Shropshire Star

Controversial quarry plans narrowly approved despite opposition

There will be at least six more years of quarry traffic through a village after councillors granted permission for the site to expand.

Published
Last updated
Residents have complained that the narrow roads of Condover are unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles

Approval of the controversial application for Gonsal Quarry means HGVs will need to navigate the narrow lanes of Condover up to 44 times a day, which residents claim will put the historic fabric of the village – and their own safety – at risk.

Shropshire Council’s southern planning committee narrowly voted in support of the plans at a meeting yesterday, after rejecting a similar application earlier this year.

The revised plans will see 110,000 tonnes of sand and gravel extracted from the quarry each year, a reduction in the 150,000 tonnes a year that was proposed in the original application.

Salop Sand and Gravel, which has operated the quarry since the 1950s, had lodged an appeal against refusal of its initial plans but the committee was told this would be withdrawn if the new application was approved.

The committee heard that Condover Parish Council, 56 members of the public and Condover Residents Action Group (CRAG) had objected to the proposals.

They argued permission should be refused as the council’s current development plan requires that the owners fund a new access directly onto the A49 before any further expansion of the quarry, to end the decades-long problem of HGV traffic blighting the village.

However the company argued that the proposed southern extension would not be able to fund the estimated £2 million cost of a new access.

Highways officer Mark Wootton said that while the current access arrangements were “not ideal”, the expected impact on the village road network did not meet the high threshold to justify refusal on highways grounds.

Councillor Dan Morris, who represents Burnell division, urged the committee to refuse the application on the grounds of the conflict with the development plan guidelines.

He said: “The proposals would result in an unacceptable continuation of large HGV movements through Condover village and conservation area.

“The applicant’s mitigation proposals are considered insufficient.

“The route for the quarry material goes over a Grade II listed bridge, past the village hall, post office and primary school.”

Councillor Morris said the applicant’s impact assessment had only considered noise and not the impact of the “consistent flow of lorries” on the roads, conservation area, historic buildings or lives of residents.

Richard Parton, owner of Salop Sand and Gravel, told the committee that local supply of building material was reliant on the expansion of the quarry.

The committee also heard from the company’s agent, who said approval of the scheme would result in a contribution of more than £65,000 from the company towards local infrastructure improvements.

He added that the current application for 110,000 tonnes to be extracted per year, while higher than the current permitted levels of 50,000 tonnes, was significantly below historic annual volumes of up to 200,000 tonnes.

Councillors were split over the application, with some conceding that with highways officers not objecting to the scheme it would be difficult to defend another refusal at appeal.

Councillor Vince Hunt said: “I can’t find anything in this that would give us a basis for legitimately rejecting this, unfortunately.

“I am also mindful of the fact that if we reject this and the other appeal were to be successful, we would be making the situation worse for the people of Condover.”

However councillors Tony Parsons and Andy Boddington said they did not believe the company would have come forward with a reduced application if it was confident it would win the appeal.

Councillor Boddington said: “The current situation in Condover is unacceptable without putting any more traffic on the road.

“The quality of life is not good for residents of Condover.”

Councillor Hunt proposed approval of the application in line with the recommendation of planning officers, and this was supported by six voted to five.

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.