Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration Environmental Statement
On behalf of
Project Ref: 30755 | Rev: Final | Date: September 2017
Office Address: 10 Queen Square, Bristol, BS1 4NT T: +44 (0)117 332 7840 E: [email protected] Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Document Control Sheet
Project Name: Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration Project Ref: 30755 Report Title: Environmental Statement Vol 1 Main Report Date: September 2017
Name Position Signature Date
Prepared by: Various
Reviewed by: Stefan Boss Senior Associate SB 5/9/17
Approved by: Mark Brenton Equity Director MB 5/9/17
For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP
Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved
00 5/9/17 Planning Application SB SB MB
This report has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP ("PBA") on behalf of its client to whom this report is addressed ("Client") in connection with the project described in this report and takes into account the Client's particular instructions and requirements. This report was prepared in accordance with PBA's Fee Proposal and Terms and Conditions addressed to the Client ("Appointment"). This report is not intended for and should not be relied on by any third party (i.e. parties other than the Client). PBA accepts no duty or responsibility (including in negligence) to any party other than the Client and disclaims all liability of any nature whatsoever to any such party in respect of this report.
© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2017
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great ii Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Contents
1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 The Proposed Development ...... 1 1.2 The Site ...... 1 1.3 Terms and Definitions ...... 1 1.4 The EIA, ES and Related Documents ...... 2 1.5 Consultation ...... 2 1.6 Project Team ...... 3 2 Site and Surrounding Area ...... 4 2.1 Introduction ...... 4 2.2 Site Location and Surroundings ...... 4 2.3 Site Description ...... 4 2.4 History of the Site ...... 5 2.5 Environmental Setting ...... 5 3 The Proposed Development ...... 7 3.1 Description of the Proposed Development ...... 7 3.2 Working Process ...... 12 3.3 Incorporated Mitigation ...... 14 3.4 Consideration of Alternatives ...... 14 4 Assessment Method ...... 18 4.1 Introduction ...... 18 4.2 EIA Regulations ...... 18 4.3 EIA Process ...... 18 4.4 Screening and Scoping ...... 18 4.5 Consultation ...... 19 4.6 Committed Developments ...... 19 4.7 Assessment Assumptions ...... 20 4.8 Assessing Effects ...... 21 4.9 Uncertainty ...... 22 4.10 Mitigation of Adverse Effects ...... 22 4.11 Residual Effects ...... 22 4.12 Significance Criteria...... 23 4.13 Cumulative Effects ...... 24 4.14 Impact Interactions ...... 24 5 Planning Policy Context ...... 25 5.1 Introduction ...... 25 5.2 National Planning Policy Framework ...... 25 5.3 Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2014) ...... 25 5.4 Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Update (Adopted 2017) ...... 27
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great iii Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
5.5 Borough Council of Wellingborough ...... 28 5.6 Northampton Borough Council ...... 28 6 Landscape and Visual Impact ...... 30 6.1 Introduction ...... 30 6.2 Policy Context ...... 30 6.3 Methodology ...... 32 6.4 Baseline Conditions ...... 34 6.5 Potential Effects ...... 46 6.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ...... 47 6.7 Residual Effects ...... 48 6.8 Cumulative Effects ...... 53 6.9 Summary ...... 54 6.10 References ...... 56 7 Ecology ...... 57 7.1 Introduction ...... 57 7.2 Policy Context ...... 57 7.3 Methodology ...... 58 7.4 Baseline Conditions ...... 64 7.5 Potential Effects ...... 74 7.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ...... 78 7.7 Residual Effects ...... 81 7.8 Cumulative Effects ...... 86 7.9 Monitoring ...... 87 7.10 Summary ...... 88 7.11 References ...... 89 8 Transport and Access ...... 91 8.1 Introduction ...... 91 8.2 Policy Context ...... 91 8.3 Methodology ...... 91 8.4 Baseline Conditions ...... 95 8.5 Potential Effects ...... 96 8.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ...... 98 8.7 Residual Effects ...... 99 8.8 Cumulative Effects ...... 100 8.9 Summary ...... 100 8.10 References ...... 100 9 Noise and Vibration...... 101 9.1 Introduction ...... 101 9.2 Policy Context ...... 101 9.3 Methodology ...... 105 9.4 Baseline Conditions ...... 109
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great iv Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9.5 Potential Effects ...... 113 9.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ...... 120 9.7 Residual Effects ...... 121 9.8 Cumulative Effects ...... 121 9.9 Summary ...... 122 9.10 References ...... 123 10 Air Quality ...... 124 10.1 Introduction ...... 124 10.2 Policy Context ...... 124 10.3 Methodology ...... 125 10.4 Baseline Conditions ...... 135 10.5 Potential Effects ...... 142 10.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ...... 165 10.7 Residual Effects ...... 166 10.8 Summary ...... 167 10.9 References ...... 168 11 Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Flood Risk ...... 170 11.1 Introduction ...... 170 11.2 Policy Context ...... 170 11.3 Methodology ...... 171 11.4 Baseline Conditions ...... 173 11.5 Potential Effects ...... 175 11.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ...... 177 11.7 Residual Effects ...... 178 11.8 Cumulative Effects ...... 178 11.9 Summary ...... 179 11.10 Reference ...... 179 12 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ...... 180 12.1 Introduction ...... 180 12.2 Policy Context ...... 180 12.3 Methodology ...... 184 12.4 Baseline Conditions ...... 187 12.5 Potential Effects ...... 192 12.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ...... 196 12.7 Residual Effects ...... 196 12.8 Cumulative Effects ...... 197 12.9 Summary ...... 197 12.10 References ...... 198 13 Ground Conditions ...... 200 13.1 Introduction ...... 200 13.2 Policy Context ...... 200
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great v Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13.3 Methodology ...... 201 13.4 Baseline Conditions ...... 203 13.5 Potential Effects ...... 210 13.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ...... 215 13.7 Residual Effects ...... 218 13.8 Cumulative Effects ...... 218 13.9 Summary ...... 218 13.10 References ...... 219 14 Agricultural Soils ...... 221 14.1 Introduction ...... 221 14.2 Policy Context ...... 221 14.3 Methodology ...... 222 14.4 Baseline Conditions ...... 224 14.5 Potential Effects ...... 224 14.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ...... 226 14.7 Residual Effects ...... 230 14.8 Cumulative Effects ...... 230 14.9 Summary ...... 231 15 Climate Change ...... 232 15.1 Introduction ...... 232 15.2 Policy Context ...... 232 15.3 Methodology ...... 233 15.4 Potential Effects ...... 235 15.5 Mitigation and Enhancement ...... 238 15.6 Residual Effects ...... 238 15.7 Cumulative Effects ...... 239 15.8 Summary ...... 239 15.9 References ...... 240 16 Summary and Impact Interactions ...... 241 16.1 Introduction ...... 241 16.2 Methodology ...... 241 16.3 Operation Effects ...... 241 16.4 Restoration Effects ...... 242
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great vi Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great vii Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
1 Introduction
1.1 The Proposed Development
1.1.1 This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared on behalf of the applicant, Anglian Water Services Ltd, in relation to the proposed development to the east of the Waste Water Treatment Works, Great Billing, Northampton (herein referred to as ‘the application site’).
1.1.2 The applicant is making an application for full permission to extract 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel from the site and its subsequent reclamation and restoration. The proposed development is described as:
“Extraction of sand and gravel including concrete batching plant, processing plant and ancillary weighbridge, office, workshop, recycling activities and access; importation of inert material and restoration to agriculture and nature conservation.”
1.1.3 The site is within the Minerals Authority Area of Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) and therefore the planning application is being submitted to the County Council. The application covers both the access route (within the boundary of Northampton Borough) and the extraction area (within the boundary of Wellingborough Borough).
1.2 The Site
1.2.1 The application site is located approximately 3 km east of Northampton on the south side of the A45 and covers an area of approximately 130 hectares. Appendix A provides a plan showing the location of the application site in the wider area and a detailed Minerals Application Area plan.
1.2.2 The setting of the application site is within a riparian landscape, modified by the restored former gravel extraction pits to the south and the adjacent Water Recycling Centre to the west. The land has historically been used as a sewage farm comprising sewage irrigation fields.
1.2.3 The application site largely comprises arable fields. It is bordered by a mixture of hedges and woodland and is open in aspect apart from Wind Spinney in the east of the site. The arable fields are partially defined by tracks as opposed to hedgerows or trees.
1.3 Terms and Definitions
1.3.1 Common terminology used within the ES is as follows:
application site: the area within the planning application boundary as shown on the Minerals Application Area plan in Appendix A; proposed development: the proposals that are the subject of the planning application, as set out in Chapter 3; study area: the area defined for a particular assessment topic as being within which the effects of the proposed development have the potential to be significant – ‘the zone of influence’; western area: the parcels of land to the west of Ecton Brook and the Right of Way; eastern area: the larger part of the site to the east of Ecton Brook and the Right of Way;
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 1 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
extraction site: the areas within the application site where mineral extraction will occur, for instance not including areas of soil bunding, protected woodland etc. extraction: digging out of sand and gravel; reclamation: the infilling of extraction areas with inert material to bring land back to agreed levels; restoration: following reclamation, the depositing of soils and planting and ecological mitigation.
1.4 The EIA, ES and Related Documents
1.4.1 This ES presents the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015), referred to as the ‘EIA Regulations’. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 came into force in May 2017 but transition arrangements within these Regulations stipulate that developments for which an EIA Scoping Opinion was submitted before May 2017 shall continue under the previous Regulations. The EIA Scoping Request for Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration was submitted in October 2015.
1.4.2 The EIA Regulations require that an EIA is undertaken for certain projects to identify likely environmental effects, to assess the significance of effects, and provide mitigation measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects.
1.4.3 Running concurrently with the design process, the EIA has sought to identify any likely significant environmental effects. The EIA process then identifies appropriate layout and methods of working mitigate likely significant adverse environmental effects and to maximise the environmental opportunities that might arise as a consequence of extraction and restoration of the site.
1.4.4 The ES comprises the following volumes:
Volume 1: Main Report. Volume 2: Appendices. Non-Technical Summary.
1.4.5 The other principal documents submitted with the planning application include:
Planning Statement; Transport Assessment; and Statement of Community Involvement. Description of Development
1.5 Consultation
1.5.1 The planning application has been developed drawing on consultation with stakeholders.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 2 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
1.5.2 This has included liaison with statutory and non-statutory consultees to obtain relevant information (such as flood level data, air quality information and historical information), to agree the scope of assessment work required to support the design of the development, and to agree key parameters of the development. In addition, consultation was held with local parishes in November 2016.
1.5.3 Detailed information on the consultation process can be found in the Statement of Community Involvement.
1.5.4 The comments received have informed the design process and the input of all those who provided comment or attended the event is gratefully acknowledged.
1.6 Project Team
1.6.1 The project team undertaking the EIA is as follows:
Savills: EIA Coordination and Planning Consultant; Peter Brett Associates: Compiling the ES and writing introduction and concluding chapter, Archaeology and Landscape and Visual Assessment and preparation of the Restoration Plan; Wardell Armstrong: Noise and Vibration; Air Quality; Climate Change; MLM: Ground Conditions and Ecology; Richard Stock: Agricultural Land Cannon Consulting Engineers: Transport; Water Resources and Flooding; D.K. Symes Associates: Design of the mineral workings.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 3 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
2 Site and Surrounding Area
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 This chapter presents a broad overview of the application site and surroundings. For a full description of the application site with respect to individual topic areas, the relevant technical chapters (6-15) should be referenced.
2.2 Site Location and Surroundings
2.2.1 The site is located approximately 3km east of Northampton on the south side of the dual carriageway A45 and covers an area of approximately 130 hectares shown in Appendix A.
2.2.2 To the north west of the application site, but separated from the site by the dual carriageway A45, is the settlement of Great Billing which is part of the larger Northampton urban area. The nearest homes in Great Billing are approximately 400m from an area of mineral working in this proposed development. Also to the north beyond the A45, is the village of Ecton (nearest homes at approximately 800m from this proposed development). North east is the village of Earls Barton, over 1km from the nearest area of proposed extraction. The River Nene and ponds lie to the south, approximately 400m from the nearest areas of proposed extraction within the proposed development. Further south, beyond the River Nene, lies the village of Cogenhoe, whose closest properties are approximately 800m from proposed extraction areas.
2.2.3 Immediately to the west of the extraction site is the Great Billing Water Recycling Centre(WRC), which is owned by Anglian Water and serves the Northampton area, and an area designated as a waste management site that is partially developed for this use. There are no homes directly adjacent to the site, with the nearest dwellings being at the Cogenhoe Mill Caravan Site south of the ponds and River Nene. There is currently a travellers site on Ecton Lane and this site is considered to contain the closest dwellings to the site.
2.2.4 The northern boundary of the application site in the central parts reaches almost to the A45 just south of Ecton Lane where is crosses the A45. In other parts of the site the north boundary is separated from the A45 by open land including an area of mature trees and agricultural land. The southern boundary adjoins a restored former mineral workings, comprising water bodies, beyond which is the River Nene. The western boundary of the extraction area is partly formed by an overland drain but also extends in one area up to the boundary of the built elements of the WRC. Barton Brook forms the eastern boundary of the site and flows south to join the Nene.
2.2.5 Units of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are located 1.3km to the east and 1.5km to the south-west of the application site. These areas are designated for their importance for breeding bird assemblages and wintering waterfowl.
2.3 Site Description
2.3.1 The application site is situated in the river valley and the land has a very gently southerly fall to the south and south east. There is a limited height change across the site ranging from approximately 48m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) on the southern boundary up to approximately 51 AOD along the northern boundary.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 4 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
2.3.2 The setting of the application site is within a riparian landscape, modified by the restored former gravel extraction pits to the south and the adjacent sewage works to the west. The land has historically been used as a sewage irrigation fields.
2.3.3 The EA’s Flood Map for planning (River and Sea) identifies that much of the north part of the site lies within the low probability flood area (Flood Zone 1). Closer to the River Nene the site is in the medium probability flood area (Flood Zone 2) with pockets in the high probability flood area (Flood Zone 3). The River Nene lies to the south of the application site and flows east, broadly parallel to the southern site boundary, whilst the Ecton Brook passes through the application site, roughly bisecting it.
2.3.4 Landscape features on the application site largely comprise arable fields. Wind Spinney is the most prominent landscape feature and hedgerows with intermittent hedgerow trees line the Public Right of Way which traverses the site. The arable fields are partially defined by tracks as opposed to hedgerows or trees.
2.3.5 Overhead electricity lines cross the site, as do underground pipes and cables. However, these are located on the edges of the main sand and gravel deposit allowing for margins of protection to be retained.
2.4 History of the Site
2.4.1 Records show that as far back as the late 19th century the site has been used, at least in part, as an ‘irrigation farm’ indicating sewage disposal. The site also included marshland with scattered ponds. Use as an ‘Irrigation Field’ continues into the 20th century, with tanks shown on the mapping from the 1960s when the site was re-designated a ‘Sewage Farm’. From the 1980s the tanks are no longer shown on mapping.
2.4.2 The sewage irrigation use continued until recently, but is no longer actively used on site and much of the site is in arable use.
2.5 Environmental Setting
2.5.1 The site is in the valley of the River Nene that lies to the south of the site. The surrounding landscape in the immediate areas consists predominantly of restored mineral workings, that have created new wetland habitats and ponds.
2.5.2 A Public Right of Way (PROW) passes through the centre of the site. It is outside the redline boundary for most of its length with the exception of an area near the site’s southern boundary. This PROW is part of the 51 mile Northamptonshire Round Route long-distance footpath.
2.5.3 Due to the previous use of the site contaminants in the soil mean it is classed under the Agricultural Land Classification as Grade 3b, which is poor quality.
2.5.4 Geological investigation confirmed that the basal strata on which the sand and gravel layer was deposited is Lias Clay. This is homogenous generally grey clay that is suitable for engineering to form a geological liner to the excavated mineral workings prior to reclamation and restoration. As a result of the presence of this clay and the valley bottom location, there is shallow groundwater of varying depths across the site.
2.5.5 Three non-statutory nature conservation sites are located partially within the application site:
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 5 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Two Potential Wildlife Sites (PWS) - these are Wind Spinney, to the east, and Billing Scrub, a former County Wildlife Site. One Local Wildlife Site (LWS) Ecton Gravel Pits (to the east at SP840617), borders the central and south-eastern half of the application site and partially encroaches in the south-eastern corner.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 6 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
3 The Proposed Development
3.1 Description of the Proposed Development
3.1.1 The proposed development is for the “Extraction of sand and gravel including concrete batching plant, processing plant and ancillary weighbridge, office, workshop, recycling activities and access; importation of inert material and restoration to agriculture and nature conservation.”
3.1.2 There are three main stages, not including the preliminary works, that comprise the proposed development and which will progress concurrently across the site. These stages are:
Extraction: the removal of sand and gravel resource, preceded by soil and overburden removal and storage; Reclamation: engineering of the voids to prepare them for filling, followed by filling the voids created by extraction with predominantly imported inert fill material; and Restoration: replacing topsoil for agricultural use and creating new habitats and landscaping, in accordance with the site ‘restoration plan’.
3.1.3 A detailed ‘Description of Development’ (D.K. Symes Associates, May 2017) is submitted as part of the planning application. This sets out the general working scheme and a description of the development processes for the development. This section covers the main issues.
3.1.4 The proposed development comprises of:
Plant and operations area – including material sorting and recycling, a concrete batching plant, processing plant, ancillary weighbridge, site office, workshop and welfare facilities, fuel storage and wheel washing; Water management, including water management ponds; Central soil storage area; Associated access and internal unbound roads.
3.1.5 All site buildings will be of standard metal container design, with one adjacent to a surface mounted weighbridge, and a second for a messroom facility for site and staff. There will be a small office associated with the concrete plant for the batcher-operative. All buildings and plant will be painted dark green unless otherwise agreed. The majority of the buildings will be relatively low with office buildings of 2 storeys and operational processing plant.
3.1.6 In addition to the above there will either be a small sub-station on site to supply power and there will be a fully silenced generator. The power supply will require a further building which will be of similar size to a 6 metre container and will be located close to the processing plant.
3.1.7 The proposed development will be built out in a number of phases (Appendix B) as the process of excavation, reclamation and restoration progresses around the site. Phases commence with the extraction and preparation of the plant and operations area and water management area and then progress in an anticlockwise direction to the east of the Ecton Brook.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 7 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
3.1.8 The estimated recoverable saleable reserve is approximately 2.5 million tonnes (subject to the market and available resource). The total programme for the process to a restored site is between 18 and 20 years, of which excavation and reclamation will be approximately 13-15 years with completion of final stages of restoration to follow). However, progress will also be influenced by factors beyond the applicant’s control, this primarily being market demand. Seasonal weather conditions could also influence the timing of restoration works, such as the replacement of soils.
3.1.9 The initial extraction areas in the western part of the site are required to create the voids necessary for water management. Extraction of these areas is estimated to take 4 years, before extraction moves eastwards and progresses anticlockwise around the site from the south west of the eastern area (see Appendix B for details of the phases). The final exaction area will be under the Plant and Operations Area in the western area.
3.1.10 The details of plant and operations and water management are set out below. The exact methods and equipment used and number of water balancing ponds will need to be confirmed when an operator is identified for the site and more detail is available on operational specifics. However, development will take place in the area defined in plan 0047/L in Appendix B and plant (including concrete silos) in the Plant and Operations Area will be up to 16 m.
3.1.11 Working hours are expected to be (or as otherwise agreed):
Monday to Friday – 0700 to 1800 hours Saturday 0700-1300 hours No working on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
3.1.12 The only activity that may take place outside these hours is the use of a pump for dewatering, although this will be silenced as appropriate.
Access and Vehicle Movements
3.1.13 There will be one vehicle access route into the site from Crow Lane to the west, using the main entrance to the Anglian Water Recycling Centre and passing through this site.
3.1.14 Internal roads will include a single one-way crossing of the watercourse Ecton Brook and PROW. To ensure safe use of this crossing point, it will be controlled by traffic lights that will be triggered by the ‘in quarry’ vehicle and the default position will give priority to users of the PROW.
3.1.15 Two options for the movement of material onsite have been considered: one is by field conveyor, the other is using articulated dump trucks (ADTs). The ADT option is considered to be the best, primarily as it allows for a single crossing of the watercourse and PROW. In addition, the internal roads can be used for both extraction and reclamation materials, by both the ADTs and tipper lorries. Conveyors are not considered suitable for this site due to the need for two-way movement of materials.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 8 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
3.1.16 The internal roads will be made of hardcore and unbound. To help to ensure a good driving surface and reduced dust they will maintained to provide a smooth driving surface and kept clear of dust and debris. Dampening will be used to further control dust when required Vehicle speeds will be controlled at 15mph or less across the site, through site enforcement and speed bumps, with the speed at the crossing reduced to 10mph. The crossing point of the PROW will be hard surfaced and kept clear of any debris by sweeping, either mechanically or by hand.
3.1.17 In addition, there will be temporary roads within phases as they are progressed around the site.
3.1.18 The traffic movements will vary throughout the life of the development with the peak being when there is both extraction and restoration occurring at the same time when there will be a total of 136 movements (68 in and 68 out).
Plant and Operations Area
3.1.19 The Plant and Operations Area, which is located on the western side of the application site adjacent to the site access, will be established first, as shown on 0047/O/PW/1 Appendix B.
3.1.20 This area will consist of two main processes (in addition to other facilities including office and welfare office):
The sand and gravel screening and washing plant; and Concrete batching. Sand and Gravel Screening and Washing
3.1.21 A typical processing plant plan is attached in Appendix B (plan 96032/PP/1) which should be viewed as illustrative. In addition, it is proposed that there is an on-site concrete plant, and a typical plant is also attached (plan 96032/CP/1).
3.1.22 Screening is used to separate out the different sizes of sand and gravel – the primary product from the site.
3.1.23 Water is used to wash the extracted material to aid the separation of gravel and aggregate, clean it and that also keeps the process wet to control dust. Water is recirculated for reuse after initial settlement to remove sand and separately silt and clay. Sand is stock piled and silt and clay is sent to the water management ponds.
3.1.24 Processed aggregate is taken by conveyor to separate stockpiles around the processing plant. Material is either loaded directly from stockpile to delivery vehicle, or moved to a further stockpile. This movement of aggregate is carried out by wheeled loading shovels.
3.1.25 The larger gravel (40+mm) is sent for crushing on-site, to produce concreting size material (the principal use for aggregates). Crushing will either be part of the ‘in circuit’ processes or by a mobile crusher, temporarily imported onto the site for batches of crushing of stored material. The final method selected will depend on the operator’s needs. The mobile crusher can also be used to crush larger fill material in the reclamation stage.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 9 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Concrete Batching
3.1.26 Concrete batching is co-located on site as the main use for sand and gravel is in the manufacture of concrete. This co-location reduces the need to export bulky materials off-site for batching.
3.1.27 Concrete is created by mixing a defined proportion of differently sized aggregates with cement and water. The aggregates, cement and water are either mixed first in ‘pan mixers’ before being transferred into mixer truck, or otherwise discharged directly into a truck for mixing. Both methods employ measure to reduce any potential dust creation.
3.1.28 Cement is stored in silos on site. Transfer of the cement powder, both into silos on delivery and from silos to mixers to create cement includes control mechanisms to avoid is escaping and mitigate dust risks.
3.1.29 A typical concrete plant layout is shown in Appendix B. However, the exact layout will be determined by the operational needs of the operator.
Other buildings and structures
3.1.30 Other buildings and structures in the plant and operations area are likely to include:
a workshop (portal framed building); office and welfare buildings for workers; area of hardstanding for vehicle refuelling with bunded fuel tanks; a weighbridge; wheel cleaning, likely to include a full wheel/underbody wash unit by the entrance and a wheel spinner in the south east of the plant area to remove material from vehicles returning from the main extraction site; and either a small sub-station or generator to supply energy to the site, housed in a small building.
3.1.31 All buildings, plant and structures will be removed from the site for the final restoration.
Water Management Area
3.1.32 Following establishment of the plant area, the water management area will be worked. This is located to the south and east of the plant area. The water management area is used to manage the water from the extraction sites and silt/clays from the screening and washing process.
3.1.33 Once the mineral has been extracted, the area will be engineered to create settlement ponds, using the basal clay. The ponds will allow silt and clay from the processing plant to settle so that clean water can be circulated back to the plant.
3.1.34 The water will initially be sourced from the gravel groundwater and when necessary will be topped up from the same source. The ponds will be lined and the water from the processing plant will be circulated through the ponds to allow the silt and clay to settle.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 10 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
3.1.35 Based upon a total excavated mineral volume of c.1.6 Million cubic metres with a silt/clay content of 7%, this would generate some 112,000 cubic metres of silt/clay. The capacity of the water management area is c. 380,000 cubic metres which should be large enough for the whole of the deposit. At completion, the ponds will be just under half filled with wet silt that will be consolidated with reclamation material for restoration.
Soil Storage Area
3.1.36 The soil storage area is located in the centre of the site and will be used to temporarily store topsoil and subsoil layers that are stripped during phase 1-10. The bunds within the soil storage area will be up to 5 metres high. The location is shown in the plans in Appendix B.
3.1.37 The topsoil will be stored in 3 metre high bunds around the perimeter of extraction phases, as shown in Appendix B. This includes bunding around the perimeter of the western part of the site that will also provide noise screening from the operations and plant area, although this will only be to a height of approximately 3 metres.
3.1.38 The approach to soil handling (both in site preparation and restoration) is to provide a central storage area to allow balancing of materials, especially topsoils. The soils will be handled in accordance with the good practice guidelines for soil handling (see Chapter 14).
3.1.39 This will include separate stripping of top and subsoils, and subsequently separate storage. Storage of soils in bunds, which will be managed to ensure good water shedding and free from weeds, including seeding with low maintenance grass as necessary that will also help reduce dust.
Lighting
3.1.40 Mineral extraction including reclamation is principally a daylight activity so there is no requirement for any fixed lighting on any of the working phases. Lighting will be limited to headlights on the plant. Whilst operating house include short periods of darkness in the morning and afternoon at certain times of year, it is general practice that work is restricted in these periods, principally for safety reasons.
3.1.41 Within the plant and operations area there are fixed lights mounted on the processing plant. Lights will be cowled and focused only on the plant and stockpiles beneath the conveyors. These lights are needed for limited periods within the operating hours and will therefore not be on between 1800 – 0700.
Lighting will also be required for the refuelling and weighbridge areas, as well as the concrete plant loading area, again restricted to operating hours. They are intruder activated for security purposes. A further light will be mounted at the front of the workshop (facing south) to illuminate the hardstanding in front of the workshop doors.
Plan ref 0047-O/PW/1 of the ‘Description of the Development’ document shows the locations and throw of the lights required for this proposed development. All lights will be focused internally to ensure no light spillage.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 11 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
3.2 Working Process
Excavation
Soil Stripping
3.2.1 Prior to mineral extraction, topsoil and subsoil will be stripped using toothless buckets. For this site the average topsoil thickness is 300 mm, with the subsoil being 600 mm. The soils are handled for 6-8 weeks and must be dry. This generally limits soil handling to between August and October. Soil stripping and management will be based on the guidance for soil handling and storage, as set out in Chapter 14.
Dewatering
3.2.2 Each working phase also needs to be dewatered to facilitate mineral extraction and reclamation.
3.2.3 The usual approach is to excavate a trench along the edge of the working phase which intercepts the flow of groundwater. The water is then collected in a series of channels which connect to a sump, enabling the settlement of any silt and clay. This is then discharged into temporary surface ponds before re-entering an existing drainage course but exact design could vary depending on the site and local to the phase of extraction and so is likely to vary. This design effectively 'dewaters' the mineral seam, reducing the need to drain the actual working area.
3.2.4 Dewatering does not dry out the mineral seam and therefore dust is not generated by the excavation or handling of the sand and gravel. Pumps used to extract water from drains will be of a modern design that will comply with mitigation of noise impacts for suitable night time operation.
Excavation
3.2.5 The mineral is dug using a hydraulic excavator and loaded onto ADT. ADTs then travel to the internal plant area, through the internal road network as described. Access to and from the site will be through the neighbouring Anglian Water Recycling Centre site to Crow Lane, which joins the A45.
Reclamation
3.2.6 This is the filling in of excavation voids with appropriate ‘waste’ to bring the site up to suitable levels.
3.2.7 Before reclamation material can be placed in an excavated void the area must first be engineered. This is done by using bulldozers to shape and compact the existing basal clay. This usually takes 6-8 weeks.
3.2.8 The clay layer lines the exposed face of the mineral and seals it from the further ingress of groundwater.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 12 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
3.2.9 Reclamation material is delivered by a tipper lorry to a stockpile, where it is spread by a bulldozer in layers of approximately 0.5 metres thick until the desired level is achieved. The thin layers allow the fill material to be inspected so that material that does not comply with quality protocol can be identified and quarantined. For instance, larger material can be removed and crushed and any unacceptable pieces that have been inadvertently included in the load (e.g. plastic and timber) can be removed.
3.2.10 Between each layer the material is compacted. These layers will be built up and controlled by a GPS connected to bulldozers and soil replaced.
3.2.11 Import of all reclamation material will be carefully controlled in keeping with any Environmental Permit and include regular Environment Agency inspections, inspection of ‘waste conveyancing notes’, weighbridge checks, visual inspection and only verified operators and prearranged loads accepted. The Environment Agency will be notified of any ‘reportable incidents’ of inappropriate waste being bought to site.
Restoration Strategy
3.2.12 This is the replacement of the soil layer above reclamation material, as well as the process of planting and habitat restoration to return the site to an agricultural use that has an enhanced biodiversity and landscape value.
3.2.13 Soil will be replaced on a reclaimed site either from another phase that is being stripped or from the central soil store. Soil handling will follow good practice approaches, see Chapter 14. To prepare the reclaimed material for soil it will be decompacted prior to subsoil being placed.
3.2.14 Ground levels will be returned to their pre-development levels for areas to be restored for agriculture or grassland. However, for ‘wetland’ areas and other habitats the process will need to vary to create the correct conditions. For instance, in wetlands the restored levels will be lower than existing to create a shallow body of water. These areas may also not be engineered to allow groundwater to flow through the area.
3.2.15 The working scheme has been designed to enable the anticipated restoration scheme to be achieved. This is based on the Restoration Strategy Plan presented at Appendix B which comprises:
an east/west aligned complex of wetlands and reedbeds along the southern boundary, achieve through water management, soil form and planting; Approximately half of the application site restored to farmland the southern area which will be grassland managed for biodiversity with new planting; and new planting including mixed native species hedgerows with trees, strengthening of existing hedgerows.
3.2.16 At the completion of restoration, all plant, buildings and associated structures and equipment will be removed.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 13 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
3.2.17 The aftercare scheme aims to achieve good soil structure, return the land to productive farmland, enhance wetland biodiversity and established woodland and hedgerows and create new habitats. The aftercare period for active management of the agricultural and ecological restoration will be for ten years with active management to ensure good soil structure is secured and new habitats become established.
3.2.18 The aftercare scheme for the agricultural land in the west of the site includes the land being retained in grass for at last the first 2 years, including cutting the grass for hay/silage at least once a year and/or stock grazed at appropriate density. Following this, if considered suitable, the land will be returned to arable cropping. The aftercare scheme for the agricultural land in the east of the site is the same, except that it will not be returned to arable cropping after 2 years.
3.3 Incorporated Mitigation
3.3.1 The development proposals and other commitments can be considered to reflect ‘incorporated mitigation’ or mitigation by design. This includes:
retention and protection of areas of woodland on the site throughout the works – including Wind Spinney and the woodland along the eastern boundary; retention of boundary hedgerows; a Public Right of Way retained through the site, and kept open throughout the works; extraction areas broadly follow existing field patterns; a landscaped acoustic bund; an ecological area; a sensitively designed drainage strategy; landscape infrastructure, including existing hedges and trees to be retained wherever possible, and new planting that is strategically located; plant and operations area situated within the western portion of the site, to reduce visibility from the wider landscape, and such that it is seen adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment works; and archaeological and ground investigations undertaken prior to determination of the application and informing the extent of the extraction area.
3.4 Consideration of Alternatives
Introduction
3.4.1 The EIA Regulations require an ES to include an outline of the main alternatives considered by the applicant, indicating the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.
3.4.2 This legal requirement is expressed in very general and high-level terms, requiring only the inclusion of an "outline" of "main" alternatives and an "indication" of "main" reasons. Although a full description of alternatives and a full assessment of their likely environmental effects are not required, sufficient detail should be provided to allow for a meaningful comparison between the alternatives and the proposed development.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 14 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
3.4.3 It is a matter for the applicant to decide which alternatives it intends to consider. The EIA Regulations do not expressly require that an applicant considers alternatives, although it is widely encouraged at the policy level, both European and domestic, and is a feature of EIA best practice.
3.4.4 The consideration of alternatives in this ES complies with that requirement and has regard to the guidance in the PPG on Environmental Impact Assessment. The PPG states “Where alternative approaches to development have been considered, the Environmental Statement should include an outline of the main alternatives studied and the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.”
3.4.5 Whilst environmental effects are relevant when choosing between alternatives, other factors are also relevant. The main selection criteria which the applicant has used when choosing between the alternatives which it has considered include: planning policy, viability, site constraints and opportunities and environmental effects.
3.4.6 The following provides an outline of the main alternatives considered in relation to the proposed development and the main reasons for choosing the proposed development in preference to them.
No Development or Alternative Development
3.4.7 The site is allocated in the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2014) and in the adopted Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Update.
3.4.8 The site is included as an allocation in Policy 4 of both plans, MA5 in the previous plan and M4 in the adopted plan and for extraction of 3 million or 2.6 million tonnes of sand and gravel respectively.
3.4.9 Policy 28 of the adopted plan also identifies the importance of progressive restoration of sites that enhances biodiversity, local environment and amenity.
3.4.10 Therefore, based on policy, there is little scope for the development to take an alternative form in this location and there is a clear intention that the sand and gravel resource to be extracted in keeping with Northamptonshire’s needs. This means the ‘no development’ or ‘alternative development’ is not a reasonable alternative.
Extent of Development
3.4.11 The extent of the area that can be used for extraction has been informed as an iterative process, rather than explicit alternatives. Extraction has been considered based on the allocation in the adopted minerals and waste local plan. This has then been refined for operational reasons (such as allowing areas for soil storage) and the need to protect the environment (retention of Wind Spinney) and to avoid the northernmost part of the site for due to archaeological sensitivity.
Alternative Site Layouts
3.4.12 In preparing the development proposals a series of explicit site layout options were considered that covered several principal options, including on site access and the location of the plant and operations area and water management ponds, see Appendix B.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 15 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
3.4.13 These included alternatives for:
the principal site access, including routes along the northern and southern boundaries of the site, with some variation for the alternative location for the plant and operations area location; the location of plant and operations area, as part of the central or eastern end of the site; and alternatives for crossing points over the Public Right of Way and brook with alternatives for routing onto the site and to the plan and operations area, which is dependent on its final preferred location.
3.4.14 The technical team were consulted on the most appropriate alternative for development and identified that:
Main routes through the site and access should reduce impacts on the Public Right of Way and Ecton Brook, this favoured the location of the plant and operations area to the western area of the site (Plant Options 1 and 2) and maintaining the existing crossing for the main internal haul road; A plant and operations area in the north west corner of the site and water management area adjacent to this is favoured in terms of flood risk (Plant Option 3). This is because this alternative puts less of the Plant and Operations area in the flood plain than the alternative more central location, as well as considerably less of the water management area being at risk of being inundated with flood water. Alternatives were considered that would have required multiple access points over the Right of Way and Ecton Brook. For example, where the plant and operations area where in the north east of the western parcel a direct access from the site entrance would require a new crossing (Access Option 1 – first plan). However, due to ownership issues, as well as environmental, this crossing was discounted, which also had implications that favoured a Plant and Operations area in the western area of the site. A plant and operations area in the western area (Plant Options 2 and 3 in the plans) would be better screened by hedges from the Public Right of Way if it is located to the west.
3.4.15 Therefore, following this stage, plant and operations in the western area of the site as well as water management was the favoured alternative, with a single crossing point maintained to the Public Right of Way and Ecton Brook near the southern boundary of the site.
Order of Extraction Phases
3.4.16 Various alternatives have been proposed for the order of extraction of each phase. This is linked to the options for the location of the plant and operations as initial plans favoured commencing work to the larger eastern area before commencing on the smaller western area. However, with the determination made to locate Water Management areas in the western section it also follows that these must be the first extraction phases.
3.4.17 Consideration was also given to working the Phases in a clockwise rather than anticlockwise direction around the larger eastern area of the site. However, it was determined that this would have a greater landscape and ecological impact, as the anticlockwise approach allows more time for restoration on the southern side of the site to mature before parcels are worked to the north of this.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 16 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
3.4.18 In all alternatives the plant and operations area would be constructed, including soil stripping, followed by extraction at the water management areas. The process of extraction, reclamation and restoration would then proceed around the site, finishing with the water balancing ponds and plant and operations area.
Restoration Plan
3.4.19 There were no explicit alternatives considered for the restoration plan although it has been through a process of iteration taking into account ongoing consultation with the Wildlife Trust and Landscape / Ecology officers from the Council.
3.4.20 Following early iterations of the draft restoration scheme the proposed scheme has included the following changes:
Hedgerows around the perimeter of the restored agricultural fields – recreating landscape structure, creating habitat connectivity, and providing a filter between the agricultural activities within the fields and areas of habitat to the south; Lines of trees to supplement the hedgerows and create characteristic stretches of linear woodland along these; A mosaic of habitat types, providing a transition from the agricultural fields through neutral and wet grassland, to the reedbeds; and A connected, flowing waterbody comprising channels and small linear ponds, to feed and form part of the reedbed system.
Conclusion
3.4.21 The design of the development has been based on the requirements of national and local policy and the requirements of the applicant, taking into account environmental conditions and public consultation. These requirements have therefore limited and shaped the opportunities for alternatives. There has been consideration of alternatives on the site, in particular access and locations for the plant and operations area. However, most alternatives have been considered more implicitly through the design evolution. With options chosen that would both help ensure the best operational running of the site, combined with the need to reduce the impacts of development, for instance in relation to flooding and impacts on the Public Rights of Way. Beyond the explicit options presented there has been an iterative process of design development to further to respond to both the constraints and opportunities of the site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 17 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
4 Assessment Method
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This chapter describes the process by which the EIA was carried out, and includes details of the relevant regulations, the EIA process, and general methodology for the assessment. Individual technical chapters include a description of topic specific assessment methodology.
4.2 EIA Regulations
4.2.1 The process of EIA is governed by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015) (the EIA Regulations). The EIA regulations implement EC Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, into domestic legislation. The initial Directive and its three amendments have been codified by Directive 2011/92/EU.
4.2.2 This Directive has also been amended in 2014. The Directive was ratified into English legislation in May 2017. However, due to the transitional arrangements within the 2017 Regulations they will not apply to the proposed development as an EIA Scoping Opinion Request was submitted before May 2017.
4.2.3 The EIA Regulations set out the requirements for undertaking an EIA and Schedule 4 details the required information for inclusion in an ES.
4.3 EIA Process
4.3.1 In general terms the main stages in the EIA are as follows:
screening – determine the need for EIA; scoping – identify significant issues, determine the scope of the EIA; data review – draw together and review available data; baseline surveys – undertake baseline surveys and monitoring; assessment and iteration – assess likely significant effects of development, evaluate alternatives, provide feedback to design team on potential adverse impacts, modify development or impose parameters, incorporate mitigation, assess effects of mitigated development; and preparation of the ES.
4.3.2 It should also be noted that consultation with relevant stakeholders has been undertaken at appropriate stages within the EIA process.
4.4 Screening and Scoping
4.4.1 The proposals are considered to constitute Schedule 1 development under the EIA Regulations, as a quarry where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares, and which could give rise to significant environmental effects. Therefore, the proposed development is automatically ‘screened in’ as EIA development under the EIA Regulations.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 18 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
4.4.2 An EIA Scoping Request was submitted in October 2015 and the formal Scoping Opinion was issued by Northamptonshire County Council in January 2016. An earlier scoping exercise was completed in 2012 that was updated in the 2016 report to take into account any changes in baseline, guidance and policy.
4.4.3 A copy of the Scoping Report and Opinion received are included in Appendix D, which includes the 2012 Scoping Report/Opinion as an appendix.
4.4.4 Comments made have been taken into consideration in the development of the ES.
4.5 Consultation
4.5.1 A comprehensive programme of consultations has been undertaken with statutory and non- statutory organisations as well as engagement events with the local community. Such consultations have been undertaken to inform the emerging design and the EIA.
4.5.2 As part of the EIA process the following consultees have been consulted to agree the scope of the assessment, to provide information, to discuss assessment methods and findings, and/or agree mitigation measures and design responses. Consultation has included discussion with:
WBC and NBC officers; Northamptonshire County Council; The local Wildlife Trust; Northamptonshire County Archaeologist; Environment Agency; and Natural England.
4.5.3 The EIA has been undertaken to fulfil the requirements of the consultees and the assistance of these consultees is gratefully acknowledged.
4.5.4 Consultation specific to each of the environmental topics covered in this ES is set out in the relevant ES chapters and the technical appendices are presented in Volume 2 of the ES.
4.6 Committed Developments
4.6.1 The EIA Regulations require the assessment to consider the likely significant effects of the proposed development in the context of other local developments likely to come forward, as well as the cumulative effects that may result from the proposed development and these other developments.
4.6.2 Common EIA practice is that committed developments are considered to be planning permissions that are partially built out and extant planning permissions. Planning applications that have been submitted but not yet determined are also frequently considered. Generally, allocations or potential future planning applications are not considered as such allocations are covered by Strategic Environmental Assessment/ Sustainability Appraisal and/or as a result of insufficient information being available on potential development to enable meaningful assessment.
4.6.3 A review of extant planning permissions in the vicinity of the site has identified the following permissions which have been considered in relation to cumulative environmental effects:
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 19 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Earls Barton Spinney Quarry – 1.1 million tonnes of sand and gravel to be extracted over 6.5 years; application area of 82ha and mineral extraction area of 46ha within the Nene Valley; and Earls Barton Quarry Western Extension – 2.6 million tonnes of sand and gravel to be extracted over 10 years; south of River Nene, between Station Road, Whiston and eastern limit of Cogenhoe village.
4.6.4 It should be noted that the scope of the Transport Assessment, which will also be submitted with the planning application, has been agreed with NCC, as the local highways authority. As part of this process the committed developments and allocations that need to be considered within the Transport Assessment will be agreed. To ensure consistency across the application documents, the assessment of transport related effects in the EIA (expected to comprise transport and access, air quality and noise) will be based on this schedule and therefore the traffic modelling undertaken as part of the Transport Assessment process.
4.7 Assessment Assumptions
4.7.1 The following assumptions have been used to ensure that the EIA has undertaken an assessment of the reasonable worst case effects (unless otherwise specified in each of the technical chapters):
4.7.2 Each of the topic chapters of this ES were completed shortly prior to the adoption of the Northamptonshire County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan on 1st July 2017. The assessments were undertaken based on the emerging plan, as well as the adopted 2014 Plan (see Chapter 5). The adopted 2017 plan has been reviewed in the finalisation of this ES and its adoption does not materially affect the assessment that has been undertaken. Stages of soil stripping, excavation (and export), reclamation and restoration are likely to overlap chronologically;
4.7.3 Work is due to start on site in 2018 and take approximately 18 years to completion (including restoration). Mineral extraction is estimated to last approximately 14 years.
4.7.4 Baseline conditions are generally considered to be current conditions at the site and surrounding area unless noted otherwise. The potential for cumulative effects as a result of the implementation of the committed developments has been considered;
4.7.5 Assessment is based on the maximum developable area for each zone e.g. Plant and Operations Area, Water Management Area and Soil store and maximum plant heights to ensure an assessment of the worst case scenario in terms of effects on the environment. However, development may be delivered below these maximums;
4.7.6 The assessment of likely significant cumulative effects has assumed that the committed developments identified in Section 4.6 will be built out as set out in the planning applications for each site; and
4.7.7 Suitable planning conditions will be imposed as identified in this ES to secure appropriate mitigation measures (e.g. operating noise of machinery, working hours etc.)
4.7.8 Any limitations in preparing this ES are noted in each of the ES environmental topic chapters, as appropriate.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 20 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
4.8 Assessing Effects
Establishing Baseline Condition
4.8.1 A range of site surveys and data collection exercises have been used to identify environmental conditions at the site and in the surrounding area. The surveys undertaken are reported in each of the topic chapters.
4.8.2 The assessment has been based on technical surveys and assessments, where necessary, for instance due to detail and length these methods are incorporated in the appendices to this ES (Volume 2), with a relevant summary for the full survey or assessment provided in Volume 1 for reference. The geographical scope of each survey and assessment has been based on the likelihood for significant effects in accordance with the scoping exercise summarised above, and in accordance with relevant guidance.
4.8.3 As a general principle, likely significant environmental effects have been assessed by comparing the predicted state of the environment without the proposals with the state of the environment with the proposals for a particular year. This has necessitated predicting how current conditions at the site may change without the proposals occurring.
Assessment Scenarios
4.8.4 The EIA has assessed the environmental effects of the proposals at key stages as is appropriate for each topic under consideration. For each topic a ‘worst case’ year has been selected where the likely effects of the proposed development would be at their most significant. For example, transport impacts in years where there would be maximum input and export of material. Or for landscape and visual impacts when works will be at their peak and restoration landscaping will have had least time to mature. In addition, an appropriate future year scenario has been selected to indicate the longer term impacts of the project, such as 15 years post completion to assess the effects of restoration when planting has had time to mature.
Duration of Effects
4.8.5 Environmental effects have been classified as either permanent or temporary, where appropriate. Permanent changes are those which are irreversible or will last for the foreseeable future. The effects of restoration are likely to fall within this category.
4.8.6 Where environmental effects will be infrequent or intermittent this has been noted in the ES. Where individual technical assessments will need to depart from these standards this has been clearly indicated in relevant ES chapters.
Types of Effects
4.8.7 In assessing the significance of potential effects identified during the EIA, account has been taken as appropriate as to whether effects are:
Beneficial Effects – effects that have a positive influence on the environment; Adverse Effects – effects that have a negative influence on the environment;
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 21 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Cumulative Effects – many effects that singly are not significant, but when assessed together may be significant and also the cumulative effects of the proposal and other major local developments; and Residual Effects – effects that remain after the positive influence of mitigation measures are taken into account.
4.8.8 For clarity within the assessment, ‘impact’ will be used in relation to the outcome of the project (e.g. the removal of habitat or the generation of emissions to air), while the ‘effect’ will be the consequent implication in environmental terms (continuing the above example, e.g. the loss of a potential bird breeding site or the reduction in local air quality).
4.9 Uncertainty
4.9.1 The prediction of future effects inevitably involves a degree of uncertainty. Where necessary, the topic chapters describe the principal factors giving rise to uncertainty in the prediction of likely significant environmental effects and the degree of the uncertainty.
4.9.2 Uncertainty also applies to the success or otherwise of measures to mitigate adverse environmental effects. Where the success of a mitigation measure is uncertain, the extent of the uncertainty has been identified in the ES and a suitable response identified.
4.10 Mitigation of Adverse Effects
4.10.1 The term ‘mitigation’ is used throughout the ES to describe measures of overcoming or reducing effects. The term has been used to describe the following types of measures:
Avoidance: measures taken to avoid effects which could have adverse impacts e.g. locating the main development and its working areas and access routes away from areas of high ecological value; Reduction: measures taken to reduce effects that could have adverse impacts, e.g. modifications or additions to the design of the development, or changes in working practice; Compensation: in certain circumstances it may not be possible to mitigate an impact, either through avoidance or reduction. In this situation it may be possible to address the impact through compensatory measures. In this assessment the term compensation is used to describe measures to off-set losses caused as a result of the development which cannot be entirely mitigated; and Enhancement: this describes measures that provide additional ecological benefit above and beyond those identified as mitigation or compensation.
4.10.2 The identification of mitigation measures to be implemented is an integral part of the design and related EIA process.
4.10.3 Key mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the parameters and project proposals as a result of the EIA are identified in Section 3.3. Additional mitigation measures are identified in each of the ES environmental topic chapters.
4.11 Residual Effects
4.11.1 Residual effects are the likely environmental effects that remain after mitigation measures have been secured.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 22 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
4.11.2 It is these residual effects which should be considered when assessing the likely significance of the effects of the proposed development, not the unmitigated effects. This is because the mitigation proposed by the development will ensure that the identified unmitigated effects will not occur in practice.
4.11.3 To provide an objective assessment of residual effects the significance of residual effects has been determined and is identified in the ES. This allows for comparison of effects between topics and also strengthens the assessment of impact interactions.
4.12 Significance Criteria
4.12.1 The two principal criteria for determining significance of an environmental effect are the magnitude of the effect and the sensitivity of the receptor; in addition, the likelihood of the effect occurring is also considered as appropriate. The approach to assessing and assigning significance to an environmental effect will rely upon such factors as: consideration of the EIA Regulations; guidelines; standards or codes of practice; the advice and views of statutory consultees and other interested parties; and expert judgment. The following questions are relevant in evaluating the significance of likely environmental effects:
Which risk groups are affected and in what way? Is the effect reversible or irreversible? Does the effect occur over the short, medium or long term? Is the effect permanent or temporary? Does the effect increase or decrease with time? Is the effect of local, regional, national or international importance? Is it a positive, neutral or adverse effect? Are health standards or environmental objectives threatened? Are mitigating measures available and is it reasonable to require these?
4.12.2 Generic significance criteria have been established as set out in Table 4.1 below. Specific significance criteria prepared for individual environmental topics are based on the generic criteria and presented in the relevant ES environmental topic chapters.
Table 4.1: Generic Significance Criteria
Effect Level Criteria Only adverse effects are assigned this level of significance as they represent key factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally, but not exclusively associated with sites and Significant effects Severe features of international, national or regional importance. A change at a regional or district scale, site or feature may also enter this category. These effects are likely to be important considerations at a local or district scale but, if adverse, are potential concerns to the Major project and may become key factors in the decision-making process.
Moderate These effects, if adverse, while important at a local scale, are not likely to be key decision-making issues. Nevertheless, the
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 23 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Effect Level Criteria cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall effects on a particular area or on a particular resource. These effects may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be
Not significant significant Not of importance in the decision-making process. Nevertheless, they Minor are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the project and consideration of mitigation or compensation measures. No effect or effect which is beneath the level of perception, within Negligible normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
4.13 Cumulative Effects
4.13.1 Section 4.6 identifies the committed developments that have been considered in the EIA with regards to likely significant cumulative effects. Each of the topic chapters of this ES therefore includes a section documenting the assessment of the likely significant cumulative effects of the proposed development and relevant committed developments. This assessment is based on available information on the committed developments and those identified separately for the purposes of the Transport Assessment.
4.14 Impact Interactions
4.14.1 Chapter 14 provides the assessment of impact interactions, i.e. receptors being affected by more than one environmental effect and therefore potentially being subject to a more significant combined effect than the individual effects reported in each of the topic chapters.
4.14.2 The approach adopted for the assessment is in accordance with the methodology set out above, with further details provided in Chapter 14.
4.14.3 Chapter 14 therefore provides an overall summary of the effects of the proposed development during construction and operation.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 24 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
5 Planning Policy Context
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This chapter provides a summary of the planning policy context against which the planning application will be determined. Individual technical chapters include a review of policy relevant to each technical topic.
5.1.2 This section of the EIA sets the national and local planning policy relevant to the proposed development.
5.2 National Planning Policy Framework
5.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force in March 2012. This document sets out the governments overarching planning policy including mineral extraction.
5.2.2 A key element of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 12 specifically states that
“This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up to date local plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up to date plan in place.”
5.2.3 Section 13 of the NPPF deals specifically with the sustainable use of minerals. Paragraph 142 states that
“Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure buildings energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource and can only be worked where they are found it is important to make the best use of them to secure their long term conservation.”
5.2.4 Paragraph 144 goes on to set out the issues local authorities should consider when determining applications for minerals development. These include giving great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction including to the economy. They should also ensure in granting planning permission for mineral development that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health of aviation safety and take into account the cumulate effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality. They should also provide for a restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary.
5.3 Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2014)
5.3.1 This plan was adopted in 2014 and contains a vision for minerals and waste related development in Northamptonshire it recognises that Northamptonshire will have seen sustained growth and development with sensitively worked and restored mineral extraction sites.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 25 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
5.3.2 Objective 4 within the plan seeks to facilitate mineral extraction within Northamptonshire particularly for sand and gravel extraction to meet the annual provision rates for Northamptonshire. Sand and gravel extraction is specifically highlighted due to the history of the low land bank for this resource in the county.
5.3.3 Policy 1 sets out the provision for supply of aggregates within the county. This states that over the plan period 2011 to 2031 provision will be made for the extraction of 10 million tonnes of sand and gravel from glacial and pre-glacial deposits and the river valleys of the Nene and the Great Ouse.
5.3.4 In the supporting text to this policy it is acknowledged at Paragraph 4.35 that parts of the Nene Valley will support the strategic approach of having locations for minerals development that are closely related to existing and proposed development. This is specifically the case with the Nene locations directly supporting growth at Northampton and Wellingborough.
5.3.5 Policy 2 sets out the spatial strategy for mineral extraction. This is to focus extraction on the counties pre-glacial and glacial deposits together with the reserves from the river valleys of the Nene and the Great Ouse.
5.3.6 Turning to the site allocations paragraph 4.42 specifically states that
“The currently worked river valleys of the Nene between Northampton and Wellingborough and of the Great Ouse will play a significant role in delivering the provision to be met. The Earls Barton West extension site (MA5) will provide the vast majority of the worked river valley supply. This site will help to ensure continuity of good quality supplies throughout the plan period and thus complement and support the pre-glacial and glacial allocations.”
5.3.7 Policy 4 allocates the individual sites for the provision of sand and gravel. Earls Barton West extension is identified as site MA5 in the central Nene Valley for approximately 3 million tonnes.
5.3.8 The proposals subject of this planning application include recycled aggregate processing facilities. Policy 8 deals with such matters and states that:
“Development of temporary aggregate recycling facilities will be permitted at mineral extraction sites with existing processing plants, particularly where this allows for secondary and recycled materials to be processed or blended to achieve a higher quality end use.”
5.3.9 Policy 22 seeks to address the impact of proposed minerals and waste development and sets out a number of criteria that have to be considered and addressed. These include protecting Northamptonshire’s natural resources and key environmental designations, impacts on flood risk as well as the flow and quantity of surface and ground water. Other matters include ensuring access is sustainable safe and environmentally acceptable and ensuring that local amenity is protected.
5.3.10 Policy 23 seeks to encourage sustainable transport by minimising transport movements and maximising use of sustainable or alternative transport modes. The policy also states that developments should be well placed to serve their intended markets or catchment areas in order to reduce transport distances.
5.3.11 Policy 24 concerns natural assets and resources. The policy seeks to achieve a net gain in natural assets and resources through protecting and enhancing green infrastructure and strategic biodiversity networks in particular the river Nene and other sub-regional corridors.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 26 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
5.3.12 Policy 25 seeks to ensure that Northamptonshire’s landscape character is reflected through minerals and waste development. Proposals for minerals development will be required to undertake a Landscape Impact Assessment to ensure that this is the case. The historic environment is covered by Policy 26. This requires appropriate desk based and/or field evaluations to identify the level nature and extent of each heritage asset.
5.3.13 Restoration and after use is a key policy requirement of the local plan. Policy 28 deals with this matter. The policy states that
“All minerals and waste related development of a temporary nature must ensure that the site is progressively restored to an acceptable condition and stable land form. The after use of the site will be determined in relation to its land use context, the surrounding environmental character and any specific local requirements, but on the basis that it: Enhances biodiversity, the local environment and amenity and Benefits the local community and/or economy.”
5.3.14 The policy then goes on to set out requirements for restoration where appropriate. These include establishment of Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and strategic biodiversity networks.
5.3.15 Finally, policy 29 deals with implementation of minerals and waste development. This states that such sites will be controlled and managed through planning conditions and planning obligations and the establishment of a local liaison group where appropriate.
5.3.16 Appendix 1 to the adopted local plan sets out a site profile for the MA5 Earls Barton West extension. This appendix sets out potential development requirements for the site. These include access to the site via eastern or western end of the site via the A45 junctions. It also states that if the access is to be from the west then the implementation of a one-way traffic system should be considered.
5.3.17 It also states that mitigation measures and restoration should be carried out in line with the Habitat Regulations Assessment for this allocation. It also requires a site specific HRA to be carried out at the planning application stage.
5.3.18 Finally, the use of on-site water management systems and mobile plant or existing infrastructure and plant could be used in order to reduce risks associated with flooding. Any static plant should be located in areas of lowest flood risk.
5.4 Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Update (Adopted 2017)
5.4.1 The purpose of this update is to concentrate on reviewing the sites and allocations in the local plan rather than the strategy for minerals and waste development.
5.4.2 In terms of the sand and gravel sites paragraph 4.15 states that inter alia:
“All sites are operational apart form Earls Barton Spinney and Earls Barton West (where extraction commenced to implement the permissions only but remain inactive).”
5.4.3 Policy 4 sets out the updated sites for the provision of sand and gravel. The Earls Barton West extension subject of this planning application has been renamed as M4 rather than MA5 and the tonnage has been reduced from 3 million to 2.6 approximately. Otherwise the policies remain as set out in the adopted 2014 local plan.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 27 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
5.4.4 Appendix 1 sets out the boundaries and profiles of the allocated sites for minerals development. This includes M4 Earls Barton West extension the development requirements have been updated and now state the following:
Transport Assessment required to accompany planning application Access to site via eastern or western end (and therefore A45 junction) if access is taken from the west then this could be via a one way system from Lower Ecton Lane or a two way system from the existing access off Crow Lane.
5.4.5 Otherwise the development requirements remain as per the 2014 adopted local plan.
5.5 Borough Council of Wellingborough
North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy
5.5.1 This document was adopted in July 2016 and is formally part of the development plan for Wellingborough. It sets out the strategic development direction for North Northamptonshire.
5.5.2 The main mineral extraction area subject to this planning application falls within the Borough of Wellingborough. This plan does not contain minerals and waste policies as that is the purpose of the Northamptonshire minerals and waste local plan. However, it is recognised in Paragraph 1.10 that the requirements of the minerals and waste local plan have been incorporated by not sterilising mineral resources particularly of allocated sites.
5.5.3 Policy 20 of the joint core strategy concerns the Nene and Ise valleys. This policy states that proposals should ensure the integrity of European designated sites such as the Upper Nene valley gravel pits SPA. The policy also seeks to strengthen biodiversity and landscape character and also to provide leisure and recreational opportunities in the Nene Valley.
The Borough of Wellingborough Emerging Local Plan
5.5.4 This document is at an early stage of preparation and therefore limited weight can be attached to this document. This document contains Policy GI1 regarding local green infrastructure corridors which are identified at the eastern boundaries and southern boundaries of the application site. They do not encroach into the planning application area.
5.6 Northampton Borough Council
West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan Part 1
5.6.1 This document was adopted in 2014 and sets out the direction of strategic development within the west of the County. This includes Northampton Borough.
5.6.2 Policy BN2 concerns biodiversity and states that development that will maintain and enhance existing designations and assets or deliver a net gain in biodiversity will be supported.
5.6.3 There is also a specific policy (BN4) regarding the Upper Nene Valley gravel pits Special Protection Area. It states that new development will need to demonstrate through the development management process that there will be no significant adverse effects upon the integrity of the Special Protection Area.
5.6.4 Policy BN8 concerns the River Nene strategic river corridor. It states that
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 28 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
“The natural and cultural environment of the Nene corridor through the plan area, including its tributaries, will be enhanced and protected in recognition of its important contribution to the areas green infrastructure network, towns landscape, townscapes, regeneration, recreation and historic environment. Proposals for new development and habitat enhancement should demonstrate an understanding of the importance of the River Nene for biodiversity within and beyond the plan area.”
Northampton Local Plan Part 2
5.6.5 This plan is at an early stage having had an issues consultation in June 2016. Ultimately this plan will provide detailed planning policies to manage and guide development across the Borough. However due to its early stage it can only be accorded very limited weight.
Supplementary Planning Documents
5.6.6 There are two relevant supplementary planning documents for this application. These are the Northamptonshire Biodiversity SPD and the Upper Nene Valley Special Protection Area SPD. These documents have been taken into account in the preparation of this planning application.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 29 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
6 Landscape and Visual Impact
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 This chapter provides a landscape and visual baseline report and impact assessment of the proposed development at Great Billing.
6.1.2 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) identifies and assesses the negative and positive effects and significance of change arising from the proposed development on the landscape as an environmental resource in its own right and on people’s views and visual amenity.
6.1.3 The Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment”, (3rd Edition, 2013) notes in paragraph 1.17, page 9, in reference to the European Union Directive 2011/92/EU:
‘The Directive is clear that the emphasis is on the identification of likely significant environmental effects. This should embrace all types of effect and includes, for example, those that are positive/beneficial and negative/adverse, direct and indirect, and long and short term, as well as cumulative effects. Identifying significant effects stresses the need for an approach that is in proportion to the scale of the project that is being assessed and the nature of its likely effects. Judgement needs to be exercised at all stages in terms of the scale of investigation that is appropriate and proportional. This does not mean that effects should be ignored or their importance minimised but that the assessment should be tailored to the particular circumstances in each case.’
6.1.4 The LVIA has been carried out by chartered landscape architects at Peter Brett Associates LLP, a registered practice with the Landscape Institute and a corporate member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).
6.2 Policy Context
6.2.1 Figure 6.1: Landscape Planning Constraints and Opportunities, Appendix E.1 illustrates landscape planning designations which are applicable to the site and surrounding area.
National Planning Policy Framework
6.2.2 National planning policy is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012. The overarching objective is to help achieve sustainable development. NPPF policies relevant to landscape and visual issues are summarised below.
6.2.3 Paragraph 17 establishes 12 core land-use planning principles including taking
“…account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”
6.2.4 Section 11 of the NPPF makes reference to the need to create, protect, enhance and manage green infrastructure.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 30 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Northamptonshire Country Council
Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Update Version, Adopted 2014
6.2.5 Current minerals and waste planning policy is contained within the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Adopted 2014 (Northamptonshire County Council). Relevant landscape planning policies are summarised below, and extracts of the policy text are reproduced at Appendix E.3.
Policy 25: Landscape character, states:
“Minerals and waste development should seek to reflect Northamptonshire’s landscape character. Development should mitigate potentially adverse impacts on the local character and distinctiveness of Northamptonshire’s landscape where necessary during the development, operational life, restoration, aftercare and after-use. Opportunities for enhancement should be maximised through restoration, aftercare and after-use.”
6.2.6 Policy 27: Layout and design quality, sets out requirements for the layout and overall appearance of minerals development, including ensuring it:
“supports local identity and relates well to the neighbouring sites and buildings; is set in the context of the area in which it is to be sited in a manner that enhances the overall…landscape”
6.2.7 Policy 28: Restoration and after-use, details the requirements for the restoration of mineral sites, it states that:
“All minerals and waste related development of a temporary nature must ensure that the site is progressively restored to an acceptable condition and stable landform.”
Northampton Borough Council
West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan, Adopted 2014
6.2.8 Policy BN1: Green Infrastructure Connections, states:
“Green infrastructure corridors of sub-regional and local importance… will be recognised for their important contribution to sense of place and conserved, managed and enhanced”
6.2.9 Policy BN5: The Historic Environment and Landscape, states:
“Designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings and landscapes will be conserved and enhanced in recognition of their individual and cumulative significance and contribution to West Northamptonshire’s local distinctiveness and sense of place”
6.2.10 Policy BN8: The River Nene Strategic River Corridor, states:
“The natural and cultural environment of the Nene Corridor through the plan area, including its tributaries, will be enhanced and protected in recognition of its important contribution to the area’s green infrastructure network, landscape, townscapes, regeneration, recreation and historic environment”
Wellingborough Council
North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031, Adopted 2016
6.2.11 Policy 3: Landscape Character, states:
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 31 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
“Development should be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and, where possible, enhancing the distinctive qualities of the landscape character area which it would affect.”
6.2.12 The Nene Valley is identified as a sub-regional corridor in the green infrastructure network across Northamptonshire. Policy 19: The Delivery of Green Infrastructure, sets out measures for the maintenance and enhancement of green infrastructure. Including:
“Safeguarding identified sub-regional green infrastructure corridors by:
i. Not permitting development that compromises their integrity and therefore that of the overall green infrastructure network;
ii. Using developer contributions to facilitate improvements to their quality and robustness;
iii. Investing in enhancement and restoration where opportunities exist.”
6.2.13 Policy 20: The Nene and Ise Valleys, states:
“The Nene and Ise Valleys will be priorities for investment in green infrastructure to strengthen biodiversity and landscape character… This will be achieved by managing development and investment to:
a. Improve visual and physical linkages between the rivers and waterways and adjacent settlements by creating and maximising vistas to the valley/water…
b. Identify opportunities and proposals for floodplain and river re-naturalisation… and river habitat improvements.”
6.3 Methodology
6.3.1 The PBA methodology used for undertaking the LVIA is set out in detail at Appendix E.4. It is based on the Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment” (3rd Edition, 2013) (GLVIA3), combined with our professional experience and judgement.
6.3.2 The assessment of landscape and visual effects aims to be as objective as possible, however, as explained in GLVIA3:
“Professional judgement is a very important part of LVIA. While there is some scope for quantitative measurement of some relatively objective matters, for example the number of trees lost to construction… much of the assessment must rely on qualitative judgements, for example about what effect the introduction of a new development or land use change may have on visual amenity, or about the significance of change in the character of the landscape and whether it is positive or negative.”
(Paragraph 2.23, page 21, GLVIA3)
6.3.3 The LVIA has been based on the proposed development as set out in Chapter 3: The Proposed Development of this Environmental Statement.
6.3.4 An EIA Scoping Report was submitted to the Local Planning Authority in October 2015, including an outline of the proposed scope and methodology for the LVIA. Comments received in the Scoping Opinion regarding landscape and visual issues are summarised in Table 1.1 of
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 32 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Appendix E.4: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) Methodology, including how the LVIA responds to those comments.
6.3.5 The assessment of effects makes comparison with the baseline year 2016, during which time the most recent site survey was carried out.
6.3.6 Three assessment years were selected, in order to identify effects through the various phases of the project, from initial enabling works, through extraction and restoration, to the maturing of new habitats and planting. Due to the phasing of the works there will be times when extraction and restoration will be happening concurrently on different parts of the site, as each parcel of land is excavated, reclaimed and subsequently restored. The following three years were selected for assessment within the LVIA:
Year 1 – during enabling works, as plant and water management areas are created and before mineral extraction begins; Year 9 – where extraction, reclamation and restoration works are happening simultaneously on different parts of the site, and therefore one of the years during which there is the most disturbance of the site; and Year 35 – where restoration has been completed for the whole site and has a minimum of 15 years in which to establish, such as that any new tree, hedgerow, grassland or reedbed planting would have matured.
6.3.7 This chapter considers effects of the proposed development on:
landscape character; landscape elements (the ‘landscape fabric’); views available to people and their visual amenity, from publicly accessible viewpoints; historic landscape character; and night-time views.
Study Area
6.3.8 The spatial scope of this LVIA was determined by a computer-generated Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) which established the theoretical extent to which the proposed development is likely to be visible in the surrounding area. The ZTV, together with a review of potential visual receptors, guided the selection of representative viewpoints that are included within the visual impact assessment. These are detailed at Table 1.2 of Appendix E.4
6.3.9 Areas identified in the ZTV with the potential to experience visual effects but which were considered unlikely to experience significant visual effects, were scoped out for the visual impact assessment. These are detailed at Table 1.3 of Appendix E.4
Site Appraisal
6.3.10 Following the preliminary desktop study, site visits were made in June 2015 and January 2016 by Chartered and Licentiate Members of the Landscape Institute.
6.3.11 The purpose of the site visits was to undertake the landscape and visual appraisal in relation to the proposed development, including review of the computer-generated ZTV, identification of key views, assessment of landscape value and local landscape character, identification of
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 33 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
typical viewpoints as a basis on which to undertake the visual impact assessment, and preliminary assessment of landscape and visual effects.
6.4 Baseline Conditions
Landscape Character
6.4.1 Figure 6.2: Landscape Character, Appendix E.1 illustrates landscape character areas applicable to the site and surrounding area.
6.4.2 The published sources describing landscape character of the study area are:
At the national level, the ‘National Character Area Profiles’ produced by Natural England (2014); and At the county level, the ‘Current Landscape Character Assessment’ produced for Northamptonshire (River Nene Regional Park, 2006).
National Landscape Character
6.4.3 The site lies within National Character Area 89 – Northamptonshire Vales, as identified by Natural England, 2014. This is a non-statutory and overarching classification of landscape character.
6.4.4 Key characteristics of the Northamptonshire Vales, which broadly relate to the site and its context, include (p. 6):
“An open landscape of gently undulating clay ridges and valleys with occasional steep scarp slopes. There is an overall visual uniformity to the landscape and settlement pattern.” “Diverse levels of tranquillity, from busy urban areas to some deeply rural parts.” “Mixed agricultural regime of arable and pasture, with arable land tending to be on the broader, flat river terraces and smaller pastures on the slopes of many minor valleys and on more undulating ground.” “Relatively little woodland cover but with a timbered character derived largely from spinneys and copses on the ridges and more undulating land, and from waterside and hedgerow trees and hedgerows, though the density, height and pattern of hedgerows are varied throughout.” “Distinctive river valleys of the Welland and the Nene, with flat flood plains and gravel terraces… Riverside meadows and waterside trees and shrubs are common, along with flooded gravel pits, open areas of winter flooded grassland, and wetland mosaics...”
“Frequent large settlements that dominate the open character of the landscape, such as Northampton and Wellingborough, and associated infrastructure, including major roads, often visually dominant.” “Frequent small towns and large villages often characterised by red brick buildings and attractive stone buildings in older village centres and eastern towns and villages. Frequent imposing spired churches are also characteristic, together with fine examples of individual historic buildings.”
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 34 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
County Landscape Character
6.4.5 The Northamptonshire ‘Current Landscape Character Assessment’ defines the area encompassing the site as landscape character type 18 – Broad River Valley Floodplain, and specifically as landscape character area 18D – Billing Wharf to Woodford Mill.
6.4.6 To the south-west of the site (1.2km at the nearest point), also defined as landscape character type 18, is landscape character area 18c – Duston Mill to Billing Wharf.
6.4.7 The area to the west of the site, which abuts part of the western site boundary, is defined as an urban area within the assessment.
6.4.8 To the north of the site (0.3km at the nearest point), the area containing the villages of Ecton and Earls Barton is defined as landscape character type 4 – Rolling Ironstone Valley Slopes and landscape character area 4c – Ecton and Earls Barton Slopes.
6.4.9 To the south of the site (0.5km at the nearest point), the area containing Cogenhoe and Whiston is defined as landscape character type 12 – Limestone Valley Slopes and landscape character area 12a – Wollaston to Irchester.
6.4.10 Key characteristics of these landscape character types, and relevant extracts of descriptions of the landscape character areas, are given in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1 – Northamptonshire ‘Current Landscape Character Assessment’
Landscape Character Type Key Characteristics Landscape Character Area Relevant Description
18 – Broad River Valley . Broad, flat and predominantly wide floodplain Floodplain surrounded by rising landform of adjacent landscape (p. 166) types; . deep, alluvial clay and silt with sand and gravel, masking the underlying geology; . river channel with slow flowing watercourse with limited bank side vegetation in areas; . predominance of unimproved pasture with pockets of both neutral and improved grassland and scattered arable land in fields of varying size; . limited woodland cover confined to occasional broadleaved copses scattered throughout the floodplain; . hedgerow trees, although infrequent, are an important feature where they do occur, creating localised well treed areas; . hedgerows are generally overgrown and reinforced with post and wire fencing with intermittent sections showing evidence of decline; . settlement is very limited within the floodplain; . urban influences arising from the proximity of large urban areas and associated road infrastructure on the perimeter of some sections of the floodplain;
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 35 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Landscape Character Type Key Characteristics Landscape Character Area Relevant Description
. minor roads generally cross the floodplain landscape at right angles to the river, with major roads also following the valley course and marking the boundary of the type; . evidence of long periods of gravel extraction and restoration within the Nene Valley, particularly along the middle section of the Valley, with patterns of restored landscapes with numerous areas of wetland and lakes; and significant recreational activities within the Nene Valley landscape, mainly focused on the restored lakes.
18d – The Nene - Billing Wharf to A significant number of man-made lakes again dominate the Woodford Mill landscape, occupying the floodplain adjacent to the River (p. 173) Nene. In this location, the river is a less significant element within the landscape. The local nature reserves, country parks and lagoons in this area have been created from former gravel workings providing areas for not only public enjoyment and access, but also valuable habitats in the form of wet grasslands and reed beds, and nationally important areas for wildfowl and wading birds…Surrounding the lakes is a landscape characterised by pastoral and arable fields, although water elements continue to dominate the majority of views.
…Further developments including active gravel pits… and sewage treatment plants also have an impact on the character of the landscape…Whilst woodland cover remains sparse, a number of broadleaved copses contribute to the overall character. They frequently surround valley ponds, lakes and lagoons, thus helping to integrate these artificial waterbodies, created after gravel extraction has finished, into their landscape setting.
18c – The Nene – Duston Mill to “the Duston Mill to Billing Wharf Character Area is heavily Billing Wharf influenced by the close proximity of significant areas of (p. 172) urban development. Dominating the area are large manmade lakes occupying the valley floodplain, which have been created following the restoration of gravel extraction areas…
There is a concentration of recreational opportunities within the valley, including Billing Aquadrome to the east, which comprises 235 acres of land, nine lakes with water sports and fishing, a marina and various caravan parks, camping sites, retail outlets and restaurants.”
4 - Rolling Ironstone Valley . Broad valley slopes dissected by numerous tributary Slopes streams; (p. 50) . Ironstone geology expressed in local vernacular buildings and in rich red soils; . rolling landform, extensive views and sense of exposure on some prominent locations; . productive arable farmland in medium and large scale fields predominates on elevated land although sheep
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 36 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Landscape Character Type Key Characteristics Landscape Character Area Relevant Description
and cattle pastures also prevalent, often in smaller fields adjacent to watercourses; . agricultural practices create a patchwork of contrasting colours and textures extending across valley slopes; . where broadleaved woodlands and mature hedgerow trees combine, these impart a sense of a well treed landscape; . hedgerows generally low and well clipped although intermittent sections show evidence of decline; . well settled with numerous villages and towns; . landscape directly and indirectly influenced by the close proximity of many of the county’s urban areas; and building materials vary although vernacular architecture and churches display the local ironstone.
4c – Ecton and Earls Barton “a gently rolling landscape. Ironstone slopes running parallel Slopes to the Nene have been dissected by valleys draining the (p. 58) adjacent uplands southwards into the Nene… The rolling landscape beyond the park is characterised by medium to large arable fields and areas of pasture, usually within smaller fields adjacent to watercourses and on the edge of settlements…
The landscape is relatively well settled, including the large compact post-war settlement of Earls Barton situated on the southern edge of the character area overlooking the valley of the Nene. Wilby, Great Doddington and Ecton provide smaller linear settlements located on the mid slopes. Beyond this lies a landscape characterised by scattered farms and dwellings.”
12 - Limestone Valley Slopes Transitional landscape displaying characteristics of (p. 120) surrounding landscape character types; limestone geology evident in local buildings; gently undulating farmed slopes bordering the Nene and its principal tributaries; expansive long distance views and wide panoramas across the valley to neighbouring landscapes; predominance of arable land with isolated areas of improved and semi improved pasture and set aside land; very sparse woodland cover comprising small deciduous and occasionally coniferous shelterbelts limiting the sense of exposure locally; fields predominantly large, and medium to large; small to medium sized pasture fields conspicuous surrounding villages; fields generally enclosed by hedgerows with intermittent mature hedgerow trees, often showing signs of decline; numerous villages display close relationship to landform in their morphology and orientation; and communication routes principally limited to direct roads parallel to the course of the main river channel, minor roads
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 37 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Landscape Character Type Key Characteristics Landscape Character Area Relevant Description
connecting small settlements and individual dwellings running along tributaries at right angles to the main route. 12a – Wollaston to Irchester “The area is characterised by a predominance of large scale (p. 124) fields of arable cereals and horticulture cloaking the gently undulating landform. Smaller improved pastures with grazing sheep and cattle are frequent, however, around settlements such as Little Houghton, Cogenhoe, Castle Ashby, Grendon, Bozeat and Wollaston. ‘Horsiculture’ is also frequent in such areas, conspicuous in the landscape through the use of white ribbon temporary fencing. Within many areas of improved pasture, small pockets of calcareous grassland are evident with larger areas of neutral grassland located around Irchester Country Park…
Woodland in the character area is relatively varied although, as is typical of the landscape type, it is limited… The character area is reasonably well settled, with a number of villages of varying morphology extending across the undulating landform. Church spires are prominent in a number of the villages…
Heritage features are limited in the area, with Castle Ashby providing the main area of interest.”
6.4.11 The ‘Current Landscape Character Strategy and Guidelines’ (River Nene Regional Park, 2006) builds upon the Northamptonshire landscape character assessment and sets out recommendations for each landscape character type for the conservation, enhancement, restoration and creation of key landscape elements and features.
6.4.12 Relevant guidelines for landscape character type 18 – Broad River Valley Floodplain, in which the site is situated, in relation to mineral extraction, are (p. 95):
“Seek to limit the creation of further lakes in connection with any future extraction and restoration operations. Encourage the Creation of a mosaic of pasture, and where possible, wet grasslands supported by traditional management systems, in order to re-establish this much diminished habitat that once formed a much greater part of the intrinsic character of the floodplain.”
6.4.13 Guidelines in relation to landform, hydrology and views are stated as (p. 92):
“Conserve and Enhance the identity of the floodplain as a separate morphological unit by strengthening its distinctive character in comparison with the changing character of the rising valley sides.”
Local Landscape Character Assessment of the Site and Immediate Surroundings
6.4.14 Peter Brett Associates has undertaken its own local landscape character assessment of the site and immediate surroundings, in order to identify any variations to the above published landscape character assessments and looking at the more detailed site level. This is with
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 38 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
reference to the guidelines set out in the “Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland”, The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002.
6.4.15 The findings of this assessment are summarised below:
The site is located within the broad valley of the River Nene, enclosed by gently rising land to the north and south. The site itself is relatively flat, with an elevation of approximately 50m AOD, although with a general gradient across the site from higher land in the west, down to the east. The site has an open character. There are some views out to the rising land to the north, however vegetation along the River Nene and lakes to the south of the site, provide enclosure and limit views in this direction. The site comprises large rectangular arable fields. There are separated by tracks and verges of ruderal vegetation. Trees are present in small copses on the site (Wind Spinney) and surrounding area (Commander’s Spinney). There are also tree lines along the southern and eastern site boundaries, and along the byway through the site.
6.4.16 The individual elements of the site which contribute to the local landscape character are considered in the Landscape Value section below.
Historic Landscape Character
6.4.17 Within the ‘Historic Landscape Character Assessment’ (River Nene Regional Park, 2006) the th site is identified as within an area of historic character type 5: 19 Century Parliamentary Enclosure and specifically within the historic character area 5K: Nene – Valley: Ecton – Great Doddington.
6.4.18 The historic patterns of enclosure for this area are described (p. 79):
“Earls Barton, Mears Ashby and Great Doddington were all enclosed under parliamentary act in the 18th century and parcels of land which preserve this original layout still survive especially around the west side of Ecton and at the east of Earls Barton. These areas display a regular pattern of straight hedgerows with intervening enclosure roads. Against this backdrop of early parliamentary enclosure are also fields where 19th century changes have seen the addition of more field boundaries and conversely where 20th century agriculture has removed hedgerows in order to create larger fields.”
6.4.19 Key Historic Character Features and Historic Landscape Guidelines for the historic landscape character areas are set out in the ‘Historic Landscape Character Strategy and Guidelines’ (pp. 16-18):
6.4.20 Key characteristics of the 19th Century Parliamentary Enclosure character type are set out as:
Fieldscapes with straight hedgerow boundaries and enclosure roadways; Areas predominantly occupy or overlook river valleys; Areas include some settlements that have expanded from their 19th century historic cores; Ridge and furrow earthworks; Modern transport routes run through many areas; and Ornamental landscaped parks
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 39 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
6.4.21 Historic Landscape Guidelines for this character type, and of relevance to the site are:
“Conserve and enhance historic hedgerows. The restoration of lost hedgerow lines to historic patterns should be informed by local circumstances. Hedgerow species and inclusion of hedgerow trees will reflect the requirements of the Biodiversity Character Guidance.”
“New woodland planting should wherever possible reflect historic woodland distribution patterns. Woodland species will reflect the requirements of the Biodiversity Character Guidance”
Site Context
6.4.22 The site is described at Chapter 2: Site and Surrounding Area of this Environmental Statement.
Topography
6.4.23 Figure 6.3: Topography, Appendix E.1 illustrates the topography of the site and the wider area.
6.4.24 The site is located within the broad valley of the River Nene. The land rises gently to the north and south, containing villages on the valley sides. The broad valley sides are intersected by smaller valleys of tributary streams.
6.4.25 The topography on site does not vary greatly, ranging from approximately 49m AOD in the south-east to 55m AOD in the north-west.
Existing Vegetation
6.4.26 The site mainly comprises arable fields, bordered by ruderal vegetation. Lines of mature trees are present along parts of the northern and southern site boundaries. A belt of trees runs along the eastern edge of the site. Hedgerows with intermittent hedgerow trees line the byway which traverses the site.
6.4.27 A small copse, Wind Spinney, is present in the eastern part of the site. A further copse, Commander’s Spinney, is located adjacent to the north of the site.
Ancient Woodland
6.4.28 There is no ancient woodland upon the site, or within 2km from the site boundaries.
Land Use
6.4.29 The site currently comprises arable fields, however it has historically been used a sewage farm comprising sewage irrigation fields.
6.4.30 The setting of the site is within a riparian landscape, modified by restored former gravel extraction pits to the south and the adjacent water recycling centre to the west.
Public Rights of Way
6.4.31 A byway (TE10) runs north-south through the site from the western edge of Commander’s Spinney to a lock on the River Nene to the north of Mill House.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 40 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
6.4.32 Another byway (TE11) adjoins TE10 and runs along the northern site boundary, eastwards to meet the Nene Way, beyond the site boundary and just south of the A45.
6.4.33 The Nene Way long distance path broadly follows the route of the River Nene. From following the river through Billing Aquadrome, the route diverts southwards through Cogenhoe. It then follows the river, passing the site at approximately 170m at the nearest point, before turning northwards and passing through Earls Barton.
6.4.34 The Northamptonshire Round Route long distance path is a 51 mile circular route around Northampton. A section of the route runs north-south between Ecton and Cogenhoe, with byway (TE10) through the site forming part of the route.
Conservation Areas
6.4.35 Conservation Areas are assessed in detail in Chapter 12: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.
6.4.36 Within the extent of the LVIA study area there are four Conservation Areas within 2 km from the site. These comprise:
Cogenhoe Conservation Area (0.6km to the south of the site); Earls Barton Conservation Area (1.3km to the north-east of the site); Ecton Conservation Area (0.5km to the north of the site); and Great Billing Conservation Area (1.1km to the northwest of the site).
6.4.37 Earls Barton and Great Billing Conservation Areas have been scoped out of the LVIA. This is due to their enclosure within residential areas, and intervening buildings preventing intervisibility with the site.
Listed Buildings
6.4.38 Listed Buildings are assessed in detail in Chapter 12: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.
6.4.39 Listed Buildings within 1km of the site include:
South Lodge Farmhouse - Grade II (0.9km to the north of the site); and Mill House – Grade II (0.4km to the south).
6.4.40 All other Listed Buildings within 1km of the site are contained within the Conservation Areas of Ecton and Cogenhoe.
Scheduled Monuments
6.4.41 Scheduled Monuments are also assessed in detail in Chapter 12: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.
6.4.42 There are four Scheduled Monuments within the extent of the LVIA study area, within 2 km from the site. These are:
Bowl barrow 530m north east of Rose Farm (0.5 km to the south of the site); Clifford Hill motte castle (2km to the southwest of the site); Earls Barton motte castle (1.5km to the northeast of the site); and
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 41 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Place House motte and fishpond (1.3km to the southeast of the site).
6.4.43 As stated in the scoping report, three of the Scheduled Monuments have been scoped out of the LVIA, as set out below:
Clifford Hill motte castle – intervening vegetation, buildings and water recycling centre; Earls Barton motte castle – enclosed within residential area; and Place House motte and fishpond – overlapping layers of intervening vegetation.
Register of Historic Parks and Gardens
6.4.44 Within the extent of the LVIA study area there is one Registered Historic Park and Garden within 2km of the site. This is Castle Ashby (Grade I) Registered Park and Garden located 2km to the south-east of the site.
6.4.45 This Registered Park and Garden has been scoped out of the LVIA. This is due to intervening vegetation preventing intervisibility with the site.
6.4.46 More details about this cultural heritage feature are set out in Chapter 12: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.
Other Landscape Features within the Site
6.4.47 A number of watercourses traverse the site. These include tributaries of the River Nene: Ecton Brook, which cuts through the centre of the site, and Barton Brook along the eastern site boundary. Additionally, there are overland drains associated with the wastewater treatment works.
Landscape Value
6.4.48 As part of the baseline review, the value of the potentially affected landscape has been considered, including that of landscape character and the individual elements or features which contribute to the landscape character.
6.4.49 Landscapes may be valued at community, local, or national level, or in some cases at a greater level. Existing landscape planning designations are taken to be the initial guide to value, as shown in Table 1.4 of the LVIA Methodology, Appendix E.4. However, the value attached to undesignated landscapes also needs to be considered and other factors which influence landscape value, such as quality, sense of place, rarity, and so forth, are also taken into account, Table 1.5, Appendix E.4.
6.4.50 Accordingly, an assessment of value is made for the landscape character areas or types, and individual landscape features which contribute to landscape character, which may be affected by the proposed development. The landscape values are set out in the baseline sections of the Landscape Effects Table, Appendix E.6, and are summarised below:
a. High: Cogenhoe and Ecton Conservation Areas; South Lodge Farmhouse and Mill House listed buildings; and Bowl Barrow scheduled monument.
b. High/Medium: River Nene sub-regional green infrastructure corridor; National Landscape Character Area 89; and public rights of way.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 42 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
c. Medium: Landscape Character Types 4, 12 and 18; Historic Landscape Character Area 5K; landform; woodland, trees and hedgerows; and watercourses.
d. Low: Overall landscape character of the site.
Key Views and Viewpoints
6.4.51 Figure 6.4: Zone of Theoretical Visual Influence, Appendix E.1 illustrates the theoretical extent to which the proposed development is likely to be visible from the surrounding landscape. However, this is very much a worst case scenario, since it only takes into account topography and other identified features influencing the extent of visibility, such as principal areas of woodland and settlements, which are included as visual barriers within the model. In reality visibility is likely to be less than that shown, due to additional filtering of views by hedgerows, trees and individual buildings.
6.4.52 There are no published or designated key views within the vicinity of the site, and the site does not fall within any designated key view cones.
6.4.53 Viewpoints were selected according to our LVIA methodology, set out in Section 2.5 of Appendix E.4.
Viewpoints were agreed with Northamptonshire County Council in November 2015 (email correspondence with the Senior Environmental Planner, 30 November 2015), who stated that they were “happy that the choice of viewpoints has been adequately assessed and appear to be representative of the potential ranges of views that might be available”.
6.4.54 A schedule of the proposed viewpoints, and their reasons for selection were also included within the EIA Scoping Report, issued to Northamptonshire County Council on October 2015. The scoping response from Northampton Borough Council (11 January 2016) identified additional viewpoints to be included from “the residential area to the east and south of Ecton Brook Road and the Ecton Lane Travellers site”. These areas were re-visited on a site visit on 18 October 2016. No views were found of the application site from either location, due to the intervening trees and embankment along the A45, and the hedgerow along Lower Ecton Lane. Record photographs were taken, however, due to lack of visibility these are not considered necessary to include these as viewpoints within the assessment.
6.4.55 As a result, the viewpoints included within the LVIA are as set out in Table 6.2 below.
Table 6.2: Selected Viewpoints
Viewpoint Location Distance from Site Boundary Reference
1 Byway at northern site boundary At northern site boundary
2 Public right of way to west of Ecton 850m to the north
Footbridge over A45 containing the 3 400m to the east Nene Way
4 Nene Way to north of River Nene 250m to the east
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 43 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Viewpoint Location Distance from Site Boundary Reference
Church of St Mary the Virgin, 5 1.6km to the south-east Whiston
6 Footpath to east of Cogenhoe 800m to the south
7 Nene Rise, Cogenhoe 900m to the south
Northamptonshire Round Route 8 through Cogenhoe Conservation 450m to the south Area
Footpath adjacent to Bowl Barrow 9 500m to the south 530 m north east of Rose Farm
10 Ecton Conservation Area 800m to the north
Adjacent to the north-west 11 Lower Ecton Lane corner of the site
12 Byway through site Within site
13 B573 1.5km to the north-east
14 Edge of Earls Barton 1.5km to the north-east
6.4.56 The baseline description for each viewpoint, including information about the type and relative numbers of people likely to be affected, is set out within the Visual Effects Table at Appendix E.5, representative panoramic photographs illustrating the baseline views are set out in Appendix E.2. The locations of the viewpoints are set out on Figure 6.5: Photograph Viewpoint Location Plan, Appendix E.1.
6.4.57 In summary, views of the site comprise local views from the public rights of way through and adjacent to the site. Additionally, there are medium and long distance views from the valley sides to the north and south of the site; from public rights of way and some limited locations from the edges of villages. Visual receptors include users of the public rights of way, residents of and visitors to the villages and travellers on local roads.
6.4.58 In a number of medium and long distance views, layers of hedgerow and trees in the surrounding area overlap to filter views towards the site.
Value of Views
6.4.59 All visual receptors are people. The value attached to the views experienced has regard to a number of factors including recognition through planning designation or heritage assets and the popularity of the viewpoint. Table 1.9 in the LVIA methodology, Appendix E.4 sets out the criteria for determining the value of views.
6.4.60 In summary, the value of the assessment viewpoints were determined as set out in Table 6.3 below.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 44 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 6.2: Selected Viewpoints
Viewpoint Value Reason Attributed 1 Byway at northern site boundary, Low View from area with no landscape looking east to west designation
2 Public Right of Way to the west of Medium View from local public right of way Ecton, looking south where view forms part of the experience 3 Nene Way long distance path on Low View from area with no landscape footbridge over the A45, looking designation, not a particularly south-west popular viewpoint
4 Nene Way long distance path Medium View from long distance path, north of the River Nene, looking where view forms part of the west experience
5 Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Medium Viewpoint from outside church Whiston, looking north-west 6 Public Right of Way to the east of Medium View from local public right of way Cogenhoe, looking north where view forms part of the experience
7 Nene Rise, Cogenhoe, looking Low View from area with no landscape north designation, not a particularly popular viewpoint 8 Northamptonshire Round Route, Medium View from long distance path, through Cogenhoe Conservation where view forms part of the Area, looking north experience 9 Footpath adjacent to Bowl Medium View from local public right of way Barrow, looking north where view forms part of the experience, adjacent to scheduled monument 10 Ecton Conservation Area, looking Medium View from local public right of way south where view forms part of the experience, within Conservation Area 11 Lower Ecton Lane, looking south- Low View from area with no landscape east designation, not a particularly popular viewpoint 12 Byway, within the site Medium View from long distance path, where view forms part of the experience 13 B573 looking south-west Low View from area with no landscape designation, not a particularly popular viewpoint
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 45 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Viewpoint Value Reason Attributed 14 Edge of Earls Barton, looking Medium View from local public right of way south-west where view forms part of the experience
Lighting and Night-time Visual Baseline
6.4.61 Although the site is located within the landscape, the area is already influenced by existing lighting sources at night-time, such as street lighting along the A45, lighting emitted from the Water Recycling Centre, and traffic using roads at night. There is no lighting within the existing site.
6.5 Potential Effects
6.5.1 Potential landscape and visual effects arising from the proposed development were originally set out in the Scoping Report and are those upon:
a. Landscape features of the site;
b. Landscape character; and
c. People’s views and visual amenity.
6.5.2 Figure 6.6: Landscape and Visual Analysis, Appendix E.1 illustrates the key landscape and visual considerations for the site.
Landscape Features of the Site
6.5.3 Landscape features of the site which will potentially be affected by the proposals include:
a. Sections of hedgerow for access;
b. The public right of way (TE10) running north to south through the site is likely to experience short term effects during the enabling works. The public right of way will remain open, and no diversions are anticipated as a result of the mineral extraction operations, however, an access road will cross the byway at one point and a temporary diversion may be needed during bridge construction;
c. Change in land use, from arable fields to mineral extraction areas during operation, and back to arable fields, new hedgerows and areas of habitat upon completion; and
d. Temporary change to the sense of place arising during operation.
Landscape Character
6.5.4 The most significant effects on landscape character will be during the extraction phase as the arable fields of the site are converted to areas of gravel extraction. The nature of the effects caused during the enabling works will be reversible for the most part, and the character of the landscape will experience moderate beneficial effects through the restoration strategy.
6.5.5 The restoration will seek to enhance landscape structure in line with the character of the area, providing opportunity for positive landscape effects. Although the character of the site will be
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 46 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
altered as a result of the extraction operations: the addition of field boundaries, wetland areas and waterbodies will have a positive effect on the landscape character of the area.
People’s Views and Visual Amenity
6.5.6 Potential visual receptors include:
a. Users of the byway through the site and along the northern boundary of the eastern portion;
b. Users of other local public rights of way including the Nene Way long distance path;
c. People within the villages to the north and south of the site: the western edge of Ecton, the south-western edge of Earls Barton, the northern edge of Cogenhoe; and
d. Users of roads, in particular Lower Ecton Lane adjacent to the north of the site, the A45 and the B573.
6.5.7 Adverse changes to views are likely to arise during operation, where views of arable fields will change to views of the sand and gravel extraction and associated plant.
6.5.8 There are likely to be positive changes to views upon completion as a result of the restoration scheme in which new hedgerows and areas of habitat will be seen in addition to the restored arable fields.
6.6 Mitigation and Enhancement
Standard Construction and Operational Management Practices
6.6.1 Standard construction and operational management practices are those for avoiding and reducing environmental effects, such as hoardings around working areas or tree protection fencing, subject to detailed operational requirements.
Primary Measures
6.6.2 Primary measures are developed through the iterative design process, and are those which have become integrated or embedded into the project/scheme design, such as site layout, retention of existing trees, location of structures, detailed design, colours and finishes, or incorporation of key views and vistas.
6.6.3 Primary mitigation measures include:
retention of the areas of woodland upon the site throughout the works – including Wind Spinney and the woodland along the eastern boundary; retention of boundary hedgerows; public rights of way retained through the site, and kept open throughout the works; plant and operations area situated within the western portion of the site, to reduce visibility from the wider landscape, and such that it is seen adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment works; earth bunds around the plant and operations and water management areas; and extraction areas broadly follow existing field patterns.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 47 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Secondary Mitigation Measures
6.6.4 Secondary mitigation measures are proposals to address adverse effects which remain after primary measures and standard construction practices have been incorporated into the scheme.
6.6.5 The landscape mitigation proposals are designed to minimise landscape and visual effects, integrate the proposed development into the landscape and to provide benefits to the wider landscape, as follows:
retention of existing trees and hedgerows, wherever practical, beneficial and appropriate; new structure planting, which will principally comprise locally indigenous species, designed to provide a strong landscape framework for the site and re-integrate it within the surrounding countryside; the creation of grassland, wetland areas and waterbodies; and use of directional downlighting in order to minimise surplus light spill and careful location and alignment of light sources to minimise night-time visual effects.
6.6.6 Detailed proposals will include a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan to be agreed with the local authority as part of detailed designs.
6.6.7 These mitigation measures are set out on the Landscape Restoration Strategy, in Appendix E.1, Figure 6.7.
6.7 Residual Effects
Landscape Receptors’ Susceptibility to Change
6.7.1 The criteria for determining the landscape receptors’ susceptibility to change arising from the proposed development are set out in Table 1.6 in the LVIA Methodology, Appendix E.4.
6.7.2 The assessment of the susceptibility to change of each landscape receptor identified as a result of the baseline studies is summarised below.
Landscape Elements
High: Historic Landscape Character Area 5K; landform; woodland, trees and hedgerows. Medium: South Lodge Farmhouse; public rights of way; watercourses. Low: Cogenhoe and Ecton Conservation Areas; Mill House; Bowl Barrow. Landscape Character
High: Overall landscape character of the site. Medium: NLCA 89; LCTs 4, 12 and 18. Low: River Nene sub-regional green infrastructure corridor.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 48 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors
6.7.3 An assessment of the sensitivity of each receptor has been made by review of the susceptibility of the receptor to change in relation to the value attributed to that receptor, as summarised below, with reference to the Landscape Effects Tables at Appendix E.6.
Visual Receptors’ Susceptibility to Change
6.7.4 The criteria for determining the visual receptors’ susceptibility to change arising from the proposed development are set out in Table 1.10 of the LVIA Methodology, Appendix E.4.
6.7.5 The assessment of the susceptibility to change for each assessment viewpoint is summarised below and is set out in the Visual Effects Table at Appendix E.5.
6.7.6 Viewpoints 3, 4, 8 and 12 have receptors which are on long distance paths, therefore they are given a high susceptibility to change, as users’ attention is likely to be focussed on views. Viewpoints 5, 9 and 10 are from viewpoints associated with heritage designations, views from these assets are likely to form part of the visitor’s experience, therefore these receptors also have a high susceptibility to change. Viewpoint 7 has residential receptors, and is given a high susceptibility to change.
6.7.7 Viewpoints 1, 2, 6 and 14 are from local public rights of way, where receptors are likely to have a moderate interest in their visual environment, therefore they are given a medium susceptibility to change. Viewpoint 13 is also given a medium susceptibility to change, as it is from a road where the view is of moderate importance to the journey.
6.7.8 Viewpoint 11 is from a local road where the view does not form an important part of the experience, therefore it is given a low susceptibility to change.
Sensitivity of Views
6.7.9 An assessment of the sensitivity of each receptor has been made by review of the susceptibility of the receptor to change in relation to the value attributed to that receptor, as summarised below, with reference to the Visual Effects Tables at Appendix E.5.
6.7.10 Viewpoints 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are assessed as having an overall high sensitivity.
6.7.11 Viewpoints 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 13 and 14 have an overall medium sensitivity.
6.7.12 Viewpoint 11 has an overall low sensitivity.
Assessment of Landscape Effects
6.7.13 Full details of the landscape effects, including effects on the landscape resource and on landscape character, are set out in the Landscape Effects Table at Appendix E.6. The following provides a summary of the significant effects, together with the reasons for those effects.
6.7.14 No landscape effects of Severe or Major Significance are anticipated at any assessment period.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 49 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Landscape Effects During Enabling Works (Year 1)
6.7.15 It is anticipated that enabling works will include the erection of cranes, removal of some vegetation and level changes to create the Plant and Operations Area, Water Management Areas and surrounding bunds, and the bridge construction.
6.7.16 Adverse landscape effects of Major/Moderate Significance are anticipated for public rights of way due to the bridge construction and footpath diversion, and for landform due to level changes in the western part of the site.
6.7.17 Adverse landscape effects of Moderate Significance are assessed for watercourses as a result of the construction of the bridge over Ecton Brook, and for the overall landscape character of the site resulting from the reduced open character, level changes and loss of agricultural fields. However, these effects will be limited to the western part of the site.
6.7.18 An adverse landscape effect of Moderate/Minor Significance is assessed for woodland, trees and hedgerows as a result of vegetation loss. However, this is limited to the western part of the site.
6.7.19 Indirect adverse landscape effects of Minor Significance are assessed for Landscape Character Type 18, Mill House and Bowl Barrow, resulting from the limited intervisibility with the site.
6.7.20 Adverse landscape effects of Minor Significance/Not Significant are assessed for Historic Landscape Character Area 5K, resulting from enabling works within the western part of the site.
6.7.21 Adverse landscape effects on all other landscape receptors are assessed as Not Significant for this period.
6.7.22 No neutral or beneficial landscape effects are anticipated during the enabling works.
Landscape Effects During Extraction (Year 9)
6.7.23 During this assessment year, activity on the site will be at its most extensive with excavation, reclamation and restoration activities continuing within the northern and eastern part of the site. Restoration will be complete in southern part of the site.
6.7.24 Adverse landscape effects of Major/Moderate Significance are anticipated for landform and the overall landscape character of the site for this period, as a result of the extensive activity.
6.7.25 Indirect adverse landscape effects of Moderate Significance/Minor Significance are assessed for public rights of way as a result of intervisibility with activities on site.
6.7.26 Adverse landscape effects of Minor Significance are assessed for Landscape Character Type 18 and watercourses, and indirect adverse landscape effects for Mill House and Bowl Barrow due to limited intervisibility with the site activities.
6.7.27 Adverse landscape effects are assessed as Minor Significance/Not Significant for Historic Landscape Character Area 5K and woodland, trees and hedgerows.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 50 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
6.7.28 Adverse landscape effects on all other landscape receptors are assessed as Not Significant for this period.
6.7.29 No neutral or beneficial landscape effects are anticipated during this period.
Landscape Effects After Restoration (Year 35)
6.7.30 It is anticipated that restoration works, which will be phased to follow the extraction and reclamation works, will be complete by Year 20. By Year 35 new planting will range from 15- 30 years old.
6.7.31 The assessment shows that no significant adverse landscape effects will remain.
6.7.32 Neutral landscape effects are anticipated for public rights of way which will remain on, or close to, existing routes, landform which will have undergone changes which are neither adverse nor beneficial, and watercourses which will remain as existing.
6.7.33 All other landscape effects at Year 35 are expected to be beneficial:
Major/Moderate Significance for woodland, trees and hedgerows; Moderate Significance for the overall character of the site; Minor Significance/Not Significant benefits for Historic Landscape Area 5K; and Not Significant benefits for all other landscape receptors.
Assessment of Visual Effects
6.7.34 Full details of the visual effects are set out in Visual Effects Table, Appendix E.5. The following provides a summary of the significant effects, together with the reasons for those effects.
Visual Effects During Enabling Works (Year 1)
6.7.35 It is anticipated that adverse visual effects arising during the enabling works will be due to the presence of cranes, removal of some vegetation, creation of the Plant and Operations Area and Water Management Area, and construction of earth bunds around these areas.
6.7.36 There are no visual effects of Severe Significance assessed for during the enabling works.
6.7.37 Adverse visual effects of Major Significance are assessed for Viewpoint 12: Byway within the site.
6.7.38 Adverse visual effects of Moderate Significance are assessed for Viewpoint 4: Nene Way long distance path north of the River Nene, looking west; and Viewpoint 10: Ecton Conservation Area, looking south.
6.7.39 Adverse visual effects of Minor Significance are assessed for Viewpoints 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11.
6.7.40 Adverse visual effects which are Not Significant are assessed for Viewpoints 3, 6, 13 and 14.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 51 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Visual Effects During Extraction (Year 9)
6.7.41 During this assessment year, activity on the site will be at its most extensive with extraction, reclamation and restoration activities continuing within the northern and eastern part of the site. Restoration will be complete in southern part of the site.
6.7.42 Adverse visual effects of Severe Significance are assessed for Viewpoint 12: Byway within the site.
6.7.43 Adverse visual effects of Major Significance are assessed for Viewpoint 1: Byway at northern site boundary, looking east to west and Viewpoint 5: Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Whiston, looking north-west.
6.7.44 Adverse visual effects of Moderate Significance are assessed for the following viewpoints:
Viewpoint 2: Public Right of Way to the west of Ecton, looking south; Viewpoint 4: Nene Way long distance path north of the River Nene, looking west; Viewpoint 6: Public Right of Way to the east of Cogenhoe, looking north; and Viewpoint 10: Ecton Conservation Area, looking south.
6.7.45 Adverse visual effects of Minor Significance are assessed for Viewpoints 3, 7, 8, 9 and 11.
6.7.46 Adverse visual effects which are Not Significant are assessed for Viewpoints13 and 14.
Visual Effects After Restoration (Year 35)
6.7.47 It is anticipated that restoration works, which will be phased to follow the extraction and reclamation works, will be complete by Year 20. By Year 35 new planting will range from 15- 30 years old.
6.7.48 The assessment shows that no significant adverse visual effects will remain at Year 35.
6.7.49 A beneficial effect of Major Significance is assessed for Viewpoint 12: Byway within the site.
6.7.50 Beneficial effects of Minor Significance are assessed for Viewpoints 1, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
6.7.51 Beneficial effects which are Not Significant are assessed for Viewpoints 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14.
Night-time Visual Effects During Enabling Works, Extraction and Reclamation
6.7.52 Some works may be carried out in darkness during winter months, using artificial light sources. However, working hours will be limited and in accordance with good construction management.
6.7.53 There will be no fixed lighting within the extraction areas, with the only lighting in these areas being on the headlights of the plant. There will be fixed lights within the plant and operations area, which will be on for limited periods within the operating hours. There will be no night time lighting between 1800 – 0700. Therefore, significant effects as a result of lighting are unlikely.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 52 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
6.8 Cumulative Effects
6.8.1 Definition of cumulative landscape and visual effects was first set out in the 2002 edition of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, and since then has been further refined, in terms of windfarm development, by guidance produced in Scotland, which is used widely and not only in Scotland. The current definitions, as set out in 'Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments', Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), 2012, are referred to in paragraph 7.3 of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, 2013 (Landscape Institute and IEMA), and comprise:
a. Cumulative effects - 'the additional changes caused by a proposed development in conjunction with other similar developments or as the combined effect of a set of developments, taken together';
b. Cumulative visual effects - effects caused by combined visibility, which 'occurs where the observer is able to see two or more developments from one viewpoint' and/or sequential effects which 'occur when the observer has to move to another viewpoint to see different developments'; and
c. Cumulative landscape effects - effects that 'can impact on either the physical fabric or character of the landscape, or any special values attached to it'.
6.8.2 In accordance with the emphasis in EIA, this assessment focuses on the cumulative landscape and visual effects which are likely to be significant, rather than providing a comprehensive listing of every conceivable cumulative landscape and visual effect that might occur. The approach must be reasonable and proportional to the proposal.
6.8.3 Other proposed development sites which have been identified for the consideration of cumulative effects are set out in Section 5.6 of this ES. The following schemes have been considered, all of which have planning consent:
a. Earls Barton;
b. Earls Barton Spinney Phase 1 and Phase 2; and
c. Earls Barton Spinney Phase 3.
6.8.4 This cumulative landscape and visual assessment considers the effects of the proposal in terms of:
6.8.5 an extension or intensification of the landscape and/or visual effects of other similar developments;
6.8.6 'filling' an area over time with similar development, such that the landscape resource, views and visual amenity are judged to be substantially altered; and
6.8.7 incremental change arising from the proposal, as a result of successive individual developments.
6.8.8 In the absence of any programme of works for the cumulative schemes, one of which has started on site, the assumption has been made that they will be commenced in advance of the Great Billing scheme and will be undertaken in parallel with each other.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 53 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
6.8.9 The character of the landscape to the north, east and south-east will fundamentally change during the operation, restoration and establishment phases of the adjacent cumulative schemes, owing to the extensive works associated with mineral extraction and restoration over an area of approximately 2 km2. The character of the landscape will be different on restoration as there will be a more intensive pattern of hedges, woodlands and water bodies.
6.8.10 Figure 6.8: Combined Restoration Plan, Appendix E.1 illustrates the proposed restoration scheme at Great Billing, and the adjacent Earls Barton restorations proposals, which have planning consent.
a) Extension or intensification of the landscape and/or visual effects
6.8.11 During operation, mineral extraction on the site will be an extension of effects from the cumulative schemes. The change of character to the site will be consistent with the change occurring to the landscape of the cumulative schemes, and will be a major and adverse change during operation arising largely as a result of the scale of the change. Visual effects will be largely limited to the footpaths across and adjacent to the site, but given the lack of intervisibility with the adjacent sites except the smallest, Earls Barton Spinney Phase 3 to the north, those effects are unlikely to be significant. Earls Barton and Earls Barton Spinney Phases 2 and 3 are separated in the landscape by woodland belts and so are rarely seen in the context of the proposed Great Billing scheme.
b) Filling an area over time with similar development
6.8.12 The landscape resource will be fundamentally altered at all stages of the projects, although visual effects will be limited to local receptors owing to restricted intervisibility. There will be significant effects on character owing to the substantial change that arises, which will be adverse during operation but beneficial after restoration given the extension of the more intense and diverse restored landscapes across the cumulative schemes and the site.
c) Incremental change arising from the proposal as a result of successive individual developments
6.8.13 Given the scale of the developments, the proposals are not incremental but provide opportunities for enhancement and green infrastructure across a wide area, and therefore will result in significant beneficial effects.
6.9 Summary
6.9.1 A landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) was conducted to identify the positive and negative effects, and the significance of these, resulting from the proposed development at Great Billing. Effects upon the landscape as an environmental resource in its own right were considered, in addition to effects upon people’s views and visual amenity.
6.9.2 The assessment was undertaken using a methodology based upon the Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment” (3rd Edition, 2013) (GLVIA3), combined with our professional experience and judgement. The assessment uses 2016 as the baseline year, during which time the most recent site survey was carried out. Three scenarios were identified for the assessment of effects: Year 1 – during enabling works, Year 9 – during extraction, reclamation
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 54 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
and restoration (selected as a year of peak activity in excavation and reclamation works) and Year 35 – once restoration is complete and planting has become established.
6.9.3 A computer model, based on landform data, was used to establish the theoretical extent of the surrounding area from which the proposed development is likely to be seen. Fourteen viewpoints were selected, to assess local, medium and long distance views of the site from public rights of way, long distance footpaths, roads and the edges of settlements. The final set of viewpoints was agreed with the County Council.
6.9.4 Potential effects of the proposed development upon the landscape features of the site, include removal of sections of hedgerow for access, a temporary diversion of a public right of way, change in land use, and the temporary change to sense of place during operation. There will be a temporary adverse change to landscape character during extraction, however long term positive changes to the landscape structure and character are likely to occur as a result of the subsequent restoration. Adverse changes to views are likely to arise during operation, where views of arable fields will change to views of the sand and gravel extraction and associated plant. There are likely to be positive changes to views upon completion as a result of the restoration scheme.
6.9.5 An iterative design process has been followed, from which a number of primary mitigation measures to reduce landscape and visual impacts have been incorporated into the development proposals. In particular, the extraction areas avoid and retain principal areas of woodland and hedgerow, broadly follow existing field patterns, and the plant storage area has been situated within the west of the site in order to reduce visibility from the wider landscape. The subsequent restoration scheme will address adverse effects remaining following extraction, and provide landscape and visual benefits due to the enhancement of the landscape structure and creation of new habitats.
6.9.6 The assessment identifies no Severe or Major landscape effects for any of the assessment scenarios. There are some significant adverse landscape effects anticipated during the enabling works (Year 1), due to changes to the western part of the site, and the impact upon features of the site and its landscape character. Some significant adverse effects are also anticipated during extraction (Year 9) upon features of the site and local landscape character, with indirect effects upon public rights of way, Mill House (Listed Building) and the Bowl Barrow due to the effect on views from these areas. Following restoration (Year 35) no significant adverse landscape effects will remain. There are expected to be beneficial effects of Major/Moderate Significance for woodland, trees and hedgerows upon the site and of Moderate Significance for the overall character of the site.
6.9.7 The assessment identifies significant adverse visual effects for local and more sensitive viewpoints during the enabling works (Year 1) and during extraction (Year 9). This is due to the presence of the plant on site, removal of some vegetation, construction of earth bunds and the activities associated with excavation, reclamation and restoration, seen, or partially seen, in views of the site. Following restoration and after an establishment period (Year 35), no significant adverse visual effects will remain. Significant beneficial effects of Major and Minor Significance are assessed for half of the viewpoints.
6.9.8 Overall, the proposed development at Great Billing has the potential to cause a number of significant landscape and visual impacts. However, through an iterative design process, primary landscape mitigation is embedded as an integral part of the works. Whilst adverse landscape and visual effects are assessed during the enabling works and extraction phases,
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 55 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
the subsequent restoration strategy seeks to mitigate any residual adverse effects, such that no adverse effects remain in Year 35. In addition, the restoration scheme provides the opportunity for landscape enhancement and green infrastructure benefits over a large area, and is anticipated to provide significant landscape and visual benefits.
6.10 References
Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012, “National Planning Policy Framework”, London: Department for Communities and Local Government. The Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013, “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment”, 3rd Edition, Oxon: Routledge. Natural England, 2014, “National Character Area profile: 89. Northamptonshire Vales”, NE527. Sheffield: Natural England. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, 2016, “North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031”, [online] Available at: http://www.nnjpu.org.uk/publications/docdetail.asp?docid=1573 [Accessed 11.11.2016] Northamptonshire County Council, 2014, “Minerals and Waste Local Plan” [online] Available at: http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/environ/planning/policy/minerals/ pages/default.aspx [Accessed 11.11.2016] River Nene Regional Park, 2006, “Current Landscape Character Assessment”, [online] Available at: http://www.rnrpenvironmentalcharacter.org.uk/ [Accessed 09.11.2016] Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), 2012, “Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments”, [online] Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and- development/renewable-energy/onshore-wind/general-advice-and-information/ [Accessed 09.11.2016] West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, 2014, “West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan”, [online] Available at: http://www.westnorthamptonshirejpu.org/connect.ti/website/view?objectId=5130832#5130 832 [Accessed 11.11.2016]
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 56 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7 Ecology
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed account of the baseline ecological conditions at the site and to carry out a detailed ecological impact assessment for the proposed minerals extraction, identifying proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to acceptable levels where necessary.
7.1.2 This chapter and all associated appendices have been produced by MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd. This chapter was written by Gemma Linacre MRes BSc (Hons) ACIEEM (Senior Ecologist) and has been checked and approved by Alanna Cooper BSc (Hons) CEnv CSci MCIEEM MCIWEM (Technical Director).
7.2 Policy Context
7.2.1 The main legislation that applies to ecological issues within England are:
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which was amended by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) make it a criminal offense to “intentionally” or “recklessly” disturb Schedule 1 nesting birds and all species in Schedule 5 are protected under Section 9 (animals which are protected). This does not apply to species protected under Section 9(5) only. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, consolidating all amendments to the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994, implements the EU Habitats Directive and also contains new provisions designed to implement aspects of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for England and Wales. These regulations place a duty on the UK to designate sites of European Community importance as special areas of conservation (SACs) and to protect European species of conservation concern. Badgers (Meles meles) are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (PBA), making it a criminal offense to wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a Badger, or to attempt to do so or to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 imposes an obligation on all public bodies, including local authorities, to consider whether their activities can contribute to the protection of wildlife.
7.2.2 The key piece of National Policy relevant to biodiversity and planning is section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG, 2012) and Government Circular 06/05 (OPDM, 2005).
7.2.3 Relevant local planning policy can be found within the following documents:
West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1) (West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, 2014) North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, 2016) Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document for Northamptonshire (NCC, 2015)) Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document (NCC, 2015) Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (NCC, 2014)
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 57 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.2.4 Appendix F.2 provides a more detailed account of the relevant legislation and includes the protection afforded to and the legislation relevant to protected sites relevant to this application, as well as further details on national and local planning policy documents and the relevant policies within them.
7.3 Methodology
Scope of the Assessment and the Zone of Influence
7.3.1 All ecology surveys included all areas within the site boundary as well as adjacent habitats within land owned by Anglian Water Services Ltd. as shown on drawing no. F191-033, Appendix F.1. This area was considered sufficient for establishing the use of the site by the majority of species. The site is bordered by the busy A45 road to the north, Crow Lane to the west and Barton Brook to the east which provides barriers to the dispersal of many species.
7.3.2 The waterbodies to the south of the site boundary were included within assessments for the suitability for great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) to ensure all habitats within 500 m of connective habitat were considered. The otter survey was also extended to include the waterbodies connecting to and the River Nene itself in the south.
7.3.3 As the potential effects of the minerals extraction works include contamination and changes to water levels of the River Nene, the zone of influence when considering these effects has been extended to include the River Nene. Due to the scale of the works, effects on statutory designated sites within 4 km were considered.
Desk Study
7.3.4 A desk study was undertaken to establish the location of nature conservation sites and protected species in the area. This involved contacting both statutory and non-statutory organisations. The consultees for the desk study and the information requested were:
Natural England Magic website (Magic, 2016) was consulted for geographic information on and details of statutory sites, within 4 km of the site. In addition to this sites with statutory protection for bats were searched for within a 30 km radius. Natural England (Natural England, 2016) and JNCC websites (JNCC, 2016) for details of protected sites. Northamptonshire Biological Records Centre (NBRC) was contacted in June 2015 to provide details of legally protected species and protected sites within 2 km of the site. Only records from the last 10 years are discussed. NBRC do not provide records of bats. Given the amount of survey data available from the site and that these records are from 2 years ago, the age of this data is considered appropriate for its use in this document. Northamptonshire Bats Group was contacted for records of bats in and within 1 km of the site in 2010. Given the effects on bats discussed within the document and the amount of survey data available, the age of this data is considered appropriate for this application.
7.3.5 In addition to the surveys undertaken by MLM reports of previous surveys on/near the site carried out in 2007/2008 by HDA were made available to MLMCE and were reviewed prior to planning further surveys of the site. The reports considered in this assessment are as follows:
Interim Summary Report (HDA, 2007) Hedgerow Survey undertaken on 11 July 2008 (HDA, 2007)
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 58 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Badger Survey undertaken on 18 and 19 April 2007 (HDA, 2008) Water Vole Survey undertaken between 16 and 18 July and 28 September 2007 (HDA, 2007) Otter Survey undertaken on 29 and 30 January 2008 (HDA, 2008) Dormouse Survey undertaken between May and November 2007 (HDA, 2007) Winter Birds Survey undertaken on 28 October and 7-20 March 2007 (HDA, 2008) Breeding Bird Survey undertaken between late March and mid-June 2007 (HDA, 2008) Amphibian Survey undertaken between March and May 2007 (HDA, 2007) Reptile Survey undertaken between April and June 2007 (HDA, 2007) White-clawed Crayfish Survey undertaken on 23 April 2007 (HDA, 2007)
Ecological Surveys
7.3.6 The methodology for the various ecological surveys undertaken by MLM is detailed in Appendix F.3, with details of additional otter surveys in Appendix F.4. The ecological surveys undertaken by MLM to inform the baseline were:
Phase 1 habitat Hedgerow Badger Bat Water vole Otter Bird – breeding and overwintering Amphibian Reptile
Age of Survey Data
7.3.7 The dates of all surveys undertaken by MLM are detailed in Appendix F.3.
7.3.8 Initial site walkovers were conducted in 2010 with all the above surveys undertaken in 2011. The surveys for wintering birds, otter and badger were updated in 2014. Further otter surveys were conducted in 2016 when plans changed to include a crossing over the Ecton Brook. A walkover over the whole site was also conducted in 2016 to confirm that habitats and conditions on site had not materially changed since previous surveys.
7.3.9 The updated surveys were conducted on the species which are more mobile and so whose distribution was likely to have changed since the previous surveys.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 59 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.3.10 As habitats and conditions on site have not materially changed and given that survey data is available from earlier surveys conducted by HDA, updated surveys for other species were not deemed necessary in order to accurately determine the possible effects on these species or species groups due to the extraction works. The baseline conditions at the site could be determined from this data as surveys undertaken since 2007 have shown consistent trends across the site.
Impact Assessment
7.3.11 The impact assessment was undertaken following the CIEEM guidance on Ecological Impact Assessment (CIEEM, 2016). Following the CIEEM guidance important ecological features were first determined and their importance assessed on a geographic scale. Potential effects in the absence of mitigation were then categorised and considered. Effects on these features after mitigation were then categorised again and assessed as either significant or not significant. If effects were considered significant they were then categorised by the geographic level at which they were significant. A confidence level is also assigned to that effect. This process is detailed in the sections below including any deviations from the methodology in Section 4.
7.3.12 The minerals extraction will be phased and restoration will be built into this phasing, with restoration of certain areas occurring whilst minerals extraction occurs within other areas at the site. Given this the effects have not been split into stages but have been considered over the scheme as a whole.
Important Ecological Features
7.3.13 The important ecological features to be considered within the impact assessment were determined following the completion of the desk study and ecological surveys. The importance of each of the features was assessed on a geographic context as recommended within the CIEEM guidance on Ecological Impact Assessment (CIEEM, 2016). The habitats and species included as important ecological features for the site were assessed using the criteria in Table 7.1 below:
Table 7.1 Assessment of Conservation Value of Ecological Features
Geographical Brief Description Frame of Reference
International and Habitats that meet criteria for Ramsar, SAC or SPA site. European Notable species which is part of the cited interest of an SPA or SAC and which regularly occurs in internationally or nationally important numbers. A species present in internationally important numbers (>1% of international population).
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 60 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Geographical Brief Description Frame of Reference
National Habitats that meet criteria for SSSI or an important reserve in England. A species which is part of the cited interest of a SSSI and which regularly occurs in internationally or nationally important numbers. A species present in nationally important numbers (>1% of UK population). Rare breeding species.
Regional A local site with important regional habitats or significant populations of species of principal importance under the NERC act. Species listed as priority species, which are not covered above, and which regularly occurs in regionally important numbers. Species present in regionally important numbers (>1% of regional population). Sustainable populations of a species that is rare or scarce within a region. Species on the BoCC Red List and which regularly occurs in regionally important numbers.
County A local site with a habitat that is characteristic of the county or rare on a county scale, or with significant populations of locally important species. Species listed as priority species, which are not covered above, and which regularly occurs in county important numbers Species present in county important numbers (>1% of Metropolitan population). Sustainable populations of a species that is rare or scarce within a county. A site designated for its county important assemblage of birds, reptiles, invertebrates, etc. Species on the BoCC Red List and which regularly occurs in county important numbers.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 61 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Geographical Brief Description Frame of Reference
Local A site which has wildlife corridors likely to be essential to allow viable movement of species or improve the biodiversity of the area. Species listed as priority species, which are not covered above, and are rare in the locality. Species present in numbers just under Metropolitan importance (<1% of Metropolitan population). Sustainable populations of a species that is rare or scarce within the locality. A site whose designation is just under for inclusion for its county important assemblage of a particular species on site. Other species on the BoCC Red List and which are considered to regularly occur in local important numbers.
Characterisation of Effects
7.3.14 The following were used when categorising the ecological effects:
Extent/magnitude Positive or negative Direct or indirect Duration (permanent, long-term, short-term, temporary) Reversibility
7.3.15 The frequency of effects has not been considered for this project as the frequency for all the effects will be throughout the extraction period. The timing of effects has also not be considered separately for each effect as the effects will be throughout the extraction and restoration period for all effects rather than at certain times of the year.
7.3.16 This provides further characterisation than within the methodology in Section 4. The Duration has been expanded to include short-term and long-term effects rather than just temporary or permanent, in line with CIEEM guidance.
Significance of Effects
7.3.17 The significance of an effect is evaluated simply as significant or not significant, with a significant effect an effect which either supports of undermines the biodiversity conservation objectives for the important ecological features. Effects will be considered significant at a geographic scale from local to international. The significance will be assessed in this way, in accordance with CIEEM guidelines (CIEEM, 2016).
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 62 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.3.18 For example, the total loss of a site of importance at the local level would be assessed as being significant at the local level. This approach provides an accurate assessment of the likely effects and guidance on the requirements for mitigation to maintain biodiversity at the local level.
7.3.19 Table 7.2 below shows how these geographic scales relate to the effect levels within Section 4.
Table 7.2 Relationship between the geographic scales used and the effect levels within section 4.
Geographical Scale of effect as per Effect Level in Section 4 CIEEM Guidance International and European Major National Major Regional Moderate County Moderate Local Minor Negligible Negligible
7.3.20 Although possible effects prior to mitigation are discussed the significance of the residual effects is considered after the implementation of avoidance measures and mitigation in accordance with CIEEM guidance, contradictory with Section 4. Mitigation measures recommended to reduce identified effects to acceptable levels follow the mitigation hierarchy as detailed in the British Standard Code of Practice for Biodiversity (BSI, 2013).
7.3.21 Due to the high levels of enhancement measures to be included for this site the effects after enhancement are also discussed separately. This is an additional level of the assessment of effects not included within CIEEM guidance but considered appropriate to this site.
Confidence of Impact
7.3.22 The confidence of each impact has been assessed as one of the following:
Certain: probability estimated at 95% chance or higher. Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 95%. Unlikely: probability estimated above 5% but less than 50%. Extremely Unlikely: probability estimated at less than 5%.
7.3.23 The confidence of an effect has been assessed both prior to and after the implementation of mitigation.
Consultation
7.3.24 Consultation with stakeholders has been undertaken throughout the planning process.
7.3.25 Consultees have included the following:
Northamptonshire County Council - Tina Cuss (Senior Environmental Planner)
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 63 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
RSPB - Colin Wilkinson Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire - Alan Smith (Planning and Biodiversity Officer), Matt Johnson and Oliver Burke Steve Brayshaw – Independent Consultant Environment Agency - John O’Neil Natural England - Kayleigh Cheese and Ross Holdgate
7.3.26 Scoping documents were issued and responses obtained in 2009 and 2016. The comments within the scoping responses were carefully considered and have been addressed when compiling this ES chapter.
7.3.27 In addition to this a number of meetings have been held with the consultees above to discuss the restoration scheme including the extent and type of habitats to be included. An initial meeting was held with many of the above in attendance on 21 March 2016 to discuss the scheme. A meeting was then held by the Wildlife Trust for the scheme on 17 October 2016. The amended scheme was then sent out for comments which were received from the above and a further site meeting was held with all of the above (excluding the EA) in attendance on 9 February 2017. Further comments have since been received from these consultees regarding the scheme, who have held teleconferences about the scheme.
7.3.28 The submitted restoration plan (drawing no. 30755-3005-01, Appendix F.1) has been amended to incorporate the comments from these meetings and any subsequent feedback.
7.3.29 Appendix F.5 includes all the consultees responses to the scoping documents and notes received from the consultees regarding the restoration strategy.
7.4 Baseline Conditions
Designated Sites
Statutory Sites
7.4.1 There are four nature conservation sites with statutory protection within 4 km of the site. One of these, Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits, is designated as a Ramsar site, Special Protection are (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There are no nature conservation sites with statutory protection specifically for conservation of bats within 30km of the site.
7.4.2 Drawing no. 772478-DWG-ENV-007, Appendix F.1 shows the location of these designated sites in relation to the site. Table 7.3 below provides a summary of these sites.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 64 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 7.3: Statutory Sites Summary
Site name Designation Distance and Reasons for Designation Connectivity to Site Upper Nene Valley Ramsar, 1.68 km to SW and Assemblages of overwintering Gravel Pits SPA and 1.4 km E (SSSI), 1.9 water birds. SSSI km E (Ramsar and Populations of wintering: SPA) Mute swan (Cygnus olor) Connected by the River Nene to the Gadwall (Anas strepera) south of the site Eurasian bittern (Botaurus stellaris) Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria) Lings Wood LNR 1.7 km NW Deciduous woodland and ponds Separated by roads and residential development Summer Leys LNR 3.9 km NE Largest breeding colony of tree (part of the Upper Connected by the sparrows (Passer montanus) in Nene Valley Gravel River Nene to the Northamptonshire Pits site) south of the site Wide variety of wading birds and ducks Barnes Meadow LNR 3.9 km SW Damp grassland which supports Connected by the damselflies, dragonflies, ducks and River Nene migrant birds.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 65 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.4.3 Full details for the reasons for designation for the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits are included in Appendix F.6.
7.4.4 As Summer Leys LNR is within the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits (UNVGP) site it is not considered separately within this assessment.
Non-Statutory Sites
7.4.5 The location of non-statutory sites found within 2 km of the site are shown on drawing no. 772478-DWG-ENV-008, Appendix F.1.
7.4.6 Located within 2 km of the site are:
13 Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), six of which are within the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits site. 16 Potential Wildlife Sites (PWS) which have been surveyed and a further eight PWS which are yet to be named and have been identified by plans only. 6 Pocket Parks, two of which are also a PWS
7.4.7 A section of one LWS, one PWS and the entirety of another PWS are located within the site boundary. A further six LWS and seven PWS sites are connected to the site. These sites are summarised in the Table 7.4 below. The remaining 22 sites are separated from the site by the A45 and/or residential development.
Table 7.4: Summary of non-statutory sites with some connectivity to the site. Sites are ordered by their distance from the site.
Site name Designation Distance and Features of Interest at the Site Connectivity to Site Ecton Gravel Pits LWS Section is within the The presence of 12 wetland site indicators Unnamed site within PWS Within the site but No information available from the red line not within the NBRC boundary proposed works area Known to be woodland (known as Wind Spinney) Billing Scrub PWS Section is within the Former County Wildlife Site (CWS) site but will not be Dense scrub and overgrown lakes, affected by the undisturbed areas of cover proposed works. Billing East Lagoons PWS 20m S Former County Wildlife Site (CWS) Adjacent to southern Part of a habitat corridor, waterfowl site boundary and undisturbed areas for nesting birds Ecton Backwater LWS 200 m S Backwater to the River Nene Connected via Ecton High emergent plant species Gravel Pits diversity Unnamed site to the PWS 200 m W No information available from west Connected by arable NBRC fields Look like grassland from aerial photos Ecton Backwater PWS 220 m S Diversity of grass species Meadow Connected via Billing Floodplain grazing marsh East Lagoons and the River Nene.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 66 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Site name Designation Distance and Features of Interest at the Site Connectivity to Site Billing West Lagoon PWS 300 m SW Former County Wildlife Site (CWS) Connected by Billing Part of a habitat corridor of gravel Scrub and Billing pits Sewage Works Border site to the city for birds Billing Sewage PWS 350 m W No information available from Works Connected by Billing NBRC Scrub Known to consist of grassland, scrub and ruderal vegetation.
Unnamed site to the PWS 475 m S No information available from south of backwater Connected by Ecton NBRC meadow Gravel pits, Ecton Looks like grassland from aerials Backwater and Ecton Backwater Meadow Billing West Lagoon PWS 550 m SW Part of a complex of sites between Grassland Connected by Billing the SSSIs in the area East Lagoons Billing Aquadrome PWS 560 m W No information available from East Connected by the NBRC River Nene Aerials show that the site consists of a waterbody Earl’s Barton PWS 570 m W Former County Wildlife Site (CWS) Spinney Pond Connected by arable Well established pond with varied fields vegetation Billing Aquadrome LWS 675 m SW Series of lakes and channels with Connected by the 13 wetland indicator species River Nene Oxbow Lake PWS 990 m SE Lake providing habitat for birds and Connected by the insects River Nene Earl’s Barton Carr LWS 1.4 km E Large are of wet woodland (part of the Upper Connected by the Contains 10 fen, swamp and marsh Nene Valley Gravel River Nene indicator species Pits site) Unnamed site by PWS 1.5 km E No information available from Barton Carr Connected via the NBRC River Nene and Aerials show that the site consists Earl’s Barton Carr of a grassland Grendon Lakes LWS 1.58 km SE One of the best sites in the county (part of the Upper Connected by the for overwintering wildfowl Nene Valley Gravel River Nene Pits site) Grendon Lakes LWS 1.8 km E Mosaic of wetland habitats North Connected by the Presence of 10 fen, swamp and (part of the Upper River Nene marsh indicators within these Nene Valley Gravel wetland habitats. Pits site)
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 67 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.4.8 As shown on drawing 772478-DWG-ENV-008, Appendix F.1. the majority of the sites comprise the River Nene and the habitats along its corridor. These sites extend along almost the entire length of the River Nene, located within 2 km of the site. These sites are all connected.
7.4.9 In addition to the above the entire site is included within the Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area (NIA). NIAs were set up to create joined up ecological networks. The Nene Valley NIA covers an area of 41,000 ha and includes the River Nene and its tributaries, gravel pits, reservoirs, wetlands and farmlands. The aims for the Nene Valley NIA are to create more and better connected habitats so that wildlife can thrive and adapt to climate change.
Habitats
7.4.10 A Magic search (Magic, 2016) has confirmed absence of recorded habitats of importance such as ancient woodland or priority habitats within or in close proximity to the site boundary.
7.4.11 The habitats on site have not changed between 2007, when the first ecological surveys of the site were conducted, to the present.
7.4.12 The location of the phase 1 habitats on site are shown on drawing no. 772478-DWG-ENV- 010, Appendix F.1. Full descriptions of all of the habitats within the survey boundary including photo and descriptions of target notes and a full plant list are included within Appendix F.7.
Habitats within the Proposed Development Area
7.4.13 The following habitats are present within the proposed extraction area:
Arable Semi-improved grassland Tall ruderal Scattered trees Scattered scrub
7.4.14 The majority of the areas of habitat to be directly impacted by the works consist of arable fields growing cereal crops. The margins between these fields consist of semi-improved grassland with abundant cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata), common couch (Elytrigia repens) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) and occasional forb species including common nettle (Urtica dioica), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) and hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium).
7.4.15 In the south west corner and along the hedgerow on the southern boundary is an area of tall ruderal vegetation dominated by creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), lesser burdock (Arctium minus) and common nettle with other regularly occurring species including cleavers (Galium aparine), hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), wild teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) and spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare) with some scattered trees. This area is within the Ecton Gravel Pits LWS.
7.4.16 The only other habitat within the works area is some scattered scrub along the western boundary of the site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 68 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Habitats within the Red Line but Outside the Proposed Extraction Area
7.4.17 Within the site are areas which will not be included within the minerals extraction site and so will not be directly impacted by the works. These are areas which have been specifically excluded from the assessment.
7.4.18 The following habitats, additional to those mentioned above, are present within the site boundary but not within the proposed development area:
Semi-natural broadleaved woodland Running water Species-poor hedgerow Species-rich hedgerow Hardstanding
7.4.19 The Ecton Brook flows along the north west of the site and then down the centre of the site to the River Nene to the south of the site. The brook has some sections with steep concrete sides and other areas with vegetated banks. The brook has areas which are open and others which are choked up with vegetation dominated by bulrush (Typha latifolia). There is also an additional concrete channel located to along the southern boundary of the site.
7.4.20 Along the brook and the track which runs down the centre of the site are hedgerows and a small area of woodland. One section of hedgerow is considered a hedgerow of ecological importance as it meets the ecological criteria in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, due to the diversity of woody species, presence of a parallel hedge and a ditch, connected habitats and is adjacent to a public right of way (PROW).
7.4.21 A small area of woodland known as the Wind Spinney is located within arable fields in the eastern section of the site. Strips of woodland are also present along the eastern boundary and between the Ecton brook and the PROW going through the centre of the site. The woodland areas are mixed in composition and include pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), elder (Sambucus nigra), scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior). Ground flora is generally species-poor, particularly around woodland edges where higher light levels and nutrients from the adjacent farmland/ WWTW have allowed common nettle, cleavers, lesser burdock and other tall ruderal species to dominate the ground layer.
7.4.22 Other habitats which will not be affected by the works are a field consisting of tall ruderal vegetation to the north of the brook in the western section of the site and an arable field to the south of the brook.
Habitats within the Surrounding Area
7.4.23 The following additional habitats were within the survey area but are outside of the site:
Broad-leaved plantation woodland Improved grassland Standing water Inundation vegetation
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 69 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.4.24 An area consisting of four lagoons with standing open water and inundation vegetation is present to the south of the western section of the site. The marginal and swamp vegetation included sedge beds dominated by greater pond sedge (Carex riparia) and extensive areas of common reed (Phragmites australis) reedbed. Marginal and emergent vegetation included soft rush (Juncus effuses), hard rush (Juncus inflexus) and wild angelica (Angelica sylvestris). Further areas of open water are present to the south of the site in the form of large fishing lakes.
7.4.25 Further areas of arable land and an area of broad leaved plantation woodland are present outside of Anglian Water Services Ltd.’s ownership to the north of the site with the main A45 road beyond this.
7.4.26 To the west of the site boundary are areas of tall ruderal vegetation, the Water Recycling Centre, scattered scrub and areas of semi-improved grassland.
7.4.27 To the east of the site is the Barton Brook and arable fields which will form part of a future minerals extraction site.
Fauna
7.4.28 Full details of the results of the species surveys undertaken by MLM are provided in Appendix F.7. A summary of the previous surveys undertaken by HDA is provided in Appendix F.8. A summary of the baseline conditions for each of the species groups relevant to the site is provided below.
Badger
7.4.29 Surveys conducted by HDA in 2007 found eleven badger (Meles meles) setts on and around the site. NBRC identified 15 records of badger within 2 km of the site, recorded within the last 10 years, none on which were on or within 1 km of the site.
7.4.30 The locations of badger setts and evidence of activity found during the MLM surveys are shown on drawing nos. 772478-DWG-ENV-012 and 772478-DWG-ENV-013, Appendix F.1. There are currently 10 setts present within the site with only one sett within the proposed mineral extraction area, with a further 12 setts identified within the surrounding land. All three of the main setts identified have been consistently active throughout the surveys undertaken. The activity levels at the subsidiary and annexe setts has varied over the survey with the exception of sett L (which is within the minerals extraction area) for which no signs of activity have been seen.
7.4.31 The majority of the setts are located within three main areas, each with a main sett. Given this the site is likely used by three separate social groups.
7.4.32 The habitats on site provide a range of habitats suitable for foraging badgers. The majority of the minerals extraction area consists of arable fields which provide areas of moderate foraging potential, with areas of hedgerows, grassland and woodland providing good foraging habitat.
Bats
7.4.33 Biological records from Northants Bat Group identified 38 records of bats belonging to four species within 1 km of the site. The records provided were to the 1 km grid square only and so their precise locations are not known.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 70 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.4.34 The roost assessment survey undertaken by MLM found that the wooded areas and hedgerows are likely used by roosting bats. The areas identified as having high bat roost potential are the wind spinney and woodland areas along the eastern boundary. The roost assessment results are shown on drawing no. 772478-DWG-ENV-014, Appendix F.1. The bridges on site were found to have a low suitability for use as day time roosts, given their concrete construction and high risk of predation in the bridge recesses.
7.4.35 Surveys have found that the site is used by bats for foraging and commuting. Foraging and commuting routes are shown on drawing no. 772478-DWG-ENV-015, Appendix F.1. The areas used for foraging are the areas containing waterbodies, hedgerows and woodland.
7.4.36 Results from these surveys indicate that the site is used by the following nine species of bat:
Soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) Serotine (Eptesicus serotinus) Long-eared sp. (Plecotus sp.) Barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) Myotis sp. Daubenton’s (Myotis daubentonii) Nathusius pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii) Noctule (Nyctalus noctula)
7.4.37 The surveys undertaken by MLM and HDA show that the species assemblage of the site is relatively stable.
Water Vole
7.4.38 NBRC identified no records of water vole (Arvicola amphibius) within 2 km of the site in the last 10 years. Surveys conducted by HDA in 2007 and MLM in 2011 and 2014 found no evidence of water voles on or close to the site. Therefore, water vole are considered to be absence from the site and will not be considered further in the assessment.
Otter
7.4.39 NBRC identified two records of otter (Lutra lutra) within 2 km of the site in the last 10 years. These records were both associated with the River Nene to the south of the site.
7.4.40 Surveys conducted by HDA in 2008 (Appendix F.8) and MLM in 2011, 2014 (Appendix F.7) and 2016 (Appendix F.4) have consistently found signs of otter along the Ecton brook which runs through the centre of the site. Signs found have included prints, feeding signs and spraints. No holts are present on or within the site boundary. A suspected holt was identified on the river Nene to the south of the site in 2011 but could not be located in 2016. The results of the otter surveys can be found on drawings 772478-DWG-ENV-016, 772478-DWG-ENV- 017 and 773939-DWG-ENV-001, Appendix F.1.
7.4.41 The survey in 2016 included the use of camera traps and vantage point watch surveys to assess the level of activity in close proximity to the proposed crossing to be constructed over the Ecton Brook. This survey did not record any otter activity within the five week survey period.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 71 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.4.42 The Ecton Brook is likely within the territorial range of otters and is used infrequently for foraging only. There are no holts within the site boundary.
Dormouse
7.4.43 NBRC identified no records of dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) within 2 km of the site in the last 10 years. Surveys conducted by HDA in 2007 found no evidence of dormouse on or in the surrounds of the site. Additional surveys were considered unnecessary due to the low availability of suitable habitat for dormice and the negative results of previous surveys. The site lacks any substantial areas of optimum dormouse habitat with hedgerow and woodland habitats on site lacking suitable understorey vegetation and habitats and distributed in patches across the site. Dormice are considered to be absent from the site and so are not considered any further within this assessment.
Birds
7.4.44 NBRC identified records of 37 species of bird, including nine species included within schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Wintering Birds
7.4.45 The wintering bird survey undertaken by HDA in 2007/2008 (HDA, 2008) recorded a total of 52 bird species including 27 species of conservation concern. None of the species of conservation concern were considered to be present in significant numbers. None of the species listed within the designated site citations as reasons for designation were recorded during the surveys.
7.4.46 A total of 59 species including 29 of conservation concern were recorded during the surveys in 2010/2011 and 2014. Results of the surveys are shown on drawings 772478-DWG-ENV-018 to 021 and 024 to 027, Appendix F.1. A full list of species found and the numbers seen in included in Appendix F.7.
7.4.47 The site is dominated by arable land. The arable fields were found to provide some wintering habitat for small flocks of starling (Sternus vulgaris), occasional skylark (Alaunda arvensis) and greylag goose (Anser anser), with some large flocks of black-headed gulls (Larus risibundus), fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) and mute swan (Cygnus olor).
7.4.48 The various surveys have produced similar results with some use of the arable fields by more common species and the majority of sightings of wetland birds associated with the reedbeds and waterbodies to the south of the site. The only variation in surveys was that the red listed and schedule 1 bittern (Botaurus stellaris) was seen only once across all the surveys and so is expected to be an occasional visitor to the site only.
Breeding Birds
7.4.49 The bird survey undertaken by HDA in 2008 recorded a total of 78 bird species, of which 48 were considered to be breeding.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 72 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.4.50 A total of 46 species were recorded on site during the breeding bird survey undertaken by MLM in 2011, full details of all results are included as Appendix F.7. Of the species recorded, 29 were considered to hold breeding territories on the site. A total of 12 species recorded during the breeding bird survey were ‘notable’ appearing on Schedule 1 of the W&CA and/or the BoCC Red and Amber lists, such as barn owl (Tyto alba). A likely pair of Barn Owl was found to be nesting within a nest box located within the wind spinney. Results of the surveys undertaken by MLM are shown on drawings 772478-DWG-ENV-022 and 23, Appendix F.1.
7.4.51 The surveys have shown that the dominant agricultural habitat offers limited value to breeding birds, however, the arable fields provide some breeding opportunities for species including small numbers of skylark (Alauda arvensis) and meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis). The habitats of greatest importance within the survey area are woodlands, scrub and wetlands (notably the reedbeds to the south of the site).
Amphibians
7.4.52 The only record of amphibians identified by NBRC was one record of common toad (Bufo bufo).
7.4.53 Ponds surveyed and the results of the MLM survey in 2011 are shown on drawing no. 772478- DWG-ENV-028, Appendix F.1.
7.4.54 The large ponds to the south of the land are unsuitable for amphibians as their use as fishing lakes means there is a large population of predatory fish. The ponds to the south of the site, do provide suitable habitat. Amphibian surveys conducted by HDA in 2007 and MLM in 2011 found that the site supported low numbers of smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris), common toad and common frog (Rana temporaria). No great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) have been recorded on site and are considered to be absent as conditions at the site have not changed since the last survey.
Reptiles
7.4.55 NBRC identified two records of grass snake within 2 km of the site.
7.4.56 Habitat within the site suitable for reptiles is restricted to field boundaries and the areas of ruderal vegetation in the south east and north west of the site. The grassland and ruderal vegetation to the south of the Water Recycling Centre and the western section of the site also has a high suitability for reptiles.
7.4.57 Surveys conducted by HDA in 2005 and MLM 2011 recorded a ‘good’ population of grass snake (Natrix natrix) at the site, no other species of reptile were recorded. The HDA survey found that grass snake were mainly associated with the hedgerow and grassland running through the centre of the site. The MLM survey found that grass snake were using many of the field boundaries with most sightings around the reedbeds to the south of the site boundary, as shown on drawing no. 772478-DWG-ENV-029, Appendix F.1.
White-clawed Crayfish
7.4.58 NBRC identified 1 record of white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) within 2 km of the site. This record is located 1.3 km to the south east of the site within the River Nene.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 73 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.4.59 A survey undertaken by HDA in 2007 did not find any crayfish present within the site or surrounding area, the report notes that the invasive signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) has been recorded within the area. As conditions on site have not changed since this survey white-clawed crayfish are considered to be absent from the site. Therefore, crayfish are not considered further within this assessment.
7.5 Potential Effects
Important Ecological Features
7.5.1 The features which are considered important ecological features for the site and so will be the subject of the ecological impact assessment are listed in Table 7.5 below along with their geographic importance.
7.5.2 The habitats within the site other than the hedgerows are not considered important and so are not considered within the impact assessment below.
Table 7.5 Important Ecological Features and their geographic importance
Important Ecological Feature Geographic Importance of Ecological Feature Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits (UNVGP) SPA, International SSSI and Ramsar Ecton Gravel Pits LWS County Billing Scrub PWS Local Wind Spinney unnamed PWS Local Other LWS and PWS sites connected to the Local River Nene Hedgerows Local Badger Not important at the local level but to be considered Bats Local Otter Local Wintering birds Local Breeding birds Local Amphibians – common toad, common frog and Not important at the local level but to smooth newt be considered Grass snake Local
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 74 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Potential Effects on the Important Ecological Features
7.5.3 Full details of the potential effects for each important ecological feature including the magnitude /extent and characterisation of the possible effect are included in Appendix F.9. A full assessment of the effects on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits designated site is included as Appendix F.10.
7.5.4 Table 7.6 below provides a summary of the potential effects and the important ecological features they are relevant to. These effects are then discussed in further detail below.
Table 7.6 Summary of potential effects on important ecological features. Billing Scrub PWS Ecton Gravel Pits Wintering birds Other LWS and Breeding birds Potential Effect Wind Spinney Grass snake Amphibians Hedgerows PWS sites UNVGP Badger Otter PWS LWS Bats
Changes in the hydrology in X X X X X the local area Contamination of ground X X X X water leading Loss of habitat X X X X X X X X X X Noise disturbance caused X X X by the extraction works Disturbance due to X X increased lighting on site Increased dust causing X deposition on habitats and direct impacts to wildlife Injury and/or killing of X X X individuals Other feature specific X X X X effects
Changes in Hydrology
7.5.5 The works will include the dewatering of extraction areas which could have an effect on hydrology at the site and within the local area, please see Section 11.5 for details.
7.5.6 In the absence of appropriate mitigation these changes in hydrology could have an indirect negative effect due to decreased water levels on habitats on site including the Wind Spinney PWS and hedgerows, as well habitats adjacent to the site including the wetland areas within Ecton Gravel Pits LWS and Billing Scrub PWS. Reduced water levels within these habitats could result in a reduction in the quality of the habitats and/or cause habitats to change which in turn will affect the suitability of the habitats for a range of different species using the sites.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 75 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.5.7 There could also potentially be an effect on water levels within the River Nene to the south which could in turn have a negative indirect effect on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits (UPNVP) designated site and other LWS and PWS sites located along the river. Changes in water levels could result in changes to the habitats present due to drier conditions which would in turn affect the suitability of these sites for species included as reason for the designation of the site.
7.5.8 The effects caused by changes in hydrology could have a long–term (20 years throughout the extract and restoration period), reversible effect.
Contamination of Ground Water
7.5.9 In the absence of mitigation during the extraction works, soil contamination could affect ground water quality. See Section 13.5 for details.
7.5.10 This change in water quality could cause eutrophication and increased toxicity of the water within the wetland habitats adjacent to the site including Ecton Gravel Pits LWS and Billing Scrub PWS. If toxicity levels are high, it is possible that the ground water contamination could result in the contamination of the River Nene and so the UNVGP designated site and other LWS and PWS sites located along the river.
7.5.11 This change in water quality could in turn have an effect on the suitability of waterbodies in the area for birds. This would result in an indirect, negative, long-term (20 years throughout the extract and restoration period), reversible effect.
Loss of Habitat
7.5.12 If all habitats within the red site were to be lost due to the extraction works this would result in the loss of 2700m2 of the Ecton Gravel Pits LWS, the whole of the Wind Spinney PWS and hedgerows including one hedgerow of ecological importance.
7.5.13 This would result in the loss of habitat which supports badger, bats, otter, wintering and breeding birds, amphibians and grass snake.
7.5.14 In the absence of mitigation this habitat loss would result in a direct, permanent, reversible effect on these habitats, sites and species/species group.
Noise Disturbance
7.5.15 The works will generate noise which is likely to be audible across the site and which will likely propagate beyond the site boundaries. See Section 9.5 for details.
7.5.16 This noise disturbance could have an effect on wintering and breeding birds. This noise disturbance could cause disturbance to breeding birds resulting in lower breeding success, and could cause wintering birds to disperse and find alternative areas of suitable habitat. This will in turn have an effect on the populations of birds using the site.
7.5.17 This could have a direct, negative, long-term (20 years throughout the extraction and restoration period), reversible effect.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 76 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.5.18 It is not anticipated that noise disturbance would have an impact on badgers, amphibians or grass snake as these species are less sensitive to noise disturbance. As this noise disturbance would be during works hours only and so daylight hours, it is not anticipated that noise disturbance will have an effect on bats and/or otter.
7.5.19 The noise levels are not anticipated to affect UNVGP sites or any other sites within the area due to the distance of the sites from the extraction works (see noise modelling in chapter 9).
Disturbance due to Lighting
7.5.20 Increased levels of lighting could have an effect on the suitability of habitat for the nocturnal species otter and bats. This could cause a negative, direct, long-term (20 years throughout the extract and restoration period), reversible impact on the site populations of these species.
7.5.21 Although nocturnal, badgers are less sensitive to disturbance and so additional lighting is not anticipated to have an effect on badgers.
Increased Dust Deposition
7.5.22 The predicted increase in dust deposition in the absence of appropriate mitigation is detailed in Section 10.5.
7.5.23 Increased dust deposition could have an effect on nearby habitats including the wetland areas within the Billing Scrub PWS. Dust deposition is not predicted to affect any areas within 500 m of the source of the dust so there will be no impact on the UNVGP site or any other local sites. This increased level of dust could result in a reduction in the availability of insect prey for bats.
7.5.24 Increased dust levels could result in a negative, direct, long-term (20 years throughout the extract and restoration period), reversible effect.
Killing and/or Injury of Individuals
7.5.25 In the absence of appropriate mitigation, the extraction works could result in the killing and/or injury of badger, grass snake and amphibians.
7.5.26 Intentional or reckless killing and/or injury of grass snakes would constitute an offence under part 1 section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The killing and/or injury of badgers would constitute an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The common amphibians likely to be on site (great crested newts are absent from site) are not afforded legal protection from killing/injuring by wildlife law in the UK.
7.5.27 The killing and/or injury of grass snakes could occur during the clearance of the areas of grassland and ruderal vegetation suitable for grass snake. Badgers could be injured or harmed during the destruction of active setts and due to badgers becoming trapped within excavations. Amphibians could be killed and/or injured whilst inhabiting areas of suitable terrestrial habitat including woodland, hedgerows, grassland and ruderal vegetation. Amphibians could also be harmed when water management areas are destroyed at the end of the extraction period.
7.5.28 The injury and/or killing of individuals of these species would result in a negative, direct, irreversible effect which would occur as a single event. The loss of individuals could in turn negatively affect the population sizes of these species on site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 77 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Feature Specific Effects
7.5.29 In addition to the effects above there are additional feature specific effects, these are described below.
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits
7.5.30 The loss of habitat on site could have an indirect effect on the UNVGP sites through the loss of habitat supporting overwintering birds outside of the protected sites. This could in turn affect the populations of overwintering using the UNVP site. This could have a negative, indirect permanent, reversible effect on the UNVGP site.
Badger
7.5.31 The works could result in the destruction of the active badger setts (two main, six annex, one subsidiary sett and one outlier sett) within the site. As badger tunnels are known to extend up to 15 m from entrances the works could also result in the partial destruction of setts located in close proximity to the site boundaries. This could cause a negative, direct, reversible, single event effect on badger populations within the local area.
7.5.32 The destruction of or damage to badger setts would constitute an offence under section 3 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
7.5.33 The works will include the creation of ditches. If these ditches were not designed to allow badgers access across them this could result in the prevention of badgers accessing their foraging areas. This could result in a negative, direct, permanent, reversible effect.
Bats
7.5.34 The works could result in the destruction of bat roosts. This would be a negative, direct, permanent, reversible effect on populations in the area.
7.5.35 The destruction of bat roosts would constitute an offence under part 3 regulation 40 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the part 1 section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Breeding birds
7.5.36 The works could result in the destruction of active bird nests. This would cause a negative, direct, long-term during March to August (20 years throughout the extract and restoration period), irreversible effect. This effect on nests would in turn result in a reduction in breeding success for nesting birds within the site boundary.
7.5.37 The destruction of active bird nests would constitute an offence under part 1 section 1 of the Wildlife and Country Act 1981.
7.6 Mitigation and Enhancement
7.6.1 The summary effects table in Appendix F.9 shows which avoidance and mitigation measures to be put in place are relevant to each of the potential effects detailed in Section 7.5 above.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 78 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.6.2 The mitigation measures to be incorporated have followed the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, mitigation, enhancement, compensation. The description of the mitigation measures to be included at the site has been split into these headings below, with the exception of compensation which was not relevant to this application.
Avoidance
7.6.3 Not all areas within the site will be subjected to minerals extraction. The areas where sand and gravel will be extracted or areas that will be used for management and compounds are shown on drawing no. 772478-DWG-ENV-031, Appendix F.1. In addition to this buffers of 5- 15 m will be left undisturbed along hedgerows and woodland.
7.6.4 This careful planning of the extraction area means that the only habitats to be directly affected by the works will be the arable fields and the semi-improved grassland margins between them. Therefore, the areas of woodland and hedgerows will be outside of the works area.
7.6.5 As well as avoiding the ecologically sensitive areas of hedgerows and woodland one field to the north west of the site will also be excluded from the works area. This is to avoid the badger setts present within this area and for archaeological reasons.
7.6.6 Lighting is to be used within the plant area only with no light spill reaching the hedgerows. Lighting will also only be used during operational hours. Works will be conducted between 7am and 6 pm only.
Mitigation
7.6.7 Mitigation to minimise the effects on ecological receptors due to changes in hydrology, contamination of groundwater, noise disturbance and dust deposition are detailed in the relevant chapters of this ES. The mitigation for these effects is summarised in the table below.
Table 7.7 Summary of mitigation relevant to important ecological features detailed in other chapters.
Potential Effect Mitigation Section with details
Changes in the Water management will include 11.6 hydrology in the local temporary storage of extracted area groundwater followed by discharge to surface watercourse The creation of ditches to direct water south. 5-15m buffer zones between operational areas and sensitive habitats and
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 79 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Potential Effect Mitigation Section with details
Contamination of ground Minerals extraction will be carried out 13.6 water leading to effects through dewatering to prevent mixing on wetland habitats of soil and ground water. Stand-off of 30m on western boundary Stockpiles on low surfaces with low permeability
Noise disturbance Noise bounds will be created around 9.6 caused by the extraction the compound and extraction areas. works Plant will be turned off when not in use and maintained to control noise emissions.
Increased dust causing Trucks will be covered, 10.6 deposition on habitats and direct impacts to Top soil stripping will be done wildlife progressively rather than all at once Tracks will be swept and watered
Phasing of the Scheme
7.6.8 Minerals extraction will be conducted in phases as shown on drawing no. 0047/PO/1 to 4, Appendix F.1 with restoration occurring in each phase as it is completed. This phasing will result in areas of arable habitat being present throughout the 20 year life of the project and the first two phases will be restored by year 9. This will result in a minimum of five out of the ten phases being available for use by wildlife throughout the project.
Measures to Minimise the Risk of Killing and/or Injury of Wildlife
7.6.9 An Operational Phase Ecological Mitigation Plan is included as Appendix F.11. This plan details the measures which will be put in place during the operational phase of the scheme to minimise the risk of killing and/or injuring of wildlife.
7.6.10 In summary these mitigation measures will include:
Ramps or shallow gradients on one side of deep excavations to allow badgers to escape from excavations Careful destruction of the water management areas to avoid effects on amphibians Destruction of areas of suitable habitat for grass snake during the reptile active season (April to October, weather dependant) and destructively searched under the supervision of an ecologist. Destruction of Badger Setts
7.6.11 Badger surveys will be conducted as required throughout the extraction period and any active setts to be closed will be monitored and closed under a licence if they are in use by badgers. See Appendix F.11 for details.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 80 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Disturbance to Nesting Birds
7.6.12 See Appendix F.11 for full details. In order to avoid disturbance to birds the following will be undertaken:
Vegetation suitable for nesting birds will be removed between September and February (inclusive) to avoid the nesting period. If this isn’t possible it will be checked for active nests by an ecologist. Crops will not be planted within fields which will be excavated within that spring/summer season to reduce suitability for ground nesting birds.
7.6.13 If any active nests are found they will be left undisturbed with a 10 m buffer until the chicks have fledged.
Creation of New Habitats
7.6.14 Following excavation, the restoration scheme will include the planting of new trees which will replace those lost in the south west corner of the site. The area of ruderal vegetation and trees to be lost within the boundary of the Ecton Gravel Pits LWS site will be replaced with wetland habitats which will fulfil the criteria for a Local Wildlife Site.
Enhancements
7.6.15 The restoration scheme will include the creation of new habitats to replace 50.5 ha of previous arable land. This will include the creation of new areas of grassland and reedbed with new waterbodies, ditches and hedgerows. The remaining areas will be restored to agricultural land.
7.6.16 The restoration scheme is shown on drawing no. 30755-3005-01, Appendix F.1 and a Nature Conservation Management and Restoration Strategy is included as Appendix F.12. This strategy discusses the objectives of the restoration strategy for the scheme, including the creation and management of habitats and how the strategy will provide benefits for biodiversity.
7.7 Residual Effects
7.7.1 As per the CIEEM guidance on Ecological Impact Assessment (CIEEM, 2016) the residual effects discussed here are the effects after avoidance and mitigation measures have been put in place. A further assessment which assess the effects after enhancement has been included is provided below.
7.7.2 The majority of the potential effects will be adequately mitigated for after the avoidance and mitigation measures above have been put in place. This can be seen for each effect for each of the important ecological features in the effects table included as Appendix F.9. The remaining residual effects are discussed below.
7.7.3 The mitigation measures to be put in place to reduce the possible effects due to changes in hydrology, contamination of ground water and dust deposition along with the avoidance of and buffer zones around sensitive habitats are considered sufficient to ensure that there will be no significant residual effects on habitats within or outside the site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 81 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.7.4 The avoidance measures to be put in place will ensure there will be no significant residual effects on bats and otters as the areas of the site used by these species will be unaffected by the works. The mitigation to be put in place will ensure that the risk of killing and/or injury any wildlife will be minimised. The avoidance of the badger setts in the north east of the site and the woodland area will mean that only one inactive sett will be affected by the works.
7.7.5 The remaining residual effects are summarised in Table 7.8 below and discussed in further detail below.
Table 7.8 Summary of residual effects
Important Description of residual Characterisation of Confidence and Ecological effect residual effect significance of Feature residual effect Upper Nene Temporary loss of arable Negative Certain Valley Gravel Pits habitat suitable for Indirect Not significant SPA, SSSI, overwintering birds Ramsar, LNRs outside of the protected Long- term - 20 years and LWSs sites during extraction. throughout the extraction period
Reversible
Permanent loss of arable Negative Certain as grassland and Direct Not significant wetlands are created. Permanent
Reversible Wintering birds Temporary loss of arable Negative Certain habitat within each phase. Indirect Not significant Long- term - 20 years throughout the extraction period Reversible Permanent loss of arable Negative Certain as grassland and Direct Not significant wetlands are created. Long-term
Reversible Noise disturbance to birds Negative Unlikely using the site and nearby Direct Not significant habitats causing birds to be displaced. Long- term - 20 years throughout the extraction period Reversible
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 82 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Important Description of residual Characterisation of Confidence and Ecological effect residual effect significance of Feature residual effect Breeding birds Loss of scattered trees in Negative Certain SW corner Direct Not significant Long- term - 20 years throughout the extraction period Reversible Noise disturbance to birds Negative Unlikely breeding birds within and Direct Not significant outside the site boundary Long- term - 20 years throughout the extraction period Reversible Grass snake Temporary loss of small Negative Certain sections of grassland field Direct Not significant boundaries. Long- term - 20 years throughout the extraction period Reversible
Loss of Habitats Suitable for Wintering Birds
7.7.6 A full assessment of the effects on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits is included in Appendix F.10. After the implementation of all the mitigation measures there will be no direct effect on the site itself. The only possible effect is through the loss of arable habitat connected to the site suitable for wintering birds which use the UNVGP site.
7.7.7 The works will result in the temporary loss of areas of arable fields and margins during the mineral extraction works. This will include the temporary loss of the habitats within the plant and operations area and water management areas (approximately 25.6 ha) throughout the life of the extraction works and restoration strategy (approximately 20 years). As the works are to be completed in phases the area of habitat available will vary throughout the life of the extraction process. This will mean that a maximum area of approximately 40.7 ha (phases 6 to 10) will be unavailable for foraging at any one time.
7.7.8 Given that the availability of arable land will be reduced with arable habitat available on site during all phases, that the loss of habitat will be during the works period only and that there will be arable land available in the local area during the works, the works aren’t expected to have a significant effect on the habitat available for wintering birds in the area and so the UNVGP site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 83 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.7.9 Following the completion of the extraction an area of approximately 50.5 ha of arable land will be lost. Given that there will be areas of arable land within the site following the completion of the restoration of the site and that the areas of habitat lost will be converted into grassland and wetland habitat with a higher suitability for overwintering birds, this loss of arable land will also not result in a significant effect on the population of wintering birds using the site or the UNVGP site.
Loss of Habitat Suitable for Nesting Birds
7.7.10 The only habitat to be lost that is suitable for nesting birds is a number of small scattered trees in the south east corner of the site. New trees will be planted within new hedgerows and woodland belts as part of the restoration scheme. Given that the trees to be lost are of low suitability for nesting birds, that there are areas of woodland and hedgerows present at the site with higher suitability for nesting birds and that the loss of habitat will only be during the extraction works until the new trees are planted, this will not result in a significant effect on nesting birds.
Noise Disturbance to Breeding and Wintering Birds
7.7.11 The works will generate noise which is likely to be audible across the site and which will likely propagate beyond the site boundaries. The computer noise modelling works undertaken as part of the noise assessment for the works (see Chapter 9) show that noise levels within the lakes, ponds and reed bed areas to the south will be no more than 51 dB LAeq when works are undertaken in the southern part of the site (as shown on drawing LE13081/N02, Appendix F.1). Noise levels within arable fields adjacent to the works, and within the site boundary, are expected to be up to 57 dB LAeq. It should also be noted that the noise levels will vary depending upon the nature and location of operations and so will not be at the levels detailed above at all times.
7.7.12 Existing noise levels in the vicinity of the site were measured at between 45 and 50dB LA90 (background noise level) and between 52 and 69 dB LAeq (ambient noise level). The predicted noise levels during site works are therefore not expected to be significantly higher than the levels of noise currently experienced at the site.
7.7.13 Given that the noise levels on site are not expected to be significantly higher than those currently experienced on site and that noise disturbance will vary across the site (with areas disturbed within certain phases only and areas with no disturbance present throughout the works), there is not expected to be a significant effect on wintering or breeding birds.
Long-term Loss of Habitat for Grass Snake
7.7.14 The works will result in the reduction of the availability of habitat for grass snake during the works as the semi-improved grassland field boundaries currently used by grass snake at the site will be removed to enable minerals extraction and the creation of the compound and water management areas.
7.7.15 As the works will be phased, with restoration occurring on each phase as the works in that area are completed, habitat suitable for grass snake will be available throughout the extraction process. The surrounding areas of the AWG land, which will not be affected by the works, have been shown to also support grass snake and will be unaffected by the works. Suitable habitat on this land will therefore continue to be available for any displaced individuals.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 84 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.7.16 Given that the habitat to be lost consists of thin strips of suboptimal habitat and that habitat suitable for grass snake both within and outside the red line boundary will be available throughout the extraction process, there is not expected to be a significant effect on grass snake.
Residual Effect after Enhancement
7.7.17 CIEEM guidance (CIEEM, 2016) states that residual effects should be assessed after avoidance and mitigation measures have been considered but should not consider any compensation and enhancement measures. However, given the extent of the enhancement to be included at the site as part of the restoration strategy it is considered relevant to assess the effects after enhancement has been put in place for this application.
7.7.18 As detailed within the Appendix F.12 the restoration strategy will provide benefits for birds and a range of wildlife. Following the completion of the restoration of the site there will be a larger area of higher quality habitat suitable for all the species currently found on site. The habitats available will also strengthen the River Nene green corridor and provide further habitat suitable for the species present within the designated sites within the area.
7.7.19 Given the level of enhancement to be included at the site there will be a positive effect significant at the local level on the important ecological features for the site and biodiversity in the area. Table 7.9 below summarises the positive effect on the important ecological features.
Table 7.9 Positive effects on important ecological features following the inclusion of enhancement measures
Important Ecological Positive Effect After Enhancement Feature Upper Nene Valley Additional habitat available for birds using the Gravel Pits (UNVGP) designated sites in the local area. Improved SPA, SSSI and Ramsar connectivity of sites in the local area along the River Nene corridor including better connectivity between the two sections of this designated site. Ecton Gravel Pits LWS Habitats to be included within the restoration scheme include wetland which is the reason for the designation of this site. This will provide further habits for species using this designated site. Billing Scrub PWS Additional similar habitats to be created adjacent to the PWS site improving the suitability of the area for many species. Wind Spinney unnamed Further management included within the restoration PWS strategy within this area will improve the quality of the habitats within this site improving its suitability for a range of species. Other LWS and PWS Improved connectivity of sites in the local area along sites connected to the the River Nene corridor. River Nene Hedgerows Additional hedgerows to be planted within the site. Badger Higher quality foraging habitat to be created in the form of grassland.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 85 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Important Ecological Positive Effect After Enhancement Feature Bats The wetlands, grasslands and hedgerows will provide foraging habitat with a higher quality than the existing arable land. Otter Additional wetland areas and improved corridor along the River Nene. Wintering birds Creation of higher quality habitat in the form of grassland and wetland areas providing a larger area of suitable habitat in the local area. Improvement of habitat corridor along the River Nene. Breeding birds Additional hedgerows and woodland belts to be planted increasing the amount of habitat available for tree and scrub nesting species. Grassland will provide higher quality habitat for ground nesting birds. Amphibians – common Additional wetland habitat for breeding and additional toad, common frog and areas of grassland, woodland and hedgerows for smooth newt foraging. Grass snake Additional wetland and grassland habitat.
7.7.20 This positive effect will also benefit many other species currently not considered as important ecological features for the site such as invertebrates. This will lead to overall biodiversity gains in the local area.
7.8 Cumulative Effects
7.8.1 Planning permission has been granted for two further mineral extractions sites within close proximity to the site. These are Earls Barton Spinney Quarry located to the immediate east of site, and Earls Barton to the south of the River Nene. It is not currently known when the neighbouring extraction schemes will begin so it is not known whether there will be concurrent disturbance resulting from all three schemes.
7.8.2 Given that noise disturbance from the work is from point sources and will only be within compound areas and the particular phase under extraction, it is considered unlikely that there will be cumulative effects of noise disturbance from the various minerals extraction sites. The neighbouring sites are sufficient distance from the reedbed and open water areas, which are the most sensitive areas for birds within the Great Billing site, to not be affected by noise disturbance from neighbouring schemes.
7.8.3 The habitats within the neighbouring schemes are similar to those within site, with arable land making up the majority of all three sites. Given this, if minerals extraction is undertaken on all three sites at the same time it is possible that there will be an in-combination effect on the availability of arable habitats in the local area. However, the sites are all within a predominantly arable area containing large areas of further arable habitat for birds. Given this and that there will still be arable habitat suitable for birds within the Great Billing application area whilst phased extraction commences and that habitat loss will be during the life of the various extraction projects only, even when in-combination effects are considered, there is not likely to be a significant cumulative effects on arable habitat available for birds.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 86 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.8.4 The only habitat to be lost both temporarily during the works and after restoration is complete will be arable habitat. The only other habitat to be affected by the works within the site will be small areas of ruderal and semi-improved grassland. Given the scale of this loss and that these habitats are of a low suitability for wildlife, the cumulative loss of any further habitats across all three schemes will not be significant.
7.8.5 When the restoration schemes for all three sites have been implemented this will result in a positive impact for designated sites and biodiversity in the local area. The cumulative habitat creation will result in a significant enhancement to the River Nene corridor and improve connectivity between the sections of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits site.
7.9 Monitoring
7.9.1 Monitoring will be required both throughout the extraction and restoration process and following the completion of the restoration at the site.
7.9.2 The monitoring required during the works is detailed within Appendix F.11. This monitoring will be to ensure that no new badger setts are constructed within the extraction areas and to monitor the activity of the existing sett to be destroyed, prior to its closure.
7.9.3 Once restoration has begun and habitats have been created, monitoring within the restoration area will be conducted annually as detailed within Appendix F.12. This monitoring will include vegetation, bird and water quality monitoring.
7.9.4 In addition to this monitoring, once all the extraction and restoration has been completed at the site a full set of protected species surveys should be conducted to assess whether the works have had an effect on the species found within the site. The surveys which should be conducted are:
Phase 1 habitat across the site Badger Bat transect surveys to assess activity across the site Otter Bird – breeding and overwintering Amphibian Reptile
7.9.5 The methods for each of these surveys should be similar to the surveys undertaken to inform this application and follow current relevant guidance available at the time these surveys are conducted. The surveys should include the entire site as well as the reedbeds located to the south of the red line of the western part of the site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 87 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.10 Summary
7.10.1 In order to establish the ecological baseline at the site and assess the effects of minerals extraction and restoration on ecological receptors at the site, a desk study was first undertaken to establish the scope of the assessment and the zone of influence to be considered for the assessment. The desk study included examining records of legally protected species in the area and the location of and reasons for designation of designated site in the area. Previous reports from surveys undertaken in 2008 were also made available for review.
7.10.2 The desk study found that there were four sites with statutory designations within 4 km of the site and 19 sites designated as Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) or Pocket parks within 2 km of the site. Only one of these sites (Ecton Gravel Pits LWS) is located within the red line boundary. The sites in addition to Ecton Gravel Pits LWS which were then given further consideration were those connected to the site. These were all sites located along the River Nene which is to the south of the application site.
7.10.3 Ecological surveys undertaken for the assessment were: habitats, hedgerows, badger, bat, water vole, otter, wintering and breeding birds, amphibians and reptiles. The type of surveys required was determined based on the habitats present at the site, records within the area and the results of previous surveys at the site. All surveys were undertaken following current guidance and included all areas within the red line boundary and adjacent habitats.
7.10.4 The site was found to consist of mainly arable fields with semi-improved grassland margins, with areas of ruderal vegetation, hedgerows, an area of woodland and a watercourse running through the centre and along the eastern boundary of the site.
7.10.5 These surveys confirmed the presence of an ecological important hedgerow, badger setts, otter, common amphibians and grass snake within the red line boundary. The bat surveys found that the hedgerows on site were used by foraging and commuting bats. The site was found to provide some habitat for wintering birds with no species of conservation concern present in high numbers. The habitats of greatest importance for breeding birds were found to be the woodland and the wetlands to the south of the red line boundary.
7.10.6 The potential effects on important ecological features were found to be due to possible changes in hydrology, contamination of ground water, loss of habitat, increased disturbance due to noise and lighting, the killing of and/or injury to wildlife, the destruction of badger setts and bat roosts and the disturbance of nesting birds.
7.10.7 The majority of these effects will be avoided, as extraction will be occurring within the arable fields and their margins only. This means that the most sensitive habitats will not be directly affected and the majority of areas found to support protected species will not be affected.
7.10.8 Mitigation will be put in place to ensure there will be no effects due to changes in hydrology, contamination of ground water and to reduce noise disturbance. The scheme will be conducted in phases, with restoration occurring in each phase as it is completed. Measures will be put in place to ensure the risk of disturbing, killing or injuring wildlife is minimised.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 88 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
7.10.9 The scheme will include a large area of habitat enhancement through the creation of new wetland and grassland habitats and hedgerows. The restoration scheme was developed through consultation with local stakeholders to ensure that the habitats on site fitted with habitats present in the local area and the adjacent minerals extraction restoration schemes.
7.10.10 After the consideration of the avoidance and mitigation measures to be put in place the only residual effects will be due to the reduction in available arable habitat and grassland margins within the red line boundary during the extraction works and low levels of noise disturbance. None of these effects are considered to be significant.
7.10.11 Following the completion of the restoration scheme there will be a positive effect on biodiversity within the site and within the local area.
7.11 References
BSI, 2013, BS 42020:2013 “Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development” BSI Standards Limited 2013. CIEEM, 2016, Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the UK and Ireland DCLG, 2012, “National Planning Policy Framework”. HDA, November 2007, “Great Billing WWTW Ecology: Amphibian Survey” HDA November 2007. Great Billing WWTW Ecology: Dormouse Survey. HDA, November 2007, Great Billing WWTW: Hedgerow Survey. HDA, November 2007, Great Billing WWTW Ecology: Interim Ecological Summary HDA, September 2007, Great Billing WWTW Ecology: Reptile Survey. HDA, October 2007, Great Billing WWTW Ecology: Water Vole Survey. HDA, September 2007, Great Billing WWTW Ecology: White-clawed Crayfish Survey. HDA (January 2008). Great Billing WWTW Ecology: Badger Survey. HDA (April 2008). Great Billing WWTW Ecology: Breeding Bird Survey and Ornithological Assessment HDA (March 2008). Great Billing WWTW Ecology: Otter Survey. HDA (June 2008). Great Billing WWTW Ecology: Winter Bird Survey. JNCC, accessed October 2016, http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4 Magic, accessed October 2016, “Site Check Report” www.magic.gov.uk Natural England, accessed October 2016, https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/ Northamptonshire County Council, 2015, “Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document for Northamptonshire” Northamptonshire County Council, 2014, “Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan” Northamptonshire County Council, 2015, “Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document” North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, 2016, “North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031” ODPM, 2005, “Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system”
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 89 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, 2014, “West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1)”
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 90 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
8 Transport and Access
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 This Chapter details the transport and access aspects of the proposed development carried out by Cannon Consulting Engineers who completed the Transport Assessment (TA) and Lorry Management Plan (LMP) which accompanies the planning application. The TA is also provided in Appendix G.
8.1.2 This Chapter considers the potential environmental implications of the transport, access and wider road network stemming from the proposed sand and gravel extraction and restoration on land east of the Great Billing Water Recycling Centre (WRC), Northampton. The site is accessed from the existing junction serving the WRC on Crow Lane.
8.1.3 The main objective of the assessment is to support the Environmental Impact Assessment by informing the Northamptonshire County Council Planning Officers of the details of the proposed development so that the effects on the public highway can be assessed and any mitigating measures agreed.
8.2 Policy Context
8.2.1 Section 3 of the TA (ES Appendix G) provides an overview of national and local transport policy that is relevant to the development proposals. The following policy documents have been reviewed in the TA and used in the EIA process:
National Planning Policy Framework – NPPF March 2012 Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Update (Submission) August 2016 Northamptonshire Local Transport Plan March 2012
8.3 Methodology
8.3.1 The method of assessing transport impacts of proposed development is based on calculating a trip generation and assigning this to the road network. The impacts of traffic generated by the proposal are considered to be the main transport effect in environmental terms. The local highway network that provides access is part of the primary distributor road network in this area of Northamptonshire and there are minimal sensitive receptors that will be impacted upon.
Trip and Traffic Generation
8.3.2 In order to assess the total number of trips generated by the minerals extraction and restoration, vehicle flows have been calculated from first principles as presented in the DK Symes Associates Development Design report accompanying the planning application. The total volume of material extracted has been assessed to allow a total trip generation over a year to be generated. The yearly generation has been divided by the days of operation in order to provide an approximate daily trip estimate.
8.3.3 The impact of the trip generation is then considered on the local highway network where the effects in relation to the identified criteria can be assessed.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 91 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Trip Distribution and Assignment
8.3.4 Due to the existing vehicle weight restriction at Lower Ecton Lane and south of the Causeway Roundabout all HGV trips will travel north via the A45 Great Billing Interchange. Once these vehicle trips reach the Great Billing Interchange the HGV distribution is based upon an east- west distribution profile from observed traffic movements to the A45. Light vehicles movements associated with employee traffic have been assigned in accordance with observed traffic movements using both the A45 and Great Billing Way (A5076) to the north. The distribution profile of arrivals is the same as that of departures.
Traffic Impact
8.3.5 In assessing the potential environmental impact of the proposed development the Institute for Environmental Assessment (IEA) Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic advises that highway links should be separately assessed when there is an increase of 30% in HGV traffic and include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows have increased by 10%. The IEA Guidelines also suggests that projected changes in traffic of less than 10% create no discernible environmental impact and that the most discernible environmental impacts of traffic are noise, severance, pedestrian delay and intimidation.
8.3.6 This assessment has been undertaken on the basis of the existing recorded background traffic levels (I.e. no future year scenarios) as applying a growth factor to the existing background traffic levels will only serve to reduce the overall traffic impact of the development proposals. The operational capacity analysis included in the TA does include for traffic growth as this represents a worst case scenario related to current junction capacity.
8.3.7 The Institute of Environmental Management (IEMA) has prepared ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (Guidance Note 1)’. These have been used as the basis for the method of assessment of environmental impacts of traffic in this Chapter.
8.3.8 The guidance advises that the day to day flow variation of +/- 10% is to be expected in the base situation and that projected changes in traffic of less than 10% would create no discernible environmental impact. Therefore, increase in traffic levels of below 10% will be considered as no impact.
8.3.9 The method of each impact assessed is set out below.
Severance
8.3.10 Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes separated by a major traffic route. The assessment of severance pays full regard to specific local conditions, in particular the location of pedestrian routes to key local facilities and whether crossing facilities are provided or not. The proposal generates traffic that will increase vehicle movements on the local road network. This network exists and is part of the distributor road network and access route to local employment areas. There is minimal interaction with pedestrians and as such severance is unlikely to be negatively impacted.
Driver Delay
8.3.11 Traffic delays to non-development traffic can occur:
At the entrances where there will be additional turning movements On the highways passing the site where there may be additional traffic flow
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 92 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
At key junctions on the local highway network.
8.3.12 Values for delay are based upon computer junction modelling software: LinSig for signalised junctions; ARCADY for roundabouts; and PICADY for priority junctions. PICADY has been utilised within the TA (ES Appendix G).
8.3.13 The use of such modelling software uses baseline traffic conditions to provide a without development result which is then compared with the forecast traffic conditions with development to consider the effect of additional development traffic. The forecast traffic conditions also include allowance for background traffic growth and committed development. Such factors have been subject of scoping discussions with the Local Highway Authority, Northamptonshire County Council (NCC). The output of junction model will demonstrate whether or not additional delay is caused by the development generated traffic.
Pedestrian Delay
8.3.14 The development proposal will bring about changes to the number of vehicle and pedestrian movements. In general, increases in traffic levels are likely to lead to greater increases in delay to pedestrians seeking to cross roads. The local road network and likelihood of there being pedestrian crossing movements affected by development traffic is a key aspect to consider and this will be based on site observation and the judgement of the assessor.
8.3.15 The IEMA Guidelines recommend that rather than rely on thresholds of pedestrian delay; the assessor should use judgement to determine whether there will be a significant impact on pedestrian delay.
Pedestrian Amenity
8.3.16 The IEMA Guidelines broadly define this as the relative pleasantness of a journey. It is affected by traffic flow, traffic composition, pavement width and separation from traffic. A tentative threshold for changes in pedestrian amenity is where traffic flows are halved or doubled. This has been used in the assessment linked to on site observation and judgement of the assessor.
Fear and Intimidation
8.3.17 A further impact that traffic may have on pedestrians is fear and intimidation. This impact is dependent on the volume of traffic, its HGV composition and its proximity to people and/or lack of protection caused by factors such as narrow pavement widths. A review of pedestrian access close to the affected traffic routes and site access junctions has been based on site observation and the judgement of the assessor.
Accidents and Safety
8.3.18 Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data for the most recent five year period has been obtained and within the TA (ES Appendix G). The impact of additional traffic from the proposed development is discussed in terms of magnitude of increase.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 93 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Dust and Dirt
8.3.19 Dust and dirt created by traffic can be a problem arising from the mineral operation. The impact of dust and dirt will depend on the management practices undertaken on site. The assessment has been undertaken on the basis of the number of HGV movements upon the local network. This is also referred to in the specific assessment of Air Quality where controls on dust are assessed in detail.
Air Quality and Noise
8.3.20 The noise and air quality impacts of the development proposal are dealt within Chapters 9 and 10 of the ES respectively. Traffic forecasts and scenarios for the noise and air quality assessments have been produced using the methodology set out in those chapters.
Significance Criteria
8.3.21 In summary, Table 8.1 sets out the significance criteria used in this chapter:
Table 8.1: Significance Criteria – Transportation Impacts
Insignificant Impact Importance Significant Impact Impact
Low Medium High Low Med High
Presence of sensitive Separate Noise & No sensitive Presence of sensitive receptors <100% assessment Vibration receptors receptors near road adjacent to required road
Road Road network not network is Driver Separate Road network experiencing experiencing Severance <10% assessment not affected congestion at peak congestion & Delay required times at peak times
Low Moderate to baseline high bassline Pedestrian Moderate baseline traffic traffic Severance traffic flows/presence flows/no <10% <30% <60% >60% flows/presence & Delay of existing severance presence of of existing existing severance severance
Separate Road High importance <10% assessment Safety required
Hazardous No hazardous/ Standard UK highway Abnormal & dangerous hazardous/dangerous loads 0% <30% <60% >60% Dangerous loads loads generated generated Loads generated
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 94 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Insignificant Impact Importance Significant Impact Impact
Limited High Low to medium presence of presence of Dust & Dirt presence of sensitive <10% <30% <60% >60% sensitive sensitive receptors receptors receptors
8.3.22 The assessment of the impact of significance is based on the criteria set out in the IEMA guidelines and/or judgement and expertise of the assessor.
8.4 Baseline Conditions
The WRC is accessed from Crow Lane and Lower Ecton Road located south of Great Billing and Junction 9 of the A45 Billing Interchange.
Site Access
8.4.1 Crow Lane is a single carriageway local distributor road, which runs in a north south direction from its junction with the A45 Billing Interchange to the north and The Causeway to the south. Crow Lane is subject to a 30mph speed limit. The existing main access arrangement is via a simple priority T-junction, located approximately 75 metres to the south of the Ravens Way industrial estate. Crow Lane is currently used by traffic as a through route and for access to industrial and employment areas to the north of the site access.
8.4.2 It is noted that an existing weight restriction is in force to the south, preventing HGV traffic from using this route for access. As such all movements from the site are focused on the link to the north with the A45Billing Interchange.
8.4.3 Crow Lane is provided with a standard pedestrian footway on the western side but it is observed that there is minimal use. The footways and connectivity to residential areas to the north of the A45 means that there is limited need for pedestrian crossings of Crow Lane as that choice is already made by any pedestrian wishing to access the employment areas that will generate most movements, albeit these are observed as being low.
8.4.4 Lower Ecton road is a single carriageway road, which runs in an east west direction and provides local access to villages to the north of the A45, a traveller site and a household waste disposal site. There is a secondary access to the WWTW via a simple priority junction around 100m east of Crow Lane.
8.4.5 This access is used for the AW sludge treatment centre operational staff, some AW contractor operations and traffic associated with an existing waste transfer station operated by Mick George. As a result of a recent planning permission for a larger waste transfer station the site access junction with Lower Ecton Lane has been recently upgraded.
8.4.6 Lower Ecton road has no pedestrian footway provision.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 95 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Existing Traffic Movements
8.4.7 The Great Billing WRC is accessed via a private access road which forms a priority controlled T-junction with Crow Lane.
8.4.8 Sludge is currently imported to the WRC site via sludge tanker HGVs, with the WRC typically receiving between 16 to 30 sludge tankers per day. Tankers are received on a 24hr basis, 7 days a week. In addition to this, between 20 and 40 HGV deliveries, and between 100-150 staff and visitor cars/LGVs are received at the WRC per day. A summary of the existing average and peak daily vehicles movements to and from the WRC site is shown in Table 8.2:
Table 8.2: Daily one-way vehicle movements at Great Billing WRC (during normal operations)
Period Sludge tankers and other HGVs Staff and visitors Total
Sludge Tankers Other Deliveries Cars/LGVs All Vehicles (HGVs) (HGVs)
Daily average 16 20 100 136
Daily peak 30 40 150 220
Source: Anglian Water Services (2014)
8.4.9 Table 8.2 demonstrates that the Great Billing WRC site typically generates an average of 136 one-way vehicle movements per day (272 two-way movements), and a peak of 220 one-way vehicles movements per day (440 two-way movements). The use of the site is typically spread over the day and is likely to vary considerably. In order to consider movements at the peak hour independent traffic surveys were undertaken.
8.4.10 A manual classified turning count (MCC) survey was undertaken on Thursday 26th November 2015, for a 12 hour period between 0700hrs and 1900hrs.
8.4.11 This was complemented with surveys on the local road network using automatic traffic counters (ATC) and by considering traffic flows on the A45 from available data supplied by Highways England from a permanent traffic count site.
8.4.12 These surveys of baseline traffic conditions have been used as the basis of the assessment of transport effects and principally the traffic impact of the proposal. Whilst the MCC survey records actual vehicle movements on the day of the survey to/from the WRC it will not necessarily tie in with the identified average and peak movements in Table 8.2 that are based on an understanding of the AW operation that is variable.
8.5 Potential Effects
8.5.1 Overall, the TA indicates the level of increase in vehicle movements that would occur as a result of the proposed development is low and does not exceed any thresholds identified in 8.3.5.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 96 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
8.5.2 On a two-way 12 hour basis there would be an increase of 1% in total traffic to the north of the WRC on Crow Lane south of Ecton Lane. There would be an increase of 1% in total traffic to the south of the A45 Great Billing Interchange. To the east along the A45 there would be an increase of traffic of 0.1% and to the west 0.1%. To the north of the Great Billing Interchange along the A5076 Great Billing Way there would be an increase of traffic of 0.07%. Table 8.3 indicates the level of increase in traffic flows.
Table 8.3: Traffic Flow Increases (Total Vehicles)
12 Hr 12 Hr 12 Hr (0700- Data (0700-1900) (0700-1900) % Link/Road Direction 1900) Source Proposed 2015 Existing + Increase 2015 Development Existing Development
East 252 91 343 WRC Site MCC West 252 91 343 Access Two-way 504 182 686 27% (154 HGVs)
Crow Lane North 9568 91 9659 south of MCC South 8570 91 8661 Ecton Lane Two-way 18138 182 18320 0.9%
Crow Lane North 10419 91 10510 south of Gt MCC South 9582 91 9673 Billing Interchange Two-way 20001 182 20183 0.9%
HE East 24065 25 24090 A45 East TMU West 24222 25 24247 Site Two-way 48287 50 48337 0.1%
HE East 29211 60 29271 A45 West TMU West 29840 60 29900 Site Two-way 59051 120 59111 0.1%
North 10272 6 10278 A5076 Gt MCC South 10177 9 10186 Billing Way Two-way 20449 15 20464 0.07%
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 97 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
8.5.3 Specifically, at the WRC access the increase in total two-way traffic arising from the proposals will be 27%. The WRC access is not a sensitive receptor as it is neither crossed by pedestrians nor is the current traffic flow high.
8.5.4 The assessment shows that in broad terms none of the impacts would be considered not significant and negligible.
8.5.5 The impact on pedestrians has been considered in this regard and given the low existing usage of the adjacent footways to the west of the site access, the lack of crossing points affected by the traffic flows and low generation of pedestrian movement by the proposed development no further assessment is carried out.
8.5.6 The impact of the traffic on the site access arm is close to the threshold and therefore an assessment has been carried out in respect of highway capacity and delay.
Impact on Highway Capacity and Delay
8.5.7 The junction capacity assessments undertaken on Crow Lane has demonstrated that the proposed development traffic generated by the application site is within 30% threshold and therefore, within the guidelines recommended by IEMA.
8.5.8 In addition, the existing Crow Lane site access operates within its operational junction capacity and has sufficient levels of reserve capacity to accommodate future traffic growth.
8.5.9 The proposed development would not be of detriment to highway capacity and consequently there would be no perceivable impact on driver delay.
Impact on Road Safety
8.5.10 Details of accidents recorded within the study area during the most recent five year period available have been obtained from Northamptonshire County Council.
8.5.11 It has been demonstrated that there have been no accident patterns that could be attributed to the highway layout in its current form or the volume of traffic. The increase in traffic resultant from the proposed development is not significant and negligible.
8.6 Mitigation and Enhancement
8.6.1 The above assessment demonstrates that proposed development traffic generated by the application site is within the 30% threshold and therefore within the guidelines recommended by IEMA. However, it is acknowledged the increase in traffic movements at the WRC site access is close to the 30% threshold.
8.6.2 The planning application therefore proposes to implement highway improvement works at the WRC access and Crow Lane. There is a scheme for improvement outlined in the TA.
8.6.3 This comprises widening of the access road, increase in the bellmouth radii to facilitate HGV movement and provision of a connecting footway and crossing point to the existing footway provision on the western side of Crow Lane. This will provide for any movements from the site to the wider network in a safe manner, although these will be low and infrequent. Within the site access the footway will be continued and connect with on-site facilities for employees to use.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 98 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
8.6.4 This improvement option has been previously considered by NCC related to both future minerals and waste development proposed in the site allocations at Great Billing. The works proposed at the junction have been shown to support the proposed development and have been considered with respect to cumulative development related to the waste allocation.
8.6.5 The works have been considered in detail through a process of technical approval and are covered under the Agreement between Northamptonshire County Council and AWG Land Holdings Limited pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 relating to the execution of highways improvement works at Crow Lane and Lower Ecton Lane (dated 21 July 2009). The only change considered to the works in the TA is the removal of those works included at Lower Ecton Lane that no longer form part of the access strategy to the Minerals site. This change will be included in a variation to the S278 following the grant of planning permission and this is explained in detail in the TA.
8.7 Residual Effects
8.7.1 Taking into account all of the factors in this ES Chapter, a final analysis of the impacts that would result from the proposed development has been undertaken. This is in accordance with the general significance criteria presented in Table 4.1.
8.7.2 The summary of transportation impacts is provided in Table 8.4.
Table 8.4: Summary - Transportation Impacts
Impact Residual Type Importance Significance Mitigation Duration Impact
Noise & Vibration N/A – specific assessment elsewhere in ES
Driver Severance & Permanent Low Negligible N/A Low Delay
Included in S278 highway Pedestrian improvements Permanent High Negligible Beneficial Severance & Delay to facilitate access to the site
S278 highway Road Safety Permanent High improvements
Hazardous & N/A Low N/A N/A N/A Dangerous Loads
Dust & Dirt N/A – specific assessment elsewhere in ES
8.7.3 It is considered that the application proposals would have an insignificant impact in respect of traffic and transportation.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 99 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
8.8 Cumulative Effects
8.8.1 The cumulative impact of development is included in the Transport Assessment accompanying the planning application. This includes background traffic growth that accounts for development in the local area. In scoping with Northamptonshire CC there was no specific committed development nearby that was considered necessary in the cumulative impact assessment.
8.8.2 Though it doesn’t form committed development and therefore require assessment as a cumulative impact a sensitivity assessment was carried out in the TA with regard to the potential impact of the remaining waste allocation on the proposed junction mitigation and shown them to be capable of accommodating all envisaged development in the waste & minerals allocations.
8.9 Summary
8.9.1 The proposed Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration will be in accordance with policy at national and local level. The site benefits from an existing and well established access concentrating HGV movements towards the A45. This avoids main residential and environmentally sensitive areas, thereby minimising transport impacts on local areas and routes.
8.9.2 In accordance with the EIA Scoping Report and the response issued by Northamptonshire County Council and its neighbouring planning authorities the Environmental Statement has assessed the transport impacts on the surrounding road network taking into account the vehicle movements, hours of operation and routing.
8.9.3 Alternative means of transport have been considered within the Transport Assessment chapter of this ES and the clear position is that no other reasonable alternative transport options exist other than road haulage.
8.9.4 The Transport Assessment indicates that the proposal will not cause demonstrable harm to the function of the highway network and that the existing WRC access will continue to operate satisfactorily. A scheme for improvement has been provided to allow for continued safe access and egress from the site.
8.9.5 The continuation of the existing routing arrangement associated with the WRC applied to the development proposal will ensure that HGVs travel to and from the site to avoid village centres in the interest of highway safety and local amenity as required by the highway authority and the development plan policies for mineral transport in this area.
8.10 References
CCE (2016) Transport Assessment (TA) June 2017 CCE (2016) Lorry Management Plan (LMP) June 2017 IEMA (1994) Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessments
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 100 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9 Noise and Vibration
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 This Chapter has been prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP and reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in terms of Noise and Vibration in the context of the Site and surrounding area. In particular, it considers the likely significant effects of the noise and vibration levels likely to be generated due to the working of the site, transportation of materials and restoration of the site. The calculated levels have been compared against suitable criteria and the potential impacts evaluated.
9.1.2 This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) is not intended to be read as a standalone assessment and reference should be made to the front end of this ES (Chapters 1 – 5).
9.2 Policy Context
Control of Pollution Act 1974
9.2.1 The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA 1974) gives the local authority power to serve a notice under Section 60 imposing requirements as to the way in which works are to be carried out. This could specify times of operation, maximum levels of noise which should be emitted and the type of plant which should or should not be used. This is a common way of enforcing reasonable levels of construction noise.
9.2.2 Contractors may obtain prior consent under Section 61 of COPA 1974. Section 61 enables anyone who intends to carry out works to apply to the local authority for consent. Under Section 61 the local authorities and those responsible for construction work, have an opportunity to settle any problems, relating to the potential noise, before work starts.
National Planning Policy Framework
9.2.3 In March 2012 the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ (NPPF) was introduced as the current planning policy guidance within England. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states:
‘Planning policies and decisions should aim to:
avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; recognise that development will often create some noise and 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; and identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.’
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 101 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Noise Policy Statement for England’ (NPSE)
9.2.4 In terms of ‘adverse effects’ the NPPF refers to the ‘Noise Policy Statement for England’ (NPSE), which defines three categories, as follows:
‘NOEL – No Observed Effect Level
This is the level below which no effect can be detected. In simple terms, below this level, there is no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to the noise. LOAEL – Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected. SOAEL – Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level
This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur.’
9.2.5 However, whilst the above terms are provided in NPSE, paragraph 2.22 acknowledges that these terms require further research in order to establish what is meant in terms of ‘adverse impact’.
9.2.6 ‘2.22 It is not possible to have a single objective noise-based measure that defines SOAEL that is applicable to all sources of noise in all situations. Consequently, the SOAEL is likely to be different for different noise sources, for different receptors and at different times. It is acknowledged that further research is required to increase our understanding of what may constitute a significant adverse impact on health and quality of life from noise. However, not having specific SOAEL values in the NPSE provides the necessary policy flexibility until further evidence and suitable guidance is available.’
National Planning Practice Guidance
The national Planning Practice Guidance, first published in March 2014, is available for mineral sites. In assessing the acceptable noise levels as a consequence of the development, reference should be made to the Planning Practice Guidance on assessing environmental impacts from mineral extraction, paragraph 021:
‘Mineral planning authorities should aim to establish a noise limit, through a planning condition, at the noise-sensitive property that does not exceed the background noise level (LA90,1h) by more than 10dB(A) during normal working hours (0700-1900). Where it will be difficult not to exceed the background level by more than 10dB(A) without imposing unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator, the limit set should be as near that level as practicable. In any event, the total noise from the operations should not exceed 55dB(A) LAeq, 1h (free field). For operations during the evening (1900-2200) the noise limits should not exceed the background noise level (LA90,1h) by more than 10dB(A) and should not exceed 55dB(A) LAeq, 1h (free field). For any operations during the period 22.00 – 07.00 noise limits should be set to reduce to a minimum any adverse impacts, without imposing unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator. In any event the noise limit should not exceed 42dB(A) LAeq,1h (free field) at a noise sensitive property.
Where the site noise has a significant tonal element, it may be appropriate to set specific limits to control this aspect. Peak or impulsive noise, which may include some reversing bleepers, may also require separate limits that are independent of background noise (e.g. Lmax in specific octave or third-octave frequency bands – and that should not be allowed to occur regularly at night.)
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 102 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Care should be taken, however, to avoid any of these suggested values being implemented as fixed thresholds as specific circumstances may justify some small variation being allowed.’
9.2.7 The national Planning Practice Guidance also describes circumstances where higher noise limits can be considered for particularly noisy short-term activities that cannot meet the limits set for normal activities Paragraph 22 states that:
“Increased temporary daytime noise limits of up to 70dB(A) LAeq 1h (free field) for periods of up to eight weeks in a year at specified noise-sensitive properties should be considered to facilitate essential site preparation and restoration work and construction of baffle mounds where it is clear that this will bring longer-term environmental benefits to the site or its environs.”
British Standard for Vibration
9.2.8 Guidance on the assessment of vibration from development sites is given in British Standard 5228 -2:2009 “Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration” (BS5228-2).
9.2.9 The sensitive receptors most likely to be affected by vibration generated by the earthworks and construction phase works of the development are detailed in Table 9.5.
9.2.10 It is not possible to mitigate vibration emissions from an open site. It is important therefore to examine the proposed working method to ascertain what, if any, operations would be likely to cause unacceptable levels of vibration at nearby sensitive locations. It is possible that these operations could be modified to reduce their vibration impacts.
9.2.11 BS5228-2 2009 indicates that vibration can have disturbing effects on the surrounding neighbourhood; especially where particularly sensitive operations may be taking place. The significance of vibration levels which may be experienced adjacent to a site is dependent upon the nature of the source.
9.2.12 Human perception of vibration is extremely sensitive. People can detect and be annoyed by vibration before there is any risk of structural damage. Cases where damage to a building has been attributed to the effects of vibration alone are extremely rare; even when vibration has been considered to be intolerable by the occupants.
9.2.13 It is not possible to establish exact vibration damage thresholds that may be applied in all situations. The likelihood of vibration induced damage or nuisance will depend upon the nature of the source, the characteristics of the intervening solid and drift geology and the response pattern of the structures around the site. Most of these variables are too complex to quantify accurately and thresholds of damage, or nuisance, are therefore conservative estimates based on a knowledge of engineering.
9.2.14 Where ground vibration is of a relatively continuous nature, there is a greater likelihood of structural damage occurring, compared to transient vibration; for example, that caused by transiting vehicles.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 103 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9.2.15 BS5228-2 indicates that the threshold of perception is generally accepted to be between a peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.14 and 0.3mm/sec. In an urban situation it is unlikely that such vibration levels would be noticed. The Highways Agency Research Report No. 53 “Ground Vibration caused by Civil Engineering Works” 1986 suggests that, when vibration levels from an unusual source exceed the human threshold of perception, complaints may occur. The onset of complaints due to continuous vibration is probable when the PPV exceeds 3mm/sec.
9.2.16 British Standard BS6472: 2008 “Guide to Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Part 1: Vibration sources other than blasting” (BS6472-1) suggests that adverse comments or complaints due to continuous vibration are rare in residential situations below a PPV of 0.8mm/sec.
9.2.17 Continuous vibration is defined as “vibration which continues uninterrupted for either a daytime period of 16 hours or a night-time period of 8 hours”. The proposed earthworks and construction works at the site will not cause continuous vibration as defined in BS6472-1.
9.2.18 BS5228-2 2009 suggests that the onset of cosmetic damage is 15mm/sec (15 mm/s at 4 Hz increasing to 20 mm/s at 15 Hz for residential or light commercial type buildings).
Local Planning Policy
9.2.19 Northamptonshire County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted October 2014) includes the following policies which refer to noise and vibration:
9.2.20 Policy 22: Addressing the impact of proposed minerals and waste development:
“Proposals for minerals and waste development must demonstrate that the following matters have been considered and addressed:
protecting Northamptonshire’s natural resources and key environmental designations (including heritage assets), avoiding and / or minimising potentially adverse impacts to an acceptable level, specifically addressing air emissions (including dust), odour, bioaerosols, noise and vibration, slope stability, vermin and pests, birdstrike, litter, land use conflict and cumulative impact, impacts on flood risk as well as the flow and quantity of surface and groundwater, ensuring built development is of a design and layout that has regard to its visual appearance in the context of the defining characteristics of the local area, ensuring access is sustainable, safe and environmentally acceptable, and ensuring that local amenity is protected. where applicable a site-specific management plan should be developed to ensure the implementation and maintenance of mitigation measures throughout construction, operation, decommissioning and restoration works.”
9.2.21 Policy 34: Preventing land use conflict
“Proposals for new development adjacent or in close proximity to committed or allocated minerals or waste related development (including associated rail head / links, wharfage, minerals storage / processing facilities and sewage treatment works) should only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it would not adversely affect the continued operation of the facility or prevent or prejudice the use of the site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 104 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Proposals for development considered to be incompatible with committed or allocated minerals or waste development will be required to undertake an assessment of potentially adverse impacts identifying practical measures, including the use of separation areas, for preventing the occurrence (either now or in the future) of land use conflict and potential adverse environmental effects resultant from ongoing occupation and usage (of the proposed development) this may include an assessment of potential impacts including bio-aerosols, odour, noise, dust, etc. The following should be taken into consideration in proposals for incompatible development in determining adequate separation areas: - nature of both the minerals and / or waste development (committed or allocated) and proposed development (including duration), - compatibility of the proposed activity with the minerals and / or waste development (committed or allocated), - characteristics of any potential adverse environmental effects likely to arise as a result of land use conflict, and - any additional measures considered necessary to mitigate potentially adverse impacts.”
9.2.22 The adopted updated local plan also includes the above policies.
9.3 Methodology
Consultation and Scope of Works
9.3.1 A request for a scoping opinion was submitted to Northamptonshire County Council in October 2015 detailing the proposed noise and vibration assessment methodology. The noise survey details and general areas for consideration were agreed by return. The scoping opinion provided by Northamptonshire County Council in January 2016 contained the following response regarding noise:
“Dust and noise are considered likely to be the most difficult amenity issues to mitigate with regard to this site. It is acknowledged that control measures are proposed but the Environmental Statement (ES) would need to demonstrate that impacts from dust and noise would be mitigated under these proposals. It is suggested that noise and dust management plans should be submitted at the application stage to help address these issues up front.
The proposed approach on noise and vibration is generally considered to be appropriate by the Environmental Protection Officers (EHO). The NBC EHO refers to the need to use broadband reversing alarms and the noise management plan should also include a management process to seek to achieve similar alarms on HGV’s delivering waste soils to the site. The off-site nuisance impact of tonal reversing alarms should not be underestimated….
Cumulative Impact
It is considered important that the assessment addresses cumulative impacts on amenity (noise, dust, odour), landscape, biodiversity (including green infrastructure) and highways matters. This assessment should relate to both impacts generated from the subject site and in conjunction with surrounding developments, (existing, approved, proposed and likely) in particular the two permitted quarries at Earls Barton Spinney and land west of Grendon Road, Earls Barton “
9.3.2 The proposed noise assessment methodology was also discussed and agreed with the Senior Environmental Health Officer at Northampton Borough Council and the Team Leader (Environmental Protection) at Wellingborough Council.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 105 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9.3.3 The scope of this assessment therefore comprises consideration of terrestrial noise and vibration associated with the proposed sand and gravel extraction at the nearest human receptors the proposed development, i.e. proposed residential areas.
Noise Survey
9.3.4 To establish background noise levels representative of the sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the site, Wardell Armstrong carried out daytime noise surveys at locations agreed with the Local Authorities. The noise surveys were carried out over the daytime period to include the proposed hours of operation of the site.
Assessment Criteria
9.3.5 The extraction and restoration phases of the development will generate additional traffic movements on the existing road network. These additional vehicle movements have the potential to increase road traffic noise levels at existing receptors located adjacent to the main routes to and from the development.
9.3.6 The future traffic noise levels at a number of sensitive receptors; both with and without the development in place, have been predicted using the calculation procedures set out in the Department of Transport’s memorandum, “Calculation of Road Traffic Noise” (CRTN), 1988. The memorandum was prepared to enable entitlement under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 to be determined; but it is stated in the document, that the guidance is equally appropriate for the calculation of traffic noise for land use planning purposes.
9.3.7 The procedures outlined in CRTN assume typical traffic and noise propagation conditions that are consistent with moderately adverse wind velocities and directions during specified periods. In CRTN, all noise levels can be expressed in terms of the index L10 (18 hour) dB(A).
9.3.8 For this noise assessment, CRTN has been used to determine the noise levels at each existing sensitive receptor, for a total of 2 scenarios:
Scenario 1: 2026 – Future Year (Without Development); and Scenario 2: 2026 – Future Year (With Development).
9.3.9 The traffic information for the development has been derived from the work undertaken by Cannon Consulting Engineers and has been provided as 18 hour AAWT flows. HGV percentages were also provided.
9.3.10 The changes in road traffic noise levels have been assessed against a set of significance criteria. The criteria shown in Table 9.1 are based upon guidance contained within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7, 2011 (DMRB) for the assessment of short term changes in road traffic noise. The criteria do not relate to the actual existing noise levels but only the predicted changes.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 106 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 9.1: Road Traffic Noise Assessment Significance Criteria
Criteria for Assessing Short Term Changes in Road Magnitude of Impact Traffic Noise
Major Adverse > 5.0 dB increase in traffic noise (equating to a clearly perceptible increase in the loudness of noise).
Moderate Adverse 3.0 – 4.9 dB increase in traffic noise (equating to an increase in the loudness of the noise which is at or about the threshold of perception)
Minor Adverse 1.0 – 2.9 dB increase in traffic noise
Negligible 0.1 – 0.9 dB increase in traffic noise.
9.3.11 The significance of an environmental effect is determined by the interaction of magnitude and sensitivity. The criteria used in this assessment are shown in Tables 9.2 to 9.5.
Table 9.2: Magnitude of Noise Impact
Magnitude of Description Noise Impact
Large Impact resulting in a considerable change in baseline environmental conditions predicted either to cause statutory objectives to be significantly exceeded or to result in severe undesirable/desirable consequences on the receiving environment.
Medium Impact resulting in a discernible change in baseline environmental conditions predicted either to cause statutory objectives to be marginally exceeded or to result in undesirable/desirable consequences on the receiving environment.
Small Impact resulting in a discernible change in baseline environmental conditions with undesirable/desirable conditions that can be tolerated
Negligible No discernible change in the baseline environmental conditions, within margins of error of measurement
9.3.12 The magnitude of vibration impacts have been classified in accordance with Table 9.3 below;
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 107 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 9.3: Magnitude of Vibration Impact
Magnitude of Vibration Description Impact
Large > 10mm per sec. Vibration likely to be intolerable for more than brief exposure. Approaching the level at which cosmetic damage may occur in light structures.
Medium 5mm - 10mm per second. Tolerance less likely even with prior warning and explanation.
Small 1mm – 5mm per second. Complaints are likely, but can be tolerated if prior warning and explanation given.
Negligible <1mm per second. Below level at which complaints are likely.
Table 9.4: Sensitivity of Receptor
Sensitivity Receptor Type
High Receptor/resource has little ability to absorb change without fundamentally altering its present character, or is of international or national importance. For example, hospitals, residential care homes, and internationally and nationally designated nature conservation sites which are also known to contain noise sensitive species (i.e. noise may change breeding habits or threaten species in some other way).
Moderate Receptors/resource has moderate capacity to absorb change without significantly altering its present character. For example, residential dwellings, offices, schools, and play areas. Locally designated nature conservation sites which are also known to contain noise sensitive species (i.e. noise may change breeding habits or threaten species in some other way).
Low Receptor/resource is tolerant of change without detriment to its character or is of low or local importance. For example, industrial estates.
Negligible Receptor/ resource is not sensitive to noise.
9.3.13 The significance of an environmental impact for noise and vibration from each phase of the works is determined by the interaction of magnitude and sensitivity. The Effect Significance Matrix used in this assessment is shown in Table 9.5.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 108 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 9.5: Effect Significance Matrix
Sensitivity Magnitude High Moderate Low Negligible Large Very Substantial Substantial Moderate None
Medium Substantial Substantial Slight/Moderate None
Small Moderate Slight/Moderate Slight None
Negligible None None None None
9.3.14 The potential noise effects associated with the Proposed Development have been assessed in accordance with the above guidance to determine whether noise and vibration impacts occur at receptors. Where likely adverse effects are identified, appropriate mitigation measures are proposed to avoid, reduce or compensate for the adverse effects.
9.4 Baseline Conditions
Desk Study
9.4.1 From Ordnance Survey mapping it is possible to identify 8 sensitive receptors most likely to be affected by noise from the site. These locations are shown on Figure 9.1 in Appendix H.1 and in Table 9.6.
Table 9.6: Identified Noise Sensitive Locations
Grid references Approximate distance Location Address from site boundary (m) Easting Northing
ESR 1 Lower Ecton Lane Caravan 481870 262258 17 Park
ESR 2 Esso Nene Valley Way 482404 262494 20
ESR 3 96 High Street Ecton 482796 263152 590
ESR 4 22 Pynkeny Close 485101 262947 875
ESR 5 Eden House, 366 Grendon 485812 261710 1,400 Road
ESR 6 57 Cogenhoe Mill Caravan 483302 261489 239 Site, Mill Lane
ESR 7 21 Crow lane, Little Billing 481465 261811 58
ESR 8 Great Billing WRC 482182 261935 5
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 109 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9.4.2 An assessment of the change in road traffic noise levels has also been carried out at six existing, sensitive receptor locations. The existing receptor locations (identified as CRTN 1 to CRTN 6) have been chosen along those routes most likely to be affected by traffic associated with the proposed development. Receptors adjacent to affected junctions have been considered. Details of the sensitive receptor locations are given in Table 9.7 and shown on Figure 9.2 in Appendix H.1.
Table 9.7: Identified Road Traffic Noise Sensitive Locations
Grid references CRTN Address Use Location Easting Northing
CRTN 1 97 Station Road 481355 262140 Residential
CRTN 2 4 Station End 481376 262256 Residential
CRTN 3 1 Ecton Lane Park 481673 262176 Residential
CRTN 4 8 Crow Lane 481443 261881 Residential
CRTN 5 21 Crow Lane 481465 261810 Residential
CRTN 6 Ecton Brook Primary School, 481816 262465 School Ecton Brook Road
9.4.3 Impacts will also be felt at receptors adjacent to and beyond those listed above. However, impacts at these receptors will be less than at the listed receptors.
Background noise survey
9.4.4 To establish background noise levels representative of those currently experienced at the chosen sensitive receptor locations 1 to 8, Wardell Armstrong carried out daytime noise surveys on the 14th and 15th April 2016. The noise surveys were carried out over the daytime period of 0925-1715 hours on a weekday to include the proposed hours of operation of the site.
9.4.5 To provide background noise monitoring data representative of the 8 sensitive locations, monitoring was carried out at 6 locations. The locations are shown on Figure 9.3 in Appendix H.1 and summarised in Table 9.8.
Table 9.8: Noise Monitoring Locations
Noise Monitoring Description of Location Representative of Location sensitive location(s)
ML1 6.5m from Crow Lane, to the west of the site ESR 7
ML2 Approx 20m from A45 nene Valley Way, to ESR 1, ESR 2, the northwest of the site ESR 8
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 110 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Noise Monitoring Description of Location Representative of Location sensitive location(s)
ML3 4m from high street, to the north of the site ESR 3
ML4 3.5m from mill road, at the entrance to the ESR 6 caravan site, to the south of the site
ML5 3.5m from Station Road, to the east of the ESR 5 site
ML6 6m from Pynkeny Close, to the northeast of ESR 4 the site
1 2 9.4.6 A-weighted0F0F L90 1F1F values were recorded for each survey period to provide background noise levels in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Practice Guidance. The A- 3 weighted Leq 2F2F values were also recorded for each survey to provide additional information. The measured noise levels are detailed in full in Appendix H.2.
9.4.7 The noise measurements were made using a class 1 sound level meter situated on a tripod 1.5 metres above the ground and more than 3 metres from any other reflecting surfaces. The sound level meter and calibrator were in calibration at the time of the survey and the meter was field-calibrated to a reference level of 94 dB at 1 kHz prior to the survey and on completion. The noise monitoring results are summarised in Table 9.9.
Table 9.9: Summarised Background Noise Monitoring Results
Location Average Measured Leq dB(A) Lowest Measured L90 dB(A)
ML1 71 59
ML2 72 67
ML3 58 47
ML4 53 45
ML5 69 45
ML6 51 46
1 A weighting: An electronic filter in a sound level meter which mimics the frequency response of the human ear, under defined conditions. 2 L90: The sound pressure level which is exceeded for over 90% of a given monitoring period. 3 Leq: Equivalent continuous sound pressure level – the steady state sound pressure level providing the same amount of acoustic energy as the time varying sound pressure level, for a given reference period.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 111 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9.4.8 The most significant sources of noise noted during the attended noise monitoring at each location and the range of noise levels measured are as follows:
Location 1: Road traffic was the dominant source of noise. Birdsong, was also audible during the noise survey. Location 2: Constant road traffic on the A45 and occasional vehicle movements along Lower Ecton Lane were the dominant sources of noise. Birdsong and occasional animal noises were also audible during the noise survey. Location 3: Distant road traffic on the A45 and occasional vehicle movements along High Street were the dominant sources of noise. Birdsong and occasional aircraft overflights were also audible during the noise survey. Location 4: Distant road traffic on the A45 and occasional vehicle movements along Mill Lane were the dominant sources of noise. Birdsong and occasional aircraft overflights were also audible during the noise survey. Location 5: The Earls Barton quarry was the dominant source of noise during the survey. Intermittent road traffic on station road and building work from a nearby premises was also audible during the noise survey. Location 6: Road traffic on the A45 was the dominant source of noise. Birdsong, aircraft overflights and occasional distant gunshots were also audible during the noise survey.
9.4.9 Weather conditions during all survey periods were considered appropriate in accordance with the requirements of relevant guidance, with no high wind-speeds or rain that can impact upon noise measurements. The data is therefore considered suitable for use in this noise assessment.
Noise Criteria
9.4.10 The noise limits for ESR 1 to 8 have been determined using the background noise monitoring data in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (minerals). The guidance states that “Mineral planning authorities should aim to establish a noise limit, through a planning condition, at the noise-sensitive property that does not exceed the background noise level (LA90,1h) by more than 10dB(A) during normal working hours (0700-1900). Where it will be difficult not to exceed the background level by more than 10dB(A) without imposing unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator, the limit set should be as near that level as practicable. In any event, the total noise from the operations should not exceed 55dB(A) LAeq, 1h (free field). For operations during the evening (1900-2200) the noise limits should not exceed the background noise level (LA90,1h) by more than 10dB(A) and should not exceed 55dB(A) LAeq, 1h (free field).
9.4.11 The measured background noise levels at ML 1 to ML 6 were all 45dB(A) or above and therefore the maximum noise limit of 55dB(A) LAeq, 1h will apply to ESR1 to ESR 8.
9.4.12 In addition to the criteria for long term activities consideration needs to be given to short term activities. In accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals) examples of short term activities include soil stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance. The only short term activities likely to take place are soil stripping and construction of soil storage mounds and the removal of the storage mounds as part of the site restoration.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 112 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9.4.13 In accordance with Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals) the short term works should be subject to increased temporary daytime noise limits of up to 70dB LAeq 1h (free field) for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year at the specified noise-sensitive properties.
9.5 Potential Effects
Noise Sources
9.5.1 Machinery on open sites generate noise levels that fluctuate due to the mobility of the activities. The degree to which noise propagates to nearby properties is dependent on a number of factors, which include:
The noise output of sound power level of the plant; The distance to properties; The absorbing or reflecting effect of intervening ground; The effects of any natural or purpose built screening; The duration of activities on site.
9.5.2 The main sources of noise at the site will be associated with the stripping of topsoil, extraction and transportation of sand and gravel and restoration of the worked phases along with the processing of materials at the processing and concrete plants.
9.5.3 Within the plant area there will be two wheeled loaders for material management, including vehicle loading and loading the concrete plant.
9.5.4 Day to day excavation will be by a hydraulic excavator that will load to articulated dump trucks. It is expected that there will be two to three articulated dump trucks used to transport material.
9.5.5 Excavated material will be taken to the plant and operations area via internal unbound roads.
9.5.6 As the location of mobile plant follows the progression of the working face, the distance between the operations and the individual properties is subject to change. Noise levels at each property will generally decrease as the activity progresses further away from the property; however, this will depend on the height of the plant above and below surrounding ground levels and the height of any intervening ground within each phase of extraction.
9.5.7 The noise predictions calculated for this assessment consider all potential sources on the site which form part of this current application including the HGV movements to and from the area of extraction.
9.5.8 The predictions are based on published and/or measured sound power levels for the size and type of plant anticipated to be used in the site during the proposed extraction works. The calculations are set out in BS5228:1 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’ (2009). Details of the likely operational plant together with appropriate sound power levels are given in Table 9.10. The sound power levels have been taken from Wardell Armstrong’s measurement archive, manufacturers’ information or from BS5228 for similar types of equipment.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 113 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 9.10: Plant Inventory
Activity Plant Sound Power Level dB(A)
Soil Stripping Materials handling (D6 Dozer) 108
Materials handling (Tracked 107 Excavator CAT 345)
Extraction Materials removal and 107 extraction (Tracked Excavator CAT 345)
Volvo L150E Wheeled 105 Loading Shovel
Articulated Dump Truck (23t) 106
Restoration Materials handling (D6 Dozer) 108
Materials handling (Tracked 107 Excavator CAT 345)
Plant and Operations Area Conveyor 83
Conveyor Drive Unit 105
Wheeled Loading Shovel 105 (Volvo L150E) x2
Impact Crusher 118
Log Washer 108
Screen x2 98
Sand Recovery Unit 98
Logwasher 83
9.5.9 During soil stripping, it is anticipated that the bulldozer will strip the topsoil. The tracked excavator will then consolidate the stripped soil into soil storage mounds. The soil storage mounds will be located along the boundaries of each phase and, where located between operations and existing sensitive receptors, will minimise the noise impact from extraction works.
9.5.10 During sand and gravel extraction, it is anticipated that the excavator will create a small stockpile of excavated material close to where it is working. The loading shovel will then directly feed to road haulage vehicles; removing material from the excavated stockpile and transporting it to the plant operations area to be processed.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 114 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9.5.11 During restoration, it is anticipated that the tracked excavator will remove soil from the soil storage mounds and create smaller soil mounds. The bulldozer will then redistribute the soil to restore the site.
9.5.12 The following model parameters have been used in the SoundPlan noise modelling:
Noise from mobile plant and internal haul road has been assessed as point and line sources as appropriate. There will be an average of 9 HGV movements per hour travelling on the internal haul route within the site at an average speed of 15kph. Noise from HGV movements on the local road network has been assessed with reference to CRTN 1988, with LAeq levels calculated using the TRL formula.
For a calculated 1 hour LAeq, it is assumed that the plant has a 100% on time. This represents a worst case scenario. Sound power levels for each item of plant have been included in accordance with Table 9.9. 3-5m high bunds will be located between the operations and nearby sensitive receptors as shown on the phasing plans.
Noise Predictions
9.5.13 Operational noise levels have been predicted at each of the potentially sensitive receptors around the site for each scenario. The noise level predictions take account of the sound power level of the plant operating, the distance between sensitive receptors and the plant at different stages of operation, and the nature of intervening ground (slope, screening bunds and soft ground).
9.5.14 It is recognised that noise modelling is indicative and that modelled noise levels can differ to noise levels measured once works are actually taking place. This could be due to a number of reasons such as varying meteorological conditions which cannot be included in the model; though the model does assume good noise propagation conditions. However, the modelling does indicate where the most significant issues are likely to arise and where measures may be required to mitigate noise from the future quarrying activities.
9.5.15 It is considered that the sand and gravel extraction works should be classed as normal, longer term operations and therefore assessed against the 55dBLAeq 1 hour noise limit; in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals). It is however considered that soil stripping and earth mound construction, as well as site restoration, should be assessed against the temporary noise limit of 70dB LAeq 1 hour in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals). These activities form essential site preparation and restoration work and will provide longer term environmental benefits to the site and its environs. Details of the short term noise modelling scenarios carried out, and assessed against the 70dB LAeq 1 hour criterion, are shown below. These scenarios have been chosen to correspond to the short term activities associated with works at the site:
Short Term Scenario 1: Soil stripping Phase 1 Short Term Scenario 2: Soil stripping Phase 2 Short Term Scenario 3: Soil stripping Phase 3 Short Term Scenario 4: Soil stripping Phase 4
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 115 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Short Term Scenario 5: Soil stripping Phase 5 Short Term Scenario 6: Soil stripping Phase 6 Short Term Scenario 7: Soil stripping Phase 7 Short Term Scenario 8: Soil stripping Phase 8 Short Term Scenario 9: Soil stripping Phase 9 Short Term Scenario 10: Soil stripping Phase 10
9.5.16 The location of each item of plant is shown on Figures 9.4 to 9.13 in Appendix H.1. Each location has been selected to be representative of noise levels when soil stripping and restoration operations take place in the phases located closest to the nearest existing sensitive receptors to the site and is therefore considered suitably robust.
9.5.17 Details of the normal operation noise modelling scenarios carried out, and assessed against criteria set in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals), are shown below:
Scenario 1: Year 5 Extraction Phase 2, Restoration Phase 1 Scenario 2: Year 7 Extraction Phase 4, Restoration Phase 1, 2 and 3 Scenario 3: Year 9 Extraction Phase 6, Restoration Phase 3, 4, and 5 Scenario 4: Year 11 Extraction Phase 8, Restoration Phase 6 and 7 Scenario 5: Year 14 Extraction Phase 10, Restoration Phase 6, 7, 8, and 9 Scenario 6: Year 14 Extraction Phase 10, Restoration Phase 6, 7, 8, and 9, No bunds other than around the Plant and Operations Area
9.5.18 For each of the scenarios the excavator, loading shovel, bulldozer and HGVs are positioned at the existing ground level to represent a worst case scenario. The location of each item of plant and the proposed haul road is shown on Figures 9.14 to 9.19 in Appendix H.1. Each location has been selected to be representative of noise levels when operations take place in the phases located closest to the nearest existing sensitive receptors to the site and is therefore considered suitably robust.
9.5.19 The noise modelling has assumed that earth bunds will be located between the extraction operations and nearby sensitive receptors when extraction is undertaken in the phases closest to the nearby sensitive receptors, as shown on Figures 9.14 to 9.19.
Results and Evaluation
9.5.20 The noise prediction results for each of the short term scenarios are set out in Table 9.11.
Table 9.11: Modelled Short Term Noise Levels
Scenario Noise Level at Sensitive Receptor Locations (dB LAeq 1 hour)
ESR 1 ESR 2 ESR 3 ESR 4 ESR 5 ESR 6 ESR 7 ESR 8
1: Soil stripping Phase 1 24.9 29.2 28.6 24.7 17.5 43.6 24.7 28.6
2: Soil stripping Phase 2 21.5 25.0 24.4 28.0 22.6 37.3 21.6 24.1
3: Soil stripping Phase 3 19.5 22.7 25.6 30.6 24.9 33.2 19.8 21.7
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 116 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Scenario Noise Level at Sensitive Receptor Locations (dB LAeq 1 hour)
ESR 1 ESR 2 ESR 3 ESR 4 ESR 5 ESR 6 ESR 7 ESR 8
4: Soil stripping Phase 4 18.1 21.1 24.8 33.4 24.2 27.0 18.4 19.9
5: Soil stripping Phase 5 18.5 24.0 27.0 30.1 25.3 24.9 18.5 22.2
6: Soil stripping Phase 6 21.6 27.3 30.3 27.7 20.0 27.3 20.5 25.5
7: Soil stripping Phase 7 25.5 31.2 33.8 22.9 18.5 31.2 24.4 30.8
8: Soil stripping Phase 8 27.6 34.2 34.2 21.5 19.0 34.0 25.2 31.2
9: Soil stripping Phase 9 25.9 31.6 30.6 21.6 19.5 35.6 24.8 29.3
10: Soil stripping Phase 10 23.2 27.5 29.5 27.3 21.1 33.5 22.8 25.9
9.5.21 The results set out in Table 9.11 show that the soil stripping and soil storage mound construction works will not cause an exceedance of the 70dB(A) LAeq 1 hour noise criterion, which had been determined from the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals), during the short term temporary operations.
9.5.22 In addition, noise levels at existing sensitive receptors are generally less than 55dBLAeq 1 hour during the short term works, more than 15dB(A) below the noise limit for short term temporary operations. The higher levels of noise set out in Table 9.11 will be experienced as soil stripping commences at existing ground level in the phase nearest to the receptor. However, the stripping at existing ground level and at its closest location to these receptors will only be carried out for a limited period; and considerably less than the 8 weeks per year permitted by the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals). The noise generated by the plant will reduce significantly as the soil storage mounds are constructed between the site and receptors and as the plant moves further away from the receptors and into the void created by the extraction.
9.5.23 It is therefore considered that the impact of the short term works at the existing receptors most likely to be affected will be direct, short term and of small magnitude when assessed in accordance with the criteria contained in Table 9.3. The sensitivity of receptors is considered to be low to moderate in accordance with Table 9.4 and the effect significance is therefore considered to be slight to slight/moderate when assessed in accordance with Table 9.5. As the noise levels are within the limits set in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals), it is considered that this effect is not significant and no further noise mitigation measures are required.
9.5.24 The noise prediction results for each of the long term scenarios are set out in Table 9.12.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 117 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 9.12: Modelled Normal Operations Noise Levels
Scenario Noise Level at Sensitive Receptor Locations (dB LAeq 1 hour)
ESR 1 ESR 2 ESR 3 ESR 4 ESR 5 ESR 6 ESR 7 ESR 8
1: Year 5 Extraction Phase 2, 40.1 45.8 36.4 29.8 26.3 43.7 37.1 46.9 Restoration Phase 1
2: Year 7 Extraction Phase 4, 40.2 45.8 37.0 36.6 30.2 43.5 37.2 46.9 Restoration Phase 1, 2 and 3
3: Year 9 Extraction Phase 6, 40.1 45.8 37.2 36.8 30.4 40.6 37.1 46.9 Restoration Phase 3, 4, and 5
4: Year 11 Extraction Phase 40.4 46.1 38.1 31.2 26.4 40.7 37.4 47.0 8, Restoration Phase 6 and 7
5: Year 14 Extraction Phase 40.6 46.3 39.4 32.1 28.1 42.5 37.8 47.1 10, Restoration Phase 6, 7, 8, and 9
6: Year 14 Extraction Phase 40.6 46.4 40.7 32.1 28.1 44.6 37.8 47.2 10, Restoration Phase 6, 7, 8, and 9, No bunds other than around the Plant and Operations Area
9.5.25 The results set out in Table 9.12 show that there will be no exceedances of the noise criteria which have been determined from the results of the noise survey and in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals). It should be noted that the higher levels of noise set out in Table 9.12 will be experienced as extraction commences, at a higher ground level. However, the extraction at a higher ground level and at its closest location to these receptors will only be carried out for limited period. The noise generated by the plant will reduce significantly as the plant moves further away from sensitive receptors and into the void created by the extraction.
9.5.26 It is therefore considered that the impact of the long term works at the existing receptors most likely to be affected will be direct, long term and of small magnitude when assessed in accordance with the criteria contained in Table 9.3. The sensitivity of receptors is considered to be low to moderate in accordance with Table 9.4 and the effect significance is therefore considered to be slight to slight/moderate when assessed in accordance with Table 9.5. As the noise levels are within the limits set in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals), it is considered that this effect is not significant. It will not therefore be necessary to recommend further noise mitigation measures.
Assessment of vehicular noise
9.5.27 In addition to the consideration of noise generated during extraction, the scoping report requested that the noise impact of traffic be considered.
9.5.28 Noise prediction calculations have been carried out to assess the potential change in road traffic noise at existing receptor locations due to the additional traffic generated by the
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 118 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
brickearth extraction. The prediction calculations have been carried out in accordance with the method specified in CRTN 1988 for existing receptor locations.
9.5.29 Details of the sensitive receptor locations assessed are given in Table 9.7 and shown on Figure 9.2 (i.e. CRTN 1 to CRTN 6). Impacts may also be felt at receptors adjacent to and beyond those listed above, however impacts at these receptors will be less than at the listed receptors. With increasing distance from these road links, impacts will decline to zero.
9.5.30 Road traffic noise levels at the façades of existing receptors have been determined using the Soundplan 7.4 computer modelling software. This software predicts road traffic noise levels in accordance with the CRTN prediction method, based on the number and composition of vehicles travelling along the local road links (i.e. the number and proportion of HGVs and LGVs), together with the speed of vehicles, distance of the receptor from the edge of the carriageway and angle of view of the road link. The traffic data used has been supplied by Cannon Consulting Engineers. Further detail regarding the traffic assessment is provided in Chapter 8 of this ES.
9.5.31 The predicted 2026 “with development “and 2026 “without development” noise levels are shown in Table 9.13 for each of the receptors considered.
Table 9.13: CRTN Predictions for 2026 Future Year (With and Without Development)
Receptor Predicted L10 (18 hour) dB(A) at the façade of the receptor
2026 Without 2026 With Development Change Development
CRTN 1 59.9 60.0 +0.1
CRTN 2 63.1 63.2 +0.1
CRTN 3 70.9 72.1 +1.2
CRTN 4 60.5 60.8 +0.3
CRTN 5 60.1 60.4 +0.3
CRTN 6 60.1 60.3 +0.2
9.5.32 The changes in noise levels at the sensitive receptors have then been assessed against the criteria contained in Table 9.2. The results show the highest increase in road traffic noise will be +1.2dB(A) at CRTN 3 (1 Ecton Lane Park) when comparing the 2026 Without Development to the 2026 “With Development” scenario. The change at all other receptors is less than +0.3dB. It is therefore considered that the impact of the increase in road traffic noise at the existing receptors most likely to be affected will be long term, direct and minor adverse at CRTN 3 and negligible at all other receptors when the magnitude is assessed in accordance with the criteria contained in Table 9.3. The sensitivity of receptors is considered to be moderate to low in accordance with Table 9.4 and the effect significance is therefore considered to be negligible to slight/moderate when assessed in accordance with Table 9.5. Based on the above, mitigation measures would not be required.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 119 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Vibration Assessment
9.5.33 The works have the potential to increase vibration levels at residential properties in the vicinity of operations during the proposed working hours.
9.5.34 Wardell Armstrong’s archives contain field trial measurements of ground vibration associated with types of plant likely to be used at the proposed development. The representative, measured levels, made by Wardell Armstrong using a Vibrock B801 Digital Seismograph, are set out in Table 9.14.
Table 9.14: Measured Vibration Levels of Plant Under normal Operating Conditions (Figures in ppv mm per second)
Distance from Source
Plant Type
10m 20m 30m
25-30 tonne excavator 0.175 0.075 Background
25 tonnes dumptruck (Volvo A25) Loaded 1.000 0.150 Background Empty 0.225 0.050 Background
Dozer 1.050 0.400 Background Loading shovel 1.025 0.150 Background
9.5.35 The nearest sensitive properties to the proposed works, as detailed in Table 9.5, will vary depending on the active phase of the development. As a worst case scenario, earthworks and extraction works may potentially take place at a distance of approximately 250m from buildings at sensitive properties. At this distance, it is unlikely that vibration due to the operation of various items of plant will be perceptible. The affected sensitive receptors are considered to be of medium sensitivity in accordance with Table 9.4. It is considered that the magnitude will be negligible in accordance with Table 9.3. The vibration generated by the site operations will therefore have an impact significance of none at the sensitive receptors located in the immediate vicinity of the development in accordance with Table 9.5.
9.5.36 It is therefore not considered that any mitigation measures will be needed to minimise potential impacts.
9.6 Mitigation and Enhancement
Noise
9.6.1 The proposed phasing plans show that a number of earth bunds will be created both around the proposed plant and operations area, and around a number of the proposed extraction phases
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 120 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9.6.2 As the noise levels are within the limits set in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals), it is considered that this effect is not significant. It will not therefore be necessary to recommend further noise mitigation measures.
9.6.3 It is however recommended that the following best practice measures are implemented at the site where possible:
All plant and machinery should be regularly maintained to control noise emissions, with particular emphasis on lubrication of bearings and the integrity of silencers; Site staff should be aware that they are working adjacent to a residential area and avoid all unnecessary noise due to misuse of tools and equipment, unnecessary shouting and radios; A further measure to reduce noise levels at the sensitive receptors would include, as far as possible, the avoidance of two noisy operations occurring simultaneously in close proximity to the same sensitive receptor; Adherence to any time limits imposed on noisy works by the Local Authority; Implement set working hours during the week and at weekends; and Ensure engines are turned off when possible.
Vibration
9.6.4 At this stage it is not proposed to introduce any specific vibration mitigation measures to any receptors.
9.7 Residual Effects
9.7.1 The impact of the short term works at the existing receptors most likely to be affected will be small in accordance with the criteria contained in Table 9.4. The sensitivity of receptors is considered to be moderate to low in accordance with Table 9.3 and the effect significance is therefore considered to be negligible to slight/moderate when assessed in accordance with Table 9.5. As the noise levels are within the limits set in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals), it is considered that this effect is not significant and no further noise mitigation measures are required.
9.7.2 The impact of the long term works at the existing receptors most likely to be affected will be small in accordance with the criteria contained in Table 9.4. The sensitivity of receptors is considered to be moderate to low in accordance with Table 9.3 and the effect significance is therefore considered to be negligible to slight/moderate when assessed in accordance with Table 9.5. As the noise levels are within the limits set in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals), it is considered that this effect is not significant. It will not therefore be necessary to recommend further noise mitigation measures.
9.7.3 The vibration impacts of the operation of the site are considered to be negligible. It is therefore considered that the residual impact will be None, in accordance with Table 9.5.
9.8 Cumulative Effects
9.8.1 In accordance with the requirements of Northamptonshire County Council, the cumulative noise impacts of the nearby permitted quarries has been considered, including those at Earls Barton Spinney and land west of Earls Barton Quarry, Grendon Road.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 121 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9.8.2 The cumulative impact will depend upon the timing and location of works in each quarry including the operations at the proposed development. It is possible that the proposed development may take place at the same time as nearby consented quarry operations, however noise levels from the proposed development at the sensitive receptors nearest to the consented quarries (ESR 4 and ESR 5) are more than 10dB(A) below both the short term and long noise limits. Therefore, even if the consented quarries operate at the maximum permitted noise levels, the cumulative noise from the proposed development would not result in any exceedances of the noise limits. Cumulative noise impacts are therefore not considered to be significant.
9.8.3 The vibration impacts of the operation of the site are considered to be negligible, Cumulative vibration impacts are therefore not considered to be significant.
9.9 Summary
9.9.1 A noise assessment has been carried out to consider the potential noise levels likely to be generated by the operation of the site and the potential impact on existing noise sensitive receptors.
9.9.2 A noise survey has been carried out to obtain background noise level information representative of the existing noise sensitive receptors identified. Using the background noise measurements and taking into consideration the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals); noise limits have been identified for each receptor.
9.9.3 The noise assessment considers the potential noise levels likely to be generated, due to the working of the site and transportation of materials, at 8 representative receptor locations. The noise levels have been calculated using Soundplan 7.4 noise modelling computer software. The predicted short term and long term modelled noise levels have been assessed against the appropriate noise criteria.
9.9.4 The short term noise levels generated during the soil stripping and soil mound construction will not exceed the 70dB LAeq 1 hour noise limit. In addition, existing sensitive receptors are generally less than 55dB LAeq 1 hour during the short term works, more than 15dB(A) below the noise limit for short term temporary operations. The stripping at existing ground level and at its closest location to the existing sensitive receptors will only be carried out for a limited period; and less than the 8 weeks per year permitted by the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals).
9.9.5 The impact of the short term works at the existing receptors most likely to be affected will be small. The sensitivity of receptors is considered to be moderate to low and the effect significance is therefore considered to be short term, direct, negligible to slight/moderate. As the noise levels are within the limits set in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals), it is considered that this effect is not significant and no further noise mitigation measures are required.
9.9.6 The impact of the long term works at the existing receptors most likely to be affected will be small. The sensitivity of receptors is considered to be moderate to low and the effect significance is therefore considered to be long term, direct, negligible to slight/moderate. As the noise levels are within the limits set in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals), it is considered that this effect is not significant. It will not therefore be necessary to recommend further noise mitigation measures.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 122 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
9.9.7 The CRTN prediction calculations of vehicle movements on the haul road and local road network indicates that there will be a negligible impact associated with the development generated traffic on the local road network, resulting in an impact significance of negligible to minor.
9.9.8 Without mitigation measures vibration is unlikely to be perceptible when operations take place closest to existing sensitive receptors, resulting in an impact significance of none. It will not therefore be necessary to recommend further noise and vibration mitigation measures.
9.10 References
British Standards Institution. (2009) +A1 2014 Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration (BS5228:2014). London: BSI. Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA 1974). Crown Copyright Department of Transport and the Welsh Office (1988). Calculation of Road Traffic Noise. London:HMSO Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Crown Copyright Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). Planning Practice Guidance, Minerals. Crown Copyright Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2010) Noise Policy Statement for England’ (NPSE). Crown Copyright Northamptonshire County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted October 2014). Crown Copyright The Highways Agency (2011) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7, 2011 (DMRB). London: HMSO
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 123 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10 Air Quality
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 This chapter, written by Wardell Armstrong, considers the potential dust and road traffic emission impacts in relation to an application to extract 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel and the subsequent restoration of the site.
10.1.2 A detailed assessment of the emissions from vehicles associated with the development has been undertaken using the Advance Dispersion Modelling System (ADMS-Roads) air dispersion model.
10.1.3 Qualitative assessments have been undertaken to consider the potential nuisance dust effects resulting from onsite emissions from operations including stripping and handling of soils, mineral extraction, mineral processing and on site vehicle movement including travel along the haul road. The assessment focuses on the effects of dust from these activities on the existing residential properties within close proximity to the site.
10.1.4 This chapter also provides information on the existing air quality and dust situations in the vicinity of the site. The mitigation measures which are currently in place, and which should continue to be implemented, in order to minimise any potential adverse impacts and risk associated with onsite operations, are outlined. The assessment also considers whether adverse air quality impacts are likely to affect existing residential properties close to the site and draws conclusions as to whether they are significant.
10.1.5 This chapter also includes a qualitative assessment of the potential nuisance dust effects and possible health effects of fine particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions resulting from on-site operations.
10.2 Policy Context
10.2.1 The relevant legislation, policy and guidance are listed below, with a summary provided in Volume 2, Appendix I.2.
Legislative Framework
10.2.2 The applicable legislative framework is as follows:
The Environment Act, 1995; The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2007; Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21st May 2008 on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe; and Air Quality (Standards) Regulations, 2010.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 124 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Planning Policy
10.2.3 Planning policies in relation to air quality should be in compliance with meeting EU limit values or national objectives for air pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in an AQMA is consistent with the local air quality action plan. Local authorities therefore need to set out their policies to achieve good air quality, both within AQMAs and more widely across their districts and periodically to review them to keep them relevant and up to date.
10.2.4 Northampton Borough Council’s draft Technical Planning Guidance on Air Quality and Emissions (dated May 2016) identifies the specific local plan policies that relate to planning and air quality in Northampton. The relevant extract from that document is at Appendix 1 and can be found in Volume 2, Appendix I.2.
10.2.5 The applicable guidance for this assessment is as follows:
Planning Practice Guidance: Air Quality, 2014; Planning Practice Guidance: Assessing Environmental Impacts from Minerals Extraction, 2014; Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM), Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction, 2014; Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and IAQM, Land-Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality, 2015; Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), 2007; and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance (LAQM.TG(16)), 2016.
10.3 Methodology
Consultation and Scope of Assessment
10.3.1 An EIA scoping opinion was provided by Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) on 13th January 2016, which collated responses from a number of statutory consultees.
10.3.2 With regard to air quality and cumulative impacts, comments were provided by the Development Control Manager of the Environment and Planning Department at NCC, as follows:
“The Borough Council of Wellingborough (WBC) Environmental Health Officer (EHO) requires the approach to the air quality assessment to be discussed and agreed prior to it being undertaken.
The air quality assessment should include assessments of potential impacts on ecological receptors as well as other sensitive receptors.
It is considered important that the assessment addresses cumulative impacts on amenity (noise, dust, odour), landscape, biodiversity (including green infrastructure) and highways matters. This assessment should relate to both impacts generated from the subject site and in conjunction with surrounding developments, (existing, approved, proposed and likely) in particular the two permitted quarries at Earls Barton Spinney and land west of Grendon Road, Earls Barton.”
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 125 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.3.3 Following receipt of this scoping opinion, further consultation was undertaken on 28th January 2016 with the Environmental Protection Department at WBC. This confirmed that the assessment methodology was acceptable but that consultation on the selection of environmentally sensitive receptor locations would be required and if PM10 and PM2.5 would also be addressed within the report.
10.3.4 Prior to the EIA scoping opinion of January 2016, the Environmental Health Officer at Northampton Borough Council (NBC) made the following comments on 12th November 2015 with regard to the proposed air quality methodology:
See the criteria in the NBC Air Quality and Emissions Planning Guidance which helps indicate if detailed assessment is required as well as determining local roads to be captured by the assessment; In terms of emissions factors and background I would advise these do not change with advancing years accounting for uncertainty over future projections. Emission factors should remain static for the base year and future years. Any modelling should be based on an appropriate dispersion model such as ADMS; If local monitoring is not available, short-term monitoring may be required for the purposes of validation and verification; and The intention of the NBC Air Quality and Emissions Planning Guidance is to identify any mitigation required by a development as a standard element taking into account factors such as cumulative impact and sustainable development as set out by the NPPF.
10.3.5 A question was raised by the Environmental Protection department at WBC on 28th January 2016 as to whether the impact of site operations on pollutant concentrations, particularly PM10 at existing sensitive receptors would be considered and also if PM2.5 would be considered within the report. These have been included in the assessment as part of the vehicle emissions assessment and the assessment of fine particulates.
10.3.6 The scoping response from NBC raised the requirement for odour to be assessed as part of the air quality assessment, due to the site’s previous use for sewage disposal. Anglian Water Services Ltd advice that sewage sludge disposal has not taken place at the site for at least 17 years, possibly much longer. In addition, the Contaminated Land Quantitative Risk Assessment report of June 2015, indicated no evidence of any odour issues with the exception of two trial pits, where detection of organic and hydrocarbon-like odour was detected. It is considered that this is not associated with the former sewage disposal activity. Investigations undertaken and presented in the Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Resource Report of July 2016 do not present any findings relating to any odour. As a result, it has been considered unlikely that there will be significant air odour issues associated with the proposed development and the site’s previous use for sewage disposal and that odour does not comprise a concern for nearby residents during extraction of sand and gravel.
10.3.7 It was agreed, on 4th November 2016, with the Environmental Protection Department at WBC, that there were no objections to the proposed sensitive receptor locations. However, it was requested that further sensitive receptors (i.e. Pennycress Place, Oat Hill Drive and Ecton Brook Road) should also be included in the assessment.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 126 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Road Traffic Emissions Assessment
Modelling of Road Traffic Emissions
10.3.8 The air dispersion model ADMS-Roads (CERC, Version 4.0) has been used to assess the potential impact of development generated traffic on local air quality at existing receptor locations. The air dispersion model has been used to predict NO2 and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) concentrations, as these are the pollutants most likely to exceed the air quality objectives.
10.3.9 Air quality modelling has been carried out for four different years, as follows:
The verification and base year (2015); The proposed opening year of the development (2018): This is considered both without the development and with the development in place; The future year of the development (2030): This is considered both without the development and with the development in place; and The future year of the development (2037): This is considered both without the development and with the development in place.
10.3.10 Due to the uncertainty of future years NOx/NO2 contributions from vehicular exhaust emissions, a worst-case modelling approach has been taken through the application of emission factors and background concentrations for 2015 (i.e. base year levels) for all future modelled years. This approach provides a means by which to assess the extreme worst-case upper NOx/NO2 concentrations that may prevail in future years.
Road Traffic Data
10.3.11 The ADMS-Roads model requires the input of detailed road traffic flow information for those routes which will be affected by the development. The traffic flow information, provided by Cannon Consulting Engineers, used in the assessment is included in Appendix I.3. Traffic flows have been provided for the following routes.
A45 Nene Valley Way; A5076 Great Billing Way; Crow Lane; and Lower Ecton Lane.
10.3.12 Cannon Consulting Engineers have confirmed that the traffic movements associated with the Mick George Household Waste Recycling Centre expansion along Ecton Lane are included in the traffic data provided. In terms of other committed developments in the wider area these have been considered in applying background TEMPRO growth forecasts to the 2015 base.
10.3.13 Trip generation and development timescales used to produce the traffic data are based on information provided by DK Symes Associates, details of which are provided in Volume 2, Appendix I.3.
10.3.14 Further detail regarding the traffic assessment is provided in the Transport and Access, Chapter 8 of this ES.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 127 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.3.15 Air quality modelling has been carried out to estimate pollutant concentrations, due to road traffic emissions, for a total of seven scenarios all of which include any relevant committed developments:
Scenario 1: 2015 Verification and Base Year; Scenario 2: 2018 Proposed Opening Year ‘Without Development’; Scenario 3: 2030 Proposed future Year ‘Without Development’; Scenario 4: 2037 Proposed future Year ‘Without Development’; Scenario 5: 2018 Proposed Opening Year ‘With Development’; Scenario 6: 2030 Proposed future Year ‘With Development’; Scenario 7: 2037 Proposed future Year ‘With Development’
Meteorological Data
10.3.16 The meteorological data used in the air quality modelling has been provided by ADM Limited. Meteorological data has been obtained for 2015 from the Bedford recording station with 12% missing cloud data from Luton. The Bedford station is located approximately 21km from the site. The meteorological data provides hourly wind speed and direction information. The 2015 wind rose for Bedford is included in Volume 2, Appendix I.4.
Sensitive Receptor Locations
10.3.17 Eight representative existing sensitive receptor locations (identified as ESR 1 to ESR 8) have been selected along the route most likely to be affected by the proposed development. As set out in paragraph 10.3.7, WBC requested the assessment of additional receptors at Oat Hill Drive, Ecton Brook Road and Pennycress Place. However, traffic data was not available for Oat Hill Drive and Ecton Brook Road. A worst case receptor (the closest residential property to the road and junction where traffic data is available in order to ensure that the highest concentrations and changes in pollutants are considered) located along Pennycress Place has been selected for the assessment. Sensitive receptors are shown on Figure 10.1, Appendix I.1 and detailed in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1: Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations
Grid Reference Receptor Address Type of Receptor Easting Northing
ESR 1 97 Station Road 481386.9 262184.7 Residential
ESR 2 4 Station End 481376.2 262249.9 Residential
ESR 3 8 Crow Lane 481440.6 261880.4 Residential
Ecton Brook Primary ESR 4 School, Ecton Brook 481859.2 262462.4 School Road
ESR 5 33 Pennycress Place 481417.0 262405.0 Residential
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 128 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Grid Reference Receptor Address Type of Receptor Easting Northing
Caravan Park, Lower ESR 6 481669.2 262174.6 Residential Ecton Lane Caravan Park, Lower ESR 7 481704.5 262118.4 Residential Ecton Lane Caravan Park, Lower ESR 8 481844.8 262295.2 Residential Ecton Lane
Designated Site Assessment – Ecological Receptors
10.3.18 Guidance detailed within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance document: Volume 11, Section 3 – Environmental Assessment, Environmental Assessment Techniques (2007) states that:
“The designated sites that should be considered for assessment are those for which the designated features are sensitive to air pollution, either directly or indirectly, and which could be adversely affected by the effect of local air pollution on vegetation within the following nature conservation sites: SAC (SCI or cSAC), SPA, pSPA, SSSI and Ramsar sites.”
10.3.19 DMRB states that the potential impacts of changes in air quality on sensitive designated sites, which are located within 200m of an ‘affected’ road, need to be considered. Currently, the deposition of nitrogen-containing pollutants (e.g. NOx) is of most concern for sensitive vegetation communities and ecosystems.
10.3.20 Roads are deemed ‘affected’ if a proposed development leads to:
A change in road alignment of 5m or more; A change in daily traffic flow of 1,000 AADT or more; A change in HGV flow of 200 AADT or more; A change in daily average speed of 10 kph or more; and A change in peak hour speed of 20kph or more.
10.3.21 The Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI, SAC and Ramsar nature conservation sites that are located to the East of the site are at a distance of over 200m of the A45. Therefore, these sites are screened out of the need for further assessment.
10.3.22 The Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI, SAC and Ramsar nature conservation sites that are located to the Southwest of the site are within 200m of the A45. Following a review of the traffic flows provided for the air quality assessment, it is considered that the proposed development will not lead to any of the above changes for this road. This road is not, therefore, considered to be ‘affected’ by the proposed development and so a DMRB assessment of the operational impacts of the proposed development on these ecological receptors is not required.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 129 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Model Validation, Verification and Adjustment
10.3.23 LAQM.TG(16) recognises that model validation generally refers to detailed studies that have been carried out by the model supplier or a regulatory agency. The ADMS-Roads model has been validated by the supplier CERC.
10.3.24 Model verification is used to check the performance of the model at a local level. The verification of the ADMS-Roads model is achieved by modelling concentration(s) at existing monitoring location(s) in the vicinity of the proposed development and comparing the modelled concentration(s) with the measured concentration(s).
10.3.25 NBC operates approximately eighty NO2 diffusion tubes and two roadside continuous analysers within their administrative boundary. The co-located triplicate NO2 diffusion tubes at the Hermitage Way analyser were used for model verification purposes as well as a further two diffusion tube monitors along the A45. 2015 monitoring data was obtained from NBC, as this is the most recent full year for which monitoring data is available. A bias adjustment factor, supplied by NBC, has been applied to the unadjusted monitoring results by Wardell Armstrong.
10.3.26 Given that the monitoring locations used for verification were not located within the local area of the site, it was necessary to review traffic information from the Department for Transport (DfT) for a section of the A45 within close proximity to the aforementioned diffusion tubes and a section of the A45 within close proximity to the proposed development site. The 24-hour AADT flows were 62,545 and 52,184, respectively. Therefore, it is considered that use of the aforementioned diffusion tubes within the model verification procedure would provide a robust approach. Model verification of the assessment was therefore undertaken using these diffusion tubes. This approach was presented to the EHO at NBC following the request for model verification.
10.3.27 The NO2 monitoring data used within the model verification procedure is detailed in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2: NO2 Monitoring Data for 2015 Used for Verification Purposes
2015 Bias Adjusted Grid Reference Monitoring Location NO2 Annual Average Type Reference Concentration Easting Northing (µg/m3) Diffusion 11 - Hermitage Way 475897.8 256968.4 37.63 Tube Diffusion 12 - Hermitage Way 39.13 Tube 475897.8 256968.4 Diffusion 13 - Hermitage Way 37.58 Tube 475897.8 256968.4 Diffusion 14 - Chestnut Avenue 31.55 Tube 475831.8 256474.8 Diffusion 15 - A45 40.86 Tube 475767.6 256414.0
NO2 monitoring data obtained from NBC.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 130 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.3.28 It has not been possible to carry out verification for PM10 or PM2.5 concentrations, as no monitoring data is available along roads for which traffic flow information is available.
10.3.29 Full details of the model verification procedure are included in Volume 2, Appendix I.5.
Limitations of the Assessment
10.3.30 There is no PM10 or PM2.5 monitoring data available in the study area for the purposes of model verification. Therefore, results have been reported as uncorrected concentrations.
Significance Criteria
10.3.31 Guidance has been prepared by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and the IAQM in relation to the assessment of the air quality impacts of proposed developments and their significance.
10.3.32 The impact of a development is usually assessed at specific receptors, and takes into account both the long term background concentrations, in relation to the relevant Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL) at these receptors, and the change with the development in place.
10.3.33 The impact descriptors for individual receptors are detailed in Table 10.3.
Table 10.3: Impact Descriptors for Individual Receptors
Long Term Average Percentage Change in Concentration Concentration at Relative to Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL)* Receptor in Assessment Year* 1% 2-5% 6-10% >10
75% or less of AQAL Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate
76-94% of AQAL Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate
95-102% of AQAL Slight Moderate Moderate Substantial
103-109% of AQAL Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial
110% or more of Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial AQAL *Percentage pollutant concentrations have been rounded to whole numbers, to make it easier to assess the impact. Changes of 0% (i.e. less than 0.5%) should be described as negligible
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 131 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Determining the Significance of Effects
10.3.34 Impacts on air quality, whether adverse or beneficial, will have an effect on human health that can be judged as either ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’ as detailed in Table 4.1.
10.3.35 Once the impact of the proposed development has been assessed for the individual impacts, the overall significance is determined using professional judgement. This takes into account a number of factors such as:
The existing and future air quality in the absence of the development; The extent of the current and future population exposure to the impacts; and The influence and validity of any assumptions adopted when undertaking the prediction of impacts.
Dust Assessment
10.3.36 In order to assess the effects associated with nuisance dust which may arise from onsite working, a qualitative assessment has been undertaken. This considers local meteorological data and details of the proposed phases of operation, to identify the amount of time that each receptor is exposed to any possibility of receiving nuisance dust. The assessment then considers the proposed measures to control dust with regard to their potential to reduce effects. This approach is in accordance with advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance on Minerals Sites.
10.3.37 In order to assess the possible health effects associated with fine particulate matter, the assessment framework flowchart in the NPPG has been followed. Background PM10 concentrations, obtained from the Defra Local Air Quality Management website, together with the findings of research published "Do Particulates from Opencast Mining Impair Children's Respiratory Health" or Newcastle Report (Pless-Mulloli et al, 1999) has been used to estimate likely particulate levels at sensitive receptors.
Dust Sensitive Receptors
10.3.38 Dust sensitive receptors (DSR) have been identified using Ordnance Survey data. The DoE report advises that severe or continual concerns about dust are most likely to be experienced near to significant dust sources, generally within 100m. However, this distance can vary considerably depending on the nature of the dust source and weather conditions.
10.3.39 Particles in the size range of 10-30µm make up only a minor proportion of dust from mineral sites, but these tend to fall out of the atmosphere within 250m of the point of release.
10.3.40 The assessment has focused on six receptors which show a good geographical spread around the site boundary. The dust sensitive receptors are detailed in Table 10.4 and are shown on Figure 10.2 Appendix I.1.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 132 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 10.4: Dust Sensitive Receptor Locations
Approximate Grid Reference Distance Direction Receptor Address from Site from Site X Y Boundary (m) Ecton Brook Primary DSR 1 School, Ecton Brook 481816 262465 500 North West Road
Scoffers Café, DSR 2 Eastbound Nene Valley 482501 262588 76 North Way
DSR 3 57 Cogenhoe Mill 483302 261489 239 South Caravan Site, Mill Lane
The Grange, Church DSR 4 483062 261045 693 South Street 31, Riverwell DSR 5 481882 262550 474 North West Northampton 1 Ecton Lane Caravan DSR 6 481871 262259 600 North West Park
10.3.41 There are no statutory designated habitat sites located within 1km of the site. It is noted that the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar sites are located approximately 2.3km southwest of the application site and 1.5km east of the site at the closest point.
Significance Criteria
10.3.42 The significance of an environmental effect is determined not only by the magnitude of the effect but also by the sensitivity of the receptor as shown in Table 10.5.
Table 10.5: Methodology for Determining Sensitivity
Sensitivity Methodology
The location has little ability to deal with dust without suffering significant High harm. e.g. a hospital The location has moderate capacity to deal with dust without suffering some Moderate harm. e.g. a residential dwelling The location is tolerant of dust without suffering harm e.g. an industrial Low development
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 133 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.3.43 In accordance with the criteria detailed in Table 10.5, four dust sensitive receptors (i.e. DSR 3 to DSR 6) are residential in nature and are therefore considered to be of moderate sensitivity. Receptor DSR 1 is a school and DSR 2 is a café and are also considered to be of moderate sensitivity.
10.3.44 The magnitude of potential residual dust effects has been assessed against a set of significance criteria as detailed in Table 10.6.
Table 10.6: Methodology for Assessing Magnitude of Dust Emissions
Magnitude of Effect Criteria for Effect Magnitude
Major effect. Reduction in visibility and rapid accumulation of Major dust on clean surfaces. Moderate effect. No significant loss of visibility, but steady Moderate accumulation of dust observed on clean surfaces.
Minor effect. Air-borne dust occasionally visible over the Site area. Slow accumulation of dust observed on clean surfaces, Minor but not significantly quicker than on similar surfaces remote from, or upwind of, Site activities. In comparison it would be similar to normal dust accumulation over the summer.
Negligible effect. Very little change from baseline conditions. Negligible Change barely distinguishable approximating to a ‘no change’ situation.
10.3.45 The significance of any environmental effect for dust emissions is determined by the interaction of magnitude and sensitivity. The effect significance matrix used in this assessment is shown in Table 10.7.
Table 10.7: Effect Significance Matrix
Sensitivity Magnitude of Effect High Moderate Low
Major Major – Moderate Moderate – Minor Major Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial Major – Moderate Moderate – Minor Minor Moderate Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial Moderate – Minor Minor Minor Minor – Insignificant Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial Insignificant / Not Insignificant / Not Insignificant / Not Negligible Significant Significant Significant
10.3.46 Any effects identified as moderate or above are considered ‘significant’ in EIA terms. This is highlighted in blue in Table 10.7.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 134 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Baseline Data
Information Sources
10.3.47 The following sources of information have been used in the preparation of this report:
Air Quality Progress Report for Northampton Borough Council, 2014; 2015 Updating and Screening Assessment for Borough Council of Wellingborough Air quality monitoring data obtained for 2015 provided by NBC; Meteorological data for period 2006-2015 from Bedford recording station, obtained from ADM Limited; Traffic flow information, provided by Cannon Consulting Engineers (detailed in Volume 2, Appendix I.3); Defra Local Air Quality Management website for Background Maps and details on Air Quality Management Areas; “Do Particulates from Opencast Mining Impair Children’s Respiratory Health” or Newcastle Report (Pless-Mulloli et al, 1999); Department for Transport Traffic Counts Website; Contaminated Land Quantitative Risk Assessment Report (722018-REP-ENV-002), June 2015; and Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Resource Report on Land at Great Billing, July 2016
10.4 Baseline Conditions
Road Traffic Emissions Assessment
NBC Local Air Quality Management Review and Assessment
10.4.1 NBC is responsible for the management of air quality in the vicinity of the proposed development. There are a number of AQMAs declared for NO2 within NBC’s area of jurisdiction. The closest AQMA to the site is approximately 8km to the south west, along a section of the A45, London Road. This AQMA encompasses properties along Hermitage Way and Chestnut Avenue (where the diffusion tubes used for model verification are located). Therefore, the site itself is not located within an AQMA or known area of concern with regard to air quality.
WBC Local Air Quality Management Review and Assessment
10.4.2 WBC is also responsible for the management of air quality in the vicinity of the proposed development. The 2015 Updating and Screening Assessment for WBC is the most recent air quality report available and indicate that the relevant air quality objectives for NO2 and PM10 were currently being met in the area. There are no AQMAs declared within WBC’s area of jurisdiction.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 135 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Background Air Pollutant Concentrations
10.4.3 The ADMS assessment needs to take into account background concentrations upon which the local, traffic derived pollution is superimposed. The data may be derived through long term ambient measurements at background sites, remote from immediate sources of air pollution or alternatively from the default concentration maps, which have been provided for use with the revised LAQM.TG(16) guidance.
10.4.4 In the absence of data being available from a representative background continuous analyser, backgrounds have therefore been obtained from the 2013-based Defra default concentration maps for the appropriate 1km x 1km grid squares. These are available on the Defra website. As the receptors are located in more than one grid square, the highest pollutant concentration has been used to provide a robust assessment.
10.4.5 The background concentrations used in the assessment are detailed in Table 10.8. The 2014 Air Quality Progress Report for NBC has been reviewed and has determined that representative background NO2 monitoring data is available within Great Billing at Landsdown Drive. Therefore, background NO2 concentrations have been obtained from this diffusion tube. However, representative background PM10 monitoring data is not available within Great Billing. Therefore, background PM10 concentrations will be obtained from the Defra default concentration maps. The base year backgrounds from the 2013-based Defra LAQM maps have been used for both the base year and opening/future year scenarios.
10.4.6 Background concentrations used for model verification were obtained from Defra 2013-based maps since there was not a suitable background monitoring site close to the diffusion tubes.
Table 10.8: 2015 Background Pollutant Concentrations used in the assessment
Annual Mean Source 3 Pollutants Concentrations (µg/m )
2015
Defra 2013-based Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 26.47 maps
18.36 (used for Defra 2013-based Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) verification) maps
NBC Urban Background Diffusion Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 16.30 (used for receptors) Tube data from Landsdown Drive
Defra 2013-based Particulates (PM10) 17.76 maps
Fine particulate matter Defra 2013-based 12.23 (PM2.5) maps
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 136 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Modelled Baseline Concentrations
10.4.7 The baseline assessment (i.e. Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4) has been carried out for the eight existing sensitive receptors (i.e. ESR 1 to ESR 8). Table 10.9 outlines the NO2 results of the baseline assessment. The uncorrected NO2 data can be found in Volume 2, Appendix I.5.
Table 10.9: Predicted NO2 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2015
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3)
Receptor NO2 (Corrected)
2015 2018 2030 2037
ESR 1 26.07 26.69 28.53 29.24
ESR 2 23.52 23.94 25.31 25.83
ESR 3 25.64 26.13 27.83 28.49
ESR 4 21.35 21.64 22.61 22.99
ESR 5 21.53 21.83 22.82 23.20
ESR 6 30.34 31.07 33.57 34.54
ESR 7 23.41 23.80 25.13 25.67
ESR 8 34.59 35.54 38.62 39.79
10.4.8 The baseline assessment (i.e. Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4) has been carried out for the eight existing sensitive receptors (i.e. ESR 1 to ESR 8). Table 10.10 outlines the PM10 results of the baseline assessment.
Table 10.10: Predicted PM10 concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2015, 2018, 2030 and 2037
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3)
Receptor PM10 (Uncorrected)
2015 2018 2030 2037
ESR 1 18.67 18.73 18.91 18.98
ESR 2 18.46 18.50 18.64 18.69
ESR 3 18.62 18.67 18.84 18.90
ESR 4 18.22 18.25 18.34 18.37
ESR 5 18.28 18.31 18.41 18.45
ESR 6 19.10 19.17 19.43 19.54
ESR 7 18.41 18.45 18.58 18.63
ESR 8 19.54 19.64 19.98 20.11
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 137 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.4.9 The baseline assessment (i.e. Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4) has been carried out for the eight existing sensitive receptors (i.e. ESR 1 to ESR 8). Table 10.11 outlines the PM2.5 results of the baseline assessment.
Table 10.11: Predicted PM2.5 concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2015, 2018, 2030 and 2037
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3)
Receptor PM2.5 (Uncorrected)
2015 2018 2030 2037
ESR 1 12.79 12.82 12.94 12.98
ESR 2 12.66 12.68 12.77 12.80
ESR 3 12.76 12.79 12.89 12.93
ESR 4 12.51 12.53 12.59 12.61
ESR 5 12.55 12.56 12.63 12.65
ESR 6 13.06 13.10 13.26 13.33
ESR 7 12.63 12.66 12.73 12.77
ESR 8 13.33 13.39 13.60 13.68
Scenario 1: 2015 Verification and Base Year
10.4.10 Table 10.9 shows the 2015 baseline annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 21.35 to 34.59µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations considered. There are no predicted exceedances of the annual mean objective concentration 3 of 40µg/m for NO2.
10.4.11 Table 10.10 shows the 2015 baseline annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 18.22 to 19.54µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations 3 modelled. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration of 40µg/m for PM10 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
10.4.12 Table 10.11 shows the 2015 baseline annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 12.51 to 13.33µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations 3 modelled. Exceedance of the annual mean target level of 25µg/m for PM2.5 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
Scenario 2: 2018 Proposed Opening Year, Without Development
10.4.13 Table 10.9 shows the 2018 ‘without development’ annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 21.64 to 35.54µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations considered. There are no predicted exceedances of the annual mean 3 objective concentration of 40µg/m for NO2.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 138 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.4.14 Table 10.10 shows the 2018 ‘without development’ annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 18.25 to 19.64µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration of 3 40µg/m for PM10 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
10.4.15 Table 10.11 shows the 2018 ‘without development’ annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 12.53 to 13.39µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive 3 receptor locations modelled. Exceedance of the annual mean target level of 25µg/m for PM2.5 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
Scenario 3: 2030 Proposed Future Year, Without Development
10.4.16 Table 10.9 shows the 2030 ‘without development’ annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 22.61 to 38.62µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations considered. There are no predicted exceedances of the annual mean 3 objective concentration of 40µg/m for NO2.
10.4.17 Table 10.10 shows the 2030 ‘without development’ annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 18.34 to 19.43µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration of 3 40µg/m for PM10 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
10.4.18 Table 10.11 shows the 2030 ‘without development’ annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 12.59 to 13.60µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive 3 receptor locations modelled. Exceedance of the annual mean target level of 25µg/m for PM2.5 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
Scenario 4: 2037 Proposed Future Year, Without Development
10.4.19 Table 10.9 shows the 2037 ‘without development’ annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 22.99 to 39.79µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations considered. There are no predicted exceedances of the annual mean 3 objective concentration of 40µg/m for NO2.
10.4.20 Table 10.10 shows the 2037 ‘without development’ annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 18.37 to 20.11µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration of 3 40µg/m for PM10 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
10.4.21 Table 10.11 shows the 2037 ‘without development’ annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 12.61 to 13.68µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive 3 receptor locations modelled. Exceedance of the annual mean target level of 25µg/m for PM2.5 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
Dust Assessment
10.4.22 Large (>30µm) and intermediate (10 to 30 µm) sized particles have the potential to cause dust annoyance. Dust particles of this size progressively fall out of the air stream and most settle out within the immediate vicinity of the emission source. Fugitive dust is that which escapes from the immediate vicinity of the emission source and may affect the area surrounding the site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 139 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Existing Dust Sources
10.4.23 The site is located in a semi-rural setting, with open land surrounding the site to the north, east, and south. There are however busy roads located immediately to the north of the site and further away to the north. Existing dust sources in the vicinity of the site include:
Road traffic – exhaust particulates and emissions from the road surface, particularly from the A45 and the A5076; Domestic fuel burning; and Agricultural activities at nearby farms.
10.4.24 Dust transported from more distant sources, which may be apportioned to industrial or agricultural sources, will also contribute to the total dust levels experienced by the site and the surrounding receptors.
Meteorological Data
10.4.25 To provide information on how dust deposition might be affected by local weather conditions wind speed, wind direction and rainfall data have been obtained from ADM Ltd for the ten-year period (2006-2015). This data has been obtained from the Bedford recording station.
10.4.26 Wind speeds of less than 0.5 metres per second (m/s) do not hold significant quantities of fugitive dust particles in suspension; therefore, only wind speeds over 0.5m/s have been included in the analysis. Various figures are given for the threshold of wind speed at which dust particles begin to erode from an exposed ground surface. In dry conditions a wind speed of 5.5-6.0m/s (measured at the Met Office standard height of 10 metres above ground level), is required to raise some dust, but significant amounts will only be raised by site activity. This equates to Force 4 “Moderate Breeze” on the Beaufort Scale, which is defined as 5.5 to 7.9 m/s. The specification for use on land is “raises dust and loose paper”. Much higher wind speeds of 17.0m/s are generally considered necessary to erode significant quantities of dust from soils, under field conditions, without other mechanical disturbance.
10.4.27 There are existing sensitive receptors in all directions around the site boundary. Winds from all directions therefore have the potential to carry dust towards one or more of the sensitive areas.
10.4.28 For the purpose of the dust impact assessment, the wind frequencies have been split into the following wind speed and wind direction sectors:
Wind Speed: - 1.0 – 5.5m/s – movement of dust raised by site activity; - 5.5-17.0m/s – some erosion of dust by wind; and - >17.0m/s – potentially significant erosion of dust by wind. Wind Direction: - 346° - 15° - 16° - 45° - 46° - 75° - 76° - 105° - 106° - 135°
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 140 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
- 136° - 165° - 166° - 195° - 196° - 225° - 226° - 255° - 256° - 285° - 286° - 315° - 316° - 345°
10.4.29 The average number of hours per year in which wind in each speed category may be expected from each direction has been calculated, from the ten years of meteorological data for the Bedford recording station. The analysis considers hourly data for days with rainfall of less than 0.2mm. It should also be noted that data for calm days (wind speed of <1.0m/s) has not been included in the analysis as this has no potential to raise dust.
10.4.30 Table 10.12 demonstrates that the predominant wind direction is broadly from the south south west through to the west, accounting for 50.5% of winds experienced at speeds between 1 and 17ms-1. The data confirm that there are no dry days which experienced wind speeds of greater than 17ms-1.
Table 10.12: Wind Frequency Analysis – Average Number of Hours per Year (Dry Conditions Only – Rainfall of Less than 0.2mm)
Direction Cardinal Speed Class (metres per second) Category Direction 1.0 – 6.0 6.0 – 17.0 >17.0 Total
346° - 15° N 43 16 0 59 16° - 45° NNE 60 28 0 88 46° - 75° ENE 38 13 0 51 76° - 105° E 26 5 0 31 106° - 135° ESE 25 7 0 32 136° - 165° SSE 36 10 0 46 166° - 195° S 49 27 0 76 196° - 225° SSW 93 63 0 156 226° - 255° WSW 133 49 0 183 256° - 285° W 69 32 0 181 286° - 315° WNW 48 26 0 73 316° - 345° NNW 38 16 0 54
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 141 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.5 Potential Effects
Road Traffic Emissions Assessment
Scenario 5: Opening Year 2018 ‘With Development’
10.5.1 The impact assessment has been carried out for eight representative existing sensitive receptor locations (ESR 1 to ESR 8). Table 10.13 shows the changes in pollutant concentrations for the opening year (2018) for ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ scenarios. The uncorrected NO2, concentrations are included in Volume 2, Appendix I.5.
Table 10.13: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2018 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor NO2*† PM10 PM2.5 Development 2018 2018 2018
Without 26.69 18.73 12.82 development
With 26.86 18.74 12.83 ESR 1 development
With – without + 0.17µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
Without 23.94 18.50 12.68 development
With 24.01 18.51 12.69 ESR 2 development
With – without + 0.07µg/m³ +0.01µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
Without 26.13 18.67 12.79 development
With 26.37 18.69 12.80 ESR 3 development
With – without + 0.24µg/m³ +0.02µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
Without ESR 4 21.64 18.25 12.53 development
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 142 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor NO2*† PM10 PM2.5 Development 2018 2018 2018
With 21.68 18.25 12.53 development
With – without + 0.04µg/m³ 0.00µg/m³ + 0.00µg/m³ development
Without 21.83 18.31 12.56 development
With 21.86 18.31 12.57 ESR 5 development
With – without + 0.03µg/m³ 0.00µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
Without 31.07 19.17 13.10 development
With ESR 6 31.24 19.19 13.11 development
With- without + 0.17µg/m³ +0.01µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
Without 23.80 18.45 12.66 development
With ESR 7 23.90 18.46 12.66 development
With- without + 0.10µg/m³ +0.01µg/m³ 0.00µg/m³ development
Without 35.54 19.64 13.39 development
With ESR 8 35.64 19.65 13.40 development
With- without + 0.10µg/m³ +0.01µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 143 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor NO2*† PM10 PM2.5 Development 2018 2018 2018
* NO2 concentrations obtained by inputting predicted NOx concentrations into the NOx to 4 NO2 calculator3F3F in accordance with LAQM.TG(16). † Corrected using the adjustment factor derived from the verification process.
10.5.2 The 2018 ‘with development’ annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 21.68 to 35.64µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. There are no predicted exceedances of the annual mean objective concentration of 40µg/m3 for NO2.
10.5.3 The 2018 ‘with development’ annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 18.25 to 19.65µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. 3 Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration of 40µg/m for PM10 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
10.5.4 The 2018 ‘with development’ annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 12.53 to 13.40µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. 3 Exceedance of the annual mean target level of 25µg/m for PM2.5 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
Scenario 6: Future Year 2030 ‘With Development’
10.5.5 The impact assessment has been carried out for the eight representative existing sensitive receptor locations (ESR 1 to ESR 8). Table 10.14 shows the changes in pollutant concentrations for the future year (2030) for ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ scenarios. The uncorrected NO2, concentrations are included in Volume 2, Appendix I.5.
Table 10.14: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2030 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor NO2*† PM10 PM2.5 Development 2030 2030 2030
Without 28.53 18.91 12.94 development
With 28.66 18.92 12.94 ESR 1 development
With – without + 0.13µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ + 0.00µg/m³ development
4 NOx to NO2 Calculator, Defra Local Air Quality Management web pages (http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/tools‐monitoring‐data/no‐ calculator.html)
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 144 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor NO2*† PM10 PM2.5 Development 2030 2030 2030
Without 25.31 18.64 12.77 development
With 25.36 18.64 12.77 ESR 2 development
With – without + 0.05µg/m³ +0.00µg/m³ + 0.00µg/m³ development
Without 27.83 18.84 12.89 development
With 28.08 18.85 12.90 ESR 3 development
With – without + 0.25µg/m³ +0.02µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
Without 22.61 18.34 12.59 development
With 22.65 18.34 12.59 ESR 4 development
With – without + 0.04µg/m³ 0.00µg/m³ + 0.00µg/m³ development
Without 22.82 18.41 12.63 development
With 22.85 18.42 12.63 ESR 5 development
With – without + 0.03µg/m³ +0.01µg/m³ 0.00µg/m³ development
Without 33.57 19.43 13.26 development ESR 6 With 13.27 33.70 19.44 development
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 145 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor NO2*† PM10 PM2.5 Development 2030 2030 2030
With- without + 0.13µg/m³ +0.01µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
Without 25.13 18.58 12.73 development
With ESR 7 25.22 18.58 12.74 development
With- without + 0.09µg/m³ 0.01µg/m³ +0.00µg/m³ development
Without 38.62 19.98 13.60 development
With ESR 8 38.71 19.98 13.61 development
With- without + 0.09µg/m³ 0.01µg/m³ + 0.00µg/m³ development
* NO2 concentrations obtained by inputting predicted NOx concentrations into the NOx to 5 NO2 calculator4F4F in accordance with LAQM.TG(16). † Corrected using the adjustment factor derived from the verification process.
10.5.6 The 2030 ‘with development’ annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 22.65 to 38.71µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. There are no predicted exceedances of the annual mean objective concentration of 40µg/m3 for NO2.
10.5.7 The 2030 ‘with development’ annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 18.34 to 19.98µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. 3 Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration of 40µg/m for PM10 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
10.5.8 The 2030 ‘with development’ annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 12.59 to 13.61µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. 3 Exceedance of the annual mean target level of 25µg/m for PM2.5 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
5 NOx to NO2 Calculator, Defra Local Air Quality Management web pages (http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/tools‐monitoring‐data/no‐ calculator.html)
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 146 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Scenario 7: Future Year 2037 ‘With Development’
10.5.9 The impact assessment has been carried out for the eight representative existing sensitive receptor locations (ESR 1 to ESR 8). Table 10.15 shows the changes in pollutant concentrations for the future year (2037) for ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ scenarios. The uncorrected NO2 concentrations are included in Volume 2, Appendix I.5.
Table 10.15: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2037 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor NO2*† PM10 PM2.5 Development 2037 2037 2037
Without 29.24 18.98 12.98 development
With 29.39 18.99 12.99 ESR 1 development
With – without + 0.15µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
Without 25.83 18.69 12.80 development
With 25.90 18.70 12.80 ESR 2 development
With – without + 0.07µg/m³ +0.00µg/m³ + 0.00µg/m³ development
Without 28.49 18.90 12.93 development
With 28.75 18.92 12.94 ESR 3 development
With – without + 0.26µg/m³ +0.02µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
Without 22.99 18.37 12.61 development ESR 4 With 23.03 18.38 12.61 development
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 147 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor NO2*† PM10 PM2.5 Development 2037 2037 2037
With – without + 0.04µg/m³ 0.00µg/m³ + 0.00µg/m³ development
Without 23.20 18.45 12.65 development
With 23.24 18.46 12.65 ESR 5 development
With – without + 0.04µg/m³ +0.00µg/m³ 0.00µg/m³ development
Without 34.54 19.54 13.33 development
With ESR 6 34.68 19.55 13.34 development
With- without + 0.04µg/m³ +0.01µg/m³ + 0.01µg/m³ development
Without 25.67 18.63 12.77 development
With ESR 7 25.77 18.63 12.77 development
With- without + 0.10µg/m³ 0.01µg/m³ +0.01µg/m³ development
Without 39.79 20.11 13.68 development
With ESR 8 39.88 20.12 13.69 development
With- without + 0.09µg/m³ 0.01µg/m³ + 0.00µg/m³ development
* NO2 concentrations obtained by inputting predicted NOx concentrations into the NOx to 6 NO2 calculator5F5F in accordance with LAQM.TG(16). † Corrected using the adjustment factor derived from the verification process.
6 NOx to NO2 Calculator, Defra Local Air Quality Management web pages (http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/tools‐monitoring‐data/no‐ calculator.html)
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 148 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.5.10 The 2037 ‘with development’ annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 23.03 to 39.88µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. There are no predicted exceedances of the annual mean objective concentration of 40µg/m3 for NO2.
10.5.11 The 2037 ‘with development’ annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 18.38 to 20.12µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. 3 Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration of 40µg/m for PM10 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
10.5.12 The 2037 ‘with development’ annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 12.61 to 13.69µg/m3 for the eight existing sensitive receptor locations modelled. 3 Exceedance of the annual mean target level of 25µg/m for PM2.5 is not predicted to occur at any of the sensitive receptor locations.
Impacts of Development
10.5.13 Using the descriptors detailed in Table 10.3, the impact of the proposed development can be assessed at each of the eight existing sensitive receptors considered for the years 2018, 2030 and 2037.
10.5.14 The impact on NO2 concentrations for 2018 is detailed in Table 10.16.
Table 10.16: Impact on NO2 Concentrations for 2018
Annual Mean Percentage Change in Receptor Concentration in Impact Relation to AQAL Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 1% <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* 76-94% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* 95-102% Negligible
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 149 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.5.15 The impact on PM10 concentrations for 2018 is detailed in Table 10.17.
Table 10.17: Impact on PM10 Concentrations for 2018
Annual Mean Percentage Change in Receptor Concentration in Impact Relation to AQAL Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible
10.5.16 The impact on PM2.5 concentrations is detailed in Table 10.18.
Table 10.18: Impact on PM2.5 Concentrations for 2018
Annual Mean Percentage Change in Receptor Concentration in Impact Relation to AQAL Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 150 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.5.17 The impact on NO2 concentrations for 2030 is detailed in Table 10.19.
Table 10.19: Impact on NO2 Concentrations for 2030
Annual Mean Percentage Change in Receptor Concentration in Impact Relation to AQAL Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 1% <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* 76-94% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* 95-102% Negligible
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible
10.5.18 The impact on PM10 concentrations for 2030 is detailed in Table 10.20.
Table 10.20: Impact on PM10 Concentrations for 2030
Annual Mean Percentage Change in Receptor Concentration in Impact Relation to AQAL Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 151 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.5.19 The impact on PM2.5 concentrations is detailed in Table 10.21.
Table 10.21: Impact on PM2.5 Concentrations for 2030
Annual Mean Percentage Change in Receptor Concentration in Impact Relation to AQAL Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible
10.5.20 The impact on NO2 concentrations for 2037 is detailed in Table 10.22.
Table 10.22: Impact on NO2 Concentrations for 2037
Annual Mean Percentage Change in Receptor Concentration in Impact Relation to AQAL Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 1% <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* 76-94% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* 95-102% Negligible
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 152 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.5.21 The impact on PM10 concentrations for 2030 is detailed in Table 10.23.
Table 10.23: Impact on PM10 Concentrations for 2030
Annual Mean Percentage Change in Receptor Concentration in Impact Relation to AQAL Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible
10.5.22 The impact on PM2.5 concentrations is detailed in Table 10.24.
Table 10.24: Impact on PM2.5 Concentrations for 2030
Annual Mean Percentage Change in Receptor Concentration in Impact Relation to AQAL Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible
Assessment of Significance
10.5.23 The significance of the overall effects of the proposed development has been assessed. This assessment is based on professional judgement and takes into account a number of factors, including:
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 153 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.5.24 Baseline pollutant concentrations in the 2015 Base Year are all below the relevant annual mean objectives and target level.
10.5.25 With regard to the future baseline (i.e. the 2018, 2030 and 2037 Opening/Future Year ‘without development’ scenarios), all pollutant concentrations are predicted to be below the relevant annual mean objectives and target level even when a worst case assessment methodology has been adopted using 2015 background concentrations and emission factors.
10.5.26 The assessment predicts a negligible impact on concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 at all eight existing sensitive receptor locations, with the proposed development in place in 2018, 2030 and 2037.
10.5.27 Based on the above factors, the effect of the proposed development on human health is considered to be ‘not significant’.
Dust Assessment
10.5.28 Dust emissions from the site have the potential to increase levels of suspended particulates and deposited dust in the surrounding area, both as short-term peaks and over a longer period. Fugitive dust could be blown off site to affect surrounding receptors. The main potential sources of dust, associated with onsite activities are:
Surface stripping and the handling and storage of soils whilst quarry operations take place; and Haulage of material, both on the site, and to and from the site.
10.5.29 In addition to the excavation of earth and its subsequent movement, the erosive action of vehicle traffic on haul routes is also a major potential source of dust. The mechanical action of wheels on the road surface causes dust lying on the road surface to be thrown up and become entrained in a moving airflow. The deposition of this dust is dependent upon particle size and meteorological conditions. The erosivity of haul road traffic depends on the number and size of wheels, vehicle speeds and the moisture content of the surface material.
10.5.30 Dust emissions could potentially be generated through site activities which may occur occasionally or throughout the working period each year.
10.5.31 The assumed worst case working hours on site will be as follows for 52 weeks per year:
7am to 6pm Monday to Friday (11-hour week days); 7am to 1pm Saturdays (6 hours); and No working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
10.5.32 By a process of pro-rata calculation when the working hours are taken into consideration, the number of hours when site activities may, if not adequately controlled, raise dust which may then be emitted from the site and carried downwind, are shown in Table 10.25.
Table 10.25: Wind Frequency Analysis – Number of Working Hours per Year
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 154 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Speed Class (m/s) Direction Total Category 1.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 17.0 >17.0
346° - 15° 139 52 0 191 16° - 45° 195 92 0 287 46° - 75° 124 42 0 166 76° - 105° 85 15 0 100 106° - 135° 80 24 0 105 136° - 165° 117 32 0 148 166° - 195° 159 87 0 247 196° - 225° 301 205 0 506 226° - 255° 433 161 0 593 256° - 285° 225 105 0 330 286° - 315° 155 83 0 238 316° - 345° 124 51 0 175
10.5.33 The directions from which wind might blow from the site towards each of the dust receptors have been identified.
10.5.34 The areas of onsite activities have been identified using the phasing plans, and are included in Appendix C.
10.5.35 There are seven proposed areas of excavation within the site. For the purposes of this assessment, the following phases of working have been grouped together into seven main Stages:
Stage 1 – Development Phase (Years 1-3) including Plant and Operations Area including internal Haul Road; Stage 2 - Phases 1 to 2 (Year 5) including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road; Stage 3 - Phases 3 to 4 (Year 7) including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road; Stage 4 - Phases 5 to 6 (Year 9) including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road; Stage 5 - Phases 7 to 8 (Year 11) including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road; Stage 6 - Phases 9 to 10 (Year 14) including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road; and Stage 7 - Final Works All Phases including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road (Worst Case scenario)
10.5.36 It is anticipated that the development phase will occur over three years. Following from this, two phases will be worked every two years. By also considering the entire stage (i.e. all
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 155 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
phases) in each assessment scenario, a robust approach has been adopted as it assumes a worst case wider angle of view for receptors.
10.5.37 The meteorological data used in the assessment takes into account the entire year; however onsite work will only take place for up to four months of the year. As a result, the total numbers of dry working hours, during which winds may blow dust towards sensitive locations, have been calculated for an average month.
10.5.38 The directions from which wind might blow from the site operations towards each of the dust receptors have been identified. This has been carried out for each of the seven main stages detailed above.
10.5.39 The results of the assessment are summarised in Tables 10.26 to 10.32 inclusive, and identify the proportion of time during which the receptor will be downwind of onsite operations. It should be emphasised that this does not equate to periods of time during which the receptors will receive nuisance dust. Due to the deposition of most dust within 250m of source, operations carried out at distances greater than 250m from receptors will have a negligible effect, even without dust mitigation measures in place.
Stage 1 – Development Phase (Years 1-3) including Plant and Operations Area including internal Haul Road;
10.5.40 Larger dust particles, greater than 30µm, will generally deposit within 100m of a point of release. A large proportion of the particles in the size range of 10-30µm will tend to fall out of the atmosphere within 250m of a point of release, and will generally all have been deposited by 500m.
10.5.41 Receptors DSR 1 (Ecton Brook Primary School), DSR 4 (The Grange), DSR 5 (31, Riverwell) and DSR 6 (1 Ecton Lane Caravan Park) are located more than 500m away from the plant and operations area and/or the haul road. It is therefore likely that all large and medium size particles would have been deposited before reaching this location. Therefore, it is predicted that the effect magnitude at the above receptors will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.42 Table 10.26 details the total number of working hours in an average month during which winds may blow dust towards sensitive locations within 500m of working activities on the site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 156 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 10.26: Total Number of Working Hours in an Average Month During Which Winds May Blow Dust Towards Sensitive Locations – Stage 1
Receptor Wind Closest % time of dry % time of dry No. of dry Sector Distance wind 1.0 – wind 5.5ms-1 working () from plant 5.5ms-1 approaching hours in and approaching from the which wind operations from the relevant blows over area relevant sector sector the site to and/or receptor in haul road an average (m) month
DSR 2 108-180 440 4.07 2.45 42
DSR 3 43-297 420 21.39 9.65 269
10.5.43 Receptors DSR 2 (Scoffers Café) and DSR 3 (57 Cogenhoe Mill Caravan Site) are located more than 250m away from the plant and operations area and/or the haul road. It is therefore likely that larger dust particles, and a large proportion of medium size particles, would have been deposited before reaching the sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, with the additional mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.6 in place, it is predicted that the effect magnitude will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.44 It should be emphasised that the percentage figures included refer to the proportion of time each receptor is downwind of the site operations. They do not equate to dust exposure as for most of the time dust will have been deposited before reaching the receptors, even without any dust mitigation in place.
Stage 2 - Phases 1 to 2 (Year 5) including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road
10.5.45 Receptors DSR 1 (Ecton Brook Primary School), DSR 4 (The Grange), DSR 5 (31, Riverwell) and DSR 6 (1 Ecton Lane Caravan Park) are located more than 500m away from the area of excavation and/or the haul road and plant and operations area. It is therefore likely that all large and medium size particles would have been deposited before reaching these locations. Therefore, it is predicted that the effect magnitude at the above receptors will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.46 Table 10.27 details the total number of working hours in an average month during which winds may blow dust towards sensitive locations within 500m (DSR 2) and 250m (DSR 3) of any working activities on the site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 157 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 10.27: Total Number of Working Hours in an Average Month During Which Winds May Blow Dust Towards Sensitive Locations – Stage 2
Receptor Wind Closest % time of dry % time of dry No. of dry Sector Distance wind 1.0 – wind 5.5ms-1 working () from area 5.5ms-1 approaching hours in of approaching from the which wind excavation from the relevant blows over and/or relevant sector sector the site to haul road receptor in (m) an average month
DSR 2 110-180 440 4.07 2.45 42
DSR 3 57-300 250 19.16 8.60 203
10.5.47 Receptor DSR 2 (Scoffers Café) will be located more than 250m away from the area of excavation and/or the haul road and plant and operations area. DSR 3 (57 Cogenhoe Mill Caravan Site) will be located approximately 250m away. It is therefore likely that larger dust particles, and a large proportion of medium size particles, would have been deposited before reaching this sensitive receptor location. Therefore, with the additional mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.6 in place, it is predicted that the effect magnitude will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7). There are no receptors located within 250m of the area of excavation and/or the haul road and plant operations area during these phases and therefore no receptors have the potential to be exposed to dust emissions originating from the application site, during working hours.
10.5.48 It should be emphasised that the percentage figures included refer to the proportion of time each receptor is downwind of the site operations. They do not equate to dust exposure as for most of the time dust will have been deposited before reaching the receptors, even without any dust mitigation in place.
Stage 3 - Phases 3 to 4 (Year 7) including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road
10.5.49 Receptors DSR 1 (Ecton Brook Primary School), DSR 4 (The Grange), DSR 5 (31, Riverwell) and DSR 6 (1 Ecton Lane Caravan Park) are located more than 500m away from the area of excavation and/or the haul road and plant and operations area. It is therefore likely that all large and medium size particles would have been deposited before reaching these locations. Therefore, it is predicted that the effect magnitude at the above receptors will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.50 Table 10.28 details the total number of working hours in an average month during which winds may blow dust towards sensitive locations within 500m of working activities on the application site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 158 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 10.28: Total Number of Working Hours in an Average Month During Which Winds May Blow Dust Towards Sensitive Locations – Stage 3
Receptor Wind Closest % time of dry % time of dry No. of dry Sector Distance wind 1.0 – wind 5.5ms-1 working () from area 5.5ms-1 approaching hours in of approaching from the which wind excavation from the relevant sector blows over and/or relevant sector the site to haul road receptor in (m) an average month
DSR 2 98-180 440 5.04 1.81 50
DSR 3 62-300 420 19.16 8.60 203
10.5.51 Receptors DSR 2 (Scoffers Café) and DSR 3 (57 Cogenhoe Mill Caravan Site) are located more than 250m away from the plant and operations area and/or the haul road. It is therefore likely that larger dust particles, and a large proportion of medium size particles, would have been deposited before reaching the sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, with the additional mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.6 in place, it is predicted that the effect magnitude will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.52 It should be emphasised that the percentage figures included refer to the proportion of time each receptor is downwind of the site operations. They do not equate to dust exposure as for most of the time dust will have been deposited before reaching the receptors, even without any dust mitigation in place.
Stage 4 - Phases 5 to 6 (Year 9) including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road
10.5.53 Receptors DSR 1 (Ecton Brook Primary School), DSR 4 (The Grange), DSR 5 (31, Riverwell) and DSR 6 (1 Ecton Lane Caravan Park) are located more than 500m away from the area of excavation and/or the haul road and plant and operations area. It is therefore likely that all large and medium size particles would have been deposited before reaching these locations. Therefore, it is predicted that the effect magnitude at the above receptors will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.54 Table 10.29 details the total number of working hours in an average month during which winds may blow dust towards sensitive locations within 500m of working activities on the application site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 159 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 10.29: Total Number of Working Hours in an Average Month During Which Winds May Blow Dust Towards Sensitive Locations – Stage 4
Receptor Wind Closest % time of dry % time of dry No. of dry Sector Distance wind 1.0 – wind 5.5ms-1 working () from area 5.5ms-1 approaching hours in of approaching from the which wind excavation from the relevant sector blows over and/or relevant sector the site to haul road receptor in (m) an average month
DSR 2 91-184 440 5.04 1.81 50
DSR 3 57-301 420 19.16 8.60 203
10.5.55 Receptors DSR 2 (Scoffers Café) and DSR 3 (57 Cogenhoe Mill Caravan Site) are located more than 250m away from the plant and operations area and/or the haul road. It is therefore likely that larger dust particles, and a large proportion of medium size particles, would have been deposited before reaching the sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, with the additional mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.6 in place, it is predicted that the effect magnitude will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.56 It should be emphasised that the percentage figures included refer to the proportion of time each receptor is downwind of the site operations. They do not equate to dust exposure as for most of the time dust will have been deposited before reaching the receptors, even without any dust mitigation in place.
Stage 5 - Phases 7 to 8 (Year 11) including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road
10.5.57 Receptors DSR 1 (Ecton Brook Primary School), DSR 4 (The Grange), DSR 5 (31, Riverwell) and DSR 6 (1 Ecton Lane Caravan Park) are located more than 500m away from the area of excavation and/or the haul road and plant and operations area. It is therefore likely that all large and medium size particles would have been deposited before reaching these locations. Therefore, it is predicted that the effect magnitude at the above receptors will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.58 Table 10.30 details the total number of working hours in an average month during which winds may blow dust towards sensitive locations within 500m of working activities on the application site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 160 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 10.30: Total Number of Working Hours in an Average Month During Which Winds May Blow Dust Towards Sensitive Locations – Stage 5
Receptor Wind Closest % time of dry % time of dry No. of dry Sector Distance wind 1.0 – wind 5.5ms-1 working () from area 5.5ms-1 approaching hours in of approaching from the which wind excavation from the relevant sector blows over and/or relevant sector the site to haul road receptor in (m) an average month
DSR 2 97-184 440 5.04 1.81 50
DSR 3 34-297 420 21.39 9.56 227
10.5.59 Receptors DSR 2 (Scoffers Café) and DSR 3 (57 Cogenhoe Mill Caravan Site) are located more than 250m away from the plant and operations area and/or the haul road. It is therefore likely that larger dust particles, and a large proportion of medium size particles, would have been deposited before reaching the sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, with the additional mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.6 in place, it is predicted that the effect magnitude will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.60 It should be emphasised that the percentage figures included refer to the proportion of time each receptor is downwind of the site operations. They do not equate to dust exposure as for most of the time dust will have been deposited before reaching the receptors, even without any dust mitigation in place.
Stage 6 - Phases 9 to 10 (Year 14) including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road
10.5.61 Receptors DSR 1 (Ecton Brook Primary School), DSR 4 (The Grange), DSR 5 (31, Riverwell) and DSR 6 (1 Ecton Lane Caravan Park) are located more than 500m away from the area of excavation and/or the haul road and plant and operations area. It is therefore likely that all large and medium size particles would have been deposited before reaching these locations. Therefore, it is predicted that the effect magnitude at the above receptors will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.62 Table 10.31 details the total number of working hours in an average month during which winds may blow dust towards sensitive locations within 500m of working activities on the application site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 161 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 10.31: Total Number of Working Hours in an Average Month During Which Winds May Blow Dust Towards Sensitive Locations – Stage 6
Receptor Wind Closest % time of dry % time of dry No. of dry Sector Distance wind 1.0 – wind 5.5ms-1 working () from area 5.5ms-1 approaching hours in of approaching from the which wind excavation from the relevant blows over and/or relevant sector sector the site to haul road receptor in (m) an average month
DSR 2 108-192 440 4.07 1.63 42
DSR 3 37-301 420 21.39 9.65 227
10.5.63 Receptors DSR 2 (Scoffers Café) and DSR 3 (57 Cogenhoe Mill Caravan Site) are located more than 250m away from the plant and operations area and/or the haul road. It is therefore likely that larger dust particles, and a large proportion of medium size particles, would have been deposited before reaching the sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, with the additional mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.6 in place, it is predicted that the effect magnitude will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.64 It should be emphasised that the percentage figures included refer to the proportion of time each receptor is downwind of the site operations. They do not equate to dust exposure as for most of the time dust will have been deposited before reaching the receptors, even without any dust mitigation in place.
Stage 7 - Final Works All Phases including Plant and Operations Area and internal Haul Road (Worst Case scenario)
10.5.65 Receptors DSR 1 (Ecton Brook Primary School), DSR 4 (The Grange), DSR 5 (31, Riverwell) and DSR 6 (1 Ecton Lane Caravan Park) are located more than 500m away from the area of excavation and/or the haul road and plant and operations area. It is therefore likely that all large and medium size particles would have been deposited before reaching these locations. Therefore, it is predicted that the effect magnitude at the above receptors will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7).
10.5.66 Table 10.32 details the total number of working hours in an average month during which winds may blow dust towards sensitive locations within 500m of working activities on the application site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 162 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 10.32: Total Number of Working Hours in an Average Month During Which Winds May Blow Dust Towards Sensitive Locations – Stage 7
Receptor Wind Sector Closest % time of % time of No. of dry () Distance from dry wind 1.0 dry wind working area of – 5.5ms-1 5.5ms-1 hours in excavation approaching approaching which wind and/or haul from the from the blows over road (m) relevant relevant the site to sector sector receptor in an average month
DSR 2 91-180 440 5.04 1.81 50
DSR 3 62-300 250 19.16 13.89 203
10.5.67 Receptor DSR 2 (Scoffers Café) will be located more than 250m away from the area of excavation and/or the haul road and plant and operations area. DSR 3 (57 Cogenhoe Mill Caravan Site) will be located approximately 250m away. It is therefore likely that larger dust particles, and a large proportion of medium size particles, would have been deposited before reaching this sensitive receptor location. Therefore, with the additional mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.6 in place, it is predicted that the effect magnitude will be negligible with an insignificant effect (see Tables 10.6 and 10.7). There are no receptors located within 250m of the area of excavation and/or the haul road and plant operations area during these phases and therefore no receptors have the potential to be exposed to dust emissions originating from the application site, during working hours.
10.5.68 It should be emphasised that the percentage figures included refer to the proportion of time each receptor is downwind of the site operations. They do not equate to dust exposure as for most of the time dust will have been deposited before reaching the receptors, even without any dust mitigation in place.
Fine Particulate Assessment
PM10 Concentrations
10.5.69 The NPPG (DCLG, 2014) sets out the assessment framework flow chart for PM10. As there are residential properties within 1km of the proposed development, the possibility of PM10 exceeding the Air Quality objective needs to be considered.
10.5.70 The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Defra technical guidance document LAQM.TG(09) (Defra, 2009) which is considered to be applicable in the updated technical guidance, LAQM.TG(16). This identifies that dust emissions from uncontrolled and fugitive sources such as mineral extraction sites can give rise to elevated PM10 emissions. The updating and screening checklist detailed in LAQM.TG(09) has been used to determine whether there is any relevant exposure to elevated PM10 concentrations from the proposed development.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 163 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.5.71 The first step in the updating and screening checklist is to establish whether there is any relevant exposure “near” to the source of dust emissions. Near is defined in relation to the local background PM10 concentrations, taken from the national maps, which are available from the Defra Local Air Quality Management website. In accordance with LAQM.TG(09) and LAQM.TG(16), near is considered to be within:
1000m for a background >28μg/m3; 400m for a background >26μg/m3; and 200m for any other background.
10.5.72 The above distances for relevant exposure are measured from the source. If the relevant exposure is within 50m of a road used to access the application site (and there are visible deposits on the road), then these sections of road, which may extend up to 1000m from the site entrance, are considered to be “near”, as long as the background is above 25μg/m3 for the 2004 objectives.
10.5.73 The background at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed development ranges between 15.4μg/m3 and 17.61μg/m3 and therefore only those receptors within 200m of the source of dust emissions should be considered as “near” in accordance with LAQM.TG(09) and LAQM.TG(16). Table 10.4 identifies that one potentially sensitive receptor is located within 200m of the application site. When considering the distance to the closest source (i.e. the Plant and Operations Area), Tables 10.26 to Table 10.32 show that none of the dust receptors are classed as near for any of the staged phases.
10.5.74 It is not possible to accurately model the release of PM10 from material handling operations. The Newcastle Report (Pless-Mulloli et al., 1999) concludes that the average increment in 3 PM10 experienced by communities close to opencast mines is 2.1µg/m . The report is considered to be applicable as it refers to dust from overburden handling during coal extraction, which is comparable to aggregate extraction. This has been added to the background PM10 figures from the Defra Local Air Quality Management website to allow for the release of fine particulates from soil and rock handling, in the overall process contribution.
10.5.75 When the contribution of PM10 from the proposed development is added to the existing background concentrations of PM10 at each location, the increase in overall concentration is marginal, and the daily and annual air quality objectives are not exceeded.
10.5.76 The flow chart on PM10 in the NPPG (DCLG, 2014) has been followed and as no exceedance of the relevant mean objectives would occur, the guidance advises that good practice measures would be adequate. The results of the PM10 assessment shows that the proposed development would cause only a marginal increase in the concentrations of particulates in the air at receptors DSR 1 to DSR 6, and that the overall levels are substantially below the Air Quality Objectives.
PM2.5 Concentrations
10.5.77 It has also been requested by WBC that an assessment be undertaken of PM2.5 concentrations associated with the operational phase of the proposed development. As there is no current guidance on the assessment of PM2.5 emissions, the approach used for PM10 concentrations, as detailed in paragraphs 10.5.72 to 10.5.79, would be adopted as a robust assessment.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 164 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.5.78 Background PM2.5 concentrations for 2016 have been obtained for the appropriate grid squares from the national maps on the Defra Local Air Quality Management website. The backgrounds at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed development ranges between 10.93μg/m3 and 12.10μg/m3.
10.5.79 If it is assumed, as a worst case scenario, that the average increment in PM10 concentrations 3 of 2.1µg/m , also applies to PM2.5 concentrations then the increase in overall concentration is marginal, and the 2015 annual mean air quality target level is not exceeded.
10.6 Mitigation and Enhancement
Road Traffic Emissions Assessment
10.6.1 A detailed air quality assessment has been undertaken to consider the potential impact of the proposed development on air quality at eight existing sensitive receptor locations.
10.6.2 Exceedance of the NO2, PM10 annual mean air quality objectives and PM2.5 target level is not predicted to occur in 2018, 2030 or 2037 for any of the eight existing sensitive receptors considered, for both the ‘without development’ and ‘with development’ scenarios even when a worst case assessment methodology has been adopted.
10.6.3 The assessment predicts that there will be a negligible impact on concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 at all eight existing sensitive receptors considered in 2018, 2030 and 2037 with the development in place.
10.6.4 Since the overall effect is considered to be not significant, mitigation measures will not be required.
Dust Assessment
10.6.5 On-site activities associated with the sand and gravel extraction have the potential to generate dust, and therefore mitigation measures will be implemented during the phases of extraction to ensure effective control of dust emissions from the associated works. Dust can be produced at mineral sites during a range of activities including site preparation, excavation, transportation and processing operations.
10.6.6 It is assumed that the existing mitigation measures currently implemented for the existing sand and gravel extraction works, as part of the Environmental Management Plan, will be in place and will continue to operate during the entirety of the onsite activities.
10.6.7 Further mitigation measures recommended for dust management and control include:
Recording dust deposition at nearby receptor locations, particularly those adjacent to the application site, and all dust complaints in order to identify causes and take appropriate measures to reduce emissions; Lan site layout so the machinery and dust causing activities are located away from receptors as far as possible; Erect screens or barriers around dusty activities, or sections of the site boundary close to nearby existing sensitive receptor locations (e.g. residential dwellings), that are at least as high as any stockpiles on site; Compaction, grading and maintenance of haul roads;
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 165 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Controlling vehicle speeds on site; Fitting all site vehicles with upswept vehicle exhausts; Avoiding overloading of vehicles thus reducing spillages; Wheel cleaning facilities (preferably automated) within the site; Regular removal of spilled materials from haul roads; and Water spraying (i.e. through the use of a water bowser) for dust suppression.
Fine Particulate Assessment
10.6.8 It is considered that the mitigation measures proposed in Sections 10.6.5 to 10.6.7 would be sufficient to ensure that there are no significant adverse effects associated with the proposed development. Therefore, no further mitigation measures are recommended.
10.7 Residual Effects
Road Traffic Emissions Assessment
10.7.1 The overall effect of the proposed development on air quality within the surrounding area is considered to be not significant. As such mitigation measures are not required and there are no significant residual effects.
Dust Assessment
10.7.2 On-site activities associated with the sand and gravel extraction have the potential to generate dust, and therefore mitigation measures will be required during the phases of extraction to ensure effective control of dust emissions from the associated works. With appropriate mitigation measures employed, (as discussed in Section 10.6), the residual effects, at nearby sensitive receptors, associated with dust generation are considered to be not significant.
Cumulative Effects
Road Traffic Emissions Assessment
10.7.3 Traffic data used for the road traffic emissions assessment includes consideration of other committed developments and therefore already takes into account cumulative effects. Therefore, no further assessment is required.
Dust Assessment
10.7.4 In accordance with PPG on Minerals Sites, the potential for cumulative dust and air quality effects in relation to the proposed development and environmentally sensitive receptor locations has been taken into account. There are two sites with extant minerals extraction permissions in close proximity to the application site:
Earls Barton Quarry, which is located south of the application site on the other side of the River Nene, approximately 170m from the south side of the application site (at its nearest point). Earls Barton Spinney Quarry, which is located immediately adjacent to the east side of the application site (referred to as Phases 1 and 2) and immediately adjacent to the north of the application site, where the boundary abuts the A45 (referred to as Phase 3).
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 166 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
10.7.5 With regard to Earls Barton Quarry, receptors DSR 1 (Ecton Brook Primary School), DSR 2 (Scoffers Café), DSR 5 (31 Riverwell) and DSR 6 (1 Ecton Lane Caravan Park) are located at a distance of greater than 1km from the closest point of the west side of the quarry. It is considered likely that all large and medium size particles would have been deposited within 500m from where site activities take place. It is therefore predicted that the cumulative effect magnitude at receptors, DSR 1, DSR 2, DSR 5 and DSR 6 would be negligible with an insignificant effect.
10.7.6 Receptors DSR 3 (57 Cogenhoe Mill Caravan Site) and DSR 4 (The Grange, Church Street) are located approximately 50m from the west side of Earls Barton Quarry and approximately 120m from the south west of Earls Barton Quarry respectively. With mitigation measures in place, the cumulative effect magnitude at these receptors is considered to be negligible with an insignificant effect.
10.7.7 With regard to the East Barton Spinney Quarry (Phases 1 and 2), all receptors are located at a distance of greater than 1km from the closest point of the quarry. It is considered likely that all large and medium size particles would have been deposited within 500m from where site activities take place. It is therefore predicted that the cumulative effect magnitude at all receptors would be negligible with an insignificant effect.
10.7.8 With regard to the East Barton Spinney Quarry (Phase 3), with the exception of DSR 2 (Scoffers Café), all receptors are located at a distance of greater than 1km from this quarry. It is considered likely that all large and medium size particles would have been deposited within 500m from where site activities take place. It is therefore predicted that the cumulative effect magnitude at receptors, DSR 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would be negligible with an insignificant effect.
10.7.9 Receptor DSR 2 is located approximately 350m from the East Barton Spinney Quarry (Phase 3). For the proposed development, with mitigation measures in place, the overall effect magnitude at DSR 2 is considered to be negligible with an insignificant effect.
10.8 Summary
Road Traffic Emissions Assessment
10.8.1 A detailed air quality assessment has been undertaken to consider the potential impact of the proposed development on air quality at eight representative existing sensitive receptor locations. The traffic data used in the assessment includes consideration of other committed developments and therefore already takes into account cumulative effects.
10.8.2 Exceedance of the NO2 and PM10 annual mean air quality objectives and PM2.5 target levels is not predicted to occur in 2018, 2030 or 2037 for any of the eight existing sensitive receptors considered, for both the 'without development' and 'with development' scenarios.
10.8.3 The assessment predicts that there will be a negligible impact on concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 at all eight existing sensitive receptors considered in 2018, 2030 and 2037 with the development in place. Therefore, mitigation measures will not be required.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 167 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Dust Assessment
10.8.4 A dust assessment has been undertaken to determine the impact of onsite activities associated with the extraction of sand and gravel, on ambient dust levels in the vicinity of the application site and at identified dust sensitive receptor locations.
10.8.5 The effective implementation of the dust mitigation measures will ensure that dust generated at the application site will have an insignificant effect on nearby sensitive receptors.
10.8.6 The fine particulate assessment (of PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations from the proposed development) indicates that no exceedance of the annual mean objective would occur as a result of activities on the site and that the proposed development would cause only a marginal increase in the concentrations of particulates in the air at receptor locations. The NPPG (DCLG, 2014) therefore advises that good practice measures would be adequate. Taking these matters into account, there are no significant effects and furthermore the mitigation measures detailed in section 10.6 will be provided.
10.8.7 The cumulative impact of all other quarry operations associated with the proposed development would have an insignificant effect on the dust impact at any of the properties assessed.
10.9 References
The Environment Act, 1995; The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2007; Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21st May 2008 on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe; and Air Quality (Standards) Regulations, 2010. Planning Practice Guidance: Air Quality, 2014; Planning Practice Guidance: Assessing Environmental Impacts from Minerals Extraction, 2014; Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM), Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction, 2014; Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and IAQM, Land-Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality, 2015; Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), 2007; and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance (LAQM.TG(16)), 2016. Air Quality Progress Report for Northampton Borough Council, 2014; 2015 Updating and Screening Assessment for Borough Council of Wellingborough Air quality monitoring data obtained for 2015 provided by NBC; Meteorological data for period 2006-2015 from Bedford recording station, obtained from ADM Limited; Northampton Borough Council Air Quality and Emissions Technical Planning Guidance Draft (May 2016) Defra Local Air Quality Management website for Background Maps and details on Air Quality Management Areas;
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 168 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
“Do Particulates from Opencast Mining Impair Children’s Respiratory Health” or Newcastle Report (Pless-Mulloli et al, 1999) Department for Transport Traffic Counts Website Contaminated Land Quantitative Risk Assessment Report (722018-REP-ENV-002), June 2015 Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Resource Report on Land at Great Billing, July 2016
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 169 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
11 Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Flood Risk
11.1 Introduction
11.1.1 This chapter describes the hydrology and hydrogeology of the application site and the surrounding area. This chapter then considers the potential effects on the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater environments associated with the proposed development. Potential effects on habitats are addressed separately within Chapter 7 (Ecology).
11.1.2 This chapter describes the mitigation measures proposed to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects; and the likely residual effects after these measures have been employed.
11.1.3 This chapter has been jointly prepared by Cannon Consulting Engineers and MLM and is supported by technical appendices to Chapter 13.0 and the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) at Appendix J.
11.2 Policy Context
National Planning Policy
11.2.1 The relevant national planning policy relating to flood risk and surface water management is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance web based resource [Ref 11.1].
11.2.2 Planning Practice Guidance, paragraph reference ID 7-008-20140306, discusses the need for waste and mineral planning authorities “to take account of flood risk when allocating land for development”. The guidance also confirms (paragraph ID 7-018-20140306) that sand and gravel extraction is considered a water compatible use and is therefore appropriate in areas of potential flooding.
Local Planning Policy
11.2.3 The application site makes up the majority of the allocated 153 hectare site referred to as “MA5: Earls Barton West Extension” in the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) Development Plan Document “Locations for Minerals Development” (adopted March 2011) [Ref 11.2].
11.2.4 The application site is identified in Policy 4 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) Update: Submission Plan [Ref 11.3] as a site for the provision of sand and gravel (site reference M4). Policies 18 and 24 of the MLWP Update are relevant to flood risk. Policy 18 requires the impacts of mineral extraction on flood and, surface water, and groundwater to be assessed and Policy 24 supports the creation of flood attenuation (through lower ground levels) as part of the restoration of riverside mineral sites.
11.2.5 The Flood Risk Assessment Sequential Test document which forms part of the MWLP final draft proposed submission plan [Ref 11.4] confirms that the application site is considered to pass the (flood risk) sequential test.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 170 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Other Guidance
11.2.6 The Environment Agency (EA) and Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) are statutory consultees with responsibilities relating to elements of flood risk and development.
11.2.7 The development of the application site would be undertaken with due regard to technical guidance in order to help manage potential impacts on the water environment. Relevant UK guidance on good practice for construction projects is detailed in the following documents:
The SuDS Manual CIRIA C753 [Ref 11.5] Groundwater protection technical guidance (Environment Agency, 2017 [Ref 11.6] Control of water pollution from construction sites C532, CIRIA 2002 [Ref 11.7] Control of water pollution from linear construction projects C648 / C649, CIRIA 2001 and 2006 [Ref 11.8] Environmental good practice on site guide, 4th edition, C741, CIRIA 2015 [Ref 11.9]
11.3 Methodology
11.3.1 Baseline conditions at the application site and in the surrounding area have been established following a number of site visits and a review of:
The Northampton Borough Council Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2010 [Ref 11.10] Kettering and Wellingborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2010, 2011) [Ref 11.11] EA data (online mapping and data provided in response to an information request) Ordnance Survey (OS) web based mapping British Geological Survey (BGS) regional mapping A topographical survey of the site The results of intrusive site investigations Groundwater monitoring (from 2005 to the present day) and sampling data from a series of boreholes across the site. General data for relevant reaches of the River Nene, Ecton Brook, and Barton Brook Groundwater and surface water abstractions within a 2 km radius.
11.3.2 The potential increase in the quantity of water in surface water bodies (temporary and permanent) in the surrounding area is assessed in the FRA (refer to Appendix J). For the purposes of the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and this report a temporary surface water body is considered to be the floodplain. The proposed development could lead to an increase in the quantity of floodwater in three ways, these are summarised below with a brief explanation of the way in which the likely impact of each has been assessed.
An increase in surface water runoff being shed from the application site as a result of the creation of impermeable surfaces – the management of runoff is discussed in Section 4 of the FRA. The loss in potential flood storage volume as a result of the creation of bunds/raised piles in the floodplain – the potential impacts on flood storage are discussed in Section 3 of the FRA and consider the footprint of any proposed bunds in comparison to the (significant) extent of the floodplain in the area.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 171 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Dewatering of the excavation – the removal of groundwater to facilitate the extraction of the mineral is considered in Section 4 of the FRA. In summary, it is proposed that extracted groundwater be returned to the ground and not discharged to the surface water bodies in the area so no quantitative analysis of the extracted water is required.
11.3.3 The potential for the proposed development to result in a decrease in the quantity of groundwater in the area has been assessed by comparison of the extent of the proposed development site to the extent of the groundwater body in the area.
11.3.4 The impact of the proposals on the quality of the water environment has been considered with regards to both the potential to mobilise any existing contaminants present at the site and also as a result of contaminants (physical and chemical) produced by the operational phase of the proposed development (for example fuel and lubricants for plant and sediment in extracted groundwater)
Scoping and Consultation
11.3.5 As set out in Chapter 4.0 a formal scoping exercise has been undertaken which includes a detailed exchange with the EA and the NCC.
Significance Criteria
11.3.6 A qualitative risk assessment has been undertaken where the probability and magnitudes of likely impacts have been considered. The following tables (Table 11.1 and Table 11.2) set out the significance criteria used within the assessment. Any increase or reduction in flood risk is considered to be primarily associated with the alteration of site ground levels and dewatering operations, whereas any increase or reduction in water quality is considered to be primarily associated with the mobilisation of any existing contaminants present in the application site soils/subsoils and the release of new contaminants (physical and chemical) associated with operational phase of the proposed development.
Table 11.1: Significant Criteria – Water Quantity
Effect Significance Definition
The proposals provide a significant reduction in flood risk in Major beneficial the wider area Moderate beneficial The proposal result in a significant reduction in local flood risk The proposals will result in intuitive local reduction in flood Minor beneficial risk The proposals will not result in a notable/measureable Negligible alteration in flood risk Some minor temporary increase in local flood risk may result Minor adverse from the proposals The proposals will result in a significant local increase in flood Moderate adverse risk The proposals will result in a significant increase in flood risk Major adverse in the wider area
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 172 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 11.2: Significant Criteria – Water Quality
Effect Significance Definition
The proposals will significantly improve water quality in the Major beneficial wider area Moderate beneficial The proposals will improve local water quality significantly The proposals will result in an intuitive improvement in local Minor beneficial water quality The proposals will not result in a notable/measurable Negligible deterioration in water quality The proposals may result in a short lived deterioration in local Minor adverse water quality. The proposals will lead to a significant deterioration in local Moderate adverse water quality The proposals will result lead to a widespread deterioration in Major adverse water quality
11.4 Baseline Conditions
11.4.1 The baseline conditions relating to flood risk, groundwater and surface water management issues at the site are set out within the site specific FRA at Appendix J and summarised below.
Hydrology and Flooding
11.4.2 The River Nene lies to the south of the application site and flows east, broadly parallel to the southern boundary. The Ecton Brook flows south through the Ecton Brook Linear park along the western edge of Great Billing, towards the Great Billing Water Recycling Centre (WRC). It passes beneath the A45, turns east and flows into application site where it turns south, flowing through the application site to outfall to the Nene. The banks of the channel are raised (embanked) as it passes through the site. The Ecton Brook also receives flows from two smaller tributaries which rise just to the east and south of Ecton village. The Barton Brook flows south from Sywell Wood some 7.5 km to the north of the site. Its route takes it beneath the A45 from where it flows along the eastern boundary of the site and into the Nene. The Brook is joined at Sywell Reservoir (approximately 2.7 km north of the site) by a tributary originating in the north-east of Sywell village.
11.4.3 All potential sources of flooding to the application site have been considered and assessed in detail within the FRA provided in Appendix J.
11.4.4 The “Flood map for planning” shows that the application site lies within the low probability flood area (Flood Zone 1), medium probability flood area (Flood Zone 2) and high probability flood area (Flood Zone 3). The application site is also shown as being potentially liable to flooding from several local reservoirs / water bodies
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 173 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
11.4.5 Modelled flood information indicates the source of fluvial flooding onsite is attributed to the River Nene and Barton Brook only. Modelled flood levels for Ecton Brook indicate flows are retained ‘in-bank’ for all modelled flood events.
Geology
11.4.6 The site lies in a region at the boundary of the Lias Group and the overlying Inferior and Great Oolite Group, all of Jurassic age. The beds are near horizontal in this region, and the Oolite Group is thin, allowing the Lias Group to be exposed in the base and sides of river valleys. The Lias Group deposit underlying the site comprises the Whitby Mudstone Formation (previously known as the Upper Lias Clay), which is a mudstone and siltstone containing thin limestones, sandstones and phosphatic nodules, approximately 20 to 65 m thick in this region. Mantling the bedrock geology are Quaternary deposits comprising a thin layer of alluvium associated with the floodplain of the River Nene beneath which are River Terrace Deposits comprising the Ecton Member sand and gravel.
11.4.7 Water levels measured within boreholes across the site suggest that the River Terrace Deposit sands and gravels contain water at a depth of between 1 m and 4 m below ground level. Given the proximity in level between the groundwater and the surface waters of the River Nene, it is probable that they are in hydraulic continuity with groundwater providing baseflow to the river. Groundwater monitoring indicates that the direction of groundwater flow in the sands and gravels beneath the site is from northwest to southeast towards the River Nene.
11.4.8 The River Terrace Deposit sands and gravels are considered to be a locally important aquifer, considered by the EA to be a Minor Aquifer with Intermediate vulnerability (northern region) and a Minor Aquifer with High vulnerability (southern region). The vulnerability of the aquifer to pollution is high, due to the high permeability soil and shallow water table. The overlying Northampton Sand of the Inferior Oolite Group is also considered to be a locally important aquifer however this stratum is typically found on higher ground above the river valley and will not be not in hydraulic connection with shallow groundwater in the sands and gravels found beneath the site. Information on the EA website suggests that a groundwater Inner Source Protection Zone (SPZ) exists in Great Billing, approximately 2.5 km to the northwest of the site, however the EA has confirmed this SPZ relates to a historic abstraction borehole drilled in 1935 and is not a current supply. There are no known public water supply sources within 2 km of the site.
11.4.9 The shallow groundwater beneath the site is likely to be in connection with surface water in the River Nene, principally via groundwater movement in the sand and gravel beneath the site and the river course. This means that groundwater levels and quality may be capable of influencing surface water levels and quality in the river and ditches on site and nearby.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 174 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
11.4.10 Groundwater sampling and testing was carried out from boreholes on site in 2009 and identified concentrations of nitrate, selenium and petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). The nitrate was persistent beneath the whole site and is considered to be background contamination potentially resulting from intensive agricultural practices within the local area. Selenium was localised on the northwest boundary and no source was apparent. Hydrocarbons were present in the northwest and could be as a result of fuel contamination from an adjacent filling station on the northern boundary or from highway runoff, however attenuation does occur across the area of proposed minerals extraction and hydrocarbons were below method detection limits on the downstream (southern) boundary nearest the River Nene.
11.5 Potential Effects
11.5.1 Without mitigation there is the potential for the proposed development to have an impact on the water environment. The temporary effects during the construction and mineral extraction phases have been assessed, together with the permanent effects of the completed development, i.e. the site restoration.
Proposed Development
11.5.2 The proposed development comprises the extraction of sands and gravels, and subsequent restoration of the application site. A description of the proposed development is presented in Chapter 3.
Flood Risk - Construction
11.5.3 Construction activities at the application site will involve working in areas which have been identified as being at risk of flooding. Plant and temporary piles of construction materials left in the floodplain during a flood event might result in a minimal, and comparatively insignificant, reduction in potential flood storage at the site. A resulting off-site change in flood levels would not however be noticeable given the large area of off-site floodplain over which the minimal loss of flood storage would be applied. The effect on off-site flooding of leaving plant in the floodplain is therefore negligible.
Flood Risk - Extraction
11.5.4 The extraction proposals involve storing topsoil and overburden in temporary bunds. The FRA (Technical Appendix J) discusses that the flood volume lost by the creation of the temporary bunds will be minimal and more than compensated for by the excavations/water management areas. The effect on off-site flood risk is considered as negligible.
11.5.5 Local dewatering of excavations will form part of the extraction and restoration process. The uncontrolled release/discharge of water extracted during dewatering could result in higher flows in the River Nene. However, the comparative increase in flow is not considered to be significant and the assessed increase in off-site flood risk is considered as minor adverse.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 175 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
11.5.6 The proposals will result in the creation of a limited area of impermeable cover at the application site. The majority of ground cover for working areas (the haul road and plant and operations area) will be constructed from as dug sands and gravels from the site. The majority of constructed surfaces will therefore allow for direct infiltration with any runoff from the surface being shed to adjacent areas of natural (existing) ground (grass, scrub, and possibly bare topsoil) where it would adopt greenfield runoff properties through interaction with the natural ground cover. By virtue of their relatively limited area (compared to the site area), the temporary buildings, access road and concrete pads, will be unlikely to contribute significant quantities of surface water runoff to flows in the River Nene. The effect on off-site flood risk associated with the free discharge of surface water runoff from the application site is therefore considered to be negligible.
Flood Risk - Restoration
11.5.7 Restoration levels for the linear riverside wetland in the south of the site will be lower than existing levels. This will result in an increase in floodplain storage capacity in the southern part of the site. The storage volume offered by the wetland area is considered to have a positive local influence. This newly created flood storage area will therefore have a minor beneficial effect.
11.5.8 Restoration of the excavations would include the provision of a clay liner which may interrupt the flow of groundwater beneath the application site. There is a northwest-to-southeast flow element at the western end of the application site, groundwater approaching the northern boundary could be diverted to a mainly easterly flow direction before re-joining baseline flow at the eastern end of the site. This will represent an increase in the flow pathway length of about 1.5km. This extended pathway will be normal to the approaching flow direction from the north causing groundwater velocity to be reduced and this could cause some ‘mounding’ of the groundwater surface. The effects could be flooding up gradient of the northern boundary (or at least saturated soils). These effects on off-site flood risk and groundwater flows are considered as minor adverse.
Water Quality – Construction
11.5.9 Dust and sediment arising from construction activities (particularly during drier periods) may enter the local water environment. The quantities of such material are likely to be limited as construction will be relatively short-lived and the effect of such pollution is considered to be minor adverse.
11.5.10 There is a risk of accidental spillages of fuels or lubricants which could enter the local water environment. Such accidents are infrequent but if they do arise the significance of accidental discharges is considered to be minor adverse.
Water Quality – Extraction
11.5.11 Surface water runoff generated from the proposed new access road may contain physical and chemical pollutants which may escape into the water environment. The effect on water quality is assessed as minor adverse.
11.5.12 Again there is a risk of accidental spillages of fuels or lubricants during the extraction phase which could result in pollutants entering the local water environment. The significance of accidental discharges is considered to be minor adverse.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 176 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
11.5.13 Water extracted during dewatering of the sands and gravels to facilitate extraction is unlikely to contain high sediment loads. However, the processing (washing) of material within the Plant and Operations area will generate water with high sediment loads. The uncontrolled release of a significant quantity of sediment into the River Nene would have a moderate adverse effect.
Water Quality – Restoration
11.5.14 The restoration proposals will reduce the area of agricultural land and also introduce a wetland buffer area between the restored agricultural land and the River Nene. The increased area of wetland will allow for an increased potential to intercept physical (sediments) and chemical (fertilisers) pollutants contained in overland flows from the agricultural land. The introduction of the wetland area will therefore have a minor beneficial effect.
11.6 Mitigation and Enhancement
Construction
11.6.1 Mitigation will be the responsibility of the various contractors, teams and individuals employed during the construction process. Mitigation will rely on good site management and the safe storage of materials and plant outside of the floodplain prior to any required evacuation of the site. Assuming appropriate measures are in place the potential effects are considered negligible.
Extraction
11.6.2 Paragraph 11.6.1 applies to the extraction (operational) phase.
11.6.3 The extraction proposals involve storing topsoil and overburden in temporary bunds. The FRA (Technical Appendix J) discusses that the flood volume lost by the creation of the temporary bunds will be minimal. The effect on off-site flood risk is considered as negligible.
11.6.4 Surface water runoff from the proposed temporary haul road will be treated in accordance with current guidelines in order to control and reduce the risk of pollutants being released into the water environment. Precise measures will be subject to detailed design but it is envisaged such measures relying on an appropriate number of treatment steps within a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS). The introduction of pollution prevention and control measures will reduce the effect on water quality from minor adverse to negligible.
11.6.5 The proposed extraction operation will be phased. This phasing minimises the area of working at a given time. Phasing also allows a for the restoration of each phase to begin once the mineral from that phase has been exhausted.
11.6.6 Water from dewatering and mineral processing will be held within the water management area, as well as the previous phased working area, where sediment will be allowed to settle. The mitigation will reduce the impact on water quality from moderate adverse to negligible. Avoiding the free release of water from the dewatering process by dewatering through recharge trenches/basins will reduce the impact on off-site flood risk from a minor adverse effect to a negligible effect.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 177 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Restoration
11.6.7 Provision of a series of cut-off ditches and underdrains are proposed to be included within the restoration (completed development) to mitigate the potential of upstream mounding of groundwater from the north/north-west following the removal and subsequent replacement of permeable material. A series of cut-off drains allow the continuation of groundwater flows from the north to the proposed wetlands areas / River Nene in the south by directing flows to the proposed ‘veins’ of retained (permeable) material located in areas outside of the proposed extractions. The mitigation also protects the River Nene from any impact in flow rate following removal of the aquifer. The effect on off-site flood risk and groundwater flows will reduce from minor adverse to negligible.
11.6.8 It is expected that mitigation measures outlined in this chapter will be secured via the attachment of one or more planning conditions.
11.7 Residual Effects
Construction
11.7.1 Following mitigation, the residual effects will be negligible.
Extraction
11.7.2 Following mitigation, the residual effects will be negligible.
Restoration
11.7.3 The increase in floodplain storage volume offered by the proposed wetland area is considered to result in a Minor beneficial effect, while following mitigation the residual effects regarding groundwater will be negligible.
11.8 Cumulative Effects
Flood Risk
11.8.1 NPPF requires that individual sites pose no detrimental impact on flood risk elsewhere, therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.
Surface Water
11.8.2 There is considered to be no residual impact on surface water as a result of the proposed development; therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.
Groundwater
11.8.3 There is considered to be no residual impact on ground water as a result of the proposed development, therefore no cumulative impacts are anticipated.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 178 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
11.9 Summary
11.9.1 The EA mapping identifies the site to lie within the low, medium and high probability flood areas (i.e. Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 respectively). Geological records indicate the application site is located within an area of River Terrace Deposits within underlying Whitby Mudstone Formation and groundwater monitoring results suggest the River Terrace Deposits contain water at a depth of 1 m to 4 m below ground level.
11.9.2 The potential effects of the proposed development upon the baseline flooding regime, hydrology and hydrogeology in the vicinity of the application site have been assessed in consultation with the statutory authorities, and where appropriate, mitigation measures have been accommodated into the application site.
11.9.3 All aspects of the construction, extraction and restoration of the application site would be in accordance with best practice guidance.
11.9.4 A Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken for the application site. The FRA concluded that the application site is presented as being deliverable and sustainable in flood risk terms with the proposed mitigation measures i (i.e. good site management, water management measures, proposed cut-off ditches and underdrains) in place.
11.9.5 It has been demonstrated that after consideration of the mitigation measures, the potential adverse effects on the water environment are negligible within the exception of minor beneficial effect on local flood risk.
11.10 Reference
Ref 11.1 - Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012 “National Planning Policy Framework”, Ref 11.2 – Northamptonshire County Council, 2011 “Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) Development Plan Document “Locations for Minerals Development” Ref 11.3 – Northamptonshire County Council, August 2016 “Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) Update: Submission Plan”. Ref 11.4 Northamptonshire County Council, March 2016 MWLP Update, Final Draft Plan, Proposed Submission document “Flood Risk Assessment – Sequential Test. Ref 11.5 – CIRIA, 2015, The SuDS Manual C753 Ref 11.6 - Environment Agency, 2017, Groundwater protection technical guidance. Ref 11.7 – CIRIA, 2001, Control of water pollution from construction sites C532, Ref 11.8 – CIRIA, 2006, Control of water pollution from linear construction projects (technical guidance C648, site guide C649) Ref 11.9 – CIRIA, Environmental Good Practice on Site C650, CIRIA 2005 [Ref 11.9] Ref 11.10 – Northampton Borough Council, 2010, The Northampton Borough Council Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Ref 11.11 - Kettering and Wellingborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2010/2011.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 179 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
12.1 Introduction
12.1.1 This chapter has been prepared by WYG and presents the approach and findings of the assessment of effects on archaeological and cultural heritage features and resources. The chapter details the methodology followed, and provides a review of the baseline cultural heritage features and resources of the site and study areas, together with an assessment of their value. The chapter then presents the results of the assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the baseline cultural heritage features and resources in order to determine the magnitude of change and the corresponding significance of effect anticipated. Where required, mitigation measures are presented and discussed to reduce identified significant effects of the proposed development during construction and operation.
12.1.2 Within the context of this chapter, cultural heritage should be taken to mean the above and below ground archaeological resource, built heritage and historic landscape.
12.1.3 This chapter is supported by Appendix K.1 Known Heritage Assets table and Appendix K.2 Archaeological Evaluation and Auger Survey report (Headland 2017).
12.2 Policy Context
National Planning Policy Framework, 2012
12.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s national planning policies including those on the conservation of the historic environment. The NPPF covers all aspects of the historic environment and heritage assets including designated assets (World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Conservation Area, Registered Parks and Gardens and Registered Battlefields) and non-designated assets. The NPPF draws attention to the benefits that conserving the historic environment can bring to the wider objectives of the NPPF in relation to sustainability, economic benefits and place- making (paragraph 126).
12.2.2 The NPPF states that the significance of heritage assets (including their settings) should be identified, described and the impact of the proposal on the significance of the asset should be assessed. The planning application should include sufficient information to enable the impact of proposals on significance to be assessed and thus where desk-based research is insufficient to assess the interest, field evaluation may also be required. The NPPF identifies that the requirements for assessment and mitigation of impacts on heritage assets should be proportional to their significance and the potential impact (paragraph 129).
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 180 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12.2.3 The NPPF sets out the approach local authorities should adopt in addressing development proposals within the context of applications for development of both designated and non- designated assets. Great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and harm or loss to significance through alteration or destruction should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm or loss of a Grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably Scheduled Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, battlefields, Grade I and II* listed buildings, Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptions (paragraph 132). Additional guidance is given on the consideration of elements within World Heritage Sites and Conservation Areas (paragraph 138).
12.2.4 Where there is substantial harm or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset a number of criteria must be considered alongside achieving public benefits (paragraph 133). Where there is less than substantial harm the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the development (paragraph 134). Balanced judgement should be made when weighing applications that affect non-designated heritage assets (paragraph 134). The NPPF also makes provision to allow enabling development (paragraph 140) and allowing development which enhances World Heritage Sites and Conservation Areas (paragraph 127).
12.2.5 Where loss of significance as a result of development is considered justified, the NPPF includes provision to allow for the recording and advancing of the asset before it is lost in a manner proportionate to the importance and impact. The results of these investigations and the archive should be made publicly accessible. The ability to record evidence should not, however, be a factor in deciding where loss should be permitted (paragraph 141).
12.2.6 The assessment has considered the significance of heritage assets which may be affected by the development and the potential effects upon that significance. Where the development may affect heritage assets, mitigation measures have been proposed to record the asset and mitigate the effect on significance.
North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031, adopted July 2016
Policy 2 Historic Environment
12.2.7 The distinctive North Northamptonshire historic environment will be protected, preserved and where, appropriate, enhanced. Where a development would impact upon a heritage asset and/or its setting:
a. Proposals should conserve and, where possible, enhance the heritage significance and setting of an asset or group of heritage assets in a manner commensurate to its significance;
b. Proposals should complement their surrounding historic environment through the form, scale, design and materials; c. Proposals should protect and, where possible, enhance key views and vistas of heritage assets, including of the church spires along the Nene Valley and across North Northamptonshire; d. Proposals should demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of the impact of development on heritage assets and their setting in order to minimise harm to these assets and their setting. Where loss of historic features or archaeological remains is
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 181 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
unavoidable and justified, provision should be made recording and the production of a suitable archive and report; e. Where appropriate, flexible solutions to the re-use of buildings and conservation of other type of heritage assets at risk will be encouraged, especially, where this will result in their removal from the ‘at risk’ register.
West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1), adopted December 2014
Policy BN5 – The Historic Environment and Landscape
12.2.8 Designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings and landscapes will be conserved and enhanced in recognition of their individual and cumulative significance to West Northamptonshire’s distinctiveness and sense of place.
12.2.9 In environments where valued heritage assets are at risk, the assets and its setting will be appropriately conserved and managed.
12.2.10 In order to secure and enhance the significance of the area’s heritage assets and their settings and landscapes, development in areas of landscape sensitivity and/or of known historic heritage significance will be required to:
1. Sustain and enhance the heritage and landscape features which contribute to the character of the area including:
a. Conservation Areas; b. Significant historic landscapes including historic parkland, battlefields and ridge and furrow; c. The skyline and landscape settings of towns and villages; d. Sites of known or potential heritage or historic significance; e. Locally and nationally important buildings, structures and monument.
2. Demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of the impact of development on surrounding heritage assets and their setting in order to minimise harm to these assets; where loss of historic features or archaeological remains is unavoidable and justified, provision should be made recording and the production of a suitable report.
3. Be sympathetic to locally distinctive landscape features, design styles and material in order to contribute to a sense of place.
12.2.11 The retention and sensitive re-use of disused or underused heritage assets and structures is encourage in order to retain and reflect the distinctiveness of the environment, contribute to the sense of place and promote the sustainable and prudent use of natural resources.
12.2.12 Proposals to sustain and enhance the area’s understanding of heritage assets, for tourism and historic interest as part of cultural, leisure and green networks will be supported.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 182 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2014
Policy 26: Historic environment
12.2.13 Where heritage assets are identified, proposals should seek to conserve and enhance Northamptonshire’s historic environment through:
careful management of heritage assets, their significance and setting, including the avoidance and / or mitigation of potentially adverse impacts, and enhancement of specific features of the historic environment, including individual heritage assets or historic landscapes, as part of the restoration scheme.
12.2.14 Proposals for minerals and waste development involving a site which includes heritage assets (including development within the setting of an asset), particularly those with an archaeological interest, will be required to undertake appropriate desk based and / or field evaluations in order to:
identify and determine the nature, extent and level of the significance of each heritage asset, the contribution of its setting to that significance, as well as any potential impacts on the asset or its setting, and identify the requirement for a programme of post-permission works including any mitigation measures and long-term monitoring.
Key Legislation
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979
12.2.15 Scheduled Monuments are designated by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the advice of Historic England as selective examples of nationally important archaeological remains. Under the terms of Part 1 Section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 it is an offence to damage, disturb or alter a Scheduled Monument either above or below ground without first obtaining permission from the Secretary of State. This Act does not allow for the protection of the setting of Scheduled Monuments.
12.2.16 The development will not affect any Scheduled Monuments and there are no conflicts with the Act, or requirements for Scheduled Monument Consent.
Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990
12.2.17 The Act outlines the provisions for designation, control of works and enforcement measures relating to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. Section 66 of the Act states that the planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of any Listed Building that may be affected by the granting of planning permission. Section 72 of the Act states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.
12.2.18 An assessment of the effects on the setting of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas has been undertaken and the results presented in the chapter.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 183 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12.3 Methodology
Baseline Data Collection
12.3.1 A study area of a 1km radius surrounding the site has been considered. This study area was chosen to encompass the development proposals and assess the nature of the surrounding cultural heritage sites within their context. The sources consulted were:
Northamptonshire Historic Environment Record (HER); Historic England and Local Planning Authority for designated sites; Historic mapping; National Mapping Programme; and Appropriate documentary sources and archaeological journals.
12.3.2 A programme of archaeological evaluation was undertaken between February and March 2017. The results of this evaluation have been drawn upon during the preparation of this chapter and are contained within K.2.
12.3.3 A site walkover survey was undertaken on the 11th April 2017, to assess the significance of the site, examine the site for previously unrecorded archaeological remains and suitability for
Consultation
12.3.4 Consultation has been undertaken with the Northamptonshire County Archaeological Advisor, Lesley-Ann Mather in order to determine and agree the scope of the archaeological evaluation and auger survey.
Methodology for Assessing Impact and Effects
12.3.5 Assessment of effects has been carried out through the consideration of baseline conditions in relation to those elements of the scheme that could cause cultural heritage effects. Baseline conditions are defined as the existing environmental conditions and, in applicable cases, the conditions that would develop in the future without the scheme.
12.3.6 The assessment of effects has been carried out in accordance with the methodology outlined in Chapter 4. No standard method of evaluation and assessment is provided for the assessment of significance of effects upon cultural heritage, therefore a set of evaluation and assessment criteria have been developed using a combination of the Secretary of State’s criteria for Scheduled Monuments (Scheduled Monument Statement), Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Part 3, Section 2, HA 208/07 and Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG Unit 3.3.9, Heritage Resources Sub-Objective).
12.3.7 Professional judgement has been used in conjunction with these criteria to undertake the assessment of effects. The criteria for assessing value and magnitude of change are outlined below.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 184 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 12.1 Assessing Heritage Value
Value Examples World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments of exceptional quality, or assets of acknowledged international importance or can contribute to international research objectives. Grade I Listed Buildings and built heritage of exceptional quality. Very High Grade I Registered Parks and Gardens and historic landscapes and townscapes of international sensitivity, or extremely well preserved historic landscapes and townscapes with exceptional coherence, integrity, time- depth, or other critical factor(s). Scheduled Monuments, or assets of national quality and importance or than can contribute to national research objectives. Grade II* and Grade II Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas with very strong character and integrity, other built heritage that can be shown to High have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical association. Grade II* and II Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and historic landscapes and townscapes of outstanding interest, quality and importance, or well preserved and exhibiting considerable coherence, integrity time-depth or other critical factor(s). Designated or undesignated assets of regional quality and importance that contribute to regional research objectives. Locally Listed Buildings, other Conservation Areas, historic buildings that can be shown to have good qualities in their fabric or historical association. Medium Designated or undesignated special historic landscapes and townscapes with reasonable coherence, integrity, time-depth or other critical factor(s). Assets that form an important resource within the community, for educational or recreational purposes. Undesignated assets of local importance. Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations but with potential to contribute to local research objectives. Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical Low association. Historic landscapes and townscapes with limited sensitivity or whose sensitivity is limited by poor preservation, historic integrity and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Assets that form a resource within the community with occasional utilisation for educational or recreational purposes. Assets with very little or no surviving cultural heritage interest. Buildings of no architectural or historical note. Negligible Landscapes and townscapes that are badly fragmented and the contextual associations are severely compromised or have little or no historical interest.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 185 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 12.2 Assessing Magnitude of Impact for Heritage
Value Examples Negative: Impacts will damage or destroy cultural heritage assets; result in the loss of the asset and/or quality and integrity; cause severe damage to key characteristic features or elements; almost complete loss of setting and/or context of the asset. The assets integrity or setting is almost wholly destroyed or is severely compromised, such that the resource can no longer be appreciated or understood. Substantial Positive: The proposals would remove or successfully mitigate existing damaging and discordant impacts on assets; allow for the restoration or enhancement of characteristic features; allow the substantial re- establishment of the integrity, understanding and setting for an area or group of features; halt rapid degradation and/or erosion of the heritage resource, safeguarding substantial elements of the heritage resource. Negative: Substantial impact on the asset, but only partially affecting the integrity; partial loss of, or damage to, key characteristics, features or elements; substantially intrusive into the setting and/or would adversely impact upon the context of the asset; loss of the asset for community appreciation. The assets integrity or setting is damaged but not destroyed Moderate so understanding and appreciation is compromised. Positive: Benefit to, or restoration of, key characteristics, features or elements; improvement of asset quality; degradation of the asset would be halted; the setting and/or context of the asset would be enhanced and understanding and appreciation is substantially improved; the asset would be bought into community use. Negative: Some measurable change in assets quality or vulnerability; minor loss of or alteration to, one (or maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; change to the setting would not be overly intrusive or overly diminish the context; community use or understanding would be reduced. The assets integrity or setting is damaged but understanding and Slight appreciation would only be diminished not compromised. Positive: Minor benefit to, or partial restoration of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on asset or a stabilization of negative impacts; slight improvements to the context or setting of the site; community use or understanding and appreciation would be enhanced. Negative: Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements. Minor changes to the setting or Negligible/No context of the site. No discernible change in baseline conditions. change Positive: Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more characteristics, features or elements. Minor changes to the setting or context of the site No discernible change in baseline conditions.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 186 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12.3.8 The level of significance of the environmental effect has been determined by combining the magnitude and the value of the receptors.
Table 12.3 Significance of Effects Matrix
Magnitude of Impact
Substantial Moderate Slight Negligible
magnitude magnitude magnitude magnitude
Very High Major/Severe Major Major/ Moderate Neutral
High Major Major/ Moderate Moderate/ Minor Neutral
Medium Major Moderate Minor Neutral Sensitivity of Receptor Low Moderate/ Minor Minor Neutral Neutral
12.3.9 Any significance of effect that is identified as moderate adverse/beneficial or greater is defined as being significant.
Limitations of the Assessment
12.3.10 Research has not been repeated and therefore reliance has been placed on previously completed archaeological reports by third parties that were previously accepted by the commissioning bodies and archaeological consultees. The information is expected to be factually accurate.
12.3.11 There are considered to be no significant limitations on the assessment.
12.4 Baseline Conditions
12.4.1 An archaeological desk-based assessment (Archaeological Solutions Ltd 2007) and geophysical survey (Stratascan 2012) have already been completed for the site. A programme of archaeological evaluation has been completed during February and March 2017 (Headland) and the draft results of this evaluation is contained within Appendix K.2. Further details of the sites referenced within the text are included in Appendix K.1 and can be seen on Figures 3 and 4 contained within the same appendix.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 187 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Designated Sites
12.4.2 There are no World Heritage Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens or Registered Battlefields within the study area.
12.4.3 There is one Scheduled Monument recorded within the study area, which dates to the Bronze Age. The monument includes the remains of a bowl barrow (1014934) and is located to the south of the site. It is one of only a few examples of bowl barrows which survive in the area.
12.4.4 There are 34 listed buildings, all but one of which are Grade II listed, recorded within the study area which date from the post-medieval to modern periods. The majority of the listed buildings are located within one of the four Conservation Areas located within the study area, Great Billing, Ecton, Earls Barton and Cogenhoe, although a small number of the listed buildings are located within Little Billing.
12.4.5 The Grade II* listed building is the Church of St. Peter (1041575), which has 13th century and older origins although it was restored in the 19th century. It is of coursed squared limestone and ironstone construction. There is a plain tile roof to the chancel and lead roofs elsewhere.
12.4.6 Many of the Grade II listed buildings are residential dwellings (e.g. 1371707, 1372174, 1189983, 1371283 & 1041577) although headstones (1371684) and chest tombs (1371285 & 1041576), an outbuilding (1294089), barns (1189987 & 1189914), packhorse and footbridge (1251279) and war memorial (1432915) have also been designated as listed buildings.
Archaeological and Historic Background
Prehistoric (to 43 AD)
12.4.7 The prehistoric period is represented by previously recorded assets from the earliest to the later periods. Land adjacent or close to river courses can often reveal evidence of early prehistoric activity, which is true of the Nene valley (McNabb 2006, 21) and of the study area. Find spots dating from the Pleistocene include both faunal (MNN21434) and animal remains (MNN23925 & MNN23926), as well as the find spot of a Levallois flake and animal bones (MNN21425) which also dates to the Palaeolithic period. Further evidence of the Palaeolithic period is limited to unstratified finds (MNN21402) and of flint hand axes (MNN21423).
12.4.8 There is one previously recorded asset of Mesolithic date within the study area which is the find spot of microliths and flakes (MNN28738). Within the wider Northamptonshire area, the exposed flanks of the Nene valley have resulted in the recording of Mesolithic find spots, although large scale quarrying along the valley has resulted in the loss of the valley landscape (Archaeological Solutions Ltd 2007, 7).
12.4.9 Evidence of Neolithic activity is also limited to find spots, including an axe (MNN21415) and pot sherds (MNN21548) although an area of possible activity (MNN4493) and a possible settlement (MNN25914) have also been recorded within the study area. Further evidence for activity, including occupation evidence (MNN4476), the site of hearth, pit and sunken features (MNN21388), a probable funerary site (MNN6500) and the find spot of unstratified artefacts (MNN21389) also date to the Bronze Age. This evidence suggest that the Nene valley was extensively exploited during these periods (Clay 2006, 77).
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 188 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12.4.10 Much like the earlier prehistoric periods, there is limited evidence of Bronze Age activity recorded within the study area. Recorded assets comprise a possible funerary site (MNN4473 & MNN21377), possible occupation evidence (MNN4494), the find spots of scrapers (MNN21419), a spearhead (MNN21426) and a flint arrowhead (MNN21488) as well as two small pits (MNN170506) which also date to the Iron Age.
12.4.11 The Iron Age is the best represented prehistoric period in the study area and the recorded evidence is more indicative of settlement. Recorded assets include possible settlements (MNN886, MNN16958, MMN16964), ditches (e.g. MNN21399, MNN21424 & MNN144563), field systems (MNN16958, MNN115287), round houses (MNN115290 & MNN115327), pits (MNN144567 & MNN144569) and possible enclosures (e.g. MNN144539, MNN144556, & MNN144556). Other recorded assets also date to the Roman and early medieval period and include possible settlements (MNN916, MNN4471 & MNN922), a cemetery (MNN3909) and inhumations (MNN21491 & MNN21493), pits (MNN21540) and the find spot of artefacts (MNN21542 & MNN21539).
12.4.12 There are three assets of unknown date recorded in the study area which may be of prehistoric date; areas of possible activity (MNN4496 & MNN136111) and a ditch which may be of Iron Age or Roman date (MNN21512).
Roman (43 AD to 450 AD)
12.4.13 During the Roman period, the River Nene acted as a link between the East Midlands and the fen edge and as a result the Nene valley is of archaeological importance (Archaeological Solutions Ltd 2007, 9). Although many of the recorded assets comprise find spots (e.g. MNN21372, MNN21418, MNN21422, MNN21479 & MNN34347), a possible pottery manufacturing site (MNN894), possible buildings and structures (MNN21403, MNN35211), enclosures (MNN21421), kilns (MNN21448), walls (MNN35206, MNN35215, MNN115335) and burials and cremations (MNN2148, MNN27259, MNN144572) have also been recorded amongst other features.
Early Medieval (450 AD to 1066 AD)
12.4.14 The mechanisms by which Roman territories came under Anglo-Saxon control has generated much speculation in the context of Britain, however, many would now agree that the first sizeable territories in Anglo-Saxon England bear some relationship to sub-Roman provinces that preceded them. It appears that the landscape along the Nene valley continued to be occupied into the sub-Roman period (Archaeological Solutions Ltd 2007, 10). Within the study area evidence of early medieval activity is largely comprised by find spots of artefacts (MNN21511& MNN28766) although a possible building indicated by postholes (MNN170117) and boundary ditch (MNN161363) have also been recorded. Two further find spots of pottery (MNN19782 & MNN19782) have also been recorded within the study area but they also included later, medieval and post-medieval material. The settlement at Ecton (MNN3943) and Cogenhoe Mill, designated as a Grade II listed building (MNN14331) also had early medieval origins.
12.4.15 There are three assets of unknown date recorded within the study area which may be of early medieval date. These comprise gullies (MNN170118 & MNN170119), as well as a ditch alongside a gully (MNN170120).
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 189 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Medieval (1066 AD to 1540 AD)
12.4.16 By 1086 the manor of Ecton was held by Henry de Ferrers before passing to the 1st Earl of Orby and merging with lands held by the Duchy of Lancaster and the Montgomery family (VCH, 123). To the south of the site the shrunken village of Cogenhoe has been recorded (MNN910). The majority of the remaining assets of purely medieval date consist of find spots (MNN49777, MNN17997, MNN21506, MNN138455 & MNN138456) although possible boundaries (MNN170262), agricultural activity (MNN144522) and a fishpond (MNN144521) have also been recorded.
12.4.17 There are also examples of medieval assets which also date to later periods and are indicative of continued use of the study area, particularly agricultural activity. Evidence includes areas of animal husbandry (MNN883 & MNN914), open field systems (MNN135268 & MNN136136), several areas of ridge and furrow (e.g. MNN29786, MNN132691, MNN132692, MNN132696 & MNN133663) and a farm (MNN136447). There are also examples of industrial practices including possible quarrying (MNN136593 & MNN137002), the site of watermill (MMN9279) and a possible leat (MNN21513). The remains of possible buildings (MNN21505, MNN26765 & MNN27262) and roads (MNN142838 & MNN161446) have also been recorded.
Post-Medieval (1540 AD to 1750 AD), Industrial (1750 AD to 1900 AD) & Modern (1900 AD to Present)
12.4.18 The post-medieval period is an age of transition between the medieval world and the Industrial and Agricultural revolutions of the 18th and early 19th century although evidence for these periods recorded within the study area is largely similar to the earlier medieval period.
12.4.19 Assets of post-medieval date include examples of mills and associated infrastructure (MNN21390, MNN21428, MNN30988 & MNN32902), farms (MNN142835, MNN142840 & NN161443), residential dwellings (MNN34555 & MNN116894) and transportation and communication links (MNN115469 & MNN115470), including the River Nene navigation (MNN5176). The River Nene (MNN4714) has likely been exploited since the prehistoric period but has been used to transport coal, timber, stone and grain.
12.4.20 Continued industrial exploitation of the study area is indicated by assets of Industrial period date recorded within the study area such as brickworks (MNN16276), brick kilns (MNN29279), brick pits (MNN142925), quarries (MNN17232 & MNN7674) and a works (MNN17687). There are also examples of transportation networks which will have been used to transport material produced by these works, including a mineral railway extension (MNN140933) and an ironstone railway (MNN142934). There are also examples of established settlement including houses (e.g. MNN164729, MNN164756, MNN164757, MNN164758 & MNN164759), walls (e.g. MNN163736, MNN163737, MNN163738, MNN163739 & MNN163740), a ha-ha (MNN26767) and ornamental pond (MNN19791).
12.4.21 There are only five assets of modern date recorded within the study area, although some of the assets which date to the Industrial period also date to the modern period. The assets of modern date comprise quarries (MNN17233) and gravel pits which became an aquadrome (MNN136539), the route of an ironstone railway (MNN142938), a pillbox (MNN37113) and a chapel which is now a residential building (MNN170390).
12.4.22 There is one asset of unknown date which may relate to the modern period which is the location of an earthwork bank (MNN33171).
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 190 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Unknown
12.4.23 There are 25 assets of unknown date recorded within the study area although some of these assets have been discussed in the prehistoric, early medieval and modern sections above. These assets include possible settlements (MNN2905 & MNN6866), possible paleochannels (MNN6866, MNN29788, MNN144532 & MNN144536), ditches (MNN21401, MNN144529 & MNN21512) and gullies (MNN31344 & MNN31111), enclosures (MNN32364, MNN104314 & MNN144535) and areas of agricultural activity (MNN160946), as well as other features.
Previous Archaeological Work
12.4.24 Previous archaeological investigations have been undertaken across the site; a geophysical survey (Stratascan) and the excavation of trial trenches and an auger survey (Headland).
Geophysical Survey
12.4.25 A geophysical survey by Stratascan was undertaken across the site in December 2011 and February 2012. The results of the survey were dominated by magnetic disturbance as a result of made ground and the site’s historic use as an irrigation farm. However, three enclosures, potentially of prehistoric date, possible ring ditches and linear and area anomalies were identified as a result of the survey. The linear and area anomalies may be related to changes in the local geology (Stratascan 2012).
Archaeological Evaluation and Auger Survey
12.4.26 The excavation of 107 50m by 2m trenches, digging of ten auger holes and exploration of 14 test pits appended to trenches was completed by Headland Archaeology between February and April 2017. Six of the trenches were extended in order to resolve the nature of features identified within them. Fifty-eight of the trenches had archaeological features in them which were investigated, the majority of which were furrows, although a number of ditches were also identified. The auger survey indicated that the upper part of the alluvium has been significantly altered by the addition of human effluent and that there is low potential for in situ finds as a result of the recycling of the material (Headland 2017).
Aerial Photography
12.4.27 The Northamptonshire HER holds records of features which have been identified from aerial photographs and transcribed from the National Mapping Programme (NMP). These features date to the prehistoric to the post-medieval and modern periods.
12.4.28 Features identified which date to the prehistoric period consist of a Neolithic or Bronze Age pit circle (MNN117371), Bronze Age round barrows (e.g. MNN117367, MNN117379, MNN117423, MNN117431 & MNN117440), Iron Age enclosures (e.g. MNN117439, MNN117476, MNN117480, MNN117481& MNN117482) and pit alignments (MNN117475, MNN117495 & MNN117494). There are a number of features which have been dated to the wider prehistoric period including possible enclosures (e.g. MNN117441, MNN117442, MNN117444, MNN117445, MNN117446), pits and pit alignments (MNN117373, MNN117374, MNN117465, MNN117421 & MNN117422), possible barrows (MNN117046, MNN117047 & MNN117510) and settlement features (MNN117460, MNN117461, MNN117461& MNN117471).
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 191 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12.4.29 There are also examples of Roman enclosures which have been identified from aerial photography (e.g. MNN117070, MNN117073, MNN117074, MNN117366, MNN117473), as well as settlement features (MNN117069, MNN117436, MNN117437 & MNN117438), ditches (MNN117479, MNN117493, MNN117503, MNN117505 & MNN117506) and the route of a possible trackway (MNN117071, & MNN117072).
12.4.30 There are also possible enclosures which may be of early medieval or medieval date (e.g. MNN117033, MNN117524, MNN117525, MNN117526, & MNN117528).
12.4.31 There are two features identified from aerial photography of modern date; an area of quarrying (MNN117394) and the location of a sand pit (MNN117383).
Site Walkover Survey
12.4.32 A site walkover survey was undertaken on Tuesday 11th April 2017 by Rebecca Emms, WYG. The weather was sunny with some cloud cover and dry with good visibility.
12.4.33 The majority of the site is formed by agricultural land which is divided by a number of tracks and field drains. There is a small area of woodland, known as Wind Spinney, in the eastern part of the site and a small portion of the site along its western boundary has been left to fallow and has become overgrown. The A45 is immediately adjacent to the north of the site and noise from the road can be heard from the northern parts of the site. There are large fishing lakes immediately to the south of the site.
12.4.34 The majority of the site is flat and the only change in ground levels is towards the western boundary where the track rises along a landscape buffer and to cross a drain. A portion of this part of the site also appears to be higher lying than the rest of the site.
12.4.35 There are views of the listed church towers located within Ecton, Cogenhoe and Whiston from various parts of the site although some views are restricted by hedgerows and vegetation which form the northern and southern boundary of the site, as well as other intervening vegetation between the proposed development and the churches. There is also a clear view of the farm buildings surrounding the Grade II listed South Lodge Farm (1371710) from the western half of the proposed development, in particular, from a track which runs through the centre of the site.
12.4.36 No archaeological remains were identified during the walkover survey.
12.5 Potential Effects
Archaeology
12.5.1 The location of a probable Iron Age and Roman settlement (MNN4471) and a possible prehistoric ditch (MNN117466) extend into the site. However, they are not located in areas which have been identified for gravel and sand extraction and effects are not anticipated upon these assets. Therefore, they are not assessed further.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 192 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12.5.2 The location of Ecton Mill (MNN21390) is located towards the southern boundary of the site. No structural remains of the mill were noted during the walkover survey although there is some potential for below ground remains to survive. It is of archaeological and historic importance as an asset which relates to the historic use and development of the study area. The mill is considered to be of low value as an asset of local importance but of poor survival. Ecton Mill is located in an area which has been identified for gravel and sand extraction, which will result in the complete removal of any below ground remains associated with the mill. This is therefore considered to be a substantial negative effect which will result in a minor adverse significance of effect. This is not considered to be a significant effect.
12.5.3 A possible Neolithic settlement has been identified along the southern boundary of the site. It is of archaeological importance as further investigation of the site may further our knowledge of it. It is considered to be of low value as an asset of local importance. Part of the possible settlement extends in to an area which has been identified for gravel and sand extraction which will result in the loss of a portion of the asset. This is considered to be a moderate negative magnitude of impact. However, part of this asset has been excavated during the recent archaeological excavations and no archaeological remains were identified. As a result, it is considered that the magnitude of impact is moderate negative, resulting in a minor adverse significance of effect. This is not considered to be a significant effect.
12.5.4 A curvilinear feature of unknown date (MNN117432) is located in the eastern half of the site and was identified from aerial photography. Trenches excavated in this area identified the remains of ditches which may be related to this feature. It is of archaeological significance as further examination of the feature may provide information about its date and form. It is considered to be of negligible to low value. The asset is located in an area which has been identified for gravel and sand extraction which will result in the complete removal of the asset and its archaeological importance. This equates to a substantial negative magnitude of impact which results in a minor adverse significance of effect. This is not considered to be a significant effect.
12.5.5 An area of possible prehistoric and Roman activity (MNN4478) is located towards the north east of the site. This area is of archaeological importance as further investigation would provide information about the date of this possible activity, although it is considered to be of negligible value. This area is located in an area which has been identified for gravel and sand extraction which would result in the removal of any features associated with this area of activity. This results in a substantial negative magnitude of impact which equates to a neutral significance of effect. This is not considered to be a significant effect.
12.5.6 There are a number of possible features which date from the prehistoric to medieval features, the majority of which have been identified from aerial photography. These are tabulated below.
Table 12.4 Undated Assets within Application Site
Reference Period Description Number MNN117433 Possible enclosure. Unknown MNN117432 Possible enclosure. Early Medieval MNN117428 Possible pit. Early Medieval to Medieval
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 193 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Reference Period Description Number MNN117421 Possible pit alignment. Prehistoric MNN117423 Possible round barrow. Prehistoric MNN117424 Location of an uncertain feature. Unknown MNN117427 Possible pit. Early Medieval to Medieval MNN884 Possible area of occupation. Medieval to Post-Medieval MNN886 Possible settlement. Iron Age MNN6869 Possible burial site. Prehistoric MNN115287 Possible field system. Iron Age MNN117434 Possible enclosure. Unknown MNN117420 Possible ditch. Unknown MNN117422 Possible linear features. Prehistoric MNN117431 Possible round barrow. Prehistoric MNN117425 Possible linear features. Prehistoric MNN117426 Possible linear features. Early Medieval to Medieval MNN117429 Possible site. Early Medieval to Medieval MNN117430 Possible ditch. Medieval to Post-Medieval
12.5.7 As these assets have been identified from aerial photography they have not been subject to archaeological investigation. Recently completed archaeological excavations across the site identified the remains of ditches, pits and postholes but no clear evidence which would add to our knowledge about the date and form of these assets. Therefore, it is not possible to ascribe a value and therefore a significance of effect to these assets. However, these asserts are located in areas which have been identified for gravel and sand extraction which would result in the total loss of these assets, which would result in a substantial negative magnitude of impact.
12.5.8 There are two find spots of unstratified material recorded within the site, one of Roman date (MNN26130) and the second of early medieval date (MNN28766). As these are assets of find spots of material which has been removed from the site they will not be affected by the proposed development and are therefore are not assessed further.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 194 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12.5.9 There is the potential that previously unrecorded archaeological remains survive within the site. The overall archaeological potential is considered to be higher for the prehistoric to Roman periods as a result of the nature of previously recorded assets, although this does not preclude the survival of archaeological remains dating to other periods. The majority of remains identified by the recent archaeological excavations identified ditches, pits and postholes, as well as large numbers of furrows relating to agricultural activity across the site. The magnitude of impact upon any previously unrecorded remains will be dependent on their location and extent in relation to proposed development, including the areas identified for gravel and sand extraction as well as soil storage area, silt and water management and plant and operations areas. Previously unrecorded archaeological remains are considered to be of low value as remains of potential local importance. The complete removal of such remains would have a substantial negative magnitude of impact, which would result in a minor to moderate adverse significance of effect. An intermediate adverse significance of effect is considered to be a significant effect.
Setting Impacts
12.5.10 The majority of listed buildings and Conservation Areas recorded in the study area will not be affected by the proposed development as a result of their settings not contributing to their significance or not extending as far as the site.
12.5.11 The Scheduled Monument of a Bronze Age bowl barrow (1014934) is located to the south of the site. It survives as a visible oval topped mound which is surrounded by a ditch. The barrow has archaeological significance as further investigation of it could provide further information about its date, form and use as well as subsequent abandonment. It also has some historic value due to its relationship to the history and development of the prehistoric landscape. It is located in the centre of field as part of a broadly agricultural landscape with good views in all directions, particularly northwards towards the River Nene. As a prehistoric funerary monument, the barrow would have been deliberately sited to be visually dominant within the wider landscape. As such its setting contributes to its significance although it is primarily of significance for its archaeological and historic importance. It is considered to be of high value as a Scheduled Monument.
12.5.12 Occasional views of the proposed development are considered likely although these will be limited by the existing vegetation which forms the southern boundary of the site. The proposed development will also result in increase in noise levels which will be heard from the asset which will be a distracting impact, especially when the process of gravel and sand extraction is focussed on the western and southern parts of the application site. However, overall it is considered that the proposed development would not be overly intrusive and will not reduce the ability to understand the bowl barrow in its setting or its archaeological and historic importance. The magnitude of impact is therefore considered to be slight negative resulting in a minor adverse significance of effect. This is not considered to be a significant effect.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 195 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12.5.13 Cogenhoe Conservation Area is located to the south of the site. It is focussed on the core of the historic settlement including many 17th century buildings which have been built in local limestone with some decorative ironstone elements. There are also examples of 19th century architecture in the Conservation Area relating the expansion of the village as a result of the introduction of the railway and industrial businesses. The 19th century buildings are commonly constructed from red brick. These architectural details give the Conservation Area its significance. It also has historic importance resulting from the evidence of development from the prehistoric to modern periods. It is located in an elevated position with views across the Nene Valley, including identified key views in the Conservation Area Appraisal northwards and north westwards in the direction of the site. Whilst the setting of the Conservation Area contributes to its significance, it is predominantly of significance for its architectural and historic importance. It is considered to be of high value as a result of its designation as Conservation Area.
12.5.14 It is considered that there will be occasional views of the proposed development, although these will be limited as a result of existing well-established vegetation which forms the southern boundary of the site. There may also be an increase in distracting noise levels which will detract from the relatively peaceful setting of the Conservation Area. However, this is only anticipated when works will be taking place along the southern portion of the site. It is considered that there will be a negligible negative magnitude of impact upon Cogenhoe Conservation Area as a result of very minor intrusions the setting of the asset. This will result in a neutral significance of effect which is not considered to be a significant effect.
12.5.15 The towers of churches within the wider area, including the Grade II* listed Church of St. Peter (1041575) are visible from within the application site although it is considered that the proposed development will not be visible from these assets. The proposed development may become a distracting feature of the views of the church towers, although other views from the churches will be unaffected.
12.6 Mitigation and Enhancement
12.6.1 A programme of archaeological work has already been completed across the site. A total of 107 trenches were excavated with 14 test pits appended to some trenches across the site. An auger survey was also completed. Fifty-eight of the trenches had archaeological features in them which were investigated, the majority of which were furrows, although a number of ditches were also identified. The auger survey indicated that the upper part of the alluvium has been significantly altered by the addition of human effluent. The results of the archaeological excavation has indicated that the majority of evidence relates to agricultural activity across the site. The results of the test pits indicated that the scale of geological activity which has occurred may have had a negative impact on the survival of any archaeological remains. Based on the results of the archaeological evaluation it is recommended that no further archaeological mitigation work is required.
12.6.2 There are no specific mitigation measures proposed with respect to effects upon the setting of heritage assets.
12.7 Residual Effects
12.7.1 As no mitigation measures are recommended there will be no change to the significance of effects as discussed in section 12.5 above.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 196 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12.7.2 It is anticipated that there will be a residual minor adverse significance of effect upon any below ground remains of Ecton Mill (MNN21390), a possible Neolithic settlement, a curvilinear feature of unknown date (MNN117432) and a neutral significance of effect upon an area of possible prehistoric and Roman activity (MNN4478). There is also the potential for there to be a substantial negative magnitude of impact upon features identified from aerial photography.
12.7.3 It is also anticipated that there will be a residual minor adverse significance of effect upon the scheduled bowl barrow (1014934) and a residual neutral significance of effect upon Cogenhoe Conservation Area.
12.8 Cumulative Effects
12.8.1 The cumulative impacts of the proposed development and other known schemes within the immediate area have been considered in regards to cultural heritage. The cumulative developments considered as part of this assessment are:
Earls Barton Spinney Quarry; and Earls Barton Quarry Western Extension.
12.8.2 There is an increased potential that previously unrecorded archaeological remains and deposits will be adversely impacted as a result of cumulative development. The non-technical summaries of the cumulative developments states that appropriate mitigation will be undertaken in regards to potential archaeological remains which will therefore reduce any cumulative impacts.
12.8.3 There is the potential for there to be an increased adverse impact upon the setting of designated heritage assets within the wider area as a result of these cumulative developments. However, these cumulative effects are anticipated to be negligible.
12.9 Summary
12.9.1 This chapter presents the approach and findings of the assessment of effects on archaeological and cultural heritage features and resources. It is supported by Appendix K.1, Known Heritage Assets table, and Appendix K.2, Archaeological Evaluation and Auger Survey report.
12.9.2 Data was collected from the Northamptonshire HER as well as other databased and documentary sources in order to inform this chapter. A programme of archaeological evaluation work has also been completed across the site. Assets recorded within the 1km study area around the site date to all periods.
12.9.3 There is one Scheduled Monument, 34 listed buildings and four Conservation Areas recorded within the study area. The Scheduled Monument dates to the Bronze Age and is the remains of a bowl barrow (1014934). There is one Grade II* listed building which has medieval origins. The remaining listed buildings are Grade II listed and date from the post-medieval to modern periods. The majority of the listed buildings are located within the four Conservation Areas, although a small number are located outside of these.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 197 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
12.9.4 Evidence for early prehistoric activity is largely limited to find spots although there is also evidence of occupation activity. The Iron Age is the best represented prehistoric period in the study area and the recorded evidence is indicative of settlement activity. The majority of evidence indicating Roman activity is formed by find spots of artefacts although other features such as possible buildings and burial have also been recorded. Much like earlier periods, evidence of early medieval activity is also limited to the find spots of material. Evidence for medieval activity also consists of find spots although there is also evidence of agricultural and industrial practices. Evidence of agricultural and industrial practices continued into the post- medieval and Industrial periods. There are also a number of features which are of unknown date. A number of additional assets which date to the prehistoric, Roman, early medieval, medieval and modern date have also been identified from aerial photography.
12.9.5 One hundred and seven trenches were excavated by Headland Archaeology, alongside the digging of 10 auger holes. Fourteen test pits were appended to the excavated trenches. The majority of archaeological features identified during the excavation work were furrows, although a number of ditches were also identified. The auger survey indicated that the upper part of the alluvium has been significantly altered by the addition of human effluent and that there is low potential for in situ finds as a result of the recycling of the material.
12.9.6 It is anticipated that there will be no more than a minor adverse significance of effect upon previously recorded archaeological remains which are located within the site. There is the potential for there to be up to substantial negative magnitude of impact upon previously unrecorded archaeological remains which may be located within the proposed development. It is anticipated that there will be no more than a minor adverse significance of effect upon the setting of assets within the study area. No further archaeological work is considered to be required.
12.10 References
Archaeological Solutions Ltd (2007) Land at Great Billing, Northamptonshire: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Anon (2014) Cogenhoe Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Cooper, N. (ed.) The Archaeology of the East Midlands: An Archaeological Resource Assessment and Research Agenda Leicester Archaeology Monograph 13 Clay, P. (2006) ‘The Neolithic and Early to Middle Bronze Age’ in Cooper, N. (ed.) The Archaeology of the East Midlands: An Archaeological Resource Assessment and Research Agenda Leicester Archaeology Monograph 13 Cole, J. (1825) The History and Antiquities of Ecton on the County of Northampton Scarborough Headland Archaeology (2017) Archaeological Evaluation and Auger Survey: Great Billing Sand and Gravel, Northamptonshire, Interim Report Knight, D., Vyner, B. & Allen, C. (2012) East Midland’s Heritage: An Updated Research Agenda and Strategy for the Historic Environment of the East Midlands University of Nottingham & York Archaeological Trust McNabb, J. (2006) ‘The Palaeolithic’ in Cooper, N. (ed.) The Archaeology of the East Midlands: An Archaeological Resource Assessment and Research Agenda Leicester Archaeology Monograph 13 Stratascan (2012) Geophysical Survey Report: Land at Great Billing, Northamptonshire
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 198 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
The Victoria County History of the Counties of England: Northamptonshire: Oxford University Press
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 199 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13 Ground Conditions
13.1 Introduction
13.1.1 MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd (MLM) has prepared this chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES). The purpose of this chapter is to assess the likely significant effects of the development in relation to soil, groundwater and ground gas contamination associated with the site and proposed minerals extraction.
13.2 Policy Context
13.2.1 Contaminated land is assessed and managed in accordance with the Contaminated Land Report 11 (CLR11) – Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Environment Agency, 2004). CLR11 provides a technical framework for structured decision- making about land contamination and in particular how to identify and manage risk.
National Policy and Legislation
13.2.2 The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA90) (as amended by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995) requires the identification and, if required, the remediation of contaminated land. On the basis of this legislation, this chapter of the ES will identify any sources of contamination that could present a risk to human health, controlled waters, aquatic ecosystems or property.
13.2.3 The relevant parts of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are to facilitate the sustainable use of minerals. It requires that planning applications are assessed so as to ensure that operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment or human health, specifically from the migration of contamination from a site.
Local Policy and Guidance
13.2.4 The Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted 2010) requires, under Policy CS14, that the environmental impact of minerals development is minimised and natural resources are protected.
13.2.5 The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (adopted July 2016) requires, under Policy 6, that development must take into account the potential environmental impacts on people, buildings, land, air and water arising from the development itself and any former use of the site through the assessment of contaminated land and, if required, its remediation.
13.2.6 Contaminated land – a guide for developers and their advisors. This guidance was prepared by East Northants Contaminated Land Group, of which the Borough Council of Wellingborough (BCW) and Northampton Borough Council (NBC) are participants.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 200 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13.3 Methodology
13.3.1 Current guidance using CLR11 is for the assessment of risks from land contamination and the preparation of a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to establish the presence or absence of connecting links between a source of contamination and a sensitive receptor via an exposure pathway (the SPR-linkage). For a contamination risk to exist, all three elements must be present and the SPR-linkage complete.
13.3.2 The baseline ground and contamination conditions at the site have been established through the following:
Site walkover Review of available records Review of previous ground investigation and monitoring reports
13.3.3 The potential effects from the operational and restoration phases of the development have been assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by considering the sensitivity of the site based on the local geology, hydrogeology and hydrology and surrounding developments in relation to baseline soil, groundwater and surface water chemical quality and ground gases.
13.3.4 Where potential SPR-linkages and effects are identified, a range of mitigation measures and enhancements have been proposed based on standard good practice and industry guidance.
Site Walkover
13.3.5 A walkover of the site was undertaken to record current site conditions with respect to:
Current site uses Surrounding land uses Site levels and ground cover Surface water features and drainage Structures and buildings Potential sources of contamination
Publicly Available Records
13.3.6 The following sources of available data were reviewed during the preparation of this chapter:
Historical and current Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping AWG Landholdings Ltd (AWG) records Groundsure report containing the results of environmental searches Environment Agency (EA) website for landfill records, groundwater source protection zones, pollution incidents and industrial sources British Geological Survey (BGS) geological mapping and website for historical borehole scans Planning portal websites of NBC, BCW and Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) for previous applications containing site data.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 201 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Previous Reports
13.3.7 The following reports for the site have been reviewed:
Ground investigation report by Norwest Holst Soil Engineering Ltd in 1991 (Norwest Holst, 1991) Geological investigation report by DK Symes in 2004 (DK Symes, 2004) Environmental investigation report by Bureau Veritas in 2004 (Bureau Veritas, 2004) Phase 1 Desk Study Report by MLM in 2008 (MLM, 2008) Phase 2 Contaminated Land Quantitative Risk Assessment Report by MLM in 2010 (MLM, 2010). This was revised in 2015 after new human health screening levels were published (MLM, 2015). Phosphate in Soil Investigation Report by MLM in 2016 (MLM, 2016).
Consultation
13.3.8 The EA, BCW and NBC were provided with the MLM ground investigation report (MLM, 2010) and asked for their comments and requirements for further work and assessment.
13.3.9 The EA technical officer commented in an email dated 4 May 2012:
“We have now briefly reviewed [the] report and consider that it would acceptable to use in the forthcoming application. However, there is a phosphate impact on the River Nene in this area and we would expect to see some assessment for this included for potential impacts from this site as it has been used for sewage sludge disposal”. “More information would be required on how the minerals are to [be] processed as the wash waters could become contaminated. If this is the case the settlement lagoons would contain contaminated fines which would need to be dealt with.” “There would be the potential of flood waters to come into contact with the contaminated soils which could result in surface water impacts.” “No elevated concentrations of mercury were detected; this issue has the potential to be contentious because the report states that a Local Parish Council has voiced concerns over mercury.” “The report concludes there is some risk from leachable metals to surface waters, however it is stated that dilution would be significant (to reduce the risk). We cannot consider dilution in receiving watercourses, but the concentrations of metals in the leachates appear to only just exceed EQS anyway.” “Within the mitigation measures section it states that surface water run-off will be collected in a lagoon to allow contaminants to settle out prior to discharge. I would recommend periodical analytical testing of this water to ensure that contaminants are not release to surface waters.” “As recommended in the report, it may be prudent to test groundwater again for TPH and to make an assessment of the findings.” “Recommend that a sampling regime is agreed for during the works and a period after the extraction works to ensure that nearby surface waters are not put at risk.”
13.3.10 All the concerns of the EA have been addressed either by further surveys or by explanation in this ES chapter.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 202 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13.3.11 The BCW Environment Health Officer (EHO) commented in an email dated 24 June 2015, “We are happy for the previous data to be used but will want the risk assessment to be updated”. The MLM report (MLM, 2010) was revised in 2015 with an updated risk assessment based on current soil screening levels (MLM, 2015).
13.3.12 The NBC EHO commented in an email dated 9 May 2012, “I have scanned the Phase II report, and would make recommendations based on how the access road will be constructed. If the road is likely to be constructed of loose materials I would consider there to be potential for off site dust migration due to fugitive dust emission. The main Phase II identified heavy metal contamination in surface soils, and therefore it is whether you consider that contaminants of a like nature would be found in this part of the site, and if mitigation to break source-receptor pathways is required”.
13.4 Baseline Conditions
13.4.1 The baseline environmental conditions for the site are described below and have been determined from the sources of information described in 13.3.
Site History
13.4.2 The site history has been established from a review of historical OS maps dating from 1884 to 2014. Historical maps and a summary are reproduced in Appendix L.1.
13.4.3 The earliest available OS map for the area in 1884 shows an Irrigation Farm on site which was operated by the Northampton Corporation for sewage waste disposal.
13.4.4 A borough engineer’s drawing dated 1906 (Appendix L.2) indicates sewage was piped to the site and discharged to the ground through a network of pipes and open ditches.
13.4.5 The present day Anglian Water Services (AWS) operated WRC, through which the future access road will pass, was established between 1950 and 1966 with a second phase of expansion south of the access road between 1971 and 1976.
Geology
13.4.6 Quaternary superficial deposits of Alluvium (clay and silt) are associated with the floodplain of the River Nene beneath which are deposits of the Ecton Member (sand and gravel). The Ecton Member is exposed along the northern boundary and in the west of the area of mineral extraction.
13.4.7 Underlying the superficial deposits are Lias Group deposits of Jurassic age comprising the Whitby Mudstone Formation. The Whitby Mudstone Formation is described as mudstone containing thin limestone, sandstone and phosphatic nodules and is approximately 20-65m thick in this region.
13.4.8 An area of infilled land is adjacent to the southwest of the extraction area, comprising historical sewage sludge beds. Sand and gravel workings (partially or wholly backfilled or flooded) are to the south.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 203 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Hydrogeology
13.4.9 The Ecton Member is considered to be a locally important superficial deposit aquifer. The deposit is classed by the EA as a Secondary A aquifer and is described as “permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers”.
13.4.10 The EA website indicates that the site does not lie within a groundwater source protection zone (SPZ). The nearest SPZ to the site is an Inner SPZ (SPZ1) which exists in Northampton, approximately 7km to the west.
13.4.11 The Whitby Mudstone Formation beneath the superficial aquifer is a low permeability stratum and, where it outcrops in valley sides to the north, is considered by the EA to be unproductive.
13.4.12 A spring is shown on historical and current mapping mid-distance along the northern boundary. This spring is likely to be the surface expression of groundwater emerging at the base of the slope where River Terrace Deposits are overlying low permeability Whitby Mudstone Formation.
Site Walkover
13.4.13 The main body of the site, where mineral extraction is proposed, is mostly arable land and crossed by a series of linear drainage ditches and unmetalled tracks generally trending from north to south and from east to west.
A rectangular area of woodland (180m by 120m) named Wind Spinney is in the east.
13.4.14 Ground levels rise gently from about 48m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) along the southern boundary up to about 51m AOD along the northern boundary.
13.4.15 Lower Ecton Lane and the A45 dual carriageway are bordering the site to the north with the Esso Nene Valley Service Area (South) adjacent to the northwest. Barton Brook forms the eastern site boundary beyond which is arable land. Flooded former sand and gravel workings are alongside the River Nene to the south (hereafter referred to as the ‘wetlands’). Open ground is to the west beyond which (250m) is a Water Recycling Centre. The future site access road will pass through the Water Recycling Centre.
Environmental Search Data
13.4.16 Environmental search data for the site was obtained from a Groundsure EnviroInsightTM report. The Groundsure data is presented in Appendix L.3.
13.4.17 The Groundsure data confirms recent record entries for the disposal of treated effluent into the River Nene. A number of these are indicated to exist on site however allowing for the positional accuracy of the data they are considered to relate to the adjoining WWTW.
13.4.18 The Nene Valley Service Area is 30m to the north and is associated with Part A (2) and Part B Activities relating to fuel vapour recovery at a fuel filling station.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 204 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13.4.19 There are records of three pollution incidents within 100m of the site and all relate to discharges of either sewage or ammonia from the adjoining Water Recycling Centre.
13.4.20 There are records of three historical landfills within 250m of the site. The nearest are 29m to the south 145m to the east and relate to the deposition of inert waste. The farthest entry is 227m to the north however that site is not recorded by the EA and its existence is proved only by historical mapping.
13.4.21 Current industrial land uses on site include an electricity substation, a pipeline (presumably sewage) and sewage farm. Within 100m of the site is a sewage treatment works, service station and electricity substation.
13.4.22 There are records of seven groundwater abstraction licences within 1km of the site. They relate to process water used in aggregate extraction and general farming and domestic use.
13.4.23 The site is located within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) and is considered by Defra as being at risk from agricultural nitrate pollution.
Online Records Review
13.4.24 The BGS holds records of three boreholes drilled on site in 1974. They encountered a sequence of strata described as “soil” or “soil and subsoil” overlying Alluvium (clay and sandy clay), River Gravel (clayey sandy gravel or sand and gravel) and Upper Lias (stiff clay).
The BGS maintains a database of normal background contaminant concentrations in soil. For the site, these include 15-35mg/kg arsenic, <1.8mg/kg cadmium, <100mg/kg lead and 15-45mg/kg nickel.
13.4.25 NCC hold two records of previous Environmental Impact Scoping Consultations. The first relates to an earlier proposal for sand and gravel extraction at the subject site in 2012 and for sand and gravel extraction on adjacent land to the north and east at Barton Spinney Quarry in 2013.
13.4.26 No planning applications or consents for the site were found on the websites of NBC or BCW.
Previous Ground Investigations
13.4.27 The previous reports listed in 13.3.6 relating to ground conditions and contaminated land are available for the site and have been referred to in the preparation of this chapter. They describe the findings of intrusive investigations using boreholes and trial pits, soil and groundwater sampling, chemical laboratory testing and monitoring of ground gas and groundwater levels.
13.4.28 Table 13.1 summarises the ground conditions encountered during all investigations across the site.
Table 13.1 Summary of Ground Conditions
Stratum Thicknesses Description
Present across the whole site was dark brown, silty sand Topsoil and 0.04 – 1.60m with occasional flint gravel. In some parts of the site subsoil there was a subsoil of light brown sandy clay, greyish
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 205 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Stratum Thicknesses Description
brown or light brown silty sand, and pale orange brown sandy silt. In 1991, the Norwest Holst investigation described this layer to include ‘slurry’. Made ground was locally present at the surface and comprised reworked topsoil containing flint and ironstone gravel and occasional pieces of plastic. Made ground 0.40 – 0.45m Where present, made ground replaced the surface layer of topsoil and rested on the underlying Alluvium. Previous investigations revealed similar conditions of localised and thin made ground, mostly in the southwest. Present across the whole site, beneath either topsoil or made ground, was Alluvium. This was variably coloured Alluvium 0.20 – 4.00m orange, brown and pale grey and comprised mainly soft or firm CLAY, slightly silty or sandy in places, and sandy SILT. Present across the majority of the site, sands and gravels Ecton Member were underlying the Alluvium and typically comprised (First Terrace) 0.20 – 10.20m brown and orange brown sandy GRAVEL. These Sand and deposits were locally interbedded with gravelly SAND or Gravel gravelly CLAY, in layers up to 1.1m thick. Whitby Stiff dark blue, bluish grey or dark brown CLAY was Mudstone 6.50+ encountered beneath River Terrace Deposits. Formation
13.4.29 The Ecton Member Sand and Gravel is the principal water-bearing stratum beneath the site. Monitoring of borehole water levels indicates groundwater flow is generally from north to south in the east and west and from northwest to southeast beneath central parts of the site (MLM, 2015).
13.4.30 Chemical laboratory testing was performed on samples of topsoil, alluvium and sand and gravel layers across the site. The scope of testing included contaminants that could be present based on past use for sewage disposal and agriculture. A summary of test results from all previous investigations of the site is presented in Appendix L.4. Based on chemical laboratory testing, human health screening levels for commercial land use appropriate to the proposal are not exceeded in soil beneath the mineral extraction area.
13.4.31 Although concentrations in soil are below screening levels, the concentrations of metals in soil exceed a range of normal background concentrations and are considered to be indicative of contamination from historical sewage disposal.
13.4.32 A Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA) of Human Health (MLM, 2010) concluded that levels of arsenic, cadmium and chromium in soil exceeded Site Specific Assessment Criteria (SSAC) for off-site soil dust movement.
13.4.33 The report (MLM, 2010) also concluded that soils on site were unsuitable for growing food crops for human consumption due to elevated metal concentrations in topsoil.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 206 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13.4.34 Chemical laboratory testing has determined that pathogens from historical sewage disposal were either very low or less than laboratory method detection limits (MDLs). It was concluded that biologically active sewage waste was not present in soil. In addition, pesticides, Anthrax bacillus, cyanide, sulphide and phenols were below MDLs in soil.
13.4.35 Concentrations of mercury in soil ranged from <0.1 to 5mg/kg and are three orders of magnitude less than the screening level of 1100mg/kg considered appropriate to the future site use. For further comparison and context, levels of mercury in soil are also below screening levels for both public open space (120-240mg/kg) and residential land (40- 56mg/kg). Under Defra guidance (Defra, 2014), the site can therefore be considered “suitable for use and is definitely not contaminated land”.
13.4.36 The EA requested information on phosphate in soil. Table 13.2 summarises the results of soil sampling and phosphate testing carried out by MLM (MLM, 2016).
Table 13.2 Chemical Laboratory Testing – Phosphate in Soil (concentrations in mg/kg)
Contaminant Topsoil Alluvium Sands and Gravels
Total phosphate (as P) 22000 – 53000 1100 – 5200 3900 – 11000
Available phosphate 400 – 560 46 – 360 -
13.4.37 The levels of available phosphate in soil have been compared with guidance in the Defra Fertiliser Manual (Defra, 2010). Based on the levels of available phosphate, the Phosphorous Index (P Index) is 9 for topsoil and 4 to 9 for the alluvium. Soils with a P Index of greater than 2 are at a risk of P loss and this could account for the high levels of phosphate recorded in groundwater.
13.4.38 Chemical laboratory testing was performed on samples of groundwater obtained on three occasions between 2004 and 2015. The results have been compared to Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) as set out in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and accompanying guidance for England and Wales (Defra, 2014). EQS were adopted as an appropriate screening level in groundwater due to the proximity of the site to wetlands and the River Nene.
13.4.39 Groundwater test results are summarised in Appendix L.5 and the concentrations exceeding EQS are presented in Table 13.3.
Table 13.3 Chemical Laboratory Testing – Groundwater Samples Exceeding EQS (concentrations in µg/l unless stated otherwise)
Contaminant Aug-2004 Oct/Nov-2009 Jul-2015 EQS
TPH aliphatic >C12-C16 - 26 – 82 <0.1 30 TPH aliphatic >C16-C21 - 53 – 130 <0.1 30 Nitrate (mg/l) <0.1 – 979 <0.5 - 1800 <0.5 – 940 50 Phosphate (mg/l) - - 0.1 – 1.9 1
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 207 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13.4.40 Based on chemical laboratory testing, with the exception of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), nitrate and phosphate, EQS are not exceeded in groundwater beneath the mineral extraction site.
13.4.41 The source of TPH in groundwater was considered to be from the Esso Nene Valley Service Area or runoff from the A45, both of which are hydraulically upgradient of the site to the north. Although TPHs were in groundwater in 2009, by 2015 they were no longer present and this suggests that the source was transient and was possibly as a result of a short term spill or leak event.
13.4.42 The source of nitrate in groundwater is considered to be from intensive agricultural practices both on and off the site.
13.4.43 The source of phosphate in groundwater is considered to be from phosphate in soil caused by historical sewage disposal.
13.4.44 Chemical laboratory testing has been performed on samples of soil leachate. The results are summarised in Appendix L.6 and the results exceeding EQS are presented in Table 13.4.
Table 13.4 Chemical Laboratory Testing – Soil Leachate Samples Exceeding EQS (concentrations in µg/l)
Topsoil and Made Contaminant Alluvium EQS Ground
Cadmium 0.77 – 5.14 1.09 – 3.51 5 Copper 47 – 160 22 – 74 28 Zinc 81 – 250 84 – 290 125
13.4.45 Based on laboratory chemical testing, cadmium, copper and zinc in soil are potentially leachable. The source of these metals is likely to be from historical sewage disposal on site.
13.4.46 Chemical laboratory testing was performed on samples of surface water obtained from drainage channels on site between 2004 and 2015. The results are summarised in Appendix L.7 and the results exceeding EQS are presented in Table 13.5.
Table 13.5 Chemical Laboratory Testing – Surface Water Samples Exceeding EQS (concentrations in mg/l)
Contaminant Aug-2004 Nov-2009 Jul-2015 EQS
Nitrate <0.1 – 307 3.7 – 6.8 11 – 79 50 Phosphate - - 240 – 300 1
13.4.47 The source of nitrate in surface water is considered to be from nitrate in groundwater providing baseflow to ditches.
13.4.48 The source of phosphate in surface water is considered to be from phosphate in soil caused by historical sewage disposal on site.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 208 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13.4.49 A previous ground investigation report (MLM, 2010) was produced for land to the west of the mineral extraction area. The following points summarise the findings of that investigation.
13.4.50 Made ground, containing a range of artefacts, was locally in excess of 4.5m thick and infilled former sewage sludge disposal beds.
13.4.51 Soil contamination (from lead and petroleum hydrocarbons) was present in excess of human health screening levels for commercial land use.
13.4.52 Pathogens were present in made ground at levels similar to those found in raw sewage.
13.4.53 Groundwater contamination by nitrate, petroleum hydrocarbons, zinc and copper was present in excess of EQS.
13.4.54 Standing surface water in the ditch on the eastern boundary of the extraction area contained petroleum hydrocarbons above EQS.
13.4.55 Elevated levels of the ground gases methane (maximum 23.4%), carbon dioxide (19.3%), hydrogen sulphide (30ppm) and carbon monoxide (360ppm) were present in areas of made ground.
Conceptual Site Model
13.4.56 A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) has been prepared, which identifies potential pollutant linkages present at the site in the context of the proposed site use. The CSM highlights sources of contamination and considers their relationship to potential exposure pathways and human or environmental receptors. The identified sources, pathways and receptors in the CSM are set out in Table 13.6 and Table 13.7.
Table 13.6 Potential Contamination Sources
Source Location Description
Arsenic, cadmium and chromium in soil Historical Sewage Mineral Phosphate in soil Disposal extraction area Phosphate in groundwater Mineral Nitrate in groundwater and surface water extraction area Agriculture Off site: north Nitrate in groundwater and northwest Nitrate, petroleum hydrocarbons, zinc, copper and Historical Sludge Beds Off site: west nickel in groundwater Ground gases method and carbon dioxide
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 209 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 13.7 Potential Exposure Pathways and Receptors
Receptor Pathway
Human Health (off site) Wind erosion and inhalation Gas migration in permeable soils and ingress into Human Health (on site) excavations and occupied buildings Ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation Lateral groundwater movement Surface Water Dewatering (River Nene and wetlands) Soil erosion and surface runoff Soil leaching and vertical fluid movement Groundwater (Secondary A Aquifer) Dissolution of contaminants in aggregate wash water and flooded excavations
13.5 Potential Effects
Operational Phase
13.5.1 The operational phase is considered to cover the following work:
Excavation, handling and storage of Topsoil and Alluvium overburden Mineral extraction Phased restoration earthworks
Impacts on Human Health from Soil Contamination
13.5.2 Mineral extraction activities, particularly the excavation, handling, transport, storage and processing of soil and aggregate will disturb and expose soils containing elevated concentrations of arsenic, cadmium and chromium (section 13.4.33). During dry and windy conditions, potentially contaminated dust could become airborne and move off site before being inhaled. The ODPM Minerals Policy Statement 2 Annex 1: Dust states, “Large dust particles (greater than 30 µm), which make up the greatest proportion of dust emitted from mineral workings, will largely deposit within 100m of sources. Intermediate-sized particles (10– 30 µm) are likely to travel up to 200–500m”.
13.5.3 Sensitive developments within 500m of the application boundaries are listed in Table 13.8.
Table 13.8 Sensitive Developments Within 500m
Development Distance and Direction
Scoffers Café, Nene Valley Way 76m north (eastbound) Cogenhoe Mill Caravan Site 239m south Ecton Lane Park Travellers’ Site 305m northwest Riverwell, Northampton 474m northwest High Street, Ecton 490m northeast
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 210 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Development Distance and Direction
Ecton Brook Primary School 500m northwest
13.5.4 Smaller particles (less than 10 µm) make up a small proportion of the dust emitted from most mineral workings and are therefore are ignored.
13.5.5 The effect of dust on sensitive development without mitigation is considered to be a Direct Adverse Effect, which will be temporary long term (lasting for the operational lifetime of the proposal). The frequency of events during this period are however expected to be episodic and influenced by factors such as weather conditions, prevailing wind direction, what activities are taking place and where on site dust is being emitted.
13.5.6 There are considered to be no human health effects for site workers using the future development or those using the adjacent Water Recycling Centre as contaminant concentrations in soil are below screening levels for commercial/industrial land use.
13.5.7 Food crops destined for human consumption are already prohibited from being farmed on the site due to high levels of metals in soil.
Impacts on Human Health from Ground Gas
13.5.8 Based on previous investigation, the historic infilled sludge beds on adjacent land to the west are a potential source of methane and carbon dioxide ground gas. Ground gas has the potential to migrate, for distances of up to 250m from the source, and could therefore travel beneath the site in the permeable sand and gravel layer.
13.5.9 The activities on site within 250m of the gassing source include the areas known as the Plant and Operations Area (POA) and Water Management 1 (WM1).
13.5.10 The POA will contain ancillary buildings associated with a weighbridge, site office and welfare unit. These buildings will be of modular construction and founded on pads with a clear void below. A portal-framed workshop building is also proposed. These buildings and their occupants are potentially at risk from ground gas ingress.
13.5.11 WM1 will be unaffected by ground gas as it will be water-filled.
13.5.12 The effect of ground gas on mineral extraction site workers occupying buildings is considered to be a Direct Adverse Effect, which will be temporary long term (lasting for the operational lifetime of the proposal).
Impacts on Surface Water Quality from Soil Contamination
13.5.13 Soils to be excavated during the course of mineral extraction will comprise overburden (Topsoil and Alluvium) and aggregate (Ecton Member Sands and Gravels). Topsoil and Alluvium will be retained on site for use in restoration and, during the operational lifetime of the proposal, will be used in screening bunds or kept in the Soil Storage Area in Phase 10.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 211 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13.5.14 Topsoil, Alluvium and Sands and Gravels all contain potentially leachable metals (cadmium, copper and zinc in Table 13.4) and phosphate (Table 13.2). Metals and phosphate attached to soil particles can become dissolved and disperse through aquatic systems. Metals can be toxic to aquatic fauna and phosphate can cause eutrophication leading to overcrowding of watercourses with algae and other aquatic plants.
13.5.15 It is considered that soil contamination could impact on surface water quality by the following two principle pathways:
Erosion of soil surfaces and contaminated soil particles entering surface water bodies in runoff. The risk of soil erosion will be greatest during intense rainfall and on steeply inclined unvegetated slopes Dewatering and contaminated suspended sediment entering surface water bodies in discharge Washing and processing of aggregate Flooding and contaminated suspended sediment directly entering surface water bodies.
13.5.16 The effect of metals and phosphate in soil on surface water is considered to be a Direct Adverse Effect, which will be temporary long term (lasting for the operational lifetime of the proposal).
Impacts on Groundwater Quality from Soil Contamination
13.5.17 Topsoil and Alluvium contain potentially leachable cadmium, copper, zinc and phosphate. These are substances that can be mobilised by infiltrating rainwater and cause pollution by entering groundwater at concentrations exceeding EQS.
13.5.18 During the operational phase, excavation of aggregate will cause some mixing of soil and groundwater that could mobilise contaminants to a greater degree than can be recreated by laboratory soil leachate testing. It should be considered therefore that the results of laboratory leachate testing are indicative and, for practical purposes, it should be assumed that all contaminants are potentially leachable and could impact on groundwater quality under conditions of excavation.
13.5.19 The effect of soil contamination on groundwater quality during mineral extraction is considered to be a Direct Adverse Effect, which will be temporary long term (lasting for the operational lifetime of the proposal).
Impacts on Surface Water Quality from Groundwater Contamination
13.5.20 Groundwater in the sand and gravel layer beneath the site is likely to be in hydraulic connection with surface water in the River Nene and the wetlands and provide the baseflow which helps sustain water levels during dry weather.
13.5.21 Groundwater contains high levels of nitrate and phosphate. It is considered that these high levels are sustained by farming and fertiliser application (on and off site) and phosphates leaching from soil.
13.5.22 During site operation, nitrate input from farming the site will cease. However, some levels of nitrate in groundwater entering the site will be sustained by intensive farming of surrounding agricultural land.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 212 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13.5.23 Minerals extraction down to the base of the sands and gravels layer will require some dewatering and this water will be pumped into one of three Water Management areas. Groundwater pumped into the Water Management areas will be allowed to infiltrate back into the ground down to groundwater and either move off site in the direction of groundwater flow (as per baseline condition) or ‘recirculated’ as groundwater baseflow back into excavations.
13.5.24 There will be no pumping of groundwater directly into the River Nene, the wetlands or their tributary drains.
13.5.25 Given there is a hydraulic connection between groundwater and surface water, it is recognised that any reduction in groundwater quality from mobilised soil contamination (metals and phosphate in section 13.5.16) could, in turn, have an effect on surface water quality in the wetlands and River Nene. Therefore, the effect of groundwater contamination on surface water quality during mineral extraction is considered to be an Adverse Effect, which will be temporary long term (lasting for the operational lifetime of the proposal).
Impacts on Groundwater Quality from Groundwater Contamination Off-Site
13.5.26 Adjoining land to the west of the extraction area is associated with historical sewage disposal in ‘sludge beds’. Previous investigation has proved groundwater contamination is present with nitrate, petroleum hydrocarbons, zinc and copper exceeding EQS.
13.5.27 Site activities alongside the infilled sludge beds include the POA and WM1. There is no excavation or dewatering proposed for the Plant and Operations Area. WM1 will be extracted for Sands and Gravels and dewatering will be required prior to constructing a low permeability liner with compacted clay.
13.5.28 Dewatering will create a drawdown in the groundwater surface causing groundwater from the surrounding area to flow towards the WM1 under construction. Based on the geology, groundwater levels and expected depth of excavation at the western end of the extraction area, the lateral distance of drawdown will be 25-30m (calculations presented in Appendix L.8). Given there will be a 30m stand-off distance between WM1 and the western boundary, the lateral distance of drawdown will not extend not extend beneath the adjacent site and, as a result, contaminated groundwater should not flow into the site during dewatering.
13.5.29 There is considered to be no effect of off-site groundwater contamination on groundwater quality beneath the site during mineral extraction.
Post-Completion Phase
13.5.30 The Post-Completion Phase is considered to commence once mineral extraction and restoration earthworks have ceased and the Restoration Strategy Plan is attained for the whole of the site.
Impacts on Human Health from Soil Contamination
13.5.31 Following the cessation of mineral extraction and completion of restoration, there will be no dust generated on site that could move off-site and the prohibition of growing food crops for human consumption will be reinstated.
13.5.32 Consequently, there will be no effects from soil contamination on human health post- completion.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 213 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Impacts on Human Health from Ground Gas
13.5.33 Following cessation of mineral extraction and completion of restoration, all buildings will be removed from site and no site workers will occupy the site.
13.5.34 Consequently, there will be no effects from ground gas post-completion.
Impacts on Surface Water Quality from Soil Contamination
13.5.35 Exposed surfaces of topsoil will be at risk of soil erosion during intense rainfall. The risk of erosion will be greatest on unvegetated slopes and when soils are saturated.
13.5.36 The extraction area will be restored to a mix of farmland, grassland and reed beds. With the exception of reed beds ground levels will be returned to pre-extraction levels and the potential for erosion and mobilisation of soil contamination will be no greater than the baseline condition.
13.5.37 In addition, the reed beds will provide a buffer zone separating areas of topsoil (containing metals and phosphate) in farmland and grassland from the River Nene.
13.5.38 The area to be restored to reed beds will be underwater, typified by very low water flow rates, substrates stabilised by reed and other aquatic plant roots and topsoil will be absent. Under these conditions, the potential for erosion and mobilisation of soil contamination will be less than the baseline condition.
13.5.39 The effect of soil contamination on surface water post-completion is considered to be a Beneficial Effect, which will be permanent.
Impacts on Groundwater Quality from Soil Contamination
13.5.40 Topsoil and Alluvium contain potentially leachable cadmium, copper, zinc and phosphate. These are substances that can be mobilised by infiltrating rainwater and cause pollution by entering groundwater at concentrations exceeding EQS. Post-completion, the original Topsoil and Alluvium which had been stored on site will be returned in the order it was removed. Therefore, there will be no overall increase in contaminant concentrations in these soils and the potential for leaching under conditions of infiltration should return to the baseline condition.
13.5.41 Sands and gravels contain potentially leachable phosphate. Therefore, minerals extraction will reduce the potential for phosphates to enter groundwater.
13.5.42 Effects from soil contamination on groundwater quality is considered to be a Beneficial Effect, which will be permanent.
Impacts on Surface Water Quality from Groundwater Contamination
13.5.43 Given that agriculture will resume on site and Topsoil and Alluvium will be used to reclaim void space, it is anticipated that the inputs of nitrate and phosphate from soil will resume at pre- extraction levels and groundwater quality will return to baseline conditions.
13.5.44 Consequently, there are considered to be no effects from groundwater contamination on surface water quality post-completion.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 214 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Impacts on Groundwater Quality from Groundwater Contamination Off-Site
13.5.45 There will be no dewatering of groundwater once minerals extraction has ceased.
13.5.46 Consequently, there are considered to be effects from groundwater contamination off-site on groundwater quality on-site post-completion.
13.6 Mitigation and Enhancement
13.6.1 Based on the potential effects listed in section 13.5, there is considered to be a requirement for mitigation for the following effects related to contamination risks.
Effect of soil dust containing arsenic, cadmium and chromium on sensitive development off site (operational phase) Effect of ground gas on building occupants (operational phase) Effect of metals and phosphate in soil on surface water quality (operational phase) Effect of metals and phosphate in soil on groundwater quality (operational phase) Effect of phosphate in groundwater on surface water quality (operational phase) Effect of metals on food crop production (post-completion phase) Operational Phase
13.6.2 A range of measures will be employed during minerals extraction to reduce adverse effects. These measures are described in Tables 13.9 to 13.12 below.
Table 13.9 Mitigation of the Effects of Dust Containing Arsenic, Cadmium and Chromium
Activity/Feature Mitigation
Avoid activity during dry and/or windy conditions Plan stockpile locations to reduce soil movements Avoid double handling
Excavation and handling of Topsoil and Keep bucket height as low as possible when Alluvium loading soils onto tipper trucks Avoid activities near to site boundaries when the prevailing wind direction will carry dust off site Planting and construction of screening bunds on site boundaries Screening bund and restored surfaces Plant or seed areas as soon as possible Use dust suppression techniques on site roads Traffic Keep to site speed restrictions Construct site roads from Sands and Gravels Follow standard good quarry practice for the Generally control of dust
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 215 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 13.10 Mitigation of Effects of Ground Gases
Activity/Feature Mitigation
In line with standard design guidance for gas contaminated sites, buildings in the Plant and Occupied buildings Operations Area will be constructed with gas protection
Table 13.11 Mitigation of Effects on Surface Water During Mineral Extraction
Activity/Feature Mitigation
Locate main soil storage area central to site away from watercourses Plant or seed areas as soon as possible to anchor soils in place (subject to season). Keep slope heights and gradients as low as possible to reduce runoff velocity Promote soil drainage Surface runoff and soil erosion Maintain stand-off distances between working areas and site boundaries Use silt fences Avoid construction of slopes that divert runoff towards watercourses Store Topsoil and Alluvium separately as contaminant concentrations in Topsoil are typically higher Construct water management areas before undertaking mineral extraction Primary settlement of suspended solids in basal sumps excavated into the mudstone beneath Sands and Gravels Secondary settlement of suspended solids in lagoons constructed with clay liners. Water in the Water Management settlement lagoons will rise and overflow into the surface water drainage system No pumping direct to watercourses Monitor dewatering activities Construct clay liners on excavation faces as required to reduce groundwater drawdown beneath sensitive water features Avoid working in or near to watercourses Maintain watercourses Watercourses Follow EA guidance when working in or near to watercourses Lateral groundwater movement and Comply with mitigation of effects on groundwater baseflow to surface water features
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 216 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Table 13.12 Mitigation of Effects on Groundwater
Activity/Feature Mitigation
Construct stockpiles and screening bunds on top of Soil storage and screening bunds low permeability Alluvium to reduce soil leaching down to groundwater in the Sands and Gravels Do not deposit soil in flooded excavations Topsoil and Alluvium excavation and Excavate with toothless buckets to reduce soil handling mixing Follow good practice guide for soil handling Follow water management procedures for the protection of surface water Carry out dry mineral extraction through dewatering Maintain minimum stand-off distance of 30m on western boundary to prevent groundwater Mineral extraction drawdown beneath off-site historical sewage sludge beds to the west Monitor groundwater quality on the western boundary adjacent historical sewage sludge disposal beds. Reduce or cease dewatering while further mitigation is put in place, if required.
Post-completion Phase
13.6.3 A range of measures will be employed after minerals extraction and site restoration to reduce adverse effects. These measures are described in Tables 13.13 to 13.14 below.
Table 13.13 Mitigation of Effects on Surface Water After Mineral Extraction
Activity/Feature Mitigation
Maintain vegetation cover in stand-off areas Surface runoff and soil erosion adjoining watercourses Promote soil drainage
Table 13.14 Mitigation of Effects on Land Use After Mineral Extraction
Activity/Feature Mitigation
Reinstate previous farming restriction and do not Farming grow food crops for human consumption
13.6.4 Mitigation of the effects on human health and groundwater from contamination are not required once mineral extraction is complete.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 217 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
13.7 Residual Effects
13.7.1 There are considered to be no adverse residual effects from contamination after mitigation has been applied and that the site will return to baseline conditions post-completion. The overall level of significance is considered to be a Negligible Effect and Not Significant.
13.7.2 Surface water quality will be subject to a permanent Beneficial Effect as the areas of mineral extraction restored to wetlands will capture runoff allowing settlement of particles containing metals and phosphate.
13.7.3 Groundwater quality will be subject to a permanent Beneficial Effect as mineral extraction will remove sand and gravel containing phosphate.
13.8 Cumulative Effects
13.8.1 The cumulative impacts of the proposed development and other known schemes within the immediate area have been considered in regards to soil and groundwater contamination. The cumulative developments considered as part of this assessment are:
Earls Barton Spinney Quarry; and Earls Barton Quarry Western Extension.
13.8.2 The Earls Barton Spinney Quarry (EBSQ) and Earls Barton Spinney Quarry Western Extension (EBSQWE) will be adjacent various boundaries of the mineral extraction area. The EBSQ and EBSQWE land has not been subjected to a history of sewage irrigation so the levels of metals and phosphates in soil and groundwater should typically be at normal background concentrations. Therefore, cumulative effects on groundwater or river water quality from the operational and restored phases of the mineral extraction area with the EBSQ and EBSQWE should be negligible.
13.9 Summary
13.9.1 National policy and legislation requires the identification and, if required, the remediation of contaminated land. This chapter evaluates how identified potential sources of contamination could have an effect on the natural environment or human health.
13.9.2 The assessment methodology used was as set out in the Environment Agency publication, Contaminated Land Report 11 – Model Procedures or the Management of Land Contamination (Environment Agency, 2004). In line with CLR11, a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is presented which identifies potential sources of contamination in the baseline condition and assesses how these interact with sensitive receptors via exposure pathways that exist at various stages during minerals extraction and on completion once the site has been restored to farmland, grassland and wetlands.
13.9.3 Baseline conditions at the site have been established from a range of sources, including a site walkover and review of available records and previous reports.
13.9.4 The views of consultees have been considered and include the Environment Agency and the environmental health officers of Northampton Borough Council and Borough Council of Wellingborough.
13.9.5 The following baseline conditions have been established:
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 218 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
The site was used for disposing of sewage in a series of irrigation fields from the 1880s up to the mid-1960s. This historical activity has resulted in metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper and zinc) and phosphate at levels in soil exceeding appropriate screening levels. Phosphate was also present in groundwater, possibly as a result of infiltrating rainwater leaching phosphates out of soil. Other sources of contamination identified in the baseline were (i) nitrates in groundwater from farming on and off site, (ii) hydrocarbons in groundwater, possibly from a historical fuel spill at the Nene Valley Service Area or runoff from the A45 and (iii) contamination associated with infilled sewage sludge beds on the western boundary. Ground conditions beneath the site include a layer of topsoil overlying Alluvium (clay and silt) and Ecton Member (First Terrace) Sand and Gravel (clay, sand and gravel). These rest on a bedrock of Whitby Mudstone Formation (clay). The Ecton Member provides the source of aggregate to be extracted in future minerals operations. The Ecton Member is the principal water-bearing stratum and groundwater flow beneath the site is generally from northwest to southeast and locally from north to south, towards the River Nene. The Ecton Member is classified as a Secondary A aquifer by the Environment Agency. It is considered to form an important source of base flow to the River Nene and adjoining wetlands.
13.9.6 During mineral extraction operations, without mitigation, there are considered to be some Adverse Effects from these potential sources of contamination on human health (on and off site), surface water quality in the River Nene and adjoining wetlands and groundwater quality in the Ecton Member sand and gravel aquifer.
13.9.7 A range of mitigation measures are proposed for the operational and post-completion phases of the development, which when applied will reduce impacts to Negligible and are considered to be not significant.
13.9.8 There are beneficial effects from mineral extraction which may improve surface water quality and groundwater quality permanently.
13.10 References
Bureau Veritas (2004) Environmental investigation. Great Billing sewage treatment works, Great Billing, Northampton for AWG Property Solutions Ltd. Reference 00445554/CO/D5080 November 2004. Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National planning policy framework. Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (2010) Fertiliser manual (RB209). 8th ed. June 2010. Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (2014) Water Framework Directive implementation in England and Wales: new and updated standards to protect the water environment. May 2014. DK Symes Associates (2004) Geological investigation at land adjacent to Billing sewage treatment works, Northants. Environment Act, 1995. Environment Agency (2004) Model procedures for the management of land contamination. Contaminated land report 11. Environmental Protection Act 1990. Groundwater (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2902).
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 219 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd (2008) Anglian Water Services. Proposed mineral extraction site Great Billing. Phase I desk study report. Reference DMB/722018/R1 revision 0 October 2008. MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd (2009) Anglian Land Holdings Ltd. Great Billing Waste Management Park. Detailed controlled waters quantitative risk assessment. Reference DMB/72224/R5 July 2009. MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd (2010) AWG Land Holdings Ltd. Proposed mineral extraction site Great Billing. Phase II contaminated land quantitative risk assessment report. Reference 722018/R2 revision 0 February 2010. MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd (2015) AWG Land Holdings Ltd. Proposed mineral extraction site Great Billing. Phase 2 contaminated land quantitative risk assessment report. Reference 722018-REP-ENV-002 revision 1 June 2015. MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd (2016) Phosphate in soil investigation report. Reference 773727-LET-ENV-001 dated 1 November 2017. Norwest Holst Soil Engineering Ltd (1991) Ground investigation. Great Billing STW, Northampton for Anglian Water E & BS Ltd. Reference MJB/TW/F9110 June 1991. Office for the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) MPS2 Mineral policy statement 2: controlling and mitigating the environmental effects of mineral extraction in England. Annex 1: dust. Water Resources Act, 1991.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 220 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
14 Agricultural Soils
14.1 Introduction
14.1.1 This chapter considers the potential for the proposed development to impact upon Agricultural Land Quality and Soil Resources. Initially, it considers the scope, legislation, assessment methodology and baseline data relevant to the application area. It then considers any potential significant impacts by reference to the issues identified by Natural England in its scoping response, and mitigation measures to prevent, reduce or offset any adverse effects, and the likely residual impacts after these measures have been taken.
14.1.2 This chapter has been prepared by Richard Stock (Soils and Agriculture). I hold an Honours Degree in Agricultural Science, a Diploma in Soil and Water Engineering, and I am a member of the Institute of Agricultural Engineers. I have over 35 years of quarry and restoration experience gained in statutory, commercial and advisory organisations. I have been an independent adviser in Soils and Agriculture since 1998.
14.2 Policy Context
National Planning Policy Framework
14.2.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supersedes earlier policy and makes reference to Agricultural Land Classification and Soil at two paragraphs (109 and 112).
14.2.2 NPPF states.
14.2.3 109. ‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.’
14.2.4 112.’ Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.’
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 221 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Minerals and Waste Local Plan
14.2.5 The Minerals and Waste Local Plan was adopted in October 2014. Policy 4 identifies sites for the provision of sand and gravel. The Great Billing site proposed for the extraction of sand and gravel is identified in Policy 4 as Site MA5 – Earls Barton Western Extension. The MWLP notes that Site MA5 will provide the vast majority of the river valley supply. The site will help to ensure continuity of good quality supplies throughout the plan period.
14.2.6 Policy 28 – Restoration and after-use, confirms the above objectives and that after-use of a site will be determined in relation to its land use context, the surrounding environmental character and any specific local requirements, but on the basis that it enhances biodiversity, the local environment and amenity, and benefits the local community and/or economy. In respect of sites previously comprising high-grade agricultural land or good quality forestry use should be restored to the original land use and coupled with a secondary after-use objective.
Minerals and Waste Local Plan Update
14.2.7 Policies 18 and 20 support conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, and in addition Policy 24 promotes the restoration of sites to maximise beneficial outcomes. The plan must be consistent with National Policy and should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with policies in the National Planning Policy Framework.
14.3 Methodology
14.3.1 Baseline information relating to the agricultural land quality and soil resources of the land in the extension area was collected by undertaking an agricultural land classification survey of the subject land. The survey was conducted by recording soil details at a density of at least one survey point per hectare and the information was interpreted in accordance with the Agricultural Land Classification System of England and Wales (revised guidelines and criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land) MAFF 1988. The survey report identifies published soils information from the Soil Survey of England and Wales, and the 1:250,000 Agricultural Land Classification series maps (Natural England) in support of its findings.
14.3.2 The MAGIC website (Multi-Agency Geographic Information on the Countryside, magic.gov.uk) shows that the site was part of a much larger survey conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in 1996 described as P12 – Minerals Plan Cogenhoe, Northants Reconnaissance Survey. The survey field work did not however cover the Great Billing site but reported ‘The large area in the north western part of the site has not been surveyed on advice of the local water authority. Sewage from the adjacent works has been spread on this land for approximately 80 years. The land is cropped on a rotational basis but the build up of heavy metals and other toxic elements should be investigated.’
14.3.3 In June 2015 a Quantitative Risk Assessment Report (MLM Environmental June 2015) concluded ‘The site is managed on behalf of Anglian Water Services and is used to grow crops for commercial non food uses. Due to high levels of metals in surface soil, the land should not be used for cultivating crops for human consumption or for produce that could enter the human food chain’.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 222 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
14.3.4 In respect of agricultural and soil related issues the main effects of sand and gravel extraction and subsequent restoration relate to moving soil from its existing position to a period of storage before moving again to its final position in the restored profile. Additionally, the restored landform, drainage and the loss of agricultural land (both temporary and permanent) are issues to be addressed. On this site the specific issue of land contamination through 80 years of sewage sludge irrigation is also to be recognised.
14.3.5 For topic areas within the EIA, the significance of the impact is frequently assessed by the Magnitude of the effect and the Quality/Value or Sensitivity of the resource being affected. Although a number of practitioners have attempted to devise significance criteria for agricultural matters, particularly with regard to the permanent loss of agricultural land, there is no universally accepted methodology. This situation was confirmed with Natural England (pers. comm. Richard Stock and Julie Holloway, Senior Environmental Specialist – Soils, Natural England Planning and Local Government Specialist Team, 2nd October 2013), and by email on 8th April 2014.
14.3.6 However, a proposal to develop a new framework for assessing the significance of soil in EIA is under discussion between three leading bodies, British Society of Soil Science (BSSS), Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) and Natural England. It is anticipated that a draft framework should be published for further discussion during 2017, but there is currently no fixed date for approval and adoption of the new framework.
14.3.7 In the absence of an approved method for assessing significance criteria it is proposed to make a subjective judgement based on generic significance criteria described in Table 4.1.
14.3.8 Natural England has responded to a scoping report in respect of agricultural and soil issues relating to the proposed development in its letter of 18th December 2015, reference 173967. At Section 5 Natural England refers to Soil and Agricultural Land Quality where it highlights the Government’s policy for the protection of best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land as set out in paragraph 112 of the NPPF. It also recommends that soils should also be considered under a more general heading of sustainable use of land and the ecosystem services they provide as a natural resource in line with paragraph 109 of NPPF.
14.3.9 Natural England requires that the degree to which soils are going to be disturbed/harmed as part of the development is considered and whether ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land is involved. It recommends that a detailed survey might be required to confirm the soil profile to a depth of 1.2 metres, and that the ES should provide details of how any adverse impacts on soils can be minimised. Reference to further guidance is given in the Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soil on Development Sites. Therefore, the issues which are addressed in the ES as pertinent to mineral working and restoration are taken from the standard Natural England Scoping response. These issues are identified at Section 14.5 below (Potential Effects).
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 223 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
14.4 Baseline Conditions
14.4.1 The baseline conditions relevant to the extension area relate to the agricultural land quality, the soil resources contained in the undisturbed area and the details pertaining to the farm holdings.
14.4.2 The land is owned by AWS Services Limited and farmed under contract to produce crops for commercial non-food uses.
14.4.3 The land has historically been used for the disposal of sewage waste for several decades and is not used to produce food crops for human consumption or that could enter the food chain. The agricultural land quality is therefore compromised in terms of the flexibility of cropping and cannot be classified higher than grade 3b.
14.4.4 This information is contained in the Agricultural Land Classification Report in Appendix M.1.
14.5 Potential Effects
Parameters
14.5.1 The scoping response, which was prepared by Natural England in respect of soils and agriculture, confirms the requirement to consider best and most versatile agricultural land in accordance with NPPF para 112, and the sustainable use of soils (para 109). In this respect the following issues, which should be addressed within the ES, are summarised below.
The degree to which soils would be disturbed/harmed as part of this development and whether any ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land would be affected. Proposals for handling different types of soils and the storage of soils and their management whilst in store. The method of assessing whether soils are in a suitably dry condition to be handled (i.e. dry and friable), and the avoidance of soil handling, trafficking and cultivation during the wetter winter period. A description of the proposed depths and soil types of the restored soil profiles; normally to an overall depth of 1.2 m over an evenly graded overburden layer. The effects on land drainage, agricultural access and water supplies, including other agricultural land in the vicinity. The impacts of the development on farm structure and viability, and on other established rural land use, both during the site working period and following its reclamation. A detailed Restoration Plan illustrating the restored landform and the proposed afteruses, together with details of surface features, water bodies and the availability of outfalls to accommodate future drainage requirements.
14.5.2 Natural England notes that ‘Soil is a finite resource that fulfils many important functions and services (ecosystem services) for society, for example as a growing medium for food, timber and other crops, as a store for carbon and water, as a reservoir of biodiversity and as a buffer against pollution’. It concludes that it is important that soil resources are protected and used sustainably.
14.5.3 The issues for assessment in the ES are addressed below.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 224 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Best and most versatile agricultural land
14.5.4 An Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Resource report has been prepared to the specification required by Natural England and is presented in Appendix M.1.
14.5.5 Agricultural Land Classification provides a framework for classifying land according to the extent to which its physical or chemical characteristics impose long-term limitations on agricultural use. The site has been contaminated with metals and other toxic elements through the historic disposal of sewage waste. The level of contamination is considered to be a long term effect and consequently the site has been downgraded to grade 3b. Therefore, the development does not affect best and most versatile land.
14.5.6 Although the land is classified as grade 3b because of the long-term limitation on growing crops for human consumption, it is assumed that the level of contamination might reduce with time to the extent that it may be used to grow food crops, and consequently be upgraded.
Soil handling and management
14.5.7 It is recognised that the method of soil handling and the scheme of soil movements can have significant positive or negative impacts on soils and agriculture. Use of inappropriate earthmoving equipment in wet conditions can damage restored soil, which can take a long and expensive period of aftercare to remedy. A scheme of soil movements is needed to minimise soil handling and to make the best use of the available soil resources. It must also be sufficiently flexible to allow for daily management decision, without departing from the main principles.
14.5.8 The working and restoration scheme should comprise two elements – The Soil Handling and The Phased Soil Movements Programme.
14.5.9 Where soils are placed in store for a temporary period before use in restoration there are a number of situations when the soil could be damaged. This can occur at the point when the soil is initially lifted from its position in the soil profile, during transport and at placement in store. Thereafter the soil can lose quality in store depending upon the size and shape of the soil store, vegetation cover and vehicle movements over the store. There are additional points at which different soil types can be mixed and further damaged by handling or trafficking when wet.
14.5.10 Method of assessing whether soils are in a suitably dry condition to be handled
14.5.11 Handling soils in unsuitable moisture conditions can cause long term damage to soil in terms of compaction and smearing. Similarly, handling soils when dry and dusty can also be damaging in terms of wind blow and loss of structure.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 225 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Target soil profiles
14.5.12 To avoid a surplus or deficit of soil resources and to ensure that all the soil resources are used sustainably, it is important to determine target soil profiles for the concept restoration proposals and to undertake annual monitoring and auditing of the resources. The restoration strategy plan identifies the site restored predominantly to agricultural land, neutral grassland, wet grassland, reedbed and woodland.
14.5.13 If the soil types and depths to be used in restoration are not prescribed in advance the soil resource could potentially be lost or wasted. The main impacts on the soil resource could be through mixing of different topsoil and subsoil soil types, and matching the soils to the most appropriate afteruse.
Effects on drainage, agricultural access and water supplies
14.5.14 The land will be progressively worked for mineral extraction and restored to original ground levels. The impact on drainage in relation to groundwater will not be affected but potentially, it might be necessary to drain the restored land during the aftercare period. Drainage of restored land is considered below with reference to the restored landform.
14.5.15 Agricultural access will be maintained to the undisturbed parts of the site throughout the development as far as practicable.
14.5.16 There are no farm water supplies on the site.
Farm structure and viability
14.5.17 The land does not form part of a farm holding and is not tenanted. There is therefore no impact on farm structure and viability.
14.5.18 The proposed restored landform, contours, water table and drainage outfall
14.5.19 The proposed restored landform and contours in relation to the water table are critical to providing a drainage outfall. If the land is restored on the base of the quarry following extraction, it will be affected by the groundwater level in the Nene valley.
14.5.20 Drainage of the land which is restored to agriculture will only be feasible with provision of a suitable outfall with adequate freeboard. The restoration of phases 1, 2, 3 and part of 4 to reedbed will not require drainage.
14.6 Mitigation and Enhancement
14.6.1 The main negative agricultural impact of the proposals is the potential loss of approximately 50 hectares of agricultural land, which will be restored as neutral grassland (without topsoil), wet grassland, reedbed and woodland belt. The proposals seek to use all the indigenous soils sustainably.
14.6.2 Mitigation measures are proposed for the matters raised in the scoping opinion as follows:
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 226 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Best and most versatile agricultural land
14.6.3 The site does not contain any Best and Most Versatile land. However, the restoration proposals will ensure that the restored agricultural soil profile will be potentially grade 3b land, which could be upgraded if the content of metals and toxic elements reduce to suitable levels.
Soil handling and management
14.6.4 The phased working and restoration plans (Reference 0047/PO/1-4) show the progressive working and restoration of the site in 10 phases after the initial establishment of the Plant Site, operational Areas and Water Management lagoons. Each phase plan shows the proposed extraction and restoration of the specific phases. The working and restoration of the soils involve a number of separate recommendations to mitigate the potential negative effects of soil handling.
14.6.5 Soil handling condition (dry and friable) and Target restoration profiles are considered below. This section considers the soil resources and separate handling of different soil types, soil handling methods, soil storage and treatment in store.
Soil resources and separate handling
14.6.6 The Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Resource report (Appendix M.1) identifies that the indigenous soil profile comprises 3 layers that should be handled separately (topsoil, upper subsoil and lower subsoil), and in addition there are 3 different soil Units. Each soil type will be handled, stored and replaced separately in accordance with the phased working and restoration plans.
Soil handling methods
14.6.7 Soils will be handled using hydraulic excavators, articulated dump trucks and low ground pressure bulldozers.
14.6.8 This equipment will be used in accordance with MAFF (2000), Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils (version 04/00), FRCA Cambridge, quoting sheets 1, 2, 3, 4, 14 and 19 as follows: -
Sheet 1 Soil stripping with excavators and dump trucks. Sheet 2 Building soil storage mounds with excavators and dump trucks. Sheet 3 Excavation of soil storage mounds with excavators and dump trucks. Sheet 4 Soil replacement with excavators and dump trucks. Sheet 14 Building soil storage mounds with bulldozers and dump trucks. Sheet 19 Soil decompaction with bulldozer drawn tines.
14.6.9 Sheet 19 is included to allow for decompaction of the soil bund footprints if required. Sheet 14 is included to allow the option of constructing the soil stores with a bulldozer where the tracks are able to apply light pressure to the store surface and thereby discouraging surface water infiltration and slumping of the sandy soil types.
14.6.10 Soils will be transported on specific haul routes, travelling only on the mineral surface or the restoration platform.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 227 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Soil storage
14.6.11 Different soil types and textures will be stored separately. Topsoil and subsoil will be stored to maximum heights of 3 and 5 metres respectively. Soil types will be stored like on like, i.e. topsoil on topsoil and subsoil on subsoil. Therefore, the footprint of subsoil stores will be prepared by first lifting, and separately storing, the topsoil.
14.6.12 The soil stores will be built with a slightly convex top, to shed surface water, and stable side batters.
Treatment in store
14.6.13 Soil stores which are to remain in-situ for more than 3 months will be seeded with a low maintenance grass seed mix. The stores will be managed by cutting at least 3 times per year and if growth is excessive, the arisings will be removed. Weed growth will be controlled by cutting or spraying with approved herbicide, and weeds will not be allowed to go to seed.
14.6.14 Soil stores will only be trafficked during construction or deconstruction or by maintenance machinery. They will not be driven on at any other time.
Method of assessing whether soils are in a suitably dry condition to be handled
14.6.15 The objective is that all soils shall be handled when they are in a reasonably dry and friable state, which is when they will be least susceptible to lasting damage by compaction and smearing. The following constraints shall be observed, based on weather conditions and soil conditions.
Weather Conditions
14.6.16 Soil handling shall cease during rain, sleet or snow. The following criteria shall be applied
In light drizzle soil handling may continue for up to 4 hours unless the soils are already too moist. In light rain soil handling must cease after 15 minutes. In heavy rain and intense showers, handling shall cease immediately.
Soil Conditions
Soil tests are to be undertaken in the field. Samples shall be taken from at least 5 locations in the soil handling area. The tests shall include Examination and Consistency.
14.6.17 The Examination test is as follows:
If the soil is wet and films of water are visible on the surface of soil particles – No Handling. If the sample is moist but there is a slight dampness when squeezed but it does not significantly change colour (darken) on further wetting – No Handling by Scrapers or Bulldozers but may be Handled by Tracked Excavator. If the sample is dry, it looks dry and changes colour (darkens) if water is added – Handling OK.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 228 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
14.6.18 The Consistency test is as follows:
14.6.19 First test, attempt to mould soil sample into a ball by hand
Impossible because the soil is too dry and hard – Handling OK. Impossible because the soil is too loose and friable – Handling OK. Impossible because soil is too loose and wet – No Handling. Possible – Go to next test.
14.6.20 Second test, attempt to roll ball into a 3mm diameter thread between the fingers and thumb
Impossible because soil crumbles or collapses – Handling OK. Possible – No Handling.
Target soil profiles
14.6.21 The materials balance calculations which have determined the working and restoration phases and the Concept Restoration Plan has assumed a minimum target restored soil profile of 30 cm of topsoil over 90 cm of subsoil. The proposed soil handling and management specifications are designed to restore a loose, uncompact soil profile at its original level above groundwater.
14.6.22 The subsoil will comprise upper and lower subsoil layers to reflect the original profile, except where clay occurs as the upper subsoil over a lighter textured sandy clay loam (or similar) lower subsoil, the layers will be inverted in order to restore the clay at the bottom of the profile.
14.6.23 It is considered important that in advance of each phase of working and restoration a detailed soil balance is prepared identifying separate soil resources for lifting, storage and direct placement. At the end of each soil moving phase a soils audit should be undertaken to measure the predicted soil movements against the actual events. Monitoring in this way will allow the scheme to be progressively managed within the stated aims of restoration quality.
14.6.24 On completion of each phase or part phase of agricultural restoration the restored land should be grass seeded before entering the winter period. Thereafter the restored land should enter an agreed 5 year agricultural aftercare period. During the aftercare period the land should be under the control of AWG Services Limited and managed by a farm contractor within the stated aims of the approved annual aftercare management programmes.
Effects on drainage, agricultural access and water supplies
14.6.25 The land will be restored at original ground levels ensuring that there will be a suitable drainage outfall with adequate freeboards.
14.6.26 Agricultural access will be maintained to allow continued use of adjacent agricultural land.
14.6.27 Suitable water supply will be installed if required for the purposes of managing the restored land through livestock grazing, although it is noted that there are restrictions on the grazing use of contaminated land.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 229 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Farm structure and viability
14.6.28 No specific mitigation measures are required.
14.6.29 Decisions on the future management of the restored land will be taken by AWS Ltd. The proposed restored landform, contours, water table and drainage outfall
14.6.30 The soil and overburden resources and the position of the water table will affect the ability to restore the site to a sustainable land based use. In order to restore the site to original ground levels above groundwater a restoration platform will be built using imported inert material.
14.6.31 The Working and Restoration Phase drawings show how the Restoration Strategy Plan can be achieved.
14.7 Residual Effects
14.7.1 During the phased working and restoration programme, land will be temporarily taken out of agricultural use before being progressively restored. When the restoration has been completed the net negative effect of the development is the loss of approximately 50 hectares of contaminated Grade 3b agricultural land, offset by the positive effect of increasing the variety of habitats with neutral grassland, wet grassland, reedbed and woodland, which is encouraged by the MWLP.
14.7.2 In the absence of an approved method for assessing significance criteria for impacts on soils and agriculture, it is proposed to make the judgement that the conversion of 50 hectares of contaminated Grade 3b agricultural land to wildlife bio-diversity is of Minor Significance. This is in accordance with generic significance criteria recorded in Table 4.1.
14.7.3 This judgement is made for three reasons: the land is not best and most versatile; although the land is classified as Grade 3b Agricultural Land, it is downgraded because of the presence of heavy metals and other toxic elements which preclude the production of food for human consumption or which might enter the food chain, and; the Minerals and Waste Local Plan encourages the restoration of river valley extraction sites to wetland biodiversity.
14.7.4 The land which is restored to agricultural use can be used to grow non-food crops, such as bio-fuels. In the longer term if the contamination with heavy metals and other toxic elements fall to levels which are acceptable for the production of food for human consumption, the land can be re-classified as grade 3a. However, this is not a consequence of the proposed development and could occur if the undisturbed land continues in its current management.
14.8 Cumulative Effects
14.8.1 The Cumulative Impact has been considered in relation to the development of adjacent river valley extraction sites at Earls Barton Spinney Quarry (Ennstone Johnston, now Breedon) and Earls Barton Quarry Western Extension (Hanson). Both these sites result in the conversion of non-bmv land to alternative habitat referred to as riverine and wetland biodiversity. Approval of the current application will result in a further increase in the wetland biodiversity of the Nene Valley, consistent with restoration encouraged by the MWLP.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 230 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
14.9 Summary
14.9.1 This Chapter considers the impact of the development on soils and agriculture. The site is owned by AWS Limited and has been used for the disposal of sewage sludge for approximately 80 years and is consequently contaminated with heavy metals and other toxic elements. It does not form part of a farm holding and cannot be used for growing food for human consumption or food that might enter the food chain. The assessment has considered agricultural land quality and the soil resource.
14.9.2 Natural England’s response to a scoping report in respect of agricultural and soil issues relating to the proposed development highlights the Government’s policy for the protection of best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land as set out in paragraph 112 of the NPPF. It recommends that soils should also be considered under a more general heading of sustainable use of land and the ecosystem services they provide as a natural resource in line with paragraph 109 of NPPF. It recommends that a detailed survey might be required to confirm the soil profile to a depth of 1.2 metres, and that the ES should provide details of how any adverse impacts on soils can be minimised.
14.9.3 All the relevant issues which might have an impact on soils and agriculture are described with appropriate design mitigation. For example, regarding site working, the methods of soil handling, scheme of working and restoration, soil handling conditions, treatment in store and target restored soil profiles are described. Other impacts are considered in respect of drainage, agricultural access, water supply, farm structure and viability, the proposed landform and contours, the water table and drainage outfall. Additionally, it is recommended that there is on-going monitoring and soil auditing for each phase of soil stripping and progressive aftercare management of each restored area.
14.9.4 It is concluded that the Residual Impact is the loss of 50 hectares of contaminated Grade 3b agricultural land, which is converted to non agricultural use.
14.9.5 In the absence of an approved method for assessing significance criteria professional judgement that the conversion of 50 hectares of contaminated Grade 3b agricultural land to benefit biodiversity is of Minor Significance. This judgement is made in view of the moderate quality of the land (i.e. not BMV), the limitations on the use of land through contamination with heavy metals and other toxic elements and the policy in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan to encourage restoration of river valley extraction sites to wetland biodiversity.
14.9.6 All the soil resources are used sustainably.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 231 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
15 Climate Change
15.1 Introduction
15.1.1 This chapter provides an assessment of the proposed development in relation to climate change, in regards to the following aspects:
The effects of climate change on the proposed development, considering future baseline conditions under a changing climate and how the proposed development can become more resilient to cope with a changing climate; and The effects of the proposed development on the climate, considering the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by the scheme which contribute to global warming and potential mitigation measures which can reduce GHGs or compensate for the effects of a project when emissions are unavoidable.
15.1.2 This chapter has been prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP.
15.2 Policy Context
National Policy
15.2.1 The UK Government addresses climate change through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Although the NPPF does not make specific reference to EIA’s role in mitigating against and adapting to climate change, it does recognise local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as stated in paragraph 94 of the NPPF.
15.2.2 Chapter 10 of the NPPF ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’, states planning plays a fundamental role in reducing GHGs, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to climate change impacts.
15.2.3 Paragraph 95 states “to support the move to a low carbon future, local planning authorities should: …plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emission.”
15.2.4 The Climate Change Act 2008 set in place legally binding targets for the UK Government to achieve a 34% reduction in GHGs by 2020, increasing to an 80% reduction by 2050, compared with a 1990 baseline.
Local Policy
15.2.5 The Adopted Minerals and Waste Local Plan for Northamptonshire (2014) sets out the strategy, policies and locations for minerals development in the county to 2031.
15.2.6 Within the Plan, Policy 30: ‘Sustainable design and use of resources’ is of most relevance to this chapter, as it states that new built development “should seek to utilise the efficient use of resources in both its construction and its operation”. Policy 30 sets out a list of measures through which this can be achieved, including “Supporting the move to a low carbon economy by way of reduced greenhouse gas production through design and layout that incorporates energy and water efficiency, and where appropriate flood mitigation or attenuation measures”.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 232 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
15.3 Methodology
Guidance
15.3.1 Currently there is no official guidance on how climate change should be considered in EIA practice. However, the EIA Guide to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation (IEMA, 2015) has been consulted. In addition, reference has also been made to the IEMA Principle Series Climate Change Mitigation & EIA paper published in 2010.
15.3.2 As stated within the EIA Guide to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation, a focus on proportionate assessment is particularly important within climate change assessments, due to the uncertainties associated with predicting how the environment will respond to climate change. It is not recommended to include a level of detail that would create an undue burden to developers and regulators.
Establishing the Baseline
15.3.3 The baseline for this chapter comprises the future climate, which has been established by
consulting the UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) website6F6F7.
15.3.4 UKCP09 provide climate information to help plan how to adapt to a changing climate. The projections are based on Met Office Methodology and UKCP09 reflects scientists’ best understanding of future climate change within the UK.
15.3.5 The UKCP09 data is provided for a range of emission scenarios (low, medium and high) and probability levels.
Assessment Methodology
15.3.6 For the impacts of climate change on the proposed development, consideration has been given to the following:
Identifying the vulnerability of the proposed development to climate change (taking into consideration the development type, location and duration); and the climate variables which are most relevant to the proposed development.
15.3.7 For the impacts of the project on climate, this specifically relates to GHGs generated by the project. This considers carbon management and measures implemented to reduce GHG emissions. The methodology has been based on IEMA Principle Series Climate Change Mitigation and EIA (2010) guidelines and the EIA hierarchy for managing project related GHG emissions. This follows the ‘Avoid’; ‘Reduce’; ‘Substitute’; ‘Compensate’ hierarchy.
Study Area
15.3.8 The study area for the effects of the climate on the proposed development comprises the 25km2 region defined by UKCP09, within which the site is located. This is the most local scale at which climate projections are available.
7 http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 233 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
15.3.9 The effects of the proposed development on climate could potentially be experienced on a broad geographical scale. Due to the nature of the operations, it is not considered that the proposed development can reasonably be considered to have a significant effect on regional or national climate. Therefore, the study area for the assessment of effects of the proposed development on climate will be limited to the site and surrounding area. However, any mitigation measures recommended will also limit wider climate change effects.
Limitations
15.3.10 As this assessment is site specific, but based on regional and national climate change models, it should be noted that the uncertainty of predicting future climate effects on such a small spatial area is potentially large.
Significance Criteria
15.3.11 No climate change specific significance criteria are provided within the relevant guidance documents. This assessment therefore is based on professional judgement and makes reference to the criteria set out in Table 4.1, also taking into account the uncertainty of a changing climate.
Baseline Conditions
15.3.12 The site is currently in agricultural use, primarily for arable crops, and therefore assists in mitigating climate change through carbon sink and sequestration services. Existing GHG emissions associated with the site in its current condition therefore primarily relate to the use of farm machinery, and are assumed to be low.
15.3.13 The following climate variables are considered to be of most relevance to the proposed development, and are therefore considered within the baseline:
Change in mean temperature (annual) Change in mean precipitation (annual)
15.3.14 The scheme has an extraction timeframe of 13 – 15 years, and restoration of the site will continue until 18 – 20 years following commencement of operations. Based on the assumption that operations will begin within one year of planning permission being granted, the time period ‘2010 to 2039’ has been considered when analysing climate projections. Beyond 2039 the site will have been fully restored to its current use as agriculture, alongside the creation of grassland and wetland.
15.3.15 Table 15.1 provides UKCP09 annual temperature data under a range of different ‘Emission Scenarios’ and ‘Probability Levels’ for the time period ‘2010 to 2039’.
Table 25.1: UKCP09 Annual Temperature for Time Period 2010 to 2039 for the Great Billing area
Emission Scenario Probability Level Temperature Increase
10% 0.8˚C
Low 50% 1.4˚C
90% 2.1˚C
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 234 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Emission Scenario Probability Level Temperature Increase
10% 0.8˚C
Medium 50% 1.4˚C
90% 2.1˚C
10% 0.8˚C
High 50% 1.4˚C
90% 2.1˚C
15.3.16 Table 15.2 provides UKCP09 annual precipitation data under a range of different ‘Emission Scenarios’ and ‘Probability Levels’ for the time period ‘2010 to 2039’.
Table 35.2: UKCP09 Annual Precipitation for Time Period 2010 to 2039 for the Great Billing area
Emission Scenario Probability Level Change in Precipitation
10% 4% Decrease
Low 50% 1% Increase
90% 6% Increase
10% 5% Decrease
Medium 50% 0% Increase
90% 6% Increase
10% 5% Decrease
High 50% 0% Increase
90% 6% Increase
15.4 Potential Effects
Effects of the Climate on the Proposed Development
Vulnerability of the Proposed Development
15.4.1 The vulnerability of the proposed development to climate change has been assessed, taking into consideration the development type, location and duration.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 235 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
15.4.2 The proposed development (mineral extraction and restoration) is able to tolerate a range of climatic factors, but could be affected by extreme weather events such as flooding. Areas of the site are located within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there is also a risk of surface water flooding within the site. However, as the lifespan of the project is estimated to be approximately 18 – 20 years it will be of a relatively short duration in relation to changes in climate.
15.4.3 The proposed development is therefore considered to be of low-medium vulnerability to climate change.
Assessment of Effects
15.4.4 The climate variables which are considered to be of most relevance to the proposed development comprises changes in temperature and precipitation over the life of the scheme, as set out within Section 15.4 above.
15.4.5 The application site could potentially experience an increase in annual average temperature of up to 2.1°C, and it considered that this increase would have a negligible adverse effect on the operation of the proposed development and the other environmental aspects assessed within this EIA.
15.4.6 The application site could experience up to a 5% decrease in annual average precipitation, or a 6% increase. As stated above, parts of the site are at risk of flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been produced in support of the proposed development. The FRA considered modelled flood level data provided by the Environment Agency, which includes a 20% increase in peak river flow to account for climate change.
15.4.7 The only built development within the site will be located in the area at lowest risk of flooding (Flood Zone 1). Raised structures within the site primarily comprise the bunds, which are temporary, have a minimal footprint when compared to the floodplain in the area, and will also allow for the passage of floodwater between them to avoid having a notable impact on flood plain flows. Therefore, no compensatory flood storage is considered necessary. The excavation works will provide ongoing indirect compensatory storage. Flood risk to people and mobile plant will be managed via a flood response plan.
15.4.8 Surface water runoff and groundwater will be managed within stilling ponds to be provided within the application site.
15.4.9 Therefore, it is considered that the impact of climate on the proposed development will be negligible and not significant.
Effects of the Proposed Development on the Climate
15.4.10 Direct effects of the proposed development on the climate primarily relate to GHG emissions, which contribute to climate change. GHG emissions will be generated through use of machinery in operations; and the transport and processing of minerals. In addition, the change of use of the site will remove the carbon sink and sequestration services provided by the current agricultural use. However, in the context of existing GHG emissions in the local area it is considered the increase in GHG emissions as a result of the proposed development will be negligible to low.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 236 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
15.4.11 As climate change is experienced on a broad geographical scale, it is difficult to identify and assess direct effects of the proposed development on the climate. However, local scale indirect effects resulting from climate change, could comprise the following:
Increased flood risk; Increased risk of drought; Reduced air quality; and Effects on biodiversity.
15.4.12 The following section assessed the potential effect of the proposed development in the context of these indirect effects of climate change.
15.4.13 As set out within the FRA and above, surface water runoff and groundwater will be managed within stilling ponds to be provided within the site. Raised structures within the site primarily comprise the bunds, which are temporary, have a minimal footprint when compared to the floodplain in the area, and will also allow for the passage of floodwater between them to avoid having a notable impact on flood plain flows. Therefore, the proposed development will not exacerbate flood risk in the surrounding area. In addition, the proposed restoration involves lowering ground levels in the south of the site which will provide an increase in potential floodplain storage at the site, a permanent beneficial effect for the surrounding area.
15.4.14 Climate change can result in an increase of periods of drought, either by duration or frequency. However, water for the site will be sourced from gravel groundwater as explained in section 11 of the ‘Description of Development’ report prepared by DK Symes, and therefore the proposed development will not exacerbate effects of drought in the local area.
15.4.15 Climate change can reduce air quality, as warmer and/or more stagnant air (both potential effects of climate change) can make air pollution worse. The air quality assessment (Chapter 10) identified that the proposed development will have a negligible impact on pollution levels, and therefore the proposed development will not exacerbate this potential effect.
15.4.16 The indirect effects of climate change can affect biodiversity. These effects are usually experienced on a broad geographic scale (i.e. changes in temperature affecting habitat distributions). The site is located within the Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area (NIA), the aims of which are to create more and better connected habitats so that wildlife can thrive and adapt to climate change. An assessment of the ecological effects of the proposed development has been undertaken (see Chapter 7). The assessment identified that the most sensitive habitats will not be directly affected and the majority of areas found to support protected species will not be affected. In addition, mitigation will be put in place to ensure there are no significant adverse effects on ecology. The scheme will include a large area of habitat enhancement through the creation of new wetland and grassland habitats and hedgerows. The restoration scheme was developed through consultation with local stakeholders to ensure that the habitats on site fitted with habitats present in the local area and the adjacent minerals extraction restoration schemes. Following the completion of the restoration scheme there will be a positive effect on biodiversity within the site and within the local area.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 237 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
15.5 Mitigation and Enhancement
Effects of the Climate on the Proposed Development
15.5.1 The only potential significant effect of the climate on the proposed development that has been identified is the risk of flooding. However, the management strategies set out within FRA will mitigate this effect.
15.5.2 The project does not involve the construction of permanent buildings; therefore adaptation in terms of resilience to structural building design features from the impacts of climate change can also be discounted.
15.5.3 The proposed restoration involves lowering ground levels in the south of the site in order to create a wetland area that will provide an increase in potential floodplain storage at the site.
Effects of the Proposed Development on the Climate
15.5.4 It is not considered that there will be any significant indirect effects on the surrounding area as a result of climate change. However, mitigation of the direct effects of the proposed development on the climate (i.e. GHG emissions) have been considered.
15.5.5 The use of machinery in operations, and transport and processing of minerals is necessary within any mineral operation, and will generate unavoidable GHGs. Therefore, these will be reduced as far as practically possible, in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Measures could include a regular review of the size, scale and condition of machinery and transport vehicles used within the operation of the site, and replacement where necessary, to ensure that it is as energy efficient as possible.
15.5.6 One of the key factors within mineral operations which contributes to GHG emissions is the transport of minerals. Mineral processing will be undertaken within the site, as well as some concrete batching, to limit the distance that minerals need to be transported.
15.5.7 Although measures to reduce and minimise GHG emissions will be implemented, as outlined above, a minimum level of emissions are unavoidable. Therefore, enhancement measures to compensate for the effects of the project on the climate will be implemented through the restoration of the site.
15.5.8 The restoration of the site includes areas of additional woodland and hedgerow planting, which will increase the sequestration potential of the site. In the long term (following restoration) sequestration potential will increase further as vegetation matures.
15.6 Residual Effects
15.6.1 Following implementation of the mitigation measures set out within the FRA, residual effects of the climate on the proposed development would be negligible.
15.6.2 Due to the relatively short lifespan of the proposed development, and in consideration of the proposed mitigation measures set out above and within the FRA, residual effects of the proposed development on the climate would be negligible.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 238 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
15.6.3 The proposed restoration of the site, increasing floodplain storage and vegetation cover, will create a negligible effect by increasing the resilience of the local area to the effects of climate change.
15.7 Cumulative Effects
15.7.1 There are two committed developments on adjoining sites to the east and south of the application site that already benefit from planning permission for mineral extraction and restoration, as set out within Chapter 4.
15.7.2 The proposed development will not result in significant effects on the climate, or be significantly affected by climate change. Although a specific climate change assessment does not appear to have been undertaken for the adjoining sites (following review of the Non- Technical Summaries for these sites) it can be assumed, that due to the similar project type and location, these developments will also not result in significant effects on the climate, or be significantly affected by climate change.
15.7.3 On this basis, it is considered that there will be no significant cumulative adverse effects on the climate, or on the developments due to climate change.
15.7.4 The only identified cumulative effect in relation to climate is that the restoration of the three sites will result in a combined increase in vegetation cover and floodplain storage in the area. This will provide a cumulative negligible effect by increasing the resilience of the area to the effects of climate change.
15.8 Summary
15.8.1 This chapter has provided an assessment of the effects of the proposed development on the climate, and the effects of climate change on the proposed development.
15.8.2 Both national and local policy state that new development should try to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as far as possible, and building resilience to the effects of climate change should be considered. There is no official guidance on how climate change should be considered within EIA. However, this chapter has considered guidance published by IEMA.
15.8.3 The baseline for climate change assessment comprises the future climate. The key climate variables for the proposed development are considered to be changes in temperature and rainfall, and estimates for how these variables may change in the future was identified using the UK Climate Projections.
15.8.4 Temperatures in the area of the application site could increase by up to 2.1°C, and rainfall could either increase by up to 6% or decrease by up to 5%. It is not considered that this change in climate will have a significant effect on the proposed development. In addition, flood risk will be managed to ensure the proposed development is not affected by extreme weather events. Following restoration, the increased woodland and floodplain storage within the site will increase the resilience of the area to the effects of climate change.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 239 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
15.8.5 The proposed development will result in unavoidable GHG emissions through the use of machinery and transport of minerals. However, these will be minimised where possible, by keeping machinery well maintained to ensure it is energy efficient, and processing minerals within the site to minimise the required transport distance. Also, the proposed development will not exacerbate the indirect effects of climate change (air quality and flood risk). Also the creation of woodland within the restoration of the site will partially compensate for the GHG emissions of the proposed development, through the storage of carbon.
15.8.6 There will be no significant residual effects on the climate, or on the proposed development as a result of climate change. Benefits will be provided by the increased floodplain storage and woodland within the restoration of the site.
15.9 References
Climate Change Act, 2008. Institute of Environmental Impact Assessment and Management, 2015, “EIA Guide to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation”, IEMA. Institute of Environmental Impact Assessment and Management, 2010, “IEMA Principle Series: Climate Change Mitigation & EIA”, IEMA. UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) website.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 240 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
16 Summary and Impact Interactions
16.1 Introduction
16.1.1 Environmental effects can result from incremental changes caused by the interactions between effects resulting from a project. For the purpose of this assessment, the interactions between effects associated with the proposed development are defined as ‘combined effects’.
16.1.2 The direct and indirect effects of the proposed development have been assessed within the relevant topic chapters of the ES prepared by suitable technical specialists. Environmental effects are assessed relative to the topic under consideration. This approach can lead to the interaction of effects being reported in separate chapters but the collective effect on the same environmental resource(s) not being considered.
16.1.3 This chapter therefore considers the principal findings of each topic chapter of the ES to enable assessment of the potential for impact interactions. This chapter also therefore provides a summary of the likely significant environmental effects identified throughout the ES.
16.2 Methodology
16.2.1 The assessment methodology for combined effects involves the identification of impact interactions associated with both the construction and operational phases of the proposed development upon one or more environmental resources. This is undertaken using a qualitative appraisal process.
16.2.2 This approach has been used by PBA for numerous EIAs and draws upon the following guidance:
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, (2004), Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (IEMA); Hyder, (1999), Final Report on the Study on the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts, as well as Impact Interactions within the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process NE80328/D3/2, European Commission Directorate General XI, Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection; and mitigation measures are identified in each of the topic chapters, and have been used to inform the assessment presented in this chapter. 16.2.3 The assessment of the significance of effects has been based on the generic significance criteria provided in Table 4.1, Chapter 4.
16.3 Operation Effects
16.3.1 Sensitive design and sound environmental management during the operation works means that the majority of the residual effects will not be significant.
16.3.2 The local community will experience some significant adverse landscape effects during the enabling works (Year 1), due to changes to the western part of the site. Some significant adverse effects are also anticipated during extraction (Year 9) to the local landscape character. The adverse effects during restoration will also result in indirect effects on the
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 241 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
public rights of way for Mill House (a Listed Building) and the Bowl Barrow, due to the effect on views from these areas.
16.3.3 The impact of the extraction works on noise levels at the existing receptors will be small. The sensitivity of the receptors is considered to be moderate to low and the effect significance is therefore considered to be long term, direct, negligible to slight/moderate.
16.3.4 As the noise levels are within the limits set in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Minerals), it is considered that this effect is not significant. It is not therefore necessary to recommend further noise mitigation measures.
16.3.5 There will be a negligible impact associated with the development generated traffic on the local road network, resulting in an impact significance of negligible to minor.
16.3.6 As such there are not considered to be any significant impact interactions in relation to the local community.
16.3.7 The proposed development will result in the partial loss of Grade 3b agricultural land. This is considered to be a minor adverse effect however due the contamination of the site precluding the site’s use in the production of food for human consumption. Due to the loss of the land however, there is the potential for there to be up to substantial negative magnitude of impact upon previously unrecorded archaeological remains which may be located within the proposed development. It is anticipated that there will be no more than a minor adverse significance of effect upon the setting of assets within the study area.
16.4 Restoration Effects
16.4.1 Following restoration (Year 35) no significant adverse landscape effects will remain to affect the local community. There are expected to be beneficial effects of Major/Moderate Significance for woodland, trees and hedgerows upon the site and of Moderate Significance for the overall character of the site. The restorations also result in a positive effect on biodiversity within the site and within the local area as a result of the new and improved habitats to be provided at the site, the design of which has been informed by the ecological interest present at the site. The FRA demonstrated that after consideration of the mitigation measures, the potential adverse effects on the water environment are negligible within the exception of minor beneficial effect on local flood risk.
16.4.2 The loss of contaminated Grade 3b agricultural land will be offset by the positive effect of increasing the variety of habitats with neutral grassland, wet grassland, reedbed and woodland, which is encouraged by local policy.
16.4.3 No significant impact interactions have therefore been identified.
\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\PLANNING 242 APPLICATION ES\Vol 1 Main Report\Great Billing ES Vol 1 Main Report.docx
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Glossary
ADMS Advance Dispersion Modelling System
AOD Above Ordnance Datum
AQAL Air Quality Assessment Level
AQMAs Air Quality Management Areas
AWG AWG Landholdings Ltd
Baseflow Discharge of groundwater from an aquifer into a watercourse. Baseflow sustains the low flow of streams and rivers during dry weather.
BCW Borough Council of Wellingborough
BGS British Geological Survey
BSSS British SOCIETY OF Soil Science
BMV Best and Most Versatile
Defra Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Designated Heritage Asset A World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation
DfT Department for Transport
DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
DQRA Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment
DSR Dust Sensitive Receptors
DWS Drinking Water Standards
EA Environment Agency
EHO Environmental Health Officer
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA90 Environmental Protection Act 1990
EPUK Environmental Protection UK
EQS Environmental Quality Standards
ES Environmental Statement
ESR Existing Sensitive Receptor
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
Eutrophication Enrichment of a surface water body with dissolved nutrients (typically phosphates) that can cause rapid growth of aquatic plant life and algae and, as they decay, result in depleted oxygen levels.
FRA Flood Risk Assessment
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GLVIA3 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition (Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013)
Heritage Asset A building, monument, site, place or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified the by the local planning authority.
IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
MAGIC multi agency geographic information for the countryside
MDL Method Detection Limit
MLM MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd
MWLP Minerals and Waste Local Plan
NBC Northampton Borough Council
NCC Northamptonshire County Council
NE Natural England
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
NVZ Nitrate Vulnerable Zone
Overburden soils overlying aggregate which need to be removed prior to mineral extraction.
Quaternary A period of geological time commencing about 2.5 million years ago up to the present day. Soils laid down in Britain during the Quaternary period were typically deposited by glaciers or on the margins of glaciers by meltwater.
SAC Special Areas of Conservation
Significance (of a heritage asset) The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a
SPR-Linkage Source-Pathway-Receptor Linkage
Environmental Statement Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration
SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest
SPZ Source Protection Zone
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
UKCP09 UK Climate Projections
WBC Borough Council of Wellingborough
RA91 Water Resources Act 1991
WWTW Waste Water Treatment Works
ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility