Warmington Parish Council

WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

STATUTORY CONSULTEE RESPONSE: OBJECTION 19/00033/MINFUL Elton Quarry, Peterborough Old Road, Eaglethorpe, Warmington: Phased mineral extraction, construction of a bailey bridge to cross a branch of the River Nene, importation of reclamation material including ancillary activities, with restoration to agricultural pasture and wet woodland.

SECTION A PLANNING APPLICATION 1. Planning Application 19/00033/MINFUL • The WPC concludes this planning application is to establish a new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows, Warmington for the purpose of sand and gravel extraction. The Agent refers to this matter as Elton 2 …an Application for: Phased mineral extraction, construction of a bailey bridge to cross a branch of the River Nene, importation of reclamation material including ancillary activities, with restoration to agricultural pasture and wet woodland. • In supporting documents, the Agent erroneously refers to this planning application as Elton 2 Extension Area – Mineral extraction and restoration, bailey bridge and internal road. The existing planning consent for land to the east of the Flood Meadows is for construction of an Agricultural Reservoir. The proposed new Warmington Quarry site sits to the west of the Agricultural Reservoir with access through land which is designated as the New Eaglethorpe Lake Local Wildlife Site and is on the northern boundary of the Flood Meadows designated as Local Open Space under the Warmington Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2031 (WNP). • There is no existing mineral extraction area to which the new Warmington Quarry would be an extension. In addition, the existing planning consent for land to the east of the Flood Meadows, in Warmington comprises consent to develop an Agricultural Reservoir with an associated plant site and storage facility for processing the material removed to create the Agricultural Reservoir with supporting highway access. • There is not, nor ever has been, an Elton Quarry at this location or any adjoining land. 2. Warmington Parish Council Statement of Community Concern The WPC comprises the democratically elected parish councillors who are responsible and sensitive to the needs of their constituents when arriving at their view as a statutory consultee.

The continued misuse of wording to describe the new Warmington Quarry proposal could be considered misleading.

The proposal submitted by the Agent as part of the call for sites under the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) was originally referred to as Elton Extension Eaglethorpe, then M7 Elton Extension, and went into the MWLP as M6 Elton extension – Location land west of Elton Reservoir Eaglethorpe.

The obfuscation in wording has contributed to the misguided inclusion of the new Warmington Quarry site in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2017.

The inclusion of the new Warmington Quarry site, is based on a false premise and was promoted by the Agent/Developer and determined without appropriate community consultation.

The WPC believes that sufficient grounds exist to pursue a judicial review of the inclusion of the new Warmington Quarry proposal in the MWLP. After very careful consideration, the WPC has concluded that WPC lacks the capacity and financial resources to commence a judicial review and that such an action could pose an unacceptable risk to the Parish precept and further penalise the residents of Warmington if it were to be funded by the WPC alone.

Consequently, the WPC has no alternative other than to disown the NCC Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2017 proposal to establish a new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows, Warmington for the purpose of sand and gravel extraction.

The WPC is fully supportive, to date, of the actions, questions, and challenges submitted to third parties, including to NCC, by the ‘Say No To Elton 2’ protest group, on behalf of a number of Warmington residents. WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

SECTION B SUMMARY OF WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL OBJECTIONS AS STATUTORY CONSULTEE, WPC, as Statutory Consultee, formal resolution: The WPC would formally OBJECT to the application

-19/00033/MINFUL:: (Elton2 proposal to establish a new Quarry in Warmington). Application 1: Phased mineral extraction, construction of a bailey bridge to cross a branch of the River Nene, importation of reclamation material including ancillary activities, with restoration to agricultural pasture and wet woodland.

Submission approved following the meeting of the Warmington Parish Council 14 May 2020 and under powers of delegation, subject to consultation/consent of WPC councillors prior to submission and formal confirmation at a meeting of the WPC on 11 June 2020.

WPC Summary of objections (analysed in detail in section c below) The WPC concludes this planning application is to establish a new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows, Warmington for the purpose of sand and gravel extraction.

In supporting documents, the Agent erroneously refers to this planning application as Elton 2 Extension Area – Mineral extraction and restoration, bailey bridge and internal road.

There is no existing mineral extraction area to which the new Warmington Quarry would be an extension.

There is not, nor ever has been, an Elton Quarry at this location or any adjoining land.

The Applicants did not follow the spirit of the NPPF and seek community engagement on the initial application prior to submission to Northants County Council Planning Authority in April 2019.

The WPC fully supports the comments contained in the ENC Objection to the proposal contained in a response dated 1 May 2020.

Any planning consent should be restricted by requiring one phase of works to be completed prior to a second or subsequent phase consent being granted. In consultation with the WPC, conditions to be attached to the consent and /or a separate legal document which imposes duties: - Community mitigation - Greenway mitigation - Nene Way mitigation - Blueway mitigation. i) WPC object to the proposal on the grounds of the failure to follow due process by Northamptonshire County Council in validating the applications without ensuring that the application had achieved effective community engagement prior to the submission of the respective applications. Appendix 6 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). ii) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of failure to protect and enhance a valued landscape in accordance with NPPF para. 109 NPPF 2019. (WPC Objection submitted August 2019 Appendix 7.) iii) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of the failure to follow due process in allocating the new Warmington Quarry site in the Mineral and Waste Local Plan consultation process.(Appendix 3 of WPC Objection submitted August 2019). iv) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of failure to achieve sustainable development specifically the delivery of economic prosperity. Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). v) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of its impact on the setting of the Warmington Mill a Grade II listed building, loss of amenity value, implications for Elton Hall Parkland setting, Fotheringhay Castle scheduled ancient monument and the visual setting of Grade I listed St Mary and All Saints church in Fotheringhay. Appendix 4 and Appendix 5 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019).

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 2 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL vi) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to consider or address the objectives and content of the East Northamptonshire Council Economic development and tourism strategy. Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). vii) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it interferes with the developer’s ability to meet the conditions for the planning consent for the Agricultural Reservoir and the delivery of community benefits (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). viii) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to consider or address the objectives and content of the Warmington 2031 Neighbourhood Development Plan Appendix 12 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). ix) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of failure to comply with an expectation of sustainable development with specific reference to economic development and tourism matters and the impact of Covid19. Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). x) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of failure to robustly assess the timeline for the project having regard to the impact of Covid 19 and a lifetime of disruption and harm to the local community, economic development, tourism. Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). xi) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that the application only assesses effects on the application site and adjacent lakes/reservoir and fails to assess the effects on the character of the landscape within which it sits. i.e. the Nene Valley which can be considered as a valued landscape in terms of the NPPF. Appendix 7 & Appendix 5 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). xii) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of the various thematic comments referred to above and specifically the failure to properly address flood risk, archaeological and historic setting, landscape matters and the lack of fit with the neighbourhood plan policy objectives. Appendix 5. Appendix 8 Appendix 9 . Appendix 10 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). xiii) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that the application fails to properly consider the effects on the amenity value for people using the Nene Valley long distance footpath (PD3), Greenway Warmington to Elton bridleway (PD1), the tow path from Warmington Lock to Elton and the Blueway River Nene. Appendix 2 Appendix 5 Appendix 11 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). xiv) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to consider or address the objectives and content of the Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). xv) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to consider or address the objectives and content of the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust - Destination Nene Valley Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). Refer to LWS Eaglethorpe New Lake. xvi) The WPC would object to the Planning Authority granting any future planning consent for development in this area by this Developer pending the full and final completion of the existing Agricultural Reservoir project, community benefits/mitigation and any supplementary works.

SECTION C CONTEXT AS AT MAY 2020 1. Warmington Parish Council & Community Engagement Warmington Parish Council (WPC) is a small organisation without the resources to employ a significant range of consultancy support.

In response to the planning application from Agents for Ingrebourne Valley the WPC has coordinated a neighbourhood community response drawing on the individual contributions of local people which are summarised in the documents submitted. i) WPC submitted its first response in August 2019 and referenced as follows (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 3 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL ii) The WPC comments which set out the reasons for OBJECTION in August 2019 have been revised where appropriate to have regard to the Update Statement published by the Agent in November 2019. iii) The WPC comments contained in the reasons for OBJECTION in August 2019 have been supplemented where appropriate following a 92% community vote in favour and formal making of the Warmington Neighbourhood Plan in December 2019. iv) The WPC comments which set out the reasons for OBJECTION have also been revised following the public meeting held by the Warmington Parish Council with representatives from the DK Symes Associates, Ingrebourne Valley and Northamptonshire County Council on 13 February 2020. v) The WPC comments which set out the OBJECTION have had a further revision which draws particular attention to the socio-economic impact, uncertainties and implications of the Covid 19 pandemic as at May 2020.

For the reasons set out in the Statement of Community Concern above, this response removes the link between the new Warmington Quarry Planning Application 19/00033/MINFUL and planning applications 19/00034/MINVOC and 19/00035/MINFUL.

The new Warmington Quarry planning application 19/00033/MINFUL should be considered as a separate project independent of two other applications submitted by the Agent on the same day.

With respect to the planning application: a) 19/00033/MINFUL: (Elton2 proposal to establish a Quarry in Warmington). Application 1: Phased mineral extraction, construction of a bailey bridge to cross a branch of the River Nene, importation of reclamation material including ancillary activities, with restoration to agricultural pasture and wet woodland.

WPC objects to the planning application as set out below.

The WPC would refer to the reasons for Objection raised by the WPC submitted in August 2019, which still apply. http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

2. Community Engagement The WPC endorses the comprehensive submission from a resident of Eaglethorpe, attached as Appendix 3 which sets out concerns about the lack of public engagement prior to submitting the planning applications.

The Appendix submission also refers to the reluctance of the Agent/Developer to acknowledge the strength of local opinion given the adverse impact on landscape, amenity, and character of the area.

The WPC would also support the specific comments about the reactionary rather than proactive approach being adopted to provide solutions to the issues being raised and accuracy of some information within the consultancy reports for example on economic data.

WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of the failure to follow due process by Northamptonshire County Council in validating the applications without ensuring that the application had achieved effective community engagement prior to the submission of the respective applications. Appendix 6 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 4 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

SECTION D PLANNING CONTEXT 1. The National Planning Policy Framework and Valued Landscapes (February 2019) NPPF February 2019

The Applicants did not follow the spirit of the NPPF and seek community engagement on the initial application prior to submission to Northants County Council Planning Authority in April 2019.

Section 4 of the Warmington Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) invites developers to engage with the WPC prior to submission of a planning application to enable community engagement. Ref NPPF paras 39-46 and 128.

NPPF 2019 Annex 2: Glossary: Open Space - that such land can offer important opportunities of recreation and can act as a visual amenity. Ownership of land is irrelevant to the function of Open Space as a visual amenity.

The Warmington Flood Meadows is designated as one of only two listed areas defined as Local Open Space, and the view across the Warmington Flood Meadows is designated as a Locally Significant View, in the WNP Natural Environment Section 7.

Valued Landscapes

The 2012 NPPF has been replaced by the 2019 NPPF and states the following regarding the need to protect and enhance valued landscapes:

2012 NPPF: “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; …” 2019 NPPF: “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); …” Please see WPC Appendix 7 to the original 1 August 2019 submission for full detail on the above matters.

WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of failure to protect and enhance a valued landscape in accordance with NPPF para. 109 NPPF 2019. (WPC Objection submitted August 2019 Appendix 7.) http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

2. Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (July 2017) Minerals and Waste Local Plan July 2017 & Northants County Council Statement of Community Involvement

The proposal to establish a new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows, Warmington for the purpose of sand and gravel extraction was included as a site to provide an additional reserve of high-quality sand and gravel.

The Warmington Parish Council did not support the Elton 2 proposal to establish a new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows, Warmington in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP).

WPC has seen comments which suggest that the Elton 2 proposal to establish a new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows, Warmington for the purpose of sand and gravel extraction was included in the MWLP despite not

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 5 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL meeting the criteria for inclusion. The site was included without adequate consultation and failure to undertake substantial direct community engagement as stated in the policy document NCC Statement of Community Involvement.

The WPC has seen no evidence which suggests that the NCC demand for sand and gravel requires to be met from the land adjoining the protected Flood Meadows in the River Nene Valley Warmington in preference to other locations.

WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of the failure to follow due process in allocating the new Warmington Quarry site in the Mineral and Waste Local Plan consultation process. (Appendix 3 of WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

3. North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (July 2016) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of failure to achieve sustainable development specifically the delivery of economic prosperity. Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

4. The Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan (July 2011) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of its impact on the setting of the Warmington Mill a Grade II listed building, loss of amenity value, implications for Elton Hall Parkland setting, Fotheringhay Castle scheduled ancient monument and the visual setting of Grade I listed St Mary and All Saints church in Fotheringhay. Appendix 4 and Appendix 5 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

5. East Northamptonshire Council Economic development and tourism strategy (2017-2020) WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to consider or address the objectives and content of the East Northamptonshire Council Economic development and tourism strategy. Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

6. East Northants Council Response as Statutory Consultee May 2020 The WPC fully supports the comments contained in the ENC Objection to the proposal contained in a response dated 1 May 2020 which recommends that it be refused due to the detrimental impacts in relation to heritage assets and ecology within the district of East Northamptonshire.

7. Other Planning and Research including Elton 1 Agricultural Reservoir 2002 EN/02/846C and six subsequent applications. In early 2019, in the absence of any progress by the Agent /Developer, the WPC invited the Agent and landowner to meet with WPC to establish the long overdue Elton 1 Warmington Reservoir Local Liaison Group. The WPC met with the landowner and Agent in April 2019. Discussion of details of any future proposal was specifically excluded from this meeting by the Developer and Landowner.

Within days of the meeting the Agent submitted three Full Planning Applications to Northamptonshire County Council including the proposal to establish a new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows, Warmington for the purpose of sand and gravel extraction.

The WPC convened a public liaison meeting and exhibition in May 2019 which was attended by the Agent and some 80 members of the local community to consider the proposal for a new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows. The overwhelming community response was Objection to the proposal.

The proposal to establish a new Warmington Quarry physically cuts across and materially affects the ability of the Developer to deliver completion of the Elton 1 Warmington Agricultural reservoir site. In turn this proposal also interferes with the developer’s ability to meet the conditions for the planning consent for the Agricultural Reservoir and the community benefits which were identified for delivery as part of the site within 6 months of completion of the extraction. The NCC MWLP Monitoring Report 2015 (Jan 2016) states that extraction finished in 2015. These matters remain outstanding.

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 6 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it interferes with the developer’s ability to meet the conditions for the planning consent for the Agricultural Reservoir and the delivery of community benefits (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

8. Warmington 2031 Neighbourhood Development Plan (2017-2031) (WNP) The contents of the WNP are material to the approach of the WPC in respect of any planning application submitted for the Warmington area.

Section 4 of the WNP sets out the benefits for Applicants to engage with the Council prior to submission of the planning application wherein matters of approach might be better discussed in order to assist the developer in meeting the aims and objectives of the WNP. This is to ensure that planning is not seen as something which is done to residents rather than for residents.

The lack of pre-application discussion precludes the opportunity for the WPC to engage local residents through informal discussion about the nature of the intended application and implications.

This process can become adversarial which the WPC seeks to avoid as set out in the WNP Section 4.

The Applicant/Agent has engaged with the WPC post submission of the April 2019 through a public meeting hosted by the WPC on 18th May 2019 and attended by about 80 residents and interest groups.

The Applicant/Agent has engaged with the WPC post submission of the November 2019 Update Statement through a public meeting hosted by the WPC on 13 February 2020 and attended by over 100 residents, interest groups and the press.

The WPC is grateful to the representatives of the Applicant/Agent and NCC for their participation in the public meetings and clarification on the application where requested.

During the consultation process in 2018/9 on the WNP, the Applicant and their then Agent made objections to any mention of the new Quarry proposal site. However, the WNP Inspector specifically allowed the WPC to include a reference that during the WNP consultation with respect to the natural environment, ‘there was strong feeling against further gravel extraction on the flood meadows beyond the Mill.’

The NNJCS promotes the importance and protection of open green spaces that have value to the community and warrant protection. The Warmington Flood Meadows share the boundary to the land identified in respect of the proposal to establish a new Quarry in Warmington.

The Flood Meadows are a designated space under WNP Policy 6 Other Local Spaces -Local Open Space and forms one of only two such designated areas of land in WNP reflecting the value to the community.

WNP Policy W6 Other Local Spaces states that proposals for development in Other Local Spaces will not be supported unless they would improve the way in which the relevant space functions or provides enhanced outdoor recreational facilities for local residents.

WNP Policy W7 Landscape Character states that development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that the locally significant views can be preserved with no significant negative impact. The view across the Flood Meadows is designated as one of three locally significant views tested and approved through consultation. The WPC Landscape Appraisal (Appendix 7) comprehensively argued that this proposal would cause significant adverse and harm to the landscape. This appraisal was not rebutted in the November 2019 update to the application. http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

WNP Section 10 has declared the land west of the A605 including the potential quarry and agricultural reservoir as an area of economic development, recreation, and tourism as part of the Destination Warmington contribution to the Destination Nene Valley.

See Appendix 5 Destination Warmington Map

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 7 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

WNP Policy 10 sets out the nature of support for Destination Warmington business.

Quarrying is not a compatible activity with the WNP Policy W10. It contravenes this policy by causing unacceptable harm to the natural environment and has a detrimental impact on the amenities of surrounding properties and prevents occupation of affordable accommodation provided by Lady Margaret’s Cottages

WNP Policy 11 sets out the priorities for Sustainable Recreation and Tourism activities.

Quarrying is an activity which is not supported WNP Policy W11.

WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to consider or address the objectives and content of the Warmington 2031 Neighbourhood Development Plan Appendix 12 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

Appendix 5 Destination Warmington Map

9. Socio-Economic Effects Sustainable Development & the Socio-Economic Implications of Covid 19

At the public meeting held on 13 February 2020, the progress of the project was confirmed to be reliant upon the economic context and the markets for mineral supply and demand. The project would proceed as swiftly or slowly as the market forces would determine. By implication, the stated timescale of 10 continuous years to complete the works can only represent the minimum span of the works. The past performance of the operator in completing the Warmington Reservoir would indicate a minimum span of 40 years for this new Warmington Quarry should be used to assess this application.

Sustainable development requires the economic as well as social and environmental aspect of a project to be considered. Proposals developed in the period prior to February 2020 can no longer be considered sound as they are built upon economic assumptions which have fundamentally changed from March 2020.

The Institute of Quarrying has outlined its Coronavirus contingency plans and support for members. https://www.quarrying.org/iq-news/iq-covid-19-contingency-plans

The economic context for the development of a quarry and the ability to deliver against a 10-year timescale are no longer credible. The consequence is a potential compounding of community amenity loss and harm over a period of time longer than any resident of Warmington would find acceptable.

Studies from leading Researchers show the combined health and economic implications of Covid 19 on the market and capital projects, all trend in the same direction. Projects become more complex to operate on site, are slower to complete by phase and thus take longer to deliver to completion in order to maintain health and safe social distancing in an unsettled market. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/library/covid-19/coronavirus-impacts-capital-projects.html

There will be delays, loss of efficiencies, and cost impacts because of COVID-19 and related regulatory responses, and there is little to no precedent to help companies understand what the potential future impacts of COVID-19 on the capital project and construction programs may be, or when restrictions may end…..Even if project planning, design, and management do not stop altogether, work will likely be more costly and take more time. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/advisory/articles/impact-of-covid-19-on-capital-projects-and-construction- programs.html

The construction sector faces particular challenges in addressing both the health and economic challenges posed by COVID- 19. https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/covid-19-impact-on-the-construction-sector/

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 8 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of failure to comply with an expectation of sustainable development with specific reference to economic development and tourism matters and the impact of Covid19. Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

10. Challenges to the Timelines for the Quarry Project and the Incomplete Agricultural Reservoir. The economic context and implications of the socio- economic impact of Covid19 requires that the project timelines of each phase in respect of the establishment of a quarry on land adjoining the protected Open Space of the Flood Meadows requires fundamental scrutiny.

The project outline suggested 3 phases for development, but the project interferes with completion of the Elton 1 Warmington Agricultural reservoir application submitted in 2002. There have been at least 18 years of disruption from the building of the Agricultural Reservoir.

Timelines based on assumptions relied on before March 2020 are questionable. Using the developer’s performance on delivery of the Agricultural Reservoir as a benchmark, completing a new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows, would take a minimum of 40 years to complete compounding the negative impact of the project upon the Warmington community who have already suffered nearly 20 years of disturbance from the Agriculture Reservoir project.

The new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows, Warmington was suggested to be a temporary project of 10 years. When combined with the Agriculture reservoir contract works the actual project time could be the equivalent of a lifetime which brings into focus the definition of temporary. Appendix 4

The WPC endorses the comprehensive submission from a resident of Eaglethorpe attached as Appendix 3 which sets out the Agent/Developer inability to provide guarantees on the duration of the process related to the economic context. Appendix 3 – Resident’s submission

WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of failure to robustly assess the timeline for the project having regard to the impact of Covid 19 and a lifetime of disruption and harm to the local community, economic development, tourism. Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

11. Historic Environment Assessment It is very important that the application for a new Warmington Quarry in land adjoining the Flood Meadows, Warmington is considered within the context of the valued landscape.

The contents of the comprehensive paper on valued landscape submitted in August 2019 have not been addressed. Specific attention was drawn to this matter at the public meeting on 13 February 2020 and this matter remains a fundamental reason as to why the planning application should be Refused.

WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that the application only assesses effects on the application site and adjacent lakes/reservoir and fails to assess the effects on the character of the landscape within which it sits. i.e. the Nene Valley which can be considered as a valued landscape in terms of the NPPF. Appendix 7 & Appendix 5 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

12. Various Themes (Groundwater and surface water; ecology; landscape & visual; noise; air quality; transport; archaeology, and agriculture & soils) The WPC endorses the comprehensive submission from a resident of Eaglethorpe attached as Appendix 1 which sets out the harm caused to the Historic Environment so that it will no longer be an attractive contributor to Destination Warmington for local residents or visitors to the area.

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 9 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

The area and quality of life will be damaged... Despite the mitigation measures proposed, there will be noticeable changes to the landscape in terms of view, air quality and noise; the character of the area will change from one that is rural, tranquil and historic to one that is dominated by machinery and activity; the amenity provided by the area through walking, fishing and boating and other quiet leisure activities will be significantly reduced and in some cases prevented, and the wildlife and ecology will be disturbed. The consequences of this will be felt not only by those who live near or visit the area, but by local business in the three surrounding villages – putting vital community services at risk.

Of particular concern is the harm caused with respect to the following as shown in Appendix 1:-

Archaeological importance Historical setting of the assets of historical value Historical environment for Nene Way, Greenway PD1 and Blue Way River Nene Safety-internal road crossing. The WPC endorses the comprehensive submission from a resident of Eaglethorpe attached as Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 which sets out the potential Flood Risk impact on potential future land use and access to public footpaths. Appendix 1 and 2

Landscape matters

The WPC draws attention to the comprehensive submission from Philip Brashaw which formed Appendix 7 to the WPC submission dated 1 August 2019.

WPC submitted this detailed evidence on a number of landscape and visual matters in response to the original planning application by Ingrebourne Valley Ltd contained as Appendix 7. http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf The WPC submission raised some key issues relating to significant adverse impacts that the proposed quarry would cause to the landscape of the Nene Valley between Warmington, Elton and Fotheringhay, and to the amenity of people using the Nene Way long distance footpath, that Ingrebourne Valley Ltd have not responded to or addressed.

1. WPC has undertaken a detailed assessment and concluded that the landscape of the Nene Valley between Warmington, Elton and Fotheringhay is a ‘valued landscape’ in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 170. WPC cannot find anywhere where Ingrebourne Valley Ltd has addressed this key issue. [WPC submission Appendix 7 section 5]. http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

2. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (April 2019) submitted with the planning application presents a flawed approach in assessing landscape impacts, by only assessing impacts on the site itself and not on the wider Nene valley of which it is an integral part. [WPC submission Appendix 7 section 3]. http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

3. The application documents do not properly assess impacts on the recreational amenity of people using the Nene Way long distance footpath. It only describes changes to views and the route of the path. It fails to consider changes to the experience of users due to changes in noise, air quality and traffic, or to assess impacts. [WPC submission Appendix 7 page 2]. http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

There are therefore significant and important gaps in information within the planning application documents in relation to landscape impacts, impacts on a valued landscape and impacts on recreational amenity. WPC consider that the significant harm that the quarry would cause to the landscape of this part of the Nene Valley and to users of the Nene Way long distance footpath are of fundamental importance in determining whether this application should be allowed or refused, and are surprised that Ingrebourne Valley Ltd has not properly considered them at this very late stage in the planning application process.

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 10 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

At the public meeting on 13 February 2020 Ingrebourne Valley Ltd was asked why have they not responded to WPC’s points on these issues and when are they going to do so. Ingrebourne Valley Ltd responded by saying that their landscape consultant would prepare a response which will be submitted. WPC would like the opportunity to see this response and provide any comments for Northamptonshire County Council to consider before determining the application.

WPC would like to point out that, in the Northamptonshire County Council’s evidence base informing the allocation of the site ‘M7: Elton Extension’ the Site Assessment Methodology (August 2015) and the site specific assessment itself (Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Update) Draft Plan document for consultation - Technical Annex December 2015) 1 did not consider whether the landscape that would be affected by the quarry is a ‘valued landscape’ under the (then in place) 2012 NPPF paragraph 109. There is therefore a significant gap in evidence for both NCC’s allocation and Ingrebourne Valley Ltd planning application. The first time that this has been considered in determining whether this site is suitable for a quarry, and properly evaluated, is in WPC’s Appendix 7 which was undertaken by an experienced Chartered Landscape Architect, where it is concluded that the landscape between Warmington, Elton and Fotheringhay, of this the application site is an integral part, is a ‘valued landscape’.

Traffic and Transport/Highways and Internal Road Access and egress to the site should be improved and weight limits should be considered for the roads into Elton or Warmington.

Internal Haul Road and Local Wildlife Site (LWS)

In the approved application to extend the end date for Elton 1 (18/00032/MINVOC) the internal haul road was shown as passing north of the Local Wildlife Site/Wetlands area on the ground separating this from the reservoir (95010/PE/1 dated 8/1/2016).

The application 19/00033/MINFUL repositions the haul road to route through the LWS/Wetlands and the reason appears to be solely because the installation method chosen for the bailey bridge requires a crane to move the assembled bridge into position. The effect of this change is described as ‘temporary’ in the November 2019 update statement as justification for the harm to the LWS. However, the LWS was proposed in 1996 to mitigate the damage caused by the bypass construction. The earliest date for the LWS implementation would then be 2031, a delay of 35 years. However, as discussed elsewhere, the most likely date for implementation would be 2061, a delay of 65 years. This is neither temporary nor acceptable.

The proposed ‘Bailey Bridge’ implies a temporary structure assembled on site without the use of large plant. But the operator proposes a 70 tonne crane is used to lift a fully assembled bridge into position. The limited manoeuvrability of the crane and bridge transport requires the construction of a large straight haul road across the Local Wildlife Site (LWS) causing severe harm to the wetland habitat and bird hide conditioned by previous permissions. It requires the installation of a large concrete pad with a high carbon footprint. However, the bridge manufacturer promotes an alternative ‘cantilever’ method of erecting the bridge which does not require such a crane. Using this method would remove the need for the ‘haul road’ to traverse the LWS, would lower the carbon footprint and would reduce the unacceptable noise at the bird hide and PD1. By not considering use of a more acceptable engineering solution, this application cannot be considered to be sustainable.

WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds of the various thematic comments referred to above and specifically the failure to properly address flood risk, archaeological and historic setting, landscape matters and the lack of fit with the neighbourhood plan policy objectives. Appendix 5. Appendix 8 Appendix 9 . Appendix 10 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

1 NCC’s evidence is available at https://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/councilservices/environment-and-planning/planning/planning- policy/minerals-and-waste-planning-policy/Pages/update-of-the-adopted-minerals-and-waste-local-plan.aspx

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 11 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

13. Flood Risk

The WPC endorses the comprehensive submission from a Resident of Eaglethorpe dated 2 January 2020 attached as Appendix 1 which sets out the serious concerns about flood risk as illustrated at Appendix 2 Appendix 1 Resident’s Perspective, Appendix 2 Eaglethorpe Flooding

14. Rights of Way and Other Amenity Matters The WPC endorses the comprehensive submission from a Resident of Eaglethorpe dated 2 January 2020 attached as Appendix 1 which sets out the negative impact on the amenity of the area so that it will no longer be an attractive contributor to Destination Warmington for local residents or visitors to the area.

Of particular concern is the harm caused to the character or amenity of the area with respect to Public Rights of Way, Air Quality, Noise, Angling, Elton Boat Club, Bird Hide

Appendix 1 Resident’s Perspective

WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that the application fails to properly consider the effects on the amenity value for people using the Nene Valley long distance footpath (PD3), Greenway Warmington to Elton bridleway (PD1), the tow path from Warmington Lock to Elton and the Blueway River Nene. Appendix 2 Appendix 5 Appendix 11 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

15. The Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area documentation WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to consider or address the objectives and content of the Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

16. Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust - Destination Nene Valley WPC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to consider or address the objectives and content of the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust - Destination Nene Valley Appendix 2 (WPC Objection submitted August 2019). Refer to LWS Eaglethorpe New Lake. http://warmington.org/images/Files/WPC_Docs/MW_Papers/Elton2WPCObjection.pdf

17. Community Benefit Contributions & Conditions If the planning authority determines to approve the applications, Warmington Parish Council requires that the following conditions are stipulated as part of either the conditions of approval and/or as legally enforceable agreements.

18. Enforcement & Other matters in Performance of the contractor on previous projects Recognising that planning enforcement is a matter for the NCC, the WPC would draw attention to the potential list of enforcement issues arising from the performance of the developer on previous projects.

Enforcement in relation to the terms and conditions of the planning consent and for delays in the construction of an Agricultural Reservoir at Warmington.

Necessity for the developer to submit retrospective planning applications concerning matters related to the processing of material excavated from the Agricultural Reservoir in Warmington.

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 12 of 13 WARMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

Delays and failure to implement the community benefits associated with previous planning consents to develop an Agricultural Reservoir in Warmington.

Failure to maintain the PD1 bridleway to the south of the Agricultural Reservoir.

The WPC has significant reservations about overall past performance of the Developer and not meeting the timescales for completion of the Agricultural Reservoir project.

The WPC would object to the Planning Authority granting any future planning consent for development in this area by this Developer pending the full and final completion of the existing Agricultural Reservoir project, community benefits/mitigation and any supplementary works.

19. Appendix 1 Resident’s Perspective 20. Appendix 2 Eaglethorpe flooding 21. Appendix 3 Resident’s submission 22. Appendix 4 Timelines of projects 40 years plus… 23. Appendix 5 Map of Destination Warmington

19/00033/MINFUL Objection Page 13 of 13 Appendix 1 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

PLANNING REFERENCES: 19/00033/MINFUL, 19/00034/MINVOC & 19/00035/MINFUL

. This objection is a summary of community concerns from a resident’s perspective and is based on a number Material Planning Considerations, including:

1. Government Policy 2. Proposals on the Development Plan 3. Previous Planning Decisions (collectively known as “Elton 1”)

Key Objections:

1) Harm caused to the character or amenity of the area (1) According to the Warmington Neighbourhood Plan “The character of the village is formed in part by this countryside and the green open spaces which surround and extend into the parish and the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that this is maintained for future generations (Para 7.1). It also states that “The flood meadows are classed as an ‘Important Local Open space’ in accordance with the Community assets Policy 7 (paras 3.88 & 3.89 in the NNJCS) . it cannot be replaced with equivalent space elsewhere”. …

(2) National Planning Policy (NPPF, 2019) highlights the importance of protecting the character and amenity of areas and recognises the need to create places that are “safe, inclusive and accessible with a high standard … of amenity for existing and future users”. As such, the areas around Warmington Mill and the Flood Meadows are highly valued by residents of Eaglethorpe, Warmington and visitors alike for its character and landscape values. It provides a peaceful respite from everyday life, where people come to walk, fish, observe the wildlife, and to spend quiet recreation time. The destruction of the character of the area, in terms of both landscape and land usage, that the proposed mineral extraction and associated processing will cause has been highlighted in my previous representation. Amenity is defined by the dictionary as a useful or enjoyable facility, and I am detailing below some of the ways in which the proposed development will have a negative impact on the amenity of the area, to the extent that it will no longer be an attractive destination nor provide amenity for either local residents or visitors.

Public Rights of Way The applicant fully acknowledges the existence of the public right of way (The Nene Way) and bridleway (PD1) that cross the proposed site. Aside from local residents, visitors regularly use these paths, which link the villages of Warmington, Fortheringhay and Elton and as a result support businesses within them. ● Northamptonshirewalks.co.uk - Walk 58: Fotheringhay Circular. “We’ve done this walk at different times of the year & it’s always a cracker with a good mix of field, water & woods walking so you’re always likely to see varied wildlife etc. There’s also a lot of history attached to it” “And that’s the … end of one of our favorite walks in Northamptonshire.

● Viewranger.com – Warmington Mill 5 Mile Circular. “A short walk that I often do during the year. Refreshments at Fortheringhay pub, Elton Pub and Warmington Pub”. ● The helpfulhiker.com - Family Friendly Elton & Fotheringhay Circuit. “This flat route is perfect for a family stroll. Passing through green countryside it features river views, a beautiful church and even the remains of an ancient castle to keep the whole family entertained. There’s also a couple of pubs along the route if you need a little refreshment.”

The current public rights of way will remain open in the proposed planning application but as the planning application for phased mineral extraction covers the entire flood meadow the development will become a significant and dominant feature of the landscape and will completely destroy the current sense of tranquillity and remoteness that exists at present. Who would continue to choose spending leisure time

Appendix 1 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

here when the views over a currently rural and peaceful landscape would be replaced by “views (some very close up) of dump trucks hauling soil, overburden and mineral to the plant site area and views of …… dumper trucks going over the Bailey bridge”( Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, April 2019), and when the enjoyment of a walk in the countryside would be compromised by the disturbance created by noise, dust, air pollution from exhaust emissions and potential safety hazards associated with the extraction (3) activity? This is in conflict with the spatial strategy of the NNJCS (2018) , which seeks to enhance “the green infrastructure framework of countryside, open spaces, waterways and other natural, historic and recreation assets including the Nene Valleys” (Para 5.4d).

Air Quality Vehicle exhaust emission impacts resulting from onsite Articulated Dumper Trucks movements at positions along public rights of way were not quantified in the previously submitted Air Quality Assessment because these areas were not considered locations of relevant exposure for the long or short term Air Quality Objectives. The more recently submitted Air Quality Technical Report (Redmore Environmental, September 2019) however, recognises “potential air quality impacts at public rights of way as a result of vehicle exhaust emissions associated with Articulated Dumper Trucks (ADTs) on site. Areas of concern include a bridleway, approximately 140m south of the development, and Nene Way footpath which crosses the extension area”. While the report predicts the negative air quality impacts to be “negligible” any emissions from the ADT’s and other equipment that are introduced into a rural area are going to be noticeable if not harmful to members of the public utilising the public rights of way, and will therefore detract from the level of enjoyment currently experienced.

Noise Although the impact of the predicted noise levels associated with the working and restoration of the extraction site at the closest dwelling are considered ‘acceptable’ within The Noise Assessment (LF Acoustics, October 2019), it should be noted that the property is located only meters away from Warmington Mill. The Historic Environment Impact Assessment (Archaeological Solutions, September 2019) states that “The proximity of Warmington Mill to the Proposed Development Site suggests that noise from the operation of the site will be heard at this location it is likely that noise from the operation of the site will add to any … noise from the road, altering the way in which the heritage asset is experienced”. Presumably the same would apply for the resident living in this dwelling.

The Noise Assessment shows no consideration for the impact of noise on residents living in Eaglethorpe, but in its assessment of the noise impact on the Grade II listed buildings within the hamlet, The Historic Environment Impact Assessment (Archaeological Solutions, September 2019) concluded that “Due to the proximity of these heritage assets to the Proposed Development Site, it is possible that the operation of the Proposed Development will cause increased levels of noise to be experienced in their vicinity”, and despite the closer proximity of the A605 as a potential source of noise, the report found that “none of which was particularly noticeable”. The report noted that “noise from the Proposed Development might be … dependent on the prevailing wind direction”. The prevailing wind is westerly and, as Eaglethorpe is to the east of Warmington Mill, noise pollution will be carried over Eaglethorpe and on towards the village of Warmington, which gives cause for concern for all residents of Eaglethorpe.

The Noise Assessment also makes no assessment of the impact of noise on members of the public spending leisure time in the vicinity of Warmington Mill or walking the section of the Nene Way that crosses the flood meadow between Warmington Mill and Fotheringhay. Traffic noise from the A605 cannot be heard in this location; indeed the most notable sounds are birdsong and water rushing through the lock gates. If a noise assessment had been conducted within this area, the background noise would register as being extremely low. Although phased, the works within the extension area would involve the use of an Excavator (74.3 dB LAeq @10m 1 100), loading dump trucks (Loading Shovel 73.6 dB LAeq @10m 1 100, Dump Truck Movement 111 dB SWL 20 per hour), ADT movements to and from the processing plant area (HGV Movements 106 dB

Appendix 1 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

SWL 12 per hour) and periodic use of the Dozer (Working 79.0 dB LAeq @10m 1 75, Idling 67.4 dB LAeq @10m 1 25). The resulting noise may not be at a level or for a duration that is harmful to public health, but the sounds introduced by the proposed operations would be new, noticeable, and intrusive and therefore detrimental to the amenity of the area.

Angling Warmington Angling Club currently offers fishing along the unspoilt river network around Warmington Mill and operates competitions, including junior evens, along the river banks within the planned extension area (Application 1); but the Update Statement 1 report (DK Symes Associates, November 2019) makes clear that any formal agreement for fishing from the river banks will be withdrawn during the period of operation (minimum 10 years). Although there may be limited access to the western area during phase 1 and 2, after year 5 “access for recreational activities is restricted in all sections of the extension area”. In effect the application, if approved, will at best severely restrict and at worst end a leisure activity that has been enjoyed for many years by local anglers.

Elton Boat Club Elton Boat Club is located next to Warmington Mill. It has over 100 members and moorings for 55 boats and, welcomes boating visitors from the other Associated Nene River Clubs. As such the boat club contributes to both the character and the amenity of the area, and its patrons support local businesses such as the pub/restaurant and general store within Warmington Village. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the peaceful, rural setting of the boat club and reduce the quality of life that its members enjoy; although the applicant believes that mitigation is provided by the boundary of the application, a 15 metre undisturbed margin and the limited period of activity and operating hours – although these hours are 7am – 6pm Monday to Friday and 7am – 1pm on Saturday, with Sundays and Public Holiday activity ‘in an emergency’. The Update Statement 1 (DK Symes Associates, November 2019) points out that Elton Boat Club has a lease with Elton Estates and “If these mitigation measures are not considered appropriate then this section of bank can be temporarily cleared of any boats while workings take place”, which would impact on the amenity offered to the membership of the club, threaten the viable continuation of the boat club and harm the businesses within Warmington.

Bird Hide Bird Hides are about offering visitors the opportunity to enjoy nature without disturbing it; they can attract new visitors, or encourage visits from schools, photographers, and nature lovers. Correctly constructed and sited in a relatively quiet and undisturbed location will mean that a bird hide is an enjoyable place for visitors to spend time.

For many local residents the variety of bird species and wildlife in general that is seen throughout the entire application area is of great interest and amenity value, which is why the siting of a bird hide at the site of the (4) Agricultural Reservoir (Elton 1) was included within the restoration plans for the site. 16 years on from the initial granting of planning permission for Elton 1 there is still no bird hide and the area is now partly st included in the current planning application for Elton 2 – with a suggested completion date of 31 July 2030 plus a further 5 year aftercare plan before restoration is complete.

The bird hide is still promised, but the position of the internal road has impacted on its positioning and will be seen from the hide. Apparently the applicant feels that a position relatively close to the village and with easy pedestrian access (Update Statement 1, DK Symes Associates, November 2019) is a form of mitigation, but when one considers that the same report estimates 50 ADT movements a day, equating to one load every 10 minutes, the amenity value of a bird hide is highly questionable given the surrounding disturbance relating to noise, air quality and general activity from which there will be little respite considering the operating hours of 7am – 6pm Monday to Friday and 7am – 1pm on Saturday. It could be argued that it is not possible to miss a facility that was never there. More importantly the promised bird hide, and the

Appendix 1 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

amenity that it would have provided, went some way towards tolerating the previous construction activity. The applicant has previously demonstrated a failure to adhere to time scales and restoration plans and the community is therefore highly sceptical about their assurances relating to the current proposals.

Safety – internal road crossing The route of the proposed Greenway between Northampton and Peterborough would, in part, follow the route of the existing public bridleway (PD1) and, as highlighted in the Environmental Statement (non-technical summary) produced on behalf of the applicant (para 5.26), would be crossed by the internal road with an estimated 50 movements of Articulated Dump trucks per day transporting minerals from the extension area and the delivery of reclamation material. The community has already experienced many difficulties during the construction and working of Elton 1, both in terms of the mud generated and the risk to public safety from the emerging 45 tonne, 3 axle articulated dump truck at the crossing point and regardless of whether the bridleway continues to be used as it is currently, or if it becomes part of the Greenway route, there is without doubt a safety issue to be considered.

(3) The NNJCS (2018) a ims to ensure “quality of life and safer and healthier communities’ by ‘protecting amenity by not resulting in an unacceptable impact on the amenities by reason of noise, vibration, or … other pollution, loss of light or overlooking”. The granting of this planning application for mineral extraction and associated activities would be to the detriment of the quality of life currently experienced by residents of Warmington by changing the character of the area which the community values, by preventing the community from continuing to enjoy access to the quiet recreational leisure activities that are currently readily accessible, that could potentially risk residents safety, that could prevent the development of projects which would further benefit the health and wellbeing of the community, and even risk the economic viability of the businesses that are so important to the fabric of rural communities.

2) Harm caused to the Historic Environment (2) The NPPF (2019) states that those parts of the historic environment that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest are heritage assets. The Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (Archaeological Solutions July 2019) submitted by the applicant details the “extensive evidence for prehistoric exploitation and occupation of the Warmington area, which is consistent with the early focus of human activity on fertile watercourses such as the River Nene”, and documents a large number of prehistoric findspots that have been recorded in the vicinity of the site. The report also highlights that The Nene valley is of considerable archaeological importance for the Romano-British period, from the immediate area of the Nene and Welland to the north. The report also shows evidence of extensive Anglo-Saxon activity in the vicinity of the site, including the shrunken settlement of Eaglethorpe to the south, as well as suggesting that agricultural land associated with the flood plain was utilised during the Medieval and Post st Medieval period and on until the early 21 century.

The Archaelogical Assessment concludes that “The site has a high potential for prehistoric remains, a moderate potential for Anglo-Saxon archaeology, and a low potential for Romano-British, medieval, post-medieval and later periods remains”, however the report focusses only on the Plant Site (Application 3) and ignores the impact of the proposed activity in Application areas 1 and 2 where it is reasonable to assume that, given their close proximity and the aforementioned utilisation of the flood plain from the medieval period onwards, other archaeological evidence probably exists and will be destroyed directly and permanently by removal of minerals below the topsoil and subsoil. Based on the extent to which this archaeological asset will be changed by the scheme; the impact of the proposed development, is of the

Appendix 1 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

(5) highest level. Historic England (2017) recognise that “Heritage assets that comprise only buried remains may not be readily appreciated by a casual observer” but point out that “They nonetheless retain a presence in the landscape and, like other heritage assets, may have a setting”.

More visible to the ‘casual observer’ are the historical buildings that contribute to the character and amenity (2) of the area, that are of local historic value and, according to NPPF, 2019 (Chapter 16 para 184) “should be conserved so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future (2) generations”. The NPPF, 2019 also clarifies that the significance or value of a heritage asset comes “not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting”. The Historic Environment Impact Assessment (Archaeological Solutions, September 2019) identifies twelve heritage assets on which the proposed activity has the potential to impact upon due to their proximity to the Proposed Development Site and their greater visibility in the landscape. These assets have all been described as being of either high or medium significance according to the criteria used for assessing significance or importance of a heritage asset (Department for Communities and Local Governments’ Amended Circular Environmental Impact Assessment 1996). The report concludes that “In most cases, this impact can be assessed as negligible/minor”, based on the extent to which the heritage assets will be changed by the scheme. This statement is highly misleading as, while the assets themselves may not be altered by the proposed development, the way in which the public experience the asset in its setting will be totally altered, and (5) therefore the impact is high. According to Historic England (2017) , “setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced, and may therefore be more extensive than its curtilage” and “settings of heritage assets which closely resemble the setting at the time the asset was constructed or formed are likely to contribute particularly strongly to significance”. It also states that “buildings that are in close proximity but are not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic connection that amplifies the experience of the significance of each”.

The setting of the assets identified is of great importance because it either contributes to the historic character of the area or, due to the flat nature of the land in which they are located, offers extensive views both from and to the asset. The proposed large-scale, prominent and intrusive development cannot be accommodated without causing a detrimental impact on the sensitivity of the setting.

To illustrate how the historical environment contributes to the amenity of the local area, excerpts from the directional instructions of a popular circular walk are shown below. The walk connects Fotheringhay (to the north-west of the Proposed Development Site), Elton (to the north-east), and Eaglethorpe, Warmington (to the south-east).

Northamptonshirewalks.co.uk – walk 58 Fotheringhay Circular 21. Looking back to the left, we begin to see Elton Hall … 27. Our route lies down Eaglethorpe on the right. The oldest part of Warmington village is thought to be an area named Eaglethorpe, a small hamlet adjacent to the River Nene. A 1500 year old skeleton was found during an archeological dig in Eaglethorpe during the completion of the A605 bypass in 2002 29. The oldest property here is Eaglethorpe House built in 1607 … 31. Just walk 20 yards up the path on the right to see Warmington Dovecote … 32. Head into the underpass which contains some really good murals depicting the local points of interest in the village The water mill functioned until the mid 20th century … 34. It’s all very serene on the other side so pass through the gate & have a look back at the … … picturesque Mill from this side … 35. The path back to Fotheringhay is pretty much dead straight initially across the two bridges & then diagonally left across the next field – you can now see Fotheringhay Church in the distance … 37. A track which will lead us straight back to the village There’s some nice views along here & we … get our first view of the remains of Fotheringhay Castle …

Appendix 1 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

39. Told you it had lots of history!

It should be noted that 10 of the 12 heritage assets identified within the Historic Environment Impact Assessment feature in the above extract. The proposed development will have a negative impact on the setting of each of the assets individually, but when assessed as a whole the impact increases becomes even greater. ● Elton Hall (Grade II* listed park & garden). The bridleway crosses the park associated with Elton Hall and offers views of the Hall within its parkland setting. “We followed this across the parkland of Elton Hall for about a kilometre. The path is clearly marked and there are lovely views across to the stately hall” (thehelpfulhiker.com). Looking in the other direction, there are views across to Fotheringhay Church. The Historic Environment Impact Assessment states that “The proximity of the Proposed Development Site suggests that some noise from quarrying work may be witnessed within this part of the heritage asset”. A few minutes further along the walk, the pathway continues along the edge of the existing Plant Site, the extension of which forms part of Application 3. Even before this area is extended, it is described by the helpfulhiker.com as “the least photogenic part of the walk”. It should also be noted that from this elevated position, the spire of the Church of St. Mary the Virgin (Grade I listed building High) is visible and, as stated in the Historic Environment Impact Assessment “As the tower of the church of St. Mary the Virgin is visible from the Proposed Development Site the Proposed Development has the potential to alter views of this heritage asset when observed from the area to the north and north-west of the Proposed Development Site”. ● The residential hamlet of Eaglethorpe is included on the circular walk, but is also the enterance through which residents of Warmington, and visitors to the area, access the Nene Way, the bridleway and the area surrounding Warmington Mill. Within a short walk of 160 meters, 5 listed buildings are present, including Home Farm Cottage (Grade II listed building), Eaglethorpe House (Grade II listed building), Eaglethorpe Farmhouse Grade II listed building) and its Granary and attached barn (Grade II listed building) and the Dovecote ( Grade II listed building). As confirmed within the Historic Environment Impact Assessment “strung out over an area of 70m, these heritage assets form a coherent group seemingly related to one another. The closest of these to the Proposed Development Site is the dovecote, which lies 211m from the closest part of the site”. Furthermore “Due to the proximity of these heritage assets to the Proposed Development Site, it is possible that the operation of the Proposed Development will cause increased levels of noise to be experienced in their vicinity”. The report points out that the A605 lies in closer proximity and “is the source of more consistent levels of noise” although acknowledges that “none of which was particularly noticeable”. As a resident of Eaglethorpe I acknowledge that there is some noise from the A605 but, as it is a constant background noise, it is not intrusive. Noise from the Proposed Development Site will completely change the acoustic character of an otherwise tranquil location; it will create an additional noise source that will add to the overall noise level, and will introduce new erratic noises that will catch people’s attention and thus create more of a disturbance. It has already been pointed out that, as the prevailing wind is a westerly one, noise will carry from the proposed development site over Eaglethorpe and towards Warmington. The Historical Assessment concludes that because Eaglethorpe is “separated from the Proposed Development Site by the A605 road... this road forms both a physical (although there is an underpass beneath it for the Nene Way) and visual barrier between the heritage assets at Eaglethorpe and the Proposed Development Site. Views from the east containing these heritage assets do not include the Proposed Development Site, indicating that it will have no visual impact upon them”. I strongly disagree with this statement for three reasons: I. “Where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development affecting its setting, to accord with NPPF policies consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from, or can enhance, the significance of the asset. Historic England (2017)(5)

Appendix 1 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

II. “Buildings that are in close proximity but are not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic connection that amplifies the experience of the significance of each” Historic England (2017)(5) III. Contrary to the underpass being a “physical and visual barrier” between the two areas, the underpass is largely masked by vegetation and actually provides a strong link between the two areas – reinforced by the mural that reflect the importance of the area to the local population and features the dovecote, mill and church as well as the archaeology and wildlife, the flood meadow and the Nene Way. ● As mentioned within the Historic Environment Impact Assessment, the riverine landscape is integral to the historic function and reason for construction of Warmington Mill (Grade II listed building) and will be altered by the proposed development, potentially affecting the way in which the building is understood. “The Proposed Development will also serve to alter the character of the immediately surrounding landscape to which this heritage asset, as a mill, in intrinsically linked”. In addition, “The proximity of Warmington Mill to the Proposed Development Site suggests that noise from the operation of the site will be heard at this location. Although the heritage asset lies in proximity to the A605, it is likely that noise from the operation of the site will add to any noise from the road, altering the way in which the heritage asset is experienced”. Not only is the Mill appreciated for its architecture, its historical interest and its presence within the landscape, the area surrounding the Mill provides the wider community of Warmington with an amenity that is utilised for quiet recreation time. It is enjoyed throughout the day and into the evening, and especially at weekends. In the summer months in particular, the mill pond is a place for family activities that don’t involve mobile phones and computers; it is a place that improves physical and mental wellbeing. The Historic Environment Impact Assessment concludes that “The Mill itself, however, will not be physically altered by the Proposed Development and significant changes to its setting have occurred previously (the construction of the A605) without its significance being lost”, but Historic England (5) (2017) m ake an important point that “Where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development affecting its setting, to accord with NPPF policies consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from the significance of the asset”. Views of the mill from both the south and from north of the Proposed Development Site will be changed as they will incorporate the Proposed Development and the associated movement of ADT’s along the internal road. “We walked past Warmington Mill and stopped for a while so that Finn could look at the boats on the Marina. We then headed across the fields It helped that we could see the … church spire, which Finn thought was a castle, so this kept him motivated and walking forwards” (the helpfulhiker.com) ● As the Nene Way passes through the Proposed Development Site, views of The Church of St. Mary and All Saints, Fotheringhay (Grade I listed building) from this footpath will be altered. Fotheringhay Motte and Bailey Castle (Scheduled Monument) is not visible from this point, but the extraction area is from the castle, which will alter its setting and, as the Historic Assessment points out, “It is possible that some noise from the Proposed Development will be heard at this distance if the wind is in the right direction”.

(2) NPPF policy (2019) (Chpt 16, Conserving & enhancing the historic environment) states that “Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. This strategy should take into account the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation (5) of the historic environment can bring” (para 185). Historic England (2017) states “The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places”. The proposed activity will have a detrimental impact on the heritage assets and their setting and the enjoyment and understanding of them by local

Appendix 1 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

residents and visitors, and could threaten the economic vitality of local businesses within the neighbouring villages should visitors be deterred due to the impact of the proposed development.

3) Flood Risk The site identified for proposed mineral extraction (Application 1) lies primarily within an area categorised as Flood Zone 3b according to The East Northamptonshire Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Review i.e. land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. Further information has been submitted by the th applicant (Appendix 1 Flood Risk Response to EA20 June 2019) following concerns expressed by the Environment Agency, namely that the bailey bridge will increase flood risk elsewhere and that works associated with mineral extraction will adversely affect the geomorphology and structure of the river channel. The response makes no mention of the increased risk of flooding in the nearby hamlet of Eaglethorpe, due to impediment of flood flows and reduction of flood storage capacity resulting from the mineral extraction activity.

Eaglethorpe is identified as an area that has a high chance of flooding from surface water. When both ground water and river levels are high the flood water collects in the underpass to the south of the excavation site that connects Eaglethorpe to the area around Warmington Mill, due to the natural drainage systems reaching capacity. If the level of water in the Mill Pond is high, surface water run-off collects in the underpass, because the culvert outlet becomes submersed and therefore the free flow of water is prevented. Flood water then extends back from the underpass and along Eaglethorpe, making vehicular and pedestrian access to properties impossible on occasion. It is important to note that the underpass is the point at which the area surrounding Warmington Mill, The Nene Way and the bridleway are accessed by residents of Warmington and visitors to the area. Increased flooding and frequency of the underpass will deny access to this important local amenity. Within the Flood Risk Report, the applicant states that the site will be restored using imported inert material gained from the extraction process. Section 6 of this same report also states that “Surface run off would likely be increased by an increase in the area of impermeable surfaces through imported materials with a lower permeability”. Not only does this contradict national guidance which requires that developments do not impede water flows, but if this run off is directed towards the tail race, as suggested in the application, then the Mill Pond will receive extra water and will in turn cause an impediment to water flowing through the existing culvert. The concerns in relation to the increased th flood risk were raised at the public consultation held on 18 May 2019. Despite being assured that the applicant would respond to specific concerns no reply or reassurance had been provided by then. It can only be concluded from this that the public consultation was, at best, a PR exercise undertaken by the applicant with no intention of taking seriously issues raised by the public, or at worse, the applicant is unable to demonstrate that the proposed mineral extraction will not significantly increase the risk of flooding in Eaglethorpe and has therefore chosen not to communicate with the community.

In the Flood Risk response to the Environment Agency (June 2019) the applicant states plans to lower ground levels on the flood plain as part of the restoration in order to increase flood storage. This may be seen as mitigation but it will have a permanent impact on the amenity of the area by making the land unsuitable for agricultural grazing (to which it is meant to return), and also reduce the accessibility of the public footpath that crosses the flood plain, which is likely to flood more frequently as a result. Therefore, the proposals for Elton 2, particularly in relation to Application 1 are in conflict with Government Policy regarding flood risk and could have a permanent impact on the surrounding area.

Conclusion “Planning policies should . ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable … adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality” NPPF (2019)(2

Appendix 1 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

The large volume of documentation submitted by the applicant reflects the scale of the proposed development and the many ways that it will impact upon the local area, residents and visitors.

The application does not fulfil the criteria of Policy 3 (Development criteria for mineral extraction) of the Northamptonshire MWLP in that it fails to comply with the spatial strategy for mineral extraction, and that it is not required to maintain an adequate supply of minerals.

It is acknowledged that some mitigation and compensation measures have been offered in the planning application. But how can you compensate for the loss of an amenity as valued and unique as this which can’t be recreated the other side of the village or replaced by a new, completely different community facility.

Residents of Eaglethorpe, despite the mitigating measures contained within the planning application, do believe that the quality of life that currently experienced and the enjoyment of property will be diminished as a result of the mineral extraction and associated activity that forms the basis of the planning applications submitted. Disturbance by noise, dust and air pollution from exhaust emissions will be experienced and exacerbated by the prevailing westerly wind direction. There is also extreme concern that activity that impacts on the normal operation of the flood plain and river system will lead to a greater flood risk in Eaglethorpe and thus the ability to access my property by vehicle or by foot. However, the main focus of the objection to the granting of planning permission relates to the way in which the proposed development will negatively impact on the appearance and amenity of the surrounding area for the community of Warmington and visitors to the area, and on the basis of how the application contravenes a wide range of local and national planning policies.

The applicant is keen to stress the ‘temporary’ nature of the disruption but given the works and aftercare plan, even if completed on schedule and without applications for extensions (as occurred with Elton 1), temporary in this instance is a minimum of 15 years. That is 15 years of disturbance to habitat and species, 15 years that local residents will be denied the level of amenity that is currently experienced and appreciated and, given that a number of bird species found here are currently red or amber listed, who is to say that the biodiversity of the area will not be permanently affected. This planning application is not supported by National Planning Policy, which seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the natural environment and aims to “prevent new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution” (NPPF, 2019) (2)

Look at the overall picture, not just the specific elements. How much mitigation. Compensation is irrelevant

The proposed extraction and processing works are estimated to last for 9 years plus a further year to complete final restoration works, and with an aftercare plan lasting for a further 5 years, ‘temporary’ disruption to the area will be for a minimum of 15 years. Sadly this means that older members of the community will be forevermore denied the amenity that this area provides should work commence, and the younger generation, who will grow up and no doubt move away in the intervening years, be denied the opportunity for enjoying quiet recreational time in a rural landscape on the edge of their village.

References:

1. Warmington Neighbourhood Plan 2031 (WNP) 2. National Planning Policy Framework, Feb 2019. (NPPF) 3. North Northants Joint Core Strategy 2011 – 2031, July 2018 (NNJCS) 4. Previous Planning Decisions (collectively known as “Elton 1”) ▪ 02/00846/CRA, 05/02356/NCC, 13/00073/MINVOC & 14/01140/NCC

Appendix 1 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

5. Historic England - The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3, 2nd Edition, Dec 2017

Eaglethorpe: Photograph taken 9.30am, 16th February 2020.

After overnight rainfall, surface water run-off from the direction of Warmington collected at the end of Eaglethorpe. At the time the photograph was taken the water did not continue past the gate and on towards the underpass. Whether it did so during the previous night, I do not know. The water gradually drained away, via the road drain below. On previous occasions (approximately 2 / 3 times over the last 16 years) surface water run-off from the direction of Warmington has been much more dramatic with water coming up out of the drains, lifting manhole covers, flooding a greater area and to a greater depth before continuing on towards and through the underpass. Clearly on such occasions the drainage system has reached capacity and the rate at which it dissipates has been determined by the free flow of water away from the area.

Photographs taken 17th February 2020, at the underpass below the A605

View of water collecting in the underpass, looking from Eaglethorpe towards Wamington Mill

Position of drain at the Warmington Mill end of the underpass Close up of submerged drain. Free flow of flood water away from underpass prevented

Flooding in the underpass corresponds with high water levels in the Mill pond and tailrace, and usually happens several times during winter months

View of the Mill pond looking from the Mill towards the underpass, and showing the culvert submerged by the high water

Flooding within the underpass always coincides with high water levels in the Mill Pond. The standing water within the underpass can extend back towards Eaglethorpe

As I have no specialist knowledge I cannot state whether the water in the underpass is there because it cannot escape through the culvert, or whether the water in the Mill pond is ‘backing up’.

My concern remains that there could be an increase in the frequency and depth of flooding in the underpass as a result of changes to the flood plain and river channels caused by the proposed development Appendix 3 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

PLANNING REFERENCES: 19/00033/MINFUL, 19/00034/MINVOC & 19/00035/MINFUL

th I attended the public meeting on Thursday 13 February 2020, held in order for the developer to convey their updated proposals in relation to the above planning applications and to provide an opportunity for the community to offer their views. Northamptonshire County Council was represented at the meeting by Mr. Phil Watson (Development Control Manager) and the Applicant by Mr. James Sutton (Restoration and Mineral Planner, Ingrebourne Valley Ltd) and Mr. Douglas Symes (Mineral Planning & Development Consultant).

I wish to register my concern over what I can only describe as the dismissive attitude by the representatives towards questions raised by the public which, rather than providing any reassurances to the residents of Warmington and other interested parties, only illustrated the lack of public engagement sought by the applicant and the disregard that they have for public opinion. It is not my intention to recount the questions raised as I am sure that these will have already been made through individual letters of representation; some will be used however to illustrate the concerns that I have over approach and attitude, specifically:

1. No attempt at public engagement prior to submitting the planning applications.

Mr. Watson confirmed that the application was submitted in April 2019, after which a public meeting / exhibition took place in May. Although a liaison group meeting relating to ‘Elton 1’ had taken place in March 2019 the applicant was not in a position to discuss proposals for ‘Elton 2’ in any detail as, according to Mr. Sutton, there was still much to agree with Elton Estates (the landowner) at that time. When asked why the meeting hadn’t taken place before the submission, Mr. Sutton suggested that this was due to time pressures but also that the applicant felt that they had a robust application, there was a need for such development and that as the site was included in the Mineral and Waste Plan it had already gone through a consultation process. One could conclude that the applicant had reason to believe that approval of the application was almost a formality and required little need for public engagement – although I am aware of the controversy over whether correct procedure was followed regarding the inclusion of the site in the Mineral and Waste Plan.

In my opinion, the planning application that was submitted was understandably based on the commercial activity that the developer wished to proceed with and was supported by consultant reports that are required as part of the planning process, but which provide no basis for recognising or addressing the concerns that would inevitably have been raised if there had been any form of public consultation / engagement prior to the submission.

2. Reluctance to acknowledge the strength of local opinion

The nature and strength of public opposition to the application was clear at the public meeting held in May 2019, at which both Mr. Watson and Mr. Sutton were present. In addition both Mr. Sutton and Mr. Symes confirmed at the meeting last week that they had seen a copy of the Warmington Neighbourhood Plan in which the high value that the local community place on the area included in the planning application, in terms of both amenity and landscape is clearly stated.

The representatives at the meeting were unable to demonstrate that they had made any attempt to measure either how this area was used or the frequency it was used by residents and visitors, nor gauge the Appendix 3 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

impact that the proposed development would therefore have; yet the threat to the local amenity - walking, fishing, boating etc., not to mention the associated physical and mental health benefits derive from it, is one of the major objections raised. I am sure it forms a large percentage of the 110 objections Mr. Watson has stated as being received to date.

When questioned about impact on amenity, Mr. Symes stated that it had already been addressed in the Environment Report relating to noise, dust, traffic, separation etc. Although Mr. Watson clarified that concerns relating to amenity will be considered within planning reports, he expressed an opinion that the amenity of the area will not end and that activities mentioned can still take place; as he said, quarrying may be going on but people will still be able to walk the footpath etc. The Update Statement 1 Report, submitted by Mr. Symes (November 2019) clearly states however that any formal agreement for fishing from the river banks will be withdrawn during the period of operation (10 years) - although there may be limited access to the western area during phase 1 and 2. After year 5 however, “access for recreational activities is restricted in all sections of the extension area”. Furthermore, the same report points out that Elton Boat Club has a lease with Elton Estates and “If these mitigation measures are not considered appropriate then this section of bank can be temporarily cleared of any boats while workings take place”.

To me, these comments illustrated an unwillingness by the representatives at the meeting to hear or recognise that the public, while acknowledging that they may not be prevented from using the amenity, will gain no pleasure from doing so when there is such disturbance to the amenity, landscape and character of the area caused by noise, dust, traffic and commercial activity. It is the current level of amenity within a tranquil, rural and historic environment that this application will take away from local residents and visitors.

Mr. Sutton has confirmed that, together with their Landscape Consultant, the applicant will be reviewing points raised relating to the adverse impact on landscape and amenity and will respond in a revised update. I can only assume that the applicant failed to recognise this as a potential area of conflict prior to submitting their proposals in April 2019, or maybe they just didn’t think that the community would mind losing such a highly valued local facility.

3. A reactionary rather than pro-active approach to providing solutions to issues raised

In some instances, the concerns raised by the public have been based on experiences associated with the development of ‘Elton 1’. At the meeting last week a point was raised relating to the pollution, debris, broken fencing etc. that exists at the site of Elton 1, and the concern that this same situation could occur at Elton 2 if development is allowed to proceed. Mr. Symes stated that he was not aware of these problems and is reliant on members of the public reporting such incidents. This would suggest to me that the applicant is not proactive in inspecting the area during their operations nor taking steps to minimise the impact; addressing issues only after a complaint has been received.

Similarly, a number of concerns have been raised by the public relating to the impact of traffic associated with Elton 1 and which is predicted to be an issue with Elton 2; one of which is the Elton junction (and farm track opposite) being used by quarry vehicles for performing U- turns. Again, the applicant is not aware of any previous complaints, and Mr. Sutton suggested that if this were to occur in the future the public should note and provide the registration number of offending vehicles so that action can be taken. Mr. Symes added that the public could also submit photographic evidence. If evidence of such breaches to the advised route for HGV’s was provided, Mr. Watson confirmed that NCC could impose fines under section 106 of the Planning Act. It is my opinion that not only would it be dangerous for members of the public to capture Appendix 3 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

written or photographic evidence while approaching an already dangerous junction, but that the proposed follow up action is again reactive not proactive - despite Mr. Symes admitting that the public concern had been ‘understood from day 1’. If there was awareness at such an early stage, it was surprising to hear representatives at the meeting question whether any weight restrictions were currently in existence through Elton, and raise the possibility of additional signage at the junction that would prohibit quarry traffic to use the junction for turning.

It is my impression that the representatives at the meeting displayed a confidence that the development would proceed, that reports submitted by their consultants negated any concerns raised by the public (despite the accuracy of measurement criteria being questioned by the public), and that rather than proactively seek to identify and propose solutions to any issues identified the applicant will react if necessary after the event; in the meantime the local community has to suffer the consequences and fight for action to be taken.

4. Accuracy of Information included within Consultant Reports

Both official consultees and members of the public have already raised a number of questions relating to the accuracy and relevance of measurements and ‘facts’ included in consultant reports submitted in April 2019 to support the application, especially in relation to flood risk, noise, ecology, traffic and visual impact . I acknowledge that as a result the Applicant has supplied a number of revisions (November 2019) and it was confirmed at the meeting that further revisions / updates are to be provided over the coming months. Having no specific experience or training in mineral extraction, hydrology, ecology etc., I have attended public meetings and read the reports with the expectation that the information provided by experts will be accurate, relevant, well researched and unbiased –after all, it is upon this information that I can comment and which I assume the Planning Committee will make a decision. I am greatly concerned that so many revisions have been necessary, and that it has been up to the public to challenge so many of the ‘facts’ presented by the experts.

By way of example, I use a question that was raised at the meeting last week. A member of the public questioned the stated community benefit through salaries (£300,000) and local spending (£300,000) that the proposed development would provide, when local opinion is that there would actually be a negative economic impact due to local shops and public houses loosing trade as a result of less people using the amenity of the area because of the disruption caused by mineral extraction. In response Mr. Symes said that it was a national requirement to state the benefit to the local area, but would need to check the figures submitted as they appeared unusual. He suggested that the figure of £300,000 possibly related to rates.

Having revisited the supporting documentation since the meeting, I can confirm that within section 8 (Socio – Economic Effects) of the Planning & Environmental Statement, prepared on behalf of Ingrebourne Valley Ltd by D.K. Symes Associates (April 2019), the figures are set out as follows:

● A direct economic benefit in terms of payroll to workforce circa £300,000 per annum (section 8.3) ● Indirect employment opportunities and services including office supplies through to plant maintenance, a further £300,000 per annum (section 8.4) ● Contribution in terms of rates £400,000 - £425,000 (section 8.4)

Given that the figures are ‘unusual’, I would have thought that the way in which they were arrived at would have been more memorable. I would also like to know how they relate to the local area as many within the Appendix 3 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

local community fail to see how the villages of Warmington, Fotheringhay and Elton – the communities most adversely affected by the proposed development - could in any way provide the workforce or supplies that have been suggested.

5. Inability to provide guarantees as to the duration of the proposed activity

Within the documents submitted by the application in support of ‘Elton 2’, there are numerous references to the temporary nature of the development. Given that the planning application states that the extraction activity and restoration work will continue for 14 years and in light of the numerous planning extensions to the completion deadline for Elton 1, the local community sought a guarantee from the applicant that the works would end when stated.

In relation to Elton 1, Mr. Sutton stated that the recession meant that demand for sand and gravel fell, resulting in material being stock piled and interruptions to the planned operation at the site. He also admitted that they hadn’t foreseen a problem in sourcing suitable clay to line the reservoir, and Mr. Symes went on to describe how the suitable clay that is available is much more restricted. Furthermore, although clay that is present at ‘Elton 2’ could be used to complete the agricultural reservoir, it is not guaranteed that it will be available to the applicant as they are at the mercy of the market. It is not therefore possible to tell when it can be obtained. In addition, and in relation to the current application for Elton 2, Mr. Symes said that there was a need to recognise that events can change during the lifetime of the mineral working and that it is therefore unwise to provide a guarantee when it is known that circumstances beyond your control may mean that you cannot. He pointed out that they (the applicant) supply minerals, they do not generate demand and they cannot predict economic conditions that will determine the demand.

I appreciate the honesty of the answer provided by Mr. Symes at the meeting but whereas I was extremely concerned that the proposed activity would cause a detrimental impact on the site and it’s wider setting for the suggested 14 years, I am now horrified to hear that economic conditions could result in the site not been fully restored until many years later; in fact nobody can provide any reassurance as to when mineral extraction activity will end nor when restoration would be complete. Rather than temporary, the duration of activity has now become ‘open ended’ and the use of temporary as a form of mitigation is no longer relevant.

Conclusion

It is my belief that the Applicant submitted the current planning application for purely commercial gain, as would be expected, but in doing so made no attempt to engage with the public beforehand as required by the NCC statement of community engagement. The supporting consultant reports may meet the requirements of the planning process but show no understanding or acknowledgement of the impact that the development would have on the local community and wider public, both at the site itself and in relation to its wider setting. I do not believe that public concerns, which were raised at the meeting held in May 2019, were in any way pre-empted by the initial submission nor been addressed satisfactorily in subsequent revisions and updates. I also feel that questions relating to relevance / accuracy of data relied on within some of the reporting has been dismissed too easily by the Applicant. The fact that the application and supporting documentation has stated a specific duration for the proposed extraction and restoration, and stressed the temporary nature of the disruption is clearly misleading as it is now apparent that the Applicant has no control over the conditions that will determine the end of the quarrying activities. Appendix 3 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL

The National Planning Policy Framework (Feb 2019) states that “The role of the planning system is to ensure that society’s need for minerals and the benefits that mineral working can bring, are properly weighed in any decision making process against the impacts on our environment of minerals extraction, processing and transport” (section 17). Furthermore, “Planning policies should set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality” (para 204). Mr. Watson indicated at the meeting last week that the Planning Report is likely to be produced and the Planning Committee meet in June / June 2020. I can only hope that the NPPF and the policies of the North Northants Joint Core Strategy 2011 – 2031 (July 2018) in relation to Protecting and Enhancing Assets, Landscape Character, Community and Amenity will provide the framework within which the planning application will be considered, the nature and the substantial number of objections raised by the public will be recognised, and that the application for the proposed development will be rejected as a result.

Appendix 4 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL - Part 1 Warmington Flood Meadows Record of Minerals Applications and Compliance

This timeline illustrates the past performance of the operator in completing a ‘4 year’ project that was deemed essential at the time of the application in 2002. Now, 18 years later, none of the mitigating community benefits promoted during the application and approval process have been provided. The ‘essential’ reservoir has never been used. At the public meeting in February the agent, IVL and the NCC representative all agreed that the delays were due to economic, commercial and minerals related circumstances that could not be foreseen but were regarded as an inevitable part of life in minerals operations. This leads to the reasonable conclusion that the stated 10 year timescale for Elton 2 can only be regarded as a minimum term and the most likely term will be at least 4 times this if past performance is to be any guide. Given that the Covid Pandemic did not occur in the period analysed above it would be reasonable to expect more serious consequences so a predicted 40 year term should be regarded as a reasonable planning assumption. The harmful effects on the community must be judged against this timescale and not the 10 years stated in the applications. The full period of loss of amenity to the public if this new quarry is approved would then be in the order of 60 years, that’ s a lifetime and in no way can be considered to be ‘temporary’. Furthermore the failure to provide any of the mitigating benefits and the lack of enforcement to ensure that planning conditions are complied with must be considered to be a material planning matter if the public are to have any confidence in the planning process.

Application/Record Condition Date by which Date compliance achieved Enforcement and Date compliance must be Actions achieved as modified by subsequent approvals EN/02/846C. 1.The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 2 July 2007 2008 None 23rd August 2002 years from the date of this permission. (2 July 2004) 20. The bridleway crossing the haul road into the site and ongoing not complied with None along the south eastern boundary shall be safeguarded in accordance with a scheme of measures to be submitted and agreed in writing prior to mineral extraction operations commencing on site. The agreed scheme shall be implemented throughout the life of the operations. 25. A bird hide with public access linked to the existing public 1 January 2013 extended and amended by None bridleway shall be provided as part of the restoration works. subsequent applications and Further details of the hide and public access link including completion of extraction to design, materials, colour and location shall be submitted and 30 June 2016 agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority and implemented NOT COMPLIED WITH within the six month restoration period referred to in condition 28 of this permission. 26. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the 2 January 2013 extended by subsequent - Mineral Planning Authority the amended restoration scheme, application EN/05/2356C to reference Plan 950101R13b received by this Authority on 22" 23 February 2014 August 2003 shall be implemented upon cessation of the mineral extraction operations hereby permitted and shall be completed before the end of this permission as stated in Condition 28. 28. The development hereby permitted shall cease not later 2 January 2013 extended by subsequent - than 5 years from the date of commencement given in application EN/05/2356C to accordance with Condition1 above and the land shall be 23 Fenruary 2014 restored or reinstated within 6 months of this date in accordance with the conditions of this permission. EN/05/2356C 28. The development hereby permitted shall cease not later 23 February 2014 changed by subsequent - 25th November 2005 than 5 years from the date of commencement given in application 09/00047/MIN to accordance with Condition1 above and the land shall be 1 September 2013 restored within 6 months of this date in accordance with the conditions of this permission. 09/00047/MIN 26. The development hereby permitted shall cease not later 1 September 2013 changed by subsequent 2nd October 2009 than 1st March 2013 or when the associated mineral application extraction has ceased for a period in excess of 6 months, 13/00073/MINVOC to 31 whichever date is the earlier, and the land shall be restored July 2018 within 6 months of this date in accordance with the conditions of this permission. 13/00073/MINVOC 26. The development hereby permitted shall cease and the 31 July 2018 changed by completion of None 11th June 2014 site be fully restored, not later than 31 July 2018 or when the extraction to 30 June 2016 associated mineral extraction has ceased for a period in NOT COMPLIED WITH excess of 6months, whichever date is the earlier. 13/00074/MINVOC 26. The development hereby permitted shall cease and the 31 July 2018 changed by completion of None 11th June 2014 site be fully restored, not later than 31 July 2018 or when the extraction to 30 June 2016 associated mineral extraction has ceased for a period in NOT COMPLIED WITH excess of 6months, whichever date is the earlier. MWLP Monitoring "3.13.Sand and gravel extraction in 2015 was completed at 30 June 2016 becomes - - Report for 2015 Castle Manor Quarry and the site has almost been restored, the condition End Date Jan 2016 there was continued extraction at Bozeat but both Earls by which restoration Barton Spinney and Earls Barton West remain mothballed. must be complete - (6 Both Elton Estate and Lilford have completed extraction months after 31st and are moving towards restoration..." December 2015) 18/00032/MINVOC 26. The development hereby permitted shall cease and the 31 July 2020 This condition is logically None 4th July 2018 site be fully restored, not later than 31 July 2020 or when the absurd as extraction was associated mineral extraction has ceased for a period in completed in 2015 setting excess of 6 months, whichever date is the earlier. the End Date to 30 June 2016 18/00031/MINVOC 26. The development hereby permitted shall cease and the 31 July 2020 This condition is logically None 4th July 2018 site be fully restored, not later than 31 July 2020 or when the absurd as extraction was associated mineral extraction has ceased for a period in completed in 2015 setting excess of 6 months, whichever date is the earlier. the End Date to 30 June 2016 Appendix 4 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL - Part 2

Warmington Flood Meadows Record of Minerals Applications and Compliance

A record of the details of Planning Applications and Decisions concerning minerals and excavations in the areas of the Flood Meadows in Warmington

1992 An application to create a marina across the Flood Meadows was made in 1992 - EN91/0920 refused 1996 An application for gravel extraction in the was made in1996 - EN96/0461 - refused

2002 An application to create an agricultural reservoir in the same position as EN96/0461 was made on 23 August 2002 - EN/02/846C. Construction of an agricultural reservoir together with removal of surplus material arising in the course of construction and the importation of a limited quantity of engineering clay. Land north of Eaglethorpe, Warmington. The Elton Estate. EN/02/846C. The reasoning behind the application was explained by the agent as reported in the minutes of a Warmington PC meeting 8th October 2002: “Mr Symes then outlined the principles behind the application. Basically it has been driven by pressure in the world of agriculture to diversify. The reservoir will be filled from the river Nene in winter when surplus water is available. The construction period has been estimated at 4 years because of the volume of materials to be removed.”

2004 Year 0 This application was approved on 2 July2004 with conditions 1.The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission. =2 July 2007 20. The bridleway crossing the haul road into the site and along the south eastern boundary shall be safeguarded in accordance with a scheme of measures to be submitted and agreed in writing prior to mineral extraction operations commencing on site. The agreed scheme shall be implemented throughout the life of the operations. Bird Hide 25. A bird hide with public access linked to the existing public bridleway shall be provided as part of the restoration works. Further details of the hide and public access link including design, materials, colour and location shall be submitted and agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority and implemented within the six month restoration period referred to in condition 28 of this permission. Restoration 26. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority the amended restoration scheme, reference Plan 950101R13b received by this Authority on 22" August 2003 shall be implemented upon cessation of the mineral extraction operations hereby permitted and shall be completed before the end of this permission as stated in Condition 28. Reason (21-26) - To protect the existing tree screen and to ensure proper restoration, landscaping and aftercare of the site within a reasonable time in accordance with detailed agreed plans, in the interests of the environment and local amenity. (Minerals Local Plan NMLP36). End Date 28. The development hereby permitted shall cease not later than 5 years from the date of commencement given in accordance with Condition1 above and the land shall be restored or reinstated within 6 months of this date in accordance with the conditions of this permission. =2 January 2013 Appendix 4 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL - Part 2

2005 Year 1 An application for the processing plant was made on 25 November 2005 - EN/05/2356C Erection of a low profile sand and gravel processing plant at land to the north of Eaglethorpe, Warmington, Northants. 2006 Year 2 Approved on 23 February 2006 with conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission. =23 February 2009 End Date 28. The development hereby permitted shall cease not later than 5 years from the date of commencement given in accordance with Condition1 above and the land shall be restored within 6 months of this date in accordance with the conditions of this permission. =23 February 2014

2007 The development permitted by EN/02/846C had to begin by 2 July 2007 2008 Year 4 Works to the A605 took place in November/December 2008 to create the required entry to the Plant Area 2009 Year 5 The Northamptonshire MWDF Annual Monitoring Report 2009-10 (December 2010) states that “Sand and gravel extraction in 2009 continued at ...the Elton Estate (Eaglethorpe)”, The 2008-9 report makes no mention of any extraction. Extraction is believed to have begun in early 2009 subsequent to the necessary works to the A605 completed in late 2008..

An application to vary details of the plant works was made on 3 July 2009 - NCC/09/00047/MIN EN/09/01072/NCC Variation of condition 3 of planning permission EN/05/02356C to vary the details of the plant and ancillary works, on land north of Eaglethorpe, Warmington, Northants. Approved 2 October 2009 with conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission. =2 October 2012 End Date 26. The development hereby permitted shall cease not later than 1st March 2013 or when the associated mineral extraction has ceased for a period in excess of 6 months, whichever date is the earlier, and the land shall be restored within 6 months of this date in accordance with the conditions of this permission. =1 September 2013 2014 Year 10 A retrospective application to extend the end date for extraction was made on 11 June 2014 - NCC 13/00073/MINVOC ENC 14/1140/NCC Variation of condition 28 to retrospectively extend the end date to 2018 for planning permission EN/02/0846C for the construction of an agricultural reservoir together with removal of surplus material arising in the course of construction and the importation of a limited quantity of engineering clay at Land North Of Eaglethorpe, Warmington, Northamptonshire. Approved 26 September 2014 with conditions End Date 26. The development hereby permitted shall cease and the site be fully restored, not later than 31 July 2018 or when the associated mineral extraction has ceased for a period in excess of 6months, whichever date is the earlier.

Appendix 4 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL - Part 2

A retrospective application to extend the end date for works was made on 11 June 2014 - NCC 13/00074/MINVOC ENC 14/1142/NCC Variation of Condition 26 to retrospectively extend the end date to 2018 for Planning Permission 09/00047/MIN for the Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission EN/05/2356C to vary the details of the plant and ancillary works at Land North Of Eaglethorpe, Warmington, Northamptonshire. Approved 26 September 2014 with conditions End Date 25. The development hereby permitted shall cease and the site be fully restored, not later than 31 July 2018 or when the associated mineral extraction has ceased for a period in excess of 6months, whichever date is the earlier. 2015 Year 11 Extraction Ceased December 2015=EX Month 0 2016 Year 12 In January 2016 The Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Minerals and Waste Monitoring Report 2015 reported that extraction had been completed in 2015 3.13.Sand and gravel extraction in 2015 was completed at Castle Manor Quarry and the site has almost been restored, there was continued extraction at Bozeat but both Earls Barton Spinney and Earls Barton West remain mothballed. Both Elton Estate and Lilford have completed extraction and are moving towards restoration...

2018 Year 14June 2018=EX Month 30 An application to extend the end date for reservoir construction and extraction was made on 4 July 2018 - NCC18/00032/MINVOC ENC 18/01566/NCC Variation of Condition 26 (End Date) of planning consent 13/00073/MINVOC to retrospectively extend end date to 31 July 2020, for the construction of an agricultural reservoir together with removal of surplus material arising in the course of construction and the importation of limited quantity of engineering clay. Elton Quarry, Land north of Eaglethorpe, Warmington, Northamptonshire PE8 6S Approved 26 October 2018 with conditions End Date 26. The development hereby permitted shall cease and the site be fully restored, not later than 31 July 2020 or when the associated mineral extraction has ceased for a period in excess of 6 months, whichever date is the earlier.

An application to extend the end date for operations was made on 4 July 2018 - NCC18/00031/MINVOC ENC 18/01565/NCC Variation of Condition 25 (End Date) of planning consent 13/0004/MINVOC to retrospectively extend end date to 31 July 2020, for the plant site and ancillary works associated with the construction of an agricultural reservoir together with removal of surplus material arising in the course of construction and the importation of limited quantity of engineering clay. Elton Quarry, Land north of Eaglethorpe, Warmington, Northamptonshire PE8 6SN Approved 26 October 2018 with conditions End Date 26. The development hereby permitted shall cease and the site be fully restored, not later than 31 July 2020 or when the associated mineral extraction has ceased for a period in excess of 6 months, whichever date is the earlier. 2019 Year 15April 2019=EX Month 40 A retrospective application to extend the size of the existing pant site was made on 18 April 2019 - 19/00035/MINFUL

Retrospective mineral application for an extension to the existing plant and ancillary works site in order to provide additional operational space for material treatment, stockpiling and temporary storage Appendix 4 to Warmington Parish Council Objection to 19/00033/MINFUL - Part 2 with restoration to agricultural land Elton Quarry, Land north of Eaglethorpe, Warmington, Northamptonshire PE8 6SN

An application to extend the end date for the plant site, import material, and install new plant was made on 18 April 2019 - 19/00034/MINVOC

Section 73 application to vary conditions 2, 3, 7 & 26 of planning permission 18/00032/MINVOC to enable a new replacement low profile processing plant to be erected as well as to import reclamation material, a proportion of which will need to be treated to make it suitable for restoration and an extension of the completion date to 31 July 2030

An application for a new quarry and associated works was made on 18 April 2019 - 19/00033/MINFUL

Phased mineral extraction, construction of a bailey bridge to cross a branch of the River Nene, importation of reclamation material including ancillary activities, with restoration to agricultural pasture and wet woodland

2020 Year 16 June 2019=EX Month 54

“The development hereby permitted shall cease and the site be fully restored when the associated mineral extraction has ceased for a period in excess of 6 months”

54-6=48months=4 YEARS Restoration? Bird Hide? PD1 maintenance? Enforcement? Appendix 5 - Destination Warmington Warmington CP Economic and Tourism Zones, LWS and County Paths Author:

Date: 08/06/2020 Scale: 1:15000 Greenway

Economic development zone

Tourism and recreation zone

Nene Way

Local Wildlife Sites

Parish