Decision details

A report was presented on 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.

This application had been reported to the meetings of the Development Control Committee on 24 April 2024 and 17 July 2024. Committee had visited the site on 15 July 2024.

At the meeting of the Committee on 17 July 2024, a presentation had been received from an adjacent landowner raising various issues. Following discussion and debate, the Committee had resolved to defer consideration of the application, to allow a further drainage report to be submitted.  At the Committee meeting on 4 September 2024, the resolution had been amended to state that the drainage report should be an independent report.

The report included the views of LCC Lead Local Flood Authority and the LCC Drainage Engineer. No comments had been received from West Lancashire Borough Council, Newburgh Parish Council or the Environment Agency.

Committee's attention was drawn to the Update Sheet which included details of a further submission from Newburgh Parish Council enclosing photographs of the drainage issues at various locations around the site, which had been circulated to Members. In addition, the Update Sheet also included amendments to conditions 1a), 1b) and 2.

The Head of Development Control presented a Powerpoint presentation showing site location plans and an aerial view of the site, a plan showing permitted contours, current contours with amended restoration proposals, drainage proposals, a 1960s air photograph of the site and photographs of the views from Cobbs Brown Lane looking south and north, view over the site, view of the northern side of the site and view of the western boundary.

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

' I am borough councillor for this ward as well. UK Waste bragged in the late 1980s that it was to be the biggest domestic landfill site in the north of England. The residents of Newburgh, Dalton, Latham and the good people of Skelmersdale disagreed. This went to public inquiry and the Planning Inspector refused permission; residents were delighted. When proposals came forward for an inert site, they failed to realise the long term implications. You might find this hard to believe, but back then I was a young Bobby on the beat and this was my patch. That's the truth and nothing but the truth. The proposal today is all about water management, particularly along the western and northern edge of the site. The independent drainage consultant says there's no such continuous ditch. That's the truth. He says the applicant says that he has dug a ditch to catch all the water. That is not true. The landscape consultants say they've inspected the site, they repeat the statement about the new ditch. Did they not see there was no new ditch? Jonathan believes both statements, but has failed to check. He repeats for the third time a false statement. There is no new ditch. There is a recommendation to grant permission because they believe the new ditch will solve all the drainage problems. It will, but it doesn't exist, so it can't, and therefore you should not approve it until it's dug. Both the drainage and landscape consultants agree that the ditches, gullies and culverts are neglected or blocked. That's the truth. They both recommend sorting, but neither say by who. Neither do they say who will pay. You should not grant permissions until someone takes responsibility. Both consultants visited in August during dry weather, when undergrowth was dense. Their obligations were correct if they went now after wet weather in the winter, it's a different story. They would see the runoff into the fields. They would see the uneven bunds and water coming through the bunds across the roads, onto fields. This community has put up with problems from Round O for 35 years. No short five year management plan is good enough. There needs to be a long term plan to manage the aftercare of this site, otherwise the problems will recur. The applicant should use the extra revenue made by the old filter to cover this so that future generations don't have to put up with the mistakes of our generation.
We should tell the truth, not cover up. We should take responsibility and do the right thing and only grant permission when we know things are going to be right. First job, refuse and get the applicant to do what he says he's done. Dig the ditch, sort clearing the ditches, sort a long term plan then, and only then can we accept the recommendations of the drainage and landscape Consultants. Accept annual meetings, include the PC, then grant permission. Thank you.'

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

' Hi, I'm Mike Roughneen, Chair of Newburgh Parish Council. The PC is pleased to acknowledge that Dr Hardwick's report is independent and we are generally supportive of his findings, conclusions and recommendations. Three issues need addressing; drainage, landscaping and bund slippage. The main concern is that Dr Hardwick says the applicant has stated that they have provided new drainage ditches along the toe of the perimeter bund on the western side of the site, which captures any water running off the site in that direction towards the surrounding farmland. Oakbay design consultants repeat the assertion, as does Jonathan and his report. This is simply not the case. There is no new ditch. Dr Hardwick explains that there's no continuous ditch and obviously no onward  connection to any drain in the northwest corner of the perimeter, and it is likely that run off either infiltrates to the fields or continues as surface runoff west towards Lowe's Farm. And we agree.
However, Oakbay design and Jonathan failed to pick up this contradiction. Dr Hardwick is clear, there is no obvious water courses or drain outlet. He also acknowledges ditches require maintenance to maximise flow and minimise the risk of surface water. Similarly, he recognises that roadside ditches and gullies need cleaning. I sent photographs to this Committee which shows torrents of water emerging from the western bund, down the existing ditches across farmland because of blocked gullies and culverts. If the ditch existed as Jonathan assumes, then the PC would accept the landscape plans as submitted by Oakbay Design. Oakbay make too many false assertions. There has never been any landscaping and you keep repeating information about the ditch that does not exist. They say the boundaries are being inspected but fail to admit the ditch wasn't there. They do, however, agree ditches are overgrown and need maintenance, but don't suggest who should pay or take responsibility for that work. Oakbay provides short term management objectives for a 5 year plan, but no medium or long term objectives for future care. We require some assurances that there will be plans and funds available for the future. We should not burden future generations of our village with cheap, fast fixes. Because of the overfill, there has been a huge uplift in revenue gained by the applicant. We believe that a fraction of those windfall funds should be made available as a bond for long term aftercare. We would support proposal of an annual visit, but request the PC take part. There have been so many broken promises over the years with no enforcement.
This will not happen again. Once the owner digs the ditch he says he's done, once the run off is managed, then the PC will withdraw its objections. We believe the Committee should not support this application until this is done.
Thank you.'

Martin Ainscough, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

' Mr Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak again. You all know my comments from last time, how much I object to leaving this towering flat plateau in its current state, and how disappointing it is that the conditions imposed by this Committee have been totally ignored. We've made some progress, but I do feel there is a lot more to be done before rubber stamping this overtipping. I very much appreciate this Committee's request for a hydrology assessment at the last meeting, and I commend Paul Hardwick's assessment of the site which highlights the lack of drainage ditches on the site and on the perimeter. It fails to discuss the destination of drainage from the east to a culvert destination unknown in figure 6 of the report, which may historically have followed the line of trees through the pre-quarried site. If you look at the black and white photo from the 1960s on page 106 of your reports pack, you will see a road and ditch network on the fields. That doesn't exist - there is no drainage plan for the site itself, it just relies on permeation. The water now floods the fields to the north. The lack of permeability data on the site has been picked up by your county drainage engineer is also really pertinent. The swales to the north, and particularly northwest of the site, are welcomed. But where does this water go?
It just permeates into the site and into the fields to the west. The recommendation for ditches on my own and my neighbours land requires some clarification. They do not exist at the moment on the north and west sides, just a few holes dug and the water has nowhere to go. Who's going to form these ditches and who's going to maintain them? The proposal doesn't match up with the hydrological survey. Your report from your team says that there is work on slope stability, there is not. The structural stability of the perimeter mounds which, after all, are made-up of the soil which should have been returned to the surface of the landfill and never engineered to retain millions of tonnes of inert waste, has definitely not been proved. Are you really going to rely on casual opinion of a paid consultant? It's disappointing there's been only limited interaction from the Environment Agency, it would appear that the landfill permit is still alive and, before surrender, the applicant will have to satisfy the EA on perimeter stability and water runoff. How will this impact the very detailed timings if you were to grant permission? Would it not make sense to wait for that technical assessment and surrender of the permit before granting this permission? Finally, I would like to ask a question whether you can really rely on conditions to ensure this costly restoration of the site and detailed 10 year management - every one of the conditions laid down on this permission have been ignored. There are 20 conditions laid down here - what makes you think the applicant is going to comply this time? I think it's absolutely essential that you get a financial bond put in place or enter a section 106 agreement to make sure that this very generous absolution of extremely profitable illegal activity is allowed. Thank you very much.'

Martin Lovelock, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee and said the following:

' My name's Martin Lovelock. I am a consultant who worked on the application and have been involved in the site since 2021, at which time it was already closed. I'd like to comment on a number of issues. In terms of the site levels, the site is not visually intrusive, it's no higher at the highest point than it was under the permitted permission. There's some additional planting that has been proposed to fill the gaps around the perimeter to soften the impact. The landscaping scheme itself includes restoring the land to receive species of rich grasslands and wildflowers, removal of invasive weeds including Himalayan balsam, Japanese knotweed and dock, maintaining existing woodlands, periphery trees and other vegetation increasing native edge thicket and shrub planting belts and screen planting, maintaining and improving existing grasslands, creation of a pond, associated aquatic planting, wetland grass and reed species, provision of hibernacular mounds for wildlife and bird and bat boxes. In addition, at the county's request, hedges and hedgerow planting has been proposed along the historic lines, replicating the conditions at the site prior to quarrying. In terms of stability, I believe that the claims made are completely unfounded. There is no evidence whatsoever that the site is unstable or there is any instability along the perimeter. Beside, the perimeter bunds have been there for many years and it's my view as a geotechnical engineer, that stability is not an issue. Contamination - the landowner and permit holder undertakes routine quarterly environmental monitoring and there's no evidence whatsoever that the site's causing any contamination in the surrounding area. The Environment Agency agrees and has said so in their response. In terms of drainage, the picture at the top is not as a result of runoff from the landfill - this is a drain that takes water from underneath Cobbs Brow Lane, and the drain has simply become blocked with leaf litter that's been washed to the culvert that goes under Green Lane and blocks that – it is a maintenance issue. I walked the entire perimeter of the site yesterday - there is no evidence whatsoever of water running off the site. None of the photos provided on Monday show flooding in the fields around the site, despite the horrendous weather that befell West Lancs on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day - some of the heaviest rainfall on record. The existing ditches, and there are ditches on the southern boundary and on the western boundary, part of which is outside the boundary and part of which the northern section is inside the boundary wall, appear to have done their job.'

The Head of Development Control answered questions from Committee.

After a lengthy discussion, it was Proposed and Seconded that:

"The application be deferred to the next Committee meeting, pending further details being received on the swale feature and whether it provided adequate drainage, further detail being received on the management plan and confirmation of the Environment Agency's position".

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

Resolved: That the application be deferred to the next Committee meeting, pending further details being received on the swale feature and whether it provided adequate drainage, further detail being received on the management plan and confirmation of the Environment Agency's position.