Project Title

East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint Minerals Local Plan Background Paper 3 Site Selection Summer 2015 Summer 2015 East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City Council Joint Minerals Local Plan Background Paper 3 Site Selection Summer 2015 Notice This report was produced by Atkins Limited for East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council for the specific purpose of the Joint Minerals Local Plan. This report may not be used by any person other than East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council without East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council’s express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council. Summer 2015 Joint Minerals Local Plan Background paper 3 Contents Section Page 1. Candidate Site Assessment Methodology 1 2. Candidate Site Descriptions and Summary of Assessment 12 3. Recommended Sites 52 Summer 2015 3 Joint Minerals Local Plan Background paper 3 1. Candidate Site Assessment Methodology Introduction 1.1 The Candidate Site Assessment Methodology applies a criteria based assessment, drawing on the site visits and data collated in respect of all candidate sites. The methodology was used in the 2012 Site Selection and has been refined to take account of comments made in response to that document. 1.2 For each type of aggregate mineral, the methodology is designed to identify those sites which can be recommended as proposed Preferred Areas or proposed Areas of Search to provide for the maintenance of the landbank during the life of the plan in accordance with advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Thus the methodology is designed to establish appropriate contributions from the different aggregate minerals whilst also achieving a distribution of sites that is well related to potential aggregate markets. In this way, the methodology has been developed to sift through the candidate sites and select the best prospects to identify as proposed ‘Preferred Areas’ and ‘Areas of Search’, as appropriate for sand and gravel and for crushed rock in order to meet the calculated demand. 1.3 It should be noted that one criterion draws its results directly from the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) that has been undertaken and the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) have been considered in the application of value judgements on the relative merits of the candidate sites. 1.4 SA/SEA criteria are derived from a detailed review of policies, plans and programmes, many of which are aimed at the consideration of development that is more footloose/flexible in terms of its location compared to Minerals development. Minerals can only be worked where they naturally occur in the ground, resulting in a need to interpret SA/SEA findings in relation to identifying appropriate mineral sites with some element of qualitative discretion. In simple terms, there is a need for weighting or prioritisation to be applied that reflects the inability to exercise preference over the physical location in which mineral extraction may occur. 1.5 It is the purpose of the SA to identify potential positive and negative effects of Minerals development on identified sites as a means of identifying where mitigation is needed. Whereas the site selection methodology specifically takes into account the potential mitigation that might be applied to address these effects. It will then be for the Joint Minerals Local Plan (JMLP) and Development Management Policies within it to set an appropriate framework through which these factors can be managed and mitigated. Key Factors 1.6 The identification process has involved several sources of information; geological data on the mineral resource; planning and environmental constraints identified from a range of sources; and information received from operators. The operator submission, site visits and desk top appraisals have captured data to enable the following issues to be considered, in line with the key considerations expressed in Planning Practice Guidance: Mineral resource; Proximity to sensitive uses; Summer 2015 1 Joint Minerals Local Plan Background paper 3 International ecology and nature conservation designations; National and local ecology and nature conservation designations; Impact on landscape character; Visual impact; Impact on cultural heritage; Land quality; Transportation implications; and Water environment. 1.7 In addition to selecting sites that exhibit favourable characteristics in relation to the factors identified above, the appraisal framework considers the requirements of the proposed spatial approach for aggregates, as described in Chapter 4 of the JMLP. This spatial element of the selection takes into account issues relating to the principle of extraction in the wider area, as follows; The location of the site and its proximity to the areas and markets where the material is likely to be required. The aim is to have a geographical spread of sites to serve the main locations of future development and construction activity, including maintenance of the existing built-up areas; Any potential cumulative impact from current extraction activities and other candidate sites, whether worked in parallel or in series; Where the site represents a last opportunity to extract minerals from an area because of a relationship with another operation currently approaching the end of its working life, or due to future surface development that would otherwise lead to sterilisation of the mineral. Assessment Scoring 1.8 The Site Assessment has been designed to determine the suitability of each candidate site for minerals development. The proposed approach is based on a graded system for the selection of the best sites. In most cases, there are four different grades defined for each criterion, although occasionally it has been necessary to include five to make effective distinctions to assist in defining the relative merits of sites. The grades have been assigned a letter value – this has been chosen in preference to numerical references to avoid potential pitfalls associated with adding up scores within a set of criteria where some aspects may be showstoppers for a site with otherwise favourable characteristics in other respects. 1.9 Where the desk-top appraisal has indentified constraints, the assessment considers potential mitigation that could be employed. The table below sets out the approach to assigning of grades. In general terms, a grade of A indicates the optimum conditions against an individual criterion, with conditions being considered progressively less favourable as grades B, C then D are assigned. A grade of F for any site represents a ‘show stopper’ and indicates that this site should not be considered further in the assessment. Summer 2015 2 Joint Minerals Local Plan Background paper 3 Proposed Grading Structure Grade Description F The site fails to meet minimum requirements to be considered as an allocation. D High sensitivity/ It is considered that there is an impact or issue and there is doubt that it could be adequately mitigated, without detailed further study. C Medium sensitivity/It is considered that there is a moderate impact or issue that may be acceptable (in most cases with mitigation). B Low to medium sensitivity/ It is considered that there is a low to moderate impact or issues that should be acceptable with mitigation. A Low sensitivity/It is considered that there is no impact / issues OR the impacts/issues are considered to be acceptable without mitigation. 1.10 Following grading of the sites, the amount of resources that each can contribute to meeting the respective supply provision has been assessed against the overall requirement, and a spatial consideration as described above in para 1.7 applied seeking to achieve a source of supply within the catchments of each of the main settlements in the region, including those in adjacent administrative areas. 1.11 Sites are recommended as proposed ‘Preferred Areas’ where they score well against the grading criteria taking account of the prospect of achieving any assumed mitigation measures within the plan period, and against the spatial consideration, and where a suitably limited area can be identified within a candidate site. 1.12 Sites are recommended as proposed ‘Areas of Search’ either where they score well against the grading criteria taking account of the prospect of achieving any assumed mitigation measures within the plan period, against the spatial consideration, and where sites have been nominated specifically as Areas of Search. Further ‘Areas of Search’ are recommended to contribute to ongoing supply requirements after the end of the plan period. 1.13 For each site recommended as a Preferred Area or an Area of Search, an Identified Area Site Brief has been prepared, setting out how the site’s development should be planned. This describes the considerations to be taken into account in addressing site constraints applicable to the site. The site requirements also provide guidance on how the site should be restored during and/or following extraction. The level of detail for each site varies, depending on the level of information currently available about proposals and constraints. This does not preclude further considerations or constraints from being applied when proposals come forward during the

Load more