Lathbury Parish Meeting Response to Milton Keynes Minerals Local Plan – Draft Plan Consultation August 2014

Introduction Parish Meeting represents the residents of Lathbury. The views of Lathbury residents on the Draft Milton Keynes Minerals Local Plan (MLP) have been gathered at a meeting on 16 October 2014 and through written comments. Villagers are unanimous in expressing serious concerns about several aspects of the Plan. In addition to this response, a number of households will be submitting individual responses to the consultation. Our comments and recommendations cover the following: • the processes whereby sand and gravel requirements were estimated, and specific sites identified for sand/gravel extraction; • policy dealing with the impact of sand/gravel extraction on the quality of life of those living close to extraction sites; • policy on the conservation of historic environment and heritage assets; • policy on restoration and after-use; • the impact on Lathbury of sand/gravel extraction in Sites A2 Quarry Hall Farm and A3 Road Lathbury. We address these points below in relation to particular sections and paragraphs in the Draft MLP.

Section 4 Providing for minerals

Policy 1 Providing for sand and gravel Policy 1 states that “the plan will seek to secure provision of 0.17 million tonnes per annum.” The Draft MLP relies on government guidance on the managed aggregates supply system, which “states that [Minerals Planning Authorities] should … look at the average three year sales to identify the general trends of demand and whether it may be appropriate to increase supply” (§ 4.5, p. 22). The new Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) superseded this guidance in March 2014. The new guidance does not refer to three-year average sales. It states that a Local Aggregate Assessment should contain: “a forecast of the demand for aggregates based on both the rolling average of 10-years sales data and other relevant local information”.1

1 National Policy Planning Framework, Practice Planning Guidance, para 062, planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/minerals/assessing- environmental-impacts-from-minerals-extraction/

1 The Local Aggregates Assessment Draft Plan Stage (July 2014) (LAA) 2 argues that the first three years of the 10-years sales data skews the average, since there were no operational quarries during this time (§ 2.10, p. 7). This is accepted. However, it is not clear why the MLP bases the proposed provision in Policy 1 on the most recent three years, other than a reliance on now out- of-date government guidance. The 10-years sales data contain seven years in which there were sand and gravel sales, and the figure in Policy 1 should be the average of these seven years. On the basis of information provided in the LAA we estimate this to be approximately 0.15 million tonnes per annum, which is significantly lower than the figure of 0.17 million tonnes assumed in the Draft MLP.

Recommendation 1 The apportionment rate in Policy 1 should be the average sales of all years over the past ten in which there were any sales.

Paragraphs 4.12-4.13 Estimates of aggregate resource Paragraphs 4.12-4.13 in the draft MLP provide estimates for the inferred aggregate resource in the primary and secondary areas defined in the spatial strategy. Excluding previous mineral extraction sites, the primary areas are estimated to contain 20 Mt, of which 17.4 Mt is over the minimum threshold for economic viability. The secondary areas are estimated to contain 60 Mt, most of which is over the minimum threshold for economic viability. The sites for sand and gravel extraction within the Milton Keynes administrative area that have been subject to site assessments and which are detailed in at least one of the two site assessment documents attached to the draft MLP, together with the estimated yield from each, are set out in Table 1.

Site Estimated yield (Mt) Land near 0.31 Land north of Bridge Unknown Land south east of Stoke 0.5 Land south west of Water Lane Unknown Land west of Sherington Bridge Unknown Manor Farm and Mill 0.456 Quarry Hall Farm 0.72 Calverton Road, Calverton/Passenham 0.25 Northampton Road, Lathbury 0.55 Road, 0.32 Total known resource 3.11 Table 1: Milton Keynes sites for sand and gravel extraction that have been subject to site assessment

2 miltonkeynes-consult.objective.co.uk/file/3043103

2 Thus the sites that were assessed and where resource has been quantified cover approximately 4% of the total estimated resource in the primary and secondary areas. This raises questions about the rigour of the process of site identification. The Methodology for the Assessment of Minerals-Related Development Sites attached to the Draft MLP states that there was “a ‘call-for-sites’ allowing landowners, industry and other stakeholders to state their interest in developing a specific site for minerals-related development during the plan period.” (§ 1.10). However, we can find no information in the plan and attached documents to indicate how the call for sites was conducted. The call was issued on notepaper belonging to the consultants for the Draft MLP, Northamptonshire County Council. It is possible that it was dismissed as irrelevant by some recipients. Before adopting the draft plan, the Council should demonstrate that opportunities to identify sites have not been missed, particularly where there may be sites that provide a better balance between economic benefits and adverse environmental impacts than is the case for the sites included in the Draft MLP. We note further that the secondary areas identified in the Draft MLP are bounded to the north by the Northamptonshire County Council administrative area. It is a matter of concern that this may have given rise to a conflict of interest for the consultants, and we seek reassurances that the Council has satisfied itself that any such conflict of interest was appropriately managed during the development of the draft MLP.

Recommendation 2 The Council should show that the call for sites was sufficiently thorough to ensure that all potential sites in the primary and secondary areas were identified. Recommendation 3 The Council should demonstrate that any conflict of interest between the consultants and the Council did not affect the content of the Draft MLP.

Policy 5 Development principles for mineral extraction There is a tension in this policy between its aims to “maximize recovery of the reserve” and “mitigate potentially adverse impacts (including cumulative impacts)”. For some sites it is not possible to achieve both aims and a balance needs be struck.

Recommendation 4 Policy 5 should be reworded as follows: “Proposals for the extraction of minerals will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the development complies with relevant local plan policies, where possible maximises recovery of the reserve subject to the avoidance of unacceptable adverse impacts (including cumulative impacts), minimises waste, promotes the best end-use of materials, ensures land stability, avoids unacceptable adverse impacts (including cumulative impacts) and is environmentally feasible.”

3 Paragraphs 4.30-4.32 and Policy 7 Development strategy and principles for secondary and recycled aggregates The Draft MLP is presented as a forward-looking document but the strategy for use of recycled aggregates is based purely on historic data. Future trends should also be considered. Given the long-term commitment of Milton Keynes Council to recycling, recycled aggregates should feature more prominently than they currently do. Government policy (National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) §143) encourages the use of alternative materials instead of quarrying and dredging for primary aggregates.3 Other Councils refer to the use of recycled aggregates within their MLPs or Sustainability Policies. For example: …They have an increasing use in new construction and road building and play a valuable role in reducing the demand for new virgin material to be quarried for use as primary aggregate. (Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Plan §3.3.2)4 Giving preference to the use of recycled granular materials (Hampshire Council Council – Aggregates recycling)5 The 2004 European standards for Aggregates6 do not discriminate between virgin and recycled material. The focus is on fitness for purpose rather than origin of resource.

Recommendation 5 The Council should include in the MLP a review of recycled aggregates availability including future trends within the Borough and surrounding area. Recommendation 6 The MLP should include a value of recycled material within its Estimate of Aggregates. This should consider future estimated availability of materials and not historic data. This value should then be considered as part of the landbank. Recommendation 7 Policy 7 should be reworded to reflect the outcomes of Recommendations 5 and 6.

Section 5 Controlling and managing development There are several limitations in the draft policies dealing with the quality of life of those affected by mineral development, and with the conservation of historic environment and heritage assets.

3www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950. pdf

4 new.lancashire.gov.uk/media/228119/Local-Plan-Part-One-website-1-.pdf 5 www3.hants.gov.uk/sustainability/environment-sustainability- whatishantsdoing/environment-sustainability-aggregate.htm 6 aggregain.wrap.org.uk/more_information.html, and aggregain.wrap.org.uk/euro_standards.html

4 Paragraphs 5.2 – 5.7 and Policy 9 Natural assets and resources Policy 9 and preceding paragraphs on ‘Natural assets and resources’ make no reference to the Milton Keynes draft Landscape Character Assessment7 (especially the Ouse Valley Character Assessment8) which is a key document in the Milton Keynes Core Strategy9 (adopted 2013). This is needed in order to comply with PPG §13.

Recommendation 8 Policy 9 should be amended to take account of the Milton Keynes Draft Landscape Character Assessment.

Paragraphs 5.8-5.12 and Policy 10 Historic environment and heritage assets Policy 10 makes no reference to visual impact, which is particularly significant to the historic environment and heritage assets. The policy should be amended to specify the need to avoid or mitigate the adverse visual impact of mineral extraction.

Recommendation 9 Policy 10, bullet point 5 should be amended to read: Avoiding and/or mitigating potentially adverse impacts, including visual impacts, and …

Paragraphs 5.19 – 5.26 and Policy 12 General amenity Paragraphs 5.19-5.26 and Policy 12 address potential impacts of mineral extraction on the quality of life of those living near sites. Again, this part of the Draft MLP contains no reference to the negative impact of visual intrusion. Nor does it take adequate account of the cumulative effects of multiple impacts. The omission of visual impact and multiple impacts stands in contrast to national policy. The NPPF (§143) requires Mineral Planning Authorities to: set out environmental criteria, in line with the policies in this Framework, against which planning applications will be assessed so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, including from noise, dust, visual intrusion, traffic, tip- and quarry-slope stability, differential settlement

7 www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/19801/Draft_LCA_part_1.pdf 8 www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/19804/Ouse_Valley.pdf 9 www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/14954/FINAL_Core_Strategy_Adopted_July_2013_low_res.pd f

5 of quarry backfill, mining subsidence, increased flood risk, impacts on the flow and quantity of surface and groundwater and migration of contamination from the site; and take into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality … (Our bold text)10 The PPG (§13) lists the environmental issues that mineral planning authorities must address. Among these are: • noise associated with the operation • dust; • air quality; • lighting; • visual impact on the local and wider landscape; • landscape character; • archaeological and heritage features; • traffic; • flood risk; • land stability/subsidence.11 In addition to its inconsistency with policy at national level, the lack of reference to visual impact represents an apparent change in policy in Milton Keynes. The 2006 MLP includes a relatively strong reference to visual impact, noting (p. 37): Planning permission will be granted for mineral development providing that: … there will not be a significant adverse visual impact on any dwellings or other environmentally sensitive properties or from footpaths in the surrounding area taking into account any proposed ameliorative measures.12 Paragraph 5.19 discusses negative impacts on quality of life, including ‘environmental nuisance’ impacts. Visual intrusion should be added to these impacts.

Recommendation 10 Paragraph 5.19 should be amended to read: Our quality of life is influenced by many factors, including environmental parameters and physical surrounds. Defining quality of life is largely subjective, however in relation to potential impacts associated with development the following planning matters may impact on quality of life: general amenity and environmental nuisance impacts (including dust, noise and vibration, visual intrusion), transport and access, the built environment and climate.

Paragraph 5.22 provides a subjective assessment of sensitivity levels for different land uses, which should be taken into consideration in determining impacts and their avoidance or mitigation. There is no indication of how the

10 See footnote 3 for URL. 11 National Policy Planning Framework, Practice Planning Guidance, para 013 planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/minerals/assessing- environmental-impacts-from-minerals-extraction/ 12 Milton Keynes Minerals Local Plan, Policy MLP7, p. 37, www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/16481/MK%20Minerals%20Local%20Plan%202006.pdf

6 assessment of sensitivity was arrived at, and no source is given. It is not clear, for instance, why residential areas, schools and nurseries are only “medium sensitivity”.

Recommendation 11 The MLP should include an explanation of the rationale for the sensitivity grading in Paragraph 5.22, along with a source.

Paragraphs 5.23 – 5.26 identify dust, noise and vibration as potential sources of adverse impact on general amenity. Visual impact should be added to this list.

Recommendation 12 A paragraph should be added following paras 5.24 – 5.26 dealing with the management of visual impact.

While paragraphs in this section refer to the mitigation of negative impacts, they do not specify buffer zones, or separation areas, as an important mitigation tool. Again, this is a departure from the 2006 MLP. This states: Planning permission will be granted for mineral development providing that: Satisfactory buffers are provided to safeguard the amenities of nearby uses (see Table 413 Indicative buffer zone widths to ameliorate nuisance).14 Table 4 in the 2006 MLP (‘Buffer zones for mineral extraction’) is included in Annex 1 to this consultation response. Following the pre-adoption Inquiry, the Inspector’s report noted (p. 26): The principle of requiring buffer zones is well-established and prudent. It is also helpful and sensible to indicate in the plan what the MPA regard as appropriate distances for different circumstances. However, the actual distances adopted in each case may vary according to circumstances, and should properly be a matter for discussion between the MPA and applicants. 15 If it is no longer the case that the Council believes the protection of residential areas and heritage assets needs serious, explicit consideration then an explanation should be provided. Otherwise there should be a clear and consistent statement that separation areas will be an automatic part of the planning process when development encroaches upon residential areas or heritage assets. This would be consistent with national policy (NPPF16 §143, PPG17 §18.)

13 Table 4 was remarked upon by the Inspector at the Adoption Inquiry, and approved. He made special mention of a 100m buffer zone in connection with the Northampton Road site at Lathbury. 14 Milton Keynes Minerals Local Plan, Policy MLP7, p. 36, see footnote 12 for URL 15 www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy/minerals-local-plan- inspector-s-report 16 See footnote 3 for URL. 17 National Policy Planning Framework, Practice Planning Guidance, para 013, see footnote 11 for URL.

7 Recommendation 13 Policy 12 should be amended as follows: Proposals for minerals-related development must ensure, through a framework evaluation, that potentially adverse impacts, on quality of life and amenity (compatibility of land use, dust, vibration, light pollution, visual impact etc) are avoided and/or reduced to acceptable levels. Singular and cumulative adverse impacts should be considered. Specific mitigation measures such as separation zones must be identified to minimize adverse impacts. Site-specific assessments may be required to determine existing/ambient levels, identify potential impacts and appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures to be implemented. Where applicable, a site management plan should be developed to ensure implementation and maintenance of mitigation measures throughout operations. Planning permission will be considered for mineral development provided that: a) there will not be a significant adverse visual impact on any dwellings or other environmentally sensitive properties in the surrounding area taking into account any proposed mitigation measures. b) satisfactory separation zones are provided to safeguard the amenities of nearby uses.

Paragraphs 5.30 – 5.33 and Policy 14 Site design and layout Policy 14 covers the need for sensitive site design and layout to make a positive contribution to the local area and mitigate adverse impacts. It is not possible for mineral workings to make a positive contribution to the appearance and character of a rural area such as the Ouse Valley, so the policy as it stands is unsatisfactory, if not dishonest. The policy makes no reference to specific mitigations.

Recommendation 14 Policy 14 should be generally reviewed. The revised policy should be amended to include reference to the need for adequate separation zones and other mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding areas.

Paragraphs 5.38-5.44 and Policy 16 Restoration and after-use These paragraphs suggest possibilities for restoration and after-use of extraction sites, and outline the requirements of restoration schemes. However, evidence from restoration work in earlier sites (Ravenstone, Broughton Grounds and Mill Farm ) does not inspire confidence that restoration will be fully effective: • The Ravenstone site took many years to restore after extraction was completed and resulted in poor grade agricultural land (Bucks CC was the Minerals Planning Authority when the site was initiated). • The restoration plan for Broughton Grounds did not deliver any meaningful and varied strategic objectives. It was restored to poor grade agricultural land, despite the opportunity afforded by the

8 adjacent public rights of way and nearby community woodland which could have been extended to improve public amenity and biodiversity. • In the case of Mill Farm Gayhurst the intention was to create a varied wetland habitat and managed lakes with public access and environmental education opportunities. Milton Keynes Council did not sustain an interest and the result is unmanaged overgrown lakes which are used for wildfowl shooting and with no access above the existing public right of way. These sites were governed by earlier plans: it is therefore imperative that the new MLP makes proper provision for restoration and after-use in any proposed development and puts measures in place to ensure restoration schemes are completed effectively. A significant gap in the discussion of restoration and after-use is any proper consideration of funding and monitoring. These are particularly important in relation to longer-term after-use, which is necessary to achieve and sustain the planned restoration objectives (as specified in the NPPF). Plans for restoration and after-use may fail without adequate funding to ensure they are appropriately managed and monitored.

Recommendation 15 Paragraph 5.44 should be re-worded as follows: Restoration schemes should identify the intended after-use(s) and incorporate clear stages of restoration including layout and design plans as necessary, and the funding to be allocated to restoration and after-use. The scheme must identify an end date by which restoration works are to be completed as well as a programme setting out after-care (including provisions for ongoing management and maintenance) and monitoring requirements. There may also be a requirement for site-specific assessments (such as landscape character, environmental capacity, ecological networks, flood risk, etc) to accompanying the restoration scheme. The restoration scheme must be submitted to the MPA and approved prior to commencement of development. It will be monitored by the MPA until completed as planned. Recommendation 16 Policy 16 should be reworded as follows: The after-use of a site will be determined in relation to the land-use context, surrounding environmental character and the requirements of the local community. Schemes must include objectives that will result in: biodiversity gains, enhancement of the local environment and amenity, and benefits for the local community and/or economy. They must also specify the funding that will be allocated to restoration and after-use. The MPA’s monitoring of the scheme will include after-use until this is effectively completed.

Paragraphs 5.52 – 5.56 Planning conditions Paragraph 5.54 needs a fuller discussion of conditions that may be imposed on planning. It should specifically include separation areas as a planning condition. There are other conditions that are not identified, for example to control flood risk, and to control the phasing of a large development in order

9 to minimise impacts on the environment and community. A good source for improving this paragraph is Paragraph 3.24 of the 2006 MLP.

Recommendation 17 Paragraph 5.54 should specify. ‘Conditions that will be imposed …’ The paragraph should be generally reviewed to make it as robust as the 2006 MLP. The revised paragraph should include separation areas and flood risk prevention amongst planning conditions.

Land-use: compatibility with existing businesses The Minerals Local Plan: Issues and Options Consultation of January 2014 included a section on land-use compatibility (Section 3 ‘Local Planning Considerations’ § 3.11-3.14). This noted: 3.11 …. One of the roles of planning is to make sure incompatible land uses are separated…. 3.12 … This will require proposals for minerals-related development to take account of existing and allocated development within the surrounding area… The Draft MLP has removed this. It places greater emphasis on the use of Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) to protect extraction sites from incompatibility with future developments than it does on protecting existing business from the impact of proposed mineral extraction. Existing land-use is now referred with respect to ‘Quality of life’ (see § 5.21- 5.22 on levels of sensitivity for different land uses). However impacts on business within the proximity of a proposed site may also be significant. The NPPF18 (§123) requires Minerals Planning Authorities to recognize that: existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established. This therefore requires independent consideration in Section 5 of the MLP.

Recommendation 18 Section 5 of the MLP should include separate paragraphs on existing business land- use within close proximity to a proposed minerals site. Potential impacts on existing business should be considered. If MSAs are given the protection of a separation area this protection should also be accorded to existing land-use, including, but not limited to, those activities identified as “High Sensitivity”.

18 See footnote 3 for URL.

10 Section 6 General development considerations

Paragraphs 6.13 - 6.17 and Policy 19 Safeguarding of minerals-related development and associated infrastructure Policy 19 deals with the preservation of mineral reserves. There is a logical inconsistency between the lack of reference to separation areas to protect residential, historical and other amenity, and their frequent mention in connection with the sterilisation of mineral resources. If mineral development may be permitted arbitrarily close to other development, there is no need for any separation distance to be specified to protect the minerals. The recommended distance for separation areas is 250m (§ 6.15). No justification is given for this figure: it was not specified by the British Geological Survey (BGS) document cited19, and does not appear in the (recently adopted) MLP of Northamptonshire County Council. It is compatible with BGS guidance, but so too would be a figure of 5000m.

Recommendation 19 The MLP should include justifications for the identification of separation areas to safeguard mineral resources and the specific recommendation of 250m.

Draft MLP Appendix 1 Site Profiles The draft MLP includes two sites, A2: Quarry Hall Farm and A3: Northampton Road, Lathbury that would have significant adverse impacts on Lathbury village. Lathbury Parish Meeting responded to the inclusion of the Northampton Road site in the Issues and Options consultation paper (January 2014). The Quarry Hall site was not included in this consultation. The Parish Meeting is extremely concerned that the Draft MLP has not taken account of this earlier response. The site profile for Northampton Road includes the constraints that the site has ‘potential for adverse impacts on heritage assets’ and notes that ‘the site is located within 100m from the listed Inn Farmhouse and Home Farm House’. It also notes that the site’s ‘proximity to Lathbury village increases the risk of potential impacts, although mitigation measures could be put in place to limit potential impacts.’ The constraints as listed are vague, incomplete and misleading. The Quarry Hall site does not identify any constraints relating to Lathbury despite its relative proximity. Below we provide details of the weaknesses we have identified in the site profiles. These weaknesses may result in part from erroneous information about the geography of Lathbury. Annex 1 to the draft MLP (Site assessments) states that the Northampton Road site is ‘just separated by a road’ from the village, and that ‘views from the village are not directly available limiting impact on the built environment and townscape’ (SA6

19 C E Wrighton, F M McEvoy and R Bust (2011) Mineral Safeguarding in : Good Practice Advice Minerals and Waste Programme Open Report OR/11/046. Keyworth, Nottingham, British Geological Survey: www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=1333

11 ‘Built environment and townscape’ assessment, p.51). In fact approximately 20% of Lathbury lies on the same side of the road as the proposed site, and the site is clearly visible from the village. (Annex 2 to this consultation response sets out other weaknesses in the site assessment.) We have major concerns about both sites but focus in greater detail on Northampton Road, Lathbury.

A2: Quarry Hall Farm The Quarry Hall Farm site, although a little further from Lathbury village than the Northampton Road site, would have a have negative effect on the quality of life in Lathbury in terms of visual impact, noise and potentially dust. The impact on Lathbury would be particularly, and unacceptably severe if traffic from the site used the B526, which runs directly through the village. Traffic on this road is already a problem (See Annex 2): in the Lathbury stretch of the road there have been two fatalities in the last few years, and three serious collisions in the last twelve months. This is therefore a serious constraint. None of these impacts is currently stated as a constraint in the site profile. A popular footpath (right of way) runs along the northern boundary of the site to the west of Quarry Hall Farm. This is another important constraint, but it is not mentioned in the site profile.

A3: Northampton Road, Lathbury This site would have several adverse impacts on Lathbury: actual, not ‘potential’.

Close proximity of the site to a residential area The boundaries of the proposed site are contiguous with village housing and large parts of the village are extremely close. The village would therefore be directly affected by noise, vibration, dust, visual impact and potentially traffic (depending on the access route). Lathbury is a quiet residential area and the low ambient noise would increase the impact of noise from the site.

Close proximity of the site to a residential care home The residential care home Lathbury Manor directly overlooks the Northampton Road site and the site would therefore have an adverse impact on a particularly vulnerable group of 22 elderly residents with dementia and various medical problems, including respiratory problems. As the care home is located in a Grade II listed building there is little that can be done to mitigate noise intrusion into the building itself or its gardens. In its discussion of different levels of sensitivity to the detrimental effects associated with minerals development, the Draft MLP notes (§ 5.22): These categories of sensitivity can help to determine land-use compatibility and should be taken into consideration in determining potential impacts and avoidance and/or mitigation measures to be implemented.

12 Retirement homes are classified as ‘high sensitivity’. Despite this, the residential home at Lathbury Manor is not mentioned as a constraint on development.

Close proximity of the site to listed buildings The site profile includes an error in its identification of two listed buildings within 100m of the site. Lathbury includes seven listed buildings20: 1. Church of All Saints, !Grade I, !Church Lane 2. Garden Walls at Lathbury Park to East of House, !Grade II!, 1 Church Lane 3. Home Farmhouse, !Grade II, !Northampton Road 4. Inn Farm Court (Former Stables, Haybarn Ranges to Inn Farmhouse), !Grade II!, 3 Church Lane 5. !Inn Farmhouse! (now known as Lathbury Manor), Grade II, Northampton Road 6. Lathbury Park, !Grade II, !Church Lane 7. !The Old Rectory and the Wing, !Grade II, !4 Church Lane Of these, three are in very close proximity to the site: Lathbury Manor (< 50m from the site), Inn Farm Court (< 60m) and Home Farm (contiguous with the site). We can find no other actual or proposed sand and gravel development in a Minerals Local Plan anywhere in the country that is so close to listed properties. Home Farm and Lathbury Manor both have extensive views over the site. We referred above to the significance of visual impact with respect to historic sites, and Milton Keynes Local Plan – Historic Environment21 states: Views of the building and views from it may be of sufficient importance to refuse planning permission for development proposals in the vicinity of a listed building. (Section 5.16) However again this is not specified as a constraint on the site. In taking insufficient account of the proximity of listed buildings, current plans for the site run the risk of legal action at a later stage. Recent cases at the Court of Appeal interpreting section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act reinforce the importance of having special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings. For instance in the case of North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & David Mack22 the High Court

20 Source: British Listed Buildings: http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/england/milton+keynes/lathbury/ 21 Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 Adopted 2005 22 High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court. Case No. CO/6087/2013: http://cornerstonebarristers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/North- Norfolk-DC-v-SSCLG-David-Mack.pdf

13 quashed the decision of an Inspector to grant permission for a controversial wind turbine. The judgment reiterated that a decision-maker cannot: … treat the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building as a mere material consideration to which (he) can simply attach the weight (he) sees fit in (his) judgement. The statutory language goes beyond that and treats the preservation of the setting of a listed building as presumptively desirable. So, if a development would harm the setting of a listed building, there has to be something of sufficient strength in the merits of the development to outweigh that harm. The language of presumption against permission or strong countervailing reasons for its grant is appropriate.23 (§ 82, Approved Judgment: Case Number CO/6087/2013. Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London: 14. 02. 14.)

Proximity to existing business Business owners in Lathbury believe they will suffer “Nuisance”24 caused by mineral extraction within the Parish given the proximity of the site. In addition to the residential care home mentioned above the village includes horticultural land (Floriculture): the impact of dust would be considerable on the saleability of locally grown blooms for a cut flower business. Smallholders have also expressed concerns about the impact of dust and noise on animals. Poultry are particularly susceptible to detrimental effect (including sudden death) caused by noise.

Traffic/access Traffic may be a serious negative impact, depending on access to and from the site. As mentioned in relation to the Quarry Hall Farm site, there would be problems with additional traffic on the B526. Furthermore, there is a presumption against new access to the B526 from Lathbury, evident in the recent refusal of a planning application because this would create additional stopping, turning and crossing movements on the road, increasing danger and inconvenience to road users (see Annex 2).

Cumulative impact Because profiles are given independently for each site there is no way of noting cumulative impact as a constraint. This is severe in the case of Lathbury. The Draft MLP notes that ‘extraction of mineral from Quarry Hall Farm and Lathbury Quarry [sic] must be phased to ensure the two are not operational at the same time’ (Section 4, Policy 3). While this may decrease disturbance at any one time it also means Lathbury would be subject to various forms of negative impact for at least 16-18 years (Quarry Hall Farm estimated at 10 years; Northampton Road at 6-8 years).

23 For another similar case in which this principle was upheld see: http://cornerstonebarristers.com/case/barnwell-manor-wind-energy-ltd-v-e-northants-dc-english- heritage-national-trust-ssclg 24 Private nuisance in English law is defined as "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his use or enjoyment of that land" Bermingham, Vera; Carol Brennan (2008). Tort Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-922798-3.

14 Potential for mitigation The site profile refers to unspecified ‘mitigation measures’. This reference is inadequate. Given the impacts we have identified above specific mitigation measures need to be identified to enable a judgment to be made on the viability of the site. There is no reason why mitigation measures that are deemed to be appropriate should not be specified at this stage in the development of the MLP.

Overview The inclusion of the Quarry Hall site and the Northampton Road site is incompatible with Strategic Objective 6 (Draft MLP Section 3): Protect and enhance Milton Keynes’ key (national and international) environmental and heritage designations and ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health by avoiding and/or minimizing adverse effects to acceptable levels.

Recommendation 20 Sites A2 and A3 should be re-assessed, based on accurate information on Lathbury and its proximity to the sites, cumulative impacts resulting from proposals for the Quarry Hall Farm site in addition to Northampton Road, and the requirement to have regard to the protection of amenity, including environmental amenity and historic assets, and impact on local businesses.

Lathbury Parish Meeting 5. 11. 14.

15 Annex 1: Table 4 Buffer zones for mineral extraction The following is an extract from page 37 of the 2006 MLP. (This table dates back at least to MLP review March 2002.) Indicative buffer zone widths to ameliorate nuisance Nature of Open Land Landscape or physical Landscaped proposal features bund minimum Tree belt + Major road height 5 100m plus in metres depth A Mineral 200m 100m 100m 100m extraction only B Gravel 400m 300m 200m 300m processing plant NOTE: A distance measured from the edge of the working area to the nearest point of the building to be protected (protective measures such as bunds, landscaping etc to be within the working area as thus defined) B distance measured from the nearest point of the plant to the nearest point of the building to be protected.

16 Annex 2: Assessment of Site A2 Northampton Road Lathbury Prospective extraction sites included in the draft MLP have been subject to a site assessment. The assessments are detailed in Annex 1 to the Draft MLP, Site Assessments Stage 2 July 201425. This document notes that site assessments were made against ‘assessment criteria’ (p.1) but these are not provided. Readers are referred to ‘the full site assessment methodology’, which is available in a separate document. This is unhelpful and seems designed to discourage scrutiny. Criteria that are relied on for assessment should be provided in the document itself. As they stand, judgments appear to be highly subjective, and it is not always clear why one judgment rather than another is made. We illustrate this with respect to the assessment of Northampton Road Lathbury. Impact risks are identified as either ‘beneficial’ or ‘adverse’, in each case with a specific rating on a four-point scale: ‘negligible’, ‘low’, ‘moderate’ or ‘high’. Examples of ratings for Northampton Road include the following. ‘Noise and vibration’ assessment (SA1, SA9, page 50) is low adverse because: The site is within a rural location to the north of Newport Pagnell, in particular in close proximity to the village of Lathbury. The rural location and close proximity to the nearby residential properties (particularly those within Lathbury village) means there is the potential for noise emissions in breach of the limits stated in the NPPG (unmitigated). Northampton Road is subject to frequent vehicle movements, increasing the ambient noise level at nearby properties. The size of proposed working area within the submitted site means that there is scope to for a sizeable stand-off from noise sensitive properties. The impact of noise resulting from a previous proposed scheme was considered at an Appeal (with reference to the guidance at the time) in 2003, and was not considered a reason to dismiss that Appeal. There would be likely to some noise and vibration suffered by some residential properties, but subject to suitable assessment and mitigation, these levels of disturbance may be acceptable. There are no statutorily designated ecological sites within close proximity to the site and no records of protected species identified on site that would be affected by potential noise and vibration effects. Further detail and site-specific assessment on noise and vibration and potential effects on the receiving environment would be required to accompany the planning application. When the site was rejected at appeal in 2003, noise was not considered a major obstacle because a 100m buffer zone was at that time operational. There are hints at such an arrangement in the above paragraphs, but these are not followed up in the draft MLP. We are surprised that ‘Historic environment and historic assets’ (SA4, p.51) is rated moderate adverse given the acknowledgement that:

25 http://miltonkeynes-consult.objective.co.uk/file/3043105

17 There are seven listed buildings within the village of Lathbury. The two listed buildings closest to the site are located south of the boundary and within 100m are Inn Farmhouse and Home Farm House. Specifying ‘within 100m’ here does not make it clear that Home Farm is actually contiguous with the site boundary. A third listed building, Inn Farm Court, is also very close to the site but omitted here. The assessment of impact on ‘Landscape character’ (SA5, page 51) is moderate adverse. The notes specify: Located within the Ouse Valley Landscape Character Area. This character area is subdivided into five further sub-areas with the site being located within the Ouse Valley Floor East, the rural Ouse Valley that runs from Newport Pagnell in the south to Turvey and in the north. This stretch of the river is relatively undisturbed containing a number of floodplain meadows along its course and represents the strongest unifying factor and core of the Ouse Valley. Key characteristics include open field patterns with ditches and wire fences, high proportion of grazing, riparian character, few restored mineral sites, limited access adjacent to the river and few crossing points, tranquil character, absence of visual detractors (excluding the Windfarm to the south-east of the site) and settlement. The size, location and nature of this proposal would be likely to result in significant temporary impacts on existing landscape character.” It is not clear why noise and vibration are rated as low adverse whereas the landscape effect is moderate adverse. The ‘built environment and townscape’ assessment (SA5, p.51) is factually incorrect: The southern and western site boundary borders the edge of Lathbury, just separated by a road. The village of Sherington is situated to the north-east of the site. Views from the villages are not directly available limiting impact on the built environment and townscape. There are two errors here: approximately 20% of Lathbury lies on the same side of the road as the proposed site; and the site is clearly visible from both Lathbury and Sherington. These errors may have contributed to the assessment of moderate adverse (the impacts would more properly be seen as high adverse) and must therefore be corrected. Proximity to sensitive receptors (SA9, page 52) is assessed as moderate adverse: Potential for noise and dust generated from mineral operations (e.g. HGV movements and plant machinery) to impact on residential amenity. Lathbury village is in close proximity to the site as are a number of farmsteads and individual dwellings, including the Red Brick Cottages <2m from the site boundary. The site is on low lying land with gentle slopes to the sides rising up to higher land, notably to the north-east in the vicinity of Sherington village, and can be seen from several vantage points (including the Great Ouse River, Sherington and RoW in area). Extraction operations will likely temporarily

18 disturb the general amenity associated with views in the local and wider landscape. A mitigation strategy which could include for example restricted hours of operation, buffering/screening, set backs for workings, strategic site layout and routing agreements could potentially minimise these impacts to an acceptable level.” Again, given the proposed site’s proximity to housing the impacts here seem to be high adverse. Buffering/screening and set backs are mentioned as potential mitigating factors, but these are not specified for the site in the draft MLP. ‘Compatibility of surrounding land uses’ (SA9, page 52) and ‘Impact on general amenity or character of the area’ (SA1, SA9, page 53) are both assessed moderate adverse. Again, each of these assessments relies on mitigation measures which are not specified within the draft MLP and the impact would seem more properly to be high adverse. The ‘Site access and impact on transport network/infrastructure’ assessment (SA14, SA15, page 54) is negligible: No access point is shown on information provided. The assessment was made on current field access points. Access 1 is near to Home Farm and within the 40 mph speed limit. High speed road with vehicles at or over the speed limit. Use the visibility standard as 2.4 x 215 which is achievable. No objections would be raised to this point on highway safety grounds. Consultation with MKBC highways department is needed on this judgment. There have been two fatalities in the last few years, and three serious collisions in the last twelve months. There is also a presumption against new accesses on to the B526 in the village. A planning application was recently refused because: "The proposal will create additional stopping, turning and crossing movements on a district distributor road causing a danger and inconvenience to users of the access and highway users in general, contrary to Policy T9 (Table T1) and Policy T10 of the Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011."26 This assessment must therefore be updated. ‘Capacity for avoidance and/or mitigation measures’ (page 54) is rated moderate beneficial: The site slopes upwards from the river valley towards Lathbury village The size and location of the site means that it has the potential to accommodate mounds/bunds or other forms of screening to mitigate impacts such as dust, noise and visual impacts at receptors to the south, and to a more limited extent to the east and west. To the north east the site is close to the River Great Ouse corridor which constrains screening, due to potential impacts on flood conveyance for the river. The set-back of the site from the river may mitigate against impacts on the ecology of the river corridor. The phasing of and detailed location of extraction may help to mitigate against the potential loss of ‘very good’ grade agricultural land on the site. Other standard industry mitigation measures which would reduce potentially adverse impacts to acceptable levels include construction management and practice (e.g. dust and noise management), soil movement and handling, restoration and aftercare practice.

26 http://edrms.milton-keynes.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/00084111.pdf

19 It is unclear how anything in this paragraph can be assessed as beneficial. Unlike earlier assessments, this paragraph does not mention buffering as a possible mitigation measure. There is considerable scope for improvement in these assessments. Criteria should be published to make it clear how judgments have been made. Errors should be corrected. Ratings should be made internally consistent and explanations made compatible with information given in the MLP.

20