Agenda Item 5.5
Regulatory and Other Committee
Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Communities
Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee
Date: 17 March 2014
Subject: County Matter Application – S16/0081/13 Application to extract limestone (dimension stone) from a northern extension to the Holywell Quarry with the restoration of the proposed extension area, the existing working area and the quarry tips to pasture, woodland and calcareous grassland at land within and adjacent to Holyw ell Quarry in the Parish of Careby, Aunby and Holywell.
Summary: Planning permission is sought by the Stamford Stone Co Ltd (Agent: Geoplan Ltd) to extend and consolidate their existing operations relating to the extraction of dimension stone at Holywell Quarry in the Parish of Careby, Aunby and Holywell. In brief, it is proposed to: extract 488,000 tonnes of dimension stone prim arily from an extension to the quarry, but with a very limited amount of material taken from the existing working area; to increase the annual production limit from 1150 cubic metres (about 2750 tonnes) per year to 20,000 tonnes; and to progressively restore the site primarily to a mixture of calcareous grassland and improved pasture. Holywell Quarry is considered to be one of the County's most important dimension stone quarries and has been supplying high quality "Clipsham Stone" (a type of limestone) for the renovation of nationally important historic buildings and for use on local buildings since well before the comprehensive s ystem of planning control commenced in 1948. Permitted reserves at the quarry are currently very limited and are mainly located in an area that would have a significant visual impact. The applicant is therefore seeking to extend the quarry to the north in to an area that contains larger reserves, but is considered to have less impact. It is also proposed to increase the output limit to facilitate the provision of dimension stone for a wider market (including new build) - thereby ensuring the quarry remains economically viable. The main issues that have been raised are:
Page 177 the detrimental impact of an existing quarry tip on both visual amenity and the landscape; the suitability and deliverability of the proposed restoration; the impact of the increased vehicular movements to/from the site; whether the stone should be conserved for the renovation of historic buildings; the potential presence of Great Crested Newts; the presence of archaeological remains; and the potential dust levels. Since the application was made, the quarry tip has been re-profiled and it is considered that it now assimilates into the surrounding landscape – resolving one of the main areas of concern. The restoration proposals are considered to provide an appropriate balance between meeting biodiversity action targets, making the most sustainable use of the soil, and assimilating the site into the landscape. Furthermore, it is considered that they can be secured through appropriate conditions. The proposal is relatively small scale and it i s considered that, subject to the mitigation measure s referred to in this report, it should not have any significant environmental effects. It is also considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and the Development Plan.
Recommendati on: That on completion of a Planning Obligation to prevent a resumption of working under the existing mineral permissions, that : conditional planning permission be granted; and that this report forms the Council's statement under paragraph 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.
Background
1. Holywell Quarry is a small building stone quarry located in the Parish of Careby, Aunby and Holywell. It is accessed via a shared quarry/farm access road that leads to Clipsham Road at a location immediately adjacent to the county boundary with Rutland. It is understood that quarry traffic has always gained access at this point from the west, through Rutland, where the road is known as "Holywell Road". The reason for this is that the road to the east of this access (Clipsham Road) is very narrow and unsuitable for Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCVs).
2. The quarry has been in operation for many years and the existing footprint of the site (the extraction area and an associated area of ancillary mining land used for the storage of quarry waste) was to a large extent established
Page 178 before full planning control commenced on 1 July 1948. After that date, with the exception of a very small area of land granted planning permission in 1949, mineral working appears to have continued until 1985 within the pre- 1948 boundaries of the quarry without express planning permission.
3. In 1985 an application was made for a small extension of the quarry into land beyond the northern and eastern boundaries of the area being worked at the time (S16/265/85). The issues that were taken into account in the consideration of that application included:
firstly, that the quarry was one of the most important building stone quarries in the County supplying dressed stone for the restoration and maintenance of nationally important buildings such as the Houses of Parliament and the Oxford Colleges, which involved only a small number of HCV movements (about four per week); and
secondly, that whilst Clipsham Road to the east of the access was unsuitable for HCVs, Holywell Road to the west also had limitations in terms of its width and construction.
4. Therefore, following consultation with Leicestershire County Council (which at that time incorporated Rutland), planning permission was granted subject to a condition limiting the output to 1,500 cu.yds per year (about 1150 cubic metres or 2750 tonnes per year).
5. The limitations of Clipsham Road were formally recognised in 1998 when the County Council made a traffic regulation order (imposing a 7.5 tonne weight restriction) prohibiting HCVs from that road. Under this order, a traffic sign was erected to the east of the quarry/farm access. Shortly after that, Rutland County Council made a similar order affecting Holywell Road, also erecting their traffic sign immediately to the east of the quarry access on Clipsham Road (in front of Lincolnshire’s sign ). On the face of it, it therefore appeared that the quarry/farm access was within the length of road affected by Rutland’s order, but outside the limits of Lincolnshire’s order. As HCVs are allowed to enter a road affected by a traffic regulation order for access to properties located within the order, it appeared that all quarry traffic could continue to access the quarry through Rutland – as they always had done in the past.
6. Under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995, the quarry was subject to its First Periodic Review in 2002 when the planning conditions were updated (Reference S16/0067/02). At that time, the then operator (Mowlem, Ratee and Kett) advised that a substantial volume of waste had accumulated within the quarry due to the fact that they had been concentrating on producing high quality, large block, dimension stone. As a result, the waste was restricting the working area, the area available for storage of product stone and the area for the turning and loading of vehicles. To address this, whilst the general restriction on output was re-imposed, the restriction was subject to an exemption allowing for an increase in the output to 2750 cubic metres for one continuous period of 15 months.
Page 179
7. The present operator, the Stamford Stone Company Ltd, acquired the site shortly after the First Periodic Review and embarked on a programme to update the quarry infrastructure, including the creation of a substantial area of hardstanding to improve the working environment. At that stage a complaint from a member of the public was received regarding the number of vehicle movements from the site. This was investigated but it was found that the increase in vehicle movements was due, at least in part, to the infrastructure works. However, it was established at this time that the operator had inadvertently extended the northern face of the quarry beyond the permitted area of working.
8. During subsequent discussions, the operator advised that the site still contained permitted reserves within the eastern extension, but that working that area could have potentially opened up the quarry to views from Clipsham Road. Therefore, in order to continue working the northern face and to increase the output limitation, the operator made two separate but inter-related applications:
the first, principally to extend the quarry into land to the north (S16/1725/04); and
the second, to amend two conditions imposed through the First Periodic Review to allow for an increase in production and to revise the restoration requirements (S16/1726/04).
9. The two applications were subject to the normal consultation/publicity requirements and it appears that in response to this, Rutland County Council relocated the traffic sign relating to their traffic regulation order - moving it from its position to the east of the access on Clipsham Road to a new position west of the access and set back about 10m on their side of the county boundary. Further discussions with that Authority and with the County Council ’s Highways Division subsequently brought to light the fact that the traffic signs had not originally been sited in the precise locations covered by the traffic regulation orders. Indeed, in terms of the impact on quarry traffic, the two traffic regulation orders had the opposite effect to what was previously understood: i.e. HCVs could only lawfully access the site from the east (through Lincolnshire), and not through Rutland. This created a problem because the narrow road to the east of the access is unsuitable for HCVs and is flanked by Local Wildlife Sites (protected roadside verges) and an SSSI – meaning that any HCVs travelling in that direction could overrun and damage the protected features (calcareous grassland).
10. Although it is understood that the quarry has never been accessed from the east, at that time the applications could only have been determined on the basis that all HCVs would have used the lawful route through Lincolnshire, which is unlikely to have been acceptable. Therefore, to allow an opportunity for the resolution of this issue, the applications were put on hold whilst:
Page 180 the operator negotiated an exemption with Rutland County Council, to allow its HCVs to pass through that County; and
this Authority amended its traffic regulation order to preclude quarry traffic using the section of Holywell Road to the east of the access.
11. The HCV routeing issue was only resolved in March 2011 and by that time the operator’s proposals needed to be updated to include a larger area for mineral extraction. The two applications made in 2004 were therefore withdrawn and a new application made to both extend the quarry and to consolidate all activities within the existing quarry into one planning permission.
The Application
12. Planning permission is sought by the Stamford Stone Company Ltd (Agent: Geoplan Ltd) to extract limestone (dimension stone) from a northern extension to the Holywell Quarry (in the Parish of Careby, Aunby and Holywell) and to restore the extension area, the existing workings and the quarry tips to a mixture of pasture, woodland and calcareous grassland. It is also proposed that, if granted, the planning permission would consolidate the existing permissions, so that the site can be worked and restored under one permission.
13. The applicant advises that the site contains Upper Lincolnshire Limestone that is suitable for use as dimension stone (“Clipsham Stone”) . Extraction of this stone has taken place at Holywell Quarry since the beginning of the last century, while stone from the same geological horizon has been quarried in the area since Roman times. The products from this quarry have been used in prestigious and historic building projects throughout the UK including: Windsor Castle, Kings College Chapel (Cambridge), several of the Oxford University Colleges, and Westminster Abbey. In addition, it is stated that stone from the site has been used in the majority of the stone buildings in Clipsham and the surrounding areas. The applicant goes on to point out that renovation works on the numerous historic buildings constructed of Clipsham Stone (as well as traditional new build or extension projects) creates significant demand for the stone quarried at Holywell. Indeed, as an example, a significant proportion of the renovation works that have been carried out in recent years in Stamford have used Clipsham Stone from Holywell Quarry.
14. The site covers an area of 15.7ha including the northern extension (6.7ha), the existing quarry and the quarry tips. It would be worked and restored over a period of 25 years.
15. It is proposed to extract 488,000 tonnes of limestone primarily from the northern extension of the quarry, but with a limited amount of material being taken from the existing operational area. This would be worked to a maximum depth of 58.0m AOD, above the maximum ground water level.
Page 181 16. The maximum proposed annual output of dimension stone would be 20,000 tonnes. Under an existing Highway Agreement with Rutland County Council that controls vehicle movements to and from the site, HGV movements are restricted to the hours of 07:30 and 17:00 hours Monday to Thursday and 07:30 and 16:00 hours Friday and Saturday. Further, all HGVs are to avoid driving through the village of Clipsham between the hours of 12:00 and 14:00 hours. In and out HGV movements are limited to an average of three a day (a total of 36 movements per week). To ensure that the requirements of the Highway Agreement are adhered to, the applicant is obliged to keep a log of all movements and make it available to Rutland County Council for inspection at all reasonable times.
17. The applicant reports that the average loads taken at the quarry weigh approximately 24 tonnes, ranging from less than 10 tonnes up to a maximum of 27 tonnes. For the maximum permitted tonnage to be reached in any one year, exports would need to be at a level of between two to three loads per day, six days a week for the full year. It is not anticipated that this level of activity would arise very often, if ever. Thus the proposed maximum output tonnage is reported to be comfortably within the limits permitted by the current Highway Agreement.
18. The quarry access would be used in its existing condition, i.e. concrete surfaced to the quarry gates and un-metalled to the public highway beyond. The applicant considers this to be adequate and commensurate with the low current and proposed usage. As is currently the case, all HGVs entering and leaving the site would have no need to progress beyond the concrete hardstanding area. There would therefore be no opportunity for such vehicles to collect and subsequently deposit any significant amount of extraneous material on the public highway. In the unforeseen circumstances that any significant amount of material should find its way onto the public highway, contract road sweepers would be employed.
19. A geological report submitted with the application indicates that the stratigraphy of the site comprises: a veneer of topsoil and subsoil (typically 0.4-0.6m); glacial deposits (believed to be 0-6m), a thin layer of Jurassic Blisworth Limestone (typically 0.5m over the western part of the site); and Jurassic clays (2-10m). Beneath this overburden lies the target mineral horizon, the Jurassic Upper Lincolnshire Limestone (10-15m), which in this immediate vicinity largely comprises Clipsham Stone. This overlies Jurassic Lower Lincolnshire Limestone that would not be worked because: firstly the dimension stone quality deteriorates with depth; and secondly, the beds intersect the groundwater which would raise further operational and environmental considerations.
20. The extension area would be worked in general from south to north in five phases. This would be done in conjunction with the progressive restoration of the whole site - involving soils and quarry waste from the extension area being utilised in the restoration of the existing quarry and quarry tips.
Page 182 21. During periods/phases of overburden stripping and associated landform creation, materials would be dug from the extraction areas, hauled along internal haul roads and graded into the restoration landforms by a team of hydraulic excavators, articulated dumptrucks and bulldozers. It is anticipated that such work would be carried out at the commencement of each phase of working, approximately once every four to seven years, with each ‘phase’ typically being of one to two months duration (when ground and soil conditions are suitable).
22. During periods of mineral extraction, processing and exportation, a four way hydraulic drill would be used to break the limestone blocks into manageable sized pieces. A hydraulic excavator would then be used to lift the dimension stone from the extraction areas and load it into a dumptruck for transportation to the concrete hardstanding area. Within this area the limestone blocks would be cut (using two bespoke stone cutting saws) prior to stocking and/or loading by fork lift truck onto HGVs for export off-site. The existing portacabin site office and welfare buildings, generators and cutting saws located on the concrete hardstanding would remain the same or equivalent.
23. In brief, the five working phases described in the application would involve the following steps:
Phase 1
The re-grading of the existing tip (the "Southern Tip") to the proposed restoration profiles. The stripping of the soil from the Phase 1 extraction area (located at the south western end of the extension area) and from the strip of land adjacent to the eastern boundary of the extension area to create a haul road. This soil would then be utilised in the restoration of the Southern Tip. The stripping of the soil from an area adjacent to the northern boundary. This area would then be used for the storage of overburden from the Phase 1 extraction area – forming a "Northern Tip" with the soils from this area used to cover the outer faces (which would then be seeded with grass). The planting of a new hedge along the eastern boundary of the extension area. The extraction of dimension stone from the Phase 1 extraction area.
Phase 2
The stripping of soils from the Phase 2 extraction area. The use of the stripped soils in the construction of a soil storage/ screening mound along the western boundary of the extension area (adjacent to a public footpath), and in the progressive restoration of the “Main Tip” located to the no rth of the Southern Tip (within the existing quarry workings/ancillary mining land).
Page 183 The removal and relocation of the overburden from the Phase 2 excavation area into the Main Tip. The extraction of dimension stone from the Phase 2 extraction area. The on-going management and maintenance of previously restored areas.
Phase 3 and Phase 4
The approach to the working and restoration of the site during Phases 2 and 3 would take a similar approach to Phase 2 except that all the stripped soil would be used directly in the restoration of parts of the main tip. In addition, during these phases the areas restored to calcareous grassland and improved pasture would be seeded.
Phase 5
During Phase 5 the Northern Tip would be removed and the material transferred to the main tip. Thereafter the site would continue to be worked and restored in a similar manner to the previous phases. Following the completion of extraction in Phase 5, the remaining restoration works would be carried out, including the removal of buildings/plant and the completion of the restoration of the Main Tip, the Phase 5 extraction area, and the haul roads.
Restoration and Aftercare
The restoration would involve:
the western part of the site being restored primarily to calcareous grassland and managed as pastureland, involving the placement of soils mixed with reject limestone (where required) to promote suitable conditions for this habitat; within the calcareous grassland area, natural regeneration would be promoted as well as the use of an appropriate grassland herbal seed mix; the eastern part of the site being restored to "improved pasture", with the eastern margin, adjacent to an existing hedgerow, allowed to naturally regenerate to a grassland herb mix; the planting of new hedgerows/woodland around parts of the boundary of the site, and separating the area of calcareous grassland from the area of improved pasture; the provision of new gates and fences; and the retention of two quarry faces to provide exposures of the geological sequence, potentially allowing the site to be designated as a Regionally Important Geological Site [NB: "RIGS" are now being replaced by Local Geological Sites].
As the site is progressively restored, each restored area would become subject to a five year aftercare programme from a date mutually agreed with
Page 184 the Mineral Planning Authority. This would provide flexibility for the details to change annually in response to the various and evolving rehabilitation requirements that would emerge.
Following reclamation, the site would revert to the landowner and therefore it would not be within the gift of the applicant to grant public access. Therefore anyone wishing to visit the site to study the retained quarry faces would first need to obtain permission from the landowner.
It is estimated that the restoration and aftercare would cost about £0.5 million. The Applicant is therefore intending to make provision for this by setting aside just over £1 per tonne of the anticipated total net tonnage of the dimension stone. This would be accrued in a bespoke account over the life of the development. The account would be controlled by the applicant and drawn down as and when expenditure is incurred. The progressive restoration works that are associated with the earlier phases of the development would be implemented and paid for at the time the works are being carried out.
Subsequent Amendments to the Application
24. Following an initial period of consultation and publicity, the following amendments have been made to the application (which have in turn been subject to a further period of consultation/publicity):
a proposed haul road that originally crossed the Southern Tip (and that would have been visible from Clipsham Road) has been deleted. Instead access to the Southern Tip would be achieved directly from the workings; an area of proposed woodland planting along the northern boundary has been deleted on the recommendations of the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust; an additional hedgerow would be planted along the western boundary of the extension area during Phase 1; the hedgeline along the southern toe of the southern tip would be completed during Phase 1; the proposed Northern Tip has been reduced in height by an average of about 3m. The tip would only be formed from overburden and would therefore be completed in a single campaign during the Phase 1 overburden strip. It is anticipated that this would take between six to eight weeks subject to weather conditions. The entire tip would be appropriately graded into a landscaped bund, soiled and grass seeded.
The re-grading of the Southern Tip, originally programmed for Phase 1, has now been completed in accordance with the revised details. No further tipping of overburden is proposed on the southern slope of this tip, nor will the visible crest of the tip be raised any higher. It is stated that the tip is significantly lower than originally proposed in a number of places.
Page 185 Environmental Statement and Further Information
25. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement required under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Following an initial review of this document, "Further Information" was requested under Regulation 22 relating to the implementation of a Great Crested Newt survey and a programme of archaeological trial trenching. The additional survey work has subsequently been carried out and the resulting reports supplement the information in the Environmental Statement. The principal issues covered by the Environmental Statement and Further Information are summarised below.
Landscape and Visual Impact
Existing/Baseline Situation
26. It is reported that at national level the site lies within an area described as the "Kesteven Uplands" in the Landscape Character Assessment Guidance (2002) published by the former Countryside Agency. At a local level, it lies within an area also described as "Kesteven Uplands" in the South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment and adjacent to an area identified as "Rutland Plateau/Clay woodlands" in the Rutland Landscape Character Assessment (2003).
27. The key characteristics of the landscape immediately surrounding the site are summarised as:
medium-scale undulating mixed farming landscape; enclosure generally by hedgerows with hedgerow trees; species-rich verges and meadows; significant areas of woodland including semi-natural and ancient woodland which, in combination with topography, frame and contains views; historic houses and associated parklands; picturesque villages constructed in local limestone limestone and ironstone quarries.
28. The report considers the local conservation designations and states that the two closest Conservation Areas are Clipsham - 1.3km to the west, and Castle Bytham - 2.3km to the north. The closest Listed Buildings [from the extension area] are:
the Garage east of Holywell Quarries Farmhouse - Grade II, 110m south; Holywell Hall - Grade II* (buildings and structures), 1.1km east; Clipsham Hall - Grade II* (buildings and structures), 1.9 km west; and Pettywood Farm Barn and Stables - Grade II, 1.1km south east.
29. Grimsthorpe Park located 5.5km north east of the site is the only local site in the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. The Scheduled Ancient Monuments closest to the site are located at Castle Bytham - 2.5km to the north, and a site beside Newell Wood - 3Km south east. The closest area of Ancient Woodland is Pickworth Great Wood - 0.7Km south of the site, and the closest SSSIs,
Page 186 Clipsham Old Quarry and Pickworth Great Wood - 0.7km south of the site, and Holywell Banks - 0.75km south east of the site.
30. With regard to visibility impacts, the extension area lies just south of a ridge line within an area of high ground and undulating landscape bordered to the south by the present quarry workings. The field containing the proposed extension is part of a 365ha estate which is contract farmed for Holywell Hall. The local landscape is dominated by blocks of woodland that together with the undulating topography restrict long distance views to the south west and east.
31. The visibility of the site was assessed from 12 viewpoints comprising: locations on the surrounding road network; residential properties located off these roads; the public footpath adjacent to the western boundary of the site; and a farm track adjacent to the eastern boundary. The existing quarry and extension are visible from the public footpath and farm track due to the open nature of the farmland. Although there are a number of residential properties located off Clipsham Road, the extension is only visible from Pettywood Farm which is set back from the road, but 20m above that road. The extension area is not visible from any of the local transportation routes. There is no intervisibility with houses in Castle Bytham or Little Bytham and no intervisibility with either Clipsham Hall or Holywell Hall. The overburden tip is, however, visible from Clipsham Road (including Pettywood Farm) as well as from properties in Clipsham.
Predicted Impacts
32. The proposed extension would remove 6.6ha of arable land from the agricultural landscape. It would also involve the removal of a 110m length of mature hedgerow along the southern boundary of Phase 1. The overall significance of this impact is assessed as moderate/major but would be mitigated by:
the area of arable land in the extension area being retained under crop production as long as practicable within the phased land take programme; the phased restoration of the extension area and the existing quarry to create approximately 13ha of grazing land (pasture), calcareous grassland, woodland, hedgerows and related habitats; and the early restoration of the Southern Tip.
33. It is reported that the significance of the effect upon the Kesteven Uplands Landscape character area and the "Clay Woodlands" local character area would be negligible, and that there would be no effect upon local Conservation Areas. In terms of the settings of nearby listed buildings, there would be no effects on the buildings at Holywell Hall or Clipsham Hall. The magnitude of effect on Pettywood Farm Barn and Stables and the garage east of Holywell Quarries Farmhouse is assessed as low, with the significance of effect as minor/moderate (positive) – due to the early restoration of the Southern Tip having a beneficial effect on the setting of these buildings. There would be no effect upon any Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, Ancient Woodland or SSSIs.
Page 187 34. The main visual effect from the proposal would arise from the construction of the northern extension to the Main Tip and from the construction of the Northern Tip. The re-grading and soiling of the outer slope of the Southern Tip would have a moderately significant visual effect upon only one of the closest residential viewpoints at Pettywood Farm and a minor/moderate effect upon people driving west on Clipsham Road. However, the completion of these restoration works would have a positive effect upon the visual amenity of the local area, including residential properties on Holywell Road in Clipsham. With one exception, the significance of the visual effects at the selected viewpoints (where these are more than negligible) range from moderate (negative) through to moderate (positive). The exception relates to the footpath adjacent to the western boundary of the extension where the magnitude of the effect is assessed as medium and the significance, moderate/major.
Mitigation
35. The following mitigation measures would be adopted:
the phased working and restoration of the site; the early restoration of the south eastern face of the Southern Tip [work that has since been brought forward and completed]; the construction of a screening bund during Phase 2 along the western boundary of the extension area adjacent to the footpath; the conservation of soils by utilising these in the restoration of the eastern half of the site to improved pastureland; the restoration of the other half of the site to species rich calcareous grassland; the planting of trees and hedgerows at the earliest opportunity following landform restoration; the implementation of a programme of aftercare; the protection and management of the retained vegetation on the boundary of the site; the development of enhanced biodiversity within the site; and the retention of some quarry faces of potential geological value.
Ecology
36. The proposed quarry extension has been subject to a Phase 1 Habitat Survey (extended to highlight the potential presence of protected and notable species and incorporating a desk study) followed by a great crested newt survey. These collectively consider the potential impacts of the development on designated sites, habitats and protected/notable species, and put forward mitigation measures.
Designated Sites
37. The desk study has confirmed that the proposed extension is not designated for its nature conservation interest, but there are a number of both nationally and locally designated sites within 1km of the survey site. These are:
Holywell Banks Site SSSI, 530m to the south east;
Page 188 Clipsham Old Quarry and Pickworth Great Wood SSSI, 630m to the south west; Holywell Big Quarry Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) (the existing quarry); Holywell Wood Roadside Nature Reserve (RNR) and Holywell Wood Road Verges Local Wildlife Site, 400m to the south; Pillowsyke Holt SNCI, 640m to the north east; and Holywell Wood SNCI, 650m to the south.
38. It is reported that these sites would not be directly affected by the proposal. Although there is some potential for some impacts upon Holywell Banks SSSI, Holywell Wood Road Verges SSSI and Roberts Field Road Verges as a result of traffic movements, as all vehicles turn east when leaving the site and would continue to do so, such impacts would be avoided.
Habitats
39. There are no records of protected or notable species from the extension area itself. However, a number of records do exist from the surrounding habitats relating to birds, reptiles, mammals and invertebrates. This includes four invertebrates (small heath, dingy skipper, wall and grizzled skipper) that were found on the boundary between the existing quarry and the extension area. The subsequent habitat survey found the following habitat types within the extension area:
arable land which made up the majority of the survey area; semi improved grassland around the margins of the arable field; hedgerows around the northern, eastern and western boundaries; scattered broadleaved trees within the hedgerows; scrub along the southern boundary; uncropped bare ground towards the north-western corner of the site; and woodland and dense scrub towards the south-eastern corner.
40. With the exception of the existing quarry, which borders the extension area to the south, it is reported that the surrounding habitats were comprised of arable fields with hedgerows forming the boundaries.
41. Arable field margins and hedgerows are listed as Priority Habitats in both the UK and Local (Lincs) Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). However, in the case of these field margins, it is not possible to determine whether they fit the criteria for inclusion on this BAP target due to the absence of information regarding their management. Furthermore, although they are relatively species rich, the habitats and floral species within the survey area are, in general, common in the surrounding land. It is therefore reported that the loss of this small area would not be ecologically significant and would be more than outweighed by the proposed creation of calcareous grassland. Similarly it is stated that the loss of the hedgerow would not have a significant effect on the surrounding habitats.
Page 189 Protected/Notable Species
42. The extension area has been assessed for protected and notable species and reports the following:
Birds – species identified using the survey site and surrounding area include skylark, carrion crow, pheasant, wood pigeon, red kite and cuckoo. It is stated that it is unlikely that the Schedule 1 species present would use the site for breeding. However there is good potential for the more common species to use the site for breeding and a wider variety for foraging. Although there may be disturbance during the operational phases of the development, it is stated that this would not represent a significant increase on the existing operations. As birds are a mobile species, they can move to other less disturbed habitat. It is therefore reported that the impacts would not be significant, provided vegetation clearance is undertaken outside the bird nesting season. Reptiles – the site is reported as sub-optimal for use by reptiles due to the homogeneity of the habitats present and the lack of suitable hibernacula or egg laying sites. No mitigation is therefore proposed. Badgers – no evidence of badgers was seen during the survey and, as disturbance is unlikely, no specific mitigation is proposed. Bats – no evidence was seen during the site visit, but four trees around the perimeter of the site were considered to contain features potentially suitable for roosting bats. In addition, the hedgerows and small section of woodland provide good potential for foraging and commuting bats. It is therefore recommended that, ideally, the mature trees and hedgerows surrounding the extension area should remain unaffected by the proposal. This would be the case, with the exception of a short section adjacent to the existing quarry. Amphibians – the Phase 1 habitat survey states that the survey area is sub-optimal for amphibians. However, as there are a number of ponds in the vicinity, a Great Crested Newt (GCN) Survey has subsequently been carried out on the advice of Natural England. The results of the survey show a widely dispersed population is present within the ponds around the proposed quarry extension. The numbers found suggest that cumulatively a medium population is present. In terms of the suitability of the extension area for GCNs, it is reported that: the arable field is unsuitable; the surrounding hedgerows do provide more suitable habitat, but would not be affected; whilst the woodland towards the south east corner of the field and the existing quarry spoil heaps in the area offer some potential. However, in practice it is stated that, given the distances to the ponds, it is extremely unlikely that GCNs are present within the south-eastern habitats (i.e. the woodland and spoil heaps). Overall the risk of the proposed quarry extension to GCNs is therefore stated to be low. As a precaution, however, it is recommended that mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with a Method Statement (which has subsequently been submitted). Other Species – all other protected species were considered during the survey but it is stated that, given the nature of the habitats on site and the lack of existing records, it is extremely unlikely that they will be
Page 190 present. No further survey work or specific mitigation is therefore proposed.
Mitigation Measures
43. The following mitigation measures are proposed:
any vegetation clearance (with the exception of normal harvesting practices) would be undertaken outside the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive). If this is not possible, a thorough search for active nests within the habitats to be affected would be undertaken by a suitably experienced ecologist immediately prior to vegetation clearance; and the implementation of the measures set out in the Method Statement to ensure that all reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure that no GCNs are killed, harmed or disturbed by the proposed development. Such measures would include: the installation of appropriate fencing; an ecologist being on site during vegetation clearance; and, if GCNs are found, work stopping until further mitigation is agreed.
Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
44. The Environmental Statement includes a Heritage Statement that assesses the archaeological and cultural heritage potential within the proposed quarry extension area. This is based on the results of a desk-based assessment, a fieldwalking survey and a geophysical survey.
45. It is reported that the desk-based archaeological assessment indicates that no world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, historic battlefields, historic parks or gardens, or national/ancient woodlands are recorded within 500m of the application area. There are no known remains from the application area itself, although it was an area where no prior survey had been undertaken. Roman remains, including evidence of a villa have been found within the now disused quarry to the south-west of the current quarry. Prehistoric, Roman and Anglo-Saxon artefacts have been found during field- walking surveys 700-800m to the south-east of the site, including evidence for iron smelting during the Roman period. The field has remained agricultural land since at least the post-medieval period. Depending on the degree of plough erosion the preservation of underlying archaeological remains, if present, may therefore be moderate –good.
46. A generally sparse scatter of finds was recovered from the fieldwalking survey, including a broken flint blade dating to either the Palaeolithic or the Neolithic/Bronze Age periods, a small concentration of heat cracked stones and a single sherd of post-medieval pottery. No geophysical anomalies were identified that can be confidently attributed as being of a probable archaeological origin. However, a number of positive anomalies possibly relate to cut features, such as pits and ditches, and one anomaly may be related to an enclosure in the south-western limits of the site although alternative geological origins are also possible.
Page 191
47. The report states that on the available evidence the proposed quarry extension would have no impact on any known underlying archaeological deposits. However, in view of the possibility that undetected archaeological deposits may be present, it was proposed that mitigation strategies would be formulated.
48. In terms of listed building, it is reported that there would be no impact on the setting of the listed structures at Holywell Hall, Holywell Quarries farmhouse and Clipsham Lodge gates as they are all protected from view by the natural topography and/or vegetation.
49. Following the submission of the Environmental Statement, a programme of trial trenching has been undertaken at the request of the County Council’s Historic Environment Manager. This involved the excavation of 23 trenches across the field. Most of these trenches were negative for archaeological features. However, two trenches contained large, presumably natural, silt filled depressions and a further five, contained single archaeological features. Two of these features were most likely modern or natural in origin and two more were undated. One trench, however, at the eastern edge of the site, revealed a substantial linear feature that contained large amounts of pottery and cattle bones. The pottery was dated to the Middle to Late Iron Age, possibly the 1 st Century AD. This density of finds in a small area is indicative of settlement nearby, most likely to the east of the present site.
50. In mitigation it is proposed that a programme of archaeologically controlled topsoil and upper subsoil machine stripping would be undertaken on the area of archaeological interest. This would be carried out in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation and would enable the extent of the archaeological deposits to be established, recorded and a report and project archive produced.
Hydrology (including Flood Risk) and Hydrogeology
51. Surface water hydrological (including flood risk) and ground water hydrogeological assessments of the proposals were carried out to determine the potential impacts of the proposed development (including the site restoration) upon local water features, site drainage and water quality. The assessments are based on:
historical evidence from the mineral extraction operations that have taken place for over a century, including historical trial pits dug in the base of the quarry; recent trial pits dug over the proposed extension area; OS Mapping and Google Earth Imagery; site observations and measurements taken over the surrounding area; local licenced abstraction information purchased from the Environment Agency; groundwater protection and groundwater vulnerability information supplied by the Environment Agency; and
Page 192 the South Kesteven District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2009).
Hydrology and Flood Risk
52. The whole of the proposed quarry extension area falls within Flood Zone 1, that is land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding.
53. It is reported that surface water run-off from most of the existing quarry accumulates in the base of the quarry where it evaporates or percolates down through the permeable limestone strata. The exception is from the margins where the ground falls away from the quarry void (principally the Southern Tip) and the surface water is allowed to run over adjacent agricultural land where it evaporates, is taken up by vegetation or percolates down through the underlying strata. None of the run-off directly enters a defined surface water feature.
54. The proposed development would not increase flood risk elsewhere either through the construction of new hard surfaces or through de-watering (because neither of these are proposed). Furthermore, to prevent surface water run-off from the margins of the site onto the adjacent agricultural land, it is proposed (as a mitigation measure) to construct and maintain peripheral catchment ditches to direct the water to the base of the quarry. With these in place it is stated that the hydrological impact (flood risk and surface runoff) of the proposal both during the operational phases and following final restoration would be minimal and non significant.
Hydrogeology
55. It is stated that the regional water table that lies beneath the site has a level that falls gently from north west (c.56m AOD) to south east (c.54m AOD). In addition, localised and isolated water tables exist in the glaciofluvial deposits that occur to the west and north west of the proposed development area. The site lies within a “Total Catchment (Zone 3)” groundwater protection zone, but outside any groundwater vulnerability zones. There are no licenced abstractions within 2km radius of the site.
56. As all current and proposed quarry workings sit above the regional water table, no de-watering of the groundwater aquifer would be required. Thus there would be no impact on any water features or resources that rely on regional groundwater. In fields adjacent to the proposed extension area there are some ponds that are fed by small springs that appear to originate from localised minor water tables in the glacial sands and gravels that overlie the limestone sequence. However, a site investigation programme involving the digging and logging of trial pits, designed specifically to evaluate this particular issue, proved that there is no connection between the springs and ponds in the nearby fields and the proposed quarry workings. The proposal would, however, involve the partial removal of largely impermeable materials from above the limestone sequence that
Page 193 contains the regional groundwater body, thereby increasing the size of the area where protection to the bedrock aquifer would be removed. Thus, whilst it is stated that the development is not considered to pose any new or undue risk to water quality in the vicinity, the potential for a limited impact does exist. Therefore the following mitigation measures are proposed:
all plant and machinery to be well maintained to appropriate standards, so as to be free from leaks of any fuels and lubricants; all routine maintenance of plant and machinery to be in a designated area on the concrete hardstanding, and not on the exposed limestone; all fuel and lubricant storage on the site to be in secure designated areas, and in containers meeting the required standards (as set by the EA); all waste (including foul water sewage) arising from the welfare facilities on site to be stored in appropriate containers for subsequent and appropriate off-site disposal; and the site restoration works to avoid the use of imported organic or chemical fertilizers.
Dust and Air Quality
57. It is reported that the proposed activities have the potential to generate dust. These include the extraction of rock, the processing/cutting of the stone, the subsequent haulage of the stone and the site restoration works. However, a dust event, likely to generate complaints, would only occur if the necessary conditions are present, i.e. it is necessary to have a fine material available which is able to be picked up, carried and the deposited by the wind. Such materials are more readily available if dry and physically disturbed. Thus not all site operations are dusty because of the lack of physical disturbance. There must also be a wind of sufficient strength to transport fine particles, and for a particular property to be at risk, the wind must be blowing in that particular direction from the source. The critical wind speed at which particles become airborne depends on many factors including particle size, shape and density. For a dust event to occur there must also be a failure of dust control measures.
58. It is generally considered that particles of less than 30 microns would be carried by wind and thus become fugitive. Particles greater than 30 microns make up the greatest proportion of dust emitted from mineral processing and largely deposit within 100m of sources. Particles between 10 an 30 microns are likely to travel from 250m to 500m while particles less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), which make up a small proportion of dust emitted from most mineral processing operations, may travel up to 1km from sources.
59. Site inspections were undertaken in May and July 2012 and the existing levels of dust deposition were measured at three residential properties around the site (New Quarry Farm, Old Fathers Cottage and Holywell Hall) and on the north eastern boundary of the existing quarry by the installation of dust deposition pads. Climatic conditions were also considered (the wind
Page 194 direction being predominantly from the south west quadrant) as were relevant guidelines and criteria.
60. It is reported that the results of the dust monitoring ranged from 28mg/m 2/day at Holywell Hall to 61 mg/m2/day at Old Fathers Cottage. All levels are therefore below the generally accepted nuisance criterion of 200mg/m 2/day. The assessment indicates that there is only a low risk of a dust event occurring at each of the properties - taking into account:
the distances involved; the climatic conditions - i.e. the low number of dry windy working days when the wind would have sufficient speed and blow in the direction of the receptors; and the intervening vegetation.
61. It also notes that it is unlikely that any decrease in local air quality would occur as the proposed extension area is further away from the nearby sensitive receptors than the existing quarry.
62. With regard to PM10 dust levels from the site, analysis has been made of the existing air quality data and combined with the extra burden that is anticipated from the proposed development. These results show that the Air Quality Objectives would not be exceeded and that the air quality would not be significantly affected.
63. The impact on air quality with suitable mitigation measures in place is reported as negligible. These would include the following measures:
the drop height from the excavator bucket to the dump truck would be minimised, and the vehicles evenly loaded to avoid spillage; no blasting would be carried out; all waste stockpiles would, where possible, be protected from the prevailing wind and dampened; no static processing plant would be utilised on site; the saws are located on a concrete base, and cleaned on a daily basis; a 10mph speed limit would be implemented on the site haul roads; a tractor and sweeper attachment would be utilised; the internal haul roads would be regularly maintained; mobile plant exhausts and cooling fans would be discharged away from the ground; all mobile plant would be regularly maintained; the entire site access road and loading area would be regularly cleaned using the loading shovel equipped with a road sweeper attachment; and any soils handled as part of restoration activities would be seeded as soon as is practicable.
Page 195 Noise
64. It is reported that baseline surveys were undertaken on 25 May 2012 and 20 June 2012 with the existing background noise levels measured at the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed extension – these being Quarry Farm, Old Fathers Cottage, New Quarry House and Holywell Hall. The results of that survey indicate that the noise climate at Quarry Farm and Old Fathers Cottage is made up of existing site noise, bird song, light aircraft and occasional traffic, whilst the noise climate at New Quarry House and Holywell Hall is comprised of the same but without existing site noise.
65. The predicted noise levels were then calculated (based on worst case scenarios) and compared with the criteria set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the supporting technical guidance. It is stated that the measured noise levels around Holywell Quarry are in the main very low, meaning that an assessment criterion of background level +10dB(A) would be difficult to achieve in all cases and could place unreasonable burdens on the applicant. It is therefore proposed that during normal operations (excluding soil movements), the following maximum levels should apply:
New Quarry House, 49dB(A) (i.e.background +18 dB(A)); Old Father Cottage, 50 dB(A) (i.e.background + 11dB(A)); Holywell Hall, 46 dB(A) (i.e background +10dB(A)); and Quarry Farm, 55 dB(A) (the maximum level advised by the NPPF).
During soil movements a higher limit of 70dB(A) would apply.
66. The report states that the noise limits are realistic without causing unreasonable burdens on the applicant. No additional mitigation measures are proposed.
Traffic, Access and Green Infrastructure
Traffic
67. The applicant has entered into a formal legal agreement (a Highway Obligation) with Rutland County Council giving them an exemption from that Authority's traffic regulation order (weight restriction) - allowing them to route their quarry traffic through Rutland to the A1. The exemption has been initially granted for a period of 20 years, but can be extended with the agreement of that Authority (subject to the payment of further sums for highway maintenance). The Highway Obligation limits HGV movements to an average of six per day (three in and three out) and to the hours of 07:30 to 17:00 hours Monday to Thursday and 07:30 to 16:00 hours Friday and Saturday. In addition all HGV are to avoid travelling through Clipsham between the hours of 12:00 and 14:00.
68. It is stated that before entering the Highway Obligation, the highway authority, in consultation with the applicant and other stakeholders
Page 196 considered at length the existing highway conditions and proposed vehicle movements, including factors such as:
the existing HGV use along the main route to and from the quarry; the safety of the route; the HGV use at the site; the impact of the proposal on the operation of the local highway network; the impact of the proposal on the green infrastructure (principally the SSSI roadside verges to the east of the quarry access).
69. The conclusion of the consultations and considerations was that the details set out in the Highway Obligation were acceptable. As such, it is reported that the Highway Obligation effectively represents the outcome of a full and detailed environmental assessment of transport issues relating to the operations at the site (current and proposed).
70. Traffic movements associated with the removal of the stone are extremely low, with the potential impacts from this traffic assessed as negligible. As a result, no additional mitigation measures are proposed.
Public Rights of Way
71. A public footpath runs along the western boundary of the existing quarry and the proposed extension area. There are open views from this footpath into the site. Mitigation in the form of a screening bund is therefore proposed along the western boundary of the extension area to mitigate views from the footpath.
Soils and Agricultural Land Quality
72. An assessment has been undertaken of the soil resources and agricultural quality of the land comprised within the site. This is based upon a soil and agricultural desk-top study and a survey of the site carried out in May 2012. During this survey soils were examined by a combination of pits and augerings to a maximum depth of 1.2 m.
73. The field that comprises the proposed quarry extension area is part of a 900 acre (364ha) agricultural unit which is contract farmed by a local farmer. At the time of the survey it was principally in oilseed rape, with a narrow strip of kale and canary grass at the north for game cover. The land is not subject to an Environmental Stewardship Agreement. The survey showed that most of the land is covered by heavy textured soils developed in clay. The topsoil is clay in texture, whilst the subsoil is clay and slowly permeable – but with some variation.
74. To assist in assessing land quality, the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) developed a method for classifying agricultural land by grade according to the extent to which physical or chemical characteristics impose long-term limitations on agricultural use for food production. The MAFF Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system
Page 197 classifies land into five grades numbered 1 to 5, with grade 3 divided into two sub-grades (3a and 3b). [Grades 1 to 3a are classed as the best and most versatile].
75. The information from the soil survey was used in conjunction with agroclimatic data to classify the site using the guidelines for agricultural land classification issued by MAFF in 1988. This classifies the vast majority of the site (6.53ha or 94.5%) as sub-grade 3b land, with the remainder (0.38Ha or 5.5%) classified as sub-grade 3a.
76. The report considers the use of the identified soil resources to achieve restoration, as proposed, to calcareous grassland. During the soil survey the topsoils were tested with dilute acid to check for free carbonate content. At only two observation sites were the soils notably calcareous and consequently the soils are likely to be best suited to neutral grassland unless a lime rich source is available to blend in with the existing soils. The quarry has an abundant supply of lime rich quarry wastes that are, and will continue to be, stored in the western tip identified on the development drawings. These materials will be used to form a lime rich basal layer over restored areas prior to the placement of soils. Topsoil and subsoil will be stripped together as they will be blended to reduce soil fertility in accordance with the recommendations of the soils report. Finer screened limestone wastes will also be added to the topsoil/subsoil mix to produce a growing medium of at least 150mm depth suited to the establishment of calcareous grassland.
77. This method of calcareous grassland creation will apply to the majority of the site with the exception of the southern outer face of the southern tip which, following re-grading, will be covered with topsoil and sown with ryegrass. This will stabilise the slope of the tip and restore the outer face as quickly as possible in order to maximise the visual and landscape benefits of restoring this aspect of the site as quickly as possible. Once established, this slope will be treated by the addition of limestone fines and managed in order to encourage calcareous grassland establishment over time.
78. No samples were taken to assess nutrient status, but under their current arable regime it is to be expected that the potash and phosphate status will be high. They are thus likely to be too fertile in the short to medium term for species rich grassland without some kind of modification. This would entail reducing the potash and phosphate content by mixing the topsoil with subsoil as outlined above.
Mitigation
79. Potential impacts upon soil resources could arise either as a direct result of their loss from the site or from damage during soil stripping operations, storage and replacement. To mitigate any impacts it is therefore proposed that all soil resources would be retained on site for use in the restoration of the site, and that all soil handling would follow the MAFF Good Practice Guide for Handling Soil - with the exception of the separate stripping of
Page 198 topsoil and subsoil (for the reason set out above). This guide includes the following mitigation measures:
all soil stripping would only take place in the driest parts of the year, using the excavator and dumper method; the bunds would be constructed either by excavator or bulldozer avoiding over-compaction and would be sown with grass to help maintain biological activity and prevent water erosion; and the soils would be removed from storage and replaced by excavator during the summer using the loose tipping technique, which avoids traffic on the restored surfaces.
80. It is reported that with these mitigation measures in place, the potential impacts upon soil resources are assessed as being minor.
Land stability
81. A stability assessment of the proposed quarry faces, waste/overburden tips and soil mounds has been undertaken. The assessment considers the baseline data as it relates to the site, assesses any features which could adversely affect the stability of the slopes and assesses any potential hazards to people or property resulting from the proposed quarry development. It is reported that this has generally been undertaken in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and accompanying Technical Guidance (2012).
82. In compiling the report the following sources of information were considered and applied as appropriate:
the geological sequence at the site; the current slope stabilities at the site; the Quarries Regulations 1999; a Regulation 33 geotechnical assessment of the site undertaken in February 2011; and knowledge and experience of large scale extractive (quarrying operations) in Rutland that exploit the same geological sequence.
83. In the Geotechnical Assessment undertaken in February 2011 some of the overburden faces are reported as over-steepened and slowly failing back to their natural angle of repose. However, there are no failures reported that put at risk thirty party lands, property or the general public. Short term remedial measures for the over-steepened faces were recommended. It is anticipated that there will be an ongoing requirement to carry out Geotechnical Assessments over the life of the development to assess slope stability and review as appropriate quarry designs and methods of working (all in accordance with the Quarries Regulations 1999).
84. People who may be at risk should any tip slopes or face excavations fail include: the general public who use the public right of way in the west, people using the farm track to the east, people working on adjacent
Page 199 agricultural land, quarry employees and contractors, and site visitors. Property which may be at risk includes: third party agricultural land, a public right of way and a farm track. No buildings or utilities have been identified to be at risk.
85. The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposal:
the tips and soil bund adjacent to third party property and the public right of way have been designed with slope angles that should remain stable in the long term. The outer slopes would be seeded with grass, which would further reduce the risk of minor scouring associated with any surface water run-off; the working face angles should provide stable slopes based on experience of major quarrying operations in Rutland working the same geological sequence; standoffs would be maintained in the proposed extension area between the excavation and the adjoining landholdings. These would be 12m from the eastern boundary, 15 -17m from the western boundary and 15m from the northern boundary. The standoffs would ensure that any unforeseen or unexpected slope failures would in any event be fully contained within the quarry boundary; progressive backfilling and restoration of the quarry further reduces the risk of slope failure; and it is also reported that throughout the life of the development the quarry would require, under the provision of the Quarries Regulations 1999, a Geotechnical Assessment to be undertaken by a Geotechnical Specialist every two years. As part of the assessment quarry faces and tip slopes would be inspected, designs reviewed and remedial action recommended should any slopes pose a risk to employees, general public or third party property and land.
86. With the above mitigation in place, it is stated that the risk of slope failure is considered low (and would be maintained as such) with no significant impact on third party property, land or the general public over the life of the proposed development. Furthermore, the hazards associated with slope failure and the resulting impact on the general public, third party land and third party property are considered to be negligible and non-significant.
Socio-Economic Assessment
87. It is reported that dimension stone production at the quarry is a long established operation. Whilst the quarrying operations directly employ three full time staff, the company, which employs 22 people in total, is entirely dependent on dimension stone products that are principally derived from the quarry. Others who rely on the quarry for their employment include six highly skilled stone masons (working as sub-contractors), hauliers and earth moving contractors. The site also uses local suppliers and services in its day-to-day operations. On this basis, it is reported that the quarry makes a positive contribution to the local economy through the provision of
Page 200 employment (both skilled and unskilled), by the payment of rates and in the utilisation of local goods and services.
88. It is also stated that the quarry is the primary source of supply of Clipsham Stone, a unique product that has been and continues to be used in the construction, restoration and conservation of many historic buildings throughout the county. Stone from the area has also been used extensively in the local area, contributing significantly to the distinctiveness and character of the area. The loss of this source of supply would have significant adverse consequences for development plan policies that seek to conserve and enhance the historic built environment or where it is desirable for new development to blend in with existing features. The socio-economic benefits are therefore stated to be positive and substantial.
Alternatives
89. It is reported that in assessing the need for the proposed development it is important to understand whether or not any alternative quarry sites exist, and whether or not the building/dimension stone (Clipsham Limestone) extracted from Holywell Quarry is unique, taking into account the quality and specification of the products that are manufactured, as well as the demands of markets that they supply.
90. In compiling the report the following sources of information were consulted:
Published literature (principally, Strategic Stone Study, A Building Stone Atlas of Rutland, English Heritage, May 2011, and British Geological Survey Studies and Database); Stamford Stone literature and market analyses (current and historic); OS data and Google Earth imagery.
91. Several of the limestones, sandstones and ironstones of Rutland and adjacent areas have commonly been used for building throughout the county. The main limestones are from Ketton, Clipsham, Stamford and Casterton. Indeed, two of these limestones, those from Ketton and Clipsham, provide high quality and high value building stones that are of both local and national importance.
92. The Ketton limestones are generally porous, with sparse fine crystals of calcium carbonate cement. They are cream to pale yellow in colour and occasionally contain pink stained beds. Ketton Stone quarries (solely located in the vicinity of Ketton village) have commercially been worked since the 1500’s and their products have been (and still are) widely used in numerous historic buildings.
93. The Clipsham limestones on the other hand have more pervasive calcite cements, and as such produce a harder, less porous building stone. This material is of the highest quality, and is much sought after. Clipsham Stone (limestone) has a shelly texture and is generally cream in colour, sometimes with a light blue hue (blue hearted). It commonly weathers to a silver grey
Page 201 colour. Clipsham Stone quarries (solely located in the vicinity of Clipsham village) have been worked since Roman times, and like Ketton Stone have been (and still are) widely used in numerous historic buildings. Examples of buildings built from Clipsham Stone include: the Oxford Colleges of All Souls, Christ Church and New College, parts of Windsor Castle, the Palace of Westminster and Houses of Parliament. A letter from the Project Manager of the Parliamentary Works Services Directorate is appended to the report supporting any application to extend the quarry and confirming that this stone has been used in restoration works since 1928.
94. In addition to bespoke and prestigious historic restoration projects, much of the Clipsham Stone extracted is utilised locally on new build and building repair or extension developments. Typically these developments utilise the hand hammered, cropped or tumbled stones manufactured from the smaller rock fragments produced as part of the quarrying operations. These products were initially developed and brought to market by Stamford Stone as part of their programme to develop Holywell Quarry as a viable and sustainable operation that made best and most efficient use of all the limestones quarried there. Indeed, in supplying these markets, and in the interests of sustainable development, the current operations at Holywell now make use of a substantially higher proportion of the limestone sequence quarried than has historically been the case. Previous operations would discard up to 85% of all limestone quarried. Current operations discard (limestones proposed for use in the restoration concept/landform) no more than 50% of the total. Moreover, all efforts are being made by the operators to reduce this reject percentage still further.
95. True Clipsham Stone (as used historically and as currently specified by architects) can only be supplied from the quarries in and around the Village of Clipsham. Whilst ‘copies’ or imitation materials that are commonly referred to as Clipsham Stone can be obtained from elsewhere, it is only the stone from the Clipsham area that has the true, unique and high quality properties of this much valued and sought after material.
96. It is stated that the only other quarry (other than Holywell Quarry) capable of producing true ‘Clipsham Dimension Stone’ is the Clipsham Quarry Complex (also sometimes referred to as Big Pits or Bu llimore’s Quarry). However, the material (bed) that is available from the Clipsham Quarry Complex , whilst of high quality and highly valued, is inadequate in terms of its availability (quantity) and its range (colour, veining and texture) to satisfy market demands.
97. The building stone products supplied from Holywell Quarry are unique and distinctive. They are believed to be generally the hardest and most durable forms of Clipsham Stone available. They have distinctive colour variations and banding (cross bedding) that make them not only unique, but also amongst the most superior, desirable and commonly specified building materials on the market.
Page 202 98. The report therefore concludes that the impact of the proposal on the national and regional historic built environment is positive and significant.
Site and Surroundings
99. The site is located in the Parish of Careby, Aunby and Holywell, 1.1km from the southern edge of Castle Bytham, 1.5km to the east of Clipsham and adjacent to the county boundary with Rutland. It lies in an area of attractive undulating landscape of mixed farmland punctuated by woodland blocks. The area is also characterised by:
hedgerow enclosures; narrow country roads flanked by species rich verges; historic houses and associated grounds (the closest being Holywell Hall); stone villages (including Clipsham and Castle Bytham); and a long association with quarrying. . 100. The site lies partially within the Holywell Estate, with the Hall and associated buildings located over 700m to the east in landscaped grounds surrounded by dense woodland/hedges. Eight of the buildings are listed: the hall and the pigeoncote being listed as grade II* with the remainder being listed as grade II.
101. The site extends over an area of 15.7ha comprising: to the north, the proposed extension to the quarry; in the middle part, the existing workings and an associated tip; and to the south, the existing access road that leads to Clipsham Road.
102. The northern extension is primarily an arable field separated from the existing quarry by a 2m high post and wire fence. It is bounded:
to the north by a mature hedge with interspersed trees; to the west, by a 1m high post and wire fence beyond which is a public footpath and, on the opposite side of that path, a mature hedge (that marks the County boundary); and to the east, by a farm road, beyond which is another mature hedge.
103. Views into the field from the public footpath and the farm track are open, but beyond the hedges, the field is well screened.
104. The existing quarry covers an area of 9.0 ha and is made up of the operational area (the area of mineral extraction, stone cutting and product storage) and the existing quarry tip (the "Southern Tip"). Within the operational area there is a substantial area (about 40m by 50m) of concrete hardstanding on the quarry floor that accommodates the saws and stocking areas, with the site office located adjacent to this area.
105. The Southern Tip is made of quarry waste (overburden and interburden) and forms a large mound that extends over the south eastern half of the quarry. The mound is largely barren of vegetation, except around the margin of the
Page 203 outer slope which is marked by an intermittent hedge and areas of scrub. It is proposed that this would be retained, except for a short section along the northern boundary of the tip.
106. The quarry is bounded:
to the west, by a small area of woodland through which the public footpath (referred to above) extends; to the east by scrub and the farm road (referred to above); and to the south, by an intermittent hedge/scrub and a 1m high post and wire fence.
107. The operational area can be seen from the footpath although views are partially obscured by trees.
108. Although the quarry is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (Holywell Big Quarry SNCI) for its grassland, as a working quarry the area is largely devoid of vegetation - except around the margin of the outer face of the Southern Tip.
109. The access road extends 170m from the south western corner of the existing quarry to Clipsham Road and is surfaced with concrete on two sections:
the first, for a distance of 30 m from Clipsham Road; and the second, between the quarry gates and the concrete hardstanding (a distance of about 40 m).
110. The access is shared with an adjoining farmstead (Quarry Farm) that lies to the south of the quarry and to the east of the access road. The access road also incorporates the public footpath for part of its length.
111. The Quarry Farm includes a farm house which is the closest residential property to the quarry, being located 33m from the southern boundary and adjacent to the access road. This property has been unoccupied for some time and in any event is largely screened from the quarry by the landform and intervening vegetation. Some very limited views into the quarry may, however, be possible from an upstairs window. The associated garage is a grade II listed building, but this is screened from the quarry. At the southern end of this farmstead is a stream that runs alongside Clipsham Road.
112. Clipsham Road is a very narrow single track road that, to the east of the access, is subject to a 7.5 tonne weight restriction. The verges to this road are in part designated as a local wildlife site (Holywell Woods), with a section lying within the Holywell Banks SSSI.
113. To the west of the site access, the road (which becomes Holywell Road) is also narrow and 10m beyond the county boundary is subject to a 7.5 tonne weight restriction. However, about 0.5km further to the east the road has been widened to accommodate traffic using an access to Clipsham Quarry.
Page 204 This quarry, located to the south west of that access point, produces both aggregate and building stone.
114. There is a cluster of six residential properties around the site access onto Clipsham road. The closest of these, Old Fathers Cottage lies adjacent to the access and 130 m from the existing quarry. In addition there are two further properties in relative close proximity:
New Quarry House located 230m to the west of the quarry; and Pettywood Farm located 750m to the south east of the quarry, on the opposite side of Clipham Road and set back 350m from that road. The farmhouse and two associated buildings of this farm are listed (Grade II).
115. All these properties are screened from the operational area of the quarry and the proposed extension by the intervening vegetation and in some cases by the Southern Tip.
116. At the time the application was made, the Southern Tip itself was a highly intrusive feature on the landscape, particularly when viewed from Clipsham Road and to a lesser extent from some of the residential properties. Since then, however, it has been re-graded and blends more naturally into the surrounding landscape.
117. In terms of the wider landscape, the site is screened by a combination of the intervening hedges, woodland blocks and the undulating landscape. There is no, or negligible, intervisibility with:
Holywell Hall and associated buildings; Clipsham; and Castle Bytham.
Main Planning Considerations
National Guidance
118. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and, at its heart, gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means:
approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out- of-date, granting permission unless:
- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or - specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
Page 205
The NPPF states that local planning authorities should approach decision- taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. In particular they should look for solutions rather than problems and should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
The main policies and principles set out in the NPPF which are of relevance to this proposal are as follows (summarised):
Paragraph 32 (Transport) states that all development that generates significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Decisions should take account of whether, amongst other things, safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people.
Paragraph 75 (Public Rights of Way) states that planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way and access. Local authorities should seek opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.
Paragraph 103 (Flood Risk) states that when determining applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.
Paragraph 109 (Natural Environment) states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
- protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; - recognising the wider benefits of the ecosystem; - minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; - preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and - remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.
Paragraph 112 (Agricultural Land) states that local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.
Page 206
Paragraph 118 (Biodiversity) states, amongst other things, that when determining applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying a number of principles. In particular, opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.
Paragraph 120 (Pollution and Land Instability) states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area of proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.
Paragraph 121 (Ground Conditions and Land Instability) states, amongst other things, that decisions should ensure that the site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or from activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation.
Paragraph 123 (Noise) states that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development. Decisions should also aim to mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.
Paragraph 124 (Air Quality) states that planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.
Paragraph 125 (Light Pollution) states that, by encouraging good design, planning decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscape and nature conservation.
Paragraph 128 (Heritage Assets) states that an applicant should describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. Where a site includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.
Paragraph 143 (Mineral Policy) states that when preparing local plans, local planning authorities should put in place policies that, amongst other
Page 207 things, safeguard the long term potential of the best and most versatile agricultural land and conserve soil resources.
Paragraph 144 (Mineral Applications) states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should, amongst other things:
- give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy; - ensure, in granting planning permission, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality; - ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emission and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties; - provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional cases. - consider how to meet any demand for small-scale extraction of building stone at, or close to, relic quarries needed for the repair of heritage assets, taking account of the need to protect designated sites; and - recognise the small-scale nature and impact of building and roofing stone quarries, and the need for a flexible approach to the potentially long duration of planning permissions reflecting the intermittent or low rate of working at many sites.
The NPPF is accompanied by Technical Guidance that includes a section on minerals policy. This section provides guidance on a number of issues including dust and noise. In terms of the health effects of dust, it states that additional measures to control PM10 (particles no greater than 10 microns in diameter) might be necessary if, within a site, the actual source of emissions (e.g. the haul road, crushers, stockpiles etc) is within 1000m of any residential property or other sensitive use, depending upon local circumstances. Where sensitive sites lie within this threshold, the guidance indicates that, provided the PM10 does not exceed the Air Quality Objective (AQO) for the area, good practice dust mitigation measures should be sufficient. If the AQO is exceeded [but not to the extent that would justify refusal] monitoring and further control of PM10 may be required.
On noise, the NPPF Technical Guidance advises that, subject to a maximum of 55dB(A)LAeq,1h (freefield), mineral planning authorities should aim to establish noise limits at noise sensitive properties that do not exceed the background level by more than 10dB(A). It is recognised, however, that in many circumstances it will be difficult not to exceed the background level
Page 208 by more than 10dB(A) without imposing unreasonable burdens on the operator. In such cases, the limit set should be as near that level as practicable during normal working hours (07:00 - 19:00) and should not exceed 55dB(A). The NPPF then goes on to advise that certain short term activities (such as soil stripping, baffle mound construction/removal) may be particularly noisy but may bring longer term environmental benefits. For these activities, increased temporary daytime noise limits of up to 70dB(A) LAeq 1h freefield for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year at specified noise- sensitive properties should be considered.
Local Plan Context
119. The documents of the Statutory Development Plan that are of relevance to this proposal are the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan (1991) and the South Kesteven Core Strategy (2010). As these were adopted prior to the NPPF, due weight should be given to the relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (i.e. the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).
There are no specific policies within the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan (1991) for building stone quarries, but the following policies are relevant and are considered to be generally consistent with the NPPF (except where indicated otherwise):
Policy M4 (Surface Mineral Working on Agricultural Land) states that in considering applications for planning permission for surface mineral working on land currently in agricultural use, the County Council will have particular regard to:
i. The agricultural Quality of the land – in particular proposals affecting the best and most versatile land, which in Lincolnshire principally comprises Grades 1 and 2 will normally be permitted only where no reasonable alternative exists and where provision is made for restoration to agriculture to an equally high quality. [NB: This aspect of the policy could be considered not to fully accord with the NPPF because grade 3a is also recognised in the NPPF as being "best and most versatile land".]; ii. The environmental and Economic Aspects; iii. The continuing need to protect the Countryside for its own sake rather than primarily for the productive value of the land; iv. The economic well-being of the local rural economy.
Policy M8 (Surface Mineral Working in Areas of Archaeological, Historic, Scientific or Natural History Interest) states that the County Council will not permit surface mineral working where this would have an adverse effect on areas which are of archaeological, historic, scientific or natural history interest. Generally in considering proposals for mineral working the County Council will have regard to the impact on nature conservation and wildlife.
Page 209 Policy M9 (Planning Applications for Surface Mineral Working) states that an application for surface mineral working should be accompanied by a full supporting statement and sets out the criteria that would normally need to be covered.
Policy M10 (Surface Mineral Working and Working Requirements) states that the County Council will permit applications for surface mineral working only where it is satisfied that the operations can be carried out in such a manner as will minimise disturbance during working and that satisfactory restoration to an appropriate after-use can be achieved. The County Council will normally impose conditions requiring measure to be taken to minimise the effects of the development and to provide for the after- treatment of the mineral site. In particular conditions may provide for:
restrictions on the hours and days of working which may exclude weekend, public holidays and night time; a sequence of mineral extraction and of restoration to minimise the impact on the environment and the amount of land out of agricultural production at any time; the separate stripping and storage of all topsoil and subsoil/overburden material for retention for use in the restoration of the worked out site. Stripping operations may be restricted to certain times of the year and weather conditions; the landscaping, tree planting or other treatment of the site both to lessen the impact of the development during working, and for the long term improvement of the local landscape having regard to the proposed after-use; the position on site, screening and colour cladding of buildings, structures, plant and machinery to minimise their impact on the locality; the measures to be taken to minimise dust and noise emissions including housing of plant and machinery, the lining of hoppers and other plant, the use of silencers for mobile plant and machinery, the provision of surfaced on-site haul roads and wheel cleaning facilities, and the sheeting of laden vehicles; the provision of safety fencing during the period of mineral extraction and subsequent restoration of the site; the removal of buildings, fixed machinery and plant upon completion of quarrying operations and prior to final restoration of the site; and acceptable standards of archaeological recording of threatened sites and timetable of access for archaeological work.
Policy M12 (Surface Mineral Working and Requirement for Adequate Local Highway Network to Accommodate the Traffic Generated) states that the County Council will only grant applications for surface mineral working where they are satisfied that the local highway network is adequate to accommodate the traffic that the proposed development is likely to generate.
Policy M13 (Surface Mineral Working and Landscaping and Tree planting Requirements) states that, where planning permission is granted for surface mineral working subject to the carrying out of a landscaping and tree
Page 210 planting scheme, the County Council will impose a maintenance obligation requiring the proper care of the scheme normally for a period of ten years following the initial completion of the scheme.
Policy M14 (Surface Mineral Working and Land Restoration Scheme Requirements) states that the County Council will require proposals for surface mineral working to be accompanied by a detailed scheme of restoration of the worked out site to agriculture, forestry, or recreation/ amenity use. The County Council will normally require restoration to agriculture only where grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land is concerned. [NB: This aspect of the policy could be considered not to fully accord with the NPPF because grade 3a is also recognised in the NPPF as being "best and most versatile land".] Where a recreation/amenity use is proposed it is expected that the scheme will reflect the particular suitability or sensitivity of the worked out site to formal or informal recreation, or nature conservation.
Policy M15 (Surface Mineral Working and Aftercare Conditions) states that, where appropriate, the County Council when granting planning permission for surface mineral working subject to restoration conditions will also impose after-care conditions.
120. The following policies of the South Kesteven Core Strategy (2010) are considered to be of particular relevance:
Policy EN1 (Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District) states that development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic, cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration. In this case the site lies within the Kesteven Uplands. The policy goes on to state that all development proposals will be assessed in relation to:
1. statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including natural and historic assets; 2. local distinctiveness and sense of place; 3. historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape; 4. the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces; 5. the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings; 6. the condition of the landscape; 7. biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape; 8. public access to and community value of the landscape; 9. remoteness and tranquillity; 10. visual intrusion; 11. noise and light pollution; 12. Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these have been adopted by the Council; 13. impact on controlled waters;
Page 211 14. protection of existing open space (including allotments and public open space, and open spaces important to the character, setting and separation of built-up areas).
Policy EN2 (Reducing the Risk of Flooding) states, amongst other things, that all planning applications should be accompanied by a statement of how surface water is to be managed and in particular where it is to be discharged. On-site attenuation and infiltration will be required as part of any new development wherever possible.
Emerging Policies
121. The County Council is currently reviewing its minerals and waste policies through the preparation of a Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan. This will, in due course, replace both the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan (1991) and the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan (2006) and will consist of two documents. The first of these documents, the draft "Core Strategy and Development Management Policies", is currently being reviewed following a non-statutory period of consultation ending on 13 December 2013. The second document that will deal with specific "Site Locations" will follow later.
122. The following policies of the draft Core Strategy and Development Management Policies are relevant but, given that they could be subject to significant change, should only be given very limited weight:
Draft Policy M7 (Building Stone) states that proposals for small-scale, new or extended building stone quarries will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
there is a specific need for the stone; the stone cannot be obtained from existing permitted sites; proposals are of a scale which avoid any significant environmental and amenity impacts.
Draft Policy DM1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) in brief commits the County Council to take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. Planning applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan should be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Draft Policy DM2 (Climate Change) in brief requires proposals for minerals and waste management developments to:
choose locations which reduce distances travelled by HGVs in the supply of minerals unless other environmental/sustainability/geological considerations override this aim; implement energy reduction processes and ways of working which reduce the overall carbon footprint of a mineral site;
Page 212 include new/enhanced biodiversity levels/habitats as part of restoration proposals to provide carbon sinks; make the most efficient use of primary minerals.
Draft Policy DM3 (Quality of Life) states that proposals for minerals development and waste development will not be permitted where they are likely to generate unacceptable adverse effects arising from noise, dust, vibration, odour emissions, illumination, visual intrusion or traffic to occupants of nearby dwellings and other sensitive receptors.
Draft Policy DM4 (Historic Environment) states that proposals for minerals and waste development that would adversely affect a designated heritage asset of the highest significance will not be permitted. Proposals that:
fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas; are detrimental to the character or setting of a listed building; or damage, obscure or remove any other heritage assets will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the need for and benefits of the development outweigh these interests.
Draft Policy DM6 (Impact on Landscape and Townscape) states that proposals for minerals and waste development will only be permitted where due regard has been given to the likely impact of the proposed development on the distinctive character of the landscape and townscape of Lincolnshire. If considered necessary by the County Council, additional design, landscaping, planting and screening (including planting in advance of the commencement of the development and a minimum 10 year maintenance period will be required.
Draft Policy DM8 (National Sites of Biodiversity Conservation Value) – states that Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserves and Ancient Woodland will be safeguarded from inappropriate minerals development. Proposals for minerals and waste development within or outside these areas will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
the development would not conflict with the conservation, management and enhancement of the site unless the harmful aspects can be satisfactorily mitigated; or the benefits of the development clearly outweighs the impacts that the proposal would have on the key features of the site; and in the case of a SSSI, there would be no broader impact on the national network of SSSIs.
Draft Policy DM9 (Local Sites of Biodiversity Conservation Value) states that proposals for minerals and waste development that are likely to impact adversely upon locally designated sites and priority habitats or species identified in the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan, and which cannot
Page 213 reasonably be located on any alternative site to avoid harm, will only be permitted if the merits of the development outweigh the likely impact.
Draft Policy DM11 (Soils) states that proposals for minerals and waste development should protect and, wherever possible, enhance soils. Proposals that would result in the significant loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
there is an overriding need for the development; there is no suitable alternative site of lower agricultural quality that provides the same benefits in terms of sustainability; the land could be restored to its previous agricultural quality or better; other beneficial after uses can be secured which outweigh the loss of the agricultural land; or the development is consistent with other sustainability considerations.
Draft Policy DM12 (Encouraging Sustainable Transport Movements) states that proposals for minerals and waste development should seek to minimise road based transport and seek to maximise where possible the use of the most sustainable transport option.
Draft Policy DM13 (Transportation by Road) states that proposals for minerals and waste development involving transportation by road will only be permitted where:
the highway network is of, or will be made up to, an appropriate standard for use by the traffic generated by the development; and arrangements for site access and the traffic generated by the development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, free flow of traffic, residential amenity or the environment.
Draft Policy DM14 (Flooding and Flood Risk) states that proposals for minerals and waste developments will need to demonstrate that they are located upon land with the lowest probability of flooding, considering both the Environment Agency Flood Zone Map and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment maps where available. Proposals will also need to demonstrate that sites can be developed without increasing the risk of flooding both to the sites and to third parties, taking into account all potential sources of flooding and increased risks from climate change induced flooding. Proposals should be designed to avoid and wherever possible reduce the risk of flooding both during and following the completion of operations. Development that is likely to create a material increase in the risk of off-site flooding will not be permitted.
Draft Policy DM15 (Water Resources) states that proposals for minerals and waste developments will only be permitted if they are unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on surface or ground waters and due regard is given to water conservation and efficiency.
Page 214 Draft Policy DM16 (Cumulative Impacts) states that proposals for minerals and waste development will not be permitted where the cumulative impact would result in adverse impacts on the environment of an area or on the amenity of a local community, either in relation to the collective effect of different impacts of an individual proposal, or in relation to the effect of a number of developments occurring either concurrently or successively.
Draft Policy R1 (Restoration and Aftercare) states that the County Council will seek to ensure that the restoration of mineral workings and landfill operations is of a high quality, and that it is carried out at the earliest opportunity. Proposals for mineral extraction or landfill should be accompanied by detailed proposals for restoration, including an appropriate after-use of the site. All proposals should demonstrate that:
restoration will be undertaken using best practice to secure a high standard of restoration and aftercare; restoration will be completed within a reasonable timescale and is progressive; the restoration is appropriate for the landscape and wildlife interest of the area and measures to create, protect, restore and enhance biodiversity conservation features are practical, of high quality appropriate to the area and secure their long term safeguarding and maintenance; there is an aftercare management programme of at least 5 years or longer where required to ensure that the restoration of the site is established successfully.
Draft Policy R2 (After-Use) states that the proposed after-use should be designed in a way that conserves and where possible enhances the landscape character and historic environment of the area in which the site is located.
After-uses that enhance or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests, conserve soil resources, and decrease the risk of adverse climate change effects will be encouraged. These could include: agriculture, nature conservation, leisure and recreation, and woodland.
Where appropriate, the proposed restoration should provide improvements for public access to the countryside including links to surrounding green infrastructure.
Restoration proposals should be designed to ensure that they do not give rise to new or increased hazards to aviation.
Draft Policy R4 (Restoration of Limestone and Chalk Workings) states that restoration proposals for limestone and chalk operations should be sympathetic to the surrounding landscape, include the creation of calcareous grassland habitat and retain suitable exposure for geological educational use where appropriate.
Page 215 Results of Consultation and Publicity
123. The application has been subject to two periods of consultation: the Initial Consultation taking place on 11 January 2013 and a subsequent consultation (following the submission of the Further Information and Amendments) on 19 July 2013.
(a) Local County Council Member, Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew – who is a member of the Planning and Regulation Committee, reserves his comments for the meeting.
(b) Careby, Aunby and Holywell Parish Meeting – in response to the Initial Consultation advised that the overall view of the Parish Meeting is supportive of this planning application. The Stamford Stone Company has operated the Holywell site in a manner which, to date, has caused minimal disruption to the local community. They do, however, have two concerns as set out below.
Firstly, in the short term, they are concerned over the unsightly nature of the Southern Tip and the time it will take in Phase 1 of the proposed extension to restore the landscape to an acceptable level of cultivation. The Parish Meeting request:
additional reduction and re-profiling of the spoil heap over that proposed, in recognition of its increase through the unapproved extension of the quarry to the north over recent years; and that a professional design be sought and implemented on the reinstatement of this with sufficient soil quality and depth to enable an appropriate native woodland mix to be generated to mask the unnatural shape of the southern landform caused by the spoil tip.
Secondly, in the longer term, the Parish Meeting's concerns relate to the conditions attached to the planning approval. They note that it is proposed to continue with the existing Highway Obligation which, among other obligations, limits the vehicle movements into and out of the site as well as the direction of those movements. They would wish the Lincolnshire County Council and Rutland County Council to ensure these obligations are tightly drafted, are binding on both the current and any future operator and embody a mechanism to ensure they are closely monitored.
The Parish Meeting was consulted on the Further Information and Amendments but has not responded.
(c) Clipsham Parish Meeting (the adjacent parish in Rutland) – in response to the Initial Consultation advised that since 2004 there has been a history of the applicant exceeding output limits and their record for protecting the environment is not positive. One special and important feature of this situation is that the legal controls on the Quarry are within the jurisdiction of Lincolnshire County Council, and yet
Page 216 Lincolnshire County Council has prohibited all highway access to the quarry from Lincolnshire. Therefore the only highway access to the quarry is that which is allowed by Rutland County Council through an exemption agreement to a weight restricted road, entirely in Rutland, and running through Clipsham Village where the roads are unsuitable for such heavy transport. They therefore recommend that all conditions proposed by Lincolnshire County Council need to be pre-discussed and agreed with Rutland County Council, before the application is determined.
In addition, the Parish Meeting has made the following comments on various aspects of the Application and Environmental Statement:
1. Sustainability and Permitted Output Limits
The present permitted output limit is 1150 cubic metres per annum, equivalent to about 2,400 tonnes per annum. Since around 2004, they understand (based on calculations from observations of quarry traffic movements) that Stamford Stone have in some years taken out between 16,000 to 19,000 tonnes per annum, which is between seven and eight times the permitted output limit. This indicates the degree of non-compliance.
Records show that the quarries have operated from the fourteenth century, supplying stone for heritage buildings. It is now proposed in this application to work them out within the next 25 to 30 years. The suggestion that this application in any way conforms to the aims of the NPPF is challenged. The proposed rate of output is unsustainable. Moreover, the use of high quality Clipsham stone for cutting into bricks for use in modern house building (or exported abroad) is entirely contrary to the principle of reserving Clipsham Stone for use on heritage buildings to preserve it into the future.
It is also pointed out that the Agent has subsequently stated that the expectation is that the future output will probably be around the 5,000 cubic metres per annum, this figure representing just over 10,000 tonnes per annum. They therefore recommend that the permitted output limit should not exceed 10,000 tonnes per annum, at a maximum. This is approximately four times the current limit and equates to about eight return journeys per week. Also the average load should be maximised in order to keep carbon emissions to a minimum by reducing the number of journeys.
2. Alternatives/Socio Economic Impact
Contrary to the applicant's claim, the building stone products supplied from Holywell Quarry are not unique and distinctive. This is because a few hundred metres to the south of Holywell Quarry is the Clipsham Quarry which produces similar material of at least equivalent quality. Furthermore, they challenge the applicant's claim that the material from
Page 217 the Clipsham Quarry Complex is inadequate in terms of its availability (quantity) and its range (colour, veining and texture) to satisfy market demands. In this respect it is pointed out that the statement is not consistent with the known fact that the applicant's vehicles are regularly seen emerging loaded with block stone from the Clipsham Quarry. Furthermore, many of the extracts quoted from the Clipsham Stone section of the English Heritage Study of Building stone from Rutland will be found to refer to the Clipsham Quarry, not the Holywell Quarry.
3. History of Development since 2002
The submissions made in 2004 provided substantially more detail on restoration proposals for the southern tip than are supplied in this present submission. In the former submission there was recognition that restoration works beyond the norm would be required to restore the southern tip to acceptable standards. Trial plantings in 2004 did not succeed.
The agent's subsequent claims that “the majority of the material in the (southern) bund was placed there over a period of many years by the previous operators, not Stamford Stone” are contested. Residents who have lived close by since the late 1970s are very clear that the majority of the damaging environmental impact has been caused by the Stamford Stone Company’s rapid and sustained increase in output from the Quarry since 2003/4. They therefore recommended that no consent should be granted without more detailed specialist research being undertaken and a management plan being agreed, particularly with regard to the full reduction, restoration and planting of the southern tip.
The overburden and the lack of any comprehensive plan during the period of working since 2006 have resulted in a substantial increase in the height of the southern spoil heap. Because of its height, it impacts considerably on the surrounding countryside, properties in the immediate vicinity and views from a number of areas in the village of Clipsham. Submissions made by the applicant in 2004 set out proposals which have not been adhered to, and this gives cause for concern. The Parish Meeting believes that it is feasible to secure a reduction in height to levels which the applicant suggested in 2004 and so achieve a lesser degree of impact. For this purpose they have suggested an area within the existing quarry for the disposal of spoil.
4. Landscape Visual Impact, Environment, Safety
It is noted that the agent, Geoplan, were commissioned to undertake th e “Landscape and Visual Impact including Resto ration, Aftercare and Landscape Strategy”. As Geoplan are also engaged by Stamford Stone to act for them in the promotion of their planning application, that Strategy cannot be considered an independent assessment. They therefore recommend that before any permissions are granted, an
Page 218 independent assessment is commissioned and presented for consultation.
It is considered that the statement, “The local landscape is dominated by blocks of woodland which, with undulating topography, restrict long distance views to the south and east", is misleading. They advise that the local landscape is actually dominated, when viewed over a wide arc from the south and south east by the southern tip of overburden. The landscape visual impact from the Clipsham to Holywell Road running west to east on the south side of the quarry, and the visual impact when seen from the residential properties to the south of the southern tip have been severely damaged by the company’s unauthorised operations. It is not acceptable to claim that because of the height of the southern tip, future workings to the north will not be visible from the south.
It would appear to them that the proposed permitted output limit has already and will continue to cause severe loss of amenity and a diminuti on of property value to Holywell Farm House, Old Father’s Cottage and the houses on Holywell Road, Clipsham opposite to the quarry entrance.
The landscaping proposals are unacceptably vague, containing no details or timescale. The submitted scheme provides only for the provision of hedging along the eastern boundary. They believe that this is insufficient to screen the workings for what is a considerable period of time, and this is particularly important in view of the footpath along the western boundary. They therefore recommended that the planting of new belts of trees to the North, East and West should be agreed and required prior to any new workings being permitted.
5. Dust and Air Quality
They question the adequacy of the existing quarry access track which has deteriorated resulting in unacceptable dust levels during dry periods. It is known that the dust samples were taken following a night of heavy rainfall, and may therefore not represent a true position. There is also a considerable amount of runoff.
The effects of lorry movements on nearby properties are causing a serious loss of amenity and having an adverse impact on property value. They therefore consider that the permitted output limits requested in this application are way beyond what could be considered as reasonable, and that the quarry road needs to be resurfaced and drained to highway standards.
6. Securing Compliance with Conditions
Since Stamford stone took over the operation of Holywell Quarry, there has been a continuing history of breaches of planning control including:
Page 219
the annual output from the quarry over the past eight to ten years being up to seven to eight times the present permitted output limit; the southern tip being increased in height with no consideration for neighbouring properties or the impact on the landscape/environment; and quarrying outside the permitted extraction boundary.
In this situation it is very clear that something more than a paper agreement is necessary in order to enforce compliance with whatever new conditions may arise from this application.
They also have concerns over the financial arrangements for the restoration of the site. The applicant's proposal to set up a “restoration accrual” of just over £1.00 per tonne set aside i n a bespoke account controlled by them is wholly inadequate both in the amount suggested and in the security of availability of any “accrual” in the future. Over the future lifetime of the operations there are many events which could render the Company and/or the Directors, unable or unwilling to use such a fictitious reserve. Neither is the history of compliance with conditions in the Company’s favour. They therefore recommend that monies are regularly transferred into a restoration bond under the full control of a separate legal entity properly established according to best practice and entirely beyond the control of the applicant. The money should be guaranteed for transfer to the bond quarterly, based on verified tonnage/volume of output for the previous quarter, calculated in the amount of £5.00 per tonne. Monies from the restoration bond could be released back to the Company in phases, after the phased restoration obligations have been fulfilled and verified by independent inspection and local approval.
The Parish Meeting have been told that no weight records are available, because there is no weighbridge at the quarry. They therefore recommend that in order for the Mineral Planning Authority to stand any chance of monitoring the output of this quarry for compliance with permitted output limits, it is an essential pre-requirement for the applicant to install either some form of automatic vehicle recognition system with a verifiable output facility, or to install a weighbridge on the site.
The Parish Meeting have been consulted on the Further Information and the Amendments, but have not responded.
(d) Rutland County Council – advise that there has been much discussion about this proposal - having seen a draft response of Clipsham Parish, which has several concerns. The main planning concerns appear to be the impact of traffic on Rutland roads and the visual impact of the site on the locality.
Page 220 On the first issue, they point out that there is a current Highway Obligation which allows 36 movements per week between the quarry and the A1 via Clipsham and Stretton. The Council has no objection to the application provided that the limitations set out in the Highway Obligation are adhered to, whether by a condition or legally linking the Obligation to any new permission. In view of the weight limit in Rutland, the Highway Obligation, as a relaxation of the Regulation, would need to be retained in some form anyway. This would appear to correspond with the maximum amount of stone which they actually wish to extract annually.
On the second issue, it is questioned whether the tip on the southern end of the site has to remain at its current height, clearly visible from the road. There would appear to be adequate space and volume to push some of this over into the finished quarry to lessen the visual impact of what will always remain a man-made feature.
(e) Environmental Protection Officer (South Kesteven District Council) – has advised that the proposal would be subject to environmental permitting in terms of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 under Activities Section 3.5 Part B.
(f) Environment Agency – has no objection to the proposal but has included informative comments for the applicant regarding pollution control and quarry waste.
(g) Highways (Lincolnshire County Council) – advise that the comments of the various parties during the life of this application have been noted and that it is acknowledged that, whilst there have been some concern expressed regarding the impact of traffic, the Highway Obligation with Rutland County Council allows for 36 movements per week between the quarry and the A1 via Clipsham and Stretton.
There is insufficient carriageway width in Lincolnshire for goods vehicles to enter and exit the site via this route, there being the additional constraint to widening due to existing SSSI sites. Vehicles entering or leaving the site shall do so from/to the west respectively via Rutland.
The comments of Rutland County Council are mirrored and it is suggested that the limitations set out in the Highways Obligation be extended to include the proposed extension area, with strict adherence.
(h) Historic Environment Manager (Lincolnshire County Council) – in response to the Initial Consultation advised that further evaluation works were required in the form of trial trenching. This has subsequently been carried out and the results included in the Further Information/Amendments. The Historic Environment Manager has advised that this shows that part of the area proposed for quarrying contains significant archaeological remains. It is therefore
Page 221 recommended that there should be an archaeological programme of works to record these remains prior to destruction. This should be secured by condition which should follow the standard recommended format for archaeological works.
(i) Natural England – has made the following comments:
Statutory Nature Conservation Sites
This application is in close proximity to the Clipsham Old Quarry and Pickworth Great Woods, Hollywell Banks and Newell Wood, Pickworth Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which these sites have been notified. They therefore have on objection on this ground and advise that these SSSIs do not represent a constraint in determining this application .
Protected species
Initially Natural England objected to the application on the ground that the application contained insufficient information to enable them to provide advice on the likely impact of the development on great crested newts. However, following the receipt of the Further Information (which included the results of a newt survey), they have withdrawn that objection and have advised that the development would be unlikely to affect that species, subject to appropriate mitigation being put in place. A method statement for this mitigation has subsequently been submitted and agreed with Natural England.
Natural England has not assessed the survey for badgers, barn owls and breeding birds, water voles, white-clawed crayfish or widespread reptiles. These are all species protected by domestic legislation and the mineral planning authority should use Natural England's protected species standing advice to assess the adequacy of any surveys, the impacts that may results and the appropriateness of any mitigation measures.
Local Wildlife Sites
If the site is on or adjacent to a local wildlife site, e.g. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the mineral planning authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local wildlife site, and the importance of this in relation to development plan policies, before it determines the application.
Page 222 Biodiversity Enhancements
This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Additionally, Natural England would draw the authority's attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘ Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity ’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘ conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat ’.
Landscape Enhancements
This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a positive contribution in terms of design, form and location, to the character and functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.
(j) Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust – in response to the initial consultation, has advised that they are pleased that an agreement between the developer and the local authority has been reached to prohibit HGVs from turning east on leaving the site. This would help to ensure that the roadside verges of nature conservation importance to the east of the quarry which are vulnerable to damage by heavy vehicles are protected. Holywell Banks Site of Special Scientific Interest, Holywell Wood Road Verges Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and Roadside Nature Reserve (RNR) and Robert’s Field Road Verges LWS and RNR are some of the best remaining examples of limestone grassland in the county and an extremely important Lincolnshire natural asset.
The Trust supports the creation of limestone (or calcareous) grassland, because Holywell Quarry is located in a priority area for limestone grassland re-creation. Limestone grassland is a UK and Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat. Re-creation of limestone grassland at this site would help to meet targets in the UK and Lincolnshire BAP. It would also fit in well with a partnership project
Page 223 called ‘Lowland calcareous grassland in the Lincolnshire and Rutland Limestone Natural Area’, also known as ‘Life on the Verge’. The Trust would therefore recommend that the whole site is restored to limestone grassland, rather than 50% seeded with ryegrass, as they contend that the opportunity should be used to create as much of this important and declining habitat as possible.
The Soils and Agricultural Land Quality Report (Environmental Statement section 9) states that the whole site would be covered with a coarse limestone basal layer over which a mixture of topsoil, subsoil and finer limestone waste would be spread. This method would not produce the best results in establishing calcareous grassland. The Trust recommends that the topsoil is used as the basal layer and is covered, or mixed, with the coarse limestone waste. Subsoil mixed with the fine limestone waste would then be spread to form the topmost layer. This would produce a more calcareous and less fertile substrate which would maximise the chances that specialist calcareous species would become established, and would minimise competition from more vigorous less desirable species. It is also not clear why the southern outer face of the southern tip would be treated differently, i.e. a topsoil surface sown with ryegrass that would then be gradually restored to calcareous grassland after the addition of fine limestone waste. This approach would make the creation of limestone grassland much more difficult to achieve and the Trust would therefore recommend that the substrate as described above, is applied over the whole site.
The Trust supports the retention of two of the quarry faces as a geological educational resource. They also recommend that any areas of existing bare limestone are left unrestored and unseeded to provide areas for natural colonisation of limestone grassland. To facilitate such colonisation, the Trust would recommend that no tree planting takes place on site. Tree and shrub planting would not only directly reduce the area available for establishment of calcareous grassland, but would also lead to the colonisation of other areas by woody vegetation. It is of particular concern that planting is proposed on the slope at the north of the site. This is south facing and would provide an ideal area to leave uncovered and unseeded for natural regeneration; sparsely vegetated south facing slopes also provide important habitats for many invertebrate species. Whilst some tree or hedgerow planting may be appropriate around the boundaries of the site, it should not be carried out in areas proposed for grassland creation.
Regarding the proposed species mixes for the calcareous grassland, the Trust are satisfied with the composition of species, but would suggest a variation in the proportions of seed used. Currently, Crested Dog’s -tail (Cynosurus cristatus) is the dominant grass species at 32%. In natural calcareous grasslands, this species is usually less abundant and we would suggest that this is reflected in the seed mix. To co mpensate for reducing the proportion of Crested Dog’s -tail, the Trust suggests that the amounts of both Yellow Oat-grass (Trisetum
Page 224 flavescens) and Quaking Grass (Briza media) should be increased. Given the proximity of sites of both national and county importance for their calcareous grassland flora, they would also wish to ensure that all seed used is of appropriate local provenance.
The Trust have looked at the proposed management as set out in Appendix 2 of the Landscape and Visual Assessment and have some comments to make regarding appropriate management to promote creation of limestone grassland habitats. In the first year of establishment, the area should be cut, as suggested, approximately four times during the growing season and the cuttings removed from the site, to knock back any of the more vigorous unwanted species. In subsequent years (2-5), traditional hay meadow management with a cut in July or August and aftermath grazing should be appropriate. If all of the topsoil is buried (as suggested above), the surface fertility would be reduced and establishment of a good calcareous sward would be much easier to accomplish. It would be too early during this stage of establishment to determine whether management for specific features (such as specific wildflowers or butterflies) would be appropriate. Sympathetic meadow management should be continued in perpetuity to best suit the developing grassland habitats. All cuttings should be removed from site to keep the nutrient levels low and all parts of the site should be managed in this way on an annual basis. The Trust would not recommend that only a third of the site is ‘harvested’ each year on rotation. In the longer term, a more grazing-orientated regime would also be possible, as long as it is carried out to maintain low fertility and a good calcareous sward.
The Trust was subsequently consulted on the Further Information/Amendments, but no further comments have been received.
(k) Tree Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) – has no objections.
(l) Countryside Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) – advise that the definitive rights of way map shows Careby, Aunby and Holywell Public Footpath No 2 affecting the property. In the absence of further information, it is expected that the definitive line and customary width of the path would not be affected by any proposed development. Informative comments have been provided for the applicant.
(m) Health and Safety Executive – consulted separately on 10 May 2013 but has not responded.
The following bodies/organisations were consulted but no response/ comments were received at the time this report was prepared:
Ministry of Defence Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership Anglian Water Services
Page 225 Welland Internal Drainage Board Ramblers' Association Lincolnshire Fieldpaths Campaign to Protect of Rural England (Lincolnshire Branch
124. The application has been subject to two periods of publicity. Initially it was publicised by way of a site notice and a notice in the local press (the Stamford Mercury on 1 February 2013). In addition, nearby residents and other residents that made representations on the previous applications in 2004 were individually notified. Following the Initial publicity, representations were received from the local residents of two nearby properties and from 16 companies that use stone products supplied by the applicant.
Representations from Local Residents
125. The resident of one of the properties would be in favour of supporting the application if they could be reassured that the relevant conditions would be met and, if necessary, enforcement applied. In particular, they have raised the following points/concerns:
The primary concern relates to the condition of the southern tip that is in direct line of sight from their property and is having a detrimental impact on this beautiful rural area. This tip exceeds the height limit of the original conditions and is made up of materials from various strata that have been heaped up with no plan for restoration. The southern bund should be tested for pH and soil fertility as it is barren and infertile. It will require multiple re-grading, top soil and drainage to allow anything to grow. Whilst it is noted that there has been work carried out recently to lower the bund, it would have been helpful to co-ordinate all matters in the quarry with this application so that all parties can feel confident of the strategy for the future. Although the applicant's agent has advised that the majority of the material was tipped by the previous operator, the applicant cannot dismiss responsibility if they wish to move this matter forward in a correct and proper way. Because the applicant has no empathy for the beautiful rural setting of the site, neighbours cannot have confidence in any new permission without very stringent pre-conditions followed by weekly monitoring. The resident has taken up the Higher Level Stewardship scheme which requires them to comply with good practice to ensure that the environmental impact of their farm is to the benefit of the wider community – implying that the applicant should also have regard to the wider community and suggesting that they employ an agricultural and arboriculture expert to ensure compliance with the permission granted. A Bond needs to be in place to ensure that the applicant and any successors fully comply with any restoration conditions imposed. The principle of the Bond must be that its value should be sufficient to cover the requirements of all the conditions of the consent to the satisfaction of the County Council should the applicant or successor default.
Page 226 It is noted that the applicant's agent has advised that there are permitted reserves lying partially under the southern tip that would be worked if planning permission is not granted – which would be more visually intrusive. This must be a matter for Holywell Minerals and the Holywell Estate as it is suggested that minerals could be extracted across the farm access road on the Holywell Estate. The argument put forward for alternative scenarios strengthens the case for having proper and correct monitoring of the site which has not been done in the past. The applicant should be required to install a weighbridge so that all output from the quarry is correctly weighed and the environmental impact of the transport can be properly monitored. It is a known fact that once an application has been granted, an applicant can apply to vary the conditions. The resident would object to any subsequent application to lessen the impact of any conditions imposed. It should be recommended that a site meeting and inspection take place with interested parties in attendance i.e. Parish Meetings, Parish Councils, Rutland County Council and neighbours so that the applicant can be understood and supported.
Residents of the other property wish as a family to see the quarry continue to operate (as it is important to our heritage), but have expressed the following concerns: i. They are aware of the delays in resolving issues over traffic. These were finally resolved because of the initiatives put forward to Rutland County Council by Clipsham Parish Meeting. The applicant showed little or no inclination to be proactive in resolving this matter. ii. They have previously raised concerns about the level of extraction and the complete lack of any strategy over the staking of soil, restoration or the like. They believe the stone proposed to be worked in the previous application has been worked out, but none of the restoration proposals have been followed. The height of the southern tip has substantially increased from the levels previously proposed. If this application is to succeed it must include clear measurable requirements and safeguards in respect of landscaping and restoration. iii. The current proposals do not in their view reduce the height of the southern tip which is now a scar on the landscape. The previous application provided for the spoil to be returned to the worked out areas of the quarry and this is an option that should be followed. iv. The landscaping should be subject to a more detailed study and should include a clear specification. Natural regeneration should not be relied upon and will only be limited to existing areas of establishment. The proposed provision of hedging limited to the eastern boundary of the new workings is totally inadequate. A screening belt of new planting should be included along all boundaries and planted before the Phase 1 working is commenced. v. The footpath along the western boundary is very close to a sharp drop to the quarry and has been substantially eroded in recent times. Steps should be taken to stabilise this and safeguard the regular users of this right of way.
Page 227 vi. A bond should be taken at the outset at a level appropriate to secure restoration. vii. The applicant should make a contribution towards the maintenance of the highway. No benefits, they believe, will come to Rutland through the workings and any resultant rates payable. The road passes through woodland, near Bullimores Quarry. There is a ditch to the north and the road often lies damp. Steps should be considered to improving the width of the carriageway to safeguard users, subject to agreement with adjoining landowners.
Representations from Companies Supplied with Stone by the Applicant
126. The following companies have made representations in support of the application:
Baxter & King Ltd (Deeping St James) – have used stone from this quarry for many years on several projects in the local area. The stone is unique in its colour and has enabled them to produce elegant and beautiful properties. If the application is not successful it would not only force them to import stone from further afield, but would be a great loss to the local area. Confianza UK Ltd (Cherry Hinton, Cambridge) – have worked in the industry for over 25 years and appreciate the value and importance that Clipsham Stone has to the Industry. Many prestigious buildings are built of the material, including the Palace of Westminster and many College buildings in Cambridge. These and many more buildings depend on quarries such as Clipsham in maintaining their buildings. There are of course many new projects, particularly in areas of historical interest that are also constructed out of Clipsham Stone due to its durability and beauty. Burmor Construction Ltd (Deeping St James) – emphasise how important it is to them and other building contractors and clients to ensure the future of this stone. They are unaware of a similar product that would match what Stamford Stone produce. They rely on this product for its appearance and quality and also its cost which makes it affordable for clients to consider using it for new housing alterations and extensions. Silver Heron Developments Ltd (Northborough, Peterborough) – have been using Stamford Stone on local projects for the last seven years. Many of their prestigious builds have required locally dressed stone and Stamford Stone has been a fundamental supplier. Design & Materials Ltd (Shireoaks, Nottinghamshire) – have used the stone on many self-build projects. This is a very beautiful and unique stone and very popular with their clients. Hereward Homes Ltd (Empingham, Rutland) – is a developer of quality homes and has used Stamford Stone on a prestigious development of shops and apartments in the conservation town of Stamford. The vast majority of their properties use Clipsham walling stone and they are very keen to see its continued supply.
Page 228 Jackson Building Centres Ltd (Stamford) – have supplied Stamford Stone products for the past 15 years from both the Stamford branch and the Oakham site. It has become clearly apparent that the Stamford Stone Company has had a major impact on how Stamford Town and the surrounding areas look. Langton Homes Ltd (Market Harborough) – state that the stone is vital for their business as a traditional house-builder and would like the supply of this beautiful stone to be safeguarded for years to come. Orchard Building Contractors Ltd (Stamford) – have used Stamford Stone for a number of years and support the expansion of the quarry. Ross Thain & Co Ltd (Stamford) – specify the applicant's stone in considerable quantities and state that this stone makes a significant contribution to the local built environment as it is of the highest quality. During the past 20 years there has been a revolution in the supply of stone, with the Stamford Stone Co at the forefront of this big push to re- use natural materials rather than the fake stone prevalent in the 1980s. It is very important that they continue to be able to produce stone in sufficient quantities to satisfy the local demand. Fengate Developments (Peterborough) - state that the quality of material supplied by Stamford Stone Company has been excellent and it would be a shame if they were not able to continue to supply stone that is in keeping with the stone that has been in used in constructing buildings and walls in the local area. Patten Builders Ltd (Ingoldsby, Grantham) – have used the services of this quarry for many years and have built at least thirty properties using this stone. This product needs to be produced to build properties in the area that match existing properties. Szerelmey GB Ltd (London) – have just finished a two year working project with Stamford Stone Company at Rippon College, Oxford, which is a new Chapel and accommodation block with all external cladding in Clipsham Stone supplied by Stamford Stone Company. This is a very prestigious project and they are very complimentary of the works supplied in this very ascetically pleasing stone. PGR Construction (Oundle, Peterborough) – have undertaken numerous projects using this stone and their customers have been extremely happy with the results. They find the stone to be of the highest quality and much sought after. Britannicus Stone Ltd (London) - have built many Landmark Buildings with Clipsham Stone from this quarry. Their clients have been very satisfied with the overall look and weatherability of this stone. They endorse this application so that this famous limestone is available for future building projects. Charleswood Homes Ltd (Market Deeping) – state that the contribution that Stamford Stone Company make to the enhancement of the built environment in the area should not be underestimated. They feel this application should be granted so that the applicant's good work may continue and that companies, including themselves, who have used these excellent products, may continue to do so in the future. Stamford Stone Company have many employees and make a significant
Page 229 contribution to the local economy. Any business that wishes to expand in the present economic climate should really be given as much support as possible.
Additional Representation from a Local Resident
127. Following the submission of the Further Information and Amendments, the application was subject to further publicity by way of a site notice and a notice in the local press (the Stamford mercury on 26 July 2013). In addition, everybody who made already made representations was given a further opportunity to make comments. Only one representation was received as a result of this publicity. This was from a local resident who had not previously made representations on this application. Their concern is that the limestone from this quarry is a non-renewable resource that should be conserved for the use in the maintenance/restoration of historic buildings, rather than being used for the building of new houses. In particular:
they question the amount of limestone that would be taken out. Some nine years ago they were told that this was limited to 1750 tonnes per year, but this was and still is being exceeded six fold. The County Council has been provided with videos in the past showing that Stamford Stone was extracting some 18,000 to 20,000 tonnes per year; they point out that on the day their representation was made (29 July 2013), some "four plus loads" had been taken from the quarry carrying large pieces of stone. They have no problem with this as long as it goes to repair old and lovely buildings about the country; and there must be lots of quarries about in both Rutland and Lincolnshire to fulfil the demand for building or houses, and they look to this Authority to stop the use of possibly the best limestone in the UK from this quarry being used in this way.
Landowner Representation
128. Representations have also been made by Savills on behalf of the Holywell Estate, the surface landowner of part of the site and adjoining land, and were received prior to the receipt of the Further Information and Amendments. They understand that no stone has been extracted from the permitted area of the quarry for many years. Instead stone has been extracted from an area to the north of the site in an area for which no planning consent exists. Despite unauthorised mineral extraction continuing for many years no action was taken by Lincolnshire County Council until 20 July 2011. This blatant breach of planning legislation by the applicant and the lack of any monitoring or control by Lincolnshire County Council raises serious concerns about the future operation of the quarry and compliance with planning permission in the event that the current application is granted.
Attention is drawn specifically to the following matters:
Page 230 Restoration of Southern Tip
The applicant accepts in the application that the southern tip is a prominent feature of the landscape by nature of its size and it remaining unseeded. A progressive restoration scheme as required by an existing planning condition was not submitted by the operator, and was not demanded by the Mineral Planning Authority. No action has been taken by either the applicant or the Mineral Planning Authority to improve the appearance of the tip.
The planning application is proposing to further increase the height of the tip. In their opinion this is entirely unacceptable. In the applicant's Landscape Assessment it is stated that the tip currently stands at approximately 80m AOD with the proposed final profile of the restored tip at 92m AOD. This is higher than the top of the natural ridge to the north of the quarry (89m AOD).
In their opinion the proposed profile is unacceptable in landscape terms. The tip should be reduced in height in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the local area. In the event that the planning application is granted then an enforceable condition should be attached to the consent stipulating a clear timetable for the restoration of the tip and approving the height and profile to which the tip should be restored.
Restoration Bond
In the application, it is estimated that the costs of restoration to be in the order of £500,000. As the proposed restoration is progressive they believe that the restoration liability will reduce over time as stone is worked and the quarry is restored. Thus the time at which the liability is greatest is now as the southern tip has not been adequately profiled and restored. In the event that the operator ceased trading there must be a bond available to cover the cost of the outstanding restoration. As such they suggest that a bond is secured for the total cost of restoration on grant of permission. It may be appropriate to review and reduce the level of the bond as the development and restoration progress in accordance with an agreed scheme which should be a condition of the planning permission if granted.
Traffic Movements
They are advised by the applicant’s agent, Geoplan, that mineral output will not exceed 20,000 tonnes per annum, and in any event traffic movements will not exceed three loaded vehicles leaving the site on a single day. This is reasonable in their opinion. However, they are concerned about the mineral planning authority’s ability to enforce this condition. They have been advised by the County Council's mineral planning officer that the current output restriction had been difficult to enforce as there was no weighbridge on site. In the event that planning permission is granted then a condition should be attached to the permission limiting the output by reference to the
Page 231 number of vehicle movements. The condition must be enforceable and be enforced by the mineral planning authority.
District Council's Recommendations
129. The South Kesteven District Council has no objections to raise.
Conclusions
130. Planning permission is sought by the Stamford Stone Co Ltd to extend and consolidate their existing operations relating to the extraction of dimension stone at Holywell Quarry in the Parish of Careby, Aunby and Holywell. In brief, it is proposed to:
extract 488,000 tonnes of dimension stone primarily from an extension to the quarry, but with a very limited amount of material taken from the existing working area; to increase the production limit from 1150 cubic metres (about 2750 tonnes) per year to 20,000 tonnes; and to progressively restore the site primarily to a mixture of calcareous grassland and improved pasture.
131. In the absence of any specific policies in the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan (1991) (LMLP) relating to building/dimension stone quarries, the proposal should be assessed primarily against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The more general policies of the LMLP and the South Kesteven Core Strategy (2010) (SKCS) should, however, also be taken into account - in so far as they are consistent with the NPPF. The policies cited in this report from the draft Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2013) (LMWLP) are relevant, but at this stage should only be given very limited weight.
132. Having regard to the above documents, it is considered that the main issues that should be taken into account in the determination of this application are:
whether there is a need for the development; whether the proposed increase in production level and the wider use of the limestone is sustainable; whether the restoration proposals are acceptable and achievable; and whether the environmental impacts are, subject to appropriate mitigation, acceptable.
Need
133. The NPPF supports the small-scale extraction of building stone at, or close to, relic quarries needed for the repair of heritage assets, provided that account is taken of the need to protect designated sites. In this case it is considered that the Holywell quarry is one of the most important dimension stone quarries in the County providing Clipsham Stone for the conservation/repair of some of the Nation's most important historic buildings
Page 232 including: Windsor Castle, Kings College Chapel (Cambridge), Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament. Indeed, the applicant has provided a letter from the Project Manager of the Parliamentary Works Services Directorate supporting the application and confirming that this stone has been used in the restoration works of the Houses of Parliament since 1928. The applicant has also advised that the stone is needed locally in the renovation of historic buildings in the surrounding villages and in the town of Stamford.
134. Although the importance of the stone is generally acknowledged by the local community, the point has been raised that equivalent stone can be sourced from the Clipsham Quarry, just over the county boundary in Rutland. In this respect the applicant has advised that the stone from that quarry , whilst of high quality and highly valued, is inadequate in terms of its availability and range (colour, veining and texture) to satisfy market demands. The operator of the Clipsham Quarry has not made any formal representations on the application. However, given the highly variable nature of the Clipsham Stone, it is considered that it would be appropriate to maintain a continuity of supply from the Holywell Quarry given its long association with the supply of this nationally and locally important building stone. In this respect the proposal should be viewed as being in accordance with the NPPF (Paragraph 144) and draft Policy M7 of the LMWLP.
Sustainability
135. Concerns have been raised by the Clipsham Parish Meeting and local residents that allowing an increase in production for use in the construction of new buildings is unsustainable and that the stone should be conserved for the restoration of historic buildings. There are a number of issues that arise from this point:
firstly, not all the stone would be suitable for use in the restoration of historic buildings; secondly, the applicant has advised that it would be uneconomic to keep the quarry open with the existing output limitation; thirdly, some of the stone is used for new build within Conservation Areas, such as in Stamford, and therefore serves a conservation objective by ensuring that the buildings blend in with the historic surroundings; and finally, retaining the material on site would be likely to cause problems for the applicant given the limited space available in the quarry (as it did for the previous operator).
136. Having regard to the above points, it is considered that in this respect the proposal would be sustainable and would allow the quarry to remain open and thus continue to supply Clipsham stone for use on historic buildings of national importance and in local conservation projects. It is therefore considered to accord with the NPPF (Paragraph 144) and draft Policy DM1 of the LMWLP.
Page 233 Restoration
137. The proposal is that approximately half of the site would be restored to calcareous grassland, with the other half restored predominantly to improved pasture. In response the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust has recommended that the whole site is restored to calcareous grassland to help meet targets in the UK and Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan. In this respect, however, it should be noted that:
firstly, the area to be restored to pasture is primarily focussed on the outer slope of the Southern Tip and the proposed Main Tip, with the more “concealed” parts of the quarry restored to calcareous grassland - thereby ensuring that the more prominent features would be restored in a manner that blends in with the surrounding area; and secondly, it allows the soils to be used in a more sustainable manner.
138. On the basis of the above it is considered that the current proposal represents an appropriate balance between the need to contribute to biodiversity action targets, the need to assimilate the restored site into the surrounding landscape, and the need to make best use of the soils. It is therefore considered to accord with the NPPF (Paragraphs 118 and 143), Policy M14 of the LMLP and draft Policies DM6, DM11, R1 and R4 of the LMWLP.
139. The Clipsham Parish Meeting and local residents have also questioned the applicant’s ability to deliver the restoration proposals, recommending that a financial bond is obtained to secure the restoration requirements. This concern appears to have arisen from the condition of the Southern Tip, which at the time the application was made was an intrusive feature on the landscape particularly when viewed from Clipsham Road. The tip has been formed over many years because there has been insufficient space in the quarry void for backfilling. Although the matter was considered in 2002 (during the First Periodic Review of the site), the details provided by the previous operator were sketchy and, due to the limitations of the review procedure, the matter was not satisfactorily resolved.
140. In contrast, the current application covers a larger area (giving greater flexibility for the management of quarry waste) and is accompanied by a detailed scheme of phased restoration, including the early restoration of the outer face of the Southern Tip. Furthermore, in response to concerns raised by the local community, the applicant has brought forward the restoration of the Southern Tip, re-grading the southern slope in accordance with the submitted details. This has demonstrated that they are capable of undertaking the work and that the site can continue to be assimilated into the surrounding landscape.
141. The NPPF (Paragraph 144) states that bonds or other financial guarantees should only be sought in exceptional circumstances. In this case, it is considered that the detailed schemes provided by the applicant (which can be secured by condition and subsequently monitored and, if necessary,
Page 234 enforced) would provide a sufficient safeguard to secure the phased restoration of the site. A bond is therefore not considered to be necessary or appropriate.
Environmental Impacts
142. (a) Landscape and Visual Impact
When the application was first publicised, the primary concern from the two parish meetings and local residents related to the visual impact of the Southern Tip on the surrounding landscape. As referred to above, the tip has since been re-graded and is considered to have a more natural landform that blends into the surrounding landscape. Furthermore, since the works were completed there have been no further representations on this matter. If planning permission is granted it would be appropriate to impose conditions to ensure:
that the proposed landscaping is carried out; any localised slumping/slippages of the landform that may occur are corrected; and the pasture becomes established (through a period of aftercare).
In terms of the quarry extension, the area is screened from distant views but is clearly visible from an adjacent public footpath and a farm track. These impacts would however be mitigated by the proposed:
advance hedge planting; the construction of the screening bund; and the construction, landscaping and subsequent removal of the Northern Tip within set periods.
These measures can be secured by appropriate conditions.
Limestone quarrying is a recognised feature of this landscape area (the Kesteven Uplands) and, subject to the above mitigation, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant visual impact or landscape impact. It is therefore considered to accord with the NPPF (Paragraphs 75 and 109), Policy EN1 of the SKCS, and draft Policy DM6 of the LMWLP.
(b) Ecology
The main finding of the ecological assessment is that the proposed quarry extension has a potential to affect Great Crested Newts. A Method Statement to minimise any impact on this species has therefore been prepared and agreed with Natural England. The subsequent implementation of this Method Statement could therefore be secured by an appropriate condition.
Page 235 Although the ecological assessment has largely focussed on the extension area, it is considered that the existing quarry has a very low potential for protected species given the degree of recent disturbance – notwithstanding its designation as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest. In this respect, neither Natural England nor the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust have raised any concerns.
The only vegetation within the quarry is located around the margins and for the main part would be retained. It would therefore be appropriate to impose a suitable condition to protect this vegetation and any nesting birds.
With the above mitigation in place, it is considered that the development would be unlikely to have a significant impact on nature conservation. Furthermore, any impacts would be offset by the restoration proposals that would increase the biodiversity value of the site. On this basis it is considered that the proposal would not undermine the objectives of the NPPF (Paragraph 109), Policy M8 of the LMLP, Policy EN1 of the SKCS and draft Policy DM9 of the LMWLP.
(c) Cultural Heritage
The archaeological evaluation shows that part of the proposed extension area is affected by archaeological remains. However these are not of national significance and could be preserved by record. The Historic Environment Manager has therefore advised that a scheme of archaeological works and recording should be secured through an appropriate condition.
The report also concludes that the proposed extension to the quarry would not have any impact on the nearby listed buildings or their settings as there is no inter-visibility. The Southern Tip could have a limited impact, but given that the proposal only involves the restoration of this area, any impacts would be positive.
It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with the NPPF (Paragraph 128), Policy M8 of the LMLP, Policy EN1 of the SKCS and draft Policy DM4 of the LMWLP.
(d) Hydrology/Hydrogeology/Flood Risk
The proposal should not affect the hydrology or hydrogeology because all working would take place above the maximum groundwater level and no de- watering would take place. To ensure that this is the case, a condition could be imposed to limit the working depth.
The site lies within Flood Zone 1 (lowest probability of flooding) and no new hard surfaces would be created. At present some surface water is allowed to run-off the site onto the adjacent agricultural land; the applicant is therefore proposing to install a catchment ditch to direct this into a soakaway on the quarry floor. Surface run-off is not identified as a significant issue,
Page 236 but it would be appropriate to address this matter through an appropriate condition so that full details can be agreed.
It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with the NPPF (Paragraph 103), Policy EN2 of the SKCS and draft Policy DM14.
(e) Dust and Air Quality
Dust is not identified as a significant issue. Given the very limited scale of the development, it is considered that the standard good practice measures identified would be sufficient to control dust levels. These could be secured through an appropriate condition.
It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with the NPPF (Paragraph 124) and the accompanying Technical Guidance, Policy M10 of the LMLP and draft Policy DM3 of the LMWLP.
(f) Noise
As with dust, it is considered that with the very limited scale of the development, the mitigation measures put forward by the applicant should be sufficient. However, given the proximity of residential properties, especially Quarry Farm (which could be re-occupied), it would be appropriate to have in place a complaints procedure and provision for follow up action. This could be secured by condition.
It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with the NPPF (Paragraph 123) and the accompanying Technical Guidance, Policy M10 of the LMLP and draft Policy DM3 of the LMWLP.
(g) Traffic
Due to the existing Traffic Regulation Orders, all Heavy Commercial Vehicles can only access the site from the west, through the Parish of Clipsham in Rutland, subject to the terms of a Highway Agreement with Rutland County Council that limits HCV movements to an average of 36 per week. The terms of that agreement are quite complicated and the use of the term “average” could give rise to considerable variation s in daily movements. It is therefore considered that the Highway Agreement does not give sufficient safeguards to protect residential amenity. This matter has been raised with the applicant and they have indicated that that they would accept a limit of six HCV movements per day (three in and three out) for traffic associated with the transportation of limestone. This could be secured through an appropriate condition. At this level of production, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on local amenity.
It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with the NPPF (Paragraph 144), Policy M12 of the LMLP, and draft Policies DM3 and DM13 of the LMWLP.
Page 237
(h) Soils and Agricultural Land Quality
The vast majority of the extension area falls into sub-grade 3b and does not therefore constitute the best and most versatile agricultural land. The proposed use of the limited quantity of soil to allow part of the site to be restored to improved pasture is therefore considered to be a sustainable use. This could be secured through an appropriate condition.
With mitigation in place, it is considered that the impact on both the agriculture land and on the soils would be low and acceptable. On this basis it is considered that the proposal accords with the NPPF (Paragraph 143), Policy M4 of the LMLP and draft Policy DM11 of the LMWLP.
(i) Land Stability
Generally, land stability is controlled through common law rights and through other legislation. However, the identified standoffs between the excavation and the site boundaries could be secured through an appropriate condition. Subject to the site being worked in accordance with the submitted details, it is considered unlikely that there would be any significant impacts on the surrounding land.
It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with the NPPF (Paragraphs 120 and 121).
(j) Socio-Economic
The proposal would help to maintain the employment of the 22 people that work for the applicant. In addition, the quarry provides an important source of Clipsham Stone for building contractors. Members will note that representations in support of this application have been received from 16 companies, many of which are local.
The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the NPPF, and in particular Paragraph 144 that gives great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including the economy.
Other issues
143. Concerns have been raised by Clipsham Parish Meeting and local residents that the applicant has been operating in breach of planning control since 2004 by:
extracting from an area without planning permission; and exceeding the current output limit.
144. On the first point it is acknowledged that the applicant has been extracting stone from an area beyond the permitted boundary of the quarry – as set out
Page 238 in the background section of this report. It has not, however been considered expedient to take enforcement action because:
the applicant was seeking to regularise the situation through the submission of planning applications; and had the Council stopped the development, the applicant could have reactivated an existing permission that would have had a greater environmental impact.
145. Instead, the officers of this Authority and Rutland County Council have worked with the applicant to try to resolve the problems arising from the Traffic Regulation Orders that were delaying the determination of those applications. This approach accords with the NPPF (Paragraph 118) that states that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems and should work proactively to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Whilst this took significantly longer than originally envisaged, it is considered that it has resulted in a successful outcome in so far as:
the quarry traffic can now lawfully be routed through Rutland; the previous applications have been replaced by an improved application that provides a more detailed scheme of working and restoration for both the existing quarry and the area of the proposed extension; and the applicant has agreed to enter into a Planning Obligation to prohibit any further working under the existing permissions (if this application is granted).
146. On the second point, it was common practice in the past to impose output limits on building stone quarries to prevent any impacts from increased production levels (particularly aggregate production). In practice, however, it is difficult to monitor and enforce such conditions and to a large extent relies on "self-regulation". The applicant has advised that for 2011 and 2012 the annual output averaged about 1540 cubic metres, which is above the maximum limit of 1150 cubic metres. However, they have also advised that this only amounts to an average of 4.25 HCV loads per week, which is well below the maximum limit set by Rutland County Council.
147. It is therefore considered that it would be more appropriate to control the output of the quarry through a restriction on HCV movements rather than setting a maximum production limit.
Final Conclusion
148. It is considered that this proposal would enable the applicant to continue to extract an important source of Clipsham Stone without having an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area. As such the proposal is considered to accord with the NPPF, the Development Plan and the emerging policies of the Draft LMWLP.
Page 239 RECOMMENDATIONS
(A) That the applicant be invited to enter into a Planning Obligation to ensure that from the date the planning permission is commenced, no further development takes place pursuant to the two existing mineral permissions, reference numbers SK759 and S16/265/85 (which were subject to a First Periodic Review under reference S16/0067/02);
(B) Subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation referred to above, the Executive Director of Communities be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out below;
AND
(C) That this report forms the Council's Statement under paragraph 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 that requires the Council to make available for public inspection at the district council offices a statement containing:
the content of the decision and any conditions attached to it; the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based including, if relevant, information about the participation of the public; a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if appropriate, offset the major adverse effects of the development; and information regarding the right to challenge the validity of the decision and the procedures for doing so.
CONDITIONS
Commencement
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years from the date of this permission.
2. The date of commencement of the development shall be notified in writing to the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) within seven days of commencement.
Approved Details/Plans
3. Subject to the requirements of these conditions, the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the following plans and documents:
"Folder One: Planning Application and Environmental Statement" dated 7 November 2012; "Folder Two: Environmental Assessments (Technical Reports)"; as amended/supplemented by
Page 240 the letter from Geoplan Ltd dated 11 July 2013 and the accompanying "Submission of Further Information under Regulation 22" including drawing number H40-12; Drawing Numbers: H40/3 Rev 6, H40/4 Rev 6; H40/5 Rev 6, H40/6 Rev 6, H40/7 Rev 6; and H40/10 Rev 5 (which were submitted to, and received by the MPA on 23 January 2014); and the Method Statement in relation to Great Crested Newts that was submitted to and received by the MPA on 30 August 2013.
4. From the commencement of the development to its completion, a copy of this permission including all plans and documents hereby approved, and any other plans and documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission, shall be available at the site office for inspection by the MPA during normal working hours.
Duration of Planning Permission
5. The winning and working of minerals must cease not later than the expiration of 25 years beginning with the date of this permission.
Scheme of Working and Progressive Restoration
6. The site shall be worked and progressively restored in accordance with the phased programme set out in the following documents/drawings:
"Folder One: Planning Application and Environmental Statement" dated 7 November 2012, Tab 4; "Folder Two: Environmental Assessments (Technical Reports)", Tab 1, Appendix 2; as amended by the letter from Geoplan Ltd dated 11 July 2013; and Drawing Numbers: H40/3 Rev 6, H40/4 Rev 6; H40/5 Rev 6, H40/6 Rev 6, H40/7 Rev 6; and H40/10 Rev 5.
Maintenance of Restored Landform
7. The restored landform for each phase of restoration shown on Drawing Numbers: H40/3 Rev 6, H40/4 Rev 6; H40/5 Rev 6, H40/6 Rev 6, H40/7 Rev 6 and Drawing Number H40/10 Rev 5 shall be maintained until all the reclamation works for the entire site have been completed (that is, the site has been fully restored and all the aftercare requirements have been met for the final phase). During this period, any slippages/slumps in the landform shall be corrected within 12 months from the date on which they occur.
Hours of Working
8. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the MPA, no plant or machinery shall be operated within the site and no Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCVs) associated with the development shall enter or leave the site except between the following times:
Page 241 07:30 and 17:00 hours Monday to Thursday; 07:30 and 16:00 hours Friday and Saturday
and no such activities shall take place on Sundays, Public Holidays or Bank Holidays.
Depth of Working
9. No extraction shall take place below a level of 58m A.O.D.
Stand-offs
10. The minimum standoffs between the excavation and the adjacent landholdings shall accord with the details in paragraph 3.2.2 of the Tip and Quarry Slope Stability Land Stability Assessment [Folder Two: Environmental Assessments (Technical Reports), Tab 13].
Haul Routes
11. No haul routes shall be established over areas of the site that have been restored.
Access
12. The site shall only be accessed via the existing access on Clipsham Road that is incorporated into the site boundary.
Heavy Commercial Vehicle Movements
13. The number of Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) movements into and out of the site that are involved in the transportation of limestone (that is, either carrying limestone or entering the site to collect limestone) shall not exceed six per day (three in and three out).
14. A register of all HCV movements associated with the development to and from the site shall be maintained at the site office. The register shall record for each HCV movement:
the date and time of arrival; the date and time of departure; the HCV registration plate number; and whether the HCV is involved in the transportation of limestone.
All records within the register shall be retained for a period of two years and made available for inspection by the MPA at all times during normal working hours.
Blasting
15. No face blasting shall be carried out on the site.
Page 242
Crushing Plant/Crushed Rock
16 No crushing plant shall be sited or utilised on the site without the prior written approval of the MPA. Any request for such approval shall be accompanied by full details of the proposal including: the type of plant, the proposed location, the intended use of the crushed rock, and the time period that the plant would be retained on site.
17. No crushed rock (aggregate) shall be removed from the site.
Waste
18. Nothing in this decision notice shall be construed as permitting the importation of waste or other materials into the site for restoration purposes.
Surveys
19. Prior to the commencement of Phase 2, and no earlier than 12 months before that commencement, an up-to-date topographical survey of the site shall be submitted to the MPA. The survey shall identify areas of the site which are unworked, those restored, those undergoing mineral extraction and those to be restored. Equivalent surveys shall be submitted prior to the commencement of each subsequent phase but, again, no earlier than 12 months before the commencement of the relevant phase.
Soil and Overburden
20. Before any part of the quarry extension area is excavated or traversed by heavy vehicles or machinery (except for the purpose of stripping that part), or is used for the storage of overburden (other than soil) or for the construction of the haul road, all available soil shall first be stripped from that part.
21. Soil mounds/bunds shall be constructed with only the minimum of compaction necessary to ensure their stability, and shall not be traversed by heavy vehicles or machinery except during their construction and removal.
22. No movement of soil shall take place except when the full depth of soil to be stripped, replaced or otherwise transported is in a suitably dry soil moisture condition, i.e. the soil is in a non-plastic state such that damage to its structure shall be avoided. Soil handling and movement shall not be carried out between the months of October to March inclusive, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the MPA.
23. All soil and overburden shall be retained on site for use in the reclamation of the site.
Page 243 Screening Bund adjacent to the Public Footpath
24. Prior to the commencement of Phase 2 of the development, the written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority shall be secured for details of the topsoil and subsoil screening bund shown on Drawing No H40/4 Rev 6. Such details shall include an appropriate cross section of the bund showing the standoff from both the public footpath and the intervening hedge (planted during Phase 1). Apart from the stripping of the soil, no other overburden shall be removed from the Phase 2 extraction area until the screening bund has been constructed in its entirety in accordance with the approved details and seeded with a suitable grass seed mixture. Thereafter the bund shall be retained until the site enters the final restoration phase, and shall be maintained weed free until it is removed.
Northern Tip
25. No development shall take place pursuant to this planning permission until the written approval of the MPA has been secured for full details of the Northern Tip shown on Drawing Number H40/3 Rev 6. Such details shall include:
appropriate cross sections of the tip; the means of construction and, in particular, the depth of soil to be applied to the surface; and the standoff between the tip and both the public footpath and the intervening hedge (planted during Phase1) to the west, and the hedge to the north.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the MPA:
the tip shall be completed in its entirety in accordance with the approved details within a period of eight weeks from the commencement of the development; on completion, the tip shall be seeded with a suitable grass seed mixture and maintained weed free until it is removed in Phase 5; and the tip shall be removed in its entirety within a period of eight weeks from the commencement of Phase 5.
Southern Tip
26. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the MPA, no further material shall be deposited on the area of the Southern Tip shown as restored on drawing number H40/3 Rev 6.
Other Storage Mounds
27. All soil, overburden and interburden that needs to be temporarily stored on site prior to being used in restoration works, shall only be stored in accordance with the details approved under the other conditions of this decision notice.
Page 244
Screen Planting
28. The screen planting on the southern boundary of the site, as shown on drawing number H40-12, shall be implemented in full within the first planting season following the commencement of the development. This planting shall accord with the details set out in that drawing and shall be maintained for a period of 10 years during which all losses shall be replaced.
29. No development authorised by this planning permission shall be commenced until the written approval of the MPA has been secured for full details of the proposed hedgerow on the western boundary, as shown on drawing number H40/3 Rev 6, but extended up to the northern boundary of the site. Such details shall include the numbers, species, heights on planting, planting method and means of protection. The proposed hedgerow shall be planted in accordance with the approved details within the first planting season following the commencement of the development. Thereafter it shall be maintained for a period of 10 years during which all losses shall be replaced.
Dust and Mud
30. For the duration of the development, the concrete hardstanding, processing and stocking area together with the site access road to Clipsham Road shown on drawing number H40/3 Rev 6 shall be maintained and kept clean of mud and other debris in order to prevent such materials being deposited on the public highway.
31. No commercial vehicles from the site that are associated with the development shall enter the public highway unless, when necessary, their wheels and chassis have been cleaned to prevent material being deposited on the public highway.
32. The scheme of dust management set out in the Air Quality Assessment [Tab 9 of "Folder Two: Environmental Assessments (Technical Reports)] and the mitigation measures set out in Tab 11 of "Folder One: Planning Application and Environmental Statement" shall be implemented in full for the duration of the development.
Noise
33. Except for temporary operations, the free-field Equivalent Continuous Noise Level, dB LAeq, 1 hour free field, due to the daytime operations on the site, shall not exceed the limits at the noise sensitive locations specified in paragraph 8.2.4 of the report entitled “Noise Impact Assessment” contained in Tab 10 of "Folder Two: Environmental Assessments (Technical Reports)".
34. For temporary operations such as soil stripping, replacement and bund formation, the noise level shall not exceed 70dB(A) LAeq, 1 hour free field, at the noise sensitive properties referred to in the above condition.
Page 245 Temporary operations which exceed the normal daytime criterion (set out in the above condition) shall be limited to a total of eight weeks in any twelve month period at any individual noise sensitive property. The dates of these occurrences shall be notified in writing to the Mineral Planning Authority.
35. No development authorised by this planning permission shall be commenced until the written approval of the MPA has been secured for a scheme setting out the procedures to be followed in the event of a complaint regarding noise levels arising from the site. Such scheme shall make provision for noise monitoring and, in the event that the noise levels are found to exceed the levels set out in the above conditions, the action to be taken to mitigate any impact arising from the development.
36. All vehicles, plant and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification at all times and shall be fitted with and use effective silencers.
37. All audible warning devices fitted to vehicles, plant and machinery operating within the site whilst affording suitable safety should be of a design that does not cause unreasonable noise intrusion to residential properties.
Drainage
38. No development authorised by this planning permission shall be commenced until the written approval of the MPA has been secured for full details of the measures to reduce surface water run-off from the site including a programme of implementation. Thereafter the measures shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details.
Pollution Prevention
39. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and site glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
Retention of Existing Vegetation
40. The existing trees and shrubs around the perimeter of the site shall be retained and shall not be felled, lopped, topped or removed except where authorised under other conditions of this planning permission. Any such vegetation removed without consent, dying, being severely damaged or becoming severely diseased as a result of operations permitted by this
Page 246 permission shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be specified by the MPA in the planting season immediately following such occurrence.
Nesting Birds
41. Site clearance operations that involve the destruction and removal of vegetation on site shall not be undertaken during the months of March to August inclusive, except when approved in writing by the MPA.
Great Crested Newts
42. Prior to each phase of the site clearance operations involving the destruction and removal of vegetation on site, the written approval of the MPA shall be secured for full details of the measures to be taken to ensure that the "Method Statement in relation to Great Crested Newts" (received on 30 August 2013) is followed for the relevant phase. Each phase of site clearance shall be undertaken in accordance with the Method Statement together with the details subsequently approved for the relevant phase. Within 21 days of the completion of each phase of site clearance works, details shall be submitted to the MPA setting out whether any great crested newts were found and, if so, what action was taken.
Archaeology
43. No development authorised by this planning permission shall take place until the written approval of the MPA has been secured for a written scheme of archaeological investigation and recording that accords with the guidance set out in the County Council's "Archaeological Handbook", and shall include:
a methodology and timetable of site investigation and recording; provision for site analysis; a programme for the submission of interim reports and the final report to the MPA; provision for publication and dissemination of analysis and records; provision for archive deposition; and nomination of a competent person/organisation to undertake the work.
Thereafter the archaeological investigations and recording shall be carried out in accordance with the details and programme set out in the approved scheme.
44. Notwithstanding the provisions of the above condition, prior to the commencement of Phase 2 as shown on drawing H40/4 Rev 6, the material and paper archive for Phase 1 shall have been deposited in the appropriate archive in accordance with the approved archaeological written scheme of investigation and recording. Similarly, prior to the commencement of each successive phase, the material and paper archive from the phase being worked shall have been deposited in the appropriate archive in accordance
Page 247 with the approved scheme (except when there are no archaeological requirements for that phase).
45. At least 14 days written notice shall be given to the MPA before each phase of the archaeological work in order to facilitate adequate monitoring arrangements.
Final Restoration
46. Prior to the commencement of Phase 5, the written approval of the MPA shall be secured for full details of the following features shown on Drawing Number H40/10 Rev 5:
the hedgerow/woodland planting (including the number, species, heights on planting, planting methods and means of protection); the fencing; and the retained quarry faces.
47. The final restoration of the site shall be completed within two years from the permanent cessation of mineral working and shall accord with the details set out in the documents/plans:
"Folder One: Planning Application and Environmental Statement", Tab 4; "Folder Two: Environmental Assessments (Technical Reports)", Tab 1, Appendix 2; as amended by the letter from Geoplan Ltd dated 11 July 2013; drawing number H40/10 Rev 5; and the details approved under the above condition.
Aftercare
48. Each area restored under the phased programme shall be subject to a five year aftercare programme to bring the land to a condition suitable for amenity use. For Phase 1, the area already restored shall begin the aftercare programme on the date that this planning permission is commenced. For the other phases, the aftercare shall commence on the replacement of the soils. The aftercare shall be carried out in accordance with the details set out in Folder Two: Environmental Assessments (Technical Reports), Tab 1, Appendix 2. In addition, by 31 of March of each aftercare year, details of the aftercare works carried out in the previous 12 month period and proposals for the forthcoming 12 month period shall be submitted to the MPA, except where these periods fall outside the five year programme. A site meeting shall be held during the summer months of each aftercare year with a representative of the MPA to review progress on site.
Reasons
1. To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Page 248
2. For the avoidance of doubt and to enable the MPA to monitor compliance with the conditions of this planning permission.
3, 12 & 18 For the avoidance of doubt.
4. To ensure the information is available for site operatives.
5, 6, 8, 11, 16 & 17 To enable the MPA to adequately control the development and to minimise its impacts on the amenities of the area.
7. To improve the quality of the overall restoration of the site and to ensure that it does not have a detrimental effect on the landscape.
9 & 10 To enable the MPA to adequately control the development and to ensure that it is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
13. To ensure vehicle numbers are restricted to a level commensurate with a small building stone quarry in order to protect the amenities of local residents.
14, 19 & 45 To assist the MPA in monitoring compliance with the conditions of this planning permission.
15. To ensure the development does not detrimentally effect nearby residential amenity.
20-23 To ensure the protection/retention of the soils for restoration purposes.
24. To protect the amenities of users of the adjacent public footpath.
25. To minimise the visual impact of the development on the locality and to ensure that it will not have a detrimental impact on the adjacent public footpath and hedge.
26 & 27 To minimise the visual impact of the development on the locality.
28 & 29 To comply with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity and to assist in absorbing the site back into the local landscape.
Page 249 30 & 31 In the interests of highway safety, to prevent mud and dust being carried onto the public highway, and to protect the amenity of the locality from the effects of dust arising from the development.
32, 33, 34, 35, 36 & 37 To protect the amenities of local residents.
38. To minimise the risk of flooding from surface water run-off.
39. To prevent pollution of the water environment.
40. In the interests of amenity and wildlife conservation.
41. To ensure that breeding birds are not adversely affected by the development.
42. To minimise the impact of the development on Great Crested Newts.
43 & 44 In order to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the investigation, retrieval and recording of any possible archaeological remains on site.
46 & 47 To enable the MPA to adequately control the development and to ensure that the site is restored to a beneficial use.
48. To comply with the requirements of Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to ensure that the reclaimed land is correctly husbanded, and to bring it to the standard required for amenity.
Informatives
Attention is drawn to the following:
(i) The validity of the grant of planning permission may be challenged by judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court of the High Court. Such proceedings will be concerned with the legality of the decision rather than its merits. Proceedings may only be brought by a person with sufficient interest in the subject matter. Any proceedings should be brought within six weeks of the date of the planning permission. Any person considering bringing proceedings should therefore seek legal advice as soon as possible. The detailed procedural requirements are set out in the Civic Procedure Rules Part 54 and the Practice Directives for those rules.
(ii) The attached correspondence from:
the Environmental Health Officer, South Kesteven District Council dated 15 January 2013;
Page 250 the Environment Agency dated 1 February 2013; the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust dated 7 February 2013; Natural England dated 26 July 2013; and Senior Highways Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) dated 14 February 2013.
Appendix
These are listed below and attached at the back of the report
Appendix A Committee Pla n
Background Papers
The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.
Document title Where the document can be viewed
Planning Application File Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park S16/0081/1 3 House, Waterside South, Lincoln S16/265/85 S16/0 067/02 S16/1725/04 S16/1726/04
National Planning Policy Communities and Local Government w ebsite Framework (2012) www.gov.uk Technical Guidance to National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
South Kesteven Core South Kesteven District Council website Strategy (2012) www.southkesteven.gov.uk
Lincolnshire Minerals Lincolnshire County Council website Local Plan (1991) www.lincolnshire.gov.uk Draft Core Strategy and Development Management Policies: Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2013)
This report was written by Adrian Winkley, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]
Page 251 Page 252 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix A PLANNING
h t
a
p t
o o F
c i l
b
u
P
County Boundary Site of Application
Proposed Extension
RUTLAND
Operational Area Quarry Tip
Holywell Quarry
To C lipsh am a nd th e A1 Holywell Road Clipsham Road
Clipsham Quarry Access
Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west Ò
LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Reproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. OS LICENCE 1000025370
Location: Description: Holywell Quarry To extract limestone (dimension stone) from a northern extension Clipsham Road to the Holywell Quarry with the restoration of the proposed Careby, Aunby and Holywell extension area, the existing working area and the quarry tips to pasture, woodland and calcareous grassland Application No: S16/0081/13S16/0081/13 Planning and Regulation Committee 17 Marsh 2014 Scale: 1:10 000 Page 253 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 254