Development and Regulation Committee
Committee Room 1, Friday, 01 April 10:30 County Hall, 2016 Chelmsford, Essex
Quorum: 3
Membership:
Councillor R Boyce Chairman Councillor J Abbott Councillor J Aldridge Councillor K Bobbin Councillor M Ellis Councillor C Guglielmi Councillor J Jowers Councillor J Lodge Councillor M Mackrory Councillor Lady P Newton Councillor J Reeves Councillor S Walsh
For information about the meeting please ask for: Matthew Waldie, Committee Officer Telephone: 033301 34583 Email: [email protected]
Page 1 of 82 Essex County Council and Committees Information
All Council and Committee Meetings are held in public unless the business is exempt in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972.
Most meetings are held at County Hall, Chelmsford, CM1 1LX. A map and directions to County Hall can be found at the following address on the Council’s website: http://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Local-Government-Essex/Pages/Visit-County- Hall.aspx
There is ramped access to the building for wheelchair users and people with mobility disabilities.
The Council Chamber and Committee Rooms are accessible by lift and are located on the first and second floors of County Hall.
If you have a need for documents in the following formats, large print, Braille, on disk or in alternative languages and easy read please contact the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. If you have specific access requirements such as access to induction loops, a signer, level access or information in Braille please inform the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. For any further information contact the Committee Officer.
Induction loop facilities are available in most Meeting Rooms. Specialist head sets are available from Duke Street and E Block Receptions.
The agenda is also available on the Essex County Council website, www.essex.gov.uk From the Home Page, click on ‘Your Council’, then on ‘Meetings and Agendas’. Finally, select the relevant committee from the calendar of meetings.
Please note that an audio recording may be made of the meeting – at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being recorded.
Page 2 of 82 Part 1 (During consideration of these items the meeting is likely to be open to the press and public)
Pages
1 Apologies and Substitution Notices The Committee Officer to report receipt (if any).
2 Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest to be made by Members.
3 Minutes 7 - 16 To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2016.
4 Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking To note where members of the public are speaking on an agenda item. These items may be brought forward on the agenda.
5 Minerals and Waste
5.1 Blackley Quarry, Great Leighs 17 - 76 To consider Report DR/11/16, relating to the extraction of an estimated reserve of 2.8 million tonnes of sand and gravel, retention of existing access onto the A131, retention of existing sand and gravel processing plant, progressive restoration to agriculture using inert fill, installation of inert recycling facility, including screening and crushing to recover secondary aggregate, and a revised restoration scheme for the existing quarry area. At Blackley Quarry, Land to the north east and north west, A131, Great Leighs, CM3 1QP. Reference: ESS/16/15/CHL
6 Information Items
6.1 New Farm, Stansted 77 - 80 To update members on the unauthorised development - the importation, deposition, storing and spreading of waste materials, subsequently raising the levels of the land - on land at New Farm, Elsenham Road, Stansted, Essex CM24 8SS. Reference: ENF/0789. Report DR/12/16
Page 3 of 82 6.2 Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics 81 - 82 To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee. Report DR/13/16
7 Date of Next Meeting To note that the next committee meeting will be held on Friday 29 April 2016 at 10.30am.
8 Urgent Business To consider any matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered in public by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.
Exempt Items (During consideration of these items the meeting is not likely to be open to the press and public)
To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of an agenda item on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as specified in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 or it being confidential for the purposes of Section 100A(2) of that Act.
In each case, Members are asked to decide whether, in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption (and discussing the matter in private) outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
9 Urgent Exempt Business To consider in private any other matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.
______
All letters of representation referred to in the reports attached to this agenda are available for inspection. Anyone wishing to see these documents should contact the Officer identified on the front page of the report prior to the date of the meeting.
Page 4 of 82
Page 5 of 82
Page 6 of 82 26 February 2016 Unapproved 1 Minutes
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, CHELMSFORD ON 26 FEBRUARY 2016
Present
Cllr R Boyce (Chairman) Cllr J Jowers Cllr J Aldridge Cllr J Lodge Cllr K Bobbin Cllr M Mackrory Cllr M Ellis Cllr Lady Newton Cllr I Grundy Cllr S Walsh Cllr C Guglielmi
1. Apologies and Substitution Notices
Apologies were received from Cllr J Abbott and Cllr J Reeves (Cllr Grundy substituted).
2. Declarations of Interest
Cllr Bobbin declared a personal interest in agenda item 5b, in respect of Hovefields, as local member. (Item 6 below refers.)
Cllr Guglielmi declared a personal interest in agenda item 7a, in respect of Martell’s Quarry, as local member. (Item 8 below refers.)
Cllr Jowers declared a personal interest in agenda item 7a, in respect of Martell’s Quarry, as a member of Colchester Local Plan Panel. (Item 8 below refers.)
Cllr Lady Newton declared a personal interest in agenda item 5a, in respect of the Rivenhall IWMF, as local member and as portfolio holder at Braintree District Council for Planning and Housing. She added that Braintree District Council objected to this application but by delegated function. She also knows Mr Whipps, who is acting for the applicant, as he has acted on behalf of Braintree District Council in the past. (Item 5 below refers.)
3. Minutes
The Minutes and Addendum of the Committee held on 22 January 2016 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.
4. Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking
Persons to speak in accordance with the procedure were identified for the following item:
Consideration of report DR/05/15, relating to the amendment of condition 2 attached to planning permission ESS/55/14/BTE, and to secure discharge of certain conditions, in respect of an Integrated Waste Management Facility at Rivenhall Airfield, Coggeshall Road (A120), Braintree CO5 9DF. Reference: ESS/34/15/BTE Page 7 of 82
Minutes 2 Unapproved 26 February 2016
Applicant: Gent Fairhead & Co. Ltd Public Speakers: Nick Unsworth speaking against David Whipps speaking for.
Minerals and Waste
5. Rivenhall IWMF
The Committee considered report DR/05/16 by the Director for Operations, Environment and Economy.
The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes.
The Committee noted that this application sought to amend the permitted plans for the Waste Facility, as set out in Condition 2, and to discharge a number of the pre-commencement conditions attached to ESS/55/14/BTE.
Policies relevant to the application were detailed in the report.
Details of consultation and representations received were set out in the report.
The Committee noted the key issues that were: Nature/type of application Principle and Need for the IWMF and Acceptability of the Proposed Changes Height of the Stack, Emissions and Health Impacts Traffic and Highways Public Rights of Way Water Environment Landscape and Visual Impact Ecology Historic Environment and Archaeology Residential Impact – noise, dust and odour Cumulative Impact Legal Agreement Commencement of Development.
In accordance with the protocol on public speaking the Committee was addressed by Nick Unsworth, Chairman of Coggeshall Parish Council. Cllr Unsworth said: The design is not detailed enough – changes will be required before the Environment Agency Permit will be granted, so there is too much uncertainty about what will actually be in place. A good example is the height of the stack, which will have to be much higher (normally these are over 65 metres) There have been hundreds of objections, many of which have not been included in the report. Application is not a minor variation 400 documents still relyPage on 20108 of 82 data 26 February 2016 Unapproved 3 Minutes
When recycling is hard, the application would result in waste moving down the waste hierarchy, rather than up. It cannot be seen as sustainable, when it fails to meet the definition of R1 recovery There will be effluent discharge into the River Blackwater, which is nitrate sensitive and there is no excess availability An original condition required the plume to be invisible; it now will be visible for 30% of the year The SRF contracts will cost the County money, rather than produce savings; and the increase in CHP will lead to wasted heat The proposals have always been supported by the minerals department and so the report is not impartial A projected gas dispersal model diagram (shown to the meeting) demonstrated the presence of benzene, which is highly carcinogenic and has a recommended tolerance of zero.
David Whipps, a partner at Holmes & Hills LLP, representing the applicant, also addressed the Committee. Mr Whipps said: The proposed facility has evolved to some extent over time, not only because of changing waste practices, but there was always some flexibility built into the permissions Permission already is in place; this application seeks to vary a condition and discharge some pre-commencement conditions The details are very similar to what was previously approved, and the principle has already been accepted by both Planning Committee and the Secretary of State and there has been no change in circumstance so there is no opportunity to review The provision of such a facility at Rivenhall accords with the provisions of both existing and emerging replacement waste local plans There is a proven need for such a facility in Essex. It will ensure some waste is treated further up the waste hierarchy; and it will lessen both the need for landfill and for SRF/RDF to be transported abroad for disposal. It will allow Essex to be more self-sufficient in dealing with its waste It will generate employment opportunities, both in construction and when operational It will require an environmental permit to operate; this will be subject to the Environmental Agency’s assessment and subsequent monitoring At the inquiry it was proven that a 35 metre stack would work – but this is an issue for the Environmental Agency to resolve.
In response to points raised, it was noted: There is nothing in the planning permission that would prevent the implementation of the development before the granting of an Environmental Permit, but it any commencement before a permit is issued would be at the operator’s risk The plume management was considered acceptable by the County’s air quality consultant Any surplus heat and steam generated will not be wasted but will be utilised in the waste water treatment plant and in the management of the plume The decision on whether the stack height should increase would lie with the Environment Agency,Page although 9 of 82 any change would necessitate a
Minutes 4 Unapproved 26 February 2016
separate planning application.
Members made several observations: The principle has already been established, so the degree of impact of these changes needed to be considered There is a movement toward deriving energy from waste, rather than burying it; this can be seen as a benefit to the county No objections have been received from statutory consultees; the land use principle has been established for over 15 years Local residents rightly have concerns about visual impact, increased traffic flow and emissions The visual impact on the surroundings seems to have been mitigated very well (apart from the stack) Modern incinerators are highly sophisticated in reducing emissions; and they are also highly regulated, so their impact on their surroundings is closely monitored.
The Committee noted the amendments set out in the Addendum. The motion was proposed and seconded. Following a vote of ten in favour and none against, with Cllr Lady Newton abstaining, it was
Resolved
That planning permission be granted, subject to the following:
1) A deed of variation to be completed within 3 months prior to issuing of the planning permission to address the following: to ensure the new planning permission remains subject of the obligations of the original s106 associated with Ref. APP/Z1585/V/09/2104804 (ECC ref ESS/37/08/BTE), ESS/41/14/BTE and ESS/55/14/BTE. to amend the obligation with respect to liaison group requiring minutes to be produced shortly following the meeting to make provision for an education and waste minimisation officer at the IWMF to amend the requirement for the contribution towards highways works associated with the de-trunking of the A120 such that it shall be required prior to beneficial use of the IWMF.
2) Condition 2 be updated to refer to the submitted amended plans
3) The details submitted to discharge conditions 6, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 37, 43, 45, 50, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 be approved and the details included in the planning permission,
4) Additional conditions to address the following
65. There shall be no use of the access road to the IWMF accept by traffic associated with the IWMF, Bradwell Quarry or to access adjacent agricultural land for agricultural purposes.Page 10 of 82
26 February 2016 Unapproved 5 Minutes
66. That should the IWMF not be brought into use within 5 years of commencement the operator will submit a plan of action for an alternative use or scheme of rehabilitation.
67. Obtain a bat licence from Natural England prior to commencement of works affecting Woodhouse Farm & Buildings.
68. Woodhouse Farm and buildings to be refurbished to a visitor/education centre within 6 years of commencement of the IWMF development
69. Upon finalisation of the details of plant as required by condition 19 an updated noise assessment shall be submitted.
5) Any other conditions where details have been previously been discharged the approved details are to be incorporated into the planning permission.
6) All other conditions of the planning permission ESS/55/14/BTE to be re- imposed.
7) Condition 15 to be amended to require submission and approval of design details and construction materials prior to construction of the main IWMF building.
6. Hovefields, Basildon
The Committee considered report DR/06/16 by the Director for Operations, Environment and Economy.
The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes including the changes to Conditions 3 and 4. They also noted the proposed change to Condition 13, amending the permitted lighting hours to reflect the changes to the operating hours under Condition 3.
Policies relevant to the application were detailed in the report.
Details of the consultation and representations were set out in the report.
The Committee noted the key issues that were: Principle of Development Residential Amenity Highways and Access Human Rights.
In response to questions raised by Members, it was noted: There will be no increase in permitted HGV movements The access point is 7.1 metres wide, which compares favourably with the 6.75 metre requirement for 2 HGVs to be able to pass each other on a highway Much consideration has been given to this application, particularly with regard to noise, because of the proximity of this and other waste facilities to Hovefields Caravan Park. However, this is designated an industrial area, in line with the Pagelocal waste11 of 82policy, and this application has been
Minutes 6 Unapproved 26 February 2016
considered on its own merits. The County Council intends to deal with the concerns of both residents and Basildon Council; there is a Liaison Group in place and efforts are being made, particularly by the Tovi Eco Park, to help lessen the impact on residents.
The Committee noted the amendments set out in the Addendum and the consequent change to Condition 13, as specified. The motion was proposed and seconded. Following a vote of nine in favour and one against, with Cllr Bobbin abstaining, it was
Resolved
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of 3 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the application dated 14.08.2015 together with: Planning Supporting Statement dated August 2015 reference 34545; Email RE: Hovefields Avenue dated 24.08.2015 (Sent 11:38); Email RE: Hovefields Avenue – Additional Information Needed dated 14.09.2015 (Sent 10:12) Email: Planning Application ESS/39/15 Total Waste Management Hovefields Noise Measurements and Noise Assessment Update dated 15/02/16 (Sent 19.28); Drawing 34545/LON/CVD/001/A dated 13/09/2013; Drawing 34545/LON/CVD/002/A dated 13/09/2013 Drawing 34545/LON/CVD/003/B dated 13/07/2015; Drawing 34545/LON/CVD/004/A dated 07/10/2013; Noise Survey dated 23rd December 2015.
and in accordance with any non-material amendment(s) as may be subsequently approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, except as varied by the following conditions: -
3. Operations authorised by this permission shall be restricted to the following durations: 06:00 to 20:00 hours Monday to Friday; and 07:00 to 18:00 hours Saturday And shall not take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.
4. The total number of HGV (for the avoidance of doubt a heavy goods vehicle shall have a gross vehicle weight of 7.5 tonnes or more) movements associated with the development hereby permitted shall not exceed the following limits:
144 movements (72 in and 72Page out) 12 per of day82 (Monday to Friday) 144 movements (72 in and 72 out) per day (Saturdays) 26 February 2016 Unapproved 7 Minutes
No HGV movements shall take place outside the hours of operation authorised in Condition 3 of this permission.
5. The free field Rating Level (LAr), calculated in accordance with the method provided in BS 4142:2014, attributable to the operation of all fixed and mobile plant used at the premises, shall not exceed the existing background noise level, LA90,T, at Hovefields Caravan Park.
6. Noise levels shall be monitored at three monthly intervals from the date of the commencement of development at noise sensitive properties to be agreed in advance in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The noise monitoring shall include measurements to establish representative background noise levels at Hovefields Caravan Park. The results of the monitoring shall include LA90 and LAeq noise levels, the prevailing weather conditions, details and calibration of the equipment used for measurement and comments on other sources of noise which affect the noise climate. The monitoring shall be carried out for at least 2 separate durations of 30 minutes separated by at least 1 hour during the working day and the results shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority within 1 month of the monitoring being carried out. The frequency of monitoring shall not be reduced, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The proposed compliance noise monitoring approach shall be greed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.
7. No beneficial occupation of the development hereby permitted shall take place until the parking areas indicated on drawing reference 34545/LON/CVD/003/B dated 13/07/2015 have been clearly laid out to a minimum dimension of 2.9m by 5.5m for car parking and clearly marked out for the parking of lorries and any other vehicles that may use the site, including motorcycles, bicycles and provision for the mobility impaired. The parking areas shall be retained and permanently maintained for parking and shall be used for no other purpose
8. No vehicle, plant, equipment and/or machinery shall be operated at the site unless it has been fitted with and uses an effective silencer. All vehicles, plant and/or machinery and shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification at all times.
9. No materials shall be stockpiled or stored at a height greater than 6 metres when measured from adjacent ground level and shall then only be in the locations identified on drawing reference 34545/LON/CVD/003/B dated 13/07/2015.
10. No plant and/or machinery shall be erected, installed or operated above the site’s ground level as defined on plan reference 34545/LON/CVD/003/B dated 13/07/2015.
11. Any tree or shrub forming part of a landscaping scheme approved under planning reference ESS/53/13/BAS/11 that dies, is damaged, diseased or removed within the duration of 5 years during and after the completion of the development (operations) shall be replaced during the next available planting season (October to March inclusive) with a tree or shrub to be agreed in advance in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. Page 13 of 82
Minutes 8 Unapproved 26 February 2016
12. No development shall take place until details of the location, height, design, luminance and operation of fixed lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The details shall include an overview of the lighting design including the maintenance factor and lighting standard applied together with a justification as why these are considered appropriate. The details shall also include a lighting drawing showing the lux levels on the ground, angles of tilt and the average lux (minimum and uniformity) for all external lighting proposed. Furthermore a contour plan shall be submitted for the site detailing the likely spill light, from the proposed lighting, in context of the adjacent site levels. The details shall ensure the lighting is designed to minimise the potential nuisance of light spillage on adjoining properties and highways. Lighting shall thereafter be erected, installed and operated in accordance with the approved details.
13. Fixed Lighting shall not be illuminated outside 06:00 hours to 20:00 hours Monday to Friday and 07:00 hours to 18:00 hours Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays (save for security lighting activated by unauthorised entry by persons or vehicles).
14. Any fuel, lubricant or/and chemical storage vessel (whether temporary or not) shall be placed or installed within an impermeable container with a sealed sump and capable of holding at least 110% of the vessel’s capacity. All fill, draw and overflow pipes shall be properly housed within the bunded area to avoid spillage. The storage vessel, impermeable container and pipes shall be maintained (for the life of operations on site/the development hereby permitted).
15. No waste other than those waste materials defined in the application details shall enter the site.
16. No deposition, loading, storage, processing, handling or transfer of waste shall take place at the site outside of the approved area defined on drawing 34545/LON/CVD/003/B dated 13/07/2015.
17. No development shall take place until a scheme to minimise dust emissions has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development (during construction and operation at all locations within the site identified on plan 34545/LON/CVD/003/B dated 13/07/2015). The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme with the approved dust suppression measures being retained and maintained in a fully functional condition for the duration of the development hereby permitted.
18. No salvaging operations, including the de-polluting and dismantling of end-of-life vehicles, shall take place outside of the building shown on drawing reference 34545/LONCVD/003/B, dated 13.07.2015.
19. Vehicles and component parts shall only be stored within the area marked ‘bays’ on drawing reference 34545/LONCVD/003/B, dated 13.07.2015 and such storage shall not exceed a heightPage 14of 4of metres 82 when measured from ground level.
26 February 2016 Unapproved 9 Minutes
Village Green
7. Land near Warish Hall Road, Takeley
The Committee considered report DR/07/16 by the Director for Legal Services to consider an application made by Highways England Company Limited (‘HECL’) under Section 15(8) of the Commons Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) as amended, to register land at Takeley as a Town or Village Green. The Committee noted: The powers set out in section 15(8) of the 2006 Act allow an owner of land to voluntarily dedicate land as a town or village green by applying to have it included in the register of town or village greens The normal requirements relating to historical use of the land ‘as of right’ do not apply in such a case; the Committee need only be certain that the applicant owns the land and that relevant consents have been obtained The land was transferred from the Secretary of State for Transport to HECL (formerly the Highways Agency) on 1 April 2015 The application area comprises 688 square metres and abuts VG259 which was added to the Register of Town and Village Green Land in 2015, on the latter’s west side.
Following the presentation, which included photographs and detailed maps of the application land and surrounding area, the recommendation to accept the application in its amended form was moved and seconded, and, following a unanimous vote in favour, it was
Resolved:
That, in accordance with the powers set out in Section 15(8) of the Commons Act 2006:
The application as amended is accepted and the land shown on the report to the Committee be added to the Register of Town and Village Greens, as VG 260.
Enforcement Update
8. Martell’s Quarry, Ardleigh
The Committee considered report DR/08/16, relating to proposed minerals and waste development at Ardleigh Landfill Site, Slough Lane, Ardleigh. There being no matters raised by Members, a resolution was proposed and seconded, and, following a unanimous vote in favour, it was
Resolved
That it is not considered expedient to take enforcement action, requiring the cessation of landfilling activities, subject to a valid planning application being received no later than 31 March 2016, provided no injury to amenity is caused by the unauthorised operations in the period the activity continues without the benefit of express planning Pagepermission. 15 of 82
Minutes 10 Unapproved 26 February 2016
Information Item
9. Statistics
The Committee considered report DR/09/16, Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics, as at end of the previous month, by the Director of Operations, Environment & Economy. The Committee NOTED the report.
10. Dates of Future Meetings
The Committee considered report DR/10/16, listing the proposed Committee meeting dates to April 2017. The Committee NOTED the report.
11. Date and time of Next Meeting
The Committee noted that the next meeting would be held on Friday 1 April 2016 at 10.30am in Committee Room 1.
There being no further business the meeting closed at 12.32 pm.
Chairman
Page 16 of 82 AGENDA ITEM 5.1
DR/11/16
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 1 April 2016
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Extraction of an estimated reserve of 2.8 million tonnes of sand and gravel (from sites A38 and A39 as identified in the Minerals Local Plan 2014) and retention of existing access onto the A131, retention of existing sand and gravel processing plant (to be relocated within site A38), progressive restoration to agriculture using inert fill, installation of inert recycling facility, including screening and crushing to recover secondary aggregate. In addition revised restoration scheme for the existing quarry area. Location: Blackley Quarry, Land to the north east and north west, A131, Great Leighs, CM3 1QP Ref: ESS/16/15/CHL Applicant: Frank Lyons Plant Services
Report by Director of Operations: Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Claire Tomalin Tel: 03330 136821 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Page 17 of 82
Composite Phasing Plan
1. BACKGROUND
The Blackley Quarry has been operating as a sand and gravel quarry since November 2001. The site was allocated in the Minerals Subject Plan 1991 (the document that preceded the MLP 1996) and also identified in the Waste Local Plan (WLP) 2001 as a preferred site for inert landfill.
Originally planning permission was given in May 1993 (CHL/878/91) for sand and gravel extraction with restoration through inert landfilling to parkland. An extension to the commencement date was granted in 1998 (ESS/06/98/CHL). Since the original grant of planning permission for the quarry the A131 by-pass has been built, the adjacent Essex Show Ground has been developed as Chelmsford City racecourse and planning permission given for a house “Helvellyn” south of the site associated with the racecourse.
Part of the original quarry on the south eastern side, which has been worked and brought back to permitted restoration levels, was sold to the racecourse in 2006 and is not included in the application area.
In 2008 the life of the original quarry was extended to 13 November 2015 (ESS/48/08/CHL). The north area of the original permission has now been restored to grassland and woodland. The north eastern part of the site has in the last 12 months been utilised to form the 7th furlong of the adjacent Chelmsford City Racecourse. The original processing plant, silt lagoons and fresh water lagoon remain on site.
2. SITE
The 59.9 hectare (ha) application site lies approximately 4km north west of
Page 18 of 82
Chelmsford, 1.5km north of the village of Great Leighs, approximately 500m from Black Notley and 4km south of Braintree. The hamlet of Willows Green lies 400m to the north west. The application site is made of 3 parts, the existing Blackley quarry (19.4ha) and two extension areas identified as Preferred Sites for sand and gravel extraction within the Minerals Local Plan 2014, sites A38 and A39. The existing site is situated between Blackley Lane to the north and Chelmsford Racecourse to the south east. The first extension area known in the MLP as Preferred Site A38 (21.1ha) lies to the north east of the existing site and is bounded by Blackley Lane and the A131, the area of the site is slightly smaller to that identified in the MLP, a small parcel of the land in the south of the site has been excluded. The second area known in the MLP as Preferred Site A39 (19.4ha) lies north west of the existing site on the north side of Blackley Lane and bounded on the south west side by Moulsham Hall Lane and to the north side by fields.
The site lies north of the A131 dual carriageway. The quarry access is from the A131 on the north bound carriageway and is shared with the racecourse. The access is connected to the existing quarry via a haul road which passes across the car park for the race course and then skirts around to the north of the race track.
The site is located in Chelmsford City Council (CCC) district, but the northern boundary of the two extension areas abuts the boundary for Braintree District Council.
The nearest occupied residential properties are situated on Moulsham Hall Lane (MHL), Blackley Lane (BL) and those south beyond the A131 on London Road, including a collection of houses at Youngs End. A plan of the location of these properties is set out in appendix F.
The property names and distances to the application boundary and the nearest extraction face are set out below:
Name of property and location Distance from building Distance from with respect to application site façade to application building façade to boundary (m) nearest extraction face(m) Edge of Willows Green Hamlet, 250 400 MHL – north west of site A39 Peacheys, MHL – north west of 90 220 site A39 Gate Farm Bungalow, MHL – 25 100 west of site A39 Gate Farm House, MHL – west of 25 100 site A39 Stone Hall Cottage, MHL – 180 170 southwest of existing quarry Hump Cottage, MHL – southwest 180 180 of existing quarry Helvellyn (Unoccupied and 45 310 associated with the racecourse), MHL – south of existing quarry
Page 19 of 82
1 & 2 Blackley Cottages, BL – 15 100 north of A38 Rothwell, BL – northeast of A38 97 120 Youngs End – 9 properties – east 110 140 of A38 Southern Wood, west side LR – 100 210 south east of access & A38 Norwood, west side LR – 170 270 southeast of access & A38 South Lodge, east side of LR - 140 170 southeast of access & A38North North Lodge, east side of LR - 150 170 southeast of A38
The existing quarry is made up of the processing area located to the southwest of the existing site, two fresh water lagoons one west of the processing area and one to the north of the site and silt lagoons on the north side of the site adjacent to Blackley Lane. Areas to the northwest of the existing site have been restored to grassland and/or planted with trees. The central area remains to be restored but has been infilled and shaped ready for restoration.
The site is located on high ground on an elevated plateau, the land falling northwest and southeast from a central point on the north-eastern boundary of the site. The land falls to approximately 72m AOD along the A131 and 73m on the north-western boundary of the site.
Site A38 consists on one large agricultural field in arable use and small field on the southern boundary separated from the large field by a hedge. The land falls slightly south towards the A131. On the southern boundary of site A38 is an area of woodland and ponds, but these are not within the application apart from where the haul road passes through the woodland at its western end. The cutting through the woodland is already established as a route to be used by the racecourse to provide rear access to the 7th furlong and granted planning permission by Chelmsford City Council. Along the eastern boundary of A38 with the A131, there is a planting belt put in as part of the A131 new road and thus is about 15 years old and maturing well.
Site A39 consists of two agricultural fields, one smaller field abutting Blackley Lane and a larger field to the north wrapping around the smaller field. The two fields are divided by a line of trees and some sparse sections of hedge. There is a line of mature trees along the southern boundary of site A39 (its boundary with Blackley Lane) which are subject of a TPO. Along the northern boundary of site A39, the boundary is made up of a line of tree and spare sections of hedge. There is also an area of mature woodland on the northern side of site A39 which has been extended in the last 15 years. The western boundary adjacent to Moulsham Hall Lane is open, there being no hedge or trees.
The trees on the southern side of Blackley Lane (north-western boundary of the existing quarry) are subject of a TPO (Ref 2001/83), as are those on the northern boundary of the site as previously mentioned.
Page 20 of 82
Blackley Lane was identified as a Protected Lane in the Chelmsford City Core Strategy & Development Control Policies document 2008, but following an assessment of all Protected Green Lanes the status was removed in 2012 as part of the Site Allocations document 2012.
Public Footpath No 2 Great & Little Leighs crosses through the existing quarry in a southwest/northeast direction, but has been permanently diverted during the life of the operation such that it is now located on worked and restored land. The footpath then turns east along the boundary between the existing site and A38 and then towards the A131and would be crossed by the proposed haul road. Public Footpath No. 4 Great & Little Leighs crosses site A38 in a north/south direction. Footpath No. 3 Great & Little Leighs, runs from a midway point on FP4 to the north east to join Blackley Lane. Footpath No.123 Felsted runs from Blackley Lane along part of the northern boundary of site A39 before branching away from the site boundary to join Moulsham Hall Lane just south of Willows Green.
The existing site is identified as a preferred site for inert landfill in the Essex & Southend Waste Local Plan 2001. As mentioned previously sites A38 and A39 are Preferred Sites for sand and gravel extraction in the MLP 2014, with access via the existing access onto the north bound carriageway of the A131. Sites A38 and A39 are Preferred Sites for inert landfill and inert recycling within the Pre-Submission draft Replacement Waste Local Plan 2016, the site in that plan is known as site L(i)10R.
The race course site is identified in the CCC – CSDCP as a Special Policy Area.
3. PROPOSAL
The proposal is to work 2.8 million tonnes of sand and gravel at a rate of approximately 120,000 tonnes per annum, thus mineral extraction would take approximately 24 years.
Access to the site would be via the existing access via the north bound carriageway of the A131 and then via an internal haul road across the race course car park before skirting around the 1mile shot of the race track to enter site A38 in the southwest corner via an existing break in the existing woodland establish as a route to the 7th furlong for the racecourse.
Area A38 would yield approximately 1.7 million tonnes of saleable sand and gravel and would be worked in 11 phases. Site A39 would yield approximately 0.9 million tonnes of saleable sand and gravel and would be worked in 6 phases.
The sequence and shape of each phase has been dictated by the shape of the site, the means of access and the route of footpaths crossing the site. Due to variability of the deposit each phase would not be of equal duration. The size and estimated likely timescale for working is set out below
Phase Area (ha) Tonnage Timescale based on 120,000tpa 1 3 280,000 2 yrs & 3 to 4 months 2 2.4 220,000 1 yr & 9 months 3 1.3 150,000 1 yr & 3 months
Page 21 of 82
4 1.5 220,000 1 yr & 9 months 5 1.7 330,000 2 yrs & 9 months 6 1.7 260,000 2 yrs & 1 month 7 1.45 135,000 1 yr & 1 to 2 months 8 1.3 110,000 10 to 11 months 9 0.73 35,000 3 to 4 months 10 1.35 170,00 1 yr & 5 months 11 1.98 50,000 5 months 12 1.6 85,000 8 to 9 months 13 2.2 190,000 1yr & 6 to 7 months 14 2.0 135,000 1yr & 1 to 2 months 15 2.25 255,000 2yrs 1 to 2 months 16 2.4 155,000 1yr & 3 to 4 months 17 2.0 90,000 9 months
The first area to be worked for sand and gravel would be within site A38 and sand and gravel extracted from phases 1 and 2 would be processed within the existing processing plant in the existing quarry.
In the first available planting season following commencement of development a triple hedge would be plant along the western boundary of site A39 adjacent to Moulsham Hall Lane, a hedge would also be planted along the southern boundary of Blackley Lane adjacent to site A38 and along the north eastern boundary of A39, as well as a hedge along the south side of Blackley adjacent to site A39 where there is no hedge. An additional belt of trees would also be planted along the southern boundary of site A38 adjacent to the A131 and the existing woodland on the north boundary of A39 supplemented to the southwest.
Soils and overburden stripped from the first phase would be used to form screening bunds. Upon completion of the first 2 phases the sand and gravel processing plant would be relocated into the created void within site A38 and silt and fresh water lagoons created.
The original quarry would be restored, removing the existing bunds on the south side and on the northwest side adjacent to Blackley Lane. The area would be restored to grassland sloping towards the existing fresh water lagoon in the south of the site. This is a revised restoration scheme to that originally permitted, creating a bowl draining towards the retained fresh water lagoon with woodland blocks on the boundary, leaving potential for a hay meadow in the centre. The margins of the fresh water lagoon would be reworked to provide shallow edges to enhance its ecological interest.
In addition to the minimal processing plant within the void created by phases 1 and 2 an inert recycling facility would be established consisting of an area for storage of incoming materials, a screener and a concrete crusher and stockpiles of recycled aggregate. Inert waste would be sorted utilising a screener to recover stone and hardcore materials. Once an adequate stockpile of hardcore has accumulated a crusher would be brought on site to process to suitable sizes.
Approximately 150,000tpa of inert material would be brought to the site; some would not be suitable for aggregate recovery, such as clays and soils and would be Page 22 of 82
taken directly to the phase under restoration to be landfilled. Material containing recoverable material would be taken to the inert recycling facility for processing. It is anticipated recycling rates of 50% would be achieved; such the 50,000 tonnes per annum would be exported as recycled aggregate and 100,000 tonnes placed in the void.
The anticipated traffic generation would be 176 movements a day (88 in and 88 out) associated with the export of mineral, import of inert waste and export or recovered aggregates. These figures are on the basis of no back hauling, but potentially there is likely to be some backhauling. In addition there would be other car and LGV movements associated with the 8 staff, service and maintenance vehicles a maximum of 40 movements a day.
The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday 07:00 to 18:30 and Saturday 07:00 to 13:00 with no working on Sundays and Public or National holidays.
Except for one security light (500 watts) no lighting is proposed.
As the development progresses screening bunds would be extended to screen views, noise and dust from the site.
It is proposed to carry out progressive restoration utilising imported inert waste to restore completed phases to levels similar to those prior to extraction. Progression would be such that only 2 phases would be open at one time. Undeveloped phases would remain in agricultural use until required for extraction.
Upon completion of the 11 phases of site A38 a crossing across Blackley Lane would be established and extraction and infilling would progress in a southwest direction towards Moulsham Hall Lane.
Extracts from the full series of phasing drawings are shown in Appendix B to give an indication of the sequence of operations.
Upon completion of inert filling each phase would be restored to arable agriculture in accordance with a 5 year aftercare period.
In addition to retaining the fresh water lagoon within the existing quarry three additional ponds with surrounding grassland would be established feed by surface water from agricultural drainage. An additional woodblock adjacent to the A131 would be planted upon completion of Phase 11 within site A38.
Public rights of way cross site A38 would remain in place until affected by extraction where upon it would necessary to obtain a temporary diversion to an alternative route until the definitive route were restored, where upon the PRoW would be reinstated.
The existing quarry would be restored to grassland meadow with woodland planting on the north boundary. The fresh water lagoon would be retained and reshaped with marginal area for biodiversity. Sites A38 and A39 would be progressive restored to agriculture, with areas of woodland and 3 additional ponds.
Page 23 of 82
The final restoration scheme is shown at appendix C.
The application is supported by an Environmental Statement which was updated during the course of the determination of the application and was also supported by Arboricultural Assessments. A review of the ES is set out in appendix A.
4. POLICIES
The following policies of the Essex and Southend-on Sea Waste Local Plan (WLP), adopted 2001, the Essex Minerals Local Plan (MLP), adopted July 2014, and the Chelmsford Borough Local Development Framework 2001-2021 Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (CBC CSDCP) adopted February 2008, and the Chelmsford City Council Core Strategy and Development Control Polices Focused Review Development Plan Document (CCC FR) adopted December 2013 provide the development plan framework for this application.
Policy MLP WLP CBC CSDCP & CCC FR Preferred and reserve sites for sand and P1 gravel extraction Presumption in favour of sustainable S1 CP1 development/ Sustainable development locations Creating a network of aggregate recycling S5 facilities Provision for sand and gravel extraction S6 Safeguarding mineral resources and mineral S8 reserves Protecting and enhancing the environment S10 and local amenity Access and transportation S11 W4C Mineral site restoration and afteruse S12 Development management criteria DM1 W10E Planning conditions and legal agreements DM2 Primary processing plant DM3 Waste Strategy W3A Need for waste development W3C Surface Water & flood management W4A Surface a& Groundwater water protection W4B Inert waste recycling W7D Landfill on non-preferred sites W9B Conditions & legal agreements W10A Hours of operation W10F PRoW protection & enhancement W10G Protect the natural and built resources, EPE1 historic environment, biodiversity, geological diversity and countryside. Minimise impact upon local and global EPE2 environment
Page 24 of 82
Securing sustainable development CP1 Protecting Areas of Natural and Built Heritage CP9 and Archaeological Importance Minimising environmental impact CP13 Environmental quality and landscape CP14 character Controlling development in the countryside DC2 beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt Sites of biodiversity and geological value DC13 Protected trees and hedges DC14 Development adjacent to water courses DC16 Listed Building DC18 Schedule ancient monuments DC19 Archaeology DC21 Amenity & pollution DC29
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF highlights that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It goes on to state that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The NPPF places a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, paragraph 11 states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
For decision-taking the NPPF states that this means; approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in this NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
The NPPF combined and streamlined all planning policy except for waste. Planning policy with respect to waste is set out in the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW published on 16 October 2014). Additionally the National Waste Management Plan for England (NWMPE) is the overarching National Plan for Waste Management is a material consideration in planning decisions.
Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). It is considered this is applicable to the WLP.
With regard to updates/replacements or additions to the above, the Framework (Annex 1, paragraph 216) states from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:
Page 25 of 82
The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given), and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
The WLP 2001 is not considered up-to-date however the overarching principles of the Waste Hierarchy and the Proximity Principle do form part of its core emphasis. The Waste Planning Authority (WPA) has recently prepared a Pre-Submission draft Replacement Waste Local Plan (RWLP) with public engagement currently taking place. The document is supported by an evidence base including The Waste Capacity Gap Report of 2014, an Addendum to this document published in 2015 and a further update published in March 2016. The RWLP process has also considered a number of potential sites for waste management and suggested preferred sites on the basis of selection criteria seeking to give rise to the least environmental impact. None of these documents have been subject to an Examination in Public and therefore can only be given limited weight, but do provide the best information available as to waste arisings and capacities required for the Essex & Southend in the future.
Chelmsford City Council is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan
5. CONSULTATIONS
BRAINTREE DISTRICT COUNCIL – No objection.
CHELMSFORD CITY COUNCIL – No objection, subject to compliance with the specific issues identifies under the relevant policies allocation on pages 164-7 of the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection. Advisory comments regarding: the potential impacts of the proposal on groundwater flow with respect to Stone Hall Cottage and Gate Farm House; the requirement for a bespoke mining waste permit and a deposit for recovery or an inert landfill permit; and all wastes generated that leave the site must be removed by a licenced waste carrier and be disposed of at a suitably licensed site.
NATIONAL PLANNING CASEWORK UNIT – No comments received.
NATURAL ENGLAND – No objection. It is not considered the proposals would affect the SSSI located 3.5km away at the River Ter. Note the site includes best and most versatile land and thus soil movement and handling should be in accordance with DEFRA best practice guides. Standard advice is provided with respect to Protected Species. While majority of site is to be returned to agriculture areas of bio-diversity are included as part of the proposal are welcomed.
HISTORIC ENGLAND – No comments to make.
Page 26 of 82
NHS PROPERTY SERVICES – No comments received.
PUBLIC HEALTH (Mid Essex CCG) – No comments received.
PIPELINES/COMMUNICATIONS/UTILITIES – No objection.
CPRE – No comments received.
RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION – No comments received.
RSPB – No comments received.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Strategic Development & Public Rights Of Way) – No objection, subject to the following conditions:
Prior to commencement of construction, the Hall Road Crossing at its centre line shall be provided with a clear to ground visibility splay with dimensions of 3.0 metres by 60 metres to the south-west and 3.0 metres by 49 metres to the north east, as measured from and along the nearside edge of the carriageway as shown in the drawing no. IT1585/SK/01 Rev A. Such vehicular visibility splays shall be provided before the Haul Road Crossing is first used by vehicular traffic and retained free of any obstruction at all times; The Haul Road Crossing shall be constructed as shown in principle in the drawing no. IT1585/SK/01 Rev A. A construction management plan shall be submitted prior to commencement of construction works to include construction vehicle access and routing, contractor parking, highway safety considerations and hours of deliveries. Details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority; The areas within the curtilage of the site for the purpose of loading / unloading / reception and storage of building materials and manoeuvring of all vehicles, including construction traffic shall be identified clear of the highway, submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; Details of a wheel and under-vehicle cleaning facility within the site and adjacent to the egress onto the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The wheel and under-vehicle cleaning facility shall be provided at the commencement of the development and maintained during the period of construction; No development shall be permitted within those phases affecting PRoW until such time as an Order securing the diversion, where appropriate of the existing definitive rights of way footpath no.’s; 2, 3, 4 and 15 to a route to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been confirmed and the new route has been constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Details showing the means to prevent the discharge of surface water from the adjacent fields onto the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety prior to the access becoming operational and shall be retained at all times; and Provision of all signing and lining in association with the highway works. Page 27 of 82
COUNTY COUNCIL’S NOISE CONSULTANT: – No objection, subject to conditions with respect to maximum noise limits, temporary noisy activities and noise monitoring. Initially concerns were raised as to the noise assessment provided and additional clarification was sought. Additional information was provided and additional mitigation proposed, which demonstrated operations could be undertaken within acceptable limits.
COUNTY COUNCIL’S AIR QUALITY CONSULTANT – No objection. Comments that the proposed development is unlikely to have an impact on air quality from the operation traffics to and from the proposed development and that the proposed control measures would likely provide suitably mitigation to any potential impacts during the operation of the proposed development.
PLACE SERVICES (Ecology) – No objection, subject to the following conditions:
Development in accordance with submitted Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) Created habitat shall be subject to aftercare during and post restoration, details to be submitted and approved.
PLACE SERVICES (Trees) – No objection, subject to a condition requiring that Soil used for bunding should not be permitted to enter the root protection area of trees, to be calculated using the method stated in ‘The British Standard BS 5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations’.
PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) – No comments to make.
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Environment) – No objection, subject to the following conditions:
No development or preliminary groundworks shall commence until a programme of archaeological trial trenching has been secured and undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has previously been submitted by the applicant, and approved by the planning authority.; A mitigation strategy detailing the excavation/preservation strategy for any archaeological deposits shall be submitted to the local planning authority following the completion of this work; No development or preliminary groundworks can commence on those areas containing archaeological deposits until the satisfactory completion of fieldwork, as detailed in the mitigation strategy, and which has been previously approved by the local planning authority in consultation with its historic environment advisors; and The applicant shall submit to the local planning authority a post-excavation assessment (to be submitted within six months of the completion of fieldwork, unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Planning Authority). This will result in the completion of post-excavation analysis, preparation of a full site archive and report ready for deposition at the local museum, and submission of a publication report.
Page 28 of 82
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Buildings) – No objection, subject to the following conditions: The proposed hedgerow should be planted at the next available planting season when work has begun in order for it to have the longest time possible to be mature prior to extraction near the heritage assets affected; and The hedgerow shall be maintained for the longevity of the extraction.
LEAD LOCAL FLOOD AUTHORITY – No objection, subject to conditions requiring: that development is carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and relevant mitigation measures; the submission and approval of a post restoration surface water drainage scheme.
GREAT & LITTLE LEIGHS PARISH COUNCIL – Object, on the following basis:
Discrepancies on description of meters away from residential buildings, original application states 250m and revised application now states 100m. There is also lack of clarification of what defines a settlement in consultation; Volume of lorry movements over the planned 22 years of work - amassing an estimated 1.2 million movements. Local rural roads have been subject to oversized vehicles damaging surfaces and verges. Continually reported, but Highway Authority does not have the budget for repairs. Inert waste possibly damaging to local environment. Also not originally stated. Damage to local area of natural beauty. Major impact on local properties, some only a few meters away from work site. Parish taking a disproportionate amount of the load to supply excavation within Essex. Local area now expecting several high lorry movement applications, posing a danger to local infrastructure. Village has already endured 15 years of extraction. What benefit will the community gain from this application? Lost trees or hedging must be remedied immediately and extra planted to minimise any future intrusion. Local water table concerns and repercussions of further interference. Loss or damage to footpaths. Great and Little Leighs is in the majority rural village. The proposed site is centred in a countryside location and infrastructure is at a minimum.
BLACK NOTLEY PARISH COUNCIL – Object, on the following basis:
Loss of amenity for the local community for many years; When passing, heavy lorry movements on unsuitable unclassified country lanes cause damage to the hedgerows – damaging surfaces and artificially Many dwellings on Bakers Lane are very close to the road and affected by noise and vibrations from heavy lorries – during extraction and restoration. Comment: except for local deliveries HGVs are unlikely to use this route
Page 29 of 82
Heavy lorries passing through the village of Black Notley are noisy, dirty and dangerous to pedestrians. Comment: This route is subject to a 30 mile speed limit and includes several mini roundabouts, unless making local deliveries HGVs are unlikely to use this route There must be a condition requiring that hauliers to use the main road system (A131). Comment: Planning conditions cannot be used to directly control vehicle routes The pit has currently been operating for fifteen years - should not be extended. There are several other gravel pits in the Braintree Area which can be utilised. Proposed lorry movements (quarrying or inert waste movement) on unsuitable unclassified country lanes
FELSTED PARISH COUNCIL – No objection, subject to conditions requiring appropriate control of contractor traffic crossing Blackley Lane and a prohibition of heavy goods vehicles accessing the site via Moulsham Hall Lane.
GREAT NOTLEY PARISH COUNCIL – No objection. Comments that concerns exist regarding increased heavy vehicles movement associated with the proposal and requests that heavy vehicles access the site directly from the A131 – not via smaller 30mph smaller roads. Also comments that it is hoped that development is in compliance with various detailed assessments that have been carried out in relation to the use of the site.
LOCAL MEMBER – CHELMSFORD CITY – Broomfield and Writtle – Any comments received will be reported.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
31 properties were directly notified of the application. 7 letters of representation have been received. These relate to planning issues covering the following matters:
Observation Comment
At the inquiry into the MLP it was stated The decision to remove the Protected that the protected status of Blackley Lane status from Blackley Lane was Lane had been removed 1 week before made by CCC in 2012. the meeting – this cast doubt over the proceedings.
Also advised that gravel working would See Appraisal section A. not come nearer to Moulsham Hall Lane than the wood shown on the maps. Proposal would affect land right up to Moulsham Hall Lane – this will bring dust, noise and lights much nearer residential dwellings, making life
Page 30 of 82
intolerable.
Existing pits have reduced water levels See Appraisal section F. in previously deep natural ponds. The ponds are full of fish, newts and insects, which would not survive if the proposal is approved.
Current permission allows for Sites A38 and A£9 would be restored to restoration to woodland, parkland, lake, Agriculture. The existing site would be pasture and agriculture. Proposed to restored to a meadow surround by restore to agricultural land. Change woodland and retaining the existing should not be permitted. Would indicate fresh water lagoon with marginal wet a lack of integrity in the planning areas. process.
Tree planting required under current Noted restoration would partially mitigate against the current and future removal of existing trees.
At a meeting held in the village hall the The proposed crossing is considered problem of quarry vehicles moving acceptable by the Highway Authority across Blackley Lane was raised. One and tunnelling would likely be of the mineral officers stated that there prohibitively expensive. were ways of lessening the visual impact of such a crossing. One way was to tunnel under the lane. Queries why this has not been considered.
Proposed hours are excessive, See appraisal section H. The proposed particularly the early start on Saturday. hours are the standard hours applied to Dust and noise pollution will effect mineral workings. enjoyment during weekends.
Concerned regarding light pollution Only one security light is proposed as during winter months and night time. part of the development, which would be angled down.
Further information regarding blighting See Appraisal – it is considered the of neighbouring properties required. development is an acceptable land use subject to appropriate adequate mitigation which could be secured by condition.
If the bund set back further from the The position of bunds is based on road it would be more effective. topography and maximising both the visual and noise screening effectiveness of the bund.
There are no details about the location Details of the crossing point were
Page 31 of 82
of where lorries will across Blackley submitted and subject of consultation Lane or if there will be any changes to and no change in speed limits would the speed limits hours of use etc. arise from the development.
Heavy vehicles travelling along the road See Appraisal section C will cause noise and pollution for nearby houses.
No information regarding this Neighbouring properties have been application has been sent to affected notified in accordance with Statement houses. Of Community Involvement and all planning documentation made available on the web.
Applicant is aware of the negative While public engagement by the implications of the proposal, but to limit applicant is encouraged within the opposition, the applicant has Statement of Community Involvement it deliberately failed to address the is not mandatory. implications directly with those who will be most affected.
Proposed bunding and screening See appraisal section D and EIA review hedgerow will fundamentally alter the at Appendix A. aspect of the landscape. Proposed working would be conducted on land that is open from far around. An excavation shielded by bunding, trees and hedgerows would alter the views from all directions.
It is essential that the planting of high Advanced planting would be required in hedges as screens and specimen trees the first available planting season intervals, is done immediately to ensure following implementation of it is properly functional by the time the development excavations begin.
Concerns re the effect on living See appraisal section H conditions of those in nearby houses in the form of noise, dust and light. Excavation just 100m from dwelling houses. Residents have endured years of blight from gravel extraction. Often disturbed by the noise of the machinery, dust in summer, lighting in winter and at night. These intrusions fundamentally alter the nature of the surroundings. Residents chose not to live in an industrial area.
Concern re the effect on mature and Due to the depth of watertable below protected trees. Trees along Blackley the surface, trees roots would not be in
Page 32 of 82
Lane subject to Tree Preservation contact with groundwater. Orders and trees in the substantial copse to the west of A39 will be threatened by these proposals, particularly because of the effect on the water table
Not clear whether mature trees on a The boundary trees and hedging across field boundary across the middle of A39 site A39 would be lost but are greater will be destroyed. If retained, water length of hedge and hedgerows trees supply will be affected are to be provided in compensation
Concerns re effect on water table after See appraisal section F and Appendix landfill. Reports of a serious effect on A the water table. Gate Farm Cottage. Water table is already low. Further deep excavations close to residential properties on Moulsham Hall Lane will have a bad effect on the water table and on the water supply locally
Concerns re effects when the See appraisal section B excavations are complete. Inert waste will be used to fill in the gravel pits. This was not specified on the original application. Inbalance between the rights of local residents and developers. Balance needs to be corrected
Concerns re breach of faith. Lack of See appraisal section A transparency and good faith with which this proposal has been handled. Led to understand from the original plans that the southernmost limit of the excavations in A39 would be 250m from the nearest dwelling houses. However, Secretary of State’s inspector was asked to consider, and approved, a limit of excavation just 100m from nearby houses. Given the level of disruption contingent upon these excavations and the minimal difference to extractors, the limit should be moved back to the original 250m point.
Requests that ECC put the residents The application has been dealt with in and council tax payers before those of accordance with ECC Statement of an exploitative commercial enterprise. Community Involvement and in Residents have not been honestly dealt accordance with Town & Country with or properly informed. A level of Planning Act and Environmental Impact incompetence is detectable in the Assessment Regulations.
Page 33 of 82
handling of this matter.
The mineral extraction in site A38 would The detail of contractual arrangement extend into an area where mineral between the parties was not disclosed extraction had not been identified in the in full and therefore it was not possible Preferred Approach MLP and would to confirm any conflict. The phased conflict with other contractual nature of A38 would mean that areas of arrangements made between the the site could be made available for landowner and the race course to allow parking should it be demonstrated there parking within site A38. was a conflicting contractual arrangement.
Surprised that a new entrance was not A similar access arrangement existed provided as part of the application to for the existing quarry. No objection separate racecourse traffic from the has been raised by the Highway quarry. Authority with respect to the shared access and the operational hours of the two facilities are not likely to coincide. 7. APPRAISAL
The key issues for consideration are:
A. Minerals Local Plan – consultation version and stand-offs B. Need and Principle of development C. Traffic & Highways D. Landscape E. Historic Environment F. Water Environment G. Ecology H. Residential & Local amenity – Visual, Noise and dust I. Agricultural Land & Soils
A MINERALS LOCAL PLAN – CONSULTATION AND STAND-OFFS
Concern has been raised that the extraction area and stand-offs distances from residential properties have changed since the Examination in Public into the Minerals Local Plan.
At the Preferred Approach stage of the MLP indicative extraction areas were shown within the Preferred site areas (See Appendix D). As these were based on limited geological information and might not upon further assessment at the planning application stage give a true indication of the extraction area, they were considered to be misleading and removed from the Mineral Local Plan Pre- Submission document and not included within the adopted MLP. The reason for removal of these indicative areas is borne out by the current application, which upon consideration of more detailed geological data has resulted in different extraction areas for sites A38 and A39. The extraction in site A38 comes closer to the A131 and closer to Moulsham Hall Lane in site A39, but now does not include extraction on the north side of site A39 as this area was found to be barren. The applicant considers there are viable workable sand and gravel deposits within the areas now shown for extraction and these are all within the allocated Preferred
Page 34 of 82
Sites.
There has also been concern that stand-offs to residential properties have been reduced. The MLP throughout its preparation sought to ensure that the extraction face should not be within 100m of the façade of any occupied residential building and this is included in the adopted MLP. Residents in representations have referred to the requirement for a 250m stand-off. This confusion may have arisen from the use of 250m in assessing the suitability of Preferred Sites. In assessing the suitability of sites for inclusion of the MLP consideration was given to the whether there was a settlement (as defined within district local plans) within 250m of a proposed site, but this was only one factor in assessing the suitability of sites and did not necessarily mean that a site would be excluded on this basis. It was not intended to indicate a stand-off to either a settlement or an individual property from mineral extraction, but merely an assessment criteria.
All residential properties are notified of planning applications for minerals or waste which are located within 250 of an application boundary; this is in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement.
There is no requirement within the MLP for a stand-off of 250m to any extraction face or with respect to waste the landfilling face. A 100m stand-off is required and in addition the environmental impact of operations on residential and local amenity is considered in determination of the application and these are addressed further within the report.
B NEED AND PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
Mineral Extraction
The site includes the existing Blackley Quarry, identified as an existing site in the Minerals Local Plan 2014 MLP and also includes broadly the allocated preferred sites of A38 and A39 identified for mineral extraction within the MLP. The proposed extension area A38 and internal access route vary slightly from the original site allocation. The difference between the extent of the preferred site boundary and the proposed development site boundary is illustrated in the drawing at Appendix E
The proposed application site does not include a small block of land in the southwest corner of site A38 and the route of the haul road has also been amended to that shown in the MLP. The haul route has been changed to move the haul road away from the now operational Chelmsford City Race Course and now cuts through woodland on the same alignment as an access road for the racecourse given permission by Chelmsford City Council. The revised haul road truncates a small area of the land to the west within site A38 which will now not be worked. The size and shape of the truncated section along with the necessary stand-offs and batters, now makes this area impractical to work, such that a small quantity of mineral would be sterilised. However, the overall scheme would yield overall more sand and gravel than originally estimated within the MLP. The MLP identified 1.07million tonnes in A38 and 0.75 million tonnes within site A39, a total 1.82million tonnes estimated for the MLP taking 22 years to extract. The current application seeks to extract a total 2.8 million tonnes at a rate of 120,000tpa over
Page 35 of 82
24 years.
The increase in extractable sand and gravel has arisen from greater understanding of the geology of the preferred sites such that a greater area within the original allocations has been identified as viable to work and hence the greater tonnage to be extracted, the extraction rate has increased, but extraction period would only slightly longer period by an additional 2 years, the proposed extraction rate having increased.
Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that: ‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy.’
Policy CP1 of the Chelmsford Development Plan Document supports the presumption of sustainable development set outlined in NPPF.
Policy S1 of the MLP states “Planning applications that accord with the site allocations and policies in this Local Plan will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise”
Policy P1 states “In the case of Preferred Sites for sand and gravel extraction, the principle of extraction has been accepted and the need for the release of mineral proven.” And further states “ The Minerals Planning Authority will grant planning permission for sand and gravel workings within the Preferred and Reserved Sites…..subject to the proposal meeting the detailed development requirements set out in Appendix 1, other relevant policies of the Development Plan for Essex and any other material considerations”
The proposed development site outlined in red in the planning application is substantially the same as that delineated in the Preferred site profile map on page 165 of the MLP. As the increased tonnage of mineral is within the Preferred sites allocation it is not in conflict with policy S6 which resists mineral extraction outside preferred or reserve sites. The proposals are also considered to be in accordance with policy S8 which seeks to prevent sterilisation of mineral, working the full viable sand and gravel reserve within the Preferred sites ensures that no mineral would be unnecessarily sterilised.
As per Policy P1 and S1 of the MLP, the principal of extraction has been accepted and the need for the release of mineral proven within the preferred site.
It is noted that the site specific criteria for sites A38 and A39 require inter alia “Extraction would not commence until after extraction at the existing quarry and all necessary restoration phases have been completed.” In this respect mineral extraction has been completed. The existing primary processing plant is proposed to be utilised to process the mineral within the first 2 phases of site A38. This would enable a new primary processing plant to be established within site A38 below ground. This would see a delay in the restoration of the existing site while the first 2 phases of site A38 are worked. However this would allow, the value of the entire mineral to be maximised, while minimising the environmental impacts of the new processing plant by facilitating it to be located below ground in the created void. Therefore while this would not be fully incompliance with the site
Page 36 of 82
specific criteria the delay to the restoration of the exiting site is considered justified. The proposals are also considered to be in accordance with MLP policy DM3 (Primary Processing Plant) which advocates co-locating mineral processing plant with the mineral extraction.
Inert landfill and recycling At the time of the preparation of the MLP is was not considered there was a need for inert landfill and thus the site specific criteria for sites A38 and A39, refer to inter alia
. Careful consideration must be given to the final low-level restoration contours to ensure the final landform blends with the surrounding topography and that restoration would be predominantly back to agricultural use given the sites contain best Grade 2 agricultural soils.
. Although the site promoter has promoted infilling using imported inert waste it is considered that this will need to be subject to policies in the Waste Plan, and for this reason low level restoration is preferred (see also point 5 above).
Since adoption of the MLP work has progressed on the Replacement Waste Local Plan (RWLP) which is now at Pre-Submission stage. In preparing the evidence base for the RWLP it has been recognised that there is a greater need for inert landfill than envisaged at the time of the MLP. While the RWLP has not been subject of an Examination in Public, sites A38 and A39 have been identified as Preferred sites for inert landfill as well as inert recycling. However limited weight can be given to the RWLP at this stage and therefore it is necessary to consider the application against the current WLP 2001.
Policy W3C of the WLP requires significant waste management developments (with a capacity of over 25,000tpa) to demonstrate a need for the facility. However, the NPPW published in Oct 2014 only requires a developer “to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste management where the proposals are not consistent with an up to date Local Plan. In such cases, waste planning authorities should consider the extent to which the capacity of existing operational facilities would satisfy any identified need.” The WLP was adopted in 2001 is acknowledged to be in need of updating and the new RWLP is in preparation, however, the principles of the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle remain at the heart of the WLP. It is therefore considered that there is not a strong case for the applicant to be required to fully justify the need for the inert landfill or inert recycling.
Nonetheless the application will be considered against Policy W9B which states Landfill, or landraising, for its own sake, without being necessary for restoration, will not be permitted. Landfill outside the boundaries of the preferred sites will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that satisfactory restoration cannot otherwise be achieved. Landfill will not be permitted when at a scale beyond that which is essential for restoration of the site.
The applicant has justified the inclusion of inert landfill allowing restoration to pre- existing levels on a number of factors and considered its need against WLP policy
Page 37 of 82
W9B. Due to the depth of mineral within the site (8m to 12m) restoration at low level would leave the site with steep side slopes. A38 and A39 are classified as best and most versatile land, to retain this land quality slopes would need to be less than 1:7. The principle of protection of best and most versatile land is supported by the NPPF. To achieve gentle slopes a long-term drainage pattern, that avoids the need for artificial pumping, the land would be need to be infilled to pre-existing levels. Infilling would also ensure a landscape in sympathy with its surrounding contours as required by the specific criteria of the MLP for this site. Restoration to pre-existing levels would also avoid slopes on the Public Rights Of Way when reinstated to their definitive lines.
The National Waste Management Place for England states “Inert waste can and should be recovered or recycled whenever possible. However, the disposal of inert waste in or on land i.e. landfill remains a valid way of restoring quarries and worn out mineral workings where this is a planning requirement”. The restoration through infilling combined with recycling is therefore considered also to be supported by national policy.
It is considered the agricultural land quality, drainage and landscape arguments put forward by the applicant, justify the inclusion of inert landfill, allowing restoration to pre-existing levels. Due to progressive restoration landfilling of the site would only extend the life of the site by a couple of years, but lead to a more beneficial long-term afteruse for the site. Conditions could be imposed to ensure that restoration follows extraction by limiting the number of phases that could be open at one time.
Inert recycling
The proposal also includes an inert recycling facility, which would recover secondary aggregates from inert waste imported to the site.
The MLP seeks to reduce the use of primary mineral resources by encouraging the re-use and the recycling of construction materials containing minerals. One of the strategic priorities of the Minerals Local Plan is to improve access to, and the quality and quantity of recycled/secondary aggregates, by developing and safeguarding a well distributed County-wide network of strategic and non-strategic aggregate recycling sites.
MLP policy S5 states that aggregate recycling plants may be acceptable on mineral workings and waste disposal sites where it can be demonstrated that the use will not cause unacceptable environmental conditions and traffic problems.
WLP policy W7D supports inert recycling facilities at appropriate locations which include; the waste management locations identified in the WLP and current mineral working and landfill sites, provided the development does not unduly prejudice the agreed restoration timescale for the site and does not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or residential amenity by virtue of noise, dust or heavy traffic.
The evidence base for the RWLP, while acknowledged to have limited weight at this stage does indicate that there will be a need for additional inert waste
Page 38 of 82
recycling capacity within the plan period due to existing facilities coming the end of their life.
Locating an inert recycling with an inert landfill ensures there is last opportunity to recover secondary aggregates. It is considered subject to no adverse environment impact from the facility which is considered later in the report the facility is in accordance with the locational criteria of WLP policy and would not unduly delay restoration of the site.
District Plan Policy
The site is located in a rural area outside the Green Belt. CCC FR Policy DC2 states “The countryside within the Rural Area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt as identified on the Proposals Map will be protected for its intrinsic character and beauty. Planning permission for development will be granted within the Rural Area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt provided that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon and provided it is for:
Inter alia “the carrying out of an engineering or other operations, or the making of a material change to the use of land, where the works or use concerned would have no material effect on the appearance and character of the countryside in the Rural Area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt”
As minerals extraction can only take place where it arises, and landfilling is needed to achieve beneficial restoration and the site is a preferred site in the MLP, the development is considered to be in accordance with this policy, subject to no adverse impact upon the Countryside.
The potential impacts on amenity and the surrounding environment will be considered further in the report.
C TRAFFIC & HIGHWAYS
The NPPF states, at paragraph 29, that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Continuing at paragraph 32 it is suggested all decisions should take account of whether: the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been explored; safe and suitable access can be achieved for all; and if improvements can be undertaken within the transport network to limit any significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.
MLP Policy S10 (Protecting and enhancing the environment and local amenity), in summary, requires that applications for minerals development appropriately consider the health, safety, amenity and quality of life of nearby communities. Applications should demonstrate that no unacceptable impacts would arise. The supporting text states that this includes traffic impacts.
MLP Policy S11 (Access and transportation), in summary, permits minerals
Page 39 of 82
development where there would be no unacceptable impacts on the efficiency and effective operation of the road network. The road network should be suitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles and the first preference is for access to be onto a suitable existing junction with the main road network via a short section of existing road.
WLP W4C (Highways) seeks to ensure a suitable access onto the road network, first preference being via a short length of road to the main highway network. The existing site was identified in the WLP for inert landfill and the access at that time was onto London Road as the allocation was made prior to the construction of the new A131.
The proposed access utilises the existing access onto the A131 which also provides the main access to the Chelmsford City Racecourse. The access is via the north bound carriageway. Traffic wishing to go south heads north for approximately 800m to the roundabout south of Black Notley where it can then return on the southbound carriageway. These access arrangements onto the A131 are those included within the adopted MLP for the site.
The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed development, subject to appropriate highway conditions with respect to the crossing and ensuring no mud is carried out onto the public highway. The operator would be required to provide a hardsurface haul road suitable for HGV traffic from the access to the mineral processing plant.
Concern has been raised that local lanes would be utilised to access the site. There would be no direct access to the site from either Moulsham Hall Lane or Blackley Lane. The direct access onto the A131 ensures HGV would approach and leave the site from a main road.
With respect to internal movements currently the internal haul road crosses the car park for the racecourse before skirting around the 1 mile shut and 7th furlong and then south into the existing site. The proposed internal route would vary slightly from that shown within the MLP in that the access would cut through the northern boundary of the race course crossing an area of TPO woodland as well as a PRoW. A haul road has already been established in this location permitted by Chelmsford City Council to serve the 7th furlong. This route would enter site A38, keeping the haul road away from the racecourse, particularly 7th furlong. Upon completion of the relocation of the mineral processing plant into the void of phases 1 and 2 the haul road would have no need to go into the existing quarry site, taking HGV movements further away from the racecourse.
Upon completion of extraction in site A38 a crossing across Blackley Lane would be established, with quarry vehicles giving way to traffic on Blackley Lane. Amendments were agreed with the applicant such that the proposed scheme for the crossing point is now acceptable to the Highway Authority. Adequate visibility splays would be achieved which would require the removal of two trees, (not to be considered of significance) and the lifting of the crowns of other trees to provide appropriate visibility. In addition tree root protection would be needed with respect to retained trees in the vicinity of the haul road crossing, which if planning permission were granted could be secured by condition.
Page 40 of 82
MLP policy seeks to protect public rights of way from unacceptable impact. WLP policy W10G seeks to protect and enhance public rights of way.
The application does require the crossing of a footpath by the access road, but suitable warning notices to both driver and path users would be provided and would if, planning permission were granted, be secured by condition.
In addition the extraction of mineral would require the temporary diversion of PRoW these would be undertaken as phasing progresses across the site ensuring the paths would be available throughout the operation of the site and would be returned to their definitive routes as soon as restoration permitted. Such temporary diversions would need to be subject of diversion orders. The first of these diversion orders would need to be in place prior to extraction commencing within phase 5.
The PRoW during the extraction would either be located next to bunds or the margins of the workings, such there would be some visual impact and loss of enjoyment of the paths during the extraction. The paths appear not to be well used possibly due to their proximity to the A131. The existing site is also crossed by a public right of way which has been addressed in the similar way to those within he application the routing being diverted but maintained open throughout the operation and there have been no complaints with respect to the visual impact or loss of enjoyment of the PRoW. The impact on these PRoWs is not considered so significant as to warrant refusal of planning permission and the proposals are considered in accordance with WLP policy W10G and MLP Policy DM1.
D LANDSCAPE
The NPPF states that the planning system should protect and enhance valued landscapes. The site is not located within any area designated for landscape value. However trees along Blackley and on boundaries of the application site are subject to TPOs.
CBC CSDCP policy CP14 promotes and supports the enhancement of the environmental quality of the City’s countryside. Policy DC2 of the CCC CSDCP seeks to protect the countryside for its “intrinsic character and beauty”. Policy DM1 of the MLP states that “Proposals for minerals development will be permitted subject to it being demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact, including cumulative impact with other developments, upon” intra alia “The appearance, quality and character of the landscape, countryside and visual environment and any local features that contribute to its local distinctiveness.” W10E of the WLP will permit waste management development where satisfactory provision is made with respect to “The effect of the development on the landscape.”
The existing quarry is currently screened through a combination of bunding and existing planting. The bunding would be removed upon completion of the restoration of the existing site. At this stage the processing plant would be located below ground levels within phases 1 and 2 preventing views of the plant. The proposals include advance planting to screen the development, particularly on Blackley Lane and Moulsham Hall Lane where they are opposite or near
Page 41 of 82
residential properties. In addition screening bunds would be progressively put in place and removed as operations move across the sites to minimise the visual impact of the development. The advanced planting adjacent to Moulsham Hall Lane would be a triple hedge planted at an early stage such that depending on the rate of extraction it is likely to have in excess of 12 year growth prior to extraction entering site A39 at its furthest point from Moulsham Hall Lane.
Areas not required for mineral extraction would remain in agricultural use and restored to agricultural use as on as possible following extraction and infilling.
The ES statement concluded that the fabric of the landscape would be affected by both changes in topography, and the removal of surface features including hedgerows and hedgerow trees. However, upon restoration the topography would be reinstated and the proposals would result in more length of hedgerow and trees than would be removed. The removal of surface features and topography would have a detrimental impact on the landscape for the duration of extraction and landfilling. However with the mitigation measures described including the phased nature of the operations would limit these. These impacts would no longer be significant upon restoration of the site and 15 years post restoration it was concluded there would be some slight positive landscape benefit.
The County’s landscape advisor had not objection subject to conditions with respect to planting details, measures for protection and ongoing maintenance. The County’s Trees advisor, also has no objection subject to conditions with respect to ensuring the mitigation proposed within the arboricultural statements is adhered to.
It is therefore considered that subject to conditions to secure the proposed mitigation particularly the proposed advanced planting that the proposals are in accordance with national and local plan policies.
E HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
The NPPF requires planning authorities to take account of the impact that proposed development would have on heritage assets and to give weight to protection of these assets as appropriate to their significance.
Policy DM1 of the MLP seeks to ensure that developments will not have an unacceptable impact upon “The Historic Environment including heritage and archaeological assets”. Policy S10 also requires appropriate consideration to be given to the natural, built and historic environment.
The effect of the development on historic and archaeological sites is also one of the criteria identified in WLP policy W10E for which satisfactory provision is required to be made.
CBC CSDCP policy CP9 seeks to protect and enhance the City’s important natural and historic environment including the character and setting of Listed Buildings. Policy DC18 sees to preserve the setting of Listed Buildings and policy DC19 protects Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and other nationally important
Page 42 of 82
sites and monuments or their settings. Policy DC21 seeks to ensure developments will protect, enhance and preserve sites of archaeological interest and their settings taking into account of the archaeological importance of those remains, the need for the development, the likely extent of any harm and the likelihood of the proposal successfully preserving the archaeological interest of the site by record.
The Environmental Statement considered heritage assets including archaeology, and other heritage assets. A Heritage Statement was required with respect to Listed Buildings and concluded the only Listed Buildings likely to be affected by the proposals would be Gate Farm House and Peacheys
Owing to distance, intervening major roads, topography and vegetation, the proposal has no impact on any Scheduled Ancient Monuments, World Heritage sites historic parks and gardens and Conservation Areas.
A desk based archaeological assessment was carried out as part of the EIA. The site lies within an area of known prehistoric and Medieval archaeology and is in close proximity to a Roman Road (London Road). However, the clay soils of the site have not yielded significant archaeological potential. The County’s archaeological advisor has required by condition a written scheme of investigation, this would be required to be implemented prior to soil stripping in each phase, with a mitigation strategy if archaeological interest is found and the need for recording and submission of results. The need for archaeological investigation and recording could be secured by condition, should planning permission be granted.
The nearest Listed Building and most likely to be affected by the proposals is Gate Farm House. This is a Grade II Listed Building, a 19th century yellow brick two storey house with slate roof, located on Moulsham Hall Lane. The context of the farmhouse is dominated by agricultural buildings of substantial size and scale to the south of the site. The house is located on the west side of Moulsham Hall Lane directly opposite site A39, however, extraction is not proposed opposite the house as this area has been shown to be barren, such that the extraction would be located a minimum of 100m to the south east. The house is currently surrounded by vegetation trees and hedges with breaks in the frontage vegetation only for the two drives and a gap in the hedge central to the house. Views from the house towards the extraction area would be largely screened through existing boundary vegetation hedging and trees. There would be filtered views of the construction of the soil bunds, although these would be oblique and not visible through the gap in the hedge. The proposed hedging would further filter any views and construction is only likely to take 2 to 3 weeks. It was assessed there would be no views of the extraction area from the ground level once the proposed hedge and bund are in place. From upstairs windows there are unlikely to be views in summer due the screening effects of existing vegetation. In winter oblique views would be filtered by trees and branches. The Heritage Statement assed the views from the house (front porch – estimated) to be of low value/impotence as the view of the site would be highly filtered and the current and historic context of the house are the agricultural buildings to the south. The magnitude of impact was assessed as low adverse due to the view being filtered and oblique and there would be no view of extraction or landfilling due to the
Page 43 of 82
proposed bunding and planting. The effect on the view was assessed as negligible.
Assessment of Peacheys further to the north on Moulsham Hall Lane was considered imperceptible as there are no views of the site due to existing intervening vegetation.
In view of the above assessment it is considered there would be no harm to the setting of Listed Buildings near the site, subject to securing the proposed mitigation.
On completion of the proposed restoration there would be no long-term impact on the setting of any Listed Buildings.
Subject to appropriate conditions with respect to archaeology and delivery of the proposed mitigation it is considered the proposals would not give rise to adverse impacts with respect to the historic environment.
F WATER ENVIRONMENT
Policy DM1 of the MLP seeks to ensure that developments will not have an unacceptable impact, upon the quality and quantity of water within water courses, groundwater and surface water.
S12 of the MLP ensures proposals preserve, maintain and where appropriate, manage hydrological and hydro-geological conditions to prevent adverse impacts on the adjacent land’s groundwater conditions and elsewhere and that flood risk is not increased.
WLP policy W4A states that development will only be permitted where there would not be unacceptable risk of flooding or unacceptable risk on the water environment as a result of surface water runoff and policy W4B seeks to protect the quality of surface and ground waters or the impediment to groundwater flow.
The availability or adequate water supplies and the effect of the development on land drainage is also one of the criteria identified in Policy W10E for which satisfactory provision is required to be made.
Policy DC16 and CBC CSDCP requires the design of developments to be sensitive to the setting of adjacent water courses.
The Environmental Statement considered the impacts of the proposals both in terms of groundwater and surface water upon areas of ecological interest and water abstractions.
The proposals include management of ground and surface water. The excavation would be required to be dewatered as extraction would be below the water table. Groundwater and surface water collected in the void would be passed through the settlement/silt lagoons to remove any sediment. The water from A38 would in part be used to maintain surface water flows (no greater than greenfield runoff rates) in the tributary of the River Ter that runs along the southern boundary of the existing
Page 44 of 82
site, some water would be used in the mineral processing plant and the remainder would be returned to the water lagoon in the south of the existing site. The water to replenish the River Ter tributary is necessary to ensure there would be no reduction in flow as this tributary flows through the Phyllis Currie Nature Reserve located south east of the application area.
The lagoon to the south of the existing site is in part in connectivity with the groundwater such that discharge of collected water from A38 into this lagoon would recharge the groundwater.
While working within site A39 a pond in connectivity with the ground water would be created in the south east corner of the site and surplus clean water would be pumped to this pond to allow natural recharge of the groundwater.
Recharging of the groundwater would ensure that there would be limited change in groundwater levels down gradient of the site and ensure there would be insignificant impact upon settlement such that the structures of adjacent buildings would not be affected.
The potential for pollution of groundwater was noted with respect to both the potential for contaminated inert landfill and/or the possibility of pollution caused by accidental spills of oils and fuels. The proposals include mitigation against these potential, by ensuring that only indigenous material is deposited below the level of the pre-existing water table, rather than imported material and ensuring fuels and oils are contained within bunded storage and servicing is carried out on impermeable services.
During the extraction of the existing site the private abstraction well at Stone Hall Cottage dried up, this was never directly proven to be associated with the extraction but the operators provided an alternative water supply via a connection to a supply at Moulsham Hall Farm. As this supply is not in the control of the operator, the operator provided a Unilateral Undertaking to provide an alternative supply should the current supply become unavailable or withdrawn. The applicant is willing to enter into a similar agreement with respect to the current application.
The application was supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and this demonstrated that the proposed surface water management during the operations and upon restoration would not give rise to internal or external flood risk. The Lead Local Flood Authority have requested a number of conditions to secure the measures proposed within the FRA.
It is considered subject to conditions to secure the proposed surface water and ground water management, including ground water monitoring (levels and quality of water) and flood risk management and provision of an acceptable Unilateral Undertaking with respect to an alternative water supply for Stone Hall Cottage, the proposals would not give rise to adverse impact upon the water environment.
G ECOLOGY
The NPPF states that the planning system should minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible.
Page 45 of 82
Policy DM1 of the MLP relating to development management requires proposals to demonstrate that the development would not have an unacceptable impact, including cumulative impact upon the natural and geological environment (including biodiversity and ecological conditions for habitats and species). Policy S12 of the MLP requires proposals to provide biodiversity gain following restoration, demonstrating their contribution to priority habitat creation and integration with local ecological networks.
Policy W10E of the WLP seeks to ensure satisfactory provision is made regarding the effect of the development on nature conservation, particularly on or near SSSI or land with ecological or wildlife designations.
Strategic objectives of the CBC CSDCP and Focused Review include EPE1 and EPE3 which seek to protect and enhance the natural environment, biodiversity, geological diversity of the City’s countryside. Core policy CP9 seeks to protect and enhance the City’s important natural and historic environment. Development control policy DC13 seeks to restore, maintain and enhance biodiversity and geological conservation interests and where possible proposals should incorporate beneficial biodiversity.
Policy DC14 states the planning permission will be refused for any development that would be liable to cause demonstrable harm to protected woodland, trees and hedgerows, unless steps can be taken to secure their protection.
The Environmental Statement considered the direct impacts of the proposed development on the application site and the surrounding ecological interest.
The ecological assessment did not identify any habitats above local importance with the exception of hedgerows which were rated of District importance because a number were “important” hedgerows under the Hedgerow Regulations. The important hedgerows would be remain and are unaffected by the proposals. There would be loss of hedgerow and hedgerow trees both in site A38 and A39 but these would be more than offset by the proposed hedgerow and tree planting which is to be delivered at an early stage.
Bats were recorded along the boundary hedges , but subject to any lighting for the process plant area being directed away from boundaries, which could be controlled by condition, the proposals would not give rise to adverse impact. A small population of GCN was noted in a pond on the northern boundary of site A39, a further survey before the working within 250m would clarify whether a Licence from Natural England would be required and such a survey could be required by condition.
Abandoned badger setts were noted on the periphery of site and potentially the site might be utilised for foraging. In view of the phased nature of the development large areas for foraging would be available throughout the development.
During operations the open workings would create temporary habitats for invertebrates and plants having a temporary positive effect.
Page 46 of 82
Although the proposed development would have a temporary adverse effect on the local ecology, the existing ecological interest is limited and the impact is temporary. The proposed restoration would be delivered on a phased basis through the development and would make a positive contribution to the ecological interest of the site.
H RESIDENTIAL & LOCAL AMENITY – VISUAL, NOISE AND DUST
The Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 28 states “The NPPF makes it clear that minerals planning authorities should ensure that unavoidable noise emissions are controlled, mitigated or removed at source…”.
Policy S10 of the MLP seeks to protect and enhance the environment and local amenity. This includes consideration of the effect on public health and safety, amenity, quality of life of nearby communities and the need to include appropriate mitigation measures.
MLP policy DM1 states that proposals will be permitted subject to it being demonstrated there would be no unacceptable impact, including cumulative impact upon intra alia local amenity (including demonstrating that the impacts of noise levels, air quality and dust emissions, light pollution and vibration are acceptable) and the health of local residents adjoining the site. MLP policy DM3 seeks to ensure the location of primary processing is located such as not to cause unacceptable impact upon local amenity and the surrounding environment.
The effect of the development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, particularly from noise, smell, dust and other potential pollutants is also one of the criteria identified in Policy W10E of the WLP for which satisfactory provision is required to be made.
Policy W10F relates to restriction on hours of operation having regard to local amenity.
CBC CSDCP policy CP13 seeks to ensure that proposals minimise their impact on the environment and do not give rise to significant and adverse impacts on health, amenity including air quality, and the wider environment. Policy DC29 requires development which will or could potentially give rise to polluting emissions to land, air and water by reason of noise, light, smell fumes or vibration to put in place and permanently maintain appropriate mitigation measures.
There are a number of residential properties in relatively close proximity of the site, in particular Blackley Cottages on Blackley Lane and Gate Farm Bungalow and Gate Farm House on Moulsham Hall Lane. Three potential impacts on amenity have been identified these are visual, dust and noise.
Although the site is located on the high ground on an elevated plateau the presence of frequent local hedgerows, hedgerow trees, woods and copses, mean the zone of visual influence is very small. However, within this zone, there are frequent public footpaths , two country lanes and occasional dwellings these form
Page 47 of 82
the key visual receptors.
Public Rights of Way have been discussed earlier and it has been acknowledged within the ES that there would be major adverse visual impact upon users of the PRoW. In order to minimise the impact bunding and temporary diversions are proposed.
5 receptors namely Gate Farm House, Gate Farm Bungalow, Blackley Cottages users of Blackley Lane and Moulsham Hall Lane were also identified as suffering moderate adverse impact. A number of mitigation measures are proposed with respect to the visual impact:
3m high bunds on the perimeter of the site to be grassed – these would obscure views from ground floor level, except for short-term soil stripping and restoration earthworks Reinforcement and management of perimeter of existing perimeter hedgerows Early planting of woodland and hedgerows and hedgerow trees, to soften the impact of bunding. Progressive restoration.
While it is recognised there would be visual impact upon certain receptors, the progressive nature of the working means that the properties referred to would not suffer the impact over the whole life of the development. By the time the site is restored, all visual effects are predicted to be negligible. It is not considered that planning permission could be withheld on visual impact grounds.
With respect to noise an assessment was included within the ES which following consultation with the County’s noise consultant further clarification was sought such that additional noise bunding is now proposed. It has been demonstrated that the development can be undertaken without exceeding the maximum noise limits both during normal and temporary operations. The noise assessment has been undertaken on the basis of all plant operating at once which in reality is unlikely but provides the worst case scenario.
A dust impact assessment was undertaken as part of the ES. A number of dust mitigations measures are proposed, such as dampening of haul roads, dampening of stockpiles, maximum speed limits within the site and in very windy conditions where dust cannot be contained within the site suspension of operations. Concern has been raised as to the potential health impacts of dust arising from quarry and inert landfill operations. The particle size of dust associated with sand and gravel is of relatively large particular size such that it tends to settle within 100m of the source. Health impacts are associated with smaller particle sizes such as PM10, but these are associated with different minerals such as coal. Subject to conditions to ensure good practice measures are implemented, it is not considered here would be adverse impact from dust.
The MLP seeks to ensure that no development shall take place such that excavation face is closer than 100m from the faced on any occupied residential property. The current phasing would result in extraction slightly closer to this near Gate Farm Bungalow and considerably closer with respect to Blackley Cottages,
Page 48 of 82
while noise limits would not been exceeded it has been agreed with the operator that extraction would not take place within 100m of any property and this would be secured by condition. The applicant has also agreed to additional bunding adjacent to the 7th furlong of the race course (which has been developed since the submission of the planning application) and this could be secured by condition, if planning permission were granted.
I AGRICULTURAL LAND & SOILS
The NPPF requires the safeguarding of the best and most versatile agricultural land and to provide for the conservation of soil resources. There is a policy preference for restoration to agricultural use where extraction site is located on higher quality agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a).
MLP policy DM1 states that proposals should not have an unacceptable impact upon soil resource from the best and most versatile land and farming, horticulture and forestry.
The loss of land of agricultural grades 1, 2 or 3a is also one of the criteria identified in Policy W10E of the WLP for which satisfactory provision is required to be made.
The site is entirely within grades 2 and 3a, the proposals include appropriate methods for stropping storage and replacement of soils, which would ensure the soil resource would be protected and the land can be restored to the same land grade as existed previously. Methods of soil management could be secured by condition and the restored agricultural land would be subject to 5 years of aftercare including underdrainage to compensate for the loss of the natural drainage that the underlying sand and gravels would have contributed to.
8. CONCLUSION
The existing site and Sites A38 and A39 are identified in the MLP 2014, A38 and A39 as Preferred Sites for future mineral extraction. The principle of mineral is therefore supported by policies P1 and S1 of the MLP. The volume of sand and gravel is greater than that estimated in the MLP, 2.8million as opposed to 1.8million, but all proposed extracted would be within the Preferred site Areas and thus in accordance with MLP policy S6 and ensuring mineral is not sterilised in accordance with policy MLP policy S8.
Mineral from the first 2 phases of the new extraction areas would be processed within the existing site processing facility, which would delay restoration of the exiting site, but facilitate the processing of the initial phases and enable establishment of a new processing facility below natural ground levels. The new plant at lower level would assist in minimising the environmental impact of this fixed element of the proposal. Therefore the delay is considered justified.
The application also proposes inert landfilling and inert waste recycling. While both sites A38 and A39 have been identified for inert waste landfill and inert recycling within the Replacement Local Plan Pre-Submission draft (site L(i)10R, little weight can be placed on this document at this stage. Thus the inert
Page 49 of 82
landfilling and recycling have been considered against policies of the WLP 2001. It is considered the long-term restoration benefits of reinstating the existing topography, which enables the reinstatement of agricultural land to best and most versatile with drainage which requires not artificial pumping justifies the landfilling of the site and therefore is in accordance with WLP policy W9B. The co-location of the inert recycling with the landfill provides the last opportunity for recovery of secondary aggregates, the location and principle of recycling are supported by National planning policy, WLP policy W7D and S5 of the MLP.
While the principle of minerals extraction and landfilling and inert recycling are considered acceptable, this is subject to there being no unacceptable adverse environmental impact.
There are no objections from technical consultees, subject to appropriate conditions. Concern has been raised by Parishes as to the associated traffic movements, but access would only be via the A131. It is acknowledged there would some impact on PRoW, but development has been phased in such a way that the PRoW would remain open at all times, by use of temporary diversions, but there would be some adverse visual impact for users of the paths.
While some landscape impact would occur during operations, including upon the natural topography and loss of hedgerow and hedgerow trees on the site, the proposed mitigation of early planting of hedgerows, hedgerow trees and blocks of woodland would more than replace those lost, phased working of the site and proposed bunding would minimise these impacts.
The historic impact of the development was assessed and it was concluded subject to prior archaeological investigation and recording there would be no adverse impact upon archaeological interests. While the application site is near several Listed Buildings the only one considered to suffer any impact would be Gate House Farm. While the application area is in front of the house, the extraction area is located 100m to the southeast, but with mitigation no direct views of the extraction/landfilling would be possible from the ground floor level due to existing and proposed vegetation and the proposed bunding. Some oblique views would be possible, filtered by vegetation from upstairs windows. But these views would not affect the relationship with the large farm buildings to the south which form the main context for the Listed Building and therefore the impact was assed as negligible.
With respect to the water environment subject to the proposed mitigation including maintaining flows within surface water tributaries and recharging the ground water, it is not considered there would be any adverse impact on areas of ecological interest or water abstractions.
With respect to ecology there is only ecological features of local importance within the site except for Important hedges, which would be unaffected by the proposals. With the proposed mitigation and inclusion of woodland, grassland and ponds within the restoration, it is considered post restoration there would be some positive contribution to ecology.
With respect to residential amenity, while it is acknowledged there would be some
Page 50 of 82
visual impact upon residents closest to the extraction areas, these would be minimised by the proposed planting and bunding and the required 100m stand-off. The low level location of the plant area, phased operations and proposed bunding, would minimise impacts arising from noise and dust.
The phased operation of the site would minimise the area of best and most versatile land out of production at any one time and the infilling of the site would bring the land back to levels suitable to achieve reinstatement of best and most versatile agricultural land. Small areas of agricultural land would be lost to woodland, grassland and ponds but are justified to enhance the biodiversity value of the site.
It is therefore considered subject to conditions and the suggested Unilateral Undertaking with respect to the water supply at Stone Hall Cottage, there would be no adverse impacts that would warrant refusal of planning permission and therefore the proposals are in accordance with MLP policies S10, S11, S12, DM1, DM2 and DM3, WLP policies W4A, W4C, W10E, W10F and W10G, CBC – CSDCP and CCC FR policies EPE1, EPE2, CP9, CP13, CP14 DC2, DC13, DC14, DC16, DC18, DC19, DC21 and DC29.
It is considered the development is in accordance with the Development Plan as a whole.
9. RECOMMENDED
That planning permission be granted subject to
A. the prior submission of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking, within 3 months of the date of the committee’s decision, for the provision of an alternative water supply for Stone Hall Cottage in the event the current supply is unavailable or withdrawn, and;
B. Conditions covering the following matters:
1. Com1 – Commencement
2. Notification of commencement of each extraction phase and commencement of each landfill phase, completion of landfilling in each phase, completion of restoration in each phase
3. Com3 Compliance with submitted details
4. Cess5 Cessation of mineral/landfill development
5. Cess3 Removal of ancillary development
6. Cess7 Revised restoration in event of suspension of operation
7. Hours of working Monday to Friday 07:00 to 18:30 Saturday 07:00 to 13:00
Page 51 of 82
No working Sunday and National/Public Holidays exceptions eg water pumping, construction/removal of bunds after 8am Monday to Saturday only
8. PROD2 Records of output/throughput
9. Details of the construction details and materials for haul road with passing places between A131 to weighbridge shall be submitted and implemented prior to export of mineral from phase 1
10. HIGH1 Site Access Road (construction first)
11. HIGH2 Vehicle Access
12. HIGH3 Surfacing/maintenance of access road
13. HIGH4 Prevention of mud and debris on the highway
14. HIGH6 Lorry sheeting
15. HIGH7 Pedestrian/PRoW signage
16. There shall be no access or egress to the site the public highway from Blackley Lane crossing
17. Prior to construction of Blackley Lane crossing the following shall be provided: visibility splays
18. Construction management plan for Blackley Lane crossing
19. No development within phases affecting PRoW until an Order securing a diversion has been obtained
20. Blackley Lane crossing in accordance with application details
21. Drainage details to be submitted to demonstrate water from crossing would not enter public highway
22. Provision of all lining and signing in association with highway works
23. NSE 1 Nose limits
24. NSE2 Temporary operations
25. NSE3 Monitoring noise levels during both normal and temporary operations
26. NSE5 White noise alarms
27. NSE6 silencing of plant and machinery
28. VIS2 – Stockpile heights and maximum plant height no greater than76m
Page 52 of 82
AOD
29. Details of mineral plant and inert recycling plant shall be approved prior to installation
30. LIGHT1 Fixed lighting restriction
31. LIGHT2 Use of lighting restriction
32. Dust suppression in accordance with details within application/ES
33. When weather conditions prevent control of dust within application site operations to be suspended
34. DUST3 Spraying of haul road
35. Crusher used on site shall be fitted with water sprays
36. Landscaping/planting in accordance with application
37. Advance planting to be carried out in the first available planting season following commencement and maintained throughout the life of the development
38. Bunding in accordance with application details
39. Submission of bunding proposals to protect the 7th furlong
40. LAND2 Replacement planting
41. Tree protection in accordance with application details, except soil used for bunding should not be permitted to enter the root protection area of trees, to be calculated using the method stated in ‘The British Standard BS 5837
42. TREE5 Prevention of tree damage
43. Construction Environmental Management Plan in accordance with submitted details
44. ECO8 Breeding birds during construction
45. All lighting to be angled down and away from hedgerow/tree lined boundaries
46. Updated Phase 1 survey prior to commencement in site A39
47. Updated Herpetfauna survey 2 years prior to works within phase 15
48. Vehicle movements within the site shall be limited to 10 MPH
49. LS1 Limits of excavation and deposition
Page 53 of 82
50. Soil, stripping, handling, storage and replacement shall be in accordance with application details
51. LS4 Stripping of topsoil an subsoil
52. Details of seeding & maintenance of bunds within 3 months of development
53. LS6 Retention of soils
54. Upon completion of stripping of soils in each phase a record shall be provided of the storage location and soil type
55. LS8 Soil handling in a dry and friable condition
56. LS9 soil stripping depths and replacement
57. LS10 Notification of commencement of soil stripping
58. LS11 Notification of soil placement
59. LS12 topsoil and subsoil storage
60. LS14 Final soil coverage
61. ARC1 Advance archaeological investigation
62. Only indigenous site material to be deposited below the level of the pre- existing water table
63. Details of pipe for groundwater recharge to existing freshwater lagoon to be submitted prior to relocation of processing plant to phases 1 and 2
64. Surface and ground water management shall be in accordance with details set out within planning application and ES.
65. Development in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment
66. Submission and approval of a post restoration surface water drainage scheme;
67. POLL4 Fuel/chemical storage
68. POLL6 Groundwater monitoring
69. POLL7 Watercourse protection
70. POLL8 Prevention of plant and machinery pollution
71. RES1 Stones to be picked
72. RES4 final landform Page 54 of 82
73. AFT1 Aftercare scheme to be approved, including for areas of biodiversity
74. MIN1 No importation
75. WAST1 Waste type restriction
76. WASTE5 No waste deposit outside defined areas
77. GDPO2 Removal of PD rights specific
78. Mitigation in accordance with EIA section on hydrology and hydrogeology
79. No mineral extraction shall commence in phase 5 until restoration of the existing mineral site has been completed.
80. No more than 3 phases to be open at one time not including phases 1 and 2
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Application ESS/16/15/CHL and Environmental Statement as updated Consultation replies Representations
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (as amended)
The proposed development would not be located adjacent to or near a European site.
Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission. It does however take into account any equality implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER
The Minerals and Waste Planning Authority has engaged with the applicant prior to submission of the application, advising on the validation requirements and likely issues.
Page 55 of 82
Throughout the determination of the application, the applicant has been kept informed of comments made on the application and general progress. Additionally, the applicant has been given the opportunity to address any issues with the aim of providing a timely decision.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
CHELMSFORD – Broomfield & Writtle
Page 56 of 82
Appendix A
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Planning Application ESS/16/15/CHL:
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
An Environmental Statement (ES) was been submitted with the application for:
Extraction of an estimated reserve of 2.8 million tonnes of sand and gravel (from sites A38 and A39 as identified in the Minerals Local Plan 2014) and retention of existing access onto the A131, retention of existing sand and gravel processing plant (to be relocated within site A38), progressive restoration to agriculture using inert fill, installation of inert recycling facility, including screening and crushing to recover secondary aggregate. In addition revised restoration scheme for the existing quarry area.
At: Blackley Quarry, Land to the north east and north west, A131, Great Leighs, CM3 1QP
This ES was updated by additional Information required by the Waste Planning Authority under Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations.
The Environmental Statement (ES) examines the potential impact of the proposal on the natural and built environment and considers, where necessary, mitigation measures to reduce and minimise that potential impact.
The matters addressed by the ES are set out below:
. Ecology . Landscape . Hydrology & Hydrogeology . Heritage . Noise . Transport . Soils
A summary of the potential effects assessed and proposed mitigation in the ES are described set out below.
Ecology
There are no local or national designated sites within the application area. There are no SSSIs or Natura 2000 sites within 2km of the site. There are 9 Local Wildlife Sites within 2km. Cuckoo Wood Local Nature Reserve and Great Notley Country Park are within 2km.
With respect to Priority species 8 European Protected species were identified and 6 further protected species within 2km of the site. Also 63 Priority species of which 47 were invertebrates were identified. Of these 63, 7 species were both Priority and receive
Page 57 of 82
protection.
The following habitats were identified within sites A38 and A39, isolated trees, plantation woodland, scrub, arable, semi-improved grassland, ditch and hedge lines. Of those within the site it was identified that there were sections of important hedge of District Value within site A38 and A39. The following habitats were identified within the existing quarry site, bare ground, ruderal vegetation, unimproved grassland, semi-improved grassland, ditches, former silt lagoons and openwater, swamp and scrub & trees. The open water lagoon was identified as of local importance.
The following species were identified: Invertebrates – few except within semi-natural woodland or hedgerows, considered to be of local importance Herpetological – records of great created newt (GCN), common frog and common toad, grass snake, common lizard and slow-worm within 2 km. Surveys identified a small population of GCN within a pond located on the northern boundary of site A39. Birds – Lapwing, dunnock, whitethroat and yellow wagtail are Priority species, but overall bird assemblage was considered to be of site interest Mammals – Disused badgers setts were identified outside the application area, considered of site interest, as badgers may still be using the site for foraging. Bats - no roosts were found in sites A38 and A39, but bats species including common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule and Daubenton were recorded. The site is considered of site importance for bats.
The following issues were considered with respect to the direct and indirect impacts on the flora and fauna.
Changes in habitat loss of 90m of hedge, 40ha of cultivated land and margins, 760m of ditch and isolated trees as result of working site A38 and A39. Changes arising from restoration of the existing site, loss of 3 silt lagoons, 1 waterbody, disturbed ground and screening bunds.
The impacts on biodiversity arising from the development were assessed and were largely concluded to be either not significant or low negative or low positive in significance.
Mitigation proposed includes creation of the following habitats, broadleaved woodland (4.6ha), new hedgerows (930m), 3 water bodies created and freshwater lagoon retained.
With respect to species in view of the delay until operation commence in site A39 a further survey is suggested 2 years before working within 250m of the pond where GCN were identified. Clearance of scrub and grassland would be undertaken outside bird nesting season or if within bird nesting season after inspection by an ecologist.
Lighting would only be present in the processing plant area and would be angled away from boundaries particularly along bat commuting routes along Blackley Lane.
The impact of the proposed development following mitigation was assessed as not significant to low positive. The proposals would result in the loss of 3.6ha of arable land but net gain in woodland, hedges and water bodies. There are no predicted cumulative effects at the time of the assessment.
Page 58 of 82
Comment The mitigation proposed as part of the proposals could be secured through condition, particularly the timing of delivery of additional woodland and hedgerow planting and protection of GCN through additional survey, protection of bat routes through lighting conditions and conditions with respect to restoration and aftercare for agricultural, woodland, grassland, water bodies and hedgerows.
Landscape & Visual Assessment
Landscape
The site lies within The National Character Area Defined by Natural England as South Suffolk and North Essex Claylands. Within the District Landscape Character Assessment the majority of the north of the site lies within the Felsted Farmland Plateau, with southern fringes within the Terling Farmland Plateau. The main characteristics of Felsted Farmland being gently undulating farmland, narrow winding lanes, arable fields delineated by fragmented hedgerows with many small woods and copses providing structure and edges in the landscape.
The district LCA notes that minerals and waste are a force of change and can affect landscape character through: changes and loss in field patterns, alien landforms, and restoration schemes. Thus restoration needs to be sympathetic to landscape character minimising hedgerow loss and uncharacteristic landforms.
It is noted there are no landscape designations within the site itself. Both Felsted and Terling Farmland Plateau are considered of medium landscape value
The assessment of landscape effects and mitigation on landscape receptors 1. Elevated rolling plateau – the topography would be changed during extraction and infilling. The progressive working and restoration with infilling would recreate the sites topography 2. Scattered settlement pattern – the proposal would have no direct effect, as there is no intervisibility between villages and the site. The existing site access prevents landscape effects of lorries on settlements 3. Winding roads and rights of way – some landscape impact upon Blackley Lane when the crossing is in placed 4. Field patterns – field pattern would be removed progressively and temporarily as part of mineral extraction, with two field boundary hedges removed as a consequence of the proposals. Restoration with infilling would enable progressive restoration to previous levels 5. Hedge and woodlands – Existing woodland areas and boundary hedges have been avoided. Existing boundaries would be reinforced with additional planting 6. Long distant views across valleys – the site location on a relatively high part of the elevated rolling plateau is distinctly separate from these long-distance valley views, therefore not assessed. 7. Tranquil areas away from main roads – proximity to A31 means it would ne effect local landscape tranquil areas, therefore not assessed.
Of the 7 key landscape factors 5 would be affected by the proposals, 4 are assessed as experiencing significant adverse effects during extraction and infilling, but these effects
Page 59 of 82
would be limited through the proposed mitigation. However due, to the proposed phased development and restoration scheme, the proposed reinstatement of the original ground levels, field pattern, rights of way and new hedgerows, these adverse effects would no longer be significant following restoration. In addition by the time (15 years post restoration) there would be slight beneficial effects due to increase woodland and hedgerows.
It was assed there were no known new major developments except the racecourse which would give rise to cumulative landscape effects.
Visual 13 visual receptors were grouped as follows
Users of Blackley Lane west – intermittent clear views mainly north apart from roadside trees and section low hedge Users of Moulsham Hall Lane and residents at Gate Farm Bungalow & House – there are currently clear views into the site as there is no hedge, unmitigated there would be clear views from the gardens and upper floors of Gate Farm House, but only along the line of the garden path. Vegetation on the outer edge of the front garden would obscure wider views. The views would be of phases 12 to 17. With grassed seeded mounds and a new hedgerow as mitigation the views would be screened from ground level, although distant shallow angled views into the site would be possible from upper floor windows. The grass mound would also be incongruous feature, but less intrusive than direct views into the workings. The hedgerow would have 11 years to mature. Users of PRoW 123 – Views are screened along this path by existing hedge until its eastern end, beyond this there would be clear views of the working. Mitigation in the form of new hedge is proposed and the working area stands off from the footpath. Users of PRoW 104 – Views from this path are filtered by existing vegetation. At Blackley Lane there would be intermittent views of internal lorry movements. Views of the plant would be mitigated as the plant would be below natural ground levels. Users of Blackley Lane central and Blackley Cottages – There is no hedge along Blackley Lane at this point such that views would be directly into the workings, although the plant would be below ground level. The proposed hedging and grass mounds would be screened from ground level, but views would be possible from upper floors of the dwellings. The grass mound would also be an incongruous feature but less intrusive than the workings. Users of Blackley Lane north & Rothwell – There would be filtered views of the workings, but with the proposed screening mounds these would be mitigated and due to existing and proposed hedging the mound would not be intrusive. Users of PRoW 221 – there would be unmitigated views of the workings only lessened by the proposed phasing of working and restoration and negligible once working has completed within site A38 Users of A131 – views from A131 are heavy filtered by existing vegetation which would continue to mature during phases 1 to 9.
Summary visual impact was considered for each of the 15 receptors, during operations, upon final restoration and after 15 years.
During operations unmitigated effects were judged to be 9 major adverse impact, 2 moderate impact, with 1 slight impact, taking on board proposed mitigation this changed to 3 major adverse impact (all from PRoW), 5 moderate adverse impact (Moulsham Hall
Page 60 of 82
Lane including Gate Farm Bungalow and Gate Farm House, users of Blackley Lane west, Blackley Lane central, Blackley Lane Cottages) and 3 slight adverse impact. Upon completion visual impact was considered negligible.
There are no known major developments except the race course. There is limited inter- visibility between the two sites and the developments are of a very different in nature, thus limited opportunity for cumulative effects.
Comment Following discussion with the applicant the block of tree planting on the northern boundary of site A39 is proposed to be planted at an early stage. In addition a 3m high bund is proposed adjacent to the north boundary of Blackley Lane next to site A39 and a hedge between existing trees is proposed on the same boundary. This would further mitigate views from Blackley Lane west and central.
The assessment was undertaken when the racecourse was non-operational, since the assessment the race course has become operational, the hospitality suite and 7th furlong have been developed. Due to existing vegetation and bund screening it is not considered the hospitality suite or operation of the racecourse would give rise to cumulative effects with respect to visual or landscape. However part of the existing bund between the race course and the existing quarry has been removed and the 7th furlong developed bringing the operational race course area closure to the existing quarry and therefore a bund would be required along the northern edge of the 7th furlong, to provide separation and screening between the activities.
Hydrology & Hydrogeology including Flood Risk Assessment
Baseline position Hydrology The site lies just on the west of the surface water catchment divide between the River Ter to the west and the River Brain to the east. The whole site lies within the surface water catchment of the River Ter. An unmade tributary of the River Ter rises just east of the current quarry and flows south-westerly to its confluence with the River Ter. The tributary flows in an open ditch for 300m before being piped under the racecourse. After emerging from the pipe the tributary flows through a number of ponds which form part of the Phyllis Currie Nature Reserve, before joining the River Ter.
There are several water bodies within 2km of the site boundary summarised below 2 ponds within Race course Pond south of Hellvelyn Pond approximately 800m to the south east Several ponds aligned along a small valley 1.4km south east (Phyllis Currie Nature Reserve) A pond 1.5km south east Two large artificial lakes 2km west south west, Leez Lakes Number of lakes 1km to the north of site at Notley Country Park, taking water from the dual carriageway and the southern half of Great Notley village.
4 springs were identified at Old Peaches, Moulsham Hall, Dumney Farm House and Black Notley.
There are 4 licensed surface water abstractions, held by Essex County Showground
Page 61 of 82
Group (tributary River Ter), Lord Ralyeighs Farms Ltd (River Ter), Moulsham Hall Farms Ltd (Moulsham Hall Farm on stream pond) and J S Wright & Sons Ltd (tributary of River Ter).
No unlicensed private surface water attractions were identified by CCC or BDC within 2km of the site.
Ecological and conservation interest features were identified as follows Statutory – 1.2km to the north of site boundary Cuckoo Wood Local Nature reserve, but there is no indication that these are groundwater-dependent features present on the reserve.
Non-statutory sites. 9 sites were identified with 2km. Only the Phyllis Currie Nature Reserve (800m from the southwest boundary) is considered to be the only water dependent site within the interest area. It consists of a series of lakes valuable for breeding dragon flies and damselflies and breeding habitats for butterflies.
Hydrogeology The geology is described as follows, the underlying solid geology is London Clay at about 59 to 63m AOD approximately 52m thick beneath the site and falls away to the south and west. Below the London Clay lies the Woolwich & Reading Beds and the Thanet beds below which lies chalk.
Above the London Clay lies the Colchester Formation, made of sand and gravel the material to be extracted. The deposit lies directly on the clay, but in some places is underlain by boulder clay. Boreholes have indicated west of the site A39 the gravel deposit is absent. Between Blackley Lane and the western limit of site A39 the boulder clay thickness ranges between 2.4m and 3.2m, with the sand and gravel deposit varying between 8.8m and 10.5m. In site A38 the depth of boulder clay is greater 5.2m to 9.5m and is underlain by sand and gravel varying in thickness between7.7m and 12.4m.
The sand and gravel is classed as a Secondary Aquifer by the Environment Agency, as permeable layers are capable of supporting water supplies at local rather than strategic level, in some cases forming an important baseflow to rivers.
Due to the thick London Clay layer there is no connectivity between the shallow groundwater within the sand and gravel (superficial deposits) and the underlying chalk aquifer.
The site is not within a source protection zone.
Groundwater abstractions- there are no licensed abstractions, but records from EA, CCC and BDC show there to be 11 unlicensed abstractions, but from CCC and BDC records only 5 are active. Stone Hall Cottage was put on a mains supply via Moulsham Hall Farm when concerns were raised that previous quarry development had derogated the water supply from the well.
Groundwater data from previous and recent boreholes has been used to ascertain the groundwater level and direction of flows.
The groundwater level with the sands and gravels has been shown to be in the range of
Page 62 of 82
62m AOD and 65m AOD and the average saturated zone within the sand and gravel is in the range of approx. 1m to 8.5m. The data shows the site to be on a groundwater flow divide, such that groundwater is likely to flow out in all direction except north west where there is no sand and gravel and flow is blocked by natural clay. With respect to flows within the site itself, due to clay infilling of the existing site flows to the west are blocked. West of the site flows are not clear due to a lack of borehole data. Within the south of the site flows would appear to be south towards the River Ter and in the north of the site flows are north west towards the River Brain.
Identified sensitive receptors The receptors identified that could potentially be impacted are as follows
No receptors within 2km to the north One spring to the north east within 2km 4 private groundwater supplies from the sand and gravel to the east A number of receptors to the south and southeast as follows: . Spring discharges . Tributaries of the River Ter supported from ground water baseflow with sand and gravel . Private water supply well at Stone Hall Cottage . Licensed surface water abstractions on the tributary of the River Ter . Phyllis Currie Nature Reserve (Local Wildlife Site) – non statutory water dependent site of ecological interest
The existing quarry mitigates the impacts of groundwater abstraction by discharge ground and surface water to the fresh water lagoon that is in connectivity with the groundwater.
Assessment of Impacts during operation
The extraction of sand and gravel would require the dewatering of the sand and gravels to enable dry extraction and the management of surface water. This water would be collected and in part utilised on site in the mineral and waste processing operations, but some would require discharge. Water from site A38 would be discharged through the existing water lagoon in the existing quarry and to the tributary of the River Ter (controlled not to exceed greenfield runoff). Water from site A39 would be discharged to a created lagoon in the southwest of site A39 to enable recharge of the aquifer or pumped to A38 for discharge as previously explained.
Surface water from A38 would normally drain to the tributary of the River Ter and through the Phyllis Currie Nature Reserve. In order to maintain this supply water from A38 would in part be discharge to this tributary to maintain the flow. With such mitigation the impact was assessed as negligible and of minor significance.
Surface water from A39 would not be discharged to the existing ditch system, but there are environmentally sensitive sites along its course. The impact was assessed as negligible and of minor significance.
Surface water quality – discharge would be following water having passed through silt settlement lagoons to remove suspended solids. The impact was assessed as negligible and of minor significance.
Page 63 of 82
Ground water levels – impacts of groundwater levels were assessed as negligible and of minor significance to the south and none to the north.
Groundwater flows North catchment – there is one spring with 2km, as all groundwater would be discharged to the River Brain and the small area of the site in comparison to the catchment the impacts were assessed as negligible and of minor significance.
South catchment – water collected within the existing quarry is used to recharge the aquifer, this would continue. As site A38 is up-gradient of the existing site there would be no additional impact on ground water flows to the west. A39 is located on the divide and has potential to impact on both flows north and south. Due to limited size of the aquifer in site A39 the impacts were assessed as low and negligible respectively and of minor and no significance respectively.
Ground water abstraction. There are no licensed abstractions and a private abstraction has been provided by a mains supply. Impact was assessed as negligible and of no significance.
Ground Water Quality – spillages of fuels and oils could occur and was assed as medium impact and minor significance.
Assessment of impacts following restoration
Groundwater flow. Infilling would reduce flows north. The worked area is relatively small in comparison to the size of the aquifer thus was assessed of negligible impact and of minor significance.
To the south and southwest there would likely be a reduction in flow but was assed as low impact and significance of minor.
Groundwater quality – Where possible only indigenous material should be disposed of below the water table, to avoid imported waste which might be contaminated coming into contact with groundwater. Impact assessed as low with minor significance.
Surface water flows – the landform would largely replicate previous levels, with surface water in A38 draining to the River Ter and within A39 north to the manmade ditch. Impact assessed as negligible with minor significance.
Dewatering has been assessed such that the likely zone of influence within site A39 of between 124m and 160m. Along the eastern boundary of between 230m and 270m and along the southern boundary (Moulsham Hall Lane) the zone of influence was 27m as there is no gravel in this direction.
Cumulative impacts – there are no other similar developments within the surface water or groundwater catchments, such that would be no cumulative effects. Successive impacts – the proposed mitigation would ensure the extension of the existing quarry would not result in successive impacts.
Comment
Page 64 of 82
Subject to conditions to ensure delivery of the proposed mitigation, and a Unilateral Undertaking to ensure an alternative water supply would be available to Stone Hall Cottage should the current one be withdrawn, it is considered the assessment adequately addresses water environment issues.
Heritage
Archaeology An archaeological desk based assessment was undertaken. The study area took account of 3km radius. The site was identified as lying on a topographic vantage point overlooking the River Ter to the south and River Brain to the north. These valleys are known for their pre-historic to Medieval Archaeology, with 20th Century defences distributed across the rural landscape. The site lies almost adjacent to an established Roman Road (London Road). However the site lies upon clayland that has not yielded significant archaeological deposits and an isolated soilmark identified from aerial photography was found to be natural or of recent origin.
It was concluded that the site had low archaeological potential, but as the land use remains largely undisturbed by building and services there is potential for evidence of past human activity.
Conservation areas The nearest Conservation area is Rayne, which lies to the north of the A120 and is 2.85km away. Due to the distance it was assess there would be no direct impact.
Schedule Ancient Monuments The nearest SAM is Gubbion’s Hall moated site 1.3km to the south east. There is also a SAM in the vicinity of Leez Augustinian Priory which lies 2.2km to the south west.
Owing to distance the existing topography and vegetation the proposals were assessed as having no direct impact.
Listed Buildings 13 Listed buildings were identified 12 within 400m of the application site.
The following Listed Buildings were considered: Oak Cottage, Rambler cottage & Cromwells in Willows Green Hamlet north west of site Peacheys Farm House - west north west of site Gate Farm House – closest LB application boundary within 25m of property Hump Cottage and Stone Hall Cottage - west of site Moulsham Hall – south west of site Green Dragon & building – east of site on London Road Dovecote & Barns at Slampseys Farm – northeast of site
All except Gate House Farm and Peacheys were assessed as their setting and significance not being impacted upon by the proposals due the following factors alone or in combination, distance, intervening topography, vegetation and/or existing buildings.
A heritage statement was provided for Gate House Farm and Peacheys
Page 65 of 82
Gate House Farm is a Grade II Listed 19th century yellow brick fronted house, two storeys under a tiled roof. The front elevation is towards the application site. The house is surrounded by mature trees and a high hedge and separated from the application site by Moulsham Hall Lane. Views from windows even from upstairs are largely screened by vegetation in summer although in winter this would be less effective. A gap in the hedge allows views out to the northeast. Views from Moulsham Hall Lane to the south are dominated by existing agricultural buildings.
The view from the Listed Building is considered of low value/importance as the view would be highly filtered by existing vegetation and the historic context of the House is the agricultural buildings to the south east. The magnitude of impact is assessed as low adverse. Without mitigation views would be filtered, with mitigation including the hedge and bund there would be no views apart from construction of the bund.
Using Historic England matrix the impact is assessed as negligible.
Peachey’s is a 15th and 16th century Grade II Listed house with 17th and 19th century alterations. It is timber framed, plastered and two storey. The house is separated from the road by a mature maintained hedge ad mature willow trees. There are no views of the application site from ground or first floor level.
Due to there being no likely views of the site due to existing vegetation and proposed mitigation, the view is ascribed low value/importance, the magnitude of change is assessed as imperceptible.
Overall conclusion was that there would be no significant impacts upon Listed Buildings.
Dust
The likely sources of dust were identified as Soil stripping and replacement Bund formation Haulage Excavation and processing of mineral Materials stockpiling and loading Screening Concrete crushing.
Factors affecting dust generation were identified as Size of particles likely to be deposited within 100m Wind speed and direction – 85% from southwest quadrant Rainfall – average 572mm relatively low
Potential Impacts Amenity – nuisance through visual impacts from dust plumes, deposits on windows and cars Health – air pollution effects on health are mainly associated with particles less than 10um (PM10). Quarry work does give rise to dust and dust can give rise to respirable crystalline silica which can cause serious lung disease, but this associated with on site workers. The assessment referred to the fact there is limited studies into air pollution associated with quarries and there are no known substantiated claims that quarry dust Page 66 of 82
has caused adverse health impact. Ecology – can coat leaves limiting photosynthesis, but chemical impact likely to be greater, but due to nature of material it was assessed impacts likely not to be significant. Dust sensitive uses – no uses such as hospitals, hi-tech industries and food processing Residential – due to south-westerly winds the majority of dust would be taken away from residential properties, however Blackley Cottages, Slamsleys, Rothwell and further away Gt Notley are downwind of the proposals. Blackley Cottages are closest and at most risk of dust emissions. However, subject to good operational practices, the low level plant combined with bunding and planting would minimise the impact.
Overall it was concluded that in view of distances to nearest residential properties, location of the plant at low level, appropriate screening and bunding measures and subject to good operational practices impacts of dust could be minimised.
Comment Considered subject to conditions to control mitigation and 100m stand-off to properties the dust impacts could be mitigated.
Noise The noise assessment included an initial assessment, but then was further clarified by additional information.
The initial assessment considered the impact upon 4 main receptors Blackley Lane Cottages, Blackley Lane Great Slamsley buildings, Blackley Lane Gate Farm House, Moulsham Hall Lane Old Peaches, Moulsham Hall Lane
Background levels noise levels were established and likely noise levels for the various elements of the operation assessed, taking account of the proposed bunding.
Following further clarification bunding heights and locations were amended.
Existing bunding around the existing processing area would be retained until the processing plant is relocated. Bunding would be put in place at an early stage south of the Blackley Lane Cottages and east of the initial extraction phases. The bunding would be extended north east as operations progress towards Slamsleys Farm/Rothwell.
Upon operations moving into site A39 a 3m high bund would be established adjacent to Moulsham Hall Lane, to be extended north-eastwards on the northern boundary of working as phasing progresses, along with a 3m high bund to be extended southwards on the north side of Blackley Lane. In addition to protect properties at Gate Farm an additional 5m bund would be put in place prior to commencement of extraction within phase 16.
It has also been demonstrated that formation of the bunds could be undertaken within the period of 8 weeks allowed for noisier operations.
Subject to the amended proposed bunding, it has been demonstrated that the site could be operated in accordance with maximum noise limits, such that it would not give rise to adverse noise impact.
Page 67 of 82
Comment: The initial noise assessment was unclear, but the additional information has clarified uncertainties. Noise monitoring would be required both during normal and temporary operations to show compliance. Where no compliance was demonstrated additional noise mitigation would be required.
Transport A Transport Statement was provided initially and additional information provided later separately with respect to the Blackley Lane crossing
The existing site has a purpose built junction with the A131 a dual carriageway built within the last 10 years which is shared with the racecourse.
A number of public rights of way cross the application site.
Blackley Lane bisects the site and in order to work the reserve a crossing point over the lane would be required.
Accident data was reviewed and none was found to be associated with the quarry mainly relating to accidents at the roundabout to the north and several at night, when the site would not be operational.
Existing and anticipated vehicle movements would be 176 per day (88 in and 88 out). A maximum of 8 staff have been employed at the site. While the access is shared with the racecourse due to the proposed hours of operation, the two operations would not coincide, races being held at evenings and weekends, with limited overlap.
Public rights of way – the site is crossed by a number of public rights of way. Crossing points for site traffic would need to be established and signed appropriately. Two paths would need to be temporarily diverted to alternative routes during the operations, before being relocated onto their original lines.
The crossing of Blackley Lane would be for a limited period and has been designed to minimise the impact upon Blackley Lane.
As the proposals would not give rise to additional traffic both HGV and staff traffic above those previously permitted it was concluded the proposals would not give rise to adverse highway impacts. Proposed temporary diversions would ensure PRoW remain open but on alternative routes.
Comment Subject to conditions with respect to provision of the crossing and access only via the A131, traffic impacts could be mitigated
Agricultural Land Classification & Soils
Agricultural land classification - this has been assessed as grade 2 and 3a, mainly 3a and therefore all best and most versatile agricultural land.
Soils – distinction has been identified between topsoil, subsoils upper and lower and overburden and to minimise adverse impact these would be stripped and stored
Page 68 of 82
separately and replaced in appropriate order. The soils would be stripped and handled to avoid compaction.
Agricultural Use - The site is farmed by Friars Farms from Gate House Farm. As the site would be worked in progressive phases, the majority of the current agricultural land would be available through the operation, thereby not significantly affecting the operation of the agricultural holding.
Comment Subject to conditions controlling phased restoration and restoration to agriculture with aftercare to achieve best and most versatile land, the impacts would not be significant
Page 69 of 82
Appendix B Extracts from the full sequence of phasing drawings.
Phase 1
Phase 3
Page 70 of 82
Phase 9
Phase 12
Page 71 of 82
Phase 14
Phase 16
Page 72 of 82
Appendix C Proposed final restoration
Page 73 of 82
Appendix D Extract from Minerals Local Plan Preferred Approach 2010
Shading in sites A38 and A39 indicated indicative extraction areas
Proposed extraction areas as part of application ESS/15/16/CHL
Brown area indicate area of extraction
Page 74 of 82
Appendix E
Drawing comparing application area (ESS/16/15/CHL) with MLP existing and preferred site allocations
Page 75 of 82
Appendix F
Location of residential properties near to application site
Page 76 of 82
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
DR/12/16
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 1st April 2016
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT - ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL INFORMATION ITEM Unauthorised Development - The importation, deposition, storing and spreading of waste materials (including soils, waste wood and other similar waste materials), subsequently raising the levels of the land (the unauthorised development). Location: Land at New Farm, Elsenham Road, Stansted, Essex CM24 8SS Ref: ENF/0789
Report by Director of Operation, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Suzanne Armstrong 03330136823
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602
Page 77 of 82
1. BACKGROUND AND SITE
The unauthorised importation, deposition, storing and spreading of waste materials has taken place on land at New Farm, Elsenham Road, Stansted, Essex
New Farm is located approximately 1 mile east of Elsenham village and 1.5 miles west of Stansted Mountfitchet and is immediately adjacent to the M11. The site is accessed via the B1051 Elsenham to Stansted Mountfitchet and is located in a semi-rural area. On the 21st September 2015 the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) witnessed importation, deposition, storing and spreading of waste materials on the land.
On the 5th October 2015 a Temporary Stop Notice (TSN) was served on the land owner and the tenant in respect of the unauthorised importation, deposition, storing and spreading of waste materials (including soils, waste wood and other similar materials).
The TSN required ;
Cease and do not resume the importation of waste materials on the land Cease and do not resume the deposition and spreading of waste materials on the land
At this time an enforcement notice was also served relating to the importation, deposition, storing and spreading of waste materials on the land.
The requirements of the enforcement notice were;
Cease and do not resume the importation, deposition, storing and spreading of waste materials on the land; Remove from the land all waste materials, including imported soils, waste wood and other similar waste materials. Remove from the land all plant and machinery associated with the unauthorised development Restore the land to its condition prior to the commencement of the unauthorised development
2. CURRENT POSITION
The Temporary Stop Notice served on the 5th October 2015 is in force for 28 days and expired on the 3rd November 2015. A further site visit was undertaken on the 14th October 2015 the purpose of that visit was to check compliance with the Temporary Stop Notice. At that visit there was evidence that there had been continued spreading of waste materials on the land, which is a contravention of the prohibition in the TSN and the WPA proceeded with a prosecution in the Magistrates Court.
On the 7th December 2015 Essex County Council as Waste Planning Authority
Page 78 of 82 attended Chelmsford Magistrates Court to prosecute the land owner and tenant for failure to comply with the TSN served on the 5th October 2015. At the hearing the defendants (land owner and tenant) pleaded not guilty
Following this the case was adjourned until the 18th January 2016.
On the 18th January 2016 Essex County Council as WPA attended Chelmsford Magistrates Court. At the hearing the defendants continued to plead not guilty and indicated that they had a witness statement prepared by a planning expert. Following this the case is adjourned until the 4th April 2016.
The Temporary Stop Notice served on the 5th October 2015 expired on the 3rd November 2015. Essex County Council received further reports that materials were continuing to be imported and spread on the land. Therefore in order to prevent further irreversible damage to the environment and countryside and to prevent prolonged detriment to the amenity of the area a further TSN was served on the land on the 21st December 2015.
An appeal has been lodged, by the land owner and tenant, against the enforcement notice issued by Essex County Council and the case will be determined by way of written representations.
A further update on the appeal and the prosecution will be provided to the Committee in due course.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
UTTLESFORD – Stansted
Page 79 of 82
Page 80 of 82 AGENDA ITEM 6.2
DR/13/16
Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION
Date 01 April 2016
INFORMATION ITEM Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics
Report by Director of Operations, Environment & Economy
Enquiries to Robyn Chad – tel: 03330 136 811 or email: [email protected]
1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM
To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
None.
Ref: P/DM/Robyn Chad/
MEMBER NOTIFICATION
Countywide.
Major Planning Applications SCHEDULE Nº. Pending at the end of January 28
Nº. Decisions issued in February 3
Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 31
Overall % in 13 weeks or in 16 weeks for EIA applications or applications 90 agreed within the extensions of time this financial year (Target 60%)
Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in February 2
Nº. Section 106 Agreements pending at the end of February 1
Page 81 of 82
Minor Applications % of minor applications in 8 weeks this financial year (Target 70%) 97%
Nº. Pending at the end of January 8
Nº. Decisions issued in February 6
Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 38
Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in February 6
All Applications Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in February 8
Nº. Committee determined applications issued in February 1
Nº. of Submission of Details dealt with this financial year 161
Nº. of Submission of Details pending at the end of February 90
Nº. of referrals to Secretary of State under delegated powers in February 1
Appeals Nº. of outstanding planning and enforcement appeals at end of February 1
Nº. of appeals allowed in the financial year 0
Nº. of appeals dismissed in the financial year 1
Enforcement Nº. of active cases at end of last quarter 41
Nº. of cases cleared last quarter 12
Nº. of enforcement notices issued in February 0
Nº. of breach of condition notices issued in February 0
Nº. of planning contravention notices issued in February 0
Nº. of Temporary Stop Notices issued in February 0
Nº. of Stop Notices issued in February 0 Page 82 of 82