DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARDpolitics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s128637/Bardon Conveyor... · 2017. 5. 18. · DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD 25TH MAY 2017 REPORT

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

25TH MAY 2017

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

COUNTY MATTER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

APP.NO. & DATE: 2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – 21st December 2016. PROPOSAL: Proposed alternative overland aggregate and

overburden conveyor to that previously approved under Planning Permission ref 2010/0076/07 & 2010/0041/04.

LOCATION: The Bardon Estate, on land comprising Bardon Hill

Quarry, the new extraction area and farmland to the south of Bardon Hall.

APPLICANT: Aggregate Industries UK Ltd. MAIN ISSUES: Approved route problems, heritage and landscape

impact, right of way, noise, dust and residential amenity.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit subject to the conditions included in Appendix A. Circulation Under Local Issues Alert Procedure Mr. M. B. Wyatt, CC Mr. P. A. Bedford, CC Dr. T. Eynon, CC Mr. D. Harrison, CC Officer to Contact Mr. S.R. Marriott Email: [email protected]

21 Agenda Item 10

DC&REG. BOARD 25/05/2017

2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 - continued

PART B – MAIN REPORT

Background Information 1. Planning permission (ref. 2010/0076/07 & 2010/0041/04) for the extraction of

132Mt of mineral from an area adjacent to Bardon Hill Quarry, use of the overlying overburden to complete the eastern tip, create perimeter embankments and partially infill the current quarry and to link the new operation to the existing operation using conveyors was granted in August 2011. Soil stripping commenced at the site in October 2014, and development of the new extraction area, landforms and drainage strategy has been on-going since.

Location and Setting of Proposed Development

2. The planning application area comprises approximately 500 hectares, mainly

within the Bardon Estate. The application site for the current proposal is the same as that for the previous development outlined above. To the north of Bardon Hall Drive, it comprises the existing Bardon Hill Quarry, associated processing plant site and stocking areas, lorry-park, the main access to the A511 and rail link, existing landscaped screening mounds, Tip 18 area and Bardon Hill. The Estate to the south of Bardon Hall Drive area contains the new extraction area, and new landforms, areas of woodland and farmland.

3. Within the application area the proposed alternative mineral conveyor route

would run from the site of the new primary crusher along the edge of the new quarry void and include an emergency take off, to a stockpile area within the allocated soil storage area. The main mineral conveyor would continue along the inside edge of the new quarry void in a south westerly direction to the north east of Old Hall Farm. In this location it would be joined by the overburden conveyor, and emerge from the new quarry void, and head in a westerly direction towards Bardon Lodge, in a cutting across farmland before reaching a historic tip where the conveyors would be cut into a shelf on the northern side of the tip. The tip would be extended to improve screening on the north western side. From here the conveyors would drop underground into concrete culverts before heading in a northerly direction into the existing quarry area. The overburden conveyor would be suspended across the quarry void and discharge into the worked out quarry area. The mineral conveyor would emerge from the culvert and continue towards the existing feed into the processing plant.

4. The application site is bounded by the A511 Bardon Road and Shaw Lane to

the south, Copt Oak Road and the M1 to the east, and Whitwick Road to the north east. Residential areas lie to the north and north-west of the existing quarry immediately beyond the perimeter screening embankments. Several residential properties lie along Bardon Road, the nearest privately owned being some 150m+ from the proposed conveyor route. Residential properties fronting Shaw Lane are some 530m from the line of the proposed conveyor route

22


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

23


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 - continued

5. The planning application area contains a Geological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which covers the existing quarry and Bardon Hill summit, and a Biological SSSI, which also covers Bardon Hill summit and its southern slope down towards Bardon Hall. Mature tree hedgerows, stone walls and ditch features form field boundaries within the Estate, and small woodland/copse features and parkland planting exists in the vicinity of Bardon Hall. A corridor of trees lines the drive to the Hall from the east, and a recently planted tree belt exists around the eastern section of the site. An established network of public footpaths cross the site, and where affected, are the subject of orders to facilitate the new quarry development.

6. Bardon Church, Bardon Hall Lodge and Bardon Park Chapel are three Grade II listed buildings situated along Bardon Road/Shaw Lane adjacent to the application site boundary. Kelham’s Farmhouse, Office & Range (the estate Farm) and Bardon Hall, Grade II listed buildings, are situated within the estate, although the Hall is excluded from the application area. To the east of Kelham’s Farm lies a moated site, which is a Scheduled Monument.

Description of Proposed Development

Background to the Proposal

7. Since planning permission was granted in 2011, the Applicant has been monitoring Tip 17 along the route of the proposed bored tunnel. Studies have revealed that the tip is still settling. Rates of settlement are variable across Tip 17 but are approximately 25mm per annum. The conveyor tunnel would need to be in place for the life of the extension area (~40 years). The cumulative effect of settlement during that period, combined with differential settlement along the length of the tunnel pose unacceptable construction and operational risks.

8. As a result of the above, alternative conveyor routes have been investigated and assessed to try and find a solution which would minimise public disturbance during construction and minimise environmental and ecological impacts to areas where the public currently enjoy the benefits of Aggregate Industries UK’s restoration programme.

9. Prior to the submission of the application, discussions have been held with the local community and detailed proposals were presented to and discussed at a Quarry liaison committee in February. Post submission, the Applicant held a Public Information Exhibition to offer an opportunity for interested parties to view the plans and discuss the proposals with the Applicant.

General Details of the Development Proposals

10. This planning application seeks consent for an alternative overland conveyor system to that permitted in 2011 as part of the Bardon Hill Quarry Extension (ref: 2010/0076/07 & 2010/0041/04).

11. The conveyor system is a dual system with two conveyor belts; one belt to transport mineral to the existing processing plant adjacent to the existing Bardon Hill Quarry. The other conveyor to transport overburden from the

24


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 - continued extension area and partially backfill the Quarry void of the existing Bardon Hill Quarry as part of the permitted restoration.

12. The mineral conveyor would be required for the life of mineral extraction - circa

40 years. The overburden conveyor would be required for approximately 12 years.

13. The conveyors would be designed to transport a maximum of 2000 tonnes of

aggregate and a maximum of 900 tonnes of discard/overburden per hour. 14. The conveyors would be operational during the hours of Monday to Saturday

0700 to 2200 in accordance with the conditions of the permitted development. The conveyor system would not operate on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays. The Applicant would wish essential maintenance work and repairs to be carried out at any time.

15. In addition to the proposed alternative conveyor system, the Applicant is

seeking an alternative location for the emergency mineral stockpile area. This area would be utilised only in the event of a significant breakdown in the conveyor system when mineral would be stockpiled (up to 8m high) and then hauled by dumper to the processing area within the existing quarry. The existing Bardon Hill Quarry Primary Crusher surge stockpile has capacity for approximately 5 days of production, and therefore the emergency stockpile would only be used under exceptional circumstances.

Description of the Conveyor Route

16. The new primary crusher is to be constructed in the north-east corner of the

permitted extraction area (at a level of 145m AOD, which is more than 50 metres below original ground levels), and would be rotated to accommodate the proposed alternative mineral conveyor route. The mineral conveyor would be directly fed from the primary crusher and travel in a westerly direction to transfer tower number 02, which would provide the option to divert mineral to the emergency stockpile area located to the north in the event of a significant system breakdown.

17. At this point the conveyor and a road for maintenance vehicles would run in a

south westerly direction adjacent to the screening mounds of the permitted extraction area. There is no additional screening proposed as the approved mound would screen the conveyor from the adjacent land.

18. Transfer tower number 03 would be located to the south-west of the permitted

extraction area. The overburden conveyor would start adjacent to transfer tower number 03. Overburden material would be reduced in size using a mobile sizing station fed by dumper, and the sized material then fed onto the overburden conveyor by a series of mobile conveyors within the footprint of the permitted extraction area. The mineral and overburden conveyor systems would then head in a westerly direction parallel to one another leaving sufficient width for a maintenance vehicle to run between. The conveyors would drop below ground level as they pass under Old Hall Farm Drive.

25


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

19. To the west of Old Hall Farm Drive, the route passes through existing field hedgerows and south of Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland close to Bardon Lodge. This section of the route passes between Bardon Hall and Old Hall Farm, and it is proposed to set this section of the conveyor within a trench of 2 metres depth. The natural topography screens the proposed development from sensitive receptors such as Bardon Hall and Bardon Hall Chapel. Soils and subsoils excavated for construction would be managed and stored in accordance with the approved Soil Handling Strategy. Along this stretch, the conveyor would be further screened by enhanced hedgerow planting of the existing field boundaries. Sections of hedgerows to be removed to facilitate the mineral and overburden conveyors would be reinstated as part of the site restoration works.

20. Transfer towers 04 and 05 would be located within an existing vegetated

historical tip. At this point the conveyors would run within a cutting through the tip to screen them from nearby receptors. The conveyors would pass into the transfer towers and drop below ground and continue in concrete culverts where the infrastructure would be fully screened from local receptors. The conveyors would then pass north under the existing haul road. Material excavated from the historical tip would be used to create a small extension to the tip to provide enhanced visual and noise screening from Bardon Lodge and nearby receptors on the A511.

21. The overburden conveyor would be suspended across the existing quarry void

and overburden discharged into the quarry would be spread using dozers. 22. The mineral conveyor would continue from Transfer Tower number 04 in a north

westerly direction adjacent to the existing quarry’s western boundary before reaching the existing plant site. A maintenance road would run alongside the conveyor.

Description of the Conveyor System

23. The proposed conveyor system can be broken down as follows:

• 900 metres would run within the new extraction area; • 875 metres would run alongside the existing Bardon Hill Quarry; • The area of previously undisturbed land affected is limited to the area

between Transfer Tower 03 and 05 and covers approximately 985 metres. 24. The proposed mineral conveyor is a standard belt conveyor approximately 2850

metres in length, and measuring 1.5 metres in width and 2 metres in height. The conveyor would be covered with a green/grey cladding (British Standard Colour: 10C39 ‘Olive’) to minimise visual impact in addition to noise and dust nuisance.

25. The proposed overburden conveyor would measure approximately 1800

metres, of which approximately 800 metres is proposed to be suspended across the existing Bardon Hill Quarry void, and would be 1.5 metres in width and 2 metres in height. The conveyor would be covered with coloured cladding the same as the mineral conveyor.

26


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued 26. The proposed transfer towers would be covered in grey/green coloured

cladding, and located at points where there is a change in direction of the conveyor route. Transfer towers 01, 02 and 03 would be located along the first part of the route within the new extraction area, transfer towers 04 and 05 would be located at the western end of the middle section on the northern side of a historic tip, and transfer towers 06, 07 and 08 would be located on the final section within the existing quarry area. The dimensions of the proposed transfer towers are as follows: Transfer towers 01, 06 and 08 ~ 7m x 7m x 7m high; Transfer tower 02 ~ 11m x 7m x 12m high; Transfer towers 03, 04 & 05 ~ 7m x 7m x 5.5m high; Transfer tower 07 ~ 7m x 10m x 17m high.

27. Each transfer tower would require an individual substation building for electricity

supply. The substation buildings are standard size and would have maximum dimensions of 15m x 3m x 3m high. The buildings would be sheeted in green cladding.

28. The maintenance road would be 6m wide and follow the length of the conveyor

from the primary crusher to the plant site. The maintenance road would be hard surfaced and remain in situ for the duration of mineral extraction.

29. Each transfer tower and substation would require a construction/laydown area.

These areas would measure approximately 400 square metres, be hard surfaced and removed post construction.

30. The construction of the conveyor route would also necessitate the provision of a

temporary construction road. In order to transport construction equipment, the road would need to measure approximately 6m wide. Once construction is completed the road would be removed and the land restored/reinstated.

Emergency Aggregate Stockpile Area

31. The approved development includes provision for an emergency stockpile on

the north-eastern side of the new extraction area. Due to the proposed rerouting of the conveyor, this feature needs to be relocated and linked to the mineral conveying system. The application includes proposals for an alternative emergency stockpile area to the north-west of the new extraction area, for the storage of aggregate in the event of a significant breakdown in the conveyor system.

32. The alternative emergency stockpile area is within the approved soil storage

area (with permission to store soils at heights of up to 5 metres). Mineral would be stockpiled (up to 8 metres high) and then hauled by dumper to the main processing area within the existing quarry. The proposal would not require the stripping of further areas, and would not impact upon existing or required soil storage areas. The alternative emergency stockpile area would only be used under exceptional circumstances, as the existing quarry stockpile has capacity for approximately 5 days of production.

27


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued 33. The interconnecting conveyor between Transfer Tower 02 and the emergency

stockpile area would measure 140 metres in length. The soil storage area is enclosed by perimeter hedgerows and trees. The proposed conveyor system has been aligned to minimise the loss of existing hedgerow, and a 20 metre section of hedgerow is required to be removed.

Construction Works

34. Construction of the conveyor system would predominantly take place during

daytime working hours in accordance with the approved development. However, due to the close proximity of existing operations, some construction activities would occur outside of these hours to ensure the safety and welfare of construction and operational personnel. Delivery of equipment and materials would only access the site via the existing Bardon Hill Quarry entrance from the A511.

35. Construction would commence immediately upon receiving planning permission

and continue for approximately 2 years. Soil stripping and vegetation clearance would be undertaken within relevant seasonal constraints, followed by civil construction and mechanical/electrical installation. A phased construction schedule is anticipated in order to minimise local disturbance, and the Liaison Committee would be kept informed in advance of activities. Temporary lighting would be required, and could be covered by condition.

Tree Protection Measures and Management

36. All trees retained on site would be protected by suitable barriers or ground protection measures around the calculated root protection area (RPA), crown spread of the tree or other defined constraints as detailed by section 6 and 7 of BS5837.

37. Management of the existing trees, hedgerows and woodlands affected by this

planning application would take place as many of these arboricultural features have been neglected over the preceding years. Such mitigation could include rotational coppicing of the trees within woodland parcels located to the west of the open field compartments and adjacent to the haul road and existing quarry workings, thinning of the remaining trees in this area, and the removal of invasive species including Rhododendron from all of the woodland groups.

38. New tree planting could be included within the smaller field compartment

segments to the north of the proposed route and to the south of the main woodland parcel W1 where access would be limited and viable removal of hay crop would be limited. Tree planting would be reconciled with the other site constraints to ensure a balance is met.

Restoration

39. Following operations, the restoration proposals seek to reinstate the current land uses, replant removed hedgerows and boundary vegetation, and reinforce existing field boundaries. The proposed restoration of the conveyor route is described briefly below, referencing the design in the context of landscape and visual matters:

28


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

• Removal of all the conveyor system apparatus, including that related to the emergency stockpile;

• Removal of all associated fencing and other elements required during the operation of the conveyor system;

• Backfilling of the trench, and grading to the existing landform and levels using appropriate stored subsoils and topsoils;

• Re seeding of the reinstated trench corridor as appropriate to the field parcel use and existing grass mixes;

• Re-planting of hedgerow sections removed for the purposes of facilitating the conveyor corridor;

• Planting / re-planting of woodland in the vicinity of Towers 4 and 5 along the conveyor corridor; and,

• Planting of additional woodland in the proximity of the driveway to Old Hall Farm.

40. Access would be provided to the fields to the north and south to enable continuation of Wildlife Trust grazing. The proposed conveyor would not impact the Lowland Grassland already translocated under Condition 21 of the approved development. Hedgerows bisected by the conveyor corridor shall be translocated along existing and historical field boundaries.

Environmental Statement

41. The planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) which provides technical appendices and an assessment of the following matters: need and alternatives; landscape and visual considerations; nature conservation and ecology; arboriculture; archaeology; cultural heritage; noise; dust and air quality; soils, land quality and agriculture; water resources; public rights of way and cumulative impact. A summary of the impacts of the proposed development identified in the ES, together with proposed mitigation and any compensation measures is set out below.

Need and Alternatives

42. Planning permission was granted in 2011 for an extension to Bardon Hill Quarry to facilitate the extraction of 132 million tonnes of aggregate. The need for the development, including the mineral and overburden conveyor systems, was assessed as part of the determination of that application, in order to ensure a steady and adequate supply of crushed rock as part of the overall managed aggregate supply system.

43. The alternatives assessment has looked at seven routes for the conveyor systems, including the permitted route (Route 1). The northern route corridors comprise routes 1, 2 and 7, route 3 is a more direct route in a bored rock tunnel beneath Bardon Hill, and routes 4, 5 and 6 are southern corridor route options. Due to a combination of factors including potential significant effects on public access, woodland and ecological interests, designated sites, landscape, and cultural heritage, together with viability and operational constraints, Route 6 was identified as the preferred route. Five different options of the preferred route were then developed and assessed to identify the delivery of the conveyor system that provides the best balance of potential environmental and amenity impacts and operational needs, and the assessment concluded that Option 5 was the most sustainable.

29


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

Landscape and Visual Considerations

44. The landscape and visual impact assessment has had regard to the landscape character and designations of the site and a visual appraisal has been undertaken, informed by a series of agreed photo viewpoints. The existing landscape resource and the visual receptors have influenced the preferred option for the conveyor route. The landscape and ‘green infrastructure’ proposals include: Field boundary reinforcement and planting along existing hedgerows to the north and south of the proposed conveyor corridor (where it crosses fields to the south of Bardon Hall); and small blocks of woodland planting. These proposals would deliver: proposed planting that strengthens the existing field boundaries; retention of the current field structure, preservation of existing land uses; delivery of woodland enhancement planting sympathetic to the historic character of the local landscape; a conveyor route design that minimises disturbance, and facilitates restoration to current land uses and landform; a potential alternative permissive footpath route.

45. The western and easternmost sections (875 and 900 metres, respectively) are sited within existing operational areas, and as such the conveyor would not result in a change to the nature of the landscape in these areas. During construction there would be some short term adverse landscape effects and some semi-permanent albeit very localised changes in the landscape along the central section of the conveyor system (a distance of 985 metres). The resulting effects at operation on the landscape character areas are therefore considered to be negligible. The proposals would result in the loss of some grassland and vegetation, and a change to the perception of the character of a localised area of this landscape. This would however be seen in the wider context, which is disturbed by quarrying activities. The proposals would result in a negligible to minor adverse effect on the landscape.

46. The restoration proposals seek to reinstate the existing boundaries, land uses and field structure following completion of operations, and therefore resulting effects on these landscapes would be of negligible significance. With the exception of receptors along the section of the Public Right of Way passing immediately south of the conveyor route, the visual effects arising from construction activities are generally considered no greater than effects during the operational phase. The potential alternative permissive route passing further south would address these impacts during construction. There were not considered to be any residential receptors subject to views of the conveyor system. Effects are therefore considered to be of negligible to low magnitude, with a negligible significance of effect during operation, taking into consideration the reinforcement planting to be undertaken along the field boundaries north and south of the conveyor corridor.

Nature Conservation and Ecology

47. A range of ecological surveys, licensed mitigation measures and monitoring

have been recently undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed development, as part of the evidence base to inform the currently permitted new quarry development. These include surveys covering the area of the proposed conveyor route, surrounding land, and works in its wider potential zone of influence relating to protected species.

30


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

48. In order to further inform the assessment of the proposed conveyor route, an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey report was produced in March 2016. A bat risk assessment and tree climbing survey of the proposed conveyor route was undertaken in November 2016, and a bat activity survey involving a number of transects over a wider area was undertaken during summer 2016, together with a walkover survey of the conveyor route.

49. The proposed conveyor would result in a loss of approximately 150m of hedgerow habitat, with effects of minor significance at the local scale on the hedgerow habitat resource and the functioning of ecological networks. Mitigation involves the planting of new hedgerows and woodland and the strengthening of hedgerows to the north and south of the conveyor route. No effects are predicted on bat roosts, or potential roost features in trees or other structures. No significant effects on populations of protected species or breeding birds are predicted as a consequence of the conveyor development. However, mitigation measures will be necessary to maintain legislative compliance with respect to great crested newt (GCN), reptiles and breeding birds. No GCN breeding ponds are affected, but works within suitable terrestrial habitat will require a Natural England disturbance licence. No effects are predicted on any nationally or locally designated conservation sites. Mitigation measures involving reinstatement of the hedgerow network across the conveyor route will result in a neutral residual effect in the long term.

Arboriculture

50. A survey and assessment of the trees present at Bardon Hill have examined the existing condition and quality of the trees and assessed the potential for impact arising from the proposed development. There are no Tree Preservation Orders or Conservation Area designations that apply to any trees present on, or in close proximity to the assessment site and therefore no statutory constraints would apply to the development in respect of trees.

51. The survey found that a total of 21 trees and one group of trees are considered

to be Grade A (high quality) and in addition several veteran trees have been identified to the south of Bardon Hall. Thirty-three individual trees and 14 groups of tree were categorised as Grade B (moderate quality) and five individual trees and 10 groups of trees were categorised as Grade C (low quality). Three Grade B trees and 5868m2 of group B tree cover, and two Grade C trees and 570m2 of group C tree cover would be lost to the development.

52. Retained trees would be adequately protected during works ensuring that the

calculated root protection area can be appropriately protected by tree protection barriers. Mitigation of the operations includes a stand-off to the Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland at the western end of the conveyor route, and choice of route to avoid high quality and veteran trees. New tree and hedgerow compensatory planting would form an integral part of the development, and improvements to the management of retained features would also be introduced. The assessment concludes that upon implementation of a long-term mitigation strategy the management of arboricultural features within the study area and mitigation in the form of new tree and hedgerow planting should make the proposals acceptable in terms of arboricultural impact.

31


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

Archaeology

53. An assessment has been undertaken of the potential for the alternative conveyor route to impact on archaeology. The assessment has included a geophysics survey and based upon those findings targeted trial trenching has been undertaken. The assessment has concluded that there is low potential to impact upon archaeology directly and the proposals are not considered likely to significantly impact upon buried archaeological resources. By reason of this, the proposed alternative conveyor route will not cause an unacceptable impact on archaeological assets in accordance with EIA regulations.

Cultural Heritage

54. The cultural heritage impact of the proposals has been assessed, and the report

assesses the extent and importance of material assets and features of potential cultural heritage interest in and around the proposed development area. It also discusses the potential impacts of the proposed development on cultural heritage, and the potential for implementing mitigation measures to minimise those potential impacts.

55. The proposed conveyor route does not impact directly upon any designated

heritage asset, and consequently there are no perceived direct impacts on any heritage assets. Specific cultural heritage impact assessments have covered the Grade II Listed Buildings within 1.5km of Bardon Hall: Bardon Hall; Bardon Park Chapel; Bardon Park Lodge; Kellam’s Farm Farmhouse; Church of St Peter, and the moated Scheduled Monument near Kellam’s Farm.

56. The potential for adverse impact is limited to an indirect impact on the setting of

Bardon Hall, which could be affected by alterations to the field pattern during operations. Upon final restoration, the historic fieldscape and agricultural network would be reinstated to maintain the integrity of the landscape in the long-term. The potential harm from the rerouted conveyor would equate to less than substantial harm.

Noise

57. An assessment of the potential noise impact of the alternative conveyor route

has been undertaken, and this has considered modelling by way of noise predictions, comparing site noise level with permitted noise levels and mitigation recommendations aimed at achieving the permitted noise limits (55dB LAeq). The study area for the assessment has been based upon noise sensitive receptors within 300m of the proposed conveyor route. Specifically, residential properties adjacent to the A511 and a tenanted property at Old Hall Farm.

58. The calculated noise levels at the selected properties for the operational phase

of conveyor are in the range 57 to 63dB LAeq with no mitigation measures, and are above the permitted site noise limits for all of the locations considered. The calculated noise levels for the construction phase of the conveyor are in the range 52 to 60 dB LAeq at the selected properties and are below the permitted noise limit of 70dB LAeq for temporary operations.

32


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

59. The proposed noise mitigation is a combination of double and single cladding for items of plant and the transfer towers. It is predicted that single skin cladding provides around a 10 dB(A) reduction and a double skin cladding provides around 20dB(A) reduction. It is assessed that road traffic noise will remain the dominant noise source for the dwellings adjacent to the A511. Mitigation would also be provided along the route as the conveyor would be in a cutting, and existing hedgerows would be supplemented. A further screening bund would be added to the existing landform in the vicinity of transfer towers 4 and 5. The calculated noise levels for the operational phase of the conveyor are in the range 50 to 54dB LAeq with the inclusion of cladding and below the permitted noise limit of 55dB LAeq, and the calculated noise levels for the construction phase are below the permitted noise limit of 70dB LAeq for temporary operations. The residual impact is considered to be low for noise.

Dust and Air Quality

60. There is some potential for dust to be generated from the conveyor construction activities, the use of the conveyor for the transportation of overburden and mineral, and the use of the maintenance roads by vehicles. It is assessed that the potential for dust generation associated with the proposed conveyor route would not be greater than the emissions from the approved scheme.

61. It is proposed that the controls in the existing planning permission and Environmental Scheme for the site would be carried forward and adhered to in respect of the new conveyor. The existing dust and air quality limits which control activities at the site would also be applied to the new conveyor proposal, along with mitigation measures and dust management monitoring. The proposal is not anticipated to have any significant impact on air quality.

Soils, Land Quality and Agriculture

62. The previous Agricultural Land Classification study found that the areas of the new conveyor route that are in agricultural use are generally classed as subgrade 3b with a small area of subgrade 3a. Soil stripping is required to develop the conveyor cutting between transfer towers 03, 04 and 05, and the soils are proposed to be stored in the south west corner of the permitted scheme. All disturbed soils would be managed in accordance with the approved Soil Handling Strategy to ensure that the soils are available for use in landscaping and/or restoration works, in accordance with the permitted objectives for site restoration to low key agricultural use for biodiversity interest. It is not anticipated that any additional impact would affect the soil resource.

Water Resources

63. Hydrogeological Impact and Flood Risk Assessments have been undertaken. The proposed conveyor does not cross any watercourses or field drains, and the trench between transfer towers 03 and 05 would be managed to reduce the risk of stormwater inundation. The potential for impact on groundwater would be very low given the 2m depth of the conveyor trench and the 5 to 17m depth of groundwater. The proposed conveyor corridor is located within Flood Zone 1 and the risk of flooding is limited due to the significant distance of any fluvial flood risk source, and it does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

33


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

64. To minimise the potential for impacts on water resources, flows and flood risk mitigation measures have been integrated into the scheme to deal with surface water run-off. Provision of a cut-off ditch on the northern side of the conveyor cutting would capture and convey run-off to the west and east of Old Hall Farm Drive and link to local watercourses. These measures would ensure no detrimental impact on the water environment.

Public Rights of Way

65. The new conveyor route proposal seeks to divert Footpath O36 to the south of the hedgerow, close to its current position, on the grounds of footpath user safety. This would place a hedgerow between the footpath users and the field containing the conveyor. Upon cessation of mineral operations the footpath would be reinstated along its original line. The line of Footpath O35 is crossed by the proposed conveyor near to Old Hall Farm, and it is proposed to provide a footpath bridge over the conveyor in this location. In total six public footpaths have been identified as being in close proximity to the conveyor route but no other footpaths would be affected apart from O36 and O35. The impact of the proposals on the public rights of way is not considered to be significant.

Cumulative Impact

66. The assessment has had regard to the potential successive, simultaneous and combined cumulative effects on the following receptors, population, soils, flora and fauna, air and climatic factors, archaeological heritage and landscape. It is not considered that the proposed alternative conveyor system and any future developments would give rise to significant adverse effects, any unacceptable adverse impact arising from simultaneous developments and would not add significant combined environmental impact to the overall development.

Planning History

67. Mineral working has taken place at Bardon Hill for many years, with references dating back to 1622. In 1859 the first (steam driven) processing plant was installed, and aided by the proximity of the new railway, quarrying began in earnest. Steady growth was experienced, until the demand for stone increased to supply road building and development needs following World War II. The first mineral extraction permissions were granted in 1947, under the provisions of two Interim Development Orders (IDO), and these were followed by permissions to extend the workings in 1957 and 1981. Two planning applications, made in 1948 and 1958 by Bradgate Quarry Companies, for quarrying at Rise Rocks were refused (the later one at appeal).

68. The first large-scale planning permission for the extraction of stone was granted in 1989, which effectively consolidated the IDO consents and the 1957 and 1981 permissions. This permission released around 70Mt, secured the restoration of Rookery Quarry and included the formation of screening embankments and overburden tips. A legal agreement accompanied the permission. In 1999, permission was granted for the replacement of the secondary and tertiary processing plant, and in 2004, permission was granted for an extension to the eastern tip (Tip 18).

34


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued 69. Under the requirements of the Environment Act 1995, all extraction permissions

and associated tipping activities at the site were reviewed, and a new set of conditions was issued in 2006. These together with permissions covering other minor developments at the site were replaced by the last planning permission, granted in 2011 subject to a section 106 Agreement, and these now provide the main planning controls over development at the site.

Planning Policy

National Policy 70. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the government’s

policies for the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and for decision-taking this means (unless material considerations indicate otherwise):

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

• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant polices are out of date, granting permission unless:

• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against NPPF policies; or

• specific polices in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted. 71. The NPPF includes core planning principles to underpin both plan-making and

decision-taking. The principles aim to ensure that planning should inter alia: be plan-led; support sustainable economic development; and conserve and enhance the natural environment.

72. Section 13 of the NPPF covers planning policy on mineral matters at the

national level. Paragraph 142 recognises the essential role that minerals play in supporting sustainable economic growth and quality of life, and seeks to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of material available. The NPPF also acknowledges that minerals are a finite resource and can only be worked where they are found.

73. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states, when determining planning applications,

local planning authorities should: give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy; ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account any cumulative effects; ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source and establish appropriate noise limits; provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions.

35


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued 74. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that proposed development likely to have an

adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. It also states that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh the loss.

75. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that when considering the impact of a

proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.

76. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead

to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

77. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) provides additional guidance to ensure the

effective implementation of the national policy set out in the NPPF in relation to mineral extraction. It identifies the principal issues to be addressed including the following relevant matters: noise, dust, air quality, lighting, landscape and visual impact, heritage features, flood risk, ecology, restoration and aftercare.

78. The PPG advises that a programme of work should be agreed which takes

account of potential impacts, including the positioning of any plant, having regard to the proximity of occupied properties, as well as legitimate operational considerations. It advises on the control and mitigation of dust and noise emissions, and establishes the use of noise limits. Maximum limits at noise sensitive properties during normal working hours, evening and night-time periods are given, together with higher limits for certain short-term activities.

79. The PPG seeks to implement the NPPF requirements to provide for the

restoration and aftercare of mineral sites at the earliest opportunity, carried out to high environmental standards. It advises on the use of a landscape strategy, reclamation conditions and aftercare schemes to achieve the desired after-use of the site following working.

Development Plan Policies

80. The Development Plan for the application site comprises the Leicestershire

Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (2009), the North West Leicestershire Local Plan (2003), the Hinckley & Bosworth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2009), and the saved policies of the Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan (2001). The principal policy considerations relevant to the current application are set out below.

36


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued 81. Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies

(2009): Policy MCS1 aims to ensure an adequate and steady supply of minerals in a sustainable manner. The strategy for aggregates (crushed rock and sand & gravel) contained in MCS2 is to meet the sub-regional apportionment and maintain a landbank of reserves in line with national policy. This is to be achieved either by releasing reserves of crushed rock, worked as extensions to existing extraction sites to ensure a sustainable supply, or by allowing new aggregate extraction sites only where it can be demonstrated that the landbank and production capacity cannot be maintained from existing sites and extensions to existing sites. MCS2 also seeks to allow proposals for aggregate extraction only where they would not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities. The Strategy also contains policies concerned with, the protection of the environment (MCS11), measures to protect and enhance Charnwood Forest (MCS13), and the reclamation and after-use of mineral sites (MCS17).

82. The Development Control Policies contain a number of policies for use in

determining planning applications for minerals developments. These include the following: MDC2 sustainable design, MDC3 sites of national historic importance, MDC4 sites of regional and local importance, MDC5 countryside, MDC6 landscaping and woodland, MDC11 the water environment, MDC12 health and amenity, MDC13 cumulative impact, MDC15 public rights of way, MDC18 planning conditions, MDC20 reclamation and after care, and MDC21 after-use.

Consultations

North West Leicestershire District Council - Planning

83. No reply received.

North West Leicestershire District Council – Environmental Health 84. No observations.

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council - Planning

85. No objections.

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council – Environmental Health


Markfield Parish Council 87. No reply received.

Environment Agency 88. No objections.

37


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

Historic England 89. On the basis of the information available to date, we do not wish to offer any

comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.

Natural England

90. Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have

significant adverse impacts on designated sites and has no objections.

Central Networks


Lead Local Flood Authority (Leicestershire County Council)

92. The proposed development would be considered acceptable subject to conditions covering surface water drainage, watercourse crossings and outfall arrangements.

Public Rights of Way Advice (Leicestershire County Council) 93. The application directly affects two footpaths. Footpath O36 is proposed to be

diverted and a temporary diversion would be required. Footpath O35 would bridge the conveyor and a temporary closure and alternative route would be needed during the construction period.

Landscape Advice (Leicestershire County Council)

94. A comprehensive landscape and visual impact assessment and arboricultural

assessment have been submitted to provide consideration of alternative conveyor routes and justification of the preferred route. The suggested additional viewpoints have been taken into account in the visual analysis.

95. The type and height of the boundary fence either side of the conveyor route

should be confirmed. The fence would reinforce the route, so a minimalistic structure would be preferred. The proposed conveyor route would dissect a number of fields and consideration should be given to future access arrangements for the new land parcels. The storage of the original soils proposed to be stripped from the conveyor route should be retained for restoration of the site. A sample of the coloured cladding to be used in the conveyor system should be agreed.

Archaeology Advice (Leicestershire County Council)

96. In the absence of any significant archaeological remains identified by the trial

trenching and the geophysical survey, there is no objection to the proposed alignment for the new conveyor. The landscaping options tabled will represent an acceptable solution to both masking the line of the conveyor in the landscape and avoiding unnecessary and extensive planting which would itself detrimentally affect the historic landscape.

38


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

Ecological Advice (Leicestershire County Council) 97. The habitat and bat surveys provided are very comprehensive and of excellent

quality. It is considered that the impacts of the conveyor will be relatively minor, and should not impact on great crested newts, birds, or bats to any significant degree; further surveys for these species are not needed. A specific survey, up-to-date, for badgers is required. The conveyor route should avoid the ancient woodland to the south of the existing quarry void.

Heritage Advice (Leicestershire County Council)

98. The submitted Heritage Settings Assessment is thorough and appears to

provide a reasonably objective assessment of the impact of the development on the setting, defined in the NPPF as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced, of the several statutory listed buildings located close to or within the site boundary. As noted in the Assessment paragraph 132 of the NPPF confirms that the significance of a designated heritage asset can be harmed or lost through development within its setting. It is agreed with the conclusion reached in the Assessment that the setting of most of the local heritage assets will be unaffected by the proposed development. Where there is a slight impact on their wider surroundings it appears that that aspect of their setting does not contribute to their special interest or significance.

99. The principal facade of Bardon Hall looks to the south over the estate which

includes C19 plantations of trees and agricultural fields. It is recognised in the Assessment that this parkland is an integral part of the setting of the listed building and that it contributes positively to its significance. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment provides a useful and detailed analysis of the potential impact of the development on the local environment and the proposed conveyor will be an unwelcome intrusion into this relatively unspoilt historic landscape and damage the long established, wider setting of the Hall.

100. From the Hall the visual impact would be relatively slight and it is recognised

that the development could be seen as just a further expansion of the industrialisation of the estate that commenced in C19; the adjacent approved quarry extension is likely to have a greater impact on the setting of the listed building than the new conveyor. Other important attributes of the Hall and its landscape setting would be unaffected and it is agreed that the scale of harm is likely to be ‘less than substantial’. This harm would last for a considerable period and therefore limited weight is given to the long term restoration of the landscape.

101. The pertinent sections of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation

Areas) Act 1990 Act and Section 12 of the NPPF are set out in the Assessment. In addition to paragraph 132 of the Framework, noted above, paragraph 134 is of particular relevance and states that ‘where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal’.

39


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

Supplementary Information – 22nd March 2017 102. As a result of issues raised during the consultation process, the Company has

provided additional information and clarification on a number of matters:

Surface water Management

The existing surface water management plan will be expanded to address the recommended conditions.

Landscape and Visual Impact

Confirmation of fencing types adjacent to conveyor and at ground level along field edge.

Access gates will be provided within the bisected fields to allow the existing grazing agreement with Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust to continue.

Soils stripped from the Estate and stored in the soil storage area will be used in the restoration of the site.

Ecology

The Badger survey report is submitted. Additional surveys covering previously inaccessible areas were undertaken during March 2017.

Confirmation that further bat roost tree surveys to cover conveyor route six were undertaken and form part of the Environmental Statement.

The proposed alternative conveyor route avoids the Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland and minimises impact on the historic landscape.

The Company is already committed to clearing Rhododendron from the woodland areas under the approved Bio-Diversity action plan, and this is scheduled to commence in winter 2017/18.

Rights of Way

The Company confirms that Footpath O36 would be diverted for the duration of the development.

Comments Received on 22nd March 2017 Supplementary Information

Ecological Advice

103. No further comments received.

40


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

Publicity

104. The planning application and accompanying environmental statement has been publicised by press notices in the Coalville Times (13/01/2017), and by site notices dated 10th January 2017. Sixty-five neighbour notification letters were also sent to nearby residential properties on 10th January 2017. One representation has been received raising objections to the conveyor route (attached to the report as Appendix B).

105. The proposals were discussed by members of the site liaison committee at a recent meeting and it was requested by the Chairman that the general support for the proposal be recorded in the minutes.

106. The Company undertook their own publicity event, holding an exhibition

detailing the application on 22nd February 2017 at the Charnwood Arms.

Assessment of Proposal

107. This proposal, like any other application, must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, it is appropriate to consider the following key matters: Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework; national policy background; the nature of and need for the development; environmental impacts and other effects; and economic and other benefits.

Planning History and Context

108. Mineral working has taken place at Bardon Hill for many years, with references dating back hundreds of years. The first mineral extraction permissions were granted in 1947, these were followed by permissions to extend the workings in 1957 and 1981, and then in 1989, permission was granted to enlarge the existing quarry to its present size. Recent permissions have allowed the replacement of the processing plant and an extension to Tip 18. The ROMP consolidated all previous permissions, and a new set of planning conditions was issued in 2006. The current planning permission covering the Bardon Estate and including the existing quarry and processing plant area, new extraction area and surrounding new landforms now provide the main planning controls at the site.

109. The permitted reserves to be worked across the Bardon Estate form one of the largest mineral working operations in the UK, confirming Leicestershire’s role as a strategically important mineral producing area at a national level. This is due to its igneous rock resources, and its contribution to meeting a recognised need for crushed rock aggregate products. The need for the release of the additional reserves at Bardon Quarry was established by the previous planning permission. Principally the reserves were required to maintain the supply position having regard to production capacity and policies MCS1 and MCS2 of the Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (2009). Paragraph 144 of the NPPF now gives added weight to the benefits of mineral extraction.

41


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

110. A key element of the infrastructure approved under the extant planning permission is the conveyor link between the new extraction area and the existing processing plant. This would facilitate the release of the permitted stone reserves, and allow the transfer of the primary crushed material to the secondary and tertiary processing plants to enable a range of sized stone products to be produced for sale to customers and for use in on site plants.

Approved Conveyor Route and Alternative Route Options

111. The starting point for the route of the conveyor is the new primary crusher,

which would remain in the same permitted location within the new extraction area for all options (at 145m AOD, 50m below original ground level). It would be rotated to accommodate the proposed conveyor connections to the south, to facilitate the southerly routes described below.

112. The approved route for the conveyor is north west from the new primary

crusher, through a cut and cover tunnel under Bardon Hall Drive, and then via a cutting to the eastern side of Tip 17 from where it would continue in a bored tunnel through Tip 17, emerging in the existing quarry. The overburden would be discharged into the quarry void for respreading and the mineral conveyor would continue to the existing primary surge stockpile.

113. The former Rookery Quarry was backfilled during the early 1990’s using

overburden and rock waste from the quarry expansion works at that time to form Tip 17. It is understood that the material was end–tipped with minimal compaction undertaken and that demolition waste from the former Bardon village and old mining equipment may also be located within the tip. Settlement monitoring of the tip has shown that it is settling at approximately 25mm per year. Ground investigations carried out in 2011 by way of trial pits and boreholes confirmed that the fill was typically firm to stiff sandy, gravelly clay containing cobbles, i.e. mineral overburden material. One borehole encountered an unidentified obstruction and was abandoned.

114. The Company commissioned Donaldson Associates, a leading tunnel design

company, to assess the construction and operational risks of a bored tunnel based on the recorded settlement and geotechnical data. Their report has identified potential hazards during construction including voids, perched groundwater, contamination of fill, large obstructions and instability of slopes and uncontrolled settlement. Catastrophic failure of the tunnel machine would require recovery from above, resulting in significant disruption to the restored landscape. Whilst various tunnelling methods have been considered to construct the tunnel, it is considered that the hazards identified present significant risks during construction. In addition the tunnel would have to withstand or deform in parallel with the identified rate of settlement over the 40 year design lifetime. These movements could affect the tunnel integrity and the safe operation of the conveyors. Given this situation the Company and its advisors conclude that there are significant risks associated with the construction and operation of a bored tunnel through Tip 17.

42


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued 115. Whilst it may be disappointing, especially to any affected parties, that a

significant change is deemed necessary to reduce the potential risk associated with the recovery of the permitted reserves at the site, and that the potential significance of the risks to construction and operation were not made clearer by the Company at the time of the last application, it is nevertheless acceptable within a planning context that proposed changes to approved schemes will occur. This is especially the case given the scale of the Bardon Quarry development and the time period involved for its implementation and operation. The current proposal has to be determined therefore on its own merits.

116. The Company has assessed seven alternative conveyor route options (four

routes to the north and three routes to the south) as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. The routes and main considerations are: Route 1 is the approved route discussed above; Route 2 is a similar route but involving a cut and cover tunnel through Tip 17, this would require substantial tree clearance involving an area of Ancient Replanted Woodland, and would still have the risks associated with settlement; Route 3 would involve a cut and cover tunnel and then a rock tunnel under Bardon Hill emerging into the existing quarry via an enlarged cavern. This would require significant geotechnical investigation involving the construction of drilling platforms within the ecological SSSI on Bardon Hill; Route 4 the first of the southerly routes runs at surface after emerging from the new extraction area, across fields and the parkland associated with Bardon Hall, through an area of Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland and then via suspended conveyors across the existing quarry. This route would impact on the setting of Bardon Hall (Grade II Listed Building) and result in the loss of a number of veteran trees and protected woodland; Route 5 follows the same route as Route 4 up until reaching the existing quarry, and is therefore subject to the same constraints mentioned above; Route 6 is the most southerly route and crosses fields to the south of Bardon Hall in a two metre deep cutting, it avoids all veteran trees and the protected woodland but is the nearest route to residential properties; Route 7 explored the possibility of a wider sweep around the northern side of Bardon Hill but its impact on woodland including some protected areas was significant and it did not enjoy the protection of the existing northern screening mounds.

117. It is considered in the light of the Company’s investigation into the suitability of the Tip 17 route, and given their specialists advice, that the potential for significant risks during both the construction and operation of the Tip 17 route does exist. Route 6 is therefore the chosen route for the alternative conveyor system, and this has been developed following a series of stakeholder meetings during 2016. It is considered that of the alternative routes proposed, Route 6 is the less constrained and more acceptable route.

118. Notwithstanding the above, the Policies of the Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (2009) and the NPPF also require the consideration of proposals for minerals development in terms of any unacceptable harm that may be caused to the environment or communities. This is a key consideration and is often at the crux of mineral development decision-making, where the need for the development including any mitigation and compensation has to be balanced against the impacts the proposal is likely to generate. Given the nature of this proposal these matters are considered more widely below under Environmental and Other Effects.

43


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

Environmental and Other Effects

Heritage Assets

119. A Heritage Settings Assessment (HSA) has been undertaken and forms part of the Environmental Statement accompanying the planning application. The HSA considers the proposed development effects upon the significance of designated heritage assets in the vicinity. The assets are the Grade II Listed Buildings of Bardon Hall, Bardon Park Lodge, Bardon Park Chapel, Church of St. Peter, and Kellam’s Farm; and a Scheduled Monument to the east of Kellam's Farm. The Listed Buildings constitute part of the 19th century landscape of the former Bardon Estate; with the Scheduled Monument being of probable earlier origin, although its exact date and function are uncertain.

120. Particular attention in the HSA was given to Bardon Hall. The conveyors would

run to the south of Bardon Hall, bisecting a patchwork of enclosed agricultural fields that are surviving remnants of the mid-19th century landscape. The HSA considers that whilst specific, key elements of the setting of Bardon Hall would be unaltered; there would be a loss of historic landscape character, which would equate to less than substantial harm to the significance of this Grade II Listed Building. For the remaining five designated heritage assets, the proposed conveyor route including the emergency take-off spur, and the locations of its associated infrastructure were not identified as forming part of their setting; and thus, no harm to these assets has been identified. The HSA considers that the proposed landscape enhancement along the central section of the conveyor route and the proposed long-term restoration strategy would help to mitigate the adverse development effect upon the heritage significance of Bardon Hall.

121. The key considerations in determining a planning application that may affect the

setting of listed building are as follows: The statutory requirement under section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which states that: ‘In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority …… shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.’ Underpinning the statutory requirement is the policy guidance in paragraphs 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 132 states that ‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification….’ This wording reflects the statutory duty in section 66. Paragraph 134 states that ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.’

44


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

122. Having regard to the Heritage Advice (paragraphs 137 – 139) it is considered that the HSA provides an objective assessment of the nearby heritage assets, and that its findings in relation to the potential impacts of the proposed development are acceptable, and appropriate to concentrate on the effects on Bardon Hall. In this case, and in the light of the statutory and policy requirements detailed above, considerable importance and weight should be given to preserving the setting of Bardon Hall, and the less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including securing its optimum viable use.

123. In terms of preserving the setting of Bardon Hall, the preferred alternative conveyor route would run across the south western quadrant of the Bardon Estate approximately 410m to the south of Bardon Hall, bisecting a patchwork of six enclosed fields. These fields are surviving remnants of the mid-19th century agricultural and wooded landscape, which has elsewhere been and/or will be lost to the permitted quarry workings. The proposed conveyors would change the existing landscape, fragmenting six fields into twelve smaller units. The emergency stockpile area and conveyor spur would be located approximately 530m to the east of the Hall, and over 400m to the south of Kellam’s Farm and not directly impact on their setting.

124. The design and route of the proposed alternative conveyor system in relation to heritage asset impacts has been guided by the HSA and evolved through a series of stakeholder meetings. Consequently, key elements that contribute to the heritage significance of Bardon Hall would not be affected. These include tree studded parkland to the south, the terraced garden, avenue and drive and its setting beneath the higher wooded slopes of Bardon Hill. Where the conveyor route crosses the farmland it would be in a 2m deep cutting. In combination with enhanced planting, this would provide additional screening such that views of the proposed conveyors would be limited to where they pass under the road to Old Hall Farm, beyond the southern parkland of the Hall. Key views across the garden and parkland from the ground-floor and first-floor windows of Bardon Hall would not be altered to any degree, as the local topography, and existing tree and hedgerow cover provide good screening. Similarly key views of Bardon Hall across the southern parkland would not be affected. Whilst the landscape is proposed to be restored and the historic field pattern reinstated, the conveyor system would be in place for some 40 years. Limited weight can therefore be given to the restoration of the landscape as a means of impact mitigation at present, although a longer term benefit would accrue and should be secured.

125. Within this context, it has been demonstrated that considerable work has gone

into the route choice and design for the proposed alternative conveyor system, in order to preserve the setting of the Grade II Listed Bardon Hall. It is considered that the proposed alternative conveyor system is satisfactory in meeting the tests set out in section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and paragraph 132 of the NPPF. The clear and convincing justification required for the resulting harm, which is assessed at the lower end of less than substantial, is discussed above in the Approved Conveyor Route and Alternative Route Options section, and is concerned with minimising the potential for significant risks during both the construction and operation of the approved Tip 17 conveyor route.

45


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

126. In relation to paragraph 134 of the NPPF, the identified less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including securing its optimum viable use. Whilst the key elements of setting which contribute to the heritage significance of Bardon Hall would not be affected, the harm amounts to changes to the character and appearance of a surviving part of the historic agricultural landscape. Consequently this has to be weighed against the use of the proposed alternative conveyor system to enable a significant permitted mineral resource, which has recognised importance at National, Regional and local levels, to be recovered for processing from the new extraction area. The need for the permitted resource was established in the granting of the previous planning permission, and it remains as important today to enable Leicestershire to meet its crushed hard rock contribution (this element is discussed earlier in the assessment). In relation to the optimum viable use of Bardon Hall, for many years the building was in a derelict state but was restored by the Company to its current condition and is now used as prestigious offices.

127. It is considered that the statutory and policy requirements in relation to the

protection of heritage assets at the site have been met satisfactorily through the evolution of the alternative conveyor system design, and the proposed mitigation outlined above. Subject to the control of the implementation of the proposed alternative conveyor system in accordance with the submitted details, including the incorporation of the proposed mitigation and the restoration of the affected landscape, it is considered that the issues relating to heritage assets are capable of being satisfactorily resolved in accordance with the requirements of policies MCS11 and MDC3 of the Minerals Core Strategy, and the relevant statutory and national policy requirements.

Landscape and Visual Impact

128. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been undertaken and

forms part of the Environmental Statement accompanying the planning application. The LVIA considers the proposed development in terms of landscape and visual effects in relation to the landscape character of the site. The majority of the application area is located within various Charnwood Forest designations at national, regional and local levels, and although there are no relevant designations to landscape and visual resources, the landscape of the Charnwood Forest has historically been recognised as distinctive and valued. The County Council and other partners have undertaken work to help define boundaries and preserve its unique characteristics.

129. Given the Landscape Advice (paragraphs 133 and 134) it is considered that the

LVIA is comprehensive and provides a detailed consideration of alternative conveyor routes and justification of the preferred route. The LVIA includes an assessment of the landscape effects of the proposed development including an assessment of the magnitude of impacts during construction and operational phases. The visual appraisal has explored the nature of the existing visual amenity of the area and sought to establish the approximate visibility of the site from surrounding locations and receptors, for which a series of agreed photo viewpoints has been used. The design and route of the proposed alternative conveyor system in relation to landscape and visual impacts has been guided by the LVIA and evolved through a series of stakeholder meetings.

46


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued

130. In terms of landscape effects, the western and eastern most sections of the proposed conveyor would run within existing operational quarry areas, and as such there would be no change to the nature of the landscape in these locations, with the exception of the emergency take-off spur at the start of the mineral conveyor run. This would cross the diverted River Sence channel and run to the soil storage area, a distance of 140m to create a stockpile area. This section of conveyor has the potential to generate landscape and visual effects on the local environs of the diverted watercourse, albeit within an active part of the site where there is no public access. During construction there would be some short term adverse impacts and semi-permanent localised changes in the landscape along the central section of the conveyor system a distance of 985 metres. These would chiefly be associated with the construction of the 2m deep cutting which would accommodate the conveyor system and maintenance roadway. The resulting effects during operation on the landscape character areas (following the introduction of the proposed mitigation) are considered to be negligible. The conveyor corridor would result in the loss of some grassland and vegetation, and a change to the perception of the character of a localised area of the landscape. This would however be seen in the wider context, which is disturbed by quarrying activities, and in overall terms it is considered that there would be a negligible to minor adverse effect on the landscape.

131. The landscape design and green infrastructure objectives for the scheme seek

to: maximise the retention and incorporation of existing landscape features; minimise the landscape and visual effects on adjacent receptors; locate and design the conveyor corridor such that the footprint is limited; and adverse effects on features of particular interest are avoided. The landscape and ‘green infrastructure’ proposals include field boundary reinforcement and planting along existing hedgerows to the north and south of the proposed conveyor corridor (where it crosses fields to the south of Bardon Hall) and small blocks of woodland planting. These proposals would deliver proposed planting that strengthens the existing field boundaries and helps to preserve the existing land uses and provide woodland enhancement planting relative to the historic character of the local landscape. It is considered that the landscape and ‘green infrastructure’ proposals for the scheme are acceptable and appropriate.

132. In terms of visual effects, with the exception of users of the nearby public

footpath, it is considered that the visual effects arising from construction activities would not be significant, and that these would be reduced during the operational phase. The proposed diversion of the footpath would address the construction related impacts. Whilst there were not considered to be any residential receptors subject to views of the conveyor system, it was deemed necessary to propose an extension to the existing landform (partly to also assist with noise mitigation) in the form of a screening bund, at the south western corner of the conveyor route adjacent to Transfer Tower 05. This would provide additional screening to those properties along the A511 in this location. However, it is considered that the proposed bund would need to be subject to further consideration (i.e. design, dimensions and landscaping details) to ensure that its screening potential is maximised. It is considered that the visual effects would be of negligible to low magnitude, taking into account the reinforcement planting to be undertaken along the field boundaries north and south of the conveyor corridor and the proposed screening bund.

47


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued 133. The restoration proposals seek to reinstate the existing boundaries, land uses

and field structure following completion of operations, and therefore resulting effects on the landscape would be of negligible significance in the longer term. It is important to secure the restoration of the site to its previous state for posterity reasons, and given the time-scales involved with the operation, this should be facilitated, so that an acceptable outcome is in place.

134. In overall terms, the landscaping impacts and proposed mitigation are

considered acceptable. Appropriate controls to cover the submission of a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the proposed conveyor route (covering matters including: planting; seeding; plant protection and management measures; fencing and gates; the bund extension works; colour of conveyor and infrastructure cladding) could be secured by condition.

135. Subject to the control of the matters outlined above by planning condition, it is

considered that the issues relating to landscape and visual amenity are capable of being satisfactorily resolved in accordance with the requirements of policies MCS11, MCS13, MDC4 and MDC6 of the Minerals Core Strategy.

Arboriculture

136. A survey and assessment of the trees present at Bardon Hill have examined the existing condition and quality of the trees, and the potential for impact arising from the proposed development. A total of 61 individual trees, 18 groups of trees, four woodland parcels and three hedgerows were surveyed. There are no Tree Preservation Orders or Conservation Area designations that apply to any trees present on, or in close proximity to the assessment site. Three trees close to boundary of the parkland to the south of Bardon Hall were assessed as having veteran status. The proposed conveyor route now forming the preferred option avoids the Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland parcels.

137. The survey found that 21 trees and one group of trees are considered to be Grade A (high quality); 33 individual trees and 14 groups of trees were categorised as Grade B (moderate quality) and five individual trees and 10 groups of trees were categorised as Grade C (low quality). Further clarification has confirmed that two Grade B trees and 5868m2 of group B tree cover, and 570m2 of group C tree cover would be lost to the development. The tree groupings to be lost consist of a mixture of planted woodland on spoil mounds, tree belts and connecting hedgerows across the agricultural fields.

138. All retained trees would be protected during works, including the calculated root protection area, by tree protection barriers. The tree protection measures could be controlled by planning conditions. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the scheme to minimise the impact of the operations, including a stand-off to the Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland at the western end of the conveyor route, and choice of route to avoid high quality and veteran trees. Proposed compensation measures include new tree and hedgerow planting, as discussed in the landscape assessment, and these could be controlled through a landscaping scheme. Although the proposed improvements to the management of existing woodland are already covered under the Bio-diversity Scheme covering the Bardon Estate, it is considered that measures to protect and enhance the Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland should be included.

48


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued 139. It is considered that upon implementation of mitigation and compensation

strategies including route definition avoiding the Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland, tree protection measures and new tree and hedgerow planting, the effects on arboricultural assets within the proposed conveyor corridor would be minimised to an acceptable level. Appropriate controls to cover the limitation of tree and hedgerow removal and require the submission of a scheme of tree and hedgerow protection measures could be secured by condition.

140. Subject to the control of the matters outlined above by planning condition, it is

considered that the issues relating to arboricultural interests are capable of being satisfactorily resolved in accordance with the requirements of policies MCS11, MCS13, MDC4 and MDC6 of the Minerals Core Strategy

Ecology

141. The nature conservation and ecology section of the Environmental Statement is

informed by ecological surveys; licensed mitigation measures and monitoring that were recently undertaken as part of the evidence base for the new quarry development. These include the area of the proposed conveyor route, surrounding land, and its wider potential zone of influence relating to protected species. In addition, an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey report and bat surveys were undertaken during 2016.

142. The ecological advice confirms that the habitat and bat surveys are very

comprehensive, and considers that the impacts of the conveyor would be relatively minor, and should not impact on protected species to any significant degree. However, it was highlighted that a specific up-to-date survey for badgers would also be required, and that the conveyor route should avoid the Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland to the south of the existing quarry void. The badger survey was included in supplementary information received in March 2017, together with confirmation that the preferred conveyor route option would not impact on the Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland. These matters are now considered acceptable.

143. The proposed conveyor would result in a loss of approximately 150m of

hedgerow habitat, assessed as being of minor significance at the local scale on the hedgerow habitat resource and the functioning of ecological networks. Compensatory measures involve the planting of new hedgerows and woodland and the strengthening of hedgerows to the north and south of the conveyor route. No effects are predicted on any nationally or locally designated conservation sites. In the longer term, measures to reinstate the hedgerow network across the conveyor route would result in a neutral residual effect.

144. It is considered that given the proposed mitigation and compensation measures

including route definition to avoid the Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland, licensing controls in respect of protected species and new tree and hedgerow planting, the effects on ecological interests within the proposed conveyor corridor would be minimised to an acceptable level. Appropriate controls to ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the submitted ecological surveys could be secured by condition.

49


2017/0098/07 & 2017/0030/04 – continued 145. Subject to the control of the matters outlined above by planning condition, it is

considered that the issues relating to ecological interests are capable of being satisfactorily resolved in accordance with the requirements of policies MCS11, MCS13, MDC4 and MDC6 of the Minerals Core Strategy

Rights of Way

146. Proposals relating to the two public rights of way which would be affected by the proposed development are included in the Environmental Statement, and have been the subject of discussion with rights of way officers. The effects on Footpath O36 would introduce some amenity disturbance to users, and a (temporary) diversion, for the length of the operational life of the conveyor, to a more southerly route (approximately 1 field to the south), is proposed. This would ensure that users are more distanced from the conveyor corridor where construction activities and the operation of the conveyor would occur. The diversion is proposed to address potential safety implications and amenity effects for the benefit of users of the right of way. Footpath O35 would bridge the conveyor north of Old Hall farm and a temporary closure and alternative route would be needed during the crossing construction period.

147. The rights of way proposals have evolved through discussions and address

temporary closures and diverted routes. The timing of the provision for the new route for O36 and the crossing provision for O35 are detailed matters that would be addressed through the making

Documents

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARDpolitics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s128637/Bardon Conveyor... · 2017. 5. 18. · DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD 25TH MAY 2017 REPORT