Minutes of Leigh on Mendip Parish Council meeting 
held on Monday 18 October 1993.

Councillors present were D Pattison, S Haywood, H Mawdsley, D Turner, 
R Dixon, J Davis. 
Apologies were received from Tony Merrick.

Halecombe Quarry IDO - Application for Determination of Conditions

Introducing the application, D Pattison explained that the conditions 
being sought by Wimpey Hobbs are the same as for the 1992 permission, with 
six exceptions:

1992 consent condition 3:
...no plant or machinery, buildings, structures ... and no waste and other 
materials shall be deposited except on the quarry floor....without the prior 
consent.. of the MPA. 
RD pointed out that without this condition buildings or materials could 
be placed anywhere within the IDO area, and it was agreed that this 
condition should be re-introduced.

1992 consent condition 4: 
Details of the location and external appearance of .... buildings shall 
be submitted to and approved by the MPA .... 
It was agreed that this should also be introduced for the same reasons as 
above. DT said that WH might argue that buildings have already been approved 
and that this condition no longer has relevance, but in that case there could 
be no harm in retaining it.

1992 consent condition ll: 
Details of the prop[o]sed temporary diversion of Halecombe stream shall be 
submitted to and approved by the MPA .... 
It was noted that although the diversion is almost complete, the section 
within the IDO is not, and that the condition should therefore be retained.

1992 consent condition 12: 
Details of the proposed culvert for Halecombe Brook .... 
As for condition 11.

1992 consent condition 15: 
Before any work is commenced .... for the construction of the southern 
screen bank a detailed scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the MPA
for the protection in situ of Farm Site 2.......
This condition can be dropped.


1992 consent condition 39
...arrangements shall be agreed with the MPA for the continuous monitoring 
of noise levels and the monitoring of all quarry blasts at appropriate 
locations ... 
Agreed that this condition should be re-introduced.

In addition it was noted that new condition 24(2) omitted the noise level 
and should read: 'of 29 dB(A)'.

Councillors were concerned that several of the proposed conditions
(24 - 30 inclusive) were qualified by the phrase 'best practicable means'
although Minerals officers have questionned the enforceability of this 
term based on an Inspector's comments at a public enquiry. Councillors 
agreed that if this phrase is in doubt, the MPA should re-write all 
conditions thus affected in such a way as to make them enforceable, 
while ensuring that any compromise did not lead to a reduction in standard 
of amenity protection.

RD also pointed out that the covering letter from the MPA only referred to 
one aspect of MPG9 regarding the economic structure of the IDO development, 
and this was noted.

It was agreed that D Pattison would draft a reply containing the PC's views 
on the proposed conditions, and would include a comment that MPG9 is more 
complex than suggested by the covering letter. It was also noted that 
Councillor Merrick has requested a copy of the response.

School Governor: appointment of PC representative

J Davis was willing to stand again to preserve con[t]inuity. DP proposed, 
SH seconded, all agreed.

Proposed Wimpey Hobbs asphalt plant

Details of a proposed asphalt plant had been received. Drafting of the 
response was delegated to a sub-committee, members DP, JD and RD. The 
meeting asked the sub-committee to take into account the following points:


(Asphalt plant continued)
l.  That the size and particularly the height of the structure is worrying.

2.  That WH had promised that plant would be sited at lower levels than now 
proposed, ie 143 AOD rather than 158.

3.  That appendix 3 is misleading - the plant would be visible from many 
occupied parts of the village.

4.  That in view of 1, 2 and 3 above, the plant should be 'stone-coloured' 
rather than 'Wimpey orange'.

5.  That lighting on the plant should not be fixed higher than 10 feet 
above the ground.

6.  That this plant is a major departure from the permitted phasing of 
the development.
7.  That specific noise and dust emission standards are not within the 
scope of a GDO. Noiselevels would only be subject to conditions covering 
the general site and these have been called into question.

8.  That this development had not been mentioned at the very recent liaison 

Structure Plan 
Proposals had been received.  It was agreed that these be circulated and 
discussed at next meeting.

Diversion of Footpath 
Agreed to postpone discussion until next meeting.

Liaison Group 
SCC Environment Committee proposes to hand over the running of liaison 
groups to the respective quarry operators. Officers could be invited, 
but SCC would decide if an officer could attend and if so, which officer. 
Councillors were shocked to hear this and agreed to write in protest to 
SCC leader Chris Clarke requesting that this proposal be re-considered by 
full council and reversed.

Next meeting: Monday 15 November. 
Subjects to include: Structure Plan, Footpath Diversion 
Motorway & Trunk Road Tolls ( at request of SALC)

Back to list of meetings