APPENDIX 1: Consultation Responses from Statutory Consultees

GP PLANNING LTD POST SUBMISSION REPORT

P002-04 Additional Information / NM Appendix 30/07/13 Cedar Drive Thrapston Northamptonshire NN144LZ Telephone 01832742000 Email [email protected] www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk I NO~THAMPTONSHIRE I vVU," I Y COUNCIL Claire Spokes Northamptonshire County Council 5- APR 2013 Floor 3, Guildhall Road Block County Hall ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING Northampton NN1 1DN

Please ask for Direct Dial Our Ref. Your Ref. Date: Mandy Dennis 01832742037 13/00278/NCC 12/00093/MINFUL 03 April 2013 Environmental Protection 01832 742263

Dear Ms. Spokes,

Re: Stonepits Quarry (12/00093/MINFUL)

We have been asked to comment of the planning application for the extraction of limestone and restoration of Stonepits Quarry situated between Upper and Lower Benefield. Comments were made on the scoping opinion for the breadth and depth of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

Noise An assessment of the impact of noise has been submitted based on background measurements made at the nearest noise sensitive premises to the proposed quarry as per the scoping opinion. We had no objection to these background noise measurements being used in the assessment. The predicted noise levels from various operations at the quarry have been derived and assessed in line with the NPPF technical guidance on mineral workings.

The phase of work likely to generate the highest noise levels is the site strip and preparation phase. From the submitted information noise from this phase should be at least 20dB below the noise limit of 70dBLAeq, 1hour contained within the NPPF guidance. Thereafter. 'normal' quarry activity complies with the lower limit of 50dB LAeq, 1hour.

Therefore. we have no objection to the planning application on the grounds of noise.

Air Quality (dust) An air quality assessment has been submitted in support of this planning application. This advocates that dust emissions from quarrying can be controlled through good site management and we would agree with this statement. Therefore, we would ask that conditions are placed on the planning permission for the submission and approval of a dust management plan.

Private water supplies The hydrogeological assessment submitted in support of the planning application has assessed the risk of quarrying and restoration on the two private water supplies at Churchfield Farm, The assessment has concluded that the zone of influence during dewatering of the quarry should not have any significant impact on the supplies. Furthermore, after restoration the groundwater flow should not be significantly impacted as well.

Council for the District of East Northarnptonshire www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk It has been noted that there is potential for groundwater pollution from spills of fuels, oils, etc during works but this can be controlled though good site management.

Therefore, we have no objection to the planning application on the grounds of water quality.

Adverse effects from light and vibration were not identified as being significant during the scoping exercise and as such are not considered cause for concern.

We trust you find the above useful but please call if you wish to discuss any of the points raised in this letter.

Yours sincerely

Mandy Dennis Senior Environmental Protection Officer

Cc: Arnie Baxter, East Northarnptonshire Council

Council for the District of East Northamptonshire www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk

EAST MIDLANDS OFFICE

Ms Claire Spokes Direct Dial: 01604 735400 Northamptonshire County Council Direct Fax: 01604 735401 PO Box 163, County Hall Guildhall Road Our ref: P00226755 Northampton Northamptonshire NN1 1AX

Dear Ms Spokes

Notifications under Circular 01/2001, Circular 08/2009 & T&CP (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 STONE PITS QUARRY, BETWEEN UPPER AND LOWER BENEFIELD A427, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE , PE8 5AN Application No 12/00093/MINFUL

Thank you for your letter of 14 February 2013 notifying us of the application for planning permission relating to the above site. We do not wish to comment in detail, but offer the following general observations.

English Heritage Advice The proposals involve the development of a conservation stone quarry to extract Blisworth Limestone (Oundle variety) at Stonepits Quarry, Benefield. The plans involve extraction, creation of a new haul road and junction with the A427, ancillary works including operational infrastructure and planting regimes, and restoration of the worked area for return to agriculture at the end of the lifespan of the quarry. The site of the application is located adjacent to a former quarry site established prior to the late 19th Century towards the base of the valley between Upper and Lower Benefield. Oundle Stone was used locally as a building material in the settlements of north-east Northamptonshire, contributing to their character. The proposed lifespan of the quarry is 17 years with restoration occurring progressively in line with the extraction phases.

English Heritage would advise your planning authority to consider the proposals on the basis of NPPF para 128 the need to understand from the applicant the significance of any heritage asset affected, and NPPF para 129 the need for your authority to identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected. The Heritage Assessment provided by CgMs assesses the impact of the proposals on the basis of the direct visibility of the quarry site from those locations, only commenting in detail on the scheduled monument of Benefield Castle (SM17130; List Entry

44 DERNGATE, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 1UH Telephone 01604 735 400 Facsimile 01604 735 401 www.english-heritage.org.uk

English Heritage is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies.

EAST MIDLANDS OFFICE

Number 1015535), The Grade II* listed Church of St Mary in Lower Benefield (List Entry Number 1189042) and the Conservation Area of Upper Benefield as a result of English Heritage comments on the EIA Scoping Report. The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration. The spatial extent of the assessment of impact is based on the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) in the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and illustrated as the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI). English Heritage would advise that in determining this application your authority should be satisfied that the ZVI has been accurately identified. The Heritage Assessment states that no designated assets are located within the ZVI. This is difficult to confirm at the scale at which the ZVI is illustrated in the Landscape and Visual Assessment document. A number of the Grade II listed buildings within the Upper Benefield Conservation Area lie towards the southern edge of the Conservation Area and therefore the northern extent of the identified ZVI. Grade II listed buildings are of national significance and should be considered in the same way as Grade II* and Grade I listed buildings.

English Heritage would advise that in determining this application your authority should ensure that, in accordance with NPPF para 144, in granting permission there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, any unavoidable noise, dust and vibrations that might have an adverse impact on the setting of heritage assets are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and that the proposed landscape restoration schemes meet the required standards in order to ensure that any permanent impact on the landscape and setting of heritage assets is appropriately mitigated.

Recommendation We would urge you to address the above issues, and recommend that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice. It is not necessary for us to be consulted again. However, if you would like further advice, please contact us to explain your request.

Yours sincerely

Helen Woodhouse Assistant Inspector of Ancient Monuments E-mail: [email protected] cc Tim Allen, Inspector of Ancient Monuments

44 DERNGATE, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 1UH Telephone 01604 735 400 Facsimile 01604 735 401 www.english-heritage.org.uk

EAST MIDLANDS OFFICE

44 DERNGATE, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 1UH Telephone 01604 735 400 Facsimile 01604 735 401 www.english-heritage.org.uk

Form C.R.2 (c)

Notification of the views of the Northamptonshire County Council as Highway Authority relating to the application for development referred to below:-

______

To: Claire Spokes From: Terry Chapman

NCC Ref: H.A. Ref: PL 4864 D.C. Ref: EN.12.93.C

______

1. Applicant. Churchfield Stone Ltd.

2. Proposals. Conservation stone quarry to extract Blisworth Limestone (Oundle variety), Blockstone, Flagstone & Large Walling Stone.

3. Location. Stone Pits Quarry, A.427 Between Upper and Lower Benefield.

4. Description and Classification of Road. CL1 A.427

5. Recommendation.

I refer to previous correspondence dated 1st August 2012 and reiterate that a route agreement would need to be introduced to ensure that the vehicles turn left when leaving the site where the A427 Barnwell Road Oundle Bridge has an imposed weight restriction of 3.5 tonnes and the local road within Oundle have a 7.5m tonne weight restriction.

A route agreement, with appropriate measures shall be secured to ensure that drivers emerging from Stone Pit Quarry access the County Strategic highway network using the A427 via Weldon. It will also be necessary to ensure that the minor route through to Brigstock from lower Benefield should not be used, where reduced widths and tight junctions would not be suitable for any such use an alternative route to access the A6116. For drivers attracted to the sites in Harley Way then no driver shall use the minor road accessing the village roads within Brigstock.

I refer to the applicant’s Transport Statement and note that 2 Heavy Goods Vehicles per day will need to turn right out of the site to deliver materials to the Churchfield Stone Processing Plant and that all other Heavy Goods Vehicles will turn left out of the site to connect to that A43 via Weldon onto the strategic network.

Whilst I have no objection in principle to this proposal, I would suggest that any promoted route agreement will need to address the above issue to facilitate the delivery of material to the site in Harley Way from the quarry whilst ensuring that all other drivers turn left when leaving the site.

I would also require that:- A detailed scaled annotated drawing should be submitted in the first instance, for appraisal to identify the promoted vehicle visibility splays prior to determination or conditioned accordingly.

Continued....page 1 of 2......

Continued....page 2 of 2......

A detailed scaled annotated long section drawing of the private track indicating the maximum gradient of 1 in 40 from the channel line of the A427 for the first 30.0m behind the channel line, should be submitted in the first instance, for appraisal prior to determination or conditioned accordingly. A daily timed log shall be kept on an ongoing basis to record all vehicles attracted to the site and this log shall be maintained on an annual basis and be available for scrutiny at the request of the County Planning Authority, which can be conditioned accordingly. All operational vehicles arriving at and leaving the site shall be appropriately sealed so as to prevent material spillage, wind blow and dust nuisance, which can be conditioned accordingly. All operational vehicles leaving the site shall be cleansed of mud and all other debris to ensure that no material is deposited on the adopted highway, maintainable at public expense, which can be conditioned accordingly.

The aforementioned details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any such works.

Rights of Way.

Regarding the safe passage of pedestrian movement where the haul road will be created with the site bounded by the Red line noting that existing Public Rights of Way MG17, MG18 and MG27 are affected by the promoted development and trust that signing and measures are promoted to facilitate this need to maintain and protect the Rights of Way. It would appear that some form of crossing point to afford the safe passage of pedestrian movement across the haul road whilst using the Public Rights of Ways MG17 and MG27. Details of the measures to be initiated to allow the continued use of MG18 during the construction period are to be submitted for appraisal in the first instance, prior to determination or conditioned accordingly.

The aforementioned details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any such works.

The Application Site is affected by a Public Right of Way.

Signed...... T Chapman......

for Head of Transport, Highways and Infrastructure Northamptonshire County Council.

Date. 26/02/13

Northamptonshire County Council

memo To: Claire Spokes From: Lesley-Ann Mather Ref: 12/00093/MINFUL Date: 6th March 2013 cc:

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Conservation stone quarry to extract Blisworth Limestone (Oundle variety) Blockstone, Flagstone and Large Walling Stone

LOCATION: Stone Pits Quarry, Between Upper and Lower Benefield, Northamptonshire, PE8 5AN

The proposed development area was subject to a Scoping Request and my subsequent response in August 2012. In my response I agreed that the proposed application area would require the submission of baseline information and that further information would also be required to assess the impact of the proposals and to inform a mitigation strategy. I also emphasised that the applicant or their chosen archaeological representative should contact me to discuss the scope of the required field work. It is disappointing that this advice has been disregarded and unfortunately as a consequence the level of archaeological information provided within the application is currently insufficient.

The Heritage Assessment submitted by CgMs comprises of a desk based assessment, with reference to records of known archaeological sites and finds held within the County Historic Environment Record (HER). However, the submitted information does not provide sufficient information to adequately assess the archaeological potential of the proposed development area.

The HER contains only the presently identified archaeological resources. These records provide an indication of the likely archaeological potential of landscape and should allow a professional assessment of the potential for further, currently unidentified significant archaeological remains to survive within an area. The Heritage Assessment concluded that the area had potential for Roman activity. In order to assess the significance of any heritage assets within the site the Heritage Assessment stated that further investigation in the form of geophysical survey and targeted trial trenching should be carried out.

A subsequent geophysical survey undertaken by Northamptonshire Archaeology did not identify any obvious archaeological anomalies however this should not be taken to indicate that the area is

Planning Services Room 271 County Hall w. www.northamptonshire.gov.uk t. 01604 367909 f. e. [email protected]

archaeologically negative. Geophysical survey whilst a useful technique can not be relied on to identify discrete archaeological activity. In light of this potential I would advise that trial trenching is undertaken within the development area as this will provide information on the possible extent, preservation and significance of any archaeological activity within the area.

The Guidance provided within section 128 of the NPPF states that “Where a site on which development is proposed 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.”

The trial trenching would allow the significance of any surviving remains to be assessed. The evaluation should have been undertaken before the submission of the application. The results of the evaluation would provide sufficient information to allow an informed assessment of the impact of the development on the heritage resource.

The information from the evaluation would have the potential to identify if any areas of significance were present within the development area that would form a constraint on development. Current policy and guidelines indicate that this information should be provided as part of the proposed application in order to allow the MPA to make a balanced and informed decision as to the archaeological potential of the area.

I therefore disagree with the conclusions within Section 10.5 of the Environmental Statement that appropriate assessment has been undertaken to provide the required archaeological assessment of the proposed development area. I would also suggest that it is premature in Section 16.2 of the ES to suggest that the development will have a negative impact on any heritage assets.

I can produce a Brief detailing the required works if that would be helpful.

Regards

Lesley-Ann

Response to Quarry Application

Subject: Response to Quarry Applicaon From: Hanneke Soans Date: 11/03/2013 10:16 To: Claire Spokes

Dear Claire

Please see below response from Oundle Town Council to 12/00093/MINFUL

The Council currently object unl the applicant has submied substanal travel plans for the movement of traﬃc from the Quarry, parcularly in light of the closure of South Bridge in Oundle and the Town Centre weight limits.

Regards

Hanneke Soans Oundle Town Council 01832 272055

1 of 1 31/07/2013 16:01 Benefield Parish Council

Reply to: Clerk to Parish Council Sue Morrison 10 Clover Drive Thrapston Kettering NN14 4RN Tel: 07753 635666

Dear Claire

Re: Benefield Parish Council decision on Stone pits Quarry Application

Following on from our Parish Council Meeting yesterday, please take this email as notification of the Council's decision to oppose the Stone Pits Quarry Planning Application.

The reasons we oppose the planning application are outlined below:

CUMULATIVE AFFECT OF A SECOND QUARRY.  Harley Way quarry just 3 miles away  Harley Way (claimed to be able to supply all Northamptonshire’s stone needs) - was approved in part, 'due to its relative isolation and lack of public objection'  Traffic – 20 tonne lorries restricted from Oundle and from the bridge at Barnwell – all traffic has to go through the Benefields and on through Brigstock and/or Weldon  Harley way (route to Lyveden) already ruined by heavy traffic servicing Harley Way quarry and Churchfield stone processing plant  If approved, Benefield would be surrounded by quarry noise - noise calculations in applicant's submission misleading. Noise calculations are produced on a logarithmic scale - what looks like a small uplift is in fact an exponential uplift in noise  Both Upper and Lower Benefield are Conservation villages (Upper granted conservation status in 1995 and Lower in 1977).

APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVEN DEMAND FOR THE STONE  Stone same as Harley Way quarry – which in its planning application, said 'demand would be slow and they would stockpile stone'  Stone not good enough for lintels, fenestration, etc. (Applicant’s own expert report)  A local stone mason with 40 years' experience has said that he has never needed or been asked for Benefield stone - one house in Lower Benefield possibly built from this stone  Argument that Oundle needs the stone – spurious – even if Oundle needed the stone, should we allow the spoiling of the Benefields (conservation villages) to support their pretty neighbour?

PEOPLE NOT PROFIT (FOR THE MINORITY)  150 homes in Upper and Lower Benefield  Quarry would be under 100 metres from houses and is planning to create just 3 seasonal, new jobs  Traffic - 20 tonne lorries exiting onto fast, dangerous roads  Pollution and Dust - health implications of dust from extraction and multiple lorry movements (applicant claims stone is under the water table, but who can guarantee that for the 17 year life of the quarry?).

In summary, I hope that you will give serious consideration to the objections of Benefield Parish Council and the 150 inhabitants of the villages of Upper and Lower Benefield, as well as the inhabitants of other villages who would be affected were this application to be approved.

Yours sincerely

Graham Shatford Chairman Benefield Parish Council

[email protected] Direct line: 01743 708171 20th March 2013

Claire Spokes Northamptonshire County Council and

Amie Baxter East Northamptonshire District Council

BY EMAIL

Dear Claire and Amie

Conservation stone quarry to extract Blisworth Limestone (Oundle variety) Blockstone, Flagstone and Large Walling Stone at Stone Pits Quarry ENDC reference 13/00278/NCC NCC reference 12/00093/MIN

The National Trust is a charity founded in 1895 to promote the permanent preservation of places of historic interest and natural beauty for the benefit of the nation. Although independent of government we have been given the unique legal power to declare our property inalienable, meaning that it cannot be sold and that it will be protected for ever, for everyone.

The Trust’s concern about the potential impacts of the proposed quarry arises from our care of Lyveden New Bield. Lyveden New Bield is a grade I listed building and scheduled ancient monument set within a grade I registered historic park and garden and associated with a further grade I listed building (the Old Bield/Manor) and a grade II listed cottage.

Although the proposed quarry site is not visible from the New Bield some 40% of the stone to be extracted would be sent to the Churchfield Stone processing plant on Harley Way. We are concerned about the cumulative impacts arising from the quarrying and processing activities, specifically the transport of stone along Harley Way, which serves as the only vehicular access to both Lyveden New Bield and the processing plant.

Harley Way is narrow and in a poor condition with deep pot-holes. The introduction of further movements of stone lorries would create a conflict with visitors to Lyveden as well as

National Trust President: HRH The Prince of Wales Attingham Consultancy Hub Chair of the Midlands Committee: Steve Brown Attingham Park Director for the Midlands: Rebecca Speight Shrewsbury Registered office: Shropshire SY4 4TP Heelis, Kemble Drive, Swindon, Wiltshire SN2 2NA Tel: +44 (0)1743 708100 Registered charity number 205846 Fax: +44 (0)1743 708150 www.nationaltrust.org.uk

increasing the prospect for further deterioration of the road. Conflicting movements and deterioration of the road both have the potential to compromise visitor enjoyment and visitor safety.

The application estimates that processing would reduce the 67,850 tonnes delivered from the quarry to 40,716 tonnes of finished product, which would be delivered from the processing plant to customers. It isn’t clear what would happen to the 27,134 tonnes lost in processing and whether this too would leave the processing site – either to return to the quarry as backfill or to be sold as walling stone. All these movements should be taken account in the assessment of cumulative impacts.

Although we do not consider that there would be a direct impact on Lyveden New Bield, the wider charitable purpose of the National Trust leads us to endorse the concerns regarding landscape, visual and heritage impacts in the area set out in the report to ENDC’s planning committee.

Yours sincerely

Chris Lambart BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI Planning Adviser

Cont/d

Re: 12/00093/MINFUL ‐ Stone Pits Quarry

Subject: Re: 12/00093/MINFUL ‐ Stone Pits Quarry From: Graham Thomson Date: 11/03/2013 21:52 To: Emma White , Claire Spokes

Dear colleague,

On behalf of Weldon Parish Council I comment as follows:-

Weldon Parish Council objects to the proposed development on the following grounds:-

i) the environmental damage caused by vehicles;

ii) the lack of clarity of the transport routes once on the main road network;

iii) the inconvenience for pedestrians in rural locations;

iv) the road system through adjoining parishes, especially Weldon Parish, is inadequate with bridges which would not be able to sustain the weight of vehicles in the longer term;

v) that consent to the number of vehicle movements and the size of vehicles proposed would seriously prejudice highway safety.

Regards,

Graham Thomson

Clerk to Weldon Parish Council

1 of 1 31/07/2013 16:01

Northamptonshire County Council Our ref: AN/2013/116698/01-L01 Development Control Your ref: 12/00093/MINFUL PO Box 163 Northampton Date: 06 March 2013 NN1 1AX

FAO Claire Spokes

Dear Madam

Conservation stone quarry to extract Blisworth Limestone (Oundle variety) Blockstone, Flagstone and Large Walling Stone Stone Pits Quarry Between Upper and Lower Benefield A427 Northamptonshire PE8 5AN

Thank you for referring the above application, which was received on 14 February 2013.

Environment Agency Position In the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) we object to the grant of planning permission and recommend refusal on this basis for the following reasons:

The FRA submitted with this application does not comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 9 the Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework. The submitted FRA does not therefore, provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development.

The following information must be included in the FRA:

1. Demonstrate that surface water run-off can be managed for both the construction and restoration phases of the proposed development and that the proposed surface water drainage system can cope with 1 in 100 probability plus climate change rainfall event without increasing flood risk to the site, surrounding area and third parties.

2. Demonstrate that construction, operation and post development run-off does not exceed pre-development run-off. The FRA must state the surface water run-off rates for the construction, operation and post-development phases of the proposed development site for the 1 in 1 probability rainfall event, the 1 in 30 probability rainfall event and the 1 in 100 probability rainfall event. The FRA must also state the attenuation volumes required including an allowance for climate change. In addition, the FRA must confirm whether the site run-off will be restricted to the Qbar rate for all events or the Q1 for the 1 in 1 probability rainfall event, Q30 for the 1 in 30 probability rainfall event and Q100 for the 1 in 100 probability rainfall event using a complex control.

3. An assessment of the changes in surface water runoff. From the information provided to us the quarry will not produce any impermeable areas. ADAS 365 should therefore be used to assess the surface water changes.

Environment Agency Customer services line: 03708 506 506 Nene House (Pytchley Lodge Industrial Estate), Calls to 03 numbers cost the same as calls to standard Pytchley Lodge Road, Kettering, Northants, NN15 6JQ geographic numbers (i.e. numbers beginning with 01 or 02). Email: [email protected] www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Cont/d..

4. Attenuation provided in line with the requirements of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Preliminary Rainfall Runoff Management for New Development Revision D. The drainage scheme proposed should provide a sustainable drainage strategy to include sustainable drainage system (SuDS) elements with attenuation. The maintenance and/or adoption proposals for every element of the surface water drainage system proposed on the site should be considered for the lifetime of the development and the residual risk of flooding addressed.

5. Confirmation of the site area. The FRA states that the site is 3.2 ha but the application form states that it is 9.88 ha. This needs to be amended accordingly.

6. Include all impermeable areas, hard standing and access roads.

7. Consider the possibility that the surface water system may fail / become blocked. Overland floodwater should be routed away from vulnerable areas. For acceptable depths and rates of flow, please refer to Environment Agency and Defra document FD2320/TR2 “Flood Risk Assessment Guidance for New Development Phase 2”. Further consideration should be given to safe access and egress for emergency services when site is flooded.

8. Maintenance proposals for every element of the surface water drainage system proposed on the site. These must be considered for the lifetime of the development.

If the applicants or agents wish to discuss the FRA requirements with us, they should contact Heather Claase (Partnerships and Strategic Overview) on number 01536 385126.

Overcoming our objection Our objection can be overcome by submitting a FRA which covers the deficiencies highlighted above and which demonstrates that the development will not increase risk elsewhere and where possible reduces flood risk overall. If this cannot be achieved we are likely to maintain our objection to the application. Production of a FRA will not in itself result in the removal of an objection.

We ask to be re-consulted with the results of the FRA. We will provide you with bespoke comments within 21 days of receiving formal reconsultation. Our objection will be maintained until an adequate FRA has been submitted.

On submission of a revised FRA our objection may be removed pending the imposition of appropriate conditions.

If you are minded to approve the application contrary to this advice, we request that you contact us to allow further discussion and/or representations from us in line with the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

Should you require any additional information, or wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact Jennifer Moffatt on the number below.

Yours faithfully Laura Brackenbury Sustainable Places Team Leader (Please ask for Jennifer Moffatt) Planning Liaison Officer Direct dial 01536 385165 Direct e-mail [email protected] Awarded to the Environment, Planning & Engagement End 2 Department, Anglian Region, Northern Area

Northamptonshire County Council memo To: Claire Spokes From: Tina Cuss Ref: 12/00093/MINFUL Date: 14 March 2013 cc:

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

I have some concerns regarding details of the data, information and assessments provided in the Environmental Statement and technical appendices on which I would welcome clarification or further information. I have also made some suggestions for amendment of landscaping or habitat creation proposals in order to ensure avoidance of impact on protected species and that appropriate mitigation is included in planning proposals and ecological and landscape enhancements would be secured for the long term were any application to be approved. In my opinion the landscaping proposals do not currently provide suitable or adequate mitigation to reduce impacts or enhance landscape character.

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by Vista Landscape Studio Ltd has been included within the appendices of the Environmental Statement. The landscape sensitivities appear not to have taken into account local landscape designations. According to the LVIA the DEFRA Magic interactive map has been used as a source of environmental data. However neither the LVIA nor Figure 4 ‘Landscape Features’ include information on the Conservation Areas at Upper and Lower Benefield, the Benefield Castle Scheduled Ancient Monument or the Sites of Special Scientific Interest at Banhaw, Spring and Blackthorns Woods. According to the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ desk-top studies should explore special interests including nature conservation, historical or cultural heritage associations. Confirmation should therefore be provided by the applicant’s Landscape Consultant that these designations have been fully taken into account in the LVIA assessments.

Tables 21 to 28 within the LVIA set out details of the predicted impacts of the proposals on landscape character of the selected viewpoints 1 to 9. The landscape impacts on viewpoints 4, 5 and 6 to the southeast and south west of the quarry site are assessed as moderate. The impact at the junction of 3 footpaths to the east of the development site at viewpoint 2 is assessed as minor. The changes to the Rockingham Plateau Character Area (7C) landscape character are assessed as of High Magnitude and the significance of the impact as Moderate-Major.

Planning Services Guildhall Road Block County Hall Northampton NN1 1DN w. www.northamptonshire.gov.uk t. 01604 336705 f. 01604 366065 e. [email protected] This information can be provided in an alternative language or format such as large print or audio cd. Contact 01604 336014

I would note that an assessment of cumulative impact on the environment should not be limited only to similar developments.

Landscape Mitigation and Residual Impacts Section 6.1.1 of the Landscape Assessment Appendix identifies operations sources of potential impact on landscape and landscape character. These include the 8m high landscape overburden mound and 3m subsoil storage mounds, stone stockpiling, creation of a settlement pond, haul road, areas of hardstanding and a weighbridge.

Section 9.1 describes proposed short, medium and long term proposed mitigation measures, however, the timescales of these terms are not defined. Unless the tree stock are standards and at least some areas of instant hedging is planted, then the landscaping proposals will not provide any screening of the quarry during the 17-year operational life.

The proposed mitigation woodland screen planting is very straight and linear in nature and is therefore not characteristic of the existing woodland or hedgerows within the Character Area. The proposed woodland crosses the valley whereas the majority of narrow linear woodlands follow the line of streams or roadways. The proposed landscape screening therefore does not in my view provide the level of enhancement to landscape character as assessed with in the LVIA and Environmental Statement and may have a negative impact.

I do not agree that the proposed short and medium term mitigation measures, such as the 8m high overburden/waste mineral mound and the subsoil storage mounds, reduce the impacts on visual amenity. I would not therefore concur with the conclusion made that these mitigation measures can be assessed as reducing the impacts or that the proposals would not result in residual negative impacts on landscape and visual amenity or result in a long term positive change to the landscape framework. The storage mounds would be incongruous features in the landscape and would in my opinion contribute to the negative the impacts and be more visible to sensitive visual receptors than the quarrying operations.

More information and clarification is needed as to how the overburden mound would be seeded and grass and wild flowers would be established and why these measures have been proposed. The proposal for seeding of the temporary mound with wildflowers made within the LVIA is not repeated within Section 5.1.8 of Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment appendix nor has it been assessed as providing any mitigation or benefit for biodiversity by the Ecological Consultant.

According to the Restoration and Aftercare Scheme that has been submitted in support of the Planning Application the land will be restored to near existing levels. The LVIA states that “the proposed restoration of the conservation stone quarry will restore the topography of the landscape, creating a landscape which slopes in accordance with the original contours”. I consider that more detailed technical information is need to explain the reference to the ‘bulking factor’ referred to in section 3.8.9 of the ES in order to provide confirmation of what the final restoration level would be.

I would recommend that, prior to determination of the application, the submitted Landscape Mitigation Strategy is reviewed and revised to the in order to provide better mitigation for impacts on visual amenity and landscape character.

Restoration and Landscaping A number of the tree species proposed in the Landscape Mitigation Strategy on both the main site and track access are not appropriate because they are not locally native or are non native (such as Prunus cultivars and Ribes sanguieum). No numbers, sizes, stocking density or percentages are included on Figures 12 and 13. No information is provided on how it is proposed to maintain the

proposed calcareous grassland. A revised landscaping scheme including locally native species of local provenance stock and well as details of establishment of grassland should be submitted and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to commencement of development vegetation clearance and construction of the access haul road.

A long term habitat management plan should be submitted and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority in order to ensure the landscape screening and proposed woodland mitigation habitats are retained in perpetuity.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT An assessment of impact on ecology and biodiversity prepared by Lockhart Garratt is made in the submitted Environmental Statement and within Appendix 4 Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment of the Environmental Statement (ES). The Ecological Assessment identifies that in the absence of mitigation there are potential negative impacts on protected species habitats and species of principal importance including badgers, brown hare, Barn Owl breeding bird, bats and adjacent stream habitat.

The Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment should be carried out in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 rather than the Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 as stated in section 4.2.1.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment refers in section 1.3.6 to the former quarry on the eastern boundary as being “over taken by natural regenerating woodland” and in section 4.2.8 as “overgrown with semi mature tree planting”. I would welcome clarification as to whether this woodland is planted or established only by natural regeneration. I would query whether none of the hedgerows on the site, in particular the hedge and ditch adjacent to footpath MG27 are significant under the criteria of the 1997 Hedgerow Regulations. The proposals only involve limited removal of hedge to facilitate creation of the haul road.

Ecological Mitigation, Enhancement and Management A Phase 1 Habitat Survey report is not included in the Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment appendix or within the Planning Application. No historic bat records from the County Bat Group are provided as part of the submission.

The Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment identifies a badger sett to the south of the proposed haul road. No badger activity (bait marking etc) survey has been carried out as part of the ecological assessment. According to one of the responses received from neighbours there is a further active sett to the south west of the application site. In order to assess the impact of the loss of foraging habitat and potential impacts of the haul road construction and mound creation proposals it is necessary to require a pre-commencement survey of the badger setts and the preparation of a mitigation plan. More consideration should also be given to the need to undertake a badger activity survey.

Based on the Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment submitted the bats surveys undertaken by Lockhart Garratt in 2012 were limited to an assessment during the walkover survey of trees with potential to contain bat roosts. The survey identified several mature trees with bat roost moderate potential including on the northern boundary and south of the access road. According to Section 5.1.29, the zone of influence for far-ranging foraging bats requires consideration. In the absence of any bat activity surveys it is not possible to determine if the assessment of anticipated population movements in the locality and the importance of the site features bats made by the Ecological Consultant is adequate. Clarification should be provided as to whether the former quarry woodland

was also surveyed and for roost potential. Question 13 on the Planning Application form has been answered incorrectly as the development has the potential to adversely affect or provide positive enhancements for bats.

I consider that the mitigation proposals detailed in the assessment undertaken by the Ecological Consultant are not currently sufficient to rule out impacts on bats or badger during tree works or during construction and quarrying phases. I would recommend that bat activity surveys, in accordance with best practice guidance, should be carried out in order to determine the impacts on bat foraging and roosts from the proposals and to provide information in order to prepare an appropriate bat mitigation strategy. In order to avoid impacts on protected species or Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and species, I would recommend that a full Ecological Mitigation Plan should be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority ideally prior to the determination of the application. Appropriate ecological mitigation measures need to be employed during the haul road improvement works and operational phases of the quarrying proposals in order to rule out impacts on common reptiles or amphibians, badger, barn owl, brown hare, stream habitats and breeding birds.

According to the details of the ES and technical appendices, the operational hours will be limited to summer, spring and autumn with no winter working. As the operational hours are proposed as part of the mitigation for negative impacts on ecology including bats, landscape and the natural environment it is importance that working hours are covered by a Planning Condition. The opportunity for enhancement and proposed mitigation detailed in section 6.3 of appendix 4 of the ES appear to be limited mainly to the creation of a 20m wide buffer to the woodland at the junction at the A427 and to shelterbelt or screen planting around the quarry site. The opportunity to incorporate arable margins into the proposals to restore the development site has not been included in the proposals. Arable margins would be of benefit for barn owl, brown hare, badger, bats and potentially skylark. In order to compensate for impacts on ecology the applicant should reconsider including arable margins within the design and layout of the proposed operative phases of quarry operation and in the final restoration plans. Arable margins could provide more significant mitigation for protected species and biodiversity than the current proposal for creation of limited calcareous grassland which will be difficult to establish in the short and medium term and to maintain and to manage in perpetuity. More detail and clarification is needed as to whether it would be possible to establish the proposed habitats (in particular calcareous grassland) in the 20m vegetative buffer to the north of the haul road on improved arable soils.

According to 1:10,000 OS mapping, there is possibly a spring within the semi-improved grassland that would be affected or lost in order to improve the proposed haul road. Consideration should be given to avoiding and reducing impact in this area and the revision of the design and layout to retain any spring, flush vegetative communities or semi-improved grassland.

Section 7.1.3 of the Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment sets out a number of mitigation measures and that should be included in the development proposals and that must be included within Planning Conditions if the development is approved. In addition I consider that prior to commencement of any clearance or removal of vegetation or any works to trees, access improvement works or commencement of quarrying operations, that pre-commencement site checks/surveys for bats and badgers should be undertaken and method statements submitted to and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. In accordance with the proposals in the Environmental Statement an Ecological Clerk of Works should be employed to supervise all relevant operations and mitigation proposals.

No information is provided with the Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment, the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment or Landscape Mitigation Strategy plans/figures of how the mitigation

habitats would be managed in the long term. If the development is approved, in order to ensure the proposed landscape mitigation and ecological enhancements are achieved and managed in perpetuity a long term management plan and monitoring strategy should be approved by the Mineral Planning Authority.

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

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

Tina Cuss Senior Environmental Planner

Making Representations on Current Planning Applications Reference: AF341616 Making Representations on Current Planning Applications

All fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory

Are you a* Statutory Consultee Contact Details

Title* Dr Forename* William Surname* Lovell Company (if aplicable) : Ramblers' Association

Do you wish to manually enter your address? No (choose this option if you do not know/have a postcode or the search is incorrect) Address 3 Meadow Walk Higham Ferrers

Rushden NN108EL

Telephone Number 01933 395174 Email Address [email protected] How would you prefer to be contacted? Email

Your Comments

Before you comment you should:

l try to see the plans and application form; l make sure you understand what is proposed, e.g. what it will look like and how it will be used.

Useful tips on what to write about:

l Land Use is the proposed use of the land or building suitable given it's location and surroundings? l Physical Impact What are your views on the appearance of the development e.g. materials, scale, height, character? Will you be affected by the loss of daylight or privacy? What do you think of any landscaping scheme? l Traffic What are your views on any arrangements for access and parking? How will the amount or flow of traffic be affected? l Community How will local services and the environment be affected?

Points to remember

We usually cannot take into account:

l fears about loss of value to property; l boundary disputes between neighbours; l problems that have nothing to do with the proposal e.g. noise from existing social clubs.

Offensive or libellous comments are not acceptable and will be returned to the sender immediately.

It is important to note that any comments received may be read and copied by the applicant, their agent, the public and the press.

Application Number* 12/00093/MINFUL Your Reference Application Address* Stonepits Quarry, Benefield Comments On behalf of the Ramblers' Association Northamptonshire Area Footpath Committee, I note that Public rights of way MG17 and MG27 will be maintained during the working of the quarry with appropriate measures to protect the users of the footpath from conflict with lorries and vehicles that will run along the access track, thus giving priority to the users of the footpaths over the vehicles on the haul road.

We point out that footpath MG17 is an important pedestrian link between Upper and Lower Benefield. It is usable by wheelchairs and electric scooters. Access and use by such vehicles should be maintained.

Thank you for consulting the Ramblers' Association. If you do not receive a response within five days please contact Emma White at [email protected] or on (01604) 236130.

If you would like to receive an email acknowledgement once you have submitted this form, please enter a valid email address below Email Address [email protected]

Please review your details before submitting the form

If you have finished filling out this form please click the Submit button. Please note, once you have submitted your form you will not be able to return to it.

Date: 20 February 2013 Our ref: 78619 Your ref: 12/00093/MINFUL

Head of Planning Services Customer Services Northamptonshire County Council Hornbeam House Floor 3 Crewe Business Park Electra Way Guildhall Road Block Crewe Cheshire County Hall CW1 6GJ Northampton T 0300 060 3900 NN1 1DN

For the attention of: Claire Spokes

BY EMAIL ONLY

Dear Sir/Madam

Planning consultation: 12/00093/MINFUL – Conservation stone quarry to extract Blisworth Limestone (Oundle variety) Blockstone, Flagstone and Large Walling Stone Location: Stone Pits Quarry, Between Upper And Lower Benefield, Northamptonshire

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 14 February 2013 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 (AS AMENDED)

No objection This application is in the vicinity of the Banham, Spring and Blackthorns Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England.

Other advice We would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:

 local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity)  local landscape character  local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.

Natural England does not hold locally specific information relating to the above. These remain material considerations in the determination of this planning application and we recommend that you seek further information from the appropriate bodies (which may include the local records centre, your local wildlife trust or other recording society and a local landscape characterisation

Page 1 of 2 document) in order to ensure the LPA has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal before it determines the application. A more comprehensive list of local groups can be found at Wildlife and Countryside link.

If the LPA is aware of, or representations from other parties highlight the possible presence of a protected or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species on the site, the authority should request survey information from the applicant before determining the application. The Government has provided advice1 on BAP and protected species and their consideration in the planning system. Natural England Standing Advice for Protected Species is available on our website to help local planning authorities better understand the impact of development on protected or BAP species should they be identified as an issue at particular developments. This also sets out when, following receipt of survey information, the authority should undertake further consultation with Natural England.

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 NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your 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’.

We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Gordon Wyatt on 01480 810356 or [email protected]. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to [email protected].

We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and welcome any comments you might have about our service.

Yours faithfully

Gordon Wyatt Lead Adviser, Land Use Operations

1 Paragraph 98 and 99 of ODPM Circular 06/2005

Page 2 of 2 Cedar Drive Thrapston Northamptonshire NN144LZ Telephone 01832 742000 Email [email protected] www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk

Northamptonshire County Council NORTHAMPTONSHIRE-, Planning Services COUNTY COUNCIL Floor 3 Guildhall Road Block 12 APR 2013 County Hall Northampton ~NV/RONMENT &PLANNING NN1 1DN --l

Please ask for Direct Dial Our Reference Your Reference Date Amie Baxter 01832742226 13/00278/NCC 12/00093/MINFU 11 April 2013 L Planning Services

Dear Sir

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

Proposal: Conservation stone quarry to extract Blisworth Limestone (Oundle variety) Blockstone, Flagstone and Large Walling Stone at Stone Pits Quarry at SP9788 OP9078 Oundle Road Upper Benefield Northamptonshire .

Thank you for your consultation on the above matter which was received on 18 February 2013 and was allocated the reference: 13/00278/NCC.

I would advise you that this authority wishes to make an objection to the proposals for the following reasons:

1. That NCC are advised that East Northamptonshire Council object in the strongest of terms to the proposed development for the following reasons: The proposal is likely to result in an increase in the amount of traffic travelling through local villages to a level which would be harmful to highway safety. The proposal is likely to result in an adverse impact on the current level of residential amenity currently enjoyed by local residents, through increased noise, dust and traffic movements. The assessment undertaken in terms of the likely visual impact on.the immediate and wider area is not adequate enough to enable officers to assess the full impact of the proposed development. Further detail is required to properly demonstrate that the proposed mitigation methods are appropriate and that the development overall would not result in visual harm, to the nearby Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings in particular.

Council for the District of East Northamptonshire www.east-northamptonshire.goy.uk I trust that the above observations (if any) can be taken into consideration during the determination of the application but should further information be required regarding this matter please contact direct the Case Officer, Amie Baxter on Direct Line 742226.

Yours faithfully . f/c>c,ht~kiJjJe,-- .':', Elizabeth Wilson Interim Head of Planning Services dcrenccz. rtf

Council forthe District of East Northamptonshire www.east·northamptonshire.gov.uk Northamptonshlre David Charlton-Jones Campaign to ProtectRural England 4 Thomas Rippin Close Geddington Kettering NN14 1SF

Telephone: 01536747164 r~ORTHAMPTONSHIRE Mr. Philip Watson Planning Department CDUNlY COUNCIL [email protected] Northamptonshire County Council www.CPRENorthants.org County Hall 21 MAR 2013 c:) Northampton NN11 ED Working locally and nationally for a beautiful and living : r N\'T" -,~I'CI::NT & ':lLANNING it: JI,'\jl·'Il,~'I\.- ' countryside L_~.------' 18th March 2013

Dear Mr. Watson,

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield

I refer to the recent telephone conversation between yourself and Keith Allsop regarding this application and our wish to add a rider to Mr. David Edsall's letter dated 1st March 2013 listing the conditions which should prevail in the event of the Stonepits Quarry application being approved.

However you should be aware that, important as these conditions will be if planning consent should be given, our wider view is that this valley should be allowed to remain as a tranquil buffer between the two villages.

Our objections are based on these material considerations:

-noise and disturbance resulting from use

-traffic generation

-loss of green space/landscaping

-lrnpact on conservation area (both villages).

-doubts about the geology and usefulness of the stone ( para 2 of Benefield PC submission ).

I should be grateful if this letter could be appended to our earlier submission and due note taken of the views expressed.

With best wishes

Yours sincerely.

David Charlton-Jones

President Lady Juliet Townsend, LYO

Chairman Sir Paul Hayter, KCB LYO

Secretary Robin Jones

A company limited by guarantee Registered in England number 5564879 Charity registration number 1116687 GP PLANNING LTD POST SUBMISSION REPORT

APPENDIX 2: Ecological Information

P002-04 Additional Information / NM Appendix 30/07/13 13-0281 3202 D04 R File Note 030613 Rev 2

FILE NOTE Ref: 13-0281 3202 D04 R Client/Site: PGR Construction – Proposed Quarry, Upper Benefield Date: 3rd June 2013 Author: James Whiteford – Senior Ecological Consultant, Lockhart Garratt Ltd Purpose of Document: Northampton County Council (NCC) has provided a detailed commentary (ref: 12- 0093_MINFUL) on ecological issues relating to the planning application for Stonepits Quarry, Upper Benefield. The purpose of this file note is to address the ecological issues raised.

Ref Description Action 1.0 Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment should be carried out in accordance with the None Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011, rather than the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999.

This is a typographical error the ECiA was produced in line with the 2011 guidelines. 2.0 I would welcome clarification as to whether this woodland is planted or established only by None natural regeneration.

The small block of woodland is semi-natural, naturally regenerating woodland. 3.0 I would query whether none of the hedgerows on the site, in particular the hedge and ditch None and adjacent to footpath MG27 are significant under the criteria of the 1997 Hedgerow Regulations.

From an ecological perspective the hedgerows located within the study area are not considered to meet the criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations owing to their lack of diversity. It should also be noted that only 2 x 10m sections are to be removed as part of the proposals. 4.0 A Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report is not included in the Ecological Baseline & Impact None Assessment appendix, or within the Planning Application.

A typical Phase 1 survey report incorporates the following sections; Desk Study, Habitat Descriptions and Plans and Protected Species assessment. This information is incorporated within the ECiA. The relevant Phase 1 sections within the report are located here: Desk Study – Referred to within Receptor Review – data presented in Appendix 6 Habitat Descriptions – Review of Ecological Receptors – Section 5.1.39-5.1.50 Phase 1 Habitat Plan – Appendix 4 Protected Species Assessment – Sections 5.1.51-5.1.70 5.0 No historic bat records from the County Bat Group are provided as part of the submission None As detailed within the report local bat records from the National Biodiversity Network were provided, these records provide historic information for bat activity within the local area. As this information was already included and the impacts upon bat species was considered to be low it was not considered necessary to secure additional bat records from the bat group.

- 1 -

Ref Description Action 6.0 According to one of the responses received from neighbours there is a further active sett Pre- to the south-west of the application site. In order to assess the impact of the loss of commencement foraging habitat and potential impacts of the haul road construction and mound creation badger survey proposals it is necessary to require a pre-commencement survey of the badger setts and to be the preparation of a mitigation plan. completed

The presence of badgers adjacent to the development is acknowledged as part of the ECiA. As badgers are mobile and frequently move setts the provision for pre- commencement badger survey is reasonable. 7.0 The survey identified several mature trees with bat roost moderation potential including None on the northern boundary and south of the access road. According to Section 5.1.29, the zone of influence for far-ranging foraging bats requires consideration. In the absence of If in the event any bat activity surveys it is not possible to determine if the assessment of anticipated any trees do population movements in the locality and the importance of the sites features bats. need to be removed then All trees of moderate to high bat potential identified by the Phase 1 assessment are to be any necessary retained and buffered as part of the proposals. Section 6.3.9-6.3.14 of the ECiA confirm bat survey work that any indirect impacts on bats due to dust or light will be minimised, with the as per best additional edge habitats to be created as part of the proposals designed to ensure that practice the development provides a net gain in suitable foraging habitat for these species. The guidelines will residual impact of the development on bats is considered not be significant (Table 4). be completed. 8.0 Clarification should be provided as to whether the former quarry woodland was also None surveyed and for roost potential.

As the woodland was to be buffered and protected from indirect impacts as part of the proposals a walk through was all that was considered necessary for the purposes of the assessment.

9.0 I would recommend that a full Ecological Mitigation Plan should be submitted to the Production of Mineral Planning Authority the EMP

An EMP will be produced for the site post-planning. 10.0 The opportunity to incorporate arable margins into the proposals to restore the Arable margins development site has not been included in the proposals to be incorporated As part of on-going discussions arable field margins have been incorporated. These along southern, margins will be sown with an EF-1 Field Corner Mix. and northern boundary as per appended plan (Ref: M13-0389) 11.0 More detail and clarification is needed as to whether it would be possible to establish the Amendment of proposed habitats in the 20m vegetative buffer to the north of the haul road species mix to incorporate The wildflower mix recommended as part of the ECiA was designed to incorporate a wide mix of range of neutral and calcareous grassland species so as to provide a grassland sward nutrient suitable for a range of different soil conditions. tolerant species. A wildflower mix incorporating a range of hardy grass and herbaceous species will be used. This mix will be based upon an agricultural wildflower mix used as part of stewardship schemes – EF1. 12.0 According to 1:10,000 OS mapping, there is possibly a spring within the semi-improved None grassland that would be affected or lost in order to improve the proposed haul road.

- 2 -

At the time of the Phase 1 assessment the spring formed part of an agricultural ditch and was not considered to be of significant ecological value.

- 3 -

Ref Description Action 13.0 No information is provided with the Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment [] of how Details on long- the mitigation habitats would be managed in the long term term management This information would be incorporated as part of the EMP for the site. and monitoring incorporated as part of the EMP.

- 4 - Legend: Arable Field Margin EF-1mix N

8 MELBOURNE HOUSE: CORBYGATE BUSINESS PARK: WELDON: CORBY: NORTHAMPTONSHIRE: NN17 5JG TEL:01536 408840 FAX:01536 408860 TITLE: PHASE II MITIGATION STRATEGY

PROJECT/SITE: STONEPITS QUARRY, BENEFIELD

CLIENT: PGR CONSTRUCTION

REF: 3202/D02/M13-0389

SCALE: N/A DATE: 17/06/13 REVISION: 0 Reproduced with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, Crown Copyright (c) Licence number:AL 52281A0001 Lockhart Garratt Ltd 8 Melbourne House, Corbygate Business Park, Weldon, Corby, Northants NN17 5JG. For identification purposes only. Not to be reproduced without permission of Lockhart Garratt Ltd. www.lockhart-garratt.co.uk GP PLANNING LTD POST SUBMISSION REPORT

APPENDIX 3: Additional Transport Information

P002-04 Additional Information / NM Appendix 30/07/13

GP PLANNING LTD POST SUBMISSION REPORT

APPENDIX 4: Additional Landscape and Visual Impact information and further information on Public Rights of Way (PROW)

P002-04 Additional Information / NM Appendix 30/07/13 Stonepits Quarry, Beneﬁ eld Landscape Mi ga on Addi onal Informa on to support planning applica on

Vista Landscape Studio July 2013

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

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

1. I have some concerns regarding details of the data, informa on and assessments provided in the Environmental Statement and technical appendices on which I would welcome clariﬁ ca on or further informa on. I have also made some sugges ons for amendment of landscaping or habitat crea on proposals in order to ensure avoidance of impact on protected species and that appropriate mi ga on is included in planning proposals and ecological and landscape enhancements would be secured for the long term were any applica on to be approved. In my opinon the landscaping proposals do not currently provide suitable or adequate mi ga on to reduce impacts or enhance landscape character. Response: A er discussions on site it was agreed that the plan ng belt provided along the eastern boundary due to the size of the proposed trees would provide adequate mi ga on to the proposed quarrying ac vi es. It was also agreed that the subsoil and topsoil mounds would be shaped to be more harmonious with the exis ng contours. These are shown on Figure 5 and supported by sec ons on Figures 6 and 7 on the subsequent pages of this response.

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by Vista Landscape Studio Ltd has been included within the appendices of the Environmental Statement. The landscape sensi vi- es appear not to have taken into account local landscape designa ons. According to the LVIA the DEFRA Magic interac ve map has been used as a source of environmental data. However neither the LVIA nor Figure 4 ‘Landscape Features’ include informa on on the Conserva on Areas at Upper and Lower Benefi eld, the Benefi eld Castle Scheduled Ancient Monument or the Sites of Special Scien fi c Interest at Banhaw, Spring and Blackthorns Woods. According to the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ desk-top studies should explore special interests including nature conserva on, historical or cultural heritage associa ons. Confi rma on should therefore be provided by the applicant’s Landscape Consultant that these designa ons have been fully taken into account in the LVIA assessments. Response: It is confi rmed that Vista Landscape Studio considered the SSSI’s and Ancient Monument when assessing the projects and impacts but due to the distance away from these designa ons found that there would be no impact on them.

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

Stonepits Quarry, Benefi eld Figure 1 Landscape MiƟ gaƟ on and Residual Impacts 4. Sec on 6.1.1 of the Landscape Assessment Appendix iden fi es opera ons sources of poten al impact on landscape and landscape character. These include the 8m high landscape overburden mound and 3m subsoil storage mounds, stone stockpiling, crea on of a se lement pond, haul road, areas of hardstanding and a weighbridge. Sec on 9.1 describes proposed short, medium and long term proposed mi ga on measures, however, the mescales of these terms are not defi ned. Unless the tree stock are standards and at least some areas of instant hedging is planted, then the landscaping proposals will not provide any screening of the quarry during the 17-year opera onal life. Response: On the mi ga on plan Figures 12 and 13 within the LVIA report there is a schedule that states that the trees will be 16/18 size and will be planted at 4.0-4.5metres in height. These will provide immediate screening eff ect on day of plan ng. These have been updated and added to this report See Figures 9 and 10 below

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

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

7. More informa on and clarifi ca on is needed as to how the overburden mound would be seeded and grass and wild fl owers would be established and why these measures have been proposed. The proposal for seeding of the temporary mound with wildfl owers made within the LVIA is not repeated within Sec on 5.1.8 of Ecological Baseline & Impact Assessment appendix nor has it been assessed as providing any mi ga on or benefi t for biodiversity by the Ecological Consultant. Response: It was agreed that the mounding would be sown with a grass mix as this would blend with the exis ng landscape character be er than wild fl ower plan ng. This can be agreed as a condi on

8. According to the Restora on and A ercare Scheme that has been submi ed in support of the Planning Applica on the land will be restored to near exis ng levels. The LVIA states that “the proposed restora on of the conserva on stone quarry will restore the topography of the landscape, crea ng a landscape which slopes in accordance with the original contours”. I consider that more detailed technical informa on is need to explain the reference to the ‘bulking factor’ referred to in sec on 3.8.9 of the ES in order to provide confi rma on of what the fi nal restora on level would be. Response: Bulking / se lement – it is es mated that net bulking (i.e. a er se lement) will be c. 5 – 7.5% for overburden and c. 15 – 20% for limestone waste. On this basis it is es mated that fi nal restora on landform levels (assuming no importa on of material) will on average be c. 0.5 – 1.0m lower than original levels. It is considered that the reduced fi nal restora on landform levels will not be signifi cant in terms of land a er-use. Phased infi lling – PGWA drawings (nos. 9 – 14) give a detailed narra ve and illustrate, as far as is reasonably prac cable to do so, the phasing of quarry development and backfi lling. Temporary perimeter and internal quarry access ramps will be established as necessary on in-situ material and backfi ll material as quarry development proceeds. Site opera ng condi ons may dictate that the quarry is not developed exactly as illustrated in the drawings and quarry development may involve wider phase strips. However, the principal of minimising the extent of phased excava on and maximising progressive backfi lling and restora on will be maintained.

Stonepits Quarry, Beneﬁ eld Figure 2 9. I would recommend that, prior to determina on of the applica on, the submi ed Landscape Mi ga on Strategy is reviewed and revised to the in order to provide be er mi ga on for impacts on visual amenity and landscape character. Response: This report covers the issues raised.

Restora on and Landscaping 10. A number of the tree species proposed in the Landscape Mi ga on Strategy on both the main site and track access are not appropriate because they are not locally na ve or are non na- ve (such as Prunus cul vars and Ribes sanguieum). No numbers, sizes, stocking density or percentages are included on Figures 12 and 13. No informa on is provided on how it is proposed to maintain the proposed calcareous grassland. A revised landscaping scheme including locally na ve species of local provenance stock and well as details of establishment of grassland should be submi ed and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to commencement of development vegeta on clearance and construc on of the access haul road. Response: There are sizes and spaces for the shrub under-storey on the Figures 12 and 13 already of the LVIA report and also shown on Figures 9 and 10 below. Na ve species will be replaced with non-na ve cul vars. Trees are shown on the mi ga on plan in the loca ons shown. Grassland habitats will be established in accordance with the detail set out in ‘File Note 13-0281 3202 D04 R’ which has been produced by Lockhart Garra in response to comments raised in rela on to the EcIA.

11. A long term habitat management plan should be submi ed and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority in order to ensure the landscape screening and proposed woodland mi ga- on habitats are retained in perpetuity. Response: The habitat management plan can be secured by way of planning condi on post determina on.

TREE SURVEY AND STANDOFF DISTANCES STATEMENT

12. Considera on should be given to loca ng the se lement pond further from tree T26 in order that the tree and any poten al roost are adequately protected throughout the development. If the applica on is approved the submission of a ﬁ nal tree protec on plan and Arboricultural Method Statement should be secured by means of a Planning Condi on. Response: Agreed and noted

CONCLUSIONS 13. Ecological Mi ga on Plans, pre-commencement bat and badger surveys, revision of the landscape restora on proposals, a detailed landscape plan ng schedule and grassland crea on scheme, a long term habitat management plan and a ﬁ nal tree protec on plan should be submi ed to the Mineral Planning Authority. In the absence of appropriate mi ga on measures and method statements and revisions to the proposed landscaping and habitat crea on proposals it is not possible to ensure that the development proposals would not have a nega ve impact on protected species and result in a loss of biodiversity and landscape character contrary to planning policy. Response: Agreed and noted

Richard Hodge s – Vista Landscape Studio Ltd

Stonepits Quarry, Beneﬁ eld Figure 3 N Phase 1 Mi ga on Strategy

Stonepits Quarry, Beneﬁ eld Figure 4 1 Legend:

2 Exis ng Trees/ Woodland/ Hedgerows.

3 Arable/Pasture Land

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

Proposed enhanced hedge with trees on north-western boundary

Proposed trees within exis ng hedge on south-western boundary

Proposed mi ga on bunding 4 5 Arable Field Margin EF-1mix

6 Balancing Pond

N Phase 2 Mi ga on Strategy (ﬁ nal before restora on contours undertaken)

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

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

0321 m 1:50 @ A3 size

N Detail showing footpath crossing points

Stonepits Quarry, Beneﬁ eld Figure 8 Legend:

MG17 Exis ng Trees/ Woodland/ Hedgerows.

Arable/Pasture Land

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

Proposed enhanced hedge with trees on north-western boundary

Proposed trees within exis ng hedge on south-western boundary

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

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

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

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

Stonepits Quarry, Beneﬁ eld Figure 9 Legend:

Exis ng Trees/

MG27 Woodland/ Hedgerows.

Arable/Pasture Land

MG17

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

A427 Proposed enhanced hedge with trees on north-western boundary

Proposed trees within exis ng hedge on south-western boundary MG18

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

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

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

Stonepits Quarry, Beneﬁ eld Figure 10 GP PLANNING LTD POST SUBMISSION REPORT

APPENDIX 5: Business Case

P002-04 Additional Information / NM Appendix 30/07/13

BUSINESS CASE

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR A CONSERVATION STONE QUARRY TO EXTRACT BLISWORTH LIMESTONE BLOCKSTONE, FLAGSTONE AND LARGE WALLING STONE

STONEPITS QUARRY, BENEFIELD

CHURCHFIELD STONE LTD

July 2013 Version 1 Final

BUSINESS CASE

1 BUSINESS CASE

Introduction

This report has been formulated in response to a request for further information by Northamptonshire County Council in relation to the need for the proposed Stonepits Quarry, Benefield. The information set out in this report further highlights the feasibility of the development in economic terms, through providing a broad overview of the market that will be targeted and the economic rationale behind the proposed development.

Targeted Market and Interest

The stone to be extracted from the proposed Stonepits Quarry will supplement the building and walling stone sources to come from the Harley Way Quarry. The Blockstone, Walling Stone and Flagstone products to be sourced can be used in conjunction with the Harley Way Quarry stone to provide a range of dry-stone walling, dressed and semi-dressed building stone, quoins lintels and general fenestration for the use in the conservation and heritage market. As stated in the submitted planning application there is a requirement to service the local area with the Oundle Variety of stone so that it can be used in the restoration of buildings, heritage assets and in conservation purposes in Upper and Lower Benefield, Oundle and in the general East Northamptonshire area. The local market will account for a substantial proportion of the stone to be extracted from the quarry and processed at the Harley Way Stone Processing Plant.

It is also anticipated that due to it’s quality there will be a wider market requirement for the stone. Recently, Churchfield Stone Ltd have been approached by potential clients in Titchmarsh, Ashton, Worksop and have potential contracts in Ely, Lincoln, Leighton Buzzard and Daventry. The contracts are based on the availability of the Blockstone stone from the Stonepits Quarry and cannot be serviced by the walling and building stone that is excavated from the Harley Way Quarry. The geographical spread of the potential contracts is based on the aesthetic quality of the stone and in some cases the fact that other local stone sources have been exhausted and the samples provided by Churchfield Stone Ltd of the Oundle Stone variety achieve the best match to the indigenous stones.

The company have already established themselves within the natural and heritage stone market as they produce stone products that have been processed from existing sources of stone. The aim of the development at the Stonepits Quarry is to allow for the applicant to provide choice. This is in terms of the types of stone and the variety of stone products available at market. The fact that the applicant is established in the stone industry means that they already have a strong footing and are able to utilise their position to secure a sustainable interest in the stone over the lifespan of the proposed quarry.

Projected Market

Despite the initial burst of interest that has been experienced by Churchfield Stone Ltd it is still considered that it will take a few years for the blockstone to establish its position in the market. The applicant is actively advertising the potential for the stone through engaging with industry specialists and advertising general stone products at specialist stone trade shows. Once established it is anticipated that the stone will rise in value over time as demand will grow for the products made from the extracted Blockstone. At the current rate of interest it is considered that the quarry can be feasibly worked in financial terms and that increased levels of interest in the stone products will only improve the feasibility of the quarry.

P002-04 Business Case / NM 17/07/13 BUSINESS CASE

Currently, Churchfield Stone Ltd have committed to supply building stone material to a number of small housing developments in the local area, as mentioned above, and these contracts will be largely serviced by the stone from the Harley Way Quarry. The intended model that is to be adopted by the company is for development to be serviced by construction and walling stone from the Harley Way with the more decorative quoins, lintels and fenestration being supplied by the stone from the proposed Stonepits Quarry. The ability to produce a complete range of stone products is advantageous in that contract work is often interrelated, and the ability to supply a certain type of stone, such as walling stone, can often lead to the supply of lintels, quoins etc. This mode of adding value through the supply of the stone from the proposed Stonepits Quarry is important to the business development of Churchfield Stone Ltd.

The applicant has experienced a significant increase in the requirement for English Limestones in general over the last few years. The experience has been derived in relation to the sale of other sources of limestone that have been processed at their processing plant. The English Limestone market is considered to be a growth area as there is an increasing demand for indigenous stone for specialist building purposes. The current stone processing operations import stone from other areas, mainly in Lincolnshire. The applicant does not have exclusivity in sourcing the material and whilst they are able to add value to the virgin stone product through utilising masonry techniques there are other stone processing operations which use the same stone source and are able to produce similar products. The benefit of the stone from the proposed Stonepits Quarry is that the applicant will have operational control over the stone. All the stone suitable for processing will be transported to the Harley Way Stone Processing Plant, as per the application documents, and will therefore be processed by Churchfield Stone Ltd. They will have control over the stone from extraction to processing and will be able to tailor the output to fit market demand. The fact that all the stone that is suitable for processing will provide a major advantage in offering an alternative choice to current English Limestone products.

Once the market has been established it is Churchfield Stone Ltd’s intention to service further housing developments and also small developments with the high quality heritage grade stone. The quality of the stone is considered to be the driver for establishing the market. Furthermore, it is the quality of the stone that will enable the stone to be used in both a local context and also a wider regional context. This is particularly in relation to the flagstone products that can be produced from the extracted mineral from the proposed Stonepits Quarry.

Economic Benefits

As stated within the planning application, the primary economic benefit will be to strengthen the position of a local business (Churchfield Stone Ltd) in the local economy. The quarry itself will employ 3 additional employees. In local terms this is a benefit to the economy and it will further supplement the existing Churchfield Stone Ltd operations to provide wider economic benefits.

The potential offshoot benefits of the development come largely in relation to the associated business that will tie into the quarry operations. In relation to the proposed development the applicant has engaged with local stone masons and architecture companies to provide further evidence of a market need for the stone. The attached acknowledgements and statements of interest show that there is a general acceptance within the construction and design industry of the principle of a need for a wider variety of building stones to be available for use within development. It is businesses such as these that stand to gain a positive impact from the operations.

There is also potential for community gain through the operations through securing planning obligations. The applicant has confirmed a willingness with the Mineral Planning Authority to enter into a a legal agreement to provide a direct benefit to the local community.

P002-04 Business Case / NM 17/07/13 BUSINESS CASE

Conclusion

The interaction between local conservation needs, allocated building levels within East Northamptonshire and a wider acknowledgement of the quality of the stone that will ensure that there is a sufficient outlet for the stone products associated with the proposed extraction at the Stonepits Quarry.

P002-04 Business Case / NM 17/07/13 BUSINESS CASE

APPENDIX 1: Industry Support

P002-04 Business Case / NM 17/07/13 M & I} TTLING CONSTRUCTION * Domestic & commercial Buildings - ston*vork High class Brich,vork Gr oundw ork sP e cial i s t s

Michael Wagstaff 'Ashridge', Back Lane, Tel:01536373446 Brigstoclq Kettering, Northants NN14 3ER.

31st March 20L3. Major J.V.A. I,/atts-Russe11, Nethertown Farm House, Upper Benefield, Peterborough, PE8 5AL. Dear Sir,

Re: 01d Stone Pit QuarrY, Benefield. Being a ConstrucLion Company specialising in stone builiings of all types many of them listed properties, we were looking forraid to you re-opening the 01d Stone Pit Quarry between Upper and Lower BLnefi;1d, therefore having the prospect of using local sLone again' These listed buildings especially have to be built using traditional methods and maLching materials, very difficult wiEhout 1oca1 sLone After the closing of the quarry adiacent to the oundle Golf Course and the WetAon quarry exhausting iLs supply, also the lack of reclaimed 1ocal sLone it is increasinSly hard to source the right material. This Benefield stone would also be benefici-a1 in the construction of new buildings in close surrounding vi1lages, many of them conservation areas. I am sure the 1oca1 Planning Authorities would find this stone more in keeping than the yellow stone brought down from the Grantham area as it is at the moment" Hope that you have a successful outcome ' Yours faithfully. ,,f,t,

Michael Wagstaff.

VAT Reg.No. 313 0971 86 TBUN,DffiG SUPPI.TES Northants NN18 8ET Tel:01536 407079

Fx:01536 402404

[email protected] To: Major Watts Russell, - whowanh-timberco.uk

Benefield Estates,

Lammas Farmhouse,

Upper Benefield,

Northants

Dear Sirs Date 25th March 2013

Re: Local stone supplies.

Further to our recent enquiry concerning the above we would welcome a consistent and reliable source of local building stone. We are noticing a distinct increase in specification for local stone to be used in our day to day business for new build, refurbishment and extensions. Currently none of this stone is from our local area as supply is sparse which means that companies from outside of our area are actively targeting local builders to use them.

Within the building trade price is still the benchmark and if we could source the right stone at the right price this can only give Howarths and hence local builders a better chance of securing local work.

We look forward to hearing of your progress.

Yours sincerely

Steve Hilton

For Howarth Timber & Building Supplies Ltd

A DIVISION OF HOWARTH TIMBER & BUILDING SUPPLIES LTD. Date 21't March 2013.

Dear Sirs,

Ref - New Stone euarrv.

l[:lf :IiJ;,[:Hiffi :Tiffi[',ff::ilHi::,",il1fiTff ffi?::,""1T111,.,*" & associated stone products.'

We have stuggled in past years to aquire good loeal stone with out having to travel out of the county to find it & then not aways getting a good match.

Stone from our local area would benefit us greatly in lots of respects & would mean keeping cost down to.

Yours sincerely,

Mr W.A.Briggs, ForThomas & Briggs (Twywell ) Ltd. Major JVA Watts-Russell Etiggin and Benefield Estate - -: Biggin Hall Lower Benefield Peterborough PEB 5AB 25th March 2013

Dear Major Watts-Russell

Re: Proposed quarry at Lower Benefield

I was encouraged to see that you are proposing to re-open the old quarry between Lower and Upper Benefield, but disappointed to see that there is opposition from within the village, which is rather bizarre, as most of the properties are built of stone from the quarry.

Many of our clients live in stone property and struggle to maintain them properly or extend them sympathetically, due to the lack of availability of the local stone. Re-opening the quarry will ensure that there is a consistent and available source, which is necessary to ensure the correct maintenance of the beautiful buildings in this region.

I wish you success with this venture, as I am sure it will be beneficial to the properties within area and a relief to the local stone masons.

sincerely,

MNAVA MNAEA

12 Market Place Oundle Peterborough PE8 4BQ T.01832 274732 F.01832 272211 E. [email protected] London Office: 15 Thayer Street London Wl U 3JT T.020 7461 5331, ,t,rcyg-' HITT ffi www.woodford a n dco.com @ Partners: Christopher C.P. Woodford David C. Woodford paul ATCNIIECIS

The Cctrlch Holrse 80 South Boarl Major Watts-Russell 0undle Petertlorougi) Biggin & Benefield Estate PE8 4BP Biggin Hall lsl {,11 832 ?721 12 Far 01832 274?61 Benefield Peterborough E mart Wetl PE8 5AB

Our Ref: MB/RNB

25h March 20'13

Dear Sir,

production local as an ln connection with your aspirations to re-establish a quarry for the of .limestone' Architeits practice within oundle, we would welcome every opportunity for an irnproved choice of stone locally often pioOr.t Historically timestone for building work and walling has predominantly been sourced and we *itnin a few square miles of a project, horiuever over time mlny of these small quarries have closed from many miles are now facing a far smaller choiie of limestone product and often have to source stone outside of the CountY the My personal feetings are that small independent quarries focusing on local suppty will only benefit materials' community and environment and is a far more sustainable approach to the supply of building

in an attempt to match As Architects we always seek to source limestone as locally as possible to the building when stone is not the aesthetic of neighbouring stone. Unfortunately the reient past has demonstrated that closely matched witn tne localvernacular it often results in a "iarring" .iuxtaposition. the opportuniry of We do wish you every success with your proposed quarry and would very much welcome being able to consider using local limestone from the Biggin & Benefield Estate'

Yours faithfully,

Mark A Benns Prlncipal For Paul Bancroft Architects

... ..- - t. RIBA S' Chanered Practice lrtu r:tr:1-,, , e;,:i |.If ifldj '