E

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

24TH JANUARY 2013

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

COUNTY MATTER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

APP. NO. & DATE: 2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) – 21st March 2011

PROPOSAL: Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary conditions 5 and 6 of planning permission 2006/1565/03 to extend mineral extraction at Shawell Quarry from Stage 7 westwards into a small field and restore to agriculture and nature conservation water bodies

LOCATION: Shawell Quarry, Gibbet Lane, Shawell, ()

APPLICANT: Lafarge Aggregates Ltd.

MAIN ISSUES: Extension of existing sand and gravel quarry, removal of species-rich hedgerow.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMIT subject to conditions requiring further ecological survey works and the translocation of an existing hedgerow on the site to another location adjacent to the extraction area.

Circulation under the Local Issues Alert Procedure

Mr. G. A. Hart CC

Officer to Contact

Georg Urban (tel. 0116 305 6756) e-mail: [email protected]

2

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

PART B – MAIN REPORT

Site Location and Planning History

1. The Shawell Quarry/Cotesbach quarry and landfill site is located north west of the village of Shawell and south of the village of Cotesbach, near Lutterworth. The mineral extraction and landfill area is located north of Gibbet Lane, a narrow road linking Shawell with the A5/A426 junction to the west of the site. The associated minerals processing plant, a number of silt settlement lagoons, a roof tile works and a concrete blockworks are located to the south of the road. Mineral is transported from the extraction area to the processing plant by means of a conveyor which crosses under Gibbet Lane. An inert waste recovery and recycling facility is also situated south of Gibbet Lane. There is also a mechanical/biological treatment (MBT) facility associated with the landfill site. This is located on the north side of Gibbet Lane adjacent to the entrance to the landfill site and treats municipal wastes.

2. The nearest property in Cotesbach is Town End Farm, which is located 90- 110m north of the quarry boundary. The southern edge of Lutterworth is about 2km north of the site boundary.

3. Shawell Quarry has been in operation since the late 1950s. The first planning permission for sand and gravel extraction dates back to January 1958. In the late 1970s, extraction operations took place on land near Hill Farm, to the west of the A426 Lutterworth Road. Since then, a number of planning permissions have been granted for mineral extraction, the erection of plant, landfilling of waste and other operational works.

4. The quarry and associated mineral planning permissions have been the subject of a periodic review of planning conditions under the Environment Act 1995. An updated schedule of planning conditions for the mineral planning permissions at Shawell Quarry was approved by the Development Control and Regulatory Board in April 2005.

5. A more recent planning permission was granted in September 2007 (reference 2006/1565/03) and covers the extraction of sand and gravel from an area to the west of the previously permitted quarry/landfill. It also includes a revision of the permitted scheme of working and extends the existing landfill operation into the new western extension.

6. A number of Public Rights of Way are located near the site. The original route of Footpath X26 traverses the consented mineral extraction/landfill area from Cotesbach to the north of the quarry and links to Gibbet Lane in the south. This footpath is currently the subject of a temporary diversion for the duration of quarrying and landfill operations. The original route of Footpath X26 would be reinstated following the final restoration of the site. Bridleway X27 also links the unnamed lane to the north of the quarry and Gibbet Lane in the south. The route of this bridleway has been diverted temporarily along the western edge of the quarry and would also be reinstated following site reclamation.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 3

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 4

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

Proposed Development

7. Planning permission 2006/1565/03 is subject to a condition (Condition 5) which requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the planning application and accompanying documents. The drawings submitted with planning application 2006/1565/03 identify the extent of the permitted mineral extraction area by a dashed brown line. In addition, Condition 6 requires that the working and reclamation of the site shall be carried out progressively in accordance with the submitted details. A scheme of working and restoration was submitted with the planning application.

8. The operator of Shawell Quarry, Lafarge Aggregates UK Limited, proposes to extract sand and gravel from an agricultural field in the extreme north western part of the site, which is located inside the boundary of planning permission 2006/1565/03 and adjacent to but outside the limits of the permitted mineral extraction area as identified on the drawings submitted with the planning application.

9. In order to be able to work the mineral resources in this area and to adapt the permitted extraction phasing of the site accordingly, Lafarge Aggregates Ltd. has submitted a planning application for the variation of conditions 5 and 6 of planning permission 2006/1565/03.

10. The area of land from which Lafarge intend to extract sand and gravel is referred to in the application as “Stage 7A” and currently consists of pasture land. An agricultural field is located to the west and north of the proposed extraction area. Aerial photographs taken in 2006 show that the proposed extraction area and the adjacent land to the west and north used to form part of the same field. The western boundary of the proposed extraction area is formed by a hedgerow which includes a number of mature trees and has in recent years been strengthened by supplementary planting, as required by planning permission 2006/1565/03. The northern boundary is marked by a post and wire fence. The route of the temporary diversion of Bridleway X27 runs along the northern and western edge of the application site. The property of Town End Farm is located further north, beyond the agricultural field, at a distance of approximately 75m from the northern corner of the extraction area.

11. To the east and south, the proposed additional extraction area abuts active parts of the quarry. Stage 7 of the permitted minerals extraction operation lies to the east, beyond a mature hedgerow. Following the completion of mineral extraction, the majority of Stage 7 has already been backfilled with overburden. A narrow section in the western part of Stage 7 remains to be backfilled. The route of the Transco No. 2 Feeder high-pressure gas pipeline forms the southern boundary of the proposed extraction area. Beyond the pipeline, to the south, are the permitted mineral extraction stages 8 and 9. Mineral extraction in stages 8A/8B is ongoing. Stage 9 has been stripped of topsoil and subsoil to provide access to a layer of clay overburden. This clay is used in the engineering of landfill cells elsewhere in the quarry.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 5

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

Removal of Hedgerow between Stages 7 and 7A (“Hedgerow H7”)

12. Due to the thickness of overburden and certain design requirements to ensure slope stability in the extraction area, the extraction of mineral from the proposed Stage 7A would necessitate the removal of the hedgerow running along the eastern side of the area and forming the boundary with extraction Stage 7 to the east. This hedgerow was referred to as “Hedgerow H7” in the Environmental Statement which accompanied planning application 2006/1565/03 for the extension of the quarry and landfill. An ecological survey carried out in May and June 2005 prior to the submission of planning application 2006/1565/03 confirmed this hedgerow to be a species-rich hedgerow likely to qualify as “important” under the Hedgerows Regulations. However, following a subsequent survey carried out in April 2012 the applicant considered that the hedgerow no longer qualifies as “important”.

Method of Working

13. Following the removal of the hedgerow along the eastern boundary of the proposed Stage 7A, topsoil and subsoil would be stripped from Stage 7A and placed directly in the adjacent Stage 7 area for restoration purposes. The first part of overburden from Stage 7A would be used in the restoration of the remaining part of Stage 7. Once this is complete, the remainder of the overburden would be placed directly in the extraction void in Stage 7A.

14. Under current arrangements, mineral at Shawell Quarry is extracted by hydraulic excavator and loaded into dump trucks. It is then delivered via internal haul roads to a feed hopper within the quarry and transferred from the extraction area to the processing plant by means of a conveyor under Gibbet Lane. The material is processed at the processing plant to the south of Gibbet Lane, where finished products are also stored, awaiting their sale and export from the site by lorry. It is proposed to continue these arrangements with the mineral to be extracted from Stage 7A.

15. The applicant advises that the proposal would yield approximately 63,750 tonnes of sand and gravel. At a rate of production of 400,000 tonnes per year, the applicant estimates that Stage 7A would be worked in approximately three months.

16. It is not proposed to amend other elements of the permitted operation, such as the existing hours of operation or limitations on HGV movements.

Reclamation

17. Following the completion of extraction, subsoil currently stored in Stage 6 of the quarry and then topsoil stored along the eastern boundary of Stage 7 would be used to complete the reclamation of Stage 7A. The remainder of the quarry would continue to be worked as per the approved scheme of working.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 6

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

18. The reclamation scheme approved under planning permission 2006/1565/03 intended Stage 7 to be backfilled with reject sands arising from extraction operations in Stage 10 and restored to agricultural use. The area covered by Stage 7A was not intended to be worked and was to remain agricultural/pasture land. The hedgerow between Stages 7 and 7A (Hedgerow H7) would remain in place. A 25m wide belt of trees would be planted along the southern edges of Stages 7 and 7A and the existing hedgerow along the western boundary of Stage 7A would be supplemented with additional planting. The nearest landfill cell would be located about 50m south and southwest of the Stage 7 extraction area.

19. The current application proposes the removal of Hedgerow H7 to enable mineral extraction in Stage 7A, followed by the restoration of the southern part of both Stage 7 and Stage 7A to a combined area of agricultural land. The restored area would be crossed by a new hedgerow running in an east-west direction across the field, with a field gate at its eastern end. A second field gate would allow access from the unnamed lane along the quarry’s northern perimeter to the reinstated route of Bridleway X27 (at the southeastern corner of Stage 7). The application does not include any details of the species mix for the proposed replacement hedgerow or details of the proposed field gates.

20. It is also proposed to establish two ponds, which are described as “nature conservation ponds”, in the northern part of Stages 7/7A on the northern side of the new hedgerow. Both ponds would be surrounded by shrubs and rough grassland and would be separated from each other by an overflow weir. A new ditch would be constructed parallel to the western boundary hedgerow, which would link the ponds to an existing ditch to the south of Stage 7A.

21. The proposed restoration scheme also proposes to plant an additional 268m long hedgerow along the belt of trees lining the southern edges of Stages 7 and 7A. This hedgerow would be offset from the tree plantation to form a “maintenance and habitat corridor”.

22. The proposed nature conservation ponds, the hedgerow crossing the main area of Stages 7/7A and the additional proposed hedgerow along the southern edges of Stages 7/7A are described on the drawing showing restoration proposals (drawing no. 1415/RSW/23E) as measure to mitigate against the loss of the species-rich hedgerow H7.

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

23. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for and how these are expected to be applied. It replaces previous government guidance and policy contained in Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Mineral Policy Statements (MPSs). At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF lists three dimensions to sustainable development: an economic role, a social role and an environmental role.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 7

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

24. The NPPF requires the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes; minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible; and preventing both new and existing development from contributing to, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, water or noise pollution.

25. To minimise impacts on biodiversity, the NPPF requires that planning policies should promote the preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations.

26. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: Planning permission should be refused if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in developments should be encouraged. Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (…) unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweighs the loss.

27. The NPPF confirms that the planning system is plan-led. The Development Plan remains the starting point for the determination of applications. Whilst the NPPF is a material consideration, it does not change the statutory status of the Development Plan as the starting point for decision-making. Proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date Development Plan should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan

28. The Development Plan in this instance comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan, the Minerals Development Framework (Core Strategy and Development Control Policies), and the Harborough Local Development Framework. In addition, selected policies from the Leicestershire Minerals Local Plan were saved by direction of the Secretary of State and have not been superseded by policies in the Minerals Core Strategy.

The Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework

29. The aim of the Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework is to balance the working of mineral resources with the need to protect and enhance the environment.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 8

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

30. Policy MCS1 of the Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Control Policies gives priority to proposals for the extension of existing sites. It supports the release of land for mineral extraction where it is necessary to maintain an adequate and steady supply of minerals and it can be shown that demand could not be met from the existing permitted reserves, having regard to agreed sub-regional apportionment figures for aggregate minerals or, in other cases, the demonstrated need and nature of the particular industry concerned.

31. Policy MCS2 sets out the strategy for aggregates minerals, which is to maintain landbanks in line with national and regional policy, to give priority to proposals for sand and gravel extraction to be worked as extensions to existing site operations where they are required to ensure sustainable supply, and to allow proposals for aggregate extraction only where they will not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

32. Policy MCS11 – Environmental protection aims to protect and enhance the natural and built environment of Leicestershire by ensuring that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts from minerals development on natural resources; the character and quality of the landscape; and biodiversity, including nationally and internationally important sites and the key habitats and species identified in relevant Biodiversity Action Plans.

33. Policy MCS12 – Reclamation of mineral sites aims to ensure that land used for mineral extraction is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity and that an appropriate after-use is sought that is in keeping with the local area.

34. Policy MDC1 – Sustainable Mineral Development contains a presumption against minerals development unless it can be demonstrated that the Government’s objectives for sustainable minerals development have been appropriately addressed whilst ensuring that there will be no significant loss in other sustainability objectives.

35. Policy MDC2 – Sustainable Design requires proposals for minerals development to demonstrate that they have been designed to ensure impact on the environment is minimised, including the protection and enhancement of the character and quality of an area.

36. Policy MDC4 – Sites of Regional and Local Importance presumes against minerals development which could have a significant adverse impact on the character, appearance, ecological, geological or amenity value of sites of regional and local importance, including Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), Local Nature Reserves, priority habitats or species identified in relevant Biodiversity Action Plans and land that is of regional or local importance as a wildlife corridor or for the conservation of biodiversity, unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development and any impacts can be mitigated or compensated for, such that there is a net gain or improvement to their condition.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 9

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

37. Policy MDC5 – Countryside presumes against minerals development which would adversely affect the general appearance and character of the landscape and the countryside, unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development.

38. Policy MDC11 aims to protect the water environment from detrimental effects of the development. Policy MDC12 presumes against development which would have unacceptable adverse impacts on the health or amenity of local residents by means of noise, dust, emissions, illumination, visual intrusion or traffic.

39. Policy MDC12 – Health and Amenity presumes against minerals development which is likely to generate unacceptable adverse effects from noise, dust, vibration, odour, emissions, illumination, visual intrusion or traffic to adjoining land uses and users and those in close proximity to the minerals development.

40. Policy MDC20 – Reclamation and Aftercare requires development to make satisfactory provision for the reclamation and after-use of the site and where necessary its long-term management. Policy MDC21 – After-use states that proposals for the afteruse of a minerals site shall take account of the pre- working character of the site and its landscape setting; employ restoration techniques that can ensure the land is retained as a long-term agricultural resource where it is proposed to restore the land to agricultural or forestry uses; and provide for the enhancement of the quality of the landscape, local environment or the setting of historic assets to the benefit of the local or wider community.

41. The proposed Stage 7A extraction area was identified as a potential extension area in the Site Allocations (Preferred Options) document of the Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework. This document was published in July 2006 but has not been submitted for Examination or formally adopted by the County Council. For this reason, the inclusion of the application site in this document carries little weight. However, the draft site allocations policy referred to the need to protect trees and hedgerows adjoining the site.

Harborough Local Development Framework Core Strategy

42. The Harborough District Core Strategy lists a number of key issues which the Core Strategy needs to address. In connection with the environment, these include Key issues EN1 – the safeguarding of distinctive landscapes, historic assets and biodiversity where development is proposed; and EN2 – the fact that the district has a low number of sites protected under European, national, regional and local designations for their biodiversity/geological value.

43. The aims of Policy CS8 –Protecting and enhancing green infrastructure include: to protect, manage and enhance the District’s biodiversity and geodiversity; to contribute to the achievement of Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan targets for species and habitats and respond to changing conservation priorities as they emerge; to promote the management of biodiversity, encouraging the maintenance of wildlife corridors, ecological networks and stepping stones at the local level; and to avoid demonstrable

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 10

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

harm to habitats or species which are protected or which are of importance to biodiversity.

Consultations

Harborough District Council (Planning Officer)

44. Comments that support for the proposal given by the relevant minerals policies will need to be balanced against the effects of the proposal, namely the impact on the local environment, mainly visual and from increased noise and dust; any impact to highway safety from access which may be required from the A426 Rugby Road; and the potentially very significant impact to the living conditions of residential occupiers of Town End Farm. The District Council trusts that mitigation measures will be possible in order to protect residential amenity; and that the land will be restored to an environmentally friendly state or use.

Harborough District Council (Environmental Health Officer)

45. Has no comments to make.

Shawell Parish Meeting

46. No response received.

Cotesbach Parish Council

47. Has no objection to the proposed extension of gravel extraction and applauds the imaginative restoration programme.

Environment Agency

48. Comments as follows:

Loss of Species-rich hedgerow: The extension would result in the loss of a species-rich hedgerow and associated trees which are likely to be used as foraging routes for bats, even if the trees themselves are not used as roosts. The loss of this hedgerow may sever foraging routes across the site. The assessment does not address this. No details have been provided of species to be planted in the replacement hedge. The replacement hedge should be of at least the equivalent ecological value in terms of woody species. If the ground flora is currently of interest, the replacement hedge should also aim to reinstate ground flora species. Given that coppiced hedgerows can be successfully translocated, which can maintain ground flora and lead to the rapid establishment of the hedgerow, consideration should be given to this.

New ponds: The existing restoration proposals contain very limited provision of wetlands for wildlife. Given that ponds which do not contain fish can contain up to 50% more aquatic invertebrate species, as well as supporting amphibians the new ponds should both be designed and

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 11

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

constructed entirely for the benefit of wildlife and contain no fish. If one of the ponds were to be stocked with fish, given the close proximity and connection between the ponds it would be inevitable that the wildlife pond will also establish a fish population. This would severely limit the ecological value of the wildlife pond. The restoration plan should be revised so that it makes reference only to proposed nature conservation ponds, rather than fishing ponds and nature conservation ponds. The proposed ponds should be constructed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development.

Restoration shall not begin until a scheme for the proposed ponds, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (in consultation with the Environment Agency). The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the restoration is completed.

County Landscape Architect

49. Has no landscape objections to this proposal and confirms that the proposed revised restoration as shown on drawing no. 1415/RSW/23 would be acceptable. However, there are concerns about the creation of the proposed fishing pond, as the proposal includes no means of access to this, which may lead to a request for access and/or car parking at a later date.

Public Rights of Way Officer

50. No response received.

County Archaeologist

51. The County Archaeologist advises that whilst the submitted geophysics shows little in the way of an obvious potential, he does not consider that this would clear the archaeological hurdle for two reasons: First, geophysical results on their own are not conclusive. Second, the area proposed for stripping lies to the south and in the immediate vicinity of Cotesbach. Geophysical survey results can be affected by ground conditions, surface clutter, as well as by the nature and survival of buried archaeological remains. In this latter context, the technique is especially weak at identifying scattered earlier prehistoric remains (Palaeolithic to Early Bronze Age) and poor at locating features which don’t have a strong magnetic character, e.g. early Anglo-Saxon Grubenhäuser and burials. Regarding the proximity to Cotesbach; whilst first mentioned in the Domesday Book, the village is likely to have coalesced from a dispersed scatter of earlier Anglo-Saxon settlement during the 9th -10th century AD. Whilst it is unlikely that the village itself extends as far as the development area, the scatter of earlier settlement may do so. Of note in that context is the place name Town End Farm (a structure marked, but not named, on the 1” 1st edition OS map (c. 1834) and

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 12

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

Greenwood’s map of 1826). ‘End’ place names have been interpreted to indicate a former settlement focus.

52. The County Archaeologist therefore recommends that if planning permission is granted, it should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation and recording being undertaken during soil stripping for the proposed extraction area. The soil stripping methodology should be agreed in advance of implement and take into account the need to maximise the visibility of archaeological remains in order to aid their identification and recording. The County Council’s Historic and Natural Environment Team would prepare a brief for the recording, or agree a written scheme of investigation for the necessary work. The County Archaeologist recommends that the following planning conditions (informed by paragraphs 53-55 of DoE Circular 11/95) should be imposed in order to safeguard any important archaeological remains potentially present:

i) No extraction shall take place/commence until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. ii) No extraction shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation.

53. The County Archaeologist advises that the Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) must be prepared by an archaeological contractor acceptable to the Planning Authority.

County Ecologist

54. The County Ecologist initially objected to the proposal on the following grounds:

The proposed extension to the north-east corner of the current extraction site would cause the loss of a species-rich hedgerow which meets the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Local Wildlife Site criteria - in other words, it is of County-wide value. It is also very likely that it would meet the Hedgerow Regulations criteria (although detailed surveys of the hedgerow will have to be undertaken to confirm this). The hedgerow is species-rich, which is a good indication that it is likely to be an ancient one, and it is an irreplaceable biodiversity asset. The evidence for this is within the ecology report (Philip Parker Associates, July 2005) submitted alongside the previous application for mineral extraction (application reference 2006/1565/03). The hedgerow is identified in the Philip Parker report as hedgerow H7, with an average of 6 woody species per 30 metres. The survey records Acer campestre (Field maple), Corylus avellana (Hazel), Crataegus laevigata (Midland hawthorn), Crataegus monogyna (Hawthorn), Fraxinus excelsior (Ash), Prunus spinosa (Blackthorn), Rosa sp. (Rose), Sambucus nigra (Elder), Ulmus sp. (Elm), Viburnum opulus (Guelder-rose) in this hedgerow. Although this survey is 6 years old, the hedge is unlikely to have changed significantly in this time and therefore this survey data is still valid.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 13

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

Re-planting a hedge with similar species-mix is not adequate compensation for the loss of this feature, as it will not support the variety of flora and fauna that is associated with a species-rich and ancient hedge. It is recommended, therefore, to refuse this application, on the basis that it would bring about the irreplaceable loss of a BAP habitat of county-wide value.

It is possible that the hedgerow and ditch and adjacent land supports protected species - badgers, bats, Great Crested Newts, nesting birds - and it would therefore be necessary to carry out surveys for these species if the hedgerow and associated ditch was under threat of removal or significant alteration/management. 6-year old survey data for species is not adequate in support of an application, as they are all highly mobile and populations can change significantly in 6 years. However, even if protected species surveys were negative, the objection to this development would still be maintained on the grounds of loss of BAP habitat.

55. During further negotiations about potential measures to mitigate or compensate the loss of the hedgerow, the option of relocating the hedgerow on the eastern boundary of the proposed Stage 7A extraction area to the southern boundary of Stage 7A was discussed with the applicant. The County Ecologist stated that this was one of the options to be considered, but not the preferred solution, and would be acceptable only on a number of conditions relating to the method and timing of translocation work:

As we discussed at the meeting with James Fox of Lafarge on Friday, I am reluctant to consider hedge translocation, as I feel that the success or otherwise of the operation is not proven. A species-rich established and possibly ancient hedge is more than a collection of woody species, but an entire habitat with associated flora and fauna (e.g. invertebrates, soil organisms, ground flora, lichens, mosses, etc).

Whilst it is possible to plant a hedge with the same woody species composition, the planted hedge will not have the associated species, and there will not be time for re-colonisation from the existing hedge before it is destroyed – colonisation by many species typical of old hedges is very slow. Digging up the shrubs and replanting them is also unlikely to include these associated species. Translocation of the entire habitat is by no means guaranteed to succeed, but if done to a strict methodology carries some chance of success, or at least of partial success.

On this basis, I would only accept the loss of the species-rich hedge under the following conditions:

1. Entire length of hedge to be translocated to a location very close to the existing position – my understanding was that it could be relocated in a position at right angles to the current position, extending eastwards from the southernmost tip of the hedge in its current position.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 14

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

2. Translocation to include all soil, leaf litter and other substrates within the root zone of the hedge. 3. Translocation to take place in the November to March period, with measures in pale to ensure that watering of hedge can take place in case of low rainfall. Hedge must not be translocated in very low temperatures (e.g. below 5 degrees C). 4. A detailed method statement for the translocation, establishment maintenance and monitoring to be submitted and approved before translocation. 5. A survey and monitoring programme to be agreed before translocation. This would include methodology for collection of detailed survey data of the flora and fauna of the existing hedgerow, in order to establish a baseline for future monitoring of the success of the operation. I recommend a series of surveys over at least 6 months including some surveys in Spring and summer (e.g. surveys in Feb, April, June 2012) to account for some seasonal variation. As it seems likely that more species will be recorded in summer, it is essential that at least one visit is done in summer. I do not feel there is any need to survey the whole length of the hedge in detail; instead I recommend that at least three representative sections are identified, each c. 5m long, and marked so that they can be identified after translocation, and that survey and monitoring focuses on these three sections . 6. I recommend at least three annual monitoring visits at the same time as the baseline surveys, and to the same methodology, on three occasions. For example, if the hedge was translocated in 2013, I recommend three surveys in 2014, three in 2017 and three in 2020. 7. If the hedge translocation fails in the first 12 months after translocation, planting a hew hedge in compensation will be required. This should be at least 3x the length of the destroyed habitat.

Publicity

56. The application has been advertised in March 2011 by means of site notices on Gibbet Lane and in Cotesbach at the junction of Main Street and the A426 opposite Town End Farm. In addition, neighbour notification letters were sent to the nearest properties (Town End Farm, The Chimneys, Cotes End Barn and The Spinney) in Cotesbach. No representations have been received within the prescribed period.

57. During the course of negotiations with the applicant, the owner of Town End Farm, who also owns the land comprising Stages 7 and 7A, has written in June 2012 to support the proposed development. He states that, having been made aware of the planning authority’s concerns about the impact of the development in respect of noise, dust and the impact on ecology, he is content that the proposed controls which Lafarge Aggregates currently have in place to control noise and dust emissions would be adequate for extraction works in Stage 7A to be carried out. With regard to the amounts of screen planting, he considers

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 15

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

that the amount of screen planting on his land is appropriate and states that this would be extended further, as shown on the drawing submitted by Lafarge. He also states that he prefers the area of consented tree planting to the west of the small fishing pond to remain as is, and confirms his support of Lafarge’s development proposal.

58. The local Member, Mr. G. A. Hart CC, was notified of the application in March 2011. No comments were received.

Assessment of Proposal

59. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires every planning application to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

60. Whilst the presumption in favour of sustainable development is the main theme of the NPPF, the document also aims to conserve and enhance the natural environment, and it expects the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment through the protection of valued landscapes; minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. The proposed development would result in the removal of a species- rich hedgerow which meets the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Local Wildlife Site criteria and is therefore of County-wide value. Whilst granting permission for further mineral extraction at Shawell Quarry may be in accordance with the economic aspects of sustainable development, the resulting adverse environmental impacts of the proposal would be significant.

61. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF requires planning authorities to aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity and lists the principles which should be applied in order to do so. These include the principle that planning permission should be refused “if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for. Furthermore, planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (…) unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”. If hedgerow H7 is lost as a result of the proposed development, the proposal would be contrary to these principles. The matters of loss of irreplaceable habitat and the need for, and benefits of, the development are assessed in more detail below.

62. The NPPF confirms that the planning system is plan-led. The starting point for the determination of applications remains the Development Plan. The NPPF is a material consideration, but as the Leicestershire and Leicester Minerals Development Framework (MDF) was adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, its policies may be given full weight, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the NPPF.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 16

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

Development Plan

63. Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Core Strategy Policy MCS1 sets out the strategy for the supply of minerals. This involves releasing land for mineral extraction where a steady supply of minerals is necessary and demand cannot be met from existing permitted reserves. All other considerations being equal, the strategy gives priority to the extension of existing sites over the development of new minerals sites. Proposals for minerals development outside allocated areas are acceptable in certain cases, such as if a proven need can be demonstrated, if the proposal relates to a small-scale extension to an existing site, if it involves significant net environmental benefits or if a sterilisation of mineral resources would otherwise occur. In any event, proposals for mineral development would be allowed only where they would not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

64. The proposed extraction area is identified as a potential extension area in the Site Allocations (Preferred Options) document of the Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework. However, the Preferred Options version of the Site Allocations Document was prepared in 2006 and has not been subject to an Examination in Public or been formally adopted by the County Council. For this reason, the allocation of the application site in this document carries comparatively little weight. The policy relating to Shawell Quarry in the Site Allocations (Preferred Options) Document proposed the allocation of the application site subject to the provision of measures to protect trees and woodland adjoining the site, as well as hedgerow boundaries recognised as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) or proposed SINCs.

65. MDF Policy MCS2 (Strategy for aggregates minerals) aims to make land available for mineral extraction in order to meet the sub-regional apportionment for aggregates minerals and to maintain landbanks. In terms of location of new mineral extraction developments, the policy gives priority to proposals for sand and gravel extraction which are worked as extensions to existing site operations. The proposal would be in accordance with this aspect of the policy. However, the policy also requires the need for mineral extraction to be balanced with the adverse impact which mineral working may have on the local environment. Consequently, proposals for aggregate extraction will only be allowed where they will not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities. It is considered that the loss of hedgerow H7 would constitute a considerable adverse environmental impact which could not be militated against and that the proposal would therefore not be in accordance with this element of Policy MCS2 unless hedgerow H7 is translocated to a nearby location in accordance with the County Ecologist’s recommendations.

66. MDF Policy MCS11 sets out the strategy for environmental protection, which is to protect and enhance the natural and built environment of Leicestershire by ensuring that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts from minerals development on natural resources, the character and quality of the landscape, or biodiversity. The latter includes nationally and internationally important sites and the key habitats and species identified in relevant Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs).

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 17

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

67. The proposal as originally submitted would result in the loss of an established hedgerow of County-wide value, and the initial advice of the County Ecologist is that the compensation measures proposed would not be sufficient to offset the adverse impact caused by the removal of the hedgerow. The proposal would therefore constitute an unacceptable adverse impact from minerals development on the environment and on biodiversity and for these reasons, the proposal as submitted would not be considered to be in accordance with Policies MCS2 and MCS11. However, following discussions between the applicant and the County Ecologist, the applicant agreed to translocate hedgerow H7 prior to mineral extraction in accordance with the conditions set out in the County Ecologist’s revised observations, thereby addressing the County Ecologist’s objection.

68. Policy MDC2 requires that proposals for minerals development demonstrate that they have been designed to ensure impact on the environment is minimised to protect and enhance the character and quality of an area. A significant ecological impact from the proposal would arise from the removal of hedgerow H7. Whilst the original design of the proposed scheme would not sufficiently protect or enhance the character and quality of the area, the translocation of hedgerow H7 would ensure that the proposal would fulfil the requirements of Policy MDC2.

69. Policy MDC4 protects sites of regional and local importance, including local wildlife sites and priority habitats identified in Biodiversity Action Plans, from minerals development which would have a significant adverse impact on them, unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development and any impacts to the ecological value of the site can be mitigated or compensated for, such that there is a net gain or improvement to their condition. In the absence of a case of overriding need for sand and gravel extraction and adequate mitigation or compensation for the loss of ecological value, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy MDC4. The need for the development and the adequacy of compensation and mitigation are considered later in this report.

Harborough District Local Development Framework

70. The Harborough District Core Strategy (HCS) groups its policies under a number of key issues. The key issue which is of relevance to this proposal is that of the environment.

71. HCS Policy CS8 amongst other matters aims to protect, manage and enhance the District’s biodiversity and geodiversity; to contribute to the achievement of Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan targets for species and habitats and respond to changing conservation priorities as they emerge; to promote the management of biodiversity, encouraging the maintenance of wildlife corridors, ecological networks and stepping stones at the local level (…), and to avoid demonstrable harm to habitats or species which are protected or which are of importance to biodiversity (…). The removal of Hedgerow H7 would mean that the proposed development is contrary to the

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 18

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

aims of Policy CS8, however, it is considered that the translocation of the hedgerow would make the proposal acceptable in terms of the aims of this policy.

Environmental Impact

72. The main impact of the proposal would arise from the removal of Hedgerow H7 between the mineral extraction area known as Stage 7 and the adjacent area of proposed extraction, referred to as Stage 7A. In addition, earth moving operations, mineral extraction and reclamation operations may give rise to adverse impacts on the adjacent property known as Town End Farm arising from noise, dust and visual impacts. As with most operations which involve the removal of soils and overburden, there is also a potential impact on archaeology.

Removal of Hedgerow between Stages 7 and 7A

73. The proposal would require the removal of the hedgerow which forms the boundary between Stage 7 (part of the existing permitted mineral extraction area) and Stage 7A to the west (the subject of the current planning application). The removal of the hedgerow would be required for operational reasons. An ecological survey carried out in May and June 2005 prior to the submission of planning application 2006/1565/03 for the extension of the quarry and landfill confirmed this hedgerow to be a species-rich hedgerow likely to qualify as “important” under the Hedgerows Regulations.

74. The County Council’s Ecologist initially objected to the proposed development on the basis that mineral extraction would require the removal of a species-rich hedgerow adjacent to the extraction area, and points out that the re-planting of a hedgerow with a similar species mix would not provide adequate compensation for the loss of a habitat of County-wide value which is identified in the Council’s Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).

75. During further negotiations with the applicant, the County Ecologist accepted a revised proposal which would involve the translocation of Hedgerow H7 to a nearby location prior to the commencement of mineral extraction, subject to a number of conditions covering the translocation process and a survey and monitoring programme.

Noise

76. The nearest noise sensitive receptor to the proposed extraction area is Town End Farm, located about 90-110m to the north. Noise impacts relating to this proposal would arise from soil and overburden stripping, mineral extraction and soil replacement works. These works would be carried out approximately 50 metres closer to Town End Farm than previous operations in Stage 7, but would be undertaken using the same equipment (i.e. hydraulic excavators and dumper trucks).

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 19

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

77. In its assessment of environmental impacts, the supporting statement submitted with the application refers to Town End Farm as being affected by soil stripping, screen bund construction, mineral extraction and soil replacement works. Notwithstanding the fact that the construction of screen bunds is referred to in the brief assessment of noise impacts, the submission makes no other reference to screen bunds, and no proposed bunds are shown on the drawings. The proposed operations (including temporary operations such as soil stripping and restoration works, which give rise to higher noise levels than extraction areas) would therefore be likely to have a more significant noise impact on the property at Town End Farm than previous quarrying operations.

78. The permitted site operations are subject to routine noise monitoring as required by planning conditions attached to planning permission 2006/1565/03. One of the agreed noise monitoring locations is Town End Farm. Previously, periodic noise monitoring carried out at this location has shown that noise limits set by planning permission 2006/1565/03 were not exceeded during noise surveys. However, no information is available about the location of activities within the quarry at the time of the noise surveys. The applicant proposes that, should planning permission be granted, an extended noise monitoring scheme would be submitted to the Planning Authority which would include noise monitoring at Town End Farm at a time when soil stripping and extraction operations are ongoing in Stage 7A. Such operations would be required to comply with the existing noise limits of 52dB LAeq (1 hour) for mineral extraction operations and 59dB LAeq (1 hour) for temporary operations as stipulated by planning permission 2006/1565/03. Subject to these limits being complied with, the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of noise.

Dust

79. As with noise, the nearest sensitive receptor in respect of dust generation from the proposed development is Town End Farm, 90-110m north of the site. The dust assessment carried out as part of the Environmental Statement submitted in support of planning application 2006/1565/03 identifies site haulage operations as the greatest source of airborne dust and Town End Farm as one of the four potentially sensitive receptors within 250m from the source of dust emissions (the others being the A426 and two residential properties near the junction of Gibbet Lane and the A5). A number of dust control measures are described in the 2006 planning application, including site traffic keeping to designated haul routes, ensuring that loose soils are not left untreated on the ground, and using water sprays to dampen down loose bare surfaces if necessary. These methods would be applied in relation to operations in Stage 7A. Provided the relevant dust suppression measures are used as applicable, the proposed development would be acceptable.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 20

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

Archaeology

80. The applicant states that the extension site “has been included within archaeological assessment and evaluation works carried out over the wider site”.

81. Prior to the submission of planning application 2006/1565/03, a number of geophysical surveys were carried out in the areas of extraction stages 7, 8 and 9 (east and south of the proposed extraction area). These surveys show a large number of magnetic anomalies in Stages 8 and 9 which are identified as being natural or non-archaeological anomalies. The area of Stage 7 to the east of the proposed extraction area shows only a very small number of natural or non- archaeological anomalies. The survey found very few magnetic anomalies of possible archaeological significance, which are clustered in the southwestern corner of Stage 9, approximately 500m south of the proposed extraction area. Whilst these anomalies could signify natural responses from magnetic stones contained in the gravel, their profile suggests that there is a possibility that they could represent small silted pits of an archaeological nature. Apart from this cluster, the remaining areas of Stages 7, 8 and 9 only contain a thin scatter of very few magnetic anomalies.

82. The consultation response from the County Archaeologist refers to the proximity of the proposed extraction area to the village of Cotesbach and the possibility of scatter of earlier settlements being present in the wider area surrounding the present-day village. In the light of this, the County Archaeologist recommends that, should planning permission be granted, a Written Scheme of Investigation be submitted to the planning authority for approval, which should include provisions for an archaeological watching brief.

Traffic

83. The existing planning permission (reference 2006/1565/03) restricts the number of lorry trips generated by sand and gravel extraction and waste disposal operations to 2244 per week. The proposed extraction of sand and gravel from Stage 7A would not lead to an intensification of sand and gravel production, therefore the extraction would not lead to an increase in the daily or weekly vehicle numbers. The proposal would, however, increase the operational life of the quarry by about three months, and consequently also extend the time during which HGVs would access and leave the site. As the currently permitted maximum number of vehicles would not be exceeded as a result of the proposal, it is considered that the resulting traffic impact and the relatively small increase in the operational life of the quarry would be acceptable.

Landbank / Case of Need

84. The NPPF requires minerals planning authorities to ensure steady and adequate supply of minerals and to make provision for the maintenance of a landbank for sand and gravel of at least seven years supply. The most recent figures available (dating from the end of 2009) indicate that the landbank for

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 21

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

sand and gravel in Leicestershire was approximately 10 years. Since then, additional reserves of approximately 605,000 tonnes have been permitted. Even when taking into account the reduction in the landbank which has occurred through the working of permitted reserves since the end of 2009, there are still sufficient permitted reserves available in excess of the seven years recommended by the NPPF.

85. The quarry manager at Shawell Quarry confirms that as at November 2011, the annual sales of the quarry were in the region of 400,000 tonnes of sand and gravel. Assuming losses of 15% of mineral occurring during processing, the annual amount of mineral being extracted can be estimated to be around 460,000 tonnes. According to borehole data, approximately 3 million tonnes of mineral reserves remain to be worked within the area covered by planning permission 2006/1565/03, which at current rates of extraction and processing equates to a lifespan of about 6 years.

86. The amount of mineral in Stage 7A is estimated to be 63,750 tonnes which would take three months to extract. Given the current landbank for sand and gravel within the County and the remaining life of Shawell Quarry, it is considered, therefore, that there is no overriding case of need, neither locally nor at County-wide level, to permit further mineral extraction in the proposed Stage 7A extension area, which would outweigh the adverse ecological impacts which would result from the removal of hedgerow H7. However, it is considered that translocating the hedgerow would offer sufficient compensation of the environmental impacts to make the proposal acceptable.

Restoration and Afteruse

87. The proposed amendment to the restoration scheme includes the creation of two nature conservation ponds in the northern part of Stage 7A. The proposed restoration would be acceptable in landscape and visual impact terms, subject to hedgerow H7 being translocated to a nearby location and the additional screen planting shown on the restoration plans being implemented.

Conclusion

88. The environmental impacts of the proposal in terms of landscape and visual, noise and dust impacts are such that they would be acceptable provided the relevant mitigation measures are applied. In terms of ecological impact, the proposal would result in the loss of a hedgerow of County-wide importance and of Local Wildlife Site status. The applicant has agreed to the translocation of hedgerow H7 to a nearby location prior to mineral extraction which would, combined with the other compensation measures proposed by the applicant, be sufficient to overcome the ecological objection. In terms of supply of mineral, the proposed development would result in a small scale extension to an existing minerals site and would therefore be in accordance with the strategy for the supply of minerals set out in the Minerals Development Framework.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 22

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

89. On balance, the proposed development would result in some adverse impact to biodiversity. Notwithstanding this, subject to the translocation of hedgerow H7 and further compensation in the form of other replacement planting and reclamation works proposed by the applicant, it is considered that the adverse impacts of the proposal can be compensated for, so that the proposal would be consistent with the aims of the National Planning Framework and to the above mentioned policies of the Development Plan, in particular MDF Policy MDC4.

90. On balance, it is considered that the adverse ecological impact arising from the loss of Hedgerow H7 could be mitigated and compensated for by translocating the affected hedgerow and implementing other compensation measures, so that the proposed small scale extension to mineral workings at Shawell Quarry would meet the relevant policy requirements. Consequently, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for the reasons set out below, subject to the conditions listed in the appendix.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 23

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

Recommendation

1. Permit, subject to the conditions set out in the appendix.

2. To endorse, as required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended), a summary of the:

a. Policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision, as follows:

This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government’s current planning policy guidance and the relevant Circulars, together with the relevant development plan policies, including the following, and those referred to under the reasons for refusal as set out above:

Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Policies MCS1, MCS2, MCS11, MCS12, MDC1, MDC2, MDC4, MDC5, MDC11, MDC12, MDC18, MDC20 and MDC 21

Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS8

b. Reasons for the grant of planning permission, as set out in the conclusion and recommendation above.

c. How Leicestershire County Council has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner:

In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. Specifically, discussions were held with the applicant and the County Ecologist to address the issue of mitigation and compensation measures for the loss of Hedgerow H7 and to agree a scheme which would be acceptable to both the applicant and the County Planning Authority. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 24

APPENDIX A 2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

Conditions

General Provisions

1. The development to which this permission relates shall commence no later than 3 years from the date of this permission. Written notification shall be provided to the County Solicitor within seven days of:

a) commencement of soil stripping operations on the land referred to as Stage 7A in the application and as shown on drawing 1415/RSW/20A (Existing Conditions November 2010); b) commencement of translocation of Hedgerow H7; d) commencement of mineral extraction on the land referred to as Stage 7A in the application and as shown on drawing 1415/RSW/20A (Existing Conditions November 2010).

2. This permission shall relate to the extraction of sand and gravel from an area at Shawell Quarry referred to as Stage 7A in the application and as shown on drawing 1415/RSW/20A (Existing Conditions November 2010), the translocation of hedgerow H7 forming the eastern boundary of Stage 7A, and the subsequent reclamation of the areas referred to as Stages 7 and 7A.

3. Unless otherwise required by the conditions attached to this permission, the development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following details:

a) the planning application reference 2011/0369/03 with accompanying supporting statement; b) drawing 1415/RSW/19 – Site Location Plan (dated November 2010); c) drawing 1415/RSW/20A - Existing Conditions (dated November 2010, submitted 22nd June 2012); d) drawing 1415/RSW/21A – Stage 7A Extraction (dated November 2010, submitted 22nd June 2012); e) drawing 1415/RSW/23E – Stage 7 Proposed Restoration (dated November 2010, submitted 22nd June 2012); f) Peter Parker Associates Ecological Update Survey of Hedgerow H7 (submitted 2nd July 2012) as amplified and amended by the e-mail dated 12th December 2012 from David Jarvis Associates.

Translocation of Hedgerow H7

4. The translocation of hedgerow H7 shall not take place until a detailed method statement for the translocation, establishment, maintenance and monitoring has been submitted to and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 25

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

5. The translocation of hedgerow H7 shall not take place until the target location for the hedgerow has been agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.

6. No mineral extraction shall take place in the area referred to as Stage 7A until the entire length of hedgerow H7 has been translocated to a location to be first agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.

7. The translocation of hedgerow H7 shall include all soil, leaf litter and other substrates within the root zone of the hedge.

8. The translocation of hedgerow H7 shall not take place outside the period from November to March. Measures shall be put in place to ensure that watering the hedge can take place in case of low rainfall. No translocation work shall take place in temperatures below 5 degrees Celsius.

9. The translocation of hedgerow H7 shall not take place until a baseline survey and monitoring programme has been agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. Such a programme shall include a methodology for the collection of detailed survey data of the flora and fauna of the existing hedgerow, in order to establish a baseline for future monitoring of the success of the operation. At least three representative sections of the hedgerow, each c. 5m long, shall be surveyed. The sections of the hedgerow that have been surveyed shall be marked so that they can be identified after translocation. The survey and monitoring programme shall focus on the three marked sections. Surveys shall take place over a period of at least 6 months including some surveys in spring and summer, to account for some seasonal variation. As it seems likely that more species will be recorded in summer, at least one survey shall be carried out in the summer.

10. Following translocation of the hedgerow, a series of monitoring visits to the hedgerow shall be carried out in the first, fourth and seventh year following the translocation. The surveys shall take place at the same time of year as the baseline surveys. During the monitoring visits, the translocated hedgerow shall be surveyed using the same methodology used for the baseline surveys.

11. In the event that any part of the translocated hedgerow dies or becomes diseased in the first 12 months following translocation, a replacement section of hedgerow shall be planted to compensate for the loss, in a location to be first agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The replacement section of hedgerow shall comprise plants of similar species and be at least three times the length of that which it replaces, and shall be planted during the next available planting season.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 26

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

Noise Monitoring

12. Monitoring of noise levels shall be carried out in accordance with a revised noise monitoring scheme to be submitted for the written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority within 2 months of the implementation of this permission. The scheme shall include the following:

a) measurements confirming existing background noise levels at Town End Farm; b) predicted noise levels arising from operations in Stage 7A; c) noise monitoring locations; and d) frequency and duration of noise measurements.

13. Except during periods of soil stripping, overburden removal and final restoration, the level of noise arising from any operation or item of plant or machinery, when measured at a height of 1.2 metres above ground level and 3.6 metres from the facade of any occupied residential property in the vicinity of the site, shall not exceed 55 dB(A) LAeq or 10 dB(A) above the background level agreed pursuant to condition xx above (whichever is the lower) during any 30 minute period at any time.

14. During periods of soil stripping, overburden removal and final restoration, the level of noise arising from these operations shall be minimised as far as is reasonably practicable, shall be limited to a maximum of 8 weeks in any 12 month period and in any case shall not exceed 70 dB(A) LAeq during any 30 minute period at any time when measured at a height of 1.2 metres above ground level and 3.6 metres from the face of any occupied residential property in the vicinity of the site.

Archaeology

15. No preparatory works or extraction shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has submitted a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation for written approval by the County Solicitor. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:

a) a programme and methodology for the necessary mitigation including excavation and recording of significant archaeological remains; b) a programme for post-investigation assessment; c) provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording; d) provision to be made for full publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation; e) provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation; f) nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 27

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

16. No preparatory works or extraction shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 17 above.

17. Access shall be afforded at all reasonable times, subject to prior notice having been given, to any persons nominated by the County Solicitor for the purpose of observing soil stripping operations and recording any features of remains of archaeological interest that may be revealed.

Reclamation

18. Following the completion of mineral extraction, the excavated area shall be backfilled with inert material and regraded to the pre-settlement levels approved pursuant to condition 9 of planning permission 2006/1565/03, allowing for subsequent re-spreading of subsoil and topsoil.

Compliance with Planning Conditions

19. In all other respects, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with planning permission reference 2006/1565/03 dated 4th September 2007 and the conditions attached thereto.

Reasons

1. In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), and to enable the development to be monitored to ensure compliance with this permission. (Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Policies MCS11 and MDC18)

2. For the avoidance of doubt. (Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Policies MCS11 and MDC18)

3. To ensure the development is implemented in all respects in accordance with the submitted details. (Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Policies MCS11 and MDC18)

4,5, To ensure the translocation of the hedgerow to a suitable location, and to &9. protect the ecological interests of the site. (Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Policy MDC18)

6,7, To protect the ecological interests of the site. (Leicestershire Minerals 8,10. Development Framework Policy MDC18) &11.

12,13. To minimise the adverse impacts on local residents of noise generated by &14. operations on the site. (Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Policies MCS11, MDC12 and MDC18)

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 28

2011/0369/03 (2011/C435/03) - continued

15&16. To ensure satisfactory management of any significant archaeological remains. (Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Policies MDC7)

17. In the interests of the archaeology of the site. (Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Policies MDC7)

18. For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner, and to provide for the completion and progressive restoration of the site in the interests of the amenities of the area. (Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Policies MDC18, MDC20 & MDC21)

19. For the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with previously approved details. (Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Policies MCS11 and MDC18)

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013 29

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

The considerations set out below apply to all the following applications.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equal opportunities implications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS

On all educational proposals the Director of Children and Young People's Service and the Director of Corporate Resources will be informed as follows:

Note to Applicant Department

Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act 1970 and the Design Note 18 “Access for the Disabled People to Educational Buildings” 1984 and to the Equality Act 2010. You are advised to contact the County Council’s Human Resources Department if you require further advice on this aspect of the proposal.

COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a very broad duty on all local authorities 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area'. Unless otherwise stated in the report, there are no discernible implications for crime reduction or community safety.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Unless otherwise stated in the report the background papers used in the preparation of this report are available on the relevant planning application files.

SECTION 38(6) OF PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act requires that:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Any relevant provisions of the development plan (i.e. any approved Local Plans) are identified in the individual reports.

The circumstances in which the Board is required to “have regard” to the development plan are given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Section 70(2) : determination of applications; Section 77(4) : called-in applications (applying s. 70); Section 79(4) : planning appeals (applying s. 70); Section 81(3) : provisions relating to compensation directions by Secretary of State (this section is repealed by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991); Section 91(2) : power to vary period in statutory condition requiring development to be begun; Section 92(6) : power to vary applicable period for outline planning permission; Section 97(2) : revocation or modification of planning permission; Section 102(1) : discontinuance orders; Section 172(1) : enforcement notices; Section 177(2) : Secretary of State’s power to grant planning permission on enforcement appeal; Section 226(2) : compulsory acquisition of land for planning purposes; Section 294(3) : special enforcement notices in relation to Crown land; Sched. 9 para (1) : minerals discontinuance orders.

DC®. BOARD 24/01/2013