Welford Action against the Quarry
Minutes
|
|
Action |
|
Apologies Phyllis Hayhurst (in attendance for part of the meeting), Dave Funnell, Ian Wardleworth , Tim Lewis Meeting with
Phil Sawford PS was shown around
site and was amazed at size and visibility. He was then taken on a tour along
the proposed lorry access through to In discussion afterwards he seemed particularly concerned about the lack of due process and suggested that we renew our invitation ( sent to the previous chairman of the NCC- Mike Young) to the current chairman Roy Mayhew, that he attend a site visit to discuss WAQs concerns. He indicated that he would send a separate letter urging Roy Mayhew to attend. He also suggested we follow up an indication that Our NCC councillor had known about the quarry in September. Ian Wardleworth agreed to write and send these letters on behalf of WAQ. List of
Objectors Concerns were raised that the list of objectors was not complete. Several examples were raised of people who had been missed form the list. A discussion followed as to whether we should make an objection to the programme officer re the incompleteness and lack of notice. It was agreed that AW should send a letter to the programme officer regarding the omissions. This letter should come from WAQ. AW to get logo from Ian. |
AW/IW |
|
|
Action |
|
Report on Preliminary
Meeting Present from council; Maureen Stenning, MarK Chant, Clare Elsley, Philip Watson, QC – Toby Davey The inspector indicated that the opportunity for the council to make concessions was open to them at any time. It was felt that this was an encouraging possibility, particularly in the light of Phil Sawford’s concerns on the failure of due process. The council clearly thought that they would be able to sit on their hands and respond to objections. However the inspector clarified that he wished them to provide (within 10 days) an initial base case although this wasn’t very robustly put. The inspector did note that objections to omissions should also be included. A discussion followed regarding the sites which had been excluded and why. AW agreed to circulate details of sites that she and Ian had looked at on their visit. The 1st deposit draft received 942 against and 77 support. The 2nd draft plan received 1753 against and 46 for. No published pre enquiry changes were noted. A discussion followed regarding the appropriate style of hearing. The Inspector preferred an informal hearing but concerns were raised that at the meeting today the council had always replied through their QC. The problem with going along the formal route was that some discussions which took place on other days did affect the Welford site and it would be difficult to insist that these were formal. Nigel Brotherton suggested that we could ask for a formal enquiry even if we later decided to request it informally. This was better than asking for an informal enquiry and then wasting people’s time by changing our mind. JL suggested that we gave ourselves a reason for reserving judgement on whether to have a formal enquiry based on the council’s behaviour today and subject to receipt of papers. It was agreed that JL would request a formal inquiry. A brief discussion followed regarding the impact on individuals of a formal hearing. It was agreed that AW would write a letter on behalf of the Leedhams, objecting to the way the preliminary meeting had been handled. Harold Clarke proposed to write personally and on behalf of Morley’s allotments with concerns about process. |
JL AW/HC |
|
|
Action |
|
|
|
|
A further
discussion followed regarding the indicative cost of engaging a barrister, although NB
pointed out that we could team up with other councils such as At the prelim inquiry,
the possibility of teaming up had been raised with CC suggested that we got DCC to stump up some environmental consultants to consider. There was general concern that DCC had been going through the motions and did not seem to be as engaged in the process as some other councils. |
|
|
Discussion
of co-ordination and representation A discussion followed regarding how we keep people informed and co-ordinate our efforts. Letter to
residents MK is proposing to start to put together a list of everyone we represent so that we can keep them informed. A circular will go round the village asking for email addresses. Public
Meeting A discussion followed regarding calling a public meeting on Wednesday the 26th. PH will ask if we can use the church. MK agreed to issue a circular with date and the deadline of 1st February. Document MG noted that the Inspector was not looking for a great deal of detail and would not be site specific because it was not a planning issue. However NB questioned whether it was truly not planning related and whether the Inspectors comments were sustainable. |
MK MK |
|
|
Action |
|
Preparation
of written presentation It was
agreed that the following people would draft the relevant sections of the
report. o SSSI – NB to liaise with Tim Lewis regarding information. o Inadequate access – CC and MK to follow up. o Physical Impact – DF and AW to follow up o Loss of amenity – MG and JS to follow up o Visual Impact/Noise?Pollution – IW and MG o Cumulative Impact/ Manner of selection – JL Contributions should be in word template document to be emailed out by JL. Editing team to be First draft by 19th to JL. NB to respond by 24th. Final document to be prepared by 28th for final proof reading by PH over weekend. Next Meeting Agenda would be the public meeting and update. The next meeting was proposed for Monday 24th. Must be finished by 10:00 pm because PH will need to arrange for someone else to lock up. |
NB/TL CC/MK AW/DF MG/JS IW/MG JL JL/All JL/NB/AW/PH |