High Cross Quarry, Copston Lane, High Cross, Warwickshire

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Joint Planning Application and Environmental Statement S73 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 High Cross Quarry, Copston Lane, High Cross, Warwickshire.

Planning application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to allow a continuation of operations under planning permission R/02/CM007 (Pursuant to R1238/891452) without complying with condition 54; to alter the hours of operation under condition 20; and to alter condition 22 to allow the erection of a more secure fence at the site entrance.

1 June 2016

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Document Control Project: High Cross Quarry – S73 Condition 54 – Time Extension

Client: KSD

Job Number: LD032

File Origin: l:\landesign\projects\active\active\ld032 - ksd - high cross\final report\outputs\s73 application\joint planning and environmental statement-final.docx

Document Checking:

Change Management

Ref Status Purpose of Issue Originated Checked Date

pa nad es Draft draft PA and ES including NTS IDB IDB 17 Jun 2016 v1.docx

Issue Management

Hard Copy / Version No Status Recipient Date sent Electronic

pa nad es Draft BD e 17 Jun 2016 v1.docx joint planning and environment Final Warks CC / BD e/hc 17 Jun 2016 al statement- final.docx

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 2 PLANNING SUBMISSION ...... 6 3 SCREENING AND SCOPING ...... 6 4 PLANNING HISTORY ...... 7 5 LAND OWNERSHIP ...... 8 6 PLANNING POLICY ...... 8 7 THE SITE ...... 11 8 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 15 9 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 20 10 LANDSCAPE / VISUAL IMPACT ...... 21 11 ECOLOGY ...... 28 12 ARCHAEOLOGY / CULTURAL HERITAGE ...... 28 13 SOILS AND AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION ...... 32 14 HYDROLOGY / HYDROGEOLOGY AND FLOOD RISK ...... 33 15 HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC ...... 33 16 NOISE ...... 35 17 DUST AND AIR ...... 37 18 DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN PREPARING THE ES ...... 38 19 TECHNICAL REPORTS CONCLUSION ...... 38 20 ALTERNATIVES ...... 40 21 ES SUMMARY ...... 41 22 PLANS ...... 43 23 NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY ...... 44 25 APPENDIX 1- PLANNING PERMISSIONS ...... 47

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

FIGURES Figure 7.1 Field drain in phase 17 in winter conditions ...... 13

Figure 7.2 dry field drain in phase 17 in summer conditions ...... 13

Figure 8.1 – New palisade Fence at Site Entrance...... 16

Figure 8.2 Mobile screening plant to be used at High Cross ...... 16

Figure 8.2 – Ancillary facilities under construction to replace original office weighbridge and stores ...... 18

Figure 10.1 – Palisade fence at site entrance...... 21

Figure 10.2 Orchard Farm on left, Copston Lane and quarry hedgerow boundary on right ...... 25

Figure 10.3 View Toward Site Entrance from central reservation on the A5 at High Cross ...... 25

Figure 10.4 Smockington Farm viewed form path R14a ...... 25

Figure 10.5 – Extract From Definitive Footpath Plan ...... 25

Figure 10.6 Showing matreu screen planting between site and A5 ...... 25

Figure 10.7 Hedgerow along edge of phases 13 and 14 on the western edge of the site...... 25

Figure 10.8 – Existing screeing bund between the access road and Copston Lane ...... 26

Figure 10.9 Views from towards Copston Magna from the centre of the site ...... 26

Figure 10.10 – New screening bund erected around western edge of the plant site looking over phases 18 - 20 with Copston Lane beyond behind the tree line ...... 26

Figure 10.11 – New screening bund erected around the plant site viewed from phase 7 ...... 27

Figure 10.12 View from access point showing new screening bund erected to the east of the plant site...... 27

Figure 10.13 – Mature screen planting established between the quarry and the A5 road...... 27

Figure 10.14 – Mature screen planting established along Cospton Lane ...... 28

Figure 16.1 New eastern plant site bund ...... 36

Figure 16.2 New western plant site bund showing the phases 18 – 20 and Copston Lane beyond ...... 36

Figure 16.3 Screening bund between the plant site and Copston Lane...... 36

TABLES Table 8.1 - Reserves ...... 17

Table 13.1 Agricultural Land Classification ...... 32

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

PLANS

Plan Ref Title

LD032-HC-006 Location Plan 150128-1v1 Topographic Survey 28 Jan 2015 HC2 Approved - Restoration Plan HC2a Approved - Supplementary Plan

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

1 Introduction

1.1 KSD currently operates High Cross Quarry (the Site) having acquired it from Cemex who in turn had purchased it from Bruntingthorpe Aggregates. The site is subject to a planning condition requiring the extraction of sand and gravel to cease not later than the expiration of 25 years from the beginning with the date of that permission. However that requirement has become complicated following the release of a further permission in 2002. None the less a further 26 years is required to excavate the remaining reserve. 1.2 As a significant mineral reserve remains to be worked at this site, planning permission is therefore to be sought to provide a sufficient period to complete the working of sand and gravel from the site. 1.3 It is currently estimated that operations are approximately 1/3 completed and therefore permission is sought to extend this deadline to 31 December 2044. This is based on assumed sales at a reduced output of 60,000 tonnes per annum and a reserve of 1.6 million tonnes and also allows a 2 year period to complete the final site restoration by 2046 1.4 A second element relates to condition 20 which prevents operations from starting before 0800 hrs. The Applicant would now like to commence operations at 0700 each day (excluding Sundays and bank holidays) in line with most other quarries in the region. 1.5 Discussions with the Mineral Planning Authority (the MPA) have indicated that the proposal in their view falls within the scope of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. This submission is therefore provides a planning and environmental statement to satisfy that request. This has been prepared on the basis of assessing the environmental effects of the three amendments proposed as required by Section 73 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Applicant

1.6 KSD is the largest supplier of aggregate based in Warwickshire, principally from its Dunton Site near Coleshill, which supplies mainly recycled / recovered materials and soils. The company also owns High Cross Quarry which is one of the largest remaining permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Warwickshire. 1.7 Following a number of years of low activity and mothballing at High Cross, KSD is now in the process of reopening the site to excavate the remaining reserve.

The Development Proposal

1.8 KSD is seeking to submit an application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for planning permission primarily to continue the

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

extractive operations on site to 31 December 2044. This is to allow time for the full reserve to be excavated as originally intended. 1.9 The aims of the proposed development are:-  The first element is to amend the operational hours under condition 20 in order to allow activity to start at 0700 rather than 0800 as set out in condition 20.  The second element of the submission is to seek formal authorisation for the new palisade fence at the site entrance. Having reviewed the existing permission we consider that this could be achieved either by agreeing to its erection under condition 22 which currently only requires a stock proof fence.  To operate without complying with condition 54 of permission R/02/CM007 as originally defined in permission Ref R1238/891452.

1.10 These are the only changes proposed. All other aspects of the winning, working and restoration will remain unchanged. 1.11 In essence this is proposal is, in the main, only seeking permission to complete the already permitted development within the existing quarry boundaries. 1.12 Regularising the new entrance fencing is aimed at resolving an outstanding site monitoring action. 1.13 The entire proposal does not seek to increase or substantially alter the physical nature of the development therefore the impacts likely to arise will be no worse than have been previously assessed as being acceptable by the MPA.

2 Planning Submission

2.1 This document comprises a joint planning statement (PA) and environmental statement (ES). 2.2 In addition, copies of the approved plans relating to the existing planning permissions at the site are also provided. 2.3 The proposals are made under S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act and, with the exception of the new palisade fence at the site entrance, do not promote any significant changes to the physical development that is already approved.

3 Screening and Scoping

3.1 Under the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 (the Regulations) confirmation was sought from the planning authority that the proposed submission should be subject to EIA.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

3.2 Following discussions with the MPA the development was screened as being EIA development on the basis that the area occupied by the original permission exceeds the threshold criteria set out in the Town and County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the Regulations). 3.3 The MPA also provided a scoping response setting out a number of environmental issues it wished to see addressed with the final submission. 3.4 The attached ES has considered the points raised in the scoping response and has provided what it considered to be a reasonable and proportionate response in addressing those matters. 3.5 It is important to note that as this application is made under S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, section 73(2) requires that the local planning authority shall consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted. i.e. This application is therefore limited to assessing the impacts of continuing the permitted development for a further period; operating the site 1 hour earlier each day and erecting a security fence at the site entrance. 3.6 Under S73 it would be ultra vires for an MPA to use a S73 application as ‘a second bite at the cherry’ or an opportunity to plug perceived gaps elsewhere in the existing planning permission.

4 Planning History

Background

4.1 Mineral extraction commenced at High Cross Quarry in the early 1990’s by the original applicant – Bruntingthorpe Gravels Ltd. Bruntingthorpe subsequently sold the site on to RMC/Cemex who worked the site at a low level and intermittent level until KSD took the site on approximately 3 years ago.

History

4.2 The first planning permission ref R1238/891452 was granted on 17th January 1991 and permitted the extraction of sand and gravel, deposit of clean inert soils, brick and concrete waste from the construction industry. 4.3 On 26 June 2002 a further permission ref R/02/CM007 was issued under S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which sought to allow the permitted development to continue without compliance with condition 9 of R1238/891452. 4.4 Condition 9 required the provision of wheel wash facilities on site but this requirement was removed following the approval of R/02/CM007. It is the Applicants position that this is now the active consent at the site rather than R1238/891452.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

4.5 Apart from condition 9, permission R/02/CM007 is understood to have incorporated the previous planning conditions in a verbatim form (by cross reference to the earlier permission) such that the wording of condition 54 is relevant to both planning permissions. 4.6 R/02/CM007 did not set out the other 1991 conditions and this therefore creates an area of uncertainty regarding the effect of condition 54. NPPG indicates that previous conditions should be ‘repeated’ in the new permission. Condition 54 reads;- ‘The extraction of sand and gravel shall cease not later than the expiration of the period of 25 years beginning with the date of this permission.’ 4.7 Therefore if condition 54 is ‘repeated’ in permission R/02/CM007 then effect is to result in new cessation date of 26 June 2027. Whether this was intentional or not is not clear. 4.8 Notwithstanding the above, even a 2027 end date is insufficient to work the remaining reserve so this application, regardless of whether the 2016 or 2027 date applies, seeks to clarify this point and provide sufficient time to complete the development.

5 Land Ownership

5.1 The Site ownership is currently owned in freehold by KSD and has two agricultural tenants that farm the unworked and restored areas.

6 Planning Policy

6.1 The Site is already permitted for quarrying and the proposed development will remain as defined in the current permission R/02/CM007 however the proposed development seeks to extend the life of the operations from 16 June 2016 to 31 December 2044 in order to allow the complete extraction of sand and gravel from the site. 6.2 Mineral Planning Policy in Warwickshire is primarily dictated by the saved policies of the Minerals Local Plan for Warwickshire (Feb 1995). That document is now somewhat out of date and is in the process of being replaced. 6.3 Policy in Warwickshire relevant to this proposal is primarily driven by the County Council and national policy documents rather than local council policy. These are briefly considered below. The key considerations are that:-  The site is an active mineral site with a significant mineral reserve remaining that is likely to last until 2042 at the anticipated rate of extraction.  The permitted use is temporary only and the land is being progressively restored back to agricultural use.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

 Sand and gravel extraction at High Cross Quarry is currently time limited to 17 June 2016 although the planning permission will endure beyond that to allow for restoration.  The site has been operating in an acceptable manner for two decades;  Landscaping measures implemented in the early 1990’s have now become very well established such that the screeing they now provide is very effective and will remain so for the duration of the further proposed works.  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires the safeguarding of existing planned minerals sites.  The site forms a major part of the Warwickshire sand and gravel Landbank. 6.4 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 6.5 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 require that a determination of any planning application must be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 6.6 The NPPF provides the most up to date policy on mineral matters but where differences arise between the Warwickshire Minerals Local Plan (the MLP) and the NPPF, the NPPF takes precedence. 6.7 Chapter 13 of the NPPF recognises that minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of materials to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. 6.8 Paragraph 142 recognises the need to provide a steady and adequate supply of minerals and in this regard Local Planning Authorities are required to safeguard existing, planned and potential sites for mineral extraction. 6.9 Warwickshire currently has a major deficit in its sand and gravel landbank meaning that there is a clear need to retain all of the existing permitted mineral reserves. The abandon them would be to waste a valuable and much needed asset and would place major pressure on other reserves in this and other surrounding counties to soak up the deficit. There is therefore a strong argument under NPPF to permit the proposed development in accordance with paragraphs 142 and paragraph 145 bullet point 6 which demands a minimum 7 year landbank be maintained in the county. 6.10 To that end the mineral extraction at this site forms part of the existing permitted landbank and should be carried forward with a planning permission for the proposed development. The applicant considers this to be a major material consideration.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Green Belt

6.11 The High Cross site is located on the edge of the West Midlands green belt, the boundary apparently being the southern limit of the A5 road. 6.12 Paragraph 79 of the NPPF makes clear the need to maintain openness and prevent the coalescence of urban areas. A key consideration in the current proposal is that the development is temporary only and is an active quarry with infilling operations. Once the quarry site is restored the original agricultural use will resume and long term openness is maintained. 6.13 Paragraph 89 adds that whilst the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt there are certain exceptions. Paragraph 90 advises that some forms of development are not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These include:-  mineral extraction;  engineering operations; 6.14 Therefore as NPPF recognises that mineral development is not inappropriate in the Green Belt the proposed additional period for sand and gravel extraction is not inappropriate development. This position is supported by the fact that in granting permission in 1991 for the quarry, the green belt impact was in place and considered then, and the conclusion drawn by the MPA was that the development is acceptable in the green belt.

Minerals Local Plan for Warwickshire (Feb 1995) (the MLP)

6.15 The Minerals Local Plan adopted in 1995 is saved and a revised minerals development plan is currently out for consultation. The emerging mineral development framework makes an assumption that the High Cross reserve will from part of the overall provision to 2032. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the proposed development is consistent with both the existing Minerals Local Plan and the emerging Minerals Plan. 6.16 The MLP key policy for sand and gravel extraction is policy M1 confirms that permission for development will normally only be given in areas of search or preferred areas. Policy M5 seeks to protect workable reserves from sterilisation. The MLP makes the assumption that High Cross is committed development and there is a general presumption that the full reserve declared in the landbank will be worked. 6.17 There is therefore a presumption in favour of the proposed continuation of the site until the sand and gravel reserve is exhausted.

Policy Summary

6.18 In summary therefore the High Cross site has permission and forms and essential part of the emerging minerals development framework. The

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

environmental impacts have previously been assessed and found to be acceptable. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the proposals accords with the existing and emerging development plans, as well as NPPF.

7 The Site

7.1 The Site comprises 46.5 hectares at High Cross on the A5 (T) road between Hinkley and Lutterworth. The nearest village is Copston Magna to the west with High Cross being a small sporadic settlement on the north side of the A5 road. 7.2 The Site sits to the immediate south of the A5 road which runs approximately north west – south east along the northern site boundary. Access into the Site is directly from Copston Lane which adjoins the Fosse Way immediately prior to the latter joining with the A5. 7.3 The access between the site and the A5 was the subject of a S106 commitment for highway improvements prior to the commencement of operations and those improvements were implemented to the satisfaction of the highway authority at that time. 7.4 The area around the site is gently rolling countryside principally used for mixed arable and grazing uses. 7.5 The nearest property to the site is Orchard Farm on Copston Lane, which appears to comprise two dwellings. Minerals working and restoration works closest to Orchard Farm have already been completed and operations are now moving away from it. The site access road runs parallel to Cospton Lane and will remain in use until the restoration works are complete. 7.6 The site includes a valley feature with an agricultural drain that runs through permitted phase 17 and flows in a westwards direction. 7.7 Landscaping works have been undertaken on the northern and southern boundaries of the site such that tree planting on those boundaries is now 20 years old and provides excellent screening of the site. 7.8 The plant site and processing area is currently being reconfigured to provide new office and site management facilities. These are being implemented under permitted development rights linked to the winning and working of the sand and gravel.

Site Boundaries

7.9 The northern boundary of the site is formed by the A5 and the mature intervening hedgerow planted as part of the quarry development. 7.10 The western boundary of the site is formed by a north to south hedgerow that links the A5 to Copston Lane.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

7.11 The southern limit of the Site is formed by Copston Lane hedgerow and eventually joins with the northern boundary along the A5 to from a roughly triangular site.

Geology, Mineral Reserve and Water Table

7.12 When originally permitted the mineral reserve comprised 2.1 million tonnes of sand and gravel but current estimates suggest that approximately 1.6 million tonnes remain to be worked and sold as an asphalt / building sand. Experience has shown that the gravel fraction in the deposit is a very low proportion of the overall reserve and by far the greatest product (by volume) is the fine sand which is suitable for asphalt and building sand use after processing or as a non specified bulk fill. 7.13 Across the site the water table varies but sits within the base of the sand deposit. The workings are intended to remain dry and KSD does not intended to excavate below the water table. 7.14 The volume of material in the ground extends to almost twice the identified mineral reserve, but half the volume has been considered by previous operators to be unsuitable for use as a building or asphalt sand. Those operators did however sell the material as a bulk fill product. 7.15 The material that was considered as unsalable has been used in the final site restoration. This explains how the restored areas were completed without the need to import any restoration materials.

Water Table

7.16 The site is an undulating landform that sits either side of a small agricultural drain that runs west wards through Phase of the 17 the site. The ground water level sits approximately 1m below the proposed quarry floor but within the overall sand deposit.

Water Courses and Water Features

7.17 There is one watercourse within the site this being an agricultural drain that runs westwards though the southern part of the site from Copston Lane. This sits entirely within Phase 17 and is seasonally dry.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Figure 7.1 Field drain in phase 17 in winter conditions

Figure 7.2 dry field drain in phase 17 in summer conditions 7.18 Whilst permission to excavate in that area exists, the developer will defer a decision on whether to excavate that land to a later date as the mineral reserve there is very shallow and the commercial viability will need to be considered at that time.

Overburden and Soils

7.19 Previous ALC surveys undertaken by Bruntingthorpe Aggregates and MAFF indicated that most of the site comprises best and most versatile land. ALC is discussed in more detail in section 13 below. 7.20 In recognition of this best and most versatile quality, MAFF recommended that if permission be grated, that it be subject to a number of conditions to manage the restoration of the site in order to ensure that best and most

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

versatile quality land is returned at the end of operations. These recommendations were incorporated into the subsequent planning permissions, with restoration to be set out as per plan HC2A. 7.21 The current proposals do not intend to alter the way in which the site is worked and restored and therefore we see no need to reinvestigate issues relating to soils as no likely significant impacts will arise from the proposals.

Residential Receptors.

7.22 Residential receptors occur primarily along Copston Lane, with Orchard Farm being the closest property. Orchard Farm sits closest to Phase 1 but the closest phases to Orchard Farm are already worked and restored. Operations have now moved on to the phase 4/5/6 area, some 270m away. 7.23 Copston Magna village sits 740m to the west of the western limit of the site; Properties at High Cross village sit 700m to the north east of the nearest active phase and are all located on the northern side of the A5(T) dual carriageway. 7.24 The existing planning permissions and site design included provisions for ensuring that environmental impacts at all of these receptor locations were retained at acceptable levels. The planning permission also required the implementation of a landscaping scheme that included the construction of noise screeing bunds and the planting of tree screens on the site boundaries in order to visually screen the site. 7.25 All of this landscaping work was done and those features are all now very well established such that there are no views into the site from any residential properties other than interrupted and distant views from the upper storey of one of the buildings at Orchard Farm. 7.26 Mindful of this single view, the Applicant has recently undertaken maintenance works on all of the screeing bunds as well as having created a new and temporary bund to the north west of the plant site in order to provide further noise and visual screeing of the plant site such that it cannot be seen even from the upper storeys of this one property. 7.27 The established landscaping and environmental screeing works are all therefore operating as they should and as required in the planning permissions. The only anticipated effect on these properties arising from the increase in the life of the site is the prolonged duration of operations. As the effects are deemed to be acceptable due to the mitigation measures discussed above, it is the Applicants view that the proposals will not result in any likely significant adverse impacts at Orchard Farm, Copston Magna nor High Cross village.

Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

7.28 There are no public rights of way within the mineral extraction area although a short section of one path does run within the planning permission boundary

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

on the very western limit of the site. There is no intention to divert this section of path as it sits outside and proposed operational area. 7.29 The two public footpaths closest to the site run along the western boundary of the site between the A5 and Copston Lane and it is joined by a second path that links the above footpath adjacent to Phase 15, and runs south westwards to Copston Magna village. 7.30 The site topography is such that views of the site from the latter path are unlikely as the land falls from the western limit of the site towards Copston Magna. 7.31 No changes are proposed as a result of this development proposal other than an increased life for the site. As the environmental impacts there are considered to be acceptable, it is not considered that an increased timescale for operations would give rise to new likely significant impacts.

Airfields

7.32 There are no major airfields within 13km of this site and as no open water is proposed in the site restoration, it is not considered that the proposed development will have any direct impact on airport operations.

8 Existing and Proposed Development

8.1 The proposed application is to be made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and is primarily aimed at extending the life of the quarry operation to allow the extraction and sale of sand and gravel as to be completed as per the existing permitted plans. However, two other smaller amendments are also sought as set out in 8.2 – 8.4 below:-

Condition 54 - Extension of Time to Complete Sand and Gravel Extraction

8.2 The application will seek to extend the date for the completion of sand and gravel extraction to 31 December 2042. This allows for a further 27 years to excavate the permitted sand and gravel reserve at an average rate of extraction of 60,000 tonnes per annum.

Condition 20 – Proposed Increase in Starting Time

8.3 The second element is a proposal to amend the start times for operations under condition 20 such that work can commence on site at 0700 rather than 0800 as set out in the current permission. This request is justified on the basis that the original condition was imposed to protect Orchard Cottage when quarry and restoration operations were close to it. The phases closest to Orchard Cottage are now worked and restored and operations are getting progressively further away. Furthermore the intensity of operations has proved to be much lower than anticipated in the original application.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Condition 22 – New Palisade Security Fence at Site Entrance

8.4 The third element is that permission is being sought to alter condition 22 to also allow the erection of a 2.25m high palisade fence and gates at the site entrance. 8.5 This fence is required to prevent motorcycle trespass on site as the standard stock proof fence required by condition 22 proved to be too low and allowed motorbikes to be lifted over it. Despite other means to control the bikes being tried, none were successful until the palisade fence was erected. This can be removed at the end of the development if required.

Figure 8.1 – New palisade Fence at Site Entrance.

The Permitted Mineral Extraction Proposals

8.6 The mineral extraction proposals will remain unchanged, with mineral being removed from the quarry face by 3600 excavator and fed into a mobile screeing plant. 8.7 At present the processing plant proposed is a dry screen only, such that there is no requirement for silt lagoons etc.

Figure 8.2 Mobile screening plant to be used at High Cross

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Reserves

8.8 The volumes and tonnages that are likely to be generated phase by phase when the site was first permitted were approximately 2.1 million tonnes to be excavated at a rate of 150,000 tonnes per annum. The mineral reserve has not been assessed in detail for some time but the operator understands that approximately 1.6 million tonnes remains to be worked. 8.9 The overall reserve contains a high proportion of material considered unsuitable for asphalt and building sand production although some of that material may have uses for lower specification bulk fill type uses. Based on the experience of Cemex, it is understood that an occasional market can arise for this lower specification material and this increases the volume of material that can be sold or classed as reserve. However, competition from recycled materials in these lower specification markets can make for volatile trading of these poorer quality materials. 8.10 This lower quality sand is therefore intended to be used as a restoration material if no market exists for it. To that end it has been used to restore the early phases of the site already. 8.11 In summary, the following tonnages and volumes remain to be worked under the existing planning permission;

Table 8.1 -Indicated Reserves

Overburden to be relocated (approx) 350,770 m3

Sand Reserve (estimated) 1,600,000 tonnes

Other Mineral / Restoration Materials (based on 42% of deposit being unsaleable and therefore used as a 680,000 tonnes restoration material to achieve plan HC2a level as per the original Bruntingthorpe application)

8.12 No topsoil or subsoil from the site is to be removed under this proposal, as per the existing planning permission requirements.

Working Depth

8.13 Excavation within the site is expected to remain above the water table although the sand reserve is known to extend beneath the water table. 8.14 Workings to date have all been dry with the excavations stopping between 0.5 and 1m above the indicated water table level.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Quarry Dewatering

8.15 Other than in the event of a major rainfall event there are no plans to dewater the site as all excavation will be dry.

Ancillary Facilities.

8.16 Other than a processing plant, the only other built development required on site is the usual necessary ancillary facilities such as offices, weighbridge and stores required for managing the site linked to the winning and working of the sand and gravel and site restoration. 8.17 These are currently being erected to replace the original stores and plant which have become variously dilapidated or have been removed by previous owners. The replacement facilities have been erected under the permitted development rights that attach to the site. As such all quarry related structures will be removed from site following the completion of operations.

Figure 8.2 – Ancillary facilities under construction to replace original office weighbridge and stores

Operating Hours

8.18 Existing planning condition 20 restricts the hours of operation allowing the quarry to operate 6 days per week as follows:-  Monday – Friday 0800 - 1800  Saturday 0800 - 1300  Sunday and Bank Holiday - No operations.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

8.19 Under the proposal the Applicant would like to commence operations at 0700 Monday – Saturday. This is in keeping with the usual hours of operation for quarries across the UK. It is understood that the original 0800 timescale arose as a result of potential noise concerns when the early phases of extraction and restoration were close to Orchard Farm. As the current and future phases of extraction are now well away from Orchard Farm it is our understanding that the need for the 0800 start time has passed and an 0700 start time should be acceptable.

Output and Traffic

8.20 The original planning permission was developed on the basis that there would be a 150,000 tonnes per annum output of sand and gravel with up to 200,000 tonnes per annum of material being imported to complete the restoration. 8.21 In assessing potential vehicle movements from the site, these levels of output are considered to be acceptable as the site access is very close to the A5(T) road which is deemed capable of carrying this volume of traffic. Furthermore the S106 agreement provide for a safe quarry access design from Copston Lane, along with a traffic routing agreement to prevent vehicles using Copston Village as a short cut. 8.22 Under the proposed time extension, there is no intention to alter these output / import rates.

Restoration

8.23 The restoration of the site is intended to return the site to best and most versatile agricultural land at a slightly lower level than currently exists. 8.24 The scheme also requires the importation of inert materials to assist in achieving a final restoration landform in line with permitted restoration plan HC2a. This final land form will reflect the original and surrounding landscape but will be at a slightly lower level than the original ground contours. This approach allows the original landscape character to be recreated (albeit at a lower level), best and most versatile agricultural land to be recreated and the amount of imported materials needed to restore the site are to be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve this balance without requiring excessive imported materials for restoration. 8.25 Quarry waste will also be an important element in the restoration of the site and to date has been the sole medium used to restore the site. 8.26 The time extension proposal does not seek to alter the restoration proposals from those already permitted.

Site Entrance Security

8.27 The third element of the application relates to the site entrance where current condition 22 requires a ‘stock proof fence’ without defining a specific fence

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

type. The traditional post and wire mesh type fence has proved to be stock- proof but has been totally ineffective against motorcycle trespass which has lead to noise disturbance in the area at weekends. The Applicant is therefore seeking an amendment to condition 22 to make it clear that a 2.4m high green painted palisade fence with associated double gates at the site entrance bell-mouth is acceptable. This fence is painted dark green and will be maintained in a good condition until site operations have ceased and restoration is complete at which point the fence will be removed.

9 Environmental Effects

9.1 This section considers a number of issues that might conventionally be regarded as being relevant topic areas when scoping an Environmental Statement for a minerals development. In considering the relevance of these topic areas, it is important to consider the criteria imposed by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. 9.2 This is particularly relevant for the proposed development which seeks to only extend the life of an existing permitted development such that the key alterations will only be when activities occur on site. The physical scheme will not alter from that permitted.

ES / S73 - Key Assessment Parameters and Limitations

9.3 Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 states that the information for inclusion in an environmental statement should include;-  A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development…..’ 9.4 Regulation 2 (1) a and b require that the ES should only demand; 9.5 ‘...such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile,.....but includes at least the information referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 4;’ 9.6 It is therefore clear that the ES needs to follow a considered route and should not become an all consuming requirement listing every issue where an effect of any magnitude might occur. Only issues that are both ‘likely’ to occur and ‘significant’, need to be considered. Furthermore the information must reasonably relate to the environmental effects of the proposed development. An all consuming data gathering exercise for all possible effects of a proposed development is not the aim of the Regulations. 9.7 As the proposed development is under a S73 planning application, the aspects of the development to be considered are those that only relate to

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

the proposed changed conditions. It is not an opportunity for ‘a second bite at the cherry’ or to ‘plug perceived gaps in the existing planning permission.’ 9.8 As the quarry is not new development, permission already exists and mineral excavation has taken place on the Site previously, under the permissions mentioned above. Furthermore the planning permission has no specific end date and will therefore continue for 60 years from the date of permission. Therefore the current permission will continue until at least 2051 or 2062 if the more recent permission for amendment to condition 9 is taken into account. 9.9 None of the physical quarrying activities approved under the existing planning permission will change under this application. The only thing that will change is the duration of the proposed operations.

10 Landscape / Visual impact

10.1 There are few visual receptors to the High Cross Quarry, due to the rural and sparsely populated nature of the High Cross Plateau; the screening and the now mature and dense planting around the perimeter of the Site. The Site forms a broadly triangular shape and all boundaries, except the western limit of phase 17 comprise dense and tall hedgerows. 10.2 The only element of the proposals that results in a direct visual change to the site is the provision of the new fence at the site entrance.

Fig 10.1 – Palisade fence at site entrance. 10.3 The change to the site operating hours creates no visual impact and similarly the change to condition 54 for the period over which sand and gravel can be excavated similarly creates no new physical visual impacts, only a deferral of those impacts which have previously been assessed and accepted. 10.4 It is against this baseline that visual impacts of the continued operation and the erection of the new fence at the site entrance should be assessed.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Visual Receptors

10.5 The nearest residential properties are located on Copston Lane at Orchard Farm / Orchard Barn. This comprises a small group of 3 properties set back behind mature hedges from Copston Lane on its eastern side. 10.6 The northern boundary of the Site is formed by the Warwickshire Leicestershire county boundary and beyond that there is the A5 Trunk Road. The boundary with the A5 was extensively tree planted in the early 1990s’ and now comprises a dense hedgerow which prevents views into the site. On the northern side of the A5 is the small settlement of High Cross which comprises a small collection of residential properties along Bumble Bee Lane. None of the properties has a direct view of the site. 10.7 To the west the nearest properties are Smockington Farm (110m aOD and 500m+ from the nearest extraction phase) and Smockington Hollow Farm (100m aOD 140m from the nearest extraction phase.) The nearest extraction phase sits at 110m aOD and behind a 2m high dense managed hedge. The site is not therefore visible from either of these properties. Farther south is The Hollies Farm and The Grange which sit in Copston Magna, 700m+ to the west of the western limit of the quarry. Neither property has direct views of the quarry. 10.8 The only public right of way in the vicinity of the site is R14a and R14b follows the western site boundary between Copston Lane and the A5 road. This path variously sits just outside or just inside the planning permission boundary. 10.9 Views from each of these location are shown below.

Proposed Visual Changes Arsing from the Extended Period for Mineral Working

10.10 The visual impact of the quarry development will not alter in an adverse way from that already approved despite the period for sand and gravel extraction alone lasting longer than was approved in existing condition 54. Indeed the slow rate of development to date has meant that the mitigating landscaping works undertaken at the commencement of operations (in the early 1990s’) are now significantly better established than was expected when the initial planning permission was granted and that planting was undertaken. As a result the screening benefit provided by these works is much more advanced than was anticipated when permission was first granted and as such the landscape and visual impacts are much reduced compared to what was expected when permission was granted. 10.11 As a result the time extension will not result in any new or worse landscape or visual impacts than were previously approved.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Palisade Fence

10.12 The one proposal where visual changes do occur is at the site entrance where the likely visible effects of the new palisade fence at the site entrance need to be considered. Following discussions with the MPA the palisade fence has been painted dark green and vegetation is starting to inhabit it. This work followed a complaint about the silver finish of the fence when it was initially installed. Since painted green, it is our view that there is no significant visual impact as can be seen in figure 10.9.

Landscape Character

10.13 The site lies within the national character area – Leicestershire Vales (Area 94) this is a description of a large character area stretching between Leicester and Coventry. 10.14 A more detailed description of the local landscape character is given in the Landscape Assessment of the Borough of Rugby -Sensitivity and Condition Study. This advises that the site sits in the High Cross Plateau which it describes as a sparsely populated area characterised by wide rolling ridges and valleys. It goes on to describe the area as follows:- 10.15 This is a remote, large-scale, open, rolling plateau dissected by broad valleys, characterised, for the most part, by wide views and a strong impression of "emptiness" and space. This is reinforced by an absence of roads and settlements, with sparsely populated hamlets and isolated manor farmsteads prevailing. In places there are extensive areas of largely inaccessible countryside, which relates closely to deserted medieval village sites. Field pattern is generally medium to large in scale but is often poorly defined and tends to be a relatively minor element in this landscape, as the eye is naturally drawn to distant skylines rather than to foreground views. In places, however, smaller fields may occur, often associated with pockets of permanent pasture, and ridge and furrow. Shelterbelts may also form prominent features in an otherwise open and featureless landscape. 10.16 Sensitivity – Fragility: Whilst the Open Plateau is a planned landscape, the cultural sensitivity varies with the central plateau summit having a more consistent pattern than the rest. Ecological fragility is low across the whole LCT. 10.17 Sensitivity – Visibility: The rolling topography gives rise to a moderate sensitivity, but on the plateau summit the more gently rolling landform, together with the presence of very distinctive shelterbelts, results in reduced visibility. The area between Harborough Magna, and Cosford, north of Newbold on Avon, has a high visual sensitivity due to lack of tree cover. 10.18 Overall sensitivity: Due to a combination of cultural coherence and rolling topography, the overall sensitivity is rated as moderate. This becomes high to the north of Newbold on Avon where the landscape is rolling but unwooded.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

10.19 The working of sand and gravel and backfilling to create a rolling agricultural and open landform was initially devised to ensure that the landscape character was retained without the need to reinstate the original landform exactly. This approach enables the landscape character to be protected in the long term whilst minimising the need for imported materials to recreate an acceptable landform. 10.20 Approved Restoration Plan HC2a has been considered by the MPA and approved as providing an acceptable end use and landform. Regardless of the outcome of the current planning application, that scheme is the approved restoration scheme and is the one that is being implemented. 10.21 On balance whilst there may be a temporary impact on landscape character whilst the sand and gravel is excavated, the restorations scheme will mitigate this impact and the landscape character will be retained. 10.22 On this basis it is considered that there are no likely significant visual impacts that will arise from the changes to the landscape character arising from the proposal.

Landscape Conclusion

10.23 In summary the permitted development has already been assessed and designed to minimise the potential impacts on visual receptors and landscape character, as part of the permissions that exist. 10.24 The screening works implemented since permission was first issued in 1991 have matured to create dense and effective screens around the site that effectively hidden the operations. Whilst the proposed development results in the permission for the extraction of sand and gravel to take place over an increased period, the delays that have occurred have meant that the visual impacts of the development have, as a result of the maturing of the tree screening around the site, been reduced in severity from the level of impact that was accepted in 1991 when permission was first issued. 10.25 There are no direct views into the site from any sensitive receptor. There are views from footpath R14a / R14b on the western limit of the quarry, but the path appears almost unused there being no sign of regular use along its limit. 10.26 The landscape character is one of generally open landscape with open field in a rolling landscape. The proposed restoration maintains this character and therefore any impact on character is not likely to be significant. 10.27 In conclusion there are no landscape grounds to justify objecting to the extension of the period over which sand and gravel may be extracted nor the erection of the palisade fence providing the colour of that fence is maintained in a dark green colour.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Fig 10.2 Orchard Farm on left, Copston Lane and Fig 10.3 View Toward Site Entrance from central quarry hedgerow boundary on right reservation on the A5 at High Cross

Fig 10.4 Smockington Farm viewed form path R14a Fig 10.5 – Extract From Definitive Footpath Plan

Fig 10.6 Showing mature screen planting between Figure 10.7 Hedgerow along edge of phases 13 site and A5 and 14 on the western edge of the site.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Access Point Screening bund following Copston Lane (behind recent maintenance works bund and trees

Haul Road

Figure 10.8 – Existing screeing bund between the access road and Copston Lane

Figure 10.9 Views from towards Copston Magna from the centre of the site

Copston Lane behind Phases 18-20 New 3m screening trees. mount around plant site and stock area

Figure 10.10 – New screening bund erected around western edge of the plant site looking over phases 18 -20 with Copston Lane beyond behind the tree line

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

New 3m screening Copston Lane behind mount around plant trees. site and stock area

Figure 10.11 – New screening bund erected around the plant site viewed from phase 7

New internal screen bund

Figure 10.12 View from access road showing new screening bund erected to the east of the plant site.

Figure 10.13 – Mature screen planting established between the quarry and the A5 road.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Phases 18-20 Copston Lane Orchard Farm behind hedge

Figure 10.14 – Mature screen planting established along Cospton Lane Phases 18 -20 sit behind the hedge on the left of the photographer, with Orchard Farm visible in the distance.

11 Ecology

11.1 The Site is predominantly in active arable agricultural use with the main quarry void sitting in the middle of the overall site and being devoid of vegetation. The main habitat areas on site are the landscaping tree belts that the previous operator planted, along with and the agricultural field drain in phase 17. As part of the overall development the site has been planted with over 5000 new trees and shrubs making a significant contribution to increasing biodiversity on the site. 11.2 The hedges erected as screen planting will be retained as part of the site restoration works and thus represent an increase in available habitat and foraging around the site compared to what existed prior to quarrying commencing. 11.3 The operator is currently undecided on whether phase 17 will be fully worked but if it is, then the field drain (see figure 7.1 above) will be diverted first to manage surface run off and also to maintain it as a potential habitat. 11.4 As the time extension will not affect the screening hedges any further and as the majority of the site is either active quarry or active arable land, it is considered highly unlikely that any likely significant impacts will arise from the proposed extension of time compared to the levels of impact already. Indeed the need for ecological assessments’ to when all that is under consideration is an extension of time is in our opinion unreasonable and would be seeking a second bite at the cherry’.

12 Archaeology / Cultural Heritage

12.1 A scoping assessment undertaken by the Applicant has identified archaeological and cultural heritage impacts as something that Historic England would like to see investigated further as part of this development.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

12.2 Historic England recognises that no extension to the quarry is proposed beyond that permitted in 1991, but considered that any application must be supported by a thorough and robust assessment of the heritage impacts based on a review of the current knowledge of the archaeological interest. 12.3 This section sets out the cultural heritage background and provides an objective view point form the applicants point of view regarding the historic environment and work that has gone on before. 12.4 Preparation of a more detailed assessment is underway but, due to the lack of time to prepare that report between the issuing of the formal scoping opinion and the 17 June 2016 when sand and gravel extraction is due to stop, it has been necessary to submit this application and ES without the larger assessment report. That report will follow this submission and will include an accompanying extension to the determination period (agreed to by the Applicant) such that the reports content can be properly considered as part of the S73 determination.

Nature of the Proposed Changes

12.5 It is important in assessing the effects of the development proposals that the extent of S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is taken into account. The statute makes it clear in S73(2) that the local planning authority shall consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted. I.e. the effect of permitting the changes to the varied conditions. 12.6 In this instance, of the three elements to the development proposal, only the changes to conditions 22 (fencing) and 54 (time period for excavation of sand and gravel). 12.7 The proposal in condition 22 seeks to erect a palisade fence rather than a standard stock-poof fence (as is required by the existing condition 22) 12.8 The amendment to condition 54 seeks an addition 26 year period to complete the excavation of the permitted sand and gravel reserve. This arises as the previous operators of the High Cross Site never worked it at the rate of output intended. As a result over half of the originally permitted mineral reserve remains unworked. The S73 application will allow the originally permitted development to be completed. 12.9 It should be noted that condition 54 of the original permission is not an end date for the entire planning permission but relates only to the ‘extraction of sand and gravel’. All other aspects of the existing permissions remain extant as the permission itself has no end date specified by planning condition and therefore reverts to the requirements of statute which provide for a 60 year life from the date the permission was first granted. This being the case, the site can remain open for infilling activities for circa 40 years under the existing consent. It is with this in mind that the continuation of sand and gravel extraction within that 40 year period needs to be assessed.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

Cultural Heritage Background.

12.10 The Site has previously been assessed for its cultural heritage potential and three distinct archaeological zones were identified within the permitted excavation area as part of a mitigation strategy agreed with the MPA. That strategy derived from an evaluation undertaken in 1990 prepared by Warwickshire Museum. This included a desk top assessment; field walking and 1684m (2700m2) of trial trenching. 12.11 Within that evaluation, Zone 1 (being adjacent to the scheduled monument) was excluded from the excavation due to its high archaeological potential. 12.12 Zone 2, in the north western part of the site (primarily in phases 12,16 and parts of 11 and 15) was deemed to contain remains of lesser importance than those in Zone 1. The proposed scheme of investigation in that area comprises:-  A comprehensive contour survey  Removal of topsoil under supervision of a competent archaeologist  Excavation and recording of an appropriate sample of all archaeological features present (in consultation with Warwickshire County Council Museum Service)  Suitable publication of results  Appropriate arrangements for deposition of excavation archive finds. 12.13 Zone 3 was considered to contain no known archaeological features and the following archaeological work was proposed.  Inspection of the clean gravel surface following removal of topsoil  Suitable recording of features uncovered to include total excavation where necessary  Suitable publication of results of all archaeological work  Appropriate arrangement for the deposition of excavation archive and finds. 12.14 On this basis it is considered that the archaeological impacts of the site are controlled and managed to an appropriate level.

Setting Issues

12.15 Historic England expressed the view that this development could, potentially have an impact upon a number of designated heritage assets and their settings in the area around the site. This view is based on the idea that any application must be supported by a thorough and robust assessment of the heritage impacts based on a review of the current knowledge of the archaeological interest.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

12.16 Heritage England note ‘Our initial assessment shows there are 16 designated heritage assets within 1km of the proposed development (4 scheduled monuments, 11 listed buildings and 1 conservation area). Of particular relevance are:-  Roman town at High Cross (National Heritage List for England Unique identifier (NHLE UID) 1003566) - Scheduied monument  Crop mark of a bowl barrow at Wigston Parva (NHLE UID 1010200) – Scheduled monument  Bowl barrow at Wigston Parva (NHLE UID 1010197) - Scheduled monument.’ 12.17 Whilst this is numerically correct of these 16, only part of one of these designated sites is visible to / from the development site, that being the Roman town site at High Cross which affects land either side of the A5 and Fosse Way, both of which completely bisect the scheduled area and have changed massively in character compared to what they were in Roman times. The majority of designated assets are therefore have no obvious visual connection to the Site due to a mix of topography, landscape and other man made features. 12.18 The scheduled monument of the Roman town at High Cross sits on the eastern limit of the site and is now separated from the excavation by a tract of restored land. The scheduled monument has been preserved in situ and is under no direct threat from the quarry operations as the working scheme has been designed in consultation with the council and English Heritage’s predecessor and the County Archaeologist. Furthermore all future working is at least 250m from the scheduled area and will progressively get further way as the development progresses. 12.19 The two scheduled barrows identified by HE are located to the north of the A5 Dual carriageway and are not visually connected to the development site. The Roman town affects land to the east of the excavation site. It is the Applicant view that final landform will reflect the historic landscape character and therefore the effect of setting is likely to be neutral in the longer term. 12.20 The approved restoration scheme requires imported materials to be used to re-create a rolling landscape similar to that which currently exists and reflects the local landscape character. This being the case, the medium to long term impacts of the proposed quarry are expected to be neutral as the setting will remain in a form very close to what originally existed. When the effects of the A5 dual carriageway and modern residential development in the immediate area are taken into consideration, it is the Applicants view that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the extension of time, new temporary fence and the increase in hours would result in any unacceptable impact on setting of any designated asset bearing in mind the nature of the proposal which is already permitted and the other much larger local changes such as the A5 dual carriageway and the large High Cross road junction.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

12.21 Again, a time extension alone will not alter the impacts on archaeological remains from those already approved and the applicant is not aware of any new material increase in importance of any of the known remains in the area that would justify refusing planning permission for the proposed development.

Further Investigation

12.22 Whilst the above sets out the Applicants understanding of the likely cultural heritage effects of the proposed development, a more detailed report is in the process of being prepared b y the Archaeology Collective Ltd to address each of the matters raised by Heritage England in its scoping response. 12.23 Unfortunately the time available between the issuing of the scoping response and the 17 June 2016 (when sand and gravel extraction as to cease) is insufficient for that report to be prepared, but it will be formally submitted, with an appropriate extension in time to the determination period for the planning application once it is available. 12.24 Further comment is therefore deferred until that report is available.

13 Soils and Agricultural Land Classification

13.1 Previous ALC surveys undertaken by Bruntingthorpe Aggregates and MAFF indicated that most of the site comprises best and most versatile land. The MAFF letter to Warwickshire County Council dated 4 July 1990 advises that the land is split as follows:- 13.2 Table 13.1 Agricultural Land Classification

Grade Percentage

2 57

3a 32.5

3b 8.7

3c 1.1

13.3 In recognition of this best and most versatile quality, MAFF recommended that if permission be granted, that it be subject to a number of conditions to manage the restoration of the site in order to ensure that best and most versatile quality land is returned at the end of operations. These recommendations were incorporated into the subsequent planning permissions, with restoration to be set out as per permitted plan HC2A. 13.4 The proposals do not intend to alter the way in which the site is worked and restored and therefore as the approved scheme will not affect ALC any further than already permitted, and as ALC has already been fully investigated, no further work is required in this regard. 32

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

14 Hydrology / Hydrogeology and Flood Risk

14.1 The extension of time for the completion of the mineral extraction and restoration of the site is unlikely to have any new and likely significant effects on hydrology / hydrogeology as the operation is not intended to extend into the water table. 14.2 The proposed working will excavate the site dry and therefore no adverse impact is anticipated on the water table as a result of any dewatering activities as none is proposed. 14.3 The seasonal field drain that runs through Phase 17 sits within an area where there are geological reserves but the depth of those reserves is very shallow and it may not be commercially viable to work the whole of phase 17. 14.4 Figure 7.1 shows the existing field drain which, if the area is to be worked, will be first diverted before being reinstated as part of the final site restoration as per permitted restoration plan HC2a. This is the only area where the proposals may interact with surface water run off. Again this is all part of the already permitted scheme and not new to the development. 14.5 The placement of inert materials in the site as part of the restoration process is similarly not expected to adversely affect the water environment. 14.6 No silt lagoons or material washing is planned nor is any abstraction from ground water. Surface run off will therefore continue at green field rates. 14.7 On lower land to the west of the site there are two man made ponds with OS mapping indicating a spring line between the site’s western boundary and the ponds. This is consistent with the water levels experienced in the quarry. 14.8 It is therefore considered that the proposed changes to the conditions will not impact upon the water environment.

15 Highways and traffic

15.1 The existing site access to the quarry from Copston Lane is well established and is subject to a separate HGV routing agreement. Furthermore condition 15 restricts the number of movements from the site to 75 loads (two way movements) per day. 15.2 The A5 and Fosse Way roads are capable of accommodating the levels of traffic proposed at the Site. Notwithstanding this, the original operator entered into a Section 106 agreement committing them to highway improvement works between the site and the A5. These works were all implemented. A number of planning conditions also control the operations form a highway perspective to ensure that site traffic is well controlled. 15.3 The screening and scoping exercise confirmed that :-  ‘Highways England agrees to the principle of the proposed continuation of the operation of the site and considers that it is

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

unlikely to have any material impact on the strategic road network due to the existing cap on trips. The proposed changes to the operation of the site are also unlikely to have a material impact on the A5;’- Highways England Letter dated 27 Jan 2016  Warwickshire County Council:- ‘Having considered the proposed continuation of extractive operations on site beyond the originally permitted date, the Highway Authority considers that the provisions of the remaining conditions will remain, albeit with the amendment to daily operating hours described above. As such, the Highway Authority agrees with the conclusions in paragraph 15.3 of the request document.  Whilst no drawings have been provided showing the proposed boundary treatment, the Highway Authority notes that this will have to be in accordance with conditions of the original planning permission including Condition 13 relating to visibility splays. With these provisions in place, the Highway Authority does not consider that the proposed boundary treatment is likely to have a significant effect on the safety or operation of the highway.’ Warks CC Highways Letter dated 4th February 2016 15.4 It is therefore clear that the highway authority and Highways England do not see any likely significant impact arising from the proposed development. 15.5 Aside from these statutory consultees, comments also arose in the scoping exercise from two residents at Orchard Farm and Copston Magna. They raised the issue of articulated lorries using the widened section of Copston Lane for rest breaks and informal parking. This also involves vehicle turning in the quarry bell mouth and this has lead to extensive damage of a small separation island in the bell mouth. 15.6 in her scoping response to the MPA suggested that a weight restriction except for access should be applied to Copston Lane; Copston Lane should be subject to double yellow lines; High Containment kerbs installed on both sides of the road around the quarry entrance to prevent turning. The response also goes on to make representations about the junction of the Fosse Way and the A5(t). 15.7 in her response raised similar highway issues to regarding ensuring highway safety in Copston Lane. has raised the issue of reducing permitted quarry vehicle movements in line with the High Cross Quarry's own forecast; Reinstating Condition 9 of the original permission for on-site wheel washing facilities and provision for road sweeping when required; 15.8 The Applicant is aware that non quarry related traffic is using Copston Lane as an impromptu parking area, the issue is not one that is in their control as it relates to third party vehicles use of the public highway. As such these are not

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

matters that are the responsibility of the Applicant (or indeed any other land owner along Copston Lane) to resolve. 15.9 As regards reinstating condition 9 and a requirement for a wheel wash, in recent months the Applicant has already voluntarily installed a new wheel wash close to the weigh bridge and plant site. This has been done via permitted development rights. 15.10 In summary Highways England and the Planning authority both consider the continuation of the site to be acceptable. The local HGV parking issues along Copston Lane between the site and the Fosse Way are recognised but are not matters that are in the control of the Applicant as they involve third party vehicles parking on highway land. As such they are not a matter that arises directly from the proposed development nor should they prevent it proceeding. 15.11 It is not therefore anticipated that permitting the proposed increased life of the site will result in an unacceptable highway impact that would justify refusing planning permission.

16 Noise

16.1 The nature of the local area is such that the background noise levels are dominated by traffic noise from the A5(T) road next to the site. Only three properties sit close to the site these being Orchard Farm / Orchard Barn on Copston Lane which sit close to the site access road; and Smockington Hollow Farm which sits to the north of the A5 (T) road and is closest to the north western corner (Phase 16) of the site. 16.2 The noise impact of the development proposal has been assessed by HolfordClark consultants who have calculated the predicted noise from the relevant phase of the development proposal on the nearest façade of the noise sensitive receptors. This calculated noise level has then been compared to the noise standards contained in the Planning Policy Guidance – Minerals. 16.3 Due to the timescales involved in preparing this application, the final report will not be available to accompany the application but the consultant preparing that report has confirmed verbally that concludes that the work undertaken shows that the proposed time extension and associated proposals will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on noise sensitive properties and will conform with government guidance. 16.4 The general significance of the worst case impact of the mineral extraction phase is considered to be within the absolute exposure level of 55dBA as a 1 hour LAeq recommended within Planning Practice Guidance for short term (< 8 weeks) works. 16.5 The site already benefits from existing noise screening along side the site access road where there is a continuous 3m high noise bund separating the site traffic from receptors along Copston Lane. Similarly a 3m bund has been

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

erected around the northern aide of the plant site and a similar bund around the eastern side of the plant site.

Fig 16.1 New eastern plant site bund

Fig 16.2 New western plant site bund showing the phases 18 – 20 and Copston Lane beyond

Fig 16.3 Screening bund between the plant site and Copston Lane.

16.6 On the basis of the outcomes of the noise assessment we would not propose the implementation of any further additional ‘hard’ noise mitigation measures. However due to the ‘moderate’ short term impact of the soil and overburden stripping phase of the development we would recommend that prior to these activities being undertaken the relevant residential properties in the proximity of the work be advised that the work is due to commence and given a clear expectation of the predicted working hours and timescale of the phase.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

16.7 As a result a time extension is not expected to result in any likely significant change in noise levels, especially with the approved noise screens in place. Further noise assessments are not therefore appropriate in these circumstances.

17 Dust and Air

17.1 As with noise, the same sensitive properties were identified around the site and a dust and air quality assessment report prepared and included within this submission. A full assessment report is appended to this submission. This report concludes that the impact of two operational activities; namely ‘on- site transportation’ and ‘stockpiling and exposed surfaces’ cause a ‘moderate’ risk of disamenity to two local receptor locations, namely Tollgate Cottage and High Cross Ways. The risk from all other sources on all other receptors are assessed as being negligible or slight. 17.2 Planning Practice Guidance – Air Quality; paragraph 9 asks the question “Will the proposed development (including mitigation) lead to an unacceptable risk from air pollution; prevent sustained compliance with EU limit values; or national objectives for pollutants or fail to comply with the requirements of the Habitat Regulations?” 17.3 Based on the assessment outcomes the answers to each of these three planning policy questions are ‘No’. In these circumstances the PPG advises planning decision-makers to “Proceed to decision with appropriate planning conditions / planning obligations”.

17.4 A PM10 assessment air quality assessment has also been undertaken to assess the impact of bringing the quarry back into full use. This provides a quantitative estimation of existing baseline PM10 exposure at sensitive receptors near to the development and then to provide a quantified estimate of the impact on air quality of the maximum additional HGV

component of PM10 associated with off-site movement of HGVs. 17.5 The assessment has used the Department for Transports Design Manual for Roads and Bridges spreadsheet to calculate the predicted exposure of these

two receptors to PM10 with and without the proposed development. 17.6 The maximum predicted change in air quality at the nearest air quality

receptor has been calculated to result in a change in PM10 of 0.03µg/m3 calculated as an annual average. This represents a 0.17% change in the baseline air quality and a 0.08% change in air quality compared to the annual average AQS for respirable particulate. 17.7 Planning Practice Guidance – Air Quality, paragraph 5 states; “Whether or not air quality is relevant to a planning decision will depend on the proposed development and its location. Concerns could arise if the development is likely to generate air quality impact in an area where air quality is known to be poor. They could also arise where the development is

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

likely to adversely impact upon the implementation of air quality strategies and action plans and/or, in particular, lead to a breach of EU legislation” 17.8 Based on the significance criteria issued by the IAQM (2009) the magnitude of impact of the traffic changes associated with the development would be described as ‘Imperceptible’ and the significance described as ‘Negligible’. 17.9 In conclusion an extension of time is unlikely to result in any significant adverse impact arising from dust or air quality.

18 Difficulties Encountered in Preparing the ES

18.1 Whilst this submission covers the requirements of the EIA regulations, one main difficulty in preparing this ES has been the shortage of time between the issuing of the Scoping Response on 21st March 2016 and the point at which sand and gravel extraction is required to cease. 18.2 The balance of submitting a planning application by 17th June and preparing an associated ES has resulted in an ES where some elements have had to be reported based on oral advice from technical advisors rather than final technical written reports. 18.3 To overcome this it is the Applicants intention to submit these additional final reports to the MPA for due consideration once they are available. Such submission will be also accompanied by an agreement for an appropriate additional period for the determination of the application to take into account those submissions.

19 Technical Reports Conclusion

19.1 In summary as the primary purpose of the proposal is for a time extension in relation to condition 54, the evidence would suggest that now new and unacceptable environmental impacts will arise that are incapable of either being accepted on their own, or being accepted with appropriate mitigation in place. 19.2 The landscape assessment has identified that the there are no significant views into the site from any residential properties. Direct views do arise from footpath R14a and b along the western boundary of the site. This path runs close to the excavation and will in places have open views of the excavation if no screening mounds are provided on the open limits. However, footpath R14a/b is not heavily used as it only connects Copston Lane to the Warwickshire / Leicestershire border. This means the path stops short of the A5 road as the Leicestershire definitive footpath plan does not provide for a continuation between the county border and the A5 public highway. The path therefore acts as a cul de sac with little obvious purpose or connection. Notwithstanding this, views from the path can be completely screened by using a combination of low screening mounds and existing hedges on the edge of the workings meaning that visual impacts on the path can be

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

prevented. One does however have to consider whether this is necessary with the extremely low level of use that the path endures. 19.3 The landscape character of the area is of the High Cross Plateau and is generally an open rolling landscape. The excavation of sand and gravel will temporarily remove this in sections but the landform will be recreated through a combination of imported materials and quarry waste and overburden. This will maintain the landscape character following completion of the development. 19.4 An ecological survey of the site has been prepared by CBE Consulting to assess the site. That report setting out the ecological background is being finalised and will be provided shortly and an extended determination period agreed to by the Applicant. 19.5 Heritage England has highlighted a concern with particular regard to the effects on 16 designated heritage assets and a separate detailed report into that is being prepared and will be provided shortly. However, the initial assessment as set out in the submission shows that non of these 16 are directly affected and only one is visible from the development area. The significant changes to the local roads, large street signs and other modern development such as housing at High Cross and farming buildings all combine to impact on the historic landscape character. 19.6 The one (Roman High Cross) sits to the east of a restored area of former workings and the proposed workings will get progressively further from it, suggesting that the future impact will generally reduce. 19.7 Once the site is restored the final landform will ensure that the landscape character will be recreated to a form that will maintain the perceived setting of both this scheduled monument and the other designated assest in the vicinity. 19.8 Indeed the existing planning conditions already provide sufficient control over the development to manage the impacts to an acceptable level. 19.9 The amendment of condition 22 to allow the palisade fence at the site entrance is considered to be a minor matter and again has no significant effects if painted green. 19.10 The site comprises mostly best and most versatile quality land in grades 2 and 3a. All soils on site are being retained and the final restoration has been designed to create a similar landform to that which existed previously. This will be put back into agricultural use. This will ensure that any loss in agricultural use will be temporary only. The existing phase 1 - 4 areas have already been restored and that process will continue as working and placement of imported materials and quarry overburden progresses. 19.11 The development proposals therefore, at worst, defer the approved impact arising working and restoration but in the long terms there will be a neutral effect on soils and agricultural land quality.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

19.12 From a hydrological and hydrogeological point of view the proposed development proposes a dry working scheme and involves no water based activities. On this basis the continued operation of the site will not result in any new impacts to the water environment. 19.13 With regard to highway impacts arising from the proposed development, the quarry development was subject to a S106 agreement which required extensive access works at the operator’s expense. Those works were completed to the highway authority’s satisfaction and ensure that the quarry development could be undertaken in a safe an acceptable way. 19.14 As part of the scoping exercise, both Highways England and the Highway Authority (Warwickshire County Council) have, independently of each other, confirmed that the they have no objection to the proposed extended period for the development continuing. 19.15 On this basis there are no new highways impacts arising from the proposed time extension or changes to the site fencing and hours that should prevent planning permission being granted. 19.16 No new noise impacts are anticipated and extensive noise screeing measures are already in place on site to control noise. All noise effects will be within recognised limits set out in planning guidance. Similarly with regard to dust, no adverse significant effects are anticipated with regard to both dust or indeed air quality (i.e. PM 10 ). The dust and air quality report suggests that the provision of dust mitigating measures such as water spraying / damping down during in dry windy conditions etc should be maintained on site and the Applicant intends to maintain dust controls during dry windy periods. However in terms of the proposed extension to the period for sand and gravel extraction, there are no impacts that should prevent the continued operation of the site. 19.17 As a result there are understood to be no unacceptable impacts arising from the proposals.

20 Alternatives

20.1 The Applicant has only one alternative to the proposed time extension under condition 54, that being to cease sand and gravel extraction. For obvious commercial reasons the second option is not acceptable to the Applicant and there are no apparent environmental reasons that should prevent the proposed changes to condition 54 from being permitted. As a set out above, condition 54 is ambiguous as a result of the way in which the 2002 permission was granted and cross referred to the 1991 planning conditions. The proposed development therefore does provide an opportunity to clarify the time periods for sand and gravel extraction. 20.2 The proposal to amend condition 20 seeks to allow the site to open at 0700 instead of 0800 each morning as is currently permitted (excluding Sundays and bank holidays). The Applicant considered starting earlier than 0700 but 40

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

on review considered that this would be too early and unnecessary for its business needs. However, a 0700 start time is a general industry standard across the midlands and one that customers generally assume applies to all quarry sites. As 0700 is the start of the working day and when most construction companies want to source materials for that days work, restricting the site to an 0800 start does disadvantage the operator compared to its competitors. Finally with relation to condition 22, the current requirement is for the operator to erect a stock proof fence. That type of fence has proved ineffective in preventing motorcycle trespass on site. That trespass in turn has lead in the past to noise complaints being made to the Rugby BC EHO about the noise being generated by the bikes. Following several attempts to bolster the existing fencing, screeing bunds and hedgerows, which only resulted in limited success, it was identified that bikes were accessing the site by being lowered over the stock proof fence from flat bed / pick up trucks being used by the motorbikers. The operators therefore decided the only way to overcome this was to erect a fence which is too high for them to do this. The Applicant has therefore considered other lower and cheaper alternatives to the palisade fence, but due to the nature of the trespass problem the only solution was to provide a high fence. As a result there are not considered to be any alternatives that would achieve the intended result.

21 ES Summary

21.1 The proposals development seeks to amend three elements of an existing extant planning permission. These are:-  Variation of condition 20 to allow site operations to commence one hour earlier i.e.at 0700 instead of 0800 as is currently permitted.  Variation of condition 22 to enable a 2.2m high green painted palisade fence to be erected at the site entrance to prevent motorcycle trespass on site.  Variation of condition 54 to allow a further 26 year period to enable the excavation of sand and gravel to be achieved. 21.2 The proposals do not seek to alter any other part of the scheme already approved nor the plans that relate to it. Therefore the assessment to be undertaken is to understand the impact of the development as changed, rather than to reassess the entire quarry development from scratch. 21.3 S73 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 makes it clear that the local planning authority shall consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted 21.4 In light of this, the impact of a time extension has been screened, scoped and assessed and bearing in mind this is an existing development that has

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

previously been assessed and accepted by the MPA; forms part of the existing mineral landbank for Warwickshire; and that robust planning conditions are in place as shown by the ongoing site monitoring that effectively manage the development. 21.5 The proposals do not introduce new aspects to the scale of the use nor the intensity of what is already permitted indeed the level of output is considered to be less than that which was anticipated when permission was first granted in 1991. On this basis it is the applicant’s view that the council is already possessed of sufficient environmental information upon which to make a determination and that this submission serves to confirm the position and provide updated information where appropriate. 21.6 Having determined several applications and detailed schemes for this Site, as well as undertaking regular site monitoring surveys, the council is in apposition where it is sufficiently aware of the environmental effects arsing from the activities on site. Furthermore as a result of the ongoing site monitoring the council is sufficiently conversant with the effectiveness of the control measures in place, to understand the effects of a time extension at the Site without the need for further detailed technical assessments into those effects. 21.7 The main changes proposed are at a practical level, limited to the duration of the existing permitted development which has already been deemed to be acceptable based on the conditions attached to the permissions at the site. 21.8 As the site is generally remote from receptors and as landscaping and screening works are much more advanced and effective than was envisaged when planning permission was first granted, we conclude that the proposed time extension has allowed the site to be developed in a less intrusive manner than was envisaged in 1991. 21.9 Based on the information to hand and advice from technical consultants involved in preparing this submission, It is our view that there is a low likelihood of new and unacceptable significant effects arising when the remote nature of the site and the controlling effects of the existing planning conditions are taken into account. 21.10 In conclusion the 3 changes proposed are considered to accord with the development plan and seek to recover important primary aggregates. Planning permission has already been granted for this and the reserve forms part of the active country landbank. As there are no significant new impacts that should prevent the development from progressing. 21.11 In order for an application to be made by 17th June this submission has, by necessity been drawn together in some instances based on oral advice and reporting, as well as existing environmental data. In some instances written reports are awaited and can be provided at a later date, together with a corresponding extension of time for determining the application if required.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

22 Plans

Plan Ref Title

LD032-HC-006 Location Plan 150128-1v1 Topographic Survey 28 Jan 2015 HC2 Approved - Restoration Plan HC2a Approved - Supplementary Plan

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

23 Non Technical Summary

23.1 A planning application has been submitted to allow operations at High Cross Quarry to continue with variations to three existing planning conditions. This application seeks permission for changes to those conditions as follows:-

Development Proposals.

23.2 Condition 20 currently restricts operations to :-  8 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday  8 am to 1 pm on Saturday  No operations or uses shall take place on Sundays bank or public holidays 23.3 The Applicant now wants to change the references to ‘8 am’ to read ‘7 am’ in order to allow the quarry to compete with other suppliers across the midlands where a 7 am start time is the norm. 23.4 Condition 22 requires the operator to place a stock proof fence around the site however this has proved to be insufficient to prevent motorcycle trespass, particularly at weekends. Trespassers were visiting the site in large vans and pick up trucks and lowering their motorbikes over the stock proof fence from their vehicles. To counter this, the applicant is seeking permission for a a 2.25m high green painted palisade fence and gates at the Site entrance instead of the stock proof fence 23.5 Condition 54 requires that sand and gravel extraction shall cease not later than 25 years from the date planning permission was granted. There is some confusion over when that 25 year period expires, the earliest view being that it is June 2016. The current application therefore aims to resolve this issue and provide sufficient time to allow the permitted quarry development to be worked and completed in accordance with the approved plans. It is estimated that the remaining sand and gravel reserve will take 26 years to be extracted.

Environmental impacts arsing from the changes

23.6 Under the amendment to condition 20, the potential impacts arise from the effects of starting quarry operations at 7am instead of 8am. 23.7 Under the amendment to condition 22, the effects of erecting a 2.25 m palisade fence are limited to visual impacts. 23.8 Under the amendment to condition 54, the development proposed does not seek to alter the quarry development other than by extending the time frame for sand and gravel extraction. The changed effects of the quarry development are therefore limited to the effect of the increased timescale rather than any overt change in how the quarry will operate.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

23.9 The palisade fence is a visible structure at the site entrance but if kept painted a dark green colour, it blends very well with the hedgerow in the field behind. Whilst the fence is more prominent that a standard stock-proof fence, the benefits to noise reduction by preventing motorcycles using the quarry, is considered to be in the public interest as the visual impact of the painted fence is not significant 23.10 The effects of the increased timescales for development are not likely to result in any new significant effect. The only effect will be the longer period taken to complete extraction. However, as the screen planting and bunds that were installed in the early 1990s’ have now matured, there are no significant external impacts arising from the site and the associated development.

Mitigation to be employed

23.11 The existing mitigation provided by planning conditions at the site will be retained and employed for the duration of the operation as set out in the existing planning permissions for the site. 23.12 In particular noise screeing mounds alongside the access road and around the plant site will be maintained for the duration of the operations and the screen planting on the site boundaries is clearly now well established. The schemes for archaeological investigation will be similarly retained and employed. 23.13 Traffic impacts from the continued use of the site and the earlier start time will remain acceptable to the Highway Authority and Highways England. This is supported by the highway improvement works undertaken as part of the quarry development when it first opened. 23.14 A scheme for recording archaeological remains on site is already in place for the whole site and as the mineral working closest to the scheduled monument of High Cross Roman Town has been completed and restored, the temporary effects of the quarry on the monument will reduce further as the scheme progresses as all future operations will move away from the scheduled area. The restoration scheme for the site will return the landscape character of the site to reflect what existed previously, using the minimum amount of imported material. This will ensure that the perception of setting for the scheduled monument and indeed other heritage assets in the wider area will be maintained in the long term. 23.15 The plant and machinery employed at the site will be located in the bunded area at the base of the quarry and will be maintained to a high standard to ensure that they are operating as they should and not generating unacceptable levels of noise or emissions. 23.16 All lorries leaving the site will be sheeted and running surfaces will be damped down during dry windy periods to ensure that dust generation is minimised.

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

23.17 Although planning permission was obtained in 2002 to operate the site without a wheel wash, the operator has recently installed one anyway to ensure highway cleanliness and dust generation are well managed.

Summary

23.18 A planning application has been submitted to operate the High Cross site with three amendments to the existing planning permission. Those changes will allow the quarry to operate from 7 am each day (excluding Sundays and bank holidays); will allow the erection of a 2.25 m high green painted palisade fence at the site entrance to help prevent motorcycle trespass on site; and provide a further period of 26 years to complete the extraction of the remaining sand and gravel at the site which has been worked at a much slower rate than was envisaged in the original application. 23.19 The increase in start time is considered to be acceptable and is consistent with similar sites operating across the midlands. Noise levels will be controlled and maintained within recognised limits in accordance with government guidance and the operator will keep early morning noise low. 23.20 The erection of a palisade fence provides a taller fence than that required in condition 22 however, following various unsuccessful attempts to prevent motorbikes accessing the site at weekends, the palisade fence option is considered necessary to control an antisocial issue affecting the wider community. The fence when painted a dark green colour blends well with the hedgerow behind so visual impact is low. 23.21 The extension of time for the excavation of sand and gravel will result in no new impacts other than the extended period for that excavation. However, the slower excavation to date has enabled the site screen planting to grow and mature to provide a very dense and effective visual screen around the site. This means that views into the site are screened much more effectively than was anticipated when permission was first issued in 1991. 23.22 In conclusion the proposed development will have three main effects, none of which will generate significantly adverse impacts on the environment. The public benefit of approving the application is that an existing permitted sand and gravel reserve can be extracted. Refusing permission could in effect remove the a substantial reserve from the permitted landbank requiring release of a similar sized reserve elsewhere in the county to maintain essential supplies to the construction industry. 23.23 As the proposal accords with the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework considered that planning permission should be granted

KSD High Cross Planning Application and Environmental Statement June 2016

25 Appendix 1- Planning Permissions

Planning Permissions R/02/CM007 and R1238/891452