Quarry Liaison Group Minutes from January & February
Greetham Quarry Liaison Group
Notes of meeting No 1 held on 20th January 2020
Present: Mick George Ltd: Darren Griffiths (Area Ops Manager), John Gough, (Planning)
RCC & NCC
Nick Hodgett, (Planning Officer), Phil Watson (NCC)
(Northamptonshire deal with RCC Minerals issues)
Residents: Don Mcgarrigle, John Dyson, Mark Watkinson
Parish Councillors Jane Denyer & Dave Hodson
Ward Member Nick Begy
1. Terms of reference
· To provide an open forum for the exchange of information and views concerning the current quarry operation and any future planning application for the extension to quarrying.
· To seek to minimise the environmental impact of the quarry operation on residents.
Frequency of meetings
Initially monthly, and adjusted to suit circumstances thereafter.
Record of meetings
It was agreed that the minutes of meetings should be in the public domain.
Reporting of issues by the public and Parish
Council to relevant organisations
In the first instance, residents will be requested to raise issues with the Parish Council Clerk, (with time, date photos etc) Jayne Isaac. She will forward these (together with a complaints log) to:
Mick George Ltd at firstname.lastname@example.org
RCC at email@example.com
Ideally there should be a response from these organisations acknowledging receipt of the issue within a few days, with the contact details of the person whom is going to deal with it.
If this is not received, then people to contact are Calham Morton (MG Ltd, Customer Service) and Justin Johnson RCC Development Manager)
5. Review of current quarry issues and compliance with 2004 planning conditions
5.1 John Gough said that currently no issues had been reported to MG Ltd.
5.2 A copy of the Quarry petition and covering letter was handed over and MG Ltd were asked for a formally response to this. Action – John Gough
It was noted that the
planning conditions required that “Within 3 months of the date of the
permission, noise monitoring measures shall be implemented, in accordance with
a scheme approved by the Director of Environmental Services”
Neither of the representatives from MG Ltd or RCC were aware of any such scheme. Both were asked to investigate and report back to the group within the next two weeks. Action – John Gough & Nick Hodgett
5.4 Mark Watkinson had prepared a document (attached) outlining the planning conditions and compliance concerns. Both John Gough (MG) and Nick Hodgett (RCC)were asked to respond to this document with a description of the measures which MG Ltd are taking to comply with the planning consent. Action – John Gough
Jane Denyer requested
that MG Ltd sent a reminder to companies who send lorries to the quarry
regarding the need for sheeting as several cases of non compliance had been
Action John Gough
Application for extension to the Quarry
John Gough described the proposal for the quarry extension and said that a planning application would be presented in the next couple of weeks. He was asked to send Jane Denyer a copy of the extension plans which he had presented at the meeting. It was noted that there will be no processing of quarry material within 300 metres of residential properties .
Action – John Gough
A site visit was made by some of those at the meeting to view at first hand the quarrying operation.
Wednesday 26th February 2020 at 9.30am at the Greetham Community Centre.
Action – Jane Denyer to book Community Centre and ask M Loran to attend
Village Noticeboard & Newsletter
Greetham Quarry Liaison Group
Notes of meeting No 2 held on 26th February 2020
Mick George Ltd: RCC & NCC
Parish Councillors Ward Member
Darren Griffiths (Area Ops Manager), John Gough, (Planning Director), Grace Blick (Planning Assistant)
Nick Hodgett, (Planning Officer), Andrew Woodhouse (RCC, Environmental Health), Phil Watson (NCC)
John Dyson, Mark Watkinson Jane Denyer, Dave Hodson Nick Begy
2. Review of previous meeting’s minutes
2.1 No comments on the previous minutes and therefore accepted.
2.2 Jane Denyer & Dave Hodson confirmed that they are acting as representatives of the Parish Council and that they cannot make any agreement on behalf of the Parish Council, who act as a corporate body.
3. Review of current quarry issues and compliance with 2004 planning conditions
3.1 Mark Watkinson raised the issue of the mud being carried onto the road. Planning Condition No 42 states that “The roadway shall be kept clean at all times and mud or other deleterious material shall be prevented from being carried onto the public highway”. The problem is that the wheel-wash is some 300 yards from the highway and the road way in between is in a very poor state and covered with mud. By the time the lorries are exiting the site, there is considerable carry over of mud onto the highway. Mark Watkinson provided photographs as evidence. John Gough responded by describing the mud on the road as “staining”. His company would not spend any money on improving the site road between the wheel wash and the Highway. (Note this is a contravention of Planning Condition No 27).
3.2 Phil Watson advised that it is difficult to determine when staining on the road becomes a hazard and recommends that a highways officer goes to inspect the site.
3.3 John Dyson raised the question of lorries leaving the site with missing or torn covers. Darren Griffiths responded that MG have procedures to monitor such transgressions It was pointed out to them that these measures are clearly inadequate, witness the many vehicles which have been observed leaving the site with torn or missing covers. MG Ltd stated they had no proposal to employ a ‘gateman’ to inspect the vehicles as they leave the site. MGL consider this not to be essential and is not warranted on financial grounds.
3.3 Mark Watkinson also expressed his concerns regarding the location of the wheel wash on site. However, Phil Watson confirmed that the Highways generally ask for the wheel wash to be located as far into the site as possible from the public highway, followed by a hard surface out onto the road. Therefore, MG Ltd have complied with the Highways requirements.
3.4 Jane Denyer indicated that flooding and blocked drains are still an issue within the surrounding area. MG Ltd are not responsible for cleaning the drains. Rutland County Council are due to jet wash the drains within the next few weeks and shall advise if the blockages are due to quarry dust or other contributing factors.
3.5 Due to the lack of response from Rutland County Council, it has been agreed that the issue log should be sent to Nick Hodgett and Andrew Woodhouse going forward. If the council are made aware of an issue regarding the Quarry, they must communicate this to MG Ltd so they can take appropriate action.
3.6 In respect of the noise monitoring report presented, John Gough confirmed that MG Ltd measure the average noise levels over a one-hour period (consistent with the provisions of the approved scheme) whilst the site is operational. The information provided confirmed compliance with the noise planning condition (i.e below 55dba/1 hour). However, MG Ltd are to produce a graph of average noise levels next time they are measured (*2).
7. 3.7 Dave Hodson asked what 55dba would relate to (*1).
8. 3.8 MG Ltd confirmed that there is a written dust protocol in place, which involves daily checks.
MG LTD are to provide a copy of this protocol alongside records of when MG Ltd shutdown operations during 2019 to prevent dust. Action – Darren Griffiths
3.9 Nick Hodgett cannot find a record of the 2004 planning conditions being formally approved. However, Phil Watson advised that these would’ve been deemed approved if the council did not respond within 8 weeks of the application. Therefore, the operator is automatically authorised to proceed with their proposal. MG Ltd adopted this scheme when they took over the site. Phil Watson advised that if the application for the extension to the quarry is approved, it is possible that the conditions could state a requirement for more frequent monitoring. It may also state that MG Ltd must implement dust monitoring equipment.
4. Update on Planning Application for
extension to the Quarry
John Gough described the proposal for the quarry extension and said that a planning application would be submitted possibly within the next month. He confirmed that he would provide a copy of the application to the Parish Council once it’s been submitted and validated. It was noted that there will be no crushing in the southern area of the site. Action – John Gough
Phil Watson pointed out that if the application for the extension is approved, MG Ltd will have to amend the restoration plan. For the existing site Jane Denyer queried the status of the alternative application for commercial development (promoted by the landowner). Nick Hodgett confirmed that a screening opinion had been sought (to establish whether an Environmental Statement was required). It was agreed that the Restoration Plan for the existing site should remain on the agenda for the foreseeable future.
6. Next meeting
Friday 24th April 2020 at 9.30am at the Greetham Community Centre.
Village Noticeboard & Newsletter
Action – Jane Denyer to book Community Centre
1. In response to the question at 3.7 a glossary of Acoustic Terminology is provided.
2. In response to the point at 3.6, John Gough has double checked and there is no graph
available on the MG Ltd monitoring equipment. The monitoring equipment is however fully calibrated. A copy of the ‘read-out’ is provided (for the details previously supplied).