East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Local Plan Background Paper 3 Site Selection Summer 2015 Summer 2015 Rev 1 East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City Council Joint Minerals Local Plan Background Paper 3 Site Selection Summer 2015 Notice This report was produced by Atkins Limited for East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council for the specific purpose of the Joint Minerals Local Plan. This report may not be used by any person other than East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council without East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council’s express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council. Summer 2015 Rev 1 Joint Minerals Local Plan Background paper 3 Contents Section Page 1. Candidate Sites and Assessment Methodology 1 2. Candidate Site Descriptions and Summary of Assessment 14 3. Recommended Sites 56 Summer 2015 Rev 1 Joint Minerals Local Plan Background paper 3 1. Candidate Sites and Assessment Methodology Introduction 1.1 Because of the importance of minerals in contributing to the economy and the quality of life through their utilisation, Minerals Planning Authorities are required to make provision for the future supply of certain minerals which occur within their areas by providing guidance on the locations where future mineral extraction is likely to be most acceptable. Provision for future supply of these minerals is done by defining areas for future mineral working. This can take the form of Preferred Areas where resources are known to exist and where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated, subject to tests of environmental acceptability and the use of planning conditions attached to planning approvals. Where there is less certainty about the mineral resource, Areas of Search may be defined. These are generally broader areas within which planning permission for particular sites could be granted to meet any shortfall in supply should suitable applications be made. 1.2 This Background Paper lists the candidate sites that have been considered as potential sources of supply for aggregate minerals, namely sand and gravel and crushed rock. It then describes the assessment methodology before assessing the candidate sites and making recommendations as to which should be identified in the Joint Minerals Local Plan (JMLP) as either Preferred Areas or Areas of Search. Candidate sites 1.3 Candidate sites for aggregate supply are drawn from the following sources; Un- consented Preferred Areas and Areas of Search from the adopted JMLP 2004 and sites that were nominated by operators and/or landowners at various stages in the preparation of the plan. 1.4 The candidate sites are listed in table 1.1. The sites are referenced according to whether they are sand and gravel sites (SG) or Crushed Rock (CR). Crushed rock sites are principally chalk, but one is limestone. The previous reference number used in the 2010 version of the plan is given where relevant, together with the reason for the site’s candidacy and any other comments. Table 1.1 – Candidate Sites Ref. Previous Site Name Mineral Type Reason for candidacy and ref. other comments SG1 PA01 Willowcroft Farm, Sand & Gravel Nominated site; Has since Catwick been granted pp, so not considered further. SG2 AOS01a Baff House Farm Sand & Gravel Nominated site, extent slightly amended for Revised Preferred Approach SG3 AOS01b Routh’s Carr and Monks Sand & Gravel Nominated site. Bridge Leven SG4 AOS02 Gransmoor Lane Sand & Gravel Nominated site, extent amended for Revised Preferred Approach Summer 2015 Rev 1 1 Joint Minerals Local Plan Background paper 3 Ref. Previous Site Name Mineral Type Reason for candidacy and ref. other comments SG5 AOS03a Common Lane. North Sand & Gravel Nominated site. Cave SG6 AOS04 Preston Road, Sproatley Sand & Gravel Nominated site, subsequently withdrawn by nominator SG7 AOS08 Land at Pollington Sand & Gravel Two adjacent sites put E & W forward by different nominators. SG8 Land South of A166, Sand & Gravel Nominated site, extent Garton on the Wolds amended for Revised Preferred Approach SG9 Land East of B1249, Sand & Gravel Nominated site. Brigham SG10 Heigholme, North Side Sand & Gravel Nominated site. of Leven Canal SG11 AOS01 Leven and Sand & Gravel Area of Search in JMLP Brandesburton AoS 2004. SG12 Gransmoor Lane and Sand & gravel Area of Search in JMLP Lissett AoS 2004. SG13 North Farm, Thorpe Le Sand & gravel Nominated site Street SG14 Land at Leven Grange Sand & gravel Nominated site SG15 Land around Brook Sand & gravel Nominated site Farm, North Cave, East Yorkshire SG16 The Outgang Sand & gravel Nominated site SG17 Bungalow Farm Sand & gravel Nominated site CR1 AOS05a Greenwick Quarry, Chalk Nominated site) Huggate CR2 AOS06a Riplingham Quarry Chalk Nominated site subsequently withdrawn by operator (see now CR9) CR3 AOS06 Little Wold, Chalk Nominated site Swinescaif CR4 AOS07 Castle Farm and Limestone Nominated site Drewton Farm, North Cave CR5 Land west of B1249, Chalk Nominated site Langtoft CR6 West side of Wold Chalk Nominated site Road, Nafferton CR7 Huggate AoS Chalk Area of Search in JMLP 2004. CR8 Swinescaif AoS Chalk Area of Search in JMLP 2004. CR9 Riplingham Chalk Nominated site. Replacement nomination to CR2 1.5 As part of the site assessment process, Site Data Sheets have been prepared for all candidate sites which provide information on specific site characteristics and a range of environmental factors. The Site Data Sheets can be viewed in the plan’s evidence base. Summer 2015 Rev 1 2 Joint Minerals Local Plan Background paper 3 Candidate Site Assessment Methodology 1.6 The Candidate Site Assessment Methodology applies a criteria based assessment, drawing on the site visits and data collated in respect of all candidate sites. The methodology was used in the 2012 Site Selection and has been refined to take account of comments made in response to that document. 1.7 For each type of aggregate mineral, the methodology is designed to identify those sites which can be recommended as proposed Preferred Areas or proposed Areas of Search to provide for the maintenance of the landbank during the life of the plan in accordance with advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Thus the methodology is designed to establish appropriate contributions from the different aggregate minerals whilst also achieving a distribution of sites that is well related to potential aggregate markets. In this way, the methodology has been developed to sift through the candidate sites and select the best prospects to identify as proposed ‘Preferred Areas’ and ‘Areas of Search’, as appropriate for sand and gravel and for crushed rock in order to meet the calculated demand. 1.8 It should be noted that one criterion draws its results directly from the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) that has been undertaken and that the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) have been considered in the application of value judgements on the relative merits of the candidate sites. 1.9 SA/SEA criteria are derived from a detailed review of policies, plans and programmes, many of which are aimed at the consideration of development that is more footloose/flexible in terms of its location compared to Minerals development. Minerals can only be worked where they naturally occur in the ground, resulting in a need to interpret SA/SEA findings in relation to identifying appropriate mineral sites with some element of qualitative discretion. In simple terms, there is a need for weighting or prioritisation to be applied that reflects the inability to exercise preference over the physical location in which mineral extraction may occur. 1.10 In addition, it is the purpose of the SA to identify potential positive and negative effects of minerals development on identified sites as a means of identifying where mitigation is needed, whereas the site selection methodology specifically takes into account the potential mitigation that might be applied to address these effects. It will then be for the JMLP and development management policies within it to set an appropriate framework through which these effects can be managed and mitigated. Key Factors 1.11 The appraisal process has involved several sources of information; geological data on the mineral resource; planning and environmental constraints identified from a range of sources; and information received from operators. The operator submission, site visits and desk top appraisals have captured data to enable the following issues to be considered, in line with the key considerations expressed in Planning Practice Guidance: Mineral resource; Proximity to sensitive uses; International ecology and nature conservation designations; National and local ecology and nature conservation designations; Summer 2015 Rev 1 3 Joint Minerals Local Plan Background paper 3 Impact on landscape character; Visual impact; Impact on cultural heritage; Land quality; Transportation implications; and Water environment. 1.12 In addition to selecting sites that exhibit favourable characteristics in relation to the factors identified above, the appraisal framework considers the requirements of the proposed spatial approach for aggregates, as described in Chapter 4 of the JMLP. This spatial element of the selection takes