Object

Representation ID: 274

Received: 02/10/2019

Respondent: Peter Doyle

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In regard to the above notification, we would like to comment on the above consultation.
1. Is the plan legally compliant?
We do not think this plan is legally compliant as it did not adhere to the decision made by the Secretary of State Independent Inspector in the 2005 Adopted Mineral Local Plan which was not complied with.
As our objection relates to quarrying in the idle valley, then this too was the objective of
the Secretary of State Independent Inspector who had stipulated in the plan, that there
should be no more proposals to quarry in the idle valley until the proposed quarry, Sturton Le Steeple, was near to exhaustion. This was the site choice chosen by the independent inspector.
The Sturton Le Steeple quarry has over 20 years of mineral reserves, and a possible extension of a further 6 years. However, the mineral operator, Tarmac who owns the rights to both Botany Bay and Sturton Le Steeple, appealed at the consultation, that the Botany
Bay site should also gain approval - however the independent inspector disagreed and
stipulated that no further sites would be needed, due to the extent of the mineral reserves in the Sturton Le Steeple quarry.
As the Mineral Local Plan can span years before the final decision is taken, then the decision taken by the Secretary of State should not be taken lightly, either by the mineral operator or the planning department.
However this site at Sturton Le Steeple, after three years of gaining its planning approval,
was mothballed for 5 years on the request of Tarmac, and consequently approved by the planning department. The NCC in the call for sites stage then allowed further sites to be submitted from the idle valley which included Botany Bay, the site the independent inspector had previously refused.
We are now in a unfavourable position, of having further quarrying in an area which is now decimating the area on the A638, some which are in the Mineral Local plan, but
others which are not.
We have up to recently been contesting a planning application to quarry at Barnby Moor, issued in December 2018, due to its failure to submit correct information on the
application it was withdrawn on the 24th September 2019,. However, Hanson first planning application issued in February 2018 also went to consultation but that too was invalidated and that too was eventually withdrawn,
In regard to the above, we are not sure if this is a temporary move by the applicant or not.
The interest in this land at College Farm, Barnby Moor is between Hanson UK and Rotherham Sand and Gravel Company, both sites are adjacent to each other - so again, the Rotherham Sand and Gravel company could also pursue a planning application on this site,
as it has other proposed sites in the Mineral Local Plan , and in all probability when these sites have been exhausted, it will then pursue applying for planning at Barnby Moor.
As Tarmac, also commissioned a scoping report on Botany Bay, 'south of Barnby Moor,
then this also is another site that is not visible in the MLP but no doubt will be aggressively
pursued in the foreseeable future. So in 'less than one mile radius' we could be subjected to
a further three foreseeable quarries in the future, which will not only be a blight on our
landscape and community, but also the loss of the most best and valuable source of
agricultural land.
All the above sites have the worse SA scores throughout the County, the worse of these are
Barnby Moor at -15, and yet the mineral operators have been able to get a foothold in this
area, due to the Secretary of State decision, not being upheld.
The only safeguard we have to protect this area is to uphold the decision made by the
Secretary of State and insist that Tarmac does the same by getting the full potential out of
the quarry at Sturton Le Steeple, - which will prevent the onslaught on these rural villages,
if they are allowed to quarry every few miles on the A638.
In regard to Tarmac, who own the rights on Botany Bay and Sturton Le Steeple. The latter
of these sites have gained planning approval, but has never been worked and the quarry at
Girton in which they also own is presently mothballed and has recently gained approval
that it can remain like this until 2035.
We believe the planning department is responsible for this action taken by Tarmac, as it
encourages the above action of mothballing sites, rather than insisting it adheres to the
decision made by the Secretary of State, it condones their action, by allowing Tarmac to
submit further sites, when its intent is simply to gain planning consent and then mothball
them.
Although we are told that the decision made by the Secretary of State is final, it actually is
not, as it can be simply tweaked to the mineral operators advantage, allowing them the
final decision to decide to which sites are worked and to which sites are not?
In conclusion to this section, we would like the decision to be upheld by the Secretary of
State and that the Sturton Le Steeple quarry should now be developed to its full potential,
to protect and prevent further sites in the idle valley, in or out of the Mineral Local Plan
from further quarrying. If this cannot be assured then what prevents the mineral operators
abusing the Secretary of State final decision again in the future, if no action is put in place
to prevent it.
2. Justified/Sound
The decision taken by the Secretary of State to choose the quarry at Sturton Le Steeple was
a justified and sound decision, it took reasonable alternatives into account and it was based
on proportionate evidence. However as the Independent inspector decision was not acted
upon, and contrary actions were taken, then this makes the decision to mothball the
appropriate quarry at Sturton Le Steeple and submit further sites in the idle valley an
unjustified and unsound plan, and it should be refused.
Consistent with national policy
Protecting our most best and versatile soils
Due to the increases of sites in the idle valley that will be required as an alternative choice
to Sturton Le Steeple, then not only will it require choosing more sites for quarrying in the
idle valley, it will also detrimentally change our rural landscape. Equally as important,
quarrying in an area which has the most best and versatile soil, will not only rob us of the
natural beauty of the countryside, but also our most valuable agricultural soil, in which is
specific for this purpose.
In conclusion we think it is paramount that a decision made by the Secretary of State,
should stand, and not be diminished by those with alternative motives.