DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARDpolitics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s54283/A - UK Coal...opinion under Regulation 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

23RD JUNE 2011

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

COUNTY MATTER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

APP. NO. & DATE: 2009/0720/07 – 3rd July 2009 PROPOSAL: Extraction of coal and fireclay by surface mine methods

and restoration to agriculture, woodland and nature conservation.

LOCATION: Land to the east of Gallows Lane and between

Swepstone Road and Bosworth Road, between the villages of Measham and Swepstone (North West Leicestershire District).

APPLICANT: UK Coal Ltd. MAIN ISSUES: Government Policy; Development Plan; Countryside;

Landscaping; Noise; Dust, Blasting, Cumulative Impact, Highway Impacts, Ecology, Effects on the River Mease SAC and Gilwiskaw Brook SSSI, Regeneration of Measham, Ashby Canal Restoration.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit subject to 97 conditions as set out in the appendix

to the main report. Circulation Under Local Issues Alert Procedures Mr. G. Jones CC and Mr. R. Blunt CC Officer to Contact Mr. P. Bond (Tel. 0116 305 7325) E-Mail: [email protected]

A

DC&REG. BOARD 23/06/2011

2

2009/0720/07– continued

PART B – MAIN REPORT

Background 1. In September 2008, before UK Coal Mining Ltd. (UK Coal) submitted this

planning application, it wrote to the County Council requesting a scoping opinion under Regulation 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. At that time UK Coal had decided to make a planning application for an opencast coal site at the Minorca site and that it would need to submit an Environmental Statement with the planning application. In these circumstances the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations allow the applicant to request the planning authority’s formal opinion on the information that should be provided in the Environmental Statement. This opinion is known as a ‘scoping opinion’ and the County Council’s Scoping Opinion for the Minorca opencast coal proposal was provided to UK Coal by letter dated 30th October 2008, after the Council had carried out consultation with various bodies including statutory consultees and local Parish Councils.

Location of Proposed Development and Description of site 2. The application site comprises 128ha of mainly agricultural land between the

villages of Measham (350 metres to the west) and Swepstone (600 metres to the east). The site is bounded to the north by Swepstone Road, to the south by Bosworth Road and to the west by Gallows Lane. The eastern boundary of the site abuts agricultural land. The route of the disused Ashby Canal between Snarestone and Measham is located approximately 30 metres to the south of the site boundary beyond Bosworth Road.

3. There are numerous individual properties in close proximity to the site including

the following:

• Measham Fields Farm – adjacent the northern boundary;

• Crossroads Cottage – adjacent the north western site boundary;

• The Bungalow – about 25m to the west of the site beyond Gallows Lane;

• Four properties at Bosworth Grange – about 25 metres to the south of the site beyond Bosworth Road;

• Three properties at Valley Farm – about 110 metres to the south east of the site and which are Listed Buildings;

• Dishley Farm – about 200 metres to the north east of the site;

• Mill Top House - about 140m to the north beyond Swepstone Road; and

• Stanhope House -25 metres to the north beyond Swepstone Road. 4. The Gilwiskaw Brook flows north to south through the middle of the site and into

the River Mease about 1.6Km to the south west of the site. The Gilwiskaw Brook is designated as a SSSI and forms part of the River Mease Special Area of Conservation. The watercourse is therefore considered to be of international importance for nature conservation. There is an existing agricultural bridge across the brook linking the western and eastern parts of the site.


3

2009/0720/07– continued


4

2009/0720/07– continued

2009/0720/07– continued 5. The site includes 84ha of agricultural land, of which, 73ha is considered to be

best and most versatile (grades 2 and 3a). The site also includes approximately 0.1 ha of semi mature trees and 8ha of semi-improved grassland which has developed on an old spoil heap remaining after deep mining works in the locality, to the south of Measham Fields Farm.

6. Bridleway Q33 runs north-south across the site approximately 280m to the east

of the brook and Footpath O57 skirts the site’s south east and eastern boundary connecting Swepstone Road with Bosworth Road.

7. A lorry depot is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed

development boundary, on the western side of the Bridleway Q33. There are also two dilapidated buildings within the site, to the east of the bridleway. These comprise the remains of the former Minorca Farm

8. The site lies within the parishes of Measham, Swepstone and Snarestone and

wholly within North West Leicestershire District and the National Forest. 9. The centre part of the site near the brook is at about 88m AOD, with the land

rising to the north, east and west. Crossroads Cottage is at about 106m AOD and the eastern site boundary is about 104m AOD. The land rises further to the east beyond the site boundary, with St. Peter’s Church (125m AOD) in Swepstone overlooking the site, albeit at a distance of about 750 metres

Site History 10. Minorca Colliery was sunk in 1850 and later merged with the Measham Colliery

to the north of Swepstone Road and then the Donisthorpe Colliery before closing in 1992. Significant amounts of colliery spoil remained on the Minorca site after the colliery closed and a tip-washing operation was granted permission (1987/0971/07) to recover coal from these mounds. The spoil mounds were restored as part of this application although a lack of soils limited the final restoration options. There are several small water bodies on the restored spoil mounds, some of which have become colonised by Great Crested Newts.

11. In 1995 RJB Mining UK Ltd. submitted a planning application (1995/0990/07) for opencast coal working on a similar site area. This was refused in 1996 for the following reasons:

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that its proposed scheme of working and restoration of the site is operationally compatible with the restoration techniques required to ensure with reasonable certainty that the existing soils on the site will be restored to a quality which retain their existing value as a long-term national resource in accordance with the aims of Government as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG7 – ‘The Countryside and the Rural Economy’ and is contrary to Environment Policy 3 of the Minerals Local Plan Review;


6

2009/0720/07– continued

Levels of both noise and dust resulting from the proposals will give rise to an unreasonable reduction in the amenities of nearby residential properties and are likely to result in a detrimental impact upon the existing pig-breeding unit at Measham Fields Farm; and

The location of the proposed development within the defined North West Leicestershire Priority Area and its close proximity to the currently expanding residential limits of Measham would result in an environmental burden on an area where County Council policies actively seek to improve the environment of the area and increase confidence in its future.

Description of Proposed Development

12. In summary, this application is for the extraction of 1.25 million tonnes of coal and 250,000 tonnes of fireclay by surface mine methods over a period of 4.5 years with progressive restoration. Site operations would include a 12-week period of preparatory works, 155 weeks of phased mineral extraction and 39 weeks for final restoration works. All coal extraction would take place to the west of the Gilwiskaw Brook, with the land to the east being used for overburden and soils storage and for water treatment facilities.

13. Initial site operations would include: fencing the site; installation of the access

road, access point and off site road works at the junction of Bosworth Road and Gallows Lane; construction of site drainage works and water treatment areas; stripping of soils from the initial development areas and construction of the site compound area which would be surfaced with stone and include the site offices, amenity facilities, vehicle servicing apparatus, fuel storage area and would also include the coal preparation area. Stripped soils would be placed in peripheral mounds with a maximum height of 8 metres.

14. The site access would be from Bosworth Road, approximately 80 metres to the

east of the Gallows Lane junction. An average of 124 lorry movements (62 loads) per day would take place from the site which would average out to around 12 movements per hour. Each load would be between 27 and 30 tonnes of coal or fireclay and the gross weight of the coal lorries being used would be up to 44 tonnes. All lorry traffic leaving the site would turn right on to Bosworth Road, and then right again on to Gallows Lane. Lorries would then go straight across the Leicester Road staggered junction and travel north to the A42 junction to the south of Measham. The only exception to this route would be in the event that the applicant enters into a contract to supply fireclay to the Measham Brickworks, approximately 1.4km to the south west of the site, when lorries carrying fireclay would turn left at the Gallows Lane junction instead of right. Lorries going to the site would follow the above route in reverse. In addition to the creation of the new access, works would be required to upgrade the 80 metre stretch of Bosworth Road and the junction with Gallows Lane to increase the width and visibility. These works could incorporate any reprofiling works necessary for the proposed new canal bridge on Gallows Lane immediately to the south of the Bosworth Road junction. The access point and the internal haul road would be removed at the end of site operations.


7

2009/0720/07– continued

15. Soil stripping and storage. All soil resources overlying the intended excavation and overburden storage areas would be progressively stripped and stored separately (or replaced directly to newly regraded landform as part of progressive final restoration) according to grade and type. Topsoils and upper and lower subsoils would be stored separately around the periphery of the site in mounds with a maximum height of 5 metres for topsoil and 8 metres for subsoils. Internal haul routes and water treatment areas would also be stripped of topsoil and subsoil. Areas designated for subsoil storage would be stripped of topsoil. Wherever possible soil mounds would be located on similar soil types. Not all soils would be stripped in the first year. Parts of the eastern area of the coal extraction area would remain undisturbed until the third year of operations and, wherever possible soils would be progressively stripped and placed without the need for storage. There would be a total of 9 million cubic metres of overburden to move as part of the operation. 6.2 million cubic metres would be directly placed as part of progressive restoration with 2.8 millions cubic metres being transferred across the brook to storage. Overburden to be stored on the eastern half would be transferred via a cutting approximately 10 metres deep of the site over a new crossing, which is to be erected directly above the existing agricultural brook crossing point. The cutting is designed to minimise visual and noise impacts that may arise from the movement of heavy plant across the site.

16. Phasing of operations - after 6 months the site offices and coal processing areas would have been installed in the south west corner of the site and the site access point onto Bosworth Road would be constructed. All the operational areas on the site required in the first 12 months would have had soils stripped and placed in peripheral mounds which would be graded and grass seeded. Excavation of overburden in the western part of the site would be taking place and it would be being transported across the brook to complete overburden mound M1 and form the outer slopes of overburden mound M2, which would also be grass seeded as soon as practicable. A box cut would have been created in the north west corner of the site with coaling operations commencing in a west-east direction away from Measham. Water Treatment Areas 1-6 will be in place and operational to providing settling capacity and to prevent adverse run off to the Gilwiskaw Brook.

17. Phasing of operations - after 12 months the working void would be fully developed with excavations progressing eastwards of Cut 2. Some overburden would be backfilled at this stage although the majority would continue to be transported via the cutting to complete overburden mound M2 and to complete the outer faces of mound M3.

18. Phasing of operations - after 18 months excavations would have continued eastwards to Cut 5 with all overburden material being used to backfill the void. No further overburden would be taken to storage to the east of the brook at this stage.

19. Phasing of operations - after 24 months workings would be progressing to Cut 9 with all overburden being used to backfill the void. The very western fringe of the site would be restored and be under grass at this stage. No further overburden would be taken to storage to the east of the brook at this stage.


8

2009/0720/07– continued 20. Phasing of operations - after 38 months workings would have reached Cut

18 with the void being at its maximum at this point. Final soil stripping of the area to the east of Measham Fields Farm would commence with this being placed directly on restored areas along with some of the topsoil from storage. The western part of the coal extraction area would be restored and the perimeter screening mounds along Gallows Lane utilised in the restoration with new mounds created about 350 metres to the east of the previous mounds. Transportation of overburden would continue across the brook to complete overburden mound M3. As the excavations reached Cut 19, working would turn 90 degrees and move in a northwards direction to the east of Measham Fields Farm.

21. Phasing of operations - after 48 months coaling operations have been

completed and backfilling of the void would be taking place. Further progressive restoration would be under way with overburden being taken from all three overburden mounds (leaving the outer faces of M2 and M3 until last to help protect local amenity). Following removal of all overburden mounds and filling of the final void, all soil mounds would be removed and placed to restore the remaining disturbed areas.

22. Method of working - after stripping of soils and removal of overburden to

expose the coal seams, the coal would be cleaned of remaining overburden by small hydraulic excavators before being loaded into dump trucks and transported to the coal preparation area where it would be screened and crushed to create a 50mm product. Coal would be transported to market in articulated lorries of between 27 tonne and 30 tonne capacity, i.e. up to 44 tonne gross weight.

23. Hours of operation - the proposed hours for site operations are 07:00 to 19:00

hours Monday to Friday, 07:00 to 12:00 hours on Saturdays and no working on Sundays or public and Bank Holidays. For temporary operations (e.g. formation of screen bunds) the hours proposed are 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 12:00 Saturdays. The export of coal would only be undertaken between the hours of 07:15 and 17:00 Monday to Friday. Outside the working hours there would be a 24hr per day, 7 days a week security presence.

24. Employment - the applicant anticipates that up to 50 people would be fully

employed on the site and about a further 12 people employed transporting the coal to market. The applicant has provided information on the distance its workforce who worked at the recently restored Long Moor surface mine site, lived from the site. This shows 51% lived within 5 miles, 54% within 10 miles and 70% within 20 miles.

25. Liaison Committee - the applicant states that it would establish a liaison

committee consisting of representatives from UK Coal Mining Ltd., elected members of the Parish, District and County Councils, Officers of the District and County Councils and others who may have an interest. The committee would meet regularly to provide an opportunity for questions to be brought forward and for information about activities on the site to be provided by the operator.


9

2009/0720/07– continued 26. Restoration – in summary, the applicant states that the main aims of the

restoration scheme are to restore and improve the existing agricultural land and recreate and enhance the ecological interests currently present on the site. The restoration scheme makes provision for the creation of 10ha of new woodland, 1.4ha of new wet woodland, approximately 3.5km of new hedgerow and hedgerow tree planting. The scheme also allows for a new lake which would provide flood attenuation capacity and could provide a potential winter storage lagoon that could be linked to the nearby Ashby Canal upon its planned restoration. The restoration scheme also provides for the bulk of the disturbed site to be returned to agriculture, with the amount of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land being increased from 73.7ha to 78.4ha. A corridor either side of the Gilwiskaw Brook would be protected during the development and would be enhanced as part of the restoration scheme by increasing and better connecting existing grassland areas and additional planting. A section of a tributary of the brook would be unculverted to increase wetland planting and habitats and create additional waterbodies.

Environmental Statement 27. An Environmental Statement (ES) has been submitted in support of the

planning application as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The ES includes sections on the following matters: landscape; ecology; traffic; geology; hydrology and hydrogeology; flood risk and drainage; noise; air quality and dust; blasting; land use, soils and agriculture; archaeology and a socio-economic assessment.

28. Landscape – the ES focuses on the sensitivity of the local receptors, principally

residential properties within the villages of Measham and Swepstone and the surrounding network of public rights of way and highway routes. Views from the north and south are limited due to local topography and intervening vegetation. There are open views of the site from Swepstone, including from St. Peter’s Church (grade II*) and adjoining cemetery, albeit these views of the site are from a distance of about 750m. There are also some views of the site from Measham, although these are generally at a distance of at least 350m from the site. As previously mentioned there are also numerous isolated properties much closer to the site. The ES notes that impacts on local residential properties and users of public rights of way would range from negligible to substantial adverse during extraction to nil to slight beneficial following restoration. The degree of visual change on users of local highways would be generally negligible.

29. Ecology – the majority of the site comprises managed arable fields and the ES

concludes that the nature conservation value of this land is negligible to low and the impact of the proposals on this part of the site is judged insignificant. However, the ES identifies two principal issues of sensitivity on the site, namely the Gilwiskaw Brook and the former Minorca Colliery grassed spoil mounds. The section of the Gilwiskaw Brook within the application area is designated as a SSSI and part of the River Mease Special Area for Conservation (SAC). The


10

2009/0720/07– continued

River Mease supports nationally significant populations of spined loach (Cobitis taenia) and bullhead (cottus gobio), with both species protected under Annex II of the European Union’s Habitat Directive. The application proposes a 10m stand-off from the middle of the brook and protection of the wet woodland belt on each bank. A new crossing over the brook is proposed, which would be placed directly over the top of the existing one to minimise the risk of debris entering the watercourse.

30. The nature conservation value of the hedges within the site ranges from ‘moderate to low’ to ‘high to very high’. Three Grade 3 hedgerows (H6, H11 and H14) with moderate ecological interest and extending to about 485m in total would be affected by the proposals. It is intended to translocate approximately 333m of these hedgerows within the site as part of site preparatory works. There are no proposals that would affect the hedgerows around the perimeter of the site, other than to create the site access and a 75m section of H11 at the junction of Gallows Lane and Bosworth Road which needs to be relocated inwards to allow for highway improvements in this location.

31. A large semi-improved grassland area (S) would be lost as part of the development and part of a smaller semi-improved grassland area (R) would be affected. Grassland S has developed on a former colliery spoil mound and provides potential habitats for ground nesting birds. A common lizard was recorded during a wider reptile survey undertaken in 2008. These grasslands are considered to be of district importance. The proposed development would also lead to the loss of an isolated semi-mature plantation (M) extending to about 0.1ha. No mature trees would be removed as part of the development. The minor loss of trees, hedgerows, grassland and arable farmland would lead to a loss of foraging and nesting habitat for birds but the impact is considered to be short term but significantly adverse without mitigation measures. There are also two large restored spoil heaps either side of the brook which, along with existing woodland and grasslands along the brook corridor, would be retained and protected throughout the life of the development. A habitats losses and gains table is contained in Appendix 2 to this document.

32. The impact on the Gilwiskaw Brook would, prior to mitigation measures, be significantly adverse at an international level. The ES provides measures to mitigate impacts on the brook, including stand-offs, a new crossing point and water treatment areas. As part of the overall site restoration, works are proposed to remove invasive weeds, create meanders within the stream and increase agricultural stand-offs to minimise fertiliser/pesticide drift. Subject to the mitigation measures proposed, the ES concludes that the long term impacts upon the brook would be probable beneficial. The ES states that all habitat loss would lead to short term negative impacts of minor to significant scale. However, mitigation and proposed restoration measures are expected to lead to long term beneficial impacts overall and a significant increase in the nature conservation value of the site could be expected.

33. Traffic – a new access would be constructed off Bosworth Road, approximately 80 metres from the junction with Gallows Lane. All vehicles would turn right


11

2009/0720/07– continued

from the site and then right at the Gallows Lane junction. They would then carry on straight across the staggered Leicester Road junction and on to the A42 trunk road. This route (with the exception of the very short stretch of Bosworth Road) is part of the Highway Authority’s approved HGV route within the County. The only exception to this route would be for lorries carrying fireclay to the Measham Brickworks, approximately 1 mile to the south west of the site, when those particular lorries would turn left at the Bosworth Road/Gallows Lane junction. This, of course, would be subject to the applicant entering into an agreement for this product with this particular facility.

34. The exportation of 1.25 million tonnes of coal and 250,000 tonnes of fireclay over the proposed 155 week period set out in the application would lead to an average of 62 loads per day, i.e. 124 movements per day which equates to on average 12 vehicle movements per hour, or one every 5 minutes. The ES also states that for a short period of time, namely 13 weeks, there would be an additional 4 movements per hour, which means that during this period there would be on average one HGV every 4 minutes. The 13 week period relates to a phase when the 'Main' coal seam has no old workings i.e. output is expected to be higher due to the recovery of a solid seam. The ES uses this worst case scenario when assessing the likely impacts. However, the original submission data did not allow for the expected permitted increase in HGVs arising from the Measham Brickworks which are slowly increasing production in their new factory. It is estimated that the works were only operating at about 30% capacity when the applicant undertook its original vehicle data gathering exercise and the applicant was asked to revise the ES in light of the potential for an increase in HGVs in the future. The applicant’s revised data has been submitted and the ES concludes that the proposed routes and junctions are under capacity and are capable of coping with the additional HGV traffic from the proposed mine, even with the additional HGV traffic anticipated from the Measham Brickworks. It is proposed that coal exportation would occur only between 07:15 and 17:00 Monday to Friday.

35. Geology - The geological assessment indicates that fireclays of marketable quality are present within the site and UK Coal has confirmed that it intends to market this resource along with the coal reserve. The site is bounded by roads to the north, south and west, although other reserves of coal are known to exist to the east of the Gilwiskaw Brook. The applicant has stated that these reserves are at depth and have been affected by previous deep mining operations on the site and it would be economically unviable to work these. Other coal reserves are known to exist on land to the north of the western half of the site beyond Swepstone Road. However, only skeletal drilling operations have been undertaken in this location and the applicant is not in a position to be able to confirm the nature and extent of this reserve.

36. Hydrology and hydrogeology – the ES concludes that the excavation bases would be below the observed ground water levels. Dewatering of the void has potential to lower groundwater levels and therefore impact on the Gilwiskaw Brook and local habitats. The zone of dewatering has been estimated based on empirical equations and the ES concludes that there are no receptors within the expected zone of influence of dewatering. However, the brook will, for


12

2009/0720/07– continued

some of the time during the workings, be within the radius of influence of the excavation. The ES concludes that there would be no active pumping from groundwater, only water collected via a sump, and that this would be discharged back into the brook via water treatment areas and therefore the impact on flow through the brook is likely to be insignificant.

37. As part of the restoration it is proposed that the culverted section of an unnamed tributary of the brook will be unculverted, along with the creation of wetland areas, flood attenuation ponds and the winter water storage lake. The ES concludes that these would reduce the effects of flooding from the brook, downstream of the site. Discharge and impoundment consents may be required from the Environment Agency for the proposed opencast scheme. The ES concludes that the site surface water management would not result in overall changes to the existing groundwater quality catchments of the site. However, the ES also states that there is highly saline groundwater, at depth, beneath the site and that there is the potential that the site operations could intersect old abandoned workings, which could provide preferential pathways for groundwater towards it. Although the ES considers it unlikely that this highly saline water could interact with the groundwater within the site, it recommends that monitoring of the salinity of any water pumped from the site is undertaken on a regular basis so that any significant increase in salinity is detected before the appropriate discharge consent level is breached.

38. In light of the details contained within the ES, the Environment Agency and Natural England submitted holding objections on the basis that they are not satisfied that there would be no significant impact on the Gilwiskaw Brook SSSI and the River Mease SAC. The applicant subsequently drilled an additional 14 piezometer wells in order to understand further the groundwater flows within the site and how the site interacts with the brook. The applicant submitted further information relating to hydrogeology, including a water monitoring plan, water balancing plan for the proposed lake and a scheme for treating water in the site. This was subject to a second round of consultation under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations.

39. Flood risk and drainage – the ES confirms that the proposed development contains areas which fall within the indicative floodplain. An area either side of the Gilwiskaw Brook and an unnamed tributary to the east fall within Flood Zone 3, as identified on the Environment Agency’s ‘Flood Map’. However, the applicant has supplied detailed topographical data to the EA to indicate precise levels across the site in order to provide an up to date and accurate reflection of the actual flood zone locations within the site. The EA, in a letter dated 3rd February 2009, stated that the data supplied by the applicant is in fact better than their own survey data and that they may update the Flood Map to take this new information into account. Therefore, Flood Zones 2 and 3 have been redrawn for the site and agreed with the EA. Subsequent to the redrawing of the site flood zones, there is no development planned for areas within Flood Zones 2 & 3.

40. The site offices and processing area would be situated on an area of hard standing extending to some 1.8ha. Water would drain from this area, via an oil


13

2009/0720/07– continued

interceptor, to Water Treatment Area 5. There would be no foul water connection into the public/private sewer system, with all sewage and foul water being tankered from the site as necessary.

41. The ES concludes that the surface water discharge from the site would be pre-

treated and restricted to considerably less than the current greenfield run-off rate. Attenuation measures proposed would cater for a 1 in 100 year + 20% for climate change rainfall event. It is also concluded that there would be no significant increase of offsite flooding risks as a result of the development; in fact it is likely that there would be a reduced risk of flooding offsite due to the attenuated discharge from the site and creation of a winter water storage lake as part of site restoration.

42. Noise - The noise assessment involved baseline monitoring at noise sensitive locations around the site which were agreed with the Environmental Health Officer at North West Leicestershire District Council and then using this information to produce noise impact predictions. In conclusion the ES states that the proposed development can be operated in accordance with Government advice contained in Minerals Policy Statement 2 (MPS 2).

43. Air quality and dust - the ES deals with air quality and potential impacts arising from pollutants from vehicles associated with the development and the control of dust from on-site operations. Annual mean concentrations for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and PM10 are modelled against levels without the development for 13 nearby sensitive receptors. The results indicate that all existing receptors are, and would continue to be if the development is undertaken, below the National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) objectives for NO2 and PM10. Also, although it is expected that there would be some increase in background levels as a result of the development, such increases would be less

than 1µg/m-3 and would therefore not be significant.

44. Potential sources of dust and methods of dust suppression and control are discussed and the ES states a Dust Action Plan would be adopted at the site and best practice guidance followed. The ES concludes that in terms of air quality, all pollutant concentrations modelled for all receptors would be well below the NAQS and in terms of dust, with mitigation measures such as bunds, wheel washing and bowsers, impacts on sensitive receptors would be reduced to the range of negligible to possibly minor if adverse weather conditions prevailed.

45. Blasting – the ES states that there is sandstone present between some of the coal seams in the north-west part of the extraction area. Whilst similar geology has been encountered by the applicant at previous opencast workings in the area (e.g. Hicks Lodge, Pot Kiln Farm and Shellbrook) which has been removed without the need for blasting, the ES confirms that blasting may be necessary should the sandstone encountered prove difficult to remove using conventional equipment.

46. The ES refers to guidance contained within Mineral Planning Guidance (MPG) 9, 1992, and MPG 14, 1995 and also BS6472: 2008 Guide to Evaluation of


14

2009/0720/07– continued

Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings Part 2: Blast induced vibration, and states that all blasts would be designed to accord with the limits set by these guides. Due to the proximity of some residential properties to the extraction area, it is proposed that a stand-off of at least 100 metres between properties and the nearest explosive charge would need to be retained to ensure safe and efficient blasting and to maintain blast results below recommended levels. The ES also refers to pipelines in the vicinity of the site but concludes that adverse impacts on these are very unlikely as a result of blasting.

47. Subject to appropriate mitigation measures and vibration limits on residential dwellings, the ES concludes that, In the event that blasting is required on the site, vibration impacts from blasting operations should not create undue annoyance to local residents.

48. Land use, soils and agriculture – the ES states that 84.1ha of agricultural land would be disturbed as a result of mining operations. Of this, 73.7ha is classed as ‘best and most versatile’ (i.e. the grade that national and local policies seek to protect), with 34.3ha classed as grade 2 and 39.4ha as grade 3a. A further 10.4ha is classed as grade 3b. On restoration a larger proportion of land than before (78.4ha) would have the potential to achieve best and most versatile status.

49. Archaeology - The archaeological report identified about 102ha of the site which appears to have been undeveloped in the past and where, despite ploughing, the preservation of any underlying archaeology is likely to be moderate to good. Cropmarks of a pit alignment were identified which are likely to be Bronze or Iron Age in date. There were also remains of Roman pottery and a surface scatter of flint material found within the site boundary. Therefore, further archaeological investigatory work and recording would be required prior to the commencement of development on site.

50. Socio-economic assessment - The ES concludes that confidence in making investment decisions is generated over a longer period than the 4.5 years required to work and restore the proposed site. As a result it concludes that further inward investment in the area is not likely to be deterred by the proposal. The ES also expresses the view that a well designed and managed surface coal operation in a suitable location is not considered a threat to environmental improvement or tourist interest. The ES refers to coal production being traditional in the area, and jobs in this industry being an integral component of the regional economy. Sites such as the proposed Minorca surface mine are essential to the maintenance of a viable coal industry. The incomes of the applicant’s employees and subcontractors resident in Leicestershire make a substantial and sustained input to the sub-regional economy.

51. Rights of way – one right of way, Bridleway Q33 would be crossed by the haul route connecting the extraction and overburden storage areas. Footpath O57 skirts the eastern boundary of the site and would remain open and unaffected directly during the course of the development proposed. These Rights of Way would remain open throughout the development. Other rights of way would run close to the boundary of the proposed site and the visual impact to users of


15

2009/0720/07– continued

these rights of way are considered in the Landscape section of the ES. As part of the restoration proposals it is intended to upgrade Footpath O57 to a bridleway and link it to Bridleway Q33 at two points to create a loop and also to Bridleway O57 to the north of Swepstone Road, which links to Tempe Farm. Additional footpaths are proposed north-south through the site running alongside the western side of the brook and west-east linking Gallows Lane and the previously mentioned footpath.

Planning Policy

Government Policy and Guidance

52. Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) provides the overarching policies for the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. These policies aim to provide protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, ensuring that development supports existing communities with good access to jobs and key services, and that reliance on private car journeys is limited.

53. PPS4, ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ provides advice on the impact considerations that should be assessed when determining planning applications. It also states that ‘planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably’. This element of PPS4 was given increased emphasis by The Minister of State for Decentralisation (Mr. Greg Clark) in the written Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth dated 23rd March 2011.

54. The Ministerial Statement states that ‘In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that they can give clear reasons for their decisions.’

55. PPS5, ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’ (2010), gives advice on heritage conservation and the handling of archaeological remains and discoveries. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7, ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ (2004) gives advice on the role of the planning system in relation to the countryside.

56. PPS9, ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ (2005) provides advice on the relationship between planning control and ecological and geological conservation and enhancement.

57. Government Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory obligations and their impact in the planning system. This circular sets out in detail the practice planning authorities should follow where development is likely to have an impact on ecology. It makes specific reference to protected species, including the need to establish the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, before planning permission is granted. In considering a planning proposal which affects a protected species, the Circular requires the local planning


16

2009/0720/07– continued

authority (as a competent authority) to also have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive.

58. Where a development affects a species protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, a licence from Natural England would be required in order to allow certain activities to proceed. One of the purposes for which a licence may be granted under Regulation 53 (e) is for “preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment” Where the ‘purpose’ conditions are met, the licensing body must not grant a licence unless they are satisfied (a) that there is no satisfactory alternative and (b) that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

59. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) includes objectives to integrate planning and transport at all levels, and to promote more sustainable transport choices, both for carrying people and for moving freight.

60. Mineral Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals (November 2006) (MPS1) seeks to ensure that the principles of sustainable development and environmental consideration are balanced against the need to maintain an adequate supply of minerals. Annex 2 of MPS1 encourages coal producers to make the best possible use of fireclay reserves and to find markets for fireclay so that it remains available for use rather than being used in site restoration.

61. Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction (March 2005) sets out environmental policies and considerations that should be taken into consideration when assessing a new quarry or extension to an existing planning permission. MPS2 includes two annexes in respect of noise and dust. Mineral Planning Guidance Note 7: The Reclamation of Mineral Workings' (1996) provides advice on the reclamation and restoration of mineral workings.

62. The most relevant Government Planning Guidance in relation to the proposed development is MPG 3, “Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal”, issued in 1999. This recognises that there is a role for indigenous coal in contributing to the Country’s energy diversity and supply. It also recognises that the extraction of resources can conflict with environmental interests. MPG3 emphasises that, when considering planning applications, ‘the objective must be to ensure that any adverse effects on local communities, environmental damage or loss of amenity caused by mineral working are kept to an acceptable level, and do not outweigh the benefits to the local community of proceeding with the development.’

63. In order to achieve this objective the guidance sets out five tests and states that there should normally be a presumption against development unless the proposal can meet these tests. Three of these tests are relevant to this development. They are as follows:


17

2009/0720/07– continued

i. Is the proposal environmentally acceptable, or can it be made so by planning conditions or obligations?

ii. If not, does it provide local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission?

iv. Proposals within or likely to affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs) must meet the additional tests set out in paragraphs 30 and 31.

64. Paragraph 30 of MPG 3 states, ‘Mineral proposals within or likely to affect a SSSI should be the subject of the most rigorous examination. When considering such proposals planning authorities are required to consult Natural England on such proposals and should take account of the advice in PPG9 - "Nature Conservation" (since replaced by PPS9 “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation”). Some SSSIs are of particular importance and have additional designations conferred upon them. NNRs, established by English Nature under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, are areas of national, and sometimes international, importance, where primary use is for nature conservation. Some SSSIs are of international importance and have been designated Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the European Community Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Directive 79/409/EEC). Others have been identified as potential SPAs. In addition some SSSIs are likely to be considered of international importance as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the European Community Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Directive 92/43/EEC). Specific legally binding procedures apply to the consideration and approval of development proposals likely to affect these European sites. PPG9 explains these and also advises that the Secretary of State will normally call in planning applications which are likely to affect significantly sites of international importance and recognised national importance.’

65. Paragraph 31 states that ‘The UK is also a signatory to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Cmmd 6465). Contracting parties are required, inter alia, to designate sites which satisfy certain criteria. The total area of listed wetlands should be maintained wherever possible, if necessary by compensatory measures to offset any loss. There is also a general obligation for the contracting parties to include wetlands conservation considerations within their national land-use planning system.

66. With regard to ensuring satisfactory restoration of sites, Paragraph 64 states

that ‘financial guarantees are a legitimate and appropriate means for reassuring the local community of operators' commitment and ability to restore sites properly and timeously.’

67. Paragraph 65 goes on to state that ‘financial guarantees do not mean that the

full cost of restoration must be put on deposit at the outset, but it should build up commensurate with the pattern of activity/extraction, recognising that for larger sites there will be a requirement for progressive restoration requiring a stream of funding to be available at various stages. It is recognised that such guarantees may pose an additional burden on coal operators but they


18

2009/0720/07– continued

a more formal recognition of operators' responsibility for which they ought to provide. They should also end the considerable uncertainty that exists for communities about the longer term prospects for the amenity of the area. In all cases, operators should ensure that sufficient finance is available to enable them to meet fully restoration and aftercare conditions. Equally, MPAs should have regard at all times to the need to avoid imposing costs on coal operators that are larger or longer than strictly required to meet best standards.’

68. MPG 3 also gives advice on the main specific impacts to be considered when

determining planning applications, including visual impact, noise, blasting, dust, water, transportation, land use and the historic environment and nature conservation.

Energy White Paper

69. The current energy policy of the United Kingdom is set out in the Energy White Paper of May 2007 entitled ‘Meeting the Energy Challenge’, which builds on previous work including the 2003 Energy White Paper and the Energy Review Report in 2006.

70. The White Paper states that renewables and other low carbon technologies will play an increasing role in the country’s energy mix over the longer term; however, fossil fuels will continue to be the predominant source of energy for decades to come. By 2020, fossil fuels are still expected to supply the great majority of the UK energy needs. The UK is set to become increasingly reliant on imported energy over the longer term. This brings exposure to longer supply chains and a wider range of markets, broadening the range of political, infrastructure-related, weather-related and other risks with the potential to affect supplies into the UK.

71. England, Wales and Scotland still have significant recoverable coal reserves. These reserves have the potential not only to help to meet our national demand for coal and to reduce our dependence on imported primary fuels, but also to contribute to the economic vitality and skills base of the regions where they are found. Data in Table 1 below up to 2006 is taken from the White Paper and data from 2007-2009 is taken from the Digest of UK energy statistics and it highlights the UK’s dependence on imported coal.

Coal production and demand in UK – Million tonnes

1998 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Indigenous production 41.2 28.3 25.1 20.5 18.6 17.0 18.1 17.8

Imports 21.2 31.9 36.1 43.9 50.3 43.4 43.9 38.1

Total demand for coal 63.2 63 60.4 61.9 68.2 63.0 58.4 68.2

Of which: electricity generation 48.6 52.5 50.4 52.1 57.7 52.5 47.8 39.7


19

2009/0720/07– continued The Development Plan

72. The relevant Development Plan Documents are the East Midlands Regional Plan, Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (Oct 2009), saved policies of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan (2002) and the Leicestershire Minerals Local Plan 1995 (saved policies). Particularly relevant policies in the Development Plan are summarised below.

East Midlands Regional Plan

73. Policy 26: Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage states that sustainable development should ensure the protection, appropriate management and enhancement of the Region’s natural and cultural heritage. As a result the following principles should be applied: (inter alia)

• The Region’s internationally and nationally designated natural and historic assets should receive the highest level of protection;

• Neither direct nor indirect damage to EU designated Natura 2000 sites will be permitted;

• There should be a net increase in the quality and active management of natural and historic assets across the Region in ways that promote adaptation to climate change and an increase in the quantity of environmental assets generally; and

• The Region's best and most versatile agricultural land should be protected from permanent loss or damage.

Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies

74. Policy MCS 1 sets out the overall strategy for the supply of minerals, which is to: (inter alia)

• release land for the extraction of minerals where it is necessary to maintain an adequate and steady supply of minerals and it can be shown that demand could not be met from the existing permitted reserves having regard to agreed sub-regional apportionment figures for aggregate minerals or, in other cases, the demonstrated need and nature of the particular industry concerned;

• give priority to the extension of existing sites;

• allow proposals for minerals development only where they will not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

75. Policy MCS 7 sets out the overarching strategy for coal and states;

‘The strategy for coal is to adopt a presumption against coal extraction and for the disposal of colliery waste, including lateral and depth extensions to existing sites, unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; or, if not, the proposal provides local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely environmental impacts. Individual proposals will also be assessed against the following criteria:

(i) the effect on efforts to attract or retain investment in the area;


20

2009/0720/07– continued (ii) any environmental improvements or other material planning benefits to the

community likely to result from the proposal; (iii) the employment and other economic effects of the proposal; (iv) the avoidance of unplanned piecemeal working of deposits; (v) the national need for fireclay.’

76. Policy MCS 4 sets out the strategy for fireclay and states:

‘The strategy for fireclay is to:

• allow proposals for fireclay extraction where it can be demonstrated that the clays are required to meet a proven need; or particular qualities of clay are required that cannot be obtained from existing permitted reserves;

• establish a stocking and blending facility within the Donington Island Site, subject to the provision of appropriate landscaping, site infrastructure and amelioration measures including the routeing of HGVs;

• support the recovery of fireclays where proposals for coal extraction meet the tests in the Policy MCS7 provided that no unacceptable environmental impact results, and that acceptable restoration of the site can be achieved within appropriate time scales;

• allow proposals for the extraction and stockpiling of fireclay only where they will not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.’

77. Policy MCS 11 seeks to protect and enhance the natural and built environment

and states:

‘The strategy for environmental protection is to protect and enhance the natural and built environment of Leicestershire by ensuring that • there are no unacceptable adverse impacts from minerals development on: (i) natural resources including water, air and soil; (ii) the character and quality of the landscape; (iii) biodiversity, including nationally and internationally important sites and

the key habitats and species identified in relevant Biodiversity Action Plans;

(iv) sites of geological interest; (v) historic and cultural features of acknowledged importance; (vi) the distinctive character and setting of settlements within Leicestershire;

and (vii) residential amenity; • the highest standards of operational practice for the management,

working, restoration and aftercare of sites are adopted; • development is designed to a high standard, incorporates sustainable

construction principles and includes appropriate landscaping.‘ 78. Policy MCS 14 states ‘the strategy for minerals development within the

National Forest outside of the Charnwood Forest area is to reflect the National Forest Strategy by making provision for the planting of woodlands, habitat creation, the creation of new leisure and tourism facilities and/or for public access.’


21

2009/0720/07– continued 79. Policy MCS 16 states that ‘the strategy for the transportation of minerals is to

locate new mineral working and mineral related developments: (i) in close proximity to markets in order to minimise the need to transport

minerals; (ii) in close proximity to the County’s lorry route network and where road

traffic generated by the development can avoid residential areas and minor roads in order to minimise the impact of transporting minerals by road; or

(iii) where rail/water transport could be secured for movement of minerals in order to maximise the potential to use alternative means of transport.’

80. Policy MCS 17 states that ‘the strategy for the reclamation and future use of

mineral sites is to ensure that:

• land is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity and that high quality restoration and aftercare takes place to an appropriate after-use that enhances and complements the natural and historic environment and that is in keeping with the local area, including its landscape character and with due regard to the setting of historic assets, adding to local distinctiveness and biodiversity having regard to the County’s Biodiversity Action Plan, Landscape and Woodland Strategy, and the National Forest Strategy;

• industry uses best practice at the time which seeks to minimise future public safety hazards and ground stability problems which can arise from the legacy of mineral workings.

The following after-uses will be sought in appropriate cases:

(i) woodland planting, particularly in the National Forest; (ii) creation of new wildlife habitats; (iii) water-based recreational schemes; (iv) public access and improvements to the public rights of way network

including links to surrounding green infrastructure.’

81. Policy MDC 4 states that ‘planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which could have a significant adverse effect on the character, appearance, ecological, geological or amenity value of sites of regional and local importance, including: (inter alia)

(iii) priority habitats or species identified in relevant Biodiversity Action Plans; (iv) land that is of regional or local importance as a wildlife corridor or for the

conservation of biodiversity; unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development and any impacts can be mitigated or compensated for, such that there is a net gain or improvement to their condition.’

82. Policy MDC 5: Countryside states that ‘planning permission will not be granted

for minerals development that will adversely affect the general appearance and character of the landscape and the countryside, unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development.’


22

2009/0720/07– continued 83. Policy MDC7: Archaeology states that permission will not be granted unless

there has been a preliminary archaeological assessment and adequate provision for preservation in situ, excavation or recording of any interest.

84. Policy MDC 10: Agricultural Land states that ‘planning permission will not be

granted for minerals development that would result in the significant loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a), unless it can be demonstrated that: (i) there is an overriding need for the development; (ii) there is no suitable alternative site of lower agricultural quality that

provides the same benefits in terms of sustainability; (iii) the land could be restored to its previous agricultural quality or better; (iv) other beneficial after uses can be secured which outweigh the loss of

agricultural land; or (v) the development is consistent with other sustainability considerations.’

85. Policy MDC 11: The Water Environment states that ‘planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would: (i) have a detrimental impact on the quality or flow of groundwater or

surface water drainage; or (ii) exacerbate flood risk in areas prone to flooding and elsewhere.’

86. Policy MDC 12: Health and Amenity states that ‘planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which is likely to generate unacceptable adverse effects from noise, dust, vibration, odour, emissions, illumination, visual intrusion or traffic to adjoining land uses and users and those in close proximity to the minerals development.’

87. Policy MDC 13: Cumulative Impact states that ‘planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on the environment of an area or on the amenity of a local community, either in relation to the collective effect of different impacts of an individual proposal, or in relation to the effects of a number of minerals developments occurring either concurrently or successively.’

88. Policy MDC 14: Transportation of Minerals states that ‘planning permission will not be granted for minerals development involving the transport of minerals by road except where:

(i) there is no practicable alternative to road transport which would be environmentally preferable;

(ii) the proposed access arrangements would be safe and appropriate to the proposed development and the impact of the traffic generated would not be detrimental to road safety to an unacceptable degree;

(iii) the highway network is able to accommodate the traffic that would be generated and the impact of the traffic generated would not have unacceptable impact on the environment or local residents.’

89. Policy MDC 15: Public Rights of Way states that ‘planning permission will not be granted for minerals development that would adversely affect a public right


23

2009/0720/07– continued

of way, unless satisfactory proposals which are both convenient and safe are made for its diversion or the creation of an alternative route both during operations and following restoration of the site. The opportunity will be taken wherever possible to secure appropriate, improved access into the countryside.’

90. Policy MDC18: Planning Conditions lists the matters that will be controlled

through the use of planning conditions attached to a planning permission for minerals development.

91. Policy MDC19: Planning Obligations states that ‘planning obligations will be

sought where appropriate to achieve suitable control over and to mitigate and/or compensate for the effects of minerals development where such objectives cannot be achieved by planning conditions. The policy goes on to list those matters which may be covered by obligations, including (inter alia): b) highways and access improvements; c) traffic management measures including the regulation of lorry traffic; j) establishment of a liaison committee; k) long term site management provision to establish beneficial after use; i) improvements to the rights of way network; m) financial guarantees to ensure site restoration is undertaken; n) measures for environmental, recreational, economic and community

gain in mitigation or compensation for the effects of mineral development.’

92. Policy MDC20: Reclamation and Aftercare states that planning permission for

minerals development will not be granted unless satisfactory provision has been made for the reclamation and after-use of the site and where necessary its long term management. Reclamation plans should be submitted with the planning application.

Leicestershire Minerals Local Plan Review

93. Saved policy MLP Policy 2: Assessment of Proposals sets out a list of factors that will be taken into account in assessing proposals for mineral extraction.

North West Leicestershire District Local Plan

94. Policy E3 states that ‘development will not be permitted which, by reason of its

scale, height mass, design, oppressiveness, proximity, noise, vibration, smell, fumes, soot, ash, dust, grit or excessive traffic generation, would be significantly detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of existing nearby dwellings.’

95. Policy F1 states that ‘new development within the boundaries of the National

Forest, identified on the Proposal Map, should reflect the importance of the National Forest context by making appropriate provision for landscaping and tree planting.’


24

2009/0720/07– continued 96. Policy F2 states that ‘in seeking to maximise the potential for tree planting under

Policy F1, and in assessing the appropriateness of the landscaping and planting schemes for individual development proposal within the Forest, the planning authority will have regard to: (a) the existing landscape character of the site and the surrounding area; (b) the extent to which the proposal achieves the relevant level of planting

as set out in the guidelines (c) any physical, ecological or environmental constraints affecting the site;

and (d) the scale, type and value of the development.’

97. Policy T16 states that ‘development will not be permitted which would prejudice

the re-opening of Ashby Canal, as identified on the Proposals Map, and associated canal side facilities….’

Initial Consultations North West Leicestershire District Council - Planning

98. Objects to the proposal on grounds of noise, air quality, dust, vibration and the

effect on the River Mease Special Area of Conservation. The Planning Committee also recommends that the following comments from the Ward Member, Mr. J. Summerfield, be included in the Council’s recommendation to the County Council:

“At the Planning Committee Councillor Summerfield stated that the overall opinion of residents in his ward was strongly opposing the application, regardless of any benefits offered. He added that there were 3 houses within 30 metres of the application site and 4 within 50 metres and the impact on these dwellings would be unfair. He expressed concerns that UK Coal would seek further extensions to be approved. He stated that the traffic survey had not taken into account the traffic movements from the brickyard [Measham Brickworks]. He expressed concerns regarding the visual impact on the countryside, and that the proposed haulage route was a main bus route for a school. He stated that UK Coal had not always been true to their word in respect of regeneration and urged members not to support the application.”

North West Leicestershire District Council – Environment Directorate 99. Objects to the proposal on the grounds of lack of information. Further

information was requested in regards to the following: Noise The results of the modelled data with no acoustic screening. The calculations for the bunding required. The results of the modelled data with the acoustic screening. The noise levels in table 11.4 should be a worst case scenario of background noise level plus 10dB. Dust and Air Quality A Dust Monitoring Programme with locations and proposed trigger levels in line with the UK National Air Quality Archive: Air Quality standards.


25

2009/0720/07– continued Vibration An assessment of the issues of vibration from the mining of Coal on Measham Fields Farm.

Leicestershire County Council – Highway Authority

100. No objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to (inter alia) off site highway improvements, amendments to the existing weight restriction on Bosworth Road, signage, overall time and tonnage limits, site construction methods, wheel cleansing, surface water drainage, visibility splays and reinstatement of the access following cessation of works. Note: the Highway Authority subsequently removed the requirement to vary the weight restriction on Bosworth Road.

101. The original Traffic Assessment (TA) was undertaken whilst the new Measham

Brickworks was being commissioned, with their HGV numbers being around 30% of what they would be once the site was fully operational. A revised TA was provided by the applicant and the Highway Authority made the following comment:

‘On the basis of the information contained in the amended Transport Assessment, the additional traffic as a result of committed development at the Hanson Brickworks and as a result of the proposal will not lead to an unacceptable impact on the capacity of the road junctions on Gallows Lane between the site access and A42, to be used by HGVs as part of the proposed routing.’

Leicestershire County Council – Landscape Comments

102. No objection in principle but requested further information from the applicant in relation to:

All Viewpoints

• Annotations to show locations within the view where changes will occur

• Actual heights of bunding visible

• Reconsideration of visibility of overburden mounds in light of ZVI plan

• Reconsideration of initial views to yard/plant area at VP04

• Seasonal variations

• Impacts of lighting Also, the Landsape Officer requested that further viewpoints and photmontages be provided from the public right of way near to the junction of Q32 and Swepstone Road and from Swepstone Road close to the easternmost part of the site. It was also noted that the restoration proposals are broadly accepable, subject to minor changes, and that the proposed 10 year aftercare period is welcomed. Leicestershire County Council – Ecology


26

2009/0720/07– continued

103. The County Ecologist has made the following comments: Gilwiskaw Brook/River Mease SAC It is important to consider impacts on the entire SAC and not just the on the section of the brook that flows through the site. The hydrology assessment identifies risks to habitats and mitigation measures and conditions should ensure that there are no adverse impacts on the SAC. Protected Species It is considered that the Great Crested Newt colony and its foraging land will need to be protected throughout the life of the development and that further survey work is required in respect of badgers. Grassland An area of species-rich grassland (a local BAP habitat) that meets the County Council’s criteria for designation as a non-statutory Local Wildlife Site will be lost (grassland ‘S’ in the Wardell Armstrong survey). It was surveyed as part of the North-West Leicestershire Phase 1 Habitat Survey in 2007, and this survey identified a more diverse range of species than those recorded in Wardell Armstrong’s survey.

104. Hedgerows, trees and woodlands/plantations The majority of woodland and species-rich hedgerows will be retained, and it is considered that the Wardell Armstrong evaluation that the impact on these habitats will be low is appropriate. Wetlands Most of the wetlands on site would be retained; however two temporary ponds in grassland S, some ditches near grassland S and a field pond east of the brook would be lost.

105. Proposals for mitigation and compensation for loss of habitat. In terms of mitigation, many of the currently important habitats on site will be retained within the development. However, it will be necessary to ensure that these habitats are protected and managed in a way that is beneficial to wildlife during the operation of the development. The loss of the grassland and wetland S cannot be mitigated. In compensation, on restoration the proposal is to create a pool surrounded by marsh/reedbed, and an area of grassland with wetland. This would occupy the same area of land as the current grassland S. Elsewhere on site another small wetland would be created, and a brook that is currently culverted would be restored as a watercourse. The main wetland area proposed, in the area currently colonised by grassland S, appears to be 6m deep with relatively steep sides and a narrow marginal marsh. It is not an ideal shape and profile for wildlife.

106. After restoration, the proposal is for a modest amount of additional hedgerow and tree planting. The majority of the land will be returned to agricultural use, of minimal wildlife value. The extent of additional wildlife habitat created as a result of this development is small and in many cases marginal, and does not adequately compensate for the adverse impacts, including loss of existing valuable grassland and wetland habitat. The new wetland to be created is not ideal for wildlife. It is recommended that additional BAP habitat – wetland and grassland – is created (preferably through natural regeneration) to the west of the brook, in the area that will be excavated, and that this area should be at


27

2009/0720/07– continued

least twice the extent of the grassland/wetland that will be lost to the development. The wetland areas should have shallow wide margins and an irregular shape to encourage development of species-rich marshland and to maximise wetland habitat diversity.

107. Management after restoration. There appears to be no reference in the Environmental Statement to future management arrangements for the land after restoration, apart from the land that will return to agricultural use. The land proposed as mitigation and compensation for adverse impacts on biodiversity (around the brook, including the retained woodlands, wetlands and grasslands, and the created habitats) should be subject to a management plan, and the organisation responsible for aftercare should also be identified.

Leicestershire County Council – Archaeology Comments

108. No objection subject to conditions relating to the implementation of an appropriate programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority and the completion of the necessary works and submission of a report and archive no later than six months after the commencement of field work. Leicestershire County Council – Rights of Way

109. Note that bridleway Q33 and footpath O57 will remain open throughout the

development and that the applicant intends to upgrade O57 to a bridleway. The Rights of Way officer goes on to make several recommendations regarding the proposed surfacing of O57, additional way marker posts, warning signs for users of Q33 advising of quarry operations and the need for prior approval of any bridle gates which the company may seek to erect.

Environment Agency 110. Objects to the application as submitted because the applicant has not supplied

adequate information to demonstrate that the risks posed to ground water and surface water resources can be safely managed and that permission should be refused on this basis. The EA also advise that conditions would need to be imposed relating to flood risk issues and that Natural England need to be consulted on biodiversity matters, particularly in relation to the River Mease SAC.

Natural England 111. Natural England objects to the proposal because it is considered that there is

insufficient information to determine whether the development would be likely to have a significant effect on the internationally important interest features of the River Mease SAC, or any of the features of special scientific interest of the River Mease SSSI.


28

2009/0720/07– continued 112. Natural England advises that there is insufficient information regarding the

possible hydrological impacts on the River Mease SAC for us to advise you on. We have concerned about the amount of site data. The low number of monitoring boreholes within the Minorca site itself means there is little site based information on groundwater. In addition, given the deeper mine workings here, further assessment is needed of the risks to water quality from deep saline water and the potential impacts (increased fracturing etc) on the system from subsidence. Fundamentally, there is a potential risk to the river from this development, and there is currently insufficient information to allow you to conclude that there will be no adverse effect. We are aware that the Environment Agency has raised similar concerns and as a result further investigations are underway. Natural England has not had the opportunity to meet to discuss these with the EA yet so we are unclear of the extent to which their inquiries will address our concerns.

Highways Agency 113. No objection. Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust (PCT) 114. The PCT has reviewed the application and make the following

recommendations. The mitigation measures employed by the site must be sufficient to prevent adverse impacts off-site arising from noise and dust nuisance and that:

• particulate matter released from the site should be appropriately controlled through a dust management plan;

• criteria should be established for when the site will suspend operations when dust levels are deemed unacceptable.

North West Leicestershire District Council should review the background noise levels and assessment of noise disturbance in relation to the sensitive receptors identified. Of particular concern are those within very close proximity to the site boundary.

Health Protection Agency

115. Make the same comments as the PCT above. The Coal Authority 116. No objection. Measham Parish Council 117. Objects on the following grounds:

• Councillors feel there will be detrimental, long term ecological damage to Leicestershire’s only Special Area of Conservation Site including wildlife, flora and fauna and the Gilwiskaw Brook.


29

2009/0720/07– continued

• There are concerns about safety of the site and surrounding area including excessive noise and air pollution.

• Highways’ Disruption and increased traffic on an already unsafe road.

• The Parish Council feel that this is an unnecessary development.

Swepstone and Newton Burgoland Parish Council 118. Objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

• Landscape and visual impacts, particularly from local rights of way and Swepstone Church and properties along Swepstone Road;

• Impacts on local matters of ecological importance and the Gilwiskaw Brook, which would be at high risk of contamination from dust and possibly polluted water;

• Swepstone village was not considered as part of the Traffic Assessment;

• Geology, hydrogeology, flood risk and drainage – these issues have been reviewed by a resident of the parish who is an expert in these matters. He states that these sections of the ES are unsubstantiated with very little field data supplied and as a consequence, very little confidence can be placed on the applicant's conclusions.

• There is no need for the coal and that given that the UK has legislation in place to reduce carbon emissions and the burning of the Minorca coal would emit 3,125,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide;

• Noise, air quality and dust – consider that background levels noise levels are higher than those stated due to poor recording methodologies. They also consider that there are shortfalls regarding air quality and dust within the ES. Also consider that there are inaccuracies relating to where dust monitoring was undertaken at the Long Moor site. Also concerned about the health impacts from dust escaping the site.

• Socio-economic Assessment – consider it to be an unreliable guide to the proposed economic and social ‘benefits’ that a successful mine is meant to bring to the area. Also consider that the development would not aid regeneration of the local economy and would in fact take the area back 10 years.

• Restoration – residents state that there remains evidence of previous opencast sites in the area, long after restoration has been completed, e.g. at the entrance to the Clay Colliery site at Five Lane Ends and the Lounge site near Ashby de la Zouch, and that they are concerned that evidence of the site will remain long after the site closes.

Snarestone Parish Council

119. Objects to the proposal as it is considered to be unwanted, unpopular and unjustifiable. If permission was to be granted the Council wishes to see conditions imposed relating to a 500 metre buffer zone, guaranteed restoration of the site, no storage of fireclay on the site, absolute protection from dust/noise/light pollution and protection of the flora and fauna within the SSSI.

Appleby Magna Parish Council


30

2009/0720/07– continued 120. The Council urgently requests a review of Leicestershire County Council’s

Mineral Planning Policy so that it concludes a 500 metre buffer zone, as afforded to Wales and Scotland. The Parish Council is also concerned about effects on the health and well being of local residents and request that a Health Impact Assessment is completed prior to any decision being taken.

Packington Parish Council 121. Oppose the open cast mine because of the following reasons:-

1. The disruption to the plants and fauna. 2. The close proximity of residents to the site. 3. The disruption to the Gilwiskaw Brook, which is already prone to flooding

in Packington. 4. The problems with transporting the coal. The planned entrance is only a B

road which is not designed to take the lorries needed to transport the coal. National Forest Company

122. In summary, the NFC has a variety of environmental impact concerns about this application and thinks that further specialist advice and some additional work is needed to address certain issues. The NFC also objects to the restoration scheme being put forward. As this currently stands, it does not meet the objectives of the National Forest Strategy in terms of quantity or quality of Forest-related gain expected from mineral restoration schemes. The NFC also thinks that it fails to meet national and local planning policy considerations relating to National Forest mineral site restoration. Finally, it could have a detrimental effect on the developing recreation and tourism sector around Measham.

Ramblers’ Association 123. Note that footpath O57 will be available throughout the life of the development

but are concerned about bridleway Q33, which will obviously be subject to a temporary diversion [this is not the case as Q33 will remain open]. The RA welcome the proposed improvements to the network identified on the restoration plan, although they also propose an additional route could be provided following restoration linking Q33 to a proposed new footpath to be provided following completion of the site.

Leicestershire Footpath Association 124. Consider that the proposals are acceptable and that additional rights of way to

be provided upon restoration will link up nicely with the existing network.


31

2009/0720/07– continued Leicestershire and Rutland Bridleways Association 125. Appreciate the additional lengths of bridleway to be provided upon restoration

and the upgrading of O57. The association goes on to suggest three further possible bridleway improvements in and around the application site.

Campaign to Protect Rural England 126. Strongly opposes the application at Measham. The CPRE considers opencast

mining to be highly damaging to landscapes, local communities and wildlife and our efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

British Waterways 127. No objection. The Inland Waterways Association 128. Considers that the proposed development would impact upon local visual

amenity, the local road network and generate noise. Consider it reasonable therefore that community benefits be sought to offset these impacts and welcome opportunities for assisting with the restoration of the Ashby Canal. The proposals include the ‘provision of a winter water storage lake, use of clay for lining the restored canal and help with the necessary earth works.’ UK Coal has also said it ‘would be prepared to fund the cost of the infrastructure necessary to transfer the water from the lake to the route of the canal’. These proposals will provide significant community benefits to help offset the short-term adverse impacts from the opencast site. The IWA is therefore pleased to support the application, subject to the promises referred to above.

Ashby Canal Trust 129. Recommend that significant local community benefits be agreed to offset likely

impacts prior to any permission being granted. The Trust has no objection subject to any gain towards the canal restoration being substantial and enforceable by a legal agreement.

Ashby Canal Association 130. Note that the canal is a historic waterway and its planned restoration through to

Moira will provide a valuable amenity and recreational corridor for leisure boating, walking and cycling, photography, angling and nature conservation and provide major regeneration benefits to the area. The project has widespread support in the local community. The association also note that there will be some limited impacts from the development and it is proper that UK Coal make a major local contribution, including works to aid the restoration of the canal, subject to a legally enforceable Section 106 Legal Agreement.


32

2009/0720/07– continued 131. The association is concerned that ‘the views of the minority interest group in

Measham [it is assumed that they are referring to MOPG] are swamping the views of a large number of local residents and businesses, who, based on reports from our members and the public, either have no opinion on the opencast, or would be pleased to see the canal restored on the back of it.’

Severn Trent Water 132. No objection. E-on – Central Networks 133. No objection, but advises that they have network within the site boundary and

the applicant is advised to contact them prior to commencing development. Health and Safety Executive

134. Providing the operator of the quarry complies with current health and safety legislation, the HSE has no objection to the proposal.

Further Supporting Information

135. Given the numerous requests for additional supporting information, the applicant was asked, under Regulation 19 of the Environmental Impact Regulations 1999, to respond with one document covering all the issues raised. A significant part of the information requested related to technical hydrological and hydrogeological matters requiring complex modelling relating to how the site would impact on the Gilwiskaw Brook and the wider River Mease SAC. The information was requested November 2009, but wasn’t supplied to the County Council until July 2010. A further round of consultation was then undertaken and the responses are detailed below.

136. As noted above, there was a significant delay in the submission of the additional information and the Minorca Opencast Protest Group submitted a petition to the Development and Regulatory Board’s June 2010 meeting requesting that the Board determine the application at its next meeting, scheduled for 15th July 2010. The Chairman of the DCRB expressed some sympathy with the MOPG in this regard and it was resolved:

(i) That the petition be received and forwarded to the Chief Executive for consideration when preparing a report to the Board on the planning application;

(ii) That it be noted that –

• UK Coal had advised that the delay had arisen due to the technical nature of the information sought, and the sensitivity of the adjacent River Mease Special Area of Conservation.

• Officers expect to receive the necessary information from UK Coal by the end of the month.


33

2009/0720/07– continued

• Further consultation with the Environment Agency and Natural England would then be necessary before a final report could be prepared by officers.

• It was expected that the application would be determined at the 19th August or 16th September meeting of the Board at the latest.

Second Round of Consultations

137. The applicant submitted further information regarding the proposed surface mine in July 2010. The supplementary report covered the following issues: landscape and visual impact; noise, air quality and vibration; hydrogeology; ecology; floodplain assessment and a transport assessment, with appendices on each of the aforementioned issues. This was sent out to consultees on 27th July 2010.

138. The covering letter to the supplementary information also contained details of minor revisions to the site and restoration plans, UK Coal’s commitment for longer term protection and enhancement of the Gilwiskaw Brook and a 20 year management scheme for areas of ecological interest.

139. The covering letter also detailed how the applicant could assist the County Council (and other interested parties) achieve its long term aim of restoring the Ashby Canal. UK Coal has offered to provide a larger winter water storage lake (c180,000m3) than the one that the County Council has permission for (c70,000 m3). The company has reconsidered its original offer to fund the infrastructure required to transfer the water from the lake to the canal and have replaced that offer with one to provide funds towards the construction of a section of finished canal to a total value of £1,280,000, such offer to be linked to the phased working of the site. This would be on top of the £150,000 community fund previously offered. The applicant stated that, in the event that the County Council refuse planning permission and the application is subsequently pursued at appeal, then the canal offer would be subject to review.

Leicestershire County Council – Landscape Advice

140. Having assessed the supplementary information and given the temporary nature of the operations, the Landscape Officer has no objection to the application. The Officer notes that there are some instances of professional disagreement over the visual impacts during the operational period, although these impacts would be temporary. There are some detailed issues relating to site management and site restoration but the officer considers that these matters could be controlled adequately by conditions.

Environment Agency 141. Having reviewed the submitted information, the Environment Agency believes

that operational and key regulatory controls, such as planning and Environmental Permit conditions, can be used in combination to manage the risks to water quality and water resources safely. The EA have subsequently removed their objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions


34

2009/0720/07– continued

relating to the following: site water management, post restoration monitoring, surface water drainage, details of the replacement bridge over the Gilwiskaw Brook to be approved and the water storage lake. The EA are broadly supportive, subject to appropriate conditions, of the proposed habitat works to the brook and works to unculvert the unnamed tributary of the brook on the eastern section of the site.

142. The primary regulation of discharges made into surface waters (including the

Gilwiskaw Brook) and to ground will be by virtue of the requirements of The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 which came into force on 6th April 2010. This requires that the discharge into the Gilwiskaw Brook will require an Environmental Permit (formerly a discharge consent) which is regulated by the Environment Agency.

143. An Environmental Permit will require detailed operational controls which are

likely to include, but not be restricted to, a detailed water management plan, monitoring, mitigation and contingency action procedures.

North West Leicestershire District Council – Environment Directorate 144. Having reviewed the detailed noise modelling information and the background

noise level data provided, along with the proposed mitigation measures, the EHO is of the opinion that the proposed development could be operated in accordance with guidelines for noise set out in Annexe 2 to MPS2.

145. With regard to air quality, the EHO advises that conditions need to be imposed

relating to the need for a weather station on site, a minimum of two real air quality time monitors and a dust management plan to be approved prior to commencement of development. The EHO has made no further comment regarding vibration and, subject to conditions, the EHO has no objection to the proposed development on noise, air quality and vibration grounds.

North West Leicestershire District Council – Planning 146. The Council has maintained its objection to the planning application on the

grounds of loss of amenity to nearby residents. Swepstone and Newton Burgoland Parish Council 147. Maintain their objection to the proposals due to the detrimental impact on local

visual amenity, particularly on the views from Swepstone Church and properties on Swepstone Road. The Council consider that the information supplied does not consider the effects of accidents and polluting incidents (although the Council does not suggest examples of what these incidents may entail) and that taking the site out of agricultural use would only have an insignificant impact on the phosphate levels in the brook.

148. The Council is also concerned about the lack of raw data used to feed into the

hydrogeology and drainage models and consider that the modelling results


35

2009/0720/07– continued

cannot be considered appropriate to protect the SAC. The Council also considers that there is no need for the coal, that the supplementary information does not allay their concerns relating to noise, air quality and dust and consider that the offer of a sum of money for the restoration of the canal is a small amount. The PC remains concerned that given the current state of UK Coal’s finances, there is no guarantee that the proposed restoration scheme would be realised.

Snarestone Parish Council 149. Maintain their strong objection to the proposal by UK Coal. The Council states

‘We have not seen or heard anything new that would alter our view that this development is a travesty and planning should not be granted. A number of written and verbal objections have been received from local residents. These cover a variety of very genuine concerns ranging from pollution, noise and dangers caused by heavy goods vehicles to the detrimental affect on property prices. These are real worries by real people and the County Council would do well to take them into consideration.’

150. The Council goes on to say that ‘Finally, we must reiterate that, as UK Coal

have offered ‘planning gain’ to the local canal restoration group (which, to be fair, is a minority interest group), we believe that this sets a precedent regarding prior compensation and is an admission that the company is seeking to placate local people. If this application is allowed we would look for some form of advance financial compensation, particularly for the residents of Measham, Swepstone and Snarestone, which can be used to benefit the local communities.’

Measham Parish Council 151. Object to the proposal. Health Protection Agency 152. Raises no objection and reiterates its previous comments. National Forest Company (NFC) 153. The NFC acknowledges that some of its original concerns have been

addressed, although a number of issues that were previously raised have not being taken on board. They note that there would be a net gain in habitat creation of around 17.5hectares, compared to 6 hectares originally and that there would be an additional 2,200 metres of hedgerow following restoration.

154. Matters that the NFC is still concerned about include recreation and tourism

impacts. The NFC also considers that there should be additional habitat and woodland provision following restoration and considers that restoring large parts of the site to more extensive mixed habitats would yield greater public benefits than by restoring similar land to agriculture.


36

2009/0720/07– continued Natural England 155. Remain concerned that the development may have a significant effect on the

SAC. Natural England (NE) states that the applicant has resolved a number of their queries following meetings with the Environment Agency and UK Coal representatives and have read the EA letter to the County Council dated 3rd September 2010 and support much of what is proposed. This letter set out a series of conditions, comments relating to biodiversity and information relating to how NE would be involved in the determination of any subsequent Environmental Permit application.

156. NE also reminds the County Council of their duties, as a competent authority, to

make an ‘appropriate assessment’ (AA) of the implications of the development on the internationally designated River Mease SAC, as required under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations). They go on to raise several points of concern that need to be addressed as part of the AA. These are technical issues and have been passed to the applicant in order that a comprehensive response can be obtained that satisfies the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

157. NE considers that the bird survey work undertaken is comprehensive and

thorough and provides a good level of baseline information. NE also strongly supports the net gain of over 2000 metres of hedgerow, proposed hedgerow margins and conservation headlands and new woodland planting to be provided following site restoration works. NE notes that there will be a net loss of semi improved grassland and that it is therefore important that the grassland area around the proposed lake be managed for biodiversity rather than amenity purposes.

158. With regard to aquatic biodiversity, NE welcomes the survey work undertaken and supports proposals to rectify current issues and modify the brook profile to a more natural form. They also recommend that the proposed lake be reprofiled to include more shallow areas to increase the potential for habitat creation.

159. NE welcomes the fact that there will be no need to translocate Great Crested Newts within the site and considers that conditions can ensure protection of the GCN population on site.

160. Natural England notes the thorough and carefully considered approach to the preservation of the soils on site, and particularly commends the commitment to storage and separation of the varied soil types present. NE goes on to state that the highest quality soils should be reserved for the areas to be restored to agriculture with the low nutrient soils to be used for areas to be restored for biodiversity purposes.

Restoration Scheme

161. Natural England proposes that the margin on the west side of the river should be increased in width to 30m and redesigned so that the hedge is on the side of


37

2009/0720/07– continued

the margin furthest from the river. The margin along the tributary should be extended to 6m on both sides of the tributary as it flows through the land to be restored to agriculture. Wider margins increase the benefit and in the case of 6m margins are the standard distance used for Higher Level Stewardship agreements.

162. NE makes several suggestions that would improve the proposed restoration scheme and considers that a condition should be imposed requiring the submission of a more prescriptive restoration scheme. NE goes on to state that the restoration scheme is not just important in its own right but can have a significant effect on the SAC, which is currently failing its conservation objectives. Natural England suggests that the Local Planning Authority sets up a management group that reviews the progress of the works and the restoration to maximise the benefits of the restoration to the SAC and to help steer the improvements that are outlined in the plan. This should include a representative from Natural England and the Environment Agency and may include other interested parties.

163. NE has been consulted on a draft Appropriate Assessment, and has consequently requested further information and clarity on certain issues. This has involved discussions with the EA, mainly regarding the hydrogeological impacts of the proposed lake on the Gilwiskaw Brook. NE wrote to the County Council on 2nd May 2011 stating that it considers that the Appropriate Assessment is satisfactory and that should permission be granted, it looks forward to working with the applicant and the County Council in the discharging of appropriate conditions.

The Coal Authority

164. Reiterate its earlier comments, although it wishes to draw to the Council’s attention the issue of mine water rebound which is affecting the wider South Derbyshire Coalfield. Mine water in this area has been rising since the demise of the deep mines and this water is contaminated from these old workings. It is generally saline and contains several chemicals, most notably iron. This has recently risen to the extent that it has infiltrated ground water at Saltersford Brook, near Oakthorpe, causing an adverse impact upon a valuable local amenity.

165. The Authority considers that, in the event that the mine goes ahead, the associated dewatering activities should provide a valuable insight into the mine water regimes in this area. Through the dewatering of the excavation it is possible that mine water would be drawn towards the site, thus lowering the levels elsewhere in the coalfield area.

166. It is also possible that a long term control over this problem could be achieved after the site closes, although this would be dependent on an agreed scheme with the Coal Authority, suitable pumping facilities being in place and measures to treat any mine water being maintained and managed.

British Waterways


38

2009/0720/07– continued

167. Considers that the application site lies sufficiently away from British Waterway’s existing network to have no impact upon it and therefore have no comment to make.

Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust

168. Unfortunately they do not have the resources to consider a response to this application, but request that this lack of comment is taken neither as support for, or opposition to, the application.

Publicity

169. The proposal was initially advertised in the Burton Mail on 16th July 2009 and also in the Leicester Mercury and the Coalville Times on 17th July 2009 and the submission of the supplementary information was then advertised again in the Burton Mail and Leicester Mercury on 5th August 2010 and in the Burton Mail on 6th August 2010. The application was also advertised by site notices and 392 neighbour letters dated 13th July 2009 posted to properties within 800 metres of the site.

170. A public meeting was held on 17th September 2009 at St. Laurence’s Church Hall, attended by approximately 120 members of the public together with members of the Development Control and Regulatory Board and local County Councillors. At the meeting questions and concerns were raised on the following matters:

• Whether the County Council had consulted the British Herpetological Society with regard to the potential for impacts upon the identified Great Crested Newt population on the site;

• Can the County Council insist on a S106 agreement to prevent future extensions to the site as at Long Moor;

• The increase in HGV traffic in the area would be unacceptable given that they would conflict with the school run and operate on roads around Measham that already have bad accident records;

• Detrimental impacts on local tourism;

• The viability of UK Coal as a going concern and questions were raised regarding the need and use of a restoration bond;

• Hydrological issues were raised, with particular regard to the Gilwiskaw Brook and River Mease SAC;

• The lack of restoration of the Lounge disposal point near Ashby was referred to. It was explained that LCC had served an Enforcement Notice on UK Coal requiring them to restore the site;

• Light pollution;

• Concerns about the storage of fireclay on the site;

• Little employment opportunities for local people as UK Coal would transfer their employees from the Long Moor site near Ravenstone, leaving few vacancies;

• Cumulative impact of site on locality;

• Traffic assessment needs to include Measham Brickworks working at full capacity;

• Site would be a blot on the landscape.


39

2009/0720/07– continued 171. The late Mr. David Taylor MP made a speech stating that opencasting in the

area had been going on since the 1940’s. He also requested that the decision on the application should be referred up to the full County Council. He stated that the site is about half a square mile and would impact upon the National Forest objectives, would deter inward investment and that the most important consultees are the local communities. He concluded by saying that he considered the proposal unacceptable, unnecessary and profoundly dangerous.

Representations Received

172. A total of 147 written representations were received to the original phase of consultation in 2009. 143 letters were received objecting to the proposal, including two from the Minorca Opencast Protest Group, two letters were received supporting the application and two letters were received simply stating that UK Coal had operated several surface mine sites in the area and these had been run to a high standard with excellent restoration. An analysis of the representations has identified a number of issues/areas of concern, which are presented in the following chart. The analysis involved some grouping of similarly natured concerns, in order to identify the main areas of concern.


40

2009/0720/07– continued

173. Two representations were received from the Minorca Opencast Protest Group

(MOPG). 36 ‘post card’ style pro forma representations were also received, 35 of which raised an objection to the proposal whilst one supported it.

174. The representations from MOPG were lengthy, and raised objections to the

application on the following grounds:

1 Impacts from HGVs on local highway network 120

2 Noise pollution 110

3 Need for a 500metre buffer zone 95

4 Landscape/Visual Impact 94

5 Blight and impacts on local property prices 81

6 Carbon footprint/climate change impacts/no Carbon Capture yet 79

7 Environmental/Ecological damage 77

8 Lack of professional Health Impact Assessment 63

9 Health Impacts 34

10 Previous mine workings in area-enough is enough 24

11 Potential blasting problems, including flyrock 18

12 Impacts on the Gilwiskaw Brook/River Mease SAC 21

13 Would produce no economic benefits and few jobs 16

14 General pollution from the site, including odour 15

15 Small amount of poor quality coal to be extracted 18

16 Effect regeneration efforts within Measham area 13

17 UK Coal has a poor track record of restoring sites (Lounge cited) 11

18 There are two schools in close proximity to site 11

19 Impact upon protected species within the site 9

20 Development would have negative impact upon tourism 8

21 Light pollution 8

22 Existing subsidence in locality would be exacerbated 5

23 Would affect soil quality/poor soil handling scheme 6

24 UK Coal’s finances are poor and restoration bond required 7

25 Proposal conflicts with MPG3 and Policy CS7 6

26 Site would be extended in future 5

27 Previous refusal reasons still relevant 4

28 Don’t need lake 2

29 Should be pursuing green energy 3

30 Works to widen the Gallows Lane/Bosworth Road junction and widening of Bosworth Road not acceptable

2

31 Site safety issue – potential for hazards 3

32 Alternative working method using alternative site (not in the applicant’s control) for overburden storage would save energy

1

33 Mine would affect residents lifestyles 1

34 Mine would affect previous restoration efforts in area 1

35 Long time needed for site to recover fully 2

36 Upgrading footpath to bridleway would encourage motorbikes etc 1

37 Wardell Armstrong (UK Coal’s agent) is non-accredited for its management system – questions evidence submitted

1

38 No need for the fireclay – sufficient stocks exist 1

39 Potential damage to Swepstone Church/visitors to graveyard 1

40 Could impact upon local water table 1


41

2009/0720/07– continued

• conflict with Paragraph 8 of MPG 3 which presumes against development being permitted unless certain tests are satisfied (see paragraphs 62 & 63 of this report)

• the likely impacts on the River Mease SAC

• lack of a 500 metre buffer zone

• landscape and visual impacts on local amenity

• impacts on local ecological assets

• flawed traffic assessment (failed to consider Measham Brickwork traffic appropriately) and increased potential for accidents

• very little field data to give confidence to the applicant's predictions on matters relating to geology, hydrogeology, flood risk and drainage

• lack of need for the coal

• noise

• air quality and dust

• cumulative impact of the development

• exaggerated/inaccurate social economic arguments put forward by the applicant

• poor restoration efforts on other sites in the locality

• health impacts on local residents.

175. Following the submission of the additional supporting information, a second round of consultation was undertaken in August 2010. A significant number of representations were received, both in support and against the proposal.

176. A total of 98 representations in support/raising no objection to the proposal have been received. An analysis of the representations has identified a multitude of reasons for supporting/not objecting to, the proposal, which are presented in the following chart. The analysis involved some grouping of similarly natured concerns, in order to identify the main areas of concern.


42

2009/0720/07– continued

177. A petition in support of the application was also received. It was signed by 1401

persons and stated the following: “We the undersigned will SUPPORT the offer of funding from UK Coal to help restore the Ashby Canal to Measham and we will NOT oppose the Minorca Surface Mine application as long as UK Coal comply with the planning conditions laid down by Leicestershire County Council.”

178. A second petition was also received signed by 117 persons. The petition stated ‘We the undersigned, note with dismay, the continued demonization of UK Coal in the press and by association its team of local employees, who do so much good work in North West Leicestershire. We would therefore like to place on record, the excellent work done by UK Coal in the Ashby Woulds Area and the thank the company for the legacy they have left us, which includes the restored Hicks Lodge and Wood Farm sites. We would also acknowledge the assistance the company has provided to the Ashby Woulds Community by supporting many local good causes.’

179. A total of 104 representations objecting to the proposal were received at the

second stage of consultation. An analysis of the representations has identified many issues/areas of concern, which are presented in the following chart. The analysis involved some grouping of similarly natured concerns, in order to identify the main areas of concern.

1 UK Coal’s financial offer would advance the canal towards Measham 68

2 Restoring canal would provide long term economic benefits to area 71

3 Restoring canal would provide long term environmental benefits to area 58

4 Restoring canal would provide long term social/recreational benefits 53

5 There is a lack of funding elsewhere for canal restoration 47

6 Canal restoration is an integral part of the National Forest Strategy 26

7 Dewatering mine would help control the wider rising mine water issue 22

8 Restoration would provide water storage lake for canal use 20

9 Funding for canal would encourage others to invest in restoration works 20

10 A S106 would be necessary to ensure appropriate restoration 14

11 Other surface mines in the area had little impact on locals 13

12 An appeal following a refusal would reduce money for canal restoration 10

13 The long term benefits of the scheme outweigh the short term impacts 10

14 Restoring canal closer to Measham would increase tourism 8

15 Other restored sites are now attracting lots of visitors e.g. Hicks Lodge 4

16 Coal is still being imported to UK 2

17 Helping to restore the canal would help link UK Coal with local community

1

18 Site is remote from most housing 1

19 Site benefits from good transport links 1

20 Objectors’ claims of impacts are unfounded 1

21 Restoration would leave legacy for local community 1

22 Coal still significant source of power generation 1


43

2009/0720/07– continued

180. A further substantial representation was received from MOPG. The Group

maintain their objection to the proposed development on numerous grounds, including landscape and visual impact, conflict with Paragraph 8 of MPG3 and the need for the UK to reduce its reliance on coal as part of the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord. The Group also object to the proposal on grounds of noise (including questioning the modelling work completed by the applicant’s agent), lack of need for the coal, particularly given the recent rise in the use of gas for energy generation, the impacts the Large Combustion Plant Directive has had on existing coal fired power stations, changes to UK energy policy, lack of carbon capture and storage to date, air quality and dust impacts, impacts on the Gilwiskaw Brook and River Mease SAC (and protected species therein), traffic, cumulative impact and socio-economic grounds.

181. MOPG also engaged a Chartered Geologist to assess the hydrogeological

impacts of the proposed development. The assessment raises several areas of

1 Noise 93

2 Traffic impacts, Bosworth Road not suitable 98

3 Environmental/ecological impacts 83

4 Visual impact/loss of amenities 86

5 Lack of 500 metre buffer zone around site 82

6 Health impacts/lack of Health Impact Assessment 88

7 Blight/reduction in house prices 80

8 Need to reduce carbon footprint by less burning of fossil fuels 80

9 Detrimental socio-economic impacts on local community, lack of employment of local people

80

10 Doubt that coal would contribute to security of supply 72

11 Not economic/no need to work the coal 78

12 Impacts on SAC/protected species/ecological interests 17

13 Dust impacts 11

14 Proposal would harm National Forest Strategy & previous regeneration 18

15 Past record of applicant questionable, e.g. Lounge restoration 6

16 Financial status of UK Coal is insecure, need a restoration bond 6

17 Cumulative impacts – ‘enough is enough’ 5

18 Contrary to paras. 8 & 30 of MPG3 and Development Plan policies 4

19 No weight should be given to canal restoration – offer is a ‘bribe’ 6

20 Unacceptable restoration scheme/harm to soils 5

21 Site would be close to two schools 3

22 The tests set out in Waddenzee case not met – harm to protected species

2

23 Potential damage/impacts from blasting 2

24 Applicant’s agent’s work questionable/inaccurate 3

25 Potential extensions would extend impacts beyond those suggested 3

26 Development may exacerbate flooding, long time for site to recover, short time for public to respond to consultation, may exacerbate existing subsidence problems in area, should use battery powered vehicles to minimise noise, alternative sites should be sought, Priority Area in NWLDC Local Plan, previous refusal reasons still applicable, impacts on tourism, wind farm would be better use of site, country short of agricultural land and other surface mines have had negative impacts on locality.

1


44

2009/0720/07– continued

concern, particularly regarding the use of poor field data, over reliance on the outputs of models and that on the information presented, it is not possible to concur with the predictions that are made in the submission. These technical questions were passed to the Environment Agency for their technical expert to assess and their response to the submission forms part of their overall consultee responses above.

Assessment Development Plan

182. Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the determination of planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Consequently, the starting point for the assessment of this application should be the Development Plan and other relevant national planning policies. In this case, the relevant parts of the development plan are detailed in paragraphs 73 – 92 above. The key policy to assess this application against is Policy MCS7 of the adopted Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Core Strategy & Development Control Policies document (Core Strategy). This policy states: ‘The strategy for coal is to adopt a presumption against coal extraction and for the disposal of colliery waste, including lateral and depth extensions to existing sites, unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; or if not, the proposal provides local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely environmental impacts. Individual proposals will also be assessed against the following criteria: (i) the effect on efforts to attract or retain investment in the area; (ii) any environmental improvements or other material planning benefits to the

community likely to result from the proposal; (iii) the employment and other economic effects of the proposal; (iv) the avoidance of unplanned piecemeal working of deposits; (v) the national need for fireclay.’

183. Using Policy MCS7 as the framework to assess the application it is necessary

to consider the environmental impacts of the development both individually and cumulatively, having regard to other relevant development plan policies and Government Planning Policy and Guidance. In the event that the proposal is considered environmentally unacceptable, the assessment needs to consider whether the unacceptable adverse impacts are outweighed by any environmental and/or community benefits that the proposal may bring.

184. Having regard to advice in MPG3 and the Development Plan, the main

environmental effects that need to be considered in respect of this planning application are noise, dust, health, traffic and highways, rights of way, visual and landscape, archaeology, nature conservation, River Mease SAC and Gilwiskaw Brook SSSI and agricultural land quality and soils. Other issues including the potential effect on inward investment, human rights and need for the coal also need to be considered.


45

2009/0720/07– continued

Environmental Effects

Noise

185. Paragraph 2.7 of MPS 2 Annex 2: Noise, requires those making development proposals and planning authorities considering such proposals to: ‘assess the existing noise climate around the site of the proposed operations, including background noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive properties’. The methods used to assess the existing noise climate are to describe the audible noise sources and to measure background noise levels using a sound level meter. In Annex 2 there is no specific guidance as to the duration or number of measurements at any individual location and it is inevitable that background noise levels measured at most receiver locations will vary depending on the time of day and weather conditions and the variation will be greater at some locations than others. The normal practice in accordance with MPS 2 is to set day time limits at noise sensitive properties of 55 dB LAeq or no more than 10dB above existing background levels, whichever is the lower.

186. As part of the Environmental Assessment background monitoring was undertaken at 14 noise sensitive locations surrounding the site. Having regard to the advice in MPS 2, summarised in the above paragraph, nominal noise limits were set at the monitoring locations at 10 dB(A) above existing background levels or 55dB, whichever is the lower. The noise assessment predictions are that noise levels from this development would not exceed the nominal limits, and in general would be more than 3dB less than the nominal noise limits (Crossroads Cottage, a property owned by the applicant, is predicted to have the highest worst case noise levels of 53.3dB (A) against a noise limit of 55dB (A)).

187. Some temporary operations such as the formation of soil mounds would exceed nominal noise limits but such temporary exceedances are considered acceptable by MPS 2 provided a level of 70 dB(A) is not exceeded. The ES shows that noise from temporary operations will comply with MPS 2 guidance and be below 70 dB(A). In fact it is the forming of soil mounds around the site that provides the greatest mitigation of noise from site operations.

188. Despite the Environmental Health Officer confirming that the noise level predictions were acceptable, criticism of the noise assessment methodology and selection of background monitoring points in the ES has been made, in particular by the Minorca Opencast Protest Group and several local residents. UK Coal’s noise consultants have responded by pointing out that the approach and methodology used follows national standards and guidance and has been agreed with the Environmental Health Authority.

189. Notwithstanding the Environmental Health Officer’s comments, the County Council engaged an independent noise consultancy to comment on the approach taken by the applicant to produce background levels and the modelling work undertaken to predict likely worst case scenarios at each property. This exercise led to several issues being raised by the independent consultancy and the applicant undertook additional modelling work and research in order to respond to the issues raised. Whilst no additional


46

2009/0720/07– continued

background levels were taken, the consultancy had highlighted some shortcomings, which included modelled levels being calculated at the façade, rather than free field. When this correction was applied to the noise model it actually reduced the predicted noise value at each property by 3dB (A).

190. Other additional works included assessing the impacts of noise on the pig

breeding unit at Measham Fields Farm, which was one of the reasons for refusal of the previous application on this site. The highest modelled noise level at the farm is likely to be 50.2 dB (A). The pig breeding unit is enclosed in an agricultural building which would result in a further 10-15 dB (A) reduction in sound levels. The applicant has highlighted research in to the welfare of pigs which considers 59 dB (A) to be quiet. It indicated that levels between 69-78 dB were recorded in fattening units on pig farms and that typical noise levels during the rearing of pigs ranges between 72 and 76 dB. The research advised that noise levels above 90 dB should be avoided, which is much higher than levels anticipated at the site, even for temporary operations.

191. Given that the EHO has raised no objection on noise grounds and the further

work by the applicant has clarified that noise levels would not conflict with the advice in MPS 2, then the noise predictions in the ES should be accepted. However, this is not to say that noise from site operations and transportation of coal would not be heard at surrounding residential properties. The noise assessment shows that with mitigation, worst case noise levels at the selected noise sensitive receptors could range from 3.7 dB below existing background noise levels to 6.4 dB above existing background levels. This could be regarded as a marginal increase at the two properties where the increase is likely to be greater than 6dB above background levels.

192. With regard to the difference between the existing background noise levels and

those modelled as worst case, BS 4142 states that: “The greater this difference the greater the likelihood of complaints. A difference of around +10 dB or more indicates that complaints are likely. A difference of around +5 dB is of marginal significance. If the rating level is more than 10 dB below the measured background noise level then this is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely”. Temporary operations could result in noise increases over 15 dB (A) at individual properties, albeit for limited periods (which may be as short as single days), which is regarded as a significant change for the duration of such operations.

193. Notwithstanding the impacts from temporary operations, it is considered that the

mitigation measures, including the provision of a monitoring scheme, are sufficient to ensure that noise from site operations would not conflict with the provisions of policies MCS11 and MDC12 of the Minerals Core Strategy and the guidance in MPS 2. Conditions can be imposed to control noise from the development to ensure noise levels do not exceed MPS 2 guidance levels so that the proposed surface mine would not have an unacceptable impact on local noise sensitive properties.


47

2009/0720/07– continued Dust 194. Considerable concern has been expressed over the amount of dust that would

be generated by the development and consequently affect businesses, residential properties and the health of residents surrounding the site. Perceptions of dust levels are to a degree based on residents’ experience of previous opencast coal extraction in the area. There is no advice in government guidance on what are acceptable dust emission levels from mineral extraction. Government advice is that dust should be controlled, mitigated or removed at source and it advocates the use of best practice. Suggestions for controlling dust are given in MPG3 and the Government’s research report “The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings” which is the basis of advice on dust contained in Annex 1 to MPS 2.

195. The ES sets out the best practice that would be adopted to control dust from the

site including the implementation of a Dust Action Plan. Conditions could be imposed to ensure best practices are adopted. Modern dust suppression and control measures utilised on opencast coal sites are undoubtedly more effective than in the past. Fears of local residents about the levels of dust likely to be experienced which are based on past experience may therefore exceed reality. Nevertheless, these fears appear to be genuinely held. UK Coal’s sites at Hicks Lodge and Long Moor have provided a working example of the levels of control that can be achieved. However, as stated in MPG 3 the severity of dust problems will vary according to the time of year, time of day, moisture in the soil, temperature, humidity and wind directions. MPG 3 goes on to acknowledge that, “Some action can be taken to reduce disturbance from dust, but by the nature of the problem, it is unlikely to be eradicated in its entirety.”

196. The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the development in

respect of dust emissions. Given the scale and nature of the operations proposed there will be the potential for dust to be generated. The extent to which that dust can be controlled is a matter of good practice and management. Whilst there is a reasonable degree of confidence that dust can be properly managed there is a risk that some dust impact will occur. The acceptability of that risk is a matter that needs to be weighed in the balance with the potential effect it would have on nearby dust sensitive properties and local residents.

197. Subject to the control of the matters outlined above by planning condition, including the provision of a monitoring regime in the form of a Dust Action Plan, it is considered that the issues relating to dust are capable of being satisfactorily resolved and/or managed to an acceptable level having regard to specialist advice and the provisions of policies MCS11 and MDC12 of the Minerals Core Strategy and MPS2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Mineral Working (Annex1).


48

2009/0720/07– continued

Health and Air Quality

198. Associated with dust and vehicle emissions is a concern that the health of people living around the site would be affected by the inhalation of airborne dust particles and particularly the finest particles known as PM10s. This issue was raised in a significant number of representations, many of which referred to research that suggested health links between opencast mining and residents.

199. The Primary Care Trust (PCT), as a consultee to the proposal, was petitioned

by the Minorca Opencast Protest Group to request that the County Council undertake a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of the proposal prior to determination. A HIA is a statutory requirement in Wales and to this end, the Welsh Assembly supports a specific unit to undertake these exercises, the Welsh Health Impact Assessment Support Unit. However, there is no such corresponding requirement under English legislation and the Council is not obliged to undertake such an assessment, nor is it able to require the applicant to submit one.

200. The PCT researched the general health impacts arising from surface mines and a report was taken to their Board with a recommendation that no objection should be raised in principle to the application and that insufficient evidence exists to warrant the need for a formal HIA in this instance. The Board approved the recommendation and no HIA was either provided by the PCT or requested from the County Council.

201. Research undertaken by the Department of Health in 1999 led to the publication of a document titled ‘Do particulates from opencast coal mining impair children’s respiratory health?’. The PCT studied this report and state that it suggests that there is an association between general particulate matter increases and health outcomes that is significant but small. However, in relation to this application, in terms of health, open cast mining communities did not have a greater prevalence of asthma, wheeze, bronchitis and other respiratory illnesses compared to non-mining communities. Furthermore, asthmatic children in open cast mining communities did not have any more, or more severe, asthma attacks than children in non-mining communities. Notwithstanding this, GP consultations for respiratory, skin and eye conditions were shown to be increased in open cast mining communities compared to non-mining communities.

202. Perceived fear of risk to health and quality of life can be a material planning consideration and should be taken into account in the decision. The weight to be attached to this fear must be based on the evidence available. The ES has concluded that subject to appropriate monitoring and best practice measures being utilised on site, there would be no significant impact on the health of local residents. The PCT, the Health Protection Agency and the Environmental Health Officer have investigated this issue and raise no objections subject to appropriately worded conditions. It is concluded that there is no evidence that there will be significant health impacts arising from this development and, therefore, little weight can be given to this issue.


49

2009/0720/07– continued

Traffic and Highways

203. The proposed development would lead to an average of 61 HGV loads of coal and fireclay per day, which is 122 movements per day and around one movement every five minutes. All traffic would access and egress the site from a new purpose built access off Bosworth Road and then travel north to the A42 (save for any fireclay that may be exported to the Measham Brickworks, about 1 kilometre to the south of the site) using the B4116 Gallows Lane, which is part of the County Council’s strategic lorry route network.

204. The Highway Authority accepts that the amount of traffic generated by the

development is unlikely to have a material impact on the road network during peak hours. Also, its view is that the proposed access arrangements, together with minor re-profiling of Bosworth Road and its junction with Gallows Lane, would cater for the proposed traffic levels safely. Consequently, the Highway Authority considers that there are no highway safety or capacity implications which are of a scale or nature that would warrant refusal of planning permission on highway grounds, subject to a legal agreement securing the above junction improvements, routing of lorry traffic on the proposed route, the applicant being responsible for any damage to the highway caused by their operations and other planning conditions being imposed as set out in the Highway Authority’s comments in the Consultation section of this report. UK Coal has confirmed that it agrees to the conditions and legal agreements requested by the Highway Authority.

205. Concern has been raised regarding the impact of lorries on the amenity of the

local area from noise, emissions and safety. Whilst having more vehicles in the local area would lead to impacts on local amenity, it is considered that there is insufficient evidence to contradict the conclusion of the ES which states that, ‘it is not expected that the proposed operation would lead to a material impact in terms of highway capacity or safety’.

206. Subject to the control of the matters outlined above by planning condition, and

where appropriate planning obligation, it is considered that the traffic, transportation and access issues are capable of being satisfactorily controlled in accordance with the Highway Authority’s comments and the provisions of Policies MCS16, and MDC12, 14 and 19 of the Minerals Core Strategy and PPG13 Transport.

Rights of Way 207. Policy MDC 15: Public Rights of Way states that planning permission will not be

granted for minerals development that would adversely affect a public right of way, unless satisfactory proposals which are both convenient and safe are made for its diversion or the creation of an alternative route both during operations and following restoration of the site. It goes on to say that the opportunity will be taken wherever possible to secure appropriate, improved access into the countryside.


50

2009/0720/07– continued

208. Two rights of way, Bridleway Q33 and Footpath O57 would be affected by the proposed development, although both would remain open for the duration of the development. Bridleway Q33 runs north to south through the middle of the site and would be affected by virtue of it being crossed by dumpers taking soils and overburden from the excavation to the storage areas on the eastern part of the site. Footpath O57 would not be directly affected by the development. However, there would be detrimental impacts on users of this footpath, as with Q33, due to noise and a reduction in visual amenity due to the adjacent soil storage bunds. To compensate this, UK Coal is proposing to upgrade this route to a bridleway at the start of the development.

209. Enhancement of the rights of way network is proposed as part of site restoration with, in particular, new bridleways being proposed linking Q33 and O57. There would also be new footpaths on both sides of the site to better link the existing rights of way network and provide access to the restored site, which would result in an increase of 3,500 metres of additional rights of way. These potential long-term benefits need to be balanced against the temporary adverse impacts during the operational and early post restoration period.

210. Subject to the control of the matters outlined above by planning condition and where appropriate planning obligation, it is considered that the issues relating to the rights of way network are capable of being satisfactorily resolved in accordance with the provisions of policies MDC15 and MDC19 of the Minerals Core Strategy (a scheme of orders to dedicate new rights of way would also be required under the appropriate legislative powers).

Landscape and Visual Impact 211. Policy MDC5: Countryside states that ‘planning permission will not be granted

for minerals development that will adversely affect the general appearance and character of the landscape and the countryside, unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development’. The preamble to the policy suggests that a consideration of any impacts will include consideration of the potential impacts or enhancement of the landscape both during and after working, the duration of any adverse impacts, and mitigation and/or compensatory measures to replace losses and the provision of any long-term asset enhancements through restoration proposals.

212. The ES identifies several individual properties and users of the public rights of

way and road network in and around the site as being sensitive receptors potentially affected by the development. The ES also states that there are limited views of the site from the eastern edge of the village of Measham and that some upper storeys of houses on the western edge of Swepstone would have potential views in to the site.

213. The visual assessment concludes that views from public highways would be

limited by intervening vegetation and the impacts would be negligible. From the public rights of way the impacts would range from negligible to substantial adverse during extraction to nil to substantial beneficial post restoration. Impacts on views from residential properties will range from negligible to substantial adverse during extraction to nil to slight beneficial following restoration.


51

2009/0720/07– continued

214. The Council’s Landscape officer assessed the ES and raised concerns over a number of issues. The officer considered that the short-term visual impacts during the operational life of the site are underestimated by the landscape and visual assessment in the ES, including the stated degree of impact upon local properties and users of the local roads and public rights of way. In order to get a better understanding of the visibility of the working site from the surrounding area, the applicant was asked to provide assessments of additional viewpoints into the site and to amend all viewpoints to address shortcomings. It was also noted that the assessment did not take into account the seasonal loss of foliage around the site. The officer was broadly satisfied with the restoration scheme proposed.

215. The existing site landscape does not have any particular designated development plan protection other than that afforded to countryside in general but, nonetheless, it is a mature, rural landscape with many pleasant features which is obviously enjoyed as an amenity by people who use the network of public rights of way around the site, by users of local minor roads and by those local residents who can see the site from their properties.

216. It is also worth noting that the application site is a greenfield site, generally in agricultural use. It is considered that the site is attractive in its own right, does not require land remediation and any landscape benefits from restoration would be very limited. It is also noted that the soil screening bunds, which mitigate views into the operational quarry void, generate a significant harm to visual amenity, especially as they would be up to eight metres high and in some cases very close to residential properties.

217. The applicant submitted supplementary information in response to the Landscape officer’s comments, and these were considered to be generally acceptable. Whilst the officer states that there are some instances of professional disagreement over the visual impact of the site during the operational phases, it is acknowledged that these impacts, whilst potentially significant, are temporary in nature. Whilst there would be significant harm to visual amenity in the short term, it is considered that, on balance, the relatively short period of operational development, along with the mitigation measures proposed and site restoration works proposed, the issues relating to landscape and visual amenity are capable of being satisfactorily resolved in accordance with the provisions of policies MCS13(i) and MDC6 of the Minerals Core Strategy.

Ecology 218. The majority of the land directly affected by the proposed development is arable

land, which the ES considers to be of negligible importance for nature conservation. The development would also affect eight hectares of semi-improved grassland of district importance and 0.1 ha of semi mature trees. The site also straddles the Gilwiskaw Brook, designated as a SSSI and part of the River Mease Special Area of Conservation (the SAC), which is an international designation of significant importance. There are also two large restored spoil heaps either side of the brook which, along with existing woodland and grasslands along the brook corridor, would be retained and protected throughout the life of the development.


52

2009/0720/07– continued

219. The protection of the SAC is of paramount importance. Objective 5 of the Minerals Development Framework seeks ‘to protect people and communities, and the natural and built environment (particularly the River Mease Special Area of Conservation) from minerals development. Policy MCS11 seeks to protect and enhance the natural and built environment by ensuring that (inter alia) there are no unacceptable impacts from minerals development on biodiversity, including nationally and internationally important sites. It is clear therefore that significant weight needs to be attached to the protection of the River Mease SAC.

220. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 places a duty on

competent authorities (which includes the County Council in this instance) to assess the likely implications of proposed developments on European sites, such as the River Mease SAC. Given the proximity to the SAC and the nature of the proposed development, it was considered that there was a likelihood of impacts on the SAC and in accordance with S61 of the above Regulations, an Appropriate Assessment (AA) of these impacts was undertaken. The AA was subject to consultation with Natural England and concludes that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. A copy of the AA is contained in Appendix 3 to this report.

221. The applicant has provided significant evidence to demonstrate that the

development proposed and the restoration works thereafter would not have a detrimental impact on the SAC, the SSSI and the protected species therein. It is considered that the main concerns relate to potential for loss of water quality or water levels from drawdown as a result of the extraction. This evidence has included technical hydrological and hydrogeological modelling and has been scrutinised in detail by the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England. The EA is satisfied that, with appropriate mitigation measures in place, secured by appropriately worded planning conditions and/or obligations, the integrity of the SAC and SSSI would be protected and that there would not be detrimental impacts on the SAC and SSSI.

222. A hedgerow survey has been carried out and has identified that 965 metres of

hedgerow of lower ecological value will be affected, although it is proposed to translocate approximately 330 metres of this hedgerow at the start of the development. Although some scepticism as to the likely success of such translocation has been expressed, UK Coal points to successful translocation having been undertaken at other opencast coal sites, including at the Hicks Lodge and Long Moor sites. In the event of the failure of translocation compensatory hedgerow planting could be required by condition. The ES considers that this loss would be significantly adverse at a district level, prior to mitigation. All of the ‘important’ hedgerows would be retained and protected throughout the life of the development.

223. Following restoration it is proposed to plant approximately 3,500 metres of new hedgerow and hedgerow tree planting. This would lead to a net increase of 2,500 metres of hedgerow which would more than compensate for the loss of hedgerow during site operations. This is welcomed by the Council’s ecologist and Natural England.


53

2009/0720/07– continued

224. A large semi-improved grassland area (S) would be lost as part of the development and following consultation, the working scheme has been amended to ensure the protection of semi-improved grassland area (R). Grassland S has developed on a former colliery spoil mound and has since grassed over. It provides potential habitats for ground nesting birds and a common lizard was recorded during a wider reptile survey undertaken in 2008. These grasslands are considered to be of district importance. The proposed development would also lead to the loss of an isolated semi-mature plantation (M) extending to about 0.1ha, although this is considered to be of limited ecological value.

225. The working scheme design has sought to minimise the area of grassland

habitat that would be lost through the proposed development. No other mitigation for the habitat loss is possible during site operations. However, the restoration scheme for the site proposes an area of semi-improved grassland around the lake and a large hay meadow to compensate for the loss of the important grasslands. Whilst these measures would not replace the valuable grassland area directly, they would provide a reasonable level of compensation, when considered as part of the wider restoration scheme.

226. Following mining operations, a 319 metre section of culvert on the east side of

the site will be removed and an open stream created with a more natural channel. The banks would be formed and seeded to create habitat for water vole, a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species, extending the existing ecological habitats of the Gilwiskaw Brook into the tributary, which is known to have better water quality than the brook.

227. No mature trees would be removed as part of the development. The minor loss

of trees, hedgerows, grassland and arable farmland would lead to a loss of foraging and nesting habitat for birds but the impact is considered to be short term but significantly adverse without mitigation measures. The compensation measures post restoration, including new hedgerows, tree planting, grassland, field margins, works to unculvert a tributary of the Gilwiskaw Brook and a 20 year management plan, are considered sufficient to provide a long term improvement to the present ecological value of the site.

European Protected Species Licence Requirements 228. The proposed operations have the potential to adversely affect the populations

of great crested newts and badgers identified as being within the application site by the ecological survey accompanying the application. Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 outlines the necessary criteria which proposed development affecting protected species must meet in order to obtain a European Protected Species Licence. Although planning and licensing are two separate and distinct regimes, Regulation 9(5) of the Habitats Regulations 2010 states that in exercising any of their functions, local planning authorities must have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive (from which the licence requirements within Regulation 53 are transposed), as these requirements may be affected by the exercise of such functions.


54

2009/0720/07– continued

229. Badger surveys covering the application site have established the presence of two badger setts within the site boundary. Whilst the setts would not be directly impacted and a 30 metre stand-off would be maintained throughout the development, the loss of Grassland S would impact directly upon the badgers’ foraging habitats. There is also the potential for machinery to harm or kill badgers and excavations pose the threat of entrapment.

230. Prior to mitigation it is considered that the impact on badgers would be significantly adverse at a local level. However, there will be a net gain in broad leaved woodland and hedgerows following restoration, both of which are considered to provide increased potential for suitable sett building and foraging habitat that the grassland and the impact will be probable beneficial in the long term. The operational activities on site would stop at 19:00 and as badgers are generally active at night, the risk of collisions with machinery is considered to be not significant. Also, a further badger survey would be carried out, prior to works commencing on the site.

231. An initial bird scoping survey was undertaken in February 2009. This time of the year is not an optimal time to undertake a breeding bird survey. However, forty nine species were identified on the site and a further breeding bird survey was undertaken in April and May 2009. Following the second survey, a total of seventy two species were recorded, with forty three of the species being confirmed as breeding on the site.

232. Seventeen UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) listed species were recorded during the surveys, of which, fifteen were recorded actually on the site, with fourteen of those species breeding. Of those species found to be breeding, eleven are red listed species (UK RLS) and twelve are amber listed species. UK RLS are considered to be of highest conservation priority.

233. Whilst it is proposed to retain the perimeter hedgerows and all mature trees within the site boundary, the loss of some hedgerows and the semi-improved grassland to the west of the Gilwiskaw Brook would have a significantly adverse impact on birds due to reduced foraging and breeding habitat.

234. Whilst the majority of breeding species would not have their habitat affected directly by the proposed development, the table below indicates the potential number of pairs of species of conservation concern to be lost following development.

Potential number of pairs lost following development (Species of Conservation Concern Only)

Species Habitat Potential Number of Pairs Lost

Dunnock Arable Land & Hedgerow 2

Linnet Hedgerow 1

Reed Bunting Arable land 3

Skylark Arable Land & Semi-improved Grassland 11

Song Thrush Arable Land & Hedgerow 1

Whitethroat Hedgerow & Semi-improved Grassland 2

Yellowhammer Arable Land & Hedgerow 3


55

2009/0720/07– continued

235. It is considered that the impacts upon the skylark population are of primary concern, as this is the only species of conservation concern recorded on the site for which there is likely to be more pairs lost than retained. Of the eleven pairs likely to be lost, six pairs were recorded within the 9.5ha of semi-improved grassland to be lost and five pairs were identified in the 97ha of arable fields which would be lost. Two pairs were located on grassland to the east of the brook which is to be retained. Overall, prior to mitigation it is considered that the development would have a significant adverse impact on skylark habitat.

236. The ES goes on to conclude that prior to mitigation, the development would

have no significant impact upon kingfishers and hobbies, whilst due to the loss of foraging areas, there would be an initial adverse impact on barn owls, although none were identified as breeding on the site.

237. The ES considers that prior to mitigation, noise, lighting and vehicle movements

across the site have the potential to generate significant adverse impacts upon local bird populations.

238. There are various mitigation measures proposed to prevent unacceptable

impacts upon protected species within the site. It is proposed to retain 6030 metres of hedgerow, translocate another 333 metres at the start of the development and plant a further 3100 metres of hedgerow as part of site restoration, resulting in a net gain of approximately 2524 metres. Also, works to hedgerows would take place outside the bird breeding season and no works would take place within five metres of the retained hedgerows, which would be further protected from light and noise impacts by the erection of screening bunds around the site perimeter. Following mitigation the impact on the hedgerow species is predicted to be probable beneficial in the long term.

239. With respect to the arable land, following restoration it is proposed to provide

8350 metres (equivalent to five hectares) of conservation headlands and field margins. These habitats have the potential to support ground nesting birds and also act as disturbance buffers protecting hedgerows from agricultural practices. The conservation headlands would be sprayed selectively to allow small populations of broad-leaved weeds and their associated invertebrates to develop. The ES states that this would be beneficial as they support predatory insects, which in turn provide a food source for farmland birds. Overall, it is concluded that the principle species to benefit from this element of mitigation include grey partridge, yellowhammers, meadow pipits, whitethroats and skylarks. Following the mitigation efforts the ES considers that the impact to species utilising the arable fields would be probable beneficial in the long term.

240. With the retention of all mature woodland, the planting of a further five hectares

following restoration and the addition of bird and owl boxes on suitable retained mature trees, the ES concludes that the development would have a beneficial impact on woodland and farmland birds, potentially providing extra nesting opportunities for barn owl and hobby in the future.


56

2009/0720/07– continued 241. To mitigate for the loss of 7.1 hectares of semi-improved grassland, it is

proposed to retain 8.1 hectares of grassland, restore 3.65 hectares back to grassland and create five hectares of conservation headlands/field margins and 4.61 hectares of hay meadow, producing a net gain of about six hectares of grassland. It is considered that the semi-improved grassland mitigation would be probable beneficial in the long term for farmland, woodland and wetland birds. Notwithstanding this, it is also considered that there would be a residual adverse impact to skylark during the course of the development.

242. Following restoration it is proposed to create five water bodies, one of which would be a large open water body which would be separate to an extensive on line reserve area of wet grassland, providing various habitats potentially suitable for migratory wildfowl and wading bird species. This mitigation is expected to be beneficial in the long term.

243. A fish survey was undertaken in the Gilwiskaw Brook, with the following fish

species noted: bullhead, stone loach, minnow, stickleback and chub. There was no spined loach identified. It is considered that the bullhead is the primary species of concern, and the main potential impact upon this species is likely to be from reduced flow and water levels in the brook which could arise from dewatering of the excavation and the creation of a large water body as part of the site’s restoration. The applicant has undertaken significant hydrogeological modelling to ascertain the likely impacts on the flows in the brook arising from the development, which indicates that there would be negligible impacts upon the flows in the brook. The Environment Agency and Natural England have considered this evidence and do not raise objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

244. Additional surveys were carried out for water vole, otters, white clawed crayfish

and freshwater invertebrates. The only species/habitat for which the River Mease is designated as a SAC was bullhead.

245. Great crested newts are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and are also included in Schedule 2 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. There is a significant great crested newt population located within the site boundary. Notwithstanding this, the newts are located on parts of the site not to be affected directly by the proposed development, and mitigation measures such as trapping and fencing are proposed to ensure that the potential for impacts on the colony are reduced to a minimum.

246. Natural England (the licensing authority) is satisfied that the applicant has now

sufficiently demonstrated that no unacceptable adverse impact would be caused to the great crested newt population or habitat which this population relies upon. Given the advice of Natural England, it is reasonable to conclude that the development would meet the criteria required to obtain a protected species licence, as set out within Regulation 53, and that planning permission should not be refused on these grounds.


57

2009/0720/07– continued 247. Given the protection of great crested newts (amongst other species) under the

provisions of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, it is necessary to consider the implications of the proposed development on their conservation status. Recent case law clarified a legal duty on planning authorities to apply the same tests as Natural England (i.e. the licensing regime) when considering a planning application where species or their habitats that are protected by European Law may be harmed. Regulation 53 sets out the derogation tests to be applied. The first of these covers specified purposes, which the proposed activity must fall within, and the final two tests relate to reasons for the proposed activity.

248. It is considered that the proposal is covered by purpose 53(2)(e) which is for

“preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment”, having regard to the need for the development and the proposed biodiversity led restoration and after-use proposals. In terms of the reasons for the proposal, “53(9)(a) that there is no satisfactory alternative; and 53(9)(b) that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range” it is considered that these requirements are also met, taking into account the impacts on the protected species and the mitigation and compensation measures proposed.

249. As required by the The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations

2010, an Appropriate Assessment (AA) of the likely impacts arising from the

development on the River Mease SAC has been undertaken and a copy is appended to this report. As required by the above regulations, Natural England has been consulted on the AA. The AA concludes that there would be no significant detrimental impacts upon the SAC interests and Natural England are satisfied with the conclusions, subject to suitably worded conditions being imposed. It is considered that the development, subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions, would have no unacceptable impacts on the River Mease SAC, Gilwiskaw Brook SSSI and other species of conservation concern.

250. Subject to the control of the matters outlined above by planning condition, and where appropriate planning obligation, it is considered that the issues relating to the protection of notable flora and fauna and legally protected species are capable of being satisfactorily resolved, in accordance with the advice of Natural England and the provisions of policies MCS11(iii) and MDC4 of the Minerals Core Strategy.

Archaeology

251. The desk-based assessment submitted with the application concludes that the application area, particularly close to Measham Fields Farm, possesses a high archaeological potential. The archaeological interest includes remains of the prehistoric to modern period and also evidence of early mining activity in the area, which is believed to have taken place around Measham since the 14th century.


58

2009/0720/07– continued 252. The County Archaeologist has raised no objection to the application, subject to

the imposition of several conditions relating to further investigatory works and analysis and reporting of the results.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology

253. In terms of the effects of the proposal on groundwater in and around the site, the Environmental Statement and subsequent further additional information reviews the available site-specific information and proposes a conceptual model. In addition, the Environmental Statement acknowledges the proximity of the site to the Gilwiskaw Brook and considers that the proposal would not significantly affect this important tributary of the River Mease.

254. The applicant has submitted a Water Management Plan to ensure that the

conditions of the surrounding water environs are protected throughout the life of the development. Water from the site would be of two types. Compliant water (CW) is defined as water that is of sufficient quality (except for suspended solids) to be discharged. CW will mainly arise from rainfall run off from unaltered parts of the site, re-vegetated areas and stockpiles of inert material (soils). CW would be passed through settlement ponds to reduce the suspended solids content to an acceptable level prior to discharge in to the Gilwiskaw Brook. Any discharge would be subject to an Environmental Permit from the EA.

255. Non-compliant water (NCW) is water that requires treatment (other than

settlement) prior to discharge. All water from the excavation area and from the overburden mounds would be treated as NCW through a series of Water Treatment Areas, which comprise of between two and four ponds. These ponds would allow multi stage treatment to be carried out on all NCW prior to discharge.

256. Phosphate levels in the SAC are already at a level of around 100 times those set out as being preferable for the protected species within the watercourse. High phosphate levels in water are generally a result of human activity, in particular from use in agriculture and discharges from sewage treatment facilities. A major housing proposal at Packington Nook, near Ashby de la Zouch, was refused permission on appeal by an Inspector in Spring 2010. It was noted that the Packington sewage works is currently operating beyond capacity, is a source of high levels of phosphate in the brook and that a further major housing development would exacerbate the phosphate level problem unacceptably. This has led to an almost blanket ban on new housing in the River Mease catchment area.

257. On this issue, there would be some marginal benefits arising from the development. Groundwater, which would be intercepted by the excavation, has little phosphate in it and the discharge of this water would have a beneficial effect on levels through dilution. Also, the land would be taken from agricultural use for around five years, thus reducing the use of phosphates on land surrounding the SAC. Post restoration, it is proposed to have a 20m stand off


59

2009/0720/07– continued

from the brook to create a buffer strip. This strip would help mitigate against possible future short term increases in phosphate applications on to the restored agricultural land immediately post restoration. Whilst these benefits would be limited, some weight can be afforded to this matter.

258. Concerns were raised by the EA and Natural England in relation to water quality

and flow levels in the Gilwiskaw Brook, including the provision of a large water body post-restoration. Following receipt of more information and additional modelling work, the EA and NE are satisfied that there would not be significant impacts upon the Gilwiskaw Brook and that the proposed water body would not significantly reduce groundwater flows from the western side of the site into the brook.

259. Significant and detailed objections were raised on behalf of Swepstone and

Newton Burgoland Parish Council and MOPG on grounds that the information pertaining to hydrology and hydrogeology was generally based on inadequate baseline data and that assumptions made in the modelling and used to support the proposal were incorrect. This objection was passed to the Environment Agency for their comment and they requested further information and clarification from the applicant (in line with the EA’s own requests for additional information). Further information was provided and the EA and Natural England are satisfied that, subject to appropriately worded conditions, they have no objection to the proposed development.

260. Subject to the control of the matters outlined above by planning condition and,

where appropriate, planning obligation, it is considered that the issues relating to the water environment are capable of being satisfactorily resolved in accordance with the Environment Agency’s and Natural England’s comments and the provisions of policies MCS11 and MDC11 of the Minerals Core Strategy and PPS25 Development and Flood Risk.

Agriculture

261. The majority of the site comprises ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land (i.e.

the grade that national and local policies seek to protect), with 34.3ha classed as grade 2 and 39.4ha as grade 3a. The stripping and storage of soils and their restoration is proposed to take place in a manner that would ensure that the soils from the best and most versatile agricultural land would be placed back to create an area of land with potential to achieve best and most versatile grade, and exceeding the existing area of that grade by 4.7 hectares.

262. Natural England did have concerns about the size of the proposed topsoil

storage bunds, which are proposed to be five metres high rather than the three metres that is usually considered ideal. Notwithstanding this comment, Natural England has no objection in principle to this provided that all soil handling is undertaken strictly in accordance with the methodology proposed by UK Coal and following the Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils.


60

2009/0720/07– continued

Illumination 263. The illumination of the site/operations would need to be controlled to ensure

that there is no significant light spill beyond the site boundary that gives rise to nuisance at nearby residential properties. It is considered that this matter could be controlled in consultation with the Environmental Health Officer to recognise best practice and ensure that a satisfactory lighting scheme is implemented.

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

considered that issues relating to illumination are capable of being satisfactorily resolved having regard to the provisions of policies MCS11 and MDC12 of the Minerals Core Strategy.

Cumulative Impact 265. Policy MDC 13 requires particular regard to be given to the potential for

cumulative impact. This could be the impact of one or more sites being worked in an area at the same time, successively over a period of time or the cumulation (or combination) of a number of separate impacts from the same development. The ES has considered the cumulative effects of the development and concluded that it is not considered likely that there would be a significant cumulative impact on any sensitive receptor.

266. In considering the issue of cumulative impact in respect of the current

application it is therefore necessary to have regard to past mineral extraction in the area. There was a small scale tip washing operation on a small part of the application site in the late 1980’s and a similar planning application to this one was refused in 1996. The Odd House and Fields Farm sites, located about 650 metres to the north of Measham, were worked and restored in the late 1990’s, whilst several sites to the east of Measham were worked in the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1980’s (and possibly before these dates). The only active mining site in the Measham area is the Measham Brickworks site, off Atherstone Lane and to the south of Measham. Whilst the brickworks include substantial buildings, the mining operations are relatively low key and have no direct impact on those communities that are likely to be impacted directly by the proposed development. It is considered that the existence of the aforementioned sites would not in themselves lead to an unacceptable cumulative impact.

267. The preceding consideration of environmental effects has identified that there

would be negative impacts associated with noise, dust, highways, landscape, rights of way and ecology resulting from the proposed development. It is considered that individually none of these matters are unacceptable, but their cumulative impacts, or in other words their potential to have an impact in combination greater than the individual impact, must also be considered.

268. However, MPS 2 advises that the relevant impacts of an individual site such as

noise, dust, traffic, landscape etc. shall be considered objectively and impacts that acceptable individually should not be regarded as unacceptable in combination without a proper assessment. In order for impacts considered acceptable individually to be unacceptable in combination, there must be some


61

2009/0720/07– continued

special circumstances, otherwise all mineral working could be found to be unacceptable.

269. In considering cumulative impacts the duration of effects need to be taken into account. The progressive restoration of the site will lead to the western side of the site being restored after 18 months, thus moving workings an additional 150 metres from the nearest properties in this area. Before 38 months has lapsed the screening mounds on the western and north western edges of the site would be pushed back about 400m to the east thus reducing the visual and noise impacts for residents and highway users to the west of the site.

270. The movement of overburden across the brook will not take place for the life of

the development. Overburden Mound 1 one would be completed within six months and Mound 2 within twelve months of the start of the development. Also, a significant amount will be directly placed for restoration purposes, which would reduce impacts on properties and rights of way users to the east of the site. It is not considered that landscape impacts would combine with other effects to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.

271. The movement of HGVs would take place throughout the duration of the

development, although the HGVs would follow an established HGV route on the outskirts of Measham north to the A42. It is considered that the number of HGVs associated with this development would not, when combined with other impacts, have an unacceptable cumulative impact.

272. Dust emissions alone are not considered to be unacceptable. Given the

proposed mitigation measures and the frequent south westerly wind direction, and taking into account the duration and phasing of the development, it is not considered that dust, in combination with other effects, would create an unacceptable effect on residents or the environment, in and around the site.

273. Whilst there would be some ecological impacts, essentially from the loss of

habitat associated with the semi-improved grassland, mitigation measures and long term improvements to the ecology of the site are considered to outweigh any short term harm. These improvements/mitigation measures include replacement grassland, new planting, works to re-meander the brook, and the unculverting of a tributary of the brook for habitat creation. It is therefore not considered that ecological impacts would combine with other effects to cause an unacceptable cumulative impact.

274. In conclusion, there is nothing out of the ordinary or unusual about the

development which would make acceptable individual impacts unacceptable in combination. In the light of the above, and subject to suitably worded conditions and planning obligations, when taken together for the duration of the operation, and beyond in the case of landscape and ecological impacts, the development would not represent a significant environmental impact on the area, and would not lead to an unacceptable cumulative impact in terms of Policy MDC13.


62

2009/0720/07– continued

Restoration, Land Management & Aftercare and After-use

275. The restoration proposals involve returning the bulk of the site (about 78 hectares) back to Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land i.e. grades 2 and 3a. There are also proposals for a significant water body to provide winter water storage capacity for the Ashby Canal as it is restored towards Measham, wet woodland and grassland, hedgerow and tree planting, reprofiling of the Gilwiskaw Brook, conservation headland/field margin habitat creation and rights of way creation.

276. In relation to aftercare the focus is on development of habitats and biodiversity,

along with ensuring the agricultural land is capable of the use proposed. The aftercare scheme includes habitat features that would help to meet targets recognised in the Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan.

277. The aftercare/management scheme provides for the following periods of care:

• Gilwiskaw Brook SSSI/SAC and Colliery Spoil Areas – twenty years from commencement of development;

• Arable land – five years statutory aftercare following restoration; and

• All other planting, habitat creation and waterbodies – five years statutory aftercare period plus additional 10 years extended aftercare period.

The aftercare and management proposals over and above the five years statutory requirements would be conditioned by a S106 legal agreement.

278. The National Forest Company is concerned regarding the limited woodland

proposed in the restoration scheme. The land is farmed under a full agricultural tenancy by the occupier of Measham Fields Farm and the restoration scheme proposes that a large amount of the site can be restored (and potentially improved) to BMV standard. It is also proposed to create a large water body to supply additional water to the Ashby Canal as it is restored. The Ashby Canal restoration project is supported by the County Council and the National Forest Strategy. The provision of more habitat and woodland as part of the restoration would require the loss of good quality agricultural land. It is considered that the proposed restoration and aftercare strikes a reasonable balance in protecting valuable agricultural land, creating conservation habitats and providing a water area to serve the Ashby Canal as it is restored.

279. Concerns have been raised by objectors regarding the financial status of UK

Coal and the possibility that the company may become bankrupt prior to the completion of restorative works, leaving the local community with a large despoiled area of land. In order to allay fears in this regard, and in accordance with Policy MDC19, the applicant was asked to enter into a planning obligation that would provide a restoration bond in the event that the company went into administration.

280. UK Coal has raised no objection to entering into a S106 agreement requiring a

restoration bond (amongst other matters), and has put forward anticipated costs for such eventuality. In the event that permission is granted, UK Coal proposes to pay into an account monies over the life of the development to


63

2009/0720/07– continued

ensure that sufficient money is available to restore the site should it not be able to. In total, a sum of £4 million would be deposited and then drawn from by the company as it restores sections of the site. The agreement also covers aftercare with £50,000 being left in the account until all aftercare requirements have been completed to the satisfaction of the County Council.

281. Many objectors have also pointed to the fact that the UK Coal owned Lounge

Disposal Point site, located about three miles to the north of the site, has not been restored despite being left in a derelict state for several years and that Leicestershire County Council has served an Enforcement Notice on the company to seek compliance with the restoration conditions. This site was the rail disposal point for the nearby Lounge Opencast Coal site and latterly the Hicks Lodge Opencast Coal site.

282. The site benefits from a railhead and the landowners submitted an outline

planning application to North West Leicestershire District Council (NWLDC) in 2007 seeking permission to develop the site for a strategic rail linked distribution centre. This application remains undetermined by NWLDC and the County Council is requiring site restoration in the meantime as this can be done without prejudicing any subsequent development that may be permitted by the District Council. However, because restoring the site would impact upon great crested newts, a licence is required to relocate newts on the site before restoration takes place. Discussions have been ongoing between Council officers, Natural England and UK Coal and a licence was issued on 1st June 2011, with works due to start 13th June.

283. Whilst there are concerns regarding the restoration of this non-opencast site, the County Council has overseen the restoration of two other opencast sites completed by UK Coal in recent years. The Hicks Lodge site near Donisthorpe was restored around 2006 and the County Council is satisfied that the land has been restored satisfactorily. The Long Moor site, near Ravenstone, has been restored over the last 18 months, with land being returned to agriculture, water body, tree planting (to be planted in the next planting season) and additional public footpaths/bridleways. The site was completed ahead of schedule and the County Council is satisfied that the restoration has been successful.

284. Subject to the control of the matters outlined above by planning condition, and where appropriate planning obligation, it is considered that the restoration, land management & aftercare and after-use of the site would be managed in accordance with the provisions of policies MCS11, MCS17 and MDC20 and 21 of the Minerals Core Strategy. It is also considered that, even with limited tree planting, the proposal complies with the principles established in Policy MCS14.

Need 285. Mineral Planning Guidance Note 3 (MPG3) 'Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil

Disposal', 1999, states that 'it is not for the planning system to seek to set limits on or targets for any particular source or level of energy supply; nor to predetermine the appropriate levels of coal to be produced by deep mine or


64

2009/0720/07– continued

opencast. It is for individual operators to determine the level of output they wish to aim for in the light of market conditions, and to determine the acceptability of individual projects'.

286. Paragraph 4.3.1 of the 2007 Energy White Paper states that ‘Making the best use of UK energy resources, including coal reserves, where it is economically viable and environmentally acceptable to do so, contributes to our security of supply goals. The Government believes that these factors reflect a value in maintaining access to economically recoverable reserves of coal’. Paragraph 4.02 states that (inter alia) ‘fossil fuels will continue to be the predominant source of energy for decades to come… By 2020, fossil fuels are expected to still supply the great majority of UK energy needs.’ Para 4.03 states (inter alia) that ‘by 2020 imports could be meeting up to 75% of the UK’s coal demand.’

287. Para 5.1.9 of the White Paper states that ‘The UK has a diverse electricity

generation mix. In 2006, 36% was generated by gas-fired power stations, 37% from coal, 18% from nuclear and 4% from renewables. The remainder comes from other sources such as oil-fired power stations and electricity imports from the continent. This diverse generation mix avoids exposure to the risks associated with heavy dependency on a single fuel or technology type, helping to maintain secure supplies of electricity. A diverse mix in electricity generation also provides the system with the flexibility to accommodate variations in demand at different times of the day, or year, and in response to changes in fossil fuel prices.

288. Para 5.4.2 states (inter alia) ‘The global challenge is therefore how to accelerate

the deployment of technologies that allow us to continue to benefit from coal-fired power generation while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.’

289. The approach taken in the Energy White Paper is reflected in MPS1. Under

paragraph 15 of MPS1 ‘Supply’, a specific aim of Government policy is to ‘aim to source mineral supplies indigenously, to avoid exporting potential environmental damage, whilst recognising the primary role that market conditions play.’

290. Information contained within the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics,

published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), states that in 2009 the UK produced 17.374 million tonnes of coal from both deep mines and opencast sites. In 2009 the UK imported 38.167 million tonnes of coal and 6.6 million tonnes was taken from existing stock, giving a total demand for coal of 48.805 million tonnes in the UK for 2009. Almost 40 million of this demand was for electricity generation.

291. Whilst the total consumption of coal in the UK has dropped over the ten years to

2009, it is evident that the UK, in 2009, imported more than twice as much coal as it produced indigenously. The biggest exporters of coal to the UK were Russia (18.847million tonnes), Columbia (5.250 million tonnes), USA (4.7


65

2009/0720/07– continued million tonnes), South Africa (3.063 million tonnes) and Australia (2.932 million tonnes). Therefore, in 2009 the UK imported more coal from Russia than was produced indigenously.

292. DECC published further information on coal consumption and stocks in January 2011. This highlighted the following matters:

• Coal consumption in the three months to November 2010, at 13.5 million tonnes, was 21.3 per cent higher than in the same period a year earlier.

• Consumption by generators, at 11.1 million tonnes, was up 27.9 per cent, with generation demand specifically stronger in November.

• Consumption by coke ovens and blast furnaces, at 1.5 million tonnes, was down 0.4 per cent.

• Total stocks at the end of November 2010, were at 18.6 million tonnes. These were down by 1.6 million tonnes on October 2010, and also down by 5.9 million tonnes on the level of a year earlier when levels were 24.5 million tonnes.

293. In terms of future energy production, the Government intends that coal will continue to play a significant role in meeting the energy needs of the UK. Para 3.5.6 of the revised draft Overarching National Energy Infrastructure Policy states that ‘…the three key elements of the Government’s strategy for moving towards a decarbonised, diverse electricity sector by 2050: (i) renewables; (ii) fossil fuels with CCS; and (iii) new nuclear’.

294. Para 3.6.2 goes on to state ‘ …although a proportion of coal used in British

generating stations is imported, the UK still has its own reserves. Further, coal is available globally and most generating station operators will already have alternative suppliers depending on prevailing market conditions. This ability to source fuel from alternative suppliers helps to give stability to the UK’s generating capacity. In addition, unlike renewable energy sources such as wind power, fossil fuels may be stockpiled in anticipation of future energy demands. ‘

295. The Energy Minister stated on 17th March 2009 that coal is ‘an important asset for our energy generation. The lights would literally go off if we did not have coal’.

296. Chris Huhne, MP, when addressing Parliament in July 2010 stated that ‘Fossil fuels can also have their place in a low carbon future, provided we can capture and store most of their carbon emissions.’

297. In 2009 the Secretary of State (SoS) issued his decision on the appeal by UK Coal for the non-determination of a planning application at its Huntington Lane site, near Telford. In his decision letter, the SoS agreed with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on need and observed that ‘there was no dispute at the inquiry about the importance of coal in the UK’s domestic energy mix and, like the Inspector, he considers that there is every likelihood of the demand for home sourced coal continuing into the foreseeable future.’


66

2009/0720/07– continued

298. The applicant states that the Minorca site offers the potential for about 250,000 tonnes of fireclay to be extracted along with the coal. Fireclay is an important national resource, used principally for the production of buff and pale-bodied engineering and builiding bricks, clay pipes and ceramics. Annex 2 of MPS1 encourages coal producers to make the best possible use of fireclay reserves so that it remains available for use rather than being used in site restoration. To ensure this, the applicant proposes to sell material directly to end users, and, if necessary, export fireclay to its Daw Mill site in Warwickshire awaiting future sales.

299. On the assumption that the development is considered to be environmentally acceptable, it is considered that it is consistent with Government aims and policies in MPS 1 and the 2007 Energy White Paper to source coal indigenously. The Government also considers that coal will continue to be essential in ensuring a diverse and secure supply of energy over the coming years. The table below illustrates the contribution coal has made to UK electricity generation over the past five years. This shows that the UK has a significant reliance on coal in terms of electricty generation.

Source: DECC Energy Statistics (2010 figures based on provisional numbers)

300. In the light of the above it is considered that, given the shortfall between demand for coal for power generation and demand as indicated by the level of imports, there is a demonstrable need for the coal. This view was also taken by the Inspector and the Secretary of State when determining the planning appeal in to the Huntington Lane surface mine site near Telford in 2009.

Climate Change Issues

301. Representations have been received objecting to the proposal on grounds that refusing the application would result in the UK cutting its carbon dioxide emissions. Using data obtained from DEFRA and DECC, objectors have stated that the burning of the coal to be produced at the Minorca site for energy generation would release about 2.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which would have a negative impact on the world’s climate.

302. Notwithstanding the above, and as stated in the previous section, the Government appears to have no immediate intention of ceasing the use of coal-fired power stations, particularly if carbon capture and storage techniques can

Percent of

electricity

generated by

fuel type

2006 2007 2008 2009

2010

% % % % %

Coal 38 35 32 28 28 Gas 37 43 48 45 46 Nuclear 18 15 13 18 16 Oil, hydro &

renewables 7 7 7 9 10

Total 100 100 100 100 100


67

2009/0720/07– continued

be progressed. It is considered that whilst there are coal-fired power stations, there will be a need for coal, which, if not produced in the UK, will continue to be imported from abroad.

303. It is considered likely that carbon emissions would be reduced if indigenous coal replaced coal imported from abroad, particularly given the distances involved to the major suppliers e.g. Russia, Columbia and South Africa. The SoS, when determining the Huntington Lane appeal, stated that ‘there was limited evidence to substantiate the appellant’s claim that there would be a significant benefit from reduced CO2 emissions if imported Russian coal were to be replaced by coal from the appeal site but, he agrees with the Inspector that there would probably be a benefit from the proposal in terms of reducing carbon emissions.’

304. The development is also likely to realise about 250,000 tonnes of nationally important fireclay, which is a key product in the manufacturing of bricks and specialised building products. Given the proximity of the site to nearby brick and pipe manufacturers, including Measham Brickworks, there is the potential for the fireclay to be used locally in Leicestershire or alternatively stockpiled at UK Coal’s Daw Mill colliery site in Warwickshire, and in either case, ensuring that this important resource is not sterilised.

305. The applicant has stated that it expects that the coal from Minorca would be transported to Ratcliffe Power Station and replace imported coals on a tonne for tonne basis.

306. In the light of the above, and the demonstrable need for coal, it is considered that the development proposed would at worst be neutral in terms of climate change when considered against the alternative, which is using more imported coal. It is considered likely that the development would reduce overall carbon emissions attributable to coal production and usage because of reduced haulage distances when compared against imported coal.

Rising Mine Water 307. Minewater rebound is an on-going issue within the North West Leicestershire

and South Derbyshire Coalfield Areas. Following the closure of coal mines, the pumping of water to keep the underground workings dry also ceased, allowing the mines to flood and the water table to re�stabilise. As the water rises within the mine workings it dissolves metals and other substances which can then pollute ground water aquifers or rivers when it reaches the surface. The orange appearance of mine water is caused by iron ochre being deposited on river beds affecting the rivers eco�system and aquatic life.

308. Whilst the Coal Authority is responsible for managing the liabilities and legacies

of the coal industry including minewater discharges, the South Derbyshire Coalfield Minewater Forum, made up of partners including Leicestershire County Council, The Coal Authority, the Environment Agency and Natural England has been formed to discuss ways of dealing with this problem.


68

2009/0720/07– continued 309. Rising minewater has reached the surface near the Saltersford Brook, located

between Oakthorpe and Donisthorpe. This brook is a tributary of the River Mease SAC and whilst it appears that there has been no harm to local flora and fauna to date, this issue remains of serious concern.

310. Developing the Minorca site would require active pumping of groundwater from

the site, thus potentially drawing rising mine water towards it. The Coal Authority (CA) considers that this effect could contribute to controlling the minewater in the short term, and that there is a good chance that the dewatering at the Minorca site would reduce or eliminate the mine water discharge at the Saltersford Brook Nature Reserve for the period of works at Minorca.

311. The CA also considers that the data obtained from the site would be invaluable

in understanding the wider situation regarding rising mine water and would provide data equivalent to that obtainable from a large scale, relatively long term pumping test. The CA goes on to state that the water quality would remain a largely unknown factor until pumping commences and therefore it would be critcial to ensure that regular monitoring (at least daily to start with) takes place to identify any deteriation in water quality entering and leaving the site. This monitoring would be required under an Environmental Permit that would be issued by the EA.

Economic and Socio/Economic Factors

312. The Environmental Statement contains an assessment of the economic and socio-economic impacts of the proposal on the area surrounding the site. Implications for future economic and social conditions relating to the proposed development are summarised below.

313. The ES states that up to 50 people would be employed directly at the Minorca

site. It goes on to state that approximately 18 of these positions would be filled from within a ten mile radius of the site, but there is no guarantee that this would be the case. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has provided information regarding the number of employees who lived local to the recently restored Long Moor site near Ravenstone. In November 2009, there were a total of 24 employees at the Long Moor site, of which, 4 lived within 5 miles, 12 within 10 miles and 14 within 15 miles of the site.

314. The ES predicts that the Minorca mine would contribute £9.3 million in direct

and indirect spending to the sub-regional economy each year. This is broken down into:

• £5.3 million for operational plant;

• £1.6 million on insurance, rates, security etc;

• £0.7 million in wages and salaries; and

• £1.6 million on power, heat and light. 315. There would also be additional short term job opportunities on the site. The

applicant states that at the Long Moor site, it spent about £1.16 million on work


69

2009/0720/07– continued

such as security fencing and haul route construction with local organisations. It is likely that a similar positive impact would arise at the Minorca site. There has been no substantive evidence put forward to suggest that inward investment and tourism would be affected by the development of the surface mine.

316. In the light of the above assessment of the economic and socio-economic

factors, it is considered that the implications of the proposed surface mine would have a beneficial impact on the local economy. It is considered that these implications are material to the determination of the application and should be given significant weight, particularly in the light of the written Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth (23 March 2011).

Human Rights 317. This is an issue that has been raised by some objectors and a number of

objectors have specifically raised concern about their property values being adversely affected by the development.

318. When making planning judgements, the County Council has to consider

whether the decisions that it is making under the Town and Country Planning Acts are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.

319. There is a hierarchy of Convention rights; some rights are absolute, some can

be limited and some are qualified. The planning system is generally concerned with qualified rights. These include the right to respect for private property and family life, the right to freedom of expression, religion and association, the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property and to some extent the right to education.

320. Interference with these rights is permissible in certain circumstances. Any interference must, however, have its basis in law, be necessary in a democratic society and be related to the permissible aim set out in the relevant Article.

321. The planning system, in regulating the use and development of land in the public interest, is a process where the competing and often conflicting demands for the use and development of land is exercised in a participative and public way; where the freedoms of one set of individuals to develop land has to be balanced against the impact that those developments may have on the rights of other individuals and the wider community.

322. In this case, the proposed development may have an effect, either perceived or

real, on the rights of people to the peaceful enjoyment of their private property by virtue of loss of amenity or property value. Although it is open to question whether there would be any loss in property value as a result of this development going ahead, the County Council would be able to grant permission for the development without infringing human rights provided that the decision was properly considered taking into account the relevant development plan policies and all other material considerations.


70

2009/0720/07– continued

Restriction of Permitted Development Rights

323. Under the terms of Part 19 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, certain rights are granted for a range of operations, including the erection, installation and replacement of buildings, structures and plant. Whilst these are subject to a 15m height restriction and in other cases, the prior approval of the MPA, it would be accepted practice to make all the rights granted subject to prior approval given the nature of the proposed Minorca operations and the sensitivity of nearby land-uses.

324. Subject to the control of the above measures by planning condition, it is considered that the permitted development rights are capable of being satisfactorily controlled in accordance with MPS2, and the aims of Policies MDC12 and MDC18 of the Minerals Core Strategy.

Future Extensions

325. Strong fears have been expressed by some local residents that, once permitted, the site may be extended and such extensions, although increasing the duration and impact of the development, may be difficult to resist because of the nature of the planning system. This concern is strongly held by many objectors because extensions to previous operations have taken place both in Leicestershire and elsewhere in the UK.

326. In response to this concern UK Coal state that the current proposal will comprehensively work the surface coal reserves within the site boundary. However, the applicant goes on to state that they own one area of land within two kilometres of the site known to bear coal reserves. This land is located immediately to the north of the western part of the application site, beyond Swepstone Road. UK Coal state that these reserves are only partly proven at present and that further exploratory drilling would be required on this land to prove the reserve fully, before any application could even be considered.

327. Notwithstanding the above, in considering this planning application the County

Council must determine it on its own merits, only taking into account the proposal before it and must not speculate about what might happen in future. Any future application to the north of Swepstone Road would in turn have to be determined on its own merits, albeit it would be relevant to take into account any cumulative impact with the Minorca site.

Buffer Zone

328. The issue of a need for a 500 metre buffer zone has been raised by objectors to

this application. In Wales and Scotland, devolved legislation has led to a 500 metre buffer zone between proposed opencast mines and local ‘communities’. However, and contrary to many of the objections raised, there is no ban of opencast mines within 500 metres of communities in Scotland and Wales.


71

2009/0720/07– continued

329. Scottish Planning Policy: SPP 16: Opencast Coal states the following:

Separation distances

11. In considering whether impacts on local communities are acceptable, particular attention needs to be given to separation distances between proposed sites and adjacent communities. As a general rule, site boundaries within 500 metres from the edge of a community are likely to be unacceptable although this should not prevent non-engineering works, such as the planting of trees, from taking place to reduce the visual impact of development on communities and the environment. Exceptionally, the topography, the nature of the landscape, the respective location of the site and the nearest community in relation to the prevailing wind direction and visibility may be such that they can justify the 500 metres distance being tailored to local circumstances and a greater or lesser distance may be applied.

12. The identification of towns and villages as communities is self-evident but

"communities" can also consist of small clusters of houses. Planning authorities, when devising policies and considering planning applications, are best placed to decide what constitutes a "community" and to identify the impact of proposals on them and whether any local or community benefits are likely to arise for them to offset the impact of the development. However, the Executive also expect operators and planning authorities to ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on individual dwellinghouses or sensitive establishments outwith defined communities; or that such impacts are acceptable to individual occupiers.

330. The Welsh Assembly’s Minerals Technical Advice Note 2:Coal states: Buffer Zones 32. MPPW [Minerals Planning Policy Wales (MPPW) (2001)] sets out the

concepts and policy on buffer zones in paragraph 40; a Buffer Zone is described as an area of protection around permitted and proposed mineral workings. They must be clearly defined and indicated in Unitary Development Plans (now LDPs). The MPA will show buffer zones on the Proposals Map, as 500m around permitted or proposed working, from the site boundary (or boundary for surface development for underground mining), unless there are exceptional circumstances as set out in paragraph 40 of MPPW or in paragraph 51, below.

33. For both surface and underground coal working, the buffer zone will cease

to apply once the Restoration Certificate is, or could be, issued. 331. The thrust of the Scottish policy is to restrict new opencast coal sites from being

within 500 metres of local communities (although ‘local communities’ is not defined strictly but the term appears not to include individual dwelling houses), although there is no definitive ban on such development. However, it is considered that the thrust of the Welsh advice note is to draw a boundary around existing or proposed sites to restrict new development being close to surface mines. This approach is amplified in Paragraph 40 of the Minerals Planning Policy Wales document.


72

2009/0720/07– continued 332. A campaign for a change to English planning guidance has arisen as a result of

this proposal, resulting in a Private Members Bill being presented to the House of Commons by Andrew Bridgen MP in 2010. This Bill, entitled ‘Planning (Opencast Mining Separation Zones) Bill’ received its second reading on 11th February 2011 and stated (inter alia): (1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the national planning

policy for opencast mining in England.

(2) The guidance must require a minimum separation zone of 500 metres between the site of an opencast mine and the nearest residential property, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Bridgen stated that (inter alia) ‘It is not fair that people in Scotland and Wales should enjoy protections that don’t apply to England.’ However, the Members Bill actually proposes stricter control on surface mining than the existing Scottish and Welsh planning advice. The Bill was not supported by the Government, was ‘talked out’ and will return for a third hearing, scheduled for October 2011.

333. Notwithstanding the above, Policy MDC18: Planning Conditions provides for ‘the establishment of a buffer zone’ where this is considered appropriate between a site and neighbouring sensitive areas. The circumstances where a buffer zone could be appropriate include where surface workings would have an unacceptable impact on local properties due to noise, and that by including a stand-off or buffer zone, the impacts of noise could be mitigated to an acceptable level. The information provided in support of the application and the consultee responses do not suggest that a buffer zone is necessary in this instance.

334. Given that the Private Members Bill is only partially through Parliament and was

not supported by the Government, it is considered that no weight should be given to it in the consideration of this proposal. However, the issue of whether there is sufficient separation between the proposal and adjoining land uses, including local communities and residential properties is a material planning issue and is addressed elsewhere in this report in respect of the various impacts of the development.

Ashby Canal Restoration

335. Leicestershire County Council is leading the restoration of the Ashby Canal from its current terminus at Snarestone to the Heart of the National Forest at Moira. So far the northern section of the canal has been restored from Moira to Donisthorpe and links Conkers, Moira Furnance and Donisthorpe Country Park in an area that is developing as a premier tourist destination. Restoration is now focused on extending the current terminus of the canal from Snarestone northwards for a distance of 4.5 km to a new canal wharf at Measham.

336. The power to acquire the necessary land and to construct and maintain the

canal was provided in October 2005 when the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed the Leicestershire County


73

2009/0720/07– continued

Council (Ashby de la Zouch Extension) Order made under the powers of the Transport and Works Act 1992. In making the Order the Secretary of State noted that “the scheme is consistent with national, regional and local policies, would contribute significantly to regeneration objectives and would produce considerable economic, environmental and social benefits”.

337. The scheme, when complete to Measham, will have the following benefits:

• The attraction of 150,000 visitors per annum into the area boosting spending within the local economy by some £3M+.

• The stimulation of £8.35M of inward investment from the private sector to develop 7,300 square metres of mixed-use residential, retail and business units.

• The creation of around 180 temporary jobs and over 70 permanent jobs.

• Reclamation of derelict and underused land to create a recreational and wildlife corridor acting as a green infrastructure link and gateway to the National Forest. It will leave a valuable and sustainable legacy for future generations.

• The strengthening of the local community through the restoration of heritage and cultural pride.

• Improved health by enabling access to a safe and accessible walking and cycling route and by providing employment for the local community that has suffered from high levels of unemployment and associated ill health.

• A more environmentally and culturally educated and aware community through provision of a valuable educational resource with a wide range of learning opportunities.

338. As part of the application the applicant has submitted information relating to

how the site operations and the company can contribute towards the restoration works to the Ashby Canal.

339. Firstly, as part of the restoration it is proposed to create a winter water storage

lake that would be connected to the restored canal to provide top-up water during prolonged periods of dry weather. The lake would be fed only by direct rainfall and flood water from the Gilwiskaw Brook. The canal restoration project will require such a facility and, whilst planning permission has been granted for a water storage lake on land owned by the County Council, this would only provide a storage capacity of 70,000m3 (which would be inadequate on its own to serve the restored canal to Measham), whereas the UK Coal lake would hold 180,000m3 and would be sufficient to serve the requirements of the restoration scheme to Measham. The saving of cost to the restoration project from not having to construct its own lake will be of the order of £1million, together with other savings from not having to find a second storage facility or water supply. The LCC approved lake would require active pumping to fill it. The provision of an alternative lake is likely to save around another £1million over the next few decades in pumping costs.


74

2009/0720/07– continued

340. The site is also likely to realise significant quantities of lower quality clay

suitable for use as a lining material for the canal as it is restored, which the applicant is willing to provide for free. Without this material the County Council would have to seek its own supplier of this clay and the likely savings in this regard to the Council tax payer are expected to be about £250,000 for the stretch of canal up to the Gilwiskaw Brook. It is also possible that additional clays could be provided dependent on the securing of additional canal funding and progression of the restoration works. The provision of clay from a site in such close proximity to the canal would also have benefits in terms of reducing traffic impacts in the local area.

341. UK Coal is also offering to pay, through a S106 agreement, a sum of £1.28

million pounds to be used exclusively for the canal restoration project. This would be paid to the County Council in five six-monthly instalments of £256,000, with the first instalment to be paid six months from the commencement of coaling operations.

342. The impact of the offer to fund works to the value of £1.28 million would be to

extend the canal to, but not across, the Gilwiskaw Brook. The experience of the Ashby canal project so far is that the use of available funds as ‘match funding’ for other grants has led to significant increases in secured funds. Regeneration Officers are hopeful that within the time period of UK Coal’s payments that, as a minimum, additional funds would be secured to allow for the restoration works to cross the Gilwiskaw Brook and to create a basin at Illot’s Wharf. This would deliver the Ashby Canal as a route into the National Forest providing a significant step towards the aim of regeneration in Measham and produce tourism benefits to the local area in the longer term.

343. In total, the contribution towards the restoration of the Ashby Canal is

considered to be worth in the region of £4 million. 344. The applicant also proposes to provide £150,000 for a local Community Fund.

This money would be distributed through the liaison committee (as happened at the Long Moor site). As the allocation of monies would be for the liaison committee to agree, it is not possible to assess the impacts that the fund would have on the local community. Therefore, it is considered that little weight should be afforded to this particular issue.

345. In the light of the anticipated benefits to the local economy, natural environment

and local community’s general well being, it is considered that significant weight should be attached to the aforementioned contributions towards the restoration of the Ashby Canal.

Conclusion

346. The planning application and accompanying ES, together with further

information that has been submitted, provide the information necessary to assess the likely environmental effects of the development fully.


75

2009/0720/07– continued 347. By reason of the above assessment, it is considered that, subject to suitably

worded conditions, the proposal would not have unacceptable individual or cumulative impacts on the environment and local communities. Whilst there would be harm to visual amenity, it is considered that this is in itself not unacceptable given the short term nature of the proposal. It is therefore considered that, on balance, the proposed development meets the test of environmental acceptability in the first part of Policy MCS7 (strategy for coal) and Policy MCS11 (strategy for environmental protection) in the Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework and passes the necessary first and fourth tests set out in Paragraph 8 of MPG3.

348. If an alternative view were to be taken that the proposal fails the test of environmental acceptability, it would be necessary to go on to consider whether the proposal provides local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely environmental impacts. It is considered that the community benefits arising from the restoration of the Ashby Canal, the creation of around fifty jobs, potential to help control rising mine water, release of nationally important fireclay and the proposed increase in BAP habitats post restoration would need to be taken into account and balanced against the adverse environmental impacts. It is considered that weight would need to be given to these benefits to accord with the second part of Policy MCS7 and MPG3.

349. Notwithstanding the above paragraph, and the Governments own policy in

MPG3 which allows community and local benefits to be taken into account in determining coal extraction applications, Circular 05/2005 on Planning Obligations states that the use of planning obligations must be governed by the fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold. In order to guide local authorities the Secretary of State has set 5 tests in Circular 05/2005:

(i) relevant to planning (ii) necessary to make the development acceptable in

planning terms; (iii)directly related to the development; (iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the

development; and (v) reasonable in all other respects

Some of the benefits referred to in paragraph 345 are proposed to be included in a section 106 planning obligation and it is necessary to consider whether they meet the above tests. The Circular tests help assess what is acceptable in policy terms but it is for the Courts to ultimately rule on the validity of a particular planning obligation.

350. The following benefits which are proposed to be included in the section 106

planning obligation if planning permission is granted for the Minorca development, are considered to pass the five tests:- canal contribution of £1,280,000, transfer of the winter water storage lake to the Council and provision of clay for lining the Ashby Canal and can therefore be taken into account in the event that the development is otherwise not considered to be environmentally acceptable.


76

2009/0720/07– continued

351. The proposal has also been assessed against national planning policies contained in MPS1 and MPS2 and is considered to reflect the principles of sustainable mineral development.

352. An Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken and following consultation with Natural England, it concludes that, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and a planning obligation, there would be no unacceptable impacts on the River Mease SAC.

353. It is considered that, on balance, with the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and the completion of a legal agreement, together with operational controls provided by the environmental permitting regime, the proposed development would be acceptable. Whilst there would be short-term impacts on the environment and local communities, it is considered that these are not in themselves unacceptable. There is a need for the coal and fireclay that would be released and there would be long term benefits accruing from restoration operations and positive economic benefits arising from the site operations and the contributions to the Ashby Canal restoration project.

Recommendation

A. That the Appropriate Assessment set out in Appendix 3 be approved.

a. Permit the development subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and the prior completion of a planning obligation covering:

i. Canal contribution of £1,280,000 ii. Long term habitat management plan iii. Lorry routeing iv. Community fund v. Ecological Enhancement plan vi. The establishment of a liaison committee vii. Restoration bond viii. Winter water storage lake ix. Provision of clay suitable for lining the Ashby Canal

C. To endorse, as required by The Town and Country Planning

(Development Management Procedure) Order 2010, a summary of the:

i. Policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision, as follows:

This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government’s current planning policy guidance and the relevant circulars, together with the relevant Development Plan policies, including the following, and those referred to under the specific conditions, as set out in the appendix:

The Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Core Strategy 2009

Policy MCS1 The strategy for the supply of minerals Policy MCS4 The strategy for fireclay


77

2009/0720/07– continued Policy MCS7 The strategy for coal Policy MCS11 The strategy for environmental protection Policy MCS14 National Forest

Policy MCS16 The strategy for the transportation of minerals Policy MCS17 The strategy for the reclamation and future use of

mineral sites Policy MDC4 Sites of regional and local importance Policy MDC5 Countryside Policy MDC6 Landscaping and woodland

Policy MDC7 Archaeology Policy MDC10 Agricultural land Policy MDC11 The water environment Policy MDC12 Health and amenity Policy MDC13 Cumulative Impact Policy MDC14 Transportation of Minerals Policy MDC15 Public Rights of Way Policy MDC18 Planning Conditions Policy MDC19 Planning Obligations Policy MDC20 Reclamation and Aftercare Policy MDC21 After-use The Leicestershire Minerals Local Plan Review (1995) Policy MLP2 Assessment of Proposals North West Leicestershire Local Plan (2002) Policy E3 Protection of residential amenity Policies F1 & F2 National Forest Policy T16 Protection of the line for the restored Ashby Canal East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 26: Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage

ii. Reasons for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

The development is acceptable in principle, and is in accordance with the relevant supply strategies and environmental policies of the development plan. Subject to conditions and the completion of a planning obligation to control the operations, the impacts from the following matters can be addressed appropriately, having regard to national and local policies: The traffic, transportation and access implications of the development are acceptable, and controls would ensure that highway safety interests are met. The landscape and visual impacts of the proposed new landforms would be the most obvious elements of the proposal. These would provide screening benefits to the operation and be treated to minimise their impacts. They are also proposed for a relatively short period of time.


78

2009/0720/07– continued

The ecological impacts in relation to valued ecological receptors, in particular the River Mease SAC and Gilwiskaw Brook SSSI are capable of satisfactory mitigation and compensation from resources within the site and from the biodiversity led land management proposals both during and post site operations. The mitigation proposed for the (European) protected species is considered to be satisfactory and is acceptable to Natural England. The water environment would be protected in relation to pollution matters and groundwater resources whilst the surface water drainage features would potentially be enhanced. Soils and agricultural land would be managed in a sustainable manner. The archaeological and historic assets would be examined and recorded in accordance with a sequential programme of investigation. The hours of operation and sensory impacts relating to noise, dust and blasting emissions would be controlled to limit impacts on residential amenity, by improved monitoring and control regimes. A detailed working programme would be in place to steer the development, providing clarity to interested parties and reducing impacts on local amenity. Illumination from the workings would be controlled during the hours of darkness to protect local amenity and wildlife interests. The permitted development rights available to the Company are proposed to be restricted to assist in regulating the development. Controls on the importation of coal for blending and waste would ensure that the key plant elements are only used in connection with on-site resources. The economic and socio-economic factors have been assessed and the indirect and direct effects of the proposed development taken into account. The contribution that the development would make to the restoration of the Ashby Canal has been considered. Proposed implications for community representation and potential benefits have been considered. The cumulative effects of the proposed development have been assessed and controls can limit the impacts on the amenity of the local area. The restoration, land management & aftercare and after-use proposals of the development have been assessed and these are considered to meet landscape and BAP targets and planning controls can achieve their successful implementation. The development would offer the potential to address the issue of rising mine water in the wider area which currently poses a significant environment risk.


79

2009/0720/07– continued APPENDIX 1

Conditions

Definition of the Development 1. This permission shall relate only to the extraction of coal and fireclay by surface

mining methods and reinstatement of the land to agriculture, grassland, woodland, wetland and water features within the land edged red on Plan No. 193 D02a.

2. Notwithstanding Condition 1, puddling clay may be extracted and exported from

the site subject to the clays sole use being for works granted under The Leicestershire County Council (Ashby de la Zouch Canal Extension) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005 No. 2786).

3. Unless otherwise required by this permission or approved in writing by the

County Planning Authority, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the following details:

a) the application and accompanying environmental statement dated June

2009and addenda to the Environmental Statement dated July 2010; b) Drawings Nos. 193 D02a and 193 D03a; c) the letter from UK Coal Mining Ltd to the County Planning Authority dated

21st July 2010;

together with such other details as may be submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority in accordance with these conditions. Where there is a conflict between any of these details, the most recently approved document shall take precedence.

4. A copy of this permission, the plans and documents referred to in condition 3

above, including any other plans and documents subsequently approved in accordance with any condition of this permission, shall be kept available for inspection on site during the prescribed working hours.

5. No mineral extraction shall take place outside the area defined by a dashed

orange line on Drawing No. 193 D02a and referred to as the “Limit of Excavation”.

6. No stripping of soil, excavation, regrading or deposition of material shall be

carried out within the area shown stippled green and referred to as “Area of Potential Early Ecological Enhancement” on Drawing No. 193 D02a.

Commencement and Duration

7. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 2 years of the

date of this permission.


80

2009/0720/07– continued

8. Written notification of the commencement of site preparatory works and the commencement of the development shall be provided to the County Planning Authority within seven days from the date of each commencement.

9. The development hereby permitted shall have ceased and the whole of the site shown edged in red on Plan No. 193 D02a shall have been completed within 5 years from the date of commencement of preparatory works as notified in accordance with Condition 8 above.

10. Within one month of the cessation of all extractive and backfilling operations all coal stockpiles shall be removed from the site.

Phasing 11. The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the

phasing details as indicated on drawing nos. Figure 1a, Figure 2a, Figure 3a, Figure 4a, Figure 5a and Figure 6a contained within the Environmental Statement.

Access, Highways and Public Rights of Way

12. Vehicular entry to and exit from the site shall be only by means of the proposed

site access point shown marked as X on Drawing No. 193 D02a. 13. Throughout the period of the development the access point marked X on

Drawing No. 193 D02a shall be maintained to the standards, including the visibility splays, approved under planning conditions Nos. 15, 16, 18 and 19 of this permission.

14. Except in an emergency or unless directed to do so by a police officer, no

vehicle associated with the mining operations with a permissible laden weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes shall turn right in to the site nor turn left out of the site.

15. Prior to any operations commencing on the site, the Applicant shall submit for

approval in writing from the County Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority, details of the design for the off-site highway works comprising improvements to Bosworth Road between the proposed site access and Gallows Lane and at the junction of Bosworth Road and Gallows Lane (shown generally on drawing Nos. D119699/TA/01B, D119699/TA/02B and D119699/TA/03B) and the provision of the access to the site, inclusive of appropriate signage and road markings. Prior to commencement of the development, the Developer shall provide the aforementioned highway works to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority.

16. Prior to the commencement of the development, the visibility splays shown on

drawing number D119699/TA/01B shall be provided at the junction of the site access with Bosworth Road. These splays shall be in accordance with the standards contained in the current County Council design guide and nothing shall be allowed to grow above a height of 0.9 metres above ground level within the visibility splays throughout the period of the development.


81

2009/0720/07– continued 17. Within one month of the completion of restoration works on the site, the site

access shall be removed and the land restored in accordance with a scheme previously agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.

18. The gradient of both the site access and exit shall not exceed 1 in 20 for the first

30 metres from the Highway boundary. 19. Any gates, barriers or other security feature erected across the site exit access

shall be set back a distance of 15 metres behind the Highway boundary and shall not open outwards.

20. No operations whatsoever shall be undertaken on the site until details of

efficient wheel washing facilities have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the County Planning Authority. The wheel wash facilities approved under this condition shall be erected as per the approved details prior to the commencement of the development and all HGVs leaving the site shall first use the wheel wash facilities as appropriate to ensure that deleterious material is not carried onto the public highway.

21. Before commencement of any coal extraction, drainage shall be provided within

the site at the access and exit points such that surface water does not drain on to the public highway and thereafter shall be so maintained for the duration of the development.

22. Before the development hereby permitted is first brought in to use, details of off-

street car and cycle parking provision shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The parking areas shall be surfaced, marked out prior to the development being brought into use and shall be so maintained at all times during the life of the development hereby permitted in accordance with the approved scheme.

23. All lorries exporting coal from the site shall be properly sheeted before entering

on to the public highway. 24. Before the commencement of any operations whatsoever on the site, details of

measures to ensure the safety of users of the public rights of way within the site, including a programme of works, shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval. The approved measures shall be implemented in full and maintained thereafter strictly in accordance with the agreed programme for the duration of the development.

25. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, the installation of

lorry signage on roads within the routing agreement shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme which has first been agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The signage shall be maintained for the duration of the development and within 28 days of the completion of site restoration works, the signage shall be removed. The installation, maintenance and removal of the lorry signage shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority.


82

2009/0720/07– continued 26. The duration of the exportation of coal and fireclay from the site shall not exceed

170 weeks from the date of commencement of the development as notified under condition 8.

27. The exportation from the site shall not exceed 1,250,000 tonnes of coal and 250,000 tonnes of fireclay.

28. The proposed site offices, plant area and processing area shall always remain ancillary to the existing use of the site.

29. Prior to the commencement of the development, turning facilities shall be provided within the site in order to allow vehicles to enter and leave in a forward direction. The turning area so provided shall not be obstructed and shall be available for use at all times.

30. Prior to the commencement of the development, the access drive and any

turning space shall be surfaced with tarmacadam, concrete or similar hard bound material (not loose aggregate) for a distance of at least 15 metres behind the Highway boundary and in any case between the wheel wash facilities approved under condition 20 above and the public highway and shall be so maintained for the duration of the development.

Fencing, Trees and Hedgerows

31. No operations authorised or required by this permission shall be carried out until details of boundary fencing have been agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority and thereafter carried out where appropriate around the boundary of the site. All fencing approved under this condition shall be maintained in good condition for the duration of this permission.

32. No trees within or bounding the site shall be removed except for those identified as being in ‘Plantation M’ on drawing no. NL08024/7.2 entitled ‘PHASE 1 HABITAT PLAN’ contained within Addendum 2 to the Environmental Statement. No trees shall be removed until surveys have been carried out by suitably qualified persons at the optimum time of year to confirm the presence or absence of bats in those trees. In the event that the presence of bats is confirmed, a strategy for the protection of the relevant species shall be submitted for the written approval by the County Planning Authority before the removal of any tree, and any operations on the site shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of such protection strategy as approved.

33. No hedgerow(s) within or bounding the site shall be removed except those listed to be removed in paragraph 7.405 in Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement dated June 2009 and those parts of H11 to be removed as part of the site access works. No hedgerow shall be removed until surveys have been carried out by suitably qualified persons at the optimum time of year to confirm the presence or absence of nesting birds in those hedgerow(s). In the event that the presence of nesting birds is confirmed, a strategy for their protection shall be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority before the removal of any hedgerow.


83

2009/0720/07– continued

34. All trees and hedgerows identified within the site as being retained and/or translocated shall be protected and maintained throughout the period of operation and restoration in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any operations whatsoever on the site. The scheme shall be generally in accordance with the standards and specifications set out in BS5837 (2005) and shall include details of standoffs, protective fencing, translocation details and other measures to prevent damage to trees and hedgerows.

35. All vegetation to be removed shall be clearly identified on site in accordance

with details to be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority before any clearance is commenced.

Soil Handling

36. All soil handling and soil storage shall be carried out in accordance with the

‘Minorca Surface Mine Soils Handling Strategy’ dated May 2009 and contained within Appendix 14.2 of Volume 2A of the Environment Statement. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event of any conflict between conditions 36 to 45 and the Soils Handling Strategy, the Soils Handling Strategy should prevail.

37. Notwithstanding Condition 36, all soil handling should take place by dump truck

and backacter using the ‘strip’ system as advised in national guidance on good soil handling practice. Handling of soils should only be carried out when they are in a dry and friable condition and with machinery operated in such a way as not to cause significant compaction.

38. No soil handling shall take place between the months of November and March

inclusive. 39. Before any part of the site is excavated or traversed by heavy vehicles or

machinery (except for the purpose of stripping that part or stacking topsoil on that part), or is built upon, or used for the stacking of subsoil, or overburden, or as a machinery or plant yard, or for the construction of a road, all available topsoil shall be stripped from that part.

40. No movement of soil shall take place except when the full depth of soil to be

stripped or otherwise transported is in a suitably dry soil moisture condition i.e. the soil is in a non-plastic state such that damage to its structure shall be avoided. Conditions shall be sufficiently dry for the topsoil to be separated from the subsoil without difficulty.

41. All areas of the site left undisturbed and all topsoil, subsoil, and overburden

mounds shall be kept free from weeds. All necessary steps shall be taken to destroy weeds at an early stage of growth.

42. All available subsoils shall be stripped and stored in accordance with the Soils

Handling Strategy, including subsoil found under the overburden storage areas.


84

2009/0720/07– continued 43. All topsoil referred to in Condition No. 41 above shall be stored in the locations

indicated on Drawing No. 193 D02a or such other locations as may be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority beforehand to heights not exceeding 5 metres and shall be seeded with grass in the first available sowing season, and thereafter maintained in accordance with Condition No. 41 above until required for restoration purposes.

44. The subsoil referred to in Condition No. 42 shall be stored in the locations

indicated on Drawing No. 193 D02a or such other locations as may be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority to heights not exceeding 8 metres and shall all be seeded to grass, and thereafter maintained in accordance with Condition No. 41 above until required for restoration purposes.

45. The topsoil, and subsoil mounds referred to in Conditions 42 and 43 above shall

be constructed with the minimum amount of compaction necessary to ensure stability and shall not thereafter be traversed by heavy vehicles or machinery except during construction or removal.

46. Following formation of the storage mounds referred to in Conditions 42 and 43

above, the quantities shall be measured and recorded on a suitable plan and the details submitted to the County Planning Authority within one month of being surveyed.

47. Overburden storage mounds M1, M2 and M3 as identified on drawing no. 193

D02 shall be constructed and removed in accordance with the phasing plan indicated on drawing nos. ‘Figure 1’ through to ‘Figure 6’ inclusive, such that, wherever possible, the peripheral areas of the mounds closest to properties outwith the site boundary are constructed first to form an outer protective bund, as stated in Paragraph 4.19 of Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement dated June 2009.

48. Between 1st and 31st January in each calendar year during the period of

operations hereby permitted, a plan at not less than 1:2500 scale shall be submitted to the County Solicitor showing the progress of soil stripping and storage, excavation and restoration at a date within 14 days prior to submission. The details shall include the areas stripped of topsoil and subsoil, the location of each soil and overburden mound and the quantity and nature of materials therein. The information shall be presented in a form to identify any shortfall or surpluses of the differing soil resources present on the site and shall be related to the information contained in the approved soil handling scheme and the approved restoration plan. An annual site and management meeting shall be held with representatives of the County Solicitor to discuss the information submitted pursuant to this condition and the anticipated programme of working for the next 12 months.

Restriction of Permitted Development Rights

49. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, and unless otherwise


85

2009/0720/07– continued approved by other conditions attached to this permission, no buildings, plant, structures or machinery, excluding mobile plant and machinery, shall be erected on the site without the prior written approval of the County Planning Authority following submission of relevant details and plans.

Hours of Operation 50. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority

beforehand, and except in the case of emergency and the servicing/maintenance of plant and essential pumping, no operations shall be carried out within the site outside the following hours:

Normal operations: 0700 to 1900 hours – Monday to Friday 0700 to 1200 hours – Saturdays Temporary operations: (such as soil stripping, mound formation and soil placement): 0800 to 1800 hours – Monday to Friday 0800 to 1200 hours – Saturdays and no operations shall be carried out on Sundays and Public/Bank Holidays.

51. Notwithstanding condition 50 above, the export of coal and clay from the site shall not take place except between the hours of 07:15 to 17:00 Monday to Friday. For the avoidance of doubt, no exportation of coal or clay shall be undertaken on any Saturday, Sunday or Public/Bank Holiday.

Blasting

52. Every blast shall be designed with a 95% confidence level that ground vibration

levels recorded at any vibration sensitive property arising from any blast shall not exceed a peak particle velocity of 6mm per second measured in any mutually perpendicular plane. No blast shall exceed a peak particle velocity of 12mm per second as measured at any vibration sensitive property.

53. Except in an emergency no secondary blasting shall be carried out without the

prior approval in writing of the County Planning Authority. In emergency situations, the County Planning Authority shall be notified of operations within 24 hours.

54. Every blast shall be designed to minimise noise or air over pressure by use of the latest available techniques such that air over pressure shall not exceed 120dB peak linear as measured externally at any vibration sensitive property.

55. Prior to the commencement of the development, a blast monitoring scheme

shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. The Scheme shall include details of:


86

2009/0720/07– continued

a) blast monitoring at agreed locations including the use of permanent/fixed monitors to assess whether the limits specified in conditions no. 52 and 54 have been complied with;

b) the type of monitoring equipment to be used; c) presentation of monitoring results, including details of dates, times,

prevailing weather conditions and comments on significant blast results; d) maintenance and availability of monitoring results; e) procedures to be implemented if blasting exceeds approved levels; and f) a methodology to keep the scheme under regular review subject to written

agreement with the County Solicitor.

56. No blasting shall take place except between the hours of 10:00 to 16:00 Monday to Friday only. For the avoidance of doubt, no blasting shall be undertaken on any Saturday, Sunday or Public/Bank Holiday.

Noise

57. Measures shall be taken to ensure that the operations carried out on the site do not give rise to unacceptable noise nuisance/disturbance in the locality. Such measures shall include:

a) the effective silencing and maintenance of all engines, exhausts, machinery, plant and equipment, whether fixed or mobile;

b) the location and organisation of on-site operations so as to minimise any noise impact on nearby properties and to ensure haul route gradients and bends on haul roads are as shallow as practicable;

c) the minimisation, so far as is practicably and legally possible, of the level and penetration of noise emissions from reversing warnings fitted to vehicles; and

d) no use of pure tone audible reversing bleepers.

58. Throughout the life of this permission noise monitoring shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme of monitoring which has been agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any operations on the site. The scheme shall include details of: i. noise monitoring at agreed locations to assess whether the limits at the

locations specified in the table in condition 59 below have been complied with;

ii. frequency and duration of monitoring; iii. monitoring equipment to be used: iv. presentation of monitoring results, including details of dates, times,

prevailing weather conditions and comments on significant noise sources and details of any ambient noise sources paused out of the measurements;

v. maintenance and availability of monitoring results.


87

2009/0720/07– continued

59. Except for temporary operations the equivalent Continuous Noise Level (LAeq,1h

)

dB (A) freefield attributable to the day to day operations on the site, at the properties listed in the table below, shall not exceed the levels specified:

A The Bungalow, Gallows Lane 55

B 1-4 Bosworth Grange, Bosworth Road 52.2

C Stanhope House, Swepstone Road 53.2

D Mill Top House, off Swepstone Road 51.5

E Valley Farm House, Bosworth Road 49

F Dishley Farm, off Swepstone Road 49.3

G Measham Fields Farm, Swepstone Road 55

H Crossroads Cottage, Swepstone Road 55

I Measham House Farm, off Gallows Lane 55

J Measham Hall, off Swepstone Road 55

K 2 Greenfield Road, Measham 55

L St. Peter’s Church, Swepstone 55

M 2/3 Home Farm Barns, Swepstone 53.3

H Tempe Farm, off Swepstone Road 49.3

60. For temporary operations such as soil stripping, mound formation and soil placement operations the L

Aeq level shall not exceed 70 dBL

Aeq(1 hr) when

measured at any noise sensitive property and the duration of such operations shall not exceed 8 weeks in any 12 month period. Except in cases of emergency, operations of a temporary nature shall be the subject of at least 3 days prior notification to the County Solicitor.

Dust

61. Throughout the life of this permission the operator shall implement a set of dust control measures and carry out dust monitoring in accordance with a scheme of measures presented in the form of a “Dust Action Plan” which shall have been agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any operations. For the avoidance of doubt the Dust Action Plan shall be incorporated into an Environmental Management System accredited to ISO 14001 standard, and shall include provision for:

i. the spraying of all haul roads and stockpiles as necessary to maintain a damp surface and particularly during dry weather;

ii. the enclosure, where necessary, of plant and machinery, including conveyors, used for the preparation of coal;

iii. the sheeting of all coal lorries leaving the site; iv. the seeding of all topsoil and subsoil mounds in accordance with the

requirements of conditions 41 and 42; v. the installation of appropriate equipment within the site boundary to

monitor dust emissions; vi. the constant monitoring of dust levels within the site boundary utilising

“Adhesive Strip Dust Samplers”, the results of which shall be made available on request to the County Solicitor within seven days of such a request being made;


88

2009/0720/07– continued vii. the installation of equipment to measure continuously PM

10 concentrations

at suitable residential locations outside the site boundary. The method selected must be calibrated gravimetrically to test its consistency with the European Reference Sampler. The results shall be made available to the County Solicitor within three days of the operator receiving such request;

viii. meteorological monitoring to establish adverse wind conditions; ix. specific measures to control potential dust emissions arising from soil

stripping and mound construction, including, when necessary, the suspension of operations when weather conditions are creating conditions where undue harm would be caused to the amenities of local residents (e.g. dry conditions with excessive wind speeds blowing in the direction of residential property);

x. the management of on-site traffic; xi. the reviewing of the Dust Action Plan as necessary in consultation with the

County Planning Authority; xii. the establishment of independent dust monitoring stations outside the site

boundary at locations to be agreed with the County Planning Authority and a monitoring regime utilising “Adhesive Strip Dust Samplers” with independent analysis of monitoring results in the event that the County Solicitor considers it appropriate to be carried out throughout the period of this permission; and

xiii. the agreement of an acceptability threshold and undertaking of a period of baseline monitoring at residential locations prior to the commencement of site operations.

Lighting

62. No artificial lighting shall be erected on the site unless and until details of the

location, height, design, sensors, hours of operation and luminance of proposed lighting and a programme for its installation has been agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. The lighting shall be designed to minimise the potential nuisance of light spillage to the locality and shall be maintained in accordance with the agreed details for the life of the development. No artificial lighting shall be implemented other than in full accordance with the approved details.

Archaeology

63. No operations whatsoever shall take place within the application area until the

applicant has secured the implementation of an appropriate programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall only be undertaken in accordance with the approved Written Scheme. No variation to the Written Scheme of Investigation shall take place without the prior written consent of the County Planning Authority.


89

2009/0720/07– continued 64. The applicant shall ensure the completion of the necessary programme of

archaeological investigation providing the County Planning Authority with at least one week notification of the intention to commence work. The programme will comprise the necessary fieldwork, post excavation analysis, report writing and archive deposition, as detailed in the approved Written Scheme of Investigation. The report and archive shall be prepared and deposited no later than six months following the completion of fieldwork.

Drainage and Water Protection

65. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuel or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The size of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tanks plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents and sight glasses must be located within the bund. There must be no drain through the bund floor or walls (BS 799 Part 5: 1987 refers).

66. The foul drainage from the proposed development shall be discharged to a

private treatment plant.

67. There shall be no importation of any waste materials into the site.

68. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such a time as a scheme to secure de-watering of the site has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the County Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall be supported by detailed information, including an assessment of the potential for the activity to impact existing groundwater and surface water abstractions (Protected Rights and Lawful Users), private water supplies and groundwater dependent surface water features and ecologically important sites. In the event of the assessment identifying risks to an identified receptor as being unacceptable, the applicant must implement appropriate mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority or alternatively agree an appropriate derogation agreement with the holder of Protected Right or Lawful Use. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme, or any changes as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.

69. Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The scheme shall include:

1. Limiting the surface water run-off generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 20% (for climate change) critical rain storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.


90

2009/0720/07– continued

2. Provision of surface water run-off attenuation storage to accommodate the difference between the allowable discharge rate and all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 20% (for climate change) critical rain storm.

3. Construction working method statement. 4. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed during the

works.

70. No operations whatsoever shall commence until i. a Water Management Plan; ii. a Water Monitoring Plan; iii. a scheme of post restoration monitoring iv. Treated Water Discharge Procedure Guidelines; and v. Assessment of Discharge Quality documents

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. No operations on the site shall be carried out except in accordance with the approved documents.

Flood Risk issues

71. No operations hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site until such time

as a scheme which confirms the impact of the proposed new bridge on the Gilwiskaw Brook has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the County Planning Authority. The scheme should take account of the following issues: 1. The soffit of the bridge will be set a minimum of 600mm above the 100

year plus 20% (for climate change) flood level applicable at the bridge site. 2. The deck of the existing bridge must be removed, as a minimum. 3. The need to see calculations and cross sections in support of the bridge

proposals to confirm whether the abutments can remain in situ. 4. The removal of part of the bridge following completion of restoration

operations. 5. The need to ensure that works will not disturb unacceptable the river

banks and bed.

The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the County Planning Authority.

72. No operations whatsoever shall commence on the site until a surface water

drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall include:


91

2009/0720/07– continued

• Calculations in support of the cut off ditches, confirming that they can convey all rainfall run-off up to the 100 year plus 20% for climate change rainfall event, to the attenuation areas.

• Calculations in support of all attenuation/water treatment ponds which are designed to hold the difference between the allowable discharge rate and all rainfall run-off up to the 100 year plus 20% for climate change rainfall event.

73. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out

in accordance with the approved Flood Envelope Assessment (FEA) and Water Management Plan (WMP) both dated July 2010, undertaken by Wardell Armstrong and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FEA and Water Management Plan:

1. WMP Section 3. Limiting the surface water run-off generated by all rainfall

events up to the 100 year plus 20% (for climate change) critical rain storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.

2. FEA Section 5.2.7. Provision of a replacement bridge crossing to the Gilwiskaw Brook within the site to a 100 year plus 20% (for climate change) standard.

3. FEA Section 5.2.3. Replacement Bridge abutments to be set outside of the 100 year flood plain envelope.

4. FEA Section 5.2.4 Replacement Bridge soffit is set no lower than 86.971m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

74. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a

scheme to detail the design of the replacement bridge over the Gilwiskaw Brook has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include: 1. Detailed design of the replacement bridge. 2. Bridge abutments to be set outside of the 100 year flood plain envelope. 3. Bridge soffit is set no lower than 86.971m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). 4. Construction working method statement. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the County Planning Authority. Miscellaneous

75. No coal shall be imported to the site.

Complaints 76. Following the receipt of any complaint the operator shall notify the County

Solicitor within 48 hours. Details of the subsequent investigation and any mitigation measures undertaken shall be forwarded to the County Solicitor as soon as practicable thereafter.


92

2009/0720/07– continued

Restoration 77. Within 6 months of the commencement of the development the applicant shall

submit a detailed Restoration Plan based on Drawing No. 192/D03 for the written approval of the County Planning Authority. All restoration works on the site shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

78. The Restoration Plan submitted under condition 76 above shall include details

of the final routeing of new footpaths and bridleways and shall include details of their construction and surfacing. These routes shall be constructed within 6 months of completion of the restoration works shown on the Restoration Plan.

79. The Restoration Plan submitted under condition 76 above shall include details

of a buffer of at least twenty metres between the centreline of the Gilwiskaw Brook and any land to be restored to agriculture.

80. Within one month following the final placement of subsoil and topsoil in any part

of the application site the operator shall submit, where appropriate, the following details for the written approval of the County Planning Authority:

(i) tree and shrub planting, species mix and planting densities: and (ii) seed mixtures and sowing specifications for the grassland areas.

81. Backfilling and restoration of the site shall be carried out progressively and shall

be completed as soon as reasonably practicable following the extraction of coal from any part of the site; wherever practicable the replacement of overburden and respreading of soil shall be carried out concurrently with the mineral extraction.

82. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority beforehand, or as required by conditions of this permission, the replaced overburden shall be levelled and graded to provide, following the replacement of subsoil and topsoil, the contours shown on the Restoration Plan approved under Condition 76.

83. At the conclusion of each stage of overburden replacement on the proposed agricultural areas, the operator shall nominate personnel who, at the request of the County Planning Authority, shall meet on site with representatives of the County Planning Authority for the purpose of agreeing the replaced overburden levels as set out in the Restoration Plan approved under condition 76 above.

84. Following the replacement of the overburden and before the replacement of subsoil, the upper layers of the overburden shall be ripped with a heavy duty subsoiler. Such treatment shall ensure that within a total depth of 1200mm below the surface of the topsoil as replaced, there is:

(a) no shale, bind or other material injurious to plant life; (b) no rock, stone, boulder or other material capable of preventing or

impeding normal agricultural or land drainage operations including mole ploughing or subsoiling;

(c) no wire rope, cable or other foreign objects; (d) no excessively compacted zone; and (e) a reasonably level, but un-compacted, surface suitable to receive subsoil.


93

2009/0720/07– continued

Stones or deleterious materials at the surface of the replaced overburden which will not pass through a 230mm ring in any dimension shall be removed from site or buried on site not less than 2 metres below final surface contours.

85. All available subsoil shall be re-spread evenly over those areas agreed to

receive such subsoil. The subsoil shall be so treated to comply with the general requirements of Condition 83 (a) to (d) above. No layer of replaced soil shall exceed 450mm thickness before it is ripped and the ripping operation shall penetrate at least 150mm into the underlying layer to relieve compaction at the interface. Subsoil upon which other soils have been stored shall be rooted.

86. Stones or deleterious materials at the surface of each layer of ripped subsoil which will not pass through a 150mm diameter ring in any dimension shall be removed from site or buried on site not less than 2 metres below final surface contours.

87. After satisfactory replacement and treatment of the subsoil, all available topsoil shall be re-spread evenly over those areas agreed to receive such topsoil. The topsoil shall be ripped, cultivated and so left as to comply with the general requirements of Condition No.83 (a) to (d) above. Stones greater than 100mm in any dimension shall be removed. Topsoil upon which other topsoil has been stored shall be rooted and cultivated as above.

88. The operator shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent the mixing of topsoil, subsoil, and overburden, and no topsoil, subsoil or other soil making material shall be removed from the site.

89. Following completion of extraction, backfilling and soiling in any part of the site, the restoration works in relation to that area, as shown on the Restoration Plan approved under condition 76 above shall be implemented within 9 months.

90. On completion of the restoration all equipment, plant, machinery, structures and buildings shall have been removed from the site and unless otherwise agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority site access roads shall have been removed.

91. Within one year of the commencement of the development, a post-restoration monitoring scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall detail how the operator will monitor the site in order to demonstrate the re-establishment of a connection between shallow groundwater and the Gilwiskaw Brook and shall be implemented in full following the restoration of the site.

92. Prior to the commencement of any restoration works to the east of the

Gilwiskaw Brook, a scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the County Planning Authority, detailing the design of any works to the Gilwiskaw Brook tributary. The scheme shall include: 1. Detailed design of the proposed reinstatement to open watercourse (de-

culverting); and 2. construction working method statement, which shall include details of:

• timing/phasing programme for the works;

• methods to be used for all channel and bank side/water margin works;


94

2009/0720/07– continued

• machinery to be used;

• location and storage of plant, materials and fuel;

• access routes to the works, access to the bank of the watercourses;

• Method of protection of area of ecological sensitivity and importance;

• Site/works supervision; and

• Location of site office, compounds and welfare facilities. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within another period as may be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Winter Water Storage Lake

93. Within one year from the commencement of the development, the operator shall

submit details of the overflow levels for the lake and the on-line reserve proposed as part of the overall restoration scheme. The overflow for the lake and the on-line reserve shall be developed and maintained thereafter at the agreed levels unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Aftercare

94. Following the final restoration of any part of the site or the translocation of any

hedgerow or tree in accordance with details contained in the planning application and environmental statement and shown on the Restoration Plan approved under condition 77 above, the land shall be treated for a 5 year period in accordance with the aftercare scheme or schemes which shall have been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority prior to the completion of restoration in the relevant part of the site. For the avoidance of doubt the aftercare requirements will apply to areas of agriculture, grassland, woodland, reedbeds and wetlands, trees and hedgerows. The submitted schemes shall:

a. be submitted for the written approval of the County Planning Authority not

later then 6 months prior to the date on which it is first expected that the replacement of topsoil or the formation of a reedbed or wetland, grassland or the planting of a tree or hedgerow shall take place;

b. provide an outline strategy, having regard to the guidance contained in

County Planning Guidance Note No. 7 (MPG 7), for the 5 year aftercare period. This shall specify the steps to be taken and the period during which they are to be taken to return the land to beneficial use and shall provide for annual meetings between the operator, the County Planning Authority and other agencies as appropriate (e.g. Natural England, Environment Agency) in respect of the restored arable land, grassland, reedbed and wetland, hedgerow or trees.


95

c. provide for the submission, annually, and implementation of a detailed annual programme of aftercare works having regard to MPG 7 and other relevant guidance regarding forestry, ecology and nature conservation.


96

2009/0720/07– continued 95. The aftercare of the site shall only be carried out in accordance with the

approved schemes and annual programme of aftercare works submitted in accordance with condition 93.

Premature Cessation

96. In the event of mineral extraction being prematurely discontinued at the site at a

stage which renders the approved Restoration Plan unachievable, an alternative scheme (based on the scheme shown on Drawing No. 190/D03) for the treatment and restoration of the site as so left, and all other operational areas associated with the site, shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval within 6 months of the discontinuance of mineral extraction. The scheme shall include the following details:

(a) the recontouring of the site; (b) the removal of all buildings, plant and structures; (c) the backfilling of voids and respreading of all available soils; (d) the treatment of the land; (e) landscaping and planting; and (f) aftercare provisions.

97. The scheme as approved by the County Planning Authority under condition 96

shall be commenced within 6 months of notification of determination and shall be fully implemented within a further 18 months or such other period as may be approved by the County Planning Authority.

Reasons 1,2,3 For the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure that the development is carried out 4,5,6. in accordance with the approved conditions and in a satisfactory manner in the interests of the amenity of the area. 7. To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country

Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

8&48. To enable the development to be monitored to ensure compliance with this

permission. 9&10. To provide for the completion and progressive restoration of the site within a

specified timescale in the interest of the amenities of the area. 11. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out

in a satisfactory manner.

12,13 In the interests of highway safety. 14,15 16,18 19,23 25,26 27,28 29,75.


97

2009/0720/07– continued 17. In the interests of local amenity and to ensure satisfactory restoration of the

site. 20& To ensure that deleterious material is not carried onto the public highway in 30. the interests of highway safety and local amenity. 21. In the interests of highway safety and safeguarding the local environment. 22. In the general interests of highway safety and to ensure that adequate off-

street parking facilities are available within the curtilage of the development. 24. To ensure that there is adequate protection in place for the users of public

rights of way that cross the site. 31,32 In the interests of the landscape and visual amenities of the area and to 33,34 enhance the development and biodiversity. & 35. 36,37 To ensure the protection of the soil resource, minimise compaction and to aid 38,39 the final restoration of the site. 40,41 42,43 45,46. 47. In the interests of local amenity and to minimise the impacts arising from the

creation of the overburden storage mounds. 49. To retain control of the siting, design and appearance of plant, buildings and

machinery which may have an effect on the amenities of the area. 50,51. To minimise the adverse impacts on local residents of noise generated by

operations on the site. 52,53 To minimise the adverse impact of blasting on the local community and 54,56. environment. 55. To enable the blasting effects of the development to be adequately monitored

during the course of the operations. 57,59 To minimise the adverse impact of noise generated by the operations on the & 60. local community and environment. 58. To enable the noise related effects of the development to be adequately

monitored during the course of the operations. 61. To minimise the adverse impact of dust generated by the operations on the

local community and environment and to enable the dust related effects of the development to be adequately monitored during the course of the operations.

62. To allow the impacts of artificial lighting to be assessed in the interests of

visual amenity.


98

2009/0720/07– continued 63 & To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording. 64. 65 & To protect the water environment. 66. 67. In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that the restoration of the site

is achieved in an acceptable timescale in accordance with the details accompanying the planning application.

68. To ensure that the impact of active de-watering is correctly assessed and

appropriate actions taken to mitigate any identified impacts. Unmanaged de-watering activities could impact existing groundwater and surface water abstractions (Protected Rights and Lawful Users), private water supplies and groundwater dependent surface water features and ecologically important sites. If appropriate mitigation or derogation arrangements cannot be practically implemented this activity should not be permitted.

69. To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality,

improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system.

70. To protect the water environment. 71. To protect the water environment and ensure that the banks of the Gilwiskaw

Brook are protected from the development. 72. To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality,

improve habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system.

73,74. To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site and to reduce the risk of flooding from blockages to the existing bridge.

76. To ensure that the Mineral Planning Authority is informed of all complaints

relating to site operations. 77,79 To ensure that the operational site areas are restored in an orderly manner 80,81 and to a condition capable of beneficial after-use. 82,84 85,86 87,88 89,90. 92. 78. To ensure that the site is restored to an acceptable land form and to ensure

that new rights of way are created to an acceptable standard. 83. To afford the Mineral Planning Authority the opportunity to check compliance

with the approved restoration scheme.


99

2009/0720/07– continued 91. To demonstrate that the stated aims of restoration have been met and that the

link between groundwater and the Gilwiskaw Brook is reinstated. 93. To ensure that the lake to be created during restoration of the site does not

impact on the Gilwiskaw Brook or increase flooding in the area. 94,95. To ensure that the restored areas of the site are brought back to a condition

suitable for long-term beneficial use in the interests of bio-diversity. 96,97. To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to control the development and to

ensure that the land is restored to a condition capable of beneficial after-use. Notes to Applicant Elements of the proposal are situated in excess of 45 metres from the Highway. In order to cater for emergency vehicles the drive and any turning areas shall be constructed so as to cater for a commercial or service vehicle in accordance with British Standard B.S.5906, 2005 and Building Regulations Approved Document B, Fire Safety 2006. All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Northern Area Manager- (telephone 0116 3052114.) A public right of way crosses the site and this must not be obstructed or diverted without obtaining separate consent from Leicestershire County Council. C.B.R. Tests shall be taken and submitted to the County Council's Area Manager prior to development commencing in order to ascertain road construction requirements. No work shall commence on site without prior notice being given to the Area Manager.

Specific advice is available in Defra’s Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils at www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/land-use/soilguid/index.htm which deals with the main machinery combinations, with Sheets 1 – 4 and Sheet 15 being the most pertinent.

Soils should only be stripped and handled when they are in a ‘dry and friable’ condition. Broadly speaking, a soil is ‘dry and friable’ when it breaks and shatters when disturbed rather than smears and deforms. The following tests describe methods to differentiate objectively between these two conditions. Soil Tests. Soil tests are to be undertaken in the field. Representative samples should be taken of all soils to be handled. The tests should include visual examination of the soil and physical assessment of soil consistency. Examination Test:

• If the soil is wet, films of water are visible on the surface of soil particles aggregates (e.g. clods or peds) and/or when a clod or ped is squeezed in the hand it readily deforms into a cohesive ‘ball’ – NO HANDLING should take place when the soil is in this condition.


100

2009/0720/07– continued

• If the sample is moist (i.e. there is a slight dampness when squeezed in the hand) but it does not significantly change colour (darken) on further wetting, and clods break up/crumble readily when squeezed in the hand rather than forming into a ball – HANDLING OK.

• If the sample is dry, it looks dry and changes colour (darkens) if water is added, and it is brittle – HANDLING OK.

Consistency Test First Test – Attempt to mould soil sample into a ball by hand:

• Impossible because soil is too dry and hard – HANDLING OK

• Impossible because the soil is too loose and dry – HANDLING OK

• Impossible because the soil is too loose and wet – NO HANDLING

• Possible – GO TO NEXT TEST

Second Test – Attempt to roll ball into a 3mm diameter thread using the flat of the hand on a plate glass square or the back of a spade:

• Impossible because soil crumbles or collapses – HANDLING OK

• Possible – NO HANDLING

NB: It is impossible to roll most coarse loamy and sandy soils into a thread even when they are wet. For these soils, the result of the Examination test alone must be adhered to. Weather and ground conditions Soil handling should cease during rain, sleet or snow. The following criteria should be applied:

• In light drizzle soil handling may continue for up to 4 hours unless the soils are already too moist

• In light rain soil handling must cease after 15 minutes

• In heavy rain and intense showers, handling should cease immediately

• After rain has ceased, soil tests should be applied to determine when handling may restart

• No soil handling should take place when there are pools of water on the land surface.

Restoration The applicant’s attention is drawn to the letter from Natural England dated 8th October 2010 which provides advice on the requirements for the Restoration Plan required under condition 76 to ensure that enhancements to the existing site biodiversity are provided for following the cessation of coaling operations. Archaeology The Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) must be prepared by an archaeological contractor acceptable to the Planning Authority. To demonstrate that the implementation of this written scheme of investigation has been secured the applicant must provide a signed contract or similar legal agreement between themselves and their approved archaeological contractor.


101

2009/0720/07– continued The County Council will provide the necessary brief(s) for the required archaeological investigation and will also, as necessary, monitor the satisfactory completion of the fieldwork, analysis and reporting stages. The Principal Planning Archaeologist to contact in this regard is Mr. Richard Clark on 01163058322. Coal Authority Advice Any intrusive activities which intersect, disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) require the prior written permission of The Coal Authority. Failure to obtain Coal Authority permission for such activities 2009/0720/07– continued is trespass, with the potential for court action. In the interests of public safety The Coal Authority is concerned that risks specific to the nature of coal and coal mine workings are identified and mitigated. Further Information can be obtained from the licensing and permissions section of The Coal Authority website: www.coal.gov.uk/services/permissions/index.cfm Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8m metres of the top of the bank of the Gilwiskaw Brook, designated a ‘main river’, and it's tributary. Applications should be made on Form FD1. Environment Agency issues: The Environment Agency has identified a number of items which will need their prior consent. These items include, but are not exclusive of: - 1. All surface water outfalls, including those from attenuation/water treatment

ponds. 2. The new bridge crossing over the Gilwiskaw Brook. 3. De-culverting of the tributary watercourse as part of the restoration plan. The Environment Agency must be notified of any proposed discharge to the brook. The Environment Agency notes that the proposal may involve dewatering. Dewatering is currently exempt from the requirement for abstraction licences. However there are plans to bring it under licensing control. The Environment Agency also note that as part of the restoration scheme wet woodland will be created and extended and ponds created. If, in order to create and maintain these features water is abstracted or impounded then licences may be required. There is no guarantee that they would be granted, as this is dependent upon water resource availability.


102


MINORCA SURFACE MINING SCHEME - HABITATS LOSSES AND GAINS TABLE

Habitat Type

Existing Area/Length Ha

or M

Retained Area/Length

Area/Length to be Translocated as

Part of the Proposed

Development

Area/Length to be Lost as a Result of

the Proposed Development

Area/Length to be Created and/or Restored as Part of the Restoration Scheme

Net Loss or Gain

Ha or M

Restored Area /

Length Ha or M

Arable Land 96.81 0 ha 0ha 96.81ha 83.06ha 13.75 (Loss) 83.06

Semi Improved Grassland

17.18 9.6ha 0ha 7.58ha 3.69ha 3.89ha (Loss) 13.29

Hay Meadow 0 0ha 0ha 0ha 4.61ha 4.61ha (Gain) 4.61

Mature Woodland

2.88 2.88ha 0ha 0ha 0ha 0ha 2.88

Plantation Woodland

5.56 5.41ha 0ha 0.15ha 4.8ha 4.65ha (Gain) 10.21

Wet Woodland 0.35 0.35ha 0ha 0m 0.14ha 0.14ha (Gain) 0.49

Scrub and Tall Ruderals

0.93 0ha 0ha 0.93ha 0ha 0.93ha (Loss) 0

Hedgerow 6939.34m 6030.28m 333m 335m 3100m 2524m (Gain 9463.28m

Waterbodies (not including large

lake) 0.898 0.798 ha 0m 0.1 ha 0.57ha 0.47ha (Gain) 1.268

Watercourse T Open

1189.9m 1189.9m 0m 0m 319.4m 319.4m /

.57ha (Gain) 0.57

Gilwiskaw Brook SSSI/SAC

742.8m 742.8m 0m 0m 0m 0m 742.8m

Wet Ditches 869.7m 0m 0m 869.7m 1571 701.3m (Gain) 1571m

Reed Bed 0 0m 0m 0m 0.18ha 0.18ha (Gain) 0.18

Damp Tussocky Grassland

0 0ha 0ha 0ha 0.06ha 0.06ha (Gain) 0.06

Wet Grassland 0 0ha 0ha 0ha 1.11ha 1.11ha (Gain) 1.11

Conservation Headlands and Field Margins

0 0ha 0ha 0ha 8350m = 5ha 8350m / 5ha

(Gain) 5

Large Lake 0 0ha 0ha 0ha 4.92ha 4.92ha (Gain) 4.92

Potential Gain if the Brook is Meandered as part of the enhancement works


103


The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

The Appropriate Assessment (regulation 61) by Leicestershire County Council of the Implications of a Project on a European

Site.

PLANNING APPLICATION BY UK COAL MINING LTD. FOR A PROPOSED SURFACE MINE FOR THE EXTRACTION OF 1.25

MILLION TONNES OF COAL AND 250,000 TONNES OF FIRECLAY -

LAND BETWEEN MEASHAM AND SWEPSTONE KNOWN AS THE MINORCA SITE (NORTH WEST LEICESTERSHIRE

DISTRICT)


104

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1

1.1 The Requirement for an Appropriate Assessment ..................................1

1.2 Approach and Methodology ......................................................................2

1.3 Scope of Assessment ................................................................................4

1.4 Structure of this Report .............................................................................4

2 RIVER MEASE SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION......................................6

2.1 Qualifying Interest ......................................................................................6

2.2 Conservation Objectives ...........................................................................6

2.3 Current Status of River Mease SAC ........................................................10

2.4 Distribution and Status of Designated Features in Relation to Development

Site ....................................................................................................................... 10

3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS ...........................................................................13

4 ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................15

4.1 Approach to the Assessment ..................................................................15

4.2 River Mease SAC – Water Quality and Flow...........................................16

4.3 River Mease SAC – Monitoring................................................................23

4.4 River Mease SAC – River Crossing.........................................................23

5 IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS ...........................................................................24

6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................28

6.1 Assessment Statement ............................................................................28

7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................29

APPENDICES Appendix 3A Formal Consultation Response from Natural England (letter dated 8

th October 2010)

Appendix 3B Natural England Guidance Note HRGN 1 Appendix 3C Conservation Objectives and Targets for Favourable Conservation Status Appendix 3D River Mease SSSI and SAC citations (NE, 2000; JNCC, 2006) Appendix 3E Screening Assessment Matrix Appendix 3F Formal Consultation Response from the Environment Agency (letter dated 3

rd September

2010) Appendix 3G Water Management Plan July 2010

INTRODUCTION

The requirement for an Appropriate Assessment

Legal protection for habitats and species of European importance is provided by

Directive 92/43/EEC - the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and

Fauna, generally referred to as the ‘Habitats Directive’.

Article 2 of 92/43/EEC specifically requires the condition of EU recognised habitats

and species to be favourably preserved or restored, whilst Articles 3 –11 establish a

network of sites of nature conservation importance known as Natura 2000 sites1.

Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Directive require that any plan or project not directly

connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a

significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or

projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in

view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the

assessment of the implications for the site the competent national authorities (in this

case Leicestershire County Council) shall agree to the plan or project only after

having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.

If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the

absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out

for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or

economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures

necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall

inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.

The Habitats Directive is transposed into UK law by the Conservation of Habitats

and Species Regulations 2010 (referred to as the ‘Habitat Regulations’). Regulation

61 of the Habitat Regulations requires that:

61.—(1) A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which—

(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.

1 Sites designated under the EU Habitats Directive comprising Special Areas of Conservation

(SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA) are collectively referred to as ‘Natura 2000’ sites

Natural England has advised Leicestershire County Council (LCC) that the

proposed Minorca Surface Mine is likely to have a significant effect on the River

Mease SAC and that LCC as the 'competent authority' must make an appropriate

assessment of the implications of the proposal as required by Regulation 61 of the

Habitat Regulations. Natural England goes on to advise that LCC must consider the

proposal for Surface Mining at Minorca, assessing the implications of the proposal

for the SAC, its interest features and conservation objectives. A copy of Natural

England’s formal request for an appropriate assessment is appended to this report

at Appendix 1.

Under Regulation 61(3) the competent authority must for the purposes of the

assessment consult the appropriate nature conservation body and have regard to

any representations made by that body within such reasonable time as the authority

specify.

Approach and Methodology

This appropriate assessment follows guidance on the assessment of plans and

projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites developed by the European

Commission (EC, 2001), Natural England’s ‘Habitat Regulations Guidance Note

HRGN 1 – The Appropriate Assessment (Regulation 48)’ (1997) and guidance on

‘Appropriate Assessment of Plans’ prepared to assist English authorities on the

application of appropriate assessment to plans prepared by Scott Wilson et al

(2006).

The Natural England Guidance Note HRGN 1 includes a suggested good practice

outline record of an appropriate assessment suitable for use to record the

competent authority’s decision and is attached at Appendix 2. However, it should

be noted that the Habitat Regulations 1994 has been superseded by the Habitat

Regulations 2010 and that the requirement for appropriate assessment is now

under Regulation 61 and its sub-paragraphs.

It is important to note that the appropriate assessment process is an iterative one

with identification of potential impacts on the SAC and mitigation measures having

been identified from an early stage in the scheme design process and addressed

through consultation between LCC, UK Coal Mining Ltd and their agents, Wardell

Armstong LLP (the applicant), the Environment Agency and Natural England on an

on-going basis.

This report therefore represents the culmination and documentation of a number of

years of assessment and on-going dialogue to produce a scheme that does not

result in an adverse impact on the integrity of the River Mease SAC.

Box 1. Process of Appropriate Assessment (after EU, 2001)

Stage 1: Screening – the process which identifies the likely impacts upon a Natura 2000 site of a project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, and considers whether these impacts are likely to be significant. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment – the consideration of the impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site of the project or plan with respect to the site’s structure and function and its conservation objectives. Also includes, where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of the potential mitigation of those impacts. Stage 3: Assessment of alternative solutions – the process which examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project or plan that avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site. Stage 4: Assessment of compensatory measures – where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse impacts remain and it is deemed in the light of an assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest that the project or plan should proceed.

An in-depth review of the activities associated with the operational and restoration

phases of the proposed Surface Mine in light of the Conservation Objectives of the

River Mease SAC has been completed. This information is presented in an

‘assessment matrix’ (included at Appendix 5) to identify relationships between

varying aspects of the proposals and qualifying features.

Potential impacts on the River Mease SAC have been considered for the Surface

Mine proposal alone, and for the mine proposal in combination with other

developments (either built or in the planning process, and as far as is possible

based on readily available information) in the River Mease catchment.

This 'in-combination' assessment is particularly pertinent for the River Mease SAC

in light of the recent North West Leicestershire District Council Environment

Scrutiny Committee Report (September 2010) which highlights the implications of

the River Mease SAC for new housing development and associated water quality

issues. Although the scrutiny report focuses on new housing development, it is of

relevance that the proposed Surface Mine may also have potential implications on

the water quality of the River Mease SAC.

The sources of information used to prepare this report are listed in Box 2. All

documents referred to are publicly available.

Box 2. Sources of Information Used to Undertake this Assessment

• Documents submitted by the applicant in support of the planning application

(Application no: 2009/0720/07) in particular:

- Environmental Statement and Appendices (June 2009)

- Planning Supporting Statement (July 2009)

- Minorca Crayfish Survey (September 2008)

- Aquatic Invertebrate Survey (November 2008)

- Electro-fishing Survey – Section of Gilwiskaw Brook (October 2009)

- Restoration Plan and Phasing Plans (July 2010)

- Water Management Plan and Appendices (July 2010)

- Ecological Assessment of Groundwater and Discharge Quality Modelling (July

2010)

- Flood Envelope Assessment (July 2010)

- Impact of Ashby Canal Compensation Flow Lagoon on Gilwiskaw Brook Flows

(October 2010)

• Habitat Regulations Assessment of the Leicestershire Minerals Development

Framework and the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Core

Strategies (Leicestershire County Council, 2008)

• An Environment Scrutiny Committee Report on the Impact on Development of the River

Mease (NWLDC - September 2010)

• Conservation Objectives and Definitions of Favourable Condition for Designated

Features of Interest for the River Mease SAC (Natural England, 2009)

• Discussions / meetings with and correspondence from the Environment Agency, Natural

England and the applicant during the pre- and post- planning submission stages –

copies of relevant correspondence are appended to this report (2009/2010)

Scope of Assessment

Natural England has provided detailed comments to assist LCC in the preparation

of its appropriate assessment (letter dated 8th October 2010 included at Appendix

1). This guidance has been used to inform the scope of this appropriate

assessment to ensure that the comments raised by Natural England have been

adequately addressed.

Structure of this Report

Section 2 of this report describes the River Mease SAC, the features for which it is

designated and summarises the relevant Conservation Objectives and current

status of the site. This section also sets out the evidence base for the current

distribution and status of qualifying features in relation to the proposed development

site.

Section 3 summarises the development proposals.

Section 4 is the ‘screening’ stage of the assessment which identifies the potential

effects of the proposed development on the integrity of the River Mease SAC in

light of the site’s Conservation Objectives.

Section 5 identifies and assesses potential ‘in-combination’ effects.

Section 6 is a summary statement setting out the assessment findings and final

conclusions concerning the effects of the proposals on the integrity of the River

Mease SAC.

RIVER MEASE SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION

Qualifying Interest

The River Mease was designated as a SAC in May 2000. It is a lowland clay river

which rises 130m above sea level in the Coal Measures of north-west

Leicestershire and flows approximately 25km westwards through a largely rural and

agricultural landscape to its confluence with the River Trent at Croxall.

The head of the river includes the lower reaches of the Gilwiskaw Brook which

passes through the proposed development site. This section of the SAC has a

relatively steep gradient across bands of interbedded mudstones and sandstones

and is fast-flowing with sparse aquatic vegetation, of particular value to bullhead

Cottus gobio, one of the features for which the River Mease SAC is designated.

The River Mease SAC is also designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI) of national importance for its significant populations of spined loach Cobitis

taenia and bullhead. Whilst it is the features of European importance for which the

River Mease SAC is designated which are required to be considered in this

assessment, the conservation objectives for the SAC and the SSSI are identical;

therefore the assessment in fact identifies and addresses potential impacts

associated with both the SAC and the SSSI.

The qualifying features of the River Mease SAC are listed below:

Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature but not a primary reason for selection.

• Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and

Callitricho-Bratrachion vegetation (hereafter referred to as 'water crowfoot

habitat').

Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site.

• Spined loach

• Bullhead

Annex II species present as a qualifying feature but not a primary reason for selection.

• White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes

• Otter Lutra lutra

Conservation Objectives

Conservation objectives for the River Mease SAC/SSSI have been prepared by

Natural England in consultation with the Environment Agency. These were signed

off on 15th December 2008. The conservation objectives are intended, subject to

natural change, to maintain the site and features for which it is designated in

favourable condition, or restore to favourable condition if features are judged to be

unfavourable.

For the purposes of this appropriate assessment, an analysis of the conservation

objectives for each feature and site specific attributes or targets against which

favourable status is assessed is provided in Table 1. This analysis is intended to

highlight those attributes upon which the integrity of the River Mease SAC depends.

A copy of the full conservation objectives and targets for favourable conservation

status is appended at Appendix 3. A copy of the River Mease SSSI and SAC

citations and reasons for designation (NE, 2000; JNCC, 2006) are included at

Appendix 4.

Table 1. Summary of Designated Features, Conservation Objectives & Attributes for Favourable Status and Upon which the Integrity of the River Mease SAC depends.

Feature Key Objectives Site Specific Attributes upon which the

Integrity of the River Mease SAC depends

Habitat Extent Objectives

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Bratrachion vegetation

Extent - estimated extent of habitat is 22.87ha

Siltation Channel form Reproduction of aquatic macrophytes Cover of species indicating eutrophication Presence of non-native species Presence of artificial barriers Plant species composition Water quality (Biological and Chemical GQA) Un-ionised ammonia Suspended solids Orthophosphate levels Bank and riparian zone vegetation Water flow

Species Population Objectives

Spined loach Population Age Structure

Siltation Channel form Presence of artificial barriers Stocking of fish Water quality (Biological and Chemical GQA) Un-ionised ammonia Suspended solids Orthophosphate levels Water flow

Bullhead Population Adult population density Reproduction & age structure Distribution

Siltation Channel form Presence of artificial barriers Stocking of fish Water quality (Biological and Chemical GQA) Un-ionised ammonia Suspended solids Orthophosphate levels River morphology

Table 1. Summary of Designated Features, Conservation Objectives & Attributes for Favourable Status and Upon which the Integrity of the River Mease SAC depends.

Feature Key Objectives Site Specific Attributes upon which the

Integrity of the River Mease SAC depends

Presence of non-native crayfish Water flow

White-clawed crayfish Population density Health

Presence of artificial barriers Water quality (Biological and Chemical GQA) Orthophosphate levels River morphology Presence of non-native crayfish Water flow

Otter Present Population maintained or increasing

Food availability (fish stocks) Pollutant levels (toxic chemicals) Anthropogenic mortality Disturbance Bankside cover


Current Status of River Mease SAC

The River Mease SAC is currently listed on the Natural England website as being in

‘unfavourable – no change’ condition based on an assessment completed on 1st

August 2010. The key reasons for failing to meet favourable status can be inferred

from this data as being drainage, inappropriate weirs and dams, siltation, water

abstraction and water pollution – agriculture/run-off and discharge. The SSSI

condition summary is provided in Box 3.

Distribution and Status of Designated Features in Relation to Development Site

UK Coal Mining Ltd. (the applicant) undertook a suite of baseline ecological surveys

of the Gilwiskaw Brook during 2006 and 2008. These surveys comprised River

Corridor Survey (RCS), otter and water vole survey, white-clawed crayfish survey

and freshwater invertebrate survey. An electro-fishing survey to assess the

population status of bullhead and spined loach was carried out in September 2009.

In addition, the applicant consulted with the Leicestershire Environmental Record

Centre (LERC) to obtain records for protected species within a 2km search radius of

the development.

The results of the various surveys and desk study concluded that the only feature,

for which the River Mease SAC is designated, present within the development site

is bullhead, found to be present in a healthy, balanced population. Spined loach

Box 3. River Mease SSSI Condition summary (Source: www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk)

% Area meeting PSA target

% Area favourable

% Area unfavourable recovering

% Area unfavourable no change

% Area unfavourable declining

% Area destroyed /

part destroyed

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%


was found not to be present during electro-fishing survey in 2009 (Wardell

Armstrong LLP, Electro-fishing Survey Report, 2009).

The site was found to be generally not suitable to support white-clawed crayfish,

and although occasional piles of boulders and debris afforded some opportunities

for crayfish to take refuge, no crayfish were found (Aquatic Environments, 2008).

No evidence of otter was recorded in the 2008 survey. The recent National Otter

Survey Report published by the Environment Agency (2010) specifically refers to

the River Mease SAC commenting that ‘Otters are present on the lower Mease but

re-colonisation of the Mease upstream has been very slow despite otter presence

for some years on the Rivers Trent, Anker and Sence (C. Farmer, pers. comm., A.

Crawford, pers. obs.). This may reflect the rather low biomass of fish on the Mease

or a low level of otter population in the surrounding area’. On the basis of available

information, it is concluded that otters are unlikely to be present on the Gilwiskaw

Brook at the time of writing.

With regard to the presence of designated features downstream of the site (and

which could therefore potentially be affected by changes in water quality and flow)

this report refers to the SSSI citation prepared by Natural England (included at

Appendix 4).

The SSSI citation suggests that bullhead occurs in both the Gilwiskaw Brook and

the lower reaches of the River Mease, whilst spined loach is associated with the

middle reaches of the Mease below Snarestone, approximately 1km downstream of

the site. Water crowfoot habitat is also associated with the slower moving middle

reaches of the River Mease.

The citation does not provide any clarity on the distribution of white-clawed crayfish

or otter on the River Mease. Whilst white-clawed crayfish have very particular

habitat requirements and the applicant’s baseline survey reports conclude that the

Gilwiskaw Brook at the Minorca location does not support suitable habitat for either

species, it is possible that otter, a highly mobile species with a very large home

range extending over several kilometres, could feasibly occur within the site during

the operational and restoration phases of development.

Thus it is concluded that of the features for which the River Mease SAC is

designated, there exists potential for direct, on-site effects in regard to bullhead and

indirect, downstream effects on water crowfoot habitat, spined loach and white-

clawed crayfish and otter potentially within 1-2km downstream of the site to

Snarestone. Below Snarestone other major tributaries join the River Mease SAC


and it is likely that the dilution effect of this additional flow would moderate any

changes in water quality or flow arising from the Gilwiskaw Brook.

It is important to note that whilst some areas of a European site may be included for

one interest feature and not another, it is also the case that absence of a particular

interest feature may be due to habitat degradation or other influences such as

existing disturbance. If habitat within a European site is reasonably capable of

functioning as suitable habitat to support an interest feature, albeit with appropriate

measures in place to restore that habitat, any Habitats Regulations Assessment

must take into account that potential, and assess impacts on that potential

accordingly.


SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

The proposed Minorca surface mine development comprises the excavation of an

estimated 1.25 million tonnes of coal and 250,000 tonnes of fireclay over a four and

a half year period. It is expected that there would be a 12 week period for

preparatory works, 155 weeks for mineral extraction and a period of 39 weeks for

site restoration.

During the operational phase of development the proposed method of working as

set out in the Planning Supporting Statement (2009) will comprise, in approximate

order of phasing:

- Preparatory works, including construction of the site compound, fencing etc;

- Upgrading of the existing agricultural bridge over Gilwiskaw Brook to carry

overburden to the eastern side of the Brook for stockpiling. This would comprise

construction of new bridge abutments set back behind the existing abutments

fitted with a new deck. The deck of the existing bridge is to be removed as part

of the proposals as it currently lies within the 1:100 year floodplain (this is at the

request of the Environment Agency). The new bridge deck would be set 600mm

above the 100yr + 20% for climate change flood level. Approximately 2.5m of

existing vegetation will need to be cleared on either side of the existing bridge to

allow for the new bridge construction. There will be no disturbance to the

existing channel. De-commissioning would involve removal of one-half of the

new deck only, leaving a single deck of the same width as the existing bridge.

- Construction of a series of Water Treatment Areas and settlement ponds in

which surface and ground water will be settled, stored and treated if required

prior to discharge to the Gilwiskaw Brook or to a tributary located to the east of

the Brook;

- Creation of top soil, sub soil and overburden mounds; and

- Phased extraction of minerals in a broadly north west to south east direction and

is limited to the west of the Gilwiskaw Brook.

An undeveloped buffer zone of a minimum 10m would be retained either side of the

centre line of the Gilwiskaw Brook during the operational phase of development with

the exception of access to the proposed new bridge and the new discharge points.


During the restoration phase of development, the following activities will take place,

again in approximate order of phasing:

- Backfilling and progressive restoration of the quarry void, working in a broadly

northerly direction;

- Habitat creation and restoration including creation of wet woodland, de-

culverting of a tributary of the Gilwiskaw Brook and re-meandering of the

Gilwiskaw Brook2;

- Creation of an on-line reserve, new water bodies and a winter water storage

lake for use by the Ashby Canal.

In response to further concerns raised by Natural England regarding the potential

impact of the winter storage lake on flows in the Gilwiskaw Brook, additional

modelling work to investigate the effect of the lake on ground and surface water

hydrology and interaction with the Gilwiskaw Brook has been undertaken (Wardell

Armstrong LLP, November 2010). The information has been passed to Natural

England for comment on 10th November 2010.

2 The re-meandering of Gilwiskaw Brook could be undertaken during the operational phase

of development in agreement with LCC, Natural England and the Environment Agency


Assessment

Approach to the Assessment

The assessment has been undertaken in the form of a matrix presented in

Appendix 5 which considers in turn each of the activities associated with the

proposed development during the operational and restoration phases, qualifying

features that could be affected by each activity (i.e. where a mechanism exists for a

feature to be affected) and an assessment of whether or not each activity is likely to

have a significant effect upon the integrity of the River Mease SAC.

The assessment has been undertaken with mitigation measures taken into account.

As a result of consideration of ecological issues from the early stages of scheme

design, it is considered that the applicant has been able to ‘design in’ a

comprehensive package of mitigation measures to try and ensure that the integrity

of the River Mease SAC will not be affected adversely.

In addition, the appropriate assessment explores and addresses in detail the

comments raised by Natural England in their formal consultation response

(Appendix 1) to ensure that each issue has been thoroughly investigated, potential

impacts are documented and robust mitigation measures to avoid any adverse

impact on the integrity of the River Mease SAC are in place and are capable of

being delivered.

To inform and support the appropriate assessment, the Water Management Plan

and Appendices submitted by the applicant (July 2010) and recent modelling work

to investigate the effect of the winter storage lake on flows in the Gilwiskaw Brook

have been reviewed in detail.

The formal consultation response from the Environment Agency (letter dated 3rd

September 2010, attached at Appendix 6), which sets out a number of suggested

planning conditions in relation to water quality, drainage proposals and other

relevant matters, has also been reviewed.

The appropriate assessment includes a review of the predicted water quality and

flow in the Gilwiskaw Brook during the operational phase of development against

the Conservation Objectives for qualifying features to confirm that the Conservation

Objectives are met (or where this is not possible, in the case of the Objective of

0.06mg/l for phosphates, reasons are given) to ensure that there will be no

significant change against Site Specific Targets.


The key issues arising from the assessment are summarised below against each of

the points raised by Natural England as being particularly pertinent to the

appropriate assessment.

River Mease SAC – Water Quality and Flow

Natural England comments that the River Mease SAC receives both surface and

ground water from the land either side of the Gilwiskaw Brook; that the proposal will

modify both surface and ground water inputs with the potential to affect the flow in

the brook as a result and that the development proposal includes measures to

ensure that surface and ground water is discharged back into the brook.

Additionally, Natural England comments that as the surface mining is likely to

encounter rising mine water from the north west, there is likely to be a net increase

in water being discharged to the brook, that the rising mine water is of a poorer

quality than non-mined ground water and that the modelling suggests a higher level

of chlorine and a range of metal contaminants such as iron, nickel and boron.

Natural England therefore advises that LCC must consider the impact of rising mine

water being discharged into the brook in terms of increased concentrations of

chemical pollutants and increased flow.

Natural England confirms that this issue has been discussed with the applicant and

their agents, Wardell Armstrong LLP. It is observed that the increased discharge to

the brook under normal flow conditions appears to be an increase of 2.5l/s with the

strict control of poor quality and surface water being discharged to enable adequate

dilution of poor quality water. Natural England requires LCC to demonstrate that the

increase in flow and controlled mixing of good and poor quality water adequately

mitigates for any potential effect upon the SAC.

In order to demonstrate that the effects of rising mine water have been fully

considered and that any increase in flow and controlled mixing of water is adequate,

it is necessary to refer to the Water Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the

‘WMP’) prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP on behalf of the applicant (July 2010).

A copy of the WMP is attached as Appendix 7.

Section 2 of the WMP describes the modelling which has been undertaken to

predict the likely increase in salinity levels of rising mine water entering the

excavation void from the northwest. A ‘Saline Groundwater Model’ was developed

by Wardell Armstrong LLP which predicts a slight increase in salinity levels,

measured in terms of chloride concentration from a ‘typical’ ground water

concentration of below 70mg/l (section 2.3.1, page 7 of WMP) to a peak of around


90mg/l (section 2.3.2, page 9 of WMP) after approximately two years of mining

operations. The peak concentration is noted as being approximately equivalent to

current chloride concentrations in the Gilwiskaw Brook of 87mg/l (see Table 4.1,

page 17 of WMP). It should be further noted that this is a conservative estimate and

is based on all rising mine water being forced in a northwest to southeast direction

towards the void.

It is therefore concluded that through modelling work, the potential effect of rising

mine water has been considered.

Prior to the discharge of rising mine water (which would enter the void as

groundwater seepage from the northwest) this ‘non-compliant’ water (i.e. water

requiring treatment prior to discharge) will be pumped to Water Treatment Areas,

stored and treated. The quality of treated water, and of ‘compliant’ water i.e. that

arising from surface run-off from vegetation/unworked parts of the site and inert

stockpiles and not requiring treatment other than settling to remove suspended

solids, will be monitored prior to discharge into the brook and will be required to

meet Environmental Assessment Limits (EALs) (see Section 5.1, page 18 of WMP).

No untreated ‘non-compliant’ water will enter the Gilwiskaw Brook. This includes

both rising mine water and other potentially ‘non-compliant’ water arising from

overburden mounds.

A system to keep ‘compliant’ and ‘non-compliant’ water separate prior to discharge

is proposed. Compliant water would be stored and settled to reduce suspended

sediment levels in a series of ‘Settlement Ponds (SPs)’. Non-compliant water would

be directed to Water Treatment Areas (WTAs), completely separate from the

Settlement Ponds, for treatment prior to discharge.

Discharge rates from both SPs and WTA would be controlled in line with flow in the

Gilwiskaw Brook. The WMP (Section 5.2, page 19) clarifies how flow rates would be

managed to reflect low and normal flow conditions to avoid the discharged water

making up too large a proportion of the flow.

During extremely low flow conditions when it is possible that more ‘non-compliant’

water may be captured and treated than can be discharged, excess water would be

stored on site or used for dust suppression.

It is concluded that a suitable mechanism has been proposed to keep ‘compliant’

and ‘non-compliant’ water separate and that the flow to the brook will be carefully

controlled to avoid impacts on water quality and flow.


Natural England comments that LCC should have regard to the water quality

requirements of the conservation objectives of the SAC and the ecological

requirements of qualifying features and that LCC should ensure that discharge

quality is such that it will not adversely affect the SAC. In particular, LCC should

have regard to the potential effects of chemical pollutants on the SAC features of

interest.

The water quality discharge assessment undertaken by Wardell Armstrong LLP and

reported in detail in Appendix 2 of the WMP predicts that there will be slight

increase in the concentrations of ammonium, boron, chromium, nickel, iron and

sulphate in the Gilwiskaw Brook following discharge of treated water, compared

with baseline conditions in the brook.

To investigate the potential effects of slight increases in these parameters, an

Ecological Assessment of Ground and Discharge Quality Modelling was undertaken

by Wardell Armstrong LLP on behalf of the applicant (July, 2010). This reviewed the

sensitivity of bullhead (the only qualifying feature identified as being present within

this section of the Gilwiskaw Brook) to the six parameters which are predicted to

increase.

It was concluded that the concentrations of these parameters will remain close to

the current stream average and that given that the Brook already supports a healthy

population of bullhead and a moderately diverse invertebrate fauna, it is considered

unlikely that the predicted concentrations would result in acute or chronic toxicity

effects (see para 5.22, page 18 of report). It is also worth noting that the predictions

are worse case estimates and whilst potential increases in concentrations are

identified, they are time limited by the project.

Table 2 below compares the predicted water quality of the Gilwiskaw Brook (with

discharge taken into account) with the Conservation Objectives for the River Mease

SAC. With the exception of phosphate levels which are already significantly

exceeded in the River Mease and which are predicted to decrease slightly as a

result of the proposed development, it is considered that none of the Site Specific

Targets will be exceeded. There are no specific objectives for iron, sulphate, boron,

chromium and nickel but these have been grouped together under the Conservation

Objective for ‘Toxic Chemicals’ in the table below.


Table 2. Summary of Conservation Objectives, Targets and Predicted Levels of Water Quality and Flow

Relevant Objectives

Site Specific Target Current & Predicted Levels

Site Specific Target Exceeded?

Biological GQA Class A/B for all reaches of the river

A/B – based on results of aquatic invertebrate survey

No

Chemical GQA Class A/B for all reaches of the river

A/B – based on water quality monitoring by the Environment Agency 2003 – 2005 (Environmental Statement, 2009)

No

Un-ionised ammonia

<0.021mg/l as a 95-percentile

Approximately 0.013mg/l (based on a predicted concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen of 0.2mg/l)

No

Suspended solids

No unnaturally high loads; <25mg/l annually for spined loach and bullhead

Not known No – discharge rate to be controlled by licensed consent granted by the Environment Agency

Orthophosphate levels

<0.06mg/l as an annual mean

No significant change from existing levels of 4-5mg/l (a slight reduction is predicted)

Yes – However, the development will not worsen phosphate concentrations in the River Mease, in fact a slight reduction in phosphate inputs is predicted (0.4mg/l)

Toxic chemicals No increase in pollutants potentially toxic to otters

Very slight increase above current stream average for iron, sulphate, boron, chromium and nickel but none exceeding published Water Quality Standards

No

Water flow To be characteristic of the river; maximum acceptable % deviations from daily naturalised flows throughout the river of: <Qn50: -20% Qn50-95: 15% >Qn95: 10-15%

Current flow regime to be maintained by pumping water into Brook at suggested/agreed flow rates

No

It is concluded that the potential effects of chemical pollutants upon the SAC

features of interest have been considered and that the predicted slight increase in


some potentially toxic parameters in the Gilwiskaw Brook would not result in a

failure to meet the Conservation Objectives for the SAC (with the exception of

phosphates as noted in Table 2).

Natural England comments that the proposals set out a scheme for managing

surface water and water pumped from the void via a series of drainage channels

and settling ponds. The function of this system is to ensure that suspended solids

are removed to acceptable levels. Natural England then comments that LCC should

ensure that the SAC is not adversely affected by water quality, the need for further

treatment should be explored and queries whether the proposed system is

adequate, or if further treatment measures are required.

In addressing this comment, it should be noted that the proposed water

management system is also intended to treat ‘non-compliant’ water with flocculent

as well as remove suspended solids. There are two completely separate systems

proposed for treating ‘compliant’ and ‘non-compliant’ water.

It is anticipated that the only treatment required for ‘non-compliant’ water will be use

of flocculent and dilution with compliant water. This is based on an estimate of

discharge quality (see Section 3.2.2, page 14 of WMP). The Contingency Plan

(Appendix 5 of WMP) identifies solutions for treatment of unexpectedly high salinity

levels and acid mine drainage including reverse osmosis and pH adjustment. Based

on the information available this is considered unlikely, but the option is available if

required and would ensure protection of the Gilwiskaw Brook.


It is considered that the proposed measures for water management are adequate

and that no further consideration of other treatment measures is required.

Natural England notes that the Environment Agency proposes a condition to require

further detailed plans for water management, water monitoring and discharge

procedures and that, provided LCC is able to demonstrate that the principles of the

overview of the water management are adequate to safeguard the SAC, then

Natural England would support the condition. Furthermore, Natural England

requests that such a condition should require the details to demonstrate that the

SAC will be adequately protected as a result of the detailed water management and

monitoring measures submitted. It is considered that such a condition could be

imposed and it is considered that further details of proposed water management

and monitoring could be obtained from the applicant in due course to discharge

such a condition.

In terms of whether the principles of water management are adequate to safeguard

the SAC, it is necessary to refer to the WMP which sets out a detailed strategy for

water management and monitoring, including Contingency Plans for unexpected

events. The underlying objectives of the WMP are to safeguard the water quality

and flow of the Gilwiskaw Brook (and its tributary) by mitigating against potentially

adverse effects on ground and surface water hydrology during the operational stage

of development, and during restoration to restore hydrological conditions to their

pre-development state and to improve water quality entering the Brook.

Provided that the proposed water management strategy is adhered to, it is

concluded that there would be no adverse impact on the integrity of the River

Mease SAC. The delivery of the WMP can be secured through planning conditions

and therefore there exists an appropriate mechanism to ensure the effective

implementation of the WMP.

Where the applicant has concluded that the impact on the brook is small scale,

negligible or insignificant, Natural England advises that LCC must consider ‘in-

combination effects’. This has been addressed in Section 5 of this appropriate

assessment report and it is concluded that there are unlikely to be any adverse ‘in-

combination’ effects arising upon the River Mease SAC, and the Minorca site

following restoration, the development is likely to contribute to long term

improvements in the water quality of the SAC through habitat creation and reduction

of phosphate inputs.


Natural England notes that the proposed restoration plan includes a large lake to be

used to store flood water for the proposed Ashby Canal extension. To address the

concerns raised by Natural England in their letter dated 8th October 2010, the

applicant has modelled the likely effects on ground and surface water flow entering

the Gilwiskaw Brook. A copy of the report setting out the results of modelling of the

potential effects on flow in the Gilwiskaw Brook is provided to accompany this report

(Water Balance for Ashby Canal Compensation Flow Lagoon, November 2010).

The report concludes that during normal flow conditions there would be a very slight

decrease in percentage flow in the brook of 0.3% and during low flow conditions of

0.6% (i.e. less than 1% of flow at any time).

Given that the only qualifying feature that could potentially be affected by such a

slight reduction in flow is bullhead (the effects of any reduced flow are unlikely to be

felt below Snarestone where other qualifying features occur) it is considered

unlikely that a <1% reduction in flow, even during low flow conditions, would be

significant. Although bullhead is reported to be likely to experience adverse effects

under low flow conditions3, a potential 0.6% reduction of current low flow rates of

approximately 72l/s would result in a flow of 71.5l/s which would equate to a

reduction in depth of approximately 0.5mm which is considered unlikely to be

perceptible with regard to bullhead. This conclusion is based on the Life in UK

Rivers report.

This assessment concludes that the existence of the lake will result in only a very

small reduction in flow in Gilwiskaw Brook. It is considered that it is unlikely to have

a significant effect on the Gilwiskaw Brook or the wider River Mease SAC. The

assessment of the impact of flow in the Gilwiskaw Brook was calculated carefully

and the Environment Agency was consulted on that report. The impact of flow in

the Gilwiskaw Brook was a matter that the Agency had specifically raised in

previous consultation responses. The assessments prepared by Wardell Armstrong

indicated that there could be benefits to the operation of the water course in terms

of the flood storage capacity offered by the water storage lake, and that this would

not have an adverse impact on the Gilwiskaw Brook.

The response from the EA dated 3rd September 2010 indicated that there would be

a need to agree details of the off line storage, and specifically the way this would

operate in terms of levels, but that this can be dealt with by condition. They were

satisfied however in terms of the principle of the use of the lake and the location.

Subject to operational and regulatory controls, the Environment Agency believes

3 Life in UK Rivers, Ecology of the Bullhead Cottus gobio, 2000)


that the risks to water quality and water resources can be adequately managed. On

that basis the proposals are acceptable and it is reasonable to conclude that the

impact of the proposed development on the Gilwiskaw Brook will not be significant,

and indeed that there are likely to be some beneficial impacts in terms of the

creation of the fish refuge, naturalisation of the channel and in reduction in flood

flows. However it is also appropriate to consider in combination effects.

River Mease SAC – Monitoring

Natural England has stated that it welcomes the Environment Agency’s suggestion

that a detailed water monitoring plan should be submitted prior to commencement

of operations. As part of LCC’s appropriate assessment, Natural England comment

that the adequacy of information submitted regarding proposed monitoring must be

assessed and importantly a robust system of early warning must be in place.

In order to address this issue it is necessary to refer to Appendix 4 and Appendix 5

of the WMP which, respectively, identify a suite of proposed monitoring of surface,

ground and discharge (treated) water quality and flow and a Contingency Plan

which sets out detailed measures to address five potential ‘unexpected’ scenarios

including a system of early warning which would trigger a shut down of pumped

treated water into the Gilwiskaw Brook.

The WMP confirms that as operations begin and monitoring data is obtained, this

data will be used to verify that the assessment of potential changes to ground and

surface water quality and flow is correct. Any significant deviation of the real

observed values from the predicted values will be explained and possible

modifications to the project may take place. The need for modifications will be

triggered at a level below which adverse effects on water quality could occur. This

feedback loop will provide the necessary certainty that the water management

strategy is operating as predicted, and is able to respond effectively to unexpected

impacts or events.

Whilst the general principles for monitoring are provided in the WMP, further

information is necessary to meet the required level of confidence (i.e. to give

certainty that a robust, timely and implementable monitoring and contingency plan

is in place). This level of detail will be presented in a detailed Water Monitoring Plan

required as a pre-commencement condition.

River Mease SAC – River Crossing


Natural England raised a number of comments regarding the proposed new bridge

crossing that have been taken into account in the proposed design, operation and

de-commissioning of the bridge.

The removal of the existing bridge will have positive benefits in terms of the

operation of the stream, as the bridge deck currently lies within the flood zone and

impedes flood flows. The removal therefore represents a positive impact of the

overall proposals. The increase in width of the proposed operational bridge deck

and potential increase in shading will be off-set by a specific Gilwiskaw Brook

corridor enhancement plan, secured by a pre-commencement condition /

agreement, and which may include matters such as the removal of existing foliage

in the vicinity of the temporary bridge deck. When operations cease, the deck width

will be reduced down to the existing width. The timing and methods for reducing

bridge width will be the subject of a planning condition. Skirts are proposed on

either side of the bridge to contain any mud or other materials and will be managed

/ maintained as required, in line with the phasing of site operations and a working

scheme required as part of a pre-commencement condition.

The Environment Agency has suggested a Condition which requires that the bridge

abutments be set outside the 100 year floodplain and that the soffit is set no lower

than 86.071m above Ordnance Datum. It is therefore concluded that the bridge

widening is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the integrity of the River Mease

SAC, and that a suitable regulatory mechanism exists to deliver the agreed bridge

design.

It is concluded by this assessment that the bridge widening would not have a

detrimental impact on the qualifying features of the River Mease SAC.

In-combination Effects

Article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive requires the effects of plans and projects

to be considered individually and in combination with other plans or projects.

In undertaking this assessment a number of projects and initiatives which have

the potential to result in ‘in-combination’ effects have been identified. Wider

trends and pressures affecting the River Mease SAC are also considered.

It is considered that water quality and failure to meet the Conservation

Objective target of 0.06mg/l for phosphates is the key issue for the River Mease

SAC. The proposals do not increase the phosphate loading of the River Mease

SAC. In fact a slight reduction in phosphate levels is predicted due to taking the

land adjacent to the Gilwiskaw Brook out of agricultural production during the


operational phase of development and restoration of the development site to

incorporate buffer zones to diffuse agricultural pollution.

Other initiatives and projects which have been considered in terms of potential

‘in-combination’ effects are listed below:

o Preparation of the Local Development Framework for North West

Leicestershire District Council. The Environment Agency and others

have raised objections to the allocation of land for development due to

potential impacts on the River Mease SAC. A River Mease Working

Party was appointed by the Environment Scrutiny Committee to

investigate the water quality issues and explore possible solutions

(Environment Scrutiny Committee, 2010). As a result, there is currently a

blanket ban on all new housing developments until these issues can be

resolved.

o Possible improvements to Packington WWTW, one of the outcomes of

the above, is that Severn Trent Water is exploring possible means to

alleviate water quality problems arising from the Packington WWTW. It is

thought that Natural England may appoint a Project Officer to co-ordinate

land use planning, land management and water quality issues.

o Proposed Housing Development at Measham – a private housing

development of 500 new dwellings at Measham is proposed by Ideal

Country Homes plc. In conjunction with this development, the developer

has offered to deliver a passive wetland solution for the improvement of

water quality.

o Permitted restoration of the Ashby Canal to the south of the application

site and winter water storage lake permitted to the south west of the site.

It is also worth noting that there are diffuse inputs (e.g. agriculture) which are

affecting the current environmental condition of the River Mease, but are

generally not ‘plans or projects’ that can be included in an in-combination

assessment. Natural England is currently using agri- environment schemes in

an attempt to reduce levels of diffuse pollution from agricultural operations


It is considered that the common element of potential in-combination effects

would be water quality in terms of both phosphate input and chemical pollutants

and water flow.

The level of increase of chemical pollutants arising from the proposed

development on its own is considered slight. There are no other developments

proposed within the Gilwiskaw Brook catchment which might increase levels of

chemical pollutants and contribute to an in-combination effect.

With the proposed water management and monitoring proposals in place, it is predicted that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC with regard to water quality. Therefore, it is considered that there is no potential for adverse in-combination effects to occur.

The proposed development would, however, result in a positive in-combination

effect, acting with the various initiatives listed above to reduce phosphate inputs

to the River Mease SAC. During the operational phase of development, the

predicted reduction in phosphate concentrations in the Gilwiskaw Brook is in

the order of 0.4mg/l from 4.6mg/l to 4.2mg/l (Table 4.1, page 17 of the WMP).

Following restoration of the site it is likely that phosphate inputs would be

further reduced due to the proposed buffer zones and habitat creation adjacent

to Gilwiskaw Brook and its tributary. This will include wet meadow, wetlands

and reedbed to ‘polish’ surface run-off and ground water seepage before it

enters the brook. It is therefore concluded that there would be no in-

combination affect with regard to phosphate inputs.

With regard to potential in-combination effects on water flow, the proposed

development will result in a slight decrease in flow associated with the Ashby

Canal Compensation Flow Lagoon. The effects on flow are insignificant when

considered alone. There are no other developments proposed in the Gilwiskaw

Brook catchment which could affect flow; therefore it is concluded that there is

no in-combination effect with regard to water flow in the Gilwiskaw Brook.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposed lake, fed from the Gilwiskaw Brook

during periods of high flow, will remove the need for the pumping of

groundwater to feed the alternative permitted lake to serve the canal. This will

remove any potential for long term pumping to have an adverse impact on low

water flows in the Gilwiskaw Brook, general groundwater flows or quality.

There are no other mining developments at present and the Measham

Brickworks site is the only mineral project identified that is considered to have


potential for adverse impacts on the River Mease. The ES for the Measham

Brickworks, at Section 8, concludes that taking into account the mitigation

works put forward, there is no potential for impairment of the surface or

groundwater quality from this development. It is considered therefore that it is

highly unlikely for there to be any in-combination effects between committed

and proposed developments.


CONCLUSIONS

Assessment Statement

In conclusion, it is considered that the potential effects on the qualifying

features of the River Mease SAC have been explored and documented in detail

with respect to its Conservation Objectives and Site Specific Targets for

qualifying features.

The specific points requested by Natural England to be addressed in the

appropriate assessment have also been considered and documented.

The overall conclusion of the appropriate assessment is that the integrity of the

River Mease SAC will not be adversely affected by the proposed development,

either in its own right or acting in-combination with other plans and project.

Furthermore, during site operation, phosphate inputs to the Gilwiskaw Brook

will experience a slight reduction and following restoration of the site it is likely

that phosphate inputs would be further reduced due to the proposed buffer

zones and habitat creation adjacent to Gilwiskaw Brook and its tributary, with

beneficial effects for the Conservation Objectives of the River Mease SAC.

In addition, the proposed development will incorporate a number of measures

to improve the habitat quality of the River Mease SAC which is currently in

unfavourable condition. This will comprise the creation of wide, uncultivated

buffer zones and wetlands adjacent to the Gilwiskaw Brook and tributary and

re-meandering of the Gilwiskaw Brook. The inclusion of buffer zones will act to

buffer nutrient (particularly phosphate) and sediment inputs from adjacent

agricultural land. Re-meandering of the Gilwiskaw Brook aims to restore the

stream to its ‘natural’ state and will benefit bullhead in particular through

changes to channel dynamics. This will be undertaken by creating log and

woody debris dams in the channel to re-create meanders. The tributary will be

de-culverted to restore a natural channel and meanders will be created as in

the Gilwiskaw Brook. Habitat enhancements will be agreed with Natural

England and the Environment Agency with the aim of achieving maximum

benefit for the River Mease SAC.

Notwithstanding the view in Paragraph 6.1.3, this report documents the

appropriate assessment process, the information which has been reviewed to

inform this conclusion and copies of supporting evidence.


REFERENCES

Aquatic Environments (2008) Minorca Crayfish Survey, Measham, Leicestershire. Unpublished report to UK Coal Mining Ltd. European Commission (2001) Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Natural England (1997) Habitat Regulations Guidance Note HRGN 1 – The Appropriate Assessment (Regulation 48).

Leicestershire County Council (2008) Habitat Regulations Assessment of the Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework and the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Core Strategies. Scott Wilson, Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, Treweek Environmental Consultants and Land Use Consultants (2006) Appropriate Assessment of Plans. Report prepared to assist English authorities on the application of appropriate assessment to plans.

North West Leicestershire District Council (2010) River Mease, the Impact on Development. An Environment Scrutiny Committee Report.

Environment Agency (2010). Fifth otter survey of England 2009 – 2010: Technical report. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Tomlinson, M.L. and Perrow, M.R. (2003) Ecology of the Bullhead Cottus gobio Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 4.


APPENDIX 3A

CONSULTEE RESPONSE FROM NATURAL ENGLAND DATED 8th

OCTOBER 2010.


Date: 8th October 2010 Our ref: Your ref: 2009/C088/07 - Addendum Mr Peter Bond Endcliffe Leicestershire County Council Deepdale Business Park Mineral & Waste Planning Ashford Road Leicester Road Bakewell Glenfield Derbyshire Leicester DE45 1GT LE3 8TE T: 0300 060 2343 F: 0300 0602204 Dear Mr Bond EXTRACTION OF COAL AND FIRECLAY BY SURFACE MINE METHODS AND RESTORATION TO AGRICULTURE, WOODLAND AND NATURE CONSERVATION LAND TO THE EAST OF GALLOWS LANE BETWEEN MEASHAM AND SWEPSTONE AND KNOWN AS THE 'MINORCA' SITE. ADDENDUM Thank you for consulting Natural England on the recently submitted ‘Addendum’ for the above planning application currently lodged with the County Council. Natural England has previously commented on this application prior to the submission of the addendum, in our letter dated 8th September 2009, from my colleague Anna Collins. It is understood that the addendum submitted to the County Council seeks to fulfil requests for further information from all consultees, including Natural England, and it is noted that the Addendum has alleviated a number of concerns originally raised. Natural England welcomes the opportunity to comment on the addendum, and comments below are made in relation to Natural England’s remit. Natural England is working to deliver the following four strategic outcomes:

• A healthy natural environment: England’s natural environment will be conserved and enhanced.

• Enjoyment of the natural environment: more people enjoying, understanding and acting to improve, the natural environment, more often.

• Sustainable use of the natural environment: the use and management of the natural environment is more sustainable.

• A secure environmental future: decisions which collectively secure the future of the natural environment.


Natural England’s particular concern with the application site is the presence of the Gilwiskaw Brook within the development site. This brook forms part of the River Mease SAC, and the designated site boundary therefore runs through the middle of the application site. Natural England has therefore raised concerns that the development proposal is likely to have a significant effect upon the SAC. Natural England’s further interest in the proposal relate to its potential impacts upon, and potential opportunities for wider nature conservation interest, including protected species, biodiversity action plan habitats and species, habitat creation and restoration, landscape impacts and enhancement opportunities and the protection of high quality soils. Natural England has recently met with Anton Fix from UK Coal, and Mike Doyle from Wardell Armstrong, in order to discuss a number of issues and concerns relating to the proposal and impacts upon the SAC. As a result of this meeting, Natural England has been able to resolve a number of queries that would otherwise have been included in this letter, and the meeting was therefore very helpful to Natural England. In addition to this, Natural England has read the most recent consultation response to the County Council from the Environment Agency (letter from Mr Nick Wakefield, dated 3rd September 2010). Natural England supports much of that proposed by the Environment Agency in terms of suggested conditions. Habitats Regulations Assessment In accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations 2010), the County Council, as a competent authority defined by Regulation 7 of the Regulations, must make an appropriate assessment of the implications of any development project likely to have a significant effect upon a European wildlife site, as required by Regulation 61 of the Regulations. As Natural England has advised that the proposal for surface mining at the ‘Minorca’ site is likely to have a significant effect upon the River Mease SAC, Natural England advises that the county Council is required to make an appropriate Assessment of the development proposal, assessing the implications of the proposal for the SAC, its interest feature and conservation objectives. Natural England further advises that, in accordance with Regulation 61(3) of the Habitats Regulations, the County Council must consult Natural England on the Appropriate Assessment, and have regard to any representations made, prior to proceeding to grant planning permission. Natural England would therefore welcome an indication of when consultation on the Appropriate Assessment may take place. Natural England would be happy to assist with informal comments on any draft of the Appropriate Assessment, prior to its final publication.


The information, comments and advice within this letter is provided to assist the County Council with the preparation of the Appropriate Assessment and the application of appropriate mitigation measures where required. Points that are particularly pertinent to the Appropriate Assessment are highlighted in bold. River Mease SAC – Water Quality and Flow The Gilwiskaw Brook, which forms part of the River Mease SAC, runs through the proposed development site. Surface coal extraction is proposed to take place on the north western side of the brook, with transportation of materials over the brook, to storage areas on the south eastern side of the brook and then returned during restoration. A tributary of the brook is also found within the site on this south eastern side. Water storage, drainage channels and settlement ponds are to be located on both sides of the brook. The River Mease SAC receives both surface and ground water from the land either side of the Gilwiskaw brook and within the development site. The proposal will modify both surface and ground water inputs, and has the potential to affect the flow within the brook as a result. The development proposal includes measures to ensure that surface and ground water is discharged back into the brook. Additionally, as the surface mining is likely to encounter rising mine water from the North West, there is likely to be a net increase in water being discharged back into the brook. However, the rising mine water is of a poorer water quality than the non-mine ground water. The modelling suggests a higher level of chlorine and a range of metal contaminants such as Iron, nickel and boron. Natural England therefore advises that the County Council will need to consider the following in its Appropriate Assessment: What is the impact of the rising mine water being discharged into the brook, in terms of increased concentrations of chemical pollutants, and in terms of increased flow? Natural England discussed this issue with UK Coal and Wardell Armstrong. Wardell Armstrong propose that the increased discharge of water back to the brook, which under normal conditions appears to be an increased of 2.5l /s, combined with the strict control of the ratio of poor quality water and surface water being discharged, enables adequate dilution of the poor quality water to the extent that there is no effect on SAC water quality. The County Council will need to demonstrate, within the Appropriate Assessment, that the increase in flow, and controlled mixing of good and poor quality water adequately mitigates any potential effect upon the SAC. The County Council should have regard to the water quality requirements of the conservation objectives for the SAC, and the ecological requirements of the SAC interest features. It is noted that the addendum makes reference to adequate discharge quality, but it is imperative that the County Council ensures that discharge quality is such that it will not adversely affect the SAC.


In particular it is advised that the County Council should have regard to the potential effects of chemical pollutants upon the SAC interest features. The proposal sets out a scheme of managing surface water, and the water pumped from within the mining void, with a series of channels and settling ponds. The function of this system is to ensure that suspended solids are removed from the water before it is discharged back into the brook. The County Council will need to demonstrate, within the Appropriate Assessment, that the proposed water management and water treatment measures are adequate to ensure that the SAC is not adversely affected by water quality. The need for of further treatment processes should be explored. Is the proposed system adequate or are further treatment measures required? It is noted that the Environment Agency proposes a condition to require further detailed plans for water management, water monitoring and discharge procedures, for approval prior to commencement of operations. Should the County Council be able to demonstrate the principles of the overview of the water management are adequate to give the necessary certainty of preventing adverse effects upon the SAC, Natural England would support the addition of the Environment Agency’s proposed condition. Natural England would add that, the condition should go so far as to require the details to demonstrate that the SAC will be adequately protected as a result of the detailed water management and monitoring measures to be submitted. Where the applicant has concluded that the impact upon the brook is small scale, negligible or insignificant, it is advised that the County Council must, in concluding that the correct view has been reached with regard to the significance of effects arising from the project alone, then consider the effects in combination with any other plans or projects, and record conclusions drawn. It is noted that the proposed restoration plan contains a large lake that is to be used as a water source for the proposed extension to the Ashby Canal. Currently the drainage pattern within the restoration plan proposes that all surface drainage on the west of the Brook will be diverted to this lake. This will reduce the amount of water reaching the river and may affect flows within the river during periods of low flow. The lake itself may also affect the flow of ground water to the river which could again reduce river flow rates during summer periods when the river is at its most vulnerable. Natural England suggests that the drainage proposals for the restoration are modified to ensure that water is not lost to the river and that before entering the river the water is diverted to a wetland along-side the river which is designed to reduce levels of nutrient and sediment runoff into the river During periods when the lake is drawn down a hydrological gradient may be set which causes water to move from the river to fill the lake. Periods of draw down in the lake are likely to co-inside with low flow periods of the river when features of interest may be at their most vulnerable.


The planning authority need to be satisfied that the proposed drainage in the restoration plan maintains the current level of water flow to the river and that the quality of the water reaching the river does not adversely impact on the water quality needed for the features of interest of the site River Mease SAC – Monitoring The Addendum outlines proposals for monitoring water quality and flow. Natural England welcomes the Environment Agency’s suggestion that a detailed water monitoring should be submitted prior to commencement of operations. For the purposes of the Appropriate Assessment, it is necessary to demonstrate that the information submitted prior to determination of the application contains the necessary certainty that the water quality will be adequately monitored, and most importantly that a robust system of early warning is in place to ensure that contingency measures can be implemented prior to any harmful effect upon the SAC. Measures are outlined for dealing with greater levels of rising mine water, or rising mine water of greater salinity than that predicted. The appropriate Assessment must conclude that these measures are fit for purpose, and capable of implementation prior to poor water quality discharge into the brook, in order for it to be ascertained that the SAC will not be adversely affected. River Mease SAC – River crossing An existing river crossing is proposed for upgrading as part of the development proposal, to enable vehicles to move between the two halves of the site, primarily for the transportation of material to and from the extraction side to the storage side. The new bridge will be significantly larger than the existing structure and therefore will have a larger impact with regard to shading than the existing route. The authority will also have to be sure that during construction and operation that the rivers banks or bed will not be disturbed and that the operation of the bridge will ensure that no material ends up in the river. After the development it is proposed that the bridge be retained for agricultural use, whilst this may be acceptable the authority should aim to reduce the impact of this bridge by reducing its width to the minimum required and ensuring that it can be maintain without disturbance to the river in future. In carrying out the appropriate Assessment the authority must be able to conclude that the widening of the bridge will not have a detrimental impact on the features of interest of the river. It should also consider the future maintenance of the structure to ensure that this will not impact on the features of interest of the site Additional Comments In addition to the likelihood of significant effects upon the SAC, Natural England is concerned with the implications of the proposals for wider biodiversity. Our comments below regarding the restoration scheme encompass a number of issues relating to wider biodiversity and protected species.


Ornithology Natural England welcomes the inclusion of comprehensive bird survey within the Addendum, which considers the range of birds using the agricultural and non-agricultural areas of the current site. The survey work undertaken is considered to be thorough, in accordance with best practice and provides a good level of baseline information from which longer term monitoring can take place. The Addendum includes a suite of mitigation measures to provide a longer term net gain for birds, both in the increase in suitable habitat area, and also in the greater diversity of habitats to be included. As discussed below, the Addendum includes a proposed restoration scheme and management plan. Our comments on this are provided below. It is anticipated that a more detailed restoration scheme and management plan will be required by condition, to enable further discussion of the more detailed elements of the scheme, once the overarching principles are established at this current stage. The compensatory hedgerow planting provides a net gain in over 2000m of hedgerow, which is strongly supported. It will be important for the hedgerow margins/conservation headlands and their long term management tot be clearly established once the detailed restoration scheme and management plan are submitted. The new woodland planting is also welcomed, and will add to the diversity of habitats on site. The detailed planting scheme should be in accordance with locally characteristic species, and should include good structural diversity, including woodland edge habitats before grading to grassland. There is a notable loss of semi improved grassland, and its replacement in the restored site is a net loss, although it is noted that a considerable quantity of hedge margin is to be created. This does not fully replicate that lost, as some species will not colonise the hedge margins, favouring an open expanse of grassland. It will therefore be important for the grassland area around the lake to be restored and managed to maximise its biodiversity potential, and should not include any short mown or amenity type areas, but rather be primarily managed for wildlife. Details of the prescriptions for this area should therefore be included in the detailed restoration and management scheme to be submitted. This area should also include greater wetland and marginal habitats to its eastern side close to the river, and as discussed below, it is suggested that this habitat is increased to cover the whole riverside margin at this point, not just around the proposed fish refuge. As discussed above and below, the lake itself is not currently supported because its implications for the SAC are not yet fully understood, and its design is currently not conducive to high quality wildlife habitat. Aquatic Biodiversity


Natural England notes and welcomes the work undertaken to survey the wider biodiversity present within the Brook, and in particular the detailed descriptions set out within the electro-fishing report of improvements that can be made to increase the quality of the brook for biodiversity, rectifying current issues and seeking to put measures in place to gradually modify the brook profile to a more natural form. All of these recommendations are strongly supported, and should be taken forward to the more detailed final restoration scheme, along with prescriptions for their long term management and ongoing improvement. Measham Grassy Spoil Potential wildlife Site As highlighted in Natural England’s initial letter last year prior to the submission of the Addendum, we are concerned by the loss of the Measham Grassy Spoil potential local wildlife site. We note that this area will eventually form the water storage area in the restored site. Compensatory measures for the loss of this area should drive the detailed restoration proposals for the water storage site and its surrounding grassland/wetlands, ensuring that the area is again worthy of local wildlife site designation in future. Great Crested Newts The original application indicated that there would be a need to translocate some of the great crested newts on site. It is now understood from the Addendum that this will no longer need to occur, which is welcomed by Natural England. However, It remains imperative that the existing great crested newt population is protected from harm, and it is therefore advised that a planning condition will need to require the submission of a detailed method statement, for approval prior to the commencement of any work or site clearance, and setting out measures to protect the great crested newt population from the commencement of works on site through to the completion of the restoration of the site. This is likely to require repeat survey work to ensure that the population has not spread into new areas of the site. Survey data should only be relied upon for a maximum of two survey seasons. After this time repeat surveys are required. The method statement for great crested newts should also set out the steps to be taken should any newts be found on site at any time. Soils We previously provided comments with regard to soils in our letter of September 2009. Natural England notes the thorough and carefully considered approach to the preservation of the soils on site, and particularly commends the commitment to storage and separation of the varied soil types present. As discussed at our recent meeting with UK coal and Wardell Armstrong, we suggest that for all areas proposed to be restored for biodiversity benefits, especially the species rich hay meadow area, given further consideration is given with regard to the replacement of soils. In order to establish a low nutrient substrate, sub-soils can be placed as the top layer of soil, with any higher nutrient soils that may have previously formed top soil being placed down first. The highest quality soils should be prioritised for the areas being restored to agriculture.


Restoration Scheme- Lake The lake as proposed is very deep with constant but relatively steep profile. Depending on the quality of the water plants are only likely to grow in the first two or three metres of water. To maximise the biodiversity benefit, the design should be changed to increase the proportion of the site that is between 0and 3 metres while making the area between 3m to the bottom steeper therefore maximising the benefit to biodiversity while still ensuring that the volume is maintained. Emergent vegetation should not be planted but some areas may need to be fenced off if large numbers of Canada geese use the site. In terms of submerged vegetation again the site should be left to naturally vegetate. As noted above, it is expected that the detailed restoration for this area will focus upon compensating for the habitats lost. Restoration Scheme – River re-profiling Natural England strongly supports this proposal within the plan. The methods suggested are appropriate for the river but will need to be subject to detailed design. Natural England suggests that this should be subject to a management plan agreed by the Planning Authority in consultation with Natural England and the Environment Agency. Restoration Scheme – Riverside and streamside margins The proposed restoration includes the provision of buffer strips against both the Gilwiskaw brook and its tributary stream. The application states that these would ‘probably’ reduce peak concentrations of fertilisers, ‘should result’ in lower levels of suspended solids, and ‘could also reduce slightly’ the phosphate peak values. While these are likely effects from the provision of margins it is clear that the efficacy of these measures would be increased with increased width. Natural England proposes that the margin on the west side of the river should be increased in width to 30m and redesigned so that the hedge is on the side of the margin furthest from the river. The margin along the tributary should be extended to 6m on both sides of the tributary as it flows through the land to be restored to agriculture. Wider margins increase the benefit and in the case of 6m margins are the standard distance used for Higher Level Stewardship agreements. Restoration Scheme – wetlands and surface water drainage In order to maximise the biodiversity benefits of the restoration and improve the water quality entering the SAC the area to the west of the river identified as wetland should be extended North East to the footpath. The drainage from the agricultural land to the North and West should be put through this wetland to allow it to help improve the quality of the water entering the river. This area should also be improved by designing in some small areas of open water some which seasonally dry up. This would provide diversity to the site provide


additional habitat for great crested newts and help towards the National Biodiversity Action plan Targets for ponds. The wetland restoration associated with the tributary is welcomed and any change to the design that allow the stream to run through the small pond to the south would be welcomed as a way to slow water and decrease the discharge of nutrients to the river. Restoration Scheme – terrestrial habitats We strongly support the inclusion of grassland in the restoration plan and advise that every attempt is made to use the most nutrient poor soil in the restoration in order to ensure a successful establishment of species rich grasslands. We support the inclusion of the large amount of woodland within the restoration but would be unhappy if more woodland was proposed at the expense of other habitats. Restoration Scheme- management in general As can be seen from the above the restoration scheme is not just important in its own right but can have a significant effect on the SAC which is currently failing its conservation objectives. Natural England suggest that in addition to the changes set out above that the Local Planning Authority sets up a management group that reviews the progress of the works and the restoration to maximise the benefits of the restoration to the SAC and to help steer the improvements that are outlined in the plan. This should include a representative from Natural England and the Environment Agency and may include other interested parties. Natural England notes the after care and management commitment timeframes, and would therefore ask that for all areas of the site not proposed for agriculture further information is provided with regard to the long term ownership and management of non-agricultural areas. It is hoped that the comments provided are helpful to you. If you require any more information or wish to discuss any of the comments made, please do not hesitate to contact me using the contact details within this letter. Yours sincerely Rachel Hoskin Planning and Conservation Officer for Lowland Derbyshire, North Nottinghamshire, North West Leicestershire and Daventry Planning and Communities Team Natural England East Midlands Region [email protected]


APPENDIX 3B

NATURAL ENGLAND GUIDANCE NOTE HRGN 1


Habitats regulations guidance note Issued by Greg Smith, Environmental Impacts Team, English Nature. Tel: 01733 455210 1HRGN The Appropriate Assessment (Regulation 48) The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations, 1994 Introduction 1. This Guidance Note has been prepared to assist competent authorities and English Nature staff when undertaking the “appropriate assessment” required by Regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations 1994 implementing Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Only the Courts can provide authoritative interpretation of the Regulations, but these notes have been developed in the light of practical experience and a close examination of the Regulations, the Habitats Directive and central government guidance, particularly in PPG 9. When Does An ‘Appropriate Assessment’ Need To Be Undertaken? Types of Proposal 2. Under Regulation 48(1), an appropriate assessment needs to be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which: a. either alone or in combination with other plans or projects would be likely to have a significant effect on a European Site, and b. is not directly connected with the management of the site for nature conservation. 3. Appropriate assessment is required by law for all European Sites (Regulation 48). A European Site is any classified SPA and any SAC from the point where the Commission and the Government agree the site as a Site of Community Importance. Appropriate assessment is also required, as a matter of Government policy, for potential SPAs, candidate SACs and listed Ramsar Sites for the purpose of considering development proposals affecting them. (PPG 9 paras 13 and C7). Timing of the Assessment 4. An appropriate assessment needs to be undertaken in respect of a plan or project described above before any "competent authority": a. decides to undertake the plan or project, in cases where no consent, permission or other authorisation is required. (Reg. 48(1)); b. decides to give any consent, permission or other authorisation for the plan or project. (Regs. 48(1) et al); c. reviews the decision to undertake a plan or project or reviews consents, permissions or other authorisations for plans or projects that are incomplete. (Regs. 50(2) et al - see also EN Habitats Regulations Guidance Note No. 2); d. decides whether to approve an application for development that would otherwise be permitted development. (Reg. 62(6)). Significant Effects


5. The plan or project does not have to be located within the designated area. Significant effects may occur even if the plan or project is some distance away and even outside any consultation area defined by English Nature (PPG 9 paras 30-32). The effects may be direct or indirect, temporary or permanent, beneficial or harmful to the site, or a combination of these. 6. The initial determination of likely significance is intended to ensure that all relevant plans and projects likely to have a material effect on these internationally important sites are subject to an appropriate assessment. In all but the most clear cut cases, competent authorities are likely to need advice. English Nature will advise, on request, as to whether any particular plan or project may be likely to have a significant effect on any of these sites. If the decision as to whether or not the development would have a significant effect on the designated site is inconclusive, on the information available, the competent authority should make a fuller assessment; in doing so they may ask the developer or other parties for more information. (PPG 9 para C10). Who Undertakes the Appropriate Assessment? 7. The appropriate assessment must be undertaken by the competent authority, as defined in Regulation 6(1) of the Habitats Regulations, which includes any Minister, Government Department, public or statutory undertaker, public body of any description or person holding a public office. The developer or proposer of the plan or project is required to provide relevant information. English Nature must be consulted, during the course of the assessment, but it is the duty of the competent authority to undertake the assessment itself. 8. Most competent authorities will not have the technical expertise "in house" to assess the effects of the plan or project on the international nature conservation interests. Most will need to rely heavily on the advice, guidance and recommendations of English Nature, at each stage, including the scope and content of the assessment, the site's conservation objectives, the information required from the developer or proposer and the effects on the integrity of the site, all of which are discussed below. The appropriate assessment, in many cases, is likely to be an iterative process. In the simplest cases a general statement in a single consultation response from English Nature may suffice to enable the competent authority to complete the assessment. However, in most cases, it is envisaged that a more detailed response from, and dialogue with, English Nature is likely to be necessary. What is an ‘Appropriate Assessment’? 9. It is a self contained step in a wider decision making process, required by the Habitats Regulations and described more fully in PPG 9, Annex C. Its conclusions must be based only on the scientific considerations under steps laid out in the Habitats Regulations. The assessment should not be influenced by wider planning or other considerations. 10. The Regulations do not specify how the assessment should be undertaken but describe it simply as “an appropriate assessment”. This is taken to mean that the


assessment must be appropriate to its purpose under the Regulations (and also the Directive, which originated the use of the term). Its purpose is to assess the implications of the proposal in respect of the site’s "conservation objectives". The conclusions of the assessment should enable the competent authority to ascertain whether the proposal would adversely affect the integrity of the site. Scope and Content 11. PPG 9 indicates that the scope and content of an appropriate assessment will depend on the location, size and significance of the proposed plan or project (PPG 9 box C10). The PPG indicates that English Nature will advise on a case-by-case basis. According to the nature conservation interests of the site, English Nature will identify particular aspects that the appropriate assessment should address. Examples given are hydrology, disturbance and land-take, but there are clearly many other potential matters that may need to be addressed in particular cases. 12. Procedures under the Habitats Regulations should be confined to the effects on the internationally important habitats or species for which the site is or will be internationally designated or classified, including any indirect effects on these interests, for example, via their supporting ecosystems and natural processes. Notwithstanding a favourable assessment in respect of the plan or project's effects on the international nature conservation interests for which the site was classified or designated, decisions to undertake or give consent to the plan or project may need to take account of other international, national, regional or local nature conservation interests in the light of other policy and legislative provisions. (PPG 9 paras 4, 18 and 27). Environmental Assessment 13. The appropriate assessment is not the same as an environmental assessment under the provisions of the various Environmental Assessment (EA) Regulations (1988-95), in compliance with the Directive 85/337/EEC. In many cases, plans or projects that will be subject to an appropriate assessment will need an Environmental Statement (ES) to be prepared under the EA Regulations. (PPG 9 paras 38 and 39). 14. The ES will address all significant environmental effects. It will be appropriate to use the information assembled for the ES when carrying out the appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations. In view of this it would be helpful if the relevant ES clearly identified, under a specific subject heading, the likely significant effects on the internationally important habitats and/or species. How is an Appropriate Assessment Undertaken? Key Steps


15. Having established that an appropriate assessment is required, the following conclusions may be drawn (from the foregoing considerations and Government guidance) in respect of how it should be undertaken. The Key Steps in An Appropriate Assessment The competent authority:

I Must consult English Nature

II May consult the general public

III Should clearly identify and understand the site’s conservation objectives having regard to the advice of English Nature

IV Should require the applicant to provide such information as may reasonably be required for the purposes of the assessment

V Should identify the effects of the proposal on the habitats and species of international importance and how those effects are likely to affect the site’s conservation objectives

VI Should decide whether the plan or project, as proposed, would adversely affect the integrity of the site in the light of the conservation objectives

VII Should consider the manner in which the plan or project is proposed to be carried out, whether it could be modified, or whether conditions or restrictions could be imposed, so as to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the site

VIII Should conclude whether the proposal, as modified by conditions or restrictions, would adversely affect the integrity of the site

IX Should record the Assessment and notify English Nature of the conclusions The Key Steps Explained These key steps are explained in more detail below. I. Consulting English Nature 16. Under Regulation 48(3) the competent authority must consult English Nature and must have regard to any representations made by English Nature. It may be inferred from PPG 9 (box C10 and para C9) that the competent authority would be expected to follow the advice of English Nature and normally to decide the case “in accordance with the recommendations of English Nature”. If it does not do so, the competent authority should be prepared to explain its reasons. In cases where it proposes to agree to a plan or project notwithstanding a negative assessment, the competent authority is required to notify the Secretary of State in advance of any decision. II. Consulting the General Public


17. Under Regulation 48(4) the competent authority may (if it considers it appropriate) take the opinion of the general public, on the implications of the proposal for the site’s conservation objectives, using whatever steps they consider necessary. This may usefully include taking the opinion of others with relevant knowledge or expertise.

III. The Site's Conservation Objectives

18. The Regulations do not define what is meant by the site’s conservation objectives but PPG 9 box C10 describes them as: "the objectives.... / the reasons for which the site was classified or designated"

English Nature will be able to give a clear statement of the site's conservation objectives in the light of its European Site Register entry (compiled by Government under Regulation 11), its citation, its reasons for recommendation, English Nature’s knowledge of the site, national and international objectives for the international nature conservation interests (such as may be contained in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan) and any Management Plan or Management Statement for the site in so far as they relate to the interests for which the site was selected.

19. The site may also host habitats and/or species of Community interest (see Article 1 of the Habitats Directive) which are not mentioned in the European Site Register, the citation or the reasons for recommendation because they were not, at the time, a reason for classification or designation. Such features are not relevant to the appropriate assessment itself. Nevertheless their presence may be material to the decision as to whether or not to undertake or to consent to the plan or project.

IV. Requiring Further Information

20. The competent authority, taking the advice of English Nature where necessary, should require the applicant to provide such information as the competent authority may reasonably require for the purposes of making the assessment (Reg.48(2)). The information required may relate to any environmental information, or information about the proposal, relevant to the assessment and may include: i. information already available, or ii. new information from surveys that may need to be carried out, or iii. data analysis, predictions, comparisons or assessments of a technical nature. V. Identifying the Effects 21. Having regard to English Nature’s advice and other consultation responses and, where relevant, taking account of the ES or any other information supplied by the developer/proposer, or otherwise available, the competent authority should identify what the effects of the proposal are likely to be. The effects considered should be those of the plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, on the habitats and species of international importance and how those effects are likely to affect the site’s conservation objectives. This will involve considering, for example, the nature, scale, geographic extent, timing, duration and magnitude of direct and indirect effects; considering the degree of certainty in the prediction of effects; considering all mitigating measures already contained in the proposal and the extent to which these measures are likely to avoid, reduce or ameliorate adverse effects on the international nature conservation interests. It is the residual effects, after mitigation, that are considered at this stage.


VI. Integrity of the Site 22. Having regard to English Nature’s advice, other consultation responses and any other information available, the competent authority should decide whether the plan or project, as proposed, would adversely affect the integrity of the site, in the light of its conservation objectives. That is, whether the plan or project would adversely affect the “coherence of the site’s ecological structure and function, across its whole area, or the habitats, complex of habitats and/or populations of species for which the site is or will be classified” (PPG 9 box C10). An adverse effect on integrity is likely to be one which prevents the site from making the same contribution to favourable conservation status for the relevant feature as it did at the time of its designation. 23. The form of words used in Regulation 48(5) implies that a precautionary approach should be taken in considering effects on integrity, in line with the Government’s principles for sustainable development (see Sustainable Development: the UK strategy page 33). Regulation 48(5) says that (subject to Regulation 49) projects may only proceed if the competent authority has ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site. VII. Considering How To Avoid Adverse Effects 24. If the proposal would adversely affect the integrity of the site then, having regard to English Nature’s advice, the competent authority should consider the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out and whether the plan or project could be modified, or whether conditions or restrictions could be imposed, so as to avoid the adverse effects. This may include, for example, changes to the siting, layout, timing or use of the proposal and the use of obligations or legal agreements. (Reg. 48(6)). 25. Compensatory measures that may be offered in the proposal at this stage, seeking to redress but not remove residual harm to the international interests (such as the provision of land for habitat creation purposes), should not be considered in the appropriate assessment, but may be considered later in the decision making process. (See Reg. 53). VIII. Conclusion on Effects In The Light of Conditions and Restrictions 26. The competent authority should reassess the conclusions in the light of any such modifications, conditions or restrictions that may be agreed or imposed. IX. Recording the Assessment 27. It would be advisable for this conclusion, and the reasons for it, to be recorded. English Nature should be notified of the conclusion of the appropriate assessment and the authority’s decision as to the effects on the integrity of the site, before the authority undertakes the plan or project or issues any permission, consent or other authorisation (PPG 9 para 30). 28. The subsequent courses of action open to a competent authority are set out in Regulations 48(5) - (7), 49 and 54(3). The Regulations prohibit a competent authority from undertaking or giving consent to any plan or project unless the appropriate


assessment concluded that it would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site, or specific criteria are met and the Secretary of State has been informed. Good Practice Outline of an Appropriate Assessment Record 29. A suggested model or good practice outline record of an appropriate assessment is set out below. It may be contained in, for example, a planning officer’s committee report or the minutes of a competent authority’s decision. In other cases it may be a file note, clearly recording compliance with the Regulations. The record may take many different forms because each assessment needs to be appropriate to the type scale, location and significance of the proposal and to the relevant nature conservation interests. It is provided here as a guide to assist competent authorities and English Nature staff, not as a, authoritative legal formula. Any record made of an appropriate assessment should be copied to English Nature and to any other parties who were consulted on the assessment.

Title of Plan or Project/Application Location of Plan or Project/Application [With location plan attached showing relationship to the international designation] International Nature Conservation Site Nature/Description of Plan or Project/Application [Including brief description of manner in which plan or project is proposed to be carried out] Date Appropriate Assessment Recorded This is a record of the appropriate assessment, required by Regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations 1994, undertaken by [name of competent authority] in respect of the above plan/project, in accordance with the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). Having considered that the plan or project would be likely to have a significant effect on the [name of international site] and that the plan or project was not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, an appropriate assessment has been undertaken of the implications of the proposal in view of the site’s conservation objectives. English Nature was consulted under Regulation 48(3) on [date] and their representations, to which this authority has had regard, are attached at Annex 1. The conclusions of this appropriate assessment * are/are not in accordance with the advice and recommendations of English Nature. *The applicant was required to submit further information reasonably necessary for this assessment on [date] under Reg.48(2) * and replied with the information on [date]/but did not supply the information. * The opinion of the general public was taken under Reg. 48(4) by way of *public advertisement/further consultation etc and the views expressed (attached at Annex 2) have been taken into account. The site’s conservation objectives have been taken into account, including consideration of the citation for the site and information supplied by English Nature (see Annex 1). The


likely effects of the proposal on the international nature conservation interests for which the site was designated may be summarised as: [List of Effects] The assessment has concluded that: *a) the plan or project as proposed would not adversely affect the integrity of the site, or *b) the plan or project as proposed would adversely affect the integrity of the site. [If (b):] The imposition of conditions or restrictions on the way the proposal is to be carried out has been considered and it is ascertained that: *a) conditions or restrictions cannot overcome the adverse effects on the integrity of the site. or *b) the following conditions and/or restrictions would avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the site. [list conditions/restrictions] Signed ........................ Date .................. (* delete as appropriate) Annexes to also include relevant correspondence, minutes or meetings with English Nature, the applicant etc.

Supplement to Habitats regulations guidance note no. 1 For English Nature staff responding to habitats regulations consultations on the appropriate assessment Good Practice Outline of an English Nature Consultation Response This Supplement should be read in conjunction with the Habitats Regulations Guidance Note No. 1. It is intended to help English Nature staff draw up their response to consultations under Regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations in respect of an "appropriate assessment" being carried out by a competent authority. General Advice:

• Consultation under Reg. 48 may be explicitly initiated by a competent authority. However it is more likely to be buried or obscured in a more general consultation over a plan or project. In such cases English Nature should respond to the consulting authority by letter/pro forma in the normal way, referring to all relevant nature conservation issues. However our specific advice under the Habitats Regulations should be clearly set out either in the letter, or in a separate Annex to it.

• If objecting to a proposal it is important to distinguish between an objection based on the international nature conservation interests for which the European Site was selected (and to which specific procedures in the Habitats Regulations apply) and one based on other nature conservation interests. If the effects on the


international nature conservation interests are such that, although significant, they would not adversely affect the integrity of the site, we should say so.

• In the case of any uncertainty over the application of the Regulations, the use of terms such as “significance”, “integrity”, “in combination” etc, or the likely impacts of a proposal, feel free to seek further advice from the relevant individuals in English Nature’s national office. Our participation in Habitats Regulations cases will come under close scrutiny and it is important that we can demonstrate that we operate within the requirements of the Regulations and take a consistent approach.

• We should involve the Regional Government Office in such cases at an early stage and keep them advised of progress. In some cases, particularly where there is a risk of damage to a European site, we should also consider informing European Wildlife Division at Bristol.

Example of a Summary of Representations

If the letter in response to a consultation under the Regulations is long, or an Annex is used for the international considerations, it may be helpful to include summary paragraph(s) early in the covering letter, perhaps along the following lines: This letter [and attached Annex] may be taken to be English Nature’s formal consultation representations under Regulation 48(3) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. English Nature *objects/does not object to the proposal. English Nature is of the opinion that the proposal *would/would not be likely to have a significant effect on the [name and status of site] and is/is not directly connected with the management of the site for nature conservation. *English Nature recommends that the applicant be required under the provisions of Regulation 48(2) to provide the following information which English Nature considers to be reasonably necessary to enable the competent authority to undertake an appropriate assessment. English Nature is of the opinion that the plan or project, as proposed, *would/would not adversely affect the conservation objectives and the integrity of the site as defined in Annex C of PPG 9. English Nature is of the opinion that *the following conditions/restrictions/legal agreements/planning obligations could overcome adverse effects on the integrity of the site/conditions or restrictions could not avoid harm to the integrity of the site. English Nature advises that the site *does/does not host a priority natural habitat type/priority species within the meaning of Article 1 of the Habitats Directive (PPG 9 p.36). (* delete as applicable)

Recommended Content of Detailed Representations Our response to a consultation under the Regulations should clearly state English Nature’s position and should generally follow the model response letters outlined in


Appendix 4 of the Local Authorities Handbook. That part of the letter relating to the Reg. 48(3) consultation should include the points set out below: The Conservation Status of the Site Including all relevant designations, dates and area/extent with copy of citation (or reasons for recommendation) and maps attached. The International Nature Conservation Importance of the Site Including the reasons why the site was or is to be designated as a European site and drawing attention to any priority habitats or species which the site supports. The Conservation Objectives of the Site Clearly setting out the objectives relating to all habitats and species of Community interest / Ramsar interest etc. drawing on the citation, selection criteria, Site Objective Statement, Site Management Statement, Management Plan or Strategy, BAP targets, national or international policy objectives and other sources as relevant. Further Information Required (if any) Setting out, as precisely as possible: a. what information is currently in the public domain or could be made available but

which is not yet submitted to the competent authority, and how they may obtain it; and

b. what further information is required from the applicant, in your opinion, to enable the competent authority to undertake, and English Nature to further advise on, the appropriate assessment.

The Effects of the Development as Proposed Identifying all direct/indirect, temporary/permanent effects and their significance related to their nature, scale, geographic extent, location, duration, magnitude etc. Implications for the Conservation Objectives Setting out all implications for the conservation objectives and identifying clearly those which would be adverse to the integrity of the site. Conditions or Restrictions Identifying clearly which adverse effects on integrity (if any) could be overcome by, for example, conditions, planning obligations, other legal agreements etc. (See Sections D28 and D29 and E2 of the LA Handbook). Conclusions and Recommendations The summary paragraphs provided as examples above.


Further Assistance Offer to provide further explanation or clarification should this be needed. Always offer to meet with the competent authority to explain our advice and to guide them through the Regulatory procedures.


APPENDIX 3C

Conservation Objectives and Targets for Favourable Conservation Status


Lincolnshire, Leicestershire & Northamptonshire Team The Maltings Wharf Road

Grantham. NG31 6BH 01476 584800 01476584838

[email protected]

CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES and DEFINITIONS OF FAVOURABLE CONDITION for DESIGNATED FEATURES OF INTEREST: These Conservation Objectives relate to all designated features on the SSSI, whether designated as SSSI, SPA, SAC or Ramsar features.

Name of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

River Mease SSSI

Names of designated international sites

Special Area for Conservation (SAC)

River Mease SAC

Special Protection Area (SPA)

Ramsar :

Relationship between site designations

SSSI wholly constitutes the SAC

Version Control information

Status of this Version (Draft,

Consultation Draft, Final)

V2.0 Consultation draft

Prepared by: Sadie Hobson

Date of this version: 15 September 2009

Date of generic guidance on favourable condition used:

EN CSM Guidance Freshwater July 2005

CSM Guidance for Freshwater Fauna August 2005

EN CSM Guidance Mammals Feb 2004

Other notes/version history : This replaces v1.0 produced on 7

October 2008. Orthophosphate levels changed following consultation with

EA

Quality Assurance information

Checked by Name:

Nicola Orchard

Date:

24 September 2009

Signature


Conservation Objectives and definitions of Favourable Condition: notes for users Conservation Objectives SSSIs are notified because of specific biological or geological features. Conservation Objectives define the desired state for each site in terms of the features for which they have been designated. When these features are being managed in a way which maintains their nature conservation value, then they are said to be in ‘favourable condition’. It is a Government target that 95% of the total area of SSSIs should be in favourable condition by 2010. Definitions of Favourable Condition The Conservation Objectives are accompanied by one or more habitat extent and quality definitions for the special interest features at this site. These are subject to periodic reassessment and may be updated to reflect new information or knowledge; they will be used by Natural England and other relevant authorities to determine if a site is in favourable condition. The standards for favourable condition have been developed and are applied throughout the UK. Use under the Habitats Regulations The Conservation Objectives and definitions of favourable condition for features on the SSSI may inform the scope and nature of any ‘appropriate assessment’ under the Habitats Regulations. An appropriate assessment will also require consideration of issues specific to the individual plan or project. The habitat quality definitions do not by themselves provide a comprehensive basis on which to assess plans and projects as required under Regulations 20-21, 24, 48-50 and 54 - 85. The scope and content of an appropriate assessment will depend upon the location, size and significance of the proposed project. Natural England will advise on a case by case basis. Following an appropriate assessment, competent authorities are required to ascertain the effect on the integrity of the site. The integrity of the site is defined in paragraph 20 of ODPM Circular 06/2005 (DEFRA Circular 01/2005) as the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified. The determination of favourable condition is separate from the judgement of effect upon integrity. For example, there may be a time-lag between a plan or project being initiated and a consequent adverse effect upon integrity becoming manifest in the condition assessment. In such cases, a plan or project may have an adverse effect upon integrity even though the site remains in favourable condition. The formal Conservation Objectives for European Sites under the Habitats Regulations are in accordance with paragraph 17 of ODPM Circular 06/2005 (DEFRA Circular 01/2005), the reasons for which the European Site was classified or designated. The entry on the Register of European Sites gives the reasons for which a European Site was classified or designated.


Explanatory text for Tables 2 and 3 Tables 2, 2a and 3 set out the measures of condition which we will use to provide evidence to support our assessment of whether features are in favourable condition. They are derived from a set of generic guidance on favourable condition prepared by Natural England specialists, and have been tailored by local staff to reflect the particular characteristics and site-specific circumstances of individual sites. Quality Assurance has ensured that such site-specific tailoring remains within a nationally consistent set of standards. The tables include an audit trail to provide a summary of the reasoning behind any site-specific targets etc. In some cases the requirements of features or designations may conflict; the detailed basis for any reconciliation of conflicts on this site may be recorded elsewhere. Conservation Objectives The Conservation Objectives for this site are, subject to natural change, to maintain the following habitats and geological features in favourable condition (*), with particular reference to any dependent component special interest features (habitats, vegetation types, species, species assemblages etc.) for which the land is designated (SSSI, SAC, SPA, Ramsar) as individually listed in Table 1.

Habitat Types represented (Biodiversity Action Plan categories) Rivers and streams (*) or restored to favourable condition if features are judged to be unfavourable. Standards for favourable condition are defined with particular reference to the specific designated features listed in Table 1, and are based on a selected set of attributes for features which most economically define favourable condition as set out in Table 2, Table 2a and Table 3:


Table 1 Individual designated interest features NB. Features where asterisks are in brackets (*) indicate habitats which are not notified for specific habitat interest (under the

relevant designation) but because they support notified species.

SPA bird populations dependency on specific habitats

Ramsar criteria applicable to specific habitats

BAP Broad Habitat type / Geological Site Type

Specific designated features

Explanatory description of the feature for clarification

SS

SI d

esig

nate

d in

tere

st

featu

res

SA

C d

esig

nate

d in

tere

st

featu

res

An

nex 1

sp

ecie

s

Mig

rato

ry

sp

ecie

s

Wate

rfo

wl

asse

mb

lag

e

1a W

etl

an

d

ch

ara

cte

risti

cs

2a H

osti

ng

rare

sp

ecie

s &

c

3a 2

000

0

wate

rfo

wl

3c 1

% o

f

po

pu

lati

on

Rivers and streams

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

Slow flowing lowland river

(*) *

Bullhead, Cottus gobio Presence of bullhead

* *

Spined Loach, Cobitis taenia

Presence of spined loach

* *

Otter, Lutra lutra Presence of otter * White clawed crayfish,

Austropotamobius pallipes Presence of white clawed crayfish

*


Table 2 Habitat extent objectives

Conservation Objective

for habitat extent

To maintain the designated features in favourable condition, which is defined in

part in relation to a balance of habitat extents (extent attribute). Favourable condition is defined at this site in terms of the following site-specific standards:

Extent - Dynamic balance On this site favourable condition requires the maintenance of the extent of each

habitat type (either designated habitat or habitat supporting designated species). Maintenance implies restoration if evidence from condition assessment suggests a

reduction in extent.

Habitat Feature (BAP

Broad Habitat level, or

more detailed level if applicable)

Estimated extent

(ha) and date of

data source/estimate

Site Specific Target range

and Measures

Comments

River Extent =22.87ha No reduction in area and any consequent fragmentation

without prior consent

Recoverable reduction = unfavourable; non-

recoverable reduction = partially destroyed.

Audit Trail

Rationale for habitat extent attribute (Include methods of estimation (measures), and the approximate degree of change which these are capable of

detecting).

Habitat extent estimated using GIS software and aerial photographs 2001.

Rationale for site-specific targets (including any variations from generic guidance)

Other Notes


Table 2a Species population objectives

Conservation Objective for species populations

To maintain the designated species in favourable condition, which is defined in part in relation to their population attributes. Favourable condition is defined at

this site in terms of the following site-specific standards:

Population balance On this site favourable condition requires the maintenance of the population of each designated species or assemblage. Maintenance implies restoration if

evidence from condition assessment suggests a reduction in size of population or assemblage.

Species

Feature

List

supporting BAP Broad

Habitats

Population

Attribute

Site Specific Target range

and Measures

Comments

Bullhead

Rivers and streams

Population Single-pass electrofishing in August / September. Data

analysis as in a-c. below. see sub-attributes below

For details see the LIFE in UK Rivers Project protocol

Bullhea

d

Rivers and

streams

a. Adult

population densities

Density estimates

There should be no reduction in densities from existing levels,

and in any case no less than 0.5 m-2 in lowland rivers

(source altitude ≤100m).

Routine Environment Agency

monitoring is not capable of providing suitable data. A least-cost

methodology for monitoring this attribute has been developed by the

LIFE in UK rivers project, involving the sampling of representative

reaches within an SAC.

Bullhea

d

Rivers and

streams

c.

Reproduction/

Age Structure

Length-frequency analysis of

selected samples

Young-of-year fish should occur

Young-of-year fish should be easily

identifiable using length-frequency

analysis. In September they are typically less than 30 mm long.


at densities at least equal to

adults.

Four age classes with 0+ individuals at least 40% of

population

Largest females attain a fork

length >75mm

Young-of-year are often much more

numerous than adults, so the current target is rather conservative

(to allow for natural variation in recruitment and habitat type). A

ratio of 3 or 4:1 for Y-O-Y: adults is not unusual. It may be necessary to

refine this target at a site-specific

level. Species

Feature

List

supporting BAP Broad Habitats

Population

Attribute

Site Specific Target range and

Measures

Comments

Bullhead

Rivers and streams

b. Distribution

within SAC

GIS analysis of distribution within catchment

Bullheads should be present in all

suitable reaches. As a minimum, no decline in distribution from current.

In the UK, bullhead are widespread in any flowing water at an altitude of less than 300

m. Well oxygenated water over a gravel / pebble / cobble substrate is preferred (and is

essential for successful reproduction). Riffles are a favoured microhabitat. Very sluggish water with a clay / silt substrate or cold,

steep-gradient upland sections with numerous cascades and boulder / bedrock substrate

should be viewed as sub-optimal. Bullheads can occur in very small channels (<1 m wide) where they may be the only fish species

present. Bullhead are very poor colonists, to the extent that catchments may contain many

individual subpopulations. It is not feasible to assess each of these individually, but it is very important that there is no loss of these

populations, and that access routes between them are not impeded (see environmental

disturbance notes below).

Spined

loach

Rivers and

streams

Population Electrofishing in rivers, hand

trawl in drains. There should be no reduction in

Routine Environment Agency monitoring is not

capable of providing suitable data. A least-cost methodology for monitoring this attribute is


densities from existing levels,

and in any case no less than 0.1 m-2

being investigated, involving the sampling of

representative reaches within an SAC.

Spined loach

Rivers and streams

Age structure

Adult population densities >0.2/m At least three year-classes should

be present at significant densities. At least 40% of the

population should consist of 0+ fish Largest females attain a fork

length >85mm

Otter Rivers and

streams

Otter

population – inland

waterways

Otters present on site.

Population maintained or increasing.

Use LRR SAC monitoring scheme for river SACs

in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Annual survey recommended for first 5 years

of LRR method.


Species Feature

List supporting BAP Broad Habitats

Population Attribute

Site Specific Target range and Measures

Comments

White-clawed crayfish

Population Density

Trapping using baited small mesh

traps (<8mm) in areas of

favourable crayfish habitat.

Trapping in

conjunction with night viewing and

hand searching

where possible.

Population of at least moderate abundance (CPUE between 0.1 - 1) Berried females should be present during the period November to April

Insufficient data are available on typical densities for standing water bodies to set reliable targets. Population density is considered best expressed as catch per unit effort (CPUE) – catch per trap night. A provisional qualitative scale is as follows: CPUE Av. no. crayfish /trap night

Relative abundance of population

<0.1 moderate-low abundance

<1 moderate abundance

1-2.5 moderately high abundance

2.6-4 high abundance

>4 Very high abundance

This is likely to require some refinement once more surveys have been carried out and compared on a wide range of sites across England and Wales. It is accepted that crayfish densities may fluctuate naturally and thus caution should be taken in determining the condition of the site. Nevertheless, the site should be considered unfavourable if there is a dramatic reduction in density


Population densities and health

Determined during population monitoring

Thelohaniasis (Porcelain Disease) should not affect >10% population.

This disease rarely causes mass mortalities and may be present in a population at low levels without apparent harm. However, a prevalence exceeding 10% is of concern.

Species Feature

List supporting BAP Broad

Population Attribute

Site Specific Target range and Measures

Comments


Habitats


Population densities and health

Determined during population monitoring

Absence of individuals infected with crayfish plague

Crayfish plague can be introduced by the entry of non-native crayfish species into a site, but also by a variety of other routes, including contaminated equipment (nets, boots, etc.) and stocked fish from infected waters1. Outbreaks of crayfish plague typically result in 100% mortalities, unless there are isolated headwaters with crayfish in the catchment. This target requires that the utmost care be taken in terms of fish stocking and general surveying/monitoring to ensure that plague vectors are not introduced. Disinfection or thorough drying of equipment (or perhaps dedicated equipment for use only in native crayfish rivers) and stocking fish from uninfected waters are vital elements. Nationally agreed EN/EA policy on stocking fish into crayfish SSSIs/SACs should prevent stocking from catchments containing signal crayfish or known to have experienced plague.

Audit Trail

Rationale for species population attributes (Include methods of estimation (measures), and the approximate degree of change which these are capable of detecting).


Other Notes


Table 3 Site-Specific definitions of Favourable Condition CONSERVATION OBJECTIVE FOR THIS HABITAT / GEOLOGICAL SITE-TYPE

To maintain the Rivers and streams at this site in favourable condition, with particular reference to relevant specific designated interest features. Favourable condition is defined at this site in terms of the following site-specific standards:

Site-specific details of any geographical variation or limitations (where the favourable condition standards apply)

These targets apply to the river and marginal vegetation only.

Site-specific standards defining favourable condition

Criteria feature Attribute

term in guidance

Measure Site-specific Targets Comments Use for CA

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Spined loach Bullhead

Habitat structure: substrate

Field observations

Siltation No excessive siltation. Maximum silt content <20% in top 10cm of mid-channel gravels Channel should be dominated by clean gravels Spined loach: Sand fractions in finer substrates reach at least 20% sand and no more than 40% silt Bullhead: No excessive siltation on the surfaces of coarse substrates

Siltation levels vary naturally, depending upon the reach type and hydrodynamic regime. Most sites should have a variety of channel substrates. Localised accumulations of silt on the inside of bends or in back channels do not necessarily indicate a problem. However, widespread siltation of riverine sediments, caused by high particulate loads and / or reduced scour within the channel (due to artificial channel modifications, is a major threat to interest features. Many characteristic species of fish, invertebrates and even plants are susceptible to siltation at some stage in their life-cycle. Mechanisms of impact can relate to reduced interstitial spaces in coarse substrates, reduce water flow-through the substrate leading to poor quality of interstitial waters, and reduced sediment surface ‘roughness’ that eliminates refugia for

Yes.

Criteria feature

Attribute term in guidance


animals with epibenthic habitats and prevents plant seeds and fragments from lodging in the substrate and taking root. Sources of silt include run-off from agricultural land, sewage and industrial discharges. A fluvial audit is recommended where specific problems have been identified, e.g. where there is a perceived risk of damage occurring or where species characteristic of


the habitat are already believed to be in decline. Spined loach can tolerate silt and mud, it has a preference for sandy substrates, and these substrates should be maintained and/or restored in watercourses where sufficient hydraulic energy can be generated. If the organic content becomes too high, reduced oxygen availability near the sediment/water interface may lead to enhanced egg and juvenile mortality. High sediment cohesiveness is likely to affect the feeding process. Elevated silt levels can interfere with egg and fry survival in bullhead.

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Bullhead

Habitat structure: channel and banks

Assess river morphology using RHS (see text and Appendices 4 and 5 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). In addition, for planform: map data, aerial survey data, historical records and local knowledge.

Channel form Channel form should be generally characteristic of river type, with predominantly unmodified planform and profile. For planform the target is a score for the assessment unit of at least 3 (see Appendix 4 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005) i.e <10% of ECS river artificial, re-aligned or constrained.

The river should support all of the habitat features necessary for characteristic flora and fauna to thrive, in characteristic proportions. Widening or deepening of channels, and extensive artificial reinforcement of banks, are indicators of unfavourable condition. Headwater sections are particularly vulnerable to reprofiling. Watercourses with a high degree of naturalness will be governed by dynamic processes which result in a variety of physical habitat features, including a range of substrate types, variations in flow, channel width and depth, in-channel and side-channel sedimentation features, erosion features and both in-channel and bankside vegetation cover.

Yes

Criteria feature



Spined loach For naturalness of the profile using transect data the target is a score for the assessment unit of 4 or 5 (see Appendix 5 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). i.e <0.2 No RHS site to have any of the eight categories of bank profile modification (Section I in RHS

The new version of Habitat Modification Score (HMS) enables a more sophisticated assessment to be made, based on the nature of modifications to a river and their estimated persistence. Details are being finalised by the Environment Agency, but a guideline target might be 90% or more of condition monitoring sites should fall within the semi-natural HMS class 1, with the remainder predominantly unmodified (class 2). Spined loach :A natural channel morphology provides the diversity of breeding/nursery habitat, cover from predators,


2003 form) recorded as ‘extensive’. In-channel natural features present at frequent intervals (such as riffle/pool sequences, pools, slacks and submerged tree root systems)

refuge against high flows, and feeding opportunities that best meet the full life cycle requirements of the species. The close proximity of riffles and pools is particularly important for this sedentary animal. Operations that widen, deepen and/or straighten the channel reduce variations in habitat. New operations that would have this impact are not acceptable within the SAC, whilst restoration may/will be needed in some reaches.


Plant community: reproduction

Field observations during annual macrophyte survey. Mapping of flowering Ranunculus in sample sections every 3 years.

A sufficient proportion of all aquatic macrophytes should be allowed to reproduce in suitable habitat, unaffected by river management practices. Ranunuculus should be able to flower and set seed.

Flowering outside the normal period and weed cutting or other activities that do not leave patches of plants to flower (at least 25% in every 100m of river) and set seed are indicators of unfavourable condition. 25% of the total habitat / macrophyte population should be left uncut for the full duration of the growing season. Use of herbicides should be avoided.

Yes

Criteria feature




Negative indicators: native species

Survey the macrophytes of representative stretches at intervals of ca. 5 km, using the method of Holmes (1983) and a standard check-list of macrophyte species (see Appendix 2 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005).

For blanketweed, epiphytic or other algae, Potamogeton pectinatus or Zannichellia palustris: Cover values over 25% should be considered unfavourable, and should trigger further investigation. Cover values should not increase significantly from an established baseline. ii) For taxa with STRs as follows: For taxa with STR values of 1 or 2, cover values over 25% should be considered unfavourable, but

Taxa typically associated with enrichment are considered negative indicators of favourable condition. The species will vary depending on the River Community Type. Species that are characteristic of enrichment, or have atypically low Species Trophic Ranks (STRs) in the Mean Trophic Rank (MTR) system (Holmes et al., 1999) and that are recorded as dominant (3), are used as indicators. Note: in using MTR, each species is allocated a score dependent on its tolerance to eutrophication; this system cannot be used to assess acidification. Expert judgement will be important in assessing the ecological significance of cover values of these species. At some sites, it may be appropriate to set more stringent targets. Occasionally thresholds may need to be raised, according to wider conservation objectives. Alien species are assessed within the Negative indicators: alien/ introduced species attribute instead.

Yes


should trigger further investigation. Cover values should not increase significantly from an established baseline.

Criteria feature




Negative indicators: alien/ introduced species

For aquatic and marginal macrophytes the presence of alien species listed in Appendix 10 of the JNCCCSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005 should be noted during the macrophyte survey and the scoring system for naturalness applied. For other organisms contact external organisations (e.g. EA, SEPA, EHS, fisheries trusts and boards) for local reports on alien or introduced species.

No impact on native biota from alien or introduced macrophyte species Aquatic and marginal macrophytes The mean SERCON score for naturalness (derived from individual survey sites) should be 4 or 5 (see Appendix 10 of the JNCCCSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). i.e >95% of aquatic and marginal macrophyte sp are native No other alien/introduced species present at levels likely to be detrimental to the characteristic biological community.

Non-native species constitute a major threat to many river systems. For example, species such as signal crayfish have been responsible for much of the decline of native crayfish through competition, habitat damage and the introduction of crayfish plague. Note: ‘Introduced species’ include species that are native to the UK but outside of their natural range. The SERCON scoring system for naturalness of aquatic and marginal macrophytes is used to assess alien plant species. Note: This protocol applies to negative indicator species of the channel and channel margins. Negative indicator species found on banks and the riparian zone are assessed as part of the naturalness of banks and naturalness of riparian zone assessment and form part of the CSM structure attribute Expert judgement will be needed to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to generate an unfavourable condition assessment. For example, for signal crayfish, presence alone would constitute unfavourable condition. Other species, such as barbel, can be tolerated at low levels; higher levels would constitute unfavourable condition.

Yes


Criteria feature Attribute term in guidance

Measure Site-specific Targets

Comments Use for CA

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation White-clawed crayfish Bullhead Spined loach

Negative indicators: In-stream barriers

Strategic assessment of barriers affecting the characteristic species of the SSSI.

No artificial barriers significantly impairing characteristic migratory species from essential life-cycle movements.

Barriers may take the form of weirs, barrages or intakes/off-takes that entrain characteristic species. Species may be anadromous (e.g. salmon), catadromous (e.g. eels) or migrate over relatively short distances within the river system (e.g. bullhead, brook lamprey and invertebrates without flying life stages). A range of data sources may be used and brought together to make this assessment. Specific studies may be required in relation to some barriers where impacts are uncertain and remedial costs are potentially high. Free movement within the channel is necessary to ensure maintenance of genetic diversity (and therefore population viability) and to provide the potential for recolonisation of waters that have become artificially denuded of spined loach. Vertical drops of >18-20 cm are sufficient to prevent upstream movement of adult bullheads. They will therefore prevent recolonisation of upper reaches affected by lethal pollution episodes, and will also lead to constraints on genetic interactions that may have adverse consequences. New instream structures should be avoided, whilst the impact of existing structures needs to be evaluated.

Yes

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and

Plant community: species composition and abundance

Survey the macrophytes of representative stretches at intervals of ca. 5 km , using the method of Holmes (1983) and a standard check-list of macrophyte species

(i) Species Composition The following should all occur for river type II At least 60% of species with abundance V or IV in the constancy table should be

Species with abundance V & IV: Agrostis stolonifera, Cladophora/Rhizoclonium agg., Enteromorpha sp. Epilobium hirsutum, Glyceria maxima, Lemna minor, Leptodictyum riparium, Mentha aquatica, Myosotis scorpioides, other tree species, Persicaria amphibian, Phalaris arundinacea, Potamogeton pecinatus, Rorippa amphibian, Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum/ microphylla agg., Salix spp, Scrophularia

Yes


Criteria feature



Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

(see Appendix 2 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). Evaluate the community against the target community in the constancy tables (Appendix 8 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). Record measures of species composition and abundance on the form in Appendix 9 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005. Alien species, filamentous green algae (including Cladophora, Vaucheria, and Enteromorpha) and other species indicative of eutrophication are not included in these targets and are dealt with in separate targets below.

present, AND At least 25% of species with abundance III should be present. (ii) Loss of Species 60% of species with cover >1 in the initial baseline survey should be at least present and all species recorded as dominant in the initial baseline survey should still be present. (iii) Abundant Species At least 25-35% of species recorded as dominant in the initial baseline survey should still recorded as dominant.

auriculata, Solanum dulcarmara, Sparganium emersum, Sparganium erectum, Vaucheria sp., Veronica beccabunga Species with abundance III: Alisma plantago-aquatica, Apium nodiflora, Callitriche stagnalis, Filipendula ulmaria, Iris pseudacorus, Juncus inflexus, Lycopus europaeus, Lythrum salicaria, Myosoton aquaticum, Myriophyllum spicatum, Nuphar lutea, Potamogeton crispus, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Ranunculus sceleratus, Sagittaria sagittifolia, Schoenoplectus lacustris, Symphytum officinale. In-channel vegetation of SSSI/SAC rivers should be dominated by characteristic species. Species composition and abundance should be assessed using data from two 500 m stretches in each assessment unit where possible. When assessing targets (ii) and (iii), the data from all macrophyte survey sites in the assessment unit should be pooled and compared against pooled baseline data/reference condition. Cover values are expressed using a simplified DAFOR 3-point scale. Where necessary, 5-point scale data converts into the 3-point scale as follows: 5/4 = 3, 3 = 2, 2/1 = 1. Any sections classified as Type IV are considered to be in unfavourable condition. Comparisons in (ii) and (iii) should be made with the initial baseline survey/reference condition, not with survey data from the previous monitoring cycle. Non-native species are not considered under this attribute, but are covered under Negative indicators. Rare species are not considered under this attribute, but are taken account of under Indicators of local distinctiveness.


Criteria feature



Note that this component of the generic habitat FCT need not be applied to sectional river SSSIs designated for river habitat where the plant community is not a specific notified feature.

Bullhead Spined loach

Negative indicators: Fish introductions

Assessment of stocking consents in relation to guidance on acceptable stocking levels.

No artificial releasing of fish unless it is widely agreed that this is in the best interests of the populations and then only with local stock. Fish introductions should not interfere with the ability of the river to support self-sustaining and healthy populations of characteristic species.

Many characteristic species can be affected by fish introductions, through increased predation, competition or genetic introgression, or through disease transfer. Guidance is being generated on the levels of stocking deemed to be ecological acceptable within SSSIs. The presence of artificially high densities of salmonids and other fish will create unacceptably high levels of predatory and competitive pressure on juvenile and adult bullhead. Excessively high densities of predatory and benthivorous fish species can cause unacceptably high predation pressure and alter sediment characteristics and sedimentary food supply in ways that are highly detrimental to spined loach. Care needs to be taken to ensure that stocking exercises do not keep the densities of such species at unnaturally high levels.

Yes


Habitat functioning: water quality (General assessments)

EA standard monitoring protocols

Biological GQA Class ‘A’ / ‘B’ for all reaches of the river Chemical GQA Class ‘A’ / ‘B’ for all reaches of the river

A wide range of water quality parameters can affect the status of interest features, but standard biological monitoring techniques provide a reasonably integrated picture in relation to many parameters. The Biological Module of the Environment Agency’s General Quality Assessment scheme is based on assessment of the macroinvertebrate community. All classified reaches within the site should comply with the targets given. The chemical module of the GQA scheme sets standards for dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand and total ammonia. It therefore

Yes




White-clawed crayfish Bullhead Spined loach

covers a number of water quality parameters that commonly cause problems within river systems. Where modelling has been undertaken, the river should comply with the targets at all points along it length except within effluent mixing zones of acceptable size. Generally, water quality should not be injurious to any life stage. A wide range of water quality parameters can affect the status of interest features, but standard biological monitoring techniques provide a reasonably integrated picture in relation to many parameters. All classified reaches within the site that contain, or should contain, crayfish under conditions of high environmental quality should comply with the targets given.


Habitat functioning: water quality

EA monitoring Un-ionised ammonia <0.021 mg L-1 .as a 95-percentile

The un-ionised form of ammonia is highly toxic to freshwater fauna. This target is the same as the EQS used by the EA. Where modelling has been undertaken, the river should comply with the targets at all points along it length except within effluent mixing zones of acceptable size.

Yes




Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Bullhead Spined loach


EA monitoring Suspended solids No unnaturally high loads. Spined loach and bullhead: <25mgl/litre annually

Many characteristic species of different river types are susceptible to elevated solids levels, through reduced light availability (for photosynthesis), the clogging of respiratory structures, impaired visibility or siltation of coarse substrates. Lowland clay and alluvial river sections are more depositional in character and resident biota are generally more tolerant. Suspended solids measurements are also essential to the estimation of particulate loads within the river network (in combination with gauged flow data), to provide an indication of the risk of siltation. Elevated levels of suspended solids can clog the respiratory structures of crayfish. The target of <25 mg L-1 (annual mean) is based on the EC Freshwater Fish Directive. Most river SSSIs/ ASSIs and SACs do not extend to the entire catchment. Some life-cycle stages are potentially susceptible to damage from siltation, the source of which may lie elsewhere in the catchment outside the site boundary. Sources of fines include run-off from arable land, land (especially banks) trampled by livestock, sewage and industrial discharges.

Yes

Criteria feature Attribute

term in guidance




EA monitoring Orthophosphate levels: < 0.06mg/litre as an annual mean

Elevated phosphorus levels interfere with competitive interactions between higher plant species and between higher plants and algae, leading to dominance by attached forms of algae, deterioration of vegetative habitat, and declines in abundance and/or diversity of characteristic plant species (which may include lower plants such as mosses and liverworts). The respiration of artificially large growths of benthic or epiphytic algae may generate large diurnal sags in

Yes


Bullhead Spined loach White-clawed crayfish

dissolved oxygen in the water column and/or substrate fish and invertebrate species. Excessive benthic algal growth can also enhance the trapping of fine sediments within riverine gravels, enhancing siltation and exacerbating poor substrate conditions. Where modelling has been undertaken, the river should comply with the targets at all points along it length except within effluent mixing zones of acceptable size.


Habitat structure: channel and banks

For bank vegetation: a simplified Phase I habitat survey, carried out at 10 RHS transect locations or as part of the sweep-up survey (see Appendix 6 of the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005). For the riparian zone: RHS transect data, assessed using the protocol in Appendix 7 of

Bank and riparian zone vegetation Bank and riparian zone vegetation structure should be near-natural. For bank vegetation the target is a mean score for the assessment unit of 4 or 5. For riparian zone vegetation the target is a mean score for the assessment unit of 4 or 5.

Note: The protocol in Appendices 6 and 7 of JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005 used to assess bank and riparian zone naturalness incorporates a modification due to negative indicator species. Spined loach: Extent of submerged and marginal plants: A mosaic of bare substrate and submerged beds of higher plants provides optimal conditions in relation to feeding, cover from predators and spawning (which occurs on submerged plants). Marginal emergents also provide important cover and feeding opportunities. Vegetation management should be limited to no more than 50% of the channel width (submerged plants) and 50% of bank length (marginal fringe), cut in patches. Most river SSSIs/ ASSIs and SACs do not extend to the entire catchment.

Yes


Criteria feature



the JNCC CSM Guidelines for Rivers, March 2005.

Bullhead River morphology

Routine statutory agency consenting process

Woody debris removal should be minimised, and restricted to essential activities such as flood defence

Bullheads are particularly associated with woody debris in lowland reaches, where it is likely that it provides an alternative source of cover from predators and floods. It may also be used as an alternative spawning substrate.

Yes


Routine statutory agency consenting process

Weed cutting should be limited to no more than half of the channel width

The importance of submerged higher plants to bullhead survival is unclear, but it is likely that where such vegetation occurs it is used by the species for cover against predators. Weed cutting should be limited to no more than half of the channel width in a pattern of cutting creating a mosaic of bare substrate and beds of submerged plants.

Yes


Assess river morphology using RHS and fluvial audit

River habitat SSSI features should be in favourable condition. Maintain the characteristic physical features of the river channel, banks and riparian zone.

• Slack water refuges should be present

• Patches of high canopy tree cover should be present along channel banks with associated woody debris present within the channel

• Unsilted coarse (gravel / pebble / cobble) dominated substrate should be present

The characteristic channel morphology provides the diversity of water depths, current velocities and substrate types necessary to fulfil the spawning, juvenile and dispersal requirements of the species. The close proximity of different habitats facilitates movement to new preferred habitats with age. Operations that widen, deepen and /or straighten the channel reduce variations in habitat. New operations that would have this impact are not acceptable within the SAC, whilst restoration may be needed in some reaches. Unsilted coarse (gravel / pebble / cobble) dominated substrate: males guard sticky eggs on the underside of stones. Larger stones on a hard substrate providing clear spaces between the stream bed and the underside of pebbles / cobbles are therefore important. Slack-water refuges provide important refuges against high flow conditions. Suitable refuges include pools, submerged tree root


Criteria feature



systems and marginal vegetation with >5 cm water depth. The relative importance of shade compared with the provision of woody debris is unclear, but the maintenance of intermittent tree cover in conjunction with retention of woody debris ensures that habitat conditions are suitable. In lowland reaches without any riparian trees, it may be desirable to introduce a limited amount of cover.


River morphology

Assess river morphology using RHS

Maintain the characteristic physical features of the river channel, banks and riparian zone. Engineering works affecting crayfish habitat and refuges must at least replace the pre-works availability of such habitat and refuges. Extent of large woody debris: Woody debris should be retained in-situ unless it poses a flooding or health and safety risk. Vegetation management should be limited to no more than 50% of the channel width (submerged plants) and 50% of bank length (marginal fringe). Extent of overhanging

A natural channel morphology provides a diversity of refuge and feeding opportunities. The proximity of different refuges facilitates foraging and the movement of individuals to different habitats with age. Operations that widen, deepen and/or straighten the channel reduce variations in habitat. New operations that would have this impact are not acceptable within an SAC, whilst restoration may be needed in some reaches. Extent of cobbles/ boulders: where they occur naturally, cobbles and boulders are used extensively by crayfish as refuge. Engineering works can result in the loss of large material – any works should at least replace the pre-works availability of such refuges. Fallen branches and trunks are used extensively by crayfish as refuge. Woody debris is typically removed during maintenance operations, but it is important to retain as much as possible, particularly where other forms of refuge are in short supply. Bankside refuges provide important refuges and are often lost during engineering operations. Any works should at least replace the pre-works availability of refuges.

Yes


Criteria feature



riparian vegetation: this should cover at least 10% of the bank length throughout the year, distributed in patches along the margins Extent of bankside tree cover: overhanging trees should cover between 5 – 10% of the bank length, distributed in patches along the margins. provide valuable shade & food sources and, in addition, supply woody debris to the river. Submerged tree-root systems provide important cover & refuges from flood flows.

Submerged higher plants provide cover away from the banks, and also represent a valuable food source. Marginal emergents also provide important cover and feeding opportunities. Overhanging trees provide valuable shade and food sources and, in addition, supply woody debris to the river. Submerged tree-root systems provide important cover and refuges from flood flows.

White-clawed crayfish Bullhead

Negative indicators

Crayfish surveys in catchments thought to be at risk

Non-native crayfish should be absent. If present, measures should be taken to control their numbers.

Once non-native crayfish species are established in a water body, native populations are usually eliminated quite rapidly, if not by competition and predation then by crayfish plague. If already present in an SAC, measures should be taken to control the spread of alien species and, if possible, reduce their numbers. Bullhead densities have been found to be negatively correlated with densities of non-native crayfish in the River Great Ouse, suggesting competitive and/or predator-prey interactions.

Yes

Otter Food availability

EA, local fishery trusts and/or SFCC data

Fish biomass stays within expected natural fluctuations.

Accurate information on fish stocks is difficult to obtain according to a recent review of data from England, produced by the Environment Agency (Research and Development Technical Report TR W256, Otters- Fish Prey Availability, Biomass and

Yes


Criteria feature



Sustainability) and may be extremely difficult to interpret. However, there is an obligation to monitor fish communities under the Water Framework Directive and a more comprehensive monitoring system is being instigated by the Environment Protection Agencies.

Otter Toxic chemicals Monitoring by relevant Environment Protection Agency. Specialist group to meet at intervals to identify national trends and extract information on individual SACs.

No increase in pollutants potentially toxic to otters.

Liaison between Country Agency Staff and EA/SEPA essential.

Yes

Otter Anthropogenic mortality 2 (Discretionary)

Road and rail casualties. Deaths due to fishing gear etc. Any site where there is a feature causing otter mortality. Data from EA’s reporting system. Obtain views from EA on implications of recent data. JNCC otter data on the CITES database.

Otter populations not significantly impacted by human induced kills.

Monitoring this attribute, where appropriate should provide data for installing mitigation.

Yes

Otter Disturbance Extent of public access to river

No significant change to river or bankside usage. No significant development

Yes

Otter Bankside cover Proportion of bank lined with trees, scrub or thick vegetative cover

No overall permanent decrease Some change acceptable as long as no overall decrease.

Yes

Criteria feature



Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and

Habitat functioning: water flow

Data on gauged and naturalised flows, flow accretion methods, and the Resource Assessment Method (RAM) Framework. Field observations

Flow regime should be characteristic of the river. Levels of abstraction should not exceed the generic thresholds laid down for moderately sensitive SSSI rivers by national guidance:

River flow affects a range of habitat factors of critical importance to bullhead and spined loach, including current velocity, water depth, wetted area, substrate quality, dissolved oxygen levels and water temperature. There should be >5 cm water depth over riffles in summer. The maintenance of both flushing

Yes


Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation White-clawed crayfish Bullhead Spined loach

Maximum acceptable % deviations from daily naturalised flows throughout the river: <Qn 50 – 20% Qn50 – 95 – 15% >Qn95 – 10-15% Ecological flow criteria already laid down for the river should also be complied with. There should be no obvious problems with water availability within the monitoring unit.

flows and baseflows, based on natural hydrological processes, is vital. Detailed investigations of habitat-flow relationships may indicate that a more or less stringent threshold may be appropriate for a specified reach; however, a precautionary approach would need to be taken to the use of less stringent values. As a guideline, at least 90% of the naturalised daily mean flow should remain in the river throughout the year. Naturalised flow is defined as the flow in the absence of abstractions and discharges. The generic targets vary according to the specific sensitivity of the reach type, with large lowland rivers having somewhat lower sensitivity than headwater streams. Any relaxation of generic targets on regulated SSSI rivers should relate to the desirability and ecological sustainability of regulating structures. The availability and reliability of data is patchy – long-term gauged data can be used until adequate naturalised data become available, although the impact of abstractions on historical flow records should be considered.

Audit Trail

Rationale for limiting standards to specified parts of the site

Indicators of local distinctiveness removed from the standards as site-specific aspects are covered by other attributes.


Habitat structure: substrate target taken from EA Conservation Strategy for the River Mease SAC in Liaison EA File.

Rationale for selection of measures of condition (features and attributes for use in condition assessment) (The selected vegetation attributes are those considered to most economically define favourable condition at this site for the broad habitat type and any

dependent designated species).

Other Notes


APPENDIX 3D

River Mease SSSI and SAC citations (NE, 2000; JNCC, 2006)









APPENDIX 3E

Screening Assessment Matrix


APPENDIX 5 – APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Activity &

Potential Effects

Qualifying

Feature and Attributes Supporting Site

Integrity

Description of Potential Effect Significant

Effect Likely?

Appropriate

Assessment Required?

Operational

Phase

Water crowfoot

habitat

This feature is not present within the site and is located too far

downstream to be affected. No No

Spined loach This feature is not present within the site located too far downstream to be affected.

No No

Bullhead -Siltation

-Channel form -Artificial barriers

-Water quality -River morphology

Bullhead is present in this section of the Gilwiskaw Brook. It is considered that there is sufficient information on bridge design

and construction to be able to comment on potential effects on bullhead.

The new bridge will be constructed on abutments set back behind the existing bridge abutments. The existing bridge deck, although not impacted by the proposed development, will be

removed as it currently lies within the flood plain for a 1:100 year plus for climate change level. 20%. There will be no effect

on channel form or flow from the new bridge and as there will be no construction in the river, no silt or pollution will be generated. The upgraded bridge will not impede movement of

bullhead.

The upgraded bridge crossing will, although wider than the

existing bridge, be set above the 1:100 year plus 20% flood level so there may be a slight increase in shading of the river channel at this point. However, the channel is already noted as

being heavily shaded along its eastern bank due to the presence of overhanging vegetation. Upon decommissioning, one half of

the deck will be removed to leave a bridge crossing of the same width as the existing bridge.

No No

1. Upgrading of the existing former railway bridge over Gilwiskaw Brook, specifically: Removal of

bankside vegetation

Pollution during construction

Creating a barrier to movement of wildlife

Shading of the river channel


This feature is not present within the site and the site is considered to be generally unsuitable for this species.

No No


Otter Otter is not currently present within the site, or considered

likely to colonise the Gilwiskaw Brook during the operational phase of development.

No No


Activity & Potential

Effects

Qualifying Feature and

Attributes Supporting Site

Integrity

Description of Potential Effect Significant Effect

Likely?

Appropriate Assessment

Required?

Water crowfoot habitat

This feature is not present within the site and is located too far downstream to be affected.

No No

Spined loach This feature is not present within the site and is located too far downstream to be affected.

No No

Bullhead -siltation -water quality

It is considered that sufficient information has been provided to be able to assess the potential effect of the transport of materials across the Brook on designated features.

The submitted information has identified that there is potential for spillage of material into Gilwiskaw Brook during transport and to mitigate against this, skirts are proposed on

the bridge to prevent mud and material falling into the Brook.

The condition of the crossing point will also be routinely

monitored and cleared of any build up of deposited material as necessary.

No No


This feature is not present within the site and is likely to be located too far down stream to be affected.

No No

2. Removal of overburden

and stockpiling on

the eastern side of Gilwiskaw

Brook, specifically:

• Accidental spillage of

material from the

bridge or vehicles

Otter Otter is not currently present within the site, or considered

likely to colonise the Gilwiskaw Brook during the operational phase of development.

No No


3. Phased

extraction of mineral in a broadly north

west to south east direction,

and specifically:

• Effects on ground and

surface water

quality and hydrology

All features

dependent on water quality and flow within the site

or downstream (effects considered

likely to be apparent to confluence with

next major tributary below

Snarestone, so unlikely to affect

water crowfoot habitat or spined loach.

There is sufficient information to confirm that the process of

excavation will result in changes to local ground and surface water hydrology, in terms of both water quality and surface and ground water flow; it is considered that these effects

have been robustly modelled and quantified in close consultation with the Environment Agency.

A series of reports to investigate the potential effects of extraction on water quality and flow and to propose a package of mitigation measures to manage, treat and

monitor ground and surface water has been submitted by the applicant. The report authors are confident that proposed

measures to manage and monitor water quality and flow will be sufficient to avoid any potentially adverse effects on the

River Mease SAC.

No No



Effects


Attributes Supporting Site Integrity


Likely?

Appropriate Assessment

Required?

Bullhead -As for spined

loach White

-clawed crayfish -water quality

-orthophospate levels -water flow

Otter

-food availability -pollutant levels

The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposed measures for safeguarding water quality and flow

and has recommended that these be delivered as a condition of planning permission. Natural England has advised that there is likely to be a

significant effect on the River Mease SAC (see formal response (Appendix 1) and that appropriate assessment of

the potential effects of the proposed development is required. This screening assessment has reviewed the information submitted by the applicant and considered

changes in water quality and flow against the Conservation Objectives of the River Mease SAC.

In light of the submitted information, it is concluded that there is unlikely to be a significant effect on the integrity of

the River Mease SAC.


Restoration

phase

Water crowfoot

habitat This feature is not present within the site and is located too

far downstream to be affected.

No No

Spined loach This feature is not present within the site located too far downstream to be affected.

No No

Bullhead

-siltation -suspended solids

Bullhead is present within the site, but the presence of a

minimum 10m buffer zone adjacent to the Gilwiskaw Brook is considered sufficient to prevent adverse effects on bullhead.

No No


This feature is not present within the site and the site is considered to be generally unsuitable for this species.

No No

4. Backfilling

and progressive restoration,

and specifically:

• Release of

sediment

during backfilling

and restoration

Otter -disturbance Otter is not currently present within the site, or considered likely to colonise the Gilwiskaw Brook during the operational

phase of development.

No No

5. Habitat creation and

restoration

proposals,

Water crowfoot

habitat -water quality

This feature is located too far downstream to be directly

affected but the restoration of the site may have a beneficial effect on this habitat in the

Long term

enhancement

No No




Effects


Attributes Supporting Site

Integrity


Likely? Appropriate Assessment

Required?

-orthophosphate levels

long term through the presence of a buffer zone and reduced agricultural inputs to the Gilwiskaw Brook.

Spined loach -water quality


This feature is located too far downstream to be directly affected but the restoration of the site may have a beneficial

effect on this habitat in the long term through the presence of a buffer zone and reduced agricultural inputs to the Gilwiskaw Brook.

Long term enhancemen

t

No

and specifically:

• De-

culverting a tributary of

the Gilwiskaw Brook

• Creation of

Wet Woodland

• Establis

hment of a permanent buffer zone

along the Gilwiskaw

Brook • Re-

meandering of Gilwiskaw

Brook

Bullhead -water quality


It is considered that there is sufficient information to enable the potential effect of habitat creation and restoration

proposals on designated features to be assessed.

Habitat creation and restoration includes a proposal to de-culvert approximately 300m of culverted watercourse which

feeds into the Gilwiskaw Brook and re-meandering of the Gilwiskaw which may result in accidental release of fine sediments into the Brook and smothering of bullhead habitat.

Further detail is required on proposed timing and methods of working to avoid adverse impacts.

The Environment Agency has requested that a condition be

imposed to require details of proposed habitat enhancements and methods of working to be agreed prior to development

commencing. In the longer term, de-culverting may be beneficial by virtue of creating new habitat that could be used by bullhead. The

establishment of a permanent buffer zone adjacent to the Gilwiskaw Brook will act as a buffer to diffuse agricultural

pollution, in particular reducing input of phosphates to the Brook, benefiting all designated features dependent upon

good water quality.

Long term enhancemen

t

No


Otter

-food availability -disturbance -bankside cover

In the longer term, it is anticipated that the proposed habitat

creation measures, particularly creation of new areas of wet woodland along the

Gilwiskaw Brook would improve the overall value of the site, including the corridor of the Gilwiskaw Brook, with regard to

otter by virtue of providing greater bankside cover and reduced disturbance.

Long term

enhancement

No


Activity &

Potential Effects

Qualifying

Feature and Attributes

Supporting Site Integrity

Description of Potential Effect Significant

Effect Likely?

Appropriate

Assessment Required?

Silver fish stocks may also potentially increase with knock on benefits for otter (i.e. chub, dace).

Water crowfoot

habitat -water flow

This feature is located some distance downstream where any

effect on flow is likely to be moderated by inputs from other tributaries below Snarestone.

No No

Spined loach -water flow

This feature is located some distance downstream where any effect on flow is likely to be moderated by inputs from other

tributaries below Snarestone.

No No

6. Post

restoration drainage proposals

including creation of a

winter flood storage lake,

specifically: • Potential

impacts on surface and

ground water hydrology

Bullhead -water flow

-sedimentation -river morphology

A supplementary report prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP (‘Impact of Ashby Canal Compensation Flow Lagoon on

Gilwiskaw Brook Flows’, October 2010) to model the potential effects on ground and surface hydrology as a result of creation of the winter storage lake indicate that at worst, the

reduction in flow to the Gilwiskaw Brook would represent 0.6% of low flows and only 0.3% during average flow

conditions. Water depth is not critical for bullhead (provided this is

maintained at > 5cm), however, if flow is inadequate, bullhead mortality may occur as a result of high

temperatures (of which the species is particularly intolerant) or low dissolved oxygen levels (Tomlinson and Perrow

No No


Ecology of the Bullhead Cottus gobio, 2003). Given the very

low predicted % change in flows, bullhead is therefore considered unlikely to experience any adverse effects, including under low flow conditions.


-water flow -river morphology

This feature was recorded as not present within the site and the site is generally unsuitable for this species; it may be

present downstream of the site but upstream of Snarestone. The predicted very slight reduction in % flow, included during

low flow conditions is considered very unlikely to adversely affect crayfish.

No No

Otter -food availability

No direct effect on otter would be anticipated with regard to otter, but there may be indirect effects on fish stocks and food availability (see above).

No No

References: Tomlinson, M.L. and Perrow, M.R. (2003) Ecology of the Bullhead Cottus gobio Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 4


APPENDIX 3F

Formal Consultation Response from the Environment Agency (letter dated 3rd

September 2010)


Mr Peter Bond Our ref: T/2009/108576/04-L01 Leicestershire County Council Your ref: 2009/C088/07

Mineral & Waste Planning Leicester Road Date: 03 September 2010

Glenfield Leicester LE3 8TE Dear Mr Bond EXTRACTION OF COAL AND FIRECLAY BY SURFACE MINE METHODS AND RESTORATION TO AGRICULTURE, WOODLAND AND NATURE CONSERVATION LAND TO THE EAST OF GALLOWS LANE BETWEEN MEASHAM AND SWEPSTONE AND KNOWN AS THE 'MINORCA' SITE.

I refer to the amended plans regarding the above proposal which were received on the 27th July 2010 and 11th August 2010. The amended plans include a report entitled ‘The Former Minorca Colliery Coal and Fireclay Surface Mining Scheme Supplementary Report, by Wardell Armstrong, dated July 2010, report number J01.

Environment Agency position Having reviewed the submitted information, the Environment Agency believes that operational and key regulatory controls can be used in combination to safely manage the risks to water quality and water resources. We are therefore able to remove our objections to the proposal.

The primary regulation of discharges made into surface waters (including the Giliwiskaw Brook) and to ground will be by virtue of the requirements of The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 which came into force on 6th April 2010. This requires that the discharge into the Giliwiskaw Brook will require an Environmental Permit (formerly a discharge consent) which is regulated by the Environment Agency.

The applicant will be required to obtain the Environmental Permit prior to any discharge. The application should therefore be made well in advance of the start of operations. Natural England will also be required to comment on the application for a permit. The application should include information regarding the planned used of water treatment chemicals. This includes flocculants for settlement of sediments or

Environment Agency Trentside Offices Scarrington Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 5FA. Customer services line: 08708 506 506 Email: [email protected] www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Cont/d..


chemicals potentially used for pH adjustment, following discovery of acid mine drainage, as identified in the Water Management Plan. Consideration should be given to the additional analysis that may be required following use of water treatment chemicals (e.g. aluminium).

An Environmental Permit will require detailed operational controls which are likely to include but not be restricted to a detailed water management, monitoring, mitigation and contingency action procedures. Please see the note at the end of this letter which has further information regarding Environmental Permitting.

Environment Agency position The proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is imposed requiring submission and subsequent agreement of further details as set out below:

Condition

Open casting operations will not commence until the Water Management Plan, Water Monitoring Plan, Treated Water Discharge Procedure Guidelines and Assessment of Discharge Quality documents have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To protect the water environment.

Active De-Watering: In future, this activity is expected to be regulated by the requirement for an Abstraction Licence issued by virtue of the Water Resources Act. However, this legislative change is not expected to be implemented until late autumn 2010 at the earliest. The Environment Agency understands that the applicant does not anticipate the need for active de-watering during operations.

Environment Agency position If it is found that active de-watering is required to facilitate operations then the proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is imposed requiring the submission and subsequent agreement of further details, as set out below.

Condition

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such a time as a scheme to secure de-watering of the site has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Any such scheme shall be supported by detailed information, including an assessment of the potential of the activity to impact existing groundwater and surface water abstractions (Protected Rights and Lawful Users), private water supplies and groundwater dependent surface water features and ecologically important sites. In the event of the assessment identifying risks to an identified receptor as being unacceptable, the applicant must implement appropriate mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority or alternatively agree an appropriate derogation agreement with the holder of Protected Right or Lawful Use. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme, or any changes as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason To ensure that the impact of active de-watering is correctly assessed and appropriate actions taken to mitigate any identified impacts. Unmanaged de-watering activities could impact existing groundwater and surface water abstractions (Protected Rights and Lawful Users), private water supplies and groundwater dependent surface water features and ecologically important sites. If appropriate mitigation or derogation arrangements cannot be practically implemented this activity should not be permitted. Restoration: The submitted Water Management Plan discusses the re-establishment of the link between shallow groundwater and the Giliwiskaw Brook (Section 8). Although a methodology is discussed, no post


operational/restoration monitoring is proposed to demonstrate the re-establishment of groundwater connection. Condition

Open casting operations will not commence until a scheme of post restoration monitoring has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason

To demonstrate that the stated aims of restoration have been met and that the link between groundwater and the Giliwiskaw Brook is reinstated. Note: We recommend that monitoring should continue until the applicant has demonstrated the establishment of equilibrium of the new system to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. We ask to be consulted on the details submitted for approval to your Authority to discharge the above conditions and on any subsequent amendments/alterations.

Flood Risk and Surface Water Management:

The Environment Agency has reviewed the submitted additional information in respect of flood risk and surface water management. The following position and required planning conditions supersede the flood risk related comments and conditions previously requested in our letter dated 18 August 2009, reference LT/2009/108576/01-L01.

We cannot comment formally on the feasibility of the lake proposal utilising flood water because calculations have not been submitted to support this proposal. However we do make the comment that only flood water should enter the storage lake and the levels at which water would enter the lake and the on-line reserve must be agreed with the Agency.

Environment Agency position

The proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measures as detailed in the Flood Envelope Assessment and Water Management Plan submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission.

Condition

The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Envelope Assessment (FEA) and Water Management Plan (WMP) both dated July 2010, undertaken by Wardell Armstrong and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FEA and Water Management Plan: 1. WMP Section 3. Limiting the surface water run-off generated by all rainfall events up to the 100

year plus 20% (for climate change) critical rain storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.

2. FEA Section 5.2.7. Provision of a replacement bridge crossing to the Gilwiskaw Brook within the site to a 100 year plus 20% (for climate change) standard.

3. FEA Section 5.2.3. Replacement Bridge abutments to be set outside of the 100 year flood plain envelope. 4. FEA Section 5.2.4 Replacement Bridge soffit is set no lower than 86.971m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). Reason

To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. To reduce the risk of flooding from blockages to the existing bridge. Environment Agency Position The proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is imposed


requiring the following drainage details. Condition Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall include: 1. Limiting the surface water run-off generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 20% (for

climate change) critical rain storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding offsite.

2. Provision of surface water run-off attenuation storage to accommodate the difference between the allowable discharge rate and all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 20% (for climate change) critical rain storm.

3. Construction working method statement. 4. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed during the works. Reason

To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system. Condition The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to detail the design of the replacement bridge over the Gilwiskaw Brook has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

The scheme shall include

1. Detailed design of the replacement bridge. 2. Bridge abutments to be set outside of the 100 year flood plain envelope. 3. Bridge soffit is set no lower than 86.971m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). 4. Construction working method statement.

The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.

Reason

To ensure the structural integrity of the existing bed and banks of the Gilwiskaw Brook, thereby reducing the risk of flooding.

Condition

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to detail the design of any habitat works to the Gilwiskaw Brook has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

The scheme shall include:

1. Detailed design of any meandering and other habitat works. 2. Construction working method statement.


The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.

Reason

To ensure the structural integrity of the existing bed and banks of the Gilwiskaw Brook, thereby reducing the risk of flooding.

Condition

The restoration of the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to detail the design of the on-line water reserve, and the water storage lake have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

The scheme shall include: 1. Construction working method statement. 2. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed.

The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason

To ensure the structural integrity of the existing bed and banks of the Gilwiskaw Brook, thereby reducing the risk of flooding. Condition The restoration of the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to detail the design of any works to the Gilwiskaw Brook tributary has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include: 1. Detailed design of the proposed reinstatement to open watercourse (deculverting). 2. Construction working method statement. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason

To ensure the structural integrity of the existing bed and banks of the Gilwiskaw Brook tributary, thereby reducing the risk of flooding. Additional Information: The construction working method statements shall include details on the following: • time programme for the works. • methods used for all channel and bank-side/water margin works. • machinery to be used. • location and storage of plant, materials and fuel. • access routes to the works, access to the banks of the watercourses. • method of protection of areas of ecological sensitivity and importance.


• site supervision. • location of site office, compounds and welfare facilities. We ask to be consulted on the details submitted for approval to your Authority to discharge the above conditions and on any subsequent amendments/alterations. Advice to applicant Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of, or within the flood plain of, the Gilwiskaw Brook, designated a ‘main river’. Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works affecting the flow of the Gilwiskaw Brook tributary, including reinstatement to open watercourse (deculverting). Biodiversity comments: The Agency acknowledges the proposed enhancements to the River Mease SAC (Gilwiskaw Brook) and associated waterbodies, including provision of a fish refuge (available at all flow conditions). The planning application includes the proposal to provide safe mammal passage on the Bosworth Road Bridge (via either a ledge or a mammal pipe to link in with banks of the river when the river level is above the 100 year 20% level, which we agree with. However, as mentioned at every meeting attended regarding the planning application, the main constraint on the river working in a more natural dynamic way is the Swepstone Road Bridge. This bridge appears to have sunk, presumably due to subsidence problems from earlier coal abstractions, and has little or no freeboard even at normal river levels. The 'choking' of the river at this point has resulted in large amounts of gravel at the upstream side being held up, so preventing it moving down the river system and adding to the stated aim of achieving a more normal river structure of pools and gravel riffles; most of the gravel that the Mease system produces is upstream of this Bridge. The Agency believes that the Swepstone Road Bridge at the very least should have a mammal pipe installed under the road with appropriate fencing directing mammals to it. We suggest that as and when the otter (a notified interest species of the Mease SAC) is using the river on a resident basis it is highly likely that this is where they are likely to be involved in RTA deaths, as bridges and culverts with no clear passage/freeboard forces them on to the road as they move up and downstream. Whilst expensive, the ideal solution would be to replace the bridge with a clear-span type, so allowing free movement for mammals, transfer of river gravels, reduction in flooding and an improved opportunity to have high flow levels to more frequently flow in to the downstream waterbodies designed for flood alleviation and water storage for the canal. The current upstream wet woodland habitat could be retained by use of introduced and secured large woody debris. It would make sense to consider if the Leicestershire County Council Highways and the applicant might enter in to a partnership to replace/improve the Swepstone Road Bridge.

Pollution Prevention Pollution Incidents on site should be reported immediately on 0800 807060. Pollution Prevention advice can be sought from the local Environment Management Team, ‘Lichfield and Tamworth’ EM Team on 08708 506 506.

Oil storage on site must comply with the Control Of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001, details can be found in the EA Pollution Prevention Guideline, PPG 2 Above Ground Oil Storage. Oil absorbent material should be stored on site to deal with fuel and oil spills during normal operation, maintenance or emergencies.


Security staff on site at weekends should be made aware of emergency contacts, trained in identification of pollution incidents and appropriate emergency procedures.

Waste Management All wastes generated on site must comply with waste management legislation. The local EM team should be consulted before puddle clay is removed from the site for Ashby Canal restoration. If such material is deemed ‘waste’ it may fall within waste management legislation. Note regarding Environmental Permitting:

Environmental Permitting is administered nationally by; Permitting Support Centre Environmental Permitting Team Quadrant 2 99 Parkway Avenue Parkway Business Park Sheffield S9 4WF We recommend that the applicant contact this team in order to assess the detailed requirements for permitting of this operation. Initially the applicant can find relevant guidance from our Website; http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/117697.aspx http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/38785.aspx. During the period of construction, oil and fuel storage will be subject to the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001. The Regulations apply to the storage of oil or fuel of any kind in any kind of container which is being used and stored above ground, including drums and mobile bowsers, situated outside a building and with a storage capacity which exceeds 200 litres. A person with custody or control of any oil or fuel breaching the Regulations will be guilty of a criminal offence. The penalties are a maximum fine of £5000 in Magistrates' Court or an unlimited fine in Crown Court. Further details of the Regulations are available from the Environment Agency. Site operators should ensure that there is no possibility of contaminated water entering and polluting surface or underground waters. The Agency needs to compile reports to meet DEFRA high level targets and consequently a copy of the required decision notice should be forwarded following determination of the application.

I have sent a copy of this letter to the agent. Yours sincerely Mr Nick Wakefield Planning Liaison Officer

Direct dial 0115 846 3635 Direct fax 0115 846 2681 Direct e-mail [email protected] cc Wardell Armstrong


APPENDIX 3G

Water Management Plan July 2010


UK COAL MINING LTD The Former Minorca Colliery Coal and Fireclay

Surface Mining Scheme Water Management Plan July 2010

DATE ISSUED: July 2010

JOB NUMBER: ST11621

REPORT

NUMBER: 001

UK COAL MINING LTD

The Former Minorca Colliery Coal and Fireclay Surface Mining Scheme Water

Management Plan

July 2010

PREPARED BY:

Mike Doyle Technical Director

APPROVED BY:

Mike Doyle Technical Director

This report has been prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the Contract with the Client. The report is confidential to the Client and Wardell Armstrong LLP accept no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom

this report may be made known.

No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Wardell


Armstrong LLP.

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1

2 GROUNDWATER AND GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER INTERACTION ........ .3

3 MANAGEMENT OF SURFACE RUN-OFF WATER............................................. 10

4 TREATED WATER DISCHARGE QUALITY ..................................................... 15

5 TREATED WATER DISCHARGE PROCEDURE GUIDELINES .............................. 18

6 MONITORING.......................................................................................... 21

7 CONTINGENCY

.......................................................................................................... 23

8 RESTORATION ........................................................................................................... 27

9

SUMMARY

.................................................................................................................. 33

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Supplementary Hydrogeology Report

Appendix 2 Discharge Quality Assessment

Appendix 3 Treated Water Discharge Procedure Guidelines

Appendix 4 Water Monitoring Plan

Appendix 5 Water Contingency Plan 1


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

UK Coal is seeking planning consent for a Surface Mining Development at the

former Minorca Colliery site near Measham, Leicestershire. The development is

for the excavation of an estimated 1,250,000 tonnes of coal and 250,000 tonnes

of fireclay over a four and a half year period. Following extraction, there will be a

further 39 weeks of restoration.

Wardell Armstrong LLP (WA) prepared an Environmental Statement (reference

NL08024 Volume 2 dated June 2009) on behalf of UK Coal in support of the

planning application.

Following submission of the Environmental Statement, the Environment Agency

(EA) requested further information to demonstrate that the risks posed to

groundwater and surface water resources and dependent ecosystems can be

safely managed. In particular the EA requested further information on:

1. Geology and hydrogeology of the project site; 2. Interaction between groundwater and the Gilwiskaw Brook; 3. Migration towards the excavation of saline water from the north-

west; 4. Impacts on abstraction boreholes at Netherseal and Chilcote to

the southwest of the site.

Wardell Armstrong LLP were engaged by UK Coal to undertake additional works

to address issues raised by the EA during the initial application consultation

process. The work required to address the issues and the modelling methods

that would be used were discussed and modified after consultation with the EA.

The additional works carried out are described in the Supplementary

Hydrogeological Report which is included as Appendix 1.


1.2 Overall Philosophy

The following report details the way in which water management should

be carried out in the proposed Minorca Surface Mining development. It is

based on 3 main steps:

1. Assessment of the main issues 2. Monitoring to verify that the assessment is correct and 3. Contingency plans to deal with any possible major issues

The potential impacts are assessed with the best available data at the time.

Then, during operation, monitoring allows comparison of the predicted

impacts/parameters against the real observed values. Any significant deviation of

the real values from the predicted ones requires explanation and possible

modification to the project.

The project should also have contingency plans which show that the project

could cope with significant unexpected deviations without a significant increase in

impacts. The contingency plan should also show that the project could cope with

likely breakdowns/failures of key equipment/infrastructure.

The treated water discharge procedure guidelines, the monitoring plan and the

contingency plans have been submitted as appendices as these should not be

considered as “finished” documents. As operations begin and further data is

obtained, all three documents will require updating in order to compensate for

new factual data. All these processes are iterative and will need to be modified to

reflect monitoring outcomes.

This document also considers the potential for the project to have a long term

impact on the water flows within the Gilwiskaw Brook. This is because the project

could potentially impact the groundwater – surface water interaction processes

and changes in land use will impact run off and infiltration.


2 GROUNDWATER AND GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER INTERACTION

The proposed Surface Mining operation will impact groundwater in various ways. As in other operations groundwater seepage will enter the operation. This is normal, however there are some aspects of this operation that are not typical. Due to its location, the EA has requested further information and an assessment of the following aspects:

1. Groundwater/surface water interaction. During the final stages of the excavation the void will lie alongside the Gilwiskaw Brook. At

this point it is possible that the operations will intercept a significant part of the flow in the brook.

2. Saline water is known to be associated with the deeper underground mining to the Northwest of the proposed site. It is

possible that the operational void could draw some saline water towards the excavation, resulting in the extracted groundwater quality being affected.

3. It is possible that the drawdown of groundwater from the

operational void would impact on the water available to other

users to the southwest. To address these specific issues raised by EA two digital hydrogeological models were developed.

The Gilwiskaw Brook Model (GBM) was developed as a tool to assess the interaction between groundwater and the Gilwiskaw Brook. The Saline Groundwater Model (SGM) was developed to assess the potential for saline water to be drawn in from old mining areas to the north-west. Both these models were created using the US Geological Survey programme Modflow which is a widely used and accepted tool for groundwater modelling.

It should be noted that groundwater modelling is often assumed to give definitive answers however this is not the case. Modelling is simply a tool that can be used to assess the situation and help predict impacts; the results are not necessarily any more accurate than simple manual calculations. However groundwater modelling is preferred over more simple estimates for the following reasons:

1. For a model all the parameters and assumptions have to be

explicitly defined and given values. With simpler mathematical

calculations it is often possible to carry out the calculations


without clearly defining parameters or system boundaries. This

makes repeating or understanding the results more difficult.

2. Once the model is created, estimates of sensitivity to the various

assumptions are easily made. Although it could be done,

sensitivity analysis is rarely carried out when using simpler calculations.

3. Models can take into account 3D effects that are simply ignored in simpler calculations.

4. Models produce predictions of how several variables will vary for any selected point in the model. Knowing how the variables vary spatially over the project area allows better selection of monitoring points.

5. Models can provide time series of predictions which can be used for comparison with monitoring. Serious deviations of the model from actual results indicate that the model should be re-

calibrated. This process gives an early warning of any potential problems and allows the accuracy of predictions to be improved

with time. 6. Because the model takes into account interactions between

inputs the model will often predict things that were not expected, manual calculations will rarely do this. An example is the leakage

of saline water into the Saltersford Brook area in the saline model. This was not specified in any way but appeared as a result of interaction between various aspects of the model. The fact that in this case the model simulates what has since been

found to occur adds credence to the model.

2.1 Summary of Hydrogeology of the area

Most of the area is underlain by the Triassic Moria Breccia, which in the project area is formed mainly of marl or mudstone with some subordinate sandstone and sandy marl layers. Dip is sub-horizontal.

Local piezometric data shows no clear relationship with rainfall events or seasonal effects suggesting poor recharge with most rainfall forming surface run off. In lower areas this also occurs as the groundwater level is close to surface preventing recharge.

There appear to be two main paths for groundwater within the site:

• Near surface flow within the soils and the Triassic. Most recharge


remains within the Triassic and flows predominantly sub

horizontally, along bedding and weathered near surface zones.

Flow/piezometric levels approximately follow the topography, towards the Gilwiskaw Brook, where most of the local recharge

is released. Due to the low permeabilities/recharge rates the base flow contribution is low, in the order of litres per second.

• Within the deeper Coal Measures, flow is towards the main coal mining areas to the northwest where the groundwater levels are still recovering from the effects of pumping during earlier coal mining.

During operation of the proposed coal excavation the following changes would be expected:

• When the excavation is near the Gilwiskaw Brook, flow from the site to the brook will reverse and the brook will lose flow to the excavation.

• Water will be drawn from the northwest towards the excavation. There is the possibility that this would result in a worsening of water quality.

2.2 Gilwiskaw Brook Model

2.2.1 Summary Description

The purpose of the GBM is to assess the likely contribution of groundwater flow from the proposed excavation area to the Gilwiskaw Brook and to examine the potential impact of the proposed excavation. The specific aims are to:

• Assess the groundwater/Gilwiskaw Brook interaction (flow rate and direction).

• Predict the impact of the proposed excavation on flow within the Gilwiskaw Brook.

These aims could have been addressed using simple 2D calculations but it was

considered that a more realistic 3D approach would provide a more complete

understanding of the situation for the reasons given above (see section 1.2).

The model incorporates data from previous investigations and groundwater

monitoring undertaken by Wardell-Armstrong(WA)/UK Coal together with the

results of hydrogeological site investigations undertaken by WA in August/


September 2009. This latter work was designed in consultation with the EA to

provide further information to address the issues raised by the EA.

A steady state digital hydrogeological model was constructed for the site to the

northwest of the Gilwiskaw Brook. The model was aligned with the observed

direction of groundwater flow within the Triassic beds ( NW-SE). The model

domain covers an area of approximately 700m by 750m. The grid was initially

discreticised at a resolution of approximately 15m x 15m. This was refined to a

cell size of 2m x 15m in the area of interest, around the Gilwiskaw Brook. The

model contained a total of 47 rows, 102 columns and 6 layers.

The model was run using the MODFLOW 2000 numerical engine using the WHS solver with a head change criterion of 0.05m.

The model was calibrated against the known piezometric data by adjusting recharge and permeability. Both recharge and permeability are estimated from data though the values are only approximate. Even permeability values from site test work should be considered only as a guide as they can be affected by the drilling and only give data of the value immediately next to the drill hole. A more detailed description of the model and the results can be found in Appendix 1, section 5).

2.2.2 Summary of model results

The results closely match the known distribution of piezometric levels and give a flow rate to the stream that is within the error margin of the flow measurements carried out by YSI Hydrodata on the stream. Current flow is from the groundwater

to the Gilwiskaw Brook at approximately 200m3

/d (equating to 2 l/s). This represents approximately 1% if the mean annual flow of water in the brook

(19,958 m3

/d) and less than 3% of the low flow (7,258 m3

/d).

When the proposed excavation approaches the Gilwiskaw Brook, dewatering of the void will reduce baseflow to the Brook. Eventually the flow direction will reverse and the Brook will lose water to the excavation. The modelling indicates that flow is reversed with a flow from the Gilwiskaw Brook to the excavation of the order of 2503m /d. This represents a total reduction in flow in the Brook of the

order of 450 m3

/d, due to both the reduction in baseflow and flow from the Brook into the excavation. This represents approximately 2% of the mean annual flow and approximately 6% of the low flow. The Brook will however be receiving


groundwater from the excavation void and from surface water run-off which will compensate for any losses.

2.3 Saline Groundwater model

2.3.1 Summary Description

During Surface Mining operations the effect of lower piezometric levels in the excavation will be to draw water into the void from all directions. It is possible that saline water associated with the underground mining areas to the northwest will be pulled towards the excavation resulting in a decrease in the water quality of the groundwater seepage. The ‘Main’ coal seam is the only seam of the five to be worked which is subject to old workings and may therefore have preferential pathways for the water to migrate. The purpose of the SGM is to assess how big this effect would be, i.e. how far the saline water will move towards the excavation and the possible impact of this on the quality of the water captured in the excavation.

While these aims could have been addressed using simple calculations based on Darcy it was considered that a more realistic 2-3D approach would provide a more detailed understanding of the potential for saline groundwater to be drawn in from the northwest as:

• The more detailed model would allow quick calculation of the

sensitivity of the results to various parameters for example

permeability and recharge. • The model would allow the impact of interbedded higher

permeability in the coal measures to be incorporated. • The model would more closely represent the real 3 dimensions of

the situation.

Chloride was modelled as this is one of the major ions present and is clearly an indicator of the level of salinity. Predicted levels of other parameters can be extracted by scaling the results for chloride. The distribution of high chloride water is likely to reflect the recharge-flow patterns with better quality in the recharge areas, deteriorating towards the northwest particularly with depth. Water quality is likely to be stratified, with recharging clean water floating on top of denser saline water. The worst water quality is likely to be in the centre of the coal syncline where the deepest mining occurred i.e. in the vicinity of the Moira Canal borehole and to the north west of this. Concentrations of up to 7000 mg/l have been measured from the borehole at Moira Canal borehole which is 208m deep and intersects old workings in a number of coal seams. Concentrations in shallow recharging groundwaters are


typically below 70 mg/l chloride (on site boreholes and Coal Authority boreholes).

A Visual MODFLOW model was constructed for the project area. The groundwater flow model was run using the MODFLOW 2000 numerical engine using the WHS solver with a head change criterion of 0.01m. The model was aligned with the direction of regional flow which coincides with the flow direction that would be induced by the operation. The model domain covers an area of 6650m by 1300m. The model grid is at approximately 65m x 80m and the model contained a total of 16 rows, 100 columns and 22 layers. The large number of layers was to allow modelling of the interbedded coal/shale sequence.

Initial groundwater levels of 70mAOD in the site area were reduced to 42mAOD

during the operational phase (until year 3) and then returned to 70mAOD to

simulate post closure levels. The dynamic model was run for a total for 10,000

days (approximately 27 years) to allow simulation of the rebound of groundwater

levels after the project terminated.

As a result of the model orientation and shape, the result is to over-exaggerate

the effect of the excavation as the model forces all flow to come from the

northwest, thereby maximising the rate of groundwater movement towards the

excavation.

Calibration was carried out against the observed piezometric heads. A more detailed description of the model and the results can be found in Appendix 1, section 6).

2.3.2 Summary of results

The groundwater model was used to predict the quality of water entering the northwestern side of the excavation as this is the direction that saline water could be drawn from.

The modelling indicates that under the conservative conditions of the model, with flow being forced in a northwest-southeast direction, the salinity of the water from the northwest might slowly increase. Chloride levels are predicted to peak after approximately 2 years of mining operations.


Particle tracking was also used to assess how far saline water was moving. Particles were placed in various locations and tracked through the modelling

period. The results of the modelling indicate that groundwater flow velocities towards the excavation are up to approximately 2m/d or 730m/year near the excavation. Within the 4 year mining period the furthest particles to report to the excavation come from approximately 1.3 km to the northwest. In reality, without the NW-SE forcing of flow direction incorporated into the model, the furthest particles to report to the excavations would come from a much lower distance. Given that during the 4 year production life the excavation also moves approximately 500m to the southeast, it is unlikely that water from further than 500-750m to the northwest will actually report to the excavation.

Overall the conservative model indicates that chloride levels in the extracted groundwater are estimated to peak at around 90 mg/l, effectively the same as background levels in the brook. As there will also be some dilution due to rainfall and runoff salinity levels are expected to be the same or lower than those in the brook. The results of the modelling have been used to determine the likely variation in discharge quality which is explained in section Error! Reference source not found.

3 MANAGEMENT OF SURFACE RUN-OFF WATER

Runoff from rainfall can be defined as compliant or non compliant water. Compliant water (CW) is defined as water that is of sufficient quality (except for suspended solids) to be discharged. CW will mainly be derived from rainfall run off from unaltered areas, re-vegetated areas and stockpiles of inert material (Top and Sub Soils).

Non-Compliant water (NCW) is water that requires some form of treatment (other than settlement) prior to discharge. Ground water seepage into the excavation void could potentially be NCW and so all water extracted from the base of the excavation will initially be treated as non-compliant water. NCW is discussed in section Error! Reference source not found..

3.1 Compliant Water Management

In most areas of the mining operation the quality of surface runoff will only be affected by suspended solids. This runoff water will be captured using drainage channels and directed to settling ponds. The CW management system across the site has been designed to capture, store and discharge the surface water runoff in the most efficient way minimising the amount of water that requires treatment and or pumping and preventing waters of varying quality from mixing.


The CW management system has three main components: drainage channels, settling ponds and discharge points.

3.1.1 Drainage Channels

The main purposes of the drainage channels is to control surface runoff and prevent water of different quality from mixing, thereby reducing the pumping and treatment requirements. The drainage channels will direct runoff into settling ponds and then to discharge points.

A drainage channel is present around the crest of the excavation to reduce the amount of surface water entering the void. Other drainage channels around the soil and overburden stockpiles will collect the surface runoff from the mounds and direct it to settling ponds. The channels have been designed to accommodate a 24 hour, 1 in 100 year return period storm plus 20% extra to allow for climate change.

3.1.2 Settling Ponds

A total of seven water settlement areas, numbered SP1 to SP7, are planned as shown in UK COAL drawing Number 193D02a.

Settling Pond Areas (SPA) 1 to 4 and 6 comprise three ponds; a large storm water lagoon and two smaller settling ponds (UKC dwg.no.007/A1/rev1). The two settling ponds are worked in parallel allowing settlement and maintenance to be carried out simultaneously. SPA5 and SPA7 comprise 2 ponds in series: an initial primary pond with flow balancing and a secondary settlement pond. (UKC dwg.no.007/A/rev1).

Each settlement area has a storage capacity for a 1 in 100 year return period storm event plus 20% climate change.

Two of the settlement areas, SP5 and SP6, have an additional tertiary settlement pond. These tertiary ponds act as a final polishing pond prior to discharging into the Gilwiskaw Brook.

The surface compliant water settlement ponds are summarised in Table 3.1


Table 3.1 Summary of Compliant Water Settlement Ponds

SP Water Source Catchment (ha)

Flow Balance

Capacity (m 3)

Normal Capacity

(m 3)

Retention Time

(hrs)

Discharge Rate

(l/sec)

1

Overburden, Subsoil and Topsoil Mounds

(M3, S4, S8, S10, S13, T4, T5)

30 10,800 9000 80 30

2 Overburden, Subsoil and Topsoil Mounds (M2, S3, S9, S14, T6)

19 6,800 6000 85 20

3

Overburden and Subsoil

Mounds (M1, S1, S11,

S12)

6 1,900 3000 85 10

4 Topsoil Mounds (T2,

T9) 8 2,700 3000 85 10

5

Excavation margins,

Subsoil/Topsoil Mounds (S16, S5, T7, T8, T10, SM1, S15)

11 3,000 19000 210 25

6

Excavation margins and

Subsoil Mounds (S6, S7, SM2, T1, SM1, SM1a)

34 13,000 7500 80 25

7

Site office and plant yard, Subsoil and

Topsoil Mounds (S2, T3)

2.5 750 1000 55 5

3.1.3 Discharge points

Each SPA has an associated discharge point, into either the Gilwiskaw Brook or its tributary. The discharge points and the nearest downstream monitoring point are summarised in Table 3.2 below.


Table 3.2 Discharge Point Summary

SP

Area Discharge Point/ Location

Discharge

Rate (l/sec)

Down

Stream Monitoring

Point

1 Gilwiskaw Brook Tributary. Watercourse crossing point

30 SW4

2 Gilwiskaw Brook Tributary. Into culvert 20 SW4

3 Gilwiskaw Brook Tributary. Adjacent to

the culvert end 10 SW4

4 Gilwiskaw Brook 10 SW2




3.2 Management of non-compliant water

Non compliant water (NCW) is defined as water that requires treatment for a

parameter other than suspended solids prior to discharge. Water Treatment

Areas (WTAs) will also be installed at each of the overburden mounds in the

event that routine testing indicates that surface runoff is NCW rather than CW.

Water in the base of the excavation will be assumed to be NCW until sufficient

operational experience is obtained to be confident that it is not NCW. Then

depending upon the sampling results it will be pumped to a WTA or SP.

The 5 proposed NCW treatment areas (WTA1 to WTA5) are shown on UK COAL

drawing Number 193D02a and summary data is given in Table 3.3.

The WTAs comprise between two and four ponds, as shown on UK COAL

drawing Number 193D02a. This configuration allows multi stage treatment to be

carried out on the NCW. The primary pond is the largest and will act as the

holding pond for water deemed to be NCW. The secondary (WTAs 1, 2 3 and 5),

tertiary and quaternary (WTA4) ponds will be used as the treatment areas and

holding ponds.


Table 3.3 Summary of Non-compliant water treatment

areas

WTA Water Source Storage Capacity

(m 3)

Number of

ponds

1 Overburden Mound

M1 **** 2

2 Overburden Mound

M2 8,000 2

3 Overburden Mound

M3 3,000 2

4 Pump from Excavation

25,000 4

5 Pump from

Excavation 25,000 2

3.2.1 Management of Overburden Dump Run-off

Evaluation of the site in the original Environmental Assessment indicated that

there is a slight potential for some of the overburden waste material to generate

run off with List II metals when the dump contains significant overburden material

from the Coal Measures. Due to this issue a NCW pond (WTA1 to WTA3) is

proposed for each of the three overburden dump areas.

Monitoring of the runoff quality from the relevant dumps will take place (see

section Error! Reference source not found.). If NCW is detected it will be directed

to the WTA pond. Some treatment prior to discharge might take place at this

location if the non-compliance issue is very simple. Otherwise the water will be

pumped to WTA4 and treated there.

3.2.2 Management of excavation water

As far as possible this water will be kept separate from other water and the quality and flow rates monitored in detail (see section Error! Reference source not found. for details of the monitoring). To prevent runoff from outside entering the excavation, a drainage ditch around the excavation limit will divert any runoff from outside the excavation to the CW settling ponds.


It is expected that all water within the excavation will then report to a single sump or low point at the base of the excavation. However if the groundwater seepage quality warrants it more than one sump might be operated to keep different water qualities separated. The rest of this document assumes that a single sump is used.

Water quality in this sump will be monitored (see section Error! Reference source not found.). NCW will be pumped to the primary pond in the WTA4 and CW to SP5 or SP6.

WTA 4 is located in the northern area of the excavation within cut 21 and 22. WTA4 will be constructed in the initial stages of the project and will be operational until month 38 when the excavation approaches cut 20. Prior to this time WTA5 will be constructed approximately at backfilled cut 11 and treatment will be moved to this location.

The standard treatment process will consist of the following steps:

1. If necessary a cationic flocculant will be added to the primary pond. The nominal residence time within the primary pond is

estimated at 7 days. 2. Water will then pass to one of the three secondary ponds. 3. Anionic flocculant will be added to the secondary pond. Residence

time is again estimated at 7 days.

4. Each pond will be filled in turn. 5. After allowing time for settling each secondary pond will be

sampled. 6. After confirming the sampling results (a 3 day turn-around period

is expected) the water in the pond will be discharged. If it fails to

meet standards further treatment will take place or alternatively the water will be returned to the primary pond.

Estimates of the discharge quality (see Appendix 2) indicate that flocculation will be sufficient treatment to reach discharge constraints.

4 TREATED WATER DISCHARGE QUALITY

The potential discharge quality has been estimated based on the modelling results described earlier. Details of the estimation process are contained in Appendix 2.


Actual discharge quality will vary depending upon various factors, the main ones being:

1. Quality of groundwater seepage. The groundwater seepage quality will change for two main reasons. Firstly the location of the excavation moves from the northwest to the southeast. This will impact water quality for two reasons. The proportion of flow

from the northwest will decrease as the flow moves to the southeast and, as water in the underground mines to the northwest is known to be saline, the proportion of saline water will decrease. Secondly, as the excavation moves closer to the

Gilwiskaw Brook, seepage from the brook will increase, increasing the total flow and forming a larger proportion of the flow. This water will be relatively good quality and therefore the overall seepage quality will improve as the excavation

approaches the brook. 2. Impact of rainfall. Rainfall will vary rapidly. Some of the rainfall and runoff

within the pit will inevitably report to the groundwater sump. The water quality from the sump will therefore vary with better quality.

Rather than try to estimate the discharge quality for every possible scenario the discharge was estimated for three scenarios. These scenarios were:

• Scenario 1. Peak poor quality groundwater, no rainfall and average Gilwiskaw Brook flow.

• Scenario 2. Peak poor quality groundwater, no rainfall and low flow conditions in the Gilwiskaw Brook.

• Scenario 3. Average quality groundwater, average rainfall and

average flow in the Gilwiskaw Brook.

There are various conservative assumptions based into the analysis of these

scenarios:

• In all three scenarios the groundwater model used to predict the water quality in the northwest part of the pit is designed to

channel flow from the northwest where the nearest poor quality water is known. This will overestimate the decrease in water

quality. • In scenarios 1 and 2 no rainfall was assumed. Rainfall and runoff

within the excavation area will effectively improve the quality of water pumped from the excavation. No rainfall therefore gives

the worst case.


• Both scenarios 1 and 2 assess the impact of the worst case

groundwater quality coinciding with a period of no rainfall. The

worst case groundwater conditions (with the chloride within 95%

of the peak value) are only estimated to occur for a single 6 week period. It is not that likely that this will coincide with a

period of no rainfall.

Table 4.1 gives the estimated discharge quality and impact on the brook water quality for scenarios 1 and 2. The equivalent data for scenario 3 is shown in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3. The data shows that even with the “worst case” assumptions in scenarios 1 and 2 the impact on the brook water quality is not significant. Under average conditions predicted impacts are even smaller.

Note that as there is little phosphate in the groundwater the discharge has a beneficial effect on phosphate, which is considered a key parameter. The positive impact will be largest during low flow conditions as the discharge will form a larger part of the flow. It is also likely that phosphate levels are higher in low flow conditions as there will be less contribution to the stream flow from groundwater. This impact would only be temporary, for the duration of the operation (4 years), but it would reduce the problem while longer terms solutions to deal with the source of the phosphate are implemented.


Table 4.1 Discharge Quality and Flow for Scenarios SC1 and SC2

Flow As B Cd Ce Cl Cr Cu DO Fe Hg NH4 Ni NO2 NO3 Pb PO4 Se SO4 Alk TDS Zn Discharge l/s µg/l µg/l µg/l S/cm mg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l µg/l mg/l mg/l µg/l mg/l µg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l µg/l

SC1 10 1.0 298 0.12 0.72 46 4.3 1.38 4.7 99 0.005 0.25 4.76 0.07 4.7 0.34 0.04 1.4 166 369 402 10.2

SC2 7.5 1.3 398 0.16 0.96 55 5.8 1.85 6.3 132 0.006 0.34 6.38 0.10 6.3 0.46 0.05 1.9 223 494 539 13.6

Surface water

0.9 52 0.19 0.81 87 1.4 17.6 9.4 62 0.011 0.10 2.49 0.11 43.2 0.84 4.6 0.8 81 199 423 39.8

Stream Quality With Discharge

Flow As B Cd Ce Cl Cr Cu DO Fe Hg NH4 Ni NO2 NO3 Pb PO4 Se SO4 Alk TDS Zn

l/s µg/l µg/l µg/l S/cm mg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l µg/l mg/l mg/l µg/l mg/l µg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l µg/l

SC1 240 0.9 62 0.19 0.81 85 1.5 16.9 9 64 0.011 0.11 2.58 0.10 41.6 0.82 4.4 0.8 84 206 422 38.6

Change 10.0 0.0 10 0.00 0.00 -2 0.1 -0.7 -0.2 2 0.000 0.01 0.09 0.00 -1.6 -0.0 -0.2 0.0 4 7 -1 -1.2

SC2 92 1.0 80 0.19 0.82 84 1.8 16.3 9.1 68 0.011 0.12 2.81 0.11 40.2 0.81 4.2 0.9 92 223 433 37.7

Change 7.5 0.0 28 0.00 0.01 -3 0.4 -1.3 -0.3 6 0.000 0.02 0.32 0.00 -3.0 -0.0 -0.4 0.1 12 24 10 -2.1

Table 4.2 Average Discharge Quality



Rain/runoff 2.5 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Groundwater 7.5 1.3 398 .15 .9 52 5.4 1.8 6.1 132 0.006 0.3 6 0.09 6.2 0.4 0.05 1.8 222 494 522 14

Average 10 1.0 298 0.12 0.7 44 4.1 1.4 4.6 99 0.005 0.3 5 0.07 4.7 0.3 0.04 1.4 166 370 391 10 Table 4.3 Average Stream Quality with Discharge



Discharge 10 1.0 298 0.12 0.7 44 4.1 1.4 4.6 99 0.005 0.3 5 0.07 4.7 0.3 0.04 1.4 166 370 391 10

Stream (av)

240 1.0 49 0.19 1.2 85 1.5 12.4 9.4 59 0.011 0.1 3 0.11 42.1 0.7 4.33 0.8 82 198 420 31

Total 250 1.0 59 0.19 1.2 83 1.6 12.0 9.2 60 0.011 0.1 3 0.11 40.6 0.7 4.15 0.8 85 205 418 30


5 TREATED WATER DISCHARGE PROCEDURE GUIDELINES

There are two types of discharge from the site. The first is surface water runoff from unaffected or restored areas. This is unlikely to differ from current runoff except in suspended solids; it is therefore passed through sedimentation ponds to control this. The second type of discharge is water that has required some treatment (which might be as simple as addition of flocculant) prior to discharge. As this water starts off as poor in some parameter, and as it requires treating in some way, the discharge of this water needs to be controlled more carefully to ensure no impact on the surface water receptor. This section summarises how the proposed discharge limits for the treated water were derived and how the discharge should be controlled to minimise potential impacts. More details are given in Appendix 3.

5.1 Determination of Environmental Assessment Levels

The baseline water quality in the Gilwiskaw Brook is generally superior to any applicable Water Quality Standard (WQS). The EA guidance followed suggests that the applicable WQS should be used in conjunction with the baseline water chemistry to derive Environmental Assessment Limits (EALs) for potentially polluting substances. This has been carried out for the six parameters that the discharge quality assessment (see Appendix 2) indicates could potentially be higher in when “worst case” assumptions are made. The proposed EALs are based on the water quality data available for the brook and are set at the mean plus 2 standard deviations. The resulting levels are shown in Table 5.1 together with the Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) and “worst case” expected quality. Sulphate is likely to be the most critical parameter.

Table 5.1 Proposed EALs for Selected Constituents in Site Discharge

Determinand Units Existing

WQS

Stream

(Mean +2 St.

Deviation)

Proposed

EAL

Worst-

case Expected

Ratio

EAL/Worst case

Ammonium (as N)

mg/l 0.5 0.2 0.12 1.7

Boron µg/l 2000 125 125 80 1.6

Chromium µg/l 20 4.1 4.1 1.8 2.3

Nickel µg/l 150 3.8 3.8 2.8 1.4

Iron µg/l 1000 130 130 68 1.9

Sulphate Mg/l 400 107 107 92 1.2


5.2 Control of Discharge Rate

The rate at which water can be discharged depends upon the rate of groundwater seepage, rainfall and the capacity of the pumps in the base of the excavation. Based on likely amounts of storm water the pump size recommended is approximately 20 l/s. Therefore under normal operating conditions the discharge rate for water from the excavation will vary from zero (no pumping) to 20 l/s.

To avoid the discharged water making up too large a proportion of the flow in the Brook the following discharge limits are proposed:

• Gilwiskaw Brook flows of 0-100 l/s, discharge < 10% of the total flow

• Gilwiskaw Brook flows of >100l/s, discharge < 20% of the total flow

The 100 l/s level has been chosen because it is an easily identifiable trigger and is equivalent to the modelled Q20 flow (i.e. exceeded 80% of the time). Therefore for 20% of the time, the permissible discharge will be less than 10% and for the higher flows the discharge would vary from 20% to 5% depending upon the stream flow. Note that the first of the above restrictions might not apply if loss of water from the brook to the excavation requires a higher rate to be returned although this is considered highly unlikely as the seepage rate will also decrease in low flow conditions.

If there is extremely low flow in Gilwiskaw Brook (modelling indicates that the flow will be < 70 l/s for only 5% of the time, i.e. <20 days in any year) and discharge is limited to 10% of the flow then it is possible that more groundwater seepage will be captured than can be discharged. Such low flows will only occur when there is no rainfall and therefore the inflow to the water treatment area is likely to be a maximum of 10 l/s (groundwater seepage only). Any excess would be stored or used for dust suppression.

5.3 Control of Discharge Quality

The discharge quality will be monitored continuously for pH and electrical conductivity. During the first 6 weeks of operation the discharge and stream qualities will be analysed weekly and based on the results two trigger levels (Warning and Critical) will be assigned to each parameter. The Warning level will be set to trigger an audible and visual warning that the discharge is showing unusual results. If the Critical level is reached the pumps will automatically stop.


It is difficult to prescribe the limits at this stage but initial proposed levels are indicated in Table 5.2 based on the brook quality data. Details of how these initial levels have been set are given in Appendix 3. The levels will need review as more data is obtained.

Table 5.2 Proposed Alarm Levels for Continuous Discharge Monitoring

Parameter Warning Level Critical Level

pH <7 or >8.7 <6.5 or >8.8

Conductivity

(S/cm) 0.95 1.05

5.4 Emergency Compensation Pond

An emergency compensation pond, EPC1 has been designed to provide stored water that could be used in an emergency to compensate for seepage losses from the Gilwiskaw Brook to the excavation. The water would be used if, for example, mechanical problems prevented water from being extracted from the excavation and discharged. The pond is designed to fill during flood events and then to store water until needed.

EPC1 has approximately 35 day discharge capacity assuming a 5 l/s discharge rate to the Gilwiskaw Brook. This is well in excess of requirements but it is likely that sedimentation, evaporation and seepage losses will significantly affect the volume actually available at some times of year.

6 MONITORING

All methods of predicting the future behaviour of complex systems, such as groundwater or other environmental issues, are subject to various sources of error. Therefore it is not advisable to simply assume that the predictions are correct and the predictions should be checked during the project by carrying out monitoring.

In the case of this project the key parameters which require monitoring are:

• Groundwater Quality (around edge of site)

This is monitored to verify that there are no unexpected trends or changes. Any

significant deviation from predicted quality should be explained and if necessary the

predictions updated. As groundwater quality is not likely to vary rapidly the monitoring interval is quarterly.


• Groundwater Levels (around edge of site) This is monitored to verify that there are no unexpected trends or changes. Any significant deviation from predicted quality should be explained and if necessary the predictions updated.

The monitoring frequency is set at monthly except for the initial 3 months of excavation work when weekly readings should be taken.

• Groundwater seepage rate This is monitored to verify that the flows are in accordance with the

predicted amounts. If seepage rate is substantially higher the predictions would require updating to verify that predicted impacts remain acceptable and that the installed/planned management facilities were sufficient. Seepage rates will be estimated on a monthly basis.

• Groundwater seepage quality

Any worsening in quality substantially larger than predicted would require the predictions to be updated. This is necessary to verify that the

treatment processes will still be able to produce water within the discharge quality constraints. Apart from the effects of rainfall the seepage water quality is unlikely to vary rapidly as groundwater movement is very low. Sampling will be at weekly intervals for the first 6 weeks and then at monthly intervals.

• Treated discharge quality

Monitoring will take place at the single take off point for the treated water. There will be two types of monitoring, continuous and laboratory.

• Treated discharge rate

The treated water discharge rate will be monitored to ensure that the proportion of treated water in the Gilwiskaw Brook does not rise above the maximum allowed.

• Stream quality

The quality of the two main streams will be monitored at the point where they enter and leave the site. Any significant adverse difference between

the upstream and downstream quality will need to be investigated and resolved. There will be two types of monitoring, continuous and

laboratory.

• Stream flow level


Monitoring of the stream flow level will be used to obtain the rate of flow within the stream. Some initial flow measurements will be carried out to

calibrate relationship between water level and flow. More details of the monitoring plan are given in Appendix 4.

7 CONTINGENCY

In any project it is also necessary to consider what would happen if things go wrong. The problems considered can range from significant differences between the predictions and reality to breakdowns in key infrastructure/machinery. Having plans in place on how to cope with these situations helps even with unforeseen problems as often the existing plans can be adapted.

Contingency Plans (CP) differ from Emergency Plans in that they indicate the response to events that are predictable but unlikely. The aim of the CP is to show that the project can easily cope with these. There are several possible causes of unlikely events:

• unlikely natural occurrences such as severe droughts or major floods

• severe mechanical problems • local conditions being significantly different from those predicted.

Five possible contingency scenarios that could affect the water management have been included in the plan at this stage:

1. High groundwater inflow rate, 2. High Infiltration Rates from the Gilwiskaw Brook,

3. Encountering saline groundwater, 4. Acid Mine Drainage, 5. Mechanical Failures of key pumps.

These were selected as they had the potential to produce environmental impacts. Severe drought is not included as this has little if any impact on the operation. Likewise severe flooding might cause temporary operational problems but these will not result in environmental impacts.

High groundwater inflow rate

It is possible though unlikely that higher groundwater infiltration rates than predicted could result from:


• Underground workings. This is unlikely as only one seam is known to have been worked in the site area and no drainage levels are

recorded. Workings intercepted on site by the latest drilling were actually dry. This could result in short term high flows (from

storage) and longer term higher flows if connections exist to a larger area.

• Highly fractured zones. If these exist they could potentially increase the groundwater infiltration rates over a long time period (potentially for entire project life).

This contingency will be dealt with by:

1. Temporary storage of excess water volume in the base of the

excavation. 2. A series of measures to decrease the flow rate

3. If necessary the capacity of pumps and the settlement and/or treatment areas would be increased.

These measures will decrease the groundwater infiltration rates and any remaining increased groundwater infiltration will be dealt with. The existing systems are large enough to cope with significantly higher flow rates than predicted and if required can easily be expanded. This contingency is therefore not likely to result in any significant operational or environmental impacts.

7.2 High Infiltration Rates from the Gilwiskaw Brook

It is possible though unlikely that groundwater infiltration rates from the Gilwiskaw Brook will be higher than expected. These will not be sufficiently high to affect the operation but the reduction in flow could cause a potential impact to the brook. This contingency will be dealt with by:

1. Compensate for the loss in flow rate in the brook. This will take place automatically as the groundwater infiltration rate to the excavation will be higher. If there are temporary problems with increasing the rate (for example if a larger pump must be

purchased) then water will be released from the Emergency Compensation Pond to make up the shortfall.

2. Decrease the infiltration rate from the brook to the excavation using methods such as grouting of boreholes and clay filled

trenches.


These measures will ensure that flow in the brook is maintained and decrease the groundwater infiltration rate. The infiltration rate is likely to climb slowly as the excavation in this area takes place allowing plenty of time to implement these measures. This contingency is therefore not likely to result in any significant operational or environmental impacts.

Encountering saline groundwater

Saline water was encountered during underground mining and it is likely that historically saline springs occurred in some areas (e.g. Saltersford). Analysis indicates that it is highly unlikely that significant levels of saline water will be drawn into the excavations but it is always possible that an unknown area of saline water could occur closer to the operation. In the event that saline groundwater is detected the following actions will be implemented:

• Various methods would be used to decrease the infiltration rate of the saline water

• Depending on quality some water will be released with the other

ground and surface water at a ratio sufficient to ensure discharge compliance.

• Some could be used for dust suppression where this would result in the water being encapsulated in the overburden storage areas.

• Some water could be treated to remove the main constraint on discharge using for example Reverse Osmosis

• Saline water will be isolated from other groundwater.

The measures proposed above would decrease the flow rate and if necessary treatment of some of the water would ensure discharge quality constraints are maintained.

Acid Mine Drainage

Evaluation indicates that there is a slight potential for some of the overburden waste material to generate Acid mine drainage (AMD) resulting in poor water quality draining from the overburden wastes and possibly from some areas of the excavation. It is unlikely but if much higher than expected amounts occur then treatment of this water would be required. If significant amounts of AMD were to occur then the following procedures should be implemented:

• Increased monitoring. • Separation of any AMD water. • Treatment of the AMD water

Significant AMD is unlikely to develop and the designed water treatment system is large enough and flexible enough to deal with any unexpected event.


7.5 Mechanical Failures of key pumps

The water management is designed to be predominantly gravity driven, however there are two pumps that if they failed, and could not be quickly repaired or replaced, would impact on the water management system. These are pumping from the base of the excavation and pumping of discharge to the upstream end of the brook in the project area. The results and potential impacts of either (or both) of these pumps failing are largely the same:

1. Water will not be able to be removed from the base of the excavation. Any groundwater infiltration would accumulate in the excavation. This would have a minor impact on operations.

2. Discharge of the water to the upstream end of the brook to compensate for loss of flow to the excavation would stop.

The Environmental Compensation Pond at the north end of the site is designed to mitigate this potential impact. This pond takes in and stores flood water from the Gilwiskaw Brook. If the compensation discharge cannot be maintained due to mechanical failure this pond holds sufficient water to make up for this. Hence this event would not result in any environmental impact.

8 RESTORATION

On completion the final void will be backfilled with excavated material to close to the original topography for much of the area and then restored. There are some aspects of the site water that require management during this closure process and that permanently alter the hydrology/hydrogeology of the site. These are:

1. The link between groundwater from the excavated area and the Gilwiskaw Brook.

2. Overall site water balance

8.1 Link between groundwater and Gilwiskaw

The modelling results (see Appendix 1, section 5) indicate that there is currently a flow from the proposed excavation area to the Gilwiskaw Brook at an average rate

of approximately 190 m3

/d. One of the aims of the restoration of the site should be as far as possible to reinstate this flow.

There are two aspects of the restored site that could potentially impact on the flow from groundwater to the brook:

1. The flow to the brook is caused by the low permeability subhorizontal Triassic that occurs at surface. This prevents a high recharge (by maintaining the groundwater level near surface) but then forces most of the recharge that does occur to flow along the topography and into the stream. If the pit is uniformly backfilled the fill will be higher permeability than the


original Triassic. This would allow more recharge, but it will also allow more of the recharge to pass downwards and then migrate along the regional piezometric gradient in the Coal Measures to the northwest. The combined impact of these two opposing factors on flow to the brook is not clear but it could potentially reduce the flow entering the brook.

To prevent this being a potential problem, in the key area, backfill will be placed with thin layers of compacted zones inclined gently towards the brook to emulate the existing conditions. This will mainly take place for the backfill closer to the surface and compacted zones will be placed at least every 3-5m. It is not required to compact to geotechnical standards, the aim is only to reduce permeability, and, depending upon the backfill material, it is possible that movement of the heavy machinery across the backfill will be sufficient. This will need to be verified during the backfilling procedure.

2. Part of the excavated area that currently feeds groundwater to the brook

will be occupied by a water storage reservoir and an ‘on-line’ reserve. The water storage area will take flood water from the brook and be topped up by a winter abstraction licence to hold 70,000 cubic metres of water for the Ashby Canal. The on-line reserve will fluctuate with the rise and fall of the water level in the Gilwiskaw Brook and feed any flood water back when the water level in the brook subsides. However, the impact of the winter water storage lake will be to reduce groundwater flow into the stream.

3. An approximate estimate was made of the combined effect these

two factors would have on flow to the brook. The analysis is

based on the groundwater in the remaining area of 350,000 m2 (700 x 500m) draining to the brook. As it is not known by how much the recharge will increase this was varied from 150 mm/y

(current estimate) to 225 mm/yr. The results are shown in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Change in Groundwater flow to Gilwiskaw Brook

Infiltration rate mm/yr 150 175 200 225

Average flow to brook m3/d 144 168 192 216

Difference to present flow (190 m 3/d) m3/d -46 -22

2 26

Percentage reduction in

low flow %

-

0.6%

-

0.3%

0.0% 0.3%


The results indicate that even with no increase in infiltration rate the impact on the low flow conditions in the brook are negligible. If the permeability increases to 200mm/y or more then the groundwater flow to the brook will increase.

It should be noted that the impact to the low flow situation will be even smaller as the analysis is based on the average groundwater flow. Low flow conditions in the brook are only likely to occur after long periods of no/low rainfall. In this situation groundwater seepage to the brook will be low for all scenarios. It might actually be larger for the post mining scenario as the storage capacity of the backfill is much larger than that of the original Permian lithologies.

8.2 Overall Water balance

The overall water balance from the site will be potentially permanently altered by:

• Changes to groundwater flow (dealt with in the previous section) • Changes to land use 1. From farmland to woodland

2. From farmland to water body 3. From made ground to wet meadow

4. From made ground to water body

8.2.1 Farmland and colliery spoil to woodland.

Under the proposed restoration plan an area of 48,500m2 will be converted from farmed land to woodland, this is approximately 4% of the total area. The impact of woodland compared to crops/grass is complex with several studies showing different results. The Woodland Trust indicate that the effect on water of changes of less than 20% of the catchment area are difficult to detect1. It is therefore likely that the proposed change will have no significant impact on infiltration or runoff.

8.2.2 Farmland to water body.

There are three small water bodies proposed in the restoration plan on the southeast side of the Gilwiskaw brook. These will impact the overall water balance as they will affect evaporation, runoff, infiltration and the timing of surface water flow in the streams. However all three water bodies together have a total area of 2,600m2 which is 0.2% of the total site area. Therefore the impact on the overall site water balance will be negligible.

8.2.3 Made ground to wet meadow.


An area of 15,300m2 of made ground on the west side of the Gilwiskaw Brook, close to the Bosworth Road bridge will be converted to wet meadow. Flood water will be captured from the Gilwiskaw Brook. This will have the following impacts:

• Capturing flood water will attenuate the peak flows down stream. This will reduce the flood risk downstream of the site.

• The majority of the captured water will be slowly released back into the brook after the flood has passed.

• A portion of the flood water will infiltrate into the ground becoming groundwater. This will locally raise the groundwater level and this in turn will increase the flow from groundwater to the brook. This will have the effect of maintaining a slightly higher base flow in the brook.

• Some flood water will be lost due to increased evapotranspiration. Overall the impact will be to reduce flood flow in the Brook and increase the flow at other times.

8.2.4 Made ground to water body.

An area of 49,600m2

of made ground on the west side of the Gilwiskaw Brook, close to the Bosworth Road bridge will be converted to a water body. This is proposed to help the Environment Agency regarding flood risk and to assist in the reconstruction of the Ashby Canal.

When the Gilwiskaw Brook floods, water will initially flood the wet meadow area described above. If water levels rise further, then a weir will let water pass to this water body. When flood levels drop much of this water will be retained. The water

body has a total storage capacity of 182,000m3 . It is assumed that up to 70,000m3

of this water could be extracted to feed the Ashby Canal during the summer months. If this full amount were extracted, this would result in the water level dropping 5m, reducing the maximum water depth from 8m to 3m. As only part of the water will be extracted each year, after the first year, the maximum amount of flood water that will be captured is 70,000m3.

This will have the following impacts • This water body will not affect small floods but will attenuate the peak flows

down stream in major floods. This will reduce the flood risk downstream of the site.

• Some water could, if required, be released back into the brook as flood levels decrease but most will be retained.

• As the water body will be lined the rate of infiltration into the groundwater will be minimal. Any infiltration will locally raise the groundwater level and this in turn will increase the flow from groundwater to the brook. This will have the effect of maintaining a slightly higher base flow in the brook although the infiltration rate and subsequent effects are likely to be insignificant.


• Some flood water will be lost due to increased evapotranspiration.

Overall the impact will be to reduce the peak flow during major flood events.

8.3 Gilwiskaw Brook Water Quality.

The proposed restoration scheme could also have an impact on water quality. The main items that are likely to have an impact are:

1. Reduction in farmed area 2. Protective corridor alongside Gilwiskaw Brook 3. Minor water bodies and removal of culvert

Note that the impacts of the changes given are only those that relate to the water quality.

8.3.1 Reduction in farmed area

The area farmed will be reduced by approximately 10% (91,000m2). The previously farmed areas will be replaced mainly with woodland, wet meadow and grass. As this area will not be farmed there will be:

• Less phosphate and nitrates in the runoff as fertilisers will not be applied • Less suspended solids in the runoff as the ground will not be tilled.

The results should be an improvement in the overall water quality of the brook.

8.3.2 Protective corridor alongside Gilwiskaw Brook

The creation of a 20m wide buffer zone along both sides of the Gilwiskaw Brook will have some impact on the water quality. The impacts will be due to:

• Spraying of fertilisers etc will not take place in the immediate

vicinity of the brook. This will probably reduce the peak

concentrations reaching the stream. • The vegetated strip will also intercept direct surface runoff from

farmed areas. This should result in lower levels of suspended solids entering the stream and could also reduce slightly the

phosphate and nitrate peak values.

The results should be an improvement in the overall water quality of the brook.

8.3.2 Minor water bodies and removal of culvert

On the east side of the Gilwiskaw Brook the tributary that is currently “culverted” for some of its length will be restored and have some small water bodies created along its length. The net result of this should be to:

• Reduce the suspended solids as vegetation along the brook and the

small water bodies will trap more than the culvert. • If poorly constructed, it is possible that the existing culvert would

pond some water within it that would become anoxic and then occasionally be flushed out as a pulse of anoxic water

Overall the impact should be a slight improvement in the Gilwiskaw Brook water quality.

9 SUMMARY

This document describes the Water Management Plan for the proposed Minorca opencast coal site. The aim is to bring together the different aspects of water handling during the project into a single document so that interaction between the various aspects is clearer. The areas covered include:

• Interaction of the ground and surface water • Surface water management

• Discharge flow and quality estimation • Monitoring to ensure levels, flows and qualities predicted are

achieved • Contingency Plans

• Effects of restoration on water balance

The initial part of the document covers the main potential water related impacts, these can be summarised as changes to the flow and quality of the Gilwiskaw Brook. Several potential impacts from the project are considered but none are predicted to be significant.

The monitoring plan is also described. This is an important aspect of the water management system as it will confirm the predictions are correct and that no significant impacts are taking place. If the monitoring shows that predicted values and real values are diverging then this will give advanced warning that will allow corrective action to be taken if necessary.

The contingency plan illustrates how unlikely but possible events will be handled. It demonstrates that the design is robust enough that unusual events will not result in an environmental impact.

Lastly the effects on the overall water balance and water quality in the Gilwiskaw Brook from the proposed restoration plan are considered. The overall effect should lead to an improvement in water quality and a decrease in peak flood flows.

Overall as long as the indicated monitoring and management practices are adhered to, the proposed project is not likely to have a significant impact on the Gilwiskaw Brook during the operation and will result in improved conditions following restoration.


135

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD The considerations set out below apply to all the following applications. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equal opportunities implications. IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS On all educational proposals the Director of Children and Young People's Service and the Director of Corporate Resources will be informed as follows: Note to Applicant Department Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act 1970 and the Design Note 18 “Access for the Disabled People to Educational Buildings” 1984 and to the Equality Act 2010. You are advised to contact the County Council’s Human Resources Department if you require further advice on this aspect of the proposal. COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a very broad duty on all local authorities 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area'. Unless otherwise stated in the report, there are no discernible implications for crime reduction or community safety. BACKGROUND PAPERS Unless otherwise stated in the report the background papers used in the preparation of this report are available on the relevant planning application files. SECTION 38(6) OF PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act requires that: “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” Any relevant provisions of the development plan (i.e. any approved Local Plans) are identified in the individual reports. The circumstances in which the Board is required to “have regard” to the development plan are given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: Section 70(2) : determination of applications; Section 77(4) : called-in applications (applying s. 70); Section 79(4) : planning appeals (applying s. 70); Section 81(3) : provisions relating to compensation directions by Secretary of State (this

section is repealed by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991); Section 91(2) : power to vary period in statutory condition requiring development to be begun; Section 92(6) : power to vary applicable period for outline planning permission; Section 97(2) : revocation or modification of planning permission; Section 102(1) : discontinuance orders; Section 172(1) : enforcement notices; Section 177(2) : Secretary of State’s power to grant planning permission on enforcement appeal; Section 226(2) : compulsory acquisition of land for planning purposes; Section 294(3) : special enforcement notices in relation to Crown land; Sched. 9 para (1) : minerals discontinuance orders.