O4/00219/Min Extraction of Sand and Gravel with Restoration to Agriculture Using Imported Inert Material Land at Calverton East of Passenham Sand and Gravel Pit
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
O4/00219/MIN EXTRACTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL WITH RESTORATION TO AGRICULTURE USING IMPORTED INERT MATERIAL LAND AT CALVERTON EAST OF PASSENHAM SAND AND GRAVEL PIT INTRODUCTION Members will recall that a planning application for sand and gravel excavation from the same site as the current application was refused in October 2003. The reasons for the refusal was that the development would have a damaging effect on the landscape and the setting of the Passenham Conservation Area; it had not been demonstrated that the proposed restoration was achievable, and this would appear as an unnatural feature in the landscape; and the development would result in the destruction of the ridge and furrow landform and the need for the aggregate was not proven. The refusal was appealed against and an Inquiry was held in July of last year. On the advice of Counsel conducting the case matters pursued on behalf of the Council at the Inquiry were the lack of need for the sand and gravel, the damaging effect of the development on the landscape and the loss of the ridge and furrow landform. However, objectors to the proposal were heard at the Inquiry and the Inspector considered that the main issues that he had to take into account included the effect of the proposal on the setting of the Passenham Conservation Area with its listed buildings, the implications for environmental and neighbour interests including noise, ecology, noise dust outlook and flood risk, the need for sand and gravel, whether the restoration would harm the character and appearance of the area, the effect on archaeological interest and the prospect of securing an acceptable access. The Inspector dismissed the appeal principally because he considered the restoration proposals unacceptable. In his summary and conclusion, however, he stated “a new application with a revised restoration scheme would remove the necessity to demonstrate need for the material and, as recognised by the Council, place it in a position where it would have very little reason to resist the project. It would also ensure that the resource would not be lost.” The applicants have, therefore, submitted the application with a revised restoration scheme which proposes to return the land to the original landform. The Planning Inspector also expressed concern that at the time of the appeal, the means of access through Northamptonshire had not been secured. The applicants have, therefore, submitted a planning application to Northamptonshire Country Council for an access to the proposed extraction site. APPLICATION DETAILS It is proposed to extract 475,000 tonnes of sand and gravel from the site over a period of six years. The site would be worked in combination with an existing permitted extraction site in Northamptonshire. Extracted material would be hauled by dumper truck to this existing site via a 150 metres long road and two bailey bridges over both channels of the River Great Ouse. The material would be processed within the existing plant in Northamptonshire and exported from the site via the existing site entrance/exit onto the Passenham Lane/A422 roundabout. Extraction would be via an excavator in seven phases (described as phases 3 to 9 in the application as the existing operations in Northamptonshire would be the first two phases). It would be a clockwise rolling sequence of extraction and restoration. Extraction of sand and gravel would take place in three periods each year of 8 to 10 weeks each during early Spring, mid Summer and late Autumn. The initial phase of the development would be the laying out of the haul route and bailey bridges linking the application site to the existing extraction and processing site in Northamptonshire. Top soil and sub soil would then be removed from the first phase (Phase 3 in the working scheme) and placed on the periphery of the application site in bunds 3 metres high. The area would be dewatered into two lagoons formed within the same phase. Extraction of the next phase would follow the shipping of topsoil, subsoil and clay. Topsoil and subsoil would again be placed in mounds on the site periphery and clay would be transported to the first phase for restoration. Topsoil, subsoil and clay from the third phase would be moved directly to the first and second phases to restore these. Soil, subsoil and clay shipping and replacement would then follow a similar pattern throughout the working with some soil being moved to the site’s periphery where earlier phases are not sufficiently large to occupy this. Final phases will be restored utilizing soils stored on the periphery as the line of the haul route will also be reinstated using stored soils. Final restoration would be back to the existing agricultural grass land use utilizing imported inert material. Willows would be planted on the western boundary adjacent to the river and the site would be divided into three fields with the planting of two new hedgerows. Small ponds would be created in the two new fields similar in scale to that which exists in the north of the site. Public access would be provided by an extension of the footpath system from the Passenham area. Brief details of the application. Total site area :19 hectares Sand and gravel to be extracted : Total quantity of : 475,000 tonnes Total quantity of imported material : 338,000 cubic metres Life of site including restoration : 7 years Maximum depth of working : 4.31 metres Access : Internal haul road to existing quarry In Northamptonshire Current use of land : Agriculture Proposed restoration : Agriculture with public access THE APPLICATION SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS The application site is situated within a meander of the Great Ouse approximately 170 metres south of Passenham Village which lies within Northamptonshire north of the meander. A tree belt lies immediately to the south of the residential properties and other building within Passenham immediately adjacent to the northern channel of the River Great Ouse. Calverton Village lies approximately 800 metres to the east at its closest point. The application site and surrounding land are predominantly used for grazing with existing sand and gravel extraction taking place westward across the river in Northamptonshire, approximately 200 metres distant. Other land to the west has previously been worked for sand and gravel with the resultant lakes being incorporated into a hotel and country club complex. Narrow hedgerows mark the south-eastern boundary of the application area. The application site is generally flat. To the east of the site land gently rises before meeting the B40333 Stony Stratford to Beachampton Road. A patchy hedgerow partially screens the application site from this road. There is, however, little or no hedgerow where the site extends eastward to within 30 metres of the road. Planting has, however, taken place where there is no hedge and a single line of feather trees has been provided to aid screening where the existing hedgerow is thin and patchy. The agricultural classification of the application site is predominantly 3b with just over 2 hectares of 3c land rear of the southern boundary. MAIN ISSUE The main issue is whether the restoration as now proposed overcomes the objection to extraction raised by the Inspector when dismissing the appeal against the refusal of the previous proposal. CONSULTATIONS The Environment Agency, have advised that as the applicants have confirmed their commitment to meet their requirements of the landfill directive for lining the site, their concerns this regard have been addressed. The Agency advises that the restoration phase has the potential to raise groundwater levels on the southwest corner of the site. This could give a slight increased risk of groundwater flooding along the road to the east of the site. However, the agency is satisfied that mitigation measures, involving the extension of an existing drain to the south of the site and monthly monitoring will overcome this risk. They recommend that a condition is appended to any approval to ensure suitable monitoring is undertaken and mitigation measures are carried out if required. The Agency has also expressed concern about the lack of information surrounding the bio-diversity enhancements linked to the river and floodplain area. It is not clear how extensive the floodplain meadow will be and how long term monitoring and maintenance will be achieved. It is expected that enhancements to the river would be provided. The Agency considers that the Flood Risk Assessment is acceptable provided the work is carried out in accordance with this. Conditions are proposed by the Agency to ensure this. The Countryside Agency has no formal representations to make. The Agency, however, advocates a landscape character assessment approach to ensure a development respects or enhances the distinctive character of the land. English Nature advise that the proposed development is not believed to pose any threat to any statutory site of nature conservation or protected species. Stony Stratford Town Council opposes any proposals for sand and gravel extraction from the application site which it considers highly sensitive. The Council reiterates its opposition made to the Planning Inspector in July 2004 which are: 1) the development would have a significant impact on the River Ouse floodplain. The Council considers that the Environmental Impact Assessment makes minimal reference to floods in Easter 1998, provides insufficient analysis to alley fears of flooding in the northern end of Stony Stratford. The proposed bailey bridges would obstruct the watercourse in time of flood. 2) The development would result in the loss of one of only 43 remaining medieval open plan fields systems in the Midlands area. Water meadows cannot be recreated after mineral extraction. The creation of new wetland features will never replace important water meadows. 3) The impact of the development on the Passenham Conservation Area.