eia scoping report...eia scoping report planning application for a conservation stone quarry to...

EIA SCOPING REPORT

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

STONE

STONEPITS QUARRY, BENEFIELD, OUNDLE, PE8 5AN

CHURCHFIELD STONE LTD July 2012 Version 1 Final

GP PLANNING LTD SCOPING REPORT

P002-04 Scoping Report / NM 10/07/12

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 The need for an EIA ...................................................................................................................... 1

2 THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA ........................................................................ 2

2.1 An Overview .................................................................................................................................. 2

3 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 3

3.1 Description of Development .......................................................................................................... 3

4 PLANNING POLICY ........................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6

4.2 National Planning Policy ................................................................................................................ 6

4.3 Regional Planning Policy ................................................................................................................ 7

4.4 Local Planning Policy ..................................................................................................................... 7

5 THE PROPOSED CONTENT OF THE EIA ............................................................................. 9

5.2 Introduction, Background and Context ....................................................................................... 10

5.3 The Site and Its Setting .............................................................................................................. 10

5.4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 10

5.5 The Development Proposal ......................................................................................................... 10

5.6 Planning History and Planning Context ....................................................................................... 10

5.7 Consultation ................................................................................................................................ 10

5.8 Needs and Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 11

5.9 Air Quality and Dust Emissions.................................................................................................... 12

5.10 Flood Risk .................................................................................................................................... 14

5.11 Heritage....................................................................................................................................... 15

5.12 Hydrology and Hydrogeology ...................................................................................................... 16

5.13 Landscape and Visual Amenity .................................................................................................... 16

5.14 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 19

5.15 Traffic and Transport .................................................................................................................. 20

5.16 Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................................... 21

5.17 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 21

5.18 Topics to be scoped out of the EIA ............................................................................................. 21

6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 24

GP PLANNING LTD SCOPING REPORT

P002-04 Scoping Report / NM 10/07/12

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Wittering Windrose

APPENDIX 2: Zone of Theoretical Visibility & Representative Viewpoints

APPENDIX 3: Baseline Noise Assessment

APPENDIX 4: Traffic Data

APPENDIX 5: Extended Phase 1 Habitat Assessment and Tree Constraints Plan

APPENDIX 6: Statement of Physical Characteristics

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Breakdown of Mineral Reserve and Material Product Table 4.1: National Planning Policy Guidance Table 4.2: Local planning Policy Guidance Table 5.1: NAQS Objectives Table 5.2: Summary of Air Quality Data Table 5.3: Summary of Wind Data, Wittering Table 5.4: Representative Viewpoints Table 5.5: Overall LAeq, LAmax, LA10 and LA90 noise levels Table 5.6: A427 Lower Benefield Average Weekday Traffic Count Data, June 2010 Table 5.7: A427 Lower Benefield 85th 5%ile speeds (mph), June 2010 LIST OF DRAWINGS GPP/CSL/BE/12/01 Site Location Plan GPP/CSL/BE/12/02 Site Plan BENE_5_C Plan of Proposed Working Area BENE_6_B Restoration Contours

GP PLANNING LTD EIA SCOPING REPORT

P002-04 Scoping Report / NM 1 10/07/12

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This report supports the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Request which has been submitted to Northamptonshire County Council to establish the extent of work to be undertaken for the preparation of a planning application for a conservation stone quarry at Stonepits Quarry near Upper Benefield.

1.2 The need for an EIA

1.2.1 Northamptonshire County Council was requested to make a formal determination on whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be required to support a planning application to establish a conservation stone quarry at Stonepits Quarry by way of an EIA Screening Opinion submitted on the 14th February 2012.

1.2.2 It was considered that the development fell under Schedule 2 to the EIA regulations (Extractive Industry, Quarries). Annex A of circular 02/99 states that an EIA is more likely to be required if a surface mineral working covers more than 15 Hectares in area or if the extraction levels are more than 30,000 tonnes per annum. As the proposed development sits within the stated thresholds a request for an opinion was made.

1.2.3 On consultation with the Local Planning Authority it was determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment was necessary to support the planning application for the following reasons;

‘….overall the development is considered to be of a significant scale and duration and should be assessed in the context of the surrounding environment. In this case it is considered to be in an environmentally sensitive location which would be particularly vulnerable to impacts from quarrying….’

1.2.4 This document seeks to clarify the extent of the works to be undertaken, and thus the range of topic areas to be considered fully by the EIA.



2 THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA

2.1 An Overview

2.1.1 The application site is situated in a valley between the villages of Upper and Lower Benefield, in the district of East Northamptonshire, near Oundle. The location of the site is shown by drawing GPP/CSL/BE/12/01 Site Location Plan

2.1.2 The site has an overall area of 9.88 hectares. The haul road to serve the site is approximately 0.89 hectares of the overall site area, and runs between the A427 and the area of excavation. The extent of the site is shown on drawing GPP/CSL/BE/12/02 Site Plan.

2.1.3 The site is currently in use as grade 3 classified arable land and sits within a mosaic of arable fields. The site is bordered with established hedgerows and a wooded copse on its eastern boundary. The copse sits on the site of an historic quarry which would have produced stone of a similar type and quality to that of the proposed development.

2.1.4 The topography of the land slopes downward from the northern boundary to the southern boundary, from approximately 76.5m AOD to 64.0m AOD. At the southern boundary of the site a stream is located and drains to the east.

2.1.5 To the north of the site there are residential properties which are a part of the village of Upper Benefield, a ribbon development along the A427. The Benefield Wheatsheaf Hotel and the Benefield Cricket Club are also situated within the village, which is a designated Conservation Area.

2.1.6 A public footpath sits in proximity to the eastern boundary of the site. The path links the villages of Upper and Lower Benefield and is approximately 200m from the application site at its nearest location.

2.1.7 The closest ecological receptor to the site is Spring Wood which sits approximately 700 meters to the south west. Spring Wood has been allocated as a Local Wildlife Site.

2.1.8 To the east of the site lies Glapthorn Cow Pasture, a designated Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Local Wildlife Site. The designated area sits approximately 2.7 Km to the east.

2.1.9 To the north of the site the nearest ecological receptor is Burn Coppice. A designated Ancient Woodland and a Local Wildlife Site, the coppice is situated approximately 2.5 Km to the north. Weldon Park lies approximately 3 Km to the north-west, and is a designated Ancient Woodland and Local Wildlife Site.

2.1.10 The site of Benefield Castle is also located to the south of the site on the outskirts of Lower Benefield village. Lower Benefield is situated on the opposite side of the valley to the site.

2.1.11 The site also skirts the boundary of the Sand and Gravel Mineral Safeguarding area defined within the Northamptonshire County Councils Minerals and Waste Development Framework. Whilst the site is not within the safeguarding area, the development will not be of conflicting land use due to the quarrying activities that will be undertaken.



3 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Description of Development

3.1.1 The development will establish a Conservation Stone quarry, which will extract Blisworth Limestone suitable for use as blockstone, flagstone, and large walling stone. The stone will be tailored for use within the conservation and restoration stone market, particularly for the enhancement and maintenance of existing designated conservations area within the Northamptonshire area.

3.1.2 The quarry will consist of the following components; Extraction of Stone Mineral, Restoration of extraction void, Construction of associated infrastructure such as haul road and perimeter bunds, Installation of ancillary components such as wheelwash, weighbridge, and stone cropping

sheds.

3.1.3 The total amount of recoverable Blisworth Limestone reserve at the site has been calculated at 169,650 tonnes. The blockstone will be recovered at around a 40% efficiency rate, calculated at 67,860 tonnes prior to specialist stone processing. Due to the processing activities the stone will be recovered at a further 60% rate producing a total of 40,716 tonnes of ‘specialist’ Blockstone and Flagstone for sale at market.

3.1.4 Of the 60% wastage from the first phase of recovery, approximately 50% of the total will be suitable for large 6 inch walling stone. This will be cropped on site, and transported offsite for sale. This is approximately 50,895 tonnes of walling stone over the life span of the quarry. A breakdown of the mineral reserve and the product to be produced by the quarrying activities is set out below. Table 3.1: Breakdown of Mineral Reserve and Material Product

3.1.5 The quarry development will be linked to the current operational processes of Churchfield Stone Ltd at the Churchfield Farm Stone Processing Plant on Harley Way. The blockstone and flagstone stone will be transported from the site along the A427 to the Stone Processing Plant on Harley Way in order to allow for the stone to be processed by specialist equipment.

3.1.6 The quarry will be operated in a series of north/south cuts, advancing along each cut to the north, with further cuts progressing to the west. Once soils and overburden have been stripped limestone excavation will commence progressing from south to north in Cut 1. Limestone not required for building stone would be backfilled on the eastern side Cut 1. When recovery has

Material Type Total Quantity (tonnes)

Annual Estimated Tonnage for Processing and Sale at Market

Total Mineral Reserve 169,650 Blockstone and Flagstone 67,860 3000-4000 6 inch Walling Stone 50,895 2500-3000 Waste Stone (for haul road construction and site restoration)

50,895



been nearly completed in Cut 1, excavation of limestone will commence at the southern end of Cut 2 and further backfilling will occur to the proposed levels of base subsoil in Cut 1. The stone will be excavated with a 360 Backhoe Excavator; there will be no blasting of the material undertaken at the site. The proposed excavation area will be 2.32ha in size. The proposed operations are shown on Site Layout Plan BENE 5 Plan of Proposed Working Area.

3.1.7 The development of the market for this stone depends to some degree on the level of activity in both construction and house building industry and the demand required by specialist restoration of listed and other buildings in Conservation Areas. It is likely that the stone market will take 3 years to build up to anticipated sales of 3,000 to 4,000tpa; this output would require the excavation of up to 10,000 tonnes per annum prior to processing of the stone. The proposed extraction and sale rates will extend the life span of the quarry of up to 17 years including a 3 year period to allow for the market for the stone to build up.

3.1.8 It is proposed to work the site seasonally in conjunction with other activities undertaken by Churchfield Stone Ltd. In consequence it is unlikely that limestone excavation will take place on the site for more than eight months in any year or that soil and overburden excavation will occupy more than two to three months in the year. However, previously excavated stone may be removed throughout the year to meet market requirements.

3.1.9 Current estimations of traffic movements have been calculated on the basis of all stone being transported offsite in 20 tonne loads. It is estimated that the annual working of the total 67,860 tonne mineral reserve suitable for blockstone and flagstone will produce between 3000 to 4000 tonnes per annum of mineral to go for further processing. This results in around 200 heavy goods vehicle loads, or 400 two-way heavy goods vehicle trips per year that will travel to the Churchfield Stone Ltd Stone Processing Plant along Harley Way, Churchfield. (67,860 tonnes/20 tonne HGVs/17 years =200 loads per year).

3.1.10 The transportation of the 6 inch walling stone will result in around 150 heavy goods vehicle loads, or 300 two-way heavy goods vehicle trips per year (50,895 tonnes/20 tonne HGVs/17 years =150 loads per year).

3.1.11 The site will therefore generate around 350 heavy goods vehicle loads or 700 two-way trips per year. In order to meet market demands it is anticipated that the quarry will produce up to a maximum of 4 vehicle loads (8 vehicle trips) per day during peak times of market demand. In turn, there will be periods where there will be days where there will be no traffic movements generated by the site, in line with periods of low market demand.

3.1.12 If the stone is removed over an 8 month period (or 36 weeks per year) while the site is operational, this would result in average movements of around 2 vehicle loads or 4 vehicle trips per day (350 vehicle loads/36 weeks/5 days per week = 2 vehicle loads per day). However, it is likely that some previously excavated stone may be removed at other times of the year to meet market requirements. If the traffic movements are considered across the 12 month period (or 50 weeks) this would result in average movements of 1.5 vehicle loads or 3 vehicle trips per day (350 vehicle loads/50 weeks/5 days per week = 1.5 vehicle loads per day). Therefore, it is likely that vehicle movements will be between 1 and 2 vehicle loads or 2 and 4 vehicle trips per day.

3.1.13 The waste stone not suitable for walling stone will be utilised in the restoration of the quarry to lower than existing levels. The quarry will be restored using the waste stone and excavated overburden material and top soil which will be stored on site. It is proposed that the quarry will



be restored in phases that coincide with the extraction of the mineral reserve. The proposed restoration levels are shown by drawing BENE 6 Indicative restoration contours. The end use of the restored site will be agricultural.



4 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The following is a summary of national, regional and local level planning policy considered particularly relevant to the development.

4.2 National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

4.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect immediately once it was published on the 27th March 2012. Annex 3 of the NPPF lists the range of documents, inclusive of Planning Policy Statements and Mineral Planning Statements, which have been superseded and replaced by its publication.

4.2.2 The section 13 of the NPPF and its associated technical guide set out the strategic mineral policy that Local Planning Authorities should take into account in the formulation of local mineral planning policy and in the determination of mineral planning applications. In relation to the requirements of the documents, a planning application should consider a wide range of factors to ensure that mineral development does not have an effect ‘on the natural and historic environment or human health’.

4.2.3 Paragraph 143, subsection 6 of the NPPF states;

4.2.4 ‘Planning applications will be assessed to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, including from noise, dust, visual intrusion, traffic, tip- and quarry-slope stability, differential settlement of quarry backfill, mining subsidence, increased flood risk, impacts on the flow and quantity of surface and groundwater and migration of contamination from the site; and take into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality’.

4.2.5 Further guidance is set out in the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework, and summarised below.

Table 4.1: National Planning Policy Guidance

TECHNICAL GUIDE TO THE NPPF

RELEVANCE

Flood Risk Sets out the principles to be followed to ensure that development is made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Minerals Policy

Proximity of mineral workings to communities

Guiding policies to ensure that mineral development do not have unacceptable adverse effects on natural or historic environment or human health.



4.3 Regional Planning Policy

4.3.1 The Localism Act gained Royal assent on the 15th November 2011 and formally brings parts of the legislation in to force. As a part of the governments drive for simplification of the planning system the Act provides for the abolition of regional strategies. However, while the provisions are enabled they are not yet affected given the need to carry out and complete the necessary strategic environmental assessments before Orders can be laid in Parliament to formally revoke the plans. This will when finally implemented increase the power of the local level policy.

4.4 Local Planning Policy

Table 4.2: Local Planning Policy Guidance

Dust Guidance to ensure that dust emissions are controlled, mitigated or removed at source.

Noise Sets out the parameters required to ensure that mineral development does not have an adverse noise impact on its surrounding environment.

Stability in surface mine workings and tips

Principles to ensure safety within quarry workings, and specifically slope stability.

Restoration and aftercare of mineral sites

Guidance on the provision of landscape strategy, restoration conditions and aftercare schemes.

REFERENCE RELEVANCE Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Core Strategy, adopted May 2010 Policy CS 4 – Spatial Strategy for Mineral Extraction

Highlights preferred areas of working.

Policy CS 6 – Building and Roofing Stone

To ensure conservation of the historic built environment and locally distinctive characteristics.

Policy CS 9 – Encouraging Sustainable Transport Movements

Sustainable transport movements to be built in to operational processes.

Policy CS 10 – Minerals Safeguarding Areas

To safeguard sources of important mineral resource from sterilisation

Policy CS 11 – Safeguarding Waste Management and Minerals Related Development from Alternative Uses

To protect the mineral reserves from sterilisation by unrelated development

Policy CS 12 - Development in the Vicinity of the Minerals and Waste Development

To ensure that development in proximity of any waste or minerals facility does not have any undue effect on those facilities.

Policy CS 13 – All mineral and waste related development of a temporary nature



Other Relevant Planning Policy

Development and Implementation Principles; Supplementary Planning Document

(Adopted September 2011)

4.4.1 The Development and Implementation Principles; Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

was adopted on in September 2011. The SPD provides additional guidance regarding provision of waste management facilities in new development, and the design and restoration of minerals development. The relevant policies within the SPD will be addressed to provide further guidance in the formulation of the planning application for the Stonepits Quarry, Benefield development.

Restoration and After Use of Minerals and Waste Development

must ensure that the site is progressively restored to an acceptable condition and stable landform.

Policy CS 14 – Addressing the Impact of proposed Minerals and Waste Development

To mitigate against impacts on environmental designations, natural resources, visual appearance and local amenity.

Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Control and Management of Development DPD – to be adopted June 2011 Policy CMD 4 – Development Criteria for Mineral Extraction

Sets out the criteria for non-allocated minerals applications.

Policy CMD 7 – Natural Assets and Resources

To ensure that all mineral development occurs with regard to ecological and sustainability needs.

Policy CMD 8 – Landscape Character

To protect the distinctive landscape character of Northamptonshire.

Policy CMD 9 – Historic Environment

To ensure that historic assets within and in the vicinity of the development site are protected, and mitigation measures to protect those assets.

Policy CMD 10 – Layout and Design Quality

The criteria that are set out control the impacts that a development may have on the visual and amenity of the surrounding area through considerate design. Safety aspects will also be considered within the design.

Policy CMD 12 – Preventing Land Use Conflict

To protect the mineral reserves from sterilisation by unrelated development.

Policy CMD 13 – restoration and After Use

To ensure that procedures and schemes are put in place at the outset of a development that allows for the worked site to be restored to a beneficial use.

Policy CMD 14 -Implementation

Ensure that the developments are managed in line with the permitted conditions and regulations.



5 THE PROPOSED CONTENT OF THE EIA

5.1.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will assess the potential significant impacts associated with the proposal. The individual topics proposed include, Introduction, Background and Context The Site and Its Setting Methodology The Development Proposal Planning History and Planning Policy Context Consultation Need and Alternatives Dust Ecology Flood Risk Heritage Hydrology and Hydrogeology Landscape and Visual Amenity Noise Traffic and Transportation Summary of Impacts

5.1.2 Together, with a Non-Technical Summary, these subjects will form the Environmental Statement (ES) documentation.

5.1.3 Each environmental topic will consider the impacts during both the extraction and restoration phases and also the cumulative impacts of the proposal. They will consider the direct impacts of the proposed development and any indirect or secondary impacts, and both positive and negative impacts where appropriate.

5.1.4 Each topic will be presented in a chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) with a technical report within which the following matters will be addressed where relevant: Introduction Planning Policy Assessment Methodology Baseline Conditions Incorporated Enhancement and Mitigation Identification and Evaluation of Key Impacts Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Residual Impacts Conclusions

5.1.5 The sections describe the context of each topic area based upon information currently available

and the proposed scope of each topic assessment, to assist in assessing its adequacy.



5.2 Introduction, Background and Context

5.2.1 This section will include narrative on the format and content of the Environmental Statement (ES) and the statutory background to the EIA process. It will include information regarding the applicant, the assessment team, the scope of the assessment and the organisation of the ES.

5.3 The Site and Its Setting

5.3.1 This section will describe the general physical and environmental characteristics of the application site and its surrounding environment. Other chapters of the ES will provide detailed descriptions of the site in relation to particular environmental topics, providing ‘baseline’ surveys against which the impacts of the proposals may be evaluated.

5.4 Methodology

5.4.1 This section will set out the methodology that has been applied to the undertaking of the EIA and the preparation of the ES. It will also set out the limitations of the ES and the assumptions made in the ES.

5.5 The Development Proposal

5.5.1 This section will describe the development for which planning permission is sought. The description of the development will form the basis against which the impacts have been assessed during the EIA.

5.6 Planning History and Planning Context

5.6.1 This section will include information regarding the planning history of the site and it will set out the planning policy context, including planning policy at National, Regional and Local level. The compliance of the development proposals with these policies will be considered.

5.7 Consultation

5.7.1 Engagement with Benefield Parish Council along with individual residents and local interest groups is underway. An opportunity for stakeholders to register an interest in the project has been provided by way of an advertisement in the Nene Valley Newspaper on the 9th June 2012.

5.7.2 A consultation event will be held on the afternoon and evening of the 25th July 2012 at Benefield Village Hall. The event will be held from 3pm to 7:30pm and will allow for stakeholders to view project details and to engage with the project team with a view to incorporating local needs into the development.

5.7.3 Project details will be presented through the use of information boards, visual displays showing the plans of working including phasing plans; and informal discussion with members of the project team; headed by GP Planning Ltd.



5.7.4 It is proposed that the following list of stakeholders will be invited to the event: Local Residents East Northamptonshire District Council; Planning Officer, Environmental Health Officer and

District Councillors Environment Agency Benefield Parish Council Oundle Town Council Northamptonshire County Council, Planning Officer and Local Councillor The Wildlife Trust The National Trust Natural England Northamptonshire RIGS Group Stakeholders with a registered interest The Oundle Transition Group

5.7.5 The amount of stakeholder consultation proposed is considered to be appropriate with respects to the scale and nature of the proposed development. Thus, meeting the requirement set out by point 4.10 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Framework’s Statement of Community Involvement, adopted in June 2006, states the following;

‘Developers/Applicants are advised to contact the county council (development control) to agree the method(s) that should be used and the scale of consultation’.

5.7.6 Should further consultation be requested through the engagement with the Local Parish Council, then the project team will engage as required. Issues raised in the consultation process will be incorporated into the design of the development. The consultation process will be documented in the Environmental Statement and the Statement of Community Involvement.

5.8 Needs and Alternatives

Need

5.8.1 The need for the development will be demonstrated in this section by reference to the history of the operations in the local area and the continued growth of the business.

5.8.2 The following are examples of areas to be considered further in the Environmental Statement: Use Location Competition Planning policy Stone market No sterilisation

Alternatives

5.8.3 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 schedule 4 Information for Inclusion in Environmental Statements part 1 paragraph 2 requires for alternative sites and options to be assessed as a part of an Environmental Impact assessment.



5.8.4 The assessment of alternatives will present reasons why this site is to be quarried by the

applicant. It will then consider the various options for development that have been identified and discarded in favour of the current proposal and alternative restoration proposals.

5.8.5 It is considered that the following alternatives are available to the applicant: Do nothing at all. Rely on alternative supplies of other mineral either from local sites or through importation. Bring forward the application site at a later stage through the plan making process. Bring forward alternative new greenfield sites in the vicinity.

5.9 Air Quality and Dust Emissions

5.9.1 A dust assessment will be carried out in accordance with guidance provided by the NPPF, the Technical Guidance to the NPPF and MPS2. The dust assessment will assess the potential of the quarry to have an adverse effect on the surrounding environment, and provide recommendations for minimising any potential adverse effect.

5.9.2 A baseline assessment has been undertaken to inform this EIA Scoping Report. The baseline has been calculated as follows; Air Quality

5.9.3 The Air Quality Regulations (AQR) prescribe National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) objectives to be achieved for a range of pollutants. Under AQR, local authorities are required to review the existing and projected airborne concentrations of these pollutants and compare them with the NAQS objectives. If an exceedence of any NAQS objective appears likely, then an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) is to be designated with the aim of achieving the objective by the due date.

5.9.4 The pollutants of potential concern in connection with quarry operations are particulate matter less than 10µm (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5µm (PM2.5).

5.9.5 The relevant NAQS objectives are listed in the following table. Table 5.1: NAQS Objectives

Pollutant Objective Date Comment PM 10 40 µg/m3, annual mean 31 December 2004

50 µg/m3, 24 hour mean, not to be exceeded more than 35 times per annum

31 December 2004

PM2.5 25 µg/m3, annual mean 2020 new, not in AQR15% reduction, urban background 2010-2020 target, UK urban

areas



5.9.6 The mapped data for 2012 and 2020, for the grid squares in which the proposed quarry and access road are located, are summarised in the following table.

Table 5.2: Summary Air Quality Data

Location OS Grid Square

Mean PM10 (µg/m3)2012

2020

Mean PM2.5 (µg/m3) 2012

2020

Quarry SP 975 885 16.6 15.9 9.7 9.1 Access road

SP 985 885 16.3 15.6 9.7 9.0

Average 16.5 15.8 9.7 9.1 % NAQS objective 41 40 39 36

5.9.7 The data indicate that in 2012, the baseline PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are about 40% of the respective NAQS annual mean objectives, and will fall slightly in the period to 2020.

5.9.8 During the LAQM review and assessment process, East Northamptonshire Council has not designated any AQMAs, with which the above data are consistent.

Dust Deposition

5.9.9 Typical dust deposition rates range from 10 to 50 mg/m2/day in rural areas, 30 to 80 mg/m2/day in suburban areas and 80 to 160 mg/m2/day in town centre or industrial areas.

5.9.10 The immediate site setting is rural. However, agricultural operations on the sandy silty soils may occasionally result in dust emissions. The baseline dust deposition rates in the area may therefore lie in the middle part of this range, ie, about 30 mg/m2/day.

Wind Speed and Direction

5.9.11 Wind roses for Wittering, which lies 16 km north-northeast of the application site, for the period between January 2001 and December 2010, are attached in Appendix 1.

5.9.12 The wind roses depict percentage wind speeds and directions for the whole year and for the summer season when conditions tend to be drier and therefore potentially dustier. Data derived from the wind roses are summarised in the following table.



Table 5.3: Summary Wind Data, Wittering

5.9.13 The data show that, as an annual average, winds blow from the southwest and west for a combined total of 41% of the time. Winds blow in each of the other 45o sectors for between 5 and 13% of the time. Winds greater than 10 knots (5 m/s) blow from the southwest and west for a combined total of 20% of the time. Wind speeds in excess of 10 knots are important as the onset of potentially significant airborne dust emissions due to wind blow across bare ground and stockpiles.

5.9.14 During the summer months, taken as June to August, the frequency of winds from the west increases by 3% of the time, with corresponding minor reductions in other sectors. The overall frequency of winds greater than 10 knots reduces by about 20%.

5.9.15 From the Air Quality and Dust Deposition baseline set out above the Dust Assessment will assess the proposed development and consider the potential impact upon its surroundings. The assessment will consist of the following; Review of standards and controls. Assessment of dust and fine particulate matter. Recommendations for mitigation. Assessment of residual effects.

5.10 Flood Risk

5.10.1 The proposed development has been considered against the parameters for undertaking flood risk assessments. The development has been designed in order to take account of the flood zone along the adjacent brook particularly with respect to the route of the proposed haul road. Consequently the site is located within flood zone 1, however as the site area is over 1 ha a formal flood risk assessment is required to support the planning application.

5.10.2 The Assessment will be undertaken in line with guidelines set out in the Technical Guidance to the NPPF and PPS25.

Direction Annual percentage occurrence

Summer percentage occurrence

All winds Winds > 10 knots

All winds Winds > 10 knots

N 10 3 9 2

NE 10 3 9 2

E 5 1 6 0

SE 7 1 6 1

S 13 5 12 4

SW 22 12 23 10

W 19 8 22 7

NW 13 4 14 4

Calm/Variable 1 - 1 -



5.10.3 The assessment will consider the effects of the development in respect of surface water run-off, risk from fluvial flooding and risk from other sources of flooding such as groundwater, manmade structures and sewers.

5.11 Heritage

5.11.1 A baseline appraisal of heritage assets has been undertaken to establish the potential for archaeological and heritage assets at the site. The assessment comprises an examination of evidence in the Northamptonshire Historic Environment Record (NHER), considers the results of nearby archaeological investigations, incorporates published and unpublished material and charts historic land-use through a map regression exercise.

5.11.2 The assessment considers the heritage potential across Palaeolithic, Early Prehistoric, Iron Age and Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Medieval and Early Post-Medieval, and Late Post Medieval and Modern periods. The desktop finds relating to each era are set out below: Palaeolithic

5.11.3 No Palaeolithic finds have been found within the proposed development area or within the wider study area. Early Prehistoric (Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age)

5.11.4 No evidence of early prehistoric activity has been recorded within the study area. Iron Age and Roman

5.11.5 It is considered that there is the potential for the proposed site to yield Roman period archaeology. Anglo-Saxon, Medieval and Early Post-Medieval

5.11.6 There was no evidence of Anglo-Saxon period activity found within the study area. The development of the villages in various guises is logged as occurring from medieval period onwards. It is thought that the application site would have been cleared during the medieval period to create an arable field, along with large areas of woodland in the area. Late Post Medieval and Modern

5.11.7 The field where the application site is situated remained in arable agricultural use during these periods. Conclusions

5.11.8 The report concludes that the proposed development area is in an area of Roman period evidence, though since the early medieval period the site has probably been at first wooded and by the 12th century agricultural land. In summary, further investigations are recommended and will be carried out accordingly to determine the level of impact and propose further investigations or mitigation should it be necessary. The results of the further assessments will be reported in the Environmental Statement.



5.12 Hydrology and Hydrogeology

5.12.1 The quarry development has the potential to extract mineral that occurs from below the existing water table. This has the potential to have an adverse effect on the immediate and surrounding hydrological and hydrogeological environment. To assess the potential for the impact a hydrological and hydrogeological assessment will be undertaken to assess the local water environment with respect to the proposed quarry development.

5.12.2 The principal objectives of the assessment are to: Determine baseline conditions in relation to the water environment at Stonepits Quarry and

its surroundings. Determine a hydrogeological conceptual model for the site. Identify potential impacts of the proposed development. Assess the magnitude and significance of potential impacts. Derive appropriate mitigation measures for any identified potential impacts.

5.13 Landscape and Visual Amenity

5.13.1 The Landscape and Visual Amenity baseline has been assessed in order to form a basis to assess the proposed development against. The baseline is considered as follows:

5.13.2 The site is located within Countryside Character Volume 4 East Midlands. It is located within Countryside Character Area 92 Rockingham Forest.

5.13.3 At the district scale of assessment a landscape character assessment was undertaken for Northamptonshire, known as the Northamptonshire Landscape Characterisation Project. The site is located within the Limestone Landscapes – Limestone Valley Slopes Landscape Character Type at the boundary of the Riverine Landscapes – Broad River Valley Floodplain and Boulder Clay Landscapes – Wooded Clay Plateau. It is located within Landscape Character Area 7c Rockingham Plateau

5.13.4 Within the site itself there are a limited number of landscape components. It is principally an arable field, bounded by hedgerows on all but its western boundary, sloping to the south east towards an existing ditch (at time of survey being dry) outside the application site boundary. Notable landscape components, which combine to create the sites rural agricultural character, are as follows: Hedgerows both managed and unmanaged on northern, eastern and southern boundaries Individual semi mature hedgerow trees within the northern, eastern and southern n boundary Woodland block associated with the former quarry on the eastern boundary Sloping topography National Landscape Designations

5.13.5 There are no national landscape designations within proximity of the site.

Local Landscape Designations

5.13.6 There are no local landscape designations within proximity of the site.



Historic Landscape Designations

5.13.7 There are no local landscape designations within proximity of the site.

Visibility of the site

5.13.8 The site is located on the north-western side of a shallow valley, orientated towards the south east. This is a relatively open valley landscape and views are afforded of the site from the surrounding landscape to the east, south and west. The existing woodland associated with the former quarry on the north-eastern boundary filters views of the site from the north and north-east. The existing topography to the north of the site within Upper Benefield forms a local shallow plateau and thus restricts views into the site. There are views from the south-east within Lower Benefield towards the site but these are oblique and the existing woodland within the former quarry helps to restrict/filter a full view of the site. The Grange located on the western edge of Lower Benefield on Causin Way has the most direct view of the site due to its orientation looking north-west and its elevated situation. The site itself is an open arable field defined on all but its south western boundary by hedgerows and hedgerow trees. The most distinctive feature is the woodland associated with the former quarry on its north-eastern boundary.

5.13.9 From the local footpath network (ref MG15) there are long distant views of the site from the south west at the juncture of Spring Wood and Causin Way where the site can be seen rising up the valley sides. From the footpath that runs from Lower Benefield to Upper Benefield looking west towards the site there are some views but due to the undulating topography and presence of intervening vegetation these are filtered views. From the public right of way MG27 that runs adjacent to the cricket ground in Upper Benefield, the views towards the site are restricted due to the existing hedgerows and the woodland planting associated with the former quarry on the north-eastern boundary. There are no views from the public right of way MG18 that runs along the outer edge of the south-eastern boundary due to the height and density of the existing hedgerow.

5.13.10 The A427 and Causin Way form routes through the landscape near to the site. There are filtered views from the A427 of the site. From Causin Way views can be gained of the site from existing gaps in the hedgerows that align the road.

5.13.11 From the site itself, the principal views are to the south-east towards the higher portions of Lower Benefield to the east and the ridge line that forms Causin Way to the south-east and Banhaw Wood beyond. There are limited views from the south-western corner towards the A427 to the north-east that from the local ridgeline. The Proposed Assessment

5.13.12 The landscape and visual amenity component of the EIA will establish the extent to which the proposed development will have an impact on the existing landscape character, the landscape components of the site, areas designated for landscape reasons and the visual amenity of the visual receptors within the area.

5.13.13 A landscape and visual impact assessment will be undertaken. The assessment will be undertaken by a suitably qualified landscape architect and the methodology for this assessment will follow the guidance provided in The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment publication Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Second Edition (2002).



5.13.14 The assessment will consider the impacts of the proposed development on the landscape and

the visual amenity as two separate but interrelated components. It will also refer to relevant planning policy at the national, regional and local level.

5.13.15 The assessment of the landscape character will comprise a review of the landscape baseline, the existing landscape character within the area and of the site itself. Reference will be made to relevant Landscape Character Assessments. In addition, key features within the landscape will be identified. Following which the potential impacts will be considered and quantified.

5.13.16 The assessment of the proposed development on the visual amenity will include a review of the existing visual baseline and potential sensitive visual receptors will be identified. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility, or the area within which there is the potential for the development to be visible, will be identified. Following initial ZTV studies and site visits a draft Zone of Theoretical Visibility is provided in Appendix 2. A number of representative viewpoints within this zone have been identified. These include short, medium and long range views. The location of these viewpoints are provided in Appendix 2 and summarised in the Table 5.1.

5.13.17 The viewpoints are selected to be representative of the range of potential impacts likely to arise as a result of the proposed development and to represent a range of visual receptor groups and visual amenity within the identified Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV). The selection ensures that no potential impacts are under or over represented and that short, medium and long range views are considered. Table 5.4: Representative Viewpoints

No. Name Location Reason for Choice 1 Footpath (PROW

MG17) south of Upper Benefield

Footpath to the East of the site

Views of the site experienced by PROW users and agricultural workers

2 Junction of Footpaths (PROW MG17 & MG18) in Benefield Valley

Footbridge to the south of the site

Views of the site experienced by PROW users

3 Benefield Cricket Club

PROW MG27 at edge of the Cricket Club

Views of the site experienced by PROW users and also those visiting cricket club and public house

4 Footpath (PROW MG17) north of Lower Benefield

Near gate leading onto the Causin Way

Views of the site experienced by PROW users and local residents in Lower Benefield and visitors to the area

5 Edge of Lower Benefield on Causin Way (Opposite Castle)

Along the Causin Way opposite Benefield Castle

Views experienced by users of the Causin Way and local residents in Lower Benefield and visitors

6 Causin Way and junction with Bridleway MG14

Along the Causin Way heading towards Springwood Lodge

Views of the site experienced by PROW users and users of the Causin Way

7 Spring Wood Along MG15 at north east edge of Spring Wood

Views of the site experienced by PROW users and visitors to spring wood

8 Causin Way and Spring Wood

Along MG15 at entrance onto the

Views of the site experienced by PROW users and users of the Causin Way and visitors to Spring



No. Name Location Reason for Choice Causin Way, adjacent to Springwood

Wood

5.13.18 The impact of the proposed development at these viewpoint locations will be assessed.

5.13.19 Consideration will be given to possible mitigation and enhancement measures. The mitigation and enhancement measures will be 'designed in' to the final proposals where possible, through maintaining a dialogue with the consultant team and local planning authority. This will ensure that any residual impacts are minimised.

5.14 Noise

5.14.1 The noise assessment will be undertaken in accordance with the recommendation set out by the guideline in The Technical Guide to the NPPF, PPG24 and Annex 2 of MPS2. The objective of the assessment is to assess the proposed development to ensure that it does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance to its surrounding environment.

5.14.2 An initial noise baseline assessment has been undertaken to establish the background noise levels to be used in the assessment of the proposed development. A summary of the base assessment is set out below and appendix 3.

5.14.3 A long-term noise monitor (Rion NL-52 Class 1 Sound Level Meter) was set up between Friday 12 and Wednesday 17 August 2011 in the rear garden of a new dwelling in Upper Benefield. The meter was set up to log: 5 minute LAeq, LAmax, F and statistical indices (including LA90); and Continuous 100 msec sampled sound pressure level providing a detailed time history over the

entire measurement period.

5.14.4 Additionally, four 15 minute sample measurements were carried out on Wednesday 17 August 2011.

5.14.5 3 of the sample measurements were carried out to the south of dwellings in Upper Benefield in order to evaluate noise levels right across the extent of the village which runs east – west just over 200 metres to the north of the site. The fourth sample position was near the closest dwelling in Lower Benefield.

5.14.6 The results of the long-term survey are summarised in the Table 5.5 below which shows the overall LAeq, LAmax, LA10 and LA90 noise levels calculated from the 100 msec samples for 07:00 – 17:00 for the weekdays and 07:00 – 13:00 for the Saturday using Rion AS- 60 data management software. The average value (termed here as the Working Hours Average) is given at the sixth column of the table but this excludes the data from Tuesday 16/8/11 when the weather was wet and blustery at times.



Table 5.5: Overall LAeq, LAmax, LA10 and LA90

Day Date

Sat 13/08/11

Mon 15/08/11

Tue 19/08/11

Wed 17/08/11

Working Hours Average (Excludes 16/08/11)

Start Time 07:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 End Time 13:00 17:00 17:00 16:30 LAeq 42.0 45.9 46.1 45.2 44.4 LAmaxF 72.0 78.4 76.9 84.9 78.4 La10 44.0 46.0 47.6 45.8 45.3 LA90 33.3 35.6 38.1 31.9 33.6

5.14.7 The calculated average value for LA90 calculated over the proposed working hours of the quarry

will be used as the baseline noise level in the noise assessment. The full noise baseline is attached in appendix 3 of this report. The potential impact of the development will assessed in relation to the stated baseline levels.

5.15 Traffic and Transport

5.15.1 The transport statement will assess the development and its impact on the local highway network. The statement will consider the existing transport conditions of the site including its relationship with the Stone Processing Plant at Churchfield Farm, Harley Way, Churchfield.

5.15.2 The existing transport conditions have been assessed and are set out below;

5.15.3 The site is located on the north western side of Lower Benefield, around 5.5km west of Oundle in Peterborough. There is no formal access to the site at present, but there is an unmade crossover providing access for agricultural vehicles from the A427 just north of Lower Benefield.

5.15.4 The A427 is a single two-way carriageway road providing a link between Oundle and the A605 to the east, and Corby to the west. It links the villages of Lower and Upper Benefield; there are a series of bends in the road between the two villages. The existing crossover access is located on the apex of a right hand bend on the A427, however visibility is good as a result of the flat topography, road alignment and low hedges.

5.15.5 The A427 between Lower and Upper Benefield is a rural wide single two-way carriageway road with a 60 mph speed limit, no footways or street lighting. The speed limit reverts to 30mph on the approaches to Upper and Lower Benefield.

5.15.6 An automatic traffic counter was placed on the A427 just south of the existing agricultural access between 10/06/2010 and 16/06/2010. Table 5.6 summarises the recorded weekday traffic flow volumes, while Table 5.4 summarises the 85th%ile speeds.



Table 5.6: A427 Lower Benefield Average Weekday Traffic Count Data, June 2010 Time Eastbound Westbound 2 Way 0800-0900 112 108 220 1700-1800 103 108 111 0700-1900 1004 1020 2024

Table 5.7: A427 Lower Benefield 85th 5%ile speeds (mph), June 2010

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday East Bound 0800-0900 29.1 29.7 29.5 29.2 29.5 1700-1800 30.0 29.9 30.2 29.9 29.7 0700-1900 29.5 29.7 25.9 29.4 29.4 Westbound 0800-0900 30.7 31.6 23.7 33.0 30.5 1700-1800 33.4 34.0 32.7 33.0 32.9 0700-1900 32.4 32.1 32.2 32.0 31.7

5.15.7 Table 5.7 shows that the eastbound peak hour 85th %ile speeds were around 30mph, whereas

westbound speeds were slightly higher between 30 and 34mph. Off-peak speeds were slightly lower than peak hour speeds in both directions. Appendix 4 of this report contains the traffic count data.

5.15.8 The statement will then utilise the information gathered in order to provide an overview of the transport implications of the proposed quarry and provide recommendations for any mitigation measures that are to be adopted in order to minimise any adverse impacts.

5.15.9 A junction designed to specific requirements of the development will be provided to ensure safe access onto the highway and also the safety of the users of the public highway.

5.16 Summary of Impacts

5.16.1 The range of potential impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed development will be summarised and tabulated.

5.17 Conclusions

5.17.1 This is the concluding section of the ES. It will draw together the results of the other sections of the ES. It will provide a summary of the residual impacts of the proposed development.

5.18 Topics to be scoped out of the EIA

Ecology

5.18.1 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Assessment is attached in appendix 5 of this report and has been undertaken within IEEM guidelines. The phase 1 assessment forms part of the Ecological Baseline and Impact assessment will review the impact of the proposed development upon ecology.



5.18.2 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Assessment confirms that the potential impacts upon ecology are not of a significant level due to the value of the existing ecological assets at the site and also in its vicinity.

5.18.3 Surveys of the trees at the site boundaries and the haul road have been undertaken to establish the potential effect of the development upon them. The tress surveys have been undertaken in accordance with BS 5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction – Recommendations, guidelines and will be integral to establishing stand-off distances for the site workings and its associated components. A tree constraints plan is included in this report indicating the required protection areas that are to be adhered to in the design of the quarry development.

5.18.4 The information included within the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Assessment and Tree Surveys indicate that the development will not have an adverse impact upon ecology. It is therefore considered that there will not be the requirement to formally assess the ecological impacts of the development under the EIA regulations. Subsequently, the Ecological Baseline and Impact Assessment will support the planning application. Soil

5.18.5 The proposed development will see the excavation, movement and storage of topsoil and overburden material during the quarry operations. To ensure that the development does not have an impact on the soil resource, soil investigations been undertaken in order to describe the soil resources available for reuse on site, together with an assessment of existing agricultural land quality using the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system. The results of the investigations are included in the Statement of Physical Characteristics which is attached in appendix 6 of this report.

5.18.6 The assessment is based upon the findings of a study of published information on climate, geology and soil in combination with an intrusive soil investigation on agricultural land covering the proposed extraction area. A soil survey was carried out on the 16th March 2012. The survey involved examination of physical soil properties at 8 locations to a depth of approximately 1.2 m by excavating trial pits by hand with a 5cm diameter Dutch (Edleman) soil auger. Shallow soil pits were also excavated by hand with a spade at representative sample locations to help determine subsoil structure and drainage status/Wetness Class.

5.18.7 In conclusion the report states that following;

The upper subsoil (30-50 cm below ground level) and lower subsoil (50-120 cm below ground level) are both CLAY in texture; therefore they can be stripped as a single layer of subsoil (i.e. 30-120 cm below ground level). Due to the high clay content in the topsoil and subsoil, soil resources available for re-use will be prone to structural damage during soil handling operations, i.e. soil tripping, soil storage in bunds and soil replacement during land restoration - especially if the soils are handled when they are too wet. Therefore, to minimize structural damage during soil handling operations, it is recommended that the Soil Handling Guidance given in Appendix 5 of the Statement of Physical Characteristics is followed.

5.18.8 In light of the findings of the report soil will be handled in line with best practice techniques, which will be designed into the development. The impact of the development upon the existing soil resource will therefore be minimised to appropriate levels. Maintenance of the quality of the



soil after excavation will be ensured due to its storage at the site pending reuse within the restoration proposals. Therefore, it is considered that no further assessment of the soil is required as a part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. The Statement of Physical Characteristics will therefore support the planning application.

Contaminated Land

5.18.9 The quarry development will be carried out on greenfield agricultural land which is not considered to be contaminated.

Socio-Economic Impacts

5.18.10 The development is considered to have a potential positive impact upon the local economy through the maintenance and strengthening of a local company in the form of Churchfield Stone Ltd. Due to the scale, nature and the impact of the development upon the existing socio-economic situation it is considered that further assessment will not be required as a part of the EIA. Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Sustainability

5.18.11 The development will adopt sustainable principles at its core, with sustainable design, methods of working, construction and operation designed into the development on the basis of collated technical information. Where appropriate climate change, energy and environmental sustainability will be discussed in each of the technical reports. It is therefore considered that a standalone assessment will not be required as part of the EIA.



6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1.1 This report has been prepared to assist in the formal scoping exercise for the proposed development, known as Stonepits Quarry, Benefield, and sets out the details of the proposed development, the site and its surroundings and the proposed content and extent of the EIA.

6.1.2 This report is submitted to Northamptonshire County Council in association with a request for a Scoping Opinion.


P002-04 Scoping Opinion / NM Appendix 10/07/12

APPENDIX 1: Wittering Windrose

Stonepits Quarry 1 Appendix A

Alex Grant AirQ ag062-r01-appA Air Quality Consultancy 03/07/2012

WIND ROSE FOR WITTERING N.G.R: 5042E 3026N ALTITUDE: 73 metres a.m.s.l.

KNOTSSEASON: ANNUAL Period of data: Jan 2001 - Dec 2010

85900 OBS.

0.6% CALM

0.0% VARIABLE

1-10

11-16

17-27

28-33

>33

0%

20%

10%

5%

Stonepits Quarry 2 Appendix A

Alex Grant AirQ ag062-r01-appA Air Quality Consultancy 03/07/2012

WIND ROSE FOR WITTERING N.G.R: 5042E 3026N ALTITUDE: 73 metres a.m.s.l.

KNOTSSEASON: JUN TO AUGPeriod of data: Jan 2001 - Dec 2010

21358 OBS.

0.6% CALM

0.0% VARIABLE

1-10

11-16

17-27

28-33

>33

0%

20%

10%

5%



APPENDIX 2: Zone of Theoretical Visibility & Representative

Viewpoints

© 2012 GP PLANNING LTD All Rights Reserved

DRAWN BY:

DRAWING NO.:

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

REV NO.:

DATE:NTS

ZTV and Viewpoint Plan

Churchfield Stone Ltd, Stone Pits, BenefieldPGR

05/07/12

1

NM

GPP/CSL/BE/12/21

KD



APPENDIX 3: Baseline Noise Assessment

ANV

Beaufort Court 17 Roebuck Way Milton Keynes MK5 8HL Tel 01908 642811 Fax 01908 642800

Acoustics Noise

and Vibration Acoustic Consultants

Principals: M Breslin BSc MIOA L P Jephson BEng MIOA

BASELINE NOISE ASSESSMENT

STONE PITS QUARRY, BENEFIELD

CHURCHFIELD STONE LIMITED

JUNE 2012

ANV Acoustics Noise

and Vibration

Stone Pits Quarry Baseline Report.doc June 2012

BASELINE NOISE ASSESSMENT

STONE PITS QUARRY, BENEFIELD

CHURCHFIELD STONE LIMITED

JUNE 2012

This report has been prepared using all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the resources and brief agreed with the client.

Acoustics Noise and Vibration (ANV) accept no responsibility for matters outside the terms of the brief or for use of this report, wholly or in part, by third parties.

ANV Acoustics Noise

and Vibration


CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1

2. Noise units and terminology 2

2.1 Decibels (dB) 2

2.2 A-Weighting 2

2.3 Units Used to Describe Time-Varying Noise Sources 2

3. Baseline Assessment 4

3.1 Potentially Affected Noise-Sensitive Locations 4

3.2 Survey Details 4

3.3 Baseline Noise Survey Results 4

References

Appendix A: Analysis of Baseline Noise Levels

Figures

ANV

Stone Pits Quarry Baseline Report.doc June 2012 1

1. INTRODUCTION

It is proposed to extract limestone from a quarry located to the south of Upper

Benefield and to the North East of Lower Benefield. Acoustics Noise & Vibration

(ANV) have been appointed to carry out a noise and vibration assessment of the

proposals.

The baseline noise measurement exercise for this work was carried out in August 2011.

This report presents the results of the baseline measurement exercise.

ANV


2. NOISE UNITS AND TERMINOLOGY

2.1 Decibels (dB)

Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound in air can be considered as the

propagation of energy through the air in the form of oscillatory changes in pressure.

The size of the pressure changes in acoustic waves is quantified on a logarithmic

decibel (dB) scale firstly because the range of audible sound pressures is very great,

and secondly because the loudness function of the human auditory system is

approximately logarithmic.

The dynamic range of the auditory system is generally taken to be 0 dB to 140 dB.

Generally, the addition of noise from two sources producing the same sound pressure

level, will lead to an increase in sound pressure level of 3 dB. A 3 dB noise change is

generally considered to be just noticeable, a 5 dB change is generally considered to be

clearly discernible and a 10 dB change is generally accepted as leading to the

subjective impression of a doubling or halving of loudness.

2.2 A-Weighting

The bandwidth of the frequency response of the ear is usually taken to be from about

18 Hz to 18,000 Hz. The auditory system is not equally sensitive throughout this

frequency range. This is taken into account when making acoustic measurements by

the use of A-weighting, a filter circuit which has a frequency response similar to the

human auditory system. All the measurement results referred to in this report are A-

weighted.

2.3 Units Used to Describe Time-Varying Noise Sources (LAeq, LA10, LA90 and LAmax)

Instantaneous A-weighted sound pressure level is not generally considered as an

adequate indicator of subjective response to noise because levels of noise usually vary

with time.

For many types of noise the Equivalent Continuous A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level

(LAeq,T) is used as the basis of determining community response. The LAeq,T is defined

as the A-weighted sound pressure level of the steady sound which contains the same

acoustic energy as the noise being assessed over a specific time period, T.

The Single Event Level (SEL) is the equivalent A-weighted sound pressure level of a

sound of 1 second duration which contains the same acoustic energy as the intermittent

noise event being assessed. It is used to calculate the LAeq, T due to a number of

intermittent noise events.

The LA10 is the noise level exceeded for 10% of the measurement period. It has been

used in the UK for the assessment of road traffic noise.

The LA90 is the noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period. It is

generally used to quantify the background noise level, the underlying level of noise

which is present even during the quietest part of the measurement period.

ANV


The LAmax is the maximum value that the A-weighted sound pressure level reaches during

a measurement period. LAmax F, or Fast, is averaged over 0.125 of a second and LAmax S, or

Slow, is averaged over 1 second. All LAmax values referred to in this report are Fast.

ANV


3. BASELINE ASSESSMENT

3.1 Potentially Affected Noise-Sensitive Locations

It will be helpful to refer to Figure 1. The nearest dwellings in Upper Benefield are a

little over 200 metres north of the site. The nearest dwellings in lower Benefield are

around 500 metres south east of the site.

3.2 Survey Details

The measurement locations are shown in Figure 1.

A long-term noise monitor (Rion NL-52 Class 1 Sound Level Meter) was set up

between Friday 12 and Wednesday 17 August 2011 in the rear garden of a new

dwelling in Upper Benefield. The meter was set up to log:

• 5 minute LAeq, LAmax, F and statistical indices (including LA90); and

• Continuous 100 msec sampled sound pressure level providing a the detailed

time history over the entire measurement period.

The meter was equipped with the Rion NX-42WR audio recording option which

enables periodic audio recording and recording of events which exceed a user-defined

trigger level.

Additionally, four 15 minute sample measurements were carried out on Wednesday 17

August 2011. The measurements were taken concurrently with the long-term

measurements and were carried out with an identically configured Rion NL-52 Class 1

Sound Level Meter) so that the results of the long-term and sample measurements

could be compared.

The meters were calibrated before and after the measurement exercise with a Rion NC-

74 Class 1 Acoustic Calibrator. There was no drift.

3 of the sample measurements were carried out to the south of dwellings in Upper

Benefield in order to evaluate noise levels right across the extent of the village which

runs east – west just over 200 metres to the north of the site. The fourth sample

position was near the closest dwelling in Lower Benefield.

The weather during the survey period was generally dry with little or no wind except

on Tuesday 16 August when it was a bit blustery and wet at times.

3.3 Baseline Noise Survey Results

The full measurement results are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows 2 graphs:-

• Graph 1 shows the detailed (100 msec sample) time history of the noise levels

during the long-term survey; and

• Graph 2 shows the 5 minute LAmax F (red trace), LAeq (green trace) and LA90

(blue trace) noise levels measured during the long-term survey (additional

indices were measured but they have not been displayed for the sake of clarity).

ANV


The results of the long-term survey are summarised in Table 2.1 which shows the

overall LAeq, LAmax, LA10 and LA90 noise levels calculated from the 100 msec samples

for 07:00 – 17:00 for the weekdays and 07:00 – 13:00 for the Saturday using Rion AS-

60 data management software. The average value (termed here as the Working Hours

Average) is given at the sixth column of Table 3.1 but this excludes the data from

Tuesday 16/8/11 when the weather was wet and blustery at times.

Day

Date

Sat

13/08/11

Mon

15/08/11

Tue

16/08/11

Wed

17/08/11

Working

Hours

Average

(Excludes

16/08/11)

Start Time 07:00 07:00 07:00 07:00

End Time 13:00 17:00 17:00 16:30

LAeq 42.0 45.9 46.1 45.2 44.4

LAmax,F 72.0 78.4 76.9 84.9 78.4

LA10 44.0 46.0 47.6 45.8 45.3

LA90 33.3 35.6 38.1 31.9 33.6

Table 3.1 Summary of Long-Term Noise Measurements

The sample noise measurement results are shown in Table 3.2 – 3.5. These also show

the difference between the levels measured at the sample position and the estimated

Working Hours Average estimated by applying the average differences between the

sample position and the long-term position to the Working Hours Averages shown in

Table 3.1.

The measurement results for Sample Position 1, between 4 and 5 Coronation Crescent

near the western end of the Upper Benefield, are shown in Table 3.2. The principal

influences on the LAeq noise level at this location were road traffic noise and birdsong.

The LA90 was principally influenced by distant road traffic noise and noise from high

altitude aircraft.

Start Time Measured Levels Difference vs. Levels at Long Term Position

LAeq LAmax,F LA10 LA90 LAeq LAmax,F LA10 LA90

11:50 42.8 58.0 47.1 31.2 0.3 3.9 0.6 0.3

11:55 39.7 56.5 42.2 29.8 -2.3 -3.9 -2.3 -3.4

12:00 42.6 58.9 46.1 30.8 0.5 6.1 0.6 -3.8

Working

Hours Average 43.9 80.4 44.9 31.3 -0.5 2.0 -0.4 -2.3

Table 3.2 Noise Levels at Sample Position 1

The measurement results for Sample Position 2, near the perimeter of the westernmost

house in Causin Way, Lower Benefield, are shown in Table 3.3. The principal

influences on the LAeq noise level at this location were road traffic noise and birdsong.

The LA90 was principally influenced by distant road traffic noise and noise from high

altitude aircraft.

ANV




13:15 37.5 52.6 40.9 28.8 -1.2 -0.7 -1.9 -0.6

13:20 37.1 49.7 40.4 30.7 -2.0 0.2 -2.1 -1.3

13:25 37.9 47.7 41.4 32.4 -1.9 -5.0 -1.9 1.1

Working

Hours Average 42.7 76.6 43.3 33.3 -1.7 -1.8 -2.0 -0.3


The measurement results for Sample Position 3, 7.5 metres from roadside at n the

recreation ground at the eastern end of Upper Benefield, are shown in Table 3.4. The

principal influences on the LAeq noise level at this location were road traffic noise and

birdsong. The LA90 influenced by road traffic noise and noise from farming activity.



13:55 55.5 71.8 60.4 32.2 15.3 18.4 16.9 4.2

14:00 55.9 70.5 61.0 32.4 16.1 21.1 17.4 2.9

14:05 56.3 76.9 60.2 31.7 13.8 17.5 14.9 4.3

Working

Hours Average 59.5 97.4 61.7 37.4 15.1 19.0 16.4 3.8


The measurement results for Sample Position 4, at the southern perimeter of gardens of

dwellings in Upper Benefield between the long-term position and Sample Position 1,

are shown in Table 3.5. The principal influences on the LAeq noise level at this location

were road traffic noise and birdsong. The LA90 influenced by road traffic noise and

noise from farming activity.



14:35 36.7 49 39.8 31.6 -3.2 -0.1 -3.7 -0.6

14:40 38.5 51 41.9 29.1 -3.9 -18.1 -2.2 -1.9

14:45 36.4 51.2 40 26.8 0.7 4.5 0.0 1.0

Working

Hours Average 42.3 73.8 43.3 33.1 -2.1 -4.6 -2.0 -0.5


ANV


APPENDIX A: BASELINE CALCULATIONS

Graph1

Start Date 15/08/2011

Start Time 07:00:00.0

Stop Date 15/08/2011

Stop Time 17:00:00.0

LAeq 45.9

LAE 91.5

LAFmax 78.4

LAFmin 25.3

L1 56.0

L10 46.0

L50 40.5

L90 35.6

L99 31.8

Excluded Interval No

Over No

Under No

Graph1





LAeq 46.1

LAE 91.6

LAFmax 76.9

LAFmin 29.7

L1 55.1

L10 47.6

L50 42.6

L90 38.1

L99 34.1


Over No

Under No

ANV


Graph1





LAeq 45.2

LAE 90.5

LAFmax 84.9

LAFmin 23.5

L1 53.3

L10 45.8

L50 39.0

L90 31.9

L99 27.9


Over No

Under No

Graph1





LAeq 42.0

LAE 85.3

LAFmax 72.0

LAFmin 27.5

L1 50.6

L10 44.0

L50 38.6

L90 33.3

L99 30.2


Over No

Under No

ANV


FIGURES

ANV Acoustics Noise

and Vibration


Quarry

Site

LT1 4

2

3

Figure 1: Location Plan Showing Long-Term (LT) and Sample (1 – 4) Measurement Positions

ANV Acoustics Noise

and Vibration


Figure 2: Long-Term Survey Results



APPENDIX 4: Traffic Data

Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Thu 10-Jun-10 Channel: Eastbound

Time Total 85th Mean Std. Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 3 Bin 4 Bin 5 Bin 6 Bin 7 Bin 8 Bin 9 Bin 10 Bin 11 Bin 12Begin Vol. %ile Ave. Dev. <21Mph 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 61-<66 66-<71 =>71

00:00 5 - 28.5 1.6 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 2 - 26 3.5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 1 - 23.5 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 6 - 23.5 1.6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 58 30 27.1 2.8 0 17 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 117 30 26.7 3.2 0 48 63 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 92 29.2 25.5 3.2 2 52 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 52 28.9 25.3 3.1 1 31 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 62 29 25.2 3.4 3 34 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 78 28.3 24.7 3.2 3 52 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 79 28.2 24.6 3.2 4 53 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 67 28.5 24.7 3.5 4 43 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 69 29 25.2 3.4 3 39 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 88 29.1 25.4 3.1 2 50 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 84 29.7 26.5 3 1 32 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 101 29.9 26.5 3.2 0 44 53 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 52 29.8 26.4 3.4 1 22 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 48 30.1 27.1 3.4 0 16 30 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 17 30.9 27 4.1 0 8 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 23 29.9 26.7 3.7 1 7 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 13 29.5 26.6 2.9 0 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 4 - 28.5 4.2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 941 29.4 25.6 3.3 24 500 403 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 1087 29.6 25.8 3.3 25 548 493 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 1104 29.6 25.8 3.3 25 554 503 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 1120 29.6 25.8 3.3 25 562 511 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 07:00 - 00:00 - 11:00 11:00 07:00 07:00 - - - - - - - -Peak 117 - 28.5 - 3 52 63 6 - - - - - - - -

Pm 17:00 - 23:00 23:00 13:00 12:00 17:00 17:00 19:00 - - - - - - -Peak 101 - 28.5 4.2 4 53 53 4 1 - - - - - - -

K & M TRAFFIC SURVEYS Created at 12:20:45 on 23 Jun 2010

Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Fri 11-Jun-10 Channel: Eastbound


00:00 7 - 27.8 2.4 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 2 - 33.5 1.8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 2 - 22.7 8.3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 3 - 26.8 5.9 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 4 - 24.8 2.8 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 10 29.9 27.3 4 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 58 29.8 26.7 3 1 18 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 116 29.6 26 3.2 2 54 59 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 115 29.5 25.7 3.6 6 51 57 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 77 29.1 25.2 3.6 3 47 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 76 29 25.1 3.5 3 46 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 67 28.6 24.9 3.2 2 44 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 78 29.3 25.7 3.4 1 44 32 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 69 29.2 25.4 3.5 3 37 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 106 29.5 25.5 3.7 4 60 37 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 100 29.5 25.9 3.1 1 50 48 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 87 28.9 25.3 2.8 0 55 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 101 29.7 26.1 3.2 0 52 45 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 64 29.2 25.6 3.9 2 37 23 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 44 29.4 25 4.4 5 21 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 32 29.8 26.3 3.4 0 16 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 28 28.9 25.5 3.2 0 18 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 13 28.6 25.4 2.9 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 10 30 27 3.7 0 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 1056 29.4 25.6 3.4 27 577 430 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 1218 29.5 25.6 3.4 33 650 508 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 1241 29.5 25.6 3.4 33 662 518 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 1269 29.5 25.7 3.4 35 668 535 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 07:00 - 01:00 02:00 08:00 07:00 07:00 09:00 - - - - - - - -Peak 116 - 33.5 8.3 6 54 59 3 - - - - - - - -

Pm 14:00 23:00 23:00 19:00 19:00 14:00 15:00 14:00 18:00 - - - - - - -Peak 106 30 27 4.4 5 60 48 5 2 - - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Sat 12-Jun-10 Channel: Eastbound


00:00 5 - 25.5 3.1 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 2 - 31 3.5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 1 - 23.5 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 6 - 26 3.1 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 8 - 27.9 5.1 0 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 18 29.9 26.8 3.3 0 7 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 39 30 26.7 3.9 1 15 21 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 55 29.6 25.9 3.4 1 28 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 66 29.5 25.8 3.6 3 30 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 90 28.9 25.1 3.7 3 59 24 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 88 30 26.5 3.6 0 43 39 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 88 29.5 25.6 3.4 0 57 25 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 76 30 26.2 4 1 40 29 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 77 29.5 25.7 3.5 2 42 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 76 30.2 26.1 4 3 36 30 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 48 30 26.3 3.8 0 26 18 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 72 30 26.5 3.5 2 27 40 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 42 29.4 26 2.9 0 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 40 32.3 27.3 4.9 1 17 14 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 11 30.3 28.5 4.1 0 2 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 14 27.8 24.5 3.5 1 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 10 29.8 26.5 3.8 0 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 12 28.7 25 3.9 1 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 817 29.8 26 3.6 16 424 333 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 900 29.9 26.1 3.7 18 459 369 45 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 922 29.9 26.1 3.7 19 470 378 46 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 945 29.9 26.1 3.7 19 480 389 47 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 10:00 - 01:00 - 10:00 10:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 - - - - - - -Peak 90 - 31 - 3 59 39 5 1 - - - - - - -

Pm 12:00 19:00 20:00 19:00 15:00 12:00 17:00 15:00 19:00 - - - - - - -Peak 88 32.3 28.5 4.9 3 57 40 7 2 - - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Sun 13-Jun-10 Channel: Eastbound


00:00 13 29.2 26.2 4.6 0 8 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 3 - 28.5 5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 4 - 28.5 7.1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 1 - 23.5 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 8 - 27.9 3.5 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 12 29.4 26.4 3 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 28 29.3 25.3 4 2 14 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 38 29.9 25.8 4.1 2 19 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 54 29.3 25.5 3.4 1 32 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 64 29.7 25.9 3.7 2 31 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 64 29.2 25.3 3.7 3 36 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 82 30.1 26.4 3.5 0 40 36 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 56 28.5 25 3.1 1 38 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 80 30.8 26.8 4.7 3 34 32 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 67 32.8 27.4 6.4 5 26 23 7 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 39 30.3 27.3 4.9 0 17 18 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 32 30.4 25.9 4.5 2 16 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 20 29.1 25.4 3.5 1 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 21 33.3 27.5 6 0 12 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 7 - 22.5 2.9 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 7 - 24.7 4.5 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 4 - 24.8 2.8 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 616 30.1 26.1 4.3 21 308 237 39 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 672 30.1 26.2 4.3 23 338 255 43 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 683 30.1 26.1 4.3 24 344 259 43 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 705 30.1 26.2 4.3 24 356 266 44 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 11:00 - - - 11:00 10:00 11:00 11:00 04:00 - - - - - - -Peak 64 - - - 2 32 28 3 1 - - - - - - -

Pm 13:00 - 20:00 16:00 16:00 13:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 16:00 - - - - - -Peak 82 - 27.5 6.4 5 40 36 9 2 4 - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Mon 14-Jun-10 Channel: Eastbound


00:00 4 - 26 3.2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 1 - 23.5 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 3 - 23.5 1.7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 5 - 24.5 2.6 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 67 29.9 26.8 3.5 1 24 40 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 121 29.5 26.1 5.4 3 66 48 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 008:00 111 29.1 25.2 3.4 4 66 39 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 63 28.1 24.4 3.3 4 42 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 54 28.8 25.1 3.2 1 35 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 75 28.7 24.9 3.3 3 48 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 59 29.1 25.5 3.1 1 33 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 72 30.1 26 4.3 4 34 28 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 83 29.2 25.2 3.7 4 49 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 90 29.3 25.4 3.6 4 49 35 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 88 29.6 25.9 3.5 3 40 43 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 109 30 26.9 3.2 1 36 69 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 62 29.9 26.3 3.7 2 26 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 38 30.1 27.1 3.2 0 13 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 24 30.3 27 3.9 1 7 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 11 29.7 27.1 2.8 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 15 28.3 25.2 2.9 0 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 3 - 28.5 8.8 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 987 29.5 25.7 3.8 34 524 402 22 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 016H,6-22 1127 29.6 25.8 3.8 36 571 487 27 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 018H,6-24 1145 29.6 25.8 3.8 36 583 492 27 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 024H,0-24 1159 29.6 25.8 3.8 36 593 496 27 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

Am 07:00 - - - 09:00 08:00 07:00 08:00 06:00 - - 07:00 - - - -Peak 121 - - - 4 66 48 2 1 - - 3 - - - -

Pm 17:00 - 23:00 23:00 15:00 15:00 17:00 13:00 23:00 - - - - - - -Peak 109 - 28.5 8.8 4 49 69 5 1 - - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Tue 15-Jun-10 Channel: Eastbound


00:00 3 - 25.2 3.1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 2 - 26 3.5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 2 - 23.5 1.8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 3 - 26.8 5.9 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 8 - 26 3.1 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 67 30 26.8 3.2 1 22 42 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 122 30.1 27.1 3.5 1 41 74 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 125 29.7 26.3 3 1 53 70 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 64 28 24.2 3.6 6 41 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 44 29.8 26.1 3.9 3 15 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 58 28.4 25.1 2.7 0 40 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 62 29.9 26.2 3.9 3 25 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 84 29.1 25.5 3.6 1 52 29 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 85 29 24.8 4.2 8 48 26 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 95 29.6 25.6 3.9 6 45 41 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 73 29.4 25.6 3.6 3 38 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 96 29.9 26.7 3 0 36 58 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 68 30.6 27.3 3.6 0 24 36 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 45 30.7 27.2 4.3 0 20 19 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 20 30.4 27.4 4 1 4 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 17 29.8 27.3 2.6 0 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 5 - 27.5 2.6 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 6 - 26.8 3 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 976 29.7 26 3.6 32 458 455 26 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 1125 29.8 26.1 3.6 34 508 542 34 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 1136 29.8 26.1 3.6 34 511 550 34 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 1154 29.8 26.1 3.6 34 522 556 35 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 08:00 - - - 09:00 08:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 - - - - - - -Peak 125 - - - 6 53 74 4 2 - - - - - - -

Pm 17:00 - 22:00 19:00 14:00 13:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 - - - - - - -Peak 96 - 27.5 4.3 8 52 58 8 2 - - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Wed 16-Jun-10 Channel: Eastbound


00:00 4 - 31 5.2 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 5 - 24.5 2.6 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 13 29 25.8 3 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 76 30.1 26.8 3.3 0 31 40 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 109 30 26.9 3 1 34 72 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 117 29.5 25.6 3.6 4 62 47 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 69 28.9 25.2 3.2 2 41 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 78 28.6 25 3.1 1 54 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 94 29.3 25.7 3.1 0 55 37 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 67 29.7 26.3 3.2 1 28 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 69 29.6 25.8 4 3 34 29 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 83 29.3 25.4 3.5 4 42 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 81 29.4 25.5 3.8 4 43 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 117 29.3 25.5 3.3 3 64 49 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 105 30.2 26.8 4.2 6 30 63 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 68 30 26.9 3.5 1 24 40 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 44 29.8 26 3.8 2 19 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 63 30.3 26.4 4.1 3 26 28 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 19 29.5 26.4 2.9 0 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 12 28.1 25.2 2.9 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 13 28.6 25.4 2.9 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 1057 29.6 25.9 3.5 30 511 489 24 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 1259 29.7 26 3.5 35 595 589 37 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 1284 29.7 26 3.5 35 611 598 37 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 1307 29.7 26 3.5 35 622 609 37 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 08:00 - - - 08:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 00:00 - - - - - - -Peak 117 - - - 4 62 72 5 1 - - - - - - -

Pm 16:00 20:00 18:00 17:00 17:00 16:00 17:00 20:00 18:00 17:00 - - - - - -Peak 117 30.3 26.9 4.2 6 64 63 6 1 1 - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Thu 10-Jun-10 Channel: Westbound


00:00 4 - 26 3.2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 2 - 28.5 1.8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 1 - 23.5 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 6 - 29.3 2.5 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 27 31.5 28.3 3.6 0 6 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 64 32.5 28.7 3.7 0 12 38 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 117 33 28.3 4.4 5 24 58 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 79 30.7 27.5 3.9 3 17 50 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 73 30.8 27.7 3.8 1 21 40 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 58 30.9 28.4 3.1 0 9 41 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 78 30.9 28.4 3.1 0 12 55 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 65 32.1 28.6 3.4 0 12 40 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 70 30.4 27.1 3.7 2 21 41 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 95 32.1 28.9 3.1 0 11 65 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 125 31.7 28.4 3.7 2 21 80 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 91 33 29 4 2 11 56 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 65 33.3 29.3 3.5 0 8 38 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 40 31.9 28.5 3.8 1 6 25 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 28 35.1 29.9 4.7 0 4 16 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 29 33.6 28.8 5.5 1 7 13 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 19 30.4 28.5 3.2 0 3 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 4 - 27.3 2.8 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 980 32 28.4 3.7 15 179 602 180 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 1104 32.2 28.4 3.8 17 202 672 203 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 1127 32.1 28.4 3.8 17 206 688 206 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 1141 32.1 28.4 3.8 17 209 698 207 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 08:00 - - - 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 07:00 - - - - - - -Peak 117 - - - 5 24 58 30 1 - - - - - - -

Pm 16:00 - 20:00 21:00 17:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 20:00 21:00 - - - - - -Peak 125 - 29.9 5.5 2 21 80 21 4 1 - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Fri 11-Jun-10 Channel: Westbound


00:00 6 - 27.7 2.5 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 1 - 33.5 - 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 1 - 33.5 - 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 11 33.3 29.9 3.5 0 1 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 20 32.5 29.5 3 0 1 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 74 32.4 28.6 3.5 0 14 44 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 102 30.5 27.2 3.6 1 34 57 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 82 30.8 27.4 3.7 1 26 44 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 81 31.9 28.4 3.8 0 18 48 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 88 31.8 28.6 3.5 0 16 56 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 99 32.3 28.5 3.6 0 21 57 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 85 30.5 27.6 3.6 1 22 54 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 143 30.8 27.8 3.9 3 34 87 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 86 32 28.6 3.8 0 18 52 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 112 30.8 27.7 3.8 0 36 61 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 89 32.9 29.2 3.3 0 10 57 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 59 34 30 3.6 0 5 32 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 43 32.7 28.8 4.5 1 7 26 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 32 30.6 29 3.3 0 3 24 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 26 33.6 29.5 4.3 0 4 15 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 14 31.7 28.5 3.7 0 3 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 16 32.4 27.6 4.4 0 7 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 1100 31.7 28.2 3.7 6 254 649 179 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 1221 31.8 28.3 3.7 7 269 728 199 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 1251 31.9 28.3 3.7 7 279 741 206 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 1271 31.9 28.3 3.7 7 281 753 212 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 08:00 - - - 09:00 08:00 08:00 07:00 10:00 - - - - - - -Peak 102 - - - 1 34 57 16 2 - - - - - - -

Pm 14:00 18:00 18:00 19:00 14:00 16:00 14:00 17:00 19:00 - - - - - - -Peak 143 34 30 4.5 3 36 87 22 3 - - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Sat 12-Jun-10 Channel: Westbound


00:00 3 - 28.5 5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 5 - 29.5 4.4 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 3 - 28.5 1.7 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 2 - 31 3.5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 2 - 26 3.5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 7 - 32.1 4 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 10 31 29 3.2 0 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 26 31.6 27.5 4 0 10 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 51 33 29.2 3.6 0 7 31 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 92 32.7 27.6 5.1 8 19 44 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 79 32.7 28.5 4.1 2 15 44 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 103 30.9 28.1 3.7 1 22 66 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 93 33.2 29.6 3.6 1 5 63 22 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 84 33.5 29.5 3.6 0 10 50 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 86 33.2 29.5 3.8 1 6 58 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 69 34.4 30 4.1 0 9 34 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 76 33.3 28.9 4.3 2 12 42 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 51 31.9 28.7 3.6 1 6 34 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 45 33.9 29.3 4.6 0 11 18 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 34 33.8 28.7 5.1 1 8 16 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 26 31.6 28.1 4.2 1 5 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 19 30.2 27.7 2.9 0 4 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 14 33.4 29.2 4.1 0 3 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 19 29.7 26.4 3.4 0 9 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 855 33.2 28.9 4.1 16 132 495 192 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 944 33.1 28.8 4.1 18 150 547 206 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 977 33.1 28.8 4.1 18 162 562 212 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 999 33.1 28.8 4.1 18 165 573 219 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 11:00 - 05:00 09:00 09:00 11:00 11:00 09:00 11:00 - - - - - - -Peak 103 - 32.1 5.1 8 22 66 20 2 - - - - - - -

Pm 12:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 16:00 16:00 12:00 15:00 15:00 18:00 - - - - - -Peak 93 34.4 30 5.1 2 12 63 22 4 1 - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Sun 13-Jun-10 Channel: Westbound


00:00 10 31 28.5 4.9 0 3 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 2 - 31 3.5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 4 - 31 3.2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 3 - 31.8 3.1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 10 33.5 29.5 4.2 0 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 15 38.1 31.5 6.1 0 2 7 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 24 31.9 26.6 5.5 3 7 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 56 30.6 27.6 4.2 3 10 37 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 72 31.7 28.1 3.8 1 17 41 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 97 33.3 28.7 4.2 1 22 48 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 68 31.2 28.5 3.6 1 9 47 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 66 31.3 28.1 3.5 0 16 39 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 66 32.8 29 3.7 0 10 41 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 56 35.7 30.9 4.9 0 5 29 14 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 36 32.3 29.1 3.2 0 4 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 35 30.3 27.2 3.4 0 12 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 27 31.5 28.3 3.6 0 6 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 25 33.3 29.1 4.2 0 5 13 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 15 29.9 26.4 4.2 1 5 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 8 - 28.5 4 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 601 32.8 28.6 4.2 9 116 346 112 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 671 32.7 28.6 4.1 10 132 384 126 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 680 32.7 28.6 4.1 10 134 389 128 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 699 32.8 28.6 4.1 10 137 400 132 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 11:00 - 06:00 - 10:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 - - - - - -Peak 72 - 31.8 - 3 17 41 13 3 1 - - - - - -

Pm 12:00 - 16:00 - 21:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 16:00 16:00 - - - - - -Peak 97 - 30.9 - 1 22 48 24 6 2 - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Mon 14-Jun-10 Channel: Westbound


00:00 3 - 26.8 5.9 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 3 - 28.5 5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 3 - 26.8 3.1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 1 - 33.5 - 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 6 - 30.2 4.3 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 24 30.1 27.7 2.8 0 5 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 60 30.7 27.8 3.6 0 17 34 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 102 30.7 27.7 3.5 0 29 61 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 68 30.5 27.8 3.1 0 15 47 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 54 32.1 28.8 3.3 0 8 35 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 70 31.4 28.2 3.8 2 11 45 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 61 31.7 28.5 3.6 0 12 38 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 80 32.5 29.2 3.1 0 7 55 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 69 31.8 28.3 3.9 2 11 43 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 86 32.4 28.3 3.8 0 22 46 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 121 33.5 29.6 3.4 0 12 72 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 119 33.4 29.3 3.6 0 15 71 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 73 33.4 29.6 3.5 0 6 47 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 37 31.8 28.7 3.9 1 4 25 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 28 33.9 29.8 4 0 4 14 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 20 34.1 29.3 4.9 0 5 9 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 14 32.8 28.1 4.4 0 5 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 1 - 33.5 - 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 963 32.4 28.7 3.6 4 165 594 192 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 1072 32.5 28.7 3.6 5 183 660 212 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 1087 32.5 28.7 3.6 5 188 665 217 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 1103 32.5 28.7 3.6 5 192 673 220 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 08:00 - - - 11:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 08:00 - - - - - - -Peak 102 - - - 2 29 61 12 1 - - - - - - -

Pm 16:00 - 23:00 - 14:00 15:00 16:00 16:00 21:00 - - - - - - -Peak 121 - 33.5 - 2 22 72 36 2 - - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Tue 15-Jun-10 Channel: Westbound


00:00 2 - 28.5 1.8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 9 - 29.1 4.8 0 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 18 30.3 28.5 2.2 0 1 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 70 30.5 28.3 2.7 0 9 55 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 109 31.6 28.3 3.5 1 21 68 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 62 30.6 27.3 3.7 1 20 34 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 67 30.9 27.9 3.7 0 19 38 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 65 30.4 27.6 3.1 0 17 43 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 75 30.8 28 3.3 0 17 48 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 69 31.6 28 4.2 0 22 35 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 82 32.6 28.7 4.5 0 20 45 13 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 61 31.2 28.7 3.1 0 8 43 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 132 32.6 29.3 3.1 0 10 93 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 121 34 29.8 3.7 0 12 69 36 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 75 33.6 29.7 3.9 1 4 49 18 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 37 32.8 28.7 4.3 1 6 21 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 28 33.1 28.4 4.5 1 6 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 29 31.2 28.8 3 0 3 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 7 - 27.1 2.9 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 4 - 31 3.2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 988 32.1 28.6 3.7 3 179 620 170 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 1100 32.1 28.6 3.7 5 195 691 192 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 1111 32.1 28.6 3.7 5 197 698 194 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 1124 32.1 28.6 3.7 5 199 707 195 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 08:00 - - - 09:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 10:00 - - - - - - -Peak 109 - - - 1 21 68 19 1 - - - - - - -

Pm 16:00 - 23:00 14:00 20:00 13:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 14:00 - - - - - -Peak 132 - 31 4.5 1 22 93 36 4 2 - - - - - -


Site No: 14092001 Grid Reference: SP98836,88821A427 Lower Benefield (Fence Post)Speed Report-Limit 30 Mph Wed 16-Jun-10 Channel: Westbound


00:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002:00 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 003:00 1 - 28.5 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:00 1 - 23.5 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 7 - 28.5 3.2 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 006:00 23 32.7 29.8 2.7 0 0 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:00 69 31.5 28.1 4.1 2 14 41 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 108 32.7 28.8 3.7 0 19 65 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 009:00 72 31.3 28.2 3.7 0 18 42 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 010:00 79 30.9 27.8 3.8 2 18 48 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011:00 85 30.6 27 3.9 1 34 40 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 012:00 59 32.9 28.3 4.2 1 15 28 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013:00 80 31.2 27.8 3.9 2 19 46 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 014:00 97 31 27.5 3.9 1 33 48 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015:00 79 30.8 27.6 3.9 3 17 49 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016:00 128 32.5 29 3.5 0 16 84 27 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 017:00 117 32.7 28.8 3.8 4 10 76 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018:00 96 33.7 29 4.6 5 11 49 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 019:00 35 30.3 28.1 2.7 0 5 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020:00 29 33 28.8 4.2 1 4 16 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021:00 25 31.8 28.3 3.7 0 6 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022:00 9 - 26.3 3 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023:00 10 32.7 28.5 4.3 0 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12H,7-19 1069 32.2 28.2 3.9 21 224 616 201 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 016H,6-22 1181 32.2 28.3 3.9 22 239 691 222 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 018H,6-24 1200 32.1 28.3 3.9 22 246 700 225 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 024H,0-24 1210 32.1 28.3 3.9 22 248 707 226 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Am 08:00 - - - 10:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 - - - - - - -Peak 108 - - - 2 34 65 22 2 - - - - - - -

Pm 16:00 - 16:00 18:00 18:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 18:00 16:00 - - - - - -Peak 128 - 29 4.6 5 33 84 30 1 1 - - - - - -




APPENDIX 5: Extended Phase 1 Habitat Assessment and Tree

Constraints Plan

List of Target Notes circled in red on attached plan:

1. Old willow with potential for roosting bat 2. Rookery 3. Dry hollow 4. Large active sett, fresh spoil, prints at least 10, 6 active entrances, Lots of bright trails,

snuffle holes 5. Skylark singing 6. Old in filled quarry now supporting semi mature ash, ground flora includes lords and

ladies and occ dogs mercury 7. Brown hare 8. Barn owl pellet beneath ash 9. Mature ash tree feature 10. Badger latrine 11. Brown hare 12. Badger print 13. Two mature oaks, one has high deadwood and moderate bat roosting potential 14. Old piles of tipped spoil 15. Old oak monolith 16. Mature oak



APPENDIX 6: Statement of Physical Characteristics

Proposed Building Stone Recovery at Upper Benefield, Oundle, Northants Statement of Physical Characteristics Prepared on behalf of: Churchfield Stone Limited TOHA Document Ref: TOHA/12/2585/RA Document Revision: 00 Current Issue Date: 26th March 2012 Original Issue Date: 26th March 2012 Prepared by: Tim O’Hare Associates LLP Howbery Park, Wallingford Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA Tel: 01491 822653 Email: [email protected] Web: www.toha.co.uk

Contract/Proposal No: TOHA/12/2585/RA

Issue: 1

Author: Rob Askew

Associate Consultant

Date: 26th March 2012

Our interpretation of the site characteristics is based on available data and observations made

during our soil survey. This report presents our collected data and site observations and our

interpretation of those data and observations. On any site there may be variations in soil conditions

between exploratory positions. We can therefore not accept any responsibility for soil conditions

that have not been exposed by this investigation.

This survey has assessed the characteristics of the site in relation to the assessment of its

Agricultural Land Classification. It should not be relied on for alternative end-uses or for other

schemes. This report has been prepared solely for the benefit of Churchfield Stone Limited. No

warranty is provided to any third party and no responsibility or liability will be accepted for any loss

or damage in the event that this report is relied upon by a third party or is used in circumstances for

which it was not originally intended.

Version Control Record

Issue Description of Status Date Reviewer Initials

Authors Initials

A First Draft 26/03/2012 CS RA

1 Issue Draft to Client 26/03/2012 CS RA

Churchfield Stone Limited Upper Benefield Quarry, Statement of Physical Characteristics Oundle, Northants

TOHA/12/2585/RA Draft i

Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background to the Report 1 1.2 Methodology 1

2 Statement of Physical Characteristics 2

2.1 General 2 2.2 Climate 2 2.3 The Site 3 2.4 Geology and Soil 4 2.5 Interactive Limitations 6 2.6 MAFF Agricultural Land Classification 7 2.7 Agricultural Land Classification at Upper Benefield 7

3 Summary and Conclusions 9

3.1 Summary of ALC 9 3.2 Conclusions and Recommendations 10

Figures Figure 1.1 Sample Locations

Figure 2.1 Soil Units

Figure 2.2 Agricultural Land Classification

Appendices Appendix 1 Natural England Technical Information Note 049 ‘Agricultural Land Classification’

Appendix 2 IPSS Professional Competency Scheme Document 2 – Agricultural Land Classification

Appendix 3 British Geological Survey GeoReport for Upper Benefield Quarry, Oundle, Northants (GR_204040/1)

Appendix 4 Soil Profile Log

Appendix 5 Soil Handling Guidance


TOHA/12/2585/RA Draft Page 1

1 Introduction 1.1 Background to the Report This report has been prepared by Tim O’Hare Associates LLP on behalf of Churchfield Stone Limited in connection with proposals for building stone (i.e. Blisworth Limestone) recovery at a proposed quarry in Upper Benefield, Oundle, Northants. The land is currently in agricultural use and this report sets out a Statement of Physical Characteristics to describe the soil resources available for reuse on site, together with an assessment of existing agricultural land quality using the national Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system, as described below. The proposed quarry at Upper Benefield (henceforth referred to as ‘the Site’) measures approximately 9.88 ha in total area, with the proposed extraction area being 2.32 ha. The Site is centred on National Grid Reference SP 979 888 as shown on Figure 1.1.

1.2 Methodology The ALC system provides a framework for classifying land according to the extent to which its physical or chemical characteristics impose long-term limitations on agricultural use. The ALC system divides agricultural land into five grades (Grade 1 ‘Excellent’ to Grade 5 ‘Very Poor), with Grade 3 subdivided into Subgrade 3a ‘Good’ and Subgrade 3b ‘Moderate’. Agricultural land classified as Grade 1, 2 and Subgrade 3a falls in the ‘best and most versatile’ category in Planning Policy Statement 7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ (2004). Further details of the ALC system and national planning policy implications are set out by Natural England in its Technical Information Note 049, given as Appendix 1.

This assessment has been carried out by a Chartered Scientist, who is a Member of the Institute of Professional Soil Scientists (IPSS). The IPSS is the chartered and professional body of the British Society of Soil Science (BSSS). In addition, this ALC survey has been carried out by a soil scientist who meets the requirements of the IPSS Professional Competency Scheme for ALC (see IPSS PCSS Document 2 ‘Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales’, given as Appendix 2). The IPSS Professional Competency Scheme is endorsed, amongst others, by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Natural England, the Science Council, and the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management (IEMA) (see Appendix 2 also).

The assessment is based upon the findings of a study of published information on climate, geology and soil in combination with an intrusive soil investigation on agricultural land covering the proposed extraction area. A soil survey was carried out on the 16th March 2012. The survey involved examination of physical soil properties at 8 locations to a depth of approximately 1.2 m by excavating trial pits by hand with a 5cm diameter Dutch (Edleman) soil auger. Shallow soil pits were also excavated by hand with a spade at representative sample locations to help determine subsoil structure and drainage status/Wetness Class. The soil auger and trial pit locations are shown on Figure 1.1. The sample locations were located using a hand-held Garmin E-Trec Geographic Information System (GIS).

The soil profile at each sample location was described using the ‘Soil Survey Field Handbook: Describing and Sampling Soil Profiles’ (Ed. J.M. Hodgson, Cranfield University, 1997). Each soil profile was ascribed an Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) grade following the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) ‘Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales: Revised Guidelines and Criteria for Grading the Quality of Agricultural Land’, October, 1988 (henceforth referred to as the ‘the ALC Guidelines’).



2 Statement of Physical Characteristics 2.1 General This section of the report provides an assessment of the physical characteristics of land at the Site, including a detailed Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). It is based on a desktop study of relevant published information on climate, topography, geology, and soil, in conjunction with an intrusive soil investigation carried out on the 16th March 2012 (see ‘Methodology’ in Section 1.2).

The main physical factors influencing agricultural land quality are:

• Climate; • Site; and • Soil.

These factors are considered in turn below.

2.2 Climate The Meteorological Office has produced climate data for ALC purposes in ‘Grid Point Meteorological Data for Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales and Other Climatological Investigations’ (1989). Climate information relevant to the determination of the ALC grade of land within the proposed extraction area has been interpolated from Met Office grid point data, and is given in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1: ALC Climate Data for National Grid Reference SP 979 888

Climate Parameter Data

Average Altitude (mAOD) 75

Accumulated Temperature above 0˚C

(January – June) (Degrees Celsius) 1381

Average Annual Rainfall (mm) 607

Field Capacity Days (FCD) 121

Moisture Deficit (mm) Wheat 113

Moisture Deficit (mm) Potatoes 106

With reference to Figure 1 ‘Grade according to climate’ on page 6 of the ALC Guidelines, there are no overall climatic limitations to the quality of agricultural land at the Site. However, climate can interact with soil to cause certain ‘interactive limitations’, namely soil droughtiness (i.e. a shortage of water stored in the soil that is available for plant uptake during the growing season), and soil wetness (i.e. where the soil moisture regime adversely affects plant growth/seed germination, and/or imposes restrictions to cultivations or grazing by livestock). Interactive limitations to agricultural land quality at the Site are considered further in Section 2.5 below.



2.3 The Site As shown on Figure 1.1, the Site is centered on National Grid Reference SP 979 888, to the south of the village of Upper Benefield, near Oundle, Northamptonshire. The Site comprises an agricultural field which, at the time of the soil survey in March 2012, is under an emerging cereal crop.

With regard to the ALC Guidelines, agricultural land quality can be limited by one or more of three main site factors as follows:

• Gradient;

• Micro-relief (i.e. complex change in slope angle over short distances); and

• Risk of flooding.

Gradient and Micro-Relief

The Site is located on a south-east facing slope, which slopes from higher ground in the north at an approximate elevation of 80 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD)), towards lower ground in the south-east corner at an approximate elevation of 65 m AOD.

The relief of the slope is moderately undulated, and the gradient of part of the Site in the south-east (i.e. grid reference SP 98044 88767), to the south of Sample Location 5 (Figure 1.1), was measured with a clinometer as 10°, i.e. strongly sloping.

Table 2.2 sets (below) out the criteria used in the ALC Guidelines for grading the quality of agricultural land according to gradient (taken from Table 1, page 8 of the ALC Guidelines):

Table 2.2: ALC Guidelines for Grade According to Gradient

Grade/Subgrade Gradient Limits (Degrees)

Grade 1 7

Grade 2 7

Subgrade 3a 7

Subgrade 3b 11

Grade 4 18

Grade 5 >18

Therefore, where the gradient of agricultural land in the south-east of the Site exceeds 7°, but is less than 11°, it is limited to Subgrade 3b. Agricultural land quality over the remainder of the Site is not limited by gradient or micro-relief.

Risk of Flooding

There are no significant surface water features within the Site boundary but there is a brook which flows alongside the boundary to the south.



From an EA Flood Risk Map1, the Site is not predicted to be at risk of flooding by rivers or the sea (although it should be noted that the brook to the south of the Site is indicated to be in a flood risk zone). Agricultural land quality within the Site is not limited by a risk from flooding.

2.4 Geology and Soil Geology/Soil Parent Material

Information on geology for the Site has been taken from a British Geological Survey (BGS) GeoReport, which provides geological map extracts from the BGS Digital Geological Map of Great Britain at a scale of 1:50,000 (see copy given as Appendix 3).

From the BGS information, the Site is covered by Superficial Deposits in the north, on the higher ground; these drift deposits are described as Mid Pleicstocene Till. The BGS information indicates that central and southern parts of the Site are not covered by Superficial Deposits.

The Site is underlain by four types of bedrock (formerly referred to as solid geology) described by the BGS (1:50,000) as Kellaways Formation and Oxford Clay Formation (Mudstone, Siltstone and Sandstone) in the north-west corner, the Cornbrash Formation (Limestone) in the north-east and central parts, the Blisworth Clay Formation (Mudstone) in the south and the Blisworth Limestone Formation (Limestone) in the south and south-east.

It should be noted that the BGS information above is provisional and has been used in this assessment as a guide to the type of soil parent materials which could be expected on Site. A more detailed and definitive description of the geology at the Site is given in a separate report accompanying the planning application (i.e. PGW&A LLP ‘Report on Proposed Building and Stone Recovery at Upper Benefield’, May 2011)

Published Soil Information

The Soil Survey of England and Wales (SSEW) provisional soil map of Eastern England (1:250,000) and the accompanying bulletin ‘Soils and their Use in Eastern England’ (Bulletin No. 13, Harpenden, 1984) indicates that the Site is covered by soils grouped in the Moreton Association. This group of soils is developed over Jurassic clay and limestone, and comprises well drained, calcareous clayey and fine loamy soils over limestone, which can be shallow and brashy (i.e. stony with many limestone fragments) in places. This group of soils also includes some deeper and slowly permeable calcareous clayey soils.

The most common type of soil in this Association is the Moreton Series, which is a well drained (Wetness Class I) typical brown calcareous earth. However, where the subsoil is more clayey, slowly permeable and seasonally wet soils placed in the Evesham Series and Haselor Series, are found.

The Evesham Series has soil profiles with stoneless, calcareous, dark greyish brown CLAY topsoil over stoneless, calcareous, olive brown CLAY subsoil (i.e. Wetness Class III where drained, or Wetness Class IV where un-drained).

The Haselor Series has a soil profile which is similar to that in the Evesham Series above, but differs in that it has stony subsoil, and is developed over limestone which occurs within 80 cm below ground level (Wetness Class III-IV).

1 Environment Agency Flood Risk Map. Available online @ http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?value=Upper+Benefield&submit.x=18&submit.y=10&submit=Search%09&lang=_e&ep=map&topic=floodmap&layerGroups=default&scale=9&textonly=off#x=498500&y=289500&lg=1,&scale=9 Last viewed 23rd March 2012.



Soil Survey

Soils profiles were examined with a 5 cm diameter soil auger and spade at eight locations (re. Figure 1.1) on the 16th March 2012 (as described in ‘Methodology’ earlier in the report). A log of the soil profile examined at all 8 auger/trial pit locations is given as Appendix 4.

The detailed soil survey determined the presence of very slightly calcareous and clayey soils in the north and central parts of the Site, to moderately calcareous, clayey soils in the south.

Most of the soil profiles over the Site correspond with soils placed in the Evesham Series, i.e. deep, very slightly stony and very slightly calcareous CLAY soils (Wetness Class III). These soils are found on the higher ground in the north and the central parts of the Site and correspond with land which is understood to be underlain by the Blisworth Clay Formation.

Where the underlying Blisworth Clay thins out over the central southern parts of the Site, the clayey soils are slightly better drained and evidence of gleying is less pronounced (i.e. Wetness Class II).

In the far, south-eastern corner of the Site, a single soil profile (i.e. Sample Location 8) was recorded which was moderately calcareous and clayey, and is brashy, i.e. it contained many limestone fragments and stones throughout (Wetness Class I), c.f. Moreton Series.

Soil Units

For the purpose of this assessment, the soil on Site may be regarded as a single Soil Unit, owing to the similarity in soil texture (i.e. CLAY) over the whole Site, as shown on Figure 2.1 ‘Soil Units’. The single soil unit over the Site comprises layers of topsoil and subsoil as described in Table 2.2 (below).

Table 2.3: Description of Main Soil Types at Upper Benefield Quarry, Oundle, Northants

Soil Type

Typical Thickness of Soil Horizon Below Ground Level (cm) - Approximate

Description of Soil Horizon

Type 1

(Sample Locations

1 to 7)

Topsoil

0-30

Dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2), very slightly stony CLAY. Very slightly calcareous (i.e. < 1% CaCO3, as determined in Site with 10% dilute hydrochloric acid). No mottles.

Upper Subsoil

30-50

Greyish brown (10YR 5/2), very slightly stony CLAY. Moderately developed fine to medium subangular blocky structure. Very slightly calcareous (i.e. < 1% CaCO3, as determined in Site with 10% dilute hydrochloric acid). Few distinct ochreous mottles.

Lower Subsoil

50-120

Greyish brown (10YR 5/2), very slightly stony CLAY. Moderately developed fine to medium subangular blocky structure. Very slightly calcareous (i.e. < 1% CaCO3, as determined in Site with 10% dilute hydrochloric acid). Many distinct ochreous mottles.



A brashy soil variant at Sample Location 8 (as described above) is limited in extent and has, therefore, not been mapped as a separate Soil Unit.

The upper subsoil (30-50 cm below ground level) and lower subsoil (50-120 cm below ground level) differ only in the degree of mottling, i.e. the lower subsoil is abundantly mottled. As the upper and lower subsoil are both CLAY in texture, then they can be stripped as a single layer of subsoil (i.e. 30-120 cm below ground level).

2.5 Interactive Limitations Soil Wetness

The quality of agricultural land over most of the Site is limited by soil wetness where ‘the soil water regime adversely affects plant growth or imposes restrictions on cultivations or grazing by livestock’.

Agricultural land quality at the Site is limited by soil wetness as per Table 2.4 below (based on Table 6 ‘Grade According to Soil Wetness – Mineral Soils’ in the ALC Guidelines):

Table 2.4: Predicted ALC Grade According to Soil Wetness

Wetness Class

Texture of the Top 25 cm 176-225 Field Capacity Days

I Clay

3a (2)

II Clay

3b (3a)

III Clay 3b (3a) For naturally calcareous soils with more than 1% CaCO3 and between 18% and 50% clay in the top 25 cm, the grade, where different from that of other soils, is shown in brackets in the third column above.

As shown on the Soil Profile Log given as Appendix 4, the lower CLAY subsoil was determined on site to be a ‘slowly permeable layer’, as per the guidance ‘Identification of a Slowly Permeable Layer, on page 32 of the ALC Guidelines. Therefore, from Figure 7 of the ALC Guidelines (i.e. estimation of Wetness Class for soils which are gleyed <40 cm below ground level), the soil profile is placed in Wetness Class II where the top of a slowly permeable layer starts at >61 cm below ground level, or Wetness Class III where the top of a slowly permeable layer starts at >35 cm and <61 cm below ground level.

Likewise, from Figure 8 of the ALC Guidelines (i.e. estimation of Wetness Class for soils which are gleyed >40 cm and <70 cm below ground level), the soil profile is placed in Wetness Class II where the top of a slowly permeable layer starts at >41 cm below ground level, or Wetness Class III where the top of a slowly permeable layer starts at >35 cm and <41 cm below ground level.

As shown on the Soil Profile Log given as Appendix 4, the soil profiles at Sample Locations 1-5 are placed in Wetness Class III and have a very slightly calcareous (i.e. < 1% CaCO3, as determined on Site with 10% dilute hydrochloric acid) CLAY topsoil. Therefore, agricultural land at these locations is limited by soil wetness to Subgrade 3b (as per Table 2.4 above).

The soil profiles at Sample Locations 6-7 are placed in Wetness Class II and have a slightly calcareous (i.e. > 1% CaCO3, as determined in Site with 10% dilute hydrochloric acid) CLAY topsoil. Therefore, agricultural land at these locations is limited by soil wetness to Subgrade 3a (as per Table 2.4 above).



Soil Droughtiness

The brashy soil profile at Sample Location 8 is well drained and agricultural land quality at this location is limited by soil droughtiness, i.e. a limited supply of water available for plant uptake, due to a combination of a low average annual rainfall and low water-holding capacity of the soil.

In accordance with Appendix 4 of the ALC Guidelines, the crop-adjusted soil available water capacity (AP) for Wheat and Potatoes has been calculated for the soil profile at Sample Location 8. The AP calculations, together with the predicted Soil Moisture Deficit (MD) values (taken from Table 2.1 above) are given in Table 2.5 below. From this, Soil Moisture Balance (MB) values have been calculated and the ALC grade determined (re page 21 of the ALC Guidelines), as shown in Table 2.5 also.

Table 2.5: Soil Droughtiness Limitations at Upper Benefield, Oundle, Northants

Sample Location

Calculated AP Values

Moisture Deficit (MD)

Moisture Balance (MB)

ALC Grade (re Table 8 of ALC Guidelines)

8 AP (Wheat) = 70

AP (Potatoes) = 68

MD Wheat = 113

MD Potatoes = 106

MB Wheat = -43

MB Potatoes = -38

3b

(wheat and pots)

Therefore, agricultural land quality for the brashy soil profile at Sample Location is limited by soil droughtiness to Subgrade 3b.

2.6 MAFF Agricultural Land Classification The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)2 published a provisional-scale Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) survey of England and Wales that was carried out over the 1960’s-1980’s. The provisional ALC maps are published at a scale of 1:250,000 and are suitable for strategic land use planning only (i.e. parcels of land greater than 80 ha in area).

The MAFF provisional ALC map of Eastern England (1:250,000) indicates that land at the Site is entirely Grade 3, not differentiated between Subgrade 3 and Subgrade 3b.

2.7 Agricultural Land Classification at Upper Benefield The spatial distribution of Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) grades determined by detailed survey at the Site is shown on Figure 2.2, and the area of land within each ALC grade is given in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6: Agricultural Land Classification – Upper Benefield, Oundle, Northants

ALC Grade Area (Ha) Area (% of Total Site)

Grade 1 (Excellent) 0 0

Grade 2 (Very Good) 0 0

Subgrade 3a (Good) 2 25

Subgrade 3b (Moderate) 6 75

2 The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) was incorporated within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in 2001



Grade 4 (Poor) 0 0

Grade 5 (Very Poor) 0 0

Other Land 0 0

Total (ALC Study Area) 8.0 100

Subgrade 3a

A parcel of agricultural land on the central-western and south-western part of the Site is limited to Subgrade 3a (good quality) due to a slight soil wetness limitation. The soil profiles in this location have a slightly calcareous (i.e. > 1% CaCO3, as determined in Site with 10% dilute hydrochloric acid) CLAY topsoil, over slightly seasonally waterlogged CLAY subsoil (Wetness Class II).

Subgrade 3b

Agricultural land quality over most of the Site (i.e. 75% of the ALC study area) is placed in Subgrade 3b due to one of three reasons (or combinations thereof), as follows:

(i) Soil profiles in the north and central parts of the Site have a very slightly calcareous (i.e. <1% CaCO3, as determined in Site with 10% dilute hydrochloric acid) CLAY topsoil, over seasonally waterlogged CLAY subsoil (Wetness Class III), i.e. limited to Subgrade 3b due to a moderate soil wetness limitation;

(ii) There is a small part of the Site in the south-east (to the south of Sample Location 5) where the gradient of the slope is 10°, i.e. limited to Subgrade 3b due to gradient; and

(iii) The far south-eastern corner of the Site has brashy CLAY topsoil and subsoil overlying limestone, which is limited to Subgrade 3b due to a moderate soil droughtiness limitation.



3 Summary and Conclusions 3.1 Summary of ALC This report has been prepared by Tim O’Hare Associates LLP on behalf of Churchfield Stone Limited in connection with proposals for building stone (i.e. Blisworth Limestone) recovery at a proposed quarry in Upper Benefield, Oundle, Northants. The land is currently in agricultural use and this report sets out a Statement of Physical Characteristics to describe the soil resources available for reuse on site together with an assessment of existing agricultural land quality in accordance with the national Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system.

This assessment has been carried out by a Chartered Scientist, who is a Member of the Institute of Professional Soil Scientists (IPSS). The IPSS is the chartered and professional body of the British Society of Soil Science (BSSS).

The assessment is based upon the findings of a study of published information on climate, geology and soil in combination with an intrusive soil investigation on agricultural land covering the proposed extraction area. A soil survey was carried out on the 16th March 2012. The survey involved examination of physical soil properties at 8 locations to a depth of approximately 1.2 m by excavating trial pits by hand with a 5cm diameter Dutch (Edleman) soil auger.

From British Geological Society (BGS) information (1:50,000), the Site is covered by Superficial Deposits on higher ground in the north; these drift deposits are described as Mid Pleicstocene Till. The Site is underlain by four types of bedrock (formerly referred to a solid geology) described by the BGS (1:50,000) as Kellaways Formation and Oxford Clay Formation (Mudstone, Siltstone and Sandstone) in the north-west corner, the Cornbrash Formation (Limestone) in the north-east and central parts, the Blisworth Clay Formation (Mudstone) in the south and the Blisworth Limestone Formation (Limestone) in the south and south-east. It should be noted that the BGS information above is provisional and has been used in this assessment as a guide to the type of soil parent materials which could be expected on Site.

The Soil Survey of England and Wales (SSEW) provisional soil map of Eastern England (1:250,000) and the accompanying bulletin ‘Soils and their Use in Eastern England’ (Bulletin No. 13, Harpenden, 1984) indicates that the Site is covered by soils grouped in the Moreton Association. This group of soils is developed over Jurassic clay and limestone, and comprises well drained, calcareous clayey and fine loamy soils over limestone, which can be shallow and brashy (i.e. stony with many limestone fragments) in places. This group of soils also includes some deeper and slowly permeable calcareous clayey soils.

Most of the soil profiles determined by soil survey at the Site correspond with soils placed in the Evesham Series, i.e. deep, very slightly stony and very slightly calcareous CLAY soils (Wetness Class III). These soils are found on the higher ground in the north and the central parts of the Site and correspond with land which is underlain by the Blisworth Clay Formation. Where the underlying Blisworth Clay thins out over the central southern parts of the Site, the clayey soils are slightly better drained and evidence of gleying is less pronounced (i.e. Wetness Class II).

In the far, south-eastern corner of the Site, a single soil profile (i.e. Sample Location 8) was recorded which was moderately calcareous and clayey, and is brashy (i.e. it contained many limestone fragments and stones) throughout (Wetness Class I), c.f. Moreton Series.

It has been determined by a detailed ALC survey that approximately 2.0 ha of agricultural land on the central-western and south-western part of the Site is limited to Subgrade 3a (good quality) due to a slight soil wetness limitation. The soil profiles in this location have a slightly calcareous (i.e. > 1% CaCO3) CLAY topsoil, over slightly seasonally waterlogged CLAY subsoil (Wetness Class II).



Agricultural land quality over most of the Site (i.e. 6.0 ha or 75% of the ALC study area) is placed in Subgrade 3b due to soil wetness, gradient or soil droughtiness (or combinations thereof).

3.2 Conclusions and Recommendations For the purpose of this assessment, the soil on Site may be regarded as a single Soil Unit, owing to the similarity in texture of the topsoil and subsoil (i.e. CLAY) over the whole Site, as shown on Figure 2.1 ‘Soil Units’.

The upper subsoil (30-50 cm below ground level) and lower subsoil (50-120 cm below ground level) are both CLAY in texture; therefore they can be stripped as a single layer of subsoil (i.e. 30-120 cm below ground level).

Due to the high clay content in the topsoil and subsoil, soil resources available for re-use will be prone to structural damage during soil handling operations, i.e. soil tripping, soil storage in bunds and soil replacement during land restoration - especially if the soils are handled when they are too wet. Therefore, to minimize structural damage during soil handling operations, it is recommended that the Soil Handling Guidance given in Appendix 5 be followed.



Figures

Client: Churchfield Stone Ltd

Project: Upper Benefield Quarry

Job ref no.: TOHA/12/2585/RA

Drawing no.: 01

Drawing title Fig 1.1: Sample Locations

Date: Mar‘12

Scale: 1:10,000 (Approx.)

Drawn by: RA/ DM

Checked by: TOH

Tim O’Hare Associates LLP Howbery Park Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8BA

T: 01491 822653 F:01491 822644 E:[email protected] www.toha.co.uk



Appendix 1: Natural England

Technical Information Note 049 – Agricultural Land Classification



Appendix 2: IPSS Professional Competency Scheme Document 2 –

Agricultural Land Classification

Agricultural Land Classifi cation (England and Wales)

DOCUMENT 2

BackgroundThe evaluation of land for its agricultural potential in England

and Wales 1 is accomplished by application of the Agricultural

Land Classifi cation 2 (ALC). Professional competence in

Agricultural Land Classifi cation builds upon foundation skills in

fi eld soil investigation, description and interpretation (IPSS PCSS

Document 1). This system of professional competence is based

upon a detailed written procedures document developed by the

Farming and Rural Conservation Agency 3.

Qualifi cationsProfessional soil scientists with competence in Agricultural Land

Classifi cation will have graduated in a relevant science subject.

They will also have a number of years of relevant fi eld experience and

will have, or be adequately qualifi ed for, membership of a relevant

professional body such as the Institute of Professional Soil Scientists.

Minimum competencies

Skills and Knowledge:

These are described under a number of subheadings that relate to

diff erent tasks. A professionally competent contractor should have the

skills and knowledge identifi ed under the General heading and all

other headings that are relevant to the tasks required.

General

1 A general knowledge and understanding of natural soil

development and of world, European and national soil taxonomy

2 A detailed knowledge and understanding of the Agricultural

Land Classifi cation system relevant to the site and of the

classifi cation of land according to the current published

Guidelines and other documents 1, 2, and the ability to apply it

accurately and consistently in the classifi cation of an area of land

1 Similar systems are employed in Scotland and Northern Ireland2 ALC Revised Guidelines and Criteria for the Grading the Quality of Agricultural Land (MAFF, 1988)

and Climatological Datasets for ALC (Met. Offi ce, 1989)3 A former Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food (now Defra)

Working with Soil – The IPSS Professional Competency Scheme

www.soilscientist.org/workingwithsoil

3 An awareness and knowledge of existing published and

unpublished, paper-based and digital ALC information

and sources

4 A knowledge of paper and digital topographic, geology and

soil maps, mineral assessment reports and memoirs and other

technical sources of reference; and of their role in ALC work

5 An understanding of map scales and of the Ordnance Survey

National Grid

6 The ability to investigate, sample, describe and interpret soils in

the fi eld in a consistent manner and to professional standards

(IPSS PCSS Document 1)

7 Knowledge of relevant European and national regulations and

policies including national and local land use planning policy and

guidance, and soil protection policy

8 The ability to eff ectively communicate soil information in a

simple and relevant form to developers, planners and other

relevant professionals with clear statements as to the reliability

and certainty of the results

9 The ability to write accurate, concise reports in clear English

and in line with best practice examples of ALC survey

that communicate the relevant information to all

relevant communicants

10 An awareness of the importance of systems of quality assurance

and control in all aspects of professional work

Preparations prior to fi eld survey

1 The ability to compile background site physical data (e.g. relief,

geology, soils, climate, fl ood-risk, exposure and grade from

published and unpublished sources) and understanding of the

limitations of the data obtained

2 An understanding of scale and of how diff erent survey sampling

densities may impact on the certainty of results obtained.

A knowledge of how to tailor survey density appropriately to

the requirements of the client, and understanding of the

limitations that might impose

3 The ability to compute gradients from map contours

4 A thorough knowledge of climatic data interpolation procedures

(and any available associated bespoke computer software), and

the ability to obtain representative site values

5 An understanding of soil maps, the concepts of soil

associations and soil series and their limitations as a background

to ALC grading

6 A knowledge of GPS and data logger technology and its uses

and limitations for fi eld survey work

7 A knowledge and understanding of relevant Health and Safety

legislation requirements for work in the fi eld

8 An understanding of basic biosecurity requirements and any

animal or plant health restrictions which may be in force

Field survey for Agricultural Land Classifi cation

1 The ability to determine, lay out and work to a relevant

sampling strategy

2 Competency in the Foundation Skills (fi eld soil investigation,

sampling, description and interpretation) as per IPSS PCSS

Document 1

3 The ability to accurately and consistently apply the ALC system to

soil and other data collected during the fi eld survey

Reporting

1 The knowledge and ability to compile an ALC map from

background information and data collected during the

fi eld survey

2 The ability to write an ALC survey report according to an

agreed format

3 Understanding of the principles of quality assurance and the

ability to apply these as required by the client

4 The ability to convey the fi ndings of the survey verbally such that

they are understood by the client

Agricultural Land classifi cation (England and Wales)

DOCUMENT 2

Disclaimer: The IPSS and BSSS Working With Soils Initiative provides generic advice on the skills and competencies required by persons carrying out work within the scope of

each document. The publishers, authors and the organisations participating in this publication accept no liability whatsoever for any errors or omissions contained

in this leafl et, or for any loss or damage arising from interpretation or use of the information, or reliance upon the views contained herein.



The following organisations have given their support

to the Institute of Professional Soil Scientist’s Working

with Soils Professional Competency Initiative:

‘ Defra welcomes initiatives, such as the IPSS Working with Soils Competency

Statements, that aim to improve the quality of professional soils advice’

SUPPORTING ORGANISATIONS





Appendix 3: British Geological Survey GeoReport

for Upper Benefield Quarry, Oundle, Northants (GR_204040/1)



Appendix 4: Soil Profile Log



Appendix 5: Soil Handling Guidance

eia scoping report...eia scoping report planning application for a conservation stone quarry to...

Documents