis addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Thank you Chair, and thank you Committee. Basically, when these heavy good vehicles come in or heavy truck vehicles come in, they'll be coming through my area, especially through Wrightington. Dalton is about 500 yards away from my area finishing. It's actually in Rob Bailey's area. Now the problems start here with the vehicle movement. It doesn't actually identify in these pictures, but Appley Lane South is at the top of a hill and it bends right into Lees Lane. This is surrounded by farm buildings, so these heavy good vehicles coming from the Wrightington area would cross the actual road and the road at the top narrows down and then curves around so you can't see the vehicles coming up, the vehicles coming up can't see you and so we're going to have these heavy vehicles trying to get across a very narrow road and being blocked by the sight of these farm buildings all around. We then get into Lees Lane; now it was identified in the report that a vehicle could get along there. But if you're looking to fill this quarry, you'll be having vehicles coming off and going on to Lees Lane at the same time, so they would basically block each other because the road is too narrow to take two of these vehicles at the same time. So we'd have some of these vehicles either trying to have a passing point or they would have to reverse backwards along Lees Lane. Now Lees Lane has been identified quite correctly by the officers - very narrow, a lot of blind bends and twists and turns. This would not only create a problem for the drivers, it would create a huge hazard for anybody else using vehicles along those roads. It would be totally dangerous to anybody trying to cycle down those roads because you tend to move away because there's no pavement when you're cycling down these roads, and when you walk and you do the same, you move away from the muddy edges because it's just a track really along there. And then when you turn into Hayes Lane then that just gets even worse. I went up there and I know you've been yourselves - one side of it, the road is actually gone, and it looks like a self built stream because you can actually put your hands underneath the road, it's that bad. So on DM2 alone, I fully support the officer's recommendation for refusal.'

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

'Good morning, everybody. I'm Katie Juckes, Ward councillor for West Lancs rural east. My ward is made-up of the parishes of Dalton, Newburgh, Parbold and Wrightington, which includes Appley Bridge. This application impacts on Dalton and Appley Bridge. All these parishes have historical links to quarrying, and in more recent years, many have had land filled. Within 2 miles of this site, there are 8 landfills, some infilled with domestic waste, while others filled within inert waste. This represents a considerable concentration of landfill on a relative small area and therefore a very negative cumulative impact on our communities. LCC failed to recognize this in their screening opinion, save for HGV movements. These landfills have all come with conditions, promises, but more importantly, problems. Consequently, residents have become well aware of potential impacts. This site has an unregulated chequered history that was stopped by intervention of the Planning Inspectorate many years ago. This application is to fill with inert waste against the advice of the Environment Agency. Therefore, the Environment Agency object. The applicant's claim no need for an environmental impact assessment. If this was true, then the Environment Agency would not be able to monitor. The Environment Agency has recommended dual tracking but this appears not to have been done. Why not? There are warning signs here for the communities that have plenty of experience regarding non compliance within the waste industry. Residents need to be reassured of Environment Agency involvement against the advice of LCC screening opinion. Since being abandoned over 40 years, the site has naturally regenerated. Thankfully, the LCC ecologist recognised the huge biodiversity value of the site. Considerable efforts have been made in this part of the Douglas Valley to encourage wildlife and plant life, and to landfill here would significantly harm that hard work. Apply Bridge already has huge concerns regarding numbers of HGVs; to landfill here would exacerbate the problem. The preferred route is along Appley Lane South turning into Lees Lane; this is a dangerous blind corner on a bank with farm buildings on two sides and two Grade II listed buildings on the other two corners. The road narrows past a residential nursing home before coming along the single winding track. After that, the road provides the only access between the two biggest farms in the Valley. LCC highways recognise this in their comments that Lees Lane is a country lane, but appears not to have taken on board the full, complex cumulative impact of a difficult two way access. Can you imagine a worse access scenario where busy farm machinery meet 18 waste HGVs – care home traffic, local residents all meeting on the single track or at the complicated junction? Please refuse'.

Susan Vickers, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'I am here representing my husband, Peter and I and the greater Dalton community. We live at Oak Cottage, which is at the junction of Lees Lane and Long Heys Lane, and our home and our lives will be directly impacted should you approve this application. Our home is just 95 metres from the proposed site and the resultant noise from this site from vehicles beeping, revving up as they try to ascend Long Heys Lane, plus the continual vibrations from them, together with the light pollution from security lighting and most importantly the dust that we would undoubtedly have to live with, would seriously impact our quality of life and may result in our inability to use our outdoor space during summer months. Had you had the opportunity to visit the site, you would have seen first hand the conditions of the roads surrounding it, starting with the dangerous corner that the HGVs would need to negotiate at the junction of Appley Lane South and Lees Lane. Long Heys Lane itself is a designated public footpath, and at its narrowest point is just 2.8 metres wide, clearly unsuitable for large HGVs. The country roads around us are a magnet for walkers, cyclists and wildlife watchers, and approving this application would clearly impact on the safety of those users. The site itself is a valley rich in biodiversity and is designated in the West Lancashire Plan as being a landscape of regional importance. It is a sanctuary for birds and wildlife, and particularly for the families of deer that find a haven there. The ecological damage to this site, should this be approved, will be devastating and a total destruction of an environmental biodiverse landscape. Your own LCC ecologist together with the Environment Agency opposes; I truly hope you will too. But finally, there is simply no need for the infilling of this landscape. You have recently approved the infilling of Raven Head Quarry, just some 3 miles down the road with a capacity of 1,000,000 cubic metres. Your own minerals and waste plan clearly states you have sufficient capacity to meet the future needs of Lancashire. I urge you to follow the advice of your planning officer in refusing this application and allowing my husband and I, together with the other 197 residents of Dalton, who oppose this, to continue to enjoy the peaceful environment in which we live. Thank you for listening to me.'

Geoffrey Ward, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Good morning, we've lived at Cross House farm, not too far from the quarry for the last three years.
We've spent a considerable amount of time rewilding our lake, creating a wildlife haven. We've got kingfishers, we've got herons, we've got hares. I've even got an Otter taking a few fish out of the lake, but nevertheless what it's demonstrating is the streams of the Douglas that come into this area and into my lake are wonderful. You know, we walk past this quarry every day with our dog, it's just a fantastic wildlife haven and there's a document that I've come across, the West Lancs SPG natural areas and areas of landscape written by a guy called Steven Byron. When I look at that document and I think what the aspiration was, we've got there. To fill in this quarry would be an absolute disaster. I'll be honest, you got rock faces with owls, barn owls, you've got bats, there's stoats - it's just made. We've done it, we've got there and what's happened, that rewilding has happened on its own over time.
There's no way now we should be considering filling this in. Thank you.'

Eric Mclennan, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Good morning, everyone, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm the nearest resident, I live at Tew Cottage. I have to say I didn't organise all the 199 objections. We of course, are going to be most affected by the noise, dust, smells, etc - I'll comment later if I have time. I made a detailed response on all aspects of the application which ran to 32 pages, I hope you've had the opportunity to review it.
If not, I believe all the other objectors are speaking on these matters. What I'd like to turn to is an enforcement notice of 1994 issued by Lancashire County Council for the making of a material change of use of the land, by using the land for the deposit of refuse or waste material without planning permission in the Greenbelt area special landscape, contrary to policies 14, 17, 106 of the Lancashire structure plan giving rise to the risk of pollution of surface underground waters and an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the locality. The owner is required to (1) stop the use of the land for the deposit of refuse or waste material (2) remove from the land all the refuse or waste material deposited thereon. The landowners appealed and a public inquiry held by written representations and a site visit by the Planning Inspector in January 1995. The Secretary of State issued a decision notice in March 1995. The inspector noted the site had been disused for some 20 years and naturally revegetated with a large number of semi matures and varied flora and fauna. He referred to policy 106 of the structure plan, in particular relating to landfill capacities available, traffic impact locally and wider, landscape impact, built environment impact, potential for pollution. He also commented upon the appellant's contention these were operational works to permit a future quarry, which he concluded was not the case and dismissed that part of the appeal. In respect of a deemed planning application, the inspector considered the developments contrary to Greenbelt policy. With regard to policy 106, he concluded there was no demonstrable need for this infilling, he recorded the areas unsuitable for traffic, there would be an adverse impact on the community, overall he concluded there were no material justifications and refused the appeal. He upheld Lancashire County's enforcement notice requiring the waste to be removed.
So some 30 years on, we find ourselves in the same position as before. The arguments and policies have not effectively changed. However, if the committee were now minded to approve this application, they would be going against their previous decisions in issuing an enforcement notice and more importantly, those of the Secretary of State for the Environment, which is an invidious position to put yourselves into. I believe the enforcement notice is still alive as the removal condition 2 has not been complied with. Therefore, the existing waste should be removed rather than any more waste deposited. In conclusion, I would ask you to refuse the application.'

After a discussion, it was:

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

(i)  Site operations would be likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the environment by virtue of noise, dust, general disturbance, and water pollution risk contrary to Policy DM2 of the Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

(ii)  The applicant has not clearly demonstrated the nature and extent of potential impacts on protected species, and site operations would be likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on existing ecological interests at the site contrary to Policy DM2 of the Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan and Policy EN2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan.

(iii)  The movement of heavy goods vehicles to and from the site along Long Heys Lane and Lees Lane would be likely to cause unacceptable highway safety impacts on pedestrians, cyclists and other road users contrary to Policy DM2 of the Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.