Agenda Item 5.2
Regulatory and Other Committee
Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Environment & Economy
Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee
Date: 13 April 2015
Subject: County Matter Application – N23/27/64/0385/14
Summary: Planning permission is sought by Lafarge Tarmac (agent: Heaton Planning) to extract sand and gravel from land to the west of Whisby Quarry (adjacent to Swinderby Road and Beehive Lane); to utilise the existing quarry infrastructure, plant site and access onto Eagle Road to facilitate the development; and to restore the site to a mixture of water bodies, grassland, woodland and agriculture at land within and adjacent to Whisby Quarry in the parishes of Eagle and Swinethorpe, Doddington and Whisby and Thorpe on the Hill. The proposed development would constitute an extension to the existing Whisby Quarry with the restoration scheme being an extension of the approved restoration for the Quarry. The proposed development has been the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The key issues to be considered in this case are the principle of extracting sand and gravel from this site, flood risk and drainage, highways and rail infrastructure impacts, the implications of the loss of a Public Right of Way, impacts on the open countryside, landscape and agricultural land, impacts on nature conservation, impacts in relation to noise and dust and the impacts of the development on the historic landscape, with specific reference to the setting of nearby Listed Buildings. It is concluded that the principle of the extraction of sand and gravel is acceptable and in line with the approach of providing an adequate supply of minerals. In relation to flood risk and drainage, it has been demonstrated that the development would not have detrimental impacts, subject to relevant measures being secured through an appropriate condition and implemented. The key consideration in relation to highways is ensuring that all HGVs arriving and leaving the site follow a prescribed route to avoid local villages and this can be secured through a s.106 legal agreement. Whilst the permanent loss of a Public Right of Way is undesirable, it is considered that an appropriate package of measures to compensate for this loss, through the creation of a new network of public rights of way and permissive paths, can be put in place at the restoration phase of the development such that this loss is outweighed. It is acknowledged that the development would result in the loss of a proportion of the best and most versatile agricultural land and that during the minerals operation phases of the development there would be varying degrees of landscape and visual impacts, however, the timeframe for the development, phased approach and proposed restoration would
Page 107 minimise these impacts, particularly in the longer term and the loss of the agricultural land is considered to be justified in this case. The site has little nature conservation value and whilst certain mitigation measures are proposed to be put in place, it is considered that the restoration scheme can offer biodiversity enhancements. In relation to noise and dust, measures are proposed, or are recommended to be secured through planning conditions, to ensure that any impacts are minimised and that there would not be harmful impacts on the amenities of surrounding dwellings and landusers. Whilst there are a number of Listed Buildings and a Scheduled Monument within the vicinity of the application site, it is not considered that the settings of these heritage assets would be harmed by the proposed development. Overall, it is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable.
Recommendation: Following consideration of the relevant development plan policies and the comments received through consultation and publicity it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the applicant entering into a s.106 legal agreement.
Background
1. Whisby Quarry is a longstanding sand and gravel quarry which has been extended considerably over time. The most recent planning permission relating to this site was granted in April 2007 to extract sand and gravel as an extension to the existing workings at Whisby Quarry with progressive restoration to agriculture and water based nature conservation (reference N/23/27/64/0982/01). This was essentially for Phases 4 and 5 of the development. Prior to this, in July 1998 planning permission had been granted to extract sand and gravel as an extension to Whisby Quarry with restoration in part to agriculture (utilising imported fill material), woodland, waster-based recreational use and nature conservation (reference N23/27/64/0828/96) and to construct a new vehicular access road to Whisby Quarry and establish a civic amenity compound (reference N23/27/0825/96). Both of these planning permissions were subject to a single s.106 legal agreement which included a requirement to “approach and leave Whisby Quarry only over the length of Eagle Road and Whisby Road and the A46 Lincoln Relief Road”. This route was shown on a plan which forms part of the legal agreement. The latter planning permission allowed for a new access to the site which is still in use. The routing agreement remains in place today to ensure that vehicles associated with the minerals operations go directly to and from the A46 via Eagle Road and Whisby Road and do not pass through the nearby villages.
The Application
2. Planning permission is sought by Lafarge Tarmac to extract sand and gravel from land to the west of Whisby Quarry (adjacent to Swinderby Road and Beehive Lane); to utilise the existing quarry infrastructure, plant site and
Page 108 access onto Eagle Road to facilitate the development; and to restore the site to a mixture of water bodies, grassland, woodland and agriculture at land within and adjacent to Whisby Quarry in the parishes of Eagle and Swinethorpe, Doddington and Whisby and Thorpe on the Hill.
3. The proposed extension would release an additional 2.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel within an area of 34.1 hectares lying to the south west of the existing Whisby Quarry plant site. On the basis of current extraction rate, the proposals would extend the life of the quarry by approximately 7.3 years, providing reserves until 2028. It is intended to transport the extracted sand and gravel using the existing field conveyor route to the plant site for processing and stockpiling. It would then be distributed off site either as processed aggregate or ready mixed concrete. The applicant has stated that in order to achieve a holistic approach to restoration, the current application includes an area which already has planning permission for sand and gravel extraction, that is, permitted Phase 5. It is intended to restore the site as part of a comprehensive scheme, linking to existing approved schemes. The overall red line of the application site extends to approximately 105.5 hectares and this includes the proposed extension area together with the existing permitted operations, including the haul road, processing plant, silt ponds, ancillary infrastructure and current extraction from Phase 5.
4. The Supporting Statement submitted with this application states that the remaining consented reserves at Whisby Quarry as at 31 December 2013 were two million tonnes, providing approximately 6.6 years worth of reserves at an average extraction rate of 300,000 tonnes per annum.
Page 109
5. The proposed extension is identified as Phase 6 of the overall quarry development and is proposed to be worked in four sub-phases, A to D, working from the north west to the south east of the extension site. Two additional sub-phases of Phase 5 are also included within the proposed development seeking planning permission through this application, that is sub-phases 5F and 5H, which lie to the north east of Phase 6. The existing field conveyor is proposed to remain in the central/northern area of the site (between phases 5 and 6) whilst the extraction takes place within Phase 5 and then be moved to a central/southern location, again between Phases 5 and 6 for the duration of working Phase 6.
View from south west boundary of Sub-Phase 5C looking towards Phase 6
Page 110 6. Sub-phases 5A and 5B have already been worked out and restoration is ongoing in these areas. At present sub-phase 5C is being worked. It is then proposed to move into sub-phase 5D , which is the north western most part of Phase 5, and then back in a south easterly direction to work sub-phases 5E to 5I. Once mineral extraction is completed in Phase 5 it is proposed to commence extraction in sub-phase 6A. It is proposed that by the start of sub-phase 6A the majority of the sub-phase 5 area would be restored slopes. A topsoil mound is proposed to be located towards the central/ southern area of the application site and further east, adjacent to the topsoil mound, an overburden mound of approximately 32,000 square metres is proposed. In addition to this, a topsoil mound and overburden mound is proposed to be located towards the south western corner of the extension area to screen the closest residential receptors from the Phase 6 operations. The overburden/screening mound is proposed to move progressively east to track the sub-phase 6 operations and working face. This sub-phase is proposed to be progressively restored.
7. It is then proposed to work sub-phase 6B, at which point it is stated that the entire of the Phase 5 area would have been restored, predominantly to waterbodies and sub-phase 6A would be restored slopes.
8. Sub-phases 6C and 6D are then proposed to be worked in a south eastern direction. It is anticipated that towards the end of sub-phase 6D, sub- phases 6A to 6C would be restored slopes. In this final sub-phase, it is proposed to locate two topsoil mounds (approximately 11,100 square metres and 2,500 square metres in size) adjacent to the south eastern corner of the site. Sub-phase 6D is also proposed to be progressively restored.
9. The restoration of the site is proposed to be to a mixture of waterbodies, species-rich grassland, woodland, lowland/dense marginal fen, reed fringe and agriculture. A network of footpaths and a boardwalk to accommodate a permissive footpath are also proposed as part of the restoration. A potential area for a village memorial in the far north east corner of the site has been identified, together with a potential car park located close to the southern boundary adjacent to the proposed permissive path. The Supporting Statement states that the proposed series of waterbodies have the potential to contribute to the long-term sustainable supply of irrigation water to support the farmland surrounding Whisby Quarry, assisting in improving food security and reducing the carbon footprint, whilst at the same time providing opportunities for habitat creation and features of landscape interest.
Page 111
Environmental Statement
10. An Environmental Statement (ES) was submitted with this application and in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (EIA Regulations), further information was submitted on 12 January 2015 to support that submitted with the original ES.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background to the Proposal provides a brief overview of the application, gives details of the applicant company and sets out the planning history of the site. It also states that in preparing the ES regard has been had to the contents of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations.
Chapter 2: EIA Scoping states that the applicant sought a scoping opinion from Lincolnshire County Council and that this was issued on 2 April 2013, setting out the topics to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment. It also states that in the preparation of the ES consultation has been undertaken with statutory bodies and that this has informed the relevant environmental assessment work.
Chapter 3: Site Location and Setting provides a description of the site and the surrounding area, noting that the local landscape varies considerably and that the wider landscape is predominantly in agricultural use but locally is much influenced by sand and gravel extraction. It also identifies two Public Rights of Way of relevance to the application site, Eagle/7/1 which runs in a north-south direction linking Swinderby Road with
Page 112 the road which leads to Eagle Barnsdale and Eagle/669105/10 which runs in a north-south direction between Swinderby Road and Thorpe Lane.
Chapter 4: Geology states that British Geological Survey mapping shows that the entire application site is underlain by a continuation of the widespread superficial deposits (“Older River Sand and Gravel”) exploited in previous and current phases of Whisby Quarry. These superficial deposits overlie Jurassic Lower Lias clay which is substantially impermeable and thus supports a relatively shallow water table.
Over several decades, the application site and wider Whisby Quarry area has been subject to multiple phases of site investigation by drilling to provide the lateral extent, quality and quantity of sand and gravel resources, together with thicknesses of soils and overburden materials. The results of the tests have demonstrated that the mineral underlying the application site is of satisfactory quality and is comparable to that worked in the existing Whisby Quarry. As such it is concluded that the mineral would generate the same range of saleable products after processing. The principle use of the aggregates is stated to be in the production of ready-mix concrete, however, there are also a range of other construction applications.
It is calculated that the proposed development in Phases 5 and 6 would generate approximately 4.2 million tomes of mineral and 0.83 million cubic metres of soils and other overburden. It is proposed that the topsoil and other overburden would be progressively stripped from the workable mineral and either separately stockpiled for later use in restoration or directly placed in worked-out parts of the excavations. In addition to the overburden materials, it is also proposed that approximately 200,000 cubic metres of Lower Lias clay would be excavated for use in implementing the restoration scheme.
Chapter 5: Detailed Working and Restoration Scheme provides details of the working phases and restoration scheme, as set out above. This chapter also states that there are no proposed changes to the machinery and plant used at Whisby Quarry. The processing plant has a productive capacity of approximately 350,000 tonnes per annum and a maximum hourly capacity of 250 tonnes. The quantity of waste arising from the processing of the mineral is stated to be approximately 5% of production. In recent years the sand and gravel has been extracted from Whisby Quarry at an average rate of 300,000 tonnes per annum and this rate of extraction has been assumed throughout the ES in assessing impacts.
Sand and gravel is proposed to be extracted with the use of an excavator and transported to the processing plant by conveyor, thereby reducing vehicle movements. Restoration works are proposed to be carried out using a 360 degree excavator and 30 tonne articulated dump trucks.
Page 113
Existing conveyor in use at site The current operations at Whisby Quarry are subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to HGV routeing, requiring HGVs to turn right when exiting the site to avoid passing through the local villages. It is proposed that the existing agreement be continued.
The existing hours of operation for all activities are proposed to remain as for the existing Whisby Quarry and are:
07:00 to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday; 07:00 to 13:00 Saturdays; and no working on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays.
Chapter 6: Alternatives sets out the main alternatives considered and an indication of the main reasons for the choice, in line with Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations. It states that the assessment of alternatives has had regard to the relevant development plan policy, Government planning guidance and the EIA Regulations. The alternatives considered were:
- do nothing – this was concluded to not be viable for the applicant company; - alternatives to primary aggregates – recycled and secondary aggregates were considered and although their use is supported, it is concluded that they could never wholly replace primary aggregates in meeting demand for materials; - alternative sand and gravel sources within the Lincolnshire Resource Area – this considered new Greenfield sites and alternative extensions to Whisby Quarry but concluded that the proposed development would be the preferred option due to the benefits of extending this area given its proximity to existing infrastructure and that it wouldn’t result in the sterilisation of the mineral; - alternative methods of working and restoration – although it is proposed to extract the mineral dry, an alternative of working it wet was considered, however, this has not been undertaken by the industry for a number of years and has a poor mineral recovery ratio and is therefore not considered to be appropriate. It is also stated that the restoration scheme has been developed over time and amendments have been made following public engagement; and
Page 114 - alternative means of transport – this states that the costs of transporting sand and gravel from Whisby Quarry by rail or water are prohibitive and that low priced mineral, such as sand and gravel, tends to supply a relatively local market.
Chapter 7: Landscape and Visual Considerations states that the application site lies within the North Kesteven Landscape Character Sub- Area “Terrace Sandland”, the main characteristics of which are summarised as:
- gentle undulations in topography, dominance of woodland blocks and hedgerow trees, large and less managed hedgerows; - pine and gorse dominated roadsides; - sand and gravel extraction (land reclamation post-extraction has created a large expanse of open water with significant wildlife benefits and a prominent but possibly incongruous landscape feature locally); and - scattered settlements and winding, irregular road patterns.
It is stated that the North Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) states that in relation to “opportunities for enhancement” that consideration should be given to the sensitive reclamation of former sand and gravel extraction sites, large water bodies should play a less major role in future reclamation schemes and bund walling be planted with native and locally appropriate species. The LCS considers that the sensitivity of this landscape to change is medium.
The application site is also stated to lie within the Historic Landscape Character Area TVL2 “The Fosse Way within The Trent Valley Character Area” which has a sensitivity to change assessed as being medium.
Short term landscape and visual impacts would result from the proposed quarrying activities. These include the removal of trees and hedgerows, stripping of soils, construction of temporary storage and screening bunds, restoration/landform creation operations and the introduction of water bodies. It is also noted that there would be views of mobile plant and conveyors. The overall significance of effect during the development is assessed as moderate adverse, given the nature of the baseline landscape.
There are a range of visual receptors, including, but not limited to, local residents, road users, pedestrians, those visiting the area for amenity purposes and those working outdoors. Six representative viewpoints were selected to define the existing visual baseline and to assess the impacts of the development. The significance of the visual effects of the development on the representative viewpoints is stated to vary between negligible and moderate/major adverse during the closest phases of the site operations. Once quarrying operations have ceased, it is stated that the significance of visual effect will vary between negligible and moderate beneficial at year 0 and moderate/major beneficial to major beneficial at year 15. Only a very small number of locations have been predicted to experience any adverse visual impacts during the proposed quarry extension; namely the properties
Page 115 close to the junction of Morton Lane and Beehive Lane, on Morton Lane and three properties on the south side of Eagle High Street. These impacts are at their greatest when the quarrying operations would be in close proximity to these properties.
A range of mitigation measures are proposed to minimise the visual impacts of the proposed development including:
- minimising land take at ground level as a result of the working method and proposed phasing; - screen bund construction; - early restoration of the sub-phases, allowing parts to be restored whilst the quarry is still operational; - retention of existing vegetation and improvement with additional planting through the restoration scheme; - tree planting and seeding; and - all of the restored areas of the quarry will be subject to a detailed and approved aftercare scheme to ensure the establishment and development of the habitats indicated on the restoration scheme.
Overall, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concludes that the proposed development would have limited and short term adverse effects upon the landscape and visual resources followed by moderate to major benefits.
Chapter 8: Nature Conservation and Ecology provides a summary of the findings of the Ecological Assessment undertaken at the application site. The general ecological and nature conservation value of the site is considered to be of, at most, local to district level biodiversity value. The site does not include any statutory designated sites. There are two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 5km of the site, the nearest being at Doddington Clay Woods SSSI, 4.5km north of the site and the other being Swanholme Lakes SSSI located 5km west of the site. Ten local wildlife sites, one of which is a local nature reserve, and three sites of nature conservation interest have been identified within 5km of the site. The Ecological Assessment concludes that the proposed development would not result in an adverse impact on any of these assets.
The majority of hedgerows within the application site meet the criteria to be classed as Priority Habitats in both the UK and Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan as they are over 20 metres long and less than 5 metres wide, with gaps no longer than 20 metres.
The amphibian assemblage is considered to be of local biodiversity value, however, no great crested newts were found in any of the water bodies. Most of the site was assessed as fairly poor for reptiles due to large areas of bare ground or farmland, however, it is recommended that restoration plans should take reptiles habitat requirements into account including through the retention of corridors of suitable habitat to allow further immigration and dispersal and to prevent the isolation and fragmentation of populations. A
Page 116 further mitigation measure proposed, in order to encourage reptiles to move on from the areas of rough grassland and dense scrub impacted by the proposal, is to strim down relevant areas to low level and any piles of brash, logs and rubble areas should be carefully removed by hand or hand tools to ensure that no reptiles are hidden.
In relation to bats it is recommended that maintaining connectivity of hedgerows and edge habitats across the landscape during the working period is likely to be of importance. This means retaining as many hedges and trees as possible and for as long as possible through the works and retaining existing woodlands and other edge habitats. Occasional roost niches were identified behind the signage on the quarry’s reception building and whilst this is not an ideal location, it is considered that it may have been exploited due to limited opportunities within the buildings themselves. It is also recommended that bat boxes should be sited at height on the two- storey building to minimise disturbance and provide additional roosting opportunities. Whilst the trees showed no evidence of use by bats it is recommended that should any trees be directly impacted by the proposed development through felling or pruning, a suitably qualified bat ecological should be present to carry out a watching brief during the works.
A good assemblage of bird species was recorded for the application area and immediate adjacent habitats. It is recommended that a good variety of habitats are part of the habitat restoration/creation scheme. The assemblage of butterflies is concluded to be of local to district level biodiversity value. It is also recommended that the restoration scheme should include as many micro-habitats as possible to enhance the invertebrate biodiversity at the site. Overall it is concluded that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on flora or fauna.
Chapter 9: Noise sets out a summary of the Noise Impact Assessment which has been undertaken. The main sources of existing noise affecting the site and the immediate surroundings are stated to be road traffic and rail noise from the railway line on the opposite side of Beehive Lane (to the east).
It is stated that in accordance with previous planning permissions, noise monitoring is carried out at Whisby Quarry on a quarterly basis and that this has been undertaken for the past several years. In addition to the information gleaned from this noise monitoring, four additional properties have been identified as noise sensitive properties in the area of the proposed extension. In order to consider the worst case scenario, the noise assessment was based on the plant being positioned at its closest approach to potentially noise sensitive properties and at the highest working level.
Four of the sensitive receptors identified in relation to previous planning permissions have been carried forward in this assessment and a further four dwellings on Morton Lane have been added in light of the proximity of these properties to the proposed operations. An approved maximum noise level of 50dB LAeq, 1 hour at the four previously identified properties is proposed to
Page 117 be retained for the working of Phases 5 and 6. In relation to the four newly identified properties, for Phase 5 of the development it is proposed to apply a maximum noise limit of 10dB (A) above background noise levels. However, during sub-phases 6A and 6B the noise limits at two of these properties is proposed to be set at 50dB LAeq, 1 hour, which is between 12 and 19dB above background noise levels. During sub-phases 6C and 6D the noise limits at three of these properties is proposed to be set at 50dB LAeq, 1 hour which is 19dB above existing background noise levels. The reason for these higher noise limits in Phase 6 is stated to be because it would be an unreasonable burden to limit the noise by background plus 10dB(A) in relation to these properties. It is stated, however, that this is still 5dB below the maximum 55dB(A) LAeq, 1hour (free field) specified in the NPPF.
The creation of bunds is considered to be an important mitigation measure to reduce the impact of noise, with earth bunds of 5 metres in height being required to protect properties to the south along Morton Lane and earth bunds to a height of 3 metres required to protect the properties to the north along Thorpe Lane, Swinderby Road to the west and Beehive Lane to the east.
It is considered that noise management and mitigation can be adequately controlled through the use of appropriately worded conditions and that the noise limits set out in the Noise Impact Assessment would be acceptable.
Chapter 10: Air Quality and Dust summarises the Dust and Air Quality Assessment which has been undertaken. A number of potential sources of dust are identified as:
- soil stripping and overburden removal; - extraction of the mineral; - transportation of material on-site; - material processing; - wind erosion from dry, unvegetated surfaces; - vehicle movements and their exhaust emissions; and - the deposition of materials for restoration purposes.
It is stated that the proposed extension would be worked and restored using methods which are broadly similar to those at the existing site. It is also acknowledged that the proposed extension would move mineral operations closer to a small number of isolated dwellings to the west of the existing permitted working area and that generally a stand-off distance of 100 metres or more will be adopted between the extraction boundaries and residential receptors.
In relation to the potential impacts, it is stated that there is estimated to be a high risk of fugitive dust at two properties during two sub-phases of the development, and one of these properties is also at medium risk of wind- blown dust during one of the sub-phases. However, it is also stated that
Page 118 with the adoption of the proposed mitigation measures the risk is reduced to medium/low in these instances.
The estimated risks of fugitive and/or wind-blown dust are medium / low at all other identified receptors and that with the adoption of the proposed mitigation measures the residual risks would be low or near zero.
It is stated that in general, dust mitigation measures should be minimal due to the high moisture content typically associated with sand and gravel, however, a series of dust mitigation measures are set out including, but not limited to, the use of clean water for dust suppression, effective training of staff, suspension of soil handling near the site boundaries when wind conditions are likely to result in visible dust being carried towards sensitive receptors, haul roads sprayed regularly in dry conditions and all departing lorries to be inspected and cleaned as necessary before leaving the site. A dust management and monitoring plan is also proposed to be prepared.
Subject to the proposed mitigation measures, this chapter concludes that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable impacts in relation to dust and air quality.
Chapter 11: Soils, Land Quality and Agriculture states that a soil resource survey was undertaken in September 2012 which showed the presence of two main soil types, namely sandy soils over gravel in the southern part of the survey area and loamier soils in the northern parts.
Over half (52%) of the proposed extension area is defined as moderate grade agricultural land (sub-grade 3b), 41% is defined as good quality agricultural land (sub-grade 3a) and 7% is classed as very good quality agricultural land (grade 2). The assessment concluded that the droughtiness is the principal limitation to agricultural land quality. It is considered that restoration to agriculture is not practical due to the depth of the proposed workings and the lack of infill due to the site location.
This chapter sets out a brief soil handling strategy to minimise the impact upon soils and states that the soils stripped and removed would be used either in landscaping or screening of the development or in the restoration of the existing Whisby Quarry site.
It is concluded that the loss of grade 2 agricultural land is very limited and is not considered to be unacceptable; that through appropriate mitigation measures the impacts on the soil resource can be minimised; and that overall the impacts are acceptable.
Chapter 12: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage states that an archaeological desk-based assessment and a geophysical survey have been undertaken. There are no recorded Scheduled Monument, Historic Parks or Gardens or Historic Battlefields within 1km of the proposed extension site. The nearest Scheduled Monument has been identified to be approximately 1.2km south-west of the site and is the remains at Eagle Hall
Page 119 of a “Knights Temple” preceptory with associated earthworks and later gardens.
It is considered that the proposed extension has a “low to moderate” potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. It is stated that the findings of the geophysical survey do not suggest the presence of any substantial concentrations of archaeological features or activity in the majority of the survey area. One of the areas surveyed did indicate features which are of a size and strength which could represent a small ditched enclosure with associated settlement features. Whilst they did not conclusively represent a clearly interpretable plan of an archaeological site, they did indicate that this part of the site is of archaeological interest. It is therefore recommended that prior to mineral extraction a suitable scheme of further archaeological assessment work of the potential defined enclosure is undertaken in consultation with the County Archaeologist.
Chapter 13: The Impact on Water Resources states that the main impact of the proposed development on the water environment is the lowering of groundwater levels around the quarry void as a result of the dewatering activities to optimise mineral recovery. It also states that this lowering of the watertable may alter the groundwater flow direction as the void develops, however, this is stated to be a temporary effect and once quarrying operations are completed and dewatering has ceased, groundwater levels would return to the current levels. In terms of the impact of this, it is stated that the area is intensively drained for agricultural uses and the risks are assessed as being of low magnitude and of minor significance and as such mitigation measures are considered unlikely to be required.
To avoid potential adverse impacts on water quality during mineral extraction through the mobilisation of fines, the proposed method of water management is such that groundwater flow is consistently towards the quarry void. As such, it is considered unlikely that contamination could enter the groundwater system external to the site without it being identified and sufficient time being available for measures to be used to prevent it entering the surface water system. In addition, best practice methods of chemical storage/handling, high levels of maintenance of fixed and mobile plant and high levels of vigilance are such that the likelihood of contamination occurring are considered to be extremely small.
Discharges to the Pike Drain are proposed to continue, however, it is stated that the overall increase above that which flows from groundwater to surface water under standard conditions cannot easily be quantified. As such, the impacts are assessed as medium with a significance of effect of moderate.
It is stated that the discharge off-site of groundwater derived from dewatering will be required and that this is a continuation of the current practice which has been undertaken without known adverse impacts on the local water environment. The discharge process includes use of lagoons to remove suspended solids before discharge to Pike Drain. The significance of impact on surface water as a result of this is stated to be minor.
Page 120
Whisby Nature Reserve, which is a Local Nature Reserve, is downstream of the site and the restored flooded gravel pits are of ecological value. The lowered groundwater level from quarrying is stated to have, at worst, only a minor impact on these features because the water levels in these pits are in continuity with the shallow groundwater and surface water.
Following cessation of mineral extraction and dewatering operations, all potential impacts upon the water environment are assessed to be of negligible magnitude and of minor or no significance.
Overall, this section concludes that with proposed mitigation measures in place, the quarry extension could be worked without posing any risk to the water environment.
Chapter 14: Flood Risk Assessment provides an overview of the Flood Risk Assessment which has been undertaken. The application site lies entirely within Flood Zone 1 and sand and gravel workings are nevertheless classified as being “water compatible” development.
Surface water generated from within the site during the extraction is proposed to be managed by pumping to lagoons. Surface water run-off rates have been calculated for both the extraction and restoration phases to ensure that there is no increased risk of flooding to the surrounding area. The extracted gravel pits are also stated to provide additional floodwater storage following severe flood events, thus reducing the extent and impacts of flooding.
Given that the site is proposed to be dewatered in order to extract the mineral, it is stated that the overall risk of groundwater flooding is by definition high, however, this would be managed within the quarry void and therefore the risks would largely be mitigated through working practices.
It is stated that a continuation of the current water management practices would ensure that there is no adverse impact on downstream flood risk and that the proposals overall would not cause an unacceptable impact in terms of flood risk.
Chapter 15: Transportation and Traffic provides a brief summary of the findings of the accompanying Transport Assessment. The Transport Assessment undertook a review of the existing operations at Whisby Quarry and identified the likely impact of the proposed extension in terms of highway capacity and highway safety.
It is stated that the proposed extension would benefit from an established access onto Eagle Road and is clearly signed via both directional and approach-warning signage. It is not proposed that this existing access is altered. Reference is made to the existing operations being subject to a Section 106 Agreement, as stated above, to control the route of HGVs.
Page 121 The road network is stated to be lightly trafficked and that there have been few collisions on the local road network. It is not anticipated that the future profile of HGV movements would be different from the levels upon which previous planning permissions were granted. Overall it is therefore concluded that the proposed development would not be detrimental to highway capacity or safety.
Chapter 16: Rights of Way states that one Public Right of Way, Eagle Footpath 7/1 would be directly affected by the proposed development and would require a permanent diversion. This footpath currently crosses the site adjacent to the western boundary linking Swinderby Road with the road leading to Eagle Barnsdale, within sub-phase 6A of the proposed development. It is not possible to reinstate this footpath on its existing line at the restoration stage of the development due to the layout of the proposed restoration scheme and the introduction of waterbodies. It is therefore proposed to permanently divert this footpath originating to the west of The Chippings then following the south west boundary of the Whisby Quarry site before turning northeast along Swinderby Road. It is not considered that this diversion route would be substantially less convenient than the existing route.
Public Right of Way Eagle/669105/10 lies in close proximity to the application site and whilst views from this footpath would be subject to a temporary change, the development would not directly impact on the route of this footpath.
The restoration scheme includes an enhanced network of footpaths and permissive paths and it is considered that this would adequately compensate for the permanent diversion of Eagle Footpath 7/1.
Chapter 17: Socio Economic Assessment provides a socio-economic overview of the importance of Whisby Quarry and the proposed extension. It states that there are 11 full time employees working at Whisby Quarry and there is also indirect employment in haulage, goods and services. Although no new jobs are proposed to be created, the proposed extension would extend the life of the quarry by approximately 7.3 years, providing a continuation of the existing jobs for this length of time.
It is also stated that the series of waterbodies proposed as part of the site’s restoration scheme would have the potential to provide a long-term, sustainable supply of irrigation water for the adjacent agricultural land and therefore support farming uses.
The social and economic benefits of the proposal are considered to have positive weight and it is argued that they should be supported in accordance with the NPPF which adopts a positive approach to development that provides economic growth.
Chapter 18: Cumulative Impact considers a wide range of cumulative impacts including successive effects, simultaneous effects from concurrent
Page 122 developments and combined effects from the same development. The assessment considers both positive and negative effects. Overall it is concluded that the cumulative impact of the scheme does not weigh against the proposals to a degree that forms an objection to the development, taking into consideration the temporary nature of the development and the benefits which would arise.
Chapter 19: Conclusions state that overall it is considered that all of the potential residual negative environmental impacts of the proposed development are capable of being made acceptable by the imposition of planning conditions and obligations. Furthermore, it is considered that following restoration of the site there would be a host of environmental and amenity benefits. The potential environmental and local amenity impacts are therefore considered to be acceptable and the proposed development is not considered to conflict with the development plan policy.
11. The following Technical Appendices form part of the ES:
- Technical Appendix 1 – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; - Technical Appendix 2 – Ecological Assessment; - Technical Appendix 3 – Noise Impact Assessment; - Technical Appendix 4 – Dust and Air Quality Assessment; - Technical Appendix 5 – Soil Resource and Agricultural Use and Quality Assessment; - Technical Appendix 6A – Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment; - Technical Appendix 6B – Report on Archaeological Geophysical Surveys 2012 – 2013; - Technical Appendix 7A – Hydrological and Hydrogeological Assessment; - Technical Appendix 7B – Surface Water and Groundwater Calculations; - Technical Appendix 8 – Flood Risk Assessment; - Technical Appendix 9 – Transport Assessment; and - Technical Appendix 10 – Summary of Geological Investigations.
Following a request under Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations, further information was submitted on 12 January 2015. The submitted information was to address queries and objections which had been raised in relation to the originally submitted Environmental Statement and included the following:
Public Rights of Way – clarification was provided that it would be necessary to have a delay between the stopping up of Eagle Footpath 7/1 and the provision of an alternative footpath given the location of the footpath in relation to the proposed extension area. It is stated that it would not be practical to provide an alternative footpath whilst works in the western part of the site were being carried out due to safety and amenity issues.
Dust and Air Quality – confirmed that the dust mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement are proposed to be implemented. It is also stated that it is anticipated that if planning permission is granted it would be subject to a condition requiring the submission of an updated dust management scheme for the Mineral Planning Authority’s approval.
Page 123
Listed Buildings – states that the proposed extension area of the site would take operations closer to one Listed Building and one Scheduled Monument. Tunman Farmhouse, Morton Lane, Eagle is a Grade II Listed Building and would be approximately 400 metres south of the proposed extension, is separated from the site by a railway line, fields a woodland area and a road. The remains of the preceptor of the Knights Templars, near Eagle Hall, is a Scheduled Monument and is located approximately 1km west of the proposed extension with the intervening area being predominantly open fields and road. It is considered that there is no visibility between the features and the proposed extension areas and that given the distance between them and lack of intervisibility, the impact on their settings is concluded to be negligible.
Potential Impacts of the Proposed Dewatering on Tunman Wood – states that Tunman Wood is located approximately 400 metres from the proposed extension and the Hydrological Impact Assessment concludes that groundwater levels in the immediate area of dewatering will be temporarily reduced up to 50 metres from a quarry face. Based on this, there would be no adverse impact on Tunman Wood as a result of the proposed development.
Impacts on the Railway Infrastructure – confirms that there would be a 50 metre stand-off between extractive operations and the railway boundary and a 30 metre stand-off between soil/topsoil bunds and the railway boundary and that these measures are as per the existing arrangements with Network Rail. It is also stated that there would be no adverse impact on railway infrastructure as a result of the proposal, including impacts from dewatering.
Addendum to Hydrological Impact Assessment and to Surface Water and Groundwater Calculations – provides responses to the queries and objections raised by the Environment Agency and Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board, as well as general queries raised. This includes details of the drainage patterns and catchment boundaries. It also states that the discharge from the waterbodies in the quarry to Pike Drain would be controlled with an adjustable weir which would be managed to ensure that discharge would not exceed greenfield rate.
Site and Surroundings
12. The application site boundary covers an area of some 105.5 hectares and at its closest point is approximately 8.5km south west of Lincoln City Centre and at its furthest point is approximately 11.5km south west of the City Centre. It is between the settlements of Eagle, to the north west, Thorpe on the Hill to the south east and Eagle Barnsdale to the south west. Beyond the eastern line of the access road is the settlement of Whisby. To the east of the application site and north of Thorpe on the Hill is Whisby Nature Reserve, a Local Nature Reserve, which consists of the flooded former gravel pits. Approximately 400 metres south of the application site lies
Page 124 Tunman Wood, an area of ancient woodland. The site lies within the Witham Valley Country Park.
13. The existing access to the site is off Eagle Road, to the north of the overall site. Vehicles are routed from this access directly to the A46 trunk road to the east to avoid the local villages.
14. The southern extent of the proposed extension area runs along Beehive Lane to the junction of the Eagle Barnsdale Crossing. A railway line runs parallel to this road and is adjacent to the application site boundary for approximately 570 metres of its length. The western extent of the proposed extension runs north of the junction at the Eagle Barnsdale Crossing to the junction with Swinderby Road, where the boundary then follows this road for approximately 400 metres. Eagle Footpath 7/1 runs south from Swinderby Road, across the application site in this area. The application site remains south west of Thorpe Lane and is staggered around the existing residential properties on this road. Within this area of the application site lies the already permitted areas of Phase 5 and the proposed extension into Phase 6. There is an existing line of trees and hedgerow between the Phases 5 and 6 of the proposed development.
View from Eagle Footpath 7/1 on Swinderby Road looking View from Eagle Footpath 7/1 on Swinderby Road looking south across site east across site
15. The proposed extension area and the surrounding area is largely flat, agricultural land with tree belts, occasional individual trees and hedgerows. A large proportion of the roadside verges have established hedgerows with intermittent trees. The tree belts limit any significant long distances views across the surrounding landscape.
16. There are a number of residential properties scattered beyond the extent of the application site boundary, some of which face towards the application site and others which back onto it.
Page 125 Main Planning Considerations
National Guidance
17. The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England. It is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and adopts a presumption in favour of sustainable development. A number of paragraphs of the NPPF are of particular relevance to this application:
paragraph 17 seeks to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; paragraphs 99 to 103 seek to ensure that flood risk is not increased as a result of development, either on site or off-site, and directs development to those areas with the lowest risk of flooding wherever possible; paragraph 109 seeks to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, including through the prevention of pollution; paragraph 112 seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land and states a preference for development to be located on poorer quality land to that of a higher quality; paragraph 118 seeks to conserve and enhance biodiversity; paragraph 120 seeks to protect general amenities; paragraph 123 seeks to prevent adverse impacts as a result of noise pollution; paragraph 128 requires that the significance of heritage assets is taken into consideration, including any impacts on their setting; paragraph 142 recognises the importance of minerals reserves and the need to make best use of them; paragraph 144 sets out a series of criteria to be taken into account when determining applications for minerals development, including ensuring that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment and human health and that the cumulative effects from multiple individual sites are taken into account; ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions are controlled and mitigated and establish noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties; and provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to high environmental standards; and paragraph 215 states that 12 months after the publication of the NPPF (2012) due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework, with the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given. This is of relevance with regard to the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan and North Kesteven Local Plan.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
18. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on local planning authorities in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or
Page 126 its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Local Plan Context
19. The Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan (1991, saved 2007) forms part of the development plan in relation to this application. The policies of most relevance to this application are:
Policy M3 (Working of Aggregate Minerals) states that every application for the working of aggregate minerals will be considered on its merits. There will however be a presumption in favour of extensions to existing workings with any new quarry normally only permitted where this replaces an existing quarry which has become worked out.
Policy M4 (Surface Mineral Working on Agricultural Land) states that in considering applications for planning permission for surface mineral working on land currently in agricultural use particular regard will be had to:
(i) the agricultural quality of the land, with extraction using Grade 1 and 2 land only permitted where there is no reasonable alternative and where restoration would be to an equally high quality; (ii) the environmental and economic aspects; (iii) the continuing need to protect the countryside for its own sake rather than primarily for the productive value of the land; (iv) the economic well-being of the local rural economy.
Policy M8 (Surface Mineral Working and the Natural and Historic Environment) states that surface minerals working will not normally be permitted where this would have an adverse effect on areas which are of archaeological, historic, scientific or natural history interest. Regard will also be had to the impact on nature conservation and wildlife.
Policy M9 (Planning Applications for Surface Mineral Working) requires applications for mineral working to be accompanied by a statement addressing a range of issues, including the following:
(a) an assessment of the need for working the mineral, details of the characteristics or properties of the minerals, workable reserves and markets to be served; (b) the estimated annual output and life of the working; (c) an assessment of the traffic generated and routing to and from the markets to be served; (d) an estimate of the employment opportunities arising from the proposal; (e) details of the layout of the site and access and measures taken to protect local amenity; (f) the method and programme of working; (g) restoration details;
Page 127 (h) landscaping and tree planting proposals, including measures to protect local amenities during the period of extraction; (i) aftercare arrangements; (j) an appraisal of the wildlife and natural history value of the site and the protection of any such features; (k) an assessment of archaeological implications and facilities for recording any interest.
Policy M10 (Surface Mineral Working and Working Requirements) states that permission will be granted providing operations can be carried out in such a manner as to minimise disturbance during working and that satisfactory restoration to an appropriate after-use can be achieved.
Policy M11 (Surface Mineral Working and Legal Agreements) states that legal agreements may be used in relation to restrictions to be placed upon operations or measures to be taken in connection with the operations proposed.
Policy M12 (Surface Mineral Working and Requirement for Adequate Local Highway Network to Accommodate the Traffic Generated) states that planning permission will only be granted for surface mineral working where the local highway network is adequate to accommodate the traffic that the proposed development is likely to generate.
Policy M14 (Restoration of Surface Mineral Working) requires proposals to be accompanied by a detailed scheme of restoration for the site.
Policy M15 (Surface Mineral Working Aftercare) states that conditions requiring the after-care of restored sites will be imposed.
20. North Kesteven Local Plan (2007, saved policies 2010) forms part of the development plan in relation to this proposal. The following policies are of relevance in this case:
Policy C2 – Development in the Countryside, states that planning permission will be granted in the countryside provided that it:
- will maintain or enhance the environmental, economic and social value of the countryside; - will protect and where possible, enhance the character of the countryside; - cannot be located within or adjacent to a settlement; and - will not attract or generate a large number of journeys and is located to provide opportunities for access by public transport, walking or cycling.
Policy C3 – Agricultural Land Quality, states that planning permission for the development of the best and most versatile agricultural land will only be granted if:
Page 128 - previously-developed land or land of a lower agricultural grade is not available; - land of a lower agricultural grade which is available is subject to other sustainability considerations, including biodiversity, landscape, amenity or heritage interest etc, which outweigh agricultural considerations; and - the development is proposed on land of the lowest possible grade.
Policy C5 – Effects upon Amenities, seeks to ensure that proposals will not adversely affect the amenities enjoyed by other land users to an unacceptable degree.
Policy C10 – Flood Risk, seeks to ensure that development proposals would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding; would not unacceptability increase flood risk elsewhere and would not affect the integrity of existing flood defences. It also states that priority will be given to sites in the lowest flood zones.
Policy C11 – Pollution, seeks to ensure that development proposals would not result in adverse impacts due to pollution in relation to land users, biodiversity, water, air and soils resources and the general amenities of the area.
Policy C14 – Surface Water Disposal, states that planning permission will be granted for development provided that it includes measures designed to safely manage surface water run-off and where feasible, minimise the increase in surface water run-off.
Policy C19 – Landscaping, seeks to ensure that appropriate high quality landscaping is secured.
Policy C22 – External Lighting Schemes, states that such schemes must not compromise highway safety, adversely affect the amenities of nearby land users and not adversely affect the character of the area.
Policy T1 – Accessibility to Developments, states that development which attracts a significant number of journeys must ensure that adequate and effective measures are taken to facilitate access by all modes of transport and that the infrastructure serving it is satisfactory.
Policy T4 – Safety, states that planning permission will not be granted for development proposals that will adversely affect the safety of people using roads, cycleways, footpaths, bridleways or railways.
Policy RTS2 – Protection of Existing Public Rights of Way, states that planning permission will not be granted for proposals that will adversely affect a public right of way.
Policy RTS4 – Public Access to the Countryside, states that planning permission will be granted for proposals that will increase public access to the countryside.
Page 129
Policy LW1 – Landscape Conservation, seeks to ensure that the distinctive landscapes identified in the Landscape Character Areas is protected and that new development contributes to local distinctiveness, protecting any important local features.
Policy LW5 - Sites of Special Scientific Interest, seeks to protect such sites from direct and indirect adverse impacts, including the requirement for mitigation and compensation where appropriate.
Policy LW6 – County Wildlife Sites and Local Nature Reserves, sets out the criteria to be applied to development which would directly or indirectly adversely affect such sites, including the requirement for mitigation and compensation where appropriate.
Policy LW7 – Features of Importance for Wildlife, seeks to protect and ensure such features.
Policy LW8 – Protected Species, sets out the need to protect protected species and their habitats.
Policy HE2 – Archaeological Assessment and Evaluation, requires proposals to be accompanied by an assessment if evidence suggests that archaeological remains are likely to be present on a site, together with any proposed mitigation measures.
Policy HE5 – Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building, states that planning permission will be granted for development that will not adversely affect the setting of a listed building.
21. The following policies of the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (Pre-Submission Draft) January 2015 are of relevance:
Policy M2: Providing for an Adequate Supply of Sand and Gravel, states that provision will be made for 68.88 million tonnes of sand and gravel over the plan period within the three production areas, including 35.28 million tonnes (1.68 million tonnes per annum) from the Lincoln/Trent Valley Production Area. It also states that priority will be given to extensions to existing Active Mining Sites.
Policy M3: Landbank of Sand and Gravel, states that in order to ensure a steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel for aggregate purposes, the County Council will seek to maintain a landbank of permitted sand and gravel reserves of at least seven years within each production area based on their past 10 years average sales.
Policy M4: Proposals for Sand and Gravel Extraction, sets the framework within which both allocated and non allocated sites will be addressed, the
Page 130 need to maintain the landbank and the requirement for all relevant development management policies to be met.
Policy DM1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, sets out that the County Council will adopt a positive approach reflecting the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF.
Policy DM2: Climate Change, sets out the matters which must be addressed by minerals development to reduce their travelling and carbon footprint; to promote new and enhanced nature conservation; and to encourage the most efficient use of primary minerals.
Policy DM3: Quality of Life and Amenity, seeks to prevent unacceptable adverse impacts arising to occupants of nearby dwellings and other sensitive receptors.
Policy DM4: Historic Environment, seeks to protect heritage assets and their settings and ensure the impacts are fully assessed.
Policy DM6: Impact on Landscape and Townscape, states that planning permission will be granted provided that due regard is given to the likely impact of development on the distinctive character of the landscape and townscape of Lincolnshire. If necessary additional design, landscaping, planting and screening will be required.
Policy DM9: Local Sites of Biodiversity Conservation Value, seeks to protect locally designated sites and habitats.
Policy DM11: Soils, states that development should protect and wherever possible enhance soils.
Policy DM12: Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, seeks to protect such land and states that development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
no reasonable alternative exists; and for minerals sites, the site will be restored to an after-use that safeguards the long-term potential of the best and most versatile agricultural land.
Policy DM13: Sustainable Transport Movements, states that proposals should seek to minimise road transport and seek to maximise where possible the use of the most sustainable transport option.
Policy DM14: Transport by Road, seeks to ensure the highway network is of an adequate standard for use by traffic generated by the development, the arrangements for site access and traffic generated would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and ensure a travel plan is in place.
Page 131 Policy DM15: Flooding and Flood Risk, seeks to ensure that development is located on land with the lowest probability of flooding and the development should avoid, and wherever possible, reduce flood risk.
Policy DM16: Water Resources, sets out the requirement that development should not have an unacceptable impact on surface or ground water.
Policy DM17: Cumulative Impacts, states that planning permission will be granted where the cumulative impact of developments would not result in adverse impacts on the environment or amenity of a local community.
Policy R1: Restoration and Aftercare, sets out the requirement for minerals workings to be restored to a high quality at the earliest opportunity.
Policy R2: Afteruse, seeks after uses which are not detrimental to the local economy, conserve and enhance landscape character and the natural and historic environment. Net gains in biodiversity and geological interests are sought, together with the safeguarding of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Public access is also encouraged. Restoration proposals should be designed to ensure they do not give rise to new or increased hazards to aviation.
Policy R3: Restoration of Sand and Gravel Operations within Areas of Search, states that (other than those involving best and most versatile agricultural land) restoration proposals should have regard to the landscape scale objectives of the area and for the Trent Valley (south west of Lincoln within the Witham Valley Country Park) this should be creation of habitats (including wet woodland, reedbed, acid grassland and heathland) to enhance local nature conservation and biodiversity value; provision of improved public access including links to surrounding green infrastructure; and the development of additional recreational/sport facilities.
Results of Consultation and Publicity
22. (a) Local County Councillor, Councillor Shore – consulted on 27 March 2014 and reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the Regulation 22 information but had not responded at the time of writing this report.
(b) Local County Councillor, Councillor Phillips – consulted on 27 March 2014 and reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the Regulation 22 information but had not responded at the time of writing this report.
(c) Eagle and Swinethorpe Parish Council - no objections to the proposal and the two areas identified for a memorial area and a water sports area within the parish are welcomed. The Parish Council would like to receive an up to date schedule of restoration schemes and when they are likely to happen. This however is being followed up with Larfarge Tarmac within the Whisby Quarry Liaison meetings by a representative from the Parish Council. The Parish Council also wanted assurance that the conveyor belt taking materials under the road during the last
Page 132 phase will be used again. This has also been agreed at a recent Whisby Quarry Liaison meeting. The Parish Council would like to see restoration works carried out more quickly as there are still some areas from previous applications that have not yet been completed.
(d) Doddington and Whisby Parish Council – consulted on 27 March 2014 and reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the Regulation 22 information but had not responded at the time of writing this report.
(e) Thorpe on the Hill Parish Council – consulted on 27 March 2014 and reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the Regulation 22 information but had not responded at the time of writing this report.
(f) Environmental Health Officer (North Kesteven District Council) – no comments.
(g) Environment Agency – initially objected due to a lack of information and uncertainties, including:
- cross catchment boundaries – it would appear that the application results in water which would naturally flow to the Trent being diverted to the Witham; - concerns about the effects of discharge from the quarry to downstream third parties.
The proposal is an extension to existing works and the process of removing the sand and gravel is not changing. There are no discharges to land or water and no storage of potentially polluting matter. According to the application form, there is no intention to store, treat/recycle or dispose of mineral waste. It is demonstrated that the proposed operations will not have any detrimental effect on the area around the site and therefore have no concerns in relation to potential pollution.
In response to being reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the further information, responded to state that this information in Report reference 1465/HIA-03 addresses the concerns raised previously and therefore withdraw our objection.
It is recommended that a suitable condition is applied to the permission to secure the surface water requirements for the restoration of the quarry, following the principles identified in the report. These including reducing the run-off rate from the site to the existing greenfield run-off rate through the use of a flow control weir with attenuation storage within the lakes created. The final restoration scheme and its long term maintenance should be agreed in writing with your Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency and Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board.
Page 133 This advice has not considered the risk of flooding from ground water, drainage systems, reservoirs, canals or ordinary watercourses and your Authority must be satisfied that the proposed development is also in accordance with the other flood risk requirements of the NPPF.
(h) Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board – initially responded to state that in the absence of a complete flood risk assessment the Board objects to this application. Does acknowledge that the applicant is committed to agreeing the discharges from the site with the Board and Environment Agency. Any discharges must not be greater than agricultural run-off rates and there is an opportunity to reduce the flood risk to parts of North Hykeham and Lincoln downstream of the site through the quarrying phase and particularly the final restoration. Consent from the Board will be required for any works in watercourses, this is independent of the planning process. Also provided information regarding the maintenance of all drainage routes through the site; the need to ensure upstream and downstream riparian owners and areas presently served by drainage routes passing through or adjacent to the site are no adversely affected; and the need to take into consideration the affect of raising site levels on adjacent property.
In response to being reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the further environmental information, responded to state that their previous objection is removed. The main surface water discharge from the site is into the Board maintained Pike Dyke.
(i) Natural England – this application is in close proximity to Swanholme Lakes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Doddington Clay SSSI. However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. Refer to standing advice in relation to protected species.
Note that the red line area contains 19 hectares of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) and 17 hectares of land within the extension area is not considered best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land since it is grade 3b. Where minerals underlie BMV land, it is particularly important that restoration and aftercare preserve the long-term potential of the land as a national, high quality resource. Where alternative after-uses (such as forestry and some forms of amenity, including nature conservation) are proposed on the MBV land, the methods used in restoration and aftercare should enable the land to retain its longer-term capability, thus remaining a high quality resource for the future. This could be through non-agricultural purposes such as priority habitat or flood risk management. Careful consideration should be given to the types of soil appropriate for the intended habitats, for example, species rich grassland would benefit from less nutrient-rich soils than the land for agricultural use. The soil management techniques and mitigation measures suggested by Land
Page 134 Research Associates in ES Vol 2 Appendix 5 are necessary to ensure that the soil resource is protected.
Without a more detailed restoration plan including planting schemes, lake form (depth, slope of banks, marginal planting, intended use) and intended soil profiles, unable to provide further comments regarding the appropriateness of the restoration scheme. However offer general comments and encourage the unified restoration scheme. In principle, the restoration proposals provide extensive areas of habitat for wildlife as well as areas for recreation which may be beneficial to the community. Multi-functional green infrastructure can perform a range of functions including improved flood risk management, provision of accessible green space, climate change adaptation and biodiversity enhancements. The balance of protected and accessible areas requires careful consideration. Areas that are used for recreation can often be unsuitable for use by wildlife such as breeding birds. Recommend collaboration with local wildlife groups regarding prolonged management of the site.
Expect the Local Planning Authority to assess local impacts of the proposed development.
In response to being reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the further environmental information, responded to state the advice provided in the previous response applies equally with the additional information.
(j) Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust – when consulted on the scoping report for this proposal, raised concerns over potential impacts on Whisby Quarry Nature Park and Tunman Wood from dewatering during the extraction phase. As recognised in the ES, the application site is close to Whisby Nature Park which is a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and Local Nature Reserve. The development has the potential to impact on the nature conservation interest of the Nature Park through changes to the hydrology of the site. Welcome the assessment and note that the conclusion that the impact is expected to be “negligible” and that no mitigation measures are expected to be required. However, would expect the monitoring of water levels in the vicinity of Whisby Nature Park to be carried out during the extraction phase and if impacts are identified appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented.
Note that water will be discharged into Pike Drain which runs through Whisby Nature Park so any change to the quantity or quality of water in the drain could lead to impacts on the Nature Park. The Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board must be satisfied with the quality and quantity of discharges into Pike Drain to ensure there would be no adverse impacts on Whisby Nature Park.
At its closest point Tunman Wood is approximately 400 metres from the edge of the extraction site. It is a LWS and Trust Nature Reserve and
Page 135 is designated on the Natural England Ancient Woodland Inventory as a plantation on ancient woodland site. Given the proximity of Tunman Wood to the development site there is potential for adverse impacts. Disappointed that such impacts have not been directly assessed but note that the Hydrological Impact Assessment states that groundwater levels will be temporarily reduced within up to 50 metres from the quarry face, so Tunman Wood should be outside that area. Would however, expect monitoring of water levels in the vicinity of Tunman Wood to be carried out during the extraction phase and if impacts are identified appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented.
Welcome the restoration scheme and would wish to see extensive shallow edges to enable a diverse marginal flora to establish and therefore enhance biodiversity. In addition to the habitats proposed, recommend that heathland/acid grassland habitats are considered within the restoration scheme. This area is recognised as an opportunity area for heathland/acid grassland, wet woodland and reedbed habitats within the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Study for Central Lincolnshire.
The site is within the Witham Valley Country Park. The aim of this partnership initiative is to provide linked accessible greenspace from the centre of Lincoln City to the surrounding countryside, enriching the natural environment. The restoration proposals to create accessible local and national Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats should contribute towards the aims of the Witham Valley Country Park.
(k) Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership – consulted on 27 March 2014 and reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the Regulation 22 information but had not responded at the time of writing this report.
(l) Ministry of Defence – we have previously commented on applications relating to the expansion and restoration of Whisby Quarry. As part of the planning permission (N/23/27/64/982/01) granted for a previous extension scheme for the quarry we did ask that a long-term legally established bird management plan be included as a part of a Section 106 agreement to maintain air traffic safety. We are aware that this was not implemented in accordance with our statutory safeguarding requirements. Therefore, the MOD has an outstanding safeguarding concern with regard to the long term management of potential birdstrike hazards associated with the restoration of the Whisby Quarry complex.
The site of the proposed western extension to the mineral extraction scheme at Whisby Quarry occupies the statutory aerodrome height and birdstrike safeguarding zones surrounding RAF Waddington. The application site is approximately 10.8 km to the north west of the aerodrome.
The principal safeguarding concern of the MOD in relation to mineral extraction in the vicinity of RAF Waddington relates to the potential
Page 136 increase in birdstrike risk to aircraft operations as a result of the creation of wetland habitats through the restoration of mineral extraction sites. The applicant proposes to revise the approved restoration scheme they have for the current operational phases of Whisby Quarry to incorporate the extension areas which are the subject of this application. The application aims to consolidate all operations under one planning permission which will mean there will be one restoration scheme for the whole site.
The restoration scheme proposes to restore the land to a mixture of water bodies, species rich grassland, woodland and agriculture. Two lakes will be created in addition to the lakes permitted in the previous planning application. The restoration of the extension when combined with the approved restoration scheme for other areas of the quarry as well as water bodies at the nearby Whisby Nature Reserve will extend the complex of lakes in the local area which will make the area more attractive to large and, or, flocking birds hazardous to air traffic particularly species of gulls and geese.
The western most lake of the two new lakes proposed features a sinuous shoreline incorporating peninsulas and extensive marginal areas that afford extensive habitat opportunities to hazardous bird species. Therefore, this lake will need to have a simpler outline and be uniformly deep except for areas of reed bed.
The restoration scheme for both of the new lakes incorporates extensive areas of species rich grassland adjacent to the lake margins. This will provide feeding areas next to open water so the banks of the lakes will need to be designed to be as steep as possible or planted with dense emergent vegetation such as Phragmites Australis or common reed. The EIA states the banks have been designed to be steep but no details of marginal planting have been provided.
However, the biggest concern of the MOD relates to the long term management of bird hazard at the restored mineral extraction complex. The current submission does not incorporate any provisions for long term aftercare and management. The restoration of the proposed extension in conjunction with that already permitted for the remainder of the overall quarry scheme will cumulatively increase birdstrike risk to air traffic using RAF Waddington. It is noted that the pending application seeks to consolidate the restoration for the entire complex, the MOD considers it appropriate that a long term legally based bird management plan for the entire restored mineral extraction complex should be established for as long as the aerodrome at RAF Waddington remains operational.
To maintain air traffic safety this plan should make provision for the applicant to:
Page 137 - provide the MOD or its appointed agents with monthly reports of bird species and numbers at the site if requested by the MOD; - allow access to an inspection of the site by the MOD or its appointed agents each year (or more frequently if the MOD requires) to verify bird populations; - prevent the successful breeding of feral geese at the site by appropriate licensed means; - prevent the formation of a starling roost at the site; - at the reasonable request of the MOD disperse any geese, starling or other bird populations considered by the MOD to pose an unacceptable hazard to air traffic; - at the reasonable request of the MOD prevent the formation of gull roosts considered by the MOD to pose an unacceptable hazard to air traffic; - at the reasonable request of the MOD prevent the successful breeding of gulls, Cormorant and Grey Heron at the site by appropriate licensed means.
The management plan should also set out requirements for site maintenance necessary to ensure that attractants for large and flocking bird species do not develop as the restoration scheme matures. For the purposes of maintaining air traffic safety the following site management requirements should be included in the management plan:
- to install and maintain ‘goose proof’ mesh fencing around areas of marginal and reed bed planting to protect it from grazing waterfowl until the vegetation has successfully established; - to manage the grassland areas surrounding the lakes to retain dense, long grass thereby limiting opportunities for secure grazing and loafing by feral geese; - to retain the reed bed/reed fringe habitats.
The MOD requests that the bird management plan is established as part of a section 106 agreement (or other form of legally based agreement associated with the property) which would become effective as restoration is progressively completed. This should serve to implement the requirements identified above for as long as the aerodrome at RAF Waddington remains in use.
Subject to these requirements being implemented as a conditional requirement of any planning permission granted, the MOD maintains no objection to this application.
(m) Health and Safety Executive – consulted on 2 May 2014 and reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the Regulation 22 information but had not responded at the time of writing this report.
(n) Network Rail – no objection in principle to the development, but there are a number of requirements which must be met. There is insufficient
Page 138 information to comment in detail on some of the mounding and de- watering proposals but it is expected that appropriate conditions will be put in any consent granted.
Raise issues regarding any extractive operations within a lateral distance of 50 metres of the railway boundary and any overburden or buildings within 30 metres of the railway boundary. Proposals involving any dewatering should be agreed with Network Rail and shall be accompanied by a Hydrological and Hydrogeological Assessment which shall detail anticipated cones of settlement beneath the railway and the possible effects that this will have on the global stability of existing and proposed cut slopes. Discharge of water from dewatering operations should not adversely affect the operations or capability of Network Rail drainage systems. Would expect surface water drainage disposal strategy to be the subject of a detailed condition.
Note that part of the restoration scheme lies to the south of the railway line. Request the lorry haul routes previously adopted (which avoid the level crossing) are again adhered to and that HGVs do not use routeing over either Eagle Thorpe Lane or Thorpe on the Hill level crossings. If some quarry traffic is envisaged to use these crossings a condition survey must be carried out and any excessive wear and tear caused by the increased traffic should be made good at the applicant’s expense.
Highlight the need to notify Network Rail at least six weeks prior to extraction works commencing and to ensure that the development does not affect the safety, operation or integrity of the operational railway, Network Rail and it infrastructure or undermine or damage or adversely affect any railway land and structures. There must be no physical encroachment onto railway land.
Provide advice regarding landscaping and the types of trees which are acceptable and those which are not. In relation to external lighting, details should be the subject of a condition and such lighting should not be positioned where it could contribute to confusion with existing signalling equipment or cause driver distraction.
In response to being reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the further environmental information, responded to state no further comments.
(o) Highways Agency – the proposed development is not expected to have a material impact on the closest strategic route, the A46, therefore have no objections.
(p) Sport England – note that there is already an approved restoration scheme linked to an earlier planning permission incorporating a main activity lake, outdoor pursuits centre and ancillary facilities to support the use of the lake for manual water sports and that this application does not involve any physical changes to this scheme, although it
Page 139 appears that the timescale for delivery could be delayed if planning permission is granted for the proposed extension. This should therefore be taken into consideration in planning for long term effective use of the site as a sports resource to best meet identified needs. Given that there are no additional sports facilities included within the extended restoration plan, do not wish to make any further comments at this stage.
In response to be reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the further environmental information, responded to state no further comments.
(q) Coal Authority – no observations, the application site does not fall within the defined coalfield.
In response to be reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the further environmental information, responded to state no further comments.
(r) Highways (Lincolnshire County Council) – the section 106 routeing agreement that is currently in place on the Whisby Quarry should be extended to ensure that HGV traffic generated from this proposal will access and egress from the site via the agreed route. This agreement should also be extended to ensure that HGV traffic is not allowed to “shortcut” through Doddington village. HGV movements are not expected to differ from the levels upon which previous permissions were granted. The existing access is to be utilised.
(s) Historic Environment (Lincolnshire County Council) – archaeological evaluation comprising desk-based assessment and geophysics survey have been undertaken for this site. These show that whilst there is some potential across the site for archaeological deposits of medium significance, large parts of the site have a low significance. It is recommended that a scheme of archaeological works be carried out, details of this to be submitted in writing and agreed by the planning authority.
In addition, the site is in the vicinity of a number of Listed Buildings and consideration should be given to the capacity of the development to impact on their settings.
Further to the receipt of additional information submitted under Regulation 22, responded to state:
Have been out and visited the site and have to say that would disagree with the applicant’s statement at 5.4.3 that the proposals have no adverse impact on any designated historic assets.
There are 13 Listed Buildings within Eagle village in a density which would normally be expected in a Conservation area, although it seems
Page 140 Eagle does not currently have such a designation. The closest point of working to The Homestead LB is 0.2km according to my measurement on the map, the furthest of these buildings is 0.5km, the buildings are fairly equally spaced mainly along Main Street and indicate that the village has a historic core.
In addition there are two Listed Buildings at Eagle Hall Farm about 1km away.
All this landscape is currently very flat and open with just a few clumps of trees in the distance mainly relating to the designed parkland landscape of Eagle Hall, Eagle Hall Farm previously mentioned lies within this historic park setting.
It is my opinion that such close working to these Listed Buildings within the village will have an impact on their setting. The village is a working agricultural village set in an agricultural landscape and gravel working will impact on this landscape introducing a mainly industrial landscape for the working period. Whilst I am aware there are some trees on the fringes of this village which do provide a degree of screening, this will only be seasonal. Visibility is only one aspect of 'setting' to be taken into account when considering Listed Buildings, the functional setting of all these buildings in the village is agricultural and their existence is mainly related to this landscape; in addition noise and dust is to be taken into account when considering settings of heritage assets and the proximity of the proposed boundary will mean that gravel extraction will produce noise and dust at a level which will affect these buildings.
Tunman Farmhouse to the south is a Listed Building, but this is separated by the railway line and denser woodland which would reduce any impact on this building or its setting.
(t) Public Rights of Way (Lincolnshire County Council) – the development would see the loss of Eagle Footpath 7 to quarrying. If granted, a temporary closure order would be required for the footpath for the intended duration of the quarrying until restoration. Can planning conditions be imposed to require the restoration of the footpath upon restoration of the site? If such conditions can be made then could we take the opportunity to improve future access in the area by providing for the dedication of an extra bridleway? This could bring substantial benefit to local residents and visitors if used to link Thorpe on the Hill Bridleway 16, Jobs Lane, New Lane, Doddington Footpaths 11 and 12 and Eagle Road.
Further to re-consultation on 14 January 2015, responded to state that object to this application pending a suitable package of rights of way measures being agreed. The applicant’s suggested approach is not legally achievable by Diversion Order and whilst a temporary diversion could be made to re-route Footpath 7 around the outskirts of the fields to be worked, a permanent diversion onto such a “behind the hedge”
Page 141 route would not be supported by user groups or this office. If the eventual restoration means Footpath 7 could not return to its direct course, its loss or diversion would only be likely to be tolerated if this was part of an agreed package of local network enhancements that were guaranteed by planning conditions. Please refer to the proposed bridleway previously identified.
(u) Policy Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) – consulted on 27 March 2014 and reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the Regulation 22 information but had not responded at the time of writing this report.
(v) The Ramblers Association – consulted on 16 July 2014 and reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the Regulation 22 information but had not responded at the time of writing this report.
(w) Lincolnshire Fieldpaths Association – consulted on 16 July 2014 and reconsulted on 14 January 2015 in relation to the Regulation 22 information but had not responded at the time of writing this report.
(x) Linesearch – information regarding Western Power Distribution Electricity/Western Power Distribution Surf Telecom apparatus in the vicinity of the proposed works and guidance regarding working in such areas.
(y) National Planning Casework Unit – no comments.
(z) English Heritage – consulted on 18 March 2015 but had not responded at the time of writing this report.
23. The application was publicised by six site notices and an advertisement in the Lincolnshire Echo on 3 April 2014 and 22 January 2015 and neighbouring properties were individually notified. As a result of this publicity six representations have been received from four local residents raising the following issues:
- request that no bank or tree plantation is created at the rear of a property in Eagle Barnsdale to preserve the open view; - request that a fence is erected as part of the restoration scheme to prevent users of the restored site straying beyond the site boundary and onto a residential property; - promoting the provision of public bridleways and shared public footpaths and bridleways in the restoration scheme given the need to provide safe places for horse riding and the number of equestrian related activities in the local area; - the extraction is so close to centres of population that it would seriously impinge residents’ standards of living; - it would have a profound effect on the local environment; - impacts on the ambience of the locality which is almost wholly agricultural, rural and undeveloped;
Page 142 - concerns regarding impacts on water table and effects on trees and hedges; - there has been increased flooding locally as a result of the existing operations which would be exacerbated; - there would be an increase in heavy, fast moving traffic causing further damage to the road network costing tens of thousands of pounds to repair; - concerns that vehicles are not adhering to the routeing arrangements and are travelling through local villages causing damage to the roads and vehicles; - areas beyond Lincolnshire are benefiting from the County’s mineral deposit; - queries regarding the need for the mineral; - concerns regarding the dangers of vast expanses of deep water, particularly in relation to children who live in the locality; - vast water bodies do not sit comfortably with an agricultural environment; - loss of noise attenuation regarding the railway line due to the introduction of lakes and loss of vegetation; - concerns that Eagle Footpath 7/1 cannot be diverted; - loss of wildlife is not compensated for by creation of lakes; and - it would lead to further destruction of Lincolnshire’s countryside.
District Council’s Recommendations
24. North Kesteven District Council did not wish to make any observations in respect of the proposed development.
Conclusions
25. Planning permission is sought to extract sand and gravel from land to the west of Whisby Quarry (adjacent to Swinderby Road and Beehive Lane); to utilise the existing quarry infrastructure, plant site and access onto Eagle Road to facilitate the development; and to restore the site to a mixture of water bodies, grassland, woodland and agriculture at land within and adjacent to Whisby Quarry. Part of the application site includes land which has already got planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel but this is included within this application as changes are sought to the sub- phases of this area and the restoration scheme.
26. The proposed extension to Whisby Quarry would release an additional 2.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel and would extend the life of the quarry by 7.3 years. It is necessary to consider whether an extension to the existing Whisby Quarry is acceptable, both in principle and in relation to the details of the current proposals.
Principle of Sand and Gravel Extraction
27. Policy M3 of the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan (1991) states that whilst every application will be considered on its merits, there is a presumption in favour of extensions to existing quarries. Paragraph 145 of the NPPF states
Page 143 that Minerals Planning Authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates, including making provision for the maintenance of landbanks of at least seven years for sand and gravel.
28. The most recent report of the East Midlands Aggregates Working Party was published in December 2013 and is entitled Report of Annual Survey for Calendar Year 2012. This report states that as of 31 December 2012 Lincolnshire had a landbank of 7.38 years, however, when this is considered against the apportionment figures for 2005 to 2020, this only represents a landbank of 5.63 years. There is therefore a need to provide more sites for the supply of sand and gravel. This report also sets out the sub-division of counties for sand and gravel production. Lincolnshire is sub-divided into three production areas. The application site lies within the Lincoln/Trent Valley production area which the report notes has the lowest landbank of the three production areas in Lincolnshire at 31 December 2012, of 5.86 years (no data is available in relation to landbanks based on apportionment for the sub-divided production areas). This indicates that there is a need to provide more sites for the production of sand and gravel within the Lincoln/Trent Valley production area. Given that the application site relates to the extension of an existing quarry and there is a need for additional supply of sand and gravel within the production area in which the site lies, it is concluded that the principle of allowing the extraction of sand and gravel at this site is acceptable and would be in accordance with Policy M3 of the Minerals Local Plan and the NPPF in this regard. This is also in line with the approach set out in the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (Pre-Submission Draft).
Flood Risk and Drainage
29. The NPPF and Policies C10 and C14 of the North Kesteven Local Plan seek to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of flooding on site or off site and that surface water disposal is managed appropriately.
30. A Flood Risk Assessment, Hydrological and Hydrogeological Assessment and Surface Water and Groundwater Calculations were submitted with this application and subsequent to a request for additional information under Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations an Addendum to the Hydrological Impact Assessment and to the Surface Water and Groundwater Calculations was also submitted. This further information was requested in order to address objections raised by the Environment Agency and the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board and to clarify apparent anomalies within the documents.
31. The proposed development would involve the dewatering of the site such that the mineral would not be worked wet, in order to optimise mineral recovery. The hydrological assessment states that the main impact of the proposed development on the water environment is the lowering of groundwater levels around the quarry void as a result of these dewatering activities. The proposals would involve the discharge of water from the site to Pike Drain which lies to the north east of the proposed extraction areas
Page 144 and is a drain maintained by the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board. The proposed discharge process would involve the pumping of water into a settlement lagoon to remove suspended solids before being discharged to Pike Drain. The proposed restoration scheme for this site includes the creation of waterbodies and it is stated that these would increase flood storage capacity in the area.
32. In their initial response to the application, the Environment Agency raised objections due to a lack of information and uncertainties, including concerns regarding cross catchment boundaries as it appeared that water which would naturally flow to the River Trent would be diverted to the River Witham; and concerns regarding the effects of discharge from the quarry to downstream third parties. The Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board also raised objections to the proposals as they considered the flood risk assessment to be incomplete and they had concerns regarding impacts on third parties. In discussions it became clear that the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board also had concerns regarding the cross catchment boundaries and flow of water. One local resident also raised concerns regarding the impacts of the development on flood risk.
33. In relation to the issue of catchment boundaries, further information has been submitted which clarifies that the catchment boundary lies to the western boundary of the application site and therefore the site drains eastwards towards the River Witham. Given that the catchment boundary does not cross the application site and therefore water is not being diverted to the River Witham, it is proposed to undertake the restoration scheme as originally proposed.
34. The impact of the development in terms of downstream third parties is also addressed in the further information. It is stated that the water discharged from the site to Pike Drain would be controlled by an adjustable weir. It is proposed to manage this to ensure that the discharge does not exceed the greenfield rate during the operational and restored phases and that the proposed restored waterbodies would be used for the temporary storage of water to reduce inflow into the River Witham during storm events. It is also stated that the discharge of water from the quarry during the working phases would be managed with reference to the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board.
35. In response to this further information, both the Environment Agency and the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board have withdrawn their objections and it is recommended that the surface water requirements for the restoration of the quarry are controlled through a planning condition and that the final restoration scheme and its long term maintenance should be agreed in writing by Lincolnshire County Council, in consultation with the Environment Agency and the Upper Witham Drainage Board.
36. Overall, it is therefore concluded that the further information addressed the previously raised concerns and that subject to the development being carried out as proposed and the imposition of the aforementioned
Page 145 conditions, the development would not have an adverse impact in relation to flood risk or drainage.
Highways
37. Policy M14 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policies T1 and T4 of the North Kesteven Local Plan seek to ensure that new development does not have an adverse impact on highway safety and that the transport network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposals.
38. A Transport Assessment has been submitted with this application which considers the impacts of the proposed development. It notes that this is an extension to an existing quarry and that there is an existing s.106 legal agreement in place which relates to the routeing of HGVs such that it requires all HGVs to turn right out of the site towards the A46 (except when making local deliveries) and to enter the site from the A46 direction, to ensure that HGV traffic generated would not travel through the local villages, in the interests of highway safety and local amenity.
39. The existing access to Whisby Quarry off Eagle Road is proposed to be used to serve the extension to the site, without any alteration. The Transport Assessment states that the future profile of HGV movements would not differ from the levels upon which previous planning permissions were granted. It notes that the road network in the vicinity of the application site is lightly trafficked and that there have been few collisions on the local road network. It is proposed to continue the existing s.106 legal agreement in relation to HGV routeing.
40. The Highways Agency has raised no objections to the proposed development, stating that it is not expected to have a material impact on the A46. Lincolnshire County Council’s Highways Officer agrees with the conclusions of the Transport Statement that the HGV movements associated with the proposed development would not differ from the levels upon which previous permissions were granted. It is recommended that the existing s.106 agreement relating to vehicle routeing should be applied to this proposal and that it should also be extended to ensure that HGV traffic is not allowed to “shortcut” through Doddington village. This would address the concern raised by one local resident regarding the routeing of quarry vehicles.
41. Subject to the applicant entering a s.106 legal agreement in relation to the routeing of HGVs to and from the application site, the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety or capacity.
Railway Infrastructure
42. North Kesteven Local Plan Policy T4 states that planning permission will not be granted for development proposals that will adversely affect the safety of people using railways. The application site boundary lies within 15 metres
Page 146 of a railway line which runs parallel to the south eastern part of the proposed extension, beyond Beehive Lane. Whilst there is no direct link to access the railway network in close proximity to the application site, the impact of the development on the railway infrastructure needs to be considered given how close it is to the site.
43. Network Rail has not raised any objections to the principle of the development but has stated that a number of requirements must be met. The key requirements from a planning perspective relate to the distance between the railway boundary and any extraction operations and overburden (Network Rail also referred to buildings but no buildings are proposed in this area of the site so this is not considered further). Network Rail has stated that there should not be extractive operations within a lateral distance of 50 metres of the railway boundary and no overburden mounds within 30 metres of the railway boundary, without the express prior approval of Network Rail. This does not mean that the operations and overburden mounds cannot be within this distance but that Network Rail has to first agree them. In the further information submitted in relation to the EIA Regulation 22 request, the applicant has stated that these limits would be complied with, and that this is as per their existing arrangement with Network Rail.
44. Network Rail also initially requested that any proposals involving dewatering should be accompanied by a Hydrological and Hydrogeological Assessment which considers the impacts on the railway infrastructure. As has been stated above, such an assessment was submitted with the application and an addendum to it was submitted as part of the further information sought under the EIA Regulation 22 request. That information confirmed that there would be no impact on railway infrastructure on the basis that no extractive operations would take place within 50 metres of the railway boundary.
45. However, in discussions seeking amended plans from the applicant to ensure that there would be no extraction operations within 50 metres of the railway boundary and no amenity bunds within 30 metres, as stated in the Regulation 22 further information, it has become apparent that the applicant would like the option to work beyond these limits. This affects the proposed Sub-Phases 6C and 6D of the development as an amenity bund connected with Sub-Phase 6C and both extraction operations and amenity bunds associated with Sub-Phase 6D would be within the identified limits of the railway boundary. As such the relevant agreement would be required from Network Rail and a further hydrological and hydrogeological assessment would need to be undertaken to consider the impacts of any such working on the railway infrastructure. At the time of writing this report, no further information in this regard has been submitted. It is therefore recommended that if planning permission is granted it is subject to a condition stating that permission is not authorised for any operations within Sub-Phases 6C and 6D until details of the extent of the extraction area and any amenity bunds, together with the necessary hydrological and hydrogeological assessment undertaken and appropriate measures identified to be put in place in relation to the outcome of this assessment, have been submitted to, and approved in
Page 147 writing by, the Mineral Planning Authority in consultation with Network Rail. Such a condition would therefore ensure that there would be no detrimental impacts on the railway infrastructure.
46. In order to protect the railway level crossings at Eagle Thorpe Lane and Thorpe on the Hill, it is recommended that if planning permission is granted, it is subject to a s.106 legal agreement routeing HGVs on the route which is currently prescribed. Providing these measures are put in place, the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the nearby railway infrastructure and would be in accordance with North Kesteven Local Plan Policy T4 in this regard.
Public Rights of Way
47. Policy T4 of the North Kesteven Local Plan states that planning permission will not be granted for development proposals that will adversely affect the safety of people using footpaths and bridleways and Policy RST2 states that planning permission will not be granted for proposals that will adversely affect a Public Right of Way.
48. Part of Eagle Footpath 7/1 runs across the application site and is in an area from where sand and gravel is proposed to be extracted. As such, the application had proposed to permanently divert this Public Right of Way. The permanent diversion route was proposed to originate to the west of The Chippings, as is currently the case, and then follow the south west boundary of the Whisby Quarry site before turning northeast along Swinderby Road. In addition, it is proposed to create a network of footpaths and permissive paths in the restoration scheme for the overall quarry site.
49. Lincolnshire County Council’s Public Rights of Way Officer initially noted that the development would impact Eagle Footpath 7/1 and queried whether conditions could be imposed if planning permission was granted to restore the footpath and improve future access through the provision of a dedicated bridleway. Following the submission of the Regulation 22 further information, in which it was clarified that the footpath could not be reinstated along its current line due to the presence of waterbodies in the restoration scheme but that a diverted Public Right of Way together with a comprehensive network of new footpaths would be provided, the Public Rights of Way Officer raised an objection to the proposed development. This objection is on the basis that the applicant’s approach is not legally achievable by a Diversion Order and an objection to the proposed route of the diverted footpath, which is described as being a “behind the hedge” route. It is also stated that the loss or diversion of this footpath would only be tolerated if it was part of an agreed package of local network enhancements that were guaranteed by planning condition.
50. A meeting took place between the applicant and the Public Rights of Way Officer on 17 March 2015 in which a variety of options were discussed and two compensatory new Public Rights of Way were suggested. Whilst at the time of writing this report no formal plans have been submitted, it is
Page 148 understood that there is an intention by the applicant to meet the requirements of the Public Rights of Way Officer and deliver two new Public Rights of Way as part of the restoration scheme for the site. Whilst this does not remove the need to permanently stop up Eagle Footpath 7/1, it is considered that the two new footpaths would provide adequate compensation for this loss. One of the proposed new footpaths would provide a link between Beehive Lane and Swinderby Road whilst the other would extend an existing proposed footpath network within the site providing a link to New Lane (track). Whilst the second footpath is outside the current application site boundary, it is on land identified as being within the ownership of the applicant. These two new footpaths replace the previously proposed diversion of footpath 7/1.
51. Providing these measures can be appropriately secured (it is recommended that this is done through a s.106 legal agreement requiring full details of the proposed new footpaths and permissive paths) then the proposed package of footpath provision would adequately compensate for the permanent loss of Eagle Footpath 7/1 and is therefore considered to be acceptable. There is also scope within this to consider the creation of bridleways, as suggested by one local resident. There are therefore material planning considerations which outweigh the conflict with Policy RST2 of the North Kesteven Local Plan.
Open Countryside and Landscape Impacts
52. The application site lies within the open countryside, as defined within the North Kesteven Local Plan. As such, Policies C2 and LW1 of this plan are of relevance. Policy C2 seeks to protect and where possible, enhance, the character of the countryside and states that permission will only be granted in the countryside where development proposals cannot be located within or adjacent to a settlement. Policy LW1 seeks to protect local distinctiveness with reference to Landscape Character Areas.
53. The extraction of minerals can only take place where they are found and minerals operations are considered an appropriate type of development in the countryside, in principle. It is therefore not considered that the proposed development is in conflict with Policy C2 in this regard, however, the impact on the character of the surrounding area is an important consideration of the acceptability of the proposals.
54. The proposed extension of Whisby Quarry lies on land which is currently in agricultural use. The wider landscape in the vicinity of the site is largely in agricultural use, however, given that this would be an extension of an existing quarry, it also lies immediately adjacent to the existing Whisby Quarry and associated workings and restored sites. Elements of the quarry have already been restored to large waterbodies and areas of nature conservation.
55. The North Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (2007) classifies the application site as falling within the Terrace Sandland sub-area. The
Page 149 Landscape Character Assessment refers to Whisby Nature Park and states that this has created a significant and extensive waterscape, although this is only fully appreciated when close to the Nature Park because the mature tree screens and location at the base of the Terrace Sandlands. The contribution to landscape character is therefore considered to be minimal until seen in close proximity. Other restored quarry sites within this Landscape Character Area are stated to have a much more prominent impact and lead to the suggestion that large water bodies should play a less major role in future reclamation schemes. Sand and gravel extraction is cited as a detractor from the character of this sub-area.
56. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was carried out to support this application and this included an assessment of the proposed development from a number of identified viewpoints. The proposed development is assessed to have a minor/moderate adverse effect on landscape character during the minerals operations but this is expected to change to negligible on cessation of minerals operations and then change again to moderate/ major beneficial by 15 years after cessation of operations. In terms of the visual impacts of the proposed development, four of the identified viewpoints are assessed to have a moderate adverse impact during minerals operations, one (that is the residential properties at Dalton’s Close in the village of Eagle) would experience a moderate/major adverse impact at this stage, whereas one (Thorpe Lane, Eagle) would have a negligible effect. It should be noted that in relation to the impacts on properties at Dalton’s Close in Eagle, these impacts could occur regardless of whether planning permission is granted or not in relation to this application as these phases of the mineral operations already have planning permission (through permission reference N/23/27/64/0982/01). The same is also true for much of the impacts in relation to Thorpe Lane in Eagle, although addition sub- phases are proposed which would lengthen the duration of these impacts. At the cessation of minerals operations it is stated that any such adverse impacts would be overcome and the resulting restoration scheme would provide moderate to major beneficial impacts.
View from north west boundary of Sub-Phase 5C towards village of Eagle with the properties at Dalton's Close in the background
Page 150 57. In order to mitigate the adverse visual impacts a series of screening bunds are proposed, it is also proposed to retain existing boundary woodland and hedgerows. The proposed phased restoration scheme would also ensure that the adverse landscape and visual impacts of the development during the operational phases are kept to a minimum, with tree planting and establishment of grassland areas taking place at the earliest opportunity in accordance with the restoration scheme.
58. Whilst the operational phase of the development would inevitably result in adverse landscape and visual impacts on the surrounding area, subject to the mitigation measures being carried out, it is not considered that the harm would be to such a degree as to justify the refusal of planning permission, particularly in the context of the adjacent existing quarry. It is noted that the North Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment recommends that the creation of large water bodies should play less of a major role in the restoration of sand and gravel sites. The proposed restoration scheme relies heavily on the creation of waterbodies, however, this needs to be considered in the context of the already approved restoration scheme for the majority of the Whisby Quarry site and that many of the identified impacts relate to development which already has planning permission. The current proposals for the restoration of the extension to this quarry need to take into account the approved scheme and provide a comprehensive and cohesive approach. Notwithstanding the recommendation in the Landscape Character Assessment, which does note that the waterbodies associated with the Whisby Nature Reserve have minimal impact on landscape character, it is concluded that the proposed restoration scheme would be acceptable in terms of its landscape and visual impacts. Overall, it is therefore considered that the proposed development does not conflict with Policy LW1 of the North Kesteven Local Plan.
Agricultural Land
59. Policy M4 of the Minerals Local Plan seeks to protect Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land, Policy C3 of the North Kesteven Local Plan seeks to prevent development on the best and most versatile agricultural land unless it meets specific criteria and the NPPF seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land, which it states is land classified as Grade 1, 2 and 3a.
60. A soil resource survey has been undertaken in relation to those areas of the proposed quarry which do not currently have planning permission, that is sub-phases 5F and 5H and the whole of Phase 6. The ES states that approximately 52% of the survey site (17 hectares) is Grade 3b agricultural land, 41% (13 hectares) is Grade 3a and 7% (2 hectares) is Grade 2. Whilst it is not proposed to restore the site to an agricultural use, it is proposed to strip and store the soils in accordance with the MAFF “Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils”. This would mean that should the soils be required in the future for an agricultural use, it may be possible to do so.
Page 151 61. The reason given as to why the site is not being restored to agriculture, and hence the loss of 15 hectares of Grade 2 and 3a agricultural land, is that it is not considered practical to do so due to the depth of the proposed workings and the lack on infill due to the site location. It is not desirable to encourage the importation of material to the site and indeed, it is recommended that if planning permission is granted this is in fact prohibited.
62. Given that minerals can only be worked where they are found, together with the high proportion of the best and most versatile agricultural land within Lincolnshire, the benefits of maintaining the supply of sand and gravel through an extension to an existing quarry are considered to outweigh the loss of this agricultural land in this case. Whilst Natural England have noted the loss of Grade 2 and 3A agricultural land, they have not raised an objection to the application but have recommended that the soil management techniques and mitigation measures set out in the ES would be necessary to ensure that the soil resource is protected. It is recommended that if planning permission is granted it is subject to a condition requiring that the soils are handled in accordance with good practice, as specified in the ES.
Nature Conservation
63. Policy M8 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policies LW5, LW6, LW7 and LW8 of the North Kesteven Local Plan seek to protect the natural environment and offer specific protection to nationally and locally designated nature conservation sites, protected species and features of importance for wildlife.
64. An Ecological Assessment has been submitted as part of the ES and additional information was submitted following the request under Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations to address specific queries raised by Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust. The Ecological Assessment identifies two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 5 km of the site, the nearest of which is Doddington Clay Woods, located 4.5 km north of the site. This is designated for its ancient semi-natural woodland and is also home to a large heronry and a varied community of other breeding birds. Swanholme Lakes SSSI is sited approximately 5 km north east of the site (not west as described in the Ecological Assessment and ES, although it is identified in the correct location on the accompanying plan). This is a flooded former sand and gravel pit with a range of biological interests. Natural England has confirmed that the proposed development would not be likely to have an adverse impact on these SSSIs given its nature and scale.
65. Ten Local Wildlife Sites, one of which is a Local Nature Reserve, and three Sites of Nature Conservation Interest have been identified within 2km of the proposed extension site. No adverse impacts on these sites have been identified. However, Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, in their initial response to the application, queried the impacts of the proposed development on Tunman Wood Local Wildlife Site, which is an ancient woodland site. The Wildlife Trust recommended that monitoring of water levels in the vicinity of Tunman Wood should be undertaken during the extraction phase and if
Page 152 impacts are identified then appropriate mitigation measures should be implemented. The applicant was requested to address this matter as part of the Regulation 22 further information. As a consequence, in the further information submitted it is stated that the Hydrological Impact Assessment states that groundwater levels in the immediate area of dewatering will be temporarily reduced by up to 50 metres from the quarry face and that no ecologically sensitive areas would be impacted by the proposed works and therefore no mitigation measures are required. As such, the additional information concludes that there would be no adverse impact on Tunman Wood as a result of the proposed development.
66. Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, whilst noting that the application documents state that impacts are expected to be negligible, also initially made comments that the proposed development has the potential to impact upon the nature conservation interest of Whisby Nature Park (a Local Wildlife Site and Local Nature Reserve) through changes to the hydrology of the site and requested that monitoring of water levels in the vicinity of Whisby Nature Park should be carried out during the extraction phases and appropriate mitigation measures put in place if adverse impacts are identified. The Hydrological Impact Assessment concludes that no mitigation measures are expected to be required to protect this site from groundwater drawdown in the extension area arising from mineral extraction. In addition, the Ecological Assessment states that the Whisby Nature Reserve waterbodies are specifically managed for birds and that water levels are kept fairly stable whilst those within the application area are regularly disturbed by the workforce and machinery and can have dramatic water level changes.
67. Whilst Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust were consulted on the Regulation 22 further information which was submitted on 14 January 2015, at the time of writing this report no response had been received. It is considered that the further information addressed the issues of concern raised by the Wildlife Trust and that there is no justification for requiring further monitoring regarding water levels in relation to Tunman Wood and Whisby Nature Park given that the ES states that no mitigation is necessary as there would be no adverse impacts.
68. As part of the EIA process surveys were undertaken in relation to flora and fauna across the application site. As a result of this it was concluded that the general nature conservation value of the site is at most, site to local level biodiversity value, with the exception of the assemblage of breeding birds and butterflies which were assessed as being of local to district level value. The Ecological Assessment recommends a package of mitigation measures, including (but not limited to):
- ensuring that a good variety of habitats for birds are created, such as woodland, wetland and grassland, through the restoration scheme; - that there should be as many micro-habitats as possible to enhance invertebrate biodiversity at the site; - that corridors of suitable habitat are retained to allow immigration and dispersal of reptiles; and
Page 153 - installation of bat boxes suitable for common pipistrelle sited at height on the two storey building within the plant site.
69. In order to ensure that these mitigation measures are incorporated within the final restoration scheme for the site, it is recommended that if planning permission is granted it is subject to a condition requiring the submission and approval of a detailed restoration scheme, specifically addressing the recommended mitigation measures.
70. Whilst the trees on site were surveyed and no evidence of use by bats was found, it is considered that they are suitable for bats and therefore it is recommended that prior to any works involved in the felling of these trees is carried out, a suitably qualified bat ecologist should be commissioned to undertake a watching brief during any works. It is recommended that this is the subject of a condition if planning permission is granted.
71. Overall it is concluded that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on any designated nature conservation sites and the through the use of appropriate mitigation measures the impacts on habitats and species can be minimised, whilst also creating biodiversity enhancements. As such, the development is in accordance with Policy M8 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policies LW5, LW6, LW7 and LW8 of the North Kesteven Local Plan in this regard.
Noise and Dust
72. The NPPF, Policy M10 of the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan and Policies C5 and C11 of the North Kesteven Local plan seek to protect the amenities of nearby residents and landusers from adverse impacts as a result of new development. The key issues to be considered in this respect in relation to this application are those relating to noise and dust and one local resident has raised concerns about the impacts of the development in this regard.
73. As stated above, a Noise Impact Assessment was undertaken in relation to the proposed development. Noise monitoring already takes place at the existing Whisby Quarry and therefore there is a good basis upon which to assess the potential impacts on nearby residential properties of the proposed new development. The Noise Impact Assessment identified four dwellings on Morton Lane to be included within the assessment, in addition to existing properties which are the subject of a condition on an existing planning permission at the site, where noise limits are imposed. The Noise Impact Assessment recommends that the existing noise limits are retained in relation to the properties to which they relate as these are deemed to be appropriate in relation to the current proposals. In relation to the additional dwelling on Morton Lane, it concludes that for different operational phases of the development different noise limits should be set and that in a number of cases this would be more than 10dB above the background levels, a level recommended in the NPPG. However, it argues that to have a limit within 10dB of the background noise levels would place an unreasonable burden on the quarry operator and that nevertheless, the noise limit of 50dB is still
Page 154 5dB lower than the maximum of 55dB(A) LAeq, 1hour (free field) as recommended in the NPPG.
74. North Kesteven’s Environmental Health Officer has not raised any objections to the approach taken in the Noise Impact Assessment or to the recommended noise limits. Whilst the recommended limits at certain operational stages of the development would be between 12 and 19dB above existing background noise levels at the four additionally assessed dwellings, the maximum level recommended is 50dB(A) LAeq, 1hour (free field) and this is in line with the limits imposed in relation to other dwellings surrounding the overall Whisby Quarry site and, as stated, is below the limit of 55dB set out in the NPPG. The Noise Impact Assessment has broken down the development into sub-phases and as such the higher noise limits are only recommended to be in place for the duration of the sub-phase, where appropriate. This would therefore limit any disturbance to the length of those sub-phases.
75. In relation to the construction of bunds, the Noise Impact Assessment notes that provision is made within the NPPG for an increase in temporary daytime noise to 70dB(A) LAeq, 1hour (free-field) for a period of up to eight weeks in a year for the construction and removal of baffle mounds. The Noise Impact Assessment sets out recommended noise limits for during the construction of bunds in relation to each of the sub-phases of the development and all of these limits are well within the 70dB(A) LAeq, 1hour (free-field) set out in the NPPG.
76. In addition to the proposed noise limits, the operational hours of the quarry are proposed to remain as the existing hours and hence provide another mechanism to control noise impacts associated with the development.
77. Overall, it is concluded that whilst the proposed noise limits would in certain circumstances be more than 10dB above background noise levels, they would not be of such magnitude as to result in detrimental impacts to the nearby residential properties. The approach of breaking down the noise limits by sub-area to ensure that unnecessarily high limits are avoided is welcomed. It is therefore recommended that if planning permission is granted it is subject to a condition which requires that the development is carried out in strict accordance with the noise limits set out in the Noise Impact Assessment.
78. In relation to dust, a Dust and Air Quality Assessment has been undertaken which sets out the potential sources of dust associated with the proposed development and considers the potential impacts on sensitive receptors. It notes that a number of residential properties are located within 250 metres of the proposed extension to Whisby Quarry. A number of dust suppression measures are proposed in order to mitigate the impacts of dust, including (but not limited to) visual inspections, use of clean water for dust suppression, spraying of haul roads in dry conditions, suspension of soil handling near site boundaries if the wind conditions would result in dust being carried to sensitive receptors and staff training. There is an approved
Page 155 dust management scheme associated with the existing Whisby Quarry operations and the Dust and Air Quality Assessment states that if planning permission is granted it is anticipated that an updated dust management scheme would be required through a planning condition. The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objections to the proposed development in relation to dust and it is therefore concluded that the proposed approach to be taken is unlikely to result in adverse impacts as a result of dust and it is recommended that if planning permission is granted it is subject to a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a dust management scheme.
79. Overall, subject to the recommended conditions, it is concluded that the proposed development would not result in adverse impacts in relation to noise and dust at the nearby residential properties.
Historic Environment
80. Policy M8 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policies HE2 and HE5 of the North Kesteven Local Plan seek to protect heritage assets and their settings. In line with the requirements of s.66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 it is necessary to have special regard to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings and their setting. An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment and Report on Archaeological Geophysics Surveys 2012 – 2013 form part of the ES for this application. Further information was also submitted in relation to the impacts of the proposed development on the settings of Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments following a request under Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations.
81. The archaeological geophysical survey indicated that part of the application site may be of archaeological interest and that as such prior to any mineral extraction taking place a suitable scheme of further archaeological assessment should be undertaken. Large parts of the site are, however, stated to have a low archaeological significance. In order to ensure that any archaeology present on the site is appropriately dealt with, the County Council’s Historic Environment Officer recommends that if planning permission is granted it is subject to a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological works to be submitted and approved and then the approved scheme carried out. Given that geophysical surveys have already been undertaken at the site, this is considered to be an appropriate means of addressing any potential archaeological interest in this case.
82. In response to the originally submitted information, the Historic Environment Officer stated that consideration needed to be given to the impact of the proposals on the settings of heritage assets. The further information submitted identifies one Listed Building and one Scheduled Monument within 1 km of the proposed extension site. Tunman Farmhouse on Morton Lane, Eagle Barnsdale is a Grade II Listed Building. The listing entry information describes it as an early 19th Century brick with slate ridge roof cottage. The remains of the Knights Templars preceptory at Eagle Hall is a Scheduled Monument. These remains are stated in the scheduling details
Page 156 as surviving well as a series of substantial earthworks extending over most of the area of the original precinct. The remains of the preceptor buildings survive beneath later structures which overlie rather than cut into earlier deposits. The site is stated to have been undisturbed by modern development and agricultural activity and has never been excavated, indicating that valuable archaeological remains survive intact.
83. Due to the distance between the extension site and these heritage assets and the intervening vegetation, it is stated that there is no intervisibility and as such, it is concluded that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the setting of these heritage assets. Whilst the County Council's Historic Environment Officer acknowledges the location of Tunman Farmhouse and highlights that there are two Listed Buildings at Eagle Hall Farm, approximately 1km from the application site, no concerns are raised that the development would have a detrimental impact on the setting of these Listed Buildings. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not be harmful to the setting of these heritage assets.
84. In addition to the Listed Buildings identified in the submitted information a further 13 Listed Buildings are located within the village of Eagle. These are largely focussed along Main Street. The closest Listed Building to the application site is approximately 275 metres from the nearest point of the application site and 325 metres from the nearest point of proposed mineral extraction which does not already have planning permission. The Listed Buildings within Eagle range from 275 metres from the application site to 575 metres from the application site, although in relation to the proposed extension to the area to be worked this ranges from 325 metres to 835 metres. All of these Listed Buildings are Grade II. Most are described as cottages or farmhouses, although there is also a church and war memorial arch within the Listings. The cottages and farmhouses are stated to date from the 17th century to the early 19th century. The Historic Environment Officer has raised concerns that the proposed development would have an impact on the setting of these Listed Buildings and describes Eagle as a working agricultural village set in an agricultural landscape and that the functional setting of all of these buildings in the village is agricultural and their existence is mainly related to this landscape. The Officer also raised concerns regarding the impacts of noise and dust on the setting of the Listed Buildings.
85. There is no suggestion that the proposed development would have any impacts on the fabric of any of the Listed Buildings and is it therefore unnecessary to consider this further. However, the Historic Environment Officer considers that the setting of the Listed Buildings would be harmed by the proposed development in relation to the wider historic landscape and the impacts of noise and dust.
86. The proposed development must be considered in the context of the development at Whisby Quarry which already has planning permission (under reference N/23/27/64/0982/01, granted in 2007) and includes the majority of Phase 5 of the workings. This area of the quarry lies closest to
Page 157 the village of Eagle and given that planning permission already exists for mineral extraction in this area it would not be reasonable to refuse planning permission for mineral extraction in this area in relation to the current application as this development is already permitted and work has already commenced within Phase 5. It is then necessary to consider the proposed extension to the quarry and also the changes to the approved, and the new, restoration scheme. Turning first to the extension to the minerals operations which lies to the south of the existing quarry and is therefore further away from the village of Eagle. The proposed extension would be on land which is currently in agricultural use and forms part of the agricultural landscape of the wider area. However, it is also immediately adjacent to an existing minerals operation. Due to the existing vegetation and built development, it is considered that there would be no intervisibility between the proposed extension and the Listed Buildings within Eagle. In this respect, the proposed minerals operation would not have an impact on the setting of these Listed Buildings. The Historic Environment Officer notes that intervisibility is one, but not the only, element of the setting of heritage assets. When considering the landscape within which the Listed Buildings are set, this is now a predominantly residential setting within the village of Eagle. The wider landscape is for the most part agricultural, however, the existing Whisby Quarry lies to the east and south east of the village. All of the Listed cottages and farmhouses appeared to be in residential use at the time of the case officer's site visit and all are surrounded by other residential properties of varying ages, including modern housing.
87. The historic landscape may have previously been dominated by a wider agricultural use than it is today, and the cumulative impacts of extending the quarry need to be taken into account, however, the proposed extension of the quarry is not considered to erode the overall agricultural landscape to such an extent that it would be harmful to the setting of the Listed Buildings in Eagle.
88. The Historic Environment Officer also raised concerns regarding the impacts of noise and dust on the settings of the Listed Buildings in the village of Eagle. Issues relating to noise and dust have been discussed in the section above and it has been concluded that subject to appropriately worded conditions, noise and dust levels would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residential properties. The Listed Buildings within Eagle are not of such a character which require noise and dust levels to be assessed differently to the assessment undertaken in relation to residential amenity and none require a setting which needs to be less noisy than levels associated with residential properties. It is therefore considered that, subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions, the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Listed Buildings in Eagle as a result of noise or dust.
89. Whilst acknowledging the concerns raised by the Historic Environment Officer, it is not considered that the proposed extension to the minerals extraction operations at Whisby Quarry would have a detrimental impact on
Page 158 the setting of the Listed Buildings within Eagle and as such their current setting would be preserved.
90. The second part of the proposed development which must be assessed in relation to the impact on the setting of the Listed Buildings in Eagle is the proposed restoration scheme, which incorporates those areas which already have planning permission for mineral extraction and those for which permission is now sought. It is proposed to restore Phases 5 and 6 of the site predominantly to waterbodies with areas of species rich grassland and woodland planting. The approved indicative restoration scheme, relating to those parts of Phase 5 which have planning permission for mineral extraction, is very similar to that which is currently proposed.
91. The closest part of the application site to the village of Eagle is an area for which an indicative restoration scheme has been approved and from where no mineral extraction is proposed or permitted. This is an area to the north west of Phase 5 and is proposed to be species rich grassland with scattered scrub, with tree planting along the boundary facing Eagle. A potential village memorial is also identified within the proposed restoration scheme in this area, although no further details of this have been provided at this stage. This is different from the approved restoration scheme which proposed that this area would be lowland fen vegetation and tree planting. The impacts on the setting of the Village Farmhouse and Ford Cottage on Main Street, Eagle need to be considered in relation to the proposed restoration scheme in this area given the relationship of these properties to the application site. The change from lowland fen vegetation to species rich grassland would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area or on the setting of the Listed Buildings and would not be out of character with the agricultural landscape.
92. Whilst there are proposed changes to the restoration of Phase 5 from the scheme which has been approved, these are relatively minor and are intended to provide connectivity between the restoration of Phases 5 (as proposed to be extended) and 6. Despite the concerns raised by the Historic Environment Officer, it is not considered that the restoration scheme would be harmful to the existing settings of the Listed Buildings within Eagle and as such their settings would be preserved.
93. Overall, although concerns have been raised regarding the impacts of the development on the settings of the Listed Buildings within Eagle, it is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the settings of these Listed Buildings, given that they are all within the main built up area of Eagle, surrounded by residential properties and that the surrounding land is predominantly in agricultural use with an existing quarry operation with extant planning permission for an extension. No detrimental impacts in relation to noise and dust would occur to harm the setting of the Listed Buildings, subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions.
Page 159 Other Issues
94. Policy C5 of the North Kesteven Local Plan seeks to protect amenities of residents and land users. Most of the key issues in relation to amenity have been addressed in the sections of this report above. However, one representation has been received from a local resident on Thorpe Lane regarding the impacts of the proposed restoration scheme. The issue raised is a request that there should be a fence erected between the application site and their residential property once the scheme has been worked out and is restored due to concerns that once public access is allowed to the restored site there would be impacts regarding visitors straying beyond the site boundary and into the garden of this property. This is considered to be a reasonable request and the erection of a fence would also protect this property against a loss of privacy at the restoration phase.
95. In discussions, the applicant has stated a willingness to provide such a fence. It is recommended that if planning permission is granted it is subject to a condition requiring details of the proposed fence to be included for approval as part of a detailed restoration scheme.
96. One local resident in Eagle Barnsdale has requested that the screening bund and tree plantation close to their property are not created in order to preserve their existing open views. The screening bund is an important element of the development, not just in relation to an individual property but also in relation to wider landscape and visual impacts and it is therefore considered that it should be retained in the proposed location. The desirability of not creating the tree planting close to this property can be considered in more detail in relation to a fully worked up scheme of restoration, as it is recommended should be the subject of a planning condition.
97. Another local resident has raised concerns regarding the potential dangers of creating large bodies of water, particularly in relation to children who live in the locality. The proposed restoration scheme includes the provision of many boundary hedgerows which would help to direct public access to specific locations, however, the safety of children in relation to water bodies is not directly a planning matter.
98. The Ministry of Defence has raised concerns regarding the risks to aircraft at RAF Waddington from birds using and congregating at the restored site. They have, however, stated that subject to their requirements for a bird management plan being met through a s.106 legal agreement, they do not raise an objection to the proposed development. Contrary to the statement in the Ministry of Defence response that their requirements in relation to application reference N/23/27/64/0982/01 for such a bird management plan were not met, this was a provision of the s.106 legal agreement associated with that planning permission. It is considered reasonable and necessary to require that the submission and approval of a bird management plan be the subject to a s.106 legal agreement in relation to this application, including the details set out in the Ministry of Defence’s response, and it is therefore
Page 160 recommended that if planning permission is granted it is subject to this requirement.
99. A further issue to consider is the other requirement of the s.106 legal agreement associated with planning permission reference N/23/27/64/0982/01 and the impact of the proposed development in relation to this. That s.106 legal agreement requires the submission and approval of a ten year management plan for the restoration of the quarry extension and a requirement that the plan is implemented as approved. In order to ensure that a consistent approach is taken in relation to the current proposal to extend the quarry, it is considered necessary to take forward this requirements in relation to this application and as such a s.106 legal agreement is recommended to be secured requiring a ten year management plan to be submitted for approval in relation to the current site.
Overall Conclusions
100. It is concluded that the principle of the extraction of sand and gravel is acceptable and in line with the approach of providing an adequate supply of minerals in accordance with the NPPF and Policy M3 of the Minerals Local Plan.
101. In relation to flood risk and drainage, it has been demonstrated that the development would not have detrimental impacts, subject to relevant measures being secured through an appropriate condition and implemented. In this respect the proposed development is in line with the NPPF and Policies C10 and C14 of the North Kesteven Local Plan.
102. The key consideration in relation to highways is ensuring that all HGVs arriving and leaving the site follow a prescribed route to avoid local villages and this can be secured through a s.106 legal agreement. As such it is recommended that the applicant be invited to enter into such an agreement. Providing these measures are secured, the development would not conflict with Policy M14 of the Minerals Local Plan or Policies T1 and T4 of the North Kesteven Local Plan.
103. Whilst the permanent loss of a Public Right of Way is undesirable and is contrary to Policy RST2 of the North Kesteven Local Plan, it is considered that an appropriate package of measures to compensate for this loss, through the creation of a new network of public rights of way and permissive paths, can be put in place at the restoration phase of the development such that this loss is outweighed. It is recommended that this is also the subject of a s.106 legal agreement.
104. It is acknowledged that the development would result in the loss of a proportion of the best and most versatile agricultural land in conflict with Policy M4 of the Minerals Local Plan and Polices C3 of the North Kesteven Local Plan, and that during the minerals operation phases of the development there would be varying degrees of landscape and visual impacts. However, the timeframe for the development, phased approach
Page 161 and proposed restoration would minimise these impacts, particularly in the longer term and the loss of the agricultural land is considered to be justified in this case.
105. The site has little nature conservation value and whilst certain mitigation measures are proposed to be put in place, it is considered that the restoration scheme can offer biodiversity enhancements and so is in conformity with Policy M8 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policies LW5, LW6, LW7 and LW8 of the North Kesteven Local Plan.
106. In relation to noise and dust, measures are proposed, or are recommended to be secured through planning conditions, to ensure that any impacts are minimised and that there would not be harmful impacts on the amenities of surrounding dwellings and landusers. The development would therefore be in accordance with Policy M10 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policies C5 and C11 of the North Kesteven Local Plan in this regard.
107. Whilst there are a number of Listed Buildings and a Scheduled Monument within the vicinity of the application site, it is not considered that the settings of these heritage assets would be harmed by the proposed development. As such, the development would not conflict with Policy M8 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policies HE2 and HE5 of the North Kesteven Local Plan in this regard.
108. Overall, it is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that:
(A) The applicant be invited to enter into a Section 106 Planning Obligation to:
- to route all HGVs to approach and leave the site only over the length of Eagle Road and Whisby Road between the quarry access on Eagle Road and the A46 (except for local deliveries) and that no “shortcuts” through the village of Doddington will be permitted; - secure an appropriate package of footpaths, bridleways and permissive rights of way as part of the restoration scheme to compensate for the loss of Eagle Footpath 7/1; - to submit a 10 year management plan for the restoration of the quarry extension and implement the approved plan in full; and - to submit a bird management plan in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Defence to discourage the congregation on the quarry extension of birds that present a risk to aircraft and thereafter implement the approved plan.
Page 162 (B) Subject to the conclusion of the Planning Obligation in (A) above, the Executive Director for Communities be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed below; and
(C) This report forms part of the Council's Statement pursuant to Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 which required the Council to make available for public inspection at the District Council's Offices specified information regarding the decision. Pursuant to Regulation 24(1)(c) the Council must make available for public inspection a statement which contains:
- content of decision and any conditions attached to it; - main reasons and considerations on which decision is based; - including if relevant, information about the participation of the public; - a description, when necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and if possible offset the major adverse effects of the development; - information recording the right to challenge the validity of the decision and procedure for doing so.
1. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Mineral Planning Authority within seven days of such commencement.
2. Except as otherwise required by other conditions attached to this permission the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted details and recommendations and the following drawings:
a. W19/PL14/01 “Location Plan” (received 3 March 2014); b. W19/PL14/02 “Site Plan” (Scale 1:10,000@A3) (received 3 March 2014); c, W19/17 “Situation near end of Phase 5C” (received 3 March 2014); d. W19/18 “Situation at start of Phase 6a” (received 3 March 2014); e. W19/19 “Situation near end of Phase 6B” (received 3 March 2014); f. W19/20 “Situation near end of Phase 6D” (received 3 March 2014); g. W19/21 “Working Plan” (received 3 March 2014); and h. W25-090713-RestB “Proposed Restoration Scheme” (received 3 March 2014).
3. The site shall be worked in accordance with the phased programme set out in Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement (received 3 March 2014) and on drawing W19/21 “Working Plan” (received 3 March 2014).
4. Notwithstanding the approved details and drawings set out in condition 2, this planning permission does not authorise any development within Sub- Phases 6C and 6D until:
a. full details of the extent of the extraction with Sub-Phase 6D; b. full details of all amenity mounds related to Sub-Phases 6C and 6D and within 30 metres of the railway boundary; and
Page 163 c. a report detailing a hydrological and hydrogeological assessment which has been undertaken in relation to the impacts of the extraction within Sub-Phase 6D on the railway infrastructure, including any measures necessary to address any adverse impacts
have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Mineral Planning Authority, in consultation with Network Rail.
Stockpiles
5. No stockpiles of sand and gravel within the extraction area shall exceed 3 metres in height above existing ground levels.
Soils
6. All soils shall only be stripped, handled, stored and replaced in accordance with the best practice methodology set out in the Soil Resources and Agricultural Use & Quality of Land West of Whisby Quarry dated 28 January 2014 and Chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement (received 3 March 2014).
7. No topsoil, subsoil or overburden shall be removed from the site.
Amenity Mounds
8. The amenity mounds shall be constructed in accordance with the Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement (received 3 March 2014) and drawing W19/21 “Working Plan” (received 3 March 2014), except as varied in relation to Sub-Phases 6C and Sub-Phase 6D on the basis of the information submitted pursuant to condition 4 of this planning permission.
9. Prior to the commencement of development details of the heights, footprints, cross-section profile, volume and seeding mix for each soil storage and screening bund shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Mineral Planning Authority. The approved details shall thereafter be implemented in full.
Importation of Material
10. No material shall be imported to the site.
Hours of Operation
11. No operations authorised or required by this planning permission other than water pumping and essential maintenance shall be carried out and plant operated, outside the following times:
Page 164 07:00 hours to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday 07:00 hours to 13:00 hours Saturday
and no such operations shall be carried out on Sundays or Public Holidays or Bank Holidays.
12. No Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) shall enter or leave Whisby Quarry outside the following times:
07:00 hours to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday 07:00 hours to 13:00 hours Saturday
and no HGVs shall enter or leave the site on Sundays, Public Holidays or Bank Holidays.
Highways
13. All sand and gravel extracted from Phases 5 and 6 inclusive shall only be transported via a conveyor system to the plant site as specified in Transport Assessment dated January 2014 and Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement (received 3 March 2014) and in accordance with drawing W19/21 “Working Plan” (received 3 March 2014) and no minerals shall be transported from the site by HGVs other than from the plant site via the approved quarry access onto Eagle Road.
14. All vehicles carrying extracted material from the site via the public highway shall be sheeted.
15. No vehicle shall enter the public highway unless, where necessary, its wheels and chassis have been cleaned to prevent material being deposited on the public highway.
Water Management
16. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the commencement of development full details of a surface water drainage and dewatering strategy, based on the principles of the EIA Regulation 22 Submission (received 12 January 2015) and including details of:
a. the use of an adjustable weir; and b. reducing run-off rate from the site to existing Greenfield run-off rates shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Mineral Planning Authority.
The approved strategy shall thereafter be implemented in full.
Noise and Dust
17. Noise levels as a result of the development hereby permitted at the sensitive locations identified in the Noise Impact Assessment dated 21 January 2014
Page 165 of the Environmental Statement (received 3 March 2014) shall not exceed the levels set out in Tables 3.1 to 3.9 and 5.1 to 5.9 of the Noise Impact Assessment.
18. Monitoring of noise levels shall take place for the duration of the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Assessment dated 21 January 2014 of the Environmental Statement (received 3 March 2014) and the results of this monitoring shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority on an annual basis.
19. In the event of a complaint regarding noise being received, the complaint shall be investigated and mitigation measures implemented within a timescale to be agreed on a case by case basis with the Mineral Planning Authority.
20. All vehicles, plant and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specification at all times and shall be fitted with and use effective silencers and white noise reversing devices.
21. Prior to the installation of any pumps on the site, details of acoustic enclosures in which such pumps shall be housed shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Mineral Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.
22. Prior to the commencement of development a dust management and monitoring scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Mineral Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full.
Archaeology
23. In relation to archaeology:
Part 1 Prior to the commencement of development a written scheme of archaeological investigation regarding an archaeological watching brief has been submitted to and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. This scheme should include the following:
1. An assessment of significance and proposed mitigation strategy (i.e. preservation by record, preservation in situ or a mix of these elements). 2. A methodology and timetable of site investigation and recording. 3. Provision for site analysis. 4. Provision for publication and dissemination of analysis and records. 5. Provision for archive deposition. 6. Nomination of a competent person/organisation to undertake the work.
The scheme of archaeological investigation must only be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Page 166
Part 2 The archaeological site work must be undertaken only in full accordance with the approved written scheme referred to above. The applicant will notify the Mineral Planning Authority of the intention to commence at least fourteen days before the start of each phase of archaeological work in order to facilitate adequate monitoring arrangements. No variation shall take place without prior consent of the Mineral Planning Authority.
Part 3 A report of the archaeologist’s findings shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority and the Historic Environment Record Officer at Lincolnshire County Council within three months of the works hereby given consent being commenced unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority; and the condition shall not be discharged until the archive of all archaeological work undertaken hitherto has been deposited with the County Museum Service, or another public depository willing to receive it.
Nature Conservation
24. No site preparation works involving the destruction or removal of vegetation shall be undertaken during the months March to August inclusive, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
25. Prior to the removal or pruning of any trees on the site, the trees shall be resurveyed for bats, and a scheme to mitigate any undue adverse impacts shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Mineral Planning Authority, including provision for a suitably qualified bat ecologist to undertake a watching brief during any works. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full.
26. Prior to the commencement of development full details of all advance landscaping and tree planting including locations, species composition, numbers, spacings and sizes of all trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be planted shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Mineral Planning Authority. Thereafter the advance landscaping and tree planting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. All trees shall be maintained for a period of 10 years during which all losses shall be replaced in the following planting season.
27. The ecological mitigation measures set out in the Ecological Assessment of the Environmental Statement (received 3 March 2014) shall be implemented in full for the duration of the development of the development and as part of the restoration scheme.
Restoration and Aftercare
28. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed scheme for the restoration of those areas of the site to agricultural use, as shown on the
Page 167 drawing W25-090713-RestB “Proposed Restoration Scheme” (received 3 March 2014) including ground preparation, the method of replacing soils and an aftercare strategy, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Mineral Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full.
29. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed restoration and aftercare scheme for the site on the basis of drawing W25-090713-RestB “Proposed Restoration Scheme” (received 3 March 2014) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Mineral Planning Authority including:
a. proposed final levels; b. locations, species composition, numbers, spacings and sizes of all trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be planted; c. seed mixtures and rates of application; d. provision of a package of public rights of way and permissive paths; e. full details of any car parking sites; f. full details of any village memorial site; g. full details of any fencing to be erected, including a fence along the boundary with Thorpe Lane Farm, Thorpe Lane, Eagle; and h. provision for the inclusion and integration of the mitigation measures set out in the Ecological Assessment of the Environmental Statement (received 3 March 2014).
The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full and the restoration of the site shall be completed within two years of the permanent cessation of the mineral working.
Reasons
1. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. To assist in the monitoring of the planning permission.
3. To ensure that the development is carried out in an acceptable manner and for the avoidance of doubt as to the development that is permitted.
4. In order to provide adequate protection to the railway infrastructure.
5, 8, 9 & 26 To ensure that the development is carried out in an acceptable manner and to minimise the visual impacts of the development on the surrounding area.
6. To ensure that the development is carried out in an acceptable manner and to minimise the impacts on soil resources.
7. To prevent the loss of soil and ensure that resources are available for the restoration of the site.
10. For the avoidance of doubt.
Page 168
11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 To protect the amenities of local residents.
13, 14 & 15 In the interests of highway safety and to safeguard the surrounding environment.
16. To prevent any adverse impacts as a result of surface water drainage and the dewatering of the site.
23. To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the investigation, retrieval and recording of any possible archaeological remains on the site.
24. To avoid disturbance to birds during the breeding season.
25. To protect bats, a European protected species.
27. To provide appropriate protection for protected species and their habitats and make provision for biodiversity enhancements.
28. To ensure that the site is restored appropriately.
29. To ensure that the site is restored appropriately and at the earliest opportunity.
Informatives
Attention is drawn to the information contained in the following consultation responses:
(a) e-mail from Tony Rivero, Network Rail, dated 13 May 2014;
(b) e-mail from Guy Hird, Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board, dated 20 January 2015;
(c) letter from the Ministry of Defence dated 20 March 2015; and
(d) the validity of the grant of planning permission may be challenged by judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court of the High Court. Such proceedings will be concerned with the legality of the decision rather than its merits. Proceedings may only be brought by a person with sufficient interest in the subject matter. Any proceedings shall be brought promptly and within six weeks from the date of the planning permission. What is prompt will depend on all the circumstances of the particular case but promptness may require proceedings to be brought at some time before the six weeks has expired. Whilst the time limit may be extended if there is a good reason to do so such extensions of time are exceptional. Any person considering bringing proceedings should therefore seek legal advice as soon as
Page 169 possible. The detailed procedural requirements are set out in the Civil Procedure Rules Part 54 and the Practice Directives for these rules.
Appendices
These are listed below and attached at the back of the report
Appendix A Committee Plan
Background Papers
The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.
Document title Where the document can be viewed
Planning Application File Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park N23/27/64/0385/14 House, Waterside South, Lincoln
National Planning Policy Communities and Local Government website Framework (2012) www.communities.gov.uk
Lincolnshire Minerals Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park Local Plan (1991, saved House, Waterside South, Lincoln policies 2007) www.lincolnshire.gov.uk
Lincolnshire Minerals and Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park Waste Local Plan: Core House, Waterside South, Lincoln Strategy and www.lincolnshire.gov.uk Development Management Policies (Pre-Submission Draft) January 2015
North Kesteven Local Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park Plan (2007, saved House, Waterside South, Lincoln policies 2010) www.lincolnshire.gov.uk and www.n-kesteven.gov.uk
This report was written by Natalie Dear, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]
Page 170 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 13 APRIL 2015
Eagle Roa Noise Monitoring
Location 2
d
a
o
R
e
p
r
o
h T
SiteSiteSiteSite of of ofof Applicati Applicat ApplicaApplicattito
Site of Application
A ccess Road Site of Application
Mineral Operations
Lagoon Hazardous Landfill Cell
Public Footpath Public Footpath
Railway Line
Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west
44446666 AAA4444 AAA
Site of Application LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Reproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. OS LICENCE 1000025370 Public Footpath
Location: Description: Whisby Quarry in the parishes of To extract sand and gravel from land to the west of Whisby Quarry Eagle and Swinethorpe, Doddington (adjacent to Swinderby Road and Beehive Lane); to utilise the and Whisby and Thorpe on the Hill existing quarry infrastructure, plant site and access onto Eagle Road to facilitate the development; and to restore the site to a mixture of Application No: N23/27/64/0385/14N23/27/64/0385/14 water bodies, grassland, woodland and agriculture Scale: 1:20 000 Page 171 This page is intentionally left blank