►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
But
I
welcome
everyone
to
today's
plans.
Meeting
my
name
is
counselor
Eileen,
Taylor
and
I
will
be
chairing.
Today's
meeting
could
I
remind
them
remind
every
one
that
today's
meeting
is
being
live
stream
and
Lead
City
Council
YouTube
channel,
so
that
the
public
can
observe
the
meeting
without
needing
to
be
present.
South
and
West
plant
panels
deals
with
application
from
the
south,
Northwest
and
west
of
the
city.
The
aim
of
the
plan
is
to
hear
all
the
relevant
information
from
applicants.
B
B
N
Hello,
everyone
nicodio
legal
advisor
to
the
panel
today.
O
B
M
Thanks
chair
agenda
item,
one
there's:
no
appeals
against
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents;
agenda
item
two
there's
no
exact
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
and
the
public.
A
gender
item,
three
I'm
not
aware
of
any
formulate
items.
A
gender
item
for
can
members
declare
any
interests.
B
Thank
you.
Could
we
now
move
into
item
six
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting
and
on
the
24th
of
November
I?
Wasn't
at
this
meeting
so
I'm
relying
on
members
always
present
to
give
the
green
light.
That
is
all
accurate.
I
did
read
the
report,
but
I'm
going
anywhere,
so
this
members
spot
to
make.
Thank
you.
O
O
B
B
N
B
N
B
C
Thank
you
thank
you
chair,
so
the
proposal
we
have
today
is
for
filter
press,
which
is
a
type
of
fixed
plant
that
Hawks
with
Quarry
just
took
date.
Members
before
I
start,
we
have
received
an
email
after
the
report
was
issued,
which
comments
on
the
report.
The
matters
were
dealt
with
in
the
report
and
will
be
reiterated
over
the
course
of
the
presentation,
but
for
further
Clarity
I
have
added
some
extra
slides
to
help
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
context.
C
C
C
This
is
relevant
in
so
far
as
this
plan
produced
in
2006
for
an
extension
to
the
east
of
the
Quarry
has
been
seen
by
many
people
as
being
a
definitive
Red
Line
boundary
for
the
older
past
of
the
Quarry.
C
The
plan
shows
they
existing
site
layout
at
the
time
and
is
incorrect,
and
this
has
caused
quite
a
lot
of
confusion
and
it's
the
main
reason
why
an
application
has
been
called
in,
as
the
proposed
plan
is
to
be
located
in
the
contented
area.
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
this
plan
doesn't
retrospectively
change.
The
original
Red
Line
permission.
C
However,
an
operational
plan
submitted
for
the
96
permission
does
show
that
there
was
no
intention
to
extract
within
the
contented
area
in
2016.
The
further
permission
was
granted
for
an
area
to
the
north
of
the
Quarry,
and
this
plan
submitted
with
that
application
shows
the
contended
area
to
the
South
as
having
been
extracted
in
2013.
C
C
It
was
considered
by
offices
that,
as
the
proposed
location
of
the
filter
press
was
to
be
in
this
contended
area,
it
should
be
dealt
with
as
a
full
application,
rather
than
as
a
matter
which
could
be
approved
in
writing
under
condition
19
of
the
96
permission,
which
allows
fixed
plan
which
would
otherwise
be
considered
to
be
permitted
development
to
be
dealt
with
in
this
way.
Thank
you.
C
C
C
C
Was
along
with
the
area
to
to
be
backfilled,
and
there
is
landscaped
area
to
be
provided
to
the
boundary.
There
are
still
some
details
about
the
planting
scheme
and
the
heightened
nature
of
the
soil
wound
and
overall
time
frames
to
be
finalized,
and
this
can
be
worked
through
the
condition
required
in
further
details
to
be
submitted.
C
C
C
C
This
is
the
unzoomed
image
taken
from
the
same
spot
again,
a
strip
from
the
top
of
the
structure
may
be
seen,
but
it
would
have
to
be
through
binoculars
and
it's
unlikely
and
it
would
be
a
very
low
impact
to
visually
views
from
other
sides
would
not
show
anything
because
the
structure
would
be
screened
by
the
existing
topography.
So
we
have
east
views
from
the
north
and
from
the
West
and
there
the
the
plant
would
below
the
below
the
line
of
the
of
the
ridge.
There.
C
C
The
environment
agency
have
stated
that
such
exportation
May
well
require
a
permit,
so
the
material
may
have
to
stay
within
the
Quarry
as
full
material.
If
no
permit
were
to
be
issued.
It's
not.
There
is
an
issue
with
excessive
traffic
movements
through
the
village,
and
this
is
being
dealt
with
as
an
enforcement
matter
from
a
planning
application
Viewpoint.
C
However,
members
will
be
aware
that
we
can't
refuse
an
application
on
the
basis
that
we
think
a
condition
will
be
breached,
and
in
this
case
the
proposed
traffic
numbers
would
be
so
low
as
not
to
make
a
significant
difference
with
regard
to
noise.
Environmental
health
have
looked
at
the
knowledge
of
parts
and
have
concluded
that
a
condition
would
be
sufficient
to
ensure
noise
levels
were,
as
described
in
the
report,
which
demonstrate
that
the
Press
itself
being
within
a
building
of
its
own
is
a
low
impact
operation
in
terms
of
noise.
B
So,
thank
you
in
accordance
with
what
I've
got
to
call
for
public
speaking
at
plans
panel
members
of
the
public
are
in
attendance
to
speak
to
the
panel
after
they
have
spoken.
I'll
invite
members
of
the
panel
to
ask
questions
to
the
speakers
to
clarify
matters
of
facts,
and
those
questions
should
be
limited
to
revelant
planning
issue.
I
will
then
invite
officers
to
clarify
any
matters
arise
and
to
point
out
any
considered
ration
raised
in
the
discussion,
but
which
are
not
material
to
determine
the
application.
B
Q
My
name
is
Dr
Alderson
I
am
a
resident
of
Hawksworth.
I
am
a
GP
I
also
hold
qualifications
in
forestry,
geology
and
ecology
I'm
speaking
today,
on
behalf
of
myself
other
objectors
and
all
the
members
of
the
Hawks
with
Quarry
monitoring
group,
our
50
or
so
members
live
all
around
the
order,
Greenville
area
and
actively
monitor
the
commercial
activities
of
the
owner
and
operator
of
the
Quarry.
The
group's
aim
is
not
to
close
or
hinder
the
lawful
running
of
the
Quarry.
Q
We
do,
however,
expect
it
to
be
run
in
accordance
with
existing
planning
conditions
and
with
respect
for
the
amenity
of
the
area
and
the
daily
lives
of
residents.
We
do
not
object
in
principle
to
the
installation
and
use
of
a
filter
press
in
the
processing
of
native
material
for
use
of
the
Quarry.
We
do
object
to
its
current
location.
We
do
object
to
any
proposed
increase
in
the
operational
hours
of
the
Quarry.
Q
For
any
reason,
the
minerals
team
and
planners
were
alerted
to
the
ongoing
construction
of
the
filter
press
on
the
26th
of
June
this
year,
prior
to
the
planning
application
having
been
validated
by
the
payment
of
the
application
fee.
If
prompt,
effective
action
had
been
taken
at
that
time,
the
present
standoff
between
the
operator
and
the
residents
could
have
been
avoided
by
finding
a
more
suitable
location
lower
in
the
bed
of
the
Quarry
and
further
from
the
boundary.
Q
Q
It
does
not
seem
reasonable
to
us
to
cite
Machinery
close
to
Residential,
Properties
and
Gardens,
without
taking
adequate
steps
to
Shield
residents
from
The,
Sight
and
Sound
of
this
equipment,
especially
when
the
Machinery
material
is
readily
available
on
site.
To
do
so,
residents
would
take
little
interest
in
the
workings
of
the
Quarry
if
those
workings
did
not
impinge
negatively
upon
their
daily
lives.
Q
At
a
recent
meeting
attended
by
all
our
councilors,
the
Quarry
owner
stated
that
the
negative
effects
of
the
quarry
on
our
community
were
his
retribution.
His
words
not
mine
against
those
who
objected
to
these
house
building
plans
40
4-0
years
ago,
only
three
of
our
group
members
actually
lived
in
the
area.
At
that
time,
the
Quarry
owner
is
waging
a
war
against
a
long
dead.
Enemy
residents
do
not
deserve
to
be
treated
in
this
way.
The
filter
press
building
has
been
constructed
without
planning
permission
in
a
highly
unsuitable
position.
Q
It
partly
stands
on
land
which
breaches
the
operational
boundary
of
the
Quarry.
It
is
intended
to
replace
lagoons
which
were
built
without
planning
consent
and
without
adequate
regard
for
health
and
safety
rules,
but
we
have
to
find
a
way
to
move
forward
in
a
more
positive
light.
The
interactions
detailed
here
may
be
overlooked
by
the
community.
Q
We
are
hopeful
that
the
suggested
measures
will
greatly
reduce
the
need
for
local
residents
to
raise
concerns
about
activities
at
the
Quarry
and
would
recommend
that
they
form
part
of
the
conditions
of
approval.
If
the
filter
press
is
granted,
Planet
Mission
and
a
full
list
will
be
provided
in
writing.
In
addition,
the
Hawksworth
Quarry
monitoring
team
would
be
happy
to
consider
working
with
the
operator
Mr
whitelock
and
the
minerals
team
to
the
benefit
of
the
community
and
the
Quarry
in
future.
B
E
You
chair
did
I,
hear
you
correct,
so
you
said
that
this
had
been
built
outside
of
the
boundary.
Q
Yeah,
so
in
Mr
littlejohn's
presentation,
he
showed
you
various
plans.
Q
There
are
other
plans
available
and
actually
the
plans
which
were
available
on
the
planning
portal
During
the
period
between
2006
and
2015
and
I
have
copies
here
if
you'd
like
to
see
them
show
quite
clearly,
the
red
line
operating
boundary
follows
the
line
of
the
power
poles
that
go
up
the
southern
boundary
of
the
Quarry.
Q
Now
whether
these
are
true
or
false,
really
is
irrelevant
because
they
were
published
on
the
Leeds
planning
portal,
which
is
a
public
access
Forum,
if
you
like,
where
people
can
actually
check
what's
going
on
in
their
local
area
when
they
buy
their
property,
all
the
people
who
live
adjacent
to
the
Quarry,
coincidentally
I
suppose
all
purchase
their
property
in
that
period
of
time,
and
they
were
the
plans
which
were
active
at
that
time.
The
boundary
was
breached
in
2013.,
I
actually
saw
it
happen.
Q
Multiple
walls
were
knocked
down
and
I
actually
contacted
the
owner
of
the
Quarry
at
the
time
to
find
out
what
was
going
on
and
to
see
whether
things
would
be
repaired.
I
didn't
find
him
helpful.
I
later
contacted
the
minerals,
team
and
I
didn't
find
them
very
helpful
either
because,
basically,
they
said
because
they
hadn't
noticed
it
at
the
time
and
because
they
had
accepted
another
plan
which
was
submitted
by
the
the
Quarry
owner
or
operator
subsequent
to
the
breach
happening.
This
somehow
made
it
okay
and
it
had
to
be
disregarded
now.
Q
I,
don't
know
the
legality
of
that
I.
Honestly,
don't,
but
all
I
can
say
is
if
leads
planners
are
going
to
publish
documents
on
their
website
for
people
to
access
and
and
make
decisions
about
purchasing
property
in
the
area.
When
things
have
been
flagged
up
on
searches
during
that
purchase,
then
those
documents
should
be
accurate
and
if
they're
not
accurate,
then
I
would
suggest
that
either
the
leads
planners
or
the
Leeds
Council
themselves
or
the
person
who
are
omitted
to
notice.
Q
The
mistake
in
the
first
place
is
somehow
liable
and
I'm
not
suggesting
that
people
don't
make
mistakes
because
people
do
make
mistakes,
but
it's
the
responsibility
of
that
person
or
that
organization
to
put
that
right.
If
I
do
something
wrong
in
my
job,
I'm
taken
to
task
by
the
GMC,
and
quite
rightly
so,
if
the
council
make
a
mistake
or
the
planners
make
a
mistake
or
the
minerals
team
make
a
mistake,
it
is
unfortunate
and
I
am
absolutely
certain.
It's
not
malicious,
however,
to
leave
it.
Unfixed
is
malicious,
because
it's
not
solving
the
problem.
B
I'll
call
Angel
Carlton
to
present
his
support
of
the
application.
R
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
Mr
Littlejohn
for
his
comprehensive
report
on
the
the
erection
of
the
filter
press
and
why
it
is
required
a
little
bit
of
background
filter
press
actually
is,
as
I
say,
complements
the
sand
washing
plant
that
takes
the
fines,
material,
that's
crushed
from
the
Quarry
and
doesn't
produce
additional
material.
It
actually
upgrades
that
material
to
sound
and
great
storm,
and
the
very
very
fine
particles
which
are
clay
are
then
suspended
in
water.
They
go
to
the
filter,
press
and
the
filter.
R
Press
actually
then
squeezes
the
clay
and
the
water
and
recovers
the
water
and
sends
that
back
to
the
sound
plan.
Therefore,
the
lagoons
that
are
there
will
no
longer
be
required.
R
The
lagoons
were
placed
there
and
on
a
short-term
basis,
whilst
the
filter
place,
the
Sam
Plant
was
erected
commissioned
and
then
the
follow-on
was
to
have
the
filter
press
erected
soon
after
but
as
we
know
over
the
last
two
or
three
years,
things
have
been
quite
challenging
so
trying
to
get
things
ordered
and
built
and
supply
lines
have
made
a
little
bit
difficult.
R
The
boundary's
quite
clear,
as
Mr
little
Jonas
place
within
his
report,
that
the
1954
plan
that
was
approved
in
the
1996
plan
shows
the
red
line
to
the
boundaries
of
the
site
that
they
are
the
dry
stone
walls
that
exist
within
the
Quarry,
the
1996.
No,
the
the
plan
shown
on
the
in
2009
that
Mr
Lawless
and
the
doctor
olusen
refers
to
is
a
plan
that
was
produced
for
the
extension
to
the
Quarry
in
2006,
which
was
granted
in
2009..
R
That's
been
supposed
to
be
moved
by
the
northern
power
grid
for
the
last
15
years,
and
then
we
were
in
the
process
of
of
negotiating
with
them
with
working
the
power
like
they've
stolen
under
the
power
line
when
they
moved
it
under
the
planning
permission
that
was
granted
in
1996.,
the
filter
press
itself
has
all
the
noise
reports
and
impact
assessments
have
been
undertaken
and
it
will
not
be
working
outside
the
times
that
are
allowed
for
the
processing
of
material,
for
instance,
the
saw
shed
if
the
doors
are
closed
or
it's
inside
a
building.
R
So
basically,
the
filter
press
will
operate
within
the
approved
hours
of
the
side.
I'm
happy
to
take
questions
as
well.
If
you
wish.
I
First,
according
to
the
papers
in
front
of
us,
there
are
eight
breaches
in
the
past
and
four
ongoing
breaches
of
conditions
that
have
been
placed
on
you.
How
can
we
have
any
faith
that
we
agree
this
today
that
you
will
comply
with
any
of
the
conditions
that
we
are
inclined
to
impose
at
that
particular
point.
R
Well,
first
of
all,
what
you
will
see
is
that
that,
as
you
quite
rightly
point
out
to
the
that
are
five
life
cases
at
this
present
time
and
then
they've
been
a
number
of
close
cases.
R
R
Increases
in
traffic
mode
was
torn
from
the
quality
on
the
first
one
on
a
good,
Friday
and
bank
holiday
Monday
morning,
if
I,
remember
rightly,
that
was
to
take
down
a
large
office
block
that
had
been
built
on
the
site
and
replace
it
with
the
new
one,
and
the
only
time
that
could
be
done
was
over
the
weekend
when
the
staff
obviously
weren't
at
work,
so
that
that
building
was
actually
broken
up
and
placed
into
the
back
of
wagons
and
taken
away
to
the
operator
Mr
whitelock's
other
operation
in
Skipton
and
a
new
office
block
built,
which
is
now
a
shipping
container
that
sits
on
blocks.
R
That's
that
that
was
that
he
may
well
be.
He
may
well
have
not
conveyed
that
to
the
planning
Authority
at
the
time
that
that
would
happen
over
that
weekend,
which
is
probably
what
should
have
happened.
I'm,
not
sure
that
investigations
are
going
on
about
that,
but
that
was
I,
think
that
was
the
one
for
For,
the
Working
Orbiter
Easter
Monday
and
Good
Friday
in
bank
holiday,
Monday
non-compliance
with
congregation
day
regarding
HD
hgv
total
trips
under
approval,
1504550.
R
N
Can
I
just
interrupt
I
think
the
question
was
quite
clear
not
about
what
the
panel
can
do
for
assurances
with
compliance
and
conditions.
I,
don't
think
it
warrants.
Whilst
there's
live
enforcement
action
ongoing
all.
R
What
I
was
doing
was
actually
going
through
all
the
live
ones,
because
what
what
the
situation
is
is
that
there
is
taking
away
them
traffic
movement
ones
and
the
other
ones.
It's
an
interpretation
of
the
planning
permissions
and
the
conditions
that
exist
on
site
and
and
and
and
and
basically
most
of
those
have
been
dealt
with,
and
most
of
them
have
been
closed.
R
So
all
I
can
say
is
that
most
of
the
planning
conditions
is
Mr.
Littlejohn
has
referred
to
in
his
report.
I
complied
with
and
dealt
with
on
in
a
fairly
well
actually
quite
rapidly,
because
the
enforcement
officer,
the
minerals
team
and
ourselves
there
are
ways
discussing
matters
to
try
and
get
these
get
these
issues
sorted
out.
R
We
do
have
a
planning
liaison
committee
meeting
settle
with
with
the
Quarry,
but,
as
the
other
speaker
has
alluded
to
at
the
time
the
quarryona
attended
that
meeting
a
few
a
few
weeks
ago,
and
it
was
quite
hostile.
R
So
it's
we're.
You
know
we
are
trying
to
repair
that
situation.
I
L
A
couple
of
questions
one
is
on
page
well
good
to
see
you
on
page
17
of
our
papers
or
page
five
of
agenda
item
seven
paragraph
five
under
history
of
negotiations.
L
There
is
no
mention
of
this,
but
did
did
any
pre-application
discussions
take
place
and
since
the
enforcement
came
to
pass,
have
you
had
any
discussions
with
officers
as
to
what
may
or
may
not
be
acceptable
in
terms
of
moving
forward?
So
that's
the
first
one
any
pre-application
discussions
prior
to
the
enforcement
action,
because
you
must
have
known
you
needed
to
do
it
and
since
the
enforcement
action
was
taken,
what
discussions
have
you
had
with
officers
as
to
what
may
or
may
not
be
acceptable?
L
And
then
the
final
question
is:
is
there
going
to
be
a
new
product
being
produced
that
could
be
sold
or
not?
Because
in
one
of
bits
of
the
evidence
here
there
is
a
point
raised
that
new
product
is
being
built.
Developed,
output,
Call,
It,
Whatever,
You
Like.
Is
that
in
fact
the
case
that
there
will
be
a
new
product
that
you
could
Market
or
not.
R
The
history
and
negotiations
are
regarding
this
filter
press
that
I
know
there's.
There
are
no
negotiations
regarding
this
application
in
relation
to
any
enforcement
notice
right.
As
far
as
I'm
aware
that
I'm
negotiations
have
been
taking
place
with
the
planning
department
on
the
filter
press
for
the
last
18
months.
Right
plans
were
submitted
in
May
2021
after
the
sound
plan
was
granted,
planning
was
approved.
Well,
not
approved
was
a
good.
The
position
of
where
the
sand
plant
is
was
agreed
on
the
condition
19
of
the
1996
planning
permission.
R
Those
negotiations
took
over
12
months
and
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
didn't
reach
it.
I
wouldn't
say:
we've
reached
an
impasse,
but
what
we
did
is
a
we've
taken
advice.
As
far
as
we
were
concerned,
it
was
permitted
development
because
it
was
no
wasn't
a
thousand
square
meters
in
area
and
it
wasn't
15
meters
high
and
it
didn't
change
the
outer
appearance
of
the
Quarry
foreign.
R
R
R
So
that
is
ongoing
and
there's
some
discussions
there
about
traffic
limits
and
the
amount
of
traffic.
R
R
The
sound
plant
does
the
sand
plant
actually
makes
building
sound
for
Paving
mortar
pipe
bedding,
all
the
things
that
are
needed
to
build
houses
and
then
there's
a
course
of
sand,
which
is
a
great
sand
which
is
usually
using
again
for
as
a
filler
in
concrete,
it's
used
for
Horticultural
sound
Sports
field,
sound
and
it's
basically
it
is
a-
is
a
masked
car.
It
can
be
used
for
water
filtration,
for
instance.
So
that's
what
the
sand
plant
does
the
water,
then
that
goes
from
the
sand
plant
to
the
filter.
R
R
But
there
is
a
small
market
for
this
type
of
clay,
because
warnings
are
Sandy
clay
and
it's
great
it
it.
It's
consistent
so
that
material,
some
of
it
may
go
offside
if
there
is
a
market
for
it
and
it's
used
for
animal
bedding.
It's
used
for
a
supplement
to
mainly
beef
cattle,
but
other
ruminants
as
well.
So,
but
it's
the
filter
press
is
not
being
built
to
make
a
new
product.
R
L
All
right,
so
there
is
a
potential
of
a
market
available
for
the
the
one
of
the
byproducts
of
the
process.
Will
that
in
overall
terms,
increase
traffic
movements
because
you've
said
that
by
the
fact
that
you're
not
going
to
need
as
much
water
on
site
so
that
will
that
will
reduce
down
the
number
of
traffic
movements?
Fine
I
get
that.
Will
there
be
a
corresponding
increase
in
traffic
movements
by
moving
that
product
on
and
off
site?
And
what's
going
to
be
the
general
balance
at
the
end
of
the
day,
more
or
less
foreign.
R
First
of
all,
the
planning
permissions
allow
the
planning
permission
from
1996
allows
50
000
tons
a
year
or
a
thousand
tonnes
a
week
right,
unless
you
wish
to
discuss
with
the
council
about
how
many
vehicles
you
need
right.
So
it's
unlimited
really
when
your
woman
reads
reads
that
the
other
two
will
have
a
limit
of
110
out
and
110
in
now.
R
Those
limits
are
the
limits
at
this
present
time.
You
know,
so
it
doesn't
matter
whether
whether
you
and
those
limits
are
interpreted
on
a
quality
imperfections
is
allowing
is
the
material
is
allowing
aggregate
or
any
other
minerals
out
of
the
gate.
So
the
limit
is
110.
So
if
they
wanted
to
sell
40
000
tons
of
clay
from
this
filter
press,
it
would
still
be
have
to
be
within
those
limits
of
the
Quarry
I.
R
Think
the
little
bit
of
a
difference
of
opinion
on
on
traffic
limits
is
that
nobody
envisioned
at
the
time
that
a
tanker
would
be
coming
with
water.
Now
there
are
additional
traffic
limits,
but
they
are
the
different
traffic
additional
traffic
movements,
but
they
are
not
aggregate
movements.
So
that's
that's
where
there
probably
is
some
ongoing
investigations.
What
I
can
say
is
any
materials
that
leave
that
site
will
be
within
the
limits
of
the
planning
permissions
which
are
110.
O
Because
that
answer
was
a
lot
longer
than
the
questions.
I
was
a
little
bit
concerned
that
members
might
I'm
not
actually
be
following
it.
So
the
three,
the
three
basic
questions
were
and
Steve
can
correct
me
because
he
knows
this
much
better
than
I
that
we're
only
pre-op
discussions
prior
to
enforcement
action.
Well,
the
this
this
started
in
effect,
because
there
was
a
bit
of
a
a
difference
of
opinion
about
our
condition
was
worded.
On
a
previous
permission,
so
the
applicant
went
ahead
thinking
it
was
permitted
development.
O
We
thought
it
wasn't,
so
there
were
no
pre-application
discussions.
The
concrete
walls
you
saw
in
the
photographs
were
erected
before
we
became
involved
on
this
particular
issue
since
enforcement
action.
What
in
this
discussions
was
these
obviously
being
involved
with
months
of
discussions
about
this
and
the
buns
and
all
the
rest
of
it
in
its
exact
location,
the
impact
and
the
noise?
So
so
that's
the
answer
to
that
one
and
the
new
product
I
think
was
quite
clear
in
the
end
that
potentially
there
will
be
a
market
for
some
of
this
filtered
cake.
O
I
just
wanted
to
be
make
it
clear,
because
there
were
quite
simple
questions,
but
it
was
quite
a
long
answer
in
terms
of
response
and
then
on
the
highways
issue.
Yes,
there
is
a
bit
again
a
bit
of
a
difference
of
opinion
about
the
the
the
vehicle
movements
because
of
the
previous
conditions,
and
we
heard
about
aggregate
movements
and
the
movement
of
water
by
trucks.
O
F
Thank
you.
You'll
have
to
excuse
my
soul
to
just
singing
tones
this
afternoon
yeah,
so
we
heard
from
Dr
Olson
chair
and
they
seem
that
gentleman
seemed
and
he's
he's.
His
friends
and
neighbors
seem
to
be
in
a
fairly
reasonable
frame
of
mind.
I
think
and
seem
to
be
looking
to
find
a
sort
of
an
equitable
solution.
Shall
we
say
to
where
we
find
ourselves
and
a
discussion
so
far
this
afternoon
of
uncovered
a
fair
amount
of
planning
form.
R
We
would
like
to
do.
Is
we
reinstate
the
liaison
committee
meetings
which
we
used
to
ruin
on
a
regular
basis
up
until
covered,
and
then
they
were
canceled
and
there's
been
a
number
of
people
who
were
on
that
committee
who
no
longer
want
to
be
or
can't
be,
or
have
other
things
to
do.
That's
the
first
thing
we'd
like
to
reinstate
that
the
second
thing
is
Mr
Ogden.
R
R
So
basically
we
would
we,
we
would
I,
think
I
speak
for
Mr,
Logan
and
Mr
wylock.
R
Is
they
in
their
age,
would
like
to
open
up
a
dialogue
so
that
there
are
no
longer
any
misrepresentations
or
misinterpretations
of
planning
conditions
or
or
anything
like
that
and
we'd
like
to
set
that
set
that
meeting
up
as
soon
as
possible
as
a
caveat,
I,
don't
think
Mr
Ogden
wants
to
be
targeted
in
a
views
and,
to
be
honest
with,
you
was
quite
upset
after
he
went
to
a
meeting
a
few
weeks
ago
in
the
village
which
was
quite
hostile.
F
Okay,
that's
that
that
that's
useful
to
know
looking
at
what
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
by
speaker
so
far.
Introducing
from
the
comments
within
the
report
would
that
sort
of
dialogue
go
forward,
extend
to
the
the
location
of
the
proposed
field
suppressors.
They
understand
it's
only
a
foundation
stage
and
its
actual
location
seem
to
be
a
bone
of
contention
and
I'm.
Sure
colleagues
will
want
to
properly
explore
this
further
with
questions
to
officers,
but
I
mean.
Is
there
a
scope
for
that
dialogue
going
forward?
R
The
filter
press
has
to
be
as
near
as
you
can
appreciate
to
pump
water
from
somewhere
with.
You
know,
40
clay
in
it
to
pump.
It
can't
be
pumped
very
far,
so
we
looked
at
an
area
where
it
could
go
and
that
area
we
actually
looked
at
the
landscape
and
as
Mr
Littlejohn
has
quite
greatly
done,
he's
gone
out
and
done
his
own
assessment,
but
we
did
an
assessment.
R
Also
we'd
had
a
landscape
report
done
before.
So
we
did.
The
assessment
on
the
landscape.
We've
had
an
assessment
on
the
dust
and
noise
for
the
crushing
operations
which
will
supply
the
sand
plan
because
you
could
appreciate,
because
of
the
filter
press
and
the
sand
plant
are
a
wet
operation.
There
are
no
emissions
from
that.
R
The
second
thing
is:
is
noise
we've
had
a
comprehensive
noise
report
undertaken
for
the
Quarry,
including
the
filter
press
and
the
sound
plant
working
together
and
because
they're
in
buildings
in
the
room,
electronically
and
hydraulically,
none
of
them.
They
don't
make
any
noise,
so
basically
the
location
where
it
is
tucked
under
tucked
into
the
face
under
in
the
base
of
the
Quarry,
then
it
can't
be
seen
from
outside,
and
it
certainly
can't
be
seen
from
the
houses
in
the
village
right
now.
R
I
walk
around
the
village
on
a
regular
basis
and
I
can't
hear
that
quarry
at
all.
To
be
quite
honest
with
you,
I
would
say
that
wouldn't
I
I
would
say
that
wouldn't
I,
but
I
have
been
around
with
the
planning
officers
as
well,
and
they
have
not
heard
it.
They
can't
hear
things
either,
so
you
know
it's
what
I
would
say
would
be
difficult
to
move
it
because
of
from
all
the
impact
assessments
we've
had
done.
That
is
the
best
place
for
it
to
be
so.
B
P
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
to
these
traffic
movements
in
and
out
the
110
in
and
the
110
out.
Sorry
thank
you.
I
I
yeah
I'm
I'm
getting
a
bit
confused
about
these
traffic
movements
in
and
out,
because
there
seems
to
be
lots
of
interpretations
of
this.
This
limit
and
you've
talked
about
them
being,
and
you
said,
while
you
were
sat
there
and
you
you,
you
refer
to
them
as
annual
well
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
they're,
not
annual
they're
weekly,
but
you
you.
P
That's
coming
in
has
been
added
on
top
of
these
limits
and
these
limits
exceeded.
So
there's
lots
of
different
interpretations
of
this
110
and
110
out
on
whether
the
weekly
annualized
or
whatever
they
are
so
I'd
like
you
to
definitively
tell
us
what
your
or
understanding
of
that
is
and
why
they're
not
being
stuck
to
what
why
why
you're
exceeding
these
all
the
time.
B
O
Sorry,
counselor
Hazelwood
I
think
it
might
be
more
appropriate
if
Steve,
because
he
has
the
condition
in
front
of
him
here.
So
he
can
explain
what
we
because
don't
forget,
there's
a
live
enforcement
case
about
these
movements
ongoing
separate
to
the
discussions
of
this
application.
So
we
are
slightly
going
off
track,
but
Steve
could
answer
the
question
directly.
C
Okay,
so
I
have
the
have
the
condition
in
front
of
me.
It
says
no
more
than
220
heavy
Goods
vehicles,
total
trips,
110
and
110
out
during
any
Monday
to
Saturday
working
period.
C
C
C
We
haven't
agreed
anything
in
in
writing
for
obvious
for
obvious
reasons,
while
these
enforcement
enforcement
going
on
but
there
is
there
is
on
the
camp,
it's
accepted
that
sometimes
there's
a
campaign
basis
for
increasing
traffic
movements
for
a
short
burst,
and
we
would
want
to
know
exactly
how
long
that
we're
going
to
take
what
the
routing
strategy
was
and
what
they,
what
exactly
the
impacts
were,
but
we
haven't
approved
anything
under
that
condition.
So
but
it
is
there
and
and
that's
that's
basically
the
meetings,
the
details
of
the
of
the
condition
counselor.
P
R
That's
my
interpretation
exactly
that
there
is
a
there
is
a
hundred
and
ten
wagons
per
week
in
and
out
unless
there
is
a
opportunity
to
undertake
other
works.
For
instance,
this
site
has
actually
been
providing
bulk
feel
to
Calvary
and
and
down
to
on
the
flood
relief
scheme
and
that's
a
campaign
basis.
Those
discussions
I've
not
been
involved
in,
but
I
understand
that
Mr
whitelock
and
his
his
agent
have
been
in
discussion
with
the
council
in
the
past
about
it,
and
probably
those
discussions
are
taking
place
at
this
moment
with
this
enforcement
action.
R
P
But
we
but
we've
sorry
another
question,
but
we've
never
agreed
any
of
those.
We've
just
heard
that
we've
never
agreed
any
of
those
campaigns.
That's
never
been
agreed
and
also
you've
said
yourself
that
you,
the
water
that
you're
bringing
in
is,
is
on
top
of
that
hundred
and
ten
in
110
out.
So
you
actually
agreeing.
R
That
that,
to
be
quite
honest
with
you,
because
we
will
provide
material
that
we're
providing
or
there
was
a
tank
with
water.
R
R
Necessarily
no
not
every
week
we
don't
know
it
depends
there's
some
weeks
when
it's
only
30..
You
see
this
time
of
this
this
this
time
of
year
is
we
can
appreciate.
You
know
it
doesn't
get
light
well,
half
past
eight
and
it
finishes
your
heart,
but
it
gets
darker
half
past
three,
so
you're
not
going
to
have
many
Aggregates
wagons
running
in
the
dark,
but
in
the
summer
you
will
you'll
get
you
you'll
get
you'll
get
more.
So
that's
why
I
was
talking
about
the
annualized
movement.
B
Yeah
I'm
agree:
okay,
okay,
we
will
have
it
in
writing
and
we'll
go
by
that
counselor
as
well.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
whatever
decided
could
I
leave
that
question
there,
because
I
don't
think
you're
gonna
get
very
far
with
it.
Are
you
happy
with
that?
Okay,
counselor
Milton
thanks
I'm,
just
going
on
to
my
colleague,
councilor
walshaw,
regarding
what
you
would
do
to
take
into
consideration
the
objectives.
So
my
question
to
you
is
regarding
the
hours
that
were
raised.
B
It's
two
extra
hours
on
Saturday
and
an
hour
and
a
half
on
on
during
the
week.
Would
you
be
prepared
to
reduce
that
in
order
to
to
you
stated
that
there's
a
liaison
committee
that
you'd
like
to
re-establish
I'm
sure
things
like
that
would
come
up.
R
Unfortunately,
I
do
not
have
the
planning
conditions
in
front
of
me,
which
is
from
the
1996
planning
permission
right,
so
what
those
hours,
what
those
hours
reflect
is
that
the
quality
is
able
to
work
outside
producing
material
by
cruising
and
screening,
washing
them
whatever
until
a
time
during
the
day,
a
cat
without
having
another
in
front
of
me,
it's
something
like
1730
or
1800
hours.
R
That
planning
permission
also
allows
the
continuation
of
the
processing
of
material
if
it's
inside
a
building
or
it's
it's
not
being
fed,
in
other
words,
to
allow
it
to
run
to
its
end
of
each
cycle.
That
is
what
is
being
proposed
here.
It's
the
exactly
the
same
as
the
saws
running
in
the
saw
shed
there'll,
be
nobody
at
work.
The
machine,
the
the
sand
plant
and
the
wash
Plant
and
the
and
and
the
filter
press
will
pull
purely
run
to
the
end
of
their
cycle.
R
R
B
Can
I
just
say
at
this
moment
in
time
it
says
within
the
Quarry
7
30
to
5,
30
weekdays
and
8
till
1
pm
on
Saturday
and
well.
According
to
this,
the
proposed
to
condition
ours
is
7
30
to
7,
PM
weekdays
and
eight
to
three
p.m.
On
a
Saturday.
So
that's
where
I'm
getting
the
three
and
a
half
extra
hours
and
saying
you
know:
we've
got
the
resident
or
objecting
to
the
extended
hours
to
ask.
Why
can't
you
work
within
those
set
parameters?
Those
hours.
R
R
There
are
other
times
for
materials
to
be
processed
within
a
building
and
those
there's
never
been
any
complaints
about
these
SARS
running
on
program.
Well,
10
o'clock
I
was
putting
this
R
shed
with
the
doors,
closed
and
everybody's
gone
home
and
I.
Think
that's
what
Mr
Littlejohn
is
is
trying
to
he's
trying
to
not
restrict
the
working
on
the
sand
plant
and
the
filter
press,
because
that
will
be
the
same
sort
of
condition
that
would
be
in
the
for
the
other
processes,
but
the
basically
the
quality
is
closed
down.
G
You
know
the
impression
I'm
getting
is
that
Mr
Ogden
yourself
interpret
and
reinterpret
the
rules
according
to
what
benefits
yourselves,
rather
than
considering
the
regulations
or
what
are
the
reasonable,
or
you
might
not
think
that
views
of
the
residents
who
presumably
want
a
quiet
life
to
get
on
with
things
without
having
to
spend
time
monitoring.
Would
you
agree
with
that
that
you're
constantly
reinterpreting
according
to
what
benefits
yourselves,
rather
than
looking
at
the
regulations,
foreign.
R
I
wouldn't
agree
with
that.
Actually,
because
what
what
the
conditions,
the
the
conditions
on
this
and
any
other
quality
within
Leeds
or
any
of
the
quality
within
West
Yorkshire
or
the
Hall
of
England,
are
quite
clear.
It's
the
interpretation
of
what
that
what
that
is,
and
as
I
say
at
this
present
time,
there's
a
difference
in
interpretation
between
What.
The
residents
believe
that
the
up
with
the
quality
can
do
and
what
the
quality
operator
believes
he
can
do
right
now.
That's
something
that
we
have
to
discuss
and
get
to
some
sort
of
agreement.
R
Whichever
way
right,
we
are
aware
that
the
residents
monitor
this,
so
this
site
is
more
monitored
than
any
other,
the
other
30
that
I
actually
advise
on
right.
So
so
what
I'm
saying
is
we
we,
as
the
operators.
R
Mr
logdon
have
to
negotiate
and
discuss
with
the
with
the
residents,
but
if
a
maybe
you
saw
bold,
the
residents
interpret
those
conditions
for
their
benefit,
also
right
to
do
so.
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
have
to
get
to
a
situation
where
we,
we
know
quite
clearly
what
the
conditions
are
going
to
be
now.
R
Mr
gritteljohn
has
eluded
in
his
report
that
that
is
at
the
moment
a
review
of
what
they
call
the
review
of
the
old
mining
commissions
and
that
gathers
up
the
planning
permission
from
1996
the
planning
permission
from
2006
and
the
planning
permission
from
2016.
and
all
those
conditions
are
slightly
different
and
what
we're
able
to
do
Mr,
Ogden
and
Mr
whitelock
me
and
any
other
agent.
That's
involved.
G
R
B
F
N
Just
want
to
give
some
advice
of
caution
here.
This
is
not
to
matter
for
the
applicant
to
change
his
application
before
you.
You've
got
the
application
before
you
with
the
hours
the
red
line,
the
operation
before
you
is
for
you
to
decide
that
application
as
to
whether
you
approve
it,
you
wish
to
vary
it
or
apply
certain
conditions.
It's
not
for
you
to
discuss
or
negotiate
with
the
applicant
or
indeed,
members
of
the
public.
Just
so
that
I
may
draw
some
caution.
There.
G
B
Very
because
they
got
well
by
saying
the
question
that
I
can't
remember
his
name
suggested.
Would
you
happy
with
that?
But
in
other
words
he
was
asking
him
his
opinion.
N
I
I
would
be
cautious
in
you
asking
that
question
counselor,
it's
up
to
you
when
you've
heard
from
offices
and
all
the
evidence
and
read
the
papers
for
you
to
decide
thereafter,
what's
appropriate
for
this
planning
application
apply
your
judgment.
N
B
The
another
question
my
comments:
I've
got
many
questions,
but
some
of
it
already
asked,
but
from
what
I'm
gathering
from
the
floor
of
members,
this
totally
lack
of
communication
with
you
and
the
community
and
I'm
sure
if
you
had
communicate
more
with
Community,
this
wouldn't
have
stretched
out
you'd
come
to
some
compromising
and
as
a
chair
and
representing
award
any
project
like
this
on
any
project,
the
community
should
be
a
part
of
it.
50
50,
really
discussion
and
I
was
disappointed
to
either
after
the
pandemic
slow
down.
B
R
The
charge
that's
correct
and
and
to
be
quite
to
be
quite
honest
with
you
is
to
say,
The
Operators,
but
in
particular
Mr
Ogden
have
invited
people
to
the
Quality
to
have
a
look
at
it
and
there
have
been
people
who
have
come
to
the
Quarry
and
then
reported
back
to
the
Village
residents
right.
Okay,
Mr
Ogden
has
been
to
a
a
couple
of
meetings,
and
that
has
been
to
an
open
meeting
a
few
weeks
ago
and
it
was
very,
very
hostile
towards
him.
R
So
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
that
you
know
that
we're
we're
it's
a
bit
of
an
impasse
at
this
present
time
and
I,
don't
think
it's
all
the
residents
of
the
village.
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
what
we're
hoping
to
do
is
to
improve
those
relations
by
having
liaison
meetings
again
but
having.
If
we,
if
I
mean
I,
went
to
a
meeting
in
2014
with
one
of
the
middle
planning
officers
and
it
it
was
the
same
way.
B
B
J
Others
please:
well,
you
were
going
to
answer
the
question
about
hours,
but
while
I've
got
you
I'll
just
stick
a
few
more
in,
you
did
say
that
it
wouldn't
the
effect
on
traffic
movements
will
be
minimal.
Can
you
tell
us
how
minimal
and
I'm
assuming
we
were
told
that
there
were
other
potential
locations?
C
Thank
you,
counselor.
The
the
the
maximum
number
of
potential
traffic
movements
would
be
to
a
day
which.
C
J
C
The
other
parts
of
the
question
of
the
locations
that
gets
to
the
number
of
the
matter
really
I
I
would
have
enjoyed
to
have
that
conversation
because
it
will
probably
have
prevented
me
from
having
to
come
here,
and
so
we
were
presented
with
a
location,
and
that
was
the
extent
of
the
negotiation,
and
that's
why
we
said
oh
well,
I'd
rather
deal
with
this
planning
application.
Then.
C
C
Just
just
right
here
we
go
so
from
Mr.
Callum
was
absolutely
right.
We've
got
three
permissions
and
those
three
permissions
operate
in
different
ways
at
different
parts
of
the
Quarry.
So
we
are
reviewing
the
process
and
trying
to
get
a
coherent
set
of
conditions.
We've
been
that's
been
ongoing
for
some
time.
C
J
C
K
Thank
you
chair,
so
excuse
me
I'm,
not
not
100.
So
if,
firstly,
why
was
I
had
no
site
visit
today,
because
I
think
a
site
visit
would
have
been
useful.
So
that's
that's
one
question
to
you
and
another
another
question
really
I'm
going
to
go
back
on
the
building
in
Greenbelt.
If
I
may
now
it
says
that
extraction
of
minerals
is
an
acceptable
use.
K
O
Sorry,
chair
can
I
just
answer
the
first
part
of
councilor
Smith's
question
about
the
site
visit
you'll
all
be
aware
that
we
do
have
a
chairs
brief
before
the
reports
were
published
and
we
did
discuss
this.
It's
an
operational
Quarry.
We
don't
have
the
safety
equipment
that
would
have
been
required
for
you
to
have
gone
on
to
the
site,
but
also,
if
you
remember,
the
photograph
that
was
shown
very
early
on
which
showed
the
concrete
silos.
O
The
things
going
to
be
sat
on
top
of
you'll
have
noticed
that
there
was
quite
a
lot
of
water
struck,
sound
mixed
together.
You
know
almost
creating
a
quicksand-like
material.
Again,
you
would
have
had
difficulty
actually
negotiating
that,
so
we've
had
to
rely
on
the
photographs
for
those
reasons
or
we
decided
in
terms
of
safety,
because
we
didn't
have
the
correct
safety
equipment
and
the
conditions
so
I
just
thought,
I'd
answer
that
one
and
I'll
let
Steve
answer
the
rest.
Thank.
C
You
so
in
in
terms
of
the
building
in
the
green
belt,
minerals
extraction
is
Con
considered
to
be
acceptable,
useful
in
the
green
belt,
and
yes,
this
would
form
part
of
that
it
it's.
This
is
not
an
approval
for
a
different
use
other
than
from
the
minerals
approval.
That's
already
on
the
side.
There's
no
other
change.
You
use
it's
just
for
the
minerals
extraction.
K
Sorry,
just
just
a
quick
one
on
that,
but
there
is
another
byproduct.
If
we
use
this
this
press
there's
another
byproduct.
Does
that
then
qualify.
C
Sorry,
the
the
lagoons
yeah
no
negotiations
taking
place
regarding
the
mission
exists
for
extraction
and
I
believe
that
they
intend
to
go
below
and-
and
that's
that's
within
the
existing
approval.
So
the
only
the
only
condition
that
I
would
impose
is
is
the
woman
of
put
in
the
report,
which
is
for
it
to
me,
seized
immediately
and
move
for.
It's
been
removed
within
12
months.
B
I
think
you've
answered
about
the
time,
so
I
won't
be
asking
about
that.
It
said
that
that
there
was
you've
requested
Landscaping
scheme
have
that
come
forward
and
also
within
the
is
it
the
condition
set
out
that
they've
got
until
2042
to
to
provide
that
or
to
do
the
Landscaping.
So
those
were
my
question
to
you
and
one
question
to
the
highway
officer.
B
Are
you
happy
with
all
these
movements
and
do
know
that
it's
state
that
there's
been
some
breach
Etc,
but
can
you
give
us
some
clarification
with
regards
because
we're
getting
a
been
getting
a
bit
muddled
up,
so
it's
110
per
per
week
or
is
it
30
per
day
or
you
know
so?
Obviously
we
are
aware
that
there's
been
quite
a
few
conditions
over
the
years,
so
everybody's
getting
confused
with
regards
obviously
the
operator
using
the
the
three
different
conditions:
1996
2016
Etc.
So
can
we
have
some
clarification?
Please.
C
So,
with
regards
to
the
Landscaping
plan
that
one
has
been
submitted
and
it's
okay,
it's
acceptable
in
in
general
terms,
so
in
details
like
numbers
and
time
frames
and
and
how
it's
going
to
be
provided,
having
a
bit
more
detail
about
the
the
the
land
rings
in
the
buildings
there.
So
I'd
like
to
move
that
onto
a
condition
so
that
I
can
negotiate
further
to
get
something
that
is
both
acceptable
to
the
other
side
and
and
while
silent
as
well,
because
that's
the
way
that
they'll
get
we
implemented.
So
it's
been
influence.
B
Okay,
yeah
just
another
thing:
I
would
meant
to
ask
with
regards
to
permitted
development.
Can
you
just
clear
it
up?
Was
there
any
permitted
development
allowed
or
wasn't
there?
You
know
because
they
start
building,
that
they
add
and
you're
saying
that
they
haven't.
So
where
did
they
get
the
idea
that
they
had
permitted
development
rights.
C
O
Chair,
sorry,
yeah,
sorry,
you
need
to
step
back
from
your
mic
a
bit
Steve
as
well.
Sorry
yeah,
if
you
remember
the
the
it
was
quite
clear,
wasn't
it
from
Mr
Clinton
that
those
different
interpretations
of
things
I
think
when
councilor
garthwick
asks
the
question
and
I
think
the
answer
was
a
little
bit
confused?
Wasn't
it
in
terms
of
what
they
understood?
It's
not
permitted
development
in
terms
of
what
you
would
have
with
the
householder
application.
O
It's
the
interpretation
that
they
have
of
that
particular
condition
that
was
read
out
earlier
that
they
think
within
that
allows
them
to
do
certain
works,
but
we
don't
so
that's
where
that
came
from.
If
you
don't
mind
me
saying,
and
the
Landscapes
theme
I'm
going
to
work
down
up
at
the
top
here,
can
we
go
back
to
one
of
the
Cross
sections,
because
I
just
want
to
make
a
point
to
members?
Please
it
was
early
on
in
the
presentation.
O
O
O
Now
is
it
after
sorry,
it's
the
wrong
way
down
my
apologies
and
then
there's
a
restoration
which
is
2042,
councilor
Hamilton,
that's
the
two
when
the
whole
thing
is
put
back.
That's
why
this
takes.
Thank
you
for
that
see
the
bottom
in
terms
of
the
landscape
scheme.
Can
you
see
when
Steve's
talking
about
the
bombs-
and
you
mentioned
that
the
the
the
cabin
actually
overtops
the
landscape
or
the
the
hole
that
it
sits
in
by
about
five
meters?
O
You
can
see
an
indication
of
the
slope
down
to
the
main
street
in
in
Hawksworth
there,
so
the
bond
and
the
the
planting
would
be
at
the
very
top
of
that
raise.
But
the
point
I
wanted
to
make
here
is
that
unless
you're
actually
stood
right
on
the
boundary,
which
is
at
the
top
of
the
land
there
because
of
the
line
of
sight
going
up
the
hill,
you
wouldn't
actually
see
the
the
cabin
simply
because
of
the
the
Topography
of
the
site
and
the
fact
that
it
sat
down
slightly.
O
So,
yes,
if
you
drew
a
straight
line
across
it
over
tops
by
five
meters,
but
the
only
only
point
you
would
get
that
view
is
you
have
to
be
stood
right
on
the
edge
of
the
Quarry,
but
to
that,
but
to
ameliorate
that
as
best
as
it
can,
which
it
would
do
unless
you
were
stood
at
the
Quarry
Edge,
the
intention
is
to
raise
the
bond
and
put
Landscaping
along
as
it's
shown
roughly
in
the
area
where
that
little
green
tree
is
shown.
Does
that
help?
Thank
you
sorry.
C
C
This
would
be
separate
a
separate
condition.
So,
to
some
extent
it
would
be
temporary
because
we
don't
know
what
is
going
to
happen
before
2042
with
regard
to
other
Landscaping
within
the
site.
A
In
regards
to
highways,
I
think
the
the
conditions
is
is
very
clear
that
there's
a
limit
of
110
vehicles
in
and
110
Vehicles
out
per
week,
but
within
there
there's
a
separate
cap
of
you
can
go
up
to
60
on
a
given
day,
but
it
still
has
to
sit
within
that
220
two-way
trips
in
a
given
week.
A
On
this
application
yeah
and
this
application
there's
this
there's
two
scenarios
presented
to
us:
one
where
the
the
the
Pressed
material
stays
on
site
and
one
where
it
leaves
site
where
it
stays
on
site
there'll,
be
no
vehicle
movements,
obviously
where
it
leaves
sites
the.
What
we've
told
is
that
there's
48
tons
per
day,
which
is
two
or
three
vehicles
depending
on
the
size
of
the
lorry,
but
you
can
offset
that
against
the
amount
of
water
that
comes
in
now.
O
L
Another
question:
just
the
first
one
right:
if
they're,
if
you're
saying
it
would
be
permitted
for
them
to
have
an
activity
inside
a
closed
environment,
is
there
the
need
for
any
extractor
fans
that
would
need
to
be
on
whilst
that
is
taking
place?
In
other
words,
if
you're
working
in
a
combined
space,
you
need
to
move
air
about.
L
So
is
there
not
going
to
be
extractor
fans
needing
to
be
used
outside
of
the
hours
the
additional
hours
that
you
said
it
would
be
permitted
if
they
were
carrying
out
the
enclosed
activity?
Does
that
not
mean
there
needs
to
be
extractor
fans
of
some
description?
I've
got
all
rough
lots
of
other
ones.
So
if
you
can
answer
that,
one
first
of
all
will
there
be
need
for
some
extraction
fans
to
get
dark
and
air
out
of
the
internals
of
where
that's
taking
place.
L
So
you're
saying
you're
accepting
that
these
people
are
going
to
have
particulates
going
around
a
room
and
there
is
no
place
for
that
particular
to
go.
It.
L
I'm,
sorry,
but
any
process
has
and
out
has
an
effect.
It's
either.
Water
comes
off,
air
comes
off,
something
has
got
to
come
off
otherwise
and
the
engines
anything
that
drives.
It
obviously
has
an
output
from
it.
It's
maybe
minimal
I'm,
not
saying
it's
it's
in
it,
but
you're
saying
that
there
is
no
output.
There
is
nothing
coming
from
those
this
process.
That's
going
to
hang
around
in
the
air
whatsoever.
L
L
So
whilst
these
people
are
working
in
a
plant,
an
industrial
plant
on
site
you're
saying
there
is
no
health
and
safety
legislation
that
the
that
that
has
to
be
that
has
to
be
put
in
place
to
ensure
that
the
operatives
have
got
a
free
flow
of
air.
So
in
case
there
was
anything
that
was
in
the
air
to
make
sure
that
there
is
no
filtration
of
any
of
the
air.
L
H
L
In
that
case,
how
do
you
know
how
many
hours
they're
operating
unless
there's
a
person
on
site?
How
do
you
know
how
long
we've
been
told
it's
going
to
be
an
extra
couple
of
hours?
So
how
do
you
know
what
time
that
that
they
did
actually
stop
it
at
that
time?
Who
is
controlling
that
process
on
the
plant,
whether
they're,
physically
in
the
building
or
in
a
separate
building?
Somebody
must
be
doing
it.
L
Someone
will
have
to
check
that
the
Machinery
hasn't
got
blocked
up,
etc,
etc,
because
if
the
Machinery
gets
blocked
up,
someone
has
to
go
in
and
unblock
it
and
if
you're
dealing
with
water
and
you've
got
clay
that
my
brief
knowledge
of
science
would
be
that
clay
does
tend
to
clog
up
things
eventually,
eventually
I,
just
I'm.
Sorry
I'll
make
my
own
value
judgment
on
that,
but
I
am
not
satisfied.
L
If
you're
doing
an
extractor
fan,
that's
going
to
be
going
all
the
time,
we've
heard
that
there
isn't
an
additional
noise
problem
I
in
the
additional
hours.
So
if
we
go
and
what
the
officer
has
said,
then
there
should
be
no
additional
noise
being
generated.
That's
what
that
would
be
the
conclusion
to
reach
there.
O
Just
to
cover
that
and
Steve
feel
free
to
jump
in,
but,
as
this
being
said
by
Jonathan,
it's
an
unmanned
building.
So
there
isn't
the
need
to
have
that
extraction
facility
for
a
health
and
safety
issue.
Maintenance
in
any
Machinery
you'd
be
a
lunatic
I
think
to
actually
continue
to
maintain
something.
O
Whilst
it
was
running,
you
would
stop
it
so
again
in
that
particular
point,
it
was
a
concern
there,
but
I
do
understand
the
point
about
noise,
but
what
Steve
was
saying
because
it's
an
unmanned
building
it
doesn't
need
to
have
that
sort
of
mechanical
ventilation
and
also
the
the
the
product
is
supplied.
I
think
by
a
conveyor.
Is
that
correct.
C
L
This
is
my
next
question
right.
The
conditions
that
we've
put
on
in
this
at
the
moment
are
in
a
mess.
What
went
wrong
with
the
conditions
we
put
on
beforehand,
because
obviously
the
conditions
we've
put
on
beforehand
have
been
so
open
to
interpretation
that
anybody
can
come
along
and
interpret
it,
whichever
way
they
want.
So
what
lessons
have
you,
as
the
officer
is
going
to
put
the
news
conditions
on,
because
I
have
great
concerns
that
the
conditions
that
are
being
put
on
aren't
being
put
on
rigidly
enough
to
enable
enforcement
to
take
action?
L
The
the
way
that
they're
being
worked
at
the
moment
appears
to
give
a
valid.
We
might
disagree
with
it,
but
the
operators
are
being
able
to
interpret
it
and
presumably
they'd
be
getting
legal
advice,
so
their
legal
advisors
are
saying
it's
quite
okay
for
you
to
do
this
this
and
this
you,
as
the
planning
officer,
are
saying
no,
no,
no,
no,
that
wasn't
what
was
meant
by
those
these
conditions.
It
was
meant
to
be
this
this
and
that
then
you've
got
enforcement.
You
probably
don't
know
which
who's
writing
who's
wrong
to
be
quite
Frank.
L
If
anything,
if
any,
if
past
experiences
anything
to
go
on,
so
they've
got
nothing
and
they're
frustrating
local
members
because
they
can
actually
take
any
action,
they'll
be
saying
to
them.
Well
we're
going
to
negotiate
we're
going
to
ask
them
to
submit
an
application,
and-
and
we
will
leave
it
up
to
the
plans
panel
to
make
the
decision.
So
what
we're
going
to
do
if
we
get
any
powers
that
we
can
consolidate
existing
conditions
and
rewrite
them
so
that
they
cannot
then
be
interpreted
one
way
or
the
other.
L
And
what
reassurances
can
you
give
me
that
this
on
this
occasion,
you
are
going
to
seek
the
views
of
legal
department
before
you
sign
off
the
conditions
to
make
sure
that
legal
departments
are
happy
that
there
is
sufficient
strength
behind
them?
That
if
there
is
to
be
a
breach
in
the
future,
immediate
action
can
be
taken
not
well.
We
will
negotiate
for
six
seven
months.
While
we
have
a
little
conversation.
Meanwhile,
the
residents
have
still
got
the
problems.
C
I
I
can
give
you
a
100
reassurance
that
I
can
go
to
legal
for
for
for
for
advice,
the
one
thing
I
would
say:
I
think
you
you
you
find
is
is
perfectly
perfectly
fair
and
it's
the
reason
why
we
called
in
a
review
of
conditions
which,
which
is
known
as
a
as
a
romp
in
the
trade
and
and
we'll
be
looking
and
I've
done
these
things
before
and
I'm,
quite
honed
into
how
conditions
work
and,
and
especially
from
seeing
conditions
from
the
90s
which
which,
which
tend
to
Ramble,
On
and
and
don't
work.
C
It's
also
relates
to
the
initial
legislation
which
doesn't
allow
local
authorities
to
impose
certain
restrictions
on
quarries,
without
opening
themselves
up
to
a
liability
for
compensation.
So
it's
complex
and
also
just
on
your
point
of
enforcement.
I
might
be
talking
about
attorney
here,
but
all
enforcement
is
essentially
about
negotiation
from
the
start,
and
it's
not
just
supposed
to
be
about
punishing
a
person
for
breaching
their
condition.
So.
L
Yeah
except
it's
residents,
one
thing
that
upsets
residents
and
elected
members
alike
is
when
we
raise
an
issue
with
enforcement.
There
is
never
clear
pathway
set
out
by
enforcement
as
to
what
can
and
cannot
be
achieved
and
as
a
result
of
that
residents
go
through
conditions
and
interpret
it.
This
way
planning
interpret
another
way:
planning
enforcement
in
temperature.
A
different
way
legal
department
interpret
different.
The
applicants
interpret
all
differently.
Now,
we've
no
idea
as
basic
members
of
the
public
who's
right
and
who's
wrong.
We
can
only
take
the
advice.
L
That's
given
to
us:
counselors
tend
we
might
not
like
it
go
on
the
side
of
the
officers.
You
know
it.
We
tend
to
agree
with
the
interpretation
given
to
us,
even
although
we
maybe
have
our
doubts
well,
you
know
so
it's
if
we
were
to
approve
this
today.
I
need
greater
assurance
that
the
conditions
will
be
worded
in
a
more
professional
and
with
the
possibility
of
enforcement
action
being
taken.
L
If
these
problems
occur
again
because
the
residents
none
of
us
in
this
room,
well,
the
residents
crossed
there
and
the
elected
members
across
there
will
have
the
problems.
But
once
this
has
been
signed
off,
nobody
in
here
is
going
to
be
affected
by
this
in
any
shape
or
form
it's.
These
residents
are
going
to
have
to
suffer.
If
we
get
it
wrong
now
we
were
advised
our
training
course
recently
that
we
cannot
negotiate.
We
cannot
change
an
application.
L
Our
role
is
to
either
accept
or
reject
the
application
before
us,
nothing
else
not,
but
any
other
balance
of
judgment
on
it.
So
if
we're
going
to
do
that,
if
I'm
going
to
accept
this
I
need
a
bit
more
assurance
that
the
officers
when
they
come
to
do
the
conditions
are
actually
going
to
do
something.
That
means
something
to
the
residents
out
there.
So
we
can
move
that
one
on
right.
That's
that
one!
L
The
application
discussions,
you
said,
I
think
I.
I
can't
remember
exactly
what
you
said,
but
you
said
that
you'd
have
liked
to
have
been
able
to
have
discussed
and
debated
things
a
bit
more
and
you
might
not
have
needed
to
have
this
planning
application
here
today.
So
what
options
have
you
not
been
able
to
discuss
that?
You
think
would
be
potential
solutions
to
this,
because
I'm
not
allowed
to
suggest
it,
but
you
can
suggest
how
the
application
could
be
improved.
I'm
not
allowed
to
come
up
with
anything.
So
you
could.
N
L
The
planner
said
the
planner
said
that
if
he
had
been
allowed,
he
would
have
been
able
to
have
had
a
conversation
about
some
of
the
other
areas
of
concern
that
we've
got
so
what
I'm
saying
is?
Can
he
tell
us
what
these
other
potential
areas
that
you
think
might,
because
what
I
might
end
up
doing,
making
a
proposition
that
we
defer
this
to
enable
officers
to
go
back
again
and
to
look
at
other
alternatives
to
see
if
there
are
any
that
can
be
brought
forward
and
then
brought
back
to
us?
L
N
Really
I
think
I'll
defer
to
the
the
officer
in
relation
to
clarify
the
point
that
he
was
trying
to
make
in
relation
to
rectifying
the
issues
on
site,
but
in
relation
to
the
training
that
you've
been
provided
with.
Negotiation
is
absolutely
right:
that's
not
the
remit
of
members,
but
having
said
that,
if
there
are
areas
within
this
application-
and
there
are
material
issues
which
you
consider
would
are
required
that
go
to
the
heart
of
the
operation,
that
is
certainly
something
that
you
can
make
an
amendment
to
and
seek.
N
That
is
the
distinguishment
here
and
I.
It's
it's
not
that
it's
not
yes
or
no
council
you're
a
very
experienced
counselor.
All
of
you,
in
fact
all
of
you
are
on
the
table.
Are
you
can
distinguish
between
what's
material?
What's
not
what
goes
to
the
heart
of
the
application
and
therefore
needs
to
be
added,
removed
or
searched
so
that
that's
the
comment
that
I'll
make
before
I
defer
to
my
colleague.
D
C
The
the
negotiation
I
would
have
liked
to
have
would
have
been
in
relation
to
the
actual
location
of
of
the
plant.
However,
I'm
not
saying
that
I
wouldn't
have
been
persuaded
that
this
was
the
best
possible
place
and
my
my
recommendation
is
based
on
not
necessarily
there.
It's
there,
it's
the
best
set
of
where
I
would
like
to
have
it,
but
it's
in
an
approvable
location
and
and
really
that's
all,
that's
all
I
can
look
at
so
I
I
I.
C
L
C
C
So
so
we
can,
we
can
you
we
can
use
that
I
can't
speak
for
the
team
I'm
no
longer
in
the
team.
However,
if
all
sides
are
agreeable
to
a
liaison
group
meeting,
then
that
can
be
set
up,
we've
done
it
elsewhere,
and-
and
we
did
it
here.
L
N
No
you're,
absolutely
right
Steve,
the
liaison
condition
is
already
exists
on
The
Wider
consensus.
I,
understand
that
just
that's
just
been
confirmed,
so
you
shouldn't
be
duplicating
conditions
that
are
already
on
the
wider
side.
So
what
should
happen
now?
Is
enforcement
or
or
compliance
should
look
at
that
condition
and
liaise
with
the
site
owners
and
operators
and
see
how
that's
being
operated,
whether
it
needs
varying
and
try
and
Trigger
that
so
that
it
works
appropriately.
F
Thanks
yeah
I
wasn't
beginning
to
wonder
if
Council
Anderson
was
being
paid
by
the
word
in
the
conservative
group,
their
allowances.
Today
it
was
a
good
point
to
raise
by
all
it's
more
of
a
comment
and
wanting
to
move
things
forward
to
the
helpful
chair
rather
than
further
questions
for
officers.
If
that's
okay,
yeah
sure.
D
Yeah
just
a
question,
but
very
very
quick
question.
Thank
god
how
many
liaison
meetings
have
you
been
to
as
officers.
C
I
think
we
had
three
a
year
for
three
or
four
a
year
for
about
three
years.
I
think
that's
just
off
the
top
of
my
head,
I'm,
not
going
exact
number
to
hand.
C
Yeah,
the
the
the
up,
the
the
the
operator
took
minutes.
Yeah.
C
In
the
future
on
yeah
yeah
yeah,
that
can
happen,
yeah.
B
G
I
just
wondered
given
the
strength
of
feeling
and
the
apparent
bad
feeling
that
has
been
mentioned
by
various
parties
throughout
this,
whether
some
sort
of
independent
chair
of
those
residents
that
those
liaison
meetings
might
be
a
good
idea,
and
indeed
an
independent
minutes.
Taker
yes,
so
as
to
ensure
that
they're
not
in
any
way
biased.
J
Check
check
can
I
can
I
just
I'm.
Sorry,
I
know
that
feelings
are
running
high,
but
I'm
not
actually
sure
this
is
relevant
to
this
planning
application.
We
know
that
we
know
there
is
a
liaison
committee
and
we
know
there
is
a
planning
condition
that,
on
the
wider
side
that
says
there
should
be
liaison
cubic
meeting.
I
would
drop
the
hint
to
the
ward
members
to
talk
to
planning
enforcement
and
ask
why
these
meetings
are
not
taking
place.
B
F
F
So
we've
obviously
we've
we've
discussed
this
at
length
this
afternoon.
We've
scribbled
down
a
few
points
as
to
wanting
to
move
us
forwarders
to
be
helpful,
so
these
are
in
no
particular
order,
chair
and
they're
they're
sort
of,
if
you
like,
Proto
conditions
that
could
be
finessed
by
the
chief
planning
officer
into
full
conditions.
I
won't
go
over
the
residents
liaison
committee
I.
Don't
really
think
we
can
amend
a
condition
on
another
application.
Was
the
pity
so
I'll
can't
go
through
that
one?
F
We
did
discuss
here
really,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
this
form
with
this
this
site
and
its
operations
against
planning
history.
So
we
were
suggesting
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
conditioned
already.
So
forgive
me
if
it
is
to
to
offer
some
colleagues,
but
we
would
suggest
that
if
there
are
any
PD
rights
still
pertaining
to
the
site
that
those
those
be
removed
so
that
anything
changing
on
the
site
has
to
come
forward
as
an
application,
and
that
and
I
was
looking
at
Nikki
with
a
legal
hat
on
them.
F
Is
it
possible
that
we
could
condition
that
for
perhaps
in
the
future
or
that
be
something
that
would
be
no
I
didn't?
Think,
okay,
it's
worth
a
try!
It's
going
well!
This
we
were
thinking
that
can
we
can
we
condition
that,
with
respect
to
the
the
filter,
press
and
its
implications,
that'd
be
no
increase
in
the
hours
of
operation
from
current
yeah.
N
F
C
The
there
was
a
condition
it,
but
it
did
allow
for
wine
downtime,
so
the
hours
were
different
than
the
general
operational
hours,
but
it
wasn't
left
completely
open,
like
the
previous
condition,
which
allowed
things
to
go
on
inside
buildings.
O
Well,
all
I
was
going
to
say
was
Council
Mr,
walshaw,
sorry
councilman
sure
is
that
yeah,
it's
the
first.
Isn't
it
Council
of
the
World
shows
that,
yes,
that
that's
within
your
rematch
in
terms
of
the
the
condition
about
the
hours
of
operation,
if
you
don't
agree-
and
it
might
be
worthwhile
if
Steve
read
out
what
was
proposed
again.
So
members
are
aware,
but
just
going
back
to
the
other
thing,
the
question
about
removing
PD
rights,
the
PD
writes,
is
about
the
interpretation
of
a
particular
con.
O
This
condition
where
they
thought
that
it
would
they
had
permission
to
do
certain
development,
so
it
doesn't
have
PD
rights
per
se,
but
no,
we
couldn't
go
back
and
take
PD
rights
off
something
that
already
existed.
You
got
the
answer
about
the
the
applications
in
the
future.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
you
know,
we've
got
an
application
in
front
of
us
and
whether
there's
been
breaches
of
of
conditions.
O
I
F
J
Say:
seven:
oh
7
30
to
1730
and
oh
800
to
1200
on
Saturdays
just
say:
that's
the
condition
we
want
there
number
11..
You
say
that
I'd.
B
N
F
It
would
have
been.
We
want
to
adversely
impact
the
immunity
of
local
residents
by
increased
their
operation
to
Green
Belt
location
of
use.
We
think
it's
reasonable
to
accept
the
established
pattern
of
use.
We
think
it
unreasonable
to
extend
that
pattern
of
use
is
that
okay,
I
think
that's
that's
very
clear,
thanks
Nikki
relating
directly
to
that,
then,
in
terms
of
the
vehicle
count.
Obviously,
Council
Houser
would
have
a
back
and
forth
with
the
applicant.
Regarding
this.
F
In
terms
of
numbers,
we
would
like
a
strict
interpretation
of
110
in
and
110
out
on
a
weekly
basis.
Chair,
not
we've
got
10
in
this
week
and
300
in
the
next,
because
market
conditions
are
allowed
in
that,
and
we
suggest
that
we
want.
We
want
this
condition
again
with
cognizant
at
the
location
of
the
site,
and
we
obviously
this
is,
if
you
like,
an
adherence
to
what's
already
set
out.
So
that's
that.
F
That's
a
total
vehicle
movement,
irrespective
of
what
they're
carrying
if
that's
possible.
If
that
clarifies
and
and
then
the
last
one
here
would
be
just
that
there
is
concerns
in
the
area
about
the
visual
impact,
and
we
want
a
surety
that
there's,
if
you
like
100
coverage,
that
the
chief
plan
officer
can
decide
and
be
settled
and
be
happy
with
that
the
site
is
obscured
for
local
residents.
I
think
there's
already
quite
a
the
officers
quite
rightly
set
out
quite
a
comprehensive
program
and
I
think
I
think
I
think
we're
happy
with
that.
F
O
Sorry,
chair,
Council
walshaw.
We
can't
go
back
and
alter
the
100,
the
the
wording
for
the
110
in
and
110
out,
because
that
relates
to
a
different
application.
Not
this,
because
all
we're
saying
is
that
the
you
know
the
two
two
trucks
a
day,
cake
movement
or
whatever
would
have
to
be
within
that
condition.
We
could
add
an
informative
that
just
reminds
the
applicant
of
that,
but
it
relates
to
a
condition,
on
a
previous
permission,
regards
the
landscape,
I'm,
actually
I'm
understanding
that
you're.
F
Yeah
we
as
a
I
would
suggest
myself
and
other
panel
colleagues
strongly
feel
that
that
has
to
be
has
to
be
to
its
fullest
extent
share,
so
that
local
residents
can
be
sure
that
they're
not
going
to
have
any
visual
impact
and
I
accept
your
point
about
the
movement.
It's
just
really.
We
want
the
app
the
applicant.
P
With
all
due
respect,
Miss
Butler
I
don't
think
putting
a
condition.
Putting
the
line
in
to
remind
the
applicant
of
the
110
is
going
to
work
quite
frankly,
because
I
think
we
all
know
they're
interpreting
it
with
their
own.
You
know
whatever
time
of
year
it
is
and
whatever
marketing
conditions,
they're
they're
annualizing
those
hours.
We
know
that
and
I
have
great
difficulty
in
agreeing
this
application
without
much
more
assurance
that
that
110
a
week
regardless
of
Lord,
will
be
a
dancer
because
I
really
don't
think
a
reminder
is
gonna.
P
O
Yeah
I
think
with
it
slightly
cross
purposes
here,
because
I
did
say
very
early
on
that
there
is
an
ongoing
enforcement
case
about
the
interpretation
of
that
particular
condition
of
110.
So
that
is
action,
that's
already
ongoing,
because
we
want
to
impose
our
interpretation
of
that
condition,
so
that
is
actually
happening.
O
What
we
can't
do
on
on
this
is
to
go
back
and
add
a
condition
for
110
Vehicles,
because
why
would
you
want
to
do
that
on
something?
That's
supposedly
going
to
do
only
two?
So
so
that
is
happening,
I
think
we
are
answering
that
question
to
be
fair.
All
I'm
trying
to
suggest
is
because,
because
that
condition
relates
to
another
permission
for
the
wider
sides,
we
can't
go
back
and
change
the
wording
of
that
at
this
particular
point
on
this
application.
O
But
we
are
taking
enforcement
action
to
ensure
that
our
interpretation
is
the
one
that's
adhered
to,
and
just
a
more
General
point,
because
there
were
some
negative
comments
about
enforcement.
The
one
thing
about
enforcement
is
that
actually
lead
city
council
does
take
it
very
serious
and
enforcement
is
a
very
difficult
rules
and
regulations
to
go
through
and
just
take
time,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
as
I
say,
Lee's
takes
it
very
seriously.
We've
got
a
big
enforcement
team,
but
ultimately
enforcement
action
is
discretionary.
O
Many
authorities
don't
do
it
at
all,
but
Leeds
city
council
does
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
point,
because
there
were
some
negative
comments
about
enforcement,
which
I
just
thought
would
have
been
unjustified.
J
I
I
can't
actually
remember
one
with
with
more
Enforcement
cases,
either
pending
or
or
covered
that
said,
I
I
the
problem
is
show,
isn't
it
that
it's
an
existing
use
and
I,
and
none
of
us
can
think
of
a
reason
for
turning
down
the
principle.
J
I
think
that's
the
issue.
Isn't
it,
and
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
to
ensure
that
the
conditions
that
we
put
on
sufficiently
robust
to
protect
the
environment
of
the
area
and
the
the
residents
and
unfortunately,
we
have
heard
both
anecdotally
and
and
through
the
documentation
that
perhaps
there's
been
a
somewhat
flexible
interpretation
of
planning
permissions
by
the
the
operator
and
so
I
think
it
what
we.
J
What
we
need
to
do
is,
if
we're
giving
permission
for
this
and
I
I
can't
I
I
can't
work
out
a
reason
why
we
shouldn't.
We
need
to
be
absolutely
Rock,
Solid
certain
that
these
conditions
are
unambiguous,
okay
and
so,
from
my
point
of
view,
I'll
look
at
that
now.
I
think
I,
look
at
lucky
condition:
number
one
which
effectively
tells
us.
This
is
a
retrospective
application
anyway.
J
Condition
number
two
seems
to
me
to
be
unambiguous,
as
does
condition
three
and
four
condition
five
might
be
in
that
it
doesn't
condition
a
to
planning
permission,
fifteen
or
four.
Five.
Five
is
that
the
is
that
the
vehicle
number
condition
right?
Okay,
so,
in
actual
fact,
what
we're
saying
there
quite
categorically
is
the
condition
for
110
in
110
out
is
Paramount.
J
So
in
some
ways
that
reminds
the
the
the
operator
that
the
filter
press
house
should
be
finished
in
dark,
green
I'm,
not
sure
we
did
good
we'd
argue
about
that
I
mean
we
might
do
I'm
sure
that
somebody
will
like
dark
green,
but
there
we
are,
and
and
seven
and
eight
I
think
we
haven't,
got
an
issue
with
the
and
again
I
think
that's
fairly
unambiguous
number,
nine,
a
slightly
ambiguous
in
my
opinion,
and
so
I
would
put
a
line
in
that
which
says,
notwithstanding
detail
shown
on
the
approved
plan
prior
to
use
or
within
six
weeks
of
the
date
of
this
permission,
so
that
actually
pins
it
down.
J
They
can't
use
it
until
we
get
a
the
we
get:
a
signed
off
landscape
and
agreement.
Okay,
as
councilor
walshaw
said,
I
I
do
have
some
concerns
about
the
point
you
made
Mr
Butler
in
relation
to.
J
Where
can
you
see
this
thing
from
so
I
just
had
a
quick
look
on
the
modern
survey
map
and
actually,
though,
you
may
not
be
able
to
see
it
from
the
road
on
the
surrounding
footpath
Network,
you
will
see
it
and
so
I
think
there
is
a
case
for
making
the
Bunda
bigger
and
the
planting
more
intense
or
thicker
I
should
say
so
that
actually
you
can't
see
any
of
this
thing
and
again
treason,
tomb,
10,
I
think
is,
is
a
standard
condition
which
I'm
I'm
sure
that
the
residents
will
keep
an
eye
on
on
our
behalf,
because
I
wouldn't
expect
planning
enforcement
to
go
out
and
double
check,
number
11
I
think
we've
already
agreed.
J
Haven't
we
that
the
amenity
of
residents
and
the
surrounding
area
we
think
the
hours
of
use
the
hours
of
operation
right
now?
This
is
the
question:
what's
the
difference
between
operational
and
the
hours
of
use.
J
Okay,
and
my
view
is,
it
is
the
hours
of
use.
We
want
to
condition
not
the
operational
hours
of
condition,
so
the
hours
of
use
will
a
730
to
70,
30
and
8
till
12
on
a
Saturday,
and
that's
in
the
interest
of
residential
amenity,
okay
and
I
I
think
I
turned
12
is
again
a
standard
condition
which
is
enforceable
if
we,
if
we
choose
to
do
so,
I'm
quite
happy.
J
Notwithstanding
my
concerns
at
the
Cavalier
attitude
of
the
the
the
the
owner,
that
I
think
we
can
put
conditions
on
which,
which
it
will
not
cure
the
problem
of
the
Quarry.
We
have
to
be
very,
very
clear
about
that,
and
we
can't
put
condition
on
now
that
will
cure
the
problem
of
the
Quarry,
but
at
least
at
least
it
puts
some
strict
conditions
around
the
elements
of
it
which,
in
the
end,
we
might
be
able
to
pick
up
the
rest
earlier
today.
Thank
you,
chair.
E
Thanks
Joe,
just
to
back
up
counselor
Campbell
there
on
those
hours
of
operation,
our
hours
of
use
will
be
possible
because
it's
mentioned
earlier
in
the
report
that
this
extension
in
the
times
is
to
allow
a
full
cycle
to
operate.
Can
we
actually
say
in
this
condition
that
all
operations
must
have
ceased?
All
use
must
have
ceased
by
that
time,
just
to
make
it
absolutely.
B
N
No
I
was
just
going
to
say
in
relation
to
those
points
if
Steve
could
collect,
Steve
could
collect
those
points
and,
and
then
I
think
it
was
cancer,
wolfshaw
or
councilor
Campbell
that
are
amending
the
recommendation
and
that
be
made
at
the
appropriate
time.
O
This
is
the
this
is
the
bit
I
really
she
said
so
I
think
I
think
well,
I
think
basically
most
of
the
conditions
I
think
we
accepted,
but
right
from
the
outset
we
will,
before
a
permission,
is
issued,
run
them
past
legal
services,
so
they
are
as
enforceable
as
they
can
be.
I
mean
all
conditions
can
be
interpreted
whatever
you
write,
anything
can
be
interpreted
differently
depending
upon
one's
passionate,
I
suppose,
but
we
will
run
them
past
Legal,
Services
I'm.
O
O
We
understand
that
the
landscape
condition
has
to
be
its
fullest
extent
on
the
southern
boundary
to
effectively
hide
any
views
from
across
the
the
valley,
because
the
elevated
nature
of
it
so
Steve
was
already
suggesting
that
he'd
have
discussions
continuing
with
the
applicant
about
the
height
of
the
bond
on
that
no
idea
on
that
southern
boundary
and
the
species
of
Teresa
I
think
we've
captured
that
I'd
also
just
like
to
add
a
something
else
myself.
On
condition,
five
about
the
filter,
press
housing
shall
be
finishing.
O
It
out,
create
a
color,
just
the
wording
to
be
agreed
with
officers
prior
to
installation
or
operation
rather
and
then,
of
course,
the
the
hours
of
use
was
that,
basically,
you
were
suggesting
the
filter.
Press
shall
not
be
in
any
use
accepting
between
the
hours,
which
was
seven
o'clock,
till
five
o'clock,
which
and
and
it
was
at
8
till
12,
which
took
it
back
to
the
original
hours
of
operation
on
the
previous
progressions,
but
yeah
I
think
that
was
everything
yeah.
O
Oh
sorry,
yeah,
then
an
additional
condition.
Sorry
I'd
forgotten
about
that
which
is
about
if
there
should
be
any
extract,
vents
or
anything
required
that
we
have
to
be
agreed
with
the
the
with
the
local
Authority
yeah.
So
on
that
basis,
then
it's
as
as
the
original
recommendation,
which
was
to
approve
in
principle,
defer
and
delegate
to
officers,
but
with
these
alterations
to
the
conditions.