Local Members' Interest

Mr. A White Lichfield - Rural East Mr D Smith Lichfield - Rural South

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 February 2016 MINERAL COUNTY MATTER;

District: Application No. L.15/04/805-808 MW

Date Received: 3 March 2015.

Date Revised/Further Details Received: 12 March 2015, 19 July 2015 and 4 December 2015.

Lafarge Tarmac Ltd (now Tarmac) and Cemex UK Operations Ltd have submitted a consolidating application for a proposed north western extension to Hints Quarry; continued use of existing processing plant and site access onto Watling Street; comprehensive phased quarrying and restoration scheme for existing quarry and north western extension area at Hints Quarry, Watling Street, Hints, Tamworth.

Summary of Proposals 1. The proposal relates a north western extension to the existing mineral extraction at

Hints Quarry and includes the remaining operational areas within Hints Quarry, and areas of the quarry which still require restoration. The total application area is 94.7 hectares. Areas of the site that have been previously restored have been excluded from this submission.

2. The extension to Hints Quarry consists of an 18 hectare area and would allow the

phased extraction of 4.8 million tonnes of sand and gravel at a rate of approximately 700,000 tonnes per annum over a 7 year period.

3. The ‘rocksand’ deposit above the commercial sand and gravel reserves would be

extracted and used as part of the progressive restoration of the site and would provide for the early restoration of peripheral non-operational areas of the existing quarry. The layer of rocksand varies in thickness from 7 metres to 22 metres, as does the sand and gravel deposit which varies from 18 metres to 22 metres across the site.

4. The scheme proposes to restrict the depth of sand and gravel to a maximum depth

of 5.7 metres below mean groundwater level. This would require groundwater management as the water would be pumped from the base of the excavation and recharged back into the aquifer via three recharge wells. An area of 5.9 hectares to the westernmost extent of the proposed extension area would be used for groundwater management (shown on Plan 1 as ‘Land Required for Water Management Boreholes’). Not all of the area would be needed for the recharge wells/connection pipes. The recharge wells would be linked to the quarry by a series of underground pipes buried at a depth of 1.5 metres and running along field boundaries.

5. The extraction of sand and gravel would be carried out using a mobile excavator and transported by conveyor to the existing processing plant site (‘Hints processing plant’). The conveyor would be extended into the extension area for the later phases.

Phasing

6. The applicant has estimated that each phase would yield the following amount of

saleable reserve.

7. The applicant has also provided details of how soil stripping, mineral extraction and restoration would take place within the phases. Access arrangements and Traffic

8. The access arrangements would remain unchanged such that all HGVs would leave using the existing access, turn right (there is a sign to indicate no left turn) and travel westbound along the Watling Street (C0036 - formerly the A5) to the junction with the A38, the new A5 and the M6 Toll Road. All HGV vehicles travelling towards the quarry would continue to use Watling Street from the A38/A5 junction.

9. The number of vehicle movements associated with the proposal would equate to an

average of 127 loads per day (254 movements). This figure is based on a 275 day working year and an average load size of 20 tonnes [The applicant has indicated that this is based on current and recent output of 700,000 tonnes per annum]. It has been previously indicated the total volume of quarry traffic would be 320 vehicles per day [paragraph 2.11 of the February 2003 Planning Committee report, ref. L.02/09/805-808 MW]. Restoration

10. A ‘Restoration Masterplan’ shows how the site would be progressively restored and completed 2 years after the cessation of mineral extraction. The main elements of the Restoration Masterplan include acid grassland / heathland; woodland; hedgerows; agriculture; and wetland. The restoration of the site would be achieved with the total reuse of the existing soil resource and no requirement to import restoration material. [Note: the relationship between the Restoration Masterplan and the existing restoration strategy is considered in the Observation section later.]

11. The site would be subject to a 5 year aftercare period, except for the acid Grassland

/ Heathland areas which would be subject to a 10 year aftercare period. This extended period is considered to be appropriate as a safeguard to ensure the

Phase Amount of saleable reserve (approx.)

Phase 1 580,000 tonnes Phase 2 608,000 tonnes Phase 3 880,000 tonnes Phase 4 615,000 tonnes Phase 5 670,000 tonnes Phase 6 716,000 tonnes Phase 7 733,000 tonnes Total 4,802,000 tonnes

successful establishment of the vegetation [This extended period would need to be secured as part of a Section 106 Legal Agreement – see Observations section later].

12. The opportunity has also been taken to review and update the currently approved

restoration scheme for those areas of the current application site which lie within the application boundary. This has resulted in an increase the areas of heathland / acid grassland, hedgerows, and ‘conservation headlands’ and the use of the best and most versatile soil resources in the most sustainable way in restoring parts of the site back to land of best and most versatile quality for agricultural use.

13. Annual aftercare reports would be produced by the applicant and submitted to the

County Council before annual meetings with interested parties to review the aftercare works carried out in the previous year and to agree modifications and general works for the following year. Environmental Impact Assessment

14. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). The ES considered the following topics:

• Restoration strategy; • Environmental impact assessment; • Landscape and visual impact; • Ecology; • Agriculture and soil resources; • Hydrology and hydrogeology; • Noise; • Air quality; • Transportation; • Cultural heritage; and, • Summary of environmental effects.

15. The findings of the ES (and the environmental information subsequently received)

are summarised in Appendix 1). Site and Surroundings

16. Hints Quarry is located approximately 5 km west of Tamworth. 17. The Quarry is located to the north of the A5 and to the south of the village of Hints.

Access to the quarry is from ‘Rock Hill/Watling Street’ (C0036, formerly the A5) via a private road which also serves the NTL Lichfield Transmitter on the north-eastern boundary of the quarry.

18. To the north of the site is Tamworth Road (A51), no vehicles enter the quarry from

this road. The safeguarded area for High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) lies to the west of the site (shown on Plan 1).

19. The surrounding area is a gently rolling landscape with a series of wooded hills; this

includes ‘Hanging Wood’ and ‘Hopwas Hays Wood’ which are an Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland. The woodlands are to the south west of the proposal (Hanging Wood), and the north west of the proposal (‘Hopwas Hays Wood’) which is separated

from quarry by the A51 [The Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland does not form part of this application].

20. The proposed extension to Hints Quarry is located to the northwest and consists of

two agricultural fields. It is proposed to use the existing plant and equipment to process the mineral. The westernmost extent of the proposed extension area would be used for water management and no mineral extraction would take place in this area.

21. There are a number of bridle paths/right of ways around the site which include Hints

1(a); Hints 2; Hints 3 (Heart of England Way); Hints 18; Hints 1R/2868, Swinfen and Packington 12 (shown on Plan 1). Relevant Planning History

22. Quarrying has been taking place in this area for many years. Hints Quarry commenced in 1963 and Hopwas Quarry commenced in the 1950’s under separate planning permissions.

23. Planning permission was granted in April 2005 to amalgamate and consolidate the

mineral extraction (the ‘2005 permission’). The 2005 permission included lateral extensions to the working area; a comprehensive low level restoration scheme to forestry and agriculture; and, an aggregates recycling facility to receive construction and demolition waste to produce soils for restoration and secondary aggregate (ref. L.02/09/805-808 MW). This planning permission required the cessation of all operations and activities by 31 December 2013. A revised Restoration and Aftercare Scheme was submitted on 25 February 2015 for consideration in relation to northern area of the site (known as the ‘Charity land’) (ref. L.02/09/805-808 MW D10). The revised scheme has not yet been approved (see ‘Site Restoration’ and ‘Further Recommendation’ below).

24. A planning application was submitted for an extension of time to allow all operations

and activities to continue until 31 December 2016 (ref. L.13/03/805-808 MW) (‘the extension of time permission’). This application was approved by Planning Committee in December 2013 subject to the completion of an amended Section 106 Legal Agreement and subject to planning conditions similar to those previously imposed, updated where necessary. The amended Section 106 Legal Agreement has not yet been signed due to delays by the applicant in providing confirmation of the interested parties (see ‘Further Recommendation’ below). The development plan policies and other material considerations relevant to this decision

25. The relevant development plan policies are: the saved policies in the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Minerals Local Plan (1994 – 2006) (adopted December 1999); and, the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy (2008 – 2029) (adopted 17 February 2015). The other material considerations include: The New Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire (2015 to 2030) (proposed changes version)*; the National Planning Policy Framework (published 27 March 2012); Planning Practice Guidance (published 6 March 2014); and, Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation).

26. The relevant development plan policies and other material considerations are listed in more detail in in Appendix 2.

[* Note: the application site is allocated in the new Minerals Local Plan – Policy 1 - Provision for Sand and Gravel; 1.1 (j) – Hints/Hopwas (Inset Map 10). The allocation is accompanied by ‘development considerations’ which are discussed in the Observations section later.]

Findings of Consultations Internal 27. The Environmental Advice Team (EAT) commented as follows:

Ecology: overall the proposals accord with NPPF and Minerals Plan policy with restoration proposals mitigating impacts on most significant species recorded on site and providing a valuable contribution to biodiversity objectives for the County and Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan Ecosystem Area. The restoration to heathland would also contribute to landscape-scale objectives for this habitat type. Conditions are recommended for protection of species and to require more details of the restoration and aftercare. Landscape - modifications to the restoration proposals were recommended and revisions were submitted which are considered to be sympathetic to landscape character and to deliver an acceptable level of landscape enhancement. Conditions are recommended to provide more details of the restoration and aftercare. Archaeology and Historic Built Environment – the cultural heritage section of the submission indicated that ‘finds’ from the surrounding area reported as part of the Portable Antiquities Scheme would support the evidence of cropmarks in suggesting later prehistoric and Romano-British activity across this landscape. A condition is recommended to require the submission of a written scheme of archaeological investigation. A condition is also recommended to monitor the structures at Bucks Head Cottages. Meanwhile, the proposed enhanced hedgerow planting along Knox’s Grave Lane is supported on historic environment grounds. Forestry - there are no significant trees on the site. The proposed restoration plan, although not at a detail stage, suggests that there will be good habitat connectivity through wooded belts and hedgerow planting. Rights of Way – the submitted plans propose a diversion of Public Bridleway No 18 Hints. This has not been discussed with the Rights of Way team nor has this been subject to any site assessment. The other public rights of way, which predominantly run around the edge of the site, do not appear to be directly affected by the restoration proposals.

28. Transport Development Control (on behalf of the Highways Authority) no objections. 29. Minerals Planning Policy commented as follows:

• The extension area is not allocated in the adopted MLP so Policy 38 and any

‘exceptional circumstances’ will need to be considered.

• The extension area is allocated in the emerging MLP (Policy 1.1 (j) – Hints / Hopwas) and so the ‘development considerations’ in the Appendix to the emerging MLP will need to be assessed. as such it would contribute to the overall provision of sand and gravel in Staffordshire;

• The proposal also includes land outside the emerging MLP allocated area (to

be used for groundwater management) and land within the existing site (to be used for mineral processing and to consolidate the restoration).

• The impacts of the proposal need to be assessed in terms of the requirements

of the Development Plan (including the emerging MLP – and the ‘development considerations’) and in particular, it will be important to ensure that there is a robust phased programme of working and restoration (Policy 9 in the adopted MLP and Policy 6 in the emerging MLP). The benefits of the revised restoration scheme should also be considered in terms of contributions to local environmental initiatives and net gains to biodiversity.

30. The Staffordshire County Council Noise Engineer has no objections subject to

conditions relating to the current noise limits. 31. The Planning Regulation Team has no objections. External 32. Severn Trent Water has no objection. 33. Natural England (NE) commented as follows:

Protected Sites - the application is unlikely to impact upon nationally or internationally protected sites. Ancient Woodland Inventory - a number of sites on the Ancient and Replanted Woodland Inventory are located within 2km of the application site; these should be protected against hydrological damage. With the proposed mitigation measures, the development is likely to have minimal potential to cause negative impact to surface and groundwater interests although the effects will need to be monitored. Soils and Agricultural Land - the proposed development comprises approximately 17.8 ha of ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land (BMV land)(Grades 1, 2 and 3a land in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system). Mitigation measures are proposed to ensure that a broadly equivalent area of BMW land in the north west extension is restored as part of the overall scheme. The loss to BMV land will be minimal (i.e. 0.5ha). An appropriately experienced soil specialist should be used to advise on, and supervise, soil handling, including identifying when soils are dry enough to be handled and how to make the best use of the different soils on site. Detailed guidance in the Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (including accompanying Toolbox Talks) should be followed. Restoration Proposals - there is less woodland, and more heathland and agricultural restoration in this scheme than the approved restoration strategy. However the proposed new heathland / acid grassland mosaic would deliver priority habitat

biodiversity gains and the broadleaved native woodland, species-rich hedgerows, ponds (with aquatic and marginal vegetation and areas of shingle, and sandstone outcrops would provide more variety. Protected Species - Standing Advice on protected species should be applied to this application. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present [a Preliminary Ecological Report; a Great Crested Newt Survey Report; a Breeding Bird Survey Report and a Bat Survey Report were submitted by as part of the ES. The County Council Ecologist had no objection subject to conditions concerning protected species].

34. Environment Agency (EA) has no objection. The EA have indicated that the site is

located in an area where Water Resources, Controlled Waters and linked features would be vulnerable to an activity that resulted in significant fluctuation in groundwater levels. A condition is recommended to require details of a hydrometric monitoring programme at appropriate times (annual or bi-annual) throughout the duration of mineral extraction and restoration to be submitted. The EA have also recommended a condition to require that no polluting emissions to air, land or water be permitted and that any de-watering discharging to watercourse may require a discharge permit from them.

35. Highways England has no objection and commented that there would be no change

to the current situation other than the existing traffic movements would continue for an additional period.

36. Lichfield District Council Environmental Health has no objections. 37. National Grid - no response. 38. Western Power Distribution provided general advice for the developer in respect of

working safely in proximity to their apparatus. 39. Staffordshire Wildlife Trust - no response. Views of District/Parish Council 40. Lichfield District Council has no objections and commented as follows:

Arboriculture: The site is within an Ancient Woodland landscape as defined by the Forestry Commission and within an ancient woodland restoration area for the West Midlands region. Lichfield District Council Arboricultural Officer has indicated that the site is close to Hopwas Ancient Woodland and the native woodland on the site needs to be balanced with heathland and other habitat to provide functioning woodland areas. Further comments were provided by the Arboricultural Officer who asked for further clarification concerning the differences between the original restoration strategy and the proposed strategy. Ecology: Protected and Priority Species - the ecological information provided is considered to be sufficient to provide an accurate assess the likelihood of current protected/priority species usage; habitat composition; and biodiversity value. Little Ringed Plover and reptile potential utilisation of the site is considered to be restricted

to areas where quarrying works are already/have been undertaken and it is unlikely that the proposed expansion to the quarrying activity on to the arable area to the North West will directly or indirectly impact upon them. Little Ringed Plover and reptiles could be directly impacted by the proposed restoration scheme. It is recommended that methods of working should be defined to reduce the likelihood of negatively impacting upon these species during the eventual levelling and restoration of site (i.e. working outside of nesting season, trapped exclusion and translocation of reptiles where appropriate, etc…).

The submitted breeding bird survey has confirmed breeding birds are likely to be utilising the site for nesting and the species found are considered to be of principle importance for the conservation of biodiversity and so the ‘developments’ impact upon the conservation status of these species is a material consideration. Any disruption to breeding birds should be mitigated; habitat improvement works (i.e. creation of skylark plots) should be sought on arable land within the vicinity of the quarry for the duration of mineral operations.

Habitat Creation (Restoration Scheme) - the creation of substantial areas of new heathland habitat and associated acid grassland is welcomed. The area of heathland would help to create a network of heathland sites along with the new heathland proposal as part of the HS2 scheme (20 hectares of new heathland on land to the west of Whittington Barracks) and at Whittington Golf Course (11 hectares) in accordance with the recommendations and aims outlined in the DEFRA Biodiversity 2020 strategy. Information is needed concerning the measures to create and manage the heathland habitat to ensure that the measures are appropriate and to achieve a favourable long-term habitat condition. Lichfield District Council’s Ecological Team consider that there is the potential for further gains to both habitat connectivity and biodiversity value which can be achieved by altering the location of new woodland area shown on the current masterplan. Lichfield District Council’s Ecological Team has also recognised that the potential for additional woodland creation may be limited due to agreements with land owners to return the land to agricultural use. Lichfield District Council’s Ecological Team have recommended that the new woodland planting area should be relocated/ redesigned to create a larger more resistant woodland block to buffer and expand existing woodland areas as this would work to promote greater habitat connectivity between the Ancient Woodland or Plantation of Ancient Woodland Sites (Hopwas Hays Woods). A significant new woodland block could be created by re-allocating the majority of the planting to areas along the eastern boarder (with no overall increase in woodland) and without impacting upon the area designated to heathland creation.

41. Swinfen and Packington Parish Council – no response.

42. Wigginton and Hopwas Parish Council has no objection. 43. Hints Parish Council - no response. 44. Weeford Parish Council - no response.

Publicity and Representations Received

45. Site notice: YES Press notice: YES

46. 81 neighbour notification letters were sent out and 1 representation has been received. The representation is summarised below: • Increased aggregate dust and sand on the original A5 (Watling Street); • Increased and excessive use of lorries through the village; • Noise and air pollution(dust); • Excessive extraction of aggregate compared to other quarries; • Loss of ‘Ancient Woodland’ and surrounding countryside of natural beauty; • Concern there may be future development of the quarry across Bucks Cottages

towards ‘Flats Lane’ (which links Knox Grave Lane to Watling Street) which is towards land proposed for High Speed Rail 2 (HS2);

• Impact on property price; • Unexpected continued operation of the site. The Applicant’s Case

47. The applicant contends that there is a need to release additional reserves of sand and gravel in the context of national and local planning policy and guidance and that there is a ‘strong case of need for the development, and that the release of the reserves at the application site would be fully consistent with planning policy objectives relating to maintaining “steady and adequate supplies”’.

48. The applicant has concluded that the ‘….development could proceed without giving

rise to adverse impacts on the comprehensive range of environmental issues which have been assessed’…, and the development could proceed in accordance with planning policy requirements, and thus in accordance with the development plan.

49. The applicant has also indicated that the proposed extension would secure

employment opportunities and wider socio economic benefits into the medium term. Observations

50. This is an application for a proposed North West extension to Hints Quarry; continued use of existing processing plant and site access onto Watling Street; comprehensive phased quarrying and restoration scheme for existing quarry and North West extension area as consolidation application at Hints Quarry, Watling Street, Hints, Tamworth.

51. Having given careful consideration to the application, the supporting and

environmental information (including the environmental information subsequently received), the relevant development plan policies and other material considerations, the consultation responses and the representations, all referred to above, the key issues are considered to be: • The minerals planning policy considerations; • The emerging Minerals Local Plan – development considerations; • Green Belt;

• Site Restoration; • Other matters arising from the representation; • The opportunity to review and update the planning permission; and, • The need to amend / update the Section 106 Legal Agreement. The minerals planning policy considerations

52. Both national and local planning policies recognise the importance of minerals for sustainable economic growth. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains specific mineral planning policy guidance (Section 13), and provides general planning policy guidance which is underpinned by a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF encourages local planning authorities to:

‘give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including the economy’

and to:

‘ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions … are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and to establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties’ (ref. NPPF paragraph 144).

[The environmental considerations raised in the one representation are discussed later in the report.]

53. The NPPF also advises that:

‘Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long-term conservation’ (ref. NPPF paragraph 142).

54. National Planning Practice Guidance states that the planning for the supply of

minerals has a number of special characteristics that are not present in other development; minerals can only be worked (i.e. extracted) where they naturally occur, so location options for the economically viable and environmentally acceptable extraction of minerals may be limited; working is a temporary use of land, although it often takes place over a long period of time; working may have adverse and positive environmental effects, but some adverse effects can be effectively mitigated; and following working, land should be restored to make it suitable for beneficial after-use (ref. Minerals, Minerals Overview, What are mineral resources and why is planning permission required?).

55. The proposals involve the winning and working of sand and gravel from an extension

to Hints Quarry and also include the continued phased quarrying and restoration scheme for existing quarry. The application site is not allocated in our adopted Minerals Local Plan (1994 to 2006) (the adopted MLP), however, saved policy 38 provides for ‘exceptional circumstances’ and it is allocated in the emerging Minerals Local Plan (2015 to 2030) (the emerging MLP) (ref. Policy 1.1 (j – Hints / Hopwas (Inset Map 10)). It is therefore important to consider whether the proposals accord

with the saved policy and how much weight can be attached to the emerging policy. 56. The adopted MLP (saved policy 38) requires proposals for the wining and working of

mineral outside existing permitted sites or sites allocated in the MLP will only be permitted in ‘exceptional circumstances’. Having regard to the examples of ‘exceptional circumstances’ given in the adopted MLP, the case made by the applicant and the comments from consultees, it is reasonable to conclude that:

• the additional land would enable the comprehensive recovery of the remaining

sand and gravel reserves that can be won and worked from Hints Quarry, thereby avoiding potential sterilisation of minerals;

• the proposals are limited and relatively small scale; • the proposals provided an opportunity to enhance the current approved

restoration scheme; • while the location of the quarry is not unique, it is well positioned to supply the

markets for aggregate in southern Staffordshire and the West Midlands conurbation; and,

• in terms of productive capacity, the quarry is significant to the overall capacity

within the county.

57. The emerging MLP was submitted the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 8 January 2016 and it is anticipated that it will be examined by an Inspector during March – April 2016. Specifically with regard to Hints / Hopwas site allocation (Policy 1.1 (j)) three representations were duly made from 2 representees (the Environment Agency and on behalf of the applicant) which related to points of detail concerning the ‘development considerations’. These matters have been addressed as part of the ‘proposed changes’ and it is relevant to note that the Environment Agency has not objected to the application. Therefore, given the advanced stage that the emerging MLP has reached, and the fact that the nature of the representations are known, in reaching a decision a significant amount of weight can be attributed to the fact that the application site is allocated in the emerging MLP.

58. Policy 39 in the adopted MLP, which is carried forward to the Policy 1.3 in the

emerging MLP 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.”

59. Mineral extraction within the existing site has not ceased, the applicant has however

indicated that the remaining reserves within Hints Quarry would be completed by ‘approximately the spring of 2016’ and that the restoration of land in the south western area of Hints Quarry would be completed by April 2016. The applicant has also excluded areas of the existing quarry which has been restored (land to the south east and northeast (these areas are shown on Plan 1).

60. The applicant has explained that ‘rocksand’ overburden above the commercial sand and gravel reserves would be used for as part of the progressive restoration of the site which would allow the early restoration of ‘peripheral non-operational’ areas of the existing quarry. For example, 250,000 cubic metres of rocksand would be extracted from Phase 1 and used to cap a decommissioned silt lagoon (‘silt lagoon 7’) situated in the west/central area of the existing quarry.

61. Minerals Local Plan Policy 35 seeks to ensure that ancillary development does not cause any unacceptable adverse impact and is tied to the life of the permitted reserves. Policy 35 is retained in the emerging Mineral Local Plan (Policy 4.6).

62. The applicant has indicated that the sand and gravel extracted would be processed

using the ‘Hints Quarry’ processing plant (the Hopwas processing plant was ‘dismantled several years ago’). No changes to the existing arrangements or output volumes are proposed as part of the current application. [Note: an aggregates recycling facility was permitted as part of the ‘2005 permission’ to produce soils for restoration and secondary aggregate (ref. L.02/09/805-808 MW). There are no proposals to import and recycle material for restoration purposes under this new permission].

63. It is considered appropriate to include a condition to require an updated Site Layout Plan to be submitted within 12 months of the date of the permission and thereafter updated on a regular basis. This plan would include details of the ancillary buildings, plant and equipment. The ancillary uses or operations should be linked to the life of the quarry, to accord with the adopted MLP (saved policy 35) and the emerging MLP (Policy 4.6).

64. Conclusion: Having regard to the development plan policies and other material considerations referred to above, subject to the recommended conditions, it is reasonable to conclude that the application generally accords with the adopted MLP (saved policies 35, 38 and 39), and importantly, generally accords with the emerging MLP (policies 1.1 (j), 1.3 and 4.6). The emerging Minerals Local Plan – development considerations

65. Policy 38 in the adopted MLP and Policy 1.2 of the emerging MLP also require proposals to accord with the Development Plan policies. The emerging MLP specifically refers to Policy 4 (Minimising the impact of mineral development) and the ‘development considerations’ listed in the Appendix 1 to the emerging MLP. The ‘development considerations’ are discussed below and the other considerations that have arisen and the related development plan policies are discussed later.

66. The ‘development considerations’ related to the Hints / Hopwas site allocation in the emerging MLP (Appendix) are discussed below:

Development Considerations How addressed by applicant Low impact on landscape subject to no loss of perimeter tree cover and appropriate buffering of trees on Knox’s Grave Lane. Potential for mitigation from screen bunds and advance planting to enhance screening during operational phase.

The revised Restoration Masterplan includes an extensive area of heathland/acid grassland mosaic with sandstone outcrops within the extension area; woodland, agriculture and wetland within the existing quarry.

Additional hedgerow and hedgerow tree planting along the boundary with Knox’s Grave Lane. A new hedgerow is proposed alongside Right of Way Hints 3. The Phasing plans include the provision of screening bunds.

Biodiversity benefits if restoration contributes to Staffordshire BAP Cannock Chase Heaths Ecosystem Area objectives.

The Environmental Advice Team has indicated that the site offers a rare and important opportunity to contribute to Local Nature Partnership and Staffordshire Biodiversity Partnership objectives for heathland creation and for enhancing ecological connectivity between Cannock Chase and Sutton Park.

The habitat and geological and species-related features proposed are welcomed as contributors to these objectives

Restoration may need to include a replacement lined irrigation lagoon.

Replacement irrigation lagoon not included in extension area. A waterbody is proposed in the existing quarry as a potential source for agricultural use (irrigation).

Demonstrable archaeological potential for surrounding area, and this may extend across site. Historic Environment desk-based assessment is recommended. Historic character of landscape should be respected, and restoration of original field boundaries would be desirable.

Cultural Heritage Assessment submitted which considered there to be the potential to include heritage assets within the extension area, the significance of which may be affected by the development. The Environmental Advice Team have commented that the enhanced hedgerow planting along Knox’s Grave Lane is to be supported on historic environment grounds and also recommends a condition to require the submission of a written scheme of archaeological investigation.

There is also a high risk of best & most versatile land being present, so this land should be considered in designing the restoration of the site.

A soil resources and agricultural land quality assessment was undertaken which concludes that mitigation measures will ensure that the soils are used sustainably and restored to the most appropriate after use. The restoration strategy includes the use of the best and most versatile soil resources in the most sustainable way in restoring parts of the site back to land of best and most versatile quality (used in agricultural area of the existing quarry).

67. Conclusion: For the reasons describe above it is reasonable to conclude, subject to

the recommended conditions and terms for the Section 106 Legal Agreement referred to below, that the proposals satisfactorily address the ‘development considerations’.

Green Belt

68. The site lies in the Southern Staffordshire Green Belt. It is therefore necessary to assess the proposals against the Lichfield District Local Plan (Policy NR2), the emerging Minerals Local Plan (Policy 4), and, the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) (section 9), which all aim to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development and aim to preserve its openness.

69. Section 9 of the NPPF indicates that the Government attaches great importance to

Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

70. The new Minerals Local Plan (emerging Policy 4) and para. 7.33 explains that:

‘National policy requires the protection of Green Belt but recognises that mineral extraction need not be inappropriate in the Green Belt provided that the mineral extraction preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt’.

71. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF explains that:

‘Certain other forms of development are not inappropriate in Green Belt provided that they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt’

72. The ‘other forms of development’ referred to in paragraph 90 includes mineral

extraction which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.

73. When the ‘2005 permission’ was determined it was considered that:

‘the principle of the development accords with general policy in relation to demonstrating exceptional circumstances for new mineral working, encouraging recycling and appropriate development in the Green Belt’ (ref. L.02/09/805-808 MW).

74. When the application to vary the ‘2005 permission’ the following considerations were

taken into account:

‘….the proposals are not inappropriate in Green Belt policy terms as they do preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt, for the following reasons:

• Minerals can only be worked where they occur; • The limited scale, duration and temporary nature of the mineral

operations; • Controls can be imposed by planning conditions to minimise visual impact

and require the site to be well restored which will help to achieve high environmental standards…’ (ref. L.13/03/805-808 MW report).

75. In this case it is reasonable to conclude that the same considerations apply.

76. This application also includes the continued use of the processing plant and equipment which is inappropriate development in the Green Belt unless ‘very special circumstances’ apply in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 87 of the NPPF which explains 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’.

77. Paragraph 88 to the NPPF states that:

‘there will be harm to the Green Belt if inappropriateness and any harm are not clearly outweighed by other considerations’.

78. In this case it is reasonable to conclude that the following points in combination

constitute very special circumstances: • The processing plant and equipment already exists on site and no changes to it

are proposed; • The processing plant and equipment would continue to be used on a temporary

basis; • The processing plant and equipment are ancillary to the quarry operations; , • The processing plant and equipment would continue to be tied to the life of the

quarry operations; and, • The visual impact of the processing plant and equipment is not considered to

be significant as it is located centrally within the quarry.

79. When considering inappropriate developments in the Green Belt it is necessary to have regard to the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009. The Direction requires the Mineral Planning Authority to consult the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government where it intends to approve a new building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or any other development which, by reason of its scale or nature or location, would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

80. In this case, as there is no change to the existing processing plant and equipment, there is no need to refer the decision to the Secretary of State.

81. Conclusion: Having regard to policies and guidance referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude in this case that the temporary extension to the mineral extraction is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would not harm the openness of the Green Belt or conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Also, very special circumstances exist to allow the continued use of the existing processing plant and equipment and as it already exists there is no need to refer this matter to the Secretary of State.

Site Restoration

82. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF indicates that local authorities, should through the application of appropriate conditions, require restoration and aftercare to be achieved at the earliest opportunity and carried out to high environmental standards. Policy 9 in the adopted MLP requires extraction and restoration to 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.

83. Policy 6 in the emerging MLP requires any restoration proposals to be sufficiently comprehensive, detailed, practicable and achievable within the proposed timescales (Policy 6.2); kept under review to take advantage of opportunities that may arise (Policy 6.3); and, that financial provisions are in place to fulfil the restoration requirements (Policy 6.4).

84. When the permission was granted for the site in 2004/2005 (ref. L.02/09/805-808

MW), the condition 38 included the requirement to submit a detailed scheme of restoration and aftercare to provide for the restoration of the site to agriculture, woodland, grassland, heathland and scrub based on the submitted ‘Proposed Restoration Masterplan’ (Drawing No. HH/7/1A). The detailed scheme was approved in December 2007 (ref. L.02/09/805-808 MW D7). This approved the restoration scheme shown on the Restoration Scheme plan (ref. H109/07A) which included areas of heathland; woodland planting pastureland and wet heath/ bog.

85. In February 2015, a revised Restoration and Aftercare Scheme was submitted for

consideration in relation to northern area of land (known as the ‘Charity land’) (ref. L.02/09/805-808 MW D10). The applicant indicated that during the implementation of the existing approved restoration scheme it became apparent that insufficient material was available to achieve the approved contours for the northern half of the quarried void and the approved restoration scheme was not achievable. The revised Restoration and Aftercare Scheme has not yet been approved due to ongoing negotiations with the County Council’s environmental specialists. The ‘Charity land’ forms part of the area covered by planning permission L.02/09/805-808 MW, as indicated earlier an ‘extension of time’ to continue all operations and activities until 31 December 2016 (ref. L.13/03/805-808 MW). To ensure that this land is satisfactory restored by 31 December 2016, it is important that to that an enforceable scheme is in place. Therefore, on the assumption that the recommendation to permit this new application is accepted by the Planning Committee, there is a further recommendation that the revised Restoration and Aftercare Scheme be approved before the decision on this application is issued. [Note: there will be time to resolve the outstanding matters as there would be a requirement to complete an amended Section 106 Legal Agreement before this new permission is issued.]

86. This applicant has submitted a restoration scheme for the north western extension

area which also includes the area covered by the approved detailed scheme ref. L.02/09/805-808 MW D7). Amendments have been made to the approved scheme. The restoration scheme has been prepared having regard to advice from the County Council’s environmental specialists and Lichfield District Council. Although no objections have been raised to the submitted scheme, more details are required including the provision for annual progress reports and the requirement for site meetings to discuss progress. This outstanding information is required within 12 months of the date of the decision.

87. It is therefore considered appropriate to recommend conditions, and a Section 106 Legal Agreement, to ensure that further details of the restoration of the site are provided, progress of the restoration is regularly monitored and kept under review at 3, 5 and 7 year intervals; and, to ensure that adequate financial safeguards are in place to cover the cost of restoration and aftercare at all times (see the ‘Need for a S106 Legal Agreement’ discussed below).

88. Conclusion: Having regard to policies, guidance and other material considerations referred to above, and having regard to the conditions and undertakings to be secured by a Section 106 Legal Agreement, recommended below, it is reasonable to conclude that the restoration of the site would be achieved at the earliest opportunity, carried out to high environmental standards, and would be sufficiently comprehensive, detailed, practicable and achievable within the proposed timescales. Other matters arising from the representations Noise and Dust

89. A local resident has raised concerns about the use of the reversing alarms and that the operation of the quarry during summer months and dry periods has affected air quality. These concerns have also been raised in connection with the previous applications.

90. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF indicates that local authorities should ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions…..are controlled, mitigated or removed at source and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties. Policy 12 in the adopted MLP and Policy 4 in the emerging MLP seek to ensure that developments should not cause unacceptable adverse impacts from noise and dust.

91. In relation to this application, no objections have been received from the Planning

Regulation Team, the County Council’s Noise Engineer or Lichfield District Council Environmental Health. The County Council’s Noise Engineer recommended that appropriate noise conditions should be included. The Planning Regulation Team has no record of complaints about the operation of the existing site and conditions are recommended below.

92. Conclusion: Having regard to the above mentioned policies, guidance and consultee

comments, it is reasonable to conclude that subject to the recommended conditions, the proposals can reasonably be controlled such that they would not give rise to any unacceptable adverse noise or dust impacts. Highways Safety

93. Local resident has raised concerns related to the vehicle movements, weight restrictions and mud on the highway.

94. The National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 32 and 144 of the NPPF, saved policies 12 and 30 of the Minerals Local Plan and pages 16 and 17 of the Code of Practice for Mineral Development Supplementary Planning Guidance (Appendix 5 to the Minerals Local Plan) and the emerging Mineral Local Plan (Policy 4) seek to ensure that developments does not cause unacceptable adverse impacts and that

highways safety is not compromised. 95. No objections have been received from Highways England, Transport Development

Control or the Planning Regulation Team. As above, the Planning Regulation Team has no record of complaints about the operation of the existing site and conditions are recommended below.

96. Conclusion: Having regard to the above mentioned policies, guidance and consultee

comments, it is reasonable to conclude that subject to the recommended conditions, the proposals can reasonably be controlled such that they would not give rise to any unacceptable adverse impact in terms of traffic or harm to the transport network. Timescale for quarrying

97. A local resident commented that the quarry has been operating for longer than was originally permitted and has concerns about further development of the quarry towards Flats Lane (to the north of the site) and towards land proposed for High Speed Rail 2 (HS2).

98. This application relates to an extension of the site to extract a further 4.8 million

tonnes of sand and gravel over a 7 year period which would take mineral extraction to about 2023 i.e. 10 years beyond the cessation date in the 2005 consolidating permission (assuming implementation of the new permission in 2016).

99. It is acknowledged that the site is located in close proximity to the intended route of

the HS2. This application does extend towards the area safeguarded for High Speed Rail 2 (HS2). However, any other development on the quarry or extension of the quarry towards Flats Lane would require separate permission which would involve further public consultation and such an application would have to be considered on its own merits. It is also relevant to note that the emerging MLP allocates sufficient areas for future sand and gravel working up to 2030 and those allocations do not include any further extension to mineral working from this quarry, beyond the extension that is the subject of this application. A negative impact on property prices

100. Concern has been raised by local residents that the proposal would have an impact on property prices. The Planning Committee will be aware that the impact of the development on property prices is not a material planning consideration. The opportunity to review and update the planning permission

101. The planning application relates to an extension to an existing site and the continued use of existing processing plant and the site access. The application also seeks to consolidate, in part, the phased quarry working and restoration of the existing quarry with the north western extension area.

102. The emerging Minerals Local Plan (Policy 4.5) aims to encourage mineral operators

to introduce higher environmental standards of working, restoration and aftercare and so this is an opportunity to review; and where reasonable and necessary to update conditions governing the existing operation to ensure the site operates to high environmental standards and the conditions can be effectively monitored and, if

necessary, enforced. For example, conditions have been included to require the submission of an updated noise monitoring scheme; up to date Site Layout Plan and regular Progress Reports; and, a more detailed Restoration and Aftercare Scheme.

The need to amend / update the Section 106 Legal Agreement

103. A Section 106 Legal Agreement (S106) in connection with the 2005 permission was completed in December 2004. The terms of the S106 include the following undertakings:

1) No further implementation of existing planning permissions (Schedule 3, point 2

and set out in Schedule 2); 2) The implementation of an extended 10 year aftercare scheme for heathland

areas within the Hints and Hopwas Quarries (Schedule 3, point 3); and, 3) ‘Minerals Transport Plan’ being submitted for approval after the completion of

the A5 Improvement Scheme (Schedule 3 point 4).

104. An application to allow all operations and activities to continue until 31 December 2016 was approved by the Planning Committee subject to an amended S106 in December 2013 (ref. L.13/03/805-808 MW) (‘the extension of time permission’). It was recommended that the S106 be modified to take account of that permission. As mentioned in the ‘Relevant Planning History’ section earlier, the modified S106 has not yet been completed and the extension of time permission has not yet been issued.

105. In determining the need to modify the S106 to address this application it is necessary

to consider whether the requirements of the existing S106 (with / without modification) are applicable in this case, bearing in mind that the application covers the same area, albeit with an 18 hectare extension and restored areas excluded. It is also necessary to consider whether there are any additional requirements. In any event it is necessary to determine whether the undertakings meet the tests in the NPPF referred to below. The tests set out in paragraph 204 of the NPPF are that undertaking should be: • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

• directly related to the development; and,

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

[Note: These are also legal tests by virtue of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. Also the 2010 Regulations prevent the use of planning obligations to fund infrastructure if a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has been adopted in the area but a CIL has not been adopted in this area.]

106. It is considered that the existing undertakings and a number of additional undertakings meet the tests referred to above for the reason discussed below:

The existing undertakings: 1) No further implementation of existing planning permissions (without

compensation being claimed), an undertaking not to submit schemes of conditions under Paragraph 9 of Schedule 13 of the Environment Act 1995 for the 2 ROMP sites, withdrawal of outstanding planning applications and non-working of the “Charity Land” at Hopwas east of the gas pipeline.

This existing undertaking should be retained and updated to ensure the surrender of the relevant permissions (ref. ELR 2054/54; ELR 11502; ELR 12903; L7548; L.12573 and L.04/10/808 W) and the surrender of the permitted extraction area at Hopwas to the east of the gas pipeline. 2) The extension of the 10 year aftercare scheme to this application site area.

This existing undertaking to require heathland areas to be subject of a 10 year aftercare should be extended to include this application site area as this would ensure that the whole site is restored to a high environmental standard in this Green Belt location in accordance with the adopted MLP (saved policies 9 and 21), the NPPF (sections 9, 11 and 13) and the emerging MLP (policies 4 and 6).

3) ‘Minerals Transport Plan’ being submitted for approval after the completion of

the A5 Improvement Scheme.

This existing undertaking should be retained as the requirement to submit a ‘Minerals Transport Plan’ has not been complied with and it would ensure the provision of measures to encourage safe access and egress to and from the Site taking in to account the existing highway situation in accordance with the adopted MLP (saved policy 12), the NPPF (section 4) and the emerging MLP (policy 4.3).

The additional undertakings:

4) To secure a Restoration Guarantee Bond either by the operator responsible for

the restoration of the site being a member of the Mineral Products Association (or equivalent) and eligible to draw on their Restoration Guarantee Fund, or by arranging an equivalent financial guarantee to cover the costs of restoration and aftercare.

This new undertaking would ensure that there are financial provisions in place to fulfil the restoration and aftercare requirements. The Mineral Product Association Restoration Guarantee Fund has a limit of £1 million on any one project. This undertaking accords with the adopted MLP (saved policies 9 and 21), the NPPF (sections 11 and 13) and the emerging MLP (policy 6.4)*. [*Note: the applicants have raised representations against Policy 6.4 as mentioned at the end of Appendix 2)]

5) To regularly review the Restoration Masterplan in consultation with the site

liaison committee. This new undertaking would ensure that the Restoration Masterplan is kept under review to ensure that the site is restored to high environmental standards at the

earliest opportunity; and, to provide an opportunity to enhance local amenity or the environment and make more of a contribution towards local or national initiatives. Key stakeholders would be invited to attend the site liaison committee and they would be able to contribute to the review and the consultation arrangements. This undertaking accords with the adopted MLP (saved policies 9 and 21), the NPPF (sections 11 and 13) and the emerging MLP (policies 4.5 and 6.3).

6) To establish a site liaison committee and to invite key stakeholders including

local residents/land owners and representatives on behalf of the County, District and Parish Councils, and the EA to attend.

This new undertaking would ensure that a forum exists for key stakeholders to be kept informed about the progress of the working and restoration of the site and for concerns that may arise or opportunities to improve the working and restoration to be discussed, in accordance with the adopted MLP (saved policy 12), the NPPF (sections 11 and 13) and the emerging MLP (policy 4.4).

7) To secure the continuation of the hydrometric monitoring programme. This new undertaking would ensure that the existing hydrometric monitoring programme continues and is updated in accordance with Chapter 9 of the ES (Hydrology and Hydrogeology). Section 9.8 of this Chapter includes the 13 monitoring locations. Not all of the monitoring locations are within the planning application boundary and therefore monitoring at these locations would need to be secured as part of the modified S106. This undertaking accords with the adopted MLP (saved policy 12), the NPPF (section 13) and the emerging MLP (policy 4.3).

107. On the assumption that the recommendation to permit this application is accepted by the Planning Committee, there is a further recommendation that the modified S106 be completed in connection with the ‘extension of time permission’ and that that permission be issued before the S106 is modified in connection with this application and this application is issued. Currently there is no permission to extract mineral so it is important to bridge the gap between the 2005 permission and the new permission by issuing the ‘extension of time permission’. [Note: The time used to complete the outstanding matters in connection with the S106 for the ‘extension of time permission’ would also be used to finalise the further modifications to the S106 required in connection with this application].

108. Conclusion: In this case, it is reasonable to conclude that the terms of the existing S106 and the additional undertakings referred to above are necessary, relevant and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and should be secured as part of a modified S106. Overall Conclusion

109. 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 representation received, all referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposals to continue the

existing mining permission and for the extension of the quarry should be permitted, subject to the updated planning conditions and applicant and any other interested parties entering into an modified Section 106 Legal Agreement, the heads of terms of which are recommended below; and, subject to the further recommendations to address two outstanding matters related to the site, namely the approval of the revised Restoration and Aftercare Scheme and the completion of the modified S106 and issue of the ‘extension of time permission’. THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SKILLS

PERMIT the consolidating application for a north western extension to Hints Quarry; the continued use of the existing processing plant and site access onto Watling Street; and, the comprehensive phased quarrying and restoration of the existing quarry and north western extension area; at Hints Quarry, Watling Street, Hints, Tamworth subject to:

• the applicants and all other persons with an interest in the land signing a modified

version of the existing Section 106 Legal Agreement - the heads of terms are listed below; and,

• planning conditions - the heads of terms are listed below.

FURTHER RECOMMENDATION OF THE DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SKILLS That the planning permission should not be issued before:

a) the modified Section 106 Legal Agreement in connection with the ‘extension of

time permission’ is completed and the planning permission issued (ref. L.13/03/805-808 MW); and,

b) the revised Restoration and Aftercare Scheme in relation to the existing site

has been approved (ref. L.02/09/805-808 MW D10);

unless there are unforeseen circumstances to prevent (a) and/or (b) being resolved before the new permission is issued. In such circumstances the new permission would only be issued following the approval of the Chairman of Planning Committee.

The modified Section 106 Legal Agreement - heads of terms: 1. Existing undertaking - no further implementation of existing planning

permissions (without compensation being claimed), an undertaking not to submit schemes of conditions under Paragraph 9 of Schedule 13 of the Environment Act 1995 for the 2 ROMP sites, withdrawal of outstanding planning applications and non-working of the “Charity Land” at Hopwas east of the gas pipeline;

2. The extension of the existing undertaking 10 year aftercare scheme to this

application site area;

3. Existing undertaking - ‘Minerals Transport Plan’ to be submitted for approval following completion of the A5 Improvement Scheme;

4. To secure a Restoration Guarantee Bond either by the operator responsible for the restoration of the site being a member of the Mineral Products Association (or equivalent) and eligible to draw on their Restoration Guarantee Fund, or by arranging an equivalent financial guarantee to cover the costs of restoration and aftercare;

5. To regularly review the Restoration Masterplan in consultation with the site

liaison committee; 6. To establish a site liaison committee and to invite key stakeholders including

local residents/land owners and representatives on behalf of the County, District and Parish Councils, and the EA to attend.

7. To secure the continuation of the hydrometric monitoring programme. The planning conditions to include the following: Define the consent 1. To define the permission with reference to documents and plans; 2. To define the mineral working, restoration and ancillary operations; 3. To require notice of commencement under the terms of this permission; 4. To define the duration of the development – winning and working of mineral

shall cease no later than 31 December 2023 (i.e. 7 years); the site shall be restored no later than 2 years after the cessation of mineral working (i.e. 31 December 2025); and, thereafter subject to 5 years aftercare (and a further 10 years in accordance with the S106 Legal Agreement);

5. To require notification of commencement and cessation of working and

restoration operations in each phase; 6. To define the expiry of the permission to be when the restoration and aftercare

has been completed to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority 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 ensure that the terms of the planning permission are made

known to the site operators; 9. To require the submission of details of the plant and equipment located within

the ‘Processing plant site’ shown on the Application Site Plan (drawing ref. HQ/NWE/1);

Definition of the Working Strategy and Waste Types 10. To limit output to no more than 700,000 tonnes of sand and gravel per annum;

11. To require the submission of a detailed Progress Report after 12 months and

thereafter at years 3, 5 and 7. The report to include a Site Layout Plan to show the detailed arrangement of the site including the layout of offices, other buildings, car parking, processing plant area, conveyor, storage areas for plant and equipment, access road and internal roads, wheel wash, screen bunds and storage mounds, drainage arrangements, security fencing as well as the progress of the phased workings and restoration;

12. To define the site layout, appearance and height of stockpiled materials; 13. To limit the use of the site to the uses hereby permitted and to restrict permitted

development rights; Management of the operations

Hours of Operation 14. Hours of operation for mineral extraction:

• 0700 – 1900 (Monday to Friday) • 0700 – 1300 (Saturdays) • No operations on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays

15. Hours of operation for the processing of mineral at the ‘Hints plant site’:

• 0600 – 2200 (Monday to Friday) • 0600 – 1300 (Saturdays) • No operations on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays

16. Any temporary operations – soil striping, placement, construction and removal

of bunds, restoration and aftercare: • 0700 – 1900 (Monday to Friday) • 0700 – 1300 (Saturdays) • No operations on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays

Site Access, Vehicle Numbers and Highway Safety

17. To define the vehicle accesses; 18. The number of HGV movements to and from the site shall not exceed 350

movements per full working day (175 in and 175 out) and shall not exceed 254 movements per full working day (127 in and 127 out) when calculated over a 12 month period;

19. To require loads on vehicles leaving the site to be securely sheeted or

otherwise contained; 20. To require the wheel wash facilities to be used as necessary to prevent the

deposit of deleterious materials on the public highway; 21. To require that the access is maintained in accordance with the approved

details (ref. L.02/09/805-808 MW D6 dated 20 June 2007);

General Environmental Protection

Stockpiling 22. To define the stockpiles locations; Soil Management 23. To ensure that soil is managed in accordance with Chapter 8 of the submitted

Environmental Statement; 24. To ensure that all soil and sub-soil storage mounds are located in accordance

with the submitted plans; 25. Topsoil, subsoil and soil making material shall only be stripped when they are in

a dry and friable condition; 26. Notification of soil striping, replacement of soil making material or sub soil and

the completion of topsoil replacement; 27. To require an appropriately experienced soil specialist to advise on soil

handling, including identifying when soils are dry enough to be handled and how to make the best use of the different soils on site;

Noise 28. To set noise limits during extraction operations at nearest noise sensitive

properties:- Between the hours of 0700 - 1900, no operations, with the exception of soil stripping,

placement, construction and removal of bunds, restoration and aftercare, shall take place that would create site attributable levels above those specified below, at any of the noise sensitive locations listed.

1 hour LAeq

a. Adjacent to Common Barn 54 dB b. Adjacent to Woodside Stables 55 dB c. Adjacent to Keepers Cottage 50 dB d. Adjacent to Rock Hill 55 dB e. Adjacent to Bucks Head Cottage 55 dB

Between the hours of 0600 – 0700 and 1900 - 2200 hours, no operations shall take place that would create site attributable levels above those specified below, at any of the noise sensitive locations listed.

1 hour LAeq a) Adjacent to Common Barn 54 dB b) Adjacent to Woodside Stables 55 dB c) Adjacent to Keepers Cottage 48 dB d) Adjacent to Rock Hill 55 dB e) Adjacent to Bucks Head Cottage 55 dB

29. To set noise limits during temporary operations) of 67dB LAeq freefield (1 hour)

during extraction operations at nearest noise sensitive properties; 30. To require the submission of an updated noise monitoring scheme based on

the approved scheme (L.02/09/805-808 MW D3 dated 3 October 2006); 31. To require the construction of 3 metre high screening bund to the east of Bucks

Head Cottages prior to the commencement of operations in Phase 4; 32. To require all vehicles and plant employed within the site to be fitted with

effective silencers; 33. To require all vehicles and plant employed within the site to be fitted with

appropriate reversing systems; 34. To require that all plant engine covers are closed whilst the plant is in operation

except when undertaking maintenance and repair work; Dust 35. To ensure that dust suppression is undertaken in accordance with Chapter 11

of the Environmental Statement; 36. To ensure that best practicable means are used during the life of the

development to minimise dust emissions from the site; Lighting 37. To require external lighting arrangements to be are carried out in accordance

with the approved details (L.02/09/805-808 MW D5 dated 18 January 2006); 38. 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; Maintenance 39. To ensure that all buildings, structures, perimeter security fencing, gates and

hard-surfaces on Site are maintained in good order and fit for purpose; Water Environment 40. To require that any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals to be

sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls; Pollution Control 41. To prevent burning of waste on site; 42. To define the requirements for the storage of oils, fuels and chemicals;

Site Security 43. To ensure that measures are taken to prevent any unauthorised access to the

site; Nature Conservation and Archaeology 44. To require the submission of updated habitat and species surveys to inform the

extension application and restoration proposals;

Extension area – updated ecology surveys prior to commencement in this area to include:

• Breeding birds • Badger Existing permitted area - updated ecology surveys and mitigation proposals within 12 months of this consent to include • Habitats • Breeding birds • Badger • Great Crested Newts

45. To require the provision of a buffer between the soil storage mound and Knox’s

Grave Lane; 46. To require the submission of a Method Statement to prevent the spread of

invasive species Cotoneaster horizontalis; 47. To require the submission of a reptile mitigation strategy informed by survey for

the “Charity Land”; 48. To require the submission of an updated Great Crested Newt survey and

mitigation measures for the existing permitted area; 49. To require a Method Statement for the control of New Zealand pygmy weed for

the “Charity Land”; 50. The restriction of vegetation removal and soil stripping to outside of the bird

breeding season (March-August inclusive) unless immediately preceded (no more than 7 days before) by a breeding bird survey by a suitably experienced ornithologist;

51. To require the submission of a badger mitigation plan informed by updated

survey; within 3 months of consent; 52. To require the submission of a written scheme of archaeological investigation; Restoration and Aftercare

53. To require the site to be generally restored in accordance with the submitted Restoration Masterplan;

54. To require a detailed Restoration and Aftercare Scheme to be submitted within

12 months of the date of the permission; the scheme to include: • soil handling • depths of soil forming materials • soil amelioration; • full details of the proposed landform • full details of habitat restoration with planting details including plant

species, percentage mixes, planting densities, plant protection; • details of annual reports and site meetings to monitor restoration and

aftercare progress; • the programmes for restoration and aftercare; and, • full details of a five year aftercare (10 years for the heathland areas).

55. To require a review of the approved Restoration Masterplan at years 3, 5 and 7,

in conjunction with the Progress Reports, and if as a result to require revisions to the detailed Restoration and Aftercare Scheme;

56. To require the site to be restored and subject to aftercare in accordance with

the latest approved Restoration Masterplan and detailed Restoration and Aftercare Scheme;

Record Keeping 57. To require records to be kept of the following:

a) The total number of loads of mineral leaving the site per day; b) The operating hours; c) Noise, dust and water monitoring in accordance with the approved

schemes; d) Any complaints and remedial actions taken.

Informatives 1. The County Council’s Rights of Way Team advised as follows: The applicant is advised to contact the Rights of Way Team to discuss Public Bridleway No 18 Hints and to the other rights of way within the quarry. Contact the Rights of Way Team on 01785 277241.

2. The Environment Agency advised as follows:- Pollution Prevention: During construction the company should ensure that on site activities do not cause pollution. There should be no polluting emissions to air, land or water resulting from actions by the company or by its sub-contractors. Pollution prevention guidance is available on our website.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pollution-prevention-guidance-ppg Permitting: Any de watering activities discharging to watercourse may require a permit from us. Further information on this can be found on the link below. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-discharge-and-groundwater-activity-permits-additional-guidance 3. Western Power Distribution advised as follows: Western Power Distribution (WPD) Electricity / WPD Surf Telecom apparatus are in the vicinity of the site. Contact should be made with Western Power Distribution on 0845 724 0240. Details for working safely in proximity of electrical equipment can be obtained from clicking on the following link: http://www.westernpower.co.uk/health-and-safety/public-safety

Case Officer: David Bray - Tel: (01785) 277273 email: david.bray@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 Summary of the findings of the Environmental Statement. Section 1 – Introduction This Section of the Environmental Statement (ES) provides the background to the submission; the application site; the proposed development. This Section also describes the aims of the Environmental Assessment, refers to the technical studies undertaken by the applicant (Landscape and Visual Impact and Restoration Design; Ecology; Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Resources; Hydrology and Hydrogeology; Noise; Air Quality; Traffic and Cultural Heritage) and explains the format of the ES, including the submitted documents. Section 2 - The application site This section of the ES includes an introduction to the application site, details of the ecology; agricultural Land Quality and Soil Resources; geology; hydrology; hydrogeology; access and traffic; and cultural heritage. This section also provides a summary of the baseline conditions. Section 3 - The proposed development This section provides details of how the sand and gravel would be extracted and how the site would be restored including a general overview; details of preliminary operations; details of the proposed operations within each of the phases; details of the final restoration profiling works; hours of operation, processing plant, output and traffic movements and the alternatives. Section 4 - Restoration strategy This section provides an introduction and concept for the restoration of the site and describes the restoration landform, drainage, restoration materials, the restoration land uses and restoration conclusions. Section 5 - Environmental impact assessment This Section of the ES explains the approach to the assessment of the environmental effects: the methodology; and, the structure of the ES topic chapters. Section 6 -Landscape and visual impact This chapter of the ES considers the landscape and visual effects of the application and identifies the key work undertaken; provides the outline methodology and baseline situation - landscape aspects; identifies the landscape designations; the landscape character and landscape value; Baseline Situation - Visual Aspects; Landscape and Visual Assessment; Effects on other Visual Receptors and Sequential Cumulative Impacts. The Summary and Conclusions section indicates ‘the adverse effects on visual amenity are limited to a maximum level of Moderate-Major with many others of a much lower level. None of these effects is considered to be ‘Significant’ and ‘the adverse effects on the landscape resource are limited to a Minor-Moderate level. None of these effects is considered to be Significant’. This section also concludes that following restoration, there would be ‘an enhancement with regards to the landscape characteristics within the north west extension area and within the site’ and ‘the replacement habitats are characteristic elements in the natural area and are considered to have a positive effect. The residual restoration provides beneficial landscape effects of a Minor- Moderate level’ (Section 6.12.2).

Section 7 – Ecology The ES assesses the impact of the proposals on ecology and ecological reports have been submitted (Preliminary Ecological Report, Great Crested Newt Survey Report; Breeding Birds Survey Report; Bat Survey Report and Phase 1 Habitat Plan). Section 7 includes an introduction; methodology; Approach to Evaluation; Legal and Policy Considerations; Ecological Baseline; Nature Conservation Evaluation; Potential Impacts; Proposed Mitigation – Species; Cumulative Effects and Impacts; Residual Ecological Impacts; Restoration Gains. The ES concludes that the potential impact of ecology would be ‘insignificant based on the results of current surveys and assessments and taking into account the significant gains to be delivered through restoration when compared to the low value of the existing site for ecology’ and that the restored site would qualify and be appropriate for inclusion as a Site of Biological Importance’, this ‘would strengthen the local network of ecological designations in Staffordshire and provide a significant new area of lowland heathland / acidic grassland which is of national importance as a habitat type’. It is not predicted to have any significant or long term adverse ecological effects. Section 8 - Agriculture and soil resources This Section considered the effects of the proposed development in terms of soil resources and agricultural land quality. It includes details of the methodology; baseline conditions; summary of development; assessment of effects; and mitigation measures. The ES concludes that detailed soil surveys should be conducted in advance of soil stripping and that the material in the soil stores be monitored as it is removed from the storage bunds. Section 9 - Hydrology and hydrogeology This Section considered the potential effects of the proposed development in terms of hydrology and hydrogeology. It includes details of the methodology, investigations and data sources used; the baseline conditions, the proposed development in relation to the ‘water environment’; the potential effects of the proposed development on the water environment; mitigation measures; residual effects and monitoring. The ES refers to a comprehensive investigation that has been undertaken including 12 years of site specific groundwater elevation data collected in the locality. This data has been used to define a robust conceptual model. The ES concludes that the proposed extension, incorporating the mitigation measures, would have a minimal potential to cause negative impact in the locality. It is recommended that the existing the hydrometric monitoring programme. Section 10 – Noise This section of the ES considered the potential for the proposal to impact upon the noise environment in the vicinity of the application site. It included details of the method of assessment; the measurement methodology and mitigation measures. The potential for noise to cause impacts at the closest noise-sensitive properties and the predicted noise levels have been compared to the approved noise limits and it is concluded that the existing noise limits will be achieved at all receptor locations during phases 1 to 6 with the additional mitigation measures during Phase 7 to ensure the acceptable noise level at Bucks Head Cottages.

Section 11 - Air quality This section of the ES considers the potential for the proposed operations on the air quality. It includes details of the method of assessment with regard to suspended dust and to deposited dust; the assessment of traffic emissions; the baseline conditions including existing air quality; dust monitoring and complaints; meteorology – dispersion of emissions; rainfall data; dust sensitive receptors; assessment of effects and significance; and suspended dust. It also provides details of the risk of impacts, mitigation measures during removal, storage and replacement of soils and overburden; excavation and transfer of mineral; for unpaved haulage routes; the operation of the processing plant; transport of mineral off site and the management. The ES identifies the potential sources of dust onsite; considers the effectiveness of the dust control measures relative to the sensitive receptors; and, concludes that the impacts would be insignificant and reversible. Section 12 – Transportation This section of the ES examines the site access; the local highway network, and the potential impact on the network from the proposal. It provides details of the site access, the existing highway network, the traffic conditions; the development proposals including trip generation, the development impacts including capacity and safety impacts. The ES concludes that no mitigation measure are required apart from the maintenance of the quarry access road and visibility splays as the continued operation of the quarry would have no adverse effects and there would be no adverse wider environmental or amenity effects resulting from the traffic. Section 13 - Cultural heritage The ES assesses the potential impact of the proposals on heritage assets and their significance. Section 13 includes an introduction methodology; cultural heritage context, previous cultural heritage studies, designations and planning policy, direct impacts and indirect impacts; mitigation measures, residual effects, recommendations, summary. The ES concludes that the potential for the survival of heritage assets from the prehistoric period is considered to be Moderate to High; the survival of Romano-British deposits is considered to be low to moderate and from the medieval and post-medieval periods, other than features relating to agricultural practice, is considered to be low. A programme of archaeological works prior to mineral extraction would be required to preserve archaeological deposits. Section 14 - Summary of environmental effects This section of the ES provides a summary and conclusions of the previous sections of the ES, describing the key elements of the study and detailing the mitigation measures. Section 15 - Conclusions This section of the ES indicates that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the working scheme as in-built mitigation measures (measures to minimise the landscape and visual effects of the development; the noise attenuation measures inherent in the phased working scheme; and the continuation of existing dust management controls).

‘The general conclusion reached by the ES is that the proposed scheme would successfully minimise the environmental effects, and that the existing and in some instances additional mitigation measures are capable of being adopted in relation to ongoing operations at the site’.

Non-Technical Summary

A non-technical summary of the ES was also provided.

Appendix 2 – The Development Plan policies and the other material considerations relevant to this decision The Development Plan policies

a) The Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Minerals Local Plan (1994 – 2006) (adopted December 1999) - ‘saved policies’ (* see Note below):

• Policy 2 - The need for mineral (consistent with the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF) – paragraphs 143, 145 & 146 (Minerals); 156 (Local plans));

• Policy 9 - Site restoration and aftercare (consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - paragraph 117 (natural environment) and 143 & 144 (minerals));

• Policy 10 - Legal agreements (consistent with the NPPF – paragraph 203 & 204 (Planning conditions and obligations));;

• Policy 12 - Proximity to people and sensitive properties(consistent with the NPPF - paragraphs 114, 117, 120 & 123 (natural environment) and 143 & 144 (minerals));

• Policy 21 - Protection of the landscape(consistent with the NPPF - paragraphs 113, 115, 116, 123 & 125 (natural environment);

• Policy 22 - Tree, woodland and/or hedgerow planting(consistent with the NPPF – paragraph 114 (Natural 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)).

* 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 and is available on our Minerals Local Plan web page.

b) The Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy (2008 – 2029) (adopted 17 February

2015) • Core Policy 1 (The Spatial Strategy); • Core Policy 2 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development); • Core Policy 3 (Delivering Sustainable Development); • Core Policy 13 (Our Natural Resources); • Policy NR1 (Countryside Management); • Policy NR2 (Development in the Green Belt); • Policy NR3 (Biodiversity, Protected Species & their Habitats); • Policy NR4 (Trees, Woodland & Hedgerows); • Policy NR5 (Natural & Historic Landscapes); • Policy NR6 (Linked Habitat Corridors & Multi-functional Greenspaces); • Policy BE1 (High Quality Development);

The other material considerations

• The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) (published on 27 March 2012). o Section 1: Building a strong, competitive economy o Section 4: Transport o Section 7: Requiring good design o Section 8: Promoting healthy communities o Section 9: Protecting Green Belt land o Section 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and

coastal change; o Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; o Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment o Section 13 - Minerals

• Planning Practice Guidance dated 6 March 2014

• Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory

Obligations and their Impact on the Planning System); • The New Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire (2015 to 2030) (Final Draft – June

2015) (with proposed changes) which was approved by the County Council on 10 December 2016 for submission to the Secretary of State. The submission was made on 8 January 2016 and it is currently anticipated that the examination will take place in March-April 2016. The relevant emerging policies include:

• Policy 1: Provision for Sand and Gravel;

o 1.1 (j) – Hints/Hopwas (Inset Map 10) o 1.3 extensions normally only worked after cessation of working in the

existing site • Policy 4: Minimising the impact of mineral development;

o 4.1 environmental considerations o 4.5 higher environmental standards o 4.6 ancillary development

• Policy 6: Restoration of Mineral Sites o 6.1 restoration requirements o 6.3 regular review of the restoration strategies / plans o 6.4 financial guarantees

The Appendix to the new Minerals Local Plan identifies the site allocations including ‘Bucks Head Farm, Hints’ (referred to as Hints / Hopwas’ in the emerging MLP) and the ‘development considerations’ (discussed in the Observations section of the report). One of the applicants made a representation on one of the ‘development considerations’ (asking for the words ‘where appropriate’ to be added (not accepted as a proposed change)) and to support the allocation; the Environment Agency also made minor comments on the ‘development considerations’ (accepted as proposed changes). The applicants contend that the policy 6.4 requirement to demonstrate financial provision is contrary to national policy and not justified. Whereas, the Mineral

Products Association proposed some wording to clarify the requirement. (Proposed changes have been made to clarify the requirement and 6.4 and 6.5 in the final draft version are merged into one policy 6.4).