PARISH MEETING HELD IN THE MEMORIAL HALL, LEIGH-ON-MENDIP
6 JUNE 1988.
Present were Parish Councillors B Chubb, J Davis G Lee, P Rooke,
D Turner & D Yelland who was in the Chair. About 80 members of
the public attended.
Mr Yelland opened the meeting with the comment that although the
Parish Council had not yet received official notification from
Mendip District Council on the forthcoming application by Wimpey
Hobbs to increase quarrying at Halecombe this meeting had been
convened to permit those on the Electoral Roll of the Parish to
make their feelings on the application known to the Councillors.
Any vote would be restricted to members of the Parish but was not
legally binding on the Parish Councillors. Including himself
three of the seven Councillors worked for quarrying companies and
therefore Mr Davis would have the casting vote as Chairman if it
was deemed necessary.
He welcomed Richard Evans, Somerset County Council's Minerals
Officer who was attending as an advisor and four representatives
of Wimpey Hobbs: Mr A Carrington, Planning & Estates Manager;
Ann Dugdale, from the Planning & Development Department of Wimpey
Hobbs Ltd based at Nailsea; Mr P Aynsley, Mendip Area Production
Manager and Mr K Grazier, Wessex Area Manager.
SOMERSET'S POLICY
The Chairman read extracts form the submission outlining Somerset
County Council's present quarrying policy.
EXISTING PERMISSION
From the submission the Chairman outlined the existing permission
for quarrying at Halecombe. The following points were raised
from the floor:-
(i) Could permission to quarry the area be totally recinded: Mr
Evans explained this could only be done on the payment of
compensation to the Company.
(ii) Could a "trade off" of quarrying rights be negotiated:
This would be up to the County Council.
(iii) Was permission to quarry still extant for Barns Close: It
was thought so.
Conclusions: SCC's Policy and the possibility of a 'trade off'
& perhaps recinding existing permission ought to be discussed at
the meeting of 16 June.
NOISE
From the submission the Chairman read a summary that stated that
the emmission of noise had been, where practicable reduced or
eradicated but noise was subject to weather conditions and
changes in the level of background noise.
(i) The question of single shifting of the Primary Crusher had
been considered by the Company who felt that this, plus screening
and environmental banking would cause noise to decrease.
(ii) A questioner expressed concern that the 'remote' plant area
was actually nearer to the village. Mr Grazier explained that
'remote' refered to its distance from quarrying operations. He
agreed that the site area chosen was not as valuable for mining
purposes.
(iii) When questioned as to how long before new shifting could be
introduced Mr Grazier stated that there would be an approximate
18 month time lag between digging out the new area and the siting
of the new plant during which the present Primary Crusher would
have to be operated on a two shift system.
(iv) Third Party noise from lorries transporting the stone was
discussed - it was agreed that it was difficult to control.
CONCLUSIONS: Although shift times would alter nothing could be
done about transportation movement noise. The new site was not
'remote' in physical terms. There would still be some double
shift working of the face & Primary Crusher for a time.
BLASTING
It was explained by the Chairman that this was contained in an
addendum to the submission. Noise from blasting came in the
form of Vibration and Air Over Pressure.
(i) Wimpey Hobbs had commissioned a Vibration Survey and the
consultants recommendation was 12.7 mm per second, was this
acceptable? Mr Evans stated that the County Council used a level
of 9 in other applications. Mr Yelland drew attention to a major
fault through the site which could affect vibrations.
(ii) Concern was expressed on the accumulative long term effect
of blasting on older properties. No known studies had been done
on this.
(iii) The Company suggested an Air Over pressure of 128 decibels,
was this acceptable? Mr Evans stated that SCC limit was 120 db.
(iv) Questions were asked as to how far from the blast this was
measured, was it the closest people could physically get to the
blast? Mr Evans stated it was measured at the nearest house.
(v) Attention was drawn to the danger to a passing walker, this
the Company recognised and they planned to close the Public
Footpath at blasting times. It was agreed that the quarry only
had a duty to advise the public of any danger.
(v) Under the existing permission the Company is meant to check
with the Local Met office before blasting and postpone if
necessary, how often had this been done in the last year? Only
occasionally although the Company had a regular line to the met
Office.
(vi) The possibility of allowing parishioners to witness a
blast were mooted. The Company will consider this.
CONCLUSION: A 12.7 peak particle velocity was considered high.
128 decibel Air Over Pressuer was high. Figures do not mean a
lot therefore a demonstration would be welcome. Limits imposed
under any new Planning Permission would apply to the whole area.
Should readings be taken at the nearest point the public could
stand rather than at nearest residence.
DUST
The Chairman explained that there was nothing in the submission
about this except for the comment that it was thought the new
plant would be more efficient. On behalf of Wimpey Hobbs it was
stated that the problem of dust was recognised, each piece of
equipment had an extractor and emmissions were regularly
monitored - the quarry now had a clean bill of health.
(i) A questioner pointed out that the main dust seemed to come
from lorries leaving the site & concern was expressed that the
new access and egress sited nearer the village on a well used
road would cause more problems. A Company spokesman said that
all equipment which could cause dust would be lowered and the
long haul road, protected by an environmental bank would assist
in this.
(ii) It was questioned whether a condition could be imposed
that all lorries leaving the area be sheeted & have their wheels
washed - a quarry spokesman said that under an existing
voluntary code all lorries at present leaving the site ought to
be sheeted.
Wimpey Hobbs stated that they were willing to have mandatory
sheeting made a condition of the Planning Permission.
CONCLUSION: A majority of those present felt that dust control
was not adequate particularly at the access point and ought to be
covered by the Submission. Positioning of the new plant might
make the village more prone to dust. Mandatory lorry sheeting
ought perhaps to be included if permission is given for the
planned expansion.
WATER POLLUTION
From the Submission the Chairman stated that the Company felt
that run off would be more controlable. A Company spokesman
said the present system was difficult to control but the new
plant location, remote from the stream, would alter this. It was
agreed that as the Water Authority was a consultative body this
item would be left. Mr Evans pointed out that for Phase 4 to be
granted records of one year's observations of the water table
were needed & these were not yet available.
CONCLUSION: Matter will be left to the experts.
PLANT
(i) The question was raised as to whether the plant would be new
or reconditioned. The Company said that there would be a
mixture.
(ii) The large size of the plant area was commented on & concern
expressed that other industry might be introduced to take
advantage of this. The Company spokesman said that the area was
to store aggregate as well as produce it, no plans for the
introduction of other industry were known.
(iii) Concern was expressed that output would be increased but
the Company said that the application stated that it was not
relative to an increase in production. However they agreed that
it could go up by about 10% per year.
(iv) Concern was expressed from the floor that a deal would be
made between the Quarry and the CC concerning the Bull's Green
Link but it was agreed that as this was not in the submission it
should not be discussed.
CONCLUSIONS: More information was needed on Access proposals, a
better explanation of views of the plant area from the village
were sought and it was felt that the new plant location was in
the best interest of the Quarry Company not necessarily the village.
ENVIRONMENTAL BANKING
From the submission it was stated by the Company that they had
tried to identify principal view points from the surrounding area
and construct banks accordingly of varying heights.
(i) It was pointed out from the floor that only one of the sight
line plans was taken from where someone lived & suggested that
sight-lines from Tadhill, Leigh Street etc ought to be given. It
was agreed that both the County & Parish Councils were not happy
with this part of the plan.
(ii) A Parishioner pointed out that from 'Green Shutters' there
will be an open view of the Quarry, a Company spokesman said that
this view was screened by trees at present but agreed that these
were not on land owned by Wimpey Hobbs.
CONCLUSIONS: It was felt by all present that more information was
needed on this matter.
PLANTING
In the submission the Chairman stated that the Company had
elected for clump planting of a number of species and would
institute a programme of weed control to maintain this. Its
philosophy was to achieve restricted views into the quarry and to
make the bund appear natural.
(i) The question of a 3D topographical computer view was raised
but Mr Evans pointed out that even this had limitations.
CONCLUSIONS: More detailed information required.
FOOTPATHS
From the submission the Chaiman stated that a circular footpath
with viewing points & picnic sites on top of the environmental
banking was proposed.
(i) Concern was expressed that this might encourage children to
play in the quarry but it was explained that a security fence
inside the area would prevent this.
(ii) The idea that the concept of a circular footpath was
artificial was raised.
CONCLUSIONS: Concern about danger to users of this facility.
A Parishioner questioned at this stage as to whether a vote would
be taken on how the village should react to the planning
application. The Chairman replied that there would be no vote
taken as not enough information was available explaining once
again that any vote was not legally binding on Councillors. He
apologised for the length of the meeting saying that he felt
matters were too important to curtail at this stage and gave
parishioners an opportunity to leave the hall due to the advanced
hour, at this a number left.
ACCESS
According to the Submission existing site access will disappear
within ten years & a new one will be instituted.
(i) Mr Evans said that the CC felt that the access shown was
unacceptable as it precluded lorries turning right. The Company
agreed that this was a matter for discussion with the authority
to allow it to tie in with future road plans.
(ii) The new access as shown on the plan was unanimously felt by
Parishioners to be unsuitable and a majority were in favour of
retaining the present access. There was also support for access
at Park Corner although it was appreciated that the site of the
County Council's gravel storage area was not owned by Wimpey
Hobbs.
(iii) The question of the life expectancy of the quarry if they
failed to get this planning permission was asked. Wimpey Hobbs
stated that they could, with prudence, continue mining for
another 10 years without going lower but demand alters and
capital investment must be considered over the long term.
(iv) Concern was expressed from the floor that if the
permission was not granted ARC might buy the quarry but Mr
Yelland pointed out that the purpose of the meeting was to
consider the 'hole in the ground' not other factors.
CONCLUSIONS: New access unacceptable on site shown.
In final conclusion an indication was requested from the floor as
to who would still object to the new plans for the quarry even if
all the items discussed during the evening were included in any
final application - A majority signified that they would still
be against the plan but no count was made.
The Meeting concluded at 2345 h approx.
13/06/88
HLCMB66
Back to list of meetings