Quarry to be extended and operated for 12 more years
OWNERS WAIT SEVEN YEARS FOR DECISION
A DERBYSHIRE quarry could operate for an extra 12 years despite noise concerns in plans that have been sitting in limbo for more than six years.
The plans, filed by Slinter Mining Company, would see Slinter Top Quarry, northwest of Cromford, extended by around six acres and operational for a further 12 years.
Its plans were filed to the county council in 2017, but are only now set to be decided, with the authority’s officials recommending approval.
When the owners filed seven years ago, they said the site was scheduled to cease quarrying operations at the end of 2021 ahead of restoration works being completed before 2032.
It applied to extend quarrying up to 2033 and to restore the site by 2037, with an extra 1.32 million tonnes of limestone to be mined at a rate of 100,000 tonnes per year.
A total of 50 letters have been written to the council over the plans, with all but one objecting to the scheme.
They raise concerns primarily over “unacceptable” noise and dust, along with the visual impact from footpaths near the site; impact on the local amenity, tourism trade and the Peak District National Park; and the alleged lack of minerals within the planned extension.
The application details that the quarry currently supports 24 full-time employees and that these roles would be safeguarded.
It details: “The applicant is an important local business, supplying minerals for use in the manufacture of readymixed concrete and asphalt for the building and construction industries.”
In its application documents, the quarry owners wrote: “Quarry workings have reached their maximum lateral extent and without an additional consent, the remaining reserves will be exhausted within one year.”
They write that the negative impacts of the development can be mitigated through planning conditions – which is backed by county council officials.
The council details that all properties would likely experience noise within acceptable levels. Council planning officials, recommending approval, write: “I do not consider that there are any material considerations that would outweigh the benefits.
“I acknowledge that there are some unavoidable medium-term impacts on landscape and visual amenity and negligible impacts on heritage assets, and I also note the concerns in relation to the potential effects of noise.
“However, I am satisfied that the measures set out in the environmental statement, together with the requirements of the relevant proposed conditions, would ensure that the environmental effects of the development on nearby sensitive receptors would not be unacceptable.”