Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Landscape Mitigation Additional Information to Support Planning Application

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Landscape Mitigation Additional Information to support planning application

Vista Landscape Studio June 2013

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield The following is the dialogue from T Cuss from Northampton County Council concerning concerns for the development at Stone Pits Quarry. The responses from Vista Landscape Studio are stated in red with reference to the subsequent figures and drawings:

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Conservation stone quarry to extract Blisworth Limestone (Oundle variety) Blockstone, Flagstone and Large Walling Stone LOCATION: Stone Pits Quarry, Between Upper and Lower Benefield, A427, Northamptonshire, PE8 5AN

1. I have some concerns regarding details of the data, information and assessments provided in the Environmental Statement and technical appendices on which I would welcome clarification or further information. I have also made some suggestions for amendment of landscaping or habitat creation proposals in order to ensure avoidance of impact on protected species and that appropriate mitigation is included in planning proposals and ecological and landscape enhancements would be secured for the long term were any application to be approved. In my opinon the landscaping proposals do not currently provide suitable or adequate mitigation to reduce impacts or enhance landscape character. Response: After discussions on site it was agreed that the planting belt provided along the eastern boundary due to the size of the proposed trees would provide adequate mitigation to the proposed quarrying activities. It was also agreed that the subsoil and topsoil mounds would be shaped to be more harmonious with the existing contours. These are shown on Figure 5 and supported by sections on Figures 6 and 7 on the subsequent pages of this response.

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by Vista Landscape Studio Ltd has been included within the appendices of the Environmental Statement. The landscape sensitivi- ties appear not to have taken into account local landscape designations. According to the LVIA the DEFRA Magic interactive map has been used as a source of environmental data. However nei- ther the LVIA nor Figure 4 ‘Landscape Features’ include information on the Conservation Areas at Upper and Lower Benefield, the Benefield Castle Scheduled Ancient Monument or the Sites of Special Scientific Interest at Banhaw, Spring and Blackthorns Woods. According to the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ desk-top studies should explore special interests including nature conservation, historical or cultural heritage associations. Confirmation should therefore be provided by the applicant’s Landscape Consultant that these designations have been fully taken into account in the LVIA assessments. Response: It is confirmed that Vista Landscape Studio considered the SSSI’s and Ancient Monument when assessing the projects and impacts but due to the distance away from these designations found that there would be no impact on them.

3. Tables 21 to 28 within the LVIA set out details of the predicted impacts of the proposals on landscape character of the selected viewpoints 1 to 9. The landscape impacts on viewpoints 4, 5 and 6 to the southeast and south west of the quarry site are assessed as moderate. The impact at the junction of 3 footpaths to the east of the development site at viewpoint 2 is assessed as minor. The changes to the Rockingham Plateau Character Area (7C) landscape character are assessed as of High Magnitude and the significance of the impact as Moderate-Major. I would note that an assessment of cumulative impact on the environment should not be limited only to similar developments. Response: It is considered that there are no other developments proposed within suffi cient proximity to the development to cause an adverse cumulative impact in landscape terms. The nearest operational development is the Harley Way Quarry which has already been considered in the submitted LVIA.

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 1 Landscape Mitigation and Residual Impacts 4. Section 6.1.1 of the Landscape Assessment Appendix identifies operations sources of potential impact on landscape and landscape character. These include the 8m high landscape overburden mound and 3m subsoil storage mounds, stone stockpiling, creation of a settlement pond, haul road, areas of hardstanding and a weighbridge. Section 9.1 describes proposed short, medium and long term proposed mitigation measures, however, the timescales of these terms are not defined. Unless the tree stock are standards and at least some areas of instant hedging is planted, then the landscaping proposals will not provide any screening of the quarry during the 17-year operational life. Response: On the mitigation plan Figures 12 and 13 within the LVIA report there is a schedule that states that the trees will be 16/18 size and will be planted at 4.0-4.5metres in height. These will provide immediate screening effect on day of planting. These have been updated and added to this report See Figures 9 and 10 below

5. The proposed mitigation woodland screen planting is very straight and linear in nature and is therefore not characteristic of the existing woodland or hedgerows within the Character Area. The proposed woodland crosses the valley whereas the majority of narrow linear woodlands follow the line of streams or roadways. The proposed landscape screening therefore does not in my view provide the level of enhancement to landscape character as assessed with in the LVIA and Environmental Statement and may have a negative impact. Response: This item was discussed on site and it was noted that there are a number of existing linear woodland belts in the vicinity of the Site that run across the contours. One particular feature was noted to the south-west of the Site on the opposite side of the valley that forms the southern boundary. The belt comprises conifers but would be similar in width to the mitigation woodland belt proposed as part of the proposals. The advantage of the proposed belt is that it will comprise indigenous tree species of appropriate size to provide immediate impact.

6. I do not agree that the proposed short and medium term mitigation measures, such as the 8m high overburden/waste mineral mound and the subsoil storage mounds, reduce the impacts on visual amenity. I would not therefore concur with the conclusion made that these mitigation measures can be assessed as reducing the impacts or that the proposals would not result in residual negative impacts on landscape and visual amenity or result in a long term positive change to the landscape framework. The storage mounds would be incongruous features in the landscape and would in my opinion contribute to the negative the impacts and be more visible to sensitive visual receptors than the quarrying operations. Response: It was agreed on site that additional proposals would be provided showing more sympathetic mounding with curving contours that would blend with the contours and not act as incongruous mounds. These are shown on Figure 5 and supported by sections on Figures 6 and 7 on the subsequent pages of this response.

7. More information and clarification is needed as to how the overburden mound would be seeded and grass and wild flowers would be established and why these measures have been proposed. The proposal for seeding of the temporary mound with wildflowers made within the LVIA is not repeated within Section 5.1.8 of Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment appendix nor has it been assessed as providing any mitigation or benefit for biodiversity by the Ecological Consultant. Response: It was agreed that the mounding would be sown with a grass mix as this would blend with the existing landscape character better than wild flower planting. This can be agreed as a condition

8. According to the Restoration and Aftercare Scheme that has been submitted in support of the Planning Application the land will be restored to near existing levels. The LVIA states that “the proposed restoration of the conservation stone quarry will restore the topography of the landscape, creating a landscape which slopes in accordance with the original contours”. I con- sider that more detailed technical information is need to explain the reference to the ‘bulking factor’ referred to in section 3.8.9 of the ES in order to provide confirmation of what the final restoration level would be. Response: Bulking / settlement – it is estimated that net bulking (i.e. after settlement) will be c. 5 – 7.5% for overburden and c. 15 – 20% for limestone waste. On this basis it is estimated that final restoration landform levels (assuming no importation of material) will on average be c. 0.5 – 1.0m lower than original levels. It is considered that the reduced final restoration landform levels will not be significant in terms of land after-use. Phased infilling – PGWA drawings (nos. 9 – 14) give a detailed narrative and illustrate, as far as is reasonably practicable to do so, the phasing of quarry development and backfilling. Temporary perimeter and internal quarry access ramps will be established as necessary on in-situ material and backfill material as quarry development proceeds. Site operating conditions may dictate that the quarry is not developed exactly as illustrated in the drawings and quarry development may involve wider phase strips. However, the principal of minimising the extent of phased excavation and maximising progressive backfilling and restoration will be maintained.

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 2 9. I would recommend that, prior to determination of the application, the submitted Landscape Mitigation Strategy is reviewed and revised to the in order to provide better mitigation for impacts on visual amenity and landscape character. Response: This report covers the issues raised.

Restoration and Landscaping 10. A number of the tree species proposed in the Landscape Mitigation Strategy on both the main site and track access are not appropriate because they are not locally native or are non native (such as Prunus cultivars and Ribes sanguieum). No numbers, sizes, stocking density or percentages are included on Figures 12 and 13. No information is provided on how it is proposed to maintain the proposed calcareous grassland. A revised landscaping scheme including locally native species of local provenance stock and well as details of establishment of grassland should be submitted and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to commencement of development vegetation clearance and construction of the access haul road. Response: There are sizes and spaces for the shrub under-storey on the Figures 12 and 13 already of the LVIA report and also shown on Figures 9 and 10 below. Non native species will be replaced with native cultivars. Trees are shown on the mitigation plan in the locations shown. Grassland habitats will be established in accordance with the detail set out in ‘File Note 13-0281 3202 D04 R’ which has been produced by Lockhart Garratt in response to comments raised in relation to the EcIA

11. A long term habitat management plan should be submitted and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority in order to ensure the landscape screening and proposed woodland mitigation habitats are retained in perpetuity. Response: The habitat management plan can be secured by way of planning condition post determination.

TREE SURVEY AND STANDOFF DISTANCES STATEMENT

12. Consideration should be given to locating the settlement pond further from tree T26 in order that the tree and any potential roost are adequately protected throughout the development. If the application is approved the submission of a final tree protection plan and Arboricultural Method Statement should be secured by means of a Planning Condition. Response: Agreed and noted

CONCLUSIONS 13. Ecological Mitigation Plans, pre-commencement bat and badger surveys, revision of the landscape restoration proposals, a detailed landscape planting schedule and grassland creation scheme, a long term habitat management plan and a final tree protection plan should be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority. In the absence of appropriate mitigation measures and method statements and revisions to the proposed landscaping and habitat creation proposals it is not possible to ensure that the development proposals would not have a negative impact on protected species and result in a loss of biodiversity and landscape character contrary to planning policy. Response: Agreed and noted

Richard Hodgetts – Vista Landscape Studio Ltd

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 3 N Phase 1 Mitigation Strategy

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 4 1 Legend:

2 Existing Trees/ Woodland/ Hedgerows.

3 Arable/Pasture Land

Proposed shelter belt with understorey to north-easten boundary. Planted in two phases

Proposed enhanced hedge with trees on north-western boundary

Proposed trees within existing hedge on south-western boundary

Proposed mitigation bunding 4 5 Arable Field Margin EF-1mix

6 Balancing Pond

N Phase 2 Mitigation Strategy (final before restoration contours undertaken)

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 5 Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 6 Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 7 Footpath crossing to comprise of concrete surface with ramps from the haulage road to the footpath to create a shared surface.

Kissing Gate to be located either side of haulage road 1250 1400 1200

0 1 2 3m 1:50 @ A3 size

N Detail showing footpath crossing points

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 8 Legend:

MG17 Existing Trees/ Woodland/ Hedgerows.

Arable/Pasture Land

Proposed shelter belt with understorey to north-easten boundary. Planted in two phases

Proposed enhanced hedge with trees on north-western boundary

Proposed trees within existing hedge on south-western boundary

Woodland blocks, grassland seed mix HS6 and tree groups on southern side. Area to be under grassland management

Benefield Quarry: Planting Schedule MG18 TREES Trees within hedgerows, shelter belt and adjacent to access track Tree Species Girth Root Height (m) Stock

Prunus avium 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Fraxinus excelsior 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Acer campestre 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Betula pendula 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Sorbus aucuparia 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Quercus robur 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5

SHRUBS Shrub planting mix to be planted within shelter belt and hedgerows 0 50 100 Shrub Species Container Density Height and Size (L) (m2) Spread (cm) N Acer campestre 3 3 40-50cm Corylus avellana 3 3 40-50cm Crataegus monogyna 3 3 40-50cm Ilex aquifolium 3 3 40-50cm Prunus spinosa 3 3 40-50cm Rosa rugosa ‘Alba’ 3 3 40-50cm Sambucus nigra 3 3 40-50cm Viburnum opulus 3 3 40-50cm Landscape Mitigation Strategy - Main Site

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 9 Legend:

Existing Trees/

MG27 Woodland/ Hedgerows.

Arable/Pasture Land

MG17

Proposed shelter belt with See Figure 8 understorey to north-easten boundary. Planted in two phases

A427 Proposed enhanced hedge with trees on north-western boundary

Proposed trees within existing hedge on south-western boundary MG18

Woodland blocks, grassland seed mix HS6 and tree groups on MG17 southern side. Area to be under grassland management

Benefield Quarry: Planting Schedule TREES Lower Benefield Trees within hedgerows, shelter belt and adjacent to access track Tree Species Girth Root Height (m) Stock

0 50 100 SHRUBS Shrub planting mix to be planted within shelter belt and hedgerows Shrub Species Container Density Height and Size (L) (m2) Spread (cm) N Acer campestre 3 3 40-50cm Corylus avellana 3 3 40-50cm Crataegus monogyna 3 3 40-50cm Ilex aquifolium 3 3 40-50cm Prunus spinosa 3 3 40-50cm Rosa rugosa ‘Alba’ 3 3 40-50cm Landscape Mitigation Strategy - Access track Sambucus nigra 3 3 40-50cm Viburnum opulus 3 3 40-50cm

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 10 Benefield Quarry Landscape and Visual Appraisal

Vista Landscape Studio October 2012

Benefield Legend:

Extent of Site

Upper Benefield Distance away from the site

9 A427 1.0km 0.5 km 1 Viewpoints

2 4 2.0km 5 8 Lower Benefield

Spring Wood 7 6 Causin Way

Banhaw Wood

Site Context/ Location of Viewpoints

Benefield Figure 1 Legend:

Extent of Site

Upper Benefield Distance away from the site

1.5km 1.0km 0.5 km A427 Zone of Visual Influence 2 A427

Lower Benefield

Spring Wood Causin Way

Banhaw Wood

Zone of Visual Influence

Benefield Figure 2 Legend:

Extent of Site

Upper Benefield

Contours at 5m intervals

A427 Ridgeline

Shallow ridgeline

Lower Benefield

Valley Spring Wood

Causin Way Banhaw Wood

Existing Topography

Benefield Figure 3 Legend:

MG4 Extent of site

Upper Benefield

MG26

MG3 Existing Vegetation Woodland/hedges A427 MG17 MG27 Agricultural Land MG2 Pasture/Arable D C A Urban MG17 B MG18 MG18 Lower Benefield Water courses

MG15 Public right of way MG13 Spring Wood

Causin Way A Viewpoint Locations of site

MG14 Banhaw Wood N

Landscape Features

Benefield Figure 4 Existing hedge along south-east Woodland associated with former boundary with rising land behind Spring Wood quarry on site boundary

View A Looking north-west across the site from the south-eastern corner of the Site

Woodland associated with former Existing hedge along south-east quarry on site boundary boundary with rising land behind

View B Looking north-east accross the site from the south-western corner

Benefield Figure 5 Existing hedge along Woodland associated with former north-west boundary quarry on site boundary Lower Benefield Banhaw Wood

View C Looking south-east across the site towards Lower Benefield in the distance

Woodland associated with former Existing hedge along quarry on site boundary Banhaw Wood north-west boundary

View D Looking south-west accross the site from the north-eastern corner

Benefield Figure 6 Application site

Woodland associated with former Trees and hedgrow on quarry on site boundary north-eastern boundary

View 1 Looking south-west from the public right of way (PROW MG17) towards the north-eastern boundary of the Site

Application site

Location of haul road into Woodland associated with former Trees and hedgrow on the Application Site quarry on site boundary north-eastern boundary

View 2 Looking south-west from public right of way (PROW MG17) towards the north-eastern boundary on the alignment of the proposed haul road

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 7 Application site

Banhaw Wood on horizon Woodland associated with former Trees and hedgrow on Benefield Cricket Club quarry on site boundary north-eastern boundary

View 3 Looking south-west towards the Application Site from public right of way (PROW MG27) adjacent to Benefield Cricket Club

Application site

Woodland associated Dwellings on Causin Way with former quarry on site boundary

View 4 Looking east towards the Application Site from the public right of way (PROW MG17) to the north of Lower Benefield

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 8 Application site

Woodland associated with former Upper Benefield on quarry on site boundary horizon

View 5 Looking north-west towards the Application Site from Causin Way (opposite castle)

Application site

Sheepwell Spinney Upper Benefield on horizon

View 6 Looking north from Causin Way through gap in hedge opposite access track to Springwood Lodge

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 9 Upper Benefield Application site Lower Benefield Spring Wood on horizon on horizon Causin Way

View 7 Looking north-east towards the Application Site from Causin Way and Spring Wood on public right of way (PROW MG15)

Application site

Upper Benefield on horizon Sheepwell Spinney Lower Benefield

View 8 Looking north-east towards the Application Site from the north-eastern corner of Spring Wood

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 10 Woodland associated with former quarry on site boundary Application site

View 9 Looking south-west towards the Application Site from the permissive footpath that skirts Upper Benefield.

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 11 Legend:

MG17 Existing Trees/ Woodland/ Hedgerows.

Arable/Pasture Land

Proposed shelter belt with understorey to north-easten boundary. Planted in two phases

Proposed enhanced hedge with trees on north-western boundary

Proposed trees within existing hedge on south-western boundary

Woodland blocks, calcereous grass land, wild flowers, and tree groups on southern side. Area to be under grassland management

Benefield Quarry: Planting Schedule MG18 TREES Trees within hedgerows, shelter belt and adjacent to access track Tree Species Girth Root Height (m) Stock

SHRUBS 0 50 100 Shrub planting mix to be planted within shelter belt and hedgerows Shrub Species Container Density Height and N Size (L) (m2) Spread (cm) Acer campestre 3 3 40-50cm Corylus avellana 3 3 40-50cm Crataegus monogyna 3 3 40-50cm Ilex aquifolium 3 3 40-50cm Prunus spinosa 3 3 40-50cm Rosa rugosa ‘Alba’ 3 3 40-50cm Ribes sanguineum 3 3 40-50cm Landscape Mitigation Strategy - Main Site Sambucus nigra 3 3 40-50cm Viburnum opulus 3 3 40-50cm

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 12 Legend:

Existing Trees/

MG27 Woodland/ Hedgerows.

Arable/Pasture Land

MG17

Proposed shelter belt with understorey to north-easten boundary. Planted in two phases

A427 Proposed enhanced hedge with trees on north-western boundary

Proposed trees within existing hedge on south-western boundary MG18

Woodland blocks, calcereous grass land, wild flowers, and tree MG17 groups on southern side. Area to be under grassland management

Benefield Quarry: Planting Schedule TREES Lower Benefield Trees within hedgerows, shelter belt and adjacent to access track Tree Species Girth Root Height (m) Stock

Prunus padus waterii 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Prunus avium ‘plena’ 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Fraxinus excelsior 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Acer campestre 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Betula pendula 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Sorbus aucuparia 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Quercus robur 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 0 50 100 SHRUBS Shrub planting mix to be planted within shelter belt and hedgerows Shrub Species Container Density Height and N Size (L) (m2) Spread (cm) Acer campestre 3 3 40-50cm Corylus avellana 3 3 40-50cm Crataegus monogyna 3 3 40-50cm Ilex aquifolium 3 3 40-50cm Prunus spinosa 3 3 40-50cm Landscape Mitigation Strategy - Access track Rosa rugosa ‘Alba’ 3 3 40-50cm Ribes sanguineum 3 3 40-50cm Sambucus nigra 3 3 40-50cm Viburnum opulus 3 3 40-50cm

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Figure 13 KEY

Site Application Boundary

Conservation Area (inclusive of Listed Buildings)

SSSI

Local Wildlife Site

Scheduled Ancient Monument

Public Right of Way

Bridle Way

DRAWING NO.: GPP/CSL/BE/12/05 REV NO.: 2 SITE CONTEXT PLAN

SCALE: NTS DATE: 31/10/12