East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull
Joint Minerals Development Plan Site Selection Consultation Report
January 2012
East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City Council
Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Site Selection Consultation Report
January 2012
Notice This report was produced by Atkins Limited for East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council for the specific purpose of The Joint Minerals Development Plan Document.
This report may not be used by any person other than East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council without East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council’s express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council.
V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
The Joint Authorities are keen to obtain the views of everyone with an interest in minerals planning on this Site Selection Consultation Report which has been prepared to inform the Joint Minerals Development Plan Document.
To respond to this consultation, the quickest way is to use our online facility on our website at: http://eastriding.limehouse.co.uk/portal/
This enables your comments to be processed quickly and accurately and allows you to see what other people/organisations have said.
Alternatively, you can respond by email or post using the contact details below.
The document and accompanying questionnaire can be viewed on our website (at the above web address) and in libraries and Customer Service Centres.
Hard copies can be provided upon request for a fee (to cover printing and postage costs) and CDs are available free of charge.
The consultation period runs from Monday 30 January to 5pm on Monday 19 March 2012.
Completed response forms should be sent for the attention of Anthea Hoey at; Atkins Limited, The Octagon, Pynes Hill Court, Rydon Lane, Exeter EX2 5AZ Electronic Response to: [email protected]
For further information contact either: Andy Wainwright at East Riding of Yorkshire Council on 01482 393730 Anthea Hoey of Atkins Ltd on 01392 352900
Independent advice and support Planning Aid provides free, independent and professional advice on planning issues to community groups and individuals who cannot afford to pay a planning consultant. Planning Advice Helpline: 0870 850 9808 Email: [email protected] www.rtpi.org.uk/planningaid/
V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Contents Section Page 1. Introduction 1 Issues and Options Report 1 Preferred Approach Consultation Document 2 Candidate Site Assessment 4 Report Structure 4 2. Supply Management 5 3. Candidate Sites Resources Estimates 7 4. Site Selection Methodology 9 Candidate Site Assessment Methodology 9 5. Candidate Site Descriptions and Summary of Assessment 19 6. Recommended Sites 39 7. What happens next? 41
List of Tables Table 2.1 - Calculation of the resources of aggregate minerals required based on interim apportionment rate 6 Table 3.1 - Candidate Sites - Sand and Gravel 7 Table 3.2 - Candidate Sites - Crushed Rock (Chalk) 8 Table 5.1 - Sand and gravel sites - Summary Review Comments and Assessment 20 Table 6.1 - Sand and gravel sites recommended for identification 39 Table 6.2 – Crushed Rock sites recommended for identification 40
List of Figures Figure 1.1 - Summary of Site Nomination and Selection Process 1
Appendices Appendix A Location Plans for Recommended Sites Appendix B Response Form
V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
1. Introduction
1.1 This Site Selection Report documents the assessment and evaluation of the candidate sites for mineral extraction in East Riding of Yorkshire. It outlines the stages that have preceded the identification of candidate sites within the area; describes the methodology that has been used to assess the candidate sites; concludes with the list of sites that are proposed to be included within the Publication version of the Joint Minerals Development Plan Document (JMDPD) and provides an overview of the way in which the selected sites will be presented in the JMDPD. 1.2 This report has been prepared as a consultation document. You are invited to comment on the contents and recommendations made. A Response Form is available at the back of his document and can be downloaded from the Council’s websites. Further details are given in Chapter 7. Issues and Options Report
1.3 In June 2008 the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) and Hull City Council (HCC) published an Issues and Options Report that sought views on issues associated with the development of the JMDPD. In parallel with this consultation, a call was made for the nomination of candidate mineral extraction sites. 1.4 The following flow diagram outlines the timeline for the receipt and assessment of candidate sites for mineral extraction.
Figure 1.1 - Summary of Site Nomination and Selection Process
Issues and Options Consultation & Call for Sites June 2008
12 nominations for candidate sites Joint Minerals Local Plan Preferred received & assessed Areas and Areas of Search considered December 2007- November 2008 & assessed
Initial Draft of Preferred Approach Document April 2010
2 nominations for candidate sites received & assessed October 2010
Preferred Approach Consultation June 2010
8 nominations for candidate sites received November 2010
Site Selection Report Consultation Current stage Winter 2011 1 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
1.5 A total of 14 sites were nominated by operators, landowners and other interested parties in response to the Issues and Options consultation and call for candidate sites. Of the sites nominated, nine sites were for sand and gravel extraction, three sites were for the production of crushed rock for aggregate and two existing waste management sites were nominated as aggregates recycling facilities. The waste management sites were put forward to the Joint Waste Development Plan Document and were not considered any further in this JMDPD process. 1.6 A desktop survey and a site visit was undertaken for each candidate site submitted for consideration in response to the call for candidate sites, along with the Preferred Areas and Areas of Search from the Joint Minerals Local Plan (JMLP). The information collated from these two processes would then form the basis for assessing suitability as a candidate site for inclusion in the JMDPD. 1.7 Several existing Preferred Areas and Areas of Search, or parts thereof, from the JMLP were discounted at this early stage due to the areas being worked out or due to a lack of operator interest during the previous plan period. However, five Areas of Search and parts thereof were carried forward as candidate sites in the Preferred Approach consultation document. Preferred Approach Consultation Document
1.8 In June 2010 a Preferred Approach version of the JMDPD was subject to consultation. The document included a number of candidate sites that had emerged either from the JMLP or the call for candidate sites. Site Selection Process 1.9 The Site Selection Process used to develop the Preferred Approach Consultation Document was based on that used for the JMLP (presented in Appendix 1 of the adopted plan), updated to reflect consultation comments on the methodology that were supplied in response to the Issues and Options Consultation. The resultant methodology incorporated a mechanism for taking account of the findings of Sustainability Appraisal. 1.10 The following environmental designations were viewed as constraints in the selection of sites: Designated and proposed Special Areas of Conservation (SACs and pSACs); Designated and proposed Special Protection Areas (SPAs and pSPAs); Designated and proposed Ramsar sites; Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); and National Nature Reserves (NNRs). 1.11 The selection process also considered the following broader factors in seeking to distinguish between the candidate sites: The nature of the deposit; Potential for the mineral operation to have effects of the following designated heritage assets: - Scheduled Monuments; - Listed Buildings; and - Registered Parks and Gardens.
2 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Proximity to and relationship with residential development and other sensitive uses; Proximity to the primary road network; The landscape and visual characteristics of the area in question; The distribution of the Best and Most Versatile agricultural land (falling into Grades1, 2 and 3a under that agricultural land classification); Relationship of the deposit to flood plains; Saved District Local Plan policies and designations; and Features crossing the sites, such as Public Rights of Way (PROW). Preferred Approach Consultation – Sites 1.12 In the Preferred Approach consultation document the nominated sites were referred to as Candidate Preferred Areas and Areas of Search1, linked to the level of information and certainty associated with the sites at the time of publication. There was insufficient information to identify Candidate Preferred Areas for aggregate crushed rock, hence the use of the broader ‘Areas of Search’ definition covering land where there was a reasonable expectation of aggregate crushed rock being present in viable quantities2. Taken together, the aggregate sites included within the Preferred Approach Consultation Document were broadly aligned to the predicted requirements for the provision of sites for aggregate mineral extraction in the East Riding of Yorkshire area. 1.13 Consultation responses were received and analysed. By November 2010 the consultation responses resulted in a further eight sites being nominated for inclusion as candidate sites in the emerging JMDPD. In December 2010/January 2011, the ‘November 2010’ nomination sites were subject to a desk top appraisal and site visits as they would help to refine the provision for aggregate minerals. These additional sites were also subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA), in accordance with the requirements of Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals (MPS1). 1.14 The ‘November 2010’ nomination aggregate sites included significant additional resources of sand and gravel and crushed rock. Following an update of the current landbank position, it became clear that a recent planning approval in the North Cave area had given rise to a significant increase in the sand and gravel landbank, leading to a reduction in the required future provision for sand and gravel. In addition changes have been made to the approach to calculating aggregate requirements. These changes are explained further below at paragraph 2.3 and 2.4. 1.15 In view of this position, there was a requirement to re-examine all of the aggregate sites (i.e. those incorporated in the Preferred Approach document, as well as those emerging from subsequent consultation) in order to select the most appropriate sites for inclusion in the Publication version of the JMDPD. Sites nominated for clay and silica sand have not been included in this further assessment because the changes referred to above do not affect them.
1 ‘Preferred Areas’ and ‘Areas of Search’ are terms defined in Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals - Practice Guidance. 2 The definition of Areas of Search was informed by the British Geological Society (BGS) Mineral Resource Map, supported by information received from existing and potential operators
3 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Candidate Site Assessment
1.16 The aim of this report is to document the Site Selection Methodology. The methodology is criteria based and draws on those characteristics of the environment that are identified in MPS1 as being the most pertinent considerations in respect of mineral extraction for sand and gravel and for crushed rock respectively. The assessment of sites against the chosen criteria has been informed by the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal and the Habitats Regulation Appraisal taking account of the specific purposes for which these appraisals are undertaken. Report Structure
1.17 The structure of this report reflects the sequence of the site assessment process as follows: Supply Management; Candidate Site Resources Estimates; Site Selection Methodology; Candidate Site Descriptions and Summary of Assessment; Recommended Sites What Happens next?
4 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
2. Supply Management
2.1 Mineral Planning Authorities are required to make provision in their Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) for an adequate and steady supply of aggregates for the construction industry to meet the needs of society. Aggregates supply policy is expressed through government guidelines for aggregates provision, which set out the amounts of provision to be made within each of the English Regions. The latest government guidance was published in 2009 and covered the period 2005 – 20203. 2.2 For land-won sand and gravel, and crushed rock, the guideline figures are sub- apportioned between the constituent Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs) in each Region, then divided by the number of years to produce an annual apportionment, or assumed rate of supply. This is known as the sub-regional apportionment rate; and the figures for both sand and gravel and for crushed rock are included in the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs). 2.3 The sub-regional apportionment rates for the East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull in the adopted Yorkshire and Humberside RSS are based on the earlier government guidance, which covered the period 2001-20164. There has been no formal sub-regional apportionment of the 2009 National and Regional guidelines for the period 2005-2020. Following the announcement of the intention to abolish the RSSs it is now not expected that this updating will be undertaken formally. Therefore as an interim measure for the purposes of this DPD, the figures for the sub-regional apportionment rates in the adopted Yorkshire and Humberside RSS have been adjusted to take account of the difference between the earlier and current national aggregate guidelines. 2.4 The adjustment calculations have been done by reference to the percentage share of the 2005-2016 guidelines sub regional apportionment in the RSS adjusted to reflect the change in the total Regional apportionment made in the 2005-2020 guidelines. 2.5 The calculations use the respective landbank positions for sand and gravel and for crushed rock as at the end of 2009. An estimated adjustment as been made to allow for updating the 2009 landbank to 2010 by deducting one years’ apportionment from the amount of resources required for the plan period as a proxy for using the 2010 landbank figure. The calculations will be updated again when more recent landbank figures are available. 2.6 The results are shown in the table below.
3 National and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2005 - 2020 4 National and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2001 - 2016
5 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Table 2.1 - Calculation of the resources of aggregate minerals required based on interim apportionment rate Sand and Gravel Mt Crushed Rock Mt
Resources required to maintain Resources required to maintain production at 0.55 million tonnes per production at 0.32 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) throughout the plan annum (mtpa) throughout the plan period, (interim Apportionment Rate x period, (interim Apportionment Rate x 17) 9.42 17) 5.43 Less permitted reserves (as at end of Less permitted reserves (as at end of 2009) 8.0 2009) 1.4 Adjustment to allow for updating of Adjustment to allow for updating of current landbank to 2010 0.55 current landbank to 2010 0.32 Sub total to provide for extraction Sub total to provide for extraction during the plan period 0.87 during the plan period 3.71 Add amount to provide for 7 year Add amount to provide for 10 year landbank at the end of the plan period landbank at the end of the plan period (interim apportionment rate x 7) 3.88 (interim apportionment rate x 10) 3.19 Balance to be found 4.75 Balance to be found 6.90
2.7 The table shows that for sand and gravel a total of 0.87 million tonnes equivalent of provision needs to be made to allow for ongoing maintenance of the landbank to cover anticipated extraction during the plan period, and a further 3.88 million tonnes to allow for a 7 year landbank to be in place at the end of the plan period. The total is 4.75 million tonnes. 2.8 For crushed rock, the table shows that a total of 3.71 million tonnes equivalent of provision needs to be made to allow for ongoing maintenance of the landbank to cover anticipated extraction during the plan period, and a further 3.19 million tonnes to allow for a 10 year landbank to be in place at the end of the plan period. The total is 6.90 million tonnes. 2.9 Comments are invited on the proposed approach.
6 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
3. Candidate Sites Resources Estimates
3.1 In order to simplify the assessment process, the candidate sites have been renumbered sequentially and references to ‘nomination’, ‘preferred areas’ and ‘areas of search’ have been removed. However, where the site has appeared in a previous consultation document, the original reference is also included to enable interested parties to cross- reference, as necessary. For candidate sites that have previously been referred to as Areas of Search, the quantities quoted represent the sum of the mineral quantities for sites that have been nominated within them. 3.2 Table 3.1 provides a summary of the quantities for all candidate sand and gravel sites that have been assessed in accordance with the site selection methodology. This table brings together the sites from the JMLP, call for sites and the consultation responses to the Preferred Approach document. Table 3.1 - Candidate Sites - Sand and Gravel
Ref. Previous Site Name Mineral Quantity Composition of Site/ ref. Type tonnes (net) Comments SG1 PA01 Willowcroft Farm, Sand & 675,000 Nom 06- Has since Catwick Gravel been granted pp SG2 AOS01a Baff House Farm Sand & 850,000 Nom 05 Gravel Within AOS01 SG3 AOS01b Routh’s Carr and Sand & 900,000 Nom12 Monks Bridge Gravel within AOS01 Leven SG4 AOS02 Gransmoor Lane Sand & AoS Nom 21 Gravel containing up Within AOS02 to 3,000,000 SG5 AOS03a Common Lane. Sand & AoS Nom 02 North Cave Gravel containing up to 3,400,000 SG6 AOS04 Preston Road, Sand & 800,000 Nom 07- Sproatley Gravel (now withdrawn) SG7 AOS08 Land at Pollington Sand & 1,240,000 Nom 13 &14 Gravel
SG8 Land South of Sand & AoS Nom15 A166, Garton on the Gravel containing up Wolds to 2,000,000 SG9 Land East of Sand & 1,130,000 Nom17 B1249, Brigham Gravel SG10 Heigholme, North Sand & 2,500,000 Nom20 Side of Leven Canal Gravel SG11 AOS01 Leven and Sand & Not calculated From JMLP. Brandesburton AoS Gravel separately Contains SG2 and SG3 Total Tonnage 18,045,000
7 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
3.3 Table 3.2 provides a summary of the quantities for all candidate crushed rock sites that have been assessed in accordance with the site selection methodology. This table brings together the sites from the JMLP, call for sites and the consultation responses to the Preferred Approach document.
Table 3.2 - Candidate Sites - Crushed Rock (Chalk)
Ref. Previous Site Name Mineral Quantity Composition of Site/ ref. Type tonnes Comments (net) CR1 AOS05a Greenwick Quarry, Chalk 1,500,000 Within AOS05 Huggate NOM 11 CR2 AOS06a Riplingham Quarry Chalk 2,500,000 NOM04
CR3 AOS06 Little Wold, Chalk 2,500,000 NOM21 Swinescaif
CR4 AOS07 Castle Farm and Limesto AoS Nom03 Drewton Farm, North ne containing Reserve likely to be Cave up to worked in phases. 7,500,000 CR5 Land west of B1249, Chalk 1,200,000 Nom16 Langtoft CR6 West side of Wold Chalk 1,280,000 Nom18 Road, Nafferton Total Tonnage 15,980,000
3.4 Details of the site attributes of all candidate sites together with the nominated site boundaries are available in the evidence base for the JMDPD .
8 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
4. Site Selection Methodology
4.1 In previous consultations regarding the JMDPD, candidate sites have been categorised into Preferred Areas and Areas of Search. The purpose of the re-examination of sites for which this site selection methodology has been developed is to deliver consistency across the assessment. Consequently, all sites have been considered against all criteria and where there is insufficient information to deliver confidence in the assessment scoring, this is noted. Therefore, the methodology does not differentiate between potential site types. Candidate Site Assessment Methodology
4.2 This section sets out the Candidate Site Assessment Methodology. It applies a criteria based assessment, drawing on the site visits and data collated in respect of all candidate sites. The methodology has evolved from the approach used to product the Preferred Approach Consultation Document, incorporating a systematic approach to grading of sites against clearly defined criteria. 4.3 For each type of aggregate mineral, the methodology is designed to identify those sites which can be recommended as proposed Preferred Areas or proposed Areas of Search to provide for the maintenance of the landbank during the life of the plan in accordance with advice in MPS1 and the supporting Practice Guidance. Thus the methodology is specifically shaped to achieving appropriate contributions from the different aggregate minerals whilst also achieving a distribution of sites in relation to the potential markets. In this way, the methodology has been developed to sift through the candidate sites and select the best prospects to carry forward into the next stage of the JMDPD as Proposed ‘Preferred Areas’ and ‘Areas of Search’, as appropriate for sand and gravel and for crushed rock. 4.4 It should be noted that one criterion draws its results directly from the Habitats Regulations Assessment that has been undertaken; and the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal have been considered in the application of value judgements on the relative merits of the candidate sites. 4.5 SA/SEA criteria are derived from a detailed review of policies, plans and programmes, the contents of which are generally aimed at the consideration of development that is, to some extent, footloose/flexible in terms of location. Minerals can obviously only be worked where they occur in the ground, thus there is a need to interpret SA/SEA findings in relation to identifying appropriate mineral sites with some element of qualitative discretion. In simple terms, there is a need for weighting or prioritisation to be applied that reflects the inability to exercise preference over the physical location in which mineral extraction may occur. 4.6 It is the purpose of SA to identify those sites where beneficial and adverse effects are likely to occur as a means of identifying where mitigation is needed, whereas the site selection methodology specifically takes into account the potential mitigation that might be applied to address these effects. It will then be for the DPD and Development Management Policies within it to set an appropriate framework through which these factors can be managed and mitigated. Key Factors 4.7 The identification process has involved several sources of information; geological data on the mineral resource; planning and environmental constraints identified from a range of sources; and information received from operators. The operator submission, site visits and desk top appraisals have captured data to enable the following issues to be considered, in line with the key considerations expressed in MPS1 and the supporting Practice Guide:
9 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Mineral resource; Proximity to sensitive uses; International ecology and nature conservation designations; National and local ecology and nature conservation designations Impact on landscape character; Visual impact; Impact on cultural heritage; Land quality; Transportation implications; and Water environment. 4.8 In addition to selecting sites that exhibit favourable characteristics in relation to the factors identified above, the appraisal framework considers the requirements of the proposed spatial approach for aggregates, as described in Chapter 4 of the JMDPD Preferred Approach Document dated summer 2010. This spatial element of the selection takes into account issues relating to the principle of extraction in the wider area, as follows; The location of the site and its proximity to the areas and markets where the material is likely to be required. The aim is to have a geographical spread of sites to serve the main locations of future development and construction activity, including maintenance of the existing built-up areas; Any potential cumulative impact from current extraction activities and other candidate sites, whether worked in parallel or in series; Where the site represents a last opportunity to extract minerals from an area because of a relationship with another operation currently approaching the end of its working life, or due to future surface development that would otherwise lead to sterilisation of the mineral. Assessment Scoring 4.9 The Site Assessment has been designed to determine the suitability of each candidate site for minerals development. The proposed approach is based on a graded system for the selection of the best sites. In most cases, there are four different grades defined for each criterion, although occasionally it has been necessary to include five to make effective distinctions to assist in defining the relative merits of sites. The grades have been assigned a letter value – this has been chosen in preference to a simple numerical reference to avoid potential pitfalls associated with the use of quantified rankings within a set of criteria where some aspects are showstoppers, whereas others represent preferences. 4.10 Where the desk-top appraisal has indentified constraints, the assessment considers potential mitigation that could be employed. The table below sets out the approach to assigning of grades. In general terms, a grade of A indicates the optimum conditions against an individual criterion, with conditions being considered progressively less favourable as grades B, C then D are assigned. A grade of F for any site represents a ‘show stopper’ and indicates that this site should not be considered further in the assessment.
10 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Proposed Grading Structure
Grade Description F The site fails to meet minimum requirements to be considered as an allocation. D It is considered that there is an impact or issue and there is doubt that it could be adequately mitigated, without detailed further study. C It is considered that there is a moderate impact or issue that may be acceptable (in most cases with mitigation). B It is considered that there is a low to moderate impact or issues that should be acceptable with mitigation.
A It is considered that there is no impact / issues OR the impacts/issues are considered to be acceptable without mitigation.
4.11 Following grading of the sites, the amount of resources that each can contribute to meeting the respective supply provision has been assessed against the overall requirement, and a spatial consideration applied seeking to achieve a source of supply within the catchments of each of the main settlements in the region, including those in adjacent administrative areas. 4.12 Sites are recommended as proposed ‘Preferred Areas’ where there they score well both against the grading criteria taking account of the prospect of meeting any mitigation measures assumed in this process within the plan period and against the spatial consideration and where an identifiable area has been nominated. Sites are recommended as proposed ‘Areas of Search’ either where they score well against the grading criteria taking account of the prospect of meeting any mitigation measures assumed in this process within the plan period, and against the spatial consideration, but where an identifiable area for extraction has not been nominated. Further ‘Areas of Search’ are recommended to contribute to ongoing supply requirements after the end of the plan period. 4.13 For each site recommended as a Preferred Area, detailed specific site requirements will be prepared in the next version of the JMDPD, setting out how the site’s development should be planned. These site requirements will take account of responses to this consultation document. Similar requirements will be set out for each ‘Area of Search’ to provide further guidance in selecting specific areas for extraction and the detailed considerations that will need to be taken into account in developing an acceptable proposal. 4.14 In each case it is important to note that not all the area so identified will necessarily be extracted; for example land will be required for stand-offs or screening from nearby sensitive land uses, to avoid loss of archaeological, nature conservation or geological features or to meet adequate access or landscaping requirements. In some cases the extent of extraction will also be constrained by the availability or quality of the mineral deposit itself. Criterion 1: Mineral Resources and Timetable 4.15 This criterion of high importance. It assesses the fundamental factors of whether the resource is available, workable and suitable for extraction within the timescale of the JMDPD. Generally an extension to an existing operating quarry scores better than the opening of a new quarry, or an operation adjacent to a dormant quarry, because of the possible enabling works required to facilitate the development of the site.
11 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
4.16 The assessment also takes account of the nature and quantity of mineral and anticipated rate of extraction as an indicator of the likely life expectancy and availability of mineral during the plan period and beyond. 4.17 Any score of F against this criterion precludes the candidate site from being given further consideration in the assessment process. Grading for Criterion 1: Mineral Resources and Timetable
Grade Description F Site not workable within Plan Period B Site workable with the plan period A Site already partially worked/adjacent to operating quarry
4.18 The primary sources of data used to inform the assessment against this criterion are as follows: Information about current quarrying operations Data sourced from the site proposers Site Visit Criterion 2: Proximity to Sensitive Uses 4.19 This criterion has been designed to capture the suitability of the site in relation to the known sensitivity of land uses supporting human receptors that have the potential to be affected by the mineral operation. This could be by virtue of direct effects associated with the mineral operation being proximate to sensitive receptors experiencing elevated levels of noise, dust, visual intrusion etc.; as well as off-site impacts arising from the transportation effects of the operation. 4.20 For the purposes of assessment, sensitive uses have been identified and mapped using GIS and include the following: Schools Residential development Hospital, nursing or care home Incompatible business premises 4.21 The mapping exercise has informed professional judgement of the likely potential for adverse effects and the opportunities for mitigation, should adverse effects appear likely. This has also taken account of the nature of the potential mineral operations considering, for example, whether or not there is a need for blasting. Grading for Criterion 2: Proximity to Sensitive Uses
Grade Description F Sensitive human receptors on whom the potential impacts of the mineral operation cannot be adequately mitigated
B Sensitive human receptors on whom the potential impacts of the mineral operation can be adequately mitigated
A No sensitive human receptors anticipated to be adversely affected by the mineral operation
12 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
4.22 The primary sources of data used to inform the assessment against this criterion are as follows: Site Visit Surrounding Land Use Mapping exercise. Criterion 3: International Ecology and Nature Conservation Designations 4.23 This criterion has been designed to reflect the importance of considering potential impacts of proposed sites on Natura 2000 sites, defined as Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites. The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process provides the formal mechanism whereby such impacts are more fully considered and the overall JMDPD will be subject to HRA. 4.24 The assessment score for this criterion is derived from the findings of the HRA screening of the candidate sites, which is reported separately. Grading for Criterion 3: International Ecology and Nature Conservation Designations
Grade Description F The potential impacts of the mineral operation on a Natura 2000 site cannot be adequately mitigated. C The potential impacts of the mineral operation on Natura 2000 sites are complex and adequate mitigation is uncertain B There is confidence that the potential impacts of the mineral operation on Natura 2000 sites can be adequately mitigated. A No Natura 2000 sites anticipated to be adversely affected by the mineral operation
4.25 The primary sources of data used to inform the assessment against this criterion are as follows: HRA Ramsar Special Areas of Conservation Special Protection Areas Criterion 4: National and Local Ecology and Nature Conservation Designations 4.26 In addition to internationally designated sites, minerals working have the potential to affect ecological assets of national and local importance such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINCs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs) and Ancient Woodlands; through the loss or degradation of habitat and other factors. 4.27 Criterion 4 seeks to relate the potential effects of mineral operations to the known presence of features of nature conservation value. Although the presence of a nationally protected species or habitat that may be adversely affected by a mineral operation will not necessarily preclude development, and therefore there is no Grade ‘F’, this criterion reflects the preference to minimise potential effects on nature conservation value.
13 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Grading for Criterion 4: National and Local Ecology and Nature Conservation Designations
Grade Description F The potential impacts of the mineral operation on an ecological asset of national and/or local importance cannot be adequately mitigated. C The potential impacts of the mineral operation on an ecological asset of national and/or local importance are complex and adequate mitigation is uncertain B There is confidence that the potential impacts of the mineral operation on an ecological asset of national and/or local importance can be adequately mitigated. A No ecological assets of national and/or local importance are anticipated to be adversely affected by the mineral operation
4.28 The primary sources of data used to inform the assessment against this criterion are as follows: Important Bird Areas Local Nature Reserves National Nature Reserves Sites of Special Scientific Interest Criterion 5: Landscape Character 4.29 Minerals operations have the potential to form a significant presence in the landscape. In certain environments, the character of open mineral workings would be incongruent with the surrounding landscape and could give rise to significant adverse effects on the landscape character. Landscape sensitivity is a measure of the ability of the landscape to absorb significant changes in character without undue effects and has been used as an indicator in the suitability of sites for inclusion in the JMDPD. 4.30 It should be noted that the ‘F’ grade has not been included against this criterion. This is on the basis that high sensitivity of landscape character is not considered an absolute constraint when applied to Areas of Search that cover extensive geographical areas and potentially extend over several landscape areas. The assignment of scoring against this criterion takes the guidance of MPS1 into consideration as it relates to designated landscape areas, conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and landscape quality and character. Grading for Criterion 5: Landscape Character
Grade Description D High sensitivity C Medium sensitivity B –Medium-Low sensitivity A Low sensitivity
14 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
4.31 The primary sources of data used to inform the assessment against this criterion are as follows: Landscape designations Landscape Character Assessment Landscape Management Initiatives. Criterion 6: Visual Impact 4.32 This criterion reflects that mineral workings, irrespective of their extent, will not necessarily give rise to adverse effects on visual impact. In this respect, the assessment assigns a grade based on the potential for the proposed site to be mitigated (for example, screened from view either by topography or barriers such as landscaping and tree belts); and the amount of receptors likely to be affected in terms of being able to view the minerals operation and any ancillary effects such as increased HGV movements. In respect of receptors, the presence of permanent residences with a line of sight to the site would take precedence over visitors to the landscape, such as walkers or equestrians. 4.33 The grade assigned is based on a combination of GIS and site visit notes – professional judgement has been used to predict the sensitivity of the area in terms of potential visual impact of minerals operations. It should be noted that the ‘F’ grade has not been included against this criterion. This is on the basis that high sensitivity to visual impact is not considered an absolute constraint when applied to Areas of Search that cover extensive geographical areas and potentially extend over several areas. Grading for Criterion 6: Visual Impact
Grade Description D High C Medium B –Medium-Low sensitivity A Low
4.34 The primary sources of data used to inform the assessment against this criterion are as follows: Surrounding land uses Degree of visibility from local roads and public rights of way Site visit.
Criterion 7: Cultural Heritage 4.35 The presence of archaeology, whether known, suspected or as yet unknown, forms an important consideration in the selection of sites for the JMDPD. In addition, mineral workings have the potential to affect other heritage assets, as they are defined in Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5): Planning for the Historic Environment (i.e. ‘those parts of the historic environment that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest’). 4.36 PPS5 provides guidance on the impacts on designated heritage assets that should be considered wholly unacceptable. This criterion has been designed to align with the principles underpinning PPS5.
15 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Grading for Criterion 7: Cultural Heritage
Grade Description F The potential impacts of the mineral operation on a designated heritage asset of the highest significance (defined in PPS5 as scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens and world heritage sites) are unacceptable. C The potential impacts of the mineral operation on a designated heritage asset are complex and adequate mitigation is uncertain B There is confidence that potential impacts of the mineral operation on a designated heritage asset can be adequately mitigated A The nomination site does not affect any known heritage assets
4.37 The primary sources of data used to inform the assessment against this criterion are as follows: Listed Buildings Registered Battlefields Registered Parks and Gardens Scheduled Monuments World Heritage Sites
Criterion 8: Agricultural Land Quality 4.38 Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7): Sustainable Development in Rural Areas expresses the commitment to the protection of the Best and Most Versatile (BMV) Agricultural Land from development that would sterilise productive use. The guidance promotes a sequential approach to the siting of development, encouraging proposals to make use of land of lower grades (3b, 4 and 5) in preference to the BMV grades of 1, 2 and 3a. The grading presented in support of this criterion has been aligned with the principles of PPS7. 4.39 It should be noted that the ‘F’ grade has not been included against this criterion. This is on the basis that loss of BMV land to mineral workings is not considered an absolute constraint, albeit that it is not desirable. Grading for Criterion 8: Agricultural Land Quality
Criteria Description D The candidate site is wholly or predominantly BMV land C The candidate site is partially BMV land
B The candidate site is wholly or predominantly lower quality agricultural land and excludes BMV land A The nomination site is a Brownfield site
16 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
4.40 The primary source of data used to inform the assessment against this criterion is as follows: Agricultural Land Classifications Site visit. Criterion 9: Transportation 4.41 The ability to transport worked minerals from the extraction point in a safe and efficient manner is a key consideration in selecting sites. In addition, consideration must be given to the suitability of the roads along which minerals traffic will be routed prior to accessing the main highway network (i.e. A-roads and motorways), particularly taking a view on the potential impacts of traffic on the established communities through which likely routes pass. Adverse effects can arise from, amongst other factors, sub-standard road widths; poor visibility; undulating topography/steep routes; noise; vibration and pollutants. 4.42 The assessment of sites against this criteria takes into account that in some cases it will be possible to deliver road improvements that overcome poor access issues. However, this criterion reflects that there is a presumption in favour of minimising the need for ancillary improvements to the highway in allocating sites within the JMDPD, taking into account the fact that the impacts of road improvements could give rise to unacceptable environmental consequences. An ‘F’ grade does not necessarily indicate that some means of addressing the access issue may not be available in the future, but that this is unlikely within the plan period. Grading for Criterion 9: Transportation
Grade Description F Connection to the main highway network can only be gained via unsuitable roads that are unlikely to be capable of improvement without significant disruption/disturbance C Connection to the main highway network can be gained via unsuitable roads that are capable of improvement B Connection to the main highway network can be gained via suitable roads A Site has direct access to the main highway network via a suitable junction
4.43 The primary sources of data used to inform the assessment against this criterion are as follows: Proximity to Main Highway Network Site Visit. Criterion 10: Water Environment 4.44 The process of working minerals involves excavation and dewatering inevitably affects the water environment. The significance and degree of impact will depend on whether or not the site is within a ground water protection zone, and if so, the proximity to the source being protected. In addition, quarrying itself can be vulnerable to flooding, or can affect the vulnerability of neighbouring land and property. PPS25 advises that sand and gravel workings are less vulnerable to flooding. 4.45 The Environment Agency has prepared maps showing the locations of aquifers and of source protection zones. This information and information on flood risk has been used to
17 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
inform the assessment of the various candidate sites in accordance with the criteria in Figure 4.10.
Grading for Criterion 10: Water Environment
Criteria Description D The potential impacts of the mineral operation on surface water or groundwater are such that the mineral operation are unlikely to be permitted except in exceptional circumstances following comprehensive risk assessment or demonstrable mitigation. C The potential impacts of the mineral operation on surface water or groundwater are such that comprehensive risk assessment or mitigation will be necessary. B There is confidence the potential impacts of the mineral operation or groundwater can be adequately mitigated.
A The potential impacts of the mineral operation or groundwater are unlikely to adversely affect surface water or groundwater.
4.46 The primary sources of data used to inform the assessment against this criterion are as follows: Environment Agency Flood Maps Environment Agency Ground water Protection Policy and maps. Evaluation of site suitability 4.47 The grades will be used in the assessment together with a written summary of findings for each of the sites. This will outline the key assets of the site in terms of the relevant selection criteria, and takes account of the implications of any criterion against which the site has scored less favourably (i.e. a grade of C or D) in terms of the complexity of overcoming potential development constraints. The assessment also makes reference to the potential contribution of the site in terms of contributing to the supply requirements and to achieving the desired geographic spread of sites.
18 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
5. Candidate Site Descriptions and Summary of Assessment
5.1 This section of the report details the assessment for each of the candidate sites. The findings are preceded by a general site description, incorporating criteria-specific comments, following which the criteria gradings are presented as a tabular summary. The site descriptions are completed with a summary that outlines the principal assets and constraints associated with the site, and the potential contribution of the site to a good geographic spread across the East Riding of Yorkshire area as described above at paragraph 4.8. 5.2 The information is presented in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 below. 5.3 As a result of the assessment, a number of sites are recommended to be carried forward as proposed Preferred Areas or Areas of Search in the next stage of the JMDPD. 5.4 The overall selection is discussed further in the Chapter 6.
19 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Table 5.1 - Sand and gravel sites - Summary Review Comments and Assessment
Site Summary Review Comments and Assessment
SG1 - Willowcroft Farm, Catwick Site Ref The site comprises low lying flat farmland which is located immediately to the North of the existing Little Catwick Quarry, it is approximately SG1 18 hectares. The site lies within an Area of Search identified in the JMLP. NOM06 Since being nominated the site has been granted planning permission.
675,000 tonnes On this basis the site has not been assessed further. Its resources are included in the landbank.
Table continues on next page
20 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
SG2 - Barff House Farm, Brandesburton
Previous The site comprises undulating agricultural land located to the south east of Brandesburton and extends to some 162ha. The Site Ref nomination is bisected by Hempholme Lane, which runs in a North West-South East direction through the site. The Northern parcel is AOS 01a generally surrounded by farmland, although approximate 135m to the north east of the site is a residential development, to the east a golf course and fishing ponds to the South. NOM 05 The Southern area is bordered by the fishing ponds along the northern boundary but is surrounded by agricultural land on all other 850,000 sides. The nearest residential property is situated approximately 130m to the west with 26 residential properties within 2km of the tonnes site. A public right of way crosses the southern part of the site from Heigholme Lane and may require diversion. There are no ecological designations in the vicinity that would be affected by extraction at the site. There are 21 Listed Buildings within 2km of the site and scheduled monuments within 1 km. The site has Grade 3 agricultural land with a RIGS within 1 km. The site is within the indicative flood plain for the Burshill and Barff Drain which runs through the candidate site. Access to the site would be via a narrow single vehicle width lane leading from the road linking Brandesburton and Leven. The site formed part of the Leven and Brandesburton Area of Search identified in the JMLP, the nomination site extends slightly beyond the eastern side of the North Western finger. The anticipated rate of extraction is 100,000 tpa. Spatially, the site is within the catchment of Beverley and Hull, but given the poor access is considered less suitable than other sites also within this catchment. Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity to Int’tional National Landscap Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources sensitive uses ecology & local e Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment desig’ns ecology character ion desig’ns Assessment B B A A A/B A B/C D C/D B
On this basis it is not recommended that the site should be identified as a proposed Preferred Area in the Publication version of the JMDPD. However this part of the JMLP Leven and Brandesburton Area of Search should be carried forward to provide for anticipated supply beyond the DPD plan period and the edge of the Area of Search adjusted to reflect the nominated site boundary (see below SG11).
Table continues on next page
21 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
SG3 - Routh Carrs and Monksbridge Plantation, Routh Previous The nominated site is located a kilometre North East of Routh and a kilometre South of the Leven. The site extends to 65ha and is Site Ref predominantly surrounded by flat low lying farmland graded as 2 and 3 agricultural land. Other uses in proximity to the site are the former Routh Quarry, which has been restored to a holiday home development; and Monkbridge Plantation, which is situated on the AOS01b southern boundary. A Sewerage Treatment Works sits adjacent to the northern boundary. The nearest residential property is Leven NOM12 House located 200m to the East of the site. The site is bisected by a number of drains – Town Drain and East Drain, Monks Drain, 900,000 Cross Drain and a number of smaller drains are located within it. The presence of the drains will impact on the method of working tonnes and have to be considered in the context of a large part of the site being located in a Flood Risk Zone 3. Within 2km of the site is Routh Quarry (RIGS) and Leven Canal SSSI and 14 Listed Buildings. The site is currently accessed via an agricultural gateway direct onto the A1035, or onto Carr Lane, a minor trackway running along the northern boundary of the site. The Nominator has indicated that possible access options would be an improved access onto the A1035, or via an improved junction to Carr Lane onto Beverley Road leading south from Leven. This is a busy road with some residential properties adjacent. The anticipated rate of extraction is 100,000 tpa. The site formed part of the Leven and Brandsburton Area of Search identified in the JMLP. Spatially, the site is within the catchment of Beverley and Hull, however as the site is effectively a new quarry, it scores less well against criteria 1. Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscap Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local e Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology character ion uses desig’ns Assessment B B A A A/B A B D C B
If the supply requirements are calculated in relation to the interim apportionment rate, the site will not be required, but this part of the JMLP Leven and Brandesburton Area of Search should be carried forward to provide for anticipated supply beyond the DPD plan period (see below).
Table continues on next page
22 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
SG4 Gransmoor Lane Formerly The nominated site extends in a lozenge shape from north of Gransmoor Quarry to south of Park Farm Quarry. It was nominated as part of an Area of Search. The area is low lying and gently undulating agricultural land, graded as 2 and 3. The site does not include any AOS02 designated features of environmental importance. The area has revealed archaeological evidence in past workings and it is NOM21 considered likely to reveal further archaeology. There are 8 Scheduled Monuments and 19 Listed Buildings within 2km of the site, one of which – Nunnery Hill – lies within the nominated area, and another – Wharam Hill Embankment – lies close to the northern 1,500,000 boundary. Any proposals would need to avoid these features. The site is intersected by flood zones 2 and 3 and the June 2007 flood tonnes outline. If this area were to be used in future, a sequential approach should be adopted to ensure that the most vulnerable and sensitive parts of the site are located in those areas least vulnerable to flood risk. It does not lie within a ground water Protection Zone. The Nominator advises that any future extraction would form an extension to one of the existing quarries within the nominated Area of Search and would represent a continuation of ongoing operations there, using the same access. Although the whole site may contain up to 3m tonnes of reserve, only about half of this is likely to be available within the plan period. The anticipated rate of extraction is 100,000 tpa. Spatially the nominated site offers the prospect of continued supply to the catchments of Bridlington and Driffield. This nominated site lies within the larger Area of Search identified in the JMLP, referred to as Gransmoor and Lissett AOS. A wind farm has been installed within the larger identified area to the east of the nominated site, and the coastal part of the original Area of Search is also intersected by the 200 year indicative tidal floodplain associated with the main water courses Barmston Sea Drain, Kelk Drain and of the North Sea. Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscap Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local e Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology character ion uses desig’ns Assessment A/B A A A A/B A/B B/C D A/B A/B
On this basis it is recommended that the nominated site SG4 should be identified as a proposed Area of Search for Sand and Gravel in the JMDPD. The remainder of the former JMLP Area of Search should be safeguarded by inclusion in a Mineral Safeguarding Area.
Table continues on next page
23 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
SG5 - North Cave – Common Lane Formerly The former area AOS03 comprised 2 nominated sites, Common Lane and Dryham Lane. Extraction at Dryham Lane has now been part of granted planning permission, so its reserves now form part of the landbank, and the site is not considered further in this assessment AOS03 process. The remaining nominated site, Common Lane, lies to the south of the A63. It extends to some 50 hectares, and comprises NOM02 flat low lying farm land of agricultural grade 2 and 3. 3,400,000 There are a number of residential properties along Common Lane. Access would be via a 4 way intersection on the A63, passing tonnes some industrial units to the north west of the nominated site. There are no designated ecological features within the site. Although the site is not within a designated landscape area, any extraction would need to be carefully sited and screened to reduce the visual impact on the dwellings and avoid disturbance. There are no sites designated for conservation interest although there is Hotham RIGS within 2km as well as other local features of interest. The site is affected by the 1 in 200 year indicative tidal floodplain, but it does not lie within a Ground Protection Zone. Extraction at this site would represent the opening of a new quarry. The Nominator has indicated that the site may contain up to 3.4 million tonnes of sand and gravel, and the anticipated rate of extraction is 600,000 tpa. Spatially, the site is within the catchment of Beverley and Hull. The recently extended Dryham Lane Quarry nearby is considered suitable to meet the ongoing supply requirements for this part of the catchment, and this site is not likely to be required within the plan period. Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscap Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local e Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology character ion uses desig’ns Assessment B B A A B B A C A/B A/B
On this basis it is not recommended that this site should be identified as a proposed Preferred Area or Area of Search for Sand and Gravel in the JMDPD. However it should be safeguarded by inclusion in a Mineral Safeguarding Area.
Table continues on next page
24 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
SG6 Preston Road, Sproatley Previous The nominated site comprises farmland situated adjacent to the B1240 approximately 500m south of Sproatley village. The southern Site Ref part of the site is identified as a Mineral Consultation Area in the Holderness Local Plan. The nomination extends to 14ha. A new high AOS04 pressure gas main has since been built through the nominated site and the operator has withdrawn the nomination. NOM07 This site has not therefore been considered further. 800,000 tonnes
On this basis it is not recommended that the site AOS04 should be identified as a proposed Preferred Area or Area of Search for Sand and Gravel in the JMDPD. It and the wider sand and gravel resources should be safeguarded by inclusion in a Mineral Safeguarding Area.
Table continues on next page
25 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
SG7 - Land at Pollington
Previous Two adjacent sites to the north west of Pollington Village have been put forward by different Nominators. They lie south of Heck and Site Ref Pollington Lane and comprise the partially extracted Pollington Block Work Sand Pit and the partially extracted and in-filled Pollington AOSO8 Quarry extending to approximately 22ha. Industrial and commercial development is to the east and to the west is the Pollington Block Works. A water works and depot on a former airfield are to the north. Residential development lies a short distance to the south, NOM13 & 14 including the listed property Pollington Hall. The topography falls gently toward New Fleet and Drain North, which is situated to the Approx south. Historically a large screening bund has been formed on the southern boundary of the former mineral workings; however the 900,000 sites are open to view from the lane along their northern boundary. tonnes There no Scheduled Monuments or archaeological features within the site. The agricultural land in the locality is predominantly agricultural with a grading of 2, but the nominated sites are both essentially brownfield. The sites are located to the north of the Flood Risk Area. Although the sites lie within a Source Protection Zone 2, the Environment Agency would not object to extraction of remaining resources above the water table. The former mineral workings both have unmade access points onto Heck and Pollington Lane. The Nominators advise that the sites contain building and terracing sand and would predominantly serve Goole and other settlements to the west including Doncaster. The anticipated rate of extraction is approximately 30,000 tonnes per year Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscap Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local e Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology character ion uses desig’ns Assessment A B A A A A A A A/B A/B
On this basis it is recommended that the combined sites are identified as a proposed Preferred Area for sand and gravel in the Publication version of the JMDPD.
Table continues on next page
26 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
SG8 – Garton on Wolds, Land south of A166 Additional The nominated site extends in an elongated lozenge shape extend to 360 hectares southwards from the A166 across open and gently Nomination sloping agricultural land. It was nominated as an Area of Search. The nomination site includes Low Farm and Sand Pit Cottage. The land is located approximately 1km south of Garton on the Wold and 2km west of Driffield, and lies within an area designated as Wolds NOM15 Area of Landscape Protection. 2,800,000 The land is classified as grade 2 agricultural land. The topography forms a small valley feature which is orientated North West – South tonnes East. The area extends to the North West boundary of the former Driffield Airfield, which is allocated for residential led redevelopment in the Beverley Borough Local Plan and emerging Core Strategy. There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest or other designated nature conservation areas in the immediate vicinity of the nominated site. There are 12 scheduled monuments including round barrows and bowl barrows located within and immediately adjacent to the nominated site and any extraction would need to avoid these. The site is within Flood Zone 1 and does not overlie a Source Protection Zone. Access to the area is currently gained via a series of agricultural access tracks/drives and it is bisected by Station Road, which passes from north to south. Given the nature of existing access arrangements, it is likely that highway improvements would be required to access any future mineral operation and the best prospect is a new access onto the A166. The Nominator has indicated that the site offers the prospect of continuing supply of material known locally as Garton Slack in the long term, after the existing quarry to the north of the A166 is worked out. It is unlikely that all the tonnage indicated would be extracted. The anticipated rate of extraction is 100,000 tpa. Spatially this site falls within the catchment of Driffield, but it is considered that ongoing supply within the plan period can be met from existing quarries or extensions thereto, which will have lesser impact than anticipated from this site. Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscap Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local e Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’men sensitive desig’ns ecology character ion t uses desig’ns Assessment B B A A C/D C/D C C C/D A/B On this basis it is not recommended that the site SG8 should be identified as a proposed Preferred Area or Area of Search for Sand and Gravel in the JMDPD. It and the wider resources should be safeguarded by inclusion in a Mineral Safeguarding Area.
Table continues on next page
27 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
SG 9 Land east of B1249 Brigham Additional The nominated site extends to 48.24 hectares comprising two parcels of agricultural land either side of Cruckley Lane. The northern Nomination parcel of land lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of Brigham Quarry; the southern parcel sits to the south of Cruckley Lane. The NOM17 areas are proposed as extensions to Brigham Quarry, which is currently accessed from the B1249. There is also access for a public footpath running through the north of the site. Total tonnage 1,130,000 The site is located approximately 0.5 km to the North East of Brigham and 1.5 km to the North West of North Frodingham. The nearest tonnes; properties are Grange Farm, 30m to the west of the southern parcel and Cruckley Farm, 165m to the east of the northern parcel. Approx The topography of the area is low lying with gentle undulations. The northern parcel falls from south to north and the southern parcel falls 650,000 from west to east to meet White Dyke, which forms the eastern boundary to both sites. The southern parcel and the westernmost part of tonnes in the northern parcel are open to view, but the remaining parts of the northern parcel are less open due to either the topography or by proposed screening from the existing Brigham Quarry. Preferred The River Hull Headwaters Sites of Special Scientific Interest lies approximately 0.5 km to the east of the site. Brigham Quarry contains Area a Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site (RIGS). There are no registered features of archaeological interest in the site; the closest SM is about 3km to the south (Rotsea deserted village). The site is within Flood Zones 2 and 3 but does not overlie a Source Protection Zone. The land is classified as grade 2 and 3 agricultural land. The southern parcel of land includes an area of land that has been historically landfilled with a variety of wastes. The anticipated total tonnage available in both sites is approximately 1.3m tonnes. The mineral available is the same as at Brigham Quarry, namely building and tarmaccing sand, rather than for concreting. The anticipated rate of extraction is 75,000 tonnes per year. The northern parcel could form a possible extension to the existing quarry and could be worked with less impact than the southern one. Spatially the nominated site is centrally located within reach of the catchments of Beverley, Driffield and Bridlington and well positioned for continuation of supply of this more specialist mineral. Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscape Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local character Impact Heritage quality t’portation env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology uses desig’ns Assessment A B A B B/C C/D A C C B
On this basis it is recommended that the northern part of the nominated site should be identified as a proposed Preferred Area for Sand and Gravel SG9 in the JMDPD. The remainder of the nominated site should be safeguarded by inclusion in a Mineral Safeguarding Area.
Table continues on next page
28 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
SG10 – Heigholme, North Side of Leven Canal Additional The site was nominated as an Area of Search and comprises 85 hectares of agricultural land immediately to the west of the village of Nomination Leven. The nominated area is crossed by West Street, Carr Lane and Heigholme Lane. The area is located immediately adjacent and NOM 20 south west of the Leven and Brandesburton Area of Search identified in the JMLP. 2,500,000 The nearest residential properties adjoin the site to both east and west. No public footpaths run through the site; however, a footpath tonnes bounds the southern edge, alongside the Leven Canal. A further footpath is 380m to the north of the site. The nominated site is a short distance to the west of the village of Leven, with no obvious connection to the highway, other than a minor road leading directly through the village. There is therefore the potential for significant disturbance from the transportation from the site if extraction was to take place. There are no Scheduled Monuments within the immediate vicinity of the site, but the listed aqueduct at Sandholme Farm is in proximity. The Leven Canal SSSI immediately borders the southern boundary of the nominated site. The land is classified as grade 2 & 3 agricultural land. Some of the site is located within a flood zone 2 and 3, but it does not overlie a Source Protection Zone. The site represents a proposal for a new quarry. The anticipated rate of extraction is 100,000 tpa. Spatially, the site is within the catchment of Beverley and Hull, but given the lack of any clear means of suitable access avoiding significant impact on the village the site is considered less favourable than other sites also within this catchment.
Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscape Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local character Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology ion uses desig’ns Assessment B F A C B/C C/D A C F B
On this basis it is not recommended that the site should be identified as a proposed Area of Search or Preferred Area in the Publication version of the JMDPD. However the nominated site should be safeguarded by inclusion in a Mineral Safeguarding Area.
Table continues on next page
29 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Leven and Brandesburton Area of Search to be referred to as SG11 Previously The Area of Search was identified in the adopted Minerals Local Plan. It covers a large area of agricultural land, including several AOS01 roads and dwellings, plus operating and former quarries in the vicinity of Brandesburton and Leven villages. The A1035 passes through it. The nominated sites SG2 and SG3 reviewed above fall within this Area of Search. Neither has been recommended as Preferred areas because of specific site disadvantages and spatial factors. However it is recommended that the original Area of Search should be retained to indicate the possible opportunities for meeting the ongoing supply requirements after the end of the plan period should they be required and a small adjustment made to the boundary of the Area of Search to include the whole of the area covered by SG2. It is not appropriate to identify a total available tonnage or anticipated rate of supply to assign to this Area of Search. The area is too large to be specifically assessed against the Assessment criteria.
The sites proposed above for identification as Preferred Areas will provide all of the supply requirement for the plan period, plus sufficient for 67% of the allowance for a 7 year landbank at the end of the plan period. On this basis it is recommended that the original Leven and Brandesburton Area of Search should be retained in the Publication version of the JMDPD and that the boundary should be adjusted to include the whole of SG2.
30 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Table 5.2 - Crushed Rock Sites - Summary Review Comments and Assessment
Site Summary Review Comments and Assessment
CR1 Greenwick Quarry Huggate
Previously The nominated site is farmland which extends to 16ha and forms an extension to adjacent Greenwick Quarry which lies approximate Site Ref 0.5 km south of the A166. The nomination lies within the Greenwick Quarry Area of Search for Crushed Rock identified in the JMLP. AOS05a This Area of Search is recognised as having several environmental constraints, including falling within the Wolds Area of Landscape NOM 11 Protection, proximity to Millington Wood & Pastures SSSI and the presence of archaeological features. In addition the aquifer underlying the site provides a public drinking water supply to a nearby village. These constraints also apply to the nominated site. Estimated 5,000,000 The nearest residential property at Cold Skin Farm is approximately 250m to the east of the nominated site with 29 other dwellings tonnes within 2 km. The site is very open to view from the lane along the west boundary. This could only be overcome by a combination of bunding, planting and standoff from the road, Planting will take time to establish in this elevated location. The agricultural land is graded 3 and 4. The nominated extension would be accessed through the existing operation, and traffic would be routed northwards to join the A166. The anticipated rate of extraction has not been advised. Spatially, the site is further from settlements in the East Riding of Yorkshire than other nominated sites with lower or equivalent levels of constraint according to the Assessment methodology. These other sites are able to meet the supply requirements to the end of the plan period. The site is considered a possible long term candidate once measures have been made to address the high visibility in this sensitive landscape. Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscape Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local character Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology ion uses desig’ns Assessment A A A B D D C B A C
On this basis it is not recommended that the site is identified as a Preferred Area within the Publication version of the JMDPD. However, the Greenwick Quarry Area of Search should be carried forward as an option to provide for anticipated supply beyond the DPD plan period.
Table continues on next page
31 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
CR2 - Riplingham Quarry, Riplingham
Previously The nominated area extends to approximately 2.5ha and forms an extension to the existing operation at Riplingham Quarry which Site Ref produces chalk. The resultant voids are being back filled with inert waste and restored in accordance with a scheme designed by the AOS06a Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. The existing operations are accessed via a long track, from Brick Dyke Lane. NOM 04 The site is located in a small valley feature which runs from the north east to the south west. The nearest residential property is Low 2,500,000 Hunsley Cottage approximately 400m to the north east. The site is within the Wolds Area of Landscape and the quality of the land is tonnes graded 2 and 3. The site is not within the flood zone, but it is underlain by a Principal Aquifer. The workings are not visible from the access point or views from the south. Only limited, glimpsed views of the site can be seen from the south-west (Swinescaif Road). An application to extend the quarry was refused on the basis of visual impact, in particular views of the site from the north and north-east. Since that refusal, the operator has placed screening mounds along the northern boundaries of the site/proposed extension area with tree planting on top. This is starting to create a good screening bund minimising the impact on views of the site from the north and north east (in particular Brick Dyke Lane). The site would form an extension to the existing quarry at Riplingham. The anticipated rate of extraction is 170,000 tpa. Spatially the site is within the catchment for Hull and Beverley and therefore well placed to contribute to ongoing supply within the plan period. Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscape Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local character Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology ion uses desig’ns Assessment A B A A B B A C A C On this basis it is proposed that the site should be identified as a proposed Preferred Area for Crushed Rock Working in the JMDPD to contribute to supply within the plan period.
Table continues on next page
32 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
CR3 – Little Wold, South Cave
Previously The nominated site is immediately to the north of the existing Chalk Quarry at Swinescaif approximately 500m North East of South Site Ref Cave. It extends partly down the northern flank of a small hill called Little Wold. AOS06 The nomination lies within the Swinescaif Area of Search for Crushed Rock identified in the JMLP. The AOS is situated in an Area of 2,000,000 Great Landscape Value and the access is noted as sensitive to any increase in traffic levels above those associated with the current or past operation of the existing quarry. These constraints also apply to the nominated site. The site is partially screened from the north by a belt of woodland along its north-western edge, although views can be obtained from the byway which forms the south boundary of the nominated site. There are no designated sites of nature conservation interest in the nominated site, or within its vicinity, nor any Scheduled AMs. The land is grade 2 and 3 Agricultural land. The site is not within the Flood zone, nor within a Ground Water Protection Zone. Spatially the site falls within the catchment for Hull and Beverley, but it is considered that ongoing supply within the plan period can be met from existing quarries or extensions thereto also within this catchment which will have lesser impact than anticipated from this site.
Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscape Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local character Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology ion uses desig’ns Assessment B B A A B C A D B C
On this basis it is not recommended that the nominated site is identified as a Preferred Area within the Publication version of the JMDPD. However, the Swinescaif Area of Search should be carried forward as an option to provide for anticipated supply beyond the DPD plan period.
Table continues on next page
33 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
CR4 Castle Farm and Drewton Farm, North Cave
Previously The nomination site extends to some 100ha of land bearing Oolitic Limestone. The B1230 Wold Hill runs through centre of the Site Ref nominated site. It is located North East of North Cave on the escarpment of the Wolds and comprises mainly agricultural fields. The AOS07 terrain is undulating, with the land rising from the south-east to the north-west. The land continues to rise to the north east of the site resulting in it being highly visible from the surrounding area. Castle and Drewton Farms are located within the nominated area. Three NOM 03 public Rights of Way traverse the site. Total The site is situated in the Wolds Area of Landscape Protection and the southern corner of the site lies within a Mineral Consultation 7,500,000 Area in the East Yorkshire BC Local Plan. The nominated site is extensive, but it is not anticipated that the whole area would tonnes necessarily be excavated. The site is generally open to view from the surrounding roads and from the higher ground to the east. The nearest designated SSSI is Drewton Lane Pits which is situated approximately 200m away. There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the site or its vicinity, but Castle Farm is listed grade 2. The site includes land graded as 2, 3 and 4 agricultural land. Access to the strategic road network would be via the B1230 Wold Hill which meets the A1034 to the North East of the site. The site is intersected by Flood Zones 2 and 3, and it is underlain by a Principal Aquifer. The site would represent the opening of a new crushed rock quarry; the anticipated rate of extraction is 450,000 tpa. Spatially the site falls within the catchment for Hull and Beverley, but it is considered that ongoing supply within the plan period can be met from existing quarries or extensions thereto also within this catchment which will have lesser impact than anticipated from this site. Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscape Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local character Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology ion uses desig’ns Assessment B B A A D C B D A C
On this basis it is not recommended that the site is identified as a Preferred Area or Area of Search for Crushed Rock within the Publication version of the JMDPD. However it should be safeguarded by inclusion in a Mineral Safeguarding Area.
Table continues on next page
34 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
CR 5 – Land West of B1249, Langtoft
Additional The nominated site would form an extension to the dormant Langtoft Quarry near Langtoft. The site extends to approximately 30 Nomination hectares of dale and farmland which are classified as grade 2 & 3. The site is located in an area of undulating topography which falls Nom 16 from the north west to the south east. The area encompasses part of Crooked Dale which is steep sided valley feature which is orientated East – West. 1,200,000 tonnes The village of Langtoft is located nearby to the north with a row of dwellings immediately adjacent to the north east corner of the nominated site. Views into parts of the site can be obtained from the road along its eastern boundary. The site lies with the Wolds Area of Landscape Protection. There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Scheduled monuments within the site or its vicinity. The dormant Langtoft quarry contains a Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site (RIGS). The former quarry has an established access onto the B1249 Driffield Road. There area is not affected by public rights of ways. The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and does not fall within a Ground Water Protection Zone. Spatially the nominated site offers prospect of continued supply to the catchments of Bridlington and Diffield. However the extent of the area to be excavated and therefore total available tonnage will need to be reduced to minimise the visual and landscape impact of any extraction. The anticipated rate of extraction is 85,000 tpa.
Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscape Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local character Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology ion uses desig’ns Assessment B B A A C C A C C A
On this basis it is proposed that the site should be identified as a proposed Preferred Area for Crushed Rock Working in the JMDPD to contribute to supply within the plan period. Working should be restricted to minimise any impact on dwellings close to the north east corner of the nominated site.
Table continues on next page
35 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
CR6 - West Side of Wold Road, Nafferton
Additional The nominated site would form an extension to the dormant Nafferton Wold Quarry. The site is surrounded by farmland with Nomination farmsteads to the north, and south. The settlement of Nafferton is located approximately 1.5 km to the south of the site. The existing Nom 18 quarry has an established access onto Wold Road, a narrow lane which meets the A614 just north of Nafferton. 1,280,000 Located within the Wolds Area of Landscape Protection, the site is situated near the top of the Nafferton Wold on a gentle slope which tonnes falls to the east. It is open to view from the lane and from a bridle way to the south/west and a route with public access to the north. There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Scheduled monuments within the site or its vicinity. The dormant Nafferton Wold Quarry contains a Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site (RIGS). The site extends to 12.5 hectares of open farmland delineated by an intermittent hedgerow and is classified as grade 2 & 3. The site is within Flood Zone 1 and does not fall within a Ground Water Protection Zone. The anticipated rate of extraction is 80,000 tpa. Spatially the nominated site lies within the catchments of Bridlington and Driffield, but it is considered that ongoing supply within the plan period can be met from existing quarries or extensions thereto also within this catchment which will have lesser impact than anticipated from this site.
Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mineral Proximity Int’tional National & Landscape Visual Cultural Ag’l land Access & Water resources to ecology local character Impact Heritage quality t’portat env’ment sensitive desig’ns ecology ion uses desig’ns Assessment B B A A C C A C D A
On this basis it is not recommended that the site is identified as a Preferred Area or Area of Search for Crushed Rock within the Publication version of the JMDPD. However it should be safeguarded by inclusion in a Mineral Safeguarding Area.
Table continues on next page
36 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Greenwick Area of Search to be referred to as CR7 Previously The Area of Search was identified in the adopted Minerals Local Plan. It is situated a short distance from the A166 in an upland AOS05 agricultural setting. It sits within the Wold Area of landscape Protection. The Millington Wood & Pastures SSSI noted principally for its geomorphological interest is in close proximity and the presence of archaeological features has been noted in the vicinity. The aquifer underlying the site provides a public drinking water supply to a nearby village. An existing quarry operates within this Area of Search. The nominated site CR1 reviewed above, would form an extension to this existing quarry, and falls within this Area of Search, but has not been recommended as a Preferred Area because of specific site disadvantages and spatial factors. However it is recommended that the original Area of Search should be retained to indicate the possible opportunities for meeting the ongoing supply requirements after the end of the plan period should they be required. It is not appropriate to identify a total available tonnage or anticipated rate of supply to assign to this Area of Search. The area is too large to be specifically assessed against the Assessment criteria.
The sites proposed above for identification as Preferred Areas will provide all of the supply requirement for the plan period, although not for the allowance for a 7 year landbank at the end of the plan period. On this basis it is recommended that the original Greenwick Area of Search should be retained in the Publication version of the JMDPD as a possible source of further crushed rock should it be needed after the end of the plan period
Table continues on next page
37 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Swinescaif Area of Search to be referred to as CR8 The Area of Search was identified in the adopted Minerals Local Plan. The site is located on a small hill approximately 500 m north east of South Cave. The AOS is situated in an Area of Great Landscape Value and the access is noted as sensitive to any increase in traffic levels above those associated with the past operation of the existing quarry within the AoS. The site CR2 nominated as an extension to this existing quarry reviewed above falls within this Area of Search, but has not been recommended as a Preferred Area because of specific site disadvantages and spatial factors. However it is recommended that the original Area of Search should be retained to indicate the possible opportunities for meeting the ongoing supply requirements after the end of the plan period should they be required. It is not appropriate to identify a total available tonnage or anticipated rate of supply to assign to this Area of Search. The area is too large to be specifically assessed against the Assessment criteria.
The sites proposed above for identification as Preferred Areas will provide all of the supply requirement for the plan period, although not for the allowance for a 7 year landbank at the end of the plan period. On this basis it is recommended that the original Swinescaif Area of Search should be retained in the Publication version of the JMDPD as a possible source of further crushed rock should it be needed after the end of the plan period
38 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
6. Recommended Sites
6.1 The sites recommended for identification in the next version of the JMDPD are listed in the tables below, together with the anticipated annual yield and from this the tonnage available within the plan period (taken as 15 times the anticipated annual yield). Location Plans for all the recommended sites are in Appendix A. 6.2 The sand and gravel sites that are recommended to be identified in the next version of the Minerals DPD are listed in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 - Sand and gravel sites recommended for identification Site ref Anticipated annual Available tonnage in Recommended yield in 1,000tpa plan period (total status (available in site). SG3 Routh Carrs and 100 0.9mt Proposed Monksbridge Plantation. Preferred Area (0.9mt) SG4 Gransmoor Lane 100 1.5mt Proposed Area of Search. (3.0mt) SG7 Land at Pollington 30 0.450mt Proposed Preferred Area (0.9mt) SG 9 Land east of 75 0.6mt Proposed B1249 Brigham Preferred Area (0.6mt) Leven and Not available Not available To be carried Brandesburton Area of forward from the Search JMLP as an Area of Search. Total tonnage available in plan period (not 3.45mt including Leven and Brandesburton AoS). (5.4mt)
6.3 The identified sand and gravel sites together contribute some 3.45million tonnes towards the total requirement of 4.75 million tonnes to be found to cover extraction during the plan period and to provide for a 7 year landbank at the end of the plan period. The amount required to provide for extraction during the plan period is only 0.87 million tonnes, and the balance will cover 4.7 of the additional 7 years. Any further requirements that may arise during this 7 years period can be provided for either from the further resources that would be available from these sites up to a total of 5.4 million tonnes or from resources within the Leven and Brandesburton Area of Search or from elsewhere in the Gransmoor Lane Area of Search. 6.4 The crushed rock sites that are recommended to be identified in the next version of the Minerals DPD are listed in Table 6.2.
39 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Table 6.2 – Crushed Rock sites recommended for identification Site ref Anticipated Available tonnage Recommended annual yield in plan period (total status in 1,000tpa (available in site). CR2.Riplingham Quarry 170 2.5 mt Proposed Preferred Area (2.5 mt) CR5 Land west of B1249, Langtoft 85 1.28 mt Proposed Preferred Area (1.28 mt) Greenwick Area of Search Not available Not available To be carried forward from the JMLP as an Area of Search. Swainscaif Area of Search Not available Not available To be carried forward from the JMLP as an Area of Search.
Total tonnage available in plan period (not including 3.78 mt Greenwick and Swinescaif Areas of Search. (3.78mt)
6.5 The identified crushed rock sites together contain some 3.78 million tonnes of mineral. This is slightly more than the 3.71 million tonnes provision to be made during the plan period. The balance will be carried over to contribute towards the provision for the 7 years after the plan period, and is sufficient to cover only a small amount of the tonnage required. Resources within the Greenwick and Swinescaif Areas of Search may be made available to meet further requirements that may arise during this 7 years period.
40 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
7. What happens next?
7.1 The Joint Authorities of East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull are keen to obtain the views of everyone with an interest in minerals planning on the contents of this document. To assist this process, a response form is has been prepared which sets out the topics on which specific comment is invited. Any further comments on the content of the document are welcome. A Response Form is provided at the back of this document and can be down loaded from the Councils’ websites at www.eastriding.gov.uk and www.hullcc.gov.uk
7.2 The consultation period ends at 5pm on Monday 19 March 2012. Please use the Response Form for your comments. Completed response forms should be sent for the Attention of Anthea Hoey to:- Atkins Limited, The Octagon, Pynes Hill Court, Rydon Lane, Exeter EX2 5AZ Electronic Response to: [email protected]
7.3 For further information contact either: Andy Wainwright at the East Riding of Yorkshire Council offices on 01482 393730 or Anthea Hoey of Atkins Ltd on 01392 352900
7.4 The responses will be analysed and taken into account in the preparation of the next version of the Joint Minerals DPD.
41 V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
This page is intentionally blank
V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Appendix A Location Plans for Recommended Sites
V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
V1.3 !
! !
! ! ± !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
SG4 !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! SG9 ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
SG3 ! ! SG11
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! SG7 !
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
© Crown Copyright 2008. All Rights Reserved. East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383 ± Legend
Proposed Preferred Area NB not all the area would necessarily be extracted
0 50 100 200 300 400 m
CLIENT
PROJECT East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Hull City Council Joint Minerals DPD TITLE SG3 Proposed Preferred Area for Sand and Gravel Working, Rouths Carr and Monks Bridge Plantation, Routh SCALE DATE DRAWN 1:10,000 at A4 29/07/11 SK © Crown Copyright 2008. All Rights Reserved. East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383 P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div57\5XXXXXX\5049925 East Riding Minerals DPD (RH)\40.Technical\46.Site Allocations\Allocation Drawings\SG3.mxd ± Legend
Proposed Area of Search NB not all the area would necessarily be extracted
0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 m
CLIENT
PROJECT East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Hull City Council Joint Minerals DPD TITLE SG4 Proposed Area of Search for Sand and Gravel Working Gransmoor Lane SCALE DATE DRAWN 1:25,000 at A4 29/07/11 SK © Crown Copyright 2008. All Rights Reserved. East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383 P:\GBBMA\Geospatial\Project\_Planning\East Riding of Yorkshire & Hull\300 Project Data\310 Datasets\311 MXD\SG4.mxd ± Legend
Proposed Preferred Area NB not all the area would necessarily be extracted
0 50 100 200 300 400 m
CLIENT
PROJECT East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Hull City Council Joint Minerals DPD TITLE SG7 Proposed Preferred Area for Sand and Gravel Working, Pollington SCALE DATE DRAWN 1:10,000 at A4 29/07/11 SK © Crown Copyright 2008. All Rights Reserved. East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383 P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div57\5XXXXXX\5049925 East Riding Minerals DPD (RH)\40.Technical\46.Site Allocations\Allocation Drawings\SG7.mxd ± Legend
Proposed Preferred Area NB not all the area would necessarily be extracted
0 50 100 200 300 400 m
CLIENT
PROJECT East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Hull City Council Joint Minerals DPD TITLE SG9 Proposed Preferred Area for Sand and Gravel Working, Cruckley Lane, Nr. Brigham SCALE DATE DRAWN 1:10,000 at A4 29/07/11 SK © Crown Copyright 2008. All Rights Reserved. East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383 P:\GBBMA\Geospatial\Project\_Planning\East Riding of Yorkshire & Hull\300 Project Data\310 Datasets\311 MXD\NOM17.mxd ± Legend
Retained Area of Search NB not all the area would necessarily be extracted
0 100 200 300 400 500 1,000 1,500 m
CLIENT
PROJECT East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Hull City Council Joint Minerals DPD TITLE SG11 Retained Area of Seach for Sand and Gravel Working, Leven and Brandesburton
SCALE DATE DRAWN 1:40,000 at A4 29/07/11 SK © Crown Copyright 2008. All Rights Reserved. East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383 P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div57\5XXXXXX\5049925 East Riding Minerals DPD (RH)\40.Technical\46.Site Allocations\Allocation Drawings\SG11.mxd
± Legend
Proposed Preferred Area NB not all the area would necessarily be extracted
0 50 100 200 300 400 m
CLIENT
PROJECT East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Hull City Council Joint Minerals DPD TITLE CR2 Proposed Preferred Area for Crushed Rock Working Riplingham Quarry, Riplingham
SCALE DATE DRAWN 1:10,000 at A4 01/08/11 SK © Crown Copyright 2008. All Rights Reserved. East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383 P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div57\5XXXXXX\5049925 East Riding Minerals DPD (RH)\40.Technical\46.Site Allocations\Allocation Drawings\CR2.mxd ± Legend
Proposed Preferred Area NB not all the area would necessarily be extracted
0 50 100 200 300 400 m
CLIENT
PROJECT East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Hull City Council Joint Minerals DPD TITLE CR5 Proposed Preferred Area for Crushed Rock Working, West Side, B1249, Nr. Langtoft SCALE DATE DRAWN 1:10,000 at A4 01/08/11 SK © Crown Copyright 2008. All Rights Reserved. East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383 P:\GBBMA\Geospatial\Project\_Planning\East Riding of Yorkshire & Hull\300 Project Data\310 Datasets\311 MXD\CR5.mxd ± Legend
Proposed Area of Search NB not all the area would necessarily be extracted
0 50 100 200 300 400 m
CLIENT
PROJECT East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Hull City Council Joint Minerals DPD TITLE CR7 Proposed Area of Search for Crushed Rock Working, Greenwick Quarry, Huggate
SCALE DATE DRAWN 1:10,000 at A4 01/08/11 SK © Crown Copyright 2008. All Rights Reserved. East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383 P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div57\5XXXXXX\5049925 East Riding Minerals DPD (RH)\40.Technical\46.Site Allocations\Allocation Drawings\CR1.mxd ± Legend
Proposed Area of Search NB not all the area would necessarily be extracted
0 100 200 300 400 500 1,000 1,500 m
CLIENT
PROJECT East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Hull City Council Joint Minerals DPD TITLE CR 8 Proposed Area of Search for Crushed Rock Working, Swinescaif
SCALE DATE DRAWN 1:40,000 at A4 01/08/11 SK © Crown Copyright 2008. All Rights Reserved. East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383 P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div57\5XXXXXX\5049925 East Riding Minerals DPD (RH)\40.Technical\46.Site Allocations\Allocation Drawings\CR3.mxd
East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Appendix B Response Form Joint Minerals Development Plan Document (JMDPD) – For official use only Site Selection Consultation Document Rep no Comment no Response Form for your comments Date received Acknowledged
If you wish to comment on the JMDPD Site Selection Consultation Document, please follow the steps below:- 1. Complete your details below on page 1. 2. Complete a separate page 2 of the form for each part of the JMDPD Site Selection Consultation Document on which you would like to comment 3. Show your organisation/name/representation number on page 2 and on each additional completed page 4. For each representation indicate the chapter and page/site reference/paragraph on which you would like to comment 5. Provide a short summary of your comments, give reasons for supporting/objecting and set out any changes that you would like to see. 6. Send your comments by post to: Atkins Limited, The Octagon, Pynes Hill Court, Rydon Lane, Exeter, EX2 5AZ marked for the attention of Anthea Hoey. Electronic Response to: [email protected] 7. The consultation period ends at 5pm on Monday 19 March 2012.
Remember! At the Submission stage of Plan preparation which is the next stage after this, you will be asked to say whether you agree that the plan is legally compliant and sound, and if not, why not. The tests for legal compliance and soundness are contained in PPS12 paragraphs 4.50 to 4.52. Briefly they are:- • The Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Local Development Scheme, the Statement of Community Involvement and the Regulations; • The plan and its policies have been subjected to Sustainability Appraisal; • The Plan is consistent with national planning policy and in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy for the region and it has properly had regard to the joint authorities’ Community Strategies; • The strategies/policies/allocations in the plan are justified in that they are founded on a robust and credible evidence base; and are the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives • The strategies/policies/allocations in the plan are effective because they are deliverable, flexible and can be monitored. Please note that your comments will be made available for public inspection and therefore cannot be treated confidentially.
Section A Comments submitted by or on behalf of Agent (if appropriate) Name Name
Organisation Organisation
Address Address
Post code Post code Tel Tel Email address Email address Page 1
V1.3 East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Development Plan - Site Selection Consultation Report
Section B Representations submitted by or on behalf of Name Organisation Representation no
Number each of your representations starting from 1
I am supporting*/opposing*/highlighting omissions within* the JMDPD consultation document at reference:-
Chapter Page
Site Reference or paragraph number: (*please specify) Please use this space to give a short summary of your comments
Please explain why you support*/oppose*/believe there to be omissions within* this particular part of the JMDPD consultation document
(*please specify) Please set out any changes that you would like to see
Continue on a separate sheet if necessary. Signed Date Page 2 Please make a separate page 2 for each part of the JMDPD Consultation Document that you would like to comment upon, and number them sequentially. Send to:- Atkins Ltd, The Octagon, Pynes Hill Court, Rydon Lane, Exeter EX2 5AZ or: [email protected] to arrive by 5pm on Monday 19 March 2012.
V1.3