Appendix D.1 EIA Scoping Report...content of the Environmental Statement (ES). On the basis of this report, Anglian Water therefore requests Northamptonshire County Council’s Scoping

Environmental Statement - Appendices Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration

\\Pba.int\bri\Projects\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Environment\Environmental\ES\Appendices\Appendix D - EIA Scoping Request and Opinion\App D.1 cover sheet.docx

Appendix D.1 EIA Scoping Report

On behalf of Anglian Water

Project Ref: 30869 | Rev: 001 | Date: October 2015

Office Address: Caversham Bridge House, Waterman Place, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 8DN T: +44 (0) +44 118 950 0761 F: +44 (0) 118 9597498 E: [email protected]

Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration

EIA Scoping Report

Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration EIA Scoping Report

ii

Document Control Sheet Project Name: Great Billing Sand and Gravel Extraction and Restoration

Project Ref: 30755

Report Title: EIA Scoping Report

Date: October 2015

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by: Lucy Whitter Senior

Environmental Scientist

LW July 2015

Reviewed by: Mark Elton Director ME July 2015

Approved by: Mark Elton Director ME July 2015

For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP

Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved

Draft 001 03.08.15 Technical Inputs SB SB SB

Draft 002 16.10.15 Changes to phasing PW LW PW

Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2015


iii

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of this Report ................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Team ................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Report Structure ............................................................................................................ 2

2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Site Location and Surroundings .................................................................................... 3 2.2 Site Description ............................................................................................................. 4

3 Proposals ..................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Concept ......................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Import ............................................................................................................................ 5 3.3 Output / Volume ............................................................................................................. 5 3.4 Plant .............................................................................................................................. 5 3.5 Working Scheme ........................................................................................................... 6 3.6 Timescale ...................................................................................................................... 7 3.7 Traffic ............................................................................................................................. 7 3.8 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7

4 Planning Policy Context ............................................................................................................. 8 4.1 Planning Policy Context ................................................................................................ 8

5 EIA Process ................................................................................................................................. 9 5.1 EIA Regulations ............................................................................................................. 9 5.2 Screening ...................................................................................................................... 9 5.3 Scoping .......................................................................................................................... 9 5.4 Consultation ................................................................................................................... 9 5.5 Assessment ................................................................................................................... 9 5.6 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 10 5.7 Environmental Statement ............................................................................................ 10

6 Overall EIA Scope and Methodology ...................................................................................... 11 6.1 Technical Scope .......................................................................................................... 11 6.2 Temporal Scope .......................................................................................................... 11 6.3 Spatial Scope .............................................................................................................. 12 6.4 Assessment of Effects ................................................................................................. 12

7 Topics Included in EIA Scope .................................................................................................. 17 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 17 7.2 Landscape and Visual Impact ..................................................................................... 17 7.3 Ecology ........................................................................................................................ 31 7.4 Transportation and Access .......................................................................................... 35 7.5 Noise and Vibration ..................................................................................................... 37


iv

7.6 Hydrology, hydrogeology and flood risk ...................................................................... 38 7.7 Archaeology and Cultural heritage .............................................................................. 42 7.8 Air Quality including Dust ............................................................................................ 45 7.9 Contamination ............................................................................................................. 46 7.10 Climate Change ........................................................................................................... 48 7.11 Cumulative Effects and Impact Interactions ................................................................ 49

8 Topics Not Included in EIA Scope ........................................................................................... 50 8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 50 8.2 Utilities ......................................................................................................................... 50 8.3 Waste .......................................................................................................................... 50 8.4 Odour ........................................................................................................................... 50 8.5 Lighting ........................................................................................................................ 50 8.6 Agricultural Land .......................................................................................................... 50 8.7 Socio-Economics ......................................................................................................... 51

9 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 52 9.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 52 9.2 The Environmental Statement ..................................................................................... 52 9.3 Next Steps ................................................................................................................... 52

Appendices

Appendix A Restoration Strategy Plan (30755-3005-01) Appendix B Phasing Plan (30755-3004-04) Appendix C Typical plant plans Appendix D Scoping Report May 2012 Appendix E Scoping Opinion July 2012


1

1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background

1.1.1 This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report has been prepared in respect of proposals for sand and gravel extraction with subsequent restoration of land east of the Wastewater Treatment Works, Great Billing, Northampton (herein referred to as ‘the site’).

1.1.2 It is the intention of Anglian Water to submit a planning application for the works to Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) as the Minerals Authority. The application will cover both the access route (within the boundary of Northampton Borough) and the extraction area (within the boundary of Wellingborough Borough).

1.1.3 The site is located less than two miles to the south east of Northampton on the south side of the A45 and covers an area of approximately 150 hectares. The indicative site boundary can be seen at Figure 2.1.

1.2 Purpose of this Report

1.2.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015) (herein referred to as the ‘EIA Regulations’) require an EIA to be undertaken for “quarries and open-cast mining where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares”. The project, therefore, falls within these Regulations.

1.2.2 This report documents the scoping exercise that has been undertaken to identify the nature and extent of the likely significant environmental effects of the proposals. Accordingly, this report details how the environmental issues are being examined and how it is proposed that they are progressed as part of the EIA. The aim is to ensure that the proposals have due regard for the environment, minimises adverse environmental effects and takes advantage of opportunities for environmental enhancement.

1.2.3 This report provides information to key consultees regarding the proposals pursuant to Regulation 13 (2) (9) of the EIA Regulations and sets out the intended scope of the EIA and content of the Environmental Statement (ES). On the basis of this report, Anglian Water therefore requests Northamptonshire County Council’s Scoping Opinion in accordance with Regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations.

1.2.4 A previous EIA Scoping Report was submitted to NCC in support of an EIA Scoping Opinion Request in May 2012 (refer to Appendix D) and an EIA Scoping Opinion subsequently received, dated 18th July 2012 (refer to Appendix E). This EIA Scoping Report accords with the 2012 report, while also taking into account the previous Scoping Opinion, updates to guidance and policy and the emerging proposals.

1.3 Study Team

1.3.1 The project team undertaking the EIA is as follows:

Project Management; EIA Co-ordination; Planning Consultant – Savills

Environmental report preparation; Archaeology and Cultural heritage; Landscape and Visual; Restoration Plan – Peter Brett Associates LLP

Noise and Vibration; Air Quality; Climate Change - Wardell Armstrong

Land Contamination; Hydrogeology; Ecology – MLM

Transport; Water Resources and Flooding – Cannon Consulting Engineers


2

Geology; Mineral Development Design – D.K. Symes Associates

1.4 Report Structure

1.4.1 This report continues with the following:

Chapter 2 Environmental Setting;

Chapter 3 The Proposals;

Chapter 4 Planning Policy Context;

Chapter 5 Description of the EIA Process;

Chapter 6 Proposed Scope of the EIA

Chapter 7 Topics Included in EIA Scope;

Chapter 8 Topics Not Included in EIA Scope; and

Chapter 9 Summary and Next Steps.


3

2 Environmental Setting 2.1 Site Location and Surroundings

2.1.1 The site is located less than two miles to the south east of Northampton on the south side of the A45 and covers an area of approximately 150 hectares. The Application site boundary is shown in red in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Site Boundary

2.1.2 The northern boundary of the site lies a few meters south of the A45, whilst the southern boundary adjoins former mineral workings which now comprise water bodies, beyond which is the River Nene itself. The western boundary of the extraction area is formed by an overland drain. The Barton Brook forms the eastern boundary of the site and flows south to join the Nene.

2.1.3 To the north west of the site is the settlement of Great Billing which is effectively a suburb of Northampton. Beyond the A45 to the north is the village of Ecton, whilst to the north east is the village of Earls Barton. The village of Cogenhoe lies broadly to the south west of the site south of the River Nene. Almost immediately to the west of the extraction site is the Great Billing Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) which is owned by Anglian Water and serves the Northampton area.

2.1.4 Units of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are located 1.3km to the east and 1.5km to the southwest of the site. These areas are designated for their importance for breeding bird assemblages and wintering waterbirds.


4

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 The site is situated in the river valley and the land broadly rises from the south to the north, ranging from approximately 49m AOD to 55m AOD. The setting of the site is within a riparian landscape, modified by the restored former gravel extraction pits to the south and the adjacent sewage works to the west. The land has historically been used a sewage farm comprising sewage irrigation fields.

2.2.2 The site is potentially liable to flooding from several reservoirs according to Environment Agency (EA) reservoir inundation mapping. The River Nene lies to the south of the site and flows east, broadly parallel to the southern site boundary whilst the Ecton Brook doglegs through the site, roughly bisecting it.

2.2.3 Landscape features on site largely comprise arable fields. The Wind Spinney is the most prominent landscape feature and hedgerows with intermittent hedgerow trees line the public right of way which traverses the site. The arable fields are partially defined by tracks as opposed to hedgerows or trees.

2.2.4 The following non-statutory nature conservation sites are located partially within the site:

Two Potential Wildlife Sites (PWS) - these are Wind Spinney, to the east, and Billing Scrub, a former County Wildlife Site.

One Local Wildlife Site (LWS) Ecton Gravel Pits (to the east at SP840617), borders the central and South-Eastern half of the site and partially encroaches in the south-eastern corner. It qualifies as a LWS and wetland habitat due to the twelve indicator species recorded in its area.


5

3 Proposals 3.1 Concept

3.1.1 The working scheme has been designed to enable the anticipated restoration scheme to be achieved. This is based on the Restoration Strategy Plan presented at Appendix A (30755-3005-01) which:

creates an east/west aligned wetland swathe along the southern boundary,

the central area restored to farmland (but at a marginally lower level to provide additional flood capacity),

eastern area can be either farmland or wetland/nature conservation,

western area back to farmland to provide future development area.

3.1.2 The surface of the plant site will be lowered by the removal of the soil and overburden and the level consolidated with sand and gravel (i.e. there may be additional flood capacity from the start). Refer to the Phasing Plan at Appendix B (30755-3004-04).

3.1.3 Water management will initially be south of the plant and operations area. It is envisaged that as workings progress, the silt can be used in some phasesto assist in the restoration. The approach to soil handling (both in site preparation and restoration) is to provide a central storage area to allow balancing of materials, especially topsoils. The restoration of the wetland is expected to rely on indigenous overburden supplemented by silt. However, to maintain flexibility, some importation of inert material may be required.

Concept Restoration Plan

3.2 Import

3.2.1 There will be a need for imported material to achieve the restoration back to farmland, albeit part at a lower level. The exact detailwill depend on the outcome of the restoration design.

3.2.2 It is suggested that importation will increase midway through the operations but before then the volumes may be limited to achieve/assist in restoration. The annual import volume is likely to be less than the mineral output so an additional period to complete the importation/restoration will be needed once the minerals are exhausted.

3.3 Output / Volume

3.3.1 The mineral output is assumed at 200,000 tonnes annually. This means that there has to be 125,000 cu.m. excavated and processed each year, which in turn will produce some 12,500 cu.m. of silt that can be used in restoration (very good for reed establishment). The level of input material is more difficult to assess to get a realistic annual volume (this may require some research into the Waste Plan/statistics). Generally, it is expected that the volume could be in the range of 60,000 - 70,000 cu.m. annually.

3.4 Plant

3.4.1 A typical processing plant plan is attached in Appendix C (plan 96032/PP/1) which should be viewed as illustrative. In addition it is proposed that there is an on-site concrete plant, and a typical plant is also attached (plan 96032/CP/1).


6

3.4.2 The layout within the plant area is flexible so that what is shown on the Phasing Plan at Appendix B is illustrative but it should be noted that most of the area will be used for the stockpiling of product.

3.4.3 In terms of buildings and ancillary plant there will be:

weighbridge,

site offices (assume 2/3 single storey typical site offices - 3 m wide x 2.8 m high x 12 m long),

workshop (portal framed building - 12 m wide x 7 m high x 12 m long),

bunded fuel tanks and surfaced refuelling area,

access road is assumed to be unbound,

concrete pad beneath plant and around weighbridge (both areas will be very small),

plant area surface will be unbound compacted sand and gravel.

Mobile Plant

3.4.4 Within the plant area there will probably be two wheeled loaders for material management, including vehicle loading and loading the concrete plant.

3.4.5 Day to day excavation will be by an hydraulic excavator that will load to articulated dump trucks (probably 35 tonne capacity). It is expected that there will be two (possibly three on occasions) articulated dump trucks.

3.4.6 Excavated material will be taken to the plant and operations area via internal unbound roads (suggested routes shown on plan).

3.4.7 Reclamation material will probably also use these internal roads, but generally the internal roads are retreat excavated as the workings move around the site.

3.5 Working Scheme

3.5.1 The suggested working scheme is shown on the Phasing Plan at Appendix B, with the arrows showing the general direction of progress.

3.5.2 The approach is to store the soils from the Plant and Operations area as environmental bunds around the plant site. At this stage a southern bund is not proposed, but could be added should there be is sufficient material.

3.5.3 The subsoil/overburden, at this stage in the design, will be either temporarily stored within the central area and/or used in the building of the water management area. Once 'mineral' extraction starts the overburden will be progressively placed in the void as the workings are restored.

3.5.4 The material balance calculations indicate that the overburden 'runs out' approximately half way through the extraction phasing.. In other words, importation of reclamation material will be needed at this time if the restoration objectives are to be achieved.

3.5.5 The plan broadly shows annual requirements but it is stressed that it is illustrative as the output is dependent upon the market and other such factors.


7

3.6 Timescale

3.6.1 The north western area has been excluded due to archaeological constraints. This has reduced the recoverable reserves by around 0.4 Million tonnes to 2.7 Million tonnes.

3.6.2 There will be some further reduction due to margins and working constraints so the expected output from the site is 2.5 Million tonnes which at 0.2 M. tonnes per annum (tpa) gives an overall life for the mineral workings of 12 - 13 years.

3.6.3 Regarding reclamation, the figures are much more uncertain at this stage, but the initial assessment is that the infilling/completion of the north eastern phaseswill be generally concurrent with the completion of mineral extraction; i.e. Year 12/13.

3.6.4 nfilling of the remainder area could last a further 5 - 7 years with an additional 2 years to complete the plant and operations and temporary store area.

3.6.5 Based on the above the overall timescale for mineral extraction and restoration will be approximately 20 years.

3.7 Traffic

3.7.1 Traffic generation from the site will be related to the mineral output, concrete batching, materials delivery and reclamation. The operation and construction traffic movements will be considered in accordance with the methodology set out in section 6. This will be calculated by first principles and checked against typical examples in the industry traffic generation database TRICS.

3.8 Summary

Mineral Reserve 2.5 M.t.

Annual output 0.2 M.t.

Life of mineral 12 - 13 years

Reclamation Input 0.06 - 0.07 M.cu.m.

Reclamation Req. est. 1.0 M.cu.m.

Life of Reclamation 14/15 years

Start reclamation Year 5

Complete reclamation Year 20


8

4 Planning Policy Context 4.1 Planning Policy Context

4.1.1 The planning policy context will identify the statutory development plan for the site. This currently comprises the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan which was adopted on 1 October 2014. This Plan covers the period to 2031.

4.1.2 The application site straddles two district authorities which are Northampton Borough Council and Wellingborough Council. The statutory plan for Northampton comprises the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and saved policies in the Northampton Local Plan 1997.

4.1.3 The statutory plan for Wellingborough comprises the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and Local Plan (1999 plus Alteration 2004) Saved Policies.

4.1.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also a material consideration in the determination of this application.

4.1.5 This chapter of the EIA will analyse the scheme against the relevant development plan policies and the NPPF.


9

5 EIA Process 5.1 EIA Regulations

5.1.1 The EIA Regulations apply the EU directive (2011/92/EU) “on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment” in the planning system in England. The EIA Regulations set out the procedures for undertaking an EIA and the information which is required in an ES.

5.2 Screening

5.2.1 The proposals are considered to constitute Schedule 1 development under the EIA Regulations, as a quarry where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares, and which could give rise to significant environmental effects.

5.3 Scoping

5.3.1 The purpose of scoping is to identify the key issues relating to the proposals and to ensure that they are subject to the appropriate level of assessment, thereby providing a focus for the EIA. It also gives relevant stakeholders an opportunity to express their views on the proposals and the scope of the EIA.

5.3.2 It should be noted that this EIA Scoping Report encompasses the likely significant environmental effects of the proposals on the site and its locality as well as the likely significant effects and interactions with existing and committed development. The assessment process should be of sufficient depth to enable an adequate appreciation of how each of the issues listed may be affected by the proposals although some topics will be more important than others.

5.4 Consultation

5.4.1 The proposals are being developed as an iterative process of design, assessment and review. As a result, it is the intention that the proposals submitted for planning approval will incorporate measures designed to mitigate potentially adverse environmental effects and enhance benefits wherever possible.

5.4.2 Consultation with relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies has informed this scoping stage and will be used through the course of the EIA and design process.

5.5 Assessment

5.5.1 In general terms the main stages in the EIA are as follows:

Data Review – draw together and review available data;

Scoping – identify significant issues, determine scope of EIA;

Baseline Surveys – undertake baseline surveys and monitoring;

Assessment and iteration – assess likely significant effects of proposals, evaluate alternatives, provide feedback to design team on adverse effects, incorporate any necessary mitigation, assess effects of mitigated proposals; and

Preparation of the ES.


10

5.6 Mitigation

5.6.1 One of the most important roles of the EIA is to identify ways to mitigate adverse environmental effects and opportunities that the scheme presents for environmental improvements.

5.6.2 A hierarchy of methods for mitigating significant adverse effects will be followed; these are, in order of preference:

Enhancement, e.g. improving landscape;

Avoidance, e.g. avoiding areas of archaeological potential;

Reduction, e.g. employment of mitigation measures to reduce effects of noise; and

Compensation, e.g. off-site ecological enhancement.

5.6.3 Environmental effects remaining after mitigation measures have been incorporated are termed residual effects and these will be fully described in the ES.

5.6.4 Where necessary, the ES will describe measures that will be taken to monitor the effectiveness of controls, compensation, mitigation, enhancement and remediation. Monitoring will enable any shortfall in expectations directly attributable to the proposals to be addressed.

5.7 Environmental Statement

5.7.1 The ES provides the documentation of the EIA process. The ES will describe the proposals, EIA methodology, assessment of likely significant environmental effects (including cumulative effects and impact interactions), as well as providing supporting graphics, technical appendices and a Non-Technical Summary.


11

6 Overall EIA Scope and Methodology 6.1 Technical Scope

6.1.1 The technical scope describes the environmental topics that should be addressed by an EIA, in line with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations. The aspects of the environment which are likely to be significantly affected by the proposals and have been considered through the scoping process based on Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations are:

Fauna (see Section 7.3 Ecology);

Flora (see Section 7.3 Ecology);

Soil (see Section 7.2 Landscape and Visual, 7.3 Ecology, and 7.9 Contamination);

Water (see Section 7.6 Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Flood Risk)

Air (see Section 7.8 Air Quality);

Climatic factors (see Section 7.10 Climate Change);

Population (see 7.2 Landscape and Visual, 7.4 Transport and Access, 7.5 Noise and Vibration, 7.8 Air Quality; and 7.9 Contamination);

Material assets including architectural and archaeological heritage (see Section 7.7 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage);

Landscape (see Section 7.2 Landscape and Visual); and

The inter-relationship between the above factors (see Section 7.11 Cumulative Effects and Impact Interactions).

6.1.2 In addition to the above the transport effects of the proposals have also been considered and are addressed in Section 7.4.

6.1.3 This requirement and the broad categories set out above, have to be interpreted and applied in the context of the project. Chapter 7 provides a detailed analysis of the resultant proposed technical scope of the EIA, while Chapter 8 identifies those topics which it is proposed to scope out of the EIA as significant environmental effects are unlikely to occur.

6.1.4 The following therefore sets out the principles that will be applied to the EIA and the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects identified in Chapter 7.

6.2 Temporal Scope

Environmental Baseline

6.2.1 As a general principle, likely significant environmental effects will be assessed by comparing the predicted state of the environment without the proposals with the state of the environment with the proposals for a particular year. This will necessitate predicting how current conditions at the site may change without the proposals occurring.

Duration of Effects

6.2.2 Environmental effects will be classified as either permanent or temporary, where appropriate. Permanent changes are those which are irreversible or will last for the foreseeable future. The effects of restoration are likely to fall within this category.

6.2.3 The duration of temporary environmental effects will be defined as follows:


12

Short-term - Less than two years;

Medium-term - Two to five years; or

Long-term - Greater five years but within the timeframe of works.

6.2.4 Where environmental effects will be infrequent or intermittent this will be noted in the ES. Where individual technical assessments will need to depart from these standards it will be clearly indicated in relevant ES chapters.

6.3 Spatial Scope

6.3.1 The spatial extent of each of the technical assessments will vary from one to another; in some instances the environmental effects will extend no further than the site boundary and in most cases their extent will not exceed 400m beyond the proposed site boundary. Exceptions are likely to be:

Transport and related effects (e.g. severance, air quality) – scope will include effects on the local road network where significant changes are expected.

Visual amenity – determined by the visual envelope.

6.4 Assessment of Effects

Assessment Scenarios

6.4.1 The EIA will assess the environmental effects of the proposals at key stages as is appropriate for each topic under consideration. Assessment is therefore proposed at the following stages in general:

Construction of access road and site set up;

Site operations including extraction, processing, dewatering and concurrent restoration;

Completion of restoration.

6.4.2 Certain topics will be assessed at specific ‘assessment years’ such as transport, noise, air quality and landscape and visual. The latter will also include assessing the completed restoration fifteen years following the restoration such that effects can be assessed once landscaping has had the opportunity to mature.

Types of Effects

6.4.3 In assessing the significance of potential effects identified during the EIA, account will be taken as appropriate as to whether effects are:

Beneficial Effects – effects that have a positive influence on the environment;

Adverse Effects – effects that have a negative influence on the environment;

Primary Effects - effects that are caused directly by activities undertaken, such as loss of habitat;

Secondary Effects – effects that are indirect or induced such as effects on biodiversity due to changes in the hydrological regime;

Cumulative Effects – many effects that singly are not significant, but when assessed together may be significant and also the cumulative effects of the proposal and other major local developments; and

Residual Effects – effects that remain after the positive influence of mitigation measures are taken into account.


13

6.4.4 For clarity within the assessment, ‘impact’ will be used in relation to the outcome of the project (e.g. the removal of habitat or the generation of emissions to air), while the ‘effect’ will be the consequent implication in environmental terms (continuing the above example, e.g. the loss of a potential bird breeding site or the reduction in local air quality).

Residual Effects

6.4.5 The incorporation of mitigation measures, primarily as part of the scheme design, will be reported where appropriate and likely significant residual effects that remain will be described and assessed according to the significance criteria set out below.

Cumulative Effects & Impact Interactions

6.4.6 The EIA Regulations require the likely significant cumulative environmental effects of a development to be understood. This requires the consideration of the cumulative effects of the proposed development with other major local developments that may lead to significant environmental effects.

6.4.7 A review of extant planning permissions in the vicinity of the site has identified the following extant planning permissions which will be considered in relation to cumulative environmental effects:

Quarry at Earls Barton Spinney

Quarry to the land west of Earls Barton

Allocated Waste Site east of the WRC

Waste Transfer Station on land at Lower Ecton Lane

6.4.8 It should be noted that the scope of the Transport Assessment, which will also be submitted with the planning application, will be agreed with NCC, as the local highways authority. As part of this process the committed developments and allocations that need to be considered within the Transport Assessment will be agreed. To ensure consistency across the application documents, the assessment of transport related effects in the EIA (expected to comprise transport and access, air quality and noise) will be based on this schedule and therefore the traffic modelling undertaken as part of the Transport Assessment process.

6.4.9 In addition to cumulative effects, the EIA will consider the potential for impact interactions leading to an aggregated environmental effect on a receptor being greater than each of the individual effects that have been identified (e.g. local people being affected by noise, dust and increased traffic levels).

Assessing Significance

6.4.10 As noted above, the EIA Regulations require that the ES describes likely significant effects of the proposals. However, there is no applicable definition of significance and interpretations differ. In accordance with the European Commission’s Guidance on Scoping, the EIA will study those effects that will influence decision-making or those where there is uncertainty about their magnitude.

6.4.11 The significance of an effect is typically the product of two factors, the value of the environmental resource affected and the magnitude of the impact, while consideration may also need to be given to the likelihood of an effect occurring. A significant effect may arise as a result of a slight impact on a resource of national value or a severe impact on a resource of local value. In addition, the accumulation of many non-significant effects on similar local resources geographically spread throughout the scheme may give rise to an overall significant effect.


14

6.4.12 This approach to assessing and assigning significance to an environmental effect will rely upon such factors as legislative requirements, guidelines, standards and codes of practice, consideration of the EIA Regulations, the advice and views of statutory consultees and other interested parties and expert judgement. The following questions are relevant in evaluating the significance of likely environmental effects:

Which risk groups are affected and in what way?

Is the effect reversible or irreversible?

Does the effect occur over the short, medium or long term?

Is the effect continuous or temporary? Does it increase or decrease with time? Is it of local, regional, national or international importance?

Are health standards or environmental objectives threatened?

6.4.13 Specific significance criteria will be prepared for each specialist topic, based on the above and the generic criteria set out in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Significance Criteria

Significance Level Criteria

Severe

Only adverse effects are assigned this level of significance as they represent key factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally, but not exclusively, associated with sites and features of national or regional importance. A change at a district scale site or feature may also enter this category.

Major These effects are likely to be important considerations at a local or district scale but, if adverse, are potential concerns to the project and may become key factors in the decision-making process.

Moderate

These effects, if adverse, while important at a local scale, are not likely to be key decision-making issues. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall effects on a particular area or on a particular resource.

Minor

These effects may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be of importance in the decision-making process. Nevertheless they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the project and consideration of mitigation or compensation measures.

Negligible Either no effect or effect which is beneath the level of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. Such effects should not be considered by the decision-maker.

6.4.14 Effects of moderate significance or greater are considered to be significant in the context of the EIA Regulations.

6.4.15 Within the framework above, the project team will set significance thresholds for each environmental topic. To ensure a balanced approach, the significance threshold for one topic will be equivalent to the significance threshold of any other topic, as far as is possible.


15

Uncertainty

6.4.16 The prediction of future effects inevitably involves a degree of uncertainty. Where necessary, the ES will describe the principal factors giving rise to uncertainty in the prediction of environmental effects and the degree of the uncertainty.

6.4.17 Confidence in predictions will be engendered by employing accepted assessment methodologies, e.g. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition. Where there is uncertainty in the assessment and prediction of effects this will be described in the relevant technical chapters. The ES will identify and assess of all credible, reasonable, worst case and foreseeable effects.

6.4.18 Uncertainty also applies to the success or otherwise of measures to mitigate adverse environmental effects. Where the success of a mitigation measure is uncertain, the extent of the uncertainty will be identified in the ES.

Difficulties in Undertaking the Assessment

6.4.19 The ES will identify, in accordance with the EIA Regulations, any difficulties that have been encountered in undertaking the assessment. This may include the collection of baseline data, the prediction of future conditions, data not being available, etc. It remains the intention of the project team however to ensure that the ES provides a robust assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the proposals and that sufficient information is provided to inform decision makers of environmental effects and the requirements for mitigation.

Consideration of Alternatives

6.4.20 The EIA Regulations require an ES to include an outline of the main alternatives considered by the applicant, indicating the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.

6.4.21 This legal requirement is expressed in very general and high-level terms, requiring only the inclusion of an "outline" of "main" alternatives and an "indication" of "main" reasons. Although a full description of alternatives and a full assessment of their likely environmental effects are not required, sufficient detail should be provided to allow for a meaningful comparison between the alternatives and the proposals.

6.4.22 The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on EIA states that:

“Where alternative approaches to development have been considered, the Environmental Statement should include an outline of the main alternatives studied and the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects” (paragraph 33).

6.4.23 It is a matter for the applicant to decide which alternatives it intends to consider. The EIA Regulations do not expressly require that an applicant considers alternatives, although it is widely encouraged at the policy level, both European and domestic, and is a feature of EIA best practice.

6.4.24 Alternatives should only be considered where they are feasible, realistic and genuine. This may depend on various factors, including planning policy, land ownership, financial viability, technical feasibility and design quality. Options which are unlikely to be acceptable or deliverable are not realistic alternatives and so do not need to be considered.

6.4.25 In accordance with the EIA Regulations and PPG, the ES will fulfil the requirements of the EIA Regulations through identifying the main alternatives considered by the applicant and explain the main reasons for the choices made. It is anticipated that such reasons for choosing


16

between main alternatives may include: planning policy, viability, market requirements, site constraints and opportunities and environmental effects.


17

7 Topics Included in EIA Scope 7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This chapter identifies the environmental topics that is proposed should be scoped into the EIA, the potential effects and the methodologies proposed to undertake the assessments. This is based on environmental information collected at the site (including the collection of desk study data, site walkovers and ecology surveys) which is informing the emerging proposals.

7.2 Landscape and Visual Impact

Introduction

7.2.1 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) will identify and assess the positive and negative effects and significance of change arising from the proposed development on the landscape as an environmental resource in its own right and on people’s views and visual amenity.

7.2.2 The Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’, (3rd Edition, 2013) notes in paragraph 1.17, page 9, in reference to the European Union Directive 2011/92/EU which states:

‘The Directive is clear that the emphasis is on the identification of likely significant environmental effects. This should embrace all types of effect and includes, for example, those that are positive/beneficial and negative/adverse, direct and indirect, and long and short term, as well as cumulative effects. Identifying significant effects stresses the need for an approach that is in proportion to the scale of the project that is being assessed and the nature of its likely effects. Judgement needs to be exercised at all stages in terms of the scale of investigation that is appropriate and proportional. This does not mean that effects should be ignored or their importance minimised but that the assessment should be tailored to the particular circumstances in each case.’

7.2.3 The LVIA will be carried out by chartered landscape architects at Peter Brett Associates LLP, a registered practice with the Landscape Institute and a member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.

Baseline

Landscape Features

7.2.4 Landscape features on site largely comprise arable fields. The Wind Spinney is the most prominent landscape feature and hedgerows with intermittent hedgerow trees line the public right of way which traverses the site. The arable fields are partially defined by tracks as opposed to hedgerows or trees. There are a number of water courses running through the site due to the adjacent land use of the sewage treatment works.

7.2.5 The topography on site does not vary greatly, ranging from approximately 49m AOD to 55m AOD.

7.2.6 The setting of the site is within a riparian landscape, modified by restored former gravel extraction pits to the south and the adjacent sewage works to the west.


18

Landscape Character

7.2.7 Published landscape character assessments undertaken at national and country level will be used to establish relevant key characteristics of the area. This will be used as a baseline from which to assess the effect of the development upon landscape character.

7.2.8 The site lies within National Character Area 89 – Northamptonshire Vales, as identified by Natural England (2014).

7.2.9 The ‘Current Landscape Character Assessment’ (River Nene Regional Park, 2006a) provides a county level assessment of landscape character. The site is situated within landscape character type 18: Broad River Valley Floodplain, and specifically landscape character area 18d: Billing Wharf to Woodford Mill.

7.2.10 Within the ‘Historic Landscape Character Assessment’ (River Nene Regional Park, 2006b) the site is identified as within an area of historic character type 5: 19th Century Parliamentary Enclosure and specifically within the historic character area 5K: Nene – Valley: Ecton – Great Doddington.

Potential Effects

7.2.11 Potential landscape and visual effects arising from the proposed development are those upon:

a. Landscape features;

b. Landscape character; and

c. People’s views and visual amenity.

Landscape Features

7.2.12 Features within the site which are likely to be affected are sections of hedgerow for access. The public right of way running north to south within the site is likely to experience short term effects during the construction phase. The public rights of way will remain open, and no diversions are anticipated as a result of the mineral extraction operations, however, an access road is likely to cross the footpath at one point.

Landscape Character

7.2.13 The most significant effects on landscape character will be during the extraction phase as the arable fields of the site are converted to areas of gravel extraction. The nature of the effects caused during the construction process will be reversible for the most part, and the character of the landscape will experience moderate beneficial effects through the restoration strategy.

7.2.14 The subsequent restoration will seek to enhance landscape structure in line with the character of the area, providing opportunity for positive landscape effects. Although the character of the site will be altered as a result of the extraction operations: the addition of field boundaries, wetland areas and waterbodies will have a positive effect on the landscape character of the area.

Restoration Strategy

7.2.15 A comprehensive and phased restoration plan will be prepared in response to the development proposals and the findings of the EIA. A draft restoration plan has been submitted as part of the scoping report which shows existing landscape features, proposed features and proposed enhancement and restoration of existing features following mineral extraction.


19

7.2.16 The restoration plan will include:

Retention of existing public right of way on site;

New native tree and shrub planting;

Enhancement of existing hedgerows;

Proposed poplar belt for short term screening reinforced with a woodland strip for the longer term;

Wetland area with public access, reed beds and water bodies for habitat creation and flood attenuation; and

Retention and enhancement of ditches to support ecological diversity.

7.2.17 The character of the site will be altered as a result of the mineral extraction operations, however the restoration of the site will ensure that field patterns are restored for the most part. The nature of the possible effects most likely to occur will be reversible with the exception of a proposed wetland area to enhance biodiversity on site.

7.2.18 Mitigation planting will be implemented in early stages of the phased extraction. Views towards to the western part of the site will be minimised from elevated locations to the north.

People’s Views and Visual Amenity

7.2.19 A detailed desktop analysis is used to guide the initial selection of representative viewpoints to be included within the visual impact assessment.

7.2.20 The main visual receptors which are likely to experience visual effects are users of public right of way in and around the site where views are obtainable. Users of the public rights of way within the site are likely to experience a significant magnitude of change, whereas views from more distant public rights of way are likely to be partial or glimpsed through intervening vegetation.

7.2.21 The selection of viewpoints is made on the basis of the following types of publicly accessible viewpoints:

representative viewpoints (for example, representing views of users of a particular footpath);

specific viewpoints (for example, a key view from a specific visitor attraction);

illustrative viewpoints (chosen to demonstrate a particular effect/specific issue); and

any important sequential views (for example, along key transport routes).

7.2.22 Potential visual receptors include:

users of the byway through the site and along the northern boundary of the eastern portion;

users of other local public rights of way including the Nene Way long distance path;

people with the villages to the north and south of the site: the western edge of Ecton, the south-western edge of Earls Barton, the northern edge of Cogenhoe; and

users of roads, in particular Lower Ecton Lane adjacent to the north of the site, the A45 and the B573.


20

7.2.23 As a result of a detailed desktop analysis and site visit, the representative viewpoints shown in Table 7.1 are considered to be likely to experience significant visual effects and are therefore proposed for the visual impact assessment:

Table 7.1: Selection of Representative Viewpoints for Visual Impact Assessment

Viewpoint Reference Location Reason for Inclusion

1 Byway at northern site boundary Public right of way adjacent to site

2 Public right of way to west of Ecton Land at higher elevation to site, on northern side of valley

3 Footbridge over A45 containing the Nene Way Long distance path

4 Nene Way to north of River Nene Long distance path

5 Church of St Mary the Virgin, Whiston Grade I Listed Building

6 Footpath to east of Cogenhoe Public right of way

7 Nene Rise, Cogenhoe Residential area on edge of Cogenhoe village

8 Nene Way through Cogenhoe Conservation Area

Long distance path, Conservation Area

Potentially include for winter views

9 Footpath adjacent to Bowl Barrow 530 m north east of Rose Farm

Scheduled Monument, public right of way

Potentially include for winter views – although views seemed unlikely from

last site visit

10 Ecton Conservation Area Conservation Area, land at higher

elevation to site, on northern side of valley

11 Lower Ecton Lane Road adjacent to northern site boundary

12 Byway through site Public right of way through site

13 B573 Potential view from an elevated section of the road – intervening

vegetated likely

14 Edge of Earls Barton View across valley from edge of residential area

7.2.24 Viewpoints which have been investigated in the desktop study and scoped out of the visual impact assessment following further investigation during site work are shown in Table 7.2.


21

Table: 7.2 Scoped Out Viewpoints

Viewpoint Location Reasoning

Castle Ashby, Registered Park and Garden Approximately 2km from site, intervening vegetation

Earls Barton Conservation Area Intervening buildings

Great Billing Conservation Area Enclosed within residential area – no intervisibility with site

Ecton Brook Linear Park Enclosed by vegetation

Footpath to east of Ecton, passing South Lodge (Listed Building) Intervening topography and vegetation

Earls Barton Motte Castle (Scheduled Monument) Enclosed within residential area

Clifford Hill Motte Castle (Scheduled Monument) Intervening vegetation, buildings and sewage works

Place House Moat and Fishpond (Scheduled Monument) Overlapping layers of intervening vegetation

Method

7.2.25 Peter Brett Associates LLP’s methodology for LVIA is based on professional experience and the Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (3rd Edition, 2013).

7.2.26 The assessment of landscape or landscape and visual effects aims to be as objective as possible, however professional judgements are required to be made, as the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd Edition, 2013) explains in paragraph 2.23, page 21:

‘Professional judgement is a very important part of LVIA. While there is some scope for quantitative measurement of some relatively objective matters, for example the number of trees lost to construction… much of the assessment must rely on qualitative judgements, for example about what effect the introduction of a new development of land use change may have on visual amenity, or about the significance of change in the character in the landscape and whether it is positive or negative.’

7.2.27 The LVIA will consider the effects on landscape (including landscape character) and people’s views / visual amenity as separate assessment components.

7.2.28 The assessment of landscape and visual effects will make comparison with the baseline year and will include assessment during the construction, operation and restoration phases as well as on completion of the development (i.e. operation). After completion of the development when new planting is assumed to have successfully established there will be assessment 15 years after completion.

7.2.29 A zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) plan will be created, based upon the final development proposals. This will be generated by selecting spot locations to simulate the outer limits of the proposed development. The ZTV computer software processes landform data and other selected features influencing the extent of visibility (visual barriers), for example, woodland and settlements, in order to identify the theoretical extent of the area from which the proposed


22

development is likely to be visible. It is important to note that the ZTV will illustrate the worst-case scenario, in that it will only take into account the landform and principal areas of woodland and settlements. In reality other features, such as hedgerows or street trees, are likely to provide additional filtering of views.

Baseline Data for the Landscape and Visual Assessment

7.2.30 A data trawl will be undertaken to establish the baseline landscape and landscape character information, including topography, landscape planning designations and published sources of landscape character assessment.

7.2.31 Sources of information for the data trawl include:

a. Ordnance Survey OpenData, for mapping;

b. Google Earth Pro, for aerial photography;

c. Natural England, 2014. ‘National Character Area profile: 89. Northamptonshire Vales’, NE527. Sheffield: Natural England;

d. River Nene Regional Park, 2006a. ‘Current Landscape Character Assessment’, [online] Available at: http://www.rnrpenvironmentalcharacter.org.uk/;

e. River Nene Regional Park, 2006b. ‘Historic Landscape Character Assessment’, [online] Available at: http://www.rnrpenvironmentalcharacter.org.uk/; and

f. Natural England, 2015. 'Magic' [online] Available at: http://www.magic.gov.uk/, for statutory and non-statutory designations.

Site Appraisal and Photographic Record

7.2.32 The site and surrounding area will be visited and a photographic record to represent views of the selected assessment viewpoints will be undertaken, in order to:

a. Determine the extent of visibility of existing built structures;

b. Determine the visibility of the proposed development, utilising the results from the ZTV plan to guide the field work;

c. Gain further understanding of the urban components which create the landscape character; and

d. Carry out the assessment of landscape and visual effects.

7.2.33 A series of winter photographs will be used to complement site photographs taken in the summer to assess viewpoints where visibility is likely to change due to deciduous vegetation.

Assessment Stages

7.2.34 A three-stage assessment process will be adopted for the LVIA, in accordance with the Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment guidelines. Firstly, the nature of receptors (sensitivity) will be assessed. Secondly the nature of effects (magnitude) likely to result from the proposed development will be assessed. Lastly, the significance of the identified landscape and visual effects on receptors will be assessed.

http://www.rnrpenvironmentalcharacter.org.uk/


23

Assessment of Landscape Effects

7.2.35 This will assess how the proposed development will affect the components of the landscape (the ‘landscape fabric’, for example land use, scale, street trees, street pattern and layout, urban grain and massing, legibility, public realm and appearance), and the key characteristics which contribute to its distinctive character (the ‘landscape character’).

7.2.36 A methodical consideration of each effect upon each identified landscape receptor will be undertaken, in order to determine the significance of effects, in terms of:

a. Value and susceptibility to change (sensitivity of the landscape receptor); and

b. Size / scale, extent, duration and reversibility (magnitude of the landscape effect).

Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors

7.2.37 The assessment of landscape receptor sensitivity will combine judgements on the value attributed to the landscape receptor and the ‘susceptibility to change’ of the receptor to the specific type of development proposed.

7.2.38 The value of potentially affected landscape receptors will be assessed, including landscape character and the individual elements or features which contribute to that landscape character. Landscapes may be valued at community, local, national on international levels. Existing landscape designations will be taken as the starting point for the assessment, and the value of undesignated landscapes will also be assessed.

7.2.39 Table 7.3 sets out the relative importance of generic landscape designations and descriptions, identifying those designations applicable to the site and study area in the third column:

Table 7.3: Landscape Designations

Typical Designation

Description Importance (Value)

Actual Designation

Applicable to the Site and

Surrounding Area

World Heritage Site Unique sites, features or areas of international

importance with settings of very high quality.

International (High)

N/A

National Park, AONB,

Conservation Area, curtilage of

Grade I, II and II* Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens of Special Historic

Interest, Scheduled Monuments,

Ancient Woodland

Sites, features or areas of national importance with settings of high quality.

National (High) Conservation Areas (Ecton, Earls Barton, Cogenhoe);

Registered Park and Garden (Castle

Ashby); Listed Buildings; Scheduled Monuments


24

Typical Designation

Description Importance (Value)

Actual Designation

Applicable to the Site and

Surrounding Area

Special Landscape Areas, Areas of

Great Landscape Value, Long

distance footpaths

Sites, features or areas of regional importance with

intact character.

Regional (High/ Medium)

Nene Way Long Distance Path

Areas of Local Landscape Importance,

Designated Public Open Space, Tree

Preservation Orders (TPO)

Sites, features or areas of district importance.

District (Medium or Low)

Location of TPOs unknown.

Probably no designation, local public right of way

General countryside area valued at the local level.

Local (Medium/ or Low)

General Countryside; local

public rights of way, through and adjacent to site

7.2.40 Other factors which may influence landscape value are set out in Table 7.4, below:

Table 7.4: Factors Which Influence Landscape Value

Attribute Criteria

Landscape Quality

Intactness or physical condition of the landscape or of the individual elements which contribute to landscape character.

Sense of Place Aesthetic and perceptual qualities which create distinctiveness.

Scenic Quality General appeal of the landscape to the senses.

Rarity Rarity of landscape character areas, types or features.

Representativeness

Particular characteristic/feature/element considered an important example.

Cultural Interest The presence of wildlife or cultural heritage interest which contributes positively to the landscape.

Recreation Value Evidence that the landscape experience forms an important part of recreational activity, eg. as established in guidebooks.


25

Attribute Criteria

Associations Relevant associations with notable figures, such as writers or artists, or events in history that contribute to landscape value.

7.2.41 Where appropriate, key individual components of the landscape, including particular features, notable aesthetic and perceptual qualities, will be considered in terms of importance in their own right, including whether or not they can realistically be replaced. They will also be judged on their contribution to the overall character and value of the wider landscape. For example, an intact landscape in good condition, where scenic quality, tranquillity, and/or cultural heritage features make a particular contribution to the landscape, or where there are important historical associations, is likely to be highly valued. Conversely, a degraded landscape in poor condition, with no particular scenic qualities or cultural interest is likely to be considered as low landscape value.

7.2.42 Susceptibility of landscape receptors to change arising from the proposed development will be based upon the following criteria:

Table 7.5: Landscape Receptor Susceptibility to Change

Susceptibility Criteria

High Little ability to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline landscape and/or the

achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies.

Medium Some ability to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline landscape and/or the

achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies.

Low Substantial ability to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline landscape

and/or the achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies.

7.2.43 An overall assessment of sensitivity will be made for each landscape receptor, based on a combined judgement of the above criteria, using following typical scales:

Table 7.6: Landscape Sensitivity

Landscape Sensitivity Description

High An area possessing a particularly distinctive sense of place and character, and / or attributes which make a particular contribution to the landscape or landscape character, for example: in good condition; highly valued for its scenic quality; highly valued for its landscape character; an area with a low tolerance to change of the type proposed;


26

cultural heritage features or walks with cultural associations; valued for contribution to recreational activity; important cultural or historic associations; irreplaceable landscape features or character; part of a long distance footpath.

Medium An area with a clearly defined sense of place and character, and / or attributes which contribute to the landscape or landscape character, such as: in moderate condition; some scenic quality valued at a local or regional level; landscape character intact and valued at a local or regional level; an area with partial tolerance to change of the type proposed; may be undesignated landscape.

Low An area with a weak sense of place or poorly defined character, and / or attributes which make a contribution to the landscape or landscape character, such as: in poor condition; no particular scenic qualities; disjointed or weak landscape character; contains a high level of discordant or detracting features; no cultural interest; an area that is tolerant of substantial change of the type proposed; undesignated landscape; a degraded landscape; strongly influenced by detracting land uses and buildings.

Magnitude of Landscape Effects

7.2.44 The assessment of landscape and visual effects will be based on the proposed development and the consequential effects upon landscape, landscape character and people’s views and visual amenity.

7.2.45 The magnitude of a landscape effect will be assessed in terms of its size or scale, the geographical extent of the area influenced and its duration and degree of reversibility.

7.2.46 The size or scale of change in the landscape relates to the loss or addition of features in the landscape which are likely to result from the proposed development, and takes into account:

a. The extent/proportion of landscape elements that are lost or added;

b. The contribution of those elements to landscape character and the degree to which aesthetic/perceptual aspects are altered; and

c. Whether the effect is likely to change the key characteristics of the landscape, which are critical to its distinctive character.


27

7.2.47 The following criteria will be used to assess the size and scale of landscape effects, based on the degree of change that will occur as a result of the proposed development:

Table 7.7: Landscape Effects: Size/Scale of Change

Magnitiude Criteria

Major adverse landscape effect

The proposals will result in a total change in the key characteristics of landscape character; will introduce elements totally uncharacteristic to

the attributes of the receiving landscape such as its massing, scale, pattern and features; and/or will destroy or permanently degrade the integrity of landscape character; or is in total conflict with established

planning objectives for landscape and visual elements of regeneration and enhancement of the landscape; and/or result in a substantial or total

loss, or alteration of key elements/features/characteristics.

Moderate adverse landscape effect

The proposals will result in a partial change in the key characteristics of landscape character; will introduce elements uncharacteristic to, out of scale or at odds with the attributes of the receiving landscape, such as its massing, scale, pattern and features; and/or will result in partial loss, or alteration of key elements/features/characteristics; or is in conflict with

established planning objectives for landscape and visual elements of regeneration and enhancement of the landscape.

Slight adverse landscape effect

The proposals will result in little change in the key characteristics of landscape character and will introduce elements that do not quite fit with

the attributes of the receiving landscape such as its massing, scale, pattern and features; and/or will result in a minor loss or alteration of elements/features/characteristics; and/or contribute to degrading the

landscape character.

Negligible adverse landscape effect

The proposals will result in a just discernible change to landscape character/elements/features/characteristics, which is not quite in keeping

with the existing landscape and landscape character.

No change The proposals will not cause any change to the landscape character/elements/features/characteristics.

Neutral effect As a result of the proposals, there will be a change to the landscape elements/features/characteristics, but the change will be in keeping with, and complement, the existing landscape character such that the existing

character is maintained and does not cause degradation or enhancement of the character.

Negligible landscape benefit

The proposals will result in a just discernible improvement to the landscape character/elements/characteristics, such as massing, scale,

pattern or features.

Slight landscape benefit

The proposals will achieve a degree of fit with the landscape character/elements/features/characteristics and provides some

enhancement to the condition or character of the landscape.


28

Magnitiude Criteria

Moderate landscape benefit

The proposals will achieve a good fit with the landscape character/elements/features/characteristics, such as massing, scale, and

pattern; or would noticeably improve the condition or character of the landscape and enhance characteristic features through the use of local materials; and/or support established planning objectives for landscape

and visual elements of regeneration and enhancement of the landscape.

Major landscape benefit

The proposals will totally accord with the landscape character/elements/features/characteristics, including scale, pattern,

massing; or would restore, recreate or permanently enhance the condition or character of the landscape and enhance characteristic

features through the use of local materials; and/or delivers established planning objectives for landscape and visual elements of regeneration

and enhancement of the landscape.

Assessment of Effects on Views and Visual Amenity

7.2.48 This will assess how the proposed development will affect the views available to people and their visual amenity. A methodical consideration of each visual effect upon each identified visual receptor will be undertaken, in order to determine the significance of effects, in terms of:

a. Value and susceptibility to change (sensitivity of the visual receptor, or viewer); and

b. Size / scale, extent, composition, duration and reversibility (magnitude of the visual effect).

7.2.49 Visual receptors generally comprise users of public rights of way, public open spaces, public realm or other outdoor recreational facilities, and also travellers in vehicles who may be visiting, living or working within the study area, and their views at particular places.

7.2.50 The following terminology will be used to describe the approximate distance between the representative viewpoint and the proposed development:

a. Local: under 0.5km;

b. Medium distance: 0.5km – 2km;

c. Long distance: beyond 2km.

7.2.51 The type of view, and the number of viewers likely to experience the view, will be described in the following terms:

a. Glimpsed (i.e. in passing) / Filtered / Oblique / Framed / Open Views; and

b. Few / Moderate / Many Viewers.

7.2.52 No private viewpoints will be assessed. However, where appropriate, representative viewpoints will be selected from publicly accessible locations within or on the edge of main settlements, property groupings or other buildings likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development.


29

Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

7.2.53 The assessment of visual receptor sensitivity will combine judgements on the value attributed to the visual receptor and the ‘susceptibility to change’ of the receptor to the specific type of development proposed.

7.2.54 The value assigned to views will have regard to a number of factors, including:

a. Recognition through planning or heritage assets; and

b. The popularity of the viewpoint, its appearance in guidebooks, literature or art, on tourist maps, and the facilities provided to enable enjoyment of the view.

7.2.55 The criteria for the assessment of the value of views is summarised in the table below; note that these are provided for guidance and are not intended to be absolute.

Table 7.8: Value of Views

Value Criteria

High Views from landscapes/viewpoints of national importance, or highly popular visitor attractions where the view forms an important part of the experience, or

with important cultural associations.

Medium Views from landscapes/viewpoints of regional/district importance or moderately popular visitor attractions where the view forms part of the experience, or with

local cultural associations.

Low Views from landscapes/viewpoints with no designations, not particularly popular as a viewpoint and with minimal or no cultural associations.

7.2.56 The susceptibility of people to changes in views is a function of:

a. The occupation or activity of the viewer at a given location; and

b. The extent to which a person’s attention or interest may therefore be focussed on a particular view and the visual amenity experienced.

7.2.57 For the purposes of the visual impact assessment, visual receptors’ susceptibility to change will be based upon the following table:


30

Table 7.9: Visual Receptor Susceptibility to Change

Susceptibility Type of Receptor

High Residents;

People engaged in outdoor recreation, including users of public rights of way, whose attention is likely to be focussed on the visual environment of the landscape and on particular views;

Visitors to heritage assets, landmarks or other attractions where views of the surroundings are an important part of the experience;

Communities where views contribute to the landscape setting enjoyed by residents; and

Travellers on scenic routes.

Medium Travellers on road, rail or other transport routes, where the view is moderately important to the quality of the journey;

People using local parks, open spaces, public realm, or walking on streets or local public rights of way, with moderate interest in their visual environment.

Low People engaged in outdoor sport or recreation, which does not involve appreciation of, or focus upon, views;

People at their place of work, where the landscape setting is not important to the quality of working life; and

Travellers, where the view is fleeting and incidental to the journey.

Magnitude of Visual Effects

7.2.58 The magnitude of a visual effect will be assessed in terms of its size or scale, the geographical extent of the area influenced and its duration and degree of reversibility.

7.2.59 The size or scale of change in the view relates to the degree of contrast to, or integration with, the visual composition, which is likely to result from the proposed development; and is influenced by the relative time over which a view is experienced and whether it is a full, partial or glimpsed view.

7.2.60 The following criteria will be used to assess the size and scale of visual effects, based on the degree of change to the view or composition:

Table 7.10: Visual Effects: Size/Scale of Change

Magnitude Criteria

Major adverse or beneficial visual effect

The proposals will cause a dominant or complete change or contrast to the view, resulting from the loss or addition of features in the view and will substantially alter (degrade or enhance) the appreciation or

composition of the view.


31

Moderate adverse or beneficial visual effect

The proposals will cause a clearly noticeable change or contrast to the view, which would have some effect on the composition, resulting

from the loss or addition of features in the view and will noticeably alter (degrade or enhance) the appreciation of the view.

Slight adverse or beneficial visual effect

The proposals will cause a perceptible change or contrast to the view, but which would not materially affect the composition or the

appreciation of the view.

Negligible adverse or beneficial visual effect

The proposals will cause a barely perceptible change or contrast to the view, which would not affect the composition or the appreciation

of the view.

No change The proposals will maintain the existing view and cause no change to the view.

Neutral There will be a change to the composition of the view, but the change will be entirely in keeping with the existing elements of the view and

maintain the composition of the existing view.

Landscape and Visual Mitigation Measures

7.2.61 Measures proposed for preventing/avoiding, reducing or, where possible, offsetting or compensating for significant adverse landscape or visual effects will be described. Mitigation measures comprise:

a. Primary measures – developed through the iterative design process, and which have become integrated or embedded into the project/scheme design, such as site layout, retention of existing trees, new street tree planting or incorporation of key views and vistas;

b. Standard construction and operational management practices – for avoiding and reducing environmental effects, such as hoardings around buildings or tree protection fencing; and

c. Secondary measures – proposals to address residual adverse effects which remain after primary measures and standard construction practices have been incorporated into the scheme.

Assessment of Significance of Landscape and Visual Effects

7.2.62 Significance of landscape and visual effects vary with the location, landscape context and type of proposed development.

7.2.63 The significance of landscape and visual effects will be determined from a combination of the receptor sensitivity and the magnitude of effects drawing upon the significance table provided in Table 6.1.

7.3 Ecology

Introduction

7.3.1 The ecological assessment will assess the biodiversity interest of the site by determining the range and distribution of habitats / species within and adjacent to the site; evaluating their


32

importance, and assessing potential impacts associated with proposed mineral extraction and restoration. Measures for impact avoidance, minimisation/mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be provided. In addition, identification of opportunities for ecological enhancement of the site following restoration will be provided.

Baseline

7.3.2 A desk study has been undertaken by MLM Consulting Engineers to obtain existing ecological and nature conservation data records for the site and surrounds (up to 2km from the site for non-statutory designated areas and protected and notable species; 10km for statutory designated areas). The main findings are:

Non Statutory Designations

Two Potential Wildlife Sites (PWS) occur wholly or partially within the site, these are Wind Spinney, to the east, and Billing Scrub, a former County Wildlife Site. The Billing Sewage Works PWS is located to the south west of the site adjacent to the Billing Scrub PWS.

One Local Wildlife Site (LWS) Ecton Gravel Pits (to the east at SP840617), borders the central and South-Eastern half of the site and partially encroaches in the south-eastern corner. It qualifies as a LWS and wetland habitat due to the twelve indicator species recorded in its area.

Statutory Designations

7.3.3 Units of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are located 1.3km to the east and 1.5km to the southwest of the site. These areas are designated for their importance for breeding bird assemblages and wintering waterbirds. MLM Consulting Engineers carried out a complete suite of site specific surveys for habitats and notable species between 2010 and 2011 and some surveys in 2014 to update this information.

7.3.4 A phase 1 habitat survey of the site was carried out in August 2010 to identify areas or features of ecological interest and evaluate the potential for protected or notable (e.g. UK or county BAP, Natural Area, nationally/locally scarce, Red Data Book) species to occur within the site. The site is therefore considered to have a very low potential significance for terrestrial invertebrates, as well as botanical assemblages.

7.3.5 Surveys were originally carried out in 2006 / 2007 on the site by Hankinson Duckett Associates (HDA) for habitats, badger, otter, dormouse, water vole, bats, birds, reptiles, amphibians, white-clawed crayfish and hedgerows. The habitat and protected species surveys carried out by MLM recorded findings very similar to those encountered by HDA indicating the site has changed little over time.

7.3.6 Most of the site is considered to be dominated by intensively farmed arable land of negligible nature conservation importance. However, the following habitats of nature conservation importance have been identified:

An area of lagoons occurs along the southern edge of the site containing a sizeable area of standing open water, reedbeds and swamp, providing important habitat for bats, birds and reptiles. This area is just outside the southern boundary of the site.

A wooded strip along the track following the eastern section of the northern site boundary provides an important area of foraging and commuting habitat for bats, and mature trees along this strip provide probable roosting sites for bats.

A corridor of habitats occurs along Ecton Brook (the drain which flows north to south through the centre of the site; including woodland, species-rich hedgerows and reedbed), supporting a variety of species and forming an important wildlife corridor.


33

Billing Scrub PWS within the south-western part of the site provides some wildlife interest, with areas of open water, ruderal vegetation, scrub and rough grassland.

Further areas of local nature conservation interest include the Barton Brook flowing along the eastern site boundary, the Ecton Brook flowing through the centre of the site, other areas of woodland and hedgerows within the site.

7.3.7 The following protected species were identified during the surveys:

Badger – active setts were found on site along the northern bank of the Ecton Brook and within the Wood Spinney. Further setts were found in close proximity to the site boundary within the Billing Scrub PWS.

Otter- Signs of Otter were found along the Ecton Brook (the central drain). The drain is thought to be used for foraging only, with no holts seen. Signs were also found along the just outside the eastern boundary of the site.

Bats – The hedgerows and wood spinney provide suitable roosting habitat for bats. Transect surveys showed that 9 species of bat are likely to be using the site. The areas used for foraging and commuting were the hedgerows, woodland area and around the area of scrub and wetland in the south west area of the site.

Wintering birds – 59 species were recorded during the wintering bird surveys with 29 species present occurring on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and/or Birds of Conservation Concern Red and Amber lists or the UK BAP priority list. Birds were found to be using the hedgerows and wetland areas with some birds using the arable fields.

Breeding birds – 46 species of bird recorded with 29 thought to hold breeding territories. Breeding birds were mainly associated with the hedgerows and woodland areas.

Grass snake – a peak count of 7 grass snakes was found during the reptile surveys. The grass snakes were found with the wetland area to the south west and along the field margins intersecting and along the boundaries of the site.

7.3.8 The following protected and notable species are considered not to be present and as such are removed from further consideration in the ES:

Dormice – No records were found within 2km of the site. Surveys by MLM in 2010/2011 found the woodland and hedgerows on site are of low suitability Dormice. This observation of low suitability of habitats on site, and the negative result of a site nest tube survey undertaken by HDA between May and November 2007 concluded that no further surveys for Dormice were required.

Water voles – No signs of water voles were identified within any of the waterbodies on site during the extensive surveys in 2011. Records of the invasive, non-native American Mink in the Nene Valley locally have been highlighted by MLM. In light of this and the consistent negative results of all surveys it was concluded no further surveys for water voles were necessary.

Great crested newts – The water bodies on site are not highly suitable for Great Crested Newts and the fishing lakes are of low suitability. Amphibian surveys carried out in 2007 and 2011 both found Great Crested Newts to be absent from all ponds. In this scenario it is considered highly unlikely Great Crested Newts are present and as such have been removed from further consideration.

White-clawed crayfish – No white-clawed crayfish were found in data searches by HDA and MLM. Records of the invasive, non-native signal crayfish have been highlighted by MLM. A survey of the site by HDA in April 2007 did not identify white-clawed crayfish. Based on the above information it is considered highly unlikely white-clawed crayfish are on site, or in its locality. It was concluded no further surveys for white-clawed


34

Potential Effects

7.3.9 The potential effects of proposed mineral extraction and restoration works on designated sites surrounding the site will be fully considered and significance determined in the ES. In addition, habitats and protected/notable species within and adjacent to the site will be fully considered and significance determined in the ES. Key potential impacts in the assessment include:

Loss, damage or disturbance to valuable habitats and features in whole or part, including the small area of wetland, streams and drains, woodlands, hedgerows and part of Billing Scrub and Ecton East Gravel Pit CWS;

Impacts on waterbodies arising from pollution from groundwater or surface runoff and/or changes in hydrology;

Impacts on habitats and species arising from noise, dust and light pollution associated with the works;

Habitat fragmentation;

Loss of habitat, disturbance and risk of killing or injury to protected and notable species, including badger, otter, bats, birds and reptiles;

Indirect impacts on habitats occurring outside the site boundary but within the zone of influence of the proposed minerals extraction works, including local designated areas. The zone of influence includes hedgerows and woodland immediately outside of the site boundary as well as any other areas that may be affected by noise, dust or run-off pollution.

Method

7.3.10 The assessment will be carried out in accordance with the CIEEM Guidelines on Ecological Impact Assessment (CIEEM 2006) and will make reference to relevant policy guidance and legislation relating to nature conservation.

7.3.11 The impacts on protected species will be considered given the phased nature of the development. A full assessment of potential impacts to statutory and non-statutory sites will be included within the ES.

7.3.12 Advice on ecological constraints and enhancement opportunities will be provided to ensure that measures for impact, avoidance and minimisation as well as opportunities to enhance the site post-extraction are incorporated where appropriate. Proposals to mitigate any remaining impacts will be described. The ecological impacts of the proposals taking account of this mitigation will be assessed on receptors within and outside of the site. Opportunities for ecological enhancement of the site following restoration will be explored during the design process.

7.3.13 The assessment process will include consultation with Natural England, Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust and Northampton and Wellingborough Borough Councils as appropriate.

7.3.14 A Habitat Regulations assessment is outside of the scope of the EIA. However, a separate standalone report will be provided, drawing on data obtained from desk studies and site surveys, to help determine if Appropriate Assessment is required.


35

7.4 Transportation and Access

Introduction

7.4.1 This section of the EIA will focus upon an assessment of the transport, movement and access implications of the proposed development. The ES will describe the local highway and transport network including reference to the wider strategic transport issues, consideration of transport policy and an explanation of how the scheme relates to national and local transport objectives before providing an assessment of the implication of the scheme for traffic movements.

7.4.2 It will describe the impact of generated development traffic on users of the highway network, and the measures that will be offered to mitigate this impact.

7.4.3 The significance of the effects in both the local and strategic contexts will be described, identifying the location and intensity of any effect. The ES will include analysis of the temporary transport effects anticipated during the extraction phase arising from the introduction/reconfiguration of roads and mineral vehicle movements on the local road system. Specific routing agreements will also be considered. Traffic surveys will be carried out in locations agreed with the relevant highway authorities.

7.4.4 The study will identify the impact of the additional development traffic on the local highway network including Crow Lane and Lower Ecton Lane, together with the other traffic flows from identified and agreed committed developments in the immediate area.

7.4.5 The study will also assess the impact on the strategic highway network on the nearby A45 Great Billing Interchange in discussion with Highways England.

7.4.6 The specific phases of the development are a key influence on the Transport Assessment and therefore will be assessed in turn. These phases are likely to be: existing traffic flows prior to commencement of the development including committed developments and future peak mineral extraction rates in conjunction with the other local committed development uses representing the operational phase. The assessment will consider a growth horizon that includes background traffic growth on the network and is normally 5 years for the local highway network and 10 years for the strategic road network. Background traffic growth will be forecast using the TEMPRO database. Any localised growth or available data will be discussed with the Highways Authorities and used in the assessment. We are aware of the A45 corridor model and improvements recently finalised by the Authorities to support planned growth in Northampton.

7.4.7 Reference will be made to the following:

Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment for Road Traffic, Institute of Environmental Assessment (1993);

Circular 2/2013 Planning and the Strategic Road Network, Department for Transport (2007)

NPPF

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB), Highways Agency; and

Northamptonshire LTP, the emerging LDF, and SPD documents.


36

Baseline

7.4.8 The study area will be agreed with the local highway authority and confirmed through supporting data obtained by the use of traffic survey data. The current preliminary study area is anticipated to comprise the following junctions:

Crow Lane/The Causeway Roundabout Junction;

Crow Lane/Main Anglian Water Wastewater Treatment Works Access;

Crow Lane/Ravens Lane Junction;

Crow Lane/Lower Ecton Lane Junction; and

Great Billing Interchange: Crow Lane/A45 Nene Valley Way/A5076 Great Billing Way

Potential Effects

7.4.9 In relation to construction, the ES will assess the impacts on the local road system, arising from additional vehicle movements in the areas as well as the possible need to reconfigure roads temporarily. Mitigation could include agreed vehicle routing to the site and operating times of use.

7.4.10 In relation to operation, the ES will consider vehicle movements on the local road network, both with and without the scheme for the anticipated period of extraction. Impacts on the operation of junctions and network performance will be considered. Mitigation measures that will be reviewed and considered comprise the following proposals that formed part of the previously agreed S.278 with NCC that covered the whole waste and minerals allocation and included the following proposals:

Improvements at the junction of Crow Lane with the main Anglian Water Recycling Centre Access; and

Improvements at the site entrance from Lower Ecton Lane.

7.4.11 The site access strategy will be considered in detail with junction assessments undertaken for all proposed site accesses. Currently it is anticipated that all access will be taken via the main site access from the junction of Crow Lane with the Anglian Water Recycling Centre.

7.4.12 The impacts of the development traffic and associated mitigation measures on sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling will be considered in the assessment.

7.4.13 Details of a Lorry Management Plan will also be included to:

accommodate lorries safely and to minimise their impact on roads, by discouraging the use of minor roads except for local journeys or deliveries;

discourage unnecessary lorry movements in environmentally sensitive and other unsuitable areas such as near schools or shopping areas; and

encourage positive routing of lorries on appropriate roads.

Method

7.4.14 The Transport Assessment upon which the assessment within the ES will follow the ‘Planning Practice Guidance and C2/2013 prepared by the Department of Transport and any specific parameters set by the local highway authorities under a separate scope to be agreed with them.


37

7.4.15 generation rates will be determined from first principles and compared with any similar site information available using the TRICS database. Growth factors will be calculated through the use of the TEMPRO database. Detailed assessments of junction capacity will be undertaken using industry standard computer software traffic assessment packages including ARCADY, PICADY, and LINSIG.

7.4.16 In addition to baseline traffic flows obtained through independent traffic count surveys, the following committed development schemes have been identified to add to the baseline traffic flows:

Industrial Units at the former L & H Polymers site (approved planning application)

Allocated waste site, east of the existing WWTW.

Any recent permissions in the vicinity of the site since traffic surveys were carried out in 2012.

7.4.17 The above committed/allocated development traffic flows will be included in the transport model to assist in the calculation of future year traffic flows and trip assignment. Trip distribution will be based upon logical links to the strategic highway network which will be used to reach the market for materials. To the south of Crow Lane a weight restriction is present at the bridge crossing therefore influencing the distribution of heavy vehicle traffic. Further data will be obtained from traffic surveys that will be undertaken specifically for this planning application.

7.5 Noise and Vibration

Introduction

7.5.1 Noise and vibration from the extraction of sand and gravel, and subsequent restoration works have to potential to cause adverse impacts on existing sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the site.

7.5.2 An assessment will be undertaken to consider the potential noise and vibration effects from plant and road traffic associated with the extraction and restoration of the Great Billing sand and gravel site, at existing sensitive receptor locations. The assessment will be undertaken in accordance with the following standards and guidance:

National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF), in Technical Guidance;

Planning Practice Guidance - Noise, 2014;

Noise Policy Statement for England 2010 (NPSE);

BS5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites – Parts 1 and 2: Noise and Vibration (BS5228);

World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise 1999;

BS8233:2014 Guidance on Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings; and,

Department of Transport’s technical memorandum Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, 1988 (CRTN).

7.5.3 The Technical Guidance to the NPPF states that “Subject to a maximum of 55dB LAeq,1h,

mineral planning authorities should aim to establish a noise limit at the noise sensitive property that does not exceed the background level by more than 10dB(A). It is recognised, however, that this will in many circumstances, be difficult to achieve without imposing unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator. In such cases, the limit set should be as near that level as practicable during normal working hours (0700-1900) and should not exceed 55dB LAeq,1h (free-field).”


38

7.5.4 The impacts of the vibration from site operations will be assessed using British Standard 5228-2:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites – Part 2: Vibration. Mitigation measures will be suggested where required.

7.5.5 Prior to commencement of the noise assessment the scope will be discussed and agreed with the environmental health department at Northampton and Wellingborough Borough Councils as appropriate.

Baseline

7.5.6 A background noise survey and assessment of existing ambient noise will be undertaken. For the purposes of the assessment, it is proposed that the monitoring will capture the lowest background noise levels during the day time over the proposed operational hours of the site, at the nearest sensitive receptors. Broadband, A-weighted noise levels and spectral data will be measured at each location for detailed analysis at the design stage.

Methodology

7.5.7 The methodology and equipment used for this assessment will be in accordance with the specifications given in BS7445-1:2003 ‘Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise’. The noise levels shall be measured using a Class 1 integrating sound level meter and the equipment will be calibrated before and after each measurement period. The results will be reported in terms of LAeq, LAmax and LA90 levels as well as third octave frequency spectrums. All noise sources audible during the monitoring exercise will be reported for each of the monitoring locations.

7.5.8 An assessment will be undertaken of the potential noise effects during both extraction and restoration. This will be carried out using SoundPlan 7.4 computer noise modelling software and in accordance with British Standards and current guidance.

7.5.9 The assessment will provide analysis of the significance of the potential noise and vibration effects associated with on-site activities including extraction activities, materials handling, plant movements. An assessment of the noise impact at sensitive receptors from future road traffic movements will also be conducted. The method used will follow the accepted practice of considering the existing baseline conditions and site activities which could lead to noise and vibration emissions. The results of the assessment, where required, will be used to identifying effective mitigation measures.

7.5.10 A Noise Management Plan (NMP) will be completed for submission along with the ES. The NMP will include mitigation measures presented within the noise chapter of the ES, and outline the methods by which Anglian Water will minimise the impacts of noise generated by the extraction and restoration of the Great Billing sand and gravel site.

7.6 Hydrology, hydrogeology and flood risk

Introduction

7.6.1 This section of the EIA will assess the impacts of the proposed development upon both the quantity and quality of surface waters and groundwater. The assessment will consider the potential impacts during both the extraction and restoration phases.

Baseline

Hydrology and flood risk


39

7.6.2 Published mapping shows the site to lie within the fluvial floodplains of the River Nene, Ecton Brook and Barton Brook. The site is also shown as being potentially liable to flooding from several reservoirs according to Environment Agency (EA) reservoir inundation mapping. The River Nene lies to the south of the site and flows east, broadly parallel to the southern site boundary whilst the Ecton Brook doglegs through the site, roughly bisecting it. The Barton Brook forms the eastern boundary of the site and flows south to join the Nene.

7.6.3 The River Nene drains a catchment of approximately 611 km2, flowing from the Daventry area northeast through Northampton to The Wash. To the east of Northampton the River Nene forms a naturally braided channel with mean flows of approximately 18 m3/s. Ecton Brook drains a catchment of approximately 6 km2 and flows southwards from the edge of the suburb of Great Billing, under the A45 and through the site to the River Nene. Barton Brook serves a catchment of approximately 12 km2 and flows south, most notably, from the Sywell Reservoir some 2.5 km north of the site. An initial review of groundwater data at the site suggests that water levels in the Ecton Brook are not dependant on groundwater. It is fair to presume that the same is true of level in the Barton Brook.

7.6.4 The majority of the site is currently undeveloped laid to grass, scrub and arable farmland. The current surface water runoff regime is rural, with runoff dispersing via infiltration, evaporation and overland flow to the local network of watercourses.

Geology

7.6.5 The site’s geology is summarised in the Contamination section.

Hydrogeology

7.6.6 Water levels measured within boreholes across the site suggest that the River Terrace Deposit sands and gravels contain water at a depth of between 1m and 4m below ground level. Given the proximity in level between the groundwater and the surface waters of the River Nene, it is probable that they are in hydraulic continuity with groundwater providing baseflow to the river. Groundwater monitoring indicates that the direction of shallow groundwater flow in the sands and gravels beneath the site is from northwest to southeast towards the River Nene.

7.6.7 The River Terrace Deposit sands and gravels are considered to be a locally important aquifer, considered by the EA to be a Secondary A aquifer. The vulnerability of the aquifer to pollution is high, due to the high permeability soil and shallow water table. The overlying Northampton Sand of the Inferior Oolite Group is also considered to be a locally important aquifer however this stratum is typically found on higher ground above the river valley and will not be not in hydraulic connection with shallow groundwater in the sands and gravels found beneath the site. Information on the EA website suggests that a groundwater Inner Source Protection Zone (SPZ) exists in Great Billing, approximately 2.5 km to the northwest of the site, however the EA has confirmed this SPZ relates to a historic abstraction borehole drilled in 1935 and is not a current supply. There are no known public water supply sources within 2 km of the site.

7.6.8 The shallow groundwater beneath the site is likely to be in connection with surface water in the River Nene, principally via groundwater movement in the sand and gravel continuous beneath the site and the river course. This means that groundwater levels and quality will be capable of influencing surface water levels and quality in the river and ditches on site and nearby.

7.6.9 The Whitby Mudstone Formation beneath the site is underlain by further Lias Group mudstones. Cumulatively, the Lias Group forms a thick (> 170 m) low permeability layer protecting deep aquifers associated with underlying Triassic bedrock formations from the planned extractions.


40

Surface water quality

7.6.10 EA mapping indicates that the site ultimately drains to environmentally sensitive areas of the River Nene. The EA considers the ecological quality of the Nene as poor but the chemical quality as good. The ecological quality of the Barton Brook is considered to be moderate with an assessment of chemical quality deemed unnecessary. The Ecton Brook is not included in the EA assessment.

Groundwater quality

7.6.11 Groundwater sampling and testing was carried out from boreholes on site in 2009 and identified concentrations of nitrate, selenium and petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). The nitrate was persistent beneath the whole site and is considered to be background contamination potentially resulting from intensive agricultural practices within the local area. Selenium was localised on the northwest boundary and no source was apparent. Hydrocarbons were present in the northwest and could be as a result of fuel contamination from an adjacent filling station on the northern boundary or from highway runoff, however attenuation does occur across the area of proposed minerals extraction and hydrocarbons were below method detection limits on the downstream (southern) boundary nearest the River Nene.

7.6.12 Historical mapping shows that between the WWTW to the west and the western boundary of the minerals extraction area there have been historical sewage sludge beds. These are known to have impacted on groundwater quality beneath land to the west of the site.

Potential Effects

Construction

7.6.13 The proposed construction of a new internal access road and site compound will result in the creation of impermeable cover on land which is currently permeable. Left unchecked this would increase the rate at which rainfall is converted to surface water runoff and discharged to the Nene and its tributaries. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which will form a technical appendix to the ES will include a chapter which addresses surface water runoff management.

7.6.14 Storage of plant and construction materials within the floodplain could result in floodwater displacement and/or the release of pollutants (fuel and oil for example) and debris into the surrounding water environment. The FRA will therefore assess suitable storage areas for plant and construction materials.

Extraction

7.6.15 Through the FRA the EIA will assess and manage downstream impacts associated with any reduction in floodplain storage. The potential release of physical and chemical pollutants associated with the extraction process will be assessed to determine appropriate mitigation measures (such as storage of material and plant outside of the floodplain). Such measures will be incorporated in the management plan.

7.6.16 It is understood that the site will be dry-worked, requiring dewatering of the sands and gravels. Extracted water will be vulnerable to any uncontrolled physical and chemical contaminants arising from the extraction operation. Good environmental site and process management (regular maintenance and cleaning of equipment, suitable storage of fuels and oils) would aid in avoiding pollution incidents from such sources.

7.6.17 Allowing uncontrolled disposal of water abstracted during dewatering into the surrounding watercourses could result in physical and chemical pollution of the water environment. It is envisaged that this will be avoided with the use of stilling basins and/or the application of abstracted water to ground.


41

7.6.18 The uncontrolled discharge of water abstracted during dewatering to the surface water environment would result in an increase in surface water flows in the area. The FRA will include an assessment of the impact of such discharges and any required mitigation measures.

7.6.19 Dry working the site for minerals will require dewatering of excavations to reach sand and gravels below the groundwater table. The hydraulic connection between shallow groundwater and the river will mean that adverse impacts from dewatering will need to be controlled through careful management, possibly requiring a range of mitigation including lining of excavations, phased working and increasing opportunities for groundwater recharge.

Restoration

7.6.20 The restoration plan will involve backfilling the site excavations with inert material to allow the majority of the site to be returned to arable farmland. A wetland area will also be created in the south of the site to tie into the existing off-site wetland/waterside environment. Opportunities to reduce current ground levels and increase the flood storage capacity of the site will be investigated as part of the FRA. Changes in the permeability of the site will be dictated by the nature of the inert fill and will be broadly assessed in the FRA.

Data Sources

7.6.21 Existing Strategic Flood Risk Assessment flood mapping and model data from the EA will set the baseline for the flood risk investigation within the EIA.

7.6.22 Existing data relevant to the groundwater at the site includes the findings from previous ground investigations of the site in 2004 and 2009/10. Water levels have been monitored in a number of permanent boreholes on a monthly basis since November 2005 up to the present time. British Geological Survey mapping of superficial and bedrock and EA mapping of SPZs and aquifer classification would be consulted together with historical borehole logs from the British Geological Survey archive and any ground investigation reports for the surrounding area found on the local authority planning portal websites. Additional data requirements for a full EIA assessment are outlined below.

Method

Overview of approach

7.6.23 At this stage, we envisage that the scope of works would include:


A review of published data, EA flood levels, Strategic and Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments, etc.

Assessment of any impacts on flood storage and conveyance at the site.

Assessment of the fluvial and surface water runoff impacts arising from the development, as well the potential risk to the site itself and any residual risk, taking climate change into account.

Assessment of the pre and post-development surface water run-off regime and any likely changes.

Groundwater

Description of the baseline conditions building on the scoping study and including the relevant aspects of the local geology, hydrogeology, groundwater levels and quality, and any significant features that may be impacted by the proposed extraction.


42

A review of mapping will be undertaken, focussing on locating and identifying groundwater dependent features.

A review of groundwater and surface water abstractions within a 2 km radius. For groundwater abstractions this would include details of the SPZs.

A review of private groundwater and surface water abstractions within a 2 km radius.

A review of available reports on groundwater conditions within the surrounding area.

A review of groundwater level and quality monitoring data in the sand and gravel stratum, and level and available quality data for relevant reaches of the River Nene Ecton Brook and Barton Brook .

Monitoring of groundwater levels in existing boreholes.

Sampling of existing boreholes on site and testing for water quality.

Relevant standards and guidance

7.6.24 The assessment will be carried out in consultation with the EA and Northamptonshire County Council. The following standards and guidance will set the context and requirements for this chapter of the ES;

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and local planning policy

The SUDS manual CIRIA C697.

Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) (Environment Agency, 2006, and 2008)

Pollution Prevention Guidelines

7.7 Archaeology and Cultural heritage

Introduction

7.7.1 This section of the ES will consider the potential impact that the excavation and restoration phases of the proposals may have on Heritage Assets. The Heritage Assets comprise both buried archaeology (within the site) and built heritage assets (outside of the site). Heritage Assets are both statutory, such as listed buildings and non-designated assets, such as buried archaeology.

7.7.2 The objectives of the assessment will be to:

Describe the survival and extent of any known or potential Heritage Assets within an agreed study area which may be impacted upon by the proposals;

Provide an assessment of the importance of the Heritage Assets;

Assess the likely scale of any impacts of the proposals on the Heritage Assets;

Outline suitable mitigation measures, where appropriate to avoid or reduce significant adverse effects; and

Provide an assessment of any residual effects remaining after mitigation

Baseline

7.7.3 Baseline conditions will be identified with detailed reference to the following completed reports which form part of the current baseline of information for archaeology and cultural heritage:


43

An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (DBA) on Land at Great Billing Northamptonshire (Archaeological Solutions 2007)

Geophysical Survey Report on Land at Great Billing Northamptonshire (Stratascan March 2012)

7.7.4 However in order to bring the Desk Based Assessment up to date, particularly with regard to information from other archaeological assessment work, within the near vicinity of the site that has been undertaken since 2007, we will undertake a search of the following records and sources;

Northamptonshire Historic Environment Records (HER)

National Monuments Records (NMR)

OASIS Archaeological Data Service

7.7.5 The findings from the DBA and the Geophysical Survey indicate a high potential for archaeology within the northern areas of the site given the close proximity of known archaeology from nearby archaeological interventions. Also in relation to previous results from archaeological interventions in the Nene Valley, outside of the site to the south, archaeological findings of prehistoric date have been found within the alluvial sand and gravels. Consequently there is also a high potential for archaeology.

7.7.6 A walkover visual survey was undertaken of the site on 16th June 2015 which included the taking of photographs from within the site area out towards four Heritage Assets. All four Heritage Assets are churches, two situated to the south of the site (Cogenhoe and Whiston) and two towards the north of the site (Ecton and Earls Barton).

7.7.7 It is proposed that the Heritage Assets shown in Table 7.1 are scoped out of the assessment as the Assets are located off-site (and will not therefore be directly affected) and significant effects on their setting are unlikely:

Table 7.1 Heritage Assets to be scoped out

Heritage Asset Rationale for Scoping Out

Castle Ashby, Registered Park and Garden Approximately 2km from site, intervening vegetation

Earls Barton Conservation Area Intervening buildings

Great Billing Conservation Area Enclosed within residential area – no intervisibility with site

Ecton Brook Linear Park Enclosed by vegetation

Footpath to east of Ecton, passing South Lodge (Listed Building) Intervening topography and vegetation

Earls Barton Motte Castle (Scheduled Monument) Enclosed within residential area

Clifford Hill Motte Castle (Scheduled Monument) Intervening vegetation, buildings and sewage works

Place House Moat and Fishpond (Scheduled Monument) Overlapping layers of intervening vegetation


44

Potential Effects

7.7.8 The proposals have the potential to impact on the following Heritage Assets;

Buried archaeology within those areas of the site which will be subject to mineral extraction;

Impacts in relation to the setting of the churches situated within the villages of during the excavation works.

7.7.9 In relation to both of the above potential effects further assessment is planned, in the form of a detailed review of the results from the geophysical survey, to identify the key areas of the site where there is potential for archaeology and a more detailed analysis on the setting of Churches in relation to the site.

7.7.10 Where effects cannot be avoided and or reduced on significant Heritage Assets then appropriate forms of mitigation will be identified and discussed with the Northamptonshire County Archaeologist/Conservation Officer.

Method

7.7.11 The archaeology and cultural heritage impact assessment has and will focus primarily on the site, although information has and will be considered from the site area, within a radius of 1km which will therefore comprise the study area, to provide context to the assessment and inform the assessment and any required mitigation.

7.7.12 The assessment has and will continue to be carried out in accordance with the relevant best practice documents as follows:

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Guidelines for an Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment (2014);

English Heritage The Setting of Heritage Assets (2012);

English Heritage The Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MoRPHE) (2006).

7.7.13 Methods will include:

Search of records from the HER, NMR and Archaeological Data Service to bring the previous DBA up to date with any known information from archaeological interventions within the study area that have been completed since 2007.

A detailed review of the results from the Geophysical Survey to confirm those areas of the site that have potential for containing buried archaeology which will be impacted upon.

In conjunction with the project landscape architect, undertake a further detailed assessment of the setting of the four Churches in relation to the potential impacts from the proposals.

Consult with the the Northamptonshire County Archaeologist and where appropriate the Local Authority Conservation Officer to discuss the findings of the assessment and agree the overall strategy and where appropriate, forms of any further assessment and mitigation.


45

7.8 Air Quality including Dust

Introduction

7.8.1 The air quality assessment will consider the potential impacts associated with:

Nuisance dust effects resulting from site operations (during excavation and restoration); and

Road traffic emissions, as a result of the operational phase, at existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site.

7.8.2 The air quality assessment for the proposed development will take into account the following guidance:

Part IV Environment Act, Chapter 25, Air Quality, 1995;

DEFRA, The UK National Air Quality Strategy, March 1997;

Highways Agency, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, May 2007;

The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010;

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; 2012);

Planning Practice Guidance – Air Quality, March 2014;

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09), published February 2009;

Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) and Environment Protection UK (EPUK), Land-Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality, 2015;

Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessments / Progress Reports for the appropriate Local Authorities (where available).

Methodology

7.8.3 A semi-quantitative assessment will be undertaken to consider the potential nuisance dust effects resulting from on-site operations. This will be undertaken in accordance with the NPPF and PPG.

7.8.4 The distance and direction of the closest sensitive receptors (i.e. residential properties and, if applicable, any potentially sensitive statutory designated habitat sites) to on-site operations will be considered for all phases of the development. The assessment will also take into account the proposed working hours and weeks in the year for site operations. Meteorological data will be obtained from the most representative recording station to identify how local weather conditions might affect the deposition of dust from the Site. The assessment will identify the proposed mitigation measures, as required, to control dust emissions. Residual effects will be addressed.

7.8.5 A Dust Management Plan (DMP) will be completed for submission along with the ES. The DMP will include mitigation measures presented within the air quality chapter of the ES, and outline the methods in which the impacts of dust, generated by the extraction and restoration of the Great Billing sand and gravel site, can be minimised.

7.8.6 The operational phase road traffic assessment will comprise a screening assessment, undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). This will consider annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulates (PM10), as these are the pollutants which are generally most likely to lead to exceedances of the Air Quality Objectives.


46

7.8.7 Should it be considered that any nearby sensitive statutory designated habitat sites may be affected by the development, the assessment will also predict changes in nitrogen deposition. The deposition of nitrogen-containing pollutants (e.g. NOx) is generally of most concern for sensitive vegetation communities and ecosystems. However, predicted changes in acid deposition will also be considered.

7.8.8 The assessment will take into account background pollutant concentrations, obtained from the Defra default concentration maps or a representative monitoring location, as appropriate. The source of background pollution data will be agreed with the Environmental Health Department at Northampton Borough Council. The assessment will be based upon the traffic data to be provided by the project transport consultant (Cannon) and, where possible, will be verified using the latest local authority air quality monitoring data.

7.8.9 The screening assessment will consider the potential air quality impacts, associated with additional development-generated vehicles, at relevant existing sensitive receptors (i.e. residential properties and, if applicable, any potentially sensitive statutory designated habitat sites). The potential impacts, as a result of the proposed development, will be assessed against the significance criteria included within the following document:

IAQM and EPUK, Land-Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality, 2015;

Environment Agency document: AQTAG06;

Environment Agency document: H1 (Annex F – Air Emissions); and

Conservation Agencies’ APIS resource (www.apis.ac.uk).

7.8.10 All predicted pollutant concentrations will be assessed against the current Air Quality Standards and Objectives, as detailed in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and the H1 (Annex F – Air Emissions).

7.8.11 The scope of work will be discussed and agreed with the Environmental Health Department at Northampton and Wellingborough Borough Councils as appropriate. The results of the assessment, along with mitigation measures where necessary, will be detailed within the air quality chapter of the ES.

7.9 Contamination

Introduction

7.9.1 This chapter of the ES will examine the potential impact of contamination from the previous use of the site together with any other potential sources of contamination either on or off the site. Mitigation measures that may be needed to minimise adverse impacts on the local environment and other identified receptors prior to or during mineral extraction and during or following restoration will be described. The residual effects following mitigation will then be identified.

Baseline

7.9.2 Baseline data for the site has been compiled in the form of a phase 1 desk study and site reconnaissance undertaken in 2008 and a phase 2 ground investigation undertaken in 2010. These reports also incorporated factual data contained in earlier reports published between 1991 and 2004.

7.9.3 Historical mapping indicates irrigation fields were established on site prior to 1883 associated with a sewage disposal farm operated by the then Northampton Corporation. More recently, the site has been in agricultural use for growing non-food crops.

http://www.apis.ac.uk/


47

7.9.4 Off site, on adjacent land, there have been potentially contaminating activities including a petrol filling station to the northeast and, to the west, historical sewage sludge disposal beds, the existing Anglian Water waste water treatment works and an existing fuel oil distribution depot.

7.9.5 The ground investigations confirmed that the site geology comprises topsoil overlying superficial deposits of Alluvium and Lower Ecton (First Terrace) Sand and Gravel resting on a bedrock of Whitby Mudstone Formation. The sand and gravel stratum is considered by the Environment Agency to be a Secondary (A) Aquifer and monitoring has indicated the groundwater flow direction within this stratum is from northwest to southeast beneath the site.

7.9.6 Chemical laboratory testing indicated elevated concentrations of arsenic, cadmium and chromium are present within the top 1m of the soil profile in certain areas of the site. In addition, arsenic, cadmium and copper in soil were found to be potentially leachable.

7.9.7 Chemical laboratory testing on water samples in 2010 established that low levels of hydrocarbons were intermittently present in groundwater, however surface water contamination in the local drainage network was absent. Further sampling and testing of water samples is proposed in 2015 to update the water quality baseline.

Potential Effects

7.9.8 The majority of soil contamination is likely to have resulted from historical sewage disposal. However, some of the contamination will be naturally occurring, notably arsenic which is prevalent in the Northamptonshire area.

7.9.9 Based on generic quantitative risk assessment (GQRA) there is expected to be no risk to site workers during the site strip, during minerals extraction or during restoration phases from contamination.

7.9.10 Detailed quantitative risk assessment (DQRA) does however indicate a potential risk to residents in proximity to the site from contaminated soil dusts. Mitigation to reduce levels of soil dust down to acceptable levels will be needed during site strip and restoration.

7.9.11 Disturbance of the ground during site strip, minerals extraction or restoration phases could mobilise soil contamination causing it to enter groundwater through a combination of leaching and processing of aggregate. This groundwater contamination could, in turn, impact on surface water quality where it provides seasonal baseflow to the local drainage network.

7.9.12 In addition, some lowering of groundwater levels will be necessary to optimise minerals extraction and this will be achieved through dewatering. Dewatering could cause a change groundwater quality if contamination from surrounding areas is drawn towards the point of abstraction and into the site.

Method

7.9.13 Relevant existing investigation and monitoring data will be examined to assess the presence of and the effects of any existing contaminants within the area or outside that could be of relevance. Sensitive receptors and locations will be identified.

7.9.14 The methodology, scope of work and assessment process would be agreed prior to baseline surveys commencing with the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Departments of Wellingborough Borough Council and Northampton Borough Council.

7.9.15 Baseline soil, groundwater and gas conditions will be assessed through desk based studies and intrusive investigations undertaken in line with Environment Agency and Defra document “Model procedures for the management of land contamination” Contaminated Land Report 11


48

published 2004 and Environment Agency document “GPLC1 – Guiding principles for land contamination” published 2010.

7.9.16 Generic and detailed quantitative risk assessments will be undertaken to evaluate risks to receptors both in terms of baseline conditions, during site strip, minerals extraction and following restoration.

7.9.17 The assessment of risks for various stages in the extraction process will allow potential impacts to be identified and mitigation strategies developed.

7.9.18 Following implementation of mitigation measures, the residual risks from contamination will be assessed and discussed.

7.10 Climate Change

Introduction

7.10.1 The extraction of sand and gravel and subsequent restoration works have to potential to cause adverse impacts on the climate, predominantly through the generation of greenhouse gas (GHG emissions). In addition, changes to the climate during the life of the project could potentially have adverse impacts on operations at the site.

7.10.2 Currently there is no official guidance on how climate change adaptation and mitigation should be considered in EIA practice, however the IEMA Principle Series Climate Change Adaptation and Climate Change Mitigation EIA papers published in 2010 will be consulted. The assessment of climate change will also consider the findings of other environmental topics within the EIA, particularly the flood risk and air quality assessments.

Methodology

7.10.3 A risk based approach for the consideration of climate change impacts on a project will be employed, utilising the UKCP09 Projections to obtain the projected changes in precipitation and temperature during the life of the scheme. Consideration will be given to the following when assessing climate change impacts on the proposals:

project type, its location and its vulnerability to climate change;

duration of the development; and

the climate hazards which are most significant to the project and require consideration in the EIA.

7.10.4 The assessment will consider future climate change for the variables ‘change in mean temperature’ and ‘change in mean precipitation’. The time period ‘2010 to 2039’ (as defined by UKCP09) will be considered for the project to obtain information on projected changes to the climate, to assess the potential impacts on the site. The scheme proposes an estimated 12 - 13 year extraction period, with restoration potentially lasting for a further 5 - 7 years with an additional 2 years to complete the plant and operations and temporary store area. Thus resulting in a total of approximately 20 years of operations at the site. Assuming operations commence prior to 2019, it is not considered necessary to assess time periods beyond ‘2010 to 2039’. Beyond this time period the site will have been fully restored.

7.10.5 Where significant adverse impacts on the project resulting from climate change are identified, mitigation measures to reduce these impacts will be incorporated.

7.10.6 In addition, the impacts of the proposals on the climate will also be considered, and mitigation measures will be provided where possible to reduce the generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.


49

7.11 Cumulative Effects and Impact Interactions

7.11.1 The EIA Regulations require consideration of the likely significant cumulative effects of the development.

7.11.2 This assessment will include the interactions of different environmental effects on the same receptor as well as the aggregated impact with other developments planned in the local area.

7.11.3 Potential impact interactions will be considered throughout the ES.


50

8 Topics Not Included in EIA Scope 8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 The ES should be a focused document documenting the assessment of likely significant environmental effects, both adverse and beneficial. Therefore those effects which are not likely to be significant should not be included in the ES, i.e. they should be scoped out of the EIA. The topic sections in chapter 7 set out where individual elements are scoped out from further appraisal. However, the following sets out those topics that have been determined not to be significant in their entirety and therefore not included in the EIA. The rationale for this determination is also provided.

8.2 Utilities

8.2.1 As part of the project, consideration has been given to utilities that need to be avoided or diverted. Where appropriate comment will be made in the relevant chapters if diversions are likely to result in any significant effects either on or off site, but an assessment on utilities as a topic is not required.

8.3 Waste

8.3.1 It is anticipated that there will be little or no export of material from the site other than the processed sand and gravel, with materials that cannot be used will be stored and reused within the restoration.

8.3.2 Materials will also be imported to the site for use in restoration and information on this will be provided as part of the planning application. There will therefore be some benefit in providing space for the inert materials that require disposal but overall there will not be any significant waste effects as a result of the development and there will be no adverse effects.

8.4 Odour

8.4.1 It is unlikely that the works will result in odours being released from the site. It is therefore not considered that there will be significant adverse effects associated with odour and it is not proposed that it is considered in detail in the EIA. Should odour be a concern to the local authorities, the management plan setting out the environmental controls to be implemented during the works (Construction Environmental Management Plan - CEMP) could include the requirement to stop work should a significant odour be detected to enable suitable controls to be implemented.

8.5 Lighting

8.5.1 Excavation and reclamation activities will be essentially daylight only activities. The need for lighting will be confined to the plant and operations area and only in the winter until 18:00 on weekdays. The proposals will not therefore lead to significant lighting effects.

8.5.2 However lighting will be a considered within the CEMP to ensure that the most appropriate lighting specification is used.

8.6 Agricultural Land

8.6.1 The site is partially in use for growing arable crops and was previously used as a sewage irrigation field. Consequently, there is no “best and most versatile” agricultural land on the site that would be affected by proposal. Additionally, the site will be restored to existing quality and therefore any effects of agricultural activity will essentially be temporary. Therefore it is not


51

considered that there are likely to be any significant effects associated with loss of productive agricultural land.

8.7 Socio-Economics

8.7.1 It is likely that the proposals will result in minor beneficial effects on the creation of jobs and wider economic considerations. This will be considered in Planning Statement. No other socio economic effects are considered likely, therefore it is proposed to scope socio-economics out of the EIA.


52

9 Summary 9.1 Summary

9.1.1 This report has been prepared to document the likely significant environmental effects of the proposals and therefore the scope of and approach to the EIA.

9.1.2 This Scoping Report has provided information regarding the proposals, set out the intended EIA scope and methodologies for the assessment of likely significant environmental effects, and outlined the content of the ES.

9.1.3 The aim is to ensure that the proposals have due regard for the environment, mitigate adverse environmental effects where possible and takes advantage of opportunities for environmental enhancement.

9.2 The Environmental Statement

9.2.1 The outcome of the EIA process is the production of an ES to accompany the planning application. An ES will be prepared that:

Describes the proposed development;

Outline the main alternatives considered;

Describes the baseline environment;

Describes the likely significant effects;

Describes the measures to mitigate adverse effects; and

Includes a non-technical summary.

9.3 Next Steps

9.3.1 The next steps in the EIA process are as follows:

Request Scoping Opinion from Northamptonshire County Council (August 2015);

Receipt of formal Scoping Opinion (September 2015); and

Submission of ES with the planning application (End of 2015).

9.3.2 Comments on this report should be provided to:

Mark Hodgson Savills (L&P) Limited Unex House 132-143 Hills Road Cambridge CB2 8PA [email protected]


Appendix A Restoration Strategy Plan (30755-3005-01)

GREAT BILLING SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION AND RESTORATION

RESTORATION STRATEGY PLAN

ANGLIAN WATER

DateScaleDrawnChecked

Drawing No.Mark RevisionREV

J:\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Landscape\Drawings and Photos\Plans\Restoration

LEGEND:

Semi-natural broadleaved woodland

Broadleaved plantation woodland

Track retained for access

Hedgerow

Waterbodies

Wet ditch

Existing public rights of way retained

New footpaths for public access

Nene Way Long Distance Path retained

Existing features:

Poplar belt and woodland strip

Wet ditch retained as area of otter habitat and badger setts

Wet grassland

Wet woodland

Native tree and shrub planting

Extension of reedbed habitat

Proposed waterbodies for habitat creation and flood attenuation

Mixed native species hedgerow

New features to enhance existing habitats:

Agricultural land

Restored features:

Access:

© Peter Brett Associates LLP

Offices throughout the UK and Europe

www.peterbrett.com

14.07.2015AS SHOWNRJNE

30755-3005-01

Reproduced from 1:10000 map by permission of the Ordnance Survey ®

on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

© Crown Copyright 2015. All rights reserved.Licence No. 0100031673

0 100 200 300 400 500m

Notes:

1. Green corridor enhanced either side of public right of way , which forms part of the Northamptonshire Round Route2. Poplar belt to provide short term visual mitigation, with native woodland belt to the south to provide longer term habitat3. Wet woodland traditionally managed with native species 4. Mosaic of wet grassland and reedbed habitats, with new footpaths for public access

2

1 3

4


Appendix B Phasing Plan (30755-3004-04)

GREAT BILLING SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION AND RESTORATION

PHASING PLAN

ANGLIAN WATER

DateScaleDrawnChecked

Drawing No.Mark RevisionA Changes to locations of areas

REV

J:\30755 Great Billing\Technical\Landscape\Drawings and Photos\Plans\Restoration

17 09 15B Minor amendments 16 10 15

LEGEND:

Gravel and sand extraction phases

General direction of working

Silt and water management

Plant and operations area

Soil storage

© Peter Brett Associates LLP

Offices throughout the UK and Europe

www.peterbrett.com

14.07.2015AS SHOWNRJNE

30755-3004-04 B

Reproduced from 1:10000 map by permission of the Ordnance Survey ®

on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

© Crown Copyright 2015. All rights reserved.Licence No. 0100031673

0 100 200 300 400 500m

Access

Route 1

Access

Route 3

Access route

Access window for minerals, reclamation and water

Silt and Water Management

Plant and Operations

AreaSoil Storage

Area

DRAFT


Appendix C Typical Plant Plans


Appendix D Scoping Report May 2012

May 2012

Scoping Report

Proposals for the Scope and Content of an

Environmental Impact Assessment for Sand and

Gravel Extraction and Restoration at Great Billing,

Northampton

On behalf of Anglian Water

Mark Hodgson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI

Savills (L&P) Limited

Unex House

132-143 Hills Road

Cambridge

CB2 8PA

CAPL/101297/A6

Page 2 of 40

Scoping Report for EIA at Great Billing On Behalf of Anglian Water

CONTENTS

Page No

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Site Description 5

3.0 The Development Proposal 6

4.0 The Overall Approach to the EIA 11

5.0 The Content of the

Environmental Statement

14

6.0 The Scope of the Environmental

Effects

16

Landscape and visual impact 16

Ecology 18

Transportation 22

Noise and vibration 25

Hydrology, hydrogeology and

flood risk

25

Archaeology and cultural

heritage

31

Air quality including dust 32

Contamination 33

Climate change 34

7.0 Conclusion 35

Appendices

Appendix A Site Location Plan

Appendix B Composite Operations Plan

Appendix C Concept Restoration Plan

Appendix D Illustrative Processing Plant

Appendix E Illustrative Concrete Plant

Page 3 of 40


1.0 Introduction

1.1 A full planning application is being prepared for sand and gravel extraction with subsequent

restoration of land east of the Wastewater Treatment Works, Great Billing, Northampton.

Savills is providing planning consultancy services to Anglian Water. These services include

the co-ordination and preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in

conjunction with a team of specialist consultants.

1.2 The access route to the site is located within Northampton Borough whilst the extraction area

is located within the administrative area of Wellingborough Borough Council. However, this

application will be made to Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) as the Minerals Planning

Authority. The application will cover both the extraction area and the access route. The

access is an integral and necessary part of the proposals for minerals extraction, so it is to be

included in the same planning application to NCC.

1.3 The proposed mineral extraction at the site is considered to meet the requirements within the

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and is

thus likely to be EIA development.

1.4 Regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations 2011 makes provision for a prospective developer or their agent to request a

formal opinion from the relevant planning authority on the information to be supplied in the

Environmental Statement (ES) (known as a ‘scoping opinion’). Scoping is used to help

identify where there is the potential for interaction between a project and the environment,

and it allows the applicant to be clear about those effects that the planning authority and other

relevant parties consider to be potentially the most significant, and upon which the ES should

focus.

1.5 This scoping request provides a brief description of the nature and purpose of the

development and its possible effects on the environment and outlines the range of

assessment studies that are proposed in order to gauge the significance of these issues. It

also describes the intended approach to the assessment itself.

1.6 Comments are invited on the content of this report. Should consultees be in a position to

identify or provide additional relevant information concerning the existing environment or any

particular issues of local importance in respect of the site or its surroundings, this would be

welcomed by Anglian Water.

Page 4 of 40


1.7 Anglian Water is a major provider of water and environmental services. The environment is

central to its business and to the quality of life of its customers. Anglian Water continually

strives to improve its environmental performance, the conservation of resources and the

adoption of best environmental practice.

Page 5 of 40


2.0 Site Description

2.1 The site at Great Billing is located less than two miles to the south east of Northampton. The

site is accessible via the strategic road network at the Great Billing junction on the A45.

2.2 The application site is located on the south side of the A45 and covers an area of

approximately 150 hectares shown outlined in red on the plan in Appendix 1. The land

extends from the A45 boundary and agricultural fields in the north to approximately the River

Nene to the south. The western boundary of the extraction area is formed by an overland

drain whilst the northern boundary lies a few metres south of the A45. The eastern boundary

is formed by a field boundary which comprises hedges and trees. The southern boundary

adjoins former mineral workings which now comprise water bodies beyond which is the River

Nene itself. The site contains a public right of way running in a north-south direction broadly

in the middle of the site.

2.3 The site is situated in the river valley and the land broadly rises from the south to the north.

To the north west of the site is the settlement of Great Billing which is effectively a suburb of

Northampton. Beyond the A45 to the north is the village of Ecton whilst to the north east is

the village of Earls Barton. The village of Cogenhoe lies broadly to the south west of the site

south of the River Nene. Almost immediately to the west of the extraction site is the Great

Billing Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) which is owned by Anglian Water and serves

the Northampton area.

2.4 The land to the east of the WWTW within the application site has historically been used as a

sewage farm comprising a sewage irrigation field.

Page 6 of 40


3.0 The Development Proposal

Concept

3.1 The working scheme has been designed to enable the anticipated restoration scheme to be

achieved. This is based on the 'Concept Restoration Plan' (ref. 0047/CR/2) which:

creates an east/west aligned wetland swathe along the southern boundary,

the central area restored to farmland (but at a marginally lower level to provide

additional flood capacity),

eastern area can be either farmland or wetland/nature conservation,

western area back to farmland to provide future development area.

3.2 The Plant and Operations Area has been moved to the centre of the site onto the area that is

outside the floodplain. This allows environmental bunding without having an impact on the

flood capacity. It should be noted that the surface of the plant site will be lowered by the

removal of the soil and overburden and the level consolidated with sand and gravel (i.e. there

may be additional flood capacity from the start).

3.3 Water management will initially be south of the plant & operations area (see plan 0047/CO/1).

It is envisaged that as workings progress, the silt can be used in Phases 1 & 2 (and possibly

3) to assist in the restoration.

3.4 The approach to soil handling (both in site preparation and restoration) is to provide a central

storage area (see plan 0047/CO/1) to allow balancing of materials, especially topsoils.

3.5 The restoration of the wetland is expected to rely on indigenous overburden supplemented by

silt. However, to maintain flexibility, some importation of inert material may be required.

Importation

3.6 There will be a need for imported material to achieve the restoration back to farmland, albeit

part at a lower level. This is needed for Phases 8 - 11 and to complete the Plant &

Operations area. Whether material is needed for Phases 5, 6 & 7 will depend on the outcome

of the restoration design.

Page 7 of 40


3.7 It is suggested that importation will increase midway through the operations (Phase 5

onwards) but before then the volumes may be limited to achieve/assist in restoration. The

annual import volume is likely to be less than the mineral output so an additional period to

complete the importation/restoration will be needed once the minerals are exhausted.

Output/Volume

3.8 The mineral output is assumed at 200,000 tonnes annually. This means that there has to be

125,000 cu.m. excavated and processed each year, which in turn will produce some 12,500

cu.m. of silt that can be used in restoration (very good for reed establishment).

3.9 The level of input material is more difficult to assess to get a realistic annual volume (this may

require some research into the Waste Plan/statistics). Generally, it is expected that the

volume could be in the range of 60,000 - 70,000 cu.m. annually.

Plant

3.10 A typical processing plant plan is attached (plan 96032/PP/1) which should be viewed as

illustrative. In addition it is proposed that there is an on-site concrete plant, and a typical plant

is also attached (plan 96032/CP/1).

3.11 The layout within the plant area is flexible so that what is shown on plan 0047/CO/1 is

illustrative but it should be noted that most of the area will be used for the stockpiling of

product.

3.12 In terms of buildings and ancillary plant there will be:

weighbridge,

site offices (assume 2/3 single storey typical site offices - 3 m wide x 2.8 m high x 12 m

long),

workshop (portal framed building - 12 m wide x 7 m high x 12 m long),

bunded fuel tanks and surfaced refuelling area,

access road is assumed to be unbound,

concrete pad beneath plant and around weighbridge (both areas will be very small),

plant area surface will be unbound compacted sand and gravel.

Page 8 of 40


Mobile Plant

3.13 Within the plant area there will probably be two wheeled loaders for material management,

including vehicle loading and loading the concrete plant.

3.14 Day to day excavation will be by an hydraulic excavator that will load to articulated dump

trucks (probably 35 tonne capacity). It is expected that there will be two (possibly three on

occasions) articulated dump trucks.

3.15 Excavated material will be taken to the plant and operations area via internal unbound roads

(suggested routes shown on plan).

3.16 Reclamation material will probably also use these internal roads, but generally the internal

roads are retreat excavated as the workings move around the site.

Working Scheme

3.17 The suggested working scheme is shown on plan 0047/CO/1, with the arrows showing the

general direction of progress.

3.18 The approach is to store the soils from the Plant and Operations area as environmental bunds

around the plant site. At this stage a southern bund is not proposed, but can be added as

there is sufficient material.

3.19 The subsoil/overburden, at this stage in the design, will be either temporarily stored within the

central area and/or used in the building of the water management area. Once 'mineral'

extraction starts the overburden will be progressively placed in the void as the workings are

restored.

3.20 The material balance calculations indicate that the overburden 'runs out' by Phase 5. In other

words, importation of reclamation material will be needed at this time if the restoration

objectives are to be achieved.

3.21 The plan broadly shows annual requirements but it is stressed that it is illustrative as the

output is dependent upon the market and other such factors.

Page 9 of 40


Timescale

3.22 The north western area has been excluded due to archaeological constraints. This has

reduced the recoverable reserves by around 0.400 Million tonnes to 2.7 Million tonnes.

3.23 There will be some further reduction due to margins and working constraints so the

expected output is 2.5 Million tonnes which at 0.200 M.t.p.a. gives an overall life for the

minerals of 12 - 13 years.

3.24 Regarding reclamation, the figures are much more uncertain at this stage, but the initial

assessment is that the infilling/completion of Phases 5, 6 & 7 will be at the same time as the

mineral extraction completes; i.e. Year 12/13.

3.25 This leaves the western section, the Plant and Operations area and the temporary

storage area unrestored. Infilling of the western area (Phases 8, 9, 10 and 11) could last a

further 5 - 7 years with an additional 2 years to complete the plant and operations and

temporary store area.

3.26 Based on the above the overall timescale could be around 20 years.

Traffic

3.27 The mineral output is 200,000 t.p.a. of which it is assumed that some 50,000 t.p.a. will be

used by the concrete plant which will cease to operate/be removed when the minerals are

exhausted. This traffic breaks down as follows,

Mineral Output 150,000 t.p.a. ÷ 250 working days ÷ 20 tonnes/lorry x 2 = 60 movements (30 in, 30 out)

Concrete

50,000 t.p.a. ÷ 250 working days ÷ 12.5 t/truck x 2 = 32 movements (16 in, 16 out)

Total = 92 movements (46 in, 46 out).

3.28 Turning to the reclamation, the input is estimated at 60,000 - 70,000 cubic metres annually.

This will be delivered by tippers carrying 9 - 10 cu.m.

Page 10 of 40


70,000 cu.m. p.a. ÷ 250 days ÷ 9.5 cu.m./lorry x 2 = 56 movements (28 in, 28 out)

3.29 In addition there will be cement deliveries and fuel tankers etc. so allowances should be made

for 2-3 extra movements each day.

3.30 When reclamation is taking place from Year 5, there will be an element of 'back haul' between

input and output and a figure of 25% of input vehicles will leave loaded (this reduces the input

movements to 42 movements).

Summary

3.31 Mineral Reserve 2.5 M.t.

Annual output 0.200 M.t.

Life of mineral 12 - 13 years

Reclamation Input 0.060 - 0.070 M.cu.m.

Reclamation Req. est. 1.0 M.cu.m.

Life of Reclamation 14/15 years

Start reclamation Year 5

Complete reclamation Year 20

Traffic Years 1 - 4 94 movements (47 in, 47 out)



Page 11 of 40


4.0 The Overall Approach to the EIA

4.1 The following sections of this report describe how the EIA will be undertaken and the main

issues that it is likely to address. The output of the EIA process is an Environmental

Statement (ES), which will comprise a free-standing document containing all the

environmental information relevant to the determination of the planning application. This will

be accompanied by a Non-Technical Summary.

Technical Studies

4.2 The main element of the EIA work will comprise a series of specialist environmental studies.

These will be undertaken by a team of specialist consultants. Each consultant will undertake

and present their research to a consistent methodology. The results of these studies will form

the basis of the different topic chapters within the ES. It may also be necessary to include

detailed technical studies as appendices to the ES.

Consultation

4.3 Consultation will take place with the relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies as

appropriate to the topic being considered. In particular, it is intended to consult with relevant

organisations, including specific departments within Northamptonshire County Council, on the

precise methodologies to be adopted within the EIA process. This consultation process

would also enable any requirements for mitigation raised by these organisations to be

considered and, if appropriate incorporated into the scheme design at an early stage.

Dealing with impact significance

4.4 Each predicted impact and residual effect, whether adverse or beneficial, will be ascribed a

level of significance. Each technical chapter of the ES will set out the framework used to

establish impact significance in its methodology section.

Cumulative effects

4.5 Where appropriate to the issue in question, the effects of this Great Billing proposal will be

considered together with those impacts that are likely to arise from other relevant schemes

that are proposed to come forward within the vicinity and to a similar timescale. The range of

Page 12 of 40


assessment for such potential cumulative impacts will be agreed, via this scoping process,

with Northamptonshire County Council.

4.6 The two main aspects of the development proposals at Great Billing which are capable of

having impacts causing a cumulative effect with other proposals are traffic and mineral

extraction. In this case we have identified other projects in and immediately around the

wastewater treatment works which are expected to contribute additional traffic on roads that

will be affected significantly by traffic from the development proposals at Great Billing. These

projects are identified below. In terms of mineral extraction, we are aware that a site

immediately adjacent to the proposal site has recently been granted planning permission for

sand and gravel extraction and this is also listed below:

Industrial Units at the former L & H Polymers site (approved planning

application)

Sand and gravel extraction at Earls Barton Spinney Quarry at Grendon Road

Winning and working of sand and gravel with progressive restoration to wet

woodland and agriculture utilising imported inert materials at land west of

Earls Barton Quarry, Grendon Road, Northants.

Allocated Strategic Waste Management Facility (WMF), east of the existing

WWTW.

4.7 Cumulative impacts relating to these schemes will be assessed where relevant within each of

the technical chapters.

Alternatives

4.8 The EIA Regulations (2011) state that the following must be included in an ES:

“…an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the

main reasons for this choice, taking into account the environmental effects…”

4.9 The EIA process provides an opportunity for the consideration of alternative design and

phasing options, prior to the selection of the final scheme. In accordance with the above

regulations, the ES will describe those alternatives that were considered by the applicant as

the scheme progressed, along with an analysis of how the environmental considerations have

influenced the scheme proposals. This consideration of alternatives will include the ‘do

nothing’ scenario.

Page 13 of 40


4.10 As regards alternative locations for the extraction of mineral resources, reference will be

made to the strategic and site specific analysis conducted within the Northamptonshire Waste

and Minerals Development Plan Document process.

Page 14 of 40


5.0 The Content of the Environmental Statement

5.1 It is proposed that the Environmental Statement will be structured as follows:

Non Technical Sections

Introduction;

Description of the site;

Description of the development;

Policy context;

Outline of main alternatives and scheme evolution;

Scope of the EIA and consultation;

Technical Sections

Environmental Assessment for technical sections, including mitigation measures for

the following:-

Landscape and Visual Impact;

Ecology;

Transportation;

Noise;

Hydrology, drainage and ground conditions;

Archaeology;

Air Quality including dust

Contamination

Climate Change

Non-technical summary

5.2 The following paragraphs provide a brief synopsis of the likely contents of each of these

sections.

Non Technical Sections

5.3 The non-technical summary will comprise an accurate and balanced summary of the

information contained in the ES, and a summary of significant effects of the proposed

development, using non-technical language and appropriate illustrations, in a manner that the

Page 15 of 40


lay person can understand. It will be available separately from the ES.

5.4 The introduction will provide information about the applicant, provide relevant background

information regarding the history of the site and outline the rationale behind the proposal.

5.5 The description of the site will provide a brief outline of the site and its surroundings

including the local transport network.

5.6 The description of the development will define the details of the extraction proposals along

with the phasing and timescales. The restoration strategy for the site will also be described.

5.7 The planning policy context will identify the statutory development plan for the site. This

comprises the RSS for the East Midlands, the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste

Development Framework consisting of the Core Strategy, Locations for Minerals

Development and Locations for Waste Development, the Northampton Local Plan (1997) and

the parts of the Wellingborough Local Plan (2004) together with the North Northamptonshire

Core Spatial Strategy.

5.8 The National Planning Policy Framework has recently been issued which provides guidance

on mineral developments. The relevant emerging local policy documents include the West

Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

5.9 The section on alternatives and scheme evolution will explain how the proposals originated

and evolved in response to the site evaluation and the findings of the EIA process and set out

the alternatives considered.

5.10 The section on scoping and consultation will outline the scoping process that was followed,

clarify how the ES provides any environmental information that was specifically requested at

the scoping stage and identify any issues which were ‘scoped out’ at this stage in the

process.

Technical Sections

5.11 The environmental assessment for each technical section of the ES will follow a generalised

format. Where appropriate, the technical information relating to environmental issues will be

included as appendices to the ES.

Page 16 of 40


6.0 The Scope of the Environmental Effects

6.1 The scope of the ES will be determined through consultation between the applicant,

Northamptonshire County Council and key consultees to the planning process. An outline of

the proposed content of the technical sections of the ES document is set out below.

A Landscape and visual impact

6.2 The landscape and visual assessment within the Environmental Statement (ES) will study the

existing landscape character, identify viewpoints of the proposed scheme and assess the

sensitivity of such views with and without mitigation. The landscape and visual assessment

would be carried out through a combination of site visits and desk study. Representative

viewpoints within the Study Area will be identified and will be confirmed with the Planning

Authority.

6.3 The methodology will be developed in accordance with guidance set out in the Landscape

Institute and The Institute of Environmental Management Guidelines for Landscape and

Visual Impact Assessment, published by Spon (2002).

Consideration will be been given to the following documents:

Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland (The

Countryside Agency and Scottish National Heritage, 2002);

Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

(Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11).

6.4 The landscape assessment will analyse the sensitivity of identified landscape resources

within the study area which contribute to landscape character. The assessment will provide a

statement of the significance of effects, including mitigation proposals. Landscape character

will be assessed with reference to the following documents:-

“Countryside Character”, Volume 4: East Midlands, The Countryside Agency,

Character Area 89 / 94, Northamptonshire Vales;

“Current Landscape Character for Northamptonshire”, Character Area 18, Broad

River Valley Floodplain {Website}, available from



Page 17 of 40


6.5 The proposed development is situated within the Nene Valley, with the A45 located to the

north and the River Nene located to the south. The site proposed for development is largely

screened by trees and hedges. However, there are a number of locations where phases of

the scheme will be visible from properties, footpaths, public rights of way and roads. The

visual impact assessment will assess views from:-

Residential Properties

6.6 The villages of Cogenhoe and Whiston, with a number of individual properties located to the

south of the site may have views to some phases of the scheme. Properties located to the

north of the site, include:-

The village of Ecton, which is likely to have views of the site, primarily to phases

8 to 11;

South Lodge is located to the north and is likely to have views to some phases

of the site;

Properties within Earls Barton to the north east have potential views of the site,

primarily phases 1, 2, 6 and 7;

Roads

6.7 Lower Ecton Lane is located to the north west of the site, (adjacent to the A45). This has

potential views of the site. In addition, the A45 located on part of the northern boundary has

potential views of the site.

Public Rights of Way

6.8 The Nene Way (National Trail / Long Distance Route) is located to the east and south of the

site and links to the village of Cogenhoe. A bridleway is located to the east of the site, which

leads in a southerly direction to the village of Whiston. A Byway is located along parts of the

northern boundary and dissects the site along the eastern boundary of phases 11 and 8. In

addition, footpaths are located to the south of the site. Views from these footpaths will be

assessed.

6.9 The landscape and visual assessment section of the ES will be illustrated with a series of

plates recording views of the scheme. Each plate will contain a photograph, a location plan

indicating the viewpoint and direction of view and a table summarising the existing landscape,

the nature of the proposals and the impact of the proposed development both with and

without mitigation proposals.

Page 18 of 40


6.10 The proposed development will be assessed within the context of planning policies and

guidance at national and especially local level. Consideration will be given to local planning

objectives. The assessment will fully consider all relevant statutory and non-statutory

guidance, which, together with detailed fieldwork, would form the baseline for assessment of

the proposals.

Restoration and Mitigation Plan

6.11 The preparation of a suitable restoration and mitigation plan will be developed in response to

the proposals and findings of the ES chapters. The plan will include appropriate planting

mixes and an overview of ground preparation, planting and aftercare of the proposals. This

will be supported by a short report that will include an overview of the proposals, the strategy

for handling, storage and spreading of soils, proposed methods of habitat creation as well as

management and aftercare for the scheme.

B Ecology

6.12 The ecological assessment will assess the ecological interest of the Great Billing application

site by determining the range and distribution of habitats / species within and adjacent to the

site; evaluating their importance, and assessing potential impacts associated with proposed

mineral extraction. Measures for impact avoidance, minimisation, mitigation and

compensation will be provided. In addition, identification of opportunities for ecological

enhancement of the site following restoration will be provided.

6.13 The assessment will be carried out in accordance with the IEEM Guidelines on Ecological

Impact Assessment (IEEM, 2006) and will make reference to relevant policy guidance and

legislation relating to nature conservation.

6.14 A desk study has been undertaken by MLM to obtain existing ecological and nature

conservation data records for the site and surrounding area (up to 2km from the site for non-

statutory designated areas and protected and notable species; 10km for statutory designated

areas). The main findings are:

Non Statutory Designations

Three Potential Wildlife Sites (PWS) occur wholly or partially within the site. These

are Wind Spinney to the East, Billing Sewage to the west and its continuation, Billing

Scrub a former County Wildlife Site. The ES will assess if construction of the

southern access road will have an impact on the Billing Sewage and Billing Scrub

Page 19 of 40


PWS.

One Local Wildlife Site (LWS) Ecton Gravel Pits (to the east at SP840617), borders

the central and south-eastern half of the site and partially encroaches in the South-

Eastern corner. It qualifies as a LWS and wetland habitat due to the twelve indicator

species recorded in its area. The ES will assess if mineral extraction at the site will

have an impact on the LWS.

Statutory Designations

Units of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of

Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are located 1.3km to the east and 1.5km to the

south west of the site. These areas are designated for their importance for breeding

bird assemblages and wintering waterbirds. The ES will assess if quarrying

operations will have an impact on the statutory sites and will identify appropriate

mitigation.

6.15 A full assessment of potential impacts to statutory and non-statutory sites will be included

within the ES.

6.16 A series of surveys were originally carried out in 2006 / 2007 on the site by Hankinson

Duckett Associates (HDA) for habitats, badger, otter, dormouse, water vole, bats, birds,

reptiles, amphibians, white-clawed crayfish and hedgerows. The habitat survey recorded low

botanical diversity across the site, most likely resulting from the arable setting and the history

of sewage sludge spreading on the land.

6.17 MLM Environmental carried out a complete suite of site specific surveys for habitats and

notable species between 2010 and 2011 to update this information. A Phase 1 Habitat survey

of the site was carried out in August 2010 to identify areas or features of ecological interest

and evaluate the potential for protected or notable (e.g. UK or county BAP, Natural Area,

nationally/locally scarce, Red Data Book) species to occur within the site. The site is therefore

considered to have a very low potential significance for terrestrial invertebrates, as well as

botanical assemblages.

6.18 The majority of the site is considered to be dominated by habitats of negligible nature

conservation importance, consisting of large intensively farmed arable fields. However, the

following habitats of nature conservation importance have been identified:

An area of lagoons occurs along the southern edge of the site containing a sizeable

area of standing open water, reedbeds and swamp, providing important habitat for

Page 20 of 40


bats, birds and reptiles;

A wooded strip along the track following the eastern section of the northern site

boundary provides an important area of foraging and commuting habitat for bats, and

mature trees along this strip provide probable roosting sites for bats;

A corridor of habitats occurs along Ecton Brook (the drain which flows north to south

through the centre of the site; including woodland, species-rich hedgerows and

reedbed), supporting a variety of species and forming an important wildlife corridor;

Billing Scrub PWS within the south-western part of the site provides some wildlife

interest, with areas of open water, ruderal vegetation, scrub and rough grassland;

and,

Further areas of local nature conservation interest include the Barton Brook flowing

along the eastern site boundary, the Ecton Brook flowing through the centre of the

site, as well as other areas of woodland and hedgerows within the site.

6.19 A potential risk of dust and water pollution resulting from the works has been identified, which

may impact on the above habitats. The ES will assess if the dust and water pollution resulting

from the works will impact on these habitats. This will be further considered in the ES.

6.20 Following the findings of the habitat survey, specialist surveys were subsequently undertaken

for badger, otter, water vole, bats, birds, reptiles, amphibians and hedgerow importance in

2010/2011, which will be considered further in the ES.

6.21 The following protected and notable species are considered not to be present and as such

are removed from further consideration in the ES:

Dormice – No records were found within 2km of the site. Surveys by MLM in

2010/2011 found the woodland and hedgerows on site are of low suitability for

Dormice. This observation of low suitability of habitats on site, and the negative

result of a site nest tube survey undertaken by HDA between May and November

2007 concluded that no further surveys for Dormice were required.

White-clawed crayfish – No white-clawed crayfish were found in data searches by

HDA and MLM. Records of the invasive, non native signal crayfish have been

highlighted by MLM. A survey of the site by HDA in April 2007 did not identify white-

clawed crayfish. Based on the above information it is considered highly unlikely that

white-clawed crayfish are on site, or in its locality. It was concluded no further surveys

for white-clawed crayfish were necessary.

6.22 The potential effects of proposed mineral extraction works on designated sites surrounding

Page 21 of 40


the site will be fully considered and significance determined in the ES. In addition, habitats

and protected/notable species within and adjacent to the site will be fully considered and

significance determined in the ES. Key potential impacts in the assessment include:

Loss or damage to valuable habitats and features in whole or part, including the

lagoons, streams and drains, woodlands, hedgerows and Billing Scrub and Ecton

East Gravel Pit CWS;

Impacts on waterbodies arising from pollution from groundwater or surface runoff

and/or changes in hydrology;

Impacts on habitats and species arising from noise, dust and light pollution

associated with the works;

Habitat fragmentation;

Loss of habitat, disturbance and risk of killing or injury to protected and notable

species, including badger, otter, bats, birds and reptiles;

Indirect impacts on habitats occurring outside the site boundary but within the zone of

influence of the proposed minerals extraction works, including local designated areas.

The zone of influence includes hedgerows and woodland immediately outside of the

site boundary, as well as any other areas that may be affected by noise, dust or run-

off pollution.

6.23 Advice on ecological constraints and enhancement opportunities will be provided to ensure

that measures for impact avoidance and minimisation are incorporated where appropriate.

Proposals to mitigate any remaining impacts will be described. The ecological impacts of the

proposals taking account of this mitigation will be assessed on receptors within and outside of

the site. Opportunities for ecological enhancement of the site following restoration will be

explored during the design process. These opportunities will be detailed in a nature

conservation management and restoration strategy, outlining measures to safeguard the long-

term nature conservation interest of retained and newly created habitats across the site

following extraction.

6.24 The assessment process will include consultation with Natural England, Northamptonshire

Wildlife Trust and the local planning authorities.

6.25 A Habitat Regulations assessment is outside of the scope of the EIA. However, a separate

stand alone report will be provided, drawing on data obtained from desk studies and site

surveys, to help determine if Appropriate Assessment is required.

Page 22 of 40


C Transportation

6.26 This section of the EIA will focus upon an assessment of the transport, movement and access

implications of the proposed development. The ES will describe the local highway and

transport network including reference to the wider strategic transport issues, consideration of

transport policy and an explanation of how the scheme relates to national and local transport

objectives before providing an assessment of the implication of the scheme for traffic

movements.

6.27 It will describe the impact of generated development traffic on users of the highway network,

and the measures that will be offered to mitigate this impact.

6.28 The significance of the effects in both the local and strategic contexts will be described,

identifying the location and intensity of any effect. The ES will include analysis of the

temporary transport effects anticipated during the extraction phase arising from the

introduction/reconfiguration of roads and mineral vehicle movements on the local road

system. Specific routing agreements will also be considered. Traffic surveys will be carried

out in locations agreed with the relevant highway authorities.

Key Issues

6.29 The study will identify the impact of the additional development traffic on the local highway

network including Crow Lane and Lower Ecton Lane, together with the other traffic flows from

identified and agreed committed developments in the immediate area.

6.30 The study will also assess the impact on the strategic highway network on the nearby A45

Great Billing Interchange in discussion with the Highways Agency.

6.31 The specific phases of the development are a key influence on the Transport Assessment and

therefore will be assessed in turn. These phases are likely to be existing traffic flows prior to

commencement of the development including committed developments and future peak

mineral extraction rates in conjunction with the other local committed development uses

representing the operational phase. The assessment will be required to consider a growth

horizon that includes background traffic growth on the network and is normally 5 years for the

local highway network and 10 years for the trunk road network. Background traffic growth will

be forecast using the TEMPRO database. Any localised growth or available data will be

discussed with the Highways Authorities and used in the assessment. We are aware of the

A45 corridor model and improvements recently finalised by the Authorities to support planned

growth in Northampton.

Page 23 of 40


Guidelines

6.32 Reference will be made to the following:

Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment for Road Traffic, Institute of

Environmental Assessment (1993);

Guidance on Transport Assessment, Department for Transport (March 2007);

Circular 2/2007 Planning and the Strategic Road Network, Department for Transport

(2007)

NPPF

Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB), Highways Agency; and

Northamptonshire LTP, the emerging LDF, and SPD documents.

Baseline and Assessment Methodology

6.33 The Transport Assessment will follow the ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ and C2/2007

prepared by the Department of Transport and any specific parameters set by the local

highway authorities under a separate scope to be agreed with them.

6.34 Trip generation rates will be determined from first principals and compared with any similar

site information available using the TRICS database. Growth factors will be calculated

through the use of the TEMPRO database. Detailed assessments of junction capacity will be

undertaken using industry standard computer software traffic assessment packages including

ARCADY, PICADY, and LINSIG.

6.35 In addition to baseline traffic flows obtained through independent traffic count surveys, the

following committed development schemes have been identified to add to the baseline traffic

flows:

Industrial Units at the former L & H Polymers site (approved planning application)

Allocated Strategic Waste Management Facility (WMF), east of the existing WWTW.

6.36 The above committed/allocated development traffic flows will be included in the transport

model to assist in the calculation of future year traffic flows and trip assignment. Trip

distribution will be based upon logical links to the strategic highway network which will be

used for materials to reach the market. To the south of Crow Lane, a weight restriction is

present at the bridge crossing, therefore influencing the distribution of heavy vehicle traffic.

Page 24 of 40


Further data will be obtained from traffic surveys that will be undertaken specifically for this

planning application.

6.37 Details of a Lorry Management Plan will be included within the Transport Assessment to:

accommodate lorries safely and to minimise their impact on roads, by discouraging

the use of minor roads except for local journeys or deliveries;

discourage unnecessary lorry movements in environmentally sensitive and other

unsuitable areas such as near schools or shopping areas; and

encourage positive routing of lorries on appropriate roads.

6.38 The study area will be agreed with the local highway authority and confirmed through

supporting data obtained by the use of traffic survey data. The current preliminary study area

is identified by the list of junctions below:

Crow Lane/The Causeway Roundabout Junction;

Crow Lane/Main Anglian Water Wastewater Treatment Works Access;

Crow Lane/Ravens Lane Junction;

Crow Lane/Lower Ecton Lane Junction; and

Great Billing Interchange: Crow Lane/A45 Nene Valley Way/A5076 Great Billing Way.

6.39 The site access strategy will be considered in detail with junction assessments undertaken for

all proposed site accesses.

Potential Impacts and Mitigation

6.40 During construction, the ES will assess the impacts on the local road system, arising from

additional vehicle movements in the area as well as the possible need to reconfigure roads

temporarily. Mitigation could include agreed vehicle routing to the site and operating times of

use.

6.41 Once operational, the ES will consider vehicle movements on the local road network, both

with and without the scheme for the anticipated period of extraction. Impacts on the operation

of junctions and network performance will be considered. Mitigation measures that will be

reviewed and considered comprise the following proposals that formed part of the agreed

S.278 with NCC:

Improvements at the junction of Crow Lane with the main Anglian Water Wastewater

Treatments Works Access;

Page 25 of 40


Improvements at the site entrance from Lower Ecton Lane

Introduction of a one-way traffic circulation around the Wastewater Treatments

Works.

6.42 The impacts of the development traffic and associated mitigation measures on sustainable

modes of transport such as walking and cycling will be considered in the Transport

Assessment.

D Noise and vibration

6.43 The noise assessment will consider the noise emitted by site plant and by road traffic

associated with the sand and gravel extraction, at existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of

the site.

6.44 The baseline noise levels at the sensitive receptors will be obtained by carrying out

measurements at representative locations. The measurements will be taken at times of the

day which coincide with the proposed hours of working. The sensitive receptors and the

scope of the background noise survey will be discussed and agreed with the Environmental

Health Officer and the Planning Authority.

6.45 Noise predictions will be carried out, in accordance with BS 5228, “Code of practice for noise

and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1: Noise” to determine the likely

noise levels to be associated with the proposed minerals and waste operations. The

predictions will be carried out using proprietary noise modelling computer software. Each

phase of working will be considered separately. Source data for the site plant and equipment

will be obtained from Wardell Armstrong archive sources.

6.46 The predicted noise levels for the proposed mineral working will be assessed in accordance

with standards and/or guidance to be agreed with the local authority. This is likely to

comprise the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework.

E Hydrology, hydrogeology and flood risk

6.47 This section of the EIA will assess the impacts of the proposed development upon both the

quantity and quality of surface waters and groundwater. The assessment will consider the

potential impacts during the construction, extraction and restoration phases.

Page 26 of 40


Baseline Environmental Conditions


6.48 Published mapping shows the site to lie within the fluvial floodplains of the River Nene, Ecton

Brook and Barton Brook. The site is also shown as being potentially liable to flooding from

several reservoirs according to EA reservoir inundation mapping. The River Nene lies to the

south of the site and flows east, broadly parallel to the southern site boundary whilst the

Ecton Brook doglegs through the site, roughly bisecting it. The Barton Brook forms the

eastern boundary of the site and flows south to join the Nene.

6.49 The River Nene drains a catchment of approximately 611 km2, flowing from the Daventry area

northeast through Northampton to The Wash. To the east of Northampton the River Nene

forms a naturally braided channel with mean flows of approximately 18 m3/s. Ecton Brook

drains a catchment of approximately 6 km2 and flows southwards from the edge of the suburb

of Great Billing, under the A45 and through the proposed site to River Nene. Barton Brook

serves a catchment of approximately 12 km2 and flows south, most notably, from the Sywell

Reservoir some 2.5 km north of the site. An initial review of groundwater data at the site

suggests that water levels in the Ecton Brook are not dependant on groundwater. It is fair to

presume that the same is true of level in the Barton Brook.

6.50 The majority of the proposed site is currently undeveloped laid to grass, scrub and arable

farmland. The current surface water runoff regime will be rural, with runoff dispersing via

infiltration, evaporation and overland flow to the local network of watercourses.

Geology

6.51 The site lies in a region at the boundary of the Lias Group and the overlying Inferior and Great

Oolite Group, all of Jurassic age. The beds are near horizontal in this region, and the Oolite

Group is thin, allowing the Lias Group to be exposed in the base and sides of river valleys.

The Lias Group deposit underlying the site comprises the Whitby Mudstone Formation

(previously known as the Upper Lias Clay), which is a mudstone and siltstone containing thin

limestones, sandstones and phosphatic nodules, approximately 20 – 65 m thick in this region.

Mantling the bedrock geology are Quaternary deposits comprising a thin layer of alluvium

associated with the floodplain of the River Nene beneath which are River Terrace Deposits

comprising the Ecton Member sand and gravel.

Page 27 of 40


Hydrogeology

6.52 Water levels measured within boreholes across the site suggest that the River Terrace

Deposit sands and gravels contain water at a depth of between 1m and 4 m below ground

level. Given the proximity in level between the groundwater and the surface waters of the

River Nene, it is probable that they are in hydraulic continuity with groundwater providing

baseflow to the river. Groundwater monitoring indicates that the direction of shallow

groundwater flow in the sands and gravels beneath the site is from northwest to southeast

towards the River Nene.

6.53 The River Terrace Deposit sands and gravels are considered to be a locally important aquifer,

considered by the Environment Agency to be a Secondary A aquifer. The vulnerability of the

aquifer to pollution is high, due to the high permeability of soil and shallow water table. The

overlying Northampton Sand of the Inferior Oolite Group is also considered to be a locally

important aquifer however this stratum is typically found on higher ground above the river

valley and will not be in hydraulic connection with shallow groundwater in the sands and

gravels found beneath the site. Information on the Environment Agency website suggests that

a groundwater Inner Source Protection Zone (SPZ) exists in Great Billing, approximately 2.5

km to the northwest of the site, however the Environment Agency has confirmed this SPZ

relates to a historic abstraction borehole drilled in 1935 and is not a current supply. There are

no known public water supply sources within 2 km of the site.

6.54 The shallow groundwater beneath the site is likely to be in connection with surface water in

the River Nene, principally via groundwater movement in the sand and gravel continuous

beneath the site and the river course. This means that groundwater levels and quality will be

capable of influencing surface water levels and quality in the river and ditches on site and

nearby.

6.55 The Whitby Mudstone Formation beneath the site is underlain by further Lias Group

mudstones. Cumulatively, the Lias Group forms a thick (> 170 m) low permeability layer

protecting deep aquifers associated with underlying Triassic bedrock formations from the

planned extractions.

Surface water quality

6.56 EA mapping indicates that the site ultimately drains to environmentally sensitive areas of the

River Nene. The EA consider the ecological quality of the Nene as poor but the chemical

Page 28 of 40


quality as good. The ecological quality of the Barton Brook is considered to be moderate with

an assessment of chemical quality deemed unnecessary. The Ecton Brook is not included in

the EA assessment.

Groundwater quality

6.57 Groundwater sampling and testing was carried out from boreholes on site in 2009 and

identified concentrations of nitrate, selenium and petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of

Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). The nitrate was persistent beneath the whole site

and is considered to be background contamination potentially resulting from intensive

agricultural practices within the local area. Selenium was localised on the northwest

boundary and no source was apparent. Hydrocarbons were present in the northwest and

could be as a result of fuel contamination from an adjacent filling station on the northern

boundary or from highway runoff. However attenuation does occur across the area of

proposed minerals extraction and hydrocarbons were below method detection limits on the

downstream (southern) boundary nearest the River Nene.

6.58 Historical mapping shows that between the WWTW to the west and the western boundary of

the minerals extraction area there have been historical sewage sludge beds. These are

known to have impacted on groundwater quality beneath land to the west of the site.

Potential Impacts

Construction phase

6.59 The proposed construction of a new internal access road and site compound will result in the

creation of impermeable cover on land which is currently permeable. Left unchecked this

would increase the rate at which rainfall is converted to surface water runoff and discharged

to the Nene and its tributaries. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which will form a technical

appendix to the ES will include a chapter which addresses surface water runoff management.

6.60 Storage of plant and construction materials within the floodplain could result in floodwater

displacement and/or the release of pollutants (fuel and oil for example) and debris into the

surrounding water environment. The FRA will therefore assess suitable storage areas for

plant and construction materials.

Page 29 of 40


Extraction phase

6.61 Through the FRA the EIA will assess, and manage downstream impacts associated with any

reduction in floodplain storage. The potential release of physical and chemical pollutants

associated with the extraction process will be assessed to determine appropriate mitigation

measures (such as storage of material and plant outside of the floodplain). Such measures

will be incorporated in the site environmental plan.

6.62 It is understood that the site will be dry-worked, requiring dewatering of the sands and

gravels. Extracted water will be vulnerable to any uncontrolled physical and chemical

contaminants arising from the extraction operation. Good environmental site and process

management (regular maintenance and cleaning of equipment, suitable storage of fuels and

oils) would aid in avoiding pollution incidents from such sources.

6.63 Allowing uncontrolled disposal of water, abstracted during dewatering into the surrounding

watercourses could result in physical and chemical pollution of the water environment. It is

envisaged that this will be avoided with the use of stilling basins and/or the application of

abstracted water to ground.

6.64 The uncontrolled discharge of water abstracted during dewatering to the surface water

environment would result in an increase in surface water flows in the area. The FRA will

include an assessment of the impact of such discharges and any required mitigation

measures.

6.65 Dry working the site for minerals will require dewatering of excavations to reach sand and

gravels below the groundwater table. The hydraulic connection between shallow groundwater

and the river will mean that adverse impacts from dewatering will need to be controlled

through careful management, possibly requiring a range of mitigation including lining of

excavations, phased working and increasing opportunities for groundwater recharge.

Restoration phase

6.66 We understand that the preferred restoration plan will involve backfilling the site excavations

with inert material to allow the majority of the site to be returned to arable farmland. A wetland

area will also be created in the south of the site to tie into the existing off-site

wetland/waterside environment. Opportunities to reduce current ground levels and increase

the flood storage capacity of the site will be investigated as part of the FRA. Changes in the

Page 30 of 40


permeability of the site will be dictated by the nature of the inert fill and will be broadly

assessed in the FRA.

Data Sources

6.67 Existing Strategic Flood Risk Assessment flood mapping and model data from the EA, will set

the baseline for the flood risk investigation within the EIA.

6.68 Existing data relevant to the groundwater at the site includes the findings from previous

ground investigations of the site in 2004 and 2009/10. Water levels have been monitored in a

number of permanent boreholes on a monthly basis since November 2005 up to the present

time. British Geological Survey mapping of superficial and bedrock and Environment Agency

mapping of SPZs and aquifer classification would be consulted together with historical

borehole logs from the British Geological Survey archive and any ground investigation reports

for the surrounding area found on the local authority planning portal websites. Additional data

requirements for a full EIA assessment are outlined below.

Assessment Methodology

Overview of approach

6.69 At this stage, we envisage that the scope of works would include:


A review of published data, EA flood levels, Strategic and Preliminary Flood Risk

Assessments, etc.

Assessment of any impacts on flood storage and conveyance at the site.

Assessment of the fluvial and surface water runoff impacts arising from the

development, as well the potential risk to the site itself and any residual risk, taking

climate change into account.

Assessment of the pre and post-development surface water run-off regime and any

likely changes.

Groundwater

Description of the baseline conditions building on the scoping study and including the

relevant aspects of the local geology, hydrogeology, groundwater levels and quality,

and any significant features that may be impacted by the proposed extraction.

Page 31 of 40


A review of mapping will be undertaken, focussing on locating and identifying

groundwater dependent features.

A review of groundwater and surface water abstractions within a 2 km radius. For

groundwater abstractions this would include details of the SPZs.

A review of private groundwater and surface water abstractions within a 2 km radius.

A review of available reports on groundwater conditions within the surrounding area.

A review of groundwater level and quality monitoring data in the sand and gravel

stratum, and level and available quality data for relevant reaches of the River Nene

Ecton Brook and Barton Brook .

Monitoring of groundwater levels in existing boreholes.

Sampling of existing boreholes on site and testing for water quality.

Relevant standards and guidance

6.70 The assessment will be carried out in consultation with the Environment Agency and

Northamptonshire County Council. The following standards and guidance will set the context

and requirements for this chapter of the ES;

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Local Planning Policy

The SUDS manual CIRIA C697.

Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) (Environment Agency, 2006, and

2008)

Pollution Prevention Guidelines

F Archaeology and cultural heritage

6.71 The production of the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Assessment chapter for the

Environmental Statement will be carried out in accordance with the National Planning Policy

Framework. It will follow the guidelines for desk based assessment, as set out by the Institute

for Archaeologists (2008). It will:

provide an historic overview of the site through research undertaken at

Northamptonshire Record Office;

establish the presence of designated and non designated heritage assets

within the site and its vicinity, through consultation with the Northamptonshire

Historic Environment Record; including a review of the geophysical survey

recently undertaken within the site, earlier this year;

Page 32 of 40


verify the presence of ‘above ground known’ heritage assets, and assess the

potential for ‘as yet unknown’ heritage assets within the site boundary,

through a site walkover survey;

analyse the potential impact of the proposed development on known and

potential buried archaeological remains; and,

analyse the impact of proposed development on the setting of designations

and other relevant heritage assets within and adjacent to the site boundary

6.72 The report will be fully illustrated and will include a statement on potential requirements for

further fieldwork.

G Air quality including dust

6.73 The air quality assessment will assess the impacts of emissions from road vehicles,

associated with the proposed sand and gravel extraction at Great Billing, Northampton, at

existing sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the site.

6.74 A screening assessment will be undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads

and Bridges (DMRB), for the roads likely to be affected by the proposed development. The

baseline air quality will be established in the vicinity of the site, by obtaining the most recent

air quality monitoring data from the local authority. The assessment will quantify the air quality

impacts as a result of additional vehicles accessing the site.

6.75 The air quality assessment will consider local air quality and the current air quality standards,

and objectives of the ‘Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.’ The magnitude and

significance of impacts will be assessed using significance criteria, detailed in the

Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) document ‘Development Control: Planning for Air

Quality (2010 Update).’

6.76 A dust assessment will assess the impact of dust from on-site activities, at existing sensitive

receptor locations in the vicinity of the site. The assessment will provide qualitative analysis of

the magnitude and significance of potential dust impacts. The method will follow accepted

practice, which considers the existing baseline conditions for the site and the on-site activities

/ operations (which result in dust emissions); identifying impacts and providing mitigation

measures.

6.77 The assessment will utilise the most recent ten years of Met Office meteorological data from

the closest recording station to site, to determine the likelihood of dust impacts being

experienced by existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site.

Page 33 of 40


H Contamination

6.78 This section of the EIA will examine the potential impact of contamination from the previous

use of the site as a sewage farm including a sewage irrigation field together with any other

potential sources off site, particularly those in an ‘upstream’ location. Mitigation measures

that may be needed to minimise adverse impact on the local environment and identified

receptors prior to, during mineral extraction and during/following restoration will be described.

6.79 The methodology, scope of work and assessment process will be agreed with the

Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Departments of Wellingborough Borough

Council and Northampton Borough Council.

6.80 Baseline soil, groundwater and gas conditions will be assessed through desk-based studies

and intrusive investigations undertaken in accordance with Environment Agency and DEFRA

document “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination” CLR11.

6.81 The EIA will draw on existing data for the site, which includes previous investigations of the

site and of surrounding land undertaken between 2004 and 2010. Relevant existing soil and

groundwater analysis results and groundwater and gas monitoring data will be examined to

assess the presence of and the effects of any existing contaminants within the area or outside

that could be of relevance. Sensitive receptors and locations on and off site would be

identified. Detailed and generic quantitative risk assessment will be undertaken to evaluate

risks to identified receptors both in terms of baseline conditions, during extraction and

during/following restoration.

6.82 At this stage, based on existing data there are potential risks from contaminants in soil and

groundwater that will need to be assessed for various stages in the extraction and restoration

process. This will allow potential impacts to be quantified and mitigation strategies to be

developed such that any residual impacts can be mitigated down to acceptable levels.

6.83 Separate reports will be produced to support the Environmental Statement and would include

a Phase Preliminary Contamination Assessment (Desk Study) and Contamination

Assessment report including findings of previous investigations and Quantitative Risk

Assessments.

Page 34 of 40


J Climate change

6.84 This section will pull together findings of other sections of the ES and analyse potential effects

of climate change on the project, as well as the effects of the project on the receiving

environment (climate). This is increasingly requested by Planning Authorities and the

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).

Page 35 of 40


7.0 Conclusion

7.1 This scoping report has identified a range of environmental and technical issues that the EIA

will assess. Direct and indirect effects of development will be considered. Effects during

extraction and following restoration will be assessed. The range of studies and identification

of potential effects will influence the scheme design and determine where additional mitigation

measures are necessary.

7.2 Comments are invited on the scope of the EIA. Relevant comments/suggestions would be

appreciated, as would any information that could be supplied to help establish the baseline.

7.3 This Scoping Report will be issued to Northamptonshire County Council as the Minerals

Planning Authority. It is expected that the planning authority will consult the following parties:

Northampton Borough Council

Wellingborough Borough Council

Ecton Parish Council

Cogenhoe and Whiston Parish Council

Earls Barton Parish Council

Great Billing Parish Council

Environment Agency

Natural England

Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust

RSPB

Internal Drainage Boards

Highways Agency/Authority

Page 36 of 40


Appendix A

CAPL/101297/001/MH/RW/31.05.12

Great Billing WWTWRed Line Boundary

Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright 2012. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449. Plotted Scale - 1:10000

Page 37 of 40


Appendix B

Page 38 of 40


Appendix C

Page 39 of 40


Appendix D

Page 40 of 40


Appendix E


Appendix E Scoping Opinion July 2012

Northamptonshire County Council

Development Control, Planning

County Hall

Guildhall Road

Northampton, NN1 1DN

w. www.northamptonshire.gov.uk

t. 01604 367197

f. 01604 366065

e. [email protected]

Dear Mark, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 2011: REGULATION 13 SCOPING OPINION 12/00002/SCO – Proposals for Scope and Content of an Environmental Impact Assessment for sand and gravel extraction and restoration at Great Billing, Northampton I refer to your scoping report received 1 June 2012. The scoping report has been the subject of consultation in accordance with the above Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations and copies of the responses received have been emailed to you by Emma White. No response has been received from Northampton Borough Council although the case officer has advised verbally that NBC has no particular concerns with the proposed scope of the Environmental Statement (ES). Should further responses be received I will forward them to you. Overall I can confirm that the approach that you are advocating and the topics you address in the scoping report are considered to be acceptable and appropriate. This is reflected in the nature of the consultation responses which do not raise any major issues with the proposed scope of the ES but do provide useful comment and advice. To avoid unnecessary repetition, broad guidance provided by consultees has not been duplicated in this opinion. Please note the specific points which have been made in the responses and to which you are required to have regard. Many are similar to the consultation responses to your similar scoping request in 2009. In particular I would draw your attention to the following matters: Development Plan The Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) is fully adopted and provides the relevant county level strategic guidance and policy. The Scoping Report refers to the MWDF Core Strategy and Locations documents at paragraph

Mark Hodgson Savills (L&P) Limited Unex House 132-143 Hills Road Cambridge CB2 8PA [email protected]

Please ask for: Mark Laurenson Tel: (01604) 367197 Our ref: 12/00002/SCO Your ref: CAPL/101297/A6 Date: 18 July 2012

mailto:[email protected]

5.7 but does not mention the Control and Management of Development DPD and the Development and Implementation Principles SPD. Both documents should inform the planning policy context for the ES. Amenity Impacts Air Quality (including Dust) and Noise Dust and noise are considered likely to be the most difficult amenity issues to mitigate with regard to this site. It is acknowledged that control measures are proposed but the ES would need to demonstrate that impacts from dust and noise would be mitigated under these proposals. It is suggested that noise and dust management plans should be submitted at the application stage to help address these issues up front. The air quality assessment should include assessments of potential impacts on ecological receptors as well as other sensitive receptors. Odour Odour has been raised as a concern in consultation responses. It is recognised by the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) that mineral working and inert waste operations are not likely to generate odour issues but in this case the site was previously used for sewage sludge disposal. In light of this, and given the ongoing odour issues associated with the nearby sewage treatment works and composting site, it is considered that odour should be addressed in the ES. Lighting Information should be included in the ES to address amenity impacts from any temporary or permanent lighting and should be extended to include potential impacts on ecology. Transport and Highways The Highway Authority considers a transport assessment should be included with the ES. The Highway Authority has also requested a travel plan be included. Traffic routing has been the subject of comment by Ecton Parish Council who wishes to see an agreement secured to prevent traffic travelling through Ecton. The routing agreement would likely need to be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement. The response from the Highway Authority also points out that there are Public Rights of Way (PROW) and Byways running through and along the site, including the Northampton Round Route. The Highway Authority has commented that ideally these routes should be kept open and safe for public use and/or temporarily diverted and restored after extraction. The Highway Authority is however concerned that the proposed access road and internal haul road cross TE10 twice within the site. To help address concerns regarding PROW, the Highway Authority requests that any application should be accompanied by a construction management plan including detail of how the site would be managed with regard to TE10 and the need to minimise disturbance to users and the surface of TE10.

It is considered that this proposal provides opportunities to improve access to the area and the wider Nene Valley, especially if restoration proposals are amended in light of consultation responses. This should be explored through the ES. Archaeology The County Archaeological Advisor notes the proposals to produce a desk based assessment of the archaeological potential of the proposed development area and the suggestion that this will form the basis for a statement on the requirement for further works. The County Archaeological Advisor also suggests that the ES includes the results of both the intrusive and non intrusive archaeological survey and requests that the ES includes a figure showing the area to the north west of the allocated site which is to be excluded from working along with accompanying details as to how this area would be protected throughout operations and restoration. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Please have regard to the detailed comments from Natural England regarding designated landscapes and landscape character. Consultation on the third edition of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been undertaken. The ES should be prepared having regard to the most up-to-date published guidelines available. Water Resources Given the location (including land within flood zones 1 and 2) and the size of the site (greater than 1.0 hectare) the ES would need to consider all sources of flooding and provide a Flood Risk Assessment. Please see the EA’s response for further detail of what would be required. Contaminated Land The intention to include an assessment of contamination is supported. The EA’s response refers to a previous risk assessment at this site. In particular the EA is aware that there is a phosphate impact on the River Nene in this area and that any application would be expected to assess the potential impacts of working the contaminated land in light of previous sewage sludge disposal. The EA has requested further information be included in the ES regarding how minerals are processed as it is considered wash waters could become contaminated. This would necessitate that settlement lagoons be built into the design to contain contaminated fines. The EA has also asked for clarification about proposals to avoid flood waters coming into contact with contaminated soils.

Soils Detailed comments regarding soils have been provided by Natural England. These should be taken into account in preparing the ES. Impacts on agricultural land are particularly relevant to the site and the proposed restoration. Ecology Please refer to the detailed comments provided by RSPB, Natural England and the Wildlife Trust in conjunction with the paragraphs below. The ES should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pit (SSSI, SPA, Ramsar) and identify mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce and significant adverse effects. This should include surveys to assess over winter use of the site by birds included within the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA designation, including golden plover and lapwing. The scope of any necessary bird surveys, particularly overwintering birds, should be agreed with Natural England and the MPA prior to further surveys being undertaken. Surveys for protected species, including for example great crested newts, reptiles, birds, water voles, badgers and bats, shall be undertaken within the area affected by the development. In accordance with the relevant guidance, any surveys submitted shall be undertaken at the appropriate times of year and be up-to-date. As well as including statutory and non-statutory sites and protected species, the ES should include a full assessment of potential impacts on habitats and species of principal importance. Impacts on Local Nature Reserves, Wildlife Trust Nature Reserve sites, Local and Potential Wildlife Sites and Pocket Parks should also be assessed. The ecological assessment should differentiate between the potential for enhancement and measures to mitigate or compensate for harm to nature conservation. Restoration Responses from the RSPB and Wildlife Trust include concerns about the proposed restoration. In particular the responses consider the site offers significant potential for restoration with biodiversity and green infrastructure benefits over and above what is currently being proposed. In particular it is noted the site is located within a Nature Improvement Area where restoring biodiversity is considered a high priority. There may also be opportunities through restoration to further improve flood alleviation measures. Restoration proposals should be developed taking into account MWDF policies, most notably Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy (Restoration and after-use of minerals and waste development) and Policies CMD7 (Natural assets and resources) and CMD13 (Restoration and after-use). Detailed discussions with the RSPB, Wildlife Trust, Natural

England and the MPA on restoration are recommended in advance of any application. Restoration options should be explored further through the ES. The MPA would like to point out that detailed restoration proposals for the adjacent Earls Barton Spinney quarry site are still to be agreed and could have a bearing on the land use and/or habitats that would be most suitable at the proposed site. Cumulative Impacts It is considered important that the assessment addresses cumulative impacts on amenity (noise, dust, odour), landscape, biodiversity (including green infrastructure) and highways matters. This assessment should relate to both impacts generated from the subject site and in conjunction with surrounding developments, (existing, approved, proposed and likely) in particular the two permitted quarries at Earls Barton Spinney and land west of Earls Barton. Neighbour Consultation There is a recognised need to consult at pre-application stage with local residents and parish councils. It is important that careful consideration be given as to how best to engage the residents of the Ecton Lane Travellers site. Darren Berwick at Northampton Borough Council has responsibility for managing the Ecton Lane site and recommends that the consultation be face to face, either by attending the site or arranging for a public meeting to be convened and appropriately communicated to the residents. Planning Statement Matters It would be helpful for all parties if any application gave consideration to proposed planning conditions and the content of the Section 106 legal agreement. Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Yours sincerely

Mark Laurenson Principal Development Control Officer

Documents

Appendix D.1 EIA Scoping Report...content of the Environmental Statement (ES). On the basis of this report, Anglian Water therefore requests Northamptonshire County Council’s Scoping