Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NOS: 1) CMA/7/102 & 2) DM/14/00170/VOC
1) Proposed western extension for the extraction of FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : 5.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone over a 14 year period with restoration to agriculture through landfilling of clay and soils over a 20 year period. 2) Variation to Conditions 1 and 7 of Planning Permission T/APP/H1345/A/96/267255 as amended by Planning Permission No’s. 7/98/58CM and 7/2003/0045CM in order to extend the date for completion of mineral extraction, revise the method of mineral extraction and revise phasing of inert landfill operations.
W & M Thompson Quarries Ltd NAME OF APPLICANT :
Bishop Middleham Quarry, Bishop Middleham, Ferryhill, ADDRESS : Durham
Bishop Middleham and Cornforth ELECTORAL DIVISION :
Chris Shields Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : Tel. 03000 261 394 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
The site
1. Bishop Middleham Quarry is located to the north of Bishop Middleham village on land between the A1(m) and A177 roads. It is an established minerals site with a planning history dating from 1948 (although the site existed before this) and a current permission that extends to 2015 for mineral extraction and 2021 for restoration. The site produces magnesian limestone for use as fertiliser (agricultural lime) and in construction as an aggregate. Permitted stone reserves at the site have now been largely worked out with limited material remaining. The site is being progressively restored by infilling the void with imported waste, this being the residual fraction of construction and demolition waste that cannot be recovered. The approved restoration plan would see most of the quarry returned to level and brought back into agricultural use.
2. The existing site straddles the U35.17 unclassified road with the western side of the site accessed by a private underpass. The area of the site to the east of the U35.17 has been fully worked out and is currently being backfilled.
3. There are no ecological designations within the quarry but there is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Bishop Middleham Quarry) to the north east of the site. There are no watercourses within close proximity to the site. A Public Right of Way (Footpath No. 3, Bishop Middleham Parish) crosses the access track to the south of the quarry.
The proposals
4. Two applications have been submitted for determination. The first (site area 15.7 hectares) seeks permission for an extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry for mineral extraction with restoration through the disposal of inert waste. The second application seeks to vary 18 conditions of the existing planning permission relating to the working and restoration of the site in order to accommodate the proposed extension to the quarry. The applications need to be considered together as they are interlinked.
Proposed Extension
5. A western extension to the existing Bishop Middleham is proposed that would allow for the extraction of 5.5 million tonnes (2.95 million cubic metres) of Magnesian limestone with the resultant void progressively backfilled with inert waste (this would include clay and soils) to return it to a level that can be brought back into agricultural use.
6. Extraction of the stone from the site would take 14 years at a rate of 400,000 tonnes per annum. The backfilling operation would take approximately 20 years following completion of stone extraction with the total working life of the site expected to be 35 years.
Working Method
7. Site preparatory works involving advance tree and shrub planting on the site perimeter, creation of tree protection zones and creation of an access road through the existing quarry to the extension would take place following the commencement of the development. Soil stripping to facilitate the removal of the stone would take place in each of the identified working phases using an excavator and this material would be formed into screening mounds around the western and southern perimeter. Topsoil and subsoil would be stored separately and soils would only be stripped prior to entering the next phase of working.
8. The proposal would involve quarrying in three phases and working benches, as per the existing site, to a maximum depth of 92 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The upper benches of the extension area contain a soft limestone that can be effectively used as agricultural lime with the lower benches being harder and capable of being crushed and used as an aggregate. The anticipated ratio of agricultural lime to aggregate from the extension area as a whole be 60:40.
9. The extension area would be accessed from the north west corner of the existing site and worked progressively south through Phase 1. Phase 1 would be split into three (1A, 1B and 1C) corresponding with the 3 benches that would be extracted. Within Phase 1 the extension area would essentially be approached from the top down whereas subsequent phases would have the full extent of the working phase exposed. Phase 2 would progress extraction east toward the existing site boundary and finally Phase 3 would move the working south and back to the west.
10. It is anticipated that material in the top benches of the extension (the agricultural lime) would be soft enough to be extracted using a 360 excavator without the need for blasting. The harder lower bench material would be drilled and blasted as per the existing site with the fractured material crushed and screened in the existing processing area to the east. Material would be stockpiled until removed off site.
11. The phasing has been designed in such a way so as to allow the site to be worked in a logical way, continuing on from the existing site at a point where access to the extension would be direct.
Working hours
12. The existing site operates from 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and from 7am to 12pm on Saturdays with no working on Sundays, Bank or Public holidays. These operating hours are proposed for the extension to the site and would continue to apply to the existing quarry.
Traffic and access
13. Vehicular access to the existing quarry is taken from the C46 road from the A177 to Ferryhill and this would continue to be used for the extension to the site. The site is currently is unrestricted through condition in terms of the number of daily vehicle movements. The total daily number of heavy goods vehicle movements is normally up to 120 vehicles in and out. It is not expected that this would change as a result of the extension or as a result of the proposed variation application. Vehicles depositing waste material at the site for restoration are used, where possible, to export stone products in order to keep vehicle movements to a minimum.
Restoration
14. The landform would be formed by the phased infilling of the resultant void with 2.95 million cubic metres of clay and soils. This would take place progressively following extraction of the stone from each phase for a period of 35 years.
15. The approved restoration strategy for the existing quarry is for a mixture of conservation and amenity use (to the east of the U35.17 road) and agriculture (to the west of the U35.17 road). A significant portion of the restoration works have been carried out to date on both sides of the road with the area to the south of the site fully restored with the exception of the access road and a storage building and this includes a large area that has been returned to magnesian limestone grassland. It is proposed to retain the compound area in the eastern side of the existing quarry for the operational life of the site as a whole and therefore this would be the last area to be restored.
16. The proposed restoration masterplan for the site as a whole, including the existing quarry and proposed extension, is for all of the land to the west of the U35.17 road to be infilled to level with the soils replaced and returned to arable agricultural land. The area to the east would have a low restoration employed with the minimum amount of infilling to batter against the exposed faces to reduce the vertical height to safe level. This would create a valley feature that would be returned to magnesian limestone grassland with hedgerow planting and water features.
17. The phased restoration of the site would continue in the existing working area to the west of the U35.17 and the existing phasing plan (currently in Phase 4 of 6 for landfilling). The proposed variation, discussed later in this report, seeks to vary the landfill phasing to allow continued access to the proposed extension throughout the working life of the site. The extension area would be progressively restored from north to south with the final void area being in the south east corner.
18. The site would be subject to the statutory 5 year aftercare requirement. The aftercare period would commence following the final replacement of topsoil. The aftercare programme would include monthly monitoring for erosion and stability, unauthorised activity and annual monitoring for invasive weed and, if necessary, their treatment. .
Economic Benefit
19. Bishop Middleham Quarry has been operated by the applicant (W & M Thomspsons (Quarries) Ltd) since they acquired the site in 1975. The quarry employees 30 people directly employed, 65% of which live within 10km of the site in the settlements of Bishop Middleham itself, Coxhoe, Cornforth, Ferryhill, Trimdon Grange and Trimdon Colliery. The applicant has also stated that there are a significant number of people indirectly employed by the quarry such as HGV drivers, mechanics and explosives experts.
Variation
20. The proposed western extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry, due to its location, is dependent upon the existing site for access both from the road and internally to the working face. The planning permission for the existing site has an approved working and restoration strategy that would need to be altered to allow access and continued working of the proposed extension area.
21. The proposed variation application seeks to amend conditions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 28, 30, 33, 36 and 39, and remove conditions 9. 10, 24, 31 and 32 of Planning Permission CMA/7/64.
22. The amendments to conditions 5 and 6 relate to extending the time limits for the existing quarry so that the completion dates for the existing site and proposed extension would be the same. Conditions 1, 3, 4, 8 and 11 would be amended to reflect the proposed changes to the working method and restoration of the site, as detailed earlier and conditions 14, 28, 30, 33, 36 and 39 would be amended to reflect new information in relation to the wheel wash and new monitoring points and schemes in relation to noise, dust and blasting.
23. In order to mitigate the additional landfill capacity created by the proposed extension the applicant has submitted a revised final restoration plan for the original quarry void to the east of the unclassified road. This revised scheme has minimised the additional amount of infilling that would be required in this area above what has already been done. Some additional material is required to ensure that the site would comply with the Quarry Regulations 1999 which state that no quarry face is to be higher than 15 metres in height.
24. Both applications are accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). This report has taken into account the information contained in the ES and amended details and that arising from statutory consultations and other responses.
25. This planning application is being reported to the County Planning Committee because it involves major minerals development.
PLANNING HISTORY
Bishop Middleham Quarry predates the planning system and the first planning permission was for an extension to the existing site in 1948. Since the current operator acquired the site Planning permission for the extraction of limestone and reinstatement by infilling with waste at the Quarry was granted in 1983. An extension to the north west of the original quarry was granted on appeal in 1997 and a subsequent permission to alter the phasing for both mineral extraction and landfill operations was given in 2003.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY
26. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependent.
27. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.
28. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report below.
29. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.
30. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. Decisions should support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting.
31. NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. States that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, plans should: support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres.
32. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. States that the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.
33. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities . Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.
34. NPPF Part 10 - Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.
35. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment – The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognising the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land. Part 11 states that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes
36. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. In determining applications LPAs should take account of; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset, the positive contribution conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and economic viability, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character.
37. NPPF Part 13 – Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals – paragraph 144 sets out the considerations in determining planning applications for minerals development. These include ensuring that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment and human health, taking into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality, and providing through condition for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)
38. Accompanying the NPPF the Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this development proposal is the practice guidance with regards to mineral development and their working and restoration and the principal environmental issues of minerals working that should be addressed by mineral planning authorities and the review of minerals planning conditions. http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
39. Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management sets out the Government's policy to be taken into account by waste planning authorities and forms part of the national waste management plan for the UK. PPS10 is still extant until it is replaced by national waste policy. Current indications are that national waste policy will be published alongside the new National Waste Management Plan for England.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
COUNTY DURHAM MINERALS LOCAL PLAN (DECEMBER 2000) [MLP] POLICY :
40. Policy M1 – Maintenance of Landbanks – Advises that a landbank of 10 years supply of crushed rock aggregate shall be retained for the life of the plan.
41. Policy M3 – Extensions to mineral workings – specifies that extensions to mineral workings will be allowed under allocations made in specific policies and subject to specific criteria. Extensions to existing workings will be permitted provided that they meet a number of criteria, one of which being they do not involve any further mineral extraction on the Magnesian Limestone Escarpment.
42. Policy M4 – Waste and recycled materials – encourages and supports the use of recycled and waste materials in place of newly won minerals.
43. Policy M24 – Local landscapes – requires that the scale of any adverse effects on local landscape character from minerals development is kept to an acceptable minimum and conserves as far as possible important features of the local landscape. It also requires that restoration schemes have regard to the quality of the local landscape and provide landscape improvements where appropriate.
44. Policy M29 – Conservation of nature conservation value – requires all proposals for minerals development to incorporate appropriate measures to ensure any adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of the area is minimised.
45. Policy M30 – Listed buildings/Conservation areas – states that planning permission for mineral development will not be permitted where this would have an unacceptable adverse impact on listed buildings, conservation areas, or their settings. Where it is justified the permission will only be granted where the working and restoration of the site ensures the retention of important built and landscape features; and final restoration is to at least the original landscape quality, with replacement of any landscape features that it is not possible to retain during working
46. Policy M31 – Archaeological field evaluation – relates to archaeology and the need for archaeological field evaluation prior to the determination of planning permission where there is reason to believe that important archaeological remains may exist.
47. Policy M32 – Archaeological remains – states that where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by a proposed mineral development there will be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ. Proposals for mineral development that would have a significant adverse effect on regionally important remains will only be permitted where no other suitable locations are available; or where there is an overriding need for mineral which outweighs the requirement for physical preservation.
48. Policy M34 – Agricultural land – states that mineral development which affects or is likely to lead to the loss of 20 or more hectares of the best and most versatile land (Agricultural Land Classification Grades 2 and 3a) will not be permitted unless there is no overall loss of agricultural land quality following restoration; or there is a need for the mineral which cannot be met from suitable alternative sources on lower quality agricultural land.
49. Policy M35 – Recreational Areas and Public Rights of Way – Mineral development that would have an unacceptable impact upon the recreational value of the countryside , and in particular facilities such as paths and other public rights of way will not be permitted unless there is a need for the mineral which cannot be met from suitable alternative sites or sources.
50. Policy M36 – Protecting local amenity – requires the incorporation of suitable mitigation measures to ensure potentially harmful impacts from pollution by noise, vibration, dust and mud, visual intrusion, traffic and transport, subsidence, landslip and gaseous emissions are reduced to an acceptable level.
51. Policy M37 – Stand off distances - states that unless it can be demonstrated that the amenity of local communities can otherwise be protected from the adverse impacts of mineral working, mineral development will not be permitted where the extraction or associated activities are within 250 metres of a group of 10 or more dwellings
52. Policy M42 – Road traffic – states that mineral development will only be permitted where the traffic generated can be accommodated safely and conveniently on the highway network and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity is otherwise acceptable.
53. Policy M43 – Minimising traffic impacts – requires that planning conditions should be imposed, and planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover a range of matters such as routeing of traffic to and from the site, highway improvements or maintenance, prevention of the transfer of mud and dirt onto the public highway and operating hours of lorry traffic to and from the site.
54. Policy M45 – Cumulative impact – requires that when considering proposals for mineral development the cumulative impact of past, present and future workings must be considered and states that planning permission will not be granted where the cumulative impact exceeds that which would be acceptable if produced from a single site under the relevant policies of the Plan.
55. Policy M46 – Restoration conditions – indicates that conditions will be imposed, planning obligations or other legal agreements sought as necessary to cover a range of issues relating to the satisfactory restoration of minerals sites.
56. Policy M47 – After uses – provides advice in relation to proposals for the after use of mineral sites.
57. Policy M50 – On site processing – where planning permission is required, minerals processing and manufacturing plant, and other developments ancillary to mineral extraction, will be permitted within the boundaries of mineral extraction sites subject to certain criteria. Conditions will be imposed, planning obligations or other legal agreements sought as necessary to cover the minimisation of environmental impact, removal of the plant, structure, buildings as soon as extraction has ceased time limits on the storage of materials after working has ceased and preventing the import of materials from elsewhere..
58. Policy M51 – Storage – in granting planning permission for mineral stocking areas the Policy requires conditions to be imposed or planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover the minimisation of environmental impact, time limits on the storage of materials after working has ceased and preventing the import of materials from elsewhere.
59. Policy M52 – Site management – states the ability and commitment of the intended operator to operate and reclaim the site in accordance with the agreed scheme will be taken into account.
60. Policy M54 – Magnesian Limestone Escarpment – has a general presumption against new workings and extensions to existing quarries on the Magnesian Limestone Escarpment, other than those allocated in the Plan.
COUNTY DURHAM WASTE LOCAL PLAN (APRIL 2005) [WLP] POLICY :
61. Policy W2 – Need – requires the demonstration of need for a particular development which cannot be met by an alternative solution higher up the waste hierarchy.
62. Policy W4 – Location of waste management facilities – states that proposals for new waste management facilities will be determined having regard to protection of the environment and local amenity, traffic impacts, opportunities to integrate with other facilities or developments which will benefit from the recovery of materials and to extend or develop existing waste management facilities.
63. Policy W27 – Landfill/Landraise and Groundwater Vulnerability – states that proposals for landfill and landraise will not be permitted on or in a Major Aquifer, or within Groundwater Source Protection Zones II or III, or below the water table in any strate where the groundwater provides an important contribtion to river flow or other sensitive surface waters.
64. Policy W46 – Landfill and landraise – deals specifically with proposals that create new landfill capacity including extensions to existing sites. These will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they contribute to a sustainable waste management system for County Durham; represent the best practicable environmental option; satisfy an established need; and achieve overall environmental benefits; or a proposal represents a small ‘windfall’ scheme which will secure the reclamation of registered contaminated or previously developed land within a short timescale or increase the nature conservation interest of a proposed site through the creation of new habitats, without creating a significant amount of new void space.
EMERGING COUNTY DURHAM PLAN
65. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. To this end, the following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
66. Policy 54 – Meeting the Need for Primary Aggregates - The Council will seek to make sufficient land available for mineral working to enable a steady and adequate supply of primary aggregates to be maintained. In doing so the Council will seek to maintain a minimum crushed rock aggregate landbank of at least ten years and a minimum sand and gravel landbank of at least seven years at all times. New or extended aggregate workings will not be permitted where the overall crushed rock or sand and gravel landbank is more than adequate to meet future needs and the overall productive capacity of existing sites is more than sufficient to meet the annual scale of working which is required to meet the ten year sales average proposals unless: • The planning benefits of the proposal outweigh the planning objections; and • The proposal accords with the spatial approach to the working of the aggregate mineral concerned as set out in this policy; and • The proposal does not add significantly to the total landbank of permitted reserves in the County; and • It can be demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable adverse impacts on both the environment and amenity of local communities. During the Plan period to 2030, no new magnesian limestone workings will be permitted for aggregate or agricultural lime production. However, if any new working is permitted via extensions to existing sites in accordance with the above criteria no new working will be permitted on prominent escarpment slopes in order to minimise landscape and visual effects. 67. Policy 65 - Landfill and Landraising - Proposals for new landfill and landraising will be permitted only where they would not significantly adversely impact upon sustainable waste management in County Durham, and where it can be demonstrated either that: a. There is a need for the facility, and there is insufficient existing capacity for the management of the waste stream; and b. The management of waste by options further up the Waste Hierarchy (cxliii ) is not possible; or
c. The proposal would bring environmental benefits such as the reclamation of registered contaminated land or previously developed land, within a short timescale, and without creating significant new capacity.
And for all proposals there would be no unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment or amenity of local communities.
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
68. Environment Agency – has raised no objections to the proposal but has raised issues in relation to the potential contamination of the Magnesian Limestone Aquifer if extraction was to go below groundwater levels and has recommended 3 conditions be imposed to ensure that the water resources are protected.
69. The Highways Agency – has raised no objections to the proposal and welcome the measures set out in Transport Assessment to mitigate the impact of vehicles leaving the site.
70. Natural England – has raised no objections to the proposal, advising that given the location and nature of the works there is not likely to be an adverse effect on statutorily protected sites or landscapes. Officers broadly support a phased restoration for the site and note that there are opportunities for biodiversity and habitat creation.
71. Highway Authority – has raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions being imposed to ensure the operator employs the mitigation measures set out in the Transport Assessment and also that upgrade works to a section of the northern highway verge between the site access and the junction with the A177 are carried out.
72. Bishop Middleham & Mainsforth Parish Council – has raised no objections to the proposal citing strength of past relations and the incremental benefits of working together with Thompsons Quarries.
73. Cornforth Parish Council – has stated that whilst the application falls outside of the parish boundaries they are against any further applications being approved for mineral extraction of this kind.
NON -STATUTORY RESPONSES :
74. CPRE – objects to the scheme stating that the application should not be permitted, however, if it is then screening must be provided to hide the quarry from the motorway and affected residential properties and believe that even short views from the A1(M) are unacceptable. Furthermore, it is considered that the restoration proposal is poor and it should be more beneficial to the community and wildlife.
75. Durham Bird Club – has raised no objections as the workings are moving away from sensitive areas but request that part of the site is considered as being restored for the benefit of wildlife. Also they request the inclusion of an area of Magnesian Limestone grassland and a water feature.
76. Durham Badger Group – has raised no objections to the application and only request that a check for outlying setts is carried out before work begins.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
77. Spatial Policy – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers have provided an assessment of the relevant National and Local Plan policies in relation to minerals and waste development and note that the proposed mineral extraction would broadly accord with the NPPF and emerging County Durham Plan. The importation of waste for the restoration of the site would be a departure from local plan policy.
78. Archaeology – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers initially requested that a geophysical survey be carried out to evaluate the local geology and inform a targeted programme of evaluation trenching. Following the submission of the geophysical survey in 2013 and trial trenching in 2014 of Phase 1 of the site, Officers have stated that there are clearly significant non-designated archaeological features within the proposed extension which will require mitigation. The features appear to relate to later prehistoric activity of the Bronze age (2100BC) to Iron age (AD43) and do not appear to be of regional or higher levels of importance and can be suitably mitigated through the imposition of a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological excavation, recording and publication. As Phases 2 and 3 have not yet been evaluated it is recommended that conditions cover the phased evaluation and subsequent mitigation of impact on the potential archaeological heritage assets in these areas.
79. Design and Conservation – has raised no objections to the proposal and stated that there are no designated heritage assets within the application site or within the 1km search radius undertaken by the applicant. The Bishop Middleham Conservation Area lies just over 1km south of the site with no visual relationship between the the conservation area and the quarry expansion site. Partial views may be possible from the upper level of the Old Hall because of its elevated position, but is unlikely to impact upon their setting or significance. The proposed restoration plan respects the historic field boundary and is acceptable.
80. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection – has raised no objections to the submission. Officers have recommended a series of conditions in order to minimise the potential for nuisance.
81. Ecology – has raised no objections to the proposals but requested a lower level restoration to Magnesian Grassland.
82. Landscape – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers consider that the proposed extension would have some significant effects on the visual amenity of local residents in respect of views from a small number of properties and localised views from roads and footpaths. The adverse visual effects would be generally moderate and localised but relatively long term. Officers consider that the effect on landscape character would be localised and of low impact and would include and a loss of features and visual intrusion of engineering operations. The advance planting on the southern boundary would assist in screening the site and should be secured by condition.
83. Access and Rights of Way – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers welcome the additional link route to the west of the quarry and are satisfied that this is to be a permissive path. Officers are also satisfied that the additional path created as part of the proposed restoration would also be permissive.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
84. The proposals were displayed at public exhibitions held by the applicant at Bishop Middleham Village Hall prior to formal submission. The application was also advertised by site notice and in the local press as part of the planning procedures. Notification letters were sent to individual properties in the vicinity of the quarry. In addition the application was publicised on Durham County Council’s weekly list.
Objection
85. 5 letters of objection have been received in response to the extension application and 1 in response to the variation application. The objections relate to there already being an adequate supply of permitted agricultural lime in County Durham and no requirement for further permissions. One resident felt that the proposal conflicted with Policy 53 of the County Durham Plan Preferred Options document. There is a feeling that the jobs created or protected are minimal and do not warrant the destruction to the environment and the noise and pollution that are endured. Specific pollution concerns are raised in relation to airborne dust and respiratory health; quarry dust, noise and pollution were listed 8 of 23 worst things about living in the Parish. The loss of high quality farmland was raised and residents are concerned that conditions of the existing consent are not satisfactorily enforced by the Council.
86. The main issue raised by objectors to the proposal is that the section of the C46 road between the site entrance and the junction with the A177 is dirty and has been eroded by heavy vehicles leaving holes full of stones that are thrown up at cars. Objectors have stated that HGV’s from the site do not appear to have always had their wheels cleaned or load sheeted. Suggestions have been made to create a whole new access road from the quarry to the A177, create a new footpath/cyclepath adjacent to the existing highway, and upgrade the verge of the existing highway.
Support
87. 75 letters of support have been received in response to the extension application and 2 letters in response to the variation application. The support letters are from 4 main groups; local residents (37), businesses (15), quarry employees (18) and farming/agricultural customers (5). Supporters of the application state that the proposal would secure 30 jobs and could result in additional employment. The site operator, Thompsons, work with and support the Parish Council. Agricultural customers and businesses have stated that the proposed extension would ensure the continued supply of high quality agricultural lime and aggregate, of which there are limited reserves and the loss of this resource would have an impact on some businesses in the future. Customers feel that the scheme has been designed to minimise impact on the area and think the Thompsons operate to a high standard
APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
88. Bishop Middleham Quarry was acquired by W&M Thompsons Quarry’s Ltd in the early 1970’s. Its acquisition ensured the company had, and continues to have, its own secure source of agricultural lime and road stone. The operations at the quarry now underpin the company’s construction and demolition operations in the north east of England. Due to the continued demand for the products, and the success of the operations, there is a need to extend the quarry again to ensure the continued supply of agricultural limestone and aggregate. In particular the agricultural lime has proved to be a very successful product because it is a high quality agricultural lime by virtue of its fine powdery nature that requires little or no processing. It is therefore in demand both in the North East, Scotland and also it is exported to Europe through the Port of Sunderland. The aggregate is ideal for all types of construction uses and particularly as a roadstone.
89. The extension to the quarry will assist in securing the existing 30 jobs at the quarry for some time to come. It should be noted that approximately 65% of the employees at the quarry live within 10km in the surrounding villages such as Bishop Middleham, Coxhoe, Cornforth, Ferry Hill, Trimdon Grange and Trimdon Colliery. In addition, there is not a high turnover of staff and the majority of employees tend to work at the quarry for some considerable period of time. It is hoped that this indicates the importance, as well as the high regard in which the company is held in the area. This proposed extension may also allow the company to expand its workforce as the company and the operations continue to thrive in this area.
90. W & M Thompsons Quarries Ltd has, and will continue, to work with the Parish Council and to provide assistance, if they require, in relation to community projects. At all times they have responded to concerns or complaints the Parish Council or local residents may have in relation to the quarrying operations. As part of this application it has been agreed that they will carry out improvements to the kerb line on the road entering the village. It is hoped that this will stop drainage issues both now and in the future.
91. The company has worked with Officers from the Council in order to ensure that the working scheme does not have an adverse impact on any of the nearby residential properties. In addition, the phasing scheme has been discussed and altered in order to seek to ensure that the operation of the quarry as a whole, in relation to the extension area, has as little impact on the surrounding landscape as possible. In particular, the areas to the very north of the site will be extracted and restored in the first two phases of operations in order to minimise the overall visual impact of the proposed extension. In addition, the company continues to review the restoration scheme for the original quarrying void to ensure that, as far as possible, it can be restored to high quality magnesium carbonate limestone grassland.
92. Extraction and infilling operations have slowed at the quarry due to the recession. However, since the beginning of this year there has been a considerable increase in demand for the quarry products and a large quantity of readily available material to restore the resulting void. The operations at the quarry are continuing in a positive manner and it is hoped that this extension will allow the company to continue to provide material for its existing markets and support the community in which it is based.
The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at the offices of the Strategic Planning Team at County Hall Durham and at http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=02A566CE56D6D7744010482B0F236907?action=firstPage
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
93. Having regard to the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principal and need for the development (mineral and waste), the effects of the development on residential amenity (including noise, dust and blasting), biodiversity interests, landscape and visual impact, public rights of way, biodiversity interests, access and traffic, hydrology, cultural heritage and archaeology, soils and agriculture and cumulative impact
Principle of the development
94. Within the existing quarry 650,000 tonnes of permitted magnesian limestone reserves remain. It is understood that of this, 500,000 tonnes will be extracted for aggregate use and 150,000 tonnes for agricultural lime. It is not considered that the mineral would be extracted within the time period remaining and an extension of time would be required to enable the extraction and full recovery of permitted reserves. The current applications seek to enable the extraction of remaining reserves while accommodating the extraction of additional reserves in the proposed extraction area.
95. 5.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone would be extracted from the extension area. Of this approximately 2.2 million tonnes would be used for aggregate and 3.3 million tonnes for agricultural lime.
96. The MLP sets out in Policy M1 the requirement to maintain a landbank of at least 10 years for crushed rock aggregate to be maintained throughout the plan period. The MLP also contains a strategy for future magnesian limestone working on the escarpment and identifies two locations where extensions to existing magneisan limestone workings will be permitted for high grade purposes to the south and east of Thrislington Quarry. The strategy recognises that the existing landbank of permitted reserves of magnesian limestone in quarries on the escarpment far exceeds the number of years supply required to meet long term needs. Therefore, apart from allocating land for two extensions to Thrislington Quarry limestone for high grade purposes, the MLP does not envisage any need for working additional supplies of magnesian limestone for aggregate use in the Plan period to 2006 in both Policies M3 and M54.
97. The emerging approach, as set out in the emerging County Durham Plan, is to resist new magnesian limestone workings for crushed rock aggregate unless there are planning benefits that outweigh the objections, the proposal accords with the spatial approach to the working of the aggregate mineral, the proposal does not significantly add to the total landbank of permitted reserves in the County and it can be demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable adverse impacts on both the environment and amenity of local communities. The supporting text to the emerging County Durham Plan also advises that Government guidance requires that local planning authorities should ensure that a large existing landbank bound up in very few sites or ownership should not stifle competition. Accordingly, in order to ensure that competition is maintained over the Plan period proposals to allow small scale environmentally acceptable extensions to existing magnesian limestone sites may be permitted. The updated approach reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. Given the conformity with the NPPF and sustainable approach toward mineral working, and the stage of at which the emerging plan is at, it is considered that Policy 54 of the emerging County Durham Plan can be afforded weight at this stage.
98. In considering the need to release further reserves of crushed rock it is important to note that the MLP was adopted in December 2000 and regard must be given to the current position with regard to mineral reserves in the County, current sales and future provision. In particular, the NPPF requires minerals planning authorities to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates and to prepare a Local Aggregate Assessment and make provision for the land won elements in the Local Plans. The Council has prepared a Local Aggregate Assessment (Joint LAA) in partnership with Council’s in both Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.
99. The Joint LAA (April 2013) indicates that based upon the current ten year crushed rock sales average, that over the 19 year period 2012 to 2030 County Durham must make provision for 57,697,300 tonnes of crushed rock. Given the extent of existing permitted reserves of 134,065,120tonnes on 31 December 2012 (equivalent to a 46.7 year landbank) County Durham does not need to seek to make any additional provision for crushed rock over the period to 2030 as there are sufficient reserves with planning permission to deliver supply over the plan period to 2030.
100. In order to maintain a steady and adequate supply of aggregates the Joint LAA has also considered the composition and distribution of the crushed rock landbank. Approximately 110 million tonnes of County Durham’s crushed rock reserves (as of 31 December 2011) are located within County Durham's ten magnesian limestone quarries. It is understood that a significant proportion of these permitted reserves are contained within five sites (Old Quarrington and Cold Knuckles Quarry, Thrislington Quarry, Cornforth West Quarry, Cornforth East Quarry, and Coxhoe Quarry). The remaining permitted reserves being located within the five remaining quarries (Crime Rigg Quarry, Witch Hill Quarry, Running Waters Quarry, Aycliffe Quarry and Bishop Middleham Quarry). However, a number of these sites are currently inactive and some have not been worked for a number of years.
101. Through further work to develop the County Durham Plan the Council recognises the need to carefully consider the approach to all types of crushed rock supply and in particular to take into account the Government's latest guidance on the operation and use of landbanks. This requires that the Council must use landbanks of aggregate minerals principally as an indicator of the security of aggregate minerals supply, and to indicate the additional provision that needs to be made for new aggregate extraction through Local Plans; make provision for the maintenance of landbanks of at least 10 years for crushed rock, whilst ensuring that the capacity of operations to supply a wide range of materials is not compromised; and ensure that large landbanks bound up in very few sites do not stifle competition.
102. Whilst there is no identified need for the magnesian limestone it is considered that the proposed extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry could provide a number of benefits. The proposal would safeguard the existing 30 jobs currently provided at the quarry and benefit the indirect employment of additional HGV drivers, plant mechanics and explosives experts. In addition there are also employees at the agricultural lime store in Jedburgh. It would allow the quarry to make a continued contribution to the supply of aggregates helping County Durham meet its own needs whilst making an ongoing contribution to the needs of neighbouring areas. It would enable the continued supply of agricultural lime from the quarry for both domestic and international markets. Finally, on the basis that a significant proportion of the existing permitted magnesian limestone reserves are bound up in a limited number of sites in limited ownership allowing an extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry would help to maintain a competitive local aggregate market. Although an additional 2.2 million tonnes of crushed rock aggregate would be extracted as part of the proposal this would not significantly add to the overall landbank of crushed rock in County Durham. The proposed extension would not be located on a prominent slope of the Magnesian Limestone escarpment and the landscape impact is considered amongst other environmental issues later in this report. It is therefore considered that although the proposal would conflict with existing MLP policies, it would accord with the NPPF and Policy 54 of the emerging County Durham Plan.
Need for landfill
103. The extracted areas of Bishop Middleham are being progressively restored with imported waste material to bring the site up to level in the existing site (to the west of the U35.17 road) in order to return this area to agriculture. The types of materials that are imported to the site are clays and soils arising from construction and demolition projects that cannot be recycled or reused due to how the material is received. The operator had fallen behind tipping timescales set out in the 2007 Planning Permission, primarily due to the recession and also initially because of the Landfill Tax Regime but then also by the recession, however, progress on the site is now returning to pre- recession levels. Material is currently being tipped in Phase 4 of the existing quarry and this will continue for another 6 to 8 months at current rates before moving to Phase 5. The proposed extension to the quarry would create an additional 2.95 million cubic metres of void space.
104. ‘Waste Strategy for England 2007’ set out the Government’s objectives to reduce waste and increase recycling of waste and energy recovery. The Waste Review of 2011 sets out the Government’s aims for a ‘zero waste’ economy. The direction of travel set by the Review is a new focus in national policy on the use of materials throughout the economy; the integration of business and household waste; a smaller and different role for central government; and more focus upon the householder or business and the importance of this agenda – from waste prevention to waste management – for the “green economy”. Waste is a valuable resource. The Government has consulted upon a draft of the Waste Plan for England, which will replace ‘Waste Strategy for England 2007’. This can be given limited weight at present as it does not contain any new policy for waste management, and provides a single point of reference and summary for all waste policy. Its purpose as a consultation is to ask whether the Plan – when combined with the updated waste planning policy – will fulfill the obligations of Article 28 of the revised Waste Framework Directive as far as England is concerned. As a direction of travel, it provides a summary of waste policy and brings together the findings of the Waste Review 2011, confirming waste as a resource and prevention at the top of the Waste Hierarchy and disposal to landfill at the bottom.
105. The Government’s policy direction with the changes to the Waste Hierarchy is clear that preparation for re-use and recycling should come before final disposal of waste. This is reflected in WLP Policies W2 and W46, which require developments to demonstrate an established need for the facility and to show that they would make a contribution to the County’s sustainable waste strategy and achieve overall environmental benefits, and move waste up the Waste Hierarchy. This direction of travel is also reflected in the emerging County Durham Plan.
106. The policy direction is changing further still with the amended Waste Framework Directive (WFD) being transposed by the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. These state that by 2020 at least 70% of construction demolition and excavation waste (CDEW) should be subject to material recovery. Therefore CDEW should be being moved up the Waste Hierarchy.
107. The current PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management sets out a positive and plan led approach to planning for sustainable waste management, seeking to move waste up the Waste Hierarchy and forms part of the national waste management plan for the UK. The Government has also recently consulted on a replacement for PPS10. This can be given limited weight also, as at the time of writing the Government are still analysing feedback. As a direction of travel, this revised guidance again focuses on waste as a resource and on efficient resource use, and minimising costs of waste to society, including environmental costs. It is more streamlined; has a tougher stance on waste in the greenbelt; includes additional text on energy from waste; reflects the abolition of RSS; and reflects the Duty to Co-operate.
108. Due to the new challenging diversion targets set out in the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, there will be competition from a number of sites both within the County and in the region for inert waste for use in restoration. The timescales involved in restoration will naturally increase because of the reduction in material available due to increased recycling. This will have implications for the achievement of a satisfactory restoration at sites permitted to accept such waste as well as for approved and proposed contours to be achieved. Within the County, Bishop Middleham Quarry is not the only site where inert fill is being used, there is also Old Quarrington Quarry (required to be restored by 2026) and Crime Rigg (requiring restoration by December 2024.
109. There is considerable capacity left in County Durham for inert waste landfill. This amounts to almost 8.5 million cubic metres. The increase in void space created by this development would amount to a near 35% increase on the regional inert void space available void in County Durham. This is a departure from the sustainable waste management system for County Durham.
110. There are 3 sites within the County that accept inert waste and these are Bishop Middleham, Crime Rigg and Old Quarrington. Crime Rigg and Old Quarrington are due to be restored by 2024 and 2026, respectively. The proposed extension and variation to Bishop Middleham would see progressive restoration continuing for a further 35 years until 2049. This would mean that Bishop Middleham Quarry would, for the 23 years subsequent to the closure of Old Quarrington, have the only inert landfill capacity in the County. Whilst it is anticipated that waste recycling rates will progressively increase in accordance with the waste hierarchy it is also assumed that there will always be a residual fraction that is unable to be recycled or that has no productive use. It is further considered that the restoration of the site through the importation of inert waste would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment or amenity of local communities. It is therefore considered that the proposal would partly accord with Policy 65 of the emerging County Durham Plan.
111. The timescales involved in restoration will naturally increase because of the reduction in material available due to increased recycling and reuse. This will have implications for the achievement of a satisfactory restoration. The acceptability of landfilling at this site is not merely a case of the consideration of whether it is an appropriate form of restoration at this site and whether restoration can be achieved in timescales.
112. The proposed volume of material to be imported is significant, however, this has been partially mitigated through the variation application in that only the minimum amount of material would be imported into Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the existing quarry (to the east of U35.17 road) to ensure a safe and acceptable restoration. It is also of note that the imported material, clays and soils, is the residual fraction from construction and demolition projects that cannot be recycled and therefore cannot be moved up the waste hierarchy. Disposal is therefore the only remaining option.
113. There is existing landfill capacity within the region that could be utilised for the disposal of these waste types. The extension would share an access with the existing quarry and once this is restored the extension would be isolated and if not restored to level then it would be a relatively inaccessible void surrounded by agricultural land. This is not considered to be the best use of the land. Returning the site to level would allow it to be brought back into productive agricultural use.
Residential Amenity
114. The quarry lies immediately to the north of the village of Bishop Middleham and the closest properties along High Road are approximately 450m from the site access and approximately 290m from the nearest working phase of the existing quarry and 650m from the nearest phase of the proposed extension. Six properties are located to the north east of the boundary the closest being Highland House some 150m from the existing quarry boundary and 300m from the nearest phase of the proposed extension. Farnless Farm lies some 70m to the east of the original quarry and 650m to the east of the proposed extension. MLP Policy M37 seeks to protect groups of 10 or more residential properties from the effects of mineral development, including blasting, by setting a stand-off distance of 500 metres. In the case of the proposed extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry there are no groups of properties or individual properties within 500 metres of the site and the proposal would therefore accord with Policy M37. Notwithstanding the proposed extension having an acceptable stand-off distance it is important to consider the potential impacts of noise, dust and blasting.
Noise
115. Government guidance (as contained in the NPPG, which reaffirms advice contained in the now withdrawn Technical Guidance to the NPPF) advises that during normal working hours (0700 – 1900) and subject to a maximum of 55dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field), mineral planning authorities should aim to establish a noise limit, through a planning condition, at noise sensitive properties that does not exceed the background level by more than 10bB(A). It is recognised, however, that where this will be difficult to achieve without imposing unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator, the limit set should be as near to that level as practicable. During the evening (1900 – 2200) limits should not exceed background level by 10dB(A). During the night limits should be set to reduce to a minimum any adverse impacts, without imposing any unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator, but should not exceed 42dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field) at noise sensitive properties.
116. The NPPG also recognises that mineral operations will have some particularly noisy short term activities that cannot meet the limits set for normal operations. These include soil stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance. NPPG advice is that increased temporary daytime noise limits of up to 70dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field) for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year at specified noise sensitive properties should be considered in order to facilitate essential site preparation and restoration work and construction of baffle mounds where it is clear that this will bring longer-term environmental benefits to the site or its environs. Where work is expected to take longer than 8 weeks a lower limit over a longer period should be considered and in wholly exceptional cases, where there is no viable alternative, a higher limit for a very limited period may be appropriate in order to attain the environmental benefits.
117. A noise assessment has been carried out as part of the proposals the results of which are contained in the ES. The assessment has identified the types of plant to be used on site, the operations that would be carried out and the predicted noise levels associated. The assessment has also identified that the nearest sensitive properties are at Highland House, Farnless Farm, High Road Avenue at Bishop Middleham and Westfield Terrace at Bishop Middleham.
118. The recorded background noise level for Highland House was 39dB, 41dB for Farness Farm, 38dB at High Road Avenue and 38dB at Westfield Terrace. Noise generated from the development would vary as operations progress across the site. Predictions have therefore been made at the three proposed working phases. Predicted noise levels (based on a ‘worst case scenario’) indicate that normal site operations would not exceed the nominal limits of 55dB(A) L Aeq 1h and would not be 10dB(A) above measured background levels.
119. The predicted level for normal operations at Highland House is 44dB (potential increase in noise levels of 5dB), 44dB for Farness Farm (potential increase in noise levels of 3dB), 42dB at High Road Avenue (potential increase in noise levels of 4dB) and 40dB at Westfield Terrace (potential increase in noise levels of 38dB).
120. The noise conditions for the existing site state that noise emitted from operations on the site shall not result in ambient noise levels greater than 55dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield), 70dB(A)L MAX as measured at Highland House and 56dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield) at the agreed monitoring point on the site boundary. This level would be imposed for both developments should planning permission be granted. Noise mitigation measures are incorporated into the design of the proposed extension as well as specific measures. The proposed working method would involve the top benches being extracted with a 360 excavator and the bottom bench blasted, thereby reducing noise from blasting at surface level. Baffle mounds would be constructed along the southern and western boundaries of Phase 1A, haul road surfaces would be regularly graded and maintained to allow efficient use and minimise vehicle noise, vehicles and plant would be used in the most efficient way with regular maintenance to ensure that noise reduction measures continue to operate effectively.
121. The existing noise condition allows a higher noise level of 70dB(A)L MAX measured at Highland House for temporary operations such as soil stripping. The noise assessment has identified that this higher limit would not be required for the extension area as all operations are expected to be well within the 55dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield) at noise sensitive properties. However, the applicant has requested that the higher level limit be maintained be maintained in the noise conditions for both the existing site and the extension. The Environmental Health and Consumer Protection Team has viewed the submitted noise assessment and consider the predicted levels, monitoring points and mitigation measures to be acceptable but have recommended that a condition be imposed requiring that noise emitted from on-site operations shall not result in ambient noise levels greater than 55dB L Aeq 1hour as measured at the noise monitoring locations identified. Additionally, restrictions would continue to be imposed on working hours to ensure that operations are only carried out during daytime hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 12pm on Saturdays.
122. The NPPG does not provide guidance on appropriate noise levels for recreation areas. Previous Government Guidance (MPG11) recommended a noise level of 65dB Leq,1hr during the working day. The submitted noise assessment has not compared noise levels on the footpaths and bridleway around the site to this limit. However, given there is no limit specified in the NPPG and measures would be put in place to mitigate noise levels from the site, it has not therefore considered necessary for such an assessment to be undertaken. It is therefore considered that the impact of noise from the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the recreational value of the countryside, and the proposal would not conflict with MLP Policy M35.
123. There have not been complaints relating to noise from the existing quarry in the last 3 years. It is considered that the proposed noise predictions are reasonable and the recommended conditions afford a good level of protection to neighbouring residents in relation to both the extension and the existing site in accordance with the requirements of MLP Policy M36.
Dust
124. Mineral sites give rise to dust issues and it is accepted that the generation of dust can only be minimised and controlled rather than eradicated. The impact would depend on wind speed, the degree of rainfall and surface topography. The National Planning Practice Guidance sets out 5 stages for carrying out a dust assessment that would provide useful ways of mitigating dust from mineral development. These are to establish baseline conditions, identify activities that could lead to dust emissions, identify site parameters that may increase potential impacts.
125. A dust assessment has been carried out as part of the proposals the results of which are contained in the ES. The assessment has identified baseline conditions including potentially sensitive receptors, existing dust sources, typical dust levels, topography of the site and meteorological conditions; the potential impacts including soil stripping, drilling and blasting, mineral extraction, on site haulage, crushing and screening, erosion from bare ground and stockpiles and loading and off site haulage; evaluation of the impacts on upon the nearest receptors, and; mitigation proposals.
126. The assessment concludes that operations carried out within the proposed extension area would remain essentially the same as those carried out under the current permission with the same rate of extraction and hours of working. It is anticipated that the size of dust particles generated by soil working is likely to be between 1 and 70 µm with the majority over 30 µm in size. It is stated that the larger fractions of dust would be deposited with 100m of the release point, and therefore the dust would not reach the nearest receptors even with the prevailing wind blowing directly toward them. The extraction of stone from the operational area would move further away from the potentially sensitive receptors and beyond the threshold where dust deposition would likely cause an impact, particularly with the workings screened by the quarry faces.
127. The existing dust conditions would be amended to reflect the recent assessment and proposed new monitoring points and applied to both the proposed extension and existing site. The conditions would continue to seek dust suppression through the use of water bowsers and reducing the speed of vehicles on site to prevent dust being raised. The applicant has also proposed to retain the existing dust management conditions that require water suppression and monitoring. Pollution Control has not requested any additional conditions and welcomes the submission of a revised dust management scheme for the site. In addition, a condition has been recommended to ensure that HGVs leaving the site sheet any loads with stone less than 200mm diameter.
128. It is noted that objectors to the submission have referred to concerns relating to dust. However, having considered the impact of the proposed extension and variation to the existing site on residential amenity in terms of dust it is considered that the impacts could be controlled through requirements to mitigate any adverse effects on the nearest properties as the proposed conditions do thus according with MLP Policy M36.
Blasting
129. Blasting takes place at the existing quarry and is proposed for the extension. The three effects associated with blasting, are ground vibration, air overpressure (or air blast wave) and projected rock particles (flyrock). The extent of disturbance is dependent on a number of factors including type and quantity of explosive, degree of confinement, distance to nearest buildings, the geology and topography of the site and atmospheric conditions.
130. A blasting assessment has been carried out as part of the proposals the results of which are contained in the ES. The blasting assessment concludes that all blasts at Bishop Middleham Quarry, both in the proposed extension and in the existing site shall be designed in order to comply to a vibration criteria of 3mm/s peak particle velocity at a 95% confidence level as measured in any plane (longitudinal, vertical and transverse). The blasting assessment also considers the cumulative impact of blasting in the proposed Bishop Middleham Extension and Thrislington Quarry Eastern Extension and identifies that the 2 operators will liaise to ensure that blasts are not carried out simultaneously.
131. Blasting of rock is only required to extract the low benches of material that would be used for aggregate. Blasts would be required approximately once every 3 to 5 weeks, amounting to 15 to 20 blasts per annum. Conditions attached to the existing site limit blasting to between 10am and 4pm Monday to Friday and not more than once each day. A top limit on ground vibrations is set at 6mm/sec in any plane at the nearest occupied dwelling to such operations with 95% of all blasts generating ground vibrations of less than 3mm/sec in any 12 month period. It is considered that these conditions should be repeated for the proposed extension with the modification that measured period should be 6 months to ensure that the operator designs blasts in such a manner that would reduce ground vibrations to an acceptable level in accordance with MLP Policy M36 and Paragraph 144 of the NPPF.
Landscape and visual impact
132. The County Durham Landscape Character Assessment (2008) shows the site as lying within the East Durham Limestone Plateau County Character Area which forms part of the larger East Durham Magnesian Limestone Plateau National Character Area. It lies in an area belonging to the Limestone Escarpment broad landscape type in the Limestone Escarpment Ridge broad character area.
133. The site lies on the gently sloping dip-slope of the escarpment ridge and is made up of open arable farmland divided by low hawthorn hedges of early post medieval origins with occasional hedgerow ash. The boundary network has been heavily fragmented by field amalgamations. The site is bounded to the north and east by the active Bishop Middleham Extension quarry and beyond that the flatter land of the ridgetop which will be worked as Thrislington Extension. To the south lies arable farmland of similar character falling towards the village of Bishop Middleham. The A1 (M) crosses the escarpment immediately to the west.
134. The site lies in an area identified in the County Durham Landscape Strategy (2008) as a Landscape Improvement Priority Area where the strategy is to enhance landscape character. This reflects the fragmented character of the field boundary network in that area.
135. The landscape of the site itself is in moderate condition. The field boundary network is fragmented but it retains some mature features. It is of moderate scenic quality being reasonably attractive open countryside. It has little recreational value in itself being arable farmland but is bordered by minor lanes and public footpaths serving the village of Bishop Middleham.
136. Impacts on the topography of the site would be transformative during the working period. The area disturbed is gently sloping land without any complex natural landforms that would be difficult to replicate. The site would be restored broadly to existing levels and character in around 20 years. The working method has been designed to minimise adverse effects on the topography should there be a shortfall in imported materials in future by leaving the potential for a residual void with stable slopes in the lower eastern part of the site.
137. The proposed extension would entail the removal of some sections of hedgerow and some individual ash trees. The hedges are not particularly species rich or difficult to replace. The advanced planting and restoration proposals provide for the reinstatement of field boundaries to a pattern similar to that which previously existed, locally strengthened with some small linear woodland features.
138. It is proposed to retain a number of trees on the site's boundaries. As noted in the LVIA it would be essential to avoid damaging operations within the RPAs of these trees, and particularly those that are skyline features in views from the south. Should the proposals be approved, a detailed scheme for the protection of retained trees based on BS5837 would need to be required by condition.
139. The proposed restoration back to existing levels and landuse would be in keeping with the character of the dip-slope and would not be inappropriate. It would not offer any significant long term benefits in respect of landscape character or biodiversity that might offset short and medium term harm.
140. The effects of the proposals would be localised. High ground of the escarpment ridge restricts visibility to the north, and views from the south tend to be screened by intervening features or are shallow in nature. The overall effect on the landscape of the wider character area both in respect of the loss of features within the site and the visual intrusion of engineering operations would be low.
141. The effects on the character of the landscape in the immediate vicinity of the site - within - around 500m would be generally of a medium magnitude during the operational period. Soil mounds would be visible along the southern and western perimeter of the site and on the ridgeline north of the Phase 2 area during Phase 1. Extraction faces and activities in the upper parts of the void including vehicle movements would be locally visible in shallow views over these mounds at times.
142. It is proposed to place graded material on the western top bench of Phase 1 and the northern top bench of Phase 2 and to progressively green these areas up to reduce impacts in views from the south and east.
143. Advance planting of a hedge along the southern site boundary is proposed which would be beneficial in screening or assimilating the perimeter soil mound. Should the proposals be approved this should be secured by condition.
144. The visual effects of the proposals would vary in magnitude throughout the operational period. They would be temporary but relatively long term (up to 35 years). On restoration the site would return progressively to something close to its current character. The proposed minor improvements in tree and hedge planting would lead to a minor positive effect.
145. The proposed enhancement of the landscape of the site albeit modest in scale would be consistent with the Landscape Strategy for the area which is to enhance its character. The proposed extension would be consistent with Policy M24 in that respect.
146. The restoration of the site as a whole, both the extension and existing quarry, would provide a natural and well screened habitat and it is considered this would accord with MLP Policies M46, M47 and M52.
Public Rights of Way
147. There are no public rights of way that would be directly affected by the proposed extension, however, there are several footpaths in the vicinity; Footpath No. 13 (Bishop Middleham Parish) runs to the north, Footpaths No’s. 2, 3 and 16 (Bishop Middleham Parish) run to the eastern side of the site and Footpaths 1 and 15 (Bishop Middleham Parish) are situated to the south of the site and these run northwards from the houses in Bishop Middleham to the C26 road where they meet and terminate.
148. There is a section of disused highway from the C46 that heads north east toward the embankment of the A1(M). Although this section of road is normally closed off with a gate it is still frequently used by walkers. The applicant does not have control of this land but has proposed a link route between the (diverted) Footpath No.13 and the disused road in order to create a circular route around the quarry. This would be a permissive path for the life of the site and is included on the site plans.
149. It is proposed to reinstate Footpath No.3 into the original quarry void as part of the final restoration. The additional loop included would be a permissive path but could be upgraded at a later date.
150. The Access and Rights of Way Team have considered the proposals and have raised no objections. It is considered that no Public Rights of Way would be harmed by the proposal and additional permissive routes for the life of the site would be created. Any adverse impact on users of the routes would be for the duration which they use the route and measures would be put in place to ensure that any potential impacts would be mininised. Impacts such as noise, dust and visual impact are addressed elsewhere in the report. It is therefore considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the recreational value of the countryside. The proposals would therefore accord with MLP Policy M35
Biodiversity interests
151. Within 2km of the application site lies the Bishop Middleham Quarry SSSI, the Thrislington Plantation Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Carrs SSSI to the west and Raisby Hill Grassland SSSI to the north east. A number of Local Wildlife Sites are also located within 2km of the application site. These being Garmondsway Moor to the east alongside the A177 and Garmondsway Triangle near Harap Road to the east. In addition County Geological sites exist close by at Bishop Middleham Quarry, at Rough Furze Quarry and at Thrislington Quarry.
152. An ecological assessment has been submitted with the application and is contained in the ES. This includes an extended Phase 1 habitat survey and a breeding bird survey. The breeding bird survey identified a large number of bird species present within the area but also noted that the loss of the arable field habitat would have a low significance and the breeding birds would be displaced to the surrounding fields. The extended phase 1 survey indicated that the land is of low value to wildlife dominated by two fields which contain arable monocultures. The boundary hedgerows are species poor, generally dense to heights of two metres and feature predominantly hawthorn and elder. The resultant protected species survey identified that a very small number of relatively common bat species may be on site, the risk to Great Crested Newts and Badger in the application area is negligible and as both otter and water vole are intrinsically linked to aquatic habitats both species are considered absent from the site and it is considered highly unlikely that either species will frequent the site. The survey states that no other protected species are considered to be affected by the proposals. The identified mitigation measures include ensuring that all tree, hedgerow and vegetation clearance is undertaken outside of the bird breeding season, full tree risk assessment carried out to demonstrate that roosting or breeding bats are absent, the cliff face in the north west corner of the existing site is to be made unsuitable for Sand Martin breeding prior to the commencement of works, hedgerow habitats to be retained where possible and works to remove scrub and rubble piles should be carried out in accordance with reptile method statement to protect any potential reptiles on site.
153. Natural England has advised that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect in respect of protected species provided that the development is carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the extended phase 1 habit survey but do note that there is a risk of disturbance to the bat population and recommend that a licence may be required to carry out the mitigation work. The Council’s Ecology officer has also considered the submitted details and has not raised any objections provided that the mitigation strategy is adhered but has also stated that the proposed restoration of the application site should be changed from agriculture to magnesian grassland.
154. Whilst allowing a lower level restoration of the site to magnesian grassland rather than agriculture would provide a biodiversity gain it is not considered appropriate in this remote area that is surrounded by arable fields that are not part of the quarry. The extension area is disparate from the existing Bishop Middleham Quarry SSSI and would not be viewed as an extension to this, nor would it be easily accessible. It is considered in this visible location it is preferable to return the site to the surrounding ground level through infilling and bring it back into use as arable fields. This would not provide any direct biodiversity gains but as the land has been identified as having a low habitat value there would be no loss either. The proposals include a reduction in the volume of infilling in the existing site to the east as part of the variation and increase the amount of magnesian grassland in this area. In order to ensure the long term maintenance of the Magnesian Grassland it is recommended that a Section 39 (Wildlife and Countryside Act) be entered into. It is therefore considered that when examining the site holistically there would be a net biodiversity gain. MLP Policy M29 requires the incorporation of measures to ensure any adverse impact on nature conservation interest is minimised but also requires that regard is given to opportunities for the creation of new areas of conservation interest as well as the need to conserve local features of nature conservation value. It is considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policy M29 and Paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF.
Access and traffic
155. Access to the site would be via the existing access road to the C26 Road that joins the A177 approximately 750m to the east. Vehicles exiting the site pass one property before reaching the junction with the A177, which is East House farm. Vehicle movements are not currently controlled and currently average 120 in and 120 out. It is not envisaged that there would be an increase in movements from the existing quarry as a result of the proposed extension.
156. A Transport Statement has been submitted and is included within the ES. The statement identifies baseline conditions and existing traffic flows and assesses this against the proposed extension. The statement also considers highway safety in relation to the existing quarry and proposed extension. The statement concludes that the surrounding highway infrastructure can accommodate the predicted development traffic with no material impact on highway safety or the operational capacity of the road network.
157. The primary issue raised by those residents objecting to the extension and variation is in relation to highways, specifically the condition and cleanliness of the C46 road. Objectors have stated that flooding of the field to the north of the C46 has caused the road to be dirty and that this has been exacerbated by quarry traffic, that is not being appropriately cleaned or sheeted, eroding the highway verge and creating holes and stones that are thrown up at cars.
158. The Highway Authority has considered the issues raised by objectors and investigated the condition of the C46 road. It was found that there had been encroachement, verge overrun and loss of the edge of carriageway white line over a significant section of the road between the site entrance and the junction with the A177. The loss of the continuous edge of carriageway white line would, in particular, be deeemed to be a highway safety issue requiring mitigation works. The County Highways Authority have recommended that a 125mm faced road kerb edge restraint is introduced along a section of approximately 390m of the northern verge of the C46.
159. The applicant has agreed to carry out the necessary improvement works to the C46 stated above. In order to ensure that the works are carried out a condition is recommended to require a scheme to be submitted and agreed within 3 months and implemented 6 months of planning permission being granted. The applicant has also supplied a Transport Statement that suggests a range of mitigation measures to ensure that highway safety is not impacted by the development including wheel washing, sheeting of vehicles, road sweeping when necessary, appropriate means of transporting plant to the site and operating a code of conduct for drivers working out of the site.
160. The Highways Agency and Highway Authority have raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions being imposed to ensure the above mitigation measures are adhered to and that the improvements to the C46 highway verge are carried out. It is therefore conisdered that the proposed development would accord with MLP Policies 36, 42 and 43 in terms of control of pollution (dust and mud related to highway traffic), access, highway safety, amenity of roadside communities and improvements to the highway network.
Hydrology
161. A water resources assessment has been carried out as part of the proposals the results of which are contained in the ES. The assessment has identified baseline conditions for the site in relation to hydrogeology, hydrology, flood risk, groundwater levels and flow and groundwater quality. The assessment concludes that the working and restoration of the site would, through appropriate management and mitigation, present a negligible or minor impact upon the identified receptors, including the Magnesian Limestone Principal Aquifer.
162. The existing quarry and proposed extension are not within the vicinity of any controlled watercourses, or within Flood Risk Zones 2 or 3. The Environment Agency has considered the proposal and commented that water levels within the Magnesian Limestone aquifer underlying the site are known to be variable and rose to a record level in early 2013. The rapid rise in water levels is thought to be the result of prolonged rainfall and snow melt and reduced leakage of groundwater to the underlying Coal Measures. The Environment Agency is unable to predict when and at what level groundwater is likely to stabilise.
163. Ground water levels are highest in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Phase 1 of the proposed extension. Levels in this area have historically been between 87m and 100m AOD but in order to precisely determine the depth of excavations the operator would need to demonstrate that a sufficient unsaturated zone is present that would ensure that the landfill does not become sub-water table at any time. This is likely to be most difficult for Phase 1C, which would excavate stone from the Raisby Formation in the north and west of the site. The eastern extension to Thrislington is expected to encounter the water table as development progresses and dewatering activities will be undertaken with groundwater recharged to ‘recharge features’, some of which are to be located within the vicinity of the proposed extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry. This may temporarily raise the water levels at the northern boundary of the proposed extension, which would limit the depth of excavations.
164. In order to ensure that the risks to groundwater resources remain low the Environment Agency have recommended a condition to require submission of a scheme to monitor groundwater levels and use the date to determine the depth of excavation within each phase of the extension. A further condition is recommended to ensure that no dewatering occurs on the site and that the base of excavations during each phase of works should be a minimum of 4 metres above the height of the groundwater table within the Magnesian Limestone aquifer. Finally, a condition is recommended to ensure that any oils, fuels and chemicals are appropriately stored in bunded tanks on impervious bases
165. Provided that the above conditions are complied with it is considered that the proposed extension to the quarry and subsequent restoration through landfilling would not cause or contribute to any pollution of groundwater resources in accordance with MLP Policy M38, WLP Policy W27 and Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
166. Bishop Middleham Conservation Area is located just over 1km to the south of the site but there is not visual relationship between the conservation area and the quarry extension. There are 3 listed buildings within 1km of the site; the Manor House, the Dun Cow Public House and associated mounting blocks, and The Cottage (12 High Street), all of which are in Bishop Middleham to the south of the application site and all Grade II. In addition to the listed buildings there are 3 Scheduled Monuments within 5km of the application site; Middleham Castle located 1.3km to the south, Garmondsway Village 2.5km to the north east and Coxhoe medieval settlement 3.1km to the north.
167. A desk based heritage assessment is included in the ES. The assessment considers the designated and non-designated heritage assets around the site, historic maps and previous archaeological work. Following initial comments from Archaeological Officers a geophysical survey was carried out in 2013 and evaluation trenching carried out in 2014 of Phase 1. The assessment work concludes that there are no designated or non-designated heritage assets that would present a constraint to the proposed extension but does identify that there is a moderate to high potential for sub-surface prehistoric remains to be found on the extension area.
168. The Archaeology Team have raised no objections to the proposal as assessment work has concluded that remains do not appear to be of regional, or higher, importance. Conditions have been recommended to ensure that archaeological excavation and recording are carried out in each phase of working.
169. It is considered that due to the distance and topography of the area the listed buildings and monuments are sufficiently separated from the quarry so as not to be impacted. The Design and Conservation Team have raised no objections to the proposal and have commented that the restoration is respectful of the historic field boundaries.
170. It is considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policy M30 in relation to listed buildings and conservation areas and MLP Policies M31, 32 and 33 in relation to Archaeological evaluation, remains and recording, and Paragraph 132 of the NPPF.
Soils and Agriculture
171. A soils and agriculture assessment is included in the ES. The assessment provides baseline data in relation to field units, soil characteristics, drainage and agricultural land classification (ALC). The proposed extension area is comprised of three field units; two arable fields supporting winter wheat and one set aside field. The soils are free draining and no evidence of underdrainage or surface drainage systems were recorded. The ALC for the extension area is recorded as being Grade 2 / Grade 3a (best and most versatile).
172. The assessment provides a mitigation strategy for the protection of the soils during handling and storage including ensuring that soils are only moved when dry, subsoil and topsoil are stored separately, mounds are appropriately seeded and measures taken to reduce compaction. The assessment concludes that the proposed extension would result in the temporary loss of 12.8 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land, however, this would be replaced through the restoration of the site and, provided that mitigation measures are employed, there would be a low negative impact upon topsoil quality.
173. Natural England have considered the soils and agriculture assessment and are satisfied that the site working and reclamation proposals provided in support of the application meet the requirements for sustainable minerals development. In particular it is noted that it is demonstrated in the ES that an area of the best and most versatile land disturbed as a result of the development should be capable of being reinstated to a similar quality, suited to an agricultural after use. Natural England consider the conditions for the existing quarry to be of a suitable standard for handling soils but have recommended 2 additional conditions relating to aftercare and protection of breeding birds.
174. Although the proposed extension would result in the temporary loss of best and most versatile agricultural land it is considered that this can be replaced to an equivalent standard. It is therefore considered that the proposed extension accords with MLP Policy M34.
Cumulative Impact
175. Paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF and Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Practice Guidance recognises that some areas may have been subject to successive mineral development over a number of years. It is recommended that development plans and when determining planning applications local planning authorities should take into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality. It is stated that the cumulative impact of mineral development is capable of being a material consideration when determining individual planning applications.
176. Bishop Middleham Quarry is one of several mineral developments on the Magnesian Limestone escarpment. The other key sites within close proximity are Thrislington Quarry to the west and Thrislington Quarry Extension directly to the north, Cornforth Quarry (East and West) straddling the A1(M) approximately 1.8km to the north, Coxhoe Quarry approximately 3.3km to the north east and Old Quarrington Quarry located approximately 5.2km to the north. All of these sites have an extant planning permission, however, Cornforth Quarry is not currently operational. A former limestone quarry restored by waste disposal in 1995 is located at Highland Farm immediately to the south of the site.
177. The cumulative impacts of multiple quarries working in close proximity primarily relate to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area and also the combined impacts of noise, dust, ground vibrations from blasting, hydrology and traffic movements. The ES contains a Cumulative Impact assessment that considers landscape, visual amenity, noise, dust and traffic (cumulative effects of blasting and hydrology are considered separately). The assessment concludes that although there are a number of other quarries in the area it is only the recently permitted Eastern Extension to Thrislington Quarry that might result in an overall adverse cumulative impact on the amenity of surrounding land users. Through assessing the impacts it is demonstrated that the proposed extension to Bishop Middleh Quarry and the Eastern Extension to Thrislington Quarry would not result in an adverse cumulative impact.
178. The cumulative effect of quarrying activities in this local character area including those of Thrislington Quarry, Thrislington Extension, and Bishop Middleham is already substantial. This is a dynamic picture which is difficult to quantify due to the varied effects of different sites at different times. The proposal extension would add to those effects. However, each existing operation has its own conditions to control and mitigate the environmental effects. The proposals would extend the landscape and visual effects of quarrying activities further into the otherwise undisturbed parts of the character area, and would add to the effects of approved operations in sequential views as people travel around local roads and footpaths. The longer term restoration of the site to existing levels would limit this effect to within the operational extraction and infilling period. Landscape officers have stated that given the relatively high existing and emerging effect of quarrying activity in the locality it is considered that the additional impacts, although modest in themselves, are of some significance.
179. The impacts of noise and dust have been considered in relation to the surrounding area and other workings and it is considered that there is adequate mitigation proposed, as detailed above, and conditions would be imposed to set maximum levels that would need to be adhered to. The frequency of blasting at Bishop Middleham would be low (once every 3 to 5 weeks) and would be designed to ensure that ground vibrations are below the threshold level of 3mm/sec. In relation to impacts from traffic, HGV’s use the C46 from Ferryhill to get to the A177 and A688, which is the main link to the A1(M). The A177 and A688 are also used by HGV’s from Coxhoe and Thrislington Quarries. Traffic movements from the site would not increase as a result of the proposed extension but would remain at the same level for an extended period of time so the impact would be prolonged rather than intensified.
180. There has been a succession of mineral and waste operations within the vicinity of the application site that have affected the environmental character and quality of the local area and perceptions of it. This has heightened sensitivities about continued working within some local communities and its impacts on the quality of life. These concerns have some justification and it is accepted that any large-scale excavation will give rise to cumulative environmental effects on its own and in combination with nearby sites regardless of appropriate mitigation measures. Nevertheless, having assessed the likely environmental effects of the proposed development and the relationship of the site to neighbouring quarries, settlements and the closest properties, it is considered that the known programme of working in the area and its impacts would not give rise to unacceptable cumulative effects of an adverse nature.
181. The combined effects of working any large-scale excavation may in itself also have some cumulative impacts on environmental and living conditions and the perceptions of the those within the vicinity of the area. Whilst these have some weight, sufficient information has been provided in this instance and considered in this report, to show that the effects can be effectively mitigated and would not raise material conflict with MLP Policy M45 and concerning cumulative effects.
182. It is therefore considered that although the cumulative impacts of landscape, noise, dust, blasting and traffic are of some significance they do not constitute a degree of harm that would substantiate a refusal under the criteria set out in any of the relevant policies from the MLP. It is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policy M45 and Paragraph 144 of the NPPF.
Policy Monitoring
183. To enable monitoring and assist the Minerals Planning Authority in the forward planning of mineral resource the applicant has agreed to a condition requiring the submission of details of sales and reserves until workable reserves are exhausted.
CONCLUSION
184. Bishop Middleham Quarry is an established minerals site with a planning history dating from 1948 and a current permission that extends until 2015 for mineral extraction and 2021 for restoration. The quarry directly employs 30 people, many of which live within the immediate locality.
185. The key planning issues in the determination of this application were the need for the stone and the restoration of the site through importation of waste soils and clay. The applicant has demonstrated that a core element, and in fact the founding element, of their business is the production and sale of agricultural lime. Whilst there is no specific policy for considering agricultural lime separately from crushed aggregate it is noted that the material from Bishop Middleham is of a high standard and is a nationally desirable product, as has been shown through the wide degree of support for the proposal from agricultural contractors and farmers. The agricultural lime element of the of the proposed extension accounts for the majority of material to be extracted with the remainder being suitable for use as a crushed rock aggregate. In addition, it is recognised that a significant portion of the crushed rock landbank in County Durham is bound up in sites operated by a single operator, many of which are mothballed or producing very small quantities of material. W & M Thompsons (Quarries) Ltd (the applicant) are a privately owned company and the continued operation of Bishop Middleham Quarry would assist in ensuring that crushed rock market in County Durham remains competitive and is not monopolised by single operator.
186. The importation and landfilling of waste soils and clay to restore the proposed extension would be a departure from policy which seeks to minimise the amount of waste that is disposed of. However, in approximately 10 years, based on current planning permissions, Bishop Middleham Quarry would be the only site in County Durham with a void capacity for inert waste. It is considered that there is likely to always be a fraction of waste that cannot be fully recovered through reuse or recycling and capacity will be required to dispose of this. Furthermore, it is considered in the case of the proposed extension to Bishop Middleham that infilling the site to level in order to return the site to agriculture would be the most visually appropriate form of restoration and also necessary to ensure that the best and most versatile agricultural land is lost.
187. The proposed extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry would add to the scale of mineral extraction in the immediate locality and there is the possibility that three sites to the east of the A1(M) between Bishop Middleham and West Cornforth could operate simultaneously at some point. The cumulative impact of quarrying on the area is therefore a valid planning consideration. These combinations would reinforce the adverse effects of working to an extent, but active working areas within the sites would not generally converge towards the small number of residential properties close by at the same time. Within the phasing programmes and in agreement between the operators, activities such as blasting can also be staggered to maintain a reasonable degree of spacing to help reduce potential disturbance. Although there are some uncertainties about the timing of future working at Cornforth East in particular, it is considered that the proposed extension can co-exist with existing workings in terms of environmental impacts over the life of the development.
188. The proposals have generated some public interest with representations reflecting the issues and concerns of local residents affected by the proposed developments. Careful consideration was given to the concerns raised throughout the consideration process and these have been taken into account and addressed within the body of the report. Potential impacts on local amenity associated with matters such as noise, dust and visual impact, blasting and access and traffic matters can be controlled through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and planning conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
That the applications for the proposed western extension for the extraction of 5.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone over a 14 year period with restoration to agriculture through landfilling of clay and soils over a 20 year period and the variation to Conditions 1 and 7 of Planning Permission T/APP/H1345/A/96/267255 as amended by Planning Permission No’s. 7/98/58CM and 7/2003/0045CM in order to extend the date for completion of mineral extraction, revise the method of mineral extraction and revise phasing of inert landfill operations both be APPROVED subject to the following conditions and completion of a Section 39 (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) legal agreement.
Proposed western extension for the extraction of 5.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone over a 14 year period with restoration to agriculture through landfilling of clay and soils over a 20 year period
Approved documents
1. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the following documents (subject to matters subsequently agreed under Condition 3 or unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority):
Planning Application Form and Environmental Statement submitted February 2013 and: i) Drawing No. NT10961-106 – ‘BM/5/1 Composite Phasing Plan’ ii) Drawing No. NT10961-106 – ‘BM/5/2 Phase 1A Excavation’ iii) Drawing No. NT10961-107 – ‘BM/5/3 Phase 1B Excavation’ iv) Drawing No. NT10961-108 – ‘BM/5/4 Phase 1C Excavation’ v) Drawing No. NT10961-108 – ‘BM/5/5 Phase 2 Excavation’ vi) Drawing No. NT10961-108 – ‘BM/5/6 Phase 3 Excavation’ vii) Drawing No. NT10961-112 – ‘BM/5/7 Cross Section through Western Boundary’ viii)Drawing No. NT10961-126 – ‘BM/5/8 Advance Planting Proposals’ ix) Drawing No. NT10961-111 – ‘BM/6/2 Restoration Masterplan’ x) Drawing No. NT10961/Figure 5 – ‘BM/13/3 Proposed Noise and Dust Monitoring Points’
2. From the date of this permission until completion of the development, a copy of this permission including all documents hereby approved and any other documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission, shall be permanently maintained available for inspection at the site office. (1)
Matters requiring subsequent approval
3. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with a scheme or schemes to be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority which shall include provision for;
a) The existing hedgerow, tree and shrub planting which has been carried out on the screening mounds around the edge of the site shall be maintained for the life of this permission. Such maintenance shall include any cutting and weeding of the planting area and, repairing of any damaged fencing and the replacement of any plants that die. (2)
b) the aftercare of the restored land for five years, after the replacement of soils or other surface material to bring the land to a condition where it is fit for the approved after-use. (3, 17)
c) details of the restoration of the site, which shall include;
i) the drainage of the restored site to include full provision for dealing with run- off from the restored landform. (3,8) ii) the erection of fences. (3,10,13) iii) the planting of trees and hedges and their subsequent maintenance for five years. (3) iv) the seeding mix to be used on the area proposed to be restored to arable agricultural land. (3, 15) v) the treatment of the arable agricultural area following sowing to include rate and type of fertiliser to be applied, cutting rates, works to prevent scrub colonisation and weeds. (3,15) vi) the works to be undertaken to form scree slopes and ledges in accordance with the approved restoration plan to include blasting and grading of overburden material, and details of the works to and around the County Geological Site in the north face of the existing quarry void. (3) vii) the respreading of soils in, and the treatment of areas to be restored to Magnesian Limestone grassland, to include the seeding mix to be used and the scrub colonisation prevention and other aftercare provisions as may be necessary. (3) viii) the design and layout of footpaths and tracks crossing the restored site. (3, 7, 10, 13) ix) any works to the underpass. (3) x) a subsequent maintenance and management programme during the aftercare period once any hedgerow, tree, and shrub planting has been carried out, which shall include the weeding of the planted area, repairing of any damaged fencing, and the replacement of any plants which die or are seriously affected by disease and a detailed schedule as to when the aftercare period commences. (3)
d) The aftercare of the land for five years, after the replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 74. (17)
e) The Dust Suppression Scheme approved under Planning Permission CMA/7/64 shall be reviewed and updated and any necessary alterations submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this permission. The dust suppression measures to be employed shall include: (i) the provision of mobile water bowsers. (5) (ii) the use of dust filters on all fixed plant and machinery. (5) (iii) a speed limit of 15 mph on all internal haul roads. (5) (iv) all haul roads and areas used for the storage or quarried material shall be watered during dry windy conditions. (5) (iv) a static dust suppression system along the 400m length of the haul road. (5)
f) Within 3 months of planning permission being granted details of the northern verge protection works, between the eastern limit of the birdsmouth fence to the existing agricultural field access opposite East House Farm, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved northern verge protection works must be completed within 6 months of planning permission being granted. (9)
4. Those details required by Condition 3 above shall be submitted within 12 months of the date of this permission and be implemented in accordance with the timescales detailed in the scheme as approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3, 4)
Commencement
5. The development hereby approved must commence not later than three years from the date of this certificate, commencement being the removal of topsoil and/or subsoil for the purpose of winning and working of minerals in any part of the site. (22)
6. At least seven days advance notice of the date of commencement of the development shall be given, in writing, to the Minerals Planning Authority. (1)
Completion
7. No further mineral extraction shall take place after 30 th June 2029. (1, 4)
8. The site shall be restored in terms of the replacement of all soils in accordance with Drawing No. NT10961-111 – ‘Restoration Masterplan’, not later than the 30 th June 2052. (1, 3, 4)
9. An annual review of operations at the site shall be prepared by the operator and submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority no later than 31st August each year. The report of the annual review shall include the following information (i) a drawing showing an up to date survey of the whole site at a scale not less than 1:2500 showing the location of quarry faces, the extent of progressive restoration showing contours at 2 metres intervals, position of haul roads, temporary fencing, the location and size of any stockpiles of soil or overburden, details of the remaining void space should also be provided; (ii) the results of all blast monitoring; (iii) the results of all noise monitoring; (iv) the results of all dust monitoring; (v) proposals for improvement or other amendments the company may wish to make to the agreed monitoring regimes; (vi) suitable reversing alarms used/to be used onsite; (vii) identification of any difficulties with operations and/or of complying with the planning requirements which may have been encountered at the site during the relevant period, and (viii) details of any complaints received and details of how they were dealt with.
A review meeting will be held before the end of November each year between the Minerals Planning Authority and the site operator to discuss the content of the report. (1,2,3)
10. In the event of insufficient waste being available to achieve the approved restoration contours at the time of the expiry of each phase of infilling as shown in table 1 ( contained within the Environmental Statement submitted as part of the 2013 application), the operator shall review the approved restoration plan in consultation with the MPA and if deemed necessary and alternative restoration proposals should be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority within 12 months of the expiry of the phase so as to provide an alternative restoration scheme for the site if deemed necessary by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3, 4)
Works required for Site Preparation
11. Before further soil stripping operations take place, the following works shall be carried out:
i) The installation of drainage arrangements appropriate to the area to be stripped. (3, 8) ii) Perimeter stockproof fencing as necessary. (3, 11)
Working Times
12. No operations shall take place outside the hours of:
07.00 hrs to 19.00 hrs Monday to Friday 07.00 hrs to 12.00 hrs Saturday
or at any time on Sundays, Bank or other public holidays, save in cases of essential maintenance or emergency when life limb or property are in danger. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is practical after the occurrence of any such emergency. (1, 5)
Water Resources
13. Notwithstanding the details submitted for the proposed development of the site, there shall be no active de-watering of the site. The base of excavations during each phase of works should be a minimum of 4 metres above the height of the groundwater table within the Magnesian Limestone aquifer. ( 19)
14. Prior to commencement of Phase 1 details of a scheme to monitor groundwater levels and method to use the data to determine the depth of excavation within each phase of the extension shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority. Details of the depth of the excavations should be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for agreement prior to commencement of each phase of works. (19)
15. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels and chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points and vents must be located within the bund. The drainage system for the bund should be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed and discharge downwards into the bund. (20)
Access and Protection of the Public Highway
16. There shall be no vehicular access to and from the site except for the for site dump trucks using the approved access through the tunnel. Road wagons shall remain on metalled surface and shall only use the access road C16. (9)
17. No vehicle shall exit the site onto the public highway unless the wheel cleaning equipment installed in accordance with the Condition 11 iii) has been used to ensure that they are thoroughly cleansed of mud. (5, 9)
18. No vehicle shall leave the site unless the load is fully covered by sheeting. (9)
19. The total number of HGV’s entering and leaving the site shall not exceed a daily maximum of 150 in and 150 out. A record of all vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be maintained by the operator and a copy of this record shall be afforded to the Waste Planning Authority within 2 working days of such a request. (9)
Archaeological Interest
20. No development within Phase 1 area shall take place until a programme of archaeological mitigation in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) document that has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include details of the following: i) Measures to ensure the preservation by record of archaeological features of identified importance within the area identified on submitted plans as Phase 1 by means of a ¿strip, map and record¿ strategy. ii) Methodologies for the recording and recovery of archaeological remains including artefacts and ecofacts. iii) Postfieldwork methodologies for assessment and analyses. iv) Report content and arrangements for dissemination, and publication proposals. v) Archive preparation and deposition with recognised repositories. vi) A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the strategy. vii) Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Principal Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works. viii)A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including subcontractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications.
The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details. (21)
21. Prior to the commencement of Phase 2, a copy of any postexcavation assessment, analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the Phase 1 mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record. This may include full analysis and final publication. (22)
22. No development within the Phase 2 area shall take place until a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide for: i) The proper evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the Phase 2 area in accordance with a written scheme of investigation agreed in advance with the Mineral Planning Authority; ii) An assessment of the impact of the proposed development on any archaeological remains identified in Phase 2; iii) Proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation, recording and recovery of archaeological remains in accordance with a written scheme of investigation agreed in advance with the Mineral Planning Authority iv) Sufficient notification and allowance of time to archaeological contractors nominated by the developer to ensure that archaeological fieldwork as proposed in pursuance of (i) and (iii) above is completed prior to the commencement of permitted development in the area of archaeological interest; and v) Notification in writing to the County Durham and Darlington County Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works.
The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details. (21)
23. Prior to the commencement of Phase 3, a copy of any post excavation assessment, analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the Phase 2 mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record. This may include full analysis and final publication. (22)
24. No development within the Phase 3 area shall take place until a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide for: i) The proper evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the Phase 2 area in accordance with a written scheme of investigation agreed in advance with the Mineral Planning Authority; ii) An assessment of the impact of the proposed development on any archaeological remains identified in Phase 2; iii) Proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation, recording and recovery of archaeological remains in accordance with a written scheme of investigation agreed in advance with the Mineral Planning Authority iv) Sufficient notification and allowance of time to archaeological contractors nominated by the developer to ensure that archaeological fieldwork as proposed in pursuance of (i) and (iii) above is completed prior to the commencement of permitted development in the area of archaeological interest; and v) Notification in writing to the County Durham and Darlington County Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works.
The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details. (21)
25. Within 12 months of Phase 3 archaeological fieldwork, a copy of any post excavation assessment, analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the Phase 3 mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record.
In addition, a final full analysis report drawing together the results of all three phases of work will be submitted to the County Durham Historic Environment Record.This may require publication into a wider academic outlet in order to ensure that the full public benefit test of the NPPF is met. (22)
Soil Stripping
26. No topsoil or subsoil stripping shall take place unless the Minerals Planning Authority has been given at least seven days notice (excluding Sundays), of any such works which shall proceed only when agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority. (2, 5)
27. No areas shall be excavated, or used for the stationing of plant and buildings, the storage of subsoils and overburden, haul roads and other areas to be traversed by heavy machinery until the topsoil has been stripped from these areas and it shall then be stored until required for restoration. (1, 2, 3)
28. No plant or vehicles shall cross any areas of unstripped topsoil except for the purpose of stripping operations. (1, 2)
29. No stripping and movement of topsoil and subsoil shall be carried out except by the use of an excavator and a dump truck and under sufficiently dry conditions, when the topsoil has a sufficiently friable consistency to avoid smearing and compaction, and to ensure that all available soil resources are recovered without any unnecessary damage or loss. (1, 2)
30. Topsoil, subsoils and other soil making materials shall be stored according to their quality on separate heaps in accordance with figures 6.4 – 6.5 of Document CD2 of Planning Permission CMA/7/64 and which do not overlap, unless otherwise requested by the Minerals Planning Authority. (1)
31. Once formed, all topsoil heaps shall be treated, seeded and planted in accordance with Approved Drawing No. 1252/3/3008 Rev D ‘Advanced Planting Scheme’ of Planning Permission CMA/7/64 and kept free from injurious weeds. (1)
32. No topsoil or subsoil shall be removed from the site without the prior agreement of the Minerals Planning Authority. (2)
Site Working
33. No extraction or infilling operations including restoration shall be carried out except in accordance with the approved documents in Condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with Condition 3. (1)
34. Scrub and vegetation removal, soil stripping and replacement, drainage works, or any other activity on land which has lain undisturbed for some time, shall be avoided during the main bird breeding period (1st March to 15th July inclusive), unless the area concerned had been shown to be free of nesting birds, following a robust survey by a suitably qualified person, immediately prior to such works commencing. (13)
Site Maintenance
35. From the commencement of the development until restoration of the site, the following shall be carried out: (a) fences between any areas used for development and any adjoining agricultural land shall be maintained in a stockproof condition. (18) (b) the maintenance of all haul roads and areas within the site, over which licensed road vehicles operate, clean from mud. (9) (c) the treatment of trees affected by disease, in accordance with the principles of good aboricultural practice. (10, 13) (d) all areas including stacks of soil and overburden to be kept free of injurious weeds, and necessary steps to be taken to destroy such weeds at an early stage of growth to prevent seeding. (13)
Buildings, Fixed Plant and Machinery
36. No plant or machinery on the site shall be used to process, treat or otherwise refine materials other than those extracted from the site. (1)
37. On completion of extraction, all fixed equipment, machinery, buildings and access roads not required for the infilling of the quarry void shall be removed from the site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority. (1,3)
Environmental Protection – Noise
38. Except when soil stripping or soil replacement operations are taking place, the noise emitted from operations on the site shall not result in ambient noise levels greater than 55dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield), 70dB(A)L MAX as measured at Highland House and 56dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield) as measured at the noise monitoring locations identified on figure BM13/3. (1, 5)
39. Noise emitted from the following operations shall not at any time result in ambient noise levels greater than 70dBLAeq.1hour (freefield) when measured at the point(s) agreed in accordance with Condition 28: (a) the stripping and respreading of all topsoil and subsoil mounds. (1, 5) (b) the construction of all perimeter topsoil and subsoil mounds. (1, 5)
40. Noise monitoring at the locations set out in Figure BM13/3 shall take place every calendar month. On request, the operator shall furnish the Minerals Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded and the plant and equipment operating on the site at the time. (5)
Blasting
41. No blasting operations shall be carried out except in accordance with the document titeld Blast Action Plan for Bishop Middleham Quarry received February 2013 by the Local Planning Authority. In particular no blasting operations shall be carried out except in accordance with the following criteria:
(a) No blasting shall take place on site except between the following times:
ten minutes either side of the hour between 10.00 hrs and 16.00 hrs Monday to Friday. (5)
(b) There shall be no blasting on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays. (5)
(c) No more than one blast shall take place each day (Monday to Friday). (5)
42. No blasting operations shall take place which would result in ground vibrations with a peak particle velocity greater than 6mm/sec in any plane at the nearest occupied dwelling to such operations, and 95% of all blasts within any 12 month period shall generate less than 3mm/sec, with the first being submitted 12 months from the date of this permission. (5, 10)
43. Except for reasons of safety, all blasts shall be prepared and fixed with adequate stemming and covering to ensure that noise from blasting is minimised. (5, 10)
44. All blasts undertaken at the quarry shall be monitored by the operator for peak particle velocity in the vertical, horizontal and transverse planes at the noise and dust monitoring locations shown on Figure BM13/3. The operator shall make the results of the blast monitoring available to the Mineral Planning Authority upon their request. (5)
Dust
45. No operations shall be carried out on the site unless the dust control equipment provided in accordance with Condition 3(e) is used to suppress the dust arising from operations including vehicular movements, excavation operations and mineral and overburden stockpiling arrangements. At any time when the equipment provided is not sufficient to suppress the dust arising from the site, operations shall cease until additional equipment is provided and found to be adequate. (1, 5)
46. Monitoring of existing dust levels at locations identified in the document entitled ‘Dust Action Plan’ dated January 1998 shall be carried out on the basis of the approved monitoring scheme and any subsequent scheme agreed under Condition 3(e). On request, the operator shall furnish the MPA with particulars of the measurements recorded by the equipment. (1, 5)
Surface Water Drainage and Pollution Control
47. No water from the site shall be discharged into any ditch, stream, watercourse or culvert outside the site except through approved settlement ponds provided in accordance with the scheme agreed under Condition 3(b). (8)
48. All approved measures shall be taken to ensure that no flooding and no silting, pollution or erosion of any watercourse or adjoining land is caused by any operations on the site. (8)
49. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank it contains plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. The bund shall be sealed with no drain for removal of contained liquids. Any bund contents shall be bailed or pumped out under manual control and disposed of safely. (8)
Restoration
50. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority, restoration of the site shall be in complete accordance with the details approved in Conditions 1 and 3. (1, 2, 3)
Removal of Site Compound and the Access and Haul Roads
51. Upon cessation of infilling operations in accordance with the details approved under Condition 1, all areas of hardstanding, including site compounds, access roads and haul roads shall be broken up and removed from the site. (1, 2, 3)
Removal of Settlement Ponds
52. Upon cessation of infilling operations in accordance with the details approved under the terms of Condition 1, all settlement ponds shall, unless to be retained in accordance with the approved plans, be emptied of slurry, filled with inert material and restored. (1, 3)
Soil Replacement
53. Where a soil material to be used for restoration in accordance with Condition 3 has been imported into the site and has not previously been inspected by an officer of the Minerals Planning Authority, at least 48 hours notice of the intention to carry out soil spreading operations shall be given to the MPA and the opportunity given to the Authority to inspect the material prior to its placement. (3)
Replacement of Subsoil – Arable Agriculture
54. The material stripped and stored in accordance with Condition 18 shall be progressively respread in accordance with the restoration scheme required in accordance with Condition 3(c). Such scheme shall provide where practicable and in accordance with the restoration scheme for the replacement of soils by loose tipping methods as described in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of document CD2 when it, and the ground on which it is to be placed, are in a sufficiently dry condition, and the rooting of each layer to its full depth and the removal from the surface and non-burial within the respread subsoil of any non-subsoil type material or rock, boulder or stone larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a spacing of 0.3 metres. (3)
55. All area of exposed subsoil not previously excavated, shall be rooted to a depth of 450mm at 600 mm spacings to relieve compaction and surface picked to remove any obstructions to cultivation as defined in Condition 54. (3)
56. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect each phase of restoration as defined in the agreed scheme. (3)
57. Following compliance with Conditions 55 and 56, the subsoil surface shall be graded using low ground pressure equipment approved by the Minerals Planning Authority to ensure that after replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 53 the contours of the land conform with the restoration contours shown on drawing no. 7/1252/3 – ‘Restoration Masterplan’. (3)
Restoration of Topsoil – Arable Agriculture
58. The respreading of topsoil, to a uniform depth over the whole area stripped, shall only be carried out when the material and the ground on which it is to be placed are in a suitable dry condition. In those areas to be restored to agriculture, soils and soil resources, shall be replaced using loose tipping methods to minimise compaction. (3, 15)
59. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect any topsoil respread prior to further cultivations being prescribed and carried out. (3, 15)
Soils Replacement – Magnesian Limestone Grassland
60. The respreading of soils in areas to be restored to Magnesian Limestone grassland shall only take place in accordance with the scheme agreed under Condition 3(g). (3)
Aftercare Preamble
The aftercare period referred to in the following conditions is a period of five years after compliance with Condition 59 and the fulfilment of the requirements of the scheme to be carried out under Condition 60.
Annual Review
61. Before 31 August of every year during the aftercare period, a report shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority recording the operations carried out on the land during the previous 12 months and setting out the intended operations for the next 12 months. (3, 17)
62. Every year during the aftercare period, the developer shall arrange a site meeting to be held before 30 November, to discuss the report prepared in accordance with Condition 49 to which the following parties shall be invited: (a) the Minerals Planning Authority, (b) Natural England, (c) all owners of the land within the site, (d) all occupiers of land within the site, (e) the Durham Wildlife Trust (3, 17)
No later than 6 months prior to the target date for completion of aftercare, the developer shall prepare a report on the Physical Characteristics for the site, and incorporating proposals to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the MPA (in consultation with Natural England), that by the end of the Aftercare Period, these will be restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when the land was last used for agriculture. (3, 17)
Cultivation after Replacement of Topsoil – Arable Agriculture
63. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after compliance with Condition 59, all disturbed land shall be subsoiled using an agricultural winged tined subsoiler, operating at a minimum depth of 450 mm and tine spacings of 600mm. (3, 15)
64. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 63 shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority and such works shall only proceed subject to their approval. (3, 15)
65. Any stones lying on the surface after compliance with Condition 63, which are larger than would pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
66. Following compliance with Condition 6553, the land shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seed. During the cultivation process, any stones lying on the surface which are larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
67. No later than the end of September following compliance with Condition 54, the land shall be sown with a seed mixture, the detail of which shall have been agreed beforehand under Condition 3(g). (15)
68. Where adverse weather conditions or other delays prevent compliance with Condition 67, alternative treatment of the restored soils shall be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority, to stabilise them over the winter period. No livestock shall be kept, nor machinery travel, on the land during the months of November – March, unless otherwise approved by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3)
Provision of Surface Features
69. Hedges and trees shall be planted in accordance with the approved restoration scheme, and to a detailed specification agreed beforehand with the Minerals Planning Authority, during the first planting season (which runs between 1 November and 31 March) after the seeding of the site in accordance with the approved restoration strategy. (1, 17)
Drainage and Water Supply
70. During the aftercare period, temporary drainage works (eg ditches, watercourses, settling lagoons) shall be provided as necessary to prevent soil erosion, flooding of land within or outside the site, or the erosion or silting up of existing drainage channels within or outside the site. (8, 17)
71. Within the first two years of the aftercare period, a field water supply system shall be installed in the arable agriculture area. (8, 17)
72. A comprehensive agricultural field drainage system, conforming to the normal design criteria for restored land, and in accordance with the scheme agreed beforehand under Condition 3(g), shall be installed at a time no earlier than the first annual aftercare meeting, and no later than 24 months following compliance with Condition 71. (18, 17)
73. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out drainage works shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority and such works shall only proceed subject to their approval.
74. Within three months following the installation of the approved underdrainage, two copies of both the final drainage record plan and the up-to-date site survey plan (showing final restoration contours at 2 metre intervals), shall be forwarded to the Minerals Planning Authority (one of each being for Natural England). (1, 17)
Cultivation after the Installation of Field Drainage – Arable Agriculture
75. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after compliance with Condition 72, the land shall be subsoiled, using an agricultural winged tined subsoiler, operating at a depth and tine spacing agreed beforehand with the Minerals Planning Authority. (15)
76. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 63 shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority, and objects which are larger than would pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation shall be removed from the site. (15)
77. Following compliance with Condition 76, the land shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seed. During the cultivation process, any stones lying on the surface which are larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
78. By no later than the end of August following compliance with Condition 77, the land shall be sown with the seed mix agreed under Condition 3(g). (15)
Areas to be Restored to Magnesian Limestone Grassland
79. Hedges and trees planted in accordance with Condition 69 shall be maintained during the aftercare period in accordance with good forestry practices. Such maintenance shall include the following:
(a) replacing plants which die or are lost. (3, 17) (b) weeding early in the growing season, and as necessary thereafter to prevent the growth of plants being retarded. (3, 17) (c) maintaining any fences around planted areas in a stock and rabbit proof condition; fence lines to be a minimum of 1.5 metres from the planted hedgeline. (3, 17) (d) appropriate measures to combat all other pest and/or diseases which significantly reduce the viability of the planting scheme. (17)
80. Where the Minerals Planning Authority agrees in writing with the persons responsible for undertaking the site working, restoration and aftercare, that there shall be variations to these conditions, then the relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed variation. (3, 17)
81. Details of annual sales and remaining permitted reserves of minerals from the site shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority. The period provided for shall be from 1 January to 31 December each year and the information shall be provided by 31 March for the preceding period. (23)
Variation to Conditions 1 and 7 of Planning Permission T/APP/H1345/A/96/267255 as amended by Planning Permission No’s. 7/98/58CM and 7/2003/0045CM in order to extend the date for completion of mineral extraction, revise the method of mineral extraction and revise phasing of inert landfill operations
Approved documents
1. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the following documents (subject to matters subsequently agreed under Condition 3 or unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority):
Planning Permission T/APP/H1345/A/96/267255/P5 dated 18 th July 1997 and:
i) Drawing No. 7/1252/3 – ‘Restoration Masterplan’ ii) Drawing No. 8/1252/3 – ‘Proposed main underdrainage’ iii) Drawing No. 16a/1252/4 – ‘Landfill gas and leachate monitoring points iv) Drawing No. 17/1252/4 – ‘Permanent and Temporary Screen Mounding’ v) Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of Document CD2 (Soils and Agriculture – mitigation and residual impact) and figures 6.4 and 6.5 (Soil Storage) vi) Drawing No. 1252/3/010 – ‘Restoration planting’ vii) Drawing No. 1252/3/009 – ‘Proposed screen mound’ viii)Drawing No. 1252/3/3/008 Rev D – ‘Advance planting Scheme’ ix) Drawing No. 1252/3/3/020 Rev D – ‘Proposed Extension Phase 1 – Fencing and Soil Storage’ iix) ‘Bishop Middleham Quarry, County Durham An Archaeological Survey’ dated August 1998 iiix)‘W&M Thompson (Quarries) Ltd, Bishop Middleham Quarry, Co Durham, Dust Action Plan’ dated January 1998
Planning Permission CMA/7/21 dated 22 nd April 2003 and:
i) Drawing No. NT02891/011 (A-A) ii) Drawing No. NT02891/012 (B-B)
Planning Application Form dated 22 nd May 2007, supporting statement and subsequent letter from Blackett Hart & Pratt dated 3 rd September 2007 and email dated 6 th September 2007 and:
i) Drawing No. NT03833/002 – ‘Figure 2 Site Boundary’, dated November 2006 ii) Drawing No. NT03833/003 – ‘Figure 3 Mineral Extraction Phasing’ dated May 2007 iii) Drawing No. NT03833/002 – ‘Inert Landfill Phasing’, dated May 2007 iv) Project Development Chart – ‘Mineral Extraction Phasing’, dated February 2007 v) Project Development Chart – ‘ Landfill Phasing’, dated February 2007
Planning Application Form dated 4 February 2014, supporting statement and: i) Drawing No. NT10961-102 – ‘Application Boundary for Variation to CMA/7/64’ ii) Drawing No. NT10961-111 – ‘Figure BM5/6 Phase 10 Landfill Area (25 years)’ iii) Drawing No. NT10961-110 – ‘Figure BM5/5 Limestone Extraction Complete (20 years)’ iv) Drawing No. NT10961-0109 – ‘Figure BM5/4 Phase 2 and 3 Excavation (15 years)’ v) Drawing No. NT10961-107– ‘Figure BM5/3 Phase 1B and 1C Excavation (10 years)’ vi) Drawing No. NT10961-106 – ‘Figure BM5/2 Phase 1A Excavation C (5 years)’ vii) Drawing No. NT10961-127 – ‘Restoration Contours’
2. From the date of this permission until completion of the development, a copy of this permission including all documents hereby approved and any other documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission, shall be permanently maintained available for inspection at the site office. (1)
Matters requiring subsequent approval
3. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with a scheme or schemes to be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority which shall include provision for;
a) The existing hedgerow, tree and shrub planting which has been carried out on the screening mounds around the edge of the site shall be maintained for the life of this permission. Such maintenance shall include any cutting and weeding of the planting area and, repairing of any damaged fencing and the replacement of any plants that die. (2)
b) the aftercare of the restored land for five years, after the replacement of soils or other surface material to bring the land to a condition where it is fit for the approved after-use. (3, 17)
c) details of the restoration of the site, which shall include;
i) the drainage of the restored site to include full provision for dealing with run- off from the restored landform. (3,8) ii) the erection of fences. (3,10,13) iii) the planting of trees and hedges and their subsequent maintenance for five years. (3) iv) the seeding mix to be used on the area proposed to be restored to arable agricultural land. (3, 15) v) the treatment of the arable agricultural area following sowing to include rate and type of fertiliser to be applied, cutting rates, works to prevent scrub colonisation and weeds. (3,15) vi) the works to be undertaken to form scree slopes and ledges in accordance with the approved restoration plan to include blasting and grading of overburden material, and details of the works to and around the County Geological Site in the north face of the existing quarry void. (3) vii) the respreading of soils in, and the treatment of areas to be restored to Magnesian Limestone grassland, to include the seeding mix to be used and the scrub colonisation prevention and other aftercare provisions as may be necessary. (3) viii) the design and layout of footpaths and tracks crossing the restored site. (3, 7, 10, 13) ix) any works to the underpass. (3) x) a subsequent maintenance and management programme during the aftercare period once any hedgerow, tree, and shrub planting has been carried out, which shall include the weeding of the planted area, repairing of any damaged fencing, and the replacement of any plants which die or are seriously affected by disease and a detailed schedule as to when the aftercare period commences. (3)
d) The aftercare of the land for five years, after the replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 74. (17)
e) The Dust Suppression Scheme approved under Planning Permission CMA/7/64 shall be reviewed and updated and any necessary alterations submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this permission. The dust suppression measures to be employed shall include: (i) the provision of mobile water bowsers. (5) (ii) the use of dust filters on all fixed plant and machinery. (5) (iii) a speed limit of 15 mph on all internal haul roads. (5) (v) all haul roads and areas used for the storage or quarried material shall be watered during dry windy conditions. (5) (v) a static dust suppression system along the 400m length of the haul road. (5)
4. Those details required by Condition 3 above shall be submitted within 12 months of the date of this permission and be implemented in accordance with the timescales detailed in the scheme as approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3, 4)
Completion
5. No further mineral extraction shall take place after 30 th June 2029. (1, 4)
6. The site shall be restored in terms of the replacement of all soils in accordance with Drawing No. NT10961-111 – ‘Restoration Masterplan’, not later than the 30 th June 2052. (1, 3, 4)
7. An annual review of operations at the site shall be prepared by the operator and submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority no later than 31st August each year. The report of the annual review shall include the following information (ix) a drawing showing an up to date survey of the whole site at a scale not less than 1:2500 showing the location of quarry faces, the extent of progressive restoration showing contours at 2 metres intervals, position of haul roads, temporary fencing, the location and size of any stockpiles of soil or overburden, details of the remaining void space should also be provided; (x) the results of all blast monitoring; (xi) the results of all noise monitoring; (xii) the results of all dust monitoring; (xiii) proposals for improvement or other amendments the company may wish to make to the agreed monitoring regimes; (xiv) suitable reversing alarms used/to be used onsite; (xv) identification of any difficulties with operations and/or of complying with the planning requirements which may have been encountered at the site during the relevant period, and (xvi) details of any complaints received and details of how they were dealt with.
A review meeting will be held before the end of November each year between the Minerals Planning Authority and the site operator to discuss the content of the report. (1,2,3)
8. In the event of insufficient waste being available to achieve the approved restoration contours at the time of the expiry of each phase of infilling as shown in table 1 ( contained within the Environmental Statement submitted as part of the 2013 application), the operator shall review the approved restoration plan in consultation with the MPA and if deemed necessary and alternative restoration proposals should be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority within 12 months of the expiry of the phase so as to provide an alternative restoration scheme for the site if deemed necessary by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3, 4)
Works required for Site Preparation
9. Before further soil stripping operations take place, the following works shall be carried out:
i) The installation of drainage arrangements appropriate to the area to be stripped. (3, 8) ii) Perimeter stockproof fencing as necessary. (3, 11)
Working Times
10. No operations shall take place outside the hours of:
07.00 hrs to 19.00 hrs Monday to Friday 07.00 hrs to 12.00 hrs Saturday
or at any time on Sundays, Bank or other public holidays, save in cases of essential maintenance or emergency when life limb or property are in danger. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is practical after the occurrence of any such emergency. (1, 5)
Access and Protection of the Public Highway
11. There shall be no vehicular access to and from the site except for the for site dump trucks using the approved access through the tunnel. Road wagons shall remain on metalled surface and shall only use the access road C16. (9)
12. No vehicle shall exit the site onto the public highway unless the wheel cleaning equipment installed in accordance with the Condition 11 iii) has been used to ensure that they are thoroughly cleansed of mud. (5, 9)
13. No vehicle shall leave the site unless the load is fully covered by sheeting. (9)
Soil Stripping
14. No topsoil or subsoil stripping shall take place unless the Minerals Planning Authority has been given at least seven days notice (excluding Sundays), of any such works which shall proceed only when agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority. (2, 5)
15. No areas shall be excavated, or used for the stationing of plant and buildings, the storage of subsoils and overburden, haul roads and other areas to be traversed by heavy machinery until the topsoil has been stripped from these areas and it shall then be stored until required for restoration. (1, 2, 3)
16. No plant or vehicles shall cross any areas of unstripped topsoil except for the purpose of stripping operations. (1, 2)
17. No stripping and movement of topsoil and subsoil shall be carried out except by the use of an excavator and a dump truck and under sufficiently dry conditions, when the topsoil has a sufficiently friable consistency to avoid smearing and compaction, and to ensure that all available soil resources are recovered without any unnecessary damage or loss. (1, 2)
18. Topsoil, subsoils and other soil making materials shall be stored according to their quality on separate heaps in accordance with figures 6.4 – 6.5 of Document CD2 of Planning Permission CMA/7/64 and which do not overlap, unless otherwise requested by the Minerals Planning Authority. (1)
19. Once formed, all topsoil heaps shall be treated, seeded and planted in accordance with Approved Drawing No. 1252/3/3008 Rev D ‘Advanced Planting Scheme’ of Planning Permission CMA/7/64 and kept free from injurious weeds. (1)
20. No topsoil or subsoil shall be removed from the site without the prior agreement of the Minerals Planning Authority. (2)
Site Working
21. No extraction or infilling operations including restoration shall be carried out except in accordance with the approved documents in Condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with Condition 3. (1)
22. Scrub and vegetation removal, soil stripping and replacement, drainage works, or any other activity on land which has lain undisturbed for some time, shall be avoided during the main bird breeding period (1st March to 15th July inclusive), unless the area concerned had been shown to be free of nesting birds, following a robust survey by a suitably qualified person, immediately prior to such works commencing. (13)
Site Maintenance
23. From the commencement of the development until restoration of the site, the following shall be carried out: (a) fences between any areas used for development and any adjoining agricultural land shall be maintained in a stockproof condition. (18) (b) the maintenance of all haul roads and areas within the site, over which licensed road vehicles operate, clean from mud. (9) (c) the treatment of trees affected by disease, in accordance with the principles of good aboricultural practice. (10, 13) (d) all areas including stacks of soil and overburden to be kept free of injurious weeds, and necessary steps to be taken to destroy such weeds at an early stage of growth to prevent seeding. (13)
Buildings, Fixed Plant and Machinery
24. No plant or machinery on the site shall be used to process, treat or otherwise refine materials other than those extracted from the site. (1)
25. On completion of extraction, all fixed equipment, machinery, buildings and access roads not required for the infilling of the quarry void shall be removed from the site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority. (1,3)
Environmental Protection – Noise
26. Except when soil stripping or soil replacement operations are taking place, the noise emitted from operations on the site shall not result in ambient noise levels greater than 55dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield), 70dB(A)L MAX as measured at Highland House and 56dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield) as measured at the noise monitoring locations identified on figure BM13/3. (1, 5)
27. Noise emitted from the following operations shall not at any time result in ambient noise levels greater than 70dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield) when measured at the point(s) agreed in accordance with Condition 28: (a) the stripping and respreading of all topsoil and subsoil mounds. (1, 5) (c) the construction of all perimeter topsoil and subsoil mounds. (1, 5)
28. Noise monitoring at the locations set out in Figure BM13/3 shall take place every calendar month. On request, the operator shall furnish the Minerals Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded and the plant and equipment operating on the site at the time. (5)
Blasting
29. No blasting operations shall be carried out except in accordance with the document titeld Blast Action Plan for Bishop Middleham Quarry received February 2013 by the Local Planning Authority. In particular no blasting operations shall be carried out except in accordance with the following criteria:
(a) No blasting shall take place on site except between the following times:
ten minutes either side of the hour between 10.00 hrs and 16.00 hrs Monday to Friday. (5)
(b) There shall be no blasting on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays. (5)
(c) No more than one blast shall take place each day (Monday to Friday). (5)
30. No blasting operations shall take place which would result in ground vibrations with a peak particle velocity greater than 6mm/sec in any plane at the nearest occupied dwelling to such operations, and 95% of all blasts within any 12 month period shall generate less than 3mm/sec, with the first being submitted 12 months from the date of this permission. (5, 10)
31. Except for reasons of safety, all blasts shall be prepared and fixed with adequate stemming and covering to ensure that noise from blasting is minimised. (5, 10)
32. All blasts undertaken at the quarry shall be monitored by the operator for peak particle velocity in the vertical, horizontal and transverse planes at the noise and dust monitoring locations shown on Figure BM13/3. The operator shall make the results of the blast monitoring available to the Mineral Planning Authority upon their request. (5)
Dust
33. No operations shall be carried out on the site unless the dust control equipment provided in accordance with Condition 3(e) is used to suppress the dust arising from operations including vehicular movements, excavation operations and mineral and overburden stockpiling arrangements. At any time when the equipment provided is not sufficient to suppress the dust arising from the site, operations shall cease until additional equipment is provided and found to be adequate. (1, 5)
34. Monitoring of existing dust levels at locations identified in the document entitled ‘Dust Action Plan’ dated January 1998 shall be carried out on the basis of the approved monitoring scheme and any subsequent scheme agreed under Condition 3(e). On request, the operator shall furnish the MPA with particulars of the measurements recorded by the equipment. (1, 5)
Surface Water Drainage and Pollution Control
35. No water from the site shall be discharged into any ditch, stream, watercourse or culvert outside the site except through approved settlement ponds provided in accordance with the scheme agreed under Condition 3(b). (8)
36. All approved measures shall be taken to ensure that no flooding and no silting, pollution or erosion of any watercourse or adjoining land is caused by any operations on the site. (8)
37. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank it contains plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. The bund shall be sealed with no drain for removal of contained liquids. Any bund contents shall be bailed or pumped out under manual control and disposed of safely. (8)
Restoration
38. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority, restoration of the site shall be in complete accordance with the details approved in Conditions 1 and 3. (1, 2, 3)
Removal of Site Compound and the Access and Haul Roads
39. Upon cessation of infilling operations in accordance with the details approved under Condition 1, all areas of hardstanding, including site compounds, access roads and haul roads shall be broken up and removed from the site. (1, 2, 3)
Removal of Settlement Ponds
40. Upon cessation of infilling operations in accordance with the details approved under the terms of Condition 1, all settlement ponds shall, unless to be retained in accordance with the approved plans, be emptied of slurry, filled with inert material and restored. (1, 3)
Soil Replacement
41. Where a soil material to be used for restoration in accordance with Condition 3 has been imported into the site and has not previously been inspected by an officer of the Minerals Planning Authority, at least 48 hours notice of the intention to carry out soil spreading operations shall be given to the MPA and the opportunity given to the Authority to inspect the material prior to its placement. (3)
Replacement of Subsoil – Arable Agriculture
42. The material stripped and stored in accordance with Condition 18 shall be progressively respread in accordance with the restoration scheme required in accordance with Condition 3(c). Such scheme shall provide where practicable and in accordance with the restoration scheme for the replacement of soils by loose tipping methods as described in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of document CD2 when it, and the ground on which it is to be placed, are in a sufficiently dry condition, and the rooting of each layer to its full depth and the removal from the surface and non-burial within the respread subsoil of any non-subsoil type material or rock, boulder or stone larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a spacing of 0.3 metres. (3)
43. All area of exposed subsoil not previously excavated, shall be rooted to a depth of 450mm at 600 mm spacings to relieve compaction and surface picked to remove any obstructions to cultivation as defined in Condition 42. (3)
44. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect each phase of restoration as defined in the agreed scheme. (3)
45. Following compliance with Conditions 43 and 44, the subsoil surface shall be graded using low ground pressure equipment approved by the Minerals Planning Authority to ensure that after replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 53 the contours of the land conform with the restoration contours shown on drawing no. 7/1252/3 – ‘Restoration Masterplan’. (3)
Restoration of Topsoil – Arable Agriculture
46. The respreading of topsoil, to a uniform depth over the whole area stripped, shall only be carried out when the material and the ground on which it is to be placed are in a suitable dry condition. In those areas to be restored to agriculture, soils and soil resources, shall be replaced using loose tipping methods to minimise compaction. (3, 15)
47. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect any topsoil respread prior to further cultivations being prescribed and carried out. (3, 15)
Soils Replacement – Magnesian Limestone Grassland
48. The respreading of soils in areas to be restored to Magnesian Limestone grassland shall only take place in accordance with the scheme agreed under Condition 3(g). (3)
Aftercare Preamble
The aftercare period referred to in the following conditions is a period of five years after compliance with Condition 47 and the fulfilment of the requirements of the scheme to be carried out under Condition 48.
Annual Review
49. Before 31 August of every year during the aftercare period, a report shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority recording the operations carried out on the land during the previous 12 months and setting out the intended operations for the next 12 months. (3, 17)
50. Every year during the aftercare period, the developer shall arrange a site meeting to be held before 30 November, to discuss the report prepared in accordance with Condition 49 to which the following parties shall be invited: (a) the Minerals Planning Authority, (b) Natural England, (c) all owners of the land within the site, (d) all occupiers of land within the site, (e) the Durham Wildlife Trust (3, 17)
No later than 6 months prior to the target date for completion of aftercare, the developer shall prepare a report on the Physical Characteristics for the site, and incorporating proposals to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the MPA (in consultation with Natural England), that by the end of the Aftercare Period, these will be restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when the land was last used for agriculture. (3, 17)
Cultivation after Replacement of Topsoil – Arable Agriculture
51. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after compliance with Condition 47, all disturbed land shall be subsoiled using an agricultural winged tined subsoiler, operating at a minimum depth of 450 mm and tine spacings of 600mm. (3, 15)
52. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 51 shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority and such works shall only proceed subject to their approval. (3, 15)
53. Any stones lying on the surface after compliance with Condition 51, which are larger than would pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
54. Following compliance with Condition 53, the land shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seed. During the cultivation process, any stones lying on the surface which are larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
55. No later than the end of September following compliance with Condition 54, the land shall be sown with a seed mixture, the detail of which shall have been agreed beforehand under Condition 3(g). (15)
56. Where adverse weather conditions or other delays prevent compliance with Condition 55, alternative treatment of the restored soils shall be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority, to stabilise them over the winter period. No livestock shall be kept, nor machinery travel, on the land during the months of November – March, unless otherwise approved by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3)
Provision of Surface Features
57. Hedges and trees shall be planted in accordance with the approved restoration scheme, and to a detailed specification agreed beforehand with the Minerals Planning Authority, during the first planting season (which runs between 1 November and 31 March) after the seeding of the site in accordance with the approved restoration strategy. (1, 17)
Drainage and Water Supply
58. During the aftercare period, temporary drainage works (eg ditches, watercourses, settling lagoons) shall be provided as necessary to prevent soil erosion, flooding of land within or outside the site, or the erosion or silting up of existing drainage channels within or outside the site. (8, 17)
59. Within the first two years of the aftercare period, a field water supply system shall be installed in the arable agriculture area. (8, 17)
60. A comprehensive agricultural field drainage system, conforming to the normal design criteria for restored land, and in accordance with the scheme agreed beforehand under Condition 3(g), shall be installed at a time no earlier than the first annual aftercare meeting, and no later than 24 months following compliance with Condition 59. (18, 17)
61. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out drainage works shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority and such works shall only proceed subject to their approval.
62. Within three months following the installation of the approved underdrainage, two copies of both the final drainage record plan and the up-to-date site survey plan (showing final restoration contours at 2 metre intervals), shall be forwarded to the Minerals Planning Authority (one of each being for Natural England). (1, 17)
Cultivation after the Installation of Field Drainage – Arable Agriculture
63. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after compliance with Condition 60, the land shall be subsoiled, using an agricultural winged tined subsoiler, operating at a depth and tine spacing agreed beforehand with the Minerals Planning Authority. (15)
64. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 63 shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority, and objects which are larger than would pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation shall be removed from the site. (15)
65. Following compliance with Condition 64, the land shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seed. During the cultivation process, any stones lying on the surface which are larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
66. By no later than the end of August following compliance with Condition 65, the land shall be sown with the seed mix agreed under Condition 3(g). (15)
Areas to be Restored to Magnesian Limestone Grassland
67. Hedges and trees planted in accordance with Condition 57 shall be maintained during the aftercare period in accordance with good forestry practices. Such maintenance shall include the following:
(a) replacing plants which die or are lost. (3, 17) (b) weeding early in the growing season, and as necessary thereafter to prevent the growth of plants being retarded. (3, 17) (c) maintaining any fences around planted areas in a stock and rabbit proof condition; fence lines to be a minimum of 1.5 metres from the planted hedgeline. (3, 17) (d) appropriate measures to combat all other pest and/or diseases which significantly reduce the viability of the planting scheme. (17)
68. Where the Minerals Planning Authority agrees in writing with the persons responsible for undertaking the site working, restoration and aftercare, that there shall be variations to these conditions, then the relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed variation. (3, 17)
69. Details of annual sales and remaining permitted reserves of minerals from the site shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority. The period provided for shall be from 1 January to 31 December each year and the information shall be provided by 31 March for the preceding period. (23)
REASONS FOR CONDITIONS
1. To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents.
2. To ensure the development is carried out in an orderly manner. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting local amenity).
3. To ensure the site is satisfactorily restored. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M46 Restoration Conditions).
4. To avoid unnecessary delay in the restoration of the site. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W54 Reclamation Conditions ). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M46 Restoration Conditions).
5. In the interests of residential amenity. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W31 Environmental Impact of Traffic, W32 Planning obligations for controlling environmental impact of road traffic). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting local amenity, M43 Road traffic).
6. In the interests of visual amenity. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting local amenity).
7. To protect land outside the site. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting local amenity, M38 Water Resources).
8. To prevent adversely affecting watercourses passing through or outside the site. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M38 Water Resources).
9. In the interests of highway safety. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W24 Rights of Way and Countryside Recreation, W32 Planning Obligations for Controlling Environmental Impact of Road Traffic, W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW, M43 Road Traffic).
10. In the interests of visitors to the countryside. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W24 Rights of Way and Countryside Recreation, W33 Protecting Local Amenity). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW, M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
11. To ensure the stability of the land concerned. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W33 Protecting Local Amenity). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
12. In the interests of archaeology. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W23 Archaeology). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M33 Archaeology).
13. In the interests of nature conservation. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W17 Nature Conservation). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M29 Nature Conservation).
14. To enable the local planning authority to consider the implications of any proposal to expand the activities which take place within the site. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W33 Protecting Local Amenity). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
15. In the interests of agriculture. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting Local Amenity, M46 Restoration Conditions).
16. In the interests of public safety. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W24 Rights of Way and Countryside Recreation, W33 Protecting Local Amenity). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW, M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
17. To ensure that the land is satisfactorily treated for an appropriate period after the initial restoration to bring it to a satisfactory standard as required by Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. (Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)
18. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which places a time limit on when any permitted development may start by. (Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)
19. The operator has stated, within the Water Resources section of the Environmental Statement provided, that no dewatering within the extension area will be undertaken. Water levels within this area of the Magnesian Limestone aquifer, which underlies the site, are known to be variable and over the past year have risen to record levels (please see attached graph, sent separately via email, which depicts the rise in water levels). The rapid rise in water levels is thought to be the result of prolonged rainfall and snow melt and reduced leakage of groundwater to the underlying Coal Measures strata. As groundwater levels continue to rise we are unable to predict when and if levels are likely to stabilise and at what level, which could impact on the amount of mineral resource that can be excavated.
20. The Magnesian Limestone principal aquifer underlies the site and is an important source of water for numerous public and private water supplies and therefore requires protection. Removal of the overburden material above the rock will increase the risk to the aquifer from any pollutants used on site. As such, suitable mitigation measures need to be implemented to minimise the risks and ensure protection of the groundwater.
21. To comply with saved Minerals Policy M33, and para. 135 and 141 of the NPPF.
22. To comply with paragraph 141 of NPPF to ensure that the developer records and advances understanding of the significance of the heritage asset to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to its importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.
23. To enable monitoring and assist the Minerals Planning Authority in the forward planning of mineral resources.
24. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which places a time limit on when any permitted development may start by as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to ensure that the development is carried out within a reasonable period of time.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)
BACKGROUND PAPERS
− Submitted application form and plans provided by the applicant. − National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) − National Planning Policy Guidance − County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000). − Emerging County Durham Plan − Statutory, internal and public consultation responses.
Proposed Extension Area
CMA/7/102
Planning Services This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date September 2014 Scale Not to scale
Committee Report - Version 6 – Effective 1.02.13