O4/00219/MIN EXTRACTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL WITH RESTORATION TO AGRICULTURE USING IMPORTED INERT MATERIAL LAND AT CALVERTON EAST OF 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 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 . 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 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 to 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 , 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. The visual impact on the hamlet, no matter how much screening is proposed is unacceptable and the long term nature of the works will be most detrimental to this local community.

4) Affect on ambient noise and quality of life. Noise and dust will be major pollutants. The effect on Stony Stratford will be great as these will be carried by prevailing winds. There will be an increase in traffic on small country lanes.

5) As there is no need for the sand and gravel the development would not accord with MPG6.

The Council recognises that point 2 has been partly addressed but believes that the water meadow should not be disturbed. The council also recognises that point 5 is not now current as the Inspector’s report into the Minerals Local Plan recommends the inclusion of the site to allow production needs to be met. However, the uncertainty indicated by the Inspector regarding access to the site the Council believes the application should be refused or at least held until such times as the likely future availability of the facilities in Northamptonshire is known.

The Council also wishes to make the following points:

1) The flooding study will be invalid if the flood defences at and have been factored in, as these are no longer on Environment Agency priority.

2) There is the possibility of 6000 dwellings being built on open countryside boarding the town. Further loss of open countryside is unacceptable.

3) The Council feel that the Inquiry Inspector may not have given full consideration to all valid points for refusing the development.

Old Stratford Parish Council are concerned about the lack of access within MK relying on blighting another county. The Council point out that the emerging policy in Northamptonshire’s County Council’s Minerals Plan is that there should be no further extraction in the Ouse Valley.

The Parish Council is also concerned about existing traffic problems. suffers from rat running because of serious congestion at the A5 roundabout with the A422 and A508. Old Stratford suffers 15-16,000 vehicles a day because of . There is also rat running through Passenham.

The applicants have indicated that they are considering an additional outlet at Old which could mean that site vehicles would travel through Old Stratford.

The existing Old Wolverton Industrial Estate is already a cause of much of Old Stratford’s problems for which Milton Keynes has no solution or commitment to finding a solution.

Views from the public footpaths in Northamptonshire to the site should be considered. Although at some distance the working would further harm the visual amenity are the water meadows.

The development would be contrary to Policy EV11 of Local Plan and other Northamptonshire County Structure Plan policies. These have been ignored because of Milton Keynes own policies.

The Parish Council remains unconvinced that the effects of noise and dust on the amenity of local residents can be mitigated and are concerned about the make up of infill material. It is unlikely to have similar qualities to the existing sand and gravel which acts as in nature’s sponge. This is of particular concern due to global warming and the regular flooding of the water meadows.

The site can only be operated if Northamptonshire County Council permit the existing site to be used to which Old Stratford Parish Council is vigorously opposed. There is an alternative larger site which has been indicated in the Milton Keynes Minerals Local Plan Inquiry.

Deanshanger Parish Council objects to an area of wetland meadow being uprooted to extract gravel and the blot on the landscape caused by further extension to site workings for another 7 years.

The Parish Council supports MKC’s prior application refusal considerations.

The Council specifically has concerns about the use of the Buckingham to Old Stratford Road to exit the site. The access exits onto the A422 roundabout which is one of the most congested roads in South Northants and Milton Keynes. 3-4 mile tailbacks from the A5 roundabout at Old Stratford are a daily feature. Villages are restricted from leaving the village by this congestion every day. Heading south the A422 is the only route from the village.

If the application is approved, the council requests that a maximum number of vehicle movements be imposed at less than half that requested-less than 40 per day maximum. The council strongly objects to vehicles entering or leaving the site between 8:00am and 9:15am on each week-day.

Calverton Parish Meeting’s comments remain the same as they did at the last application and these are to do with concerns around how the minerals extraction would be implemented. In particular, residents are totally opposed to any vehicle movement in and out of the site at the Calverton end of Passenham.

The Parish meeting are also concerned about how noise would be managed during the work phases. This is of particular concern with the proposed bailey bridges which, it is felt, could be very noisy with the movement of heavy vehicles over them. There is nothing in the new documents to provide reassurance on this.

Friends of Passenham objects to the proposal because:

1) The Inspector concluded at the public inquiry that there was no proven need for the material. Delays in production from the Wolverton Site mean that the Council’s gravel targets are now fully met for the duration of the emerging Mineral Plan period.

2) The area around Passenham is a flood plain and an important part of the flood defences of Stony Stratford. Replacing the natural sand and gravel with inert fill will reduce the capacity of the flood plain to store water and hence in contrary to policy W5(b) of the Adopted Structure County Plan 1991-2011.

PPG25 required the Council to have full regard to the implications of flood risk and take account of the effects of global warming.

160 properties within the vicinity of the proposal are within the flood risk zone and some were flooded in 1998. The Council must take a precautionary view of development in the flood plain exacerbating flood risk.

3) The Inspector stated that “the flood planes are a rapidly disappearing resource”. This should not be lost particularly as there is no proving need for the sand and gravel.

4) The site contains archaeological features and is of regional importance containing a roman villa of national importance.

5) The proposal is contrary to Policy M2 of the Country Structure Plan as it would have a significant adverse effect on the character, appearance and or setting of a Conservation Area and Listed Buildings. The council previously withdrew its objection on the above grounds on the erroneous assumption that the Conservation Area did not include key fields and water meadows.

6) There is no evidence that there is sufficient material available within the city to infill the site. This concern has previously been expressed by the Environment Agency.

Friends of Passenham have also made the following comments on the updated hydrogeological assessment submitted after the application:-

1) The report predicts that groundwater levels will rise to the south and east of the site whereas the earlier report predicted this would occur to the west of the site. This appears to indicate a lack of academic rigour discrediting the consultants concerned. Councillors are being asked to make for reaching decisions based on inconsistent advice. If the Environment Agency have not spotted these fundamental errors it reinforces the point that they do not verify the works of consultants.

The modelling of river flows to no account of backfilling with inert materials. Considering the site in isolation is contrary to established good practice. The Environment Agency are apparently unable or unwilling to address this matter.

No borehole data has been collected in or near of the village of Passenham. The effects of the development on local properties has not therefore been properly considered.

Friends of Passenham are extremely concerned that the Council are being asked to rely on your expect opinion that is not only partial having been commissioned by RMS, but also incomplete and apparently inconsistent.

Transco advise that the safety and integrity of its Intermediate Pressure pipeline in, the vicinity of the application site will not be affected by the proposal.

The Council Archaeologist confirms that the site contains archaeological remains of regional importance and, therefore, a full archaeological survey would be required prior to extraction with the recording of any artefacts found. There is not evidence that the site contains. The remains of a Roma Villa and was suggested at the public inquiry into the previous proposals for the site. If archaeological investigation of the site were to be found this could be excluded from the mineral extraction site without affecting its viability.

The Chief Environmental Health Officer considers that the proposed mitigation measures of a 5 metre high barrier would be adequate provided that extraction and infilling do not take place simultaneously within 280 metres of the nearest residential property.

The Landscape and Countryside Manager considers that the 4 key objectives in the restoration strategy are acceptable and supportable with the following additions:-

1) The restoration to a primarily agricultural landscape and reintroduction of existing flood meadows and associated habitats should be to achieve where appropriate, a “traditional” flood meadow landscape with associated plant species and a long term management plan. The restored land levels may need to be adjusted from existing to support this objective and ensure regular seasonal flooding.

2) The hedgerow and historical hedgerow network to be restored and augmented with copses and small woodlands, including tree planting to the river edge.

3) The enhancement of the bio-diversity of the site within the scheme, provision should be made for wetland and wet grassland. Wildlife corridor principles apply to the River Ouse.

4) The retention and augmentation of existing landscape features.

5) Public access and use – a scheme of public access and footpaths to be agreed in the context of eventual extension area.

6) The Restoration Plan and aftercare period should, by agreement, extend to 10 years. With agreement by MKC of the details for implementation of this.

Northamptonshire County Council’s views are awaited.

South Northamptonshire District Council views are awaited.

REPRESENTATIONS

8 letters have been received following the publicity and neighbour consultants. These raised objections to the proposal for the following reasons.

1) The site is part of the flood plain protecting nearby residential areas and the development could have an adverse impact on that protection. The sand and gravel stored water in times of flood.

2) Flood defences for Buckingham and Environs have yet to be implemented. This needs to be taken into account.

3) The site should be conserved as it contains valuable archaeology, is a wetland habitat and conservation area.

4) The outcome from the Minerals Local Plan Inquiry have not yet been determined, therefore the application is premature.

5) The A5 roundabout cannot support extra traffic.

6) The life of the existing site will be extended by 10 years but was only expected to operate for 4 years. The screening and noise attenuation of the plant is inadequate as it can be seen and heard from Deanshanger School playing field.

7) The development would not accord with emerging Minerals Local Plan and County Structure Plan policies which seek to protect important archaeological sites, Historic Gardens and Conservation Areas.

8) The transportation of excavated material to the plant site will cause dust and noise pollution for local residents in Passenham due to prevailing winds.

9) The restoration could not be achieved because of the large amount of inert material required.

10) The Inspector dealing with the Inquiry relating to the previous proposal for the site expressed the view that the loss of a flood meadow habitat would be detrimental.

11) The Inspector dealing with the Inquiry relating to the previous proposal for the site was doubtful about the viability of a restoration scheme requiring the complete backfilling of the site because of a lack of information about available material.

12) The Inspector concluded at the inquiry relating to the previous proposal for the site concluded that there was no need for sand and gravel.

13) The Inspector concluded at the Inquiry relating to the previous proposal concludes that the former B4033 is not viable and there is no planning permission to extend the life of the processing plant within Northamptonshire.

14) The applicants have a track record of delaying extraction and restoration, poor site management and violating planning conditions.

15) The development would set a precedent for further gravel extraction.

One letter has been received which does not raise objection to the proposed extraction but suggest that the site should be restored as a floodplain forest.

POLICY

The following policies are relevant:-

National Policy

1. Mineral Planning Guidance Note 1 : General considerations and the Development Plan System (June 1996)

2. Mineral Planning Guidance Note 6 : Guidance for aggregate provision in (1994) as amended by the National and Regional Guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2001-2016 (2003).

3. Minerals Planning Guidance Note 11. The control of noise at surface Mineral Workings (1993)

4. Minerals Policy Statement 2 : controlling and mitigating the environmental effects of Mineral Working : revised consultation Paper (2003)

5. Planning Policy Guidance 15 : Planning and the Historic Environment

Development Plan

1. Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991-2011 M2 and M3 safeguarding mineral deposits, M4 satisfying the demand for aggregates M9 Restoration, HE1 Protection of the key sites and features, NC3 Managing and Improving the resource.

2. Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Buckinghamshire (1995) MLP Extraction Outside Preferred areas, MLP7 Matters to be resolved.

3. Adopted Local Plan (1995)

DS1 Agricultural Land, DS12 Linear Parks LR12 Areas of Wildlife Interest DC1 Impact of development proposals on the locality DC16 Development adjacent to Conservation Areas DC14 Development affecting the setting of a listed building DC22 Sites of importance for natural conservation DC22a Wildlife corridors.

Emerging Policy

1. Milton Keynes Minerals Local Plan Deposit Version (2003) MLP1 allocations MLP7 Matters to be resolved MLP9 Restoration and Aftercare.

2. Milton Keynes Local Plan Second Deposit Version.

S13 Areas Liable to Flood, S12 Linear Parks, DC1 Impact of the Sites, NE3 Nature Conservation Enhancement NE1 National Conservation Sites, HE5 Development affecting the setting of a Listed Building HE6 Conservation Areas.

3. Milton Keynes Local Plan Pre-Inquiry Changes (2003) HE1 Protection of Archaeological Sites

CONSIDERATIONS

Previous Appeal Decision

The appeal relating to the previous proposal for the extraction of sand and gravel from the site was dismissed principally because the Inspector concluded that the proposed restoration was unacceptable. In the circumstances he did not consider that the need for sand and gravel outweighed the environmental consequences of extracting it. The Inspector did, however, express the view that the Council would have little reason to resist a scheme with a revised restoration proposals which would return the landscape to that which existed prior to extraction.

This judgement, which took account of the environmental concerns relating to noise, dust, traffic, archaeology, the setting of the Conservation Area, Archaeology and flooding should be the guiding principle in determining the current application. It is very unlikely that matters of concern, which the Inspectorate considered could be adequately dealt with would be considered differently should the Council refuse on these grounds a second time. Objectors to the proposal have pointed out that the Inspector detailed specific concerns about the loss of flood meadows and the availability of sufficient inert material to restore the site. However, the Inspector did not disagree with the applicants that the habitat could be replicated on restoration or that the expansion of Milton Keynes would provide additional material for site restoration. He did not, therefore, include this concern amongst his reasons for discussing the appeal.

Refusal on these grounds if, therefore, also likely to be sustained.

The Inspector expressed concern that at the time of the appeal no means of access to the proposed extraction site had been secured. In his view, permission for extraction could not be granted in these circumstances. The applicants have therefore submitted a planning application for the access to the plant site and the continued use of the plant to Northamptonshire County Council. If the Committee is minded to grant planning permission its implementation would be dependent upon planning permission being secured for the access and the use of the plant.

The inspector who conducted the Inquiry into the Draft Minerals Local Plan concluded that a further site for sand and gravel extraction should be identified to ensure that Milton Keynes can provide for its share of the regional requirement for aggregate. He recommended that the site at Passenham be allocated as a preferred area for extraction. He further recommended that a site within the Ouse Valley Area of Attractive Landscape be allocated if there were reasons why Passenham could not be identified as a preferred area.

It is, therefore, recommended that planning permission for the proposed sand and gravel extraction at Passenham is granted to ensure the protection of the Ouse Valley Area of Attractive Landscape.

The Countryside and Landscape Manager and Environment Agency have both expressed concern about the restoration proposals. Whereas the proposals are to return the land to open meadows as indicated by the Inspector dealing with the last proposal for the site, they currently make little provision for enhanced public access and biodiversity. The applicants are therefore proposing improvements to the restoration. Details of this will be provided if received prior to the meeting.

Northamptonshire County Council have consulted this Authority on two applications relating to the existing plant site within their area, namely an extension to the operational period and the provision of an access, with bailey bridges, to the current applications site within the Milton Keynes area. It is recommended, if planning permission is granted for the mineral extraction within the Milton Keynes area, that no objections to these two applications are raised.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that planning permission for the proposed sand and gravel extraction at Calverton is granted, subject to conditions requiring a satisfactory restoration scheme, site restoration levels that ensure no additional flood risk as required by the Environment Agency, drainage to ensure no raising of ground water levels as required by the Environment Agency, drainage monitoring, noise monitoring, dust monitoring, hours of working, archaeological investigation with no working in any areas of national archaeological importance which are found, soil handling and storage, progressive restoration after care and end date.

Committee file – under COMMITTEE REPORT 04 219MIN(IP)