Dolerite quarry at Land At Northside, Kirkwhelpington

What was proposed

The application proposed a four-phase quarry extracting 2.8 million tonnes of dolerite over 20 years, importing inert material and improving highway access.

“The proposal as originally submitted was to extract 4 million tonnes of dolerite over 25 years but the current proposal is to extract 2.8 million tonnes in four phases…”

“The above proposals reflect changes that the applicants have made since the application was originally submitted to address issues raised by consultees and County officers. The main changes have been a reduction in the tonnage to be extracted from 4 million to 2.8 million tonnes, a reduction in the infill material to be imported from 1.3 million to 800,000 tonnes, a reduction in the working duration from 25 to 20 years, a reduction in the working area from 24.7 hectares…”

Officer report

Earlier decisions and legal challenge

A previous permission was quashed after climate effects, including soil-disturbance emissions, had not been assessed; further climate, ecological and other information was submitted.

“Having regard to advice received from Counsel, the Council sought to quash the decision in the Courts. On 9 April 2025 the decision was quashed on the grounds that the Council had failed to assess the likely significant climate effects of the Development and in particular any likely significant effects from any carbon emissions from soli disturbance.”

“The procedure in such cases is that the application is remitted to the Council for redetermination. The applicant subsequently considered what further information would need to be submitted. The further information, in particular a new Climate Change chapter and supporting details and the findings of updated ecological surveys, has been submitted.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because mineral supply, jobs and economic benefits carried great weight, while proposed mitigation and controls addressed environmental, highway and community impacts.

“The factors that weigh in favour of granting planning permission are the allocation of the site as a preferred area for mineral extraction in the adopted Northumberland Local Plan, the contribution that the site would make to maintaining a steady and adequate supply of mineral to meet the needs for roadstone over a twenty year period, the provision of new jobs at the quarry and in the transport of material and other direct and indirect economic benefits.”

“An assessment of the climate effects of the proposed development and in particular the effects from any carbon emissions from soil disturbance has been carried out and detailed information has been submitted.”

Officer report

What residents said

There were 183 objections and 40 supporting representations, with concerns including HGV traffic, pollution, climate emissions, ecology, heritage, water, restoration and local amenity.

“Concerns over additional HGV traffic through Kirkwhelpington, Belsay and Ponteland resulting in additional noise, congestion, road, cyclist and pedestrian safety, including children of 4 schools in the vicinity of the route. • Concern over traffic travelling on B6342 to the west through Little Bavington. • Proposed access point is just beyond a blind bend. • Alternative route for vehicles would be to travel via the A68 and A69 or B6318.”

“Will not create jobs for local people nor provide financial benefit for Northumberland. • Increased air pollution from workforce travelling to the quarry resulting in adverse impact on zero carbon plan for Northumberland. • The dolerite stone is not needed as there is a large landbank. • Operator has no experience in managing a hard rock quarry. • Lack of engagement with the local community by the developer.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, representatives of Belsay and Ponteland, and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee about safety, environmental impacts, mineral need, mitigation and economic benefits.

What members debated

Members questioned supply, traffic routing, crayfish protection, waxcaps, restoration, monitoring and climate impacts; some remained opposed while others accepted the proposed safeguards.

“Biosecurity protocols would also be used regarding vehicle movements on and off the site to prevent the spread of crayfish plague, details of which would be secured by a detailed planning condition which the Environment Agency (EA) had requested through the Environmental Management Plan, and which would be monitored through the overall monitoring of the site.”

“Councillors Hill and Swinbank advised that whilst they accepted it was an allocated site, they had concerns such as the relevance of competition issues, the monitoring of the site, the impact of the increase in traffic and climate impacts, specifically in relation to the white-clawed crayfish and could not support the application.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to approve was supported by nine members, opposed by two, with no abstentions.

“Councillor Stewart proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application with the conditions as outlined and this was seconded by Councillor Robinson.”

“A vote was taken on the motion to approve the recommendation as outlined as follows: FOR 9; AGAINST 2; ABSTAIN 0.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission subject to the report’s conditions and a Section 106 Agreement covering off-site ecological mitigation and passing-space visibility-splay land.

“RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of the off-site ecological mitigation land and the passing space visibility splay land.”

Minutes