Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the establishment of a new quarry on land at the former Hatfield Aerodrome, including a new access onto the A1057, aggregate processing plant, concrete batching plant and other ancillary facilities, together with the importation of inert fill materials for the restoration of the minerals working.

The site lay within the former Hatfield Aerodrome, towards and immediately to the north of the A1057 Hatfield Road/St Albans Road West. The site area was 87.1 hectares and about 78 hectares of this was within Ellenbrook Park (also known as Ellenbrook Fields), an area of grassland and woodland which has been generally accessible to the public since 2010 for informal recreation. About 20 hectares of the mineral application site was within Welwyn Hatfield Borough and majority of the site lay within the St Albans District.

The proposed quarry would operate over a period of approximately 30 years from commencement, including restoration. All vehicular access would be taken from the A1057 at a new access point just east of Notcutts Garden Centre at Smallford. As mineral extraction was being proposed, this application was a county matter, being determined by Hertfordshire County Council (HCC). Full details of the mineral extraction and restoration proposals, and extensive associated correspondence, can be found on Hertfordshire County Council’s website under the application reference at the head of this report.

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Duncan Bell, as a Ward Councillor for Hatfield Villages, had requested this opportunity for Members to consider making further comments to HCC on the application.

Two particular issues were HCC’s proposed ‘decoupling’ of any permission granted for the minerals application from the need to enter into a deed of variation to the original S106, and any further matters in relation to the bromate contamination and its implications for the grant of a minerals permission.

The Planning Referrals Committee of St Albans District Council considered a report on this application at its meeting on 4 November. Any outcome of that meeting would be circulated to Members of the Committee.

Officers announced that there was a minor error in the Officers report. Point 2.7 should read ‘These additional representations are attached at Appendices B, C and D to this report’.

Mr G.Mutch, Brett Group, spoke for the application saying that the Brett Group had met with the Environment Agency and Affinity Water to discuss the site and they were all satisfied, after much research, that the bromate plume would not be disturbed. The site had been reduced in size to sit outside of the bromate plume which was North East of the site. There would be comprehensive monitoring of the contamination and sharing of data. A method of working had been established, to the satisfaction of Affinity Water and the Environment Agency that would mean that the bromate plume would not be affected.

Mr Jackson spoke on behalf of Ellenbrook Area Residents Association as an objector saying that the Residents Association objected to the uncoupling of the Section 106 (S106) Agreement and felt that it should have been implemented by now, nearly 20 years on from the original planning permission. There were also concerns about the Bromide data from the quarry boreholes, aside from being out of date and incomplete, showing high levels of bromide pollution. It was felt that there should be an independent investigation by qualified experts before considering the application.

Councillor D.Bell, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Councillor, spoke against the application saying that he disagreed with the recommendation, point 10.2 in the Officers report and felt that there should be an objection to the proposed decoupling of the minerals application from the completion of a deed of variation to the S106 Agreement. He felt to not do so would undermine public confidence in the planning process.

Councillor D.Bell recommended that the condition in point 10.3 should be strengthened and that in point 10.4, concern should be expressed concerning the impact of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) to and from the proposed site.

Councillor M.Eames-Petersen, Hertfordshire County Councillor for Hatfield North spoke against the application saying that she was opposed to the decoupling of the S106 agreement and Ellenbrook Fields should remain a public park as agreed nearly 20 years ago. Councillor Eames-Petersen was very concerned about the Bromide Plume which she said was stated as the worst pollution of an aquifer by the Environment Agency. She said that the remediation of the last ten years had failed.

Councillor J.Brennan, Town Councillor for Hatfield East, spoke against the application and felt that the original S106 agreement should be enforced before any extraction went ahead. Councillor J Brennan spoke about concerns of noise and air pollution if the quarry went ahead as well as traffic congestion due to HGV vehicles entering and leaving the site. There were also concerns about the risk of contaminated drinking water. Councillor J.Brennan felt that there should be a full independent study into the bromide contamination.

Councillor J.Hale, County Councillor for Coney Heath and Marshallwick, spoke against the application about concerns of air quality if the quarry went ahead, as it was so close to a residential area. There were also concerns about the Bromide Plume and its exact location. Councillor J.Hale said that although the Environment Agency had not objected, they had expressed concerns. He felt that this planning decision was not a short-term decision but one that was important to future generations.

Councillor L.Brandon, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Councillor, spoke against the application saying that the Council has a duty of care to look after its residents of Hatfield and he felt that the uncoupling of the S106 was not in their best interest.

Following discussion,

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

That the recommendation be overturned and a strong objection be raised to the proposed minerals application. This is on the grounds of:-

•      The proposed decoupling of the minerals application from the completion of a deed of variation to the S106 Agreement;

•      The bromate and bromide contamination of the site;

•      Potential HGV traffic movements;

•      Air pollution;

•      Transport; and

•      That an independent investigation concerning the bromate contamination has not taken place.

(Note: Councillors J.Boulton and S.Boulton declared an interest and withdrew for this Item – minute 63 refers).