temp

« Previous (1) | Next (3) » 11067/21 NE Face

PLANNING DECISIONS are usually subject to relevant planning policy, particularly the local authority's Development Plan. Bolton's Development Plan includes Greater Manchester's Joint Minerals Development Plan because Bolton is part of Greater Manchester. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also applies. They are legal documents and cannot simply be ignored by Planning Committees. Policies are not always hard and fast however, with scope for interpretation. 'Planning balance', 'planning judgement', 'great weight', 'severe harm', 'presumption against', 'not inappropriate' and so on are phrases that often appear in planning decisions. Subjective opinion ultimately comes down to the subjective opinion of a Planning Inspector (as it did with Montcliffe Quarry). As everyone knows, subjective opinion can be predisposed to a particular outcome depending in the circumstances.

The NPPF states that "when determining planning applications great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, and that mineral extraction is not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided it preserves openness." Chapter and verse has been written on the exact meaning of 'openness' in 'legal' planning terms, with disagreements even between one court of law and another.

The Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Plan makes a 'presumption in favour' of sustainable minerals development. It states that "positive consideration will be given to minerals development [quarries] which accords with the policies set out in the development plan and that such development will be considered to be sustainable and will be permitted unless other material considerations indicate otherwise."

Bolton Council's Core Strategy Development Plan for Horwich and Blackrod states that "Development for minerals workings will conform to national policies for minerals extraction. Developers will need to ensure that minerals workings are within acceptable environmental parameters." But it also says:

Winter Hill is located in the Areas of Search and Mineral Safeguarding in the Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Plan. This makes it vulnerable. It comes down to priorities: mineral extraction or the natural environment.

The point is that there is no policy imperative at any level to dictate quarrying on Winter Hill. "Unless material considerations indicate otherwise" (Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Plan) and "ensure that minerals workings are within acceptable environmental parameters" (Bolton Council's Development Plan) are perfectly clear: the quarries are not a done deal by any policy whatsoever. The government of course doesn't care about Winter Hill. The economy needs minerals so it wants mineral extraction wherever possible.

Bolton Council's Planning Officers' Report

Read the Officers' Report to the Council's Planning Committee in March 2021 in which officers recommend approval of the northerly extension to Montcliffe Quarry but which the Planning Committee refused. The following criticism is my opinion only. You are invited to read the report and decide for yourself.

1. The report states "The development would release a further 2.75 [million tonnes] of gritstone, for the purposes of producing high-quality dimension stone, with ancillary aggregates." The need for high-quality dimension stone has not been demonstrated, nor does the report examine whether it remains available in the as-yet unquarried planning approvals at Pilkington Quarry.

2. The report states "the Plan [Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Plan] states that applications for the extraction and/or processing of sand, gravel or sandstone/gritstone within the Areas of Search will be permitted where the mineral is required to meet the required landbank (at least 10 years for crushed rock)." Evidence is not provided that the mineral to be extracted is required for a 10-year land bank.

3. The report states "the Plan [Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Plan] states that proposals for the working of natural building stone will be supported provided that this would assist the conservation and repair of historic buildings or structures built of the same or similar materials, or new construction where the use of building stone is specified … The applicant considers the production of such dimension stone vital to maintain the continued supply of material for repairs and restoration of local buildings, and to enable new builds to be in keeping with their surroundings" Evidence is not provided that such a demand exists. "The applicant considers …" is not acceptable as verifiable evidence.

4. The report states "There are not considered to be any clear alternatives to the proposal. An equivalently viable resource would have to be identified and proven, as part of the search for any new, alternative site." Considered by who? The applicant? No evidence is provided that there are no viable alternatives sites.

5. The report states "The proposed development will result in a further extension to the Montcliffe Quarry, with the land being reprofiled into a series of benches. Once the extraction of mineral has been completed the site is to be restored in accordance with the proposed restoration masterplan, to facilitate natural regeneration of grass, heath and shrubs. The proposed restoration is intended to create a final landform and topographic shape that will merge into the adjacent landscape and appear as a natural feature, typical of the locality." The suggestion that the final landform will merge into the adjacent landscape and appear as a natural feature typical of the locality is fanciful. By no stretch of the imagination is a 2.75 million tonne excavation a natural feature typical of the locality. The statement is worse than fanciful in my opinion. It is either an error of judgement or aimed to mislead. "Restoration" means returning something to its original condition. The so-called restoration masterplan restores precisely nothing. It consists of little more than (i) spreading 6 inches or so of soil on the 'remnant benches' as 'acid grassland restoration' and (ii) infilling the lower area of the quarry with inert and quarry waste to create a 'low lying, semi-aquatic habitat'. As 'restoration' this is ludicrous. Clearly, the Planning Committee wasn't fooled. There is not even a guarantee it will ever be done.

6. The report states "A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted with the application, which considers nine different surrounding public viewpoints from which visual impacts have been assessed." The LVIA was undertaken by Bright & Associates acting for the applicant and was submitted by the applicant. Not surprisingly the conclusion of Bright & Associates is that "on balance, the site is considered to be capable of mineral extraction without overriding adverse visual or landscape effects."

Bolton Council's Landscape Regeneration Manager comments on the application: "What the LVIA doesn't consider is the cumulative impacts of other parts of the quarry yet to be extracted, eg: 97782/16. A more accurate assessment of impacts on the landscape and views should consider, as a whole, this proposal plus all other permitted works yet to be undertaken." No such 'more accurate assessment' was ever done. The Landscape Institute publishes 'Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment'. It says that LVIAs should be reviewed by a competent expert "leading to a report containing the overall conclusion in respect of the completeness, competency and reliability of the LVIA." The Landscape Institute considers a competent expert would normally be a Chartered Member of the Institute with substantive experience of undertaking and reviewing LVIAs. Was this done? It seems doubtful.

7. The report failed to make reference to Bolton's Core Strategy Development Plan for Horwich and Blackrod:

It is not a balanced objective report in my view. Unwittingly or by design, it seems skewed towards the applicant in such a way as to support government policy:

  1. Accepting too much of the application at face value.
  2. Making statements not supported by independent evidence.
  3. Making inaccurate or incomplete statements.
  4. Errors of judgement on the likely effect on landscape.
  5. Omitting reference to other relevant planning policies.

A generous interpretation might be that planning officers were trying to save the Council from itself and avoid a subsequent Planning Appeal it could possibly lose and be faced with appeal costs. If so, this is wrong. It is not the function of planning officers. The irony is this is what happened however. I will try to show later in this article how it may well be the poor advice from its officers that led to it. In my opinion of course.

« Previous (1) | Next (3) » 11067/21 NE Face

Fileupdate: May 28th, 2025