Complaint about controversial Northumberland quarry sees plans return to committee

Last month, councillors on the council’s strategic planning committee gave the green light to plans from Thompsons of Prudhoe to quarry sand and gravel from a proposed site near Anick Grange, to the east of Hexham.

The material would be extracted in a phased manner over the course of 25 years, after which it would be restored to create a lake and wetland area with the aim of boosting biodiversity.

However, following a letter from a member of the public which suggested the council could be facing a judicial review, the council took the unusual step of returning the item to the agenda for the committee’s latest meeting on Tuesday.

Speaking at the meeting, the council’s director of planning Rob Murfin said: “This is an unusual item in that the planning committee has already considered this application and approved it. However the section 106 agreement has not been signed off so we have not issued permission yet.

“The council has received a representation from a member of the public who pointed out that in their opinion we had not adequately addressed the issue of the greenbelt. That member of the public wasn’t present at the meeting and I believe we covered all the issues.

“However, given that this letter was part of a potential pre-action for a judicial review, I felt for transparency we should bring it back, talk through the legality of the review and I would tackle head on the issue of very special circumstances.”

A judicial review is a type of court proceedings where a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body, such as a council.

Mr Murfin explained that quarries are considered as “appropriate development” in the greenbelt and as such can be sited there. However, the letter had argued that the proposed on-site processing centre for sand and gravel did not fall under paragraph 150 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The policy states that “certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it”. Among the forms of development listed is mineral extraction.

Mr Murfin continued: “The objection states that there is more things going on here than is strictly necessary for quarrying, like the processing of sand and gravel. The important thing to remember is that if it wasn’t going on onsite, there would be other development like stock piles and staff welfare buildings.

“By processing on site you’re not only doing shorter lorry journeys, you’re carrying less material.”

The report presented to members explained that the processing area would be located within the compound area and would have a “direct role” in the work, meaning it would be “closely associated” with the excavation of the minerals. Therefore, it is considered to fall within paragraph 150 of the NPPF and be “compatible with the openness and purposes of the greenbelt”.

Councillors agreed to support the application for a second time in as many months.