Local Members' Interest

Mr T.J. Corbett

Needwood Forest

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 5 SEPTEMBER 2013 MINERAL COUNTY MATTER - East Staffordshire: ES.12/03/501 MW

Date Received: 3 February 2012

Date Revised/Further Details Received:

• 7 March 2012 - Letter from Aggregate Industries including technical appendices to the ES

• 18 April 2012 - Site Location Plan (dwg no. HDA1) • 22 February 2013 - Letter from Aggregate Industries: Regulation 22

Request for Further Information; • 5 June 2013 - Letter from Aggregate Industries – response to noise

concerns; • 6 June 2013 - Detailed Working Plans; • 14 August 2013 – Tree Survey

Aggregate Industries UK Limited application for 160 hectare extension to the existing Newbold Quarry to extract 13.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel with restoration to agriculture, woodland and water based recreation and nature conservation at Newbold Quarry, Lichfield Road, Barton under Needwood

BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION

1. Newbold Quarry is an existing permitted sand and gravel quarry that has operated in excess of 50 years with the capacity to produce up to 1,000,000 tonnes of sand and gravel per annum although in recent years it has produced approximately 750,000tpa. Newbold Quarry is now worked in conjunction with the neighbouring Tucklesholme Quarry (ref. ES.26777/01 dated 1 April 2004). Approximately 30% of the output from the quarries goes into the manufacture of ready mixed concrete and pre-cast concrete products at the onsite plant. There is a ‘Readymix’ concrete plant, a pre-cast concrete block factory and a bagging plant on the site. The existing planning permission requires mineral extraction to cease within the permitted area by the end of 2015 with restoration, to a mixture of agriculture, woodland and water based nature conservation, to be complete by the end of 2017. The applicant affirms that restoration of Newbold Quarry is achievable by this date.

2. Aggregate Industries has recently (2007) invested approximately £6 million in a

replacement quarry processing plant. Ancillary to the new plant is a new quarry office, surfacing of internal lorry routes around the plant site area has also been

carried out; all of which in the applicant’s view, underlies the Company’s commitment to the long-term future of Newbold Quarry. The quarry along with ancillary development directly employs 90 people with an indirect employment benefit connected with haulage, goods and services.

3. The applicant (Aggregate Industries) first promoted the south western extension

(subject of this planning application), along with a potential extension to the north east of the existing quarry through the review of the Minerals Local Plan. Given that permitted mineral reserves would be exhausted within the existing quarry and its permitted extraction would cease at 31 December 2015, the applicant contends that any further delay in submitting a planning application could result in the cessation of production and incur significant economic impact and threat to jobs. The north east extension may be proposed through the review of Minerals Local Plan or could be the subject of a future planning application in due course. The applicant contends that the south western extension is the logical next step in the phased extraction of land at Newbold Quarry.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

4. The proposals are summarised below.

5. The application seeks a south western extension to the Newbold Quarry part of the Newbold and Tucklesholme quarry complex, which would yield of 13.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel, extracted at a rate of 1,000,000 tonnes per year over a period of approximately 15 years up until 2028.

6. It is proposed to work the extension area in conjunction with the existing mineral

extraction at the Newbold and Tucklesholme quarry complex, extending the life of the overall quarry beyond its current cessation date of 31 December 2015. Processing plant currently used for mineral operations is proposed to be utilised beyond the current cessation date with the intention of restoring the plant site area when mineral extraction ceases. Phasing and Working Method

7. It is proposed to work the extension over 5 phases with progressive restoration

following mineral extraction. The sand and gravel would first be de-watered, then extracted using a front end loading shovel and 360 excavator, it would then be transported to the processing plant by conveyor. Restoration would be undertaken using a D6 dozer. Imported restoration materials would be delivered by road going tipper trucks.

8. Phase 1 would commence in the south western corner of the site closest to the

village of Barton under Needwood. Operations would commence with stripping of top and sub soils which would be used to construct screen bunds on the south western and southern boundary to screen the development from views from Barton under Needwood; these would be grass seeded. Phase 1 would be worked from the south west to the north east with the operational face being worked away from Barton under Needwood to allow the area nearest to Barton under Needwood to be worked first and restoration to be completed at the

earliest opportunity. This phase would see the extraction of approximately 2.9 million tonnes of mineral. To achieve the restoration of Phase 1 and all other phases would require the import of inert infill materials and Pulverised Fuel Ash (pfa). The remainder of Phase 1 would be restored using overburden and clay dug from beneath the sand and gravel. Phase 1 would take approximately 3 years. The phase would be progressively restored following extraction of mineral to a mix of water, woodland, grassland and agricultural uses.

9. Phase 2 (to the east of Phase 1) would see the extraction area moving to the

south easterly corner of the site adjacent to the quarry haul road. Phase 1 would be restored during this phase. Phase 2 would be worked from a south west to north easterly direction away from Station Road and toward the existing processing plant. Topsoil and subsoil bunds would be constructed and grass seeded along the southern perimeter to continue the bund constructed in Phase 1 to further screen views into the site from Station Road. Phase 2 would take approximately 6 years. As a result of working Phase 2, there would be a need to divert Public Footpaths No.14 and 15.

10. Phase 3 would see the mineral workings move back towards the village of

Barton under Needwood. The extraction would commence to the north of Small Meadows Lane and see the mineral workings move northwards away from the village. Phase 3 would see the ongoing restoration of Phase 2. Operations would commence in Phase 3 with the erection of 3m and 5m topsoil and subsoil bunds behind retained fields and existing hedgerow, with a 200m stand-off to the rear of properties on Dunstall Road; these bunds will remain in place for the duration of the working phase. Phase 3 would see the extraction of 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel that would take place over a two to three year period. Phase 3 would be worked east to west towards Dunstall Road to minimise views of the working faces. The phase would be progressively restored following extraction to a mix of woodland and wetland. Restoration levels would be achieved within three years from the commencement of Phase 3. Public Footpath No.15 would be reinstated and No.17 diverted.

11. Phase 4 would see the working extend to Lower Farm and the restoration of

Phase 3 to woodland and wetland. Operations would commence in Phase 4 with the erection of 3m and 5m topsoil and subsoil bunds behind existing hedgerow and tree planting adjacent to Dunstall Road, and would remain in place for the duration of the working phase. 3m bunds south of Lower Farm would also be erected and remain in place for the duration of the working phase. This phase would see the extraction of 2.3 million tonnes of sand and gravel and would take place over a two to three year period. The phase would be worked west to east towards the processing plant and to keep a working face in between Lower Farm. The phase would be progressively restored following extraction of mineral to a mix of woodland and wetland. Restoration levels would be achieved within three years from the commencement of restoration operations within Phase 4.

12. Phase 5 (final phase) would see the working of the northern extent of the site,

beyond Lower Farm, and completion of Phase 4. Operations would commence in Phase 5 with the erection of 3m and 5m topsoil and subsoil bunds behind Dunstall Road and adjacent vegetation that would remain in place for the

duration of the working phase. 3m bunds would be placed around Lower Farm and would remain in place for the duration of the working phase. This phase would see the extraction of 3.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel that would take place over a three year period. Restoration levels would be achieved within four years from the commencement of restoration operations within Phase 5.

Hours of Operation 13. Operational hours would not change from those permitted for the existing quarry

operations and would continue to be:

• 0700 to 1900 Monday to Friday • 0700 to 1300 Saturdays

Vehicle Movements and Transport

14. Extracted mineral would continue to be transported from the quarry by road.

Output from the quarry would continue to be in the region of between 750,000 tonnes to 1,000,000 tonnes per annum and therefore, HCV vehicle movements would not increase above existing volumes. The applicant has considered alternatives to road transport including the nearby Birmingham-Derby railway line and Trent and Mersey Canal. The applicant considers however, that the practical ability to serving the region and a variety of end-users is limited in considering these alternative modes of transport. The applicant is willing to continue to comply with an existing routing agreement which restricts HCV vehicles movement through Barton village. Restoration

15. It is proposed to restore the site to agriculture, woodland and wetland. To achieve the proposed restoration levels it is proposed to import infill materials including Pulverised Fuel Ash (pfa) as well as utilising overburden and clays from beneath the extracted sand and gravel. The proposals would see the site’s south-eastern corner restored to semi-improved grassland and arable land. Within this area existing field hedgerow would be restored and extended. Five new lakes would be created for amenity, recreation and nature conservation uses. New woodland would be located between Small Meadows Lane and Newbold Manor Farm, East of Newbold Manor Farm and adjacent to Dunstall Road. Woodland would also be planted to extend and link existing areas of woodland. The proposals are proposed to provide a visual and physical connection to the surrounding landscape immediately surrounding the site. They would also provide new permissive footpaths and a Bridleway which would form a circular route around the restored extension site and existing quarry.

16. Hedgerow and extended areas of woodland would directly and indirectly replace

hedgerow, hedgerow trees and woodland lost during the extraction phase. Improved grassland and arable land would replace the areas of best quality farmland lost during the extraction phase. The applicant contends that the restoration proposals would make a direct contribution to the aims of the National Forest and the Central Rivers Strategy.

After-use 17. The proposed after-use of the site would be centred on a visitor centre along

with stables to be located at Newbold Manor Farm, aimed to complement the on-going phased restoration of the existing Newbold Quarry. The visitor centre is designed and intended to take advantage of views across the amenity lakes and marina to the south and west and include facilities for visitors including a café / restaurant, information / exhibitions on the site, conference rooms, study areas for schools / holiday clubs, toilets and car parking. It is also intended to include bike hire and way-marked trails for walking and cycling, an adventure play area for children incorporating an animal farm and pony trekking centre. In addition, it is also intended to use an area of restored agricultural land to the east of the site for the production of energy crops, such as willow, with a biomass centre and plant to produce heat and energy for the visitor centre, supported by solar and wind energy facilities (solar facilities have recently been approved by the County Council). An area of parkland is proposed to the west of the visitor centre adjacent to Barton under Needwood.

18. The applicant advocates that Aggregate Industries is in on-going discussions

with various stakeholders regarding the concept restoration and after use to ensure key objectives are met. The applicant contends that the management of the restored site is fundamental to achieving a sustainable and long term beneficial after use and offers that in order to achieve these aims, Aggregate Industries is willing to enter into a legal agreement with stakeholders.

Justification and Need 19. The Planning Statement submitted in support of the application sets out at

section 5.2 the applicant’s need case. The key arguments being advanced are summarised as follows:

• Newbold Quarry currently produces between 750,000 to 1,000,000 tonnes of

sand and gravel per annum which serve a number of onsite plant; including a ready mixed concrete plant, a pre-cast concrete block factory, and a bagging plant factory. Approximately 30% of the sand and gravel processed per year goes into the manufacture of ready mixed concrete and pre-cast concrete products on site. These products are then distributed into the local, regional and national markets.

• The recent investment (approximately £6 million) in a replacement quarry

processing plant. Ancillary to the new plant are a new quarry office and surfacing of internal lorry routes around the plant site area which the applicant contends are representative of the Company’s commitment to the long term future of Newbold Quarry.

• Existing permitted reserves at Newbold Quarry and the extension for

Tucklesholme are insufficient to secure the provision of sand and gravel reserves at Newbold Quarry beyond 2015.

• The extension area could yield an additional 13.5 million tonnes of saleable sand and gravel, which would extend the life of the quarry through to 2028.

• The southern extension is being promoted through the Minerals Local Plan.

The submission of the planning application has been delayed for as long as possible whilst the Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks are being developed. However, the delays incurred by prioritising the Waste Core Strategy created a position whereby the applicant could no longer delay the pursuit of the southern extension to Newbold Quarry. To delay any further on the submission of a planning application and seeking to achieve a decision on an extension to Newbold Quarry could result in a cessation of production and therefore a significant economic impact upon Aggregate Industries and a threat to jobs.

Environmental Statement

20. The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement, Environmental

Statement (ES) and Non-Technical Summary of the ES. The Planning Statement summarises the main aspects of the development and the ES assesses the potential impacts of the development on the environment and consists of baseline studies, a prediction of potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures. The general scope and topics considered by the ES were agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority following Aggregate Industries’ earlier request for a ‘scoping opinion’ in June 2009 (ref: SCO.28/501 MW). The topics/issues considered by the ES are as follows:

• Alternatives • Planning Policy • Socio Economic Assessment • Geology and Reserves • Landscape and Visual • Agricultural Land classification and soil resources • Ecology • Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Listed Buildings • Noise • Air Quality • Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Flood Risk Assessment • Traffic and Transportation • Rights of Way • Carbon Management • The Environmental Statement includes:

o Introduction o Statement of Community Involvement o Site and Surroundings o Background to the Project including need and alternatives o Description of the Project o Legislation and Policy Context

o Consultation o Design and Access Statement (DAS) o Conclusions o Appendices

• Planning Statement • Statement of Community Consultation

[Note: the environmental considerations in the ES (and information subsequently provided) are summarised in Appendix 1 to this report.]

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 21. Newbold Quarry lies within the Trent Valley and within the National Forest. The

quarry is situated to the north-east of the village of Barton-under Needwood and 2 kilometres to the south-west of the outer fringes of Burton-upon-Trent. Immediately east of the site and the application area is the Trent and Mersey Canal. The eastern boundary of the site directly abuts the canal towpath which is a designated Conservation Area. The A38 Trunk Road lies to the east beyond the canal and is separated by a wedge of land which runs north – south, within which lie a number of residential properties and industrial premises.

22. The nearest residential properties lie along Station Road to the south and along

Dunstall Road to the west. The curtilage of ‘Ashcroft House’ on Small Meadows Lane off Dunstall Road would abut the site’s proposed western boundary with cottages on Dunstall Road also lying in close proximity to this boundary. Further residential properties on Palmer Close including the John Taylor High School and Thomas Russell Infants School, would be further from the sites proposed western boundary, Palmer Close being in excess of 200m and John Taylor School being 380m. Stand-off distances proposed for mineral extraction would provide a minimum distance of 125m from the nearest property on Station Road (The Old Exchange). To the east of the site beyond the A38 Trunk Road lies the Greycar Business Park which is separated from the site extension area by the A38 and Trent and Mersey Canal.

23. Access to Newbold Quarry is gained via the main access from the Barton Turn

junction off the A38. This junction connects with Station Road which is the main road into the village of Barton-under-Needwood.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 24. Newbold Quarry has been the subject to numerous planning permissions since

1960 and the quarry was acquired by Aggregate Industries in 1998. The most relevant planning permissions relating to the existing quarry site are summarised as follows:

• Planning Permission (ref: ES.26777/01) granted 1 April 2004 – consolidated

all historic permissions and permitted the continuation and extension of sand and gravel extraction and associated infilling at Newbold Quarry along with

integrated working with Tucklesholme Quarry and extended the site to the north. This permission governs the current working and restoration of Newbold and Tucklesholme quarries and limits extraction to 31 December 2015. The approved restoration of the quarry allows for restoration to a mixture of agriculture, woodland and water based nature conservation, to be complete by the end of 2017. The applicant’s intention to continue to work Tucklesholme Quarry beyond 2015 would require the variation of this main permission.

• Prior written approval (ref: ES.26777/01 PWA) granted 5 July 2006 allowed

the installation of a new permanent sand and gravel processing plant; this plant was built and commissioned in December 2007. Prior to the plant being constructed, temporary plant had been installed and operated under a number of short term (temporary) permissions: (ref: ES.05/19/501MW) granted 21 February 2006; (ref: ES.06/30/501 MW) granted 15 December 2006; and, (ref: ES.07/19/501 MW) granted 22 November 2007. The short term permissions allowed time for the building of the permanent processing plant. The main planning permission for the existing quarry (ref: ES.26777/01) requires by condition (Condition 5), that all buildings and plant (which would include the processing plant) to be removed by 31 December 2016. The applicant’s intention to retain this processing plant for use in association with the extension i.e. up to 2028 would require the variation of the main permission (ref: ES.26777/01).

• Planning permission (ref. ES.18136/01) granted 8 May 1998 - allowed

industrial development for the manufacture of pre-cast concrete products at Newbold Quarry. This permission was subject to a legal agreement ensuring that the life of the concrete products factory is tied to the life of the quarry with the development to cease when mineral extraction ceases. Retrospective planning permission (ref. ES.06/32/501 MW) granted 9 January 2007 allowed the retention of two filter silos associated with the factory. A condition attached to that permission (condition 8) requires the removal of all buildings, structures, equipment, plant and hardstandings by 31 December 2016 or upon cessation of mineral whichever is the sooner and for the site to be restored in accordance with the approved restoration and aftercare provisions for the quarry as required by the main permission for mineral extraction (ref. ES.26777/01). In the event that permission is granted to extend Newbold Quarry, the applicant would need to consider varying the permission for the concrete products factory and the accompanying legal agreement if it is the intention to retain the factory beyond 2016.

• Planning permission (ref. ES.12/30/501 MW) granted 19 April 2013 –

allowed the construction of a 2.2MW solar farm and ancillary development to be located within worked and restored areas of the existing Newbold Quarry area. The decision limits the life of the solar farm to whichever is the sooner of the following dates:

a) The cessation of the winning and working of mineral from Newbold and

Tucklesholme Quarries;

b) 25 years from the date when the development was brought into use; or c) 6 months following the cessation of electricity generation.

The solar farm development has a lifespan of approximately 25 years and would produce electricity for export to the National Grid as well as providing electricity to power on site plant. Any intentions to retain the solar farm beyond the current cessation date for Newbold and Tucklesholme quarries i.e. beyond 31 December 2015 (ref. ES.26777/01), would require a permanent permission and/or variation to the existing permission if an extension to the quarry is permitted. Note: it is the applicant’s intention to submit a further application as a second phase development to the solar farm for an intended 8MW solar array. The permitted solar farm, along with any further permission for development, would need to be included on any amended restoration and aftercare schemes that may be approved.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES AND PROPOSALS AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO THIS DECISION

25. The relevant development plan policies are contained in the Staffordshire and

Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan, the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Local Plan and the in the East Staffordshire Local Plan. The other material planning policy considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (published 27 March 2012), the Ministerial Statement - Planning for Growth (March 2011); Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management and, Planning for Landscape Change – Staffordshire County Council’s supplementary planning guidance.

26. The relevant development plan policies and other material considerations are listed in Appendix 2.

FINDINGS OF CONSULTATIONS Internal 27. The Environmental Advice Team (EAT) - no objections subject to conditions. The

EAT comments are summarised as follows:

Landscape and forestry: A number of issues are considered not to have been adequately mitigated for in the proposals in protecting and enhancing sensitive assets and characteristic landscape features including the setting of listed buildings and the adjacent conservation areas. It is accepted that the effects on these assets through loss of hedgerows within the site would be temporary and that these features are replaceable in principle though the replacement of mature trees would have a significant time delay. The Forestry Officer notes that there are three veteran trees on the site which should be afforded protection.

The principle of restoration to water bodies is not challenged, though whilst the area is within the National Forest, it is recommended that less emphasis is placed on woodland planting with increased emphasis to agriculture /conservation grassland which would be welcomed. With respect to perimeter soil bunds, it is accepted that these would assist with visual mitigation, provided they are grass seeded and maintained. Where receptors of moderate/adverse impacts are identified, it is recommended that consideration be given to setting back the extraction boundary further from properties. Archaeology: A written scheme of archaeological investigation providing details of the programme of archaeological works to be carried out within the site, including post-excavation reporting and appropriate publication. Comment is made that the restoration to water bodies is not consistent with a predominantly pastoral landscape type dominated by 18th and 19th century field systems. Ecology: The principle of restoration to wetland habitats (with associated grassland and woodland) with a substantial focus on nature conservation is welcomed, though improvements are recommended for replacement habitat creation for ground nesting birds along with consideration to manipulate final contours to give a mix of deeper lakes with larger areas restored to reedbed, wet grassland and wet woodland. It is also recommended that inclusion of standard trees be included in hedgerow planting with ‘parkland’ trees where possible to compensate for loss of mature trees in terms of both ecology and landscape. Condition is recommended to require a detailed restoration scheme with long term management objectives in discussion with stakeholders. Rights of Way: comments are provided as to the benefits of Public Footpath diversion and where links should be maintained. The comments would best advise the applicant to consider the options available in a detailed restoration strategy/scheme. The comments are relevant for inclusion as an informative to any decision. The Rights of Way Team encourage continued dialogue with the applicant.

28. Transport Development Control (on behalf of the Highways Authority) – no objections subject to a requirement for vehicles to use wheel cleaning facilities provided at the quarry.

29. The Staffordshire County Council Noise Engineer – no objections. Comments

provided identify two particular areas, that of Palmer Close and the John Taylor School that give rise for concern with respect to impacts from noise. The noise engineer is however satisfied that a lower permitted level of 50dB at these locations along with the construction of a 4 metre high screening bund to be provided as an additional noise mitigation measure would improve on the noise impact to an acceptable measure.

30. The Planning Regulation Team – no response received.

31. The Minerals Policy Officer has identified relevant minerals policy and guidance

and has provided comments as a basis for considerations as follows:

Need for mineral – the Policy Officer comments that the proposal involves the winning and working of sand and gravel from an extension of current workings at Newbold Quarry that is not an allocated site in the Minerals Local Plan. The Policy Officer assesses a sand and gravel landbank to cater for Staffordshire’s aggregate needs as being 13.2 years as at January 2012 and advises on a need to consider ‘exceptional circumstances’ as required by saved policy 38 of the Minerals Local Plan to justify the proposals in terms of the extension not being allocated within the Minerals Local Plan. Prematurity of proposals – the Policy Officer considers that in light of the review process currently being undertaken on the Minerals Local Plan, that the proposal is premature to the review of the strategic provision of supply of sand and gravel in Staffordshire.

External

32. Environment Agency (EA) - no objections. EA advises that the site has an Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) Recovery Permit issued by them for the importation of suitable inert waste material for recovery and that a variation to the Permit may be required. Having reviewed the addendum Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), a pre-commencement condition is recommended to prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of /disposal of surface water from the site. A scheme is required to demonstrate the outflow from the site. A condition is also required for a scheme for the monitoring and mitigation of any impacts from dewatering. Comments made on restoration advise strengthening the population of native black poplar a specimen of which is located at the quarry. EA advise that they are working together with the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, RSPB and Central Rivers Initiative at the landscape scale on the restoration of the area for maximum benefits.

33. Natural England (NE) - no objections subject to conditions. NE broadly supports

the proposed restoration and comments provided are summarised as follows:

Protected Species (bats) – NE state that it seems likely that mitigation can be accommodated on site for bats and NE recognises that given the timescales over which the quarrying and restoration will be undertaken, that there will need to be additional surveys at each phase to ensure that the proposals will take into account the most up to date information. Like for like replacement roosts would need to be provided. Protected Species (breeding birds) – NE support the proposals and recommend that the measures to ensure the creation and implementation of the management plan are put in place. Working measures to ensure compliance with the legal protection afforded to breeding birds will be necessary along with ongoing management to maintain habitat.

Soils - Given the presence of significant quantities of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land, NE recommends that the site is restored to retain a comparable level of land at this quality, i.e. no net loss of BMV land. This should be either within areas to be used for agriculture or other areas such as meadows where the agricultural potential of the land would be maintained. NE advises that these areas should form a viable and functional agricultural unit which can continue to be accessed and farmed in the future. NE requires that details are provided to demonstrate how this would be achieved through the development. NE has recommended appropriate conditions relating to soils and has provided general advice relating to the conditions for soil handling, stripping and storage, soil replacement and aftercare.

34. Staffordshire Wildlife Trust – no objections subject to conditions. Comments

provided consider that there are some gaps in species information and the production of species data searches is questioned along with the accuracy of some of the submitted information to allow full consideration of impacts from the proposals; further survey was recommended. Recommendation is made to vary the proposed restoration scheme in agreement with consultees to provide a detailed final restoration plan, and for a long-term ecological mitigation, management and monitoring plan. The Trust recommends modifications to the restoration proposals which include the following:

• linking existing woodland blocks in the north and western parts of the site • creation of parkland and wood pasture in difference to pure woodland

planting • creation of larger areas of wet or carr woodland and reduction of woodland

block planting • instatement of more hedgerow planting • greater complexity of water shoreline creation ‘microtopography’ • creation of several small ponds for dragonfly and amphibians • creation of low sandy, south-facing cliffs for habitat creation

35. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – no objections. RSPB

support the nature of the restoration and its support for the vision and aims of the Central Rivers Initiative (a partnership that includes the RSPB) to create a landscape linking Burton with Tamworth. The proposals are stated to align with the RSPBs own Trent and Tame Valley ‘Futurescapes Project’.

36. Highways Agency – no objections. 37. NATS (En Route) (who deal with ‘air traffic control’; formerly National Air Traffic

Control Services) – no objection on safeguarding grounds. 38. English Heritage – no objection. 39. Campaign to Protect Rural England – objects to the proposals. The objections

are summarised as follows:

• Ramifications cannot be properly considered in light of the lack of an approved Minerals Local Plan (prematurity)

• Loss of food production land • Increased use of fossil fuels (oil) for mineral transport

40. The Canal & River Trust (formerly British Waterways) – no objections.

Recommendation is made for a number of measures to be secured by conditions including:

• Ground stability assessment along with mitigation measures for the

embankment adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal; • A scheme of investigation for ground settlement along with mitigation

measures for the Trent and Mersey Canal; • A landscaping scheme to include measures to provide appropriate

landscaping to Phase 2 adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal. 41. Severn Trent Water Ltd – no objection subject to a condition to require approval

of drainage plans for surface water and foul sewage. 42. The Inland Waterway Association (Lichfield Branch) – objects to the proposals.

The grounds for objection are summarised as follows:

• loss of attractive countryside; • impacts upon the local community; • loss of agricultural land and food production; • cumulative impacts on the Trent Valley landscape; • inappropriate afteruse proposals; • disproportionate sand and gravel extraction from Staffordshire; • disincentive to use of recycled construction waste aggregates; and, • damage to the setting of the Trent & Mersey Canal Conservation Area with

consequent social impact on the canal’s recreational use and economic damage to its tourism value.

The Inland Waterway Association request that if the application is permitted, that a condition is included to provide a landscaped screening bund along the boundary to the Trent & Mersey Canal and that the land is predominantly restored to agriculture.

43. The National Forest Company (NFC) broadly supports the proposed mix and

proportions of land uses and habitats. It welcomes the advance planting that has already been carried out and comments that scope exists for further planting to be incorporated to the east of Dunstall Road to provide visual enhancement. NFC also comment that minor changes could improve connectivity and create additional habitats with the creation of more open areas around the proposed conservation lakes, and that areas of proposed woodland could be moved to connect planting running parallel with Dunstall Road further north to recently planted Forest Research woodland. NFC request that detailed phased restoration plans are secured by planning conditions and NFC would welcome the opportunity to comment on any amended scheme.

44. The Ramblers Association comment with respect to proposed rights of way diversions, which are stated ‘to appear reasonable’. Comments are also offered generally with respect to rights of way diversions and advice to the applicant that once diversions consequent of the extension phasing are consulted upon and orders made, that arbitrary changes should not be made that inconvenience footpath users.

45. National Grid Gas/Electricity – no objections. National Grid has advised of

affected apparatus within the vicinity of the proposed development including low or medium pressure below ground gas pipes, overhead electricity transmission lines and above ground structures and equipment. Advice is provided for inclusion of an informative to Health and Safety requirements and contact details.

46. Sport England – no comments. 47. Derbyshire County Council does not provide specific comments on the proposals

but supports the aims in promoting the ‘Trent Valley (Landscape) Vision’ aimed at delivering a co-ordinated ‘new’ landscape that responds to the current pressures for change in the area for housing, minerals and new infrastructure (including Green Infrastructure). Derbyshire County Council supports a coordinated approach and working together with Staffordshire County Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and other interested parties including the Central Rivers Initiative to develop a cross boundary vision for the Trent Valley. Derbyshire County Council in providing details of the ‘Vision’ itself, expounds that whilst including nature conservation aspirations, the Vision would have a broader aim to focus on how the landscape of the Trent valley might appear in 20-30 years time.

48. The Central Rivers Initiative (CRI) – no objections. Comments are made with

respect to Central Rivers Area Strategy Update and CRI’s aims, and the responses to this application from the National Forest Company and Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, both CRI partners. A summary of the comments to CRI’s aims are as follows:

‘A regionally recognised place that people are proud of, involved with, access and enjoy’ The site has the potential to contribute significantly to this aim with considerable public access, benefits to local residents and opportunity for economic activity ie cycle hire etc which contrasts with other mineral sites in the area which lack public access. It is recommended that a mutually agreed balance be sought for public access and nature conservation interests, with respect to water recreation and final design of water bodies. Swimming and boating are promoted as recreational activities. ‘An attractive landscape, focused on rivers and the lakes formed from restored gravel pits, with natural resources and high quality development supporting a thriving and sustainable economy’

The resulting landscape would be attractive and will provide both sympathetic and sustainable economic benefit and local employment. ‘A wildlife rich landscape with extensive wetlands, healthy rivers and sustainable mixed farming’

The proposed restoration would provide for good wildlife benefit. CRI acknowledge that proposals would result in the loss of farmland. ‘Appropriate recreational and business activities that work in harmony with each other and the landscape’ CRI considers that the restoration and after-use fits this aim well, and promotes development that would complement the nearby Barton Marina which is an important hub in the CRI area. ‘Co-ordination of restoration of gravel quarries to achieve most benefit’ CRI endorse the comments made by the National Forest Company regarding phasing of working and timescales in order that areas are restored and returned to use as quickly as possible. CRI offer to work with end users and stakeholders in continuance of its involvement with the applicant through quarry liaison meetings. ‘Increased awareness, understanding and participation in the wildlife, heritage and potential of the landscape’ The development with its huge potential for both wildlife and public access offers great potential to meeting this aim. CRI encourage the applicant in building on their success of their local liaison with a view to engage with the public in the future development and management of the site.

49. The Environmental Health Officer of East Staffordshire Borough Council (EHO) – no objections subject to conditions. EHO comments relate to noise and air quality as follows:

Noise – justification was requested in an earlier response for increasing the noise limit associated with mineral extraction operations in Phase 2 in respect of residential properties at Palmer Close and to the proposed noise limit of 13dB above the average background noise level of 32dB, as opposed to applying a limit of 10dB above the average background level. Further information provided by the applicant ‘letter dated 5 June 2013’ provided further information for the provisions for a 4m high screening mound for noise attenuation and justification for the proposed increased noise limits. The EHO in further response remains concerned with respect to noise limits that would exceed 10dB above background noise levels and recommends that a limit of 50dB LAeq (I hour) be applied through condition. The EHO recommends noise monitoring locations should include positions to the rear gardens of residential properties on Station Road.

Air Quality – EHO recommends dust mitigation measures being carried out in accordance with section 8 of the ES and the requirement for a detailed dust mitigation strategy to be approved by condition for the restoration phase/s. Views of District/Parish Council

50. East Staffordshire Borough Council - no objections. The Borough Council

comment that reclamation to a non-water-based restoration e.g. agriculture, grassland, woodland and non-water based sports/leisure areas may be preferable to the amount of new large water features which are not typical of the existing landscape. It is commented that there is already a prevalence of such features in the locality (Barton Marina and Branston Water Park and nearby gravel pits).

51. Barton under Needwood Parish Council - no objections. The Parish Council

commented on the planning policy considerations, transport, alternatives, restoration and afteruse, and community involvement. The Parish Council’s response is summarised as follows:

Planning Policy – question is raised as to the determination of the application in light of the absence of an overall strategic policy assessment of the future supply and demand for sand and gravel. The Parish remain unconvinced by the need for the development on grounds of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as required by Policy 38 of the Minerals Local Plan. Transport – the use of sustainable transport modes appears to have been dismissed lightly. The Parish suggests that costs and benefits of using rail or canal transport are investigated by the applicant which may justify investment given potential working of mineral up until 2028. Alternatives – in the absence of any strategic context for demand for aggregates, the Parish Council considers that there is no way of knowing whether there are other better located and more sustainable sites that could equally meet forecast demand. Restoration and After-use – question is raised as to the justification for the proposed restoration and after-use in difference to restoring the site for agricultural use or as woodland to promote National Forest objectives. The Parish Council cite the guidance prepared by the Central Rivers Initiative Strategy and consider that a more robust approach that can provide both a better strategic context and more detailed guidance as to the relative balance of proposed uses be followed with a preference to see more areas of woodland planting. Community Involvement – the efficacy of public exhibitions is questioned in so much as the range of options were insufficiently wide ranging and the value of the community involvement may be limited. The Parish Council note the lack of a report by the applicant which could have set out the numbers of people that had attended, the comments made and how the company had attempted to develop and amend the proposals in the light of people’s comments.

Amenity – the need for appropriate stand-off distances along with appropriate screening to residential areas is cited including a need to provide strategic planting in the long term. The Parish Council urges that consideration is given to Minerals Local Plan policy 12.

52. Tatenhill Parish Council, Branston Parish Council; and Dunstall Parish Council

have not provided responses to the consultation.

Publicity and Representations Received 53. Site notice: YES Press notice: YES (advertised as a Departure) 54. Prior to the planning application being submitted, the applicant undertook to hold

public exhibitions in 2008 at Barton under Needwood and Tatenhill villages to seek the views of local residents to the proposals, and to the preferred restoration strategy. A further public exhibition was held in 2011 and outlined the proposed method of working, the suggested limits of extraction and phased restoration. The applicant contends that local residents were generally supportive of the proposals and of the restoration proposals. The applicant advocates that careful consideration was given to issues raised by the local community in formulating the planning application.

55. 256 neighbour notification letters were sent out and 1 representation has been

received. 56. The representation received questions the County Council’s ability to determine

the planning application without a strategic minerals policy context being established i.e. in light of the lack of an up to date Minerals Local Plan Strategy for Staffordshire. The main concerns raised in the representation are summarised below:

Over-dominance of water-based restoration – comment is made that restoration is in difference to the strategic context set out by the Central Rivers Initiative which sets an emphasis on habitat creation, with community benefits for recreation and access. A strategic approach is suggested to be progressed on this basis along with a balanced approach which would include a mix of restoration to agriculture with landscape regeneration, forest planting and informal access for passive recreation, and water-based activities. Landscape – comment is made as to the loss of agricultural land in context to pressures for the UK to be more self-supportive for food production. National Forest – comment is made that opportunity exists to provide extensive planting so as to demonstrate Burton upon Trent at the heart of the National Forest. Mitigation – comment is made that a landscaped buffer should be provided between residential properties and mineral workings.

OBSERVATIONS 57. This is an application to provide a 160 hectare extension to the existing Newbold

sand and gravel quarry to extract 13.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel with restoration to a mix of agriculture, woodland, water based recreation and nature conservation.

58. Having given careful consideration to the application, environmental information,

the additional information subsequently received, the relevant development plan policies and other material considerations, the consultation responses and the representation received, referred to above, the key issues are considered to be:

• Mineral planning policy considerations: • Environmental considerations: • Prematurity and the review of the Minerals Local Plan • Need to amend the Section 106 Legal Agreement Minerals planning policy considerations

59. Both national and local planning policies recognise the importance of minerals

for sustainable economic growth. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains specific mineral planning policy guidance (Section 13), and provides general planning policy guidance which is relevant in promoting the presumption in favour of sustainable development. NPPF (paragraph 144) encourages local planning authorities to “give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including the economy” and at the same time to “ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions … are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and to establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”. The environmental impacts associated with the development are considered later.

60. NPPF (paragraph 142) states:

‘Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long-term conservation’.

61. The proposal involves the winning and working of sand and gravel from an

extension to current workings at the quarry that is not an allocated site in the Minerals Local Plan 1999 to 2006 (MLP). MLP (saved policy) 38 provides the basis for consideration of applications for sites not allocated in the MLP in recognition of the fact that some additional provision may be necessary to incorporate a degree of flexibility. Policy 38 provides that as long as the required landbanks are maintained, proposals for the winning and working of minerals outside existing permitted sites or sites allocated in the MLP will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and where they accord with the Development Plan. It is necessary therefore to assess whether there is a need

for this additional sand and gravel resource at this time, and whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the proposed extension.

62. MLP (saved policy) 2 requires that the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) will

maintain appropriate landbanks of mineral reserves to meet annual provision over a specified period of years with the capacity to absorb further mineral development without unacceptable adverse impacts upon people, transportation systems or the environment. There is no saved local minerals policy for a landbank provision for sand and gravel, but NPPF (paragraph 145), requires that a landbank indicator of at least 7 years is maintained, though no maximum figure is imposed. The landbanks are based on the Managed Aggregate Supply System (MASS) to which the Government’s premise is to achieve effective management, local demand and realistic supply. Assessing future increases in demand, aggregate quality and market proximity are important considerations along with the viability of sites and reserves. These issues generate a need for flexibility in order to provide an adequate and steady supply of mineral to develop the infrastructure needed for sustainable development and economic progression.

63. The most up to date landbank figure for sand and gravel in Staffordshire is 11.2

years as quoted in the West Midlands Aggregates Working Party Report (2010) based upon a level of provision assessed on the apportionment of regional guidelines for the period 2001 - 2016. Using an apportionment figure based on the 2005 – 2020 guidelines as agreed by the former West Midlands Regional Assembly and an assessment of reserves as of January 2012, would indicate a landbank of 12 years. To be consistent with the approach in the NPPF (paragraph 145) however, a level of provision should be assessed based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data (a full assessment as required under paragraph 145 has not yet been completed in preparation of the Minerals Local Plan) and an average of sales data equates to 5.4 million tonnes per annum. On this basis, the landbank as of January 2012 would be around 13.2 years.

64. Relevant to the issue of maintaining flexibility of supply, national planning policy

for aggregates advises that longer periods for landbanks may be appropriate to take account of the need to supply a range of aggregates, provide locations of permitted reserves relative to markets, and maintain the productive capacity of permitted sites. Guidance produced by Government in March 2012 suggests that significant future increases in demand that can be forecasted with reasonable certainty may also provide a valid reason to bring forward a proposal in spite of an adequate landbank.

65. The applicant seeks to justify a need for the proposals as was described in

paragraph 19 earlier and which is summarised in the points listed below and commented upon as follows:

mineral production (30% of output) serves on-site plant including a ready mixed concrete plant, a pre-cast concrete block factory, and a bagging plant factory which in turn serves local, regional and national markets;

Comment: A longer period for landbank provision could be justified in this case in terms of maintaining flexibility of supply through a continued operation to supply a range of aggregates (virgin sand and gravel), and a range of products to service established markets through established on-site plant. The existing plant is reliant on a steady supply from the quarry. The applicant had provided in separate correspondence, details of existing markets to support a need case along with confirmation that of the quarry’s production, some 70% goes into the West Midlands conurbation with 47% to markets in Staffordshire.

£6 million investment in recently installed replacement sand and gravel processing plant, new office and road surfacing around the plant site;

Comment: The continuation of production would prevent the amortisation of plant and protect investment.

Existing permitted reserves being insufficient to secure provision of sand and gravel reserves beyond 2015;

Comment: The continuation of production would maintain the productive capacity of the quarry and would negate a need to find other sand and gravel reserves from new ‘green field’ sites which otherwise may need to be considered in providing for future reserves through the Minerals Local Plan.

An extension could yield an additional 13.5 million tonnes of saleable sand and gravel extending the life of the quarry through to 2028;

Comment: Loss of production capacity at the quarry would have a significant impact on the strategic aim to provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregates and to meet a level of provision assessed in accordance with the NPPF. Planning permission for an extension would bring forward reserves which may not otherwise be worked and remain sterilised and would release reserves to maintain capacity over the next 14 to 18 years.

The extension is being promoted through the Minerals Local Plan. Any further delay in submitting a planning application could result in the cessation of production (2015) and incur significant economic impact and threat to jobs.

Comment: Determination of the planning application although premature in respect of not having an up to date Minerals Local Plan (considered later), would remove doubt as to the future prospects for the quarry, with economic benefits to the Company, the economy in general terms, and to the 90 employees currently employed at the quarry and on-site plant. See comments on Prematurity (paragraphs 103 to 107).

66. Notwithstanding the additional landbank provision and justifications offered by the applicant, a number of other factors are considered to offer benefits in working the reserves within the extension area which are as follows:

• Given the pressures for development within the local area (house building), including housing development permitted (Lawns Farm), and a planning permission granted for a rugby sports stadium by East Staffordshire Borough Council within the area to the north of the quarry (area subject of proposals put forward for consideration in the Minerals Local Plan), in addition to ensuring that a viable reserve does not become sterilised, an extension to the south west would remove any uncertainty with respect to land-use.

• There is current evidence to suggest that the economy in general is ‘picking

up’. Although future demand cannot be accurately predicted, it could be anticipated that a sustained economic recovery would create an increased demand for sand and gravel to serve construction programmes in the region.

67. Another material consideration is the proposed approach to planning for

aggregates agreed by the County Council’s Cabinet in June 2011. In defining a set of principles that can be used in preparing revised aggregates policy, the intention is to plan using targets assessed to meet local need and to promote local sourcing of minerals to reduce transport impacts on local communities and the wider environment. The applicant has provided information relating to the market areas served by the quarry and although the quarry is not unique in terms of its position to markets, sales data indicates that almost two thirds of production sales are to markets in Staffordshire and the West Midlands conurbation. The quarry therefore contributes significantly to local markets, and any decision to approve the proposed extension, would relieve the pressure to grant permissions for new sites that could otherwise be required with as yet undetermined impacts on communities i.e. transport.

Conclusion 68. Although there is no overarching need for additional landbank provision at this

time, though no maximum provision is directed through the NPPF, there would be need for additional reserves within the County should this extension not be approved. A number of exceptional circumstances are also considered to exist in terms of benefits offered to the economy, local community and the applicant, in ensuring that a valued reserve does not become sterilised and in ensuring sufficient demand is met in providing for sustainable growth and for a sustainable economy and securing jobs and investment. It is however necessary to consider the environmental impacts of the proposed development in order to assess whether potential impacts outweigh the benefits.

Environmental considerations

69. In assessing the information provided, it is necessary to determine whether or

not the development would give rise to any unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment and amenity that would outweigh any material planning benefits of the proposals. The following sections consider the submitted environmental information and subsequently received, having regard to the relevant development plan policies, the other material considerations, the consultee comments and the representation received.

Landscape and Visual Impact 70. The application area lies within the ‘Trent Valley Washlands’ National Character

Area of the Countryside Character Initiative and falling within the terrace alluvial character type as identified in ‘Planning for Landscape Change’. The area is typified by trees and woodland copses, hedgerow and rolling pasture, mature woodland and agricultural farmland.

71. East Staffordshire Local Plan saved policy BE1; the emerging East Staffordshire

Local Plan policy SP21; seek to protect and / or enhance the landscape and visual amenity and ensure that development is informed by, or sympathetic to, the character and qualities of its surroundings, its location, scale and design. These policies are consistent with Section 11 of the NPPF (conserving and enhancing the natural environment).

72. In the objection received from the CPRE and response from Barton under

Needwood Parish Council, concerns are raised about the inappropriate nature of the restoration and the impact on the character of the landscape.

73. As summarised in Appendix 1, a detailed landscape and visual assessment was

carried out by the applicant. Public consultation was also carried out by the applicant prior to the application being made through public exhibitions. The applicant contends that this helped with detailed landscape restoration and planting proposals. The assessment concluded that the proposals would have minor/moderate impact significance on landscape features during extraction with minor or moderate beneficial impact significance after 10 years. .

74. The County Council’s Environmental Advice Team does not challenge the

principle of restoration to water bodies. EAT advises of the need to protect and enhance sensitive assets and characteristic landscape features and accepts that effects would be temporary during extraction and that the restoration needs to be sympathetic, and provide an appropriate contribution to landscape policy in retaining hedgerows and mature oak trees for which a loss would have a detrimental impact on landscape character. Conditions are recommended by EAT to protect hedgerows and mature trees as well as requiring details of screening bunds and grass seeding.

75. A number of conditions are also recommended by other consultees to provide

screening bunds along with seeding and planting. It is considered reasonable that the conditions recommended should be imposed.

Conclusion

76. The effects on local landscape character would change as a result of the proposals with visual significance. It is however reasonable to conclude, having regard to the policy considerations and consultee comments referred to above, and subject to the conditions recommended below, that the development would not give rise to an unacceptable adverse landscape or visual impact.

Biodiversity 77. The NPPF chapter 11 (conserving and enhancing the natural environment) at

paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

‘Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures’.

78. The NPPF at paragraph 118 provides that when determining planning

applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

‘if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

79. A number of consultees including the County Council’s Principal Ecologist (EAT)

Natural England, the RSPB, Central Rivers Initiative, Natural England etc all support the proposed restoration in context of its proposals to support and enhance biodiversity interests and conditions have been recommended in respect of habitat creation and management. The applicant is continuing dialogue with the Central Rivers Initiative and its partners, the RSPB and Staffordshire Wildlife Trust.

80. The Staffordshire Wildlife trust in its response had questioned the survey work

which had been carried out by the applicant. These surveys have not however been questioned by the County’s Principle Ecologist who considers that appropriate surveys would be required and could be conditioned to be required at the appropriate times prior to phased working being carried out. It would therefore be appropriate to require appropriate surveys through conditions.

Conclusion 81. It is reasonable to conclude, having regard to the policy considerations and

consultee comments referred to above, and subject to the conditions recommended below, that the development would not give rise to an unacceptable adverse impact on biodiversity.

Forestry – Veteren Trees

82. The NPPF chapter 11 (conserving and enhancing the natural environment) at

paragraph 118 states that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. East Staffordshire Borough Local Plan and

MLP policy 20 seek to protect trees and features of natural or cultural conservation value.

83. The Forestry Officer identified three veteran trees within the site. Of the veteran

trees identified, one would be afforded protection in its proximity to Newbold Manor Farm and stand-off from extraction areas, one lies close to a proposed extraction boundary which could be protected by extending a stand-off area, and the other would be wholly within an extraction phase.

Conclusion 84. Given that potential exists to protect two of these veteran trees, it is considered

that it would not be unreasonable to secure their protection. Such measures can be secured by condition and accommodated within a restoration strategy.

Noise 85. MLP policy 12 advises that proposed mineral development should not cause an

unacceptable adverse impact on sensitive development; this policy is reflected in respect to noise in the NPPF (paragraph 143) which also recognises that some short term activities, which may otherwise be regarded as unacceptable, are unavoidable to facilitate mineral extraction. NPPF (paragraph 144) advises that planning authorities ensure that any unavoidable noise is controlled, mitigated or removed at source and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties. East Staffordshire Local Plan policy N18 reflects this policy context. The MLP supporting text provides that mineral development within 250 metres of sensitive development will be subject to particular scrutiny to ensure that the environmental impacts of the proposal would not cause an unacceptable adverse impact after taking the proposed mitigation measures into account.

86. East Staffordshire Borough Council and Barton under Needwood Parish Council

seek to ensure that noise sensitive properties along Station Road and Palmer Close, including the John Taylor School which would be the nearest noise sensitive locations are protected from unacceptable impacts from noise.

87. Phase 1 of extraction would come closest to noise sensitive properties of which

‘The Old Exchange’ (telephone exchange) on Station Road comes closest to the proposed extraction boundary (125m). The curtilages of properties on Palmer Close and the John Taylor School would be in excess of 300m of the proposed extraction boundary and the curtilages of a small group of cottages on Dunstall Road would be approximately 163m from the proposed extraction boundary.

88. Both the EHO and County Noise Engineer offer no objections. They are satisfied

that the provision of a screening bund along the proposed extraction boundary to Phase 1 nearest to Station Road, Palmer Close and the John Taylor School, along with the imposition of noise limits of 50dB freefield (1 hour) to accord with appropriate guidance on noise, and appropriate noise monitoring would protect the amenity interests of noise sensitive neighbours.

Conclusion 89. It is reasonable to conclude given the consultation responses referred to above

and conditions recommended below, that there would be no unacceptable adverse impacts from noise.

Restoration 90. The existing permitted area of the quarry site is being restored in accordance

with an approved restoration scheme with areas of phased extraction currently being progressively restored. There is no evidence to suggest that restoration would not be achieved as planned within Newbold Quarry by the appropriate dates. It is however possible that restoration of Tucklesholme Quarry would be delayed due to problems encountered with water inundation in 2012. Any need to extend working and restoration within Tucklesholme quarry would need to be subject to a variation of the existing permission.

91. Minerals Local Plan Policy 9 states that planning applications should incorporate

provision for site restoration and aftercare in accordance with four principles. Point 3 of this policy indicates that provision should be made for nature conservation, forestry; recreation or amenity after-uses and proposals should also include details for aftercare of the land for a period of up to five years following completion of restoration (or any extended time period).

92. Minerals Local Plan Policies 19, 20, 21 and 22 seek to protect the interests of

the natural and cultural environment and seek to ensure minerals development is informed by and sympathetic to landscape quality and character. Policy requirement directs that planning applications for mineral development which would cause any unacceptable direct or indirect adverse impacts should demonstrate that any material planning benefits arising from the proposals outweigh the material objections. If the benefits do not outweigh the objections, then planning permission will only be granted if the need for the mineral outweighs the material objections.

93. NPPF (paragraph 143) seeks to ensure that worked land is reclaimed at the

earliest opportunity, taking account of aviation safety, and that high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites takes place, including for agriculture (safeguarding the long term potential of best and most versatile agricultural land and conserving soil resources)

94. In comments received from consultees including Natural England, Central Rivers

Initiative, RSPB, National Forest, and the County Council’s Environmental Specialists there is general support for the restoration proposals and after-uses. There are recommendations for variations to the detail of restoration with a consensus for stakeholders and the community to work proactively with the applicant to achieve a balance of recreational public access and nature conservation interests. It is already the case that the applicant is working with the Central Rivers Initiative, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and the RSPB in progressing a restoration strategy, though in difference, consultation responses from the CPRE and Barton under Needwood Parish Council promote the preference to restore the site to replicate the existing landform and uses i.e. to agriculture and

woodland. In providing a comprehensive and detailed restoration strategy for the site would require balancing these individual interests.

95. An intrinsic element of the restoration proposals to which the applicant places

reliance, is the use of imported infill material including pulverised fuel ash (pfa) from power stations which is currently used in the restoration of the existing areas of mineral extraction. A degree of the restoration proposals does incorporate reinstating best and most versatile farmland with best soils stockpiled to achieve appropriate reinstatement. Natural England has recommended that there should be no net loss of best and most versatile farming land; to this end, the applicant contends that there would no net loss.

96. Any increased provision of agricultural land as suggested by the CPRE and

Parish Council over that which is proposed, would rely heavily upon a continued, steady and reliable supply of pfa and other appropriate fill materials to achieve this. The applicant contends that there is confidence that supply of pfa would be sufficient to accommodate the proposed restoration and contingencies have been provided for in the extraction of clay minerals beneath the sand and gravel reserve for use in restoration. It is considered however that there could be doubt to secure a steady supply of pfa as well as other fill materials to achieve higher levels of restoration given aims to recycle more of our waste and changes that may come about in energy production at power stations and a move to consider biomass to produce electricity.

97. The applicant has provided a concept restoration plan and comments received

recommend the submission of a detailed restoration strategy along with management and aftercare provisions, and monitoring. As suggested in the Central Rivers Initiative response, there would be a need to ensure restoration is achieved at the earliest opportunity after phased mineral extraction. In order that restoration can be achieved with some confidence, it is therefore considered that a restoration strategy that would provide for phased restoration would secure restoration objectives at the earliest opportunity. In order to achieve this, although a detailed restoration scheme could normally be dealt with through appropriate planning conditions, given the length of the proposed operations until 2028 or possibly later, this matter would be better catered for within a legal agreement. This would allow a more detailed strategy to be developed and agreed at an early stage and would offer flexibility to modify the detail of the scheme.

Conclusion 98. There are no overriding objections to the restoration proposals from consultees

and no unacceptable adverse impacts have been identified that would offer material planning objections. The need to ensure that a restoration scheme is deliverable can be achieved through the use of conditions to require detailed phased restoration plans and for a review process to be established through community consultation and through the involvement of stakeholders, provisions for which could be accommodated through a legal agreement. Your officers recommend that public access and nature conservation should be established as key components of the restoration strategy and the details should be developed

in consultation with the local community and stakeholders as recommended by consultees, and reviewed on a regular basis.

After-use 99. The emerging East Staffordshire Borough Local Plan (preferred options) 2012,

refers at paragraph 5.17 (spatial strategy section), to the future of Newbold Quarry. It states that the revitalisation and restoration of former sand and gravel workings forms part of the Central Rivers Initiative which the Council views as an excellent opportunity to connect residents living within the river corridor to the diverse habitats and wildlife introduced through progressive restoration. It goes on to state that opportunities continually arise such as the potential future conversion of Newbold Quarry into a strategic water land within the National Forest. Policy SP12 seeks to encourage leisure, cultural and tourism development in line with the Central Rivers Initiative Strategy.

100. The after-uses proposed are supported by the CRI and provide for a range of

public access and recreational uses. In addition the after-uses accord with the aims of East Staffordshire Borough Council and CRI, the National Forest Company, RSPB, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, Derbyshire County Council and EAT and support the potential that the mix of after-uses would provide.

101. The response received from East Staffordshire Borough Council states that it

would be preferable that reclamation to a non-water-based restoration e.g. agriculture, grassland, woodland and non-water based sports/leisure areas may be preferable to the amount of new large water features which are not typical of the existing landscape. Although this preference is also indicated in the response from the CPRE and Barton under Needwood Parish Council, it does not fit well with the aims of the CRI and other consultees who support the restoration and after-uses proposed. The mix of after-uses covers a wide range of interests and it cannot be concluded that the after-uses are in conflict with the overall aims to restore the quarry site within the Trent Valley.

Conclusion

102. It is reasonable to conclude that the after-uses proposals are generally acceptable. Prematurity

103. An important issue raised by both the CPRE and Barton Parish Council and as highlighted in the single representation received, is the prematurity of the proposals in advance of the review of the Minerals Local Plan. NPPF (paragraph 14) states:

‘At the heart of the National Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking’

For decision making this means:

• approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay: and

• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are

out of date, granting permission unless: • any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or,

• specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be

restricted.’

104. In the absence of an updated Plan, the current Minerals Local Plan saved policies remain relevant to be considered along with the NPPF.

105. It is clear that any decision should be taken without delay. Also, for the reasons

described above it is reasonable to conclude that there are no material planning objections or unacceptable adverse impacts that could not otherwise be controlled by planning conditions or by amending the legal agreement.

106. It is also reasonable to accept that the exceptional circumstances put forward by

the applicant, referred to earlier, support the case for permitting the proposals now. Conclusion

107. It is reasonable to conclude that the application can be considered on its own merits in advance of the adoption of a new Minerals Local Plan.

Need to amend the Section 106 Legal Agreement 108. Circular 5/2005 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations set out the

tests for determining whether a planning obligation should be sought to enable proposals to go ahead. The tests are that they should be: relevant to planning; necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and, reasonable in all other aspects and as a result of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010 that no part of the development to which the planning obligation relates is capable of being charged a Community Infrastructure Levy.

109. In this case, a number of Heads of Terms to amend the existing Section 106

legal agreement are recommended and discussed in more detail below.

Lorry Routing 110. Lorry routing to ensure that quarry vehicles do not pass through Barton village is

controlled by the existing legal agreement and the applicant is willing to continue to comply with this undertaking.

Restoration and Aftercare Strategy

111. An indicative restoration strategy has been provided with the application and

comments raised in consultation require the submission of detailed restoration plans along with aftercare/management and monitoring provision. Given the length of the proposed operations, it is considered to be reasonable and necessary to require that a restoration and aftercare strategy and details are secured and then regularly reviewed as part of the legal agreement. Your officers also recommend that public access and nature conservation should be established as key components of the restoration and aftercare strategy and that the details should be developed and reviewed in consultation with the local community and interested parties.

Long Term Aftercare 112. It is considered to be reasonable and necessary, given the size and duration of

the proposals, that there should be provision for long term aftercare (beyond the statutory 5 year period). Long term aftercare can only be secured by legal agreement. It is recommended that once the site has been restored and subject to 5 years aftercare in accordance with the approved final restoration and, aftercare scheme, the aftercare would continue for a further 10 years in order to secure the longer term public access and nature conservation benefits.

Liaison Committee

113. The Borough Council and Staffordshire Wildlife Trust have recommended close

liaison with the Borough Council, Parish Council’s and interested stakeholders beyond the grant of a planning permission. This issue has been discussed at meetings of the informal Newbold Quarry Liaison Committee which is attended by representatives of Barton-under-Needwood, Tatenhill and Dunstall Parish Council’s, local residents and Central Rivers Initiative and is met with general support. It is therefore recommended that the liaison committee arrangements be formalised as part of the amended legal agreement. This would ensure that the good liaison between the operator and the local community continues and assist with the future development of the site including the review of the restoration strategy OVERALL CONCLUSION

114. Overall, as an exercise of judgement, taking the relevant development plan

policies as a whole and having given consideration to the application, the supporting information, the environmental information and the information subsequently received, the consultation responses, the other material considerations and the representation, referred to above, it is reasonable to

conclude that the proposals should be permitted subject to planning conditions and amendments to the Section 106 legal agreement.

DIRECTOR OF PLACE & DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S RECOMMENDATION

To PERMIT the application for a 160 hectare extension to the existing Newbold Quarry to extract 13.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel with restoration to agriculture, woodland and water based recreation and nature conservation at Newbold Quarry, Lichfield Road, Barton under Needwood, subject to the applicant and all other persons with an interest in the land entering into an amended Section 106 legal agreement and subject to conditions.

The amended Section106 Legal Agreement - heads of terms to include:

• To continue to require a Routing Agreement to ensure traffic associated with the mineral operations do not use local roads through Barton Village.

• To formalise the arrangements for the Site Liaison Committee which shall

include members from the County Council, East Staffordshire Borough Council, Parish Council’s – Barton under Needwood, Tatenhill and Dunstall, Central Rivers Initiative, Local Residents and the Environment Agency.

• To require a detailed restoration and aftercare strategy and details to be

established with public access and nature conservation as key components. The strategy and details should be developed in consultation with the local community and interested stakeholders and regularly reviewed.

Planning conditions heads of terms to include: 1. To define the permission with reference to documents and plans. 2. To define the commencement within the extension area. 3. To require notice of commencement of development. 4. Duration: mineral extraction to cease by 31 December 2028. 5. Phasing of operations to be followed by progressive restoration. 6. Expiry of permission following final restoration and aftercare. 7. To require details of a detailed Working Strategy in general accordance

with Working Plans.

8. To require details of an Annual Working Programme to include annual monitoring.

9. Restriction of Permitted Development Rights – no fixed plant or

machinery, buildings, structures and erections, or private ways.

10. Hours of operation for mineral extraction:

0700 – 1900 (Monday to Friday) 0700 – 1300 (Saturdays) No operations on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays

11. Requirement to hold a copy of the permission on site and be made known to the site operator.

12. No imported waste other than solid inert waste and pfa. 13. To require details of detailed phased restoration plans and aftercare

scheme, to include early habitat restoration and monitoring and review meetings.

14. To require details of a dust mitigation strategy. 15. The provision and heights of screening mounds 16. Noise limits (excluding temporary operations) of 50dB LAeq freefield (1

hour) during extraction operations at nearest noise sensitive properties. 17. To require details of a noise monitoring scheme including locations. 18. To require details of drainage plans. 19. To require details of a protected species method statement to include

periodic surveys and mitigation. 20. To require details of advance/phased tree and hedgerow planting and

aftercare scheme. 21. To require details of the tree and hedgerow protection measures. 22. To require details of screening bunds including their locations, formation,

height and maintenance. 23. To require details of the storage, protection and placement of soils. 24. Operations being carried out in accordance with FRA and Addendum. 25. To require details of monitoring and mitigation of the impacts of de-

watering, including calculations and maintenance. 26. To specify the vehicular access being the quarry site access. 27. Compliance with a Minerals Transport Plan. 28. To require details of measures to safeguard protected species.

29. To require detailed assessment along with mitigation if necessary of the stability of the embankment adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal.

30. To require details of visitor centre and associated supporting facilities. 31. To require the site to be restored and subject to aftercare in accordance

with an approved scheme.

INFORMATIVES to include the following:

1. Staffordshire County Council’s Public Rights of Way Team Advice provided relating to the right to divert, extinguish or obstruct any part of the public path. 2. Environment Agency (EA) advised as follows:

The Monthly groundwater monitoring should be undertaken for at least 1 year prior to dewatering of the development in order to agree suitable trigger and threshold water levels. Certain private and small water supplies do not require a licence and so the EA is not necessarily aware of their existence. The locations of private domestic sources may be held by the local authority on the register required by the Private Water Supplies Regulations 1992. The applicant / developer should refer to their ‘Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice’ (GP3) document, available from the Agency’s website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk . This sets the EA’s position on a wide range of activities and developments, including: • Storage of pollutants and hazardous substances • Solid waste management • Discharge of liquid effluents into the ground (including site drainage) • Management of groundwater resources • Land contamination The applicant / developer will require an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 from them unless a waste exemption applies. The current abstraction licensing exemption on dewatering was removed in 2012 and de-watering activities need to be brought into regulation with them.

Any new discharges to either ground or surface waters, for which a permit to

discharge may be required.

The applicant / developer should consider watercourses which flow through the site/development for which no deterioration in water quality should be allowed.

The proposed extension may require an Environmental Permit for dewatering activities or a variation of an existing permit.

Case Officer: Graham Allen - Tel: (01785) 277293 email: graham.allen@staffordshire.gov.uk

A list of background papers for this report is available on request and for public

inspection at the offices of Staffordshire County Council, No. 1 Staffordshire Place, Stafford during normal office hours Monday to Thursday (8.30 am – 5.00 pm);

Friday (8.30 am – 4.30 pm).

Appendix 1 - Summary of the findings of the Environmental Statement (including environmental and other supporting information subsequently received) Chapter 1 – Introduction: The ES introduces the applicant describes the development and gives a planning history. Chapter 2 – Pre-application Consultation: This chapter presents details of the applicant’s pre-application discussions with the County Council and public exhibitions that have taken place to inform the formulation of the application. Chapter 3 – Scoping: This chapter describes in summary the topics that have been addressed in the ES in line with the scoping exercise undertaken with the County Council prior to an application being made. Chapter 4 – Site Location and Setting: This chapter describes the site and its surroundings, along with a general environmental overview. Chapter 5 – Geology: This section describes the geology of the site and surrounding area. Assessment was carried out using a range of data comprising the results of a site investigation carried out by MJ Carter Associates 1996, and the logs of mineral exploration and groundwater monitoring boreholes from previous studies of the First River Terrace aquifer. Assessment identifies that Overburden is generally between 0.5 and 1.5 metres in thickness but increases to >3.0 metres along the western boundary of the site; deeper

pockets of overburden are found scattered along the south‐eastern part of the site but

are small and isolated with a maximum proved thickness of 1.4 metres; the average thickness of overburden over the proposed working area is 1.0 metre. Mineral is present throughout the site and varies in thickness between 2.3 and 9.6 metres; the thinnest mineral (2 to 3 metres) is situated along the western boundary and is expected to thin and become absent as the land rises in this direction; the thickest mineral (6 to 9

metres) forms an irregular north‐south trending ‘trough’ along the eastern boundary

from Lower Farm in the north to Newbold Manor Farm in the south. The average thickness of mineral within the proposed working area is 5.9 metres. The depth of working (combined overburden and mineral) also varies from ±4 metres in the west to a maximum of 10.4 metres close to Lower Farm in the north; the average depth of working within the proposed working area is 6.9 metres.

Chapter 6 – Detailed Working and Restoration Scheme: This section provides context of the method of phased working and restoration and describes working of five phases with progressive restoration and the proposed concept after-use. Chapter 7 – Alternatives: This chapter describes the alternatives that were considered and describes the policy context of the main international, national and local planning policies. The policy background however has changed since the application was submitted and does not take account of current policy and guidance contained in the NPPF. The alternatives considered the following main alternatives:

• The ‘Do Nothing’ option. • The alternatives to primary aggregates; • Alternative sand and gravel sources within the Staffordshire Trent Valley

resource area; • The alternative methods of working; • The alternative restoration options; • the alternative means of transport e.g. canal/rail; and,

‘Do Nothing’ – This chapter concludes that this option is not viable to the applicant. It would result in either relying on importations from closely located competitor sites or require the closure and relocation of the entire facility at Newbold Quarry. Given the levels of recent investment in upgrading the processing plant, the existing ancillary manufacturing facilities reliance on a supply of sand and gravel and the high level of employment at the site, the continuation of operations at Newbold Quarry is considered to be of strategic importance. To do nothing would see reserves at Newbold Quarry depleted by 2015/16 and the quarry subsequently closed. The ancillary plant would not have a secure supply of mineral and the continued operations of these plants would be made vulnerable. Ultimately this would result in the loss of 90 direct jobs and a larger number of indirect jobs and input to the local economy. Alternatives to primary aggregates – This chapter considers two alternatives to primary aggregates: recycled aggregates and secondary aggregates. It considers the use and market demand for these alternative aggregates equating to 25% of market share. The chapter concludes an ongoing need for the provision of primary aggregates which is reflected in the continuation of apportionment figures for primary aggregate and the provision of a landbank. Alternative sand and gravel sources within the Staffordshire Trent Valley resource area - This chapter considers the current level of mineral operations within the Trent Valley and potential reserves which remain unworked for which alternatives have been considered. • The potential for ‘greenfield sites’ was considered. Conclusion is made that no

new greenfield sites exist within the study area at a suitable distance to serve existing plant at Newbold. Should sand and gravel not be sourced from Newbold, then mineral would have to be imported from competing businesses, which is not considered to be a sustainable option.

• Given the physical constraints to Tucklesholme Quarry being landlocked by the River Trent to the north and east, the railway line to the west and road to the south, an extension to Tuckleholme Quarry is not considered to be viable.

• An extension to the north east of Newbold Quarry is concluded to be a viable

option, though considerations would need to be given to changes to existing processing plant. It is concluded that the south western extension is the logical next step.

• There are no other controlled sites owned by the applicant in the Trent Valley and

it is concluded overall that the ability to work the Newbold extension and its available resource is the most sustainable option.

Alternative methods of working – An iterative process was used to develop the method of working and developed to cause the minimum disruption to amenity. An alternative to working mineral by wet dredging was considered though it was concluded that the current method of working of dewatering prior to extraction is the best available option. Alternative restoration proposals – Three concept restorations were considered all of which were concluded to be environmentally acceptable. The preferred scheme was developed in consultation with the public and other bodies. Alternative means of transport – This chapter considered the alternative of transporting mineral by rail or via the Trent and Mersey Canal; a Transport Assessment was produced by URS Scott Wilson. It was concluded that the relatively low value of sand and gravel and distance to markets means that typically supply catchment is 30 miles from point of supply. The dispersed nature and variety of destinations means that rail and canal transport would not be capable of facilitating distribution with no connectivity between canal and railheads. It is concluded that the best available option at this time is the continuance of road based transport utilising an existing fleet of vehicles which offers maximum flexibility along with good links to the existing road infrastructure (A38). Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual: A landscape and visual assessment has been completed and potential landscape and visual impacts (direct and indirect) were considered. The interaction that the impact upon the landscape resource may have upon the flora and fauna and the alteration of landscape features upon human beings have also been assessed along with the visual impact of the mineral operations being undertaken. A study of the landscape and visual components of the site and the local area was undertaken through desktop study and field survey. The study identified the main landscape and visual receptors and resulted in a baseline appraisal, against which landscape and visual impacts could be assessed and mitigation developed to minimise these impacts. Assessment identified that the development is not affected by any landscape designations of international or national importance. Assessment acknowledges that the proposals will result in the permanent loss of arable farmland and associated features, which are influenced by the working quarry to the north and east and concludes that as

the proposals are of a temporary nature and will be phased, there will be a moderate/adverse impact significance during extraction. The assessment concludes that identified landscape and visual impacts are not considered significant and after 10 years post restoration, the quarry workings will be replaced with views of agriculture, woodland and wetland. The resultant visual impacts will therefore be minor or moderate beneficial. Chapter 9 – Nature Conservation and Ecology: This chapter contains an Ecological Impact Assessment based on published guidelines which addresses the likely effects upon flora and fauna. The assessment was informed by ecological surveys and desk based data search. Surveys conducted included a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Breeding Bird Survey, Invertebrate Survey, and bat and badger surveys. Hedgerow and tree surveys were also undertaken. No statutory designated site of nature conservation interest was identified within the site or within 1km. The assessment identified the site as an intensely managed mixed agricultural area comprising of arable fields, improved pasture, hedgerows, plantation woodland and isolated veteran/mature trees. The ecology recorded by the assessment is typical for the habitats on site (arable, pasture, woodland, hedgerows) but is supplemented by the adjacent quarry with lakes, ephemeral vegetation, grassland and woodland. Assessment identified that the main nature conservation interests of the site are ground nesting birds, bats and invertebrates associated with scrub/woodland margins. The ES concludes that with suitable mitigation catered for through planning conditions, the proposed development should have very little negative impact upon any protected species within the area and the proposed landscaping of lakes, woodland, grassland (wet and dry), arable and hedgerows should in the long term increase the nature conservation value of this area. It concludes that lakes will attract additional bird and invertebrate species as well as providing additional foraging habitat for bats; the woodland will increase woodland within this area of Staffordshire and also provide habitat for tree nesting birds, bats, invertebrates and fungi. Chapter 10 – Noise: The ES considered the potential for noise impacts and provided a Noise Impact Assessment produced by Advance Environmental. The noise assessment involved measurement of background noise levels around the application site. Noise surveys were carried out by the applicant at the nearest noise sensitive receptors with noise monitoring carried out at six locations: • Newbold Manor Farm • Junction of A38 slip road and Station Road • The Old Exchange, Station Road • Palmer Close/John Taylor High School • Dunstall Hall • Ashcroft House/The Cottage, Dunstall Road

The assessment provided a series of noise level predictions using British Standards and guidelines issued by the Government. The predicted noise levels were then assessed against criteria in accordance with the recognised guidance. The assessment found that predicted noise levels during excavation as a ‘worst case’ would comply with relevant site noise limits; increased noise impacts would be experienced during temporary operations i.e. bund construction. This chapter concluded that noise from the proposed operations will not cause an unacceptable impact. Chapter 11 – Air Quality and Dust: The ES focuses on the principal emissions to air from the development from extraction operations and assessment has been undertaken with reference to the impact on human beings, fauna and flora. A Dust and Air Quality Assessment was undertaken by Advance Environmental. The ES identifies that the extraction impacts on local air quality are likely to be from dust derived from soil stripping and overburden removal, the extraction of mineral, transportation of mineral on site, material processing, wind erosion from dry, unvegetated surfaces; vehicle movements and their exhaust emissions; and the deposition of materials for restoration purposes. The ES concludes that no receptors designated as having a ‘high’ sensitivity to dust were identified. The majority of receptors are residential properties, schools and commercial operations, all identified as having ‘medium’ sensitivity. Newbold Manor Farm (in the control of the Applicant) is the nearest receptor to the proposed development area. There is the potential for an intermediate dust impact at this receptor. The nearest and most sensitive receptors to the extraction area, not within the control of the Applicant, are residential properties along Dunstall Lane and in Barton under Needwood, along with Thomas Russell Infants School and The John Taylor High School. There is the potential for a slight dust impact at these receptors. Dust is assessed as being able to be mitigated through a dust management and monitoring plan which should include: • The adoption of best practicable means to ensure dust and fumes from the site are

effectively suppressed. • Mobile plant being regularly serviced and equipped with effective exhausts to prevent

fume emissions. • Haul roads being adequately maintained. • A water bowser being used during dry conditions on the access road and any other

trafficked areas. • Vehicle speed control on access and other trafficked areas in order to reduce dust

generation. • All vehicles being inspected and cleaned as appropriate prior to leaving the site onto

the public highway. • All vehicles leaving the site onto the public highway being sheeted. • In the unlikely event that dust or mud from the site has been deposited on the public

highway, a road sweeper being employed.

• Regular inspections of the public highway in order to identify the need for any cleaning requirements.

• The loading and unloading of vehicles should ensure drop heights are minimised. • Restoration operations should be undertaken with due regard to weather conditions

and type of material being utilised in order to reduce dust generation. • Site screening by bunding to minimise dust pick-up by wind and reduce fugitive

emissions. • Screening bunds will be seeded or hydro-seeded as soon as possible, whilst the

mineral site will undergo progressive restoration in accordance with the sequence of operations.

• Water sprays or surface binders to be utilised to maintain damp surfaces on exposed tip and stockpile faces and any exposed friable surfaces during dry and windy weather.

• All site employees receiving appropriate training in order to ensure that they are conversant with the site dust control strategy.

• The ES concluded that with appropriate mitigation measures the impacts of dust and air quality should be negligible. Chapter 12 – Soils, Land Quality and Agriculture – The ES is supported by a Soil Resource Survey undertaken by White Young Green in 2007. Assessment found that a significant proportion of land within the survey area, in the region of 75%, is defined as ‘moderate quality agricultural land’ (subgrade 3b) based on the Agricultural Land Classification criteria. A far lesser proportion of land within the survey area, in the region of 20%, is defined as ‘good quality agricultural land’ (subgrade 3a). Only a very limited area of land, in the region of 5%, is classed as ‘very good quality agricultural land’ Mitigation is recommended to include: • the stripping and storage of soils, with topsoil and subsoil resources handled

separately in accordance with the MAFF ‘Code of Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Soil’;

• restrictions on plant/vehicle movements across unstrapped top or subsoils; • soil stripping only in dry and friable condition; reducing the height of soil mounds to

agreed levels; • grass seeding of soil mounds at the earliest opportunity. The ES concludes that whilst the proposed extension will lead to the temporary loss of agricultural land, about 25% of this represents ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land. The available soil resources have been identified and their storage, handling and reuse have been assessed in terms of available good practice guidance. It is proposed that a soil handing strategy be prepared and followed to minimise impact upon soil resources. Chapter 13: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: the ES includes an assessment of the potential impact upon cultural heritage features in and around the site produced by Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Ltd. The assessment findings indicate that evidence is

considered as being a low sensitivity receptor. The predicted impact is therefore of moderate significance. Assessment findings indicate that Romano-British archaeological evidence and the potential for other archaeological remains can be appropriately mitigated by the implementation of an approved scheme of archaeological works prior to development. This will preserve the archaeological interest of the site by ‘record’. This reduces the potential for impact upon the archaeological resource as being of a minor magnitude. Whilst no significant impacts are envisaged for any of the Conservation Areas, Lower Farm or Newbold Manor Farm quarry operations will be temporary in nature. During site workings screening bunds should be placed around perimeters affording increased protection. Following site restoration, any temporary minor effect to the setting of the Conservation Areas or Grade II Listed Buildings will be mitigated by approved restoration. The ES concludes that the extension is not located within the primary setting of any surrounding cultural heritage asset. There will be changes to long distance and obscured views in some circumstances, but none of these changes are relevant to planned views or vistas from cultural heritage assets and those changes are not assessed as compromising the understanding or historic importance of any feature. Chapter 14 – Water Resources: The ES is supported by a Hydrological Impact Assessment produced by Geoplan. Assessment findings indicate that the potential impact on surface water courses (streams and rivers) is considered to be negligible. However, the estimated seepage from Dunstall Brook and its associated pond may be significant. The assessment confirmed that dewatering would have no impact upon either Barton Brook or Pond, which is also outside of the radius of influence. It also concluded that the Pool on Dunstall Hall Estate is not situated on the aquifer and is outside of the radius of influence, hence no impact. The assessment also found that there would be no impact on Aggregate Industries abstraction from its clean water pool for mineral processing as, whilst it is partly groundwater dependant, it is maintained both from dewatering from the existing and proposed workings and by recirculation through the lagoon system. Lastly, in terms of Marley Eternit’s licence to abstract groundwater from a well within its tile factory property, the well is significantly outside of the radius of influence and there will be no impact on this abstraction. The ES concludes that EIA has shown that there will be no additional significant impact on water resources from the proposed development except for a possible lowering of water levels in nearby lakes and in the Dunstall Brook. If this occurs, it would be due to dewatering the quarry workings. It is proposed to install a system to monitor the impact and, if it occurs to an unacceptable degree, to implement measures to restore normal lake levels. In terms of the water environment, the proposed extension will not cause an unacceptable impact upon the water environment or have an impact upon human beings, flora and fauna Chapter 15 – Flood Risk: The ES is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment produced by Geoplan.

Assessment findings indicate that built structures within the site will consist of several temporary screening bunds. Where screening bunds are to be located within flood zone areas they will be staggered to allow flood flow without compromising their visual and acoustic screening. Where the bunds may have a slight impact on flood water storage, structures will be installed to direct flood flow into adjacent mineral working area(s). Any discharge from the site will comply with the conditions of the extant discharge consent and will not increase downstream flood risk. The ES concludes the majority of the proposed extension area is located in Flood Zone 1 low risk) and is not considered a significant flood risk. The remainder of the site falls within areas of medium to high risk. However, sand and gravel workings in flood zones are considered to be water compatible. Upon restoration it is suggested that some of the lakes be considered for permanent flood storage. This will alleviate downstream flooding and significantly reduce the risk of flooding at the Lower Farm buildings. The ES concludes that the proposed extension will not cause an unacceptable impact upon the water environment or have an impact upon human beings, flora and fauna. Chapter 16 – Transport and Traffic: The ES assesses the highway impacts against recognised standards and guidelines issued by the Department for Transport and against the likely transport impacts upon the application site and the surrounding area. The ES is supported by a Transport Assessment. Assessment findings indicate that HGV movements will not differ from the levels upon which previous planning decisions were based and permissions granted. In these cases, the potential impact of quarry and quarry related development has been considered acceptable. Assessment figures indicate weekly vehicle movements as being 1,680 two-way movements. The Transport Assessment indicates that the proposal will not cause demonstrable harm to the function of the highways network and that the existing site access and nearby Barton Turn roundabouts will continue to operate satisfactorily. The continuation of the routeing agreement will ensure that HGVs travel to and from the quarry along the A38(M), not through nearby villages, in the interest of highway safety and local amenity. The ES concludes that the transportation and traffic resulting from the proposed extension will not cause an unacceptable impact upon human beings, flora and fauna. Chapter 17 – Rights of Way: This chapter considers the potential impacts upon Public Rights of Way. Assessment findings indicate that a number of Public Rights of Way cross the site, see Footpath 17 crosses the site from the site’s south western corner to Footpath 1 (which passes through the existing quarry); Footpath 16 crosses the south-western tip of the site; Bridleway 19 follows Mill Meadows Lane between Dunstall Road and Footpath 17 and Footpaths 14 and 15 cross the site between Station Road and Newbold Manor Farm. Not all of these will be affected by the proposed development, and those that are will be affected to different extents. There are also detailed proposals to accommodate the changes within the development programme and to create new routes as part of the development. Given that minerals can only be worked where they are found it was

inevitable that some footpaths would require diversion, and the proposed diverted routes are a fundamental element of the restoration proposals. The ES concludes that new footpaths will be constructed at the earliest opportunity and a number of additional permissive paths are proposed throughout the site to provide enhanced circulation on the restored areas of the site; the routes provide linkages and paths through restored areas of woodland and access to the amenity and nature conservation lakes. It is concluded that the proposed restoration scheme sees a significant improvement in the footpaths, bridleways and cycle links through and around the site providing improved access across the site and to areas of restored woodland and wetland. With the proposed mitigation measures in place the ES concludes the quarry extension can be worked without posing unacceptable harm to Public Rights of Way. Chapter 18 – Carbon Management: This chapter assesses carbon management in association with the proposals. Assessment indicates that the Company has a long standing commitment to reducing its Carbon Footprint associated with UK operations by 20% before 2012. Underpinning the progress against this target, the Company is the first heavy Construction Material business that has achieved the Carbon Trust Standard in mid 2009. Assessment indicates that Greenhouse Gas process emissions from the present Newbold Quarry are annually in excess of 2,300 Tonnes. These are associated with both primary and secondary energy use, giving a performance of 3.15kgCO2/T. To continue to work sustainably assessment indicates that internally to the site, all product extracted from the main extension site would be transported to the main processing area by means of a conveyor; of a type and design that minimise mechanical losses with the lowest energy requirements per tonne of material conveyed. Where opportunities arise installation of regenerative conveyor systems will be used, further limiting the environmental impact of material movement. In addition, the use of differing grades/blends of bio-diesel would be reviewed by the Company, in line with the plant manufacturer and warranty recommendations. Potential for conversion of mobile plant to operate on ̀ Liquefied Natural Gas` and/or ̀ Compressed Natural Gas`, as opposed to gas oil is currently being investigated. The ES concludes that implementation of the measures identified above would, where achievable, offer the potential for significantly reducing the carbon footprint of the proposed Quarry extension by some 40% below its current level to 2.17kgCO2/T. Finally, the ES concludes that the Newbold Quarry facility would then become the lowest CO2 emitter for sand and gravel extraction and processing in the AI group. Chapter 19 – Socio Economics: This chapter includes a geographical scope of assessment. The economic and socio-economic data which describes conditions around Newbold Quarry are drawn from a range of sources. Unfortunately different sources use different geographical reporting units, and report data from different years. The ES concludes that although very few new jobs are likely to be directly or indirectly generated by the proposed extension to Newbold Quarry, it will enable employment to be maintained across a range of industries, many of which depend directly upon

quarrying, including Newbold Quarry, for business. In addition to the direct and indirect benefits of the proposal, it will also induce benefits to the local and national economy through a multiplier effect. Chapter 20 – Conclusions: The ES concludes overall that, subject to the imposition of conditions/obligations to secure appropriate mitigation measures, no unacceptably adverse impacts will arise.

Appendix 2 - The relevant development plan policies and other material considerations The relevant development plan policies The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan (Saved Policies) (see Note) • Policy 2 - Landbanks for non-energy Minerals Consistent with National Planning

Policy Framework paragraphs 144 & 145 (minerals)); • Policy 5 - Sterilisation – Mineral Safeguard Areas (consistent with National Planning

Policy Framework paragraph 143); • Policy 9 - Restoration and Aftercare (consistent with the National Planning Policy

Framework - paragraph 117 (natural environment), and 143 & 144 (minerals)); • Policy 10 – Use of Legal Agreements; • Policy 12 – Unacceptable adverse impacts (consistent with National Planning Policy

Framework paragraphs 114, 117, 120 & 123 (natural environment) and 143 & 144 (minerals));

• Policy 20 - Mitigation for Proposals Affecting Sites of Natural or Cultural Value; • Policy 21 - Landscape Character & Quality (consistent with the National Planning

Policy Framework - paragraphs 112, 113, 118, 123 & 125 (natural environment); • Policy 22 – Establishment of Trees & Woodlands (consistent with the NPPF -

paragraphs 118 (natural environment) ; • Policy 38 - Winning and Working of Minerals outside existing Permitted Sites

(reference to the National Planning Policy Framework - paragraph 14); • Policy 39 - Extensions to existing Excavation Areas. Note: An assessment to confirm the consistency of the saved policies in the Minerals Local Plan with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was reported to the Planning Committee on 7 March 2013. The saved policies therefore retain their development plan status until such time as a new Minerals Local Plan has been adopted. The Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Minerals Local Plan (previously referred to as a ‘Core Strategy’) is currently at the Pre- Publication stage. Work on the Strategy is being progressed having been on hold since 2008 as priority was given to the preparation of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan. The East Staffordshire Borough Council Local Plan (Saved Policies) • Policy BE1 - Design; • Policy CSP6 – National Forest; • Policy NE1 – Development outside Development Boundaries; • Policy NE8 (Protection of Sites of Nature Conservation Interest); • Policy NE9 (Biodiversity); • Policy NE10 (Protected Species and Habitats); • Policy NE11 (Sites of Ecological or Geological Interest); • Policy NE12 (Tree Protection); • Policy NE13 (Landscaping Schemes); • Policy N18 (Noise);

• Policy L7 (Water based Recreation – Central Rivers Strategy); • Policy L14 (Public Rights of Way) Note: The Government revoked the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands and the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan with effect from 20 May 2013. Other material considerations: The National Planning Policy Framework (published on 27 March 2012); • Section 4 – Promoting sustainable transport; • Section 7 – Requiring Good Design • Section 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; • Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; • Section 13 - Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals. • Paragraph 14 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development; • Paragraph 17 - Core Planning Principles; The East Staffordshire Borough Council Local Plan (formerly Core Strategy) Preferred Options July 2012 (Consultation Document); • Policy OP1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development; • Policy SP3 - High Quality Design; • Policy SP12 – New Tourism and Cultural Developments • Policy SP18 - Climate Change, Water Management & Flooding; • Policy SP17 – National Forest; • Policy SP19 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation; • Policy SP21 - Locally Significant Landscape, Landscape Character Areas and

Strategic Views.