Local Members' InterestMr. M. J. LawrenceMrs K M Perry

Cheslyn Hay, Essington and Great Wyrley

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2014

MINERAL COUNTY MATTER; WASTE COUNTY MATTER

South Staffordshire: SS.12/15/602 MW

Date Received: 10 July 2013

Date Revised/Further Details Received: September 2013; October 2013; January 2014; April 2014; and July 2014. (Refer to Appendix 1 for full details).

Description of Development

Breedon Aggregates Limited and NRS Waste Care Limited, application to continue the existing mining permission at Saredon Quarry; to extend the quarry and extract sand and gravel; and, restore the quarry by infilling with inert waste or inert material on land at Saredon Quarry, Great Saredon Road, Saredon.

Introduction

I. This report is an update of the report originally proposed to be presented to 5 June 2014 Planning Committee, which however was deferred at the request of the applicants whilst a boundary dispute was investigated. The boundary dispute was in connection with the aggregate storage bays and concrete wall that have been erected on the northern boundary of the site in addition to land required to accommodate proposed mitigation tree and hedgerow planting, all of which now form part of this planning application.

II. As the aggregate storage bays and concrete wall had been erected outside of the quarry boundary, negotiations took place with the adjacent landowner, land was acquired and copies of the relevant certificate and notice served on land owners were submitted in July 2014. Plans previously submitted have also been revised accordingly to show the amended application boundary. In addition, details on mitigation tree and hedgerow planting have been submitted (refer to Appendix 1 for information on further application details received).

III. In addition to this ‘Introduction’, sections of this report have been updated as a result of the reconsultation on the amended application. The updated text is:

‘Background’ to explain the amendments to the application as a result of the boundary change, and also to provide further information on the prior approval approved under Part 19, Class B of the General Permitted

Development Order 1995 (GPDO) for the concrete plant ancillary to the existing permitted mineral extraction (permission ref. SS.14/03/602 MW.

‘Summary of proposals’ to refer to the amended plans and details of mitigation hedgerow and tree planting; a suggested vehicle movement condition; and suggested hours for opening of site gates for access for operatives. Also information has been provided on highway improvements, the workshop/maintenance building and site security.

‘Findings of consultations’ to refer to further comments received from: Planning Regulation Team in relation to complaints received; Environmental Advice Team providing advice on the mitigation tree and hedgerow planting; Transport Development Control providing further comments on vehicle restrictions and advice to address highways concerns raised in representations; Saredon Parish Council in relation to the site gates opening time; and representations received from County, District and Local Councillors regarding operating hours and highway safety and the prior approval for the concrete plant.

‘Observations’ – to respond to concerns raised in respect of the mitigation planting proposed as a result of the regularisation of the concrete wall extensions by updating the Green Belt and Landscape and Restoration sections. Also to respond to concerns relating to the progressive restoration of the site by recommending submission of a Progress Report to monitor working and restoration; to limit the period of restoration after cessation of mineral working in order for the site to be restored at the earliest opportunity achieving high environmental standards; and that provision is made in the Section 106 Legal Agreement to require the applicants to contribute to an established mutual funding scheme. To respond to concerns relating to hours of operation, the site specific considerations section and the review of conditions section have been updated and reference has been made to the proposed new conditions listed at the end of the report.

To update the planning conditions

New Appendix 1 – list of all revisions to the application since submission in July 2013

New Appendix 2 – copy of the delegated letter dated 3 April 2014 (ref. SS.14/03/602 MW) relating to prior approval under Part 19, Class B of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 1995 for a concrete plant ancillary to the existing permitted mineral extraction.

New Appendix 3 - Summary of the findings of the Environmental Statement. This was formerly Appendix 1 in the June 2014 Planning Committee report.

Background

1. Breedon Aggregates Limited and NRS Waste Care Limited are jointly seeking planning permission for an extension of quarrying operations within the existing Saredon Quarry (working within the landslip area ‘Phase 1’) and then working eastwards beyond the current permission area (Phase 2) and then working in a north

westerly direction (Phase 3). The existing quarry (Phase 1) is operated by NRS Waste Care Limited. The proposed extension area (Phases 2 and 3) is under the sole control of Breedon Aggregates by means of an option agreement with the landowner. Joint working arrangements with NRS Wastecare Limited have been agreed in principle, but remain to be completed. Any legal agreement and subsequent requirement for a liaison committee would involve both Breedon Aggregates and NRS Wastecare Limited. Following the proposed sand and gravel extraction works, permission is also sought to restore the site by infilling with inert materials or inert waste for the benefit of nature conservation afteruse (Phase 1 land) and agricultural afteruse (Phases 2 and 3 land).

2. Saredon Quarry is an existing permitted sand and gravel quarry that was first granted planning permission for mineral extraction in 1962. The site has been operated by NRS Wastecare Limited since 2012, and previously by Biffa Waste Services Limited, in accordance with a Scheme of Conditions under the Mineral Review Provisions of the Environment Act 1995 (permission reference SS.EA/7 dated 30 July 1997). The site is also subject to a Section 106 Agreement which was signed on 25 May 1995 as a requirement of permission SS.945/94 and a supplemental agreement dated 5 June 1997. The Legal Agreement covers traffic routeing (requiring all lorries visiting the site to use a prescribed route to the A460 Wolverhampton Road at Middle Hill, via the M6 motorway overbridge); liaison committee arrangements; and extended aftercare.

3. The Periodic Review relating to planning permission SS.EA/7 was due to be submitted by 30 July 2012 however the date has been postponed to 30 July 2015 by three applications under paragraph 5 of Schedule 14 to the Environment Act 1995 (refer to Planning History below). If permitted, planning application ref. SS.12/15/602 MW (the subject of this report) would supersede the requirements to submit a Periodic Review in connection with planning permission SS.EA/7.

4. The quarry was until recently (2012) an inactive mineral site. Substantial mineral working particularly took place between 22 February 1982 and 6 June 1996 and the site had been mothballed by Biffa Waste Services Limited until operations recommenced in 2012 by the applicant NRS Waste Care Limited.

5. The current extraction is permitted, by extant planning permission ref. SS.EA/7, to 2024. Condition 7 of SS.EA/7 states “The development for which permission is hereby granted shall cease not later than 12 years from the date of commencement of infilling unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County planning Authority”. The Regulation Team have confirmed that Biffa Waste Services Limited had not undertaken any infilling and infilling commenced in year 2012 by NRS Waste Care Limited.

6. The restoration approved by SS.EA/7 requires the site to be progressively restored to a nature conservation afteruse involving the development of the silt lagoons to create reed beds, shallow pools, and osier beds, and the filled areas restored back to species rich grassland and broad leaf woodland. In addition to the standard 5 year aftercare period following the completion of the final restoration, the applicant at that time (Biffa Waste Services Limited) entered into a long term management commitment with regard to the final landuse and a legal Deed Trust for a period of 10 years after the 5 year aftercare period was signed by Biffa Waste Services Limited and the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust who received a management fund. Staffordshire

Wildlife Trust have approached the County Council and also the applicant NRS Wastecare Limited as they would like to be released from this obligation. Amendments to the legal agreement would be required and the matter of the management fund paid to the Wildlife Trust by Biffa Waste Management Service Limited would need to be refunded.

7. In respect of the S106 Agreement for routing of HGV vehicles, the legal agreement accompanying permission SS.945/94 dated 25 May 1995 included the improvement of the entrance/exit radii at the site entrance, the straightening of a double 90 degrees bend at Saredon Hall Farm and the relocation of the junction at the Middle Hill cross roads further away from residential properties. As required by the Section 106 Agreement, HGV vehicles should travel along this route and should not travel through neighbouring villages.

8. Local Councillors and the County Council regularly receive a significant amount of on-going highways related complaints in connection with the approach road to the quarry where it is difficult for two HGVs to pass without mounting the grass verge in Saredon Road and at Great Saredon Road junction. Large concrete blocks have been placed on the verge to prevent this taking place however these are considered a hazard and not a long term sustainable solution. County Councillors Lawrence and Perry have met with the applicants and Highways Authority to discuss options. The Highways Authority Community Infrastructure Liaison Manager has suggested simple improvements to the quarry entrance and installation of approximately 80 metres of high containment kerb (or such other similar measures as may be agreed with the applicants) to force vehicles to follow the kerb line and prevent damage to the grass verge. The County, District and Parish Councillors would like these and a maintenance agreement to be incorporated into any legal agreement should planning permission be granted for the current planning application SS.12/15/602 MW (the subject of this report).

9. The County Council’s Planning Regulation Team has investigated complaints received in connection with blasting at Saredon Quarry. The applicants maintain that blasting in the quarry has taken place historically to enable the recovery of naturally cemented sand and gravel (conglomerate) from the lower parts of the geological deposits. The County Council’s Planning Regulation Team advised the applicants that the current permission SS.EA/7 does not allow blasting and submission of a planning application would be required. In October 2013 an Assessment of Environmental Impact of Blasting at Saredon Quarry was submitted by the applicants as an addendum to the Environmental Statement for the current planning application SS.12/15/602 MW (subject of this report). A test blast at the quarry was conducted on Monday 14 October 2013 at approximately 10.30am by Gillrange Ltd. The effect of the blast was monitored by Vibrock Limited and a blast induced vibration study produced with a criterion recommended for restricting vibration levels from production blasting in order to address the need to minimise annoyance to nearby residents. As much of the sand and gravel at the quarry is capable of extraction without the need to blast, it is proposed that blasting would be infrequent, approximately once every two months on average.

10. A number of permitted development works, in accordance with Part 19, Class A of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 1995, have recently taken place within the confines of the quarry in a north western corner of the site. These are: a new workshop / maintenance building (6 metres in height to the ridge line, 20m x

10m and painted green) and concrete aggregate storage bays (3 metres in height). The aggregate storage bay area (40m x 45m) and also the haul road to this area have been concreted as part of a package of improvements at the quarry, and to limit/prevent the movement of vehicles into the quarry void to collect aggregate products and as a consequence limit/prevent deleterious material being tracked on to the public highway which is an ongoing issue which generates high levels of complaints investigated by the County Council Planning Regulation Team and the Highway Authority.

11. In April 2014 prior approval was approved under Part 19, Class B of the GPDO for a concrete plant ancillary to the existing permitted mineral extraction (permission ref. SS.14/03/602 MW (Refer to Appendix 2). The concrete plant consists of 4 hoppers, 2 concrete silos and a conveyor and is located in the area which had been concreted, with concrete aggregate storage bays erected on the western boundary and a 3 metre high concrete wall erected on the northern boundary. The plant would be operated by Breedon Aggregates England Limited under an agreement with NRS Wastecare Limited. The recently constructed aggregate storage bays would provide the materials for use in the concrete plant. Imports to the quarry would be limited to cement which would involve one tanker load per day. The prior approval includes conditions which restrict the number of HCV movements associated with the concrete plant to 30 per day (15 in and 15 out); restricts the operating hours to 0700-1800 Monday to Friday and 0700-1400 Saturdays; restricts the aggregate to be used by the plant to be wholly supplied from Saredon Quarry; and requires the removal of the plant within 12 months of the cessation of mineral working as set out in condition 7 of planning permission SS.EA/7.

12. A member of Saredon Parish Council has requested the Parish Council’s support to formally challenge the County Council’s decision to approve the prior approval under Part 19, Class B of the GPDO for the concrete plant ancillary to the existing permitted mineral extraction (ref. SS.14/03/602 MW). The Parish Council have been asked to support a motion that a condition be added to the concrete plant prior approval (ref.SS.14/03/602 MW) which states that “the plant hereby approved shall not be used to prepare, produce or otherwise manufacture concrete or concrete products not wholly for use within the curtilage of the site as defined in Planning Consent No. SS/EA/7”. As it would not be possible to withdraw/revoke or update the concrete plant decision notice (ref.SS.14/03/602 MW) issued 3 April 2014, the Parish Councillor has then requested that the suggested condition be included on the decision notice for the current planning application ref. SS.12/15/602 MW (the subject of this report). The County Council’s legal team have confirmed that the decision made in respect of the prior approval was lawful and the Parish Councillor has received written correspondence regarding this. The Encyclopaedia of Planning Law expresses the view that a concrete plant at a quarry does indeed fall within Class B, Part 19 of the GPDO as it utilises mineral from the quarry. Also in determining the prior approval the correct procedures were followed taking into account all (and only) relevant material planning considerations. Furthermore it is considered unreasonable to restrict the use of the concrete plant solely for making concrete for use within the boundary of Saredon Quarry. Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects (National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 206). The suggested condition does not meet these relevant tests for conditions or the presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF paragraph 14).

Consequently this condition will not be considered for inclusion within the recommendation for this current planning application ref SS.12/15/602 MW. It should also be noted that if the applicants proposed any additional concrete operations at Saredon Quarry, which are not covered by the concrete plant prior approval issued in April 2014, further approval would need to be sought under the GPDO or a planning application made if the current planning application ref. SS.12/15/602 MW (the subject of this report) is approved and permitted development rights are removed by condition.

13. A 3 metre high concrete wall, which forms an extension to the aggregate storage bays, referred to in paragraph 10, has been constructed behind the workshop /maintenance building and also along part of the northern boundary of the concrete plant, adjacent to the northern tree belt screening for the quarry. The wall extensions to the aggregate storage bays are not permitted development, as they exceed 2 metres in height, exceed the height of the former boundary fence, were not erected for storage, and are not part of the concrete plant prior approval. A hedgerow and trees were removed to accommodate the aggregate storage bays and concrete wall, and trees were damaged to accommodate the concreted haul road works. Application SS.12/15/602 MW (the subject of this report) has been revised by the applicants to regularise the current situation by incorporating the ‘concrete wall’ extensions to the aggregates storage bays in addition to proposed tree planting to reinforce the existing tree belt and to establish a new hedgerow to mitigate the impact of the new aggregates storage bays and concrete plant on a north-western corner of the site. Land has been acquired from the adjacent landowner in order to amend the planning application and quarry boundary and provide sufficient land for the mitigation and replacement planting. Advice has been provided by the County Council’s Environmental Specialists in respect of the replacement planting.

Summary of Proposals

Quarrying area

14. The proposal involves 28.2 hectares of land which includes the existing quarry, an area of approximately 15.8 hectares, and an extension to the east, approximately 12.4 hectares. (See Plan 2). [Note: the additional area of land now incorporated into the amended application boundary to provide sufficient land for the concrete wall and mitigation and replacement planting is 419 square metres or 0.0419 of a hectare].

Phasing

15. Extraction of sand and gravel would be in three phases as shown on Plan 2:

Phase 1 is the remaining permitted extraction area;

Phase 2 is an area immediately to the east of Phase 1; and,

Phase 3 is an area to the north / north-west of Phase 2.

Remaining Permitted Reserves and Extension Area Reserves

16. There was approximately 750,000 tonnes of permitted reserves remaining in Phase 1 when the application was made in July 2013. [Assuming that 150,000 tonnes has

been extracted since then, your officers estimate that about 600,000 tonnes now remain to be worked in Phase 1]. It is proposed to extract a further 1.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel from the extension area (Phases 2 and 3).

Output and duration of mineral working

17. The proposed average output would be 150,000 tonnes per annum and mineral working would cease after 14 years [note: this allows for the time it has taken since the application was made].

Working Method

18. Mineral would be worked using a 360 degree excavator and wheeled loading shovel(s), and transported within the site to the processing plant. A wheeled loading shovel would place material into a hopper that would feed a dry screen for processing. A proportion of the mineral would be processed through a wash plant, located in the quarry void, to remove fine silts. Material from processing would be stockpiled in aggregate storage bays and loaded into road vehicles for delivery direct to customers. Or the material from processing would be washed to improve the quality of the mineral. Water from the washing plant would be directed through a series of settlement ponds. Settled and dewatered silt would be periodically removed from the settlement pond areas and placed in the quarry void.

19. Due to the geology of the lower levels of deposit, it is proposed that blasting would be required to break up the mineral when this cannot be achieved by the excavator. When required, blasting would take place using controlled explosive charges with a typical maximum instantaneous charge (MIC) in the order of 65 kg. On average blasting would take place once every two months. The Mineral Planning Authority, the Quarry Liaison Committee and local residents would be given advanced notification of blasting and blasts would be scheduled for around lunch-time where possible.

20. The addendum to the Environmental Statement which accompanies the planning application (The Assessment of Environmental Impact of Blasting at Saredon Quarry) recommends a ground vibration limit that is not only safe for the integrity of structures but also takes into account the physiological effects on adjacent neighbours. All blasts at Saredon Quarry would be designed in order to comply with a vibration criteria of 6mms-1 peak particle velocity at a 95% confidence level as measured in any of the three planes of measurement at the closest vibration sensitive residential property. This vibration limit would be in line with guide values in former Minerals Planning Guidance (MPG) 9 and former MPG 14, and is a current standard limit at similar open pit workings within the United Kingdom. It is also below the levels recommended for blast induced vibration in British Standard Guide BS 6472-2:2008. No individual blast would exceed 12 mms-1. All blasts would also be designed to comply with 50 mms-1 at the M6 motorway, electricity pylons, mobile phone mast and wooden telegraph poles.

Restoration

21. The restoration proposals involve backfilling with quarry waste and imported inert construction, demolition and excavation waste (including clean soils), imported at a rate of approximately 150,000 tonnes per annum. The total requirement of fill

required would be 1,410,000 cubic metres. Phased infilling with inert materials or inert waste would occur following each phase of extraction to achieve restoration to the original ground level. Infilling would continue after the 14 years of mineral extraction for an estimated 5 years. Twelve months after completion of infilling the site is proposed to be restored, followed by a 5 year statutory aftercare period and a further 10 years extended aftercare (in accordance with by the Section 106 Legal Agreement).

22. It is proposed to reinstate the land primarily to its previous use and landform. The proposed extension area is currently an agricultural field with some associated scrub, hedgerow and trees and would be returned to agricultural use. The existing quarry was primarily agricultural land with a strong field pattern and coppice woodland. The historic field patterns would be reinstated. Wet and meadow grassland would be bound by native hedgerows and trees, broadleaf woodland blocks would be enlarged, and the water bodies would be retained and reconfigured from the two existing settlement ponds. Existing Public Right of Way (PROW) no.5 to the west of the site boundary would also be extended as part of the restoration.

23. A revised restoration scheme was submitted in January 2014, produced as a standalone addendum to the Restoration and Maintenance sections of the Supporting Statement and ES, prepared having regard to the comments on the original version by the County Council’s Environmental Advice Team.

Landscaping and screening

24. A survey of the site has been undertaken and an arboricultural report produced regarding the condition of the trees within the existing tree belt along the northern site boundary. Mitigation planting detail has been submitted as part of the application to reinforce the existing tree belt. Also to compensate for the hedgerow and two trees removed it is proposed to establish a new hedgerow to mitigate the impact of the new aggregates storage bays and the concrete wall extensions constructed on the north-western corner of the site. Six new trees are proposed to compensate for the two trees removed. Two replacement trees are proposed within the hedgerow to the rear of the concrete wall, and four trees are proposed to be planted along Great Saredon Road on the south eastern site boundary. The replacement hedgerow is proposed within the application/quarry boundary however at a distance of 5 metres to the rear of the concrete wall in order to allow maintenance and the painting of the concrete wall with green paint until the hedgerow is established. A replacement stock proof fence with sheep netting is also proposed on the outer/western edge of the new hedgerow.

25. A mitigation strategy plan also forms part of the application. Soils are proposed to be stored around the extension area to achieve a degree of screening and further additional soils would be placed to provide additional screening from viewpoints to the northwest.

Operating Hours

26. The proposed hours of operation including extraction of sand and gravel, screening, and transportation of material off-site are:

0600 – 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays

0700 – 1300 Saturdays Traffic leaving the site before 07:00 would be limited to 20 vehicles per day

27. The current permitted operating hours (Condition 26 of SS.EA/7) are:0700 - 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays0700 – 1400 hours SaturdaysNo such operations on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays

28. Note: Through the application determination process the applicants have been made aware that the Mineral Planning Authority would not support operations and vehicle movements outside of the current permitted operating hours. The applicants (in their additional information received July 2014) point out that if the permission is limited to a 7 am start, they would still need to open the site gates from 6.30am in order for operatives to be ready to commence work at 0700 hours. Vehicle movements, routing and wheel cleaning

29. There would be a maximum of 115 HGV loads per day (230 movements 115 in and 115 out). Material would either leave the site by HGV tipper vehicle or in a ready mix lorry. To accommodate fluctuations in the construction industry the applicants have suggested the following wording for a condition::

‘The number of HGV movements to and from the site calculated on a yearly average basis shall not exceed 230 per full working day of which

a. Up to 90 movements associated with the delivery of sand and gravel including 30 movements per day in association of the ready mix plant.

b. Up to 140 movements per day of inert materials for infill operations.

At any time during a 12 month period the quarterly average shall not exceed the specified limits by 10% (to allow for seasonal variation) unless previously agreed in writing’.

30. Complaints have been received regarding highway issues. The applicants have confirmed that there is an existing routing agreement which would be adhered to, and all traffic leaving the site would turn left out of the site entrance onto Great Saredon Road. In respect of deleterious material on the highway, the following improvements have been and are being undertaken:

A new rumble strip has been installed to shake the lorry as it moves across the wheel wash to remove the bulk of the material held between the wheels.

A new security system has been installed which covers the weighbridge area. The weighbridge operator is instructed to ensure that all lorries leaving the site with materials are sheeted before issuing a ticket. If there are any complaints of unsheeted lorries leaving the site, then the Manager, provided he is advised within 24/48 hours, will be able to scan the security system and provide the evidence that the lorry came from that site or did not and take action.

It is proposed to install a larger wheelwash.

It is proposed to move the plant which processes the minerals to a higher

position and to concrete the haul road.

Concrete wall extensions to the aggregates storage bay area, and maintenance building /workshop

31. Details and plans for the planning application have been amended since submission to include the ‘concrete wall’ extensions to the aggregates storage bays in a north-western corner of the site where the concrete plant and maintenance building/workshop are located. The concrete plant and storage bay area are ancillary development at the quarry. Plans have also been supplied of the maintenance building / workshop erected under permitted development. The ground floor is set out for maintenance work and the first floor has a multiple use in terms of amenities for the site including function/meeting room (e.g. quarry liaison committees) and for use by security operatives. CCTV cameras and equipment have been installed on the site and site security is maintained outside of normal working hours to prevent unauthorised access to the site.

Environmental Statement

32. The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement, Environmental Statement (ES) and Non-Technical Summary of the ES. The Planning Statement summarises the main aspects of the development and the ES assesses the potential impacts of the development on the environment and consists of baseline studies, a prediction of potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures. The topics/issues considered by the ES and environmental information subsequently received are as follows:

Planning Policy context Outline of the main alternatives considered Air quality Archaeology and cultural heritage Ecology Geology and geotechnical Hydrogeology Drainage and flood risk impact assessment Landuse and soils Landscape and visual Noise Socio-economic Climate change Traffic Addendum - Blasting

[Note: the environmental considerations in the ES (and information subsequently provided) are summarised in Appendix 3 to this report].

Site and Surroundings

33. The site lies within the South Staffordshire Green Belt with the M6 motorway to the immediate east and surrounded by agricultural fields, small hamlets/villages and farms. The site access is from Great Saredon Road, on the site’s eastern boundary. Great Saredon Road links to Saredon Road and the A460, which links onto the M6

motorway.

34. The site is located approximately 4.5km southwest of Cannock Town Centre and 3km north west of Cheslyn Hay. Shareshill Village is 1.5km to the south and the hamlets of Little Saredon and Great Saredon are located 0.6km and 0.8km away respectively. The closest residential properties are located on the far side of Great Saredon Road around the junction with Windy Arbour Lane, however vehicles leaving the site would turn left onto Great Saredon Road and consequently would not pass these properties. Residential properties at the junction of Saredon Road and Windy Arbour Lane are however on the vehicle approach route to the quarry. Saredon Hall Farm is located on the approach road to the site and is a Grade 2 listed building.

35. The site slopes downwards from east to west, with a trigonometry point (marking the summit of Saredon Hill at 154m above sea level), located to the east of the existing quarry and within the agricultural field of the extension area.

36. An active electricity sub-station is located adjacent to the site entrance on the eastern boundary. Three overhead electricity transmission towers are located within the site. The overhead transmission tower lines cross the site from east to west across the agricultural field of the extension area, before proceeding south-west over the existing quarry and out of the site boundary over agricultural fields to the south-west of the site.

37. A concrete haul road is located on the north-eastern boundary. This links along the northern boundary to a small area of hardstanding, adjacent to the centre of the site. This area comprises a small brick office building, a weighbridge, car parking facilities and a site security camera mounted on a pole. The haul route is concreted down to an aggregates storage bay/concrete plant and workshop area enclosed by 3 metre high concrete walls, before proceeding as a track downwards into the existing quarry and to the centre of the site.

38. The existing operational quarry is located from the centre to the west of the site and is primarily separated from the extension area by a quarry face and embankments. A concrete post and wire fence encloses the entire quarry (with the exception of the aggregate storage bay area to the northwest) with a number of warning signs.

39. The current excavation works are being undertaken in the centre of the application site. South of the current excavation works and within the existing void of the quarry an area is being infilled with inert materials or inert waste. Further to the south and up to the southern boundary is an area of scrub, semi mature and mature trees.

40. The eastern area of the site primarily comprises arable farmland; however, an area of mature woodland is located immediately east of the cliff edge of the existing quarry.

41. The site contains a number of water bodies. To the west, beyond the existing quarry works but within the application area are a number of ponds within woodland. These ponds are used as settlement ponds with a discharge into a watercourse to the west of the site.

42. There are a number of Public Rights of Way (PROW) in the vicinity of the site. This application would re-locate and extend PROW No. 5 as part of the restoration scheme.

Relevant Planning History

43. Planning permission was first granted for mineral extraction in 1962 (CCR.4041). The consent required the site be restored progressively to agriculture by spreading waste minerals in the excavated area and covered over with soils (Conditions 3 and 21). Due to the lack of mineral wastes available on site, in May 1995, conditions 3 and 21 of CCR.4041 were varied under planning permission SS.945/94 to permit restoration of the site by infilling with inert waste (and asbestos). That permission was subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement covering off-site highway works, traffic routeing (requiring all lorries visiting the site to use a prescribed route to the A460 Wolverhampton Rd at Middle Hill, via the motorway overbridge), Deed of Trust and Liaison arrangements and a protected species survey. The agreement was signed on 25 May 1995 and the detailed scheme required for off-site highway works were approved in September 1996 and the highways improvement works have been carried out in accordance with the approved details.

44. Planning permission SS.945/94 dated 25 May 1995 required a submission of several reserved matters before it could be implemented: a boundary treatment scheme to discharge Condition 14 (SS.0945/94 D2 approved November 1996); and an engineering report monitoring groundwater levels and flows likely to have an adverse effect on the former slip area to discharge Conditions 19 and 20 (SS.0945/94 D4 approved July 1997). A detailed restoration scheme to address the requirements of Condition 37 was however withdrawn in 1998 (SS.0945/94 D3).

45. In April 1997 a 3 year temporary planning permission was granted for a recycling plant to generate soil making material and other recycled products for use in site restoration and for export off site (SS.667/96). Condition 1 required commencement by 22 May 1999. The permission was varied on three occasions in order to extend the date of implementation (SS.96/0667 V1 approved October 1999 extended the date by 2 years; SS.96/0667 V2 approved July 2001 extended the date by a further 2 years to May 2003, and SS.03/09/602 MW approved July 2003 extended the commencement date to 22 May 2008. The permission was never implemented.

46. In January 1996 the County Council advertised the ‘First List’ in accordance with provisions of the Environment Act, 1995, which identified that Saredon Quarry was a phase 1 active site to be included in the initial review of mineral planning permissions (ROMP). The Scheme of conditions (SS.EA/7) was approved by Planning Committee in July 1997. The decision on the restoration and aftercare scheme submitted in 1998 to discharge Condition 39 has however been held in abeyance awaiting additional information from the applicant (the applicant at that time was Biffa Waste Services Ltd, and the site ownership has subsequently now changed to NRS Wastecare). Prior written consent was granted in December 2012 for the processing of sand and gravel within the base of the quarry, as required by Condition 36 (SS.EA/7 D2). At that time it was observed that sands are washed and silt from this washing process is settled within an area within the quarry void and within a former lagoon near to the quarry void. It was recommended that any further development of the quarry for the purposes of silt disposal should be agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority in accordance with Condition 45 of the

permission SS.EA/7 or should be included in the review of quarry development as required under the Environment Act 1995. It was also recommended that ecological surveys should be undertaken as there is a risk of non-compliance with wildlife legislation and assurances are required to ensure compliance with requirements to reclaim the lagoons to provide aquatic habitat.

47. The Periodic Review relating to planning permission SS.EA/7 was due to be submitted by 30 July 2012 however the date has been postponed to 30 July 2015 by three applications under paragraph 5 of Schedule 14 to the Environment Act 1995 (application ref. SS.11/17/602 MW approved October 2011 postponed the review to 30 July 2013; application ref. SS.13/10/602 MW approved June 2013 postponed the review to 30 July 2014 and application ref. SS.14/09/602 MW approved 2 May 2014 postponed the review to 30 July 2015). If the planning application ref. SS.12/15/602 MW (the subject of this report) is permitted it would supersede the requirements to submit a Scheme of Conditions in connection with the Periodic Review of planning permission ref. SS.EA/7.

48. Prior approval ref. SS.14/03/602 MW: request for prior approval pursuant to Part 19, Class B of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) for a concrete plant was approved on 3 April 2014 subject to 9 conditions (refer to Appendix 2). The conditions restrict the number of HCV movements associated with the concrete plant to 30 per day (15 in and 15 out); restricts the operating hours to 0700-1800 Monday to Friday and 0700-1400 Saturdays (in line with extant permission SS.EA/7); restricts the aggregate to be used by the plant to be wholly supplied from Saredon Quarry; and requires the removal of the plant within 12 months of the cessation of mineral working as set out in condition 7 of planning permission SS.EA/7.

The Development Plan policies and proposals relevant to this decision

49. The relevant development plan policies include the saved policies in the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan adopted in 1999; the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan adopted in March 2013; and, the South Staffordshire Local Plan adopted in December 2012.

50. The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan 1994 – 2006 (saved policies*):

Policy 2 – Need for Minerals (maintenance of landbanks for non-energy minerals) (consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – paragraphs 143, 145 & 146 (Minerals); 156 (Local plans));

Policy 9 - Planning Applications – Restoration and Aftercare (consistent with the NPPF - paragraph 117 (Natural Environment) and 143 & 144 (Minerals));

Policy 10 – Use of Legal Agreements (consistent with the NPPF – paragraph 203 & 204 (Planning conditions and obligations));

Policy 12 – Proximity To People and Sensitive Locations (consistent with the NPPF - paragraphs 114, 117, 120 & 123 (Natural Environment) and 143 & 144 (Minerals));

Policy 19 – Natural and Cultural Environment - Other Sites/ Areas of Cultural and Natural Importance (consistent with the NPPF – paragraphs 113 &117 (Natural Environment), paragraphs 131 – 136 &138 – 139 (Historic Environment); and 143 – 144 (Minerals))

Policy 20 - Natural and Cultural Environment – Replacement Habitats (consistent with the NPPF - paragraphs 113 -114, 116 -117 (Natural Environment) and 137 (Historic Environment));

Policy 21 - Natural and Cultural Environment – Landscape Character And Quality (consistent with the NPPF - paragraphs 113, 115, 116, 123 & 125 (Natural Environment));

Policy 22 - Natural and Cultural Environment – Advanced Tree Planting (consistent with the NPPF – paragraph 114 (Natural Environment));

Policy 24 – Archaeological evaluation (consistent with the NPPF – paragraph 128 (Historic Environment));

Policy 25 – Archaeological recording (consistent with the NPPF – paragraphs 128, 133 to 136 (Historic Environment));

Policy 30 – Transportation – Traffic Impact Appraisal (consistent with the NPPF –paragraphs 32 (Sustainable Transport) and 143 (Minerals));

Policy 31 – Traffic legal agreements (consistent with NPPF – paragraphs 203 & 204 (Planning conditions and obligations));

Policy 35 – Mineral Preparation and Associated Industrial Development (consistent with the NPPF - paragraph 144 (Minerals));

Policy 38 – Exceptional Circumstances (consistent with the NPPF - paragraphs 143, 145 - 146 (Minerals));

Policy 39 – Future Mineral Development Areas – Working of Extensions (consistent with the NPPF – paragraphs 28 (Rural Economy), 34 (Sustainable Transport) and 143 – 144 (Minerals)).

Proposal 5 – Sand and Gravel Site Specific Allocations (Note: Saredon Quarry not an allocation)

Code of Practice for Mineral Development (SPG to MLP).

* Note: An assessment to confirm the consistency of the saved policies in the Minerals Local Plan with the National Planning Policy Framework was reported to the Planning Committee on 7 March 2013. That report indicated that the saved policies were generally consistent with the NPPF but there were additional policy matters that would need to be considered in preparing a new Plan.

51. The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan adopted 22 March 2013:

Policy 1.1 General principles Policy 1.3 Construction, demolition and excavation waste Policy 1.6 Landfill or landraise Policy 2.1 Landfill diversion targets Policy 2.2 Targets for new waste management facilities required by 2026 to

manage municipal, commercial & industrial, and construction, demolition & excavation waste streams

Policy 2.3 Broad locations Policy 3.1 General requirements for new and enhanced facilities Policy 4.1 Sustainable design Policy 4.2 Protection of environmental quality

52. The South Staffordshire Local Plan adopted 11 December 2012:

Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategyo Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt

Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environmento Policy EQ1: Protecting, Expanding and Enhancing Natural Assetso Policy EQ2: Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservationo Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the

Landscape Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change

o Policy EQ5: Sustainable Resources and Energy Efficiencyo Policy EQ6: Renewable Energyo Policy EQ8: Wasteo Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity

Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Designo Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerationso Policy EQ12: Landscaping

Core Policy 7: Employment and Economic Developmento Policy EV1: Retention of Existing Employment Site

Other material considerations

53. Other material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), National Planning Practice Guidance, PPS10, and the emerging minerals policy in the form of the new Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire (2015 to 2030) Draft for Consultation – April 2014.

54. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (published on 27 March 2012):

Section 1: Building a strong, competitive economy Section 3: Supporting a prosperous rural economy Section 7: Requiring good design Section 8: Promoting healthy communities Section 9: Protecting Green Belt land Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal

change Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; Section 13: Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals

Paragraphs 14 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development); 17 (Core planning principles)

55. National Planning Practice Guidance (published 6 March 2014) – Minerals Section, Natural Environment Section, Noise Section, Planning obligations Section and Use of Planning Conditions Section.

56. MPG 9: Planning and Compensation Act 1991 - Interim development order permissions (IDOS): conditions (1992) – Note cancelled when Planning Practice Guidance was launched but nevertheless contains relevant guidance.

57. MPG14 Environment Act 1995: review of mineral planning permissions (1995) and related annexes – Note cancelled when Planning Practice Guidance was launched but nevertheless contains relevant guidance.

58. Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10): Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

Paragraph 3 (Key Planning Objectives: waste as a resource; waste hierarchy; enable sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of communities; help secure the recovery of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment; protect Green Belts but recognise the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities; ensure the design and layout of new development supports sustainable waste management)

Paragraph 29 (Local environmental impacts – Annex E)

Paragraph 30 (Health – modern, appropriately located, well-run and well-regulated, waste management facilities operated in line with current pollution control techniques and standards should pose little risk to human health).

Paragraph 36 (Good design – waste management facilities in themselves should be well-designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located).

59. Ministerial Statement - Planning for Growth - March 2011

60. The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 which came into effect on 28 September 2011

61. Updated National Waste Planning Policy: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management – Consultation by DCLG July 2013. Note that the consultation ended on 23 September 2013. The intention of the consultation is that this updated waste policy should eventually replace existing national waste planning policy contained in Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for sustainable waste management published in July 2005 and revised in March 2011; and for the updated policy to sit alongside the new Waste Management Plan for England, published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in December 2013.

62. Interim Policy Statement for construction of aggregates published by the former West Midlands Regional Assembly (March 2010)

63. Local Aggregate Assessment (May 2014)

64. Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact on the Planning System)

65. The new Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire (2015 to 2030) Draft for Consultation – April 2014. (Note: The Plan was taken to April Planning Committee for approval to consult. The consultation took place in May-June 2014 and a report on the consultation and the next steps is to be presented to this Committee. [At this stage limited weight can be attached to the new Plan policies and proposals.]

Policy 1 Provision for Sand and Gravel (Extensions to sand and gravel sites 1.1 (i) extension to Saredon; and 1.3 extensions can only be worked following cessation of mineral working within existing site);

Policy 4 Minimising the impact of mineral development

Policy 6 Restoration of Mineral Sites

Findings of Consultations

Internal

66. Minerals Planning Policy: The application must be determined in accordance with the relevant saved policies in the Minerals Local Plan, the relevant policies in the District Local Plan and have regard to the NPPF. The emerging Minerals Local Plan finds favour with extending existing sites to meeting the needs for sand and gravel over the next 15 years and includes the application site as an allocation. However limited weight can be attached to it at this time. The NPPF re-affirms the landbank approach to managing aggregate mineral resources and saved policy 38 of the MLP (considered consistent with the NPPF) provides for flexibility in supply. Saredon Quarry is an established site that has recently recommenced operations and its production is an important contribution to the overall provision of sand and gravel in Staffordshire. The quality of the supply means that sand and gravel is used for concrete and mortar production and the quarry is important to the local supply. Loss of production capacity at the quarry in this location would have an impact on the strategic aim to provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregates and to meet a level of provision assessed in accordance with the NPPF. In addition the impacts of the proposal need to be assessed in terms of the requirements of the Development Plan and in particular, it is important that there is a robust phased programme of working and restoration (that ensures that the period of disturbance due to mineral operations is minimised in accordance with saved MLP policy 9 (and emerging policy 6) and scope for regular review of restoration progress (refer to policy 1.6 (iv) of the WLP and emerging MLP policy 6).

67. The Planning Regulation Team: No objections subject to the issues highlighted below being suitably addressed. Comments are made in relation to complaints received; outstanding requirements of the existing permission SS.EA/7; the Liaison Committee; and, recommended conditions if approval is granted. Further information was requested but has not been supplied by the applicants regarding the security operations on site, specifically the out of hour’s security using the top floor of the workshop/maintenance building in order to be fully informed of all operations on site and also to consider conditions to address the complaints about the residential use (refer to a) (vi) below). It is also commented that all quarries in the vicinity of Saredon Quarry (Four Ashes (Calf Heath, Campions Wood, Redhurst and Essington; and Rosemary Quarry), operate from 0700 hours including all vehicle movements and until 1300 hours on a Saturday therefore the Planning Regulation Team consider an earlier start time to be inappropriate. 11 complaints have been received so far in 2014/15, 25 in 2013/14 and 1 in 2012/13 relating to operating hours and specifically vehicle movements prior to 0700 hours. Whilst it is acknowledged and accepted that site employees will need to arrive prior to 0700 hours, no other operations on this site would be supported prior to 0700 hours. It is also commented that even though there may be a delay in issuing the new permission to enable the revisions to the legal agreement to be completed, the company should adhere to the new conditions with immediate effect as a sign of good intent.

a) Complaints

Since the site recommenced operations in 2012, the Planning Regulation Team has received and investigated 145 complaints (16 in 2012-2013, 87 in 2013-2014 and 42

in 2014-2015 (as of 12/9/2014). [Note: No formal enforcement action has been taken against the operators; however the operators have responded to the complaints and in some cases amended their proposals to address local concerns]. The details of the complaints are summarised below.

i. The issues causing the greatest number of complaints have been mud on the public highway, and blasting. The former has been an issue since the site began operating; a wheel wash is now on site, a road sweeper is used regularly and the recent concreting of the new haul road into the void seems to have helped rectify this situation. This issue will continue to be monitored by the Planning Regulation Team and Highways to ensure that the road is free of detritus and safe for other road users. Blasting resulted in a large number of complaints from residents as it was originally undertaken without any prior notice and the company were not forthcoming about its occurrences. To regulate this, the company have included it within this application and undertaken a test blast.

ii. Other complaints have focused on HGVs being unsheeted when full of material, this has been substantiated a number of times and the Police are continuing to monitor and regulate this. Complaints have also been received of HGVs speeding along Saredon Road which is continuing to be investigated by Highways and the Police. A number of complaints have been received regarding the high number of vehicle movements for the site and it is therefore recommended that total vehicle movements to the site should be limited by condition. We have also received a number of complaints regarding HGVs not following the agreed route specified by the S106 legal agreement; this has been founded however the site has been complying with the requirements stated within the conditions of SS.EA/7 and noted in the S106 agreement as this requires the company to regularly monitor the route and ensure all drivers are aware of the route. One topic which seems to have caused numerous stresses to residents is the operating hours of the site specifically in relation to HGV movements. HGV movements have been observed prior to 0600 hours on occasion however this does not breach any current planning conditions on the site. The Planning Regulation Team have recommended that a stringent condition to control operating hours for all activities taking place on the site, including vehicle movements is imposed.

iii. A small number of complaints questioning the importation of inappropriate waste has been investigated by the Environment Agency and remains unfounded. This will continue to be monitored by all agencies regulating the site.

iv. In early 2014 complaints have been received regarding the removal of some of the screening foliage at the site and damage to the verges along the Highways. The landscaping issues are being addressed within this application. The damage to verges is founded and the site has put in an interim measure to stop this occurring. Highways and the site operator are in discussion over more appropriate means to protect the verges.

v. Since November 2013 complaints have been received regarding dust, light pollution, odour (from burning) and noise. The dust and light pollution although found on site have not been found outside of the perimeter and this will

continue to be investigated by South Staffordshire’s Environmental Health Team. The smoke has been identified as the burning of vegetation. The Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency allows this to take place. Other smoke has been emitted by plant experiencing mechanical problems. Noise has been a persistent issue for residents to the north west of the site since November; noise monitoring has been undertaken which suggests no condition is being breached however plant bleepers can be heard at these locations.

vi. It has been alleged that a caravan is currently being resided in on the site without the benefit of planning permission; this has been investigated jointly with South Staffordshire Council who issued an Enforcement Notice on 18 September 2014 regarding the unauthorised residential occupation of land. The caravan has now been removed from the site.

b) Outstanding requirements of the existing permission SS.EA/7

i. A boundary treatment scheme (Condition 17) and a scheme detailing locations and arrangements for the monitoring and detection of groundwater levels (Condition 22) are outstanding. It is however acknowledged that the Environment Agency monitor groundwater levels as part of the requirements of the Environmental Permit. Also the current application includes a proposed restoration and planting mitigation scheme. If approval is granted for the proposals the conditions of the extant permission will be reviewed and updated.

ii. It should be noted that the current application refers to an end date of 2042 within permission CCR/4041, however it has been calculated that the end date is 2024 in compliance with Condition 7 of SS.EA/7.

c) Liaison Committee

i. It is commented that the site has been running a liaison committee, as required by the S106 Legal Agreement every 6 months or when necessary. Committee meetings re-started in September 2012 and have been instrumental in improvements to the site including the installation of a wheel wash and potential forthcoming highway works.

d) Recommended conditions

i. To ensure that the site can be suitably regulated the following conditions are recommended:

Removal of permitted development rights under General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 1995.

Ensure that all plant are fitted with white noise bleepers

All loaded vehicles are sheeted whether entering or exiting the site

The wheel wash facilities are used by every vehicle leaving the site

In addition to annual noise monitoring and dust monitoring being undertaken, the MPA can request for it to be undertaken within 28 days following complaints and the report to be submitted to the Planning Regulation Team

Operating hours limited for all activities on site and all traffic movements from 0700 hours at the earliest as this has been a main source of contention for residents, and to reflect operating hours at quarries in the vicinity

Maintenance hours restricted to the permitted hours.

Site security and non-residential use of the maintenance building /workshop used by security staff.

Submission of annual topographical survey detailing ground levels, mineral extraction areas, waste deposition areas, restored areas and any other activities plotted with an estimation of void space filled and space remaining to be filled, in order to ensure that the site continues to be restored in a phased manner.

Notification of blasting to all residents within a given radius in addition to the liaison committee members and any horse riding groups prior to blasting. A contact number should be provided should there be any issues. The times of blasting should be restricted starting no earlier than 10:00 and ending no later than 15:00.

68. The Environmental Advice Team (EAT): – EAT has commented in respect of ecology, landscape, trees and woodland, archaeology and historic built environment. a) Alterations are recommended to the proposed hedgerow associated with the new haul road and concrete wall extensions to the aggregate storage bays. The proposed hedge planting should be continued around the side of the bays to connect to the tree belt for both landscape mitigation and habitat continuity. Advice was provided to the applicants in May 2014 which has not been incorporated within the hedgerow specification shown on drawing number 305/21/TP01 and drawing number 305/21/SK100 Rev F. In view of the need to screen the concrete wall rapidly, the hedge planting centres should achieve 6/7 plants per linear metre. The information supplied is insufficient. Guidance on the additional information has been provided as an Informative to the planning permission.

b) Regarding the enhanced landscape scheme to mitigate for construction of the storage bays further information is required with regard to the proposed tree planting of oak trees; this information is inadequate and does not give a planting specification, just species names. Full planting details are required including sizes of stock and tree pits, and method of support. These replacement trees are required to mitigate for the removal of mature trees.

c) The restoration scheme is considered appropriate and reflects discussion and previous comments made by the environmental specialists, although the inclusion of Ash in the list needs to be updated and full planting details are required. The Forestry Officer has also commented that details of the restoration plan provided by

condition, could consider the use of log piles and brash, however clearer details of the habitat, soil placement species mix and planting specification are fundamental in achieving suitable restoration. Some thoughts on this should be included on the restoration plan. Also despite being raised previously, no further information has been received relating to the protection of the retained woodland on site. Although there is clear indication that adequate tree protection would be provided, details are however required in order to confirm that the retained trees and woodland would be offered sufficient protection should be secured by condition. The implementation of advance planting on the extraction site’s southern boundary is welcomed and should help to filter views of the development; however it is recommended that temporary storage bunds are seeded to deliver visual mitigation. The following conditions are therefore recommended:

A condition which requires details of tree protection measures and assurance that adequate buffers and barriers have been allowed around retained trees and woodland to prevent accidental damage. These details must fully comply with BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction.

Seeding of temporary storage bunds that deliver visual mitigation.

Full planting details including planting specification, planting methods, planting protection and aftercare in line with the advice provided (see Informative 3) and further details of phased approach to restoration to supplement the restoration plan.

Infilling timed to avoid impacts on breeding birds. A breeding bird protection plant is required for approval by the Planning Authority and infilling must be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

A written scheme of archaeological investigation (to include details of the programme of archaeological works to be carried out including post-excavation reporting and appropriate publication) should be submitted to and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority

69. Transport Development Control (on behalf of the Highways Authority): No objections and commented as follows. The application has been assessed on the impact of the extension of operational timescale to the quarry and the cumulative effect this would have in conjunction with other quarries close to this location. It is noted that the quarry has been in operation for many years and the site is well established with a satisfactory access road to the public highway and on-site facilities. There are no current concerns with regards to the connection to the highway network from the site. There were no previous restraints with regards to vehicular movements. A maximum of 115 loads per day is reasonable and overall no apparent increase on what the site has produced previously. As the latest application is an extension of time and area, the continued use of HCV's with the quarry on the local highway network is deemed acceptable in terms of capacity at junctions. For the impact of the site on the signal controlled roundabout of junction 11 of the M6 motorway, the Highways Agency should comment on this. With regards to the HCV drivers using the local road network, the Highway Code states that vehicles over 7.5 tonnes should not exceed 40mph along single carriageway roads with a speed limit of 60mph. All HCV drivers should pay due care and attention and drive in accordance with the road and weather conditions. The conduct of individual drivers remains the

responsibility of their employer who needs to ensure that they are adequately trained and briefed for the duties they are given. It is the responsibility of the local Police to enforce against speeding or using mobile phones whilst driving. Damage to the highway network including potholes should be reported to Staffordshire County Council to act upon accordingly.

70. The Staffordshire County Council Noise Engineer: No objections subject to the recommended noise limits, provided that the operations are carried out as described in the detailed noise assessment. Ambient background noise monitoring has been carried out at five locations near to the development and the impact assessed at each of these in turn. Background LA90 levels at 4 of the 5 locations ranged from 41 to 44 dB, with a level recorded of 53 dB LA90 at the other location, this being close to the motorway. Extraction will take place over three phases followed by subsequent infilling. The noise impact has been assessed for six different scenarios representing a variety of extraction and infilling operations at various stages of the proposed operations. The two most critical periods are scenarios 4 and 6; however results show predicted levels of between 2 and 14 dB below the appropriate permitted as derived from LA90 background levels. The one exception to this is at The Cottage where the predicted level of 52.2 dB is 0.2 dB above the permitted level of 42 dB. The noise engineer is happy to accept this marginal permitted exceedance.

External

71. South Staffordshire Council Environmental Health Officer (EHO): – no objections.

72. The Environment Agency - no objections. As clarification was provided regarding the proposed surface water drainage scheme the EA withdrew their original holding objection (letter dated 24 September 2013). Advice is however provided for the applicants in respect of permits. (Note this would form an informative on any subsequent consent).

73. The Highways Agency – no objections.

74. M6 toll operator – no response received.

75. Ordnance Survey – no objections to removal of triangulation pillar (summit of Saredon Hill) as this is no longer maintained, due to the advance of surveying practices. The applicants are advised to inform Ordnance Survey if the pillar is removed so that their records can be updated to show that this feature no longer exists. (Note this would form an informative on any subsequent consent).

76. Natural England - no objection and referred to standing advice. The original objection was withdrawn on submission of the ecological surveys by the applicants in September 2013.

77. Severn Trent Water: – no objection.

78. National Grid – no objections. [Note: the proposal is in close proximity to a High Voltage Transmission Overhead Line – ZN and National Grid initially submitted a holding objection, which was later withdrawn following further discussions with the applicants].

79. Staffordshire Wildlife Trust – The Trust have requested that they be released from

the Deed of Trust 10 year extended aftercare agreement.

80. Forest of Mercia – no response received.

81. Rights of Way Interest / Ramblers Association – no response received.

Views of District/Parish Council

82. South Staffordshire Council – no objections.

83. Saredon Parish Council – It is commented that public meetings have been held by the Parish Council and local residents have raised a number of complaints with current operations at the quarry and issues have been raised regarding the proposals:

The working hours of the quarry should be regulated to take into account nearby neighbours. A 6am start is considered to be unreasonable. The 7am start should remain. Objections are also raised with respect to the proposal for the site gates to be open at 6.30am.

The grass verges running alongside Saredon Road are being constantly eroded and churned up by speeding quarry lorries.

The debris falling from lorries, and distributing mud on the highway, should be contained as it represents a significant highway danger and causes damage to vehicles.

The public highway immediately adjacent to the entrance to the quarry is in a poor condition, and there are dangers of drivers avoiding potholes. The operators should be obliged to make timely requests to the Highway Authority for repairs, or implement the repairs themselves.

Road signs are required to address quarry traffic to prevent the access presently being abused which could easily cause road blockages in Little Saredon and Great Saredon.

The speed of lorries travelling to and from the site should be restricted to 20mph.

The site is in close proximity to private houses (including Listed Buildings) and should not subject those properties to danger from vibration. It is requested that a permanent blasting monitor be placed in residents houses at all times to ensure no unauthorised blasting occurs at Saredon Quarry.

Residents believe that the volume of water released from the quarry is giving rise to flooding in Malthouse Lane. Matters may be aggravated by silt build-up in the drainage system.

Trees in the wood could be at risk of dying from drought conditions. It may be appropriate to pump the water table to the middle of the wood.

Parish Councillors wish to register their strong support for the affected residents, requesting that in the event that the application is refused then the above issues be included in the review of permission SS.EA/7. If the application is successful then the issues highlighted above should be controlled by conditions attached to any consent given.

Publicity and Representations Received

84. Site notice: YES Press notice: YES

85. 45 neighbour notification letters were sent out and 15 representations have been received objecting to the application, three of which are from Mr Gavin Williamson MP. The representations raised can be summarised as follows:

a) Delayed restoration in the Green Belt: The site has been dormant for a long period of time and should be restored as previously agreed. Concerns are raised that the operators will perpetually seek to renew and extend permission to work the quarry and its adjacent surroundings.

b) Views in the Green Belt and local amenity: affected by the erection of a concrete boundary wall and steel workshop without the benefit of planning permission and a concrete plant is proposed. Machines are frequently parked near the workshop, illuminated at night by several large flood lights. The proposed concrete plant adjacent to the workshop will further increase noise and light pollution and dust and have a detrimental effect on amenity. [Note: the concrete plant is now operational. Whilst the aggregate storage bays and workshop were permitted development, the concrete wall extensions are being regularised through this planning application).

c) Loss of value of properties. (Note members are advised that this is not a material planning consideration).

d) Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements, highway safety and maintenance, and routing of HGVs related to the following:

i. Early morning HGVs movements to and from the quarry before 7am are causing sleep deprivation to local residents. Residents have reported complaints to the County Council Planning Regulation Team of HGV movements between 6am and 6.30am. One resident has specifically requested that HGVs do not pass his property before 8am.

ii. There has been a substantial increase in HGV traffic on local roads. The volume and speed of HGV’s is impacting on residents, cyclists, walkers and equestrian traffic.

iii. The local highway network has become increasingly busy and in places in not wide enough for 2 HGV’s to pass. Damage has occurred to grass verges around the entry to the site, at the T Junction of Great Saredon Road and Saredon Road, and on the pavement area along the bridge that crosses over the M6 by the site entrance. The action taken to deter HGV drivers going off road has been to place large boulders and it is considered that these represent a serious risk of harm to road users and are visually intrusive and not a long-term solution.

iv. The road surface is not clean or safe. The existing wheel wash is considered inadequate. Unsheeted HGVs entering the site deposit hardcore and soils on the highway. The highway is stained red/orange from HCVs leaving the site. Dust and debris is reported to have blocked

up drains causing surface water to run down the hill. Stones are being thrown up by passing HGVs causing damage to cars (cracked windscreens and chipped paintwork).

v. HGV’s carrying minerals from the site are reported to have used Malthouse Lane as a cut through on several occasions which is contrary to the weight restriction and routing agreement of the S106 Legal Agreement.

e) Blasting: Objections are raised regarding the size, frequency and impact of explosions required to work the mineral. Concerns over future maintenance to damaged residential properties (listed buildings and timber framed buildings) as a result of regular vibrations are raised. Impact of blasting on nesting birds (who were attracted to the quarry when it was dormant) has also been raised.

f) Trees, Hedgerows, Ecology and Wildlife: It is queried how the trees/copse area proposed to remain in the middle of the phased quarry will be protected and survive. It is considered that continuation of the quarry operations and the extension would have a detrimental effect upon the environment and the ecology of the area.

g) Noise and Dust: Objections are raised given the generation of noise nuisance arising from mechanical plant on site and HGV movements to and from the quarry. Residential properties are having to keep windows shut. Dust from the quarry and also HGVs travelling to and from the quarry is covering cars and windows and acerbating asthmatic conditions.

h) Cumulative Impact on quality of life: Residents object to the extension on the basis that there have been numerous developments in the area (M6, M6 Toll, prison extension, and the Four Ashes Energy Recovery Facility). Financial compensation is requested for residents.

i) Conditions: If planning permission is granted, binding conditions are requested to prevent blasting; to move all workshops, concrete plant and any other buildings to a sheltered part of the quarry, away from residential properties in order to minimise the detrimental effect on the community; to keep noise and light pollution to a minimum; and impose strict conditions on drivers entering and existing the site.

j) Road Drains: Allegations have been made that sand from lorries are filling road drains.

k) Operating hours: Allegations have been made that operations are taking place on the quarry Saturday afternoons outside of permitted operating hours. Security gates are also left open after permitted operating times.

l) Water: Allegations have been made that the operator is pumping water from the site in an unrestricted fashion.

m) Non-compliance with existing conditions: It is queried how the County Council can consider approving an extension to the quarry when the operator is failing to operate under the current conditions of the planning permission.

86. County Councillor Mr Mike Lawrence has regularly forwarded concerns from local residents in respect of blasting, hours of operation, HGV movements and the state of the public highway. He has discussed options with the local Highways Authority Community Infrastructure Liaison Manager and simple improvements to the quarry entrance and Saredon Road and Great Saredon Road have been suggested as a long term solution to the current concrete blocks placed on the verges. Councillor Lawrence has requested that these improvements and also a highways maintenance agreement be taken forward in any legal agreement. Speed restrictions outside of the planning application process are also being investigated by Councillor Lawrence. Finally the progressive restoration of the site has been queried as to whether an extraction phase must be completed/restored before extraction commences on another phase, or whether several phases can be restored at the same time, or does the working only allow activities in two phases at any one time. (Note: the proposals included progressive restoration however the environmental specialists have asked for more detailed information).

87. County Councillor (and Chairman of Saredon Parish Council) Mr David Williams has commented on the proposed operating hours and also the amended plans with regard to the concrete wall and the replacement hedge to replace that removed. Councillor Williams has requested that the new hedge and trees be replanted in the next planting season and that the operating hours should retain a 7.00am start time. The following conditions to improve public safety and help with public relations have also been suggested:

a) The introduction of a stop sign at the exit of the quarry to prevent lorries coming out at speed rather than treat it as a give way. Also the introduction of a Stop sign to replace a give way on the junction of Saredon Road and Saredon Lane. This should reduce the traffic speeds going to and from the quarry therefore increasing public safety. (Note the Highways Authority were asked for advice regarding this and commented on 15.8.14: Although now a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is no longer required a stop sign can only be installed at sites approved only by the Secretary of State in writing (direction 6). A stop sign is only used at junctions which have restricted visibility to which a table is used to assess this. The Highways Authority is unable to support the request made for at junction of Saredon Road and Saredon Lane. There would however be no objection to a stop sign to be erected at the access of the quarry on the proviso that it is not within the public highway although it is queried what this will achieve).

b) Cameras with hard drive recorder’s accessible to council officials on visits. One aimed at the entrance to confirm if vehicles are correctly sheeted up either delivering or leaving the site, and another aimed at the wheel wash area to prove if all vehicles leaving the site are using the wheel wash correctly. (Note the applicants have already installed CCTV equipment and sheeting of vehicles and use of wheelwash is monitored by the weighbridge operator.

c) An undertaking of responsibility from NRS Wastecare / Breedon Aggregates, that any contraventions discovered will incur a fine and they agree to pay. This should negate the previous statements that they sub contract the LGV movement to haulage firms, as they will have to take full responsibility and

therefore their liaison with their subcontractors should improve (Note fines are not concurrent with enforcement policy and regulations).

88. Mr Gavin Williamson MP for South Staffordshire has sent three letters:

One letter requesting that the current 7.00am start time could be preserved. It is commented that a number of local residents are voicing concerns about the impact this proposal to change the opening times of the quarry from the current 7.00am to 6.00am or 6.30am might have on neighbouring properties with the operation of heavy goods vehicles at this earlier time.

One letter written on behalf of a local constituent Mr William Perry of Hilltop Farm, Great Saredon raising a strong opposition to the proposal to allow blasting to take place at the quarry. Mr Williamson fears the adverse impact on local residents and potential damage to nearby historic properties and would like the County Council to ensure that local residents’ interests are protected.

One letter written enclosing correspondence from a constituent Mr Robert Ellis of Woodview, Saredon Road, Great Saredon who raises highway concerns (lorries using Saredon Lane which is in part a single-track lane, no road signs erected informing drivers of the designated route, lorries mounting the pavement when trying to pass on the bridge, unsheeted lorries, and inadequate wheel wash); noise concerns (regarding large machines working outside of operational hours); landscape concerns (regarding trees removed where aggregate storage bays were erected); and objections to blasting and the proposed earlier working hours.

89. Mr Boyle (District Councillor for Cheslyn Hay North and Saredon) has written requesting that the existing operating times are not extended and remain at a 0700 hours start time

90. Mr Robert Cope (South Staffordshire District) has commented as follows:

If approval is granted the following condition is suggested: every HGV load to be secured and sheeted and wheel arches also checked for lose inert material before they leave the site.

A long term solution is requested as an alternative to the concrete blocks on the grass verges on the approach to the quarry.

Objections are raised to the proposed earlier start to the present permitted operating hours (0700 hours) on the grounds of the impact on residential amenity. It has also been pointed out that there was an error on the previous report that was to be taken to June 2014 Planning Committee in respect of the hours of operation recommendation. Whilst the existing permission for the quarry allows working until 1400 hours on a Saturday, the applicants have applied for a 1300 hours finish on a Saturday in line with other mineral sites in the vicinity and therefore any condition should reflect this.

91. Mr Poole (Saredon Parish Councillor) has commented as follows:

The Vibrock report ‘Assessment of Impact of Blasting at Saredon Quarry has been summarised for the benefit of the Parish Council. In particular comments are made and concerns are raised in respect of the technical results and recommendations on the basis that specific residential properties in the vicinity of the quarry have boundaries that border on the geological fault line known as the Bushbury Fault Line, and this fault line is not mentioned in the report.

The prior approval under the GPDO dated April 2014 for the concrete plant was unlawful.

Recommended a condition to prevent the export of concrete from Saredon Quarry

Consideration of the blasting should be deferred until after the review of the mineral permission SS.EA/7.

Observations

92. This is an application by Breedon Aggregates Limited and NRS Waste Care Limited, for the continuation of the existing mining permission at Saredon Quarry and an extension of the quarry for the extraction of sand and gravel and subsequent restoration by infilling with inert waste or inert material.

93. Having given careful consideration to the application, the supporting and environmental information (including the supporting and environmental information subsequently received), the relevant development plan policies and other material considerations, the consultation responses and the representations received referred to above, the key issues are considered to be:

The need for the mineral; the exceptional circumstances; and the prematurity of proposal in terms of review of the Mineral Local Plan (MLP)

Protecting the Green Belt

Landscape, visual impact and restoration

Site specific considerations and the effects on the environment and amenity

The need to update and amend the planning conditions (and the Review of Old Mineral Permission

The need to update and amend the Section 106 Legal Agreement

The need for the mineral; the exceptional circumstances; and the prematurity of proposal in terms of review of the Mineral Local Plan (MLP)

94. The proposal involves the winning and working of sand and gravel from an extension to Saredon Quarry. The application site is not within an allocated site in the current adopted Minerals Local Plan. A key issue is therefore whether, having regard to the

saved policies in the Minerals Local Plan and any other material considerations, including national planning policy, there is a case in support of the release of the reserves within this extension area at this time.

The need for the mineral

95. Paragraph 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) indicates that mineral planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates and that landbanks of aggregate minerals reserves should be used as an indicator of security of supply. Saved policy 2 of the Minerals Local Plan (MLP) requires that the Mineral Planning Authority maintain appropriate landbanks (i.e. a stock of permitted reserves sufficient to meet an amount representing the planned annual provision over a specified period of years) for non-energy minerals such as sand and gravel, “compatible with the capacity to absorb further mineral development without unacceptable adverse impacts upon people, transportation systems or the environment.”

96. National policy (paragraph 145 of the NPPF) requires that a sand and gravel landbank of at least 7 years is maintained. To be consistent with the approach of the NPPF, a level of provision should be considered based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data. As of 1 January 2014 based on a 10 year average of 4.96 Million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) there was a county landbank of 12.6 years. The emerging new Minerals Local Plan however uses a 10 years sales average of 5.4 Mtpa for the period 2002 to 2011, and the landbank as of 1 January 2014 was 11.5 years.

97. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction. Since minerals are a finite resource, however, national policy also recognises that it is important to make best use of minerals to secure their long term conservation. The management of supply through the application of landbank policies combined with the flexibility provided by saved policy 38 of the Minerals Local Plan form a basis on which to sustainably manage the development of mineral resources particularly those used as construction aggregates.

The exceptional circumstances

98. Given that the landbank for sand and gravel reserves in the county exceeds the minimum size required by national planning policy and that the proposal does not benefit from being within one of the remaining saved allocated sites for sand and gravel extraction as included under MLP Proposal 5, saved MLP policy 38 requires that there needs to be exceptional circumstances to justify the proposal. Secondly, the proposal needs to comply with the development plan and if not, then there needs to be other material considerations which can prevail.

99. Relevant to the issue of maintaining flexibility of supply, national planning policy for aggregates advises that longer periods for landbanks may be appropriate to take account of the need to supply a range of aggregates, provide locations of permitted reserves relative to markets, and maintain the productive capacity of permitted sites.

100. The applicants consider that the proposed extension is sustainable on the basis that:

a) The proposal is a limited extension that equates to only 5 months’ supply of the county’s annual requirement and will not result in over provision;

b) The proposal meets a specific local need by providing for both building (mortar) and concrete sands together with gravel that meets the applicants’ requirements;

c) There is a need for additional reserves to meet sand and gravel requirements over the next 10 to 15 years;

d) As an extension to an existing quarry the proposal offers advantages over other development proposals. In comparison to new quarry sites, the proposed scheme would reduce overall environmental disturbance maximising recovery of the local mineral resource (it would be uneconomic to extract the reserve within the extension area in isolation);

e) The extension would be part of a scheme of co-ordinated working and restoration of the existing quarry. A combination of the material left over from recycling and unusable inert material from the extended quarry will be utilised to fill the existing quarry and secure restoration.

f) The proposal offers a reduction in road haulage distance resulting from nearby supply which is also significant in sustainability terms.

101. Referring to saved MLP policy 38 and the national guidance, the following observations are considered relevant:

a) No special properties are associated with the sand and gravel proposed to be worked and alternative sources of supply are available. The sand and gravel to be worked would be of a consistent quality, however, to maintain the production of concrete and mortar.

b) The quarry is not unique in terms of its position to the markets for aggregate but the site is well located to serve markets in southern Staffordshire and the West Midlands conurbation.

c) In terms of productive capacity the quarry provides a modest contribution (3% of the proposed level of provision in the new MLP). The proposed extension would release reserves to maintain the production capacity at Saredon over the next 15 years.

d) To maintain provision over the next 15 years, there is a strategic justification for maintaining production at existing sites such as Saredon Quarry if this can be achieved by environmentally acceptable proposals.

e) Not maintaining production from Saredon Quarry would increase the need to find other sand and gravel reserves from “green field” sites.

f) The continuation of quarrying secures the employment of 10 persons at the quarry.

g) The proposal would provide for the comprehensive recovery of the remaining sand and gravel reserves that can be won and worked from Saredon Quarry, thereby avoiding potential sterilisation of minerals. It is reasonable to assume that these reserves would be more acceptably worked using the existing quarry infrastructure.

The prematurity of proposal in terms of review of the Mineral Local Plan (MLP)

102. It is relevant to consider whether or not the proposal is premature to adoption of the new Minerals Local Plan 2015 -2030 which includes the application site as an allocated extension site together with an area of land to the south of the existing quarry that was previously identified as a borrow pit allocation in the Aggregate Local Plan (adopted in 1996). Whilst the new Plan policies and proposals do not carry significant weight in decision making at this time, it is important to consider whether or not the proposal would prejudice the strategy of the emerging Plan.

103. In assessing and determining development proposals, it is necessary to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development stated for decision taking (refer to paragraph 14 of the NPPF). Taking into account the presumption for sustainable development, the following issues should be considered in terms of assessing whether there are grounds of objection in terms of prematurity:

a) The NPPF re-affirms the landbank approach to managing aggregate mineral resources to which saved policy 38 of the MLP relates;

b) The proposal relates to an extension to an existing quarry that conforms with the spatial strategy of the adopted Plan for identifying new reserves (refer to paragraphs 8.23 and 8.24 of the Minerals Local Plan) and is well located to serve local markets;

c) The proposal would contribute to maintaining a level of provision assessed to be in accordance with the NPPF;

d) The proposal would provide an opportunity to secure the comprehensive recovery of the available resource in the locality.

104. Policy 1 of the emerging MLP does not indicate a preference as to which allocation associated with Saredon Quarry is to be initially developed. In this matter, it is noted that the applicants do not have an interest in the southern extension at this stage and so this is not an option that is currently available to them. Policy 1 (1.3) states that: Planning permission to extend a site will normally be conditioned so that the extension area can only be worked following cessation of mineral working within the existing site unless it has been demonstrated that there are operational reasons why this is not practicable. This aspect of the policy carries forward the requirements of policy 39 of the adopted Plan. In relation to this issue the applicants have stated in a letter dated 16 January 2014 that: “… it should be recognised that the current working area is very confined and gravel rich. Therefore, the extension is required to provide material with a higher sand content for blending and meeting production requirements. In addition development of the proposed extension area will avoid sterilisation of minerals prior to backfilling operations.” This aspect of the proposal needs to be controlled to ensure that the extent of disturbance caused by quarrying operations is effectively minimised in accordance with saved policy 9 of the MLP and emerging policy 6 of the new Plan.

Conclusion

105. Additional reserves are required if production at Saredon Quarry is to continue beyond 2017. Paragraph 197 of the NPPF, requires that in determining development

proposals, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied (refer to paragraph 14 of the NPPF). The emerging Minerals Local Plan finds favour with extending existing sites to meeting the needs for sand and gravel over the next 15 years and includes the application site as an allocation.

106. Whilst the emerging Minerals Local Plan is at an early stage and therefore carries little weight in decision making; and despite the size of the landbank in Staffordshire for sand and gravel currently exceeds the minimum required by national policy (approximately 12 years rather than 7) there are exceptional circumstances that comply with the requirements of saved MLP policy 38. Saredon Quarry’s production is an important contribution to the overall provision of sand and gravel in Staffordshire. The quality of the supply means that sand and gravel is used for concrete and mortar production and the quarry is important to the local supply. Loss of production capacity at the quarry in this location would have an impact on the strategic aim to provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregates and to meet a level of provision assessed in accordance with the NPPF. It is however necessary to consider a robust phased programme of working and restoration (that ensures that the period of disturbance due to mineral operations is minimised in accordance with saved MLP policy 9 (and emerging MLP policy 6) and scope for regular review of restoration progress (refer to policy 1.6 (iv) of the WLP and emerging MLP policy 6).

Protecting the Green Belt

107. The application site lies within the South Staffordshire Green Belt. It is therefore necessary to assess the proposals against South Staffordshire Local Plan (Policy GB1 ‘Development in the Green Belt) and the NPPF (section 9) which seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development and to preserve its openness. It is also necessary to have regard to the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 (para. 4).

108. National policy in the NPPF (sections 9 and 13) indicates that mineral extraction is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided that it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. NPPF paragraph 87 states that ‘As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances’; paragraph 88, states that ‘there will be harm to the Green Belt if inappropriateness and any harm are not clearly outweighed by other considerations’. Paragraph 90 states that ‘Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. These include mineral extraction’.

109. The planning application has however been amended to regularise the concrete wall extensions to the aggregates storage bays which are not permitted development under Part 19 of the GPDO. It is necessary therefore to consider whether or not there are very special circumstances to accept this development in this Green Belt location. It is considered that the following very special circumstances exist in this case:

The concrete wall extensions are associated with development that is ancillary to mineral development which is not considered inappropriate in the Green Belt.

The walls would be limited to the life of the mineral site and therefore removed when the site is restored.

Planting of a replacement hedgerow and replacement trees are proposed as part of the application to mitigate and screen the walls

110. The Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 requires applications that involve development in the Green Belt to be referred to the Secretary of State if it would give rise to a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In this case, for the reasons described above it is considered that the impact of the development would not be significant and therefore it is not necessary to refer this application to the Secretary of State.

Conclusion

111. Mineral extraction is not inappropriate in the Green Belt and very special circumstances exist for the ancillary development (concrete wall extensions to the aggregate storage bays). There is also no need to refer this application to the Secretary of State.

Landscape, visual impact and restoration

112. Minerals Local Plan saved policy 9 requires that reclamation takes account of the pre-working character of the site, its surroundings, the landscape setting and where possible, provide for enhancement of the general quality of the landscape and local environment. In addition, Minerals Local Plan saved policy 22 encourages tree planting in advance of quarrying and suggests that such early tree planting should be an appropriate scale and should contribute to the final afteruse of the site.

113. The application includes a revised restoration scheme prepared having regard to advice from the County Council environmental specialists. A mitigation strategy plan has also been submitted and soils are proposed to be stored around the extension area to achieve a degree of screening. Further additional soils would be placed to provide additional screening from viewpoints to the northwest. In respect of the restoration scheme, further detailed information is still required particularly in relation to the phased progressive restoration of the whole site and detailed planting methods (i.e. pit planting and not notch planting) and spacing in line with the advice provided by the environmental specialists (refer to Informative 3). Also whilst the soil bund proposals are supported by the County Principal Landscape Officer, the seeding and maintenance of the soil bunds should be secured by planning condition.

114. The County Principal Forestry Officer also recommends a condition which requires details of tree protection measures and assurance that adequate buffers and barriers have been allowed around retained trees and woodland to prevent accidental damage. These details must fully comply with BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Also the proposed mitigation planting for the concrete wall extensions to the aggregate storage bays (the proposed hedgerow and 6 oak trees) should be planted in the next available planting season following approval of a detailed planting scheme following advice from the environmental specialists (refer to Informative 3). The woodland belt on the northern boundary adjacent to the concrete plant should also be monitored. Tree roots have been exposed as a result of the improvement works to the haul road and erection of the

concrete wall. A scheme of mitigation and replacement would be required if any of the trees go into decline as the woodland belt provides the screening for the quarry.

115. National and local policies require that mineral workings are reclaimed at the earliest opportunity and that Best and Most Versatile agricultural land is be reinstated (ref. paragraph 122 of the NPPF). The amount of waste required to achieve the reinstatement of land was identified as an important consideration in our recently adopted Waste Local Plan (refer to paragraph 5.27 of the Waste Local Plan).

116. It should be noted that local residents would prefer to see the Saredon Hill restored at existing levels and rather than a lower level restoration. Given potential changes to the generation of wastes that would be suitable for backfilling, it is however important that there is a robust phased programme of working and restoration (that ensures that the period of disturbance due to mineral operations is minimised in accordance with saved MLP policy 9) and scope for regular review of restoration progress (refer to policy 1.6 (iv) of the WLP). County Councillor Lawrence in particular has queried the phased restoration of the site and the County Environmental specialists have commented that further details are required on the phased approach to restoration. It is recommended that this is secured by condition and as part of the updated legal agreement.

117. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF indicates that local authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions. Mineral Local Plan saved policy 9 indicates that extraction and restoration should take place in ‘phases’ wherever practicable to ensure that the period for which the land is in use for mineral development before being restored is minimised. The emerging Minerals Local Plan policy 4.5 encourages mineral operators to introduce higher environmental standards during working, restoration and aftercare. Policy 6.3 of the emerging new MLP is also relevant. This policy will require developers to regularly review their restoration strategy / plan at least every 10 years to ensure that it is up to date. Paragraph 7.64 of the new MLP explains that mineral development can be long term and it is sometimes the case that broad restoration strategies / plans can be approved initially with detailed plans / schemes drawn up nearer the time when restoration and aftercare is due to take place. The paragraph also explains that it may be necessary to require the restoration strategy to be regularly reviewed to ensure that it remains up to date and opportunities to enhance local amenity and the environment are maximised. Your officers recommend that given existing and emerging mineral policy and the proposed duration of operations at Saredon Quarry (i.e. 20 years - a further 14 years of mineral extraction plus six years restoration) it would be appropriate to require a review of the restoration and aftercare requirements at least in ten years’ time. Also, having regard to the progressive nature of the operations; the policy and government guidance referred to above that require sites to be restored at the earliest opportunity and to achieve high environmental standards; and having regard to recent decisions about similar sites elsewhere in the County; it would be appropriate to limit the period of final restoration to 2 years following the cessation of mineral extraction rather than the 6 proposed by the applicants. It is recommended that a Progress Report be submitted every 5 years to monitor working and restoration.

118. The responsibility for the restoration and aftercare of mineral sites lies with the operator and ultimately the landowner. However the Government accepts that

Restoration Guarantee Bonds or other financial guarantees may be necessary in exceptional circumstances. The Government also accepts that a guarantee would not be necessary if the operator contributes to an established mutual funding scheme such as the Mineral Products Association (MPA) Restoration Guarantee Fund or the British Aggregates Association Restoration Guarantee Fund. The MPA Guarantee Restoration Fund is a financial indemnity scheme to planning authorities where a member of the MPA has defaulted on restoration obligations by the virtue of becoming insolvent. The fund provides a £1 million guarantee against restoration default with a single claim limit of £500,000. In this case, one of the two applicants (Breedon Aggregates) is a member of the MPA. Minerals Local Plan (saved policies 9 and 10) and the emerging new Minerals Local Plan (policy 6.4) also require similar consideration to be given to the restoration and aftercare of mineral sites and that where necessary bonds are secured as part of a legal agreement. It is recommended below that provision is made in the Section 106 Legal Agreement to require the applicants to contribute to an established mutual funding scheme.

Site specific considerations and the effects on the environment and amenity

Hours of operation

119. The current permitted hours (Condition 26 of SS.EA/7) are: 0700 - 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays; and 0700 – 1400 hours Saturdays. No working is allowed on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Construction, maintenance or servicing of plant or machinery (Condition 27 of SS.EA/7) however is allowed 0700 – 2000 hours Monday to Fridays excluding Public Holidays, and between 0700 – 1800 hours Saturdays. Any noisy operations however [revving of engines, banging or hammering of metal or use of compressors] should take place within the hours of 0700 – 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0700 to 1400 on Saturdays. These hours are not typical of modern permissions. In particular mineral sites in the vicinity finish at 1300 hours on a Saturday.

120. The County Council has received a number of complaints (highlighted in the Planning Regulation Team consultation response above) regarding operations taking place in the quarry and movements of vehicles to and from the quarry outside of the operating hours applied for. The emerging Mineral Local Plan seeks to raise environmental and amenity standards. It is therefore considered reasonable and necessary to limit all operations at the site including vehicle movements; the concrete plant; blasting; and servicing and maintenance hours to the following hours and requirements which reflect conditions on mineral and waste sites in the vicinity of Saredon Quarry and which update the existing hours of working set out in Conditions 26 and 27 of permission SS.EA/7:

0700 - 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays. 0700 – 1300 hours Saturdays. No such operations shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays No servicing, maintenance, repair or testing of plant or other work shall take

place outside of the above hours. No HGV shall enter or leave the site outside of the above hours. No blasting other than between 1000 and 1500 hours The exception to the above hours would be essential pumping operations and

in emergencies for reasons of health and safety or to prevent pollution.

Blasting

121. Concerns are raised regarding the effects of blasting on local amenity and vibration potentially affecting properties including listed buildings. Due to the geology of the lower levels of deposit, it is proposed that blasting would be required when mineral cannot be extracted by a mobile excavator. On average blasting of aggregate would take place once every two months. A criterion for restricting vibration levels from production blasting has been recommended in the addendum to the ES produced by Vibrock Limited (Assessment of Environmental Impact of Blasting at Saredon Quarry). The vibration limit would be in line with guide values in former Minerals Planning Guidance (MPG) 9 and former guidance in annex to MPG 14, and also would be in accordance with levels recommended within British Standard Guide BS 6472-2:2008. In order to reduce/ mitigate unacceptable impacts due to induced vibration at any of the dwellings or structures in the vicinity of Saredon Quarry, it is therefore recommended that ground vibration limits set out in the Vibrock report be secured by condition and that a programme of blast monitoring be implemented and local residents and members of the Saredon Quarry Liaison Committee be given advanced notice of blasting. The applicants have provided an example of ‘notification of blasting’ which is sent to members of a Quarry Liaison Group at another Breedon Aggregates quarry and have commented that blasts would be scheduled for around lunch-time where possible. Residents have asked the County Planning Regulation Team if a condition would be feasible requiring that a permanent blasting monitor be placed in residents houses at all times to ensure no unauthorised blasting occurs at Saredon Quarry. It is recommended that blast monitoring should take place in accordance with an approved scheme. However it is not considered to be reasonable or necessary to require permanent blast monitoring equipment to be installed at nearby residential properties.

Noise

122. The existing noise limit (Condition 28 of permission SS.EA/7) is 55 dB LAeq 1 hour, however the detailed noise assessment accompanying the application proposes lower noise limits of between 51 and 55 dB at the nearby noise sensitive properties in the vicinity of the quarry. This is considered acceptable by the County Noise Engineer and can be secured by condition.

Traffic / vehicle movements

123. In accordance with NPPF (para 144, 123 and 124), and saved MLP policies 12 and 22 it would be necessary to effectively control the scale of traffic impact from the proposals given that there would be haulage to and from the site associated with mineral and waste traffic as well as traffic associated with ancillary concrete production. There is however an existing routeing agreement to the site and in respect of vehicle movements the applicants have proposed a condition to allow a maximum of 115 HGV loads daily (230 movements 115 in and 115 out), averaged on a yearly basis..

124. The concerns raised in connection with deleterious material on the highway, speeding vehicles, and routing of vehicles can be controlled by condition (e.g. wheel cleaning and sheeting / containment of loads) and by legal agreement (e.g. routing, site rules for all drivers, advisory signs to be erected regarding speed, and requirements for highway maintenance). The Highways Authority has advised that a

reduction in speed or changing give-way signs to stop signs would not be appropriate.

Breeding birds

125. The County Council’s Principal Ecologist has recommended that infilling of the quarry must be carried out in accordance with an approved breeding bird protection plan. The plan can be secured through an appropriate condition.

Water

126. It is alleged by residents that the volume of water released from the quarry is giving rise to flooding in Malthouse Lane and that matters may be aggravated by silt build-up in the drainage system. Furthermore concerns are raised that the trees in the woodland within the site could be at risk of dying from drought conditions and it may be appropriate to pump water to the middle of the wood. The applicants have confirmed that the main discharge pipe is in its original position. A representative of the Environment Agency visited the site in August 2014 and confirmed that the discharge position was correct and the volume is within the EA Discharge Permit. A volume discharge assessment was undertaken and the water discharge is 50% of the volume allowed.

The need to update and amend the planning conditions (and the Review of Old Mineral Permission

127. If planning application ref. SS.12/15/602 MW (the subject of this report) is permitted it would supersede the requirements to submit a Periodic Review in connection with planning permission SS.EA/7.

128. As the extant planning permission SS.EA/7 was issued in July 1997 it is considered reasonable and necessary to review and update the existing 51 conditions of that permission.

129. A number of the representations and complaints, summarised earlier, can be addressed by updates to the existing conditions, additional conditions, or as part of the supplemental to the legal agreement. These matters include the following:

Plant working on site outside of the permitted operating hours (see recommended condition 14 below which updates Conditions 26 and 27 of permission SS.EA/7).

HGV movements to and from the quarry prior to 7am (see recommended condition 14).

HGVs not following routing agreement (see recommended condition 17 and Section 106 Legal Agreement).

Excessive lorry movements (see recommended condition 16).

Speed of vehicles (see heads of terms for the updates to the Section 106 Legal Agreement).

Unsheeted vehicles (see recommended condition 20).

Damage to the highway verges (see heads of terms for the updates to the Section 106 Legal Agreement).

Deleterious material on the highway (see recommended condition 18).

Noise associated with plant working on site outside of the permitted operating hours (see recommended conditions 14 and 22).

Noise associated with plant not fitted with white noise bleepers (see recommended condition 21).

Fires on site – burning of tyres and vegetation (see recommended condition 30).

Unauthorised blasting (see recommended conditions 26 - 28).

Damage to and removal of trees (see recommended conditions 33-35).

Works undertaken under the GPDO (see recommended condition 11).

Progressive restoration (see recommended conditions 9, 38-41).

130. Having regard to national guidance in the NPPF (section 13), policy 4.5 in our emerging new MLP, which encourages higher environmental standards, the concerns of local residents and the comments from our Planning Regulation Team, it is considered reasonable and necessary to impose modern conditions and also to require monitoring records to be kept (refer to recommended condition 42).

The need to update and amend the Section 106 Legal Agreement

131. It is considered that the existing Section 106 Legal Agreement (Section 106) for the site would need to be updated and amended to take account of any subsequent planning permission but before recommending that an amended Section 106 be signed it is first necessary to determine whether or not the undertakings meet the tests set out in the NPPF (paragraph 204). The 3 tests are that the undertakings should be:

1. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

2. directly related to the development; and,

3. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

132. In this case it is considered that the existing and proposed undertakings described below would meet the tests referred to above.

a) To continue the liaison committee arrangements;

b) To continue the HCV routing arrangements;

c) To continue the extended aftercare / restoration deed of trust/ Restoration Guarantee bond subject to:

i. The release of Staffordshire Wildlife Trust from the long term management commitment with regard to the final landuse and the legal Deed of Trust for a period of 10 years after the 5 year aftercare period; and,

ii. The refund of the management fund paid to the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust by Biffa Waste Management Service Limited being resolved to the satisfaction of the parties to the agreement.

d) To require improvements to the quarry entrance and to require the installation of approximately 80 metres of high containment kerb (or such other similar measures as may be agreed with the applicants and the Highway Authority) to prevent damage to the grass verges, as an alternative solution to the concrete blocks on the grass verge in Saredon Road and Great Saredon Road junction.

e) To secure a highway maintenance agreement (survey at start, survey at finish plus periodic surveys).

f) To pay a contribution for the installation of advisory speed signs to be erected on either side of the small settlement in Saredon Road.

g) An undertaking to provide instructions to drivers of the vehicles associated with the mineral export, waste import, and concrete plant about the rules for the site which would help to ensure that they follow the prescribed routes, adhere to the times to arrive and leave site, to use the wheel cleaning facilities, and to sheet all loaded vehicles. Also to remind them to act in a considerate manner towards other road users in respect of speed restrictions, and to avoid running over the roadside verges on local roads.

h) To monitor progress of the site in compliance with the working and restoration strategies and to require the regular reviews in consultation with the liaison committee. In the event that there is a need to revise the strategies to first consult the liaison committee, the local community and interested stakeholders before formal submission. Following approval of the revised strategies, to require appropriate revisions to the detailed working, restoration and aftercare schemes to be submitted and approved.

i) To require the applicants to contribute to an established mutual funding scheme, such as the Mineral Products Association Restoration Guarantee Fund or the British Aggregates Association Restoration Guarantee Fund.

j) To agree not to implement or further implement earlier planning permissions and prior written approvals

Overall Conclusion

133. Overall, as an exercise of judgement, taking the relevant development plan policies as a whole and having given consideration to the application, the supporting and environmental information (including the supporting and environmental information subsequently received), the relevant development plan policies and other material considerations, the consultation responses and the representations received, referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposals should be permitted, subject to updated planning conditions and the applicants and any other interested parties entering into an amended Section 106 Legal Agreement, the heads of terms of which are recommended below.

DIRECTOR OF PLACE AND DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT subject to the applicants and all other persons with an interest in the land signing an amended Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the terms listed below and subject to the updated planning conditions listed below.

Section 106 Legal Agreement – heads of terms to include the following:

a) To continue the liaison committee arrangements;

b) To continue the HCV routing arrangements;

c) To continue the extended aftercare / restoration deed of trust/ Restoration Guarantee bond subject to;

i. The release of Staffordshire Wildlife Trust from the long term management commitment with regard to the final landuse and the legal Deed of Trust for a period of 10 years after the 5 year aftercare period; and,

ii. The refund of the management fund paid to the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust by Biffa Waste Management Service Limited being resolved to the satisfaction of the parties to the agreement.

d) To require improvements to the quarry entrance and to require the installation of approximately 80 metres of high containment kerb (or such other similar measures as may be agreed with the applicants and the Highway Authority) to prevent damage to the grass verges, as an alternative solution to the concrete blocks on the grass verge in Saredon Road and Great Saredon Road junction.

e) To define the highway maintenance agreement (survey at start, survey at finish plus periodic surveys).

f) To pay a contribution for the installation of advisory speed signs to be erected on either side of the small settlement in Saredon Road.

g) An undertaking to provide instructions to drivers of the vehicles associated with the mineral export, waste import, and concrete plant about the rules for the site which would help to ensure that they follow the prescribed routes, adhere to the times to arrive and leave site, to use the wheel cleaning facilities, and to sheet all loaded vehicles. Also to remind them to act in a considerate manner towards other road users in respect of speed restrictions, and to avoid running over the roadside verges on local roads.

h) To monitor progress of the site in compliance with the working and restoration strategies and to require the regular reviews in consultation with the liaison committee. In the event that there is a need to revise the strategies to first consult the liaison committee, the local community and interested stakeholders before formal submission. Following approval of the revised strategies, to require appropriate revisions to the detailed working, restoration and aftercare schemes to be submitted and approved.

i) To require the applicants to contribute to an established mutual funding scheme, such as the Minerals Products Association Restoration Guarantee Fund or the British Aggregates Association Restoration Guarantee Fund.

j) To agree not to implement or further implement earlier planning permissions and prior written approvals

The planning conditions to include the following:

DEFINITION OF THE PERMISSION

1. To define the permission with reference to documents and plans.

2. To define the mineral working, restoration and concrete-making operations.

3. To require notice of commencement within the extension area – phases 2 and 3.

4. To define the duration of the development – winning and working of mineral shall cease no later than 31 December 2028; the concrete plant and ancillary development shall be removal within 12 months of the cessation of mineral working; the site shall be restored no later than 2 years after the cessation of mineral working (31 December 2030); and, thereafter subject to 5 years aftercare (and 10 years extended aftercare in accordance with the Section 106 Legal Agreement).

5. To require notification of cessation of working and restoration operations.

6. To define the expiry of the permission when the restoration and aftercare has been completed in accordance with the latest approved Restoration and Aftercare Scheme.

7. To define the requirements in the event that the operations cease prematurely.

8. Requirement to hold a copy of the permission on site and be made known to the site operators.

DEFINITION OF THE WORKING STRATEGY AND WASTE TYPES

9. To require the submission of a detailed Progress Report after 12 months and thereafter every 5 years. The report to include a detailed Site Layout Plan to show progress of the workings and restoration.

10. To define the site layout, appearance and height of stockpiled materials within the aggregate storage bays to 3 metres (the height of the retaining walls).

11. To limit the use of the site to the uses hereby permitted and to restrict permitted development rights.

12. To define the waste types – inert construction, demolition and excavation waste (including clean soils).

13. To prevent the re-working of previously deposited waste.

MANAGEMENT OF THE OPERATIONS

Hours of Operation

14. To limit operating hours for all activities on site (including the concrete plant, the servicing, maintenance, repair or testing of vehicles, plant or equipment, and the movement of HCV vehicles on to or off the site) to:

0700 - 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays. 0700 – 1300 hours Saturdays.

No blasting other than between 1000 – 1500 hours Mondays to Fridays.

No such operations shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

The exception to the above hours would be essential pumping operations and in emergencies for reasons of health and safety or to prevent pollution.

Site Access, Vehicle Numbers and Highway Safety

15. To define the vehicle access and agreed internal vehicle route.

16. The number of HGV movements to and from the site calculated on a yearly average basis shall not exceed 230 per full working day (115 in and 115 out) of which:

a) Up to 90 movements may be associated with the export of sand and gravel including 30 movements per day in association of the ready mix concrete plant.

b) Up to 140 movements per day associated with the importation of waste materials for restoration purposes.

At any time during a 12 month period the quarterly average shall not exceed the specified limits by 10% (to allow for seasonal variation) unless previously agreed in writing.

17. To require a sign to be erected and maintained to instruct drivers about the agreed route to the A460.

18. To require the wheel wash facilities to be used as necessary to prevent the deposit of deleterious materials on the public highway.

19. To require the internal access road to be maintained, drained, and kept free from mud or debris.

20. To require loads entering or leaving the site to be securely sheeted or otherwise contained.

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Noise

21. To require noise to be managed in accordance with the steps described in the Environmental Statement and in addition to require (subject to Health and Safety requirements) that all plant and vehicles are fitted with white noise reversing bleepers.

22. To require that the noise generated by the operations does not exceed the noise limits specified in the noise assessment.

23. To require the submission of a noise monitoring scheme.

Dust

24. To require dust to be managed in accordance with steps described in the Environmental Statement, including seeding and maintenance of the temporary storage bunds.

25. To require the submission of a dust monitoring scheme.

Blasting

26. To require blasting to be managed in accordance with the steps described in the Addendum to the Environmental Statement.

27. To define the blasting limits as set out in the Addendum to the Environmental Statement.

28. To require the submission of a blast monitoring scheme which shall include a requirement to notify all residents within a given radius in addition to the liaison committee members and any horse riding groups prior to a blast and to provide a contact number.

Lighting

29. To require flood lighting or other illumination to be positioned so as not to cause light spillage or glare to occupiers of nearby properties and to highway users.

Pollution Control

30. To prevent burning of waste on site.

31. To define the requirements for the storage of oils, fuels and chemicals.

32. To prevent water pollution and flooding as a result of the operations on the site.

NATURE CONSERVATION AND ARCHAEOLOGY

33. To require the operations to comply fully with BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction.

34. To require further details of the mitigation replacement hedgerow and replacement trees within 3 months of the date of the permission. Specification advice is provided in Informative 3. The hedgerow and trees should then be planted within the next available planting season following approval.

35. To require monitoring of the woodland belt on the northern boundary and to require a scheme of mitigation and replacement should any of the trees go into decline as advised in the submitted Arboricultural Survey and Landscape Recommendations April 2014.

36. To require the submission of a Breeding Bird Protection Scheme.

37. To require the submission of a written scheme of archaeological investigation .

RESTORATION AND AFTERCARE

38. To require the site to be generally restored to nature conservation and agriculture in accordance with the approved Restoration Plan.

39. To require a review of the approved Restoration Plan no later than 10 years after the date of the permission.

40. To require the submission of a detailed Restoration and 5 year Aftercare Scheme based on the approved Restoration Plan within 12 months of the date of this permission and to require a review of the approved scheme in the event that the Restoration Plan is revised following the 10 year review. The details to include the requirements referred to in Informative 3.

41. To require the site to be restored and subject to aftercare in accordance with the latest approved Restoration Plan and detailed Restoration and 5 year Aftercare scheme.

RECORD KEEPING

42. To require records to be kept of the following:

a) The total number of loads of mineral, concrete and waste materials entering and leaving the site per day.

b) The operating hours.

c) Noise, dust and blast monitoring in accordance with the approved schemes.

d) Any complaints and the actions taken.

Informatives to include:

1. Advice from the Environment Agency (EA):

a) An Environmental Permit (or variation of the existing permit relating to the site) may be required in relation to the proposed landfilling operations and the EA would not permit any proposal to backfill the void with anything other than inert materials. The EA also question whether the Mineral Planning Authority is satisfied that the applicants can source the proposed volumes of inert material (150,000 tonne per annum over 20 year life).

b) A Dewatering Permit will be required as the previous permit for this (ref T/03/35051/T for Biffa) has been revoked.

c) Certain activities may require the prior written consent of Staffordshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. An unnamed tributary of the Saredon Brook forms the western boundary of the site and flows in a northerly direction before entering a culvert approximately 150m north of the site. The EA advise that the applicants make contact with the Staffordshire County Council Flood Risk Management team to discuss the proposals and determine whether flood defence consents are required for any works that are adjacent to the ordinary watercourse.

2. Advice from Ordnance Survey:

The applicants are advised to inform Ordnance Survey if the triangulation pillar (summit of Saredon Hill) is removed so that their records can be updated to show that this feature no longer exists.

3. Advice from Environmental Advice Team

Replacement hedgerow adjacent to concrete wall/aggregate storage bays.The County Council recommends that hedge planting consists of 6/7 plants per linear metre; two staggered rows of planting 450mm apart and plants at 300mm centres. In view of the specific need for screening to be delivered as rapidly as possible this spacing is essential in this case. These should be planted as container grown specimens (either 2 or 3 litre pots). Heavy duty canes will be required to support the plants and rabbit protection. If plants have individual rabbit guards maintenance will need to ensure that plants to don’t collapse under the rabbit protection. The hedgerow trees to replace those lost during the removal of the hedge, should be planted as standards (10 – 12cm girth).

Earlier in the summer the field side of the wall the re-contoured ground was bare. Whist natural colonisation is fine in principle there would need to be monitoring and weed control to avoid colonisation of undesirable species. It may be advisable to sow with a low maintenance seed / wildflower mix appropriate to local ecology.

Planting and Aftercare Hedge Lines: Cut and rake off any grass and herbage from a strip 1.4m wide. Treat the strip with an appropriate herbicide to kill all rooted grass and herbs. After herbicide has taken effect cultivate the area to a coarse tilth 600mm wide and 250mm deep.

Method of planting: Plant shrubs in trenches large enough to take full spread

of roots. Plant in a double staggered row 300mm apart and with 300 / 450mm between rows, to result in 6-7 plants per linear metre. Hedge plants shall be cut to approximately 150mm after planting.

Standard and Feathered trees shall be supplied with one tree stake. The overall length of the stake shall be sufficient to ensure that they are firm when driven into the soil and that the top of the stake extends above ground level to approximately one third of the tree's height. Stakes are to be hammered into the ground before the tree is positioned in the pit. Stakes shall be whole sections of softwood timber 50 mm. to 75 mm. top diameter, peeled and pressure treated in accordance with BS 4072. Tree to be secured with one tree tie with a spacer shall be positioned approximately 50 mm. from the top of the stake to hold the tree, ensuring that tree and stake do not touch in any place.

Tree pits: For standard trees pits shall be excavated to 600mm x 600mm x 600mm minimum. Tree pit sizes should be increased where necessary to ensure pits are at least 300mm wider and 75mm deeper than the tree root system when fully spread.

Fork over the bottom of tree pits to a depth of 150mm and other tree pits to a depth of 225mm and leave slightly domed to assist drainage. Roughen any smooth sides to pits. Topsoil excavated from planting pits is to be mixed with compost and used for backfilling. Any subsoil excavated is to be removed from site to an approved tip /used for restoration.

Backfill shall be a mixture of topsoil excavated from the pit, mixed with tree planting compost to the quantities given below. Backfill mixture to be lightly firmed in by treading. Sufficient topsoil/compost mixture shall be returned to the pit to raise the surface level to a minimum of 50 mm. and a maximum of 70 mm. above the adjacent surface level unless otherwise stated.

Aftercare: Planting shall be tended for 60 months from the date of completion of all Works.

Weeding: An area of clean ground 1 m. in diameter around each planting station will be maintained in a weed free condition for 3 - 5 years; until canopy closure. This may be achieved by the use of an approved herbicide or by regular cultivation. A minimum of 3 visits for weed control will be required during the first growing season, reducing to 2 per annum in subsequent years.

The Contractor shall also remove all injurious weeds, defined in the Weeds Act 1959, from the remainder of each transplant tree or shrub plot. The growth of herbaceous material between the hedge and the wall should be controlled by strimming twice per year.

Stakes, Shrubs ties: All stakes, trees and shrubs shall be maintained in firm positions within the ground and with all ties securely fixed and adjusted to allow for the increase in stem girth.

Beating up: Replacement stock shall be of the same size and species as that originally specified. Throughout the Aftercare Period all dead stock shall be

replaced at the end of each growing season to obtain 100% stock.

Case Officer: - Tel: (01785) 277293email: julie.castree-denton@staffordshire.gov.uk

A list of background papers for this report is available on request and for public inspection at the offices of Staffordshire County Council, No. 1 Staffordshire Place,

Stafford during normal office hours Monday to Thursday (8.30 am – 5.00 pm);Friday (8.30 am – 4.30 pm).

Appendix 1 – Application Information Date Revised/Further Details Received

5 September 2013 – Letter from Wardell Armstrong enclosing Amphibian, Reptile, Bat, Confidential Bird Survey Reports, and Invertebrate Scoping Study Reports

20 September 2013 - Flood risk assessment information

23 September 2013 – Letter from Wardell Armstrong on traffic information

30 October 2013 - Assessment of Environmental Impact of Blasting Report

16 January 2014 – Letter from Breedon Aggregates Limited with:

o Text revisions to Section 15 of the Environmental Statement relating to ‘Landscape and Visual’ and revised Photoviews 03, 04, and 05. Changes have been made in the text regarding visual impacts and photoviews.

o Submission of a new drawing ‘Mitigation Strategy Plan’ (Drg ST12713-035 Rev A dated 12/12/13). This has been submitted to demonstrate mitigation – to be studied in conjunction with the visual assessments in the photoviews – soils to be stored around the extension area to achieve a degree of screening – further additional soils would be placed to provide additional screening from viewpoints to the northwest – shown on revised drawing no. ST12713-025 Rev C ‘Total excavation and phase boundaries.

o Submission of revised drawing no. ST12713-025 Rev C ‘Total excavation and phase boundaries’.

This letter responded to queries and concerns raised regarding Minerals Policy; Highways; legal agreement SWT; National Grid issue; EAT comments; Regulation Team; Natural England; Blasting

29 January 2014 – Letter from Breedon Aggregates Limited with:

o Revised restoration scheme (the Submission has been produced as a standalone addendum to the Restoration and Maintenance sections of the Supporting Statement and ES, prepared having regard to the comments on the original version by the Council’s Environmental Advice Team)

o Submission of revised drawing no. ST12713-019 Rev C ‘Restoration Plan – January 2014’.

7 April 2014 - Letter from Breedon Aggregates Limited with:

o Response to outstanding issues as set out in County Council letter 21 March 2014 in respect of existing permission SS.EA/7 (current operations; alleged breaches of control; investigation of complaints received by Regulation); application SS.12/15/602 MW outstanding matters; proposed conditions and proposed Heads of Terms for S106 legal agreement; and, postponement of ROMP.

o Amendment to planning application. Submission of new drawing no. BQ/SQ/EL/01 ‘Existing Layout’ and new drawing no. BQ/SQ/CWE/01 ‘Concrete Wall Extensions to Aggregates Storage Bays’.

o Submission of arboricultural report and mitigation planting detail. o Submission of ‘Site Rules’.

21 July 2014 Letter from Alder Mill (Agent acting on behalf of NRS Waste Care Limited) with:

o Letters sent to Landowners (Mr G Edwards and Mrs J Fallows) and Certificate B dated 10 July 2014.

o Site boundary drawing relating to additional land purchase (dwg no. 305/21/SK101A).

o Drawing showing wall extension and landscaping (dwg no 305/21/SK100F)o Tree planting location plan (dwg no 305/21/TP01). o Amended drawings to reflect additional land purchase and revised red line

application boundary (Topographic survey dwg no. ST 12713-027B; Site location plan dwg no ST 12713-002B; Restoration Plan ST12713-019D; Total excavation and phase boundary dwg no ST 12713-025D.

o Location plan showing amended red line application boundary dwg no 305/21/04.

o Boundary treatment showing wall extension and landscaping (dwg no 305/21/SK100 Rev F).

o Maintenance Building floor plan and elevations dwg no 305/21/01.o Maintenance building location plan dwg no 305/21/02.o Suggested condition (traffic movements) email dated 09/07/2014.

o Suggested gate opening times of 6.30 hours

Appendix 2 – Delegated letter dated 3 April 2014 (ref. SS.14/03/602 MW) relating to prior approval under Part 19, Class B of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 1995 for a concrete plant ancillary to the existing permitted mineral extraction

Appendix 3 - Summary of the findings of the Environmental Statement (including environmental and other supporting information subsequently received)

Section 1 – IntroductionThe ES describes the aims of the submission (terms of reference), details of the current operations, general location information and planning history. This Section also provides details concerning the applicants and project team.

Section 2 – EIA approach and Scope of Environmental StatementThis section of the ES includes details of the EIA approach, and the technical areas covered (air quality; archaeology and cultural heritage; ecology; geology and geotechnical; hydrogeology and hydrology; flood risk assessment and drainage; land use and soils; landscape and visual; noise; socio-economic; climate change; and traffic). This section includes details of the ‘ES Structure’.

Section 3 - Description of the Site This section provides details of the site location, site description, the surrounding area and regional geology.

Section 4 - Description of the DevelopmentThis section provides details of how the sand and gravel is extracted from the site, (note that the application has been revised in October 2013 and blasting is proposed to enable the recovery of naturally cemented sand and gravel (conglomerate) from the lower parts of the geological deposit. Refer to Assessment of Environmental Impact of Blasting Report below), , the processing of the sand and gravel, the relocation of a section of the haul road, details of the weighbridge, disposal of silt, the phased restoration (Restoration Strategy and details of proposed landscape elements and landscape elements to be retained) and aftercare maintenance (5 year). Revisions have subsequently been received in respect of January, April and July 2014 in respect of revisions to the application boundary and submission of a revised restoration plan. The additional area of land now incorporated into the amended application boundary to provide sufficient land for the concrete wall and mitigation and replacement planting is 419 square metres or 0.0419 of a hectare. A restoration plan has been produced as a standalone addendum to the Restoration and Maintenance sections of the Supporting Statement and ES, prepared having regard to the comments on the original version by the Council’s Environmental Advice Team.

This section also details soil stripping, bund construction, the hours of operation, importation of materials; plant and machinery used; site traffic, removal of plant and machinery.

Section 5 - Policy ContextThis section of the ES details the development plan policies the applicants considered to be relevant.

Section 6 - Outline of the main alternatives consideredThis section provides details of the development options alternatives which have been considered by the applicants. This includes ‘Do nothing’ and ‘Development Option A’ (extracting approximately 750,000 tonnes of mineral from the existing quarry and a separate operation extracting 1,500,000 tonnes of mineral from the extension area, with 2 sets of plant operating simultaneously. The mineral extraction wold take 5 years with 5 years of restoration) and ‘Development Option B’ (2,250,000 tonners of mineral. The site

would have an operational life of 20 years). The applicants’ preferred is Option Development Option B. Alternative restoration options are also considered.

Section 7 - ConsultationThe section details the pre-application consultation undertaken to clarify the scope of the technical issues to be covered in the ES. The issues covered include Air Quality; Noise; Archaeology, Ecology, Consultation.

Section 8 - Air QualityThe ES assesses the impact of the proposals on air quality and includes a qualitative assessment of potential nuisance dust emissions. The section also included details of proposed mitigation incorporated into the proposal. This section concluded that dust impacts could occur at some residential properties in the vicinity of the site and that the proposed dust mitigation measures and the Dust Action Plan would ensure that dust generated the site would be reduced and any impact would be minor to negligible.

Section 9 - Archaeology and Cultural HeritageThis Section of the ES assesses the archaeological and historical background of the area and provides an evaluation of the significance of the heritage assets. This Section concludes that there is a potential for buried remains which if present could date from the prehistoric period onwards and that cropmarks present in the east of the site may relate to archaeological remains. Mitigation inspection and recording of archaeological features would need to be secured.

Section 10 – EcologyThe ES assesses the impact of the proposals on ecology and an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was submitted. Surveys were completed in respect of badgers; great crested newts; reptiles; breeding birds and bat and invertebrate. This section concluded that the majority of the habitats within the proposed extension area are of relatively low ecological value. The section included outline mitigation assuming that protected species are present, including the requirements for on-going surveys.

Section 11 - Geology and GeotechnicalThis section of the ES includes an assessment of the geology and geotechnical issues.

Section 12 - HydrogeologyThe ES indicates that the potential hydrogeological and hydrological impacts of the proposed have been assessed to determine whether the proposed sand and gravel extraction works and infilling would have potential impacts on the water environment. The summary indicates that the current groundwater levels are influenced by the on-going abstraction on the site; the site is not expected to have an impact on the nearest groundwater, surface water abstractions and the source protection zone. The applicants have indicated that the significance of impact of all unmitigated risks to the water environment has been identified as being of low significance to medium significance.

Section 13 - Drainage and flood risk impact assessmentThis Section of the ES indicates the findings of the Flood Risk Assessment submitted. This concludes the site has been identified as being at low risk of flooding from all sources and the site is therefore considered suitable for the type of development proposed.

Section 14 - Land use and soil

The ES assesses the baseline characteristics of the soil resources, agricultural productivity and land use. The section indicates that potential negative impacts could occur to topsoil quality if handling, stockpiling and restoration is not carried out correctly and mitigation measures will be adopted to reduce the potential impacts and the applicants consider the significance of the impacts to be low.

Section 15 - Landscape and visual (revised January 2014)This section of the ES analyses the landscape and visual impacts and includes landscape mitigation. (Note changes were made in January 2014 relating to Photoviews 03, 04, and 05 and text regarding visual impacts and photoviews. A new drawing ‘Mitigation Strategy Plan’ has been submitted to demonstrate mitigation, to be studied in conjunction with the visual assessments in the photoviews, soils to be stored around the extension area to achieve a degree of screening, further additional soils would be placed to provide additional screening from viewpoints to the northwest. A revised drawing Total excavation and phase boundaries was also submitted.

The Section concludes the proposal would result in some localised changes to landform, land cover, land use, and aesthetics. The applicants conclude that the localised changes to landform ‘would be adverse during the short and medium term operational phases, and slight or slight to moderate in significance. However, the proposed development would also provide long-term beneficial impacts to the landscape character which would be slight in significance. The applicants have also indicated the restoration of the areas of woodland and ponds is in keeping with the landscape character recommendations and objectives set out in the landscape character studies undertaken at both National and County levels.

Section 16 - NoiseThe ES assesses the potential impact of noise from the quarry operations and details the finding of a noise assessment. The applicants consider that the modelling carried out indicates that no specific noise mitigation will be required to control noise from the proposed operations and that routine monitoring will enable the operation to identify the need for any future noise mitigation measures.

Section 17 - Socio-economicThis section of the ES addressed the potential social and economic impacts associated with the proposal. This covers how the proposal will impact on the existing and future communities, as well as the impacts on the local economy. The section summary indicates that the proposed scheme would create a beneficial impact in terms of both social and economic factors and that the social impacts are considered insignificant.

Section 18 - Climate changeThis section of the ES assessed the effects of the project on the environment and the effects of climate change on the project. In relation to climate change, the applicants consider the impacts on the project the main impact to be risk of flooding.

Section 19 - TrafficThe ES considers the traffic implications of the development and discusses the existing road conditions; the existing traffic flows; development traffic; traffic impact and road safety. The applicants conclude the access route; HGV route (between the quarry and the strategic road network) have been subject to improvement works and therefore ‘more than suitable to accommodate the proposed HGV traffic’.

Assessment of Environmental Impact of Blasting Report

In October 2013 an Assessment of Environmental Impact of Blasting at Saredon Quarry was submitted by the applicants as an addendum to the Environmental Statement. This report considers the effect of a test blast at the quarry (conducted on Monday 14 October 2013 at approximately 10.30am by Gillrange Ltd). The effect of the blast was monitored by Vibrock Limited and a blast induced vibration study produced with a criterion recommended for restricting vibration levels from production that is not only safe for the integrity of structures but also takes into account the physiological effects on adjacent neighbours.

The report recommends that all blasts at Saredon Quarry be designed in order to comply with a vibration criteria of 6mms-1 peak particle velocity at a 95% confidence level as measured in any of the three planes of measurement at the closest vibration sensitive residential property. This is below the levels recommended for blast induced vibration in British Standard Guide BS 6472-2:2008. No individual blast should exceed 12 mms-1. All blasts should also be designed to comply with 50 mms-1 at the M6 motorway, electricity pylons, mobile phone mast and wooden telegraph poles.

The report recommends implementation of a programme of blast monitoring. The results of such monitoring would indicate whether or not there is compliance with the vibration criteria and they can also be used to continually update the regression analysis and provide valuable input to the design of future blasts.

The report concludes that with the above control recommendations implemented and the exercise of reasonable engineering control over quarry blasting operations, it is envisaged that the quarry will work within the vibration criteria and without undue annoyance to local residents.

Non-technical summaryA non-technical summary of the ES was also provided.