Letterhead Template (Colour)

Letterhead Template (Colour) This matter is being dealt with by Mike Hankin Reference Reg 22 letter T 0115 969 6511 E michael hankin@nottscc gov uk W nottinghamshire gov uk Geoplan Unit 1 Cedars Offic[.]

This matter is being dealt with by: Mike Hankin Reference: Reg 22 letter T 0115 969 6511 E michael.hankin@nottscc.gov.uk W nottinghamshire.gov.uk Geoplan Unit Cedars Office Park Butt Lane Normanton on Soar Leicestershire LE12 5EE 7th March 2014 FAO Martin Clayton Dear Sir Re Planning Application 3/14/00040/CMA Proposed southern extension to existing quarry with restoration to water amenity, together with revised restoration for creation of an enlarged nature reserve and retention of existing plant site and site access at Langford Quarry, Newark Road, Collingham Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 – Regulation 22 request for further information and evidence in respect of an Environmental Statement I write in respect of the above planning application which is currently being considered by Nottinghamshire County Council As a way of background, the planning application was originally submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) for determination in December 2013 Following the receipt of the planning application the MPA has undertaken full consultation with statutory organisations and the local community and most responses have now been received Additionally I can confirm that I have examined the planning application and the supporting environmental statement This process has identified a number of areas where further information and clarification is required to address areas of concern that have been identified Please accept this letter as a formal request for the submission of supplementary environmental information The information is requested under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 to ensure your Environmental Statement is complete, consistent and fully assesses the environmental impacts of the development The requested information is set out below: Cultural Heritage Assessment (Archaeology) The Environmental Statement incorporates a cultural heritage assessment which considers the archaeological heritage asset of the site, identifies the magnitude of predicted impact from the development including appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts or ensure any Nottinghamshire County Council, County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 7QP remains are appropriately recorded The submitted Cultural Assessment has been reviewed by the County Council’s Archaeologist who has raised the following observations: ‘The archaeological desk based assessment is a good overview of the potential for the application to impact upon a range of buried archaeological material The report does not however address the issues of the potential for the site to impact upon heritage assets in the wider landscape; there is limited reference to the nearest Scheduled Monument, the Roman marching camp, but no mention of the nearby earthwork remains of the Medieval village at Langford, which is also scheduled Arguably, the potential for a negative impact on the setting of this monument is increased because the remains are well preserved earthwork remains in a specific topographical location, whereas the Roman marching camp is only visible as cropmarks in an arable field…… I think the report is deficient in these respects, and would recommend that the applicants be requested to provide additional information to allow detailed consideration of these issue, in line with the requirements of para 128 of NPPF The desk based assessment otherwise provides an excellent overview of the site's archaeological potential, pointing out that the lack of information relevant to the site recorded on the County HER is belied by the previous phases of archaeological fieldwork at the site A good assessment of particular types of potential is offered, with the two smaller areas likely to extend Prehistoric, Roman and Early Medieval remains found in earlier extraction, and the larger area likely to contain significant palaeoenvironmental material It is clear that archaeological field evaluation would present some serious challenges, with soil bunds on the two smaller areas, and a significant depth of alluvial overburden over much of the larger area In these kinds of contexts, normal evaluation techniques can fail to provide a useful level of accurate predictability The palaeochannel expected in the largest area has the potential to contain a wide range of archaeological deposits; human remains, deposits of metalwork, boats, trackways and riverside structures These may be well-preserved and very significant, but will tend to be discrete and limited to a fairly restricted area Their loss through extraction may be mitigated by their excavation and recording to a level appropriate to their significance - this needs to be set out clearly in a fully detailed Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), which I would recommend the applicants should be submitting for agreement now, in advance of a planning decision I am concerned that the archaeology of a number of minerals application sites have not yet been fully reported on Therefore I expect the WSI to provide a timetable for report production, so that the final report is submitted to the MPA before the relevant condition is discharged.’ Having regard to the above comments can I request that you: a Prepare a supplementary report to consider the potential for the site to impact upon heritage assets in the wider landscape, particularly the nearest Scheduled Monument, the Roman marching camp and the nearby earthwork remains of the medieval village at Langford b Prepare a fully detailed Written Scheme of Investigation incorporating a methodology which would be used to investigate and record any archaeological features within the site including a timetable for report production Built Heritage Assessment Nottinghamshire County Council, County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 7QP Although the Cultural Heritage Assessment incorporates a significant amount of information regarding the archaeological potential of the site, it is limited in terms of its assessment of the impact to historic buildings and built heritage within the proximity of the site, this is despite the fact that within close proximity of the site are Grade and II* listed buildings at Langford which the quarry has potential to impact their setting Specifically, NPPF Paragraph 128 advises that: ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.’ With NPPF advice in mind, there is a need to undertake and submit a further assessment to consider the magnitude of impact on the built heritage of the area, particularly the setting of heritage assets in the vicinity of the development site This assessment should reference the landscape and visual assessment where appropriate Headroom under haul road tunnel conveyor Although Langford Footpath would not be re-routed as a result of the development, the application documents propose the construction of a short tunnel where the path passes under the haul road and conveyor The submitted plans show that this section of path would have a maximum height of 2m which is rather tight on headroom and below the 2.1m minimum recommended by the DfT Please review the submitted specification for this tunnel with a view to providing greater clearance/height for users of the footpath, submitting the necessary plans to show the amended structure design Supplementary landscape planting The landscape and visual appraisal identifies that there would be some visual impacts resulting from the development within the Holme village area The planning consultation process has identified local concerns regarding these visual impacts, as well as concerns regarding the potential for a larger quarry which potentially could be developed if allocations within the replacement Minerals Local Plan were to be developed I would like you to investigate whether additional screening could be provided to provide landscape planting to mitigate for these impacts The preferred option for landscaping would be for a structured landscape belt along the boundaries of the proposed replacement Minerals Local Plan allocation If you are unable to commit to such extensive landscaping at this stage, please give consideration to the incorporation of additional landscape planting to most sensitive/prominent parts of the site facing towards residential properties, as well as landscaping adjacent to the route of the Sustrans cyclepath, where it passes the extended quarry workings Furthermore a commitment to allow existing hedgerows to grow to provide additional screening would be welcomed including details of the location of the hedgerows on a plan which are to be allowed to grow Nottinghamshire County Council, County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 7QP If you are agreeable to providing additional landscape planting I would be grateful if you could prepare a plan and landscape strategy to identify the scope of works proposed Public Access within Restored Landscape The restoration/aftercare proposals for the proposed extended quarry area provides for a new lake within the southern extension and agricultural/woodland areas within the proposed eastern extension The application also incorporates amendments to the restoration of the existing quarry to provide a larger reedbed habitat and amended design lake The planning application does not incorporate any specific proposals regarding how these restored habitats would be managed in the longer term and in particular how public access would be facilitated across the site, despite the fact that the planning application is submitted on the basis that its restoration scheme facilitates amenity and nature reserve facilities Can I request that you review your restoration/aftercare proposals and provide further clarity regarding the level of public access proposed for the restored site to facilitate the stated amenity/nature reserve objectives In particular it would be helpful if you could confirm whether there would be any permissive paths provided within the site, identifying on a plan the location of these paths including specification of their surfacing Also, please provide details of any other amenity facilities proposed for the restoration/aftercare of the site such as car parks, informal play facilities, picnic areas, bird hides, information boards etc With regard to the management of the site, please provide details of your management arrangements for the restored site to ensure that community access and site management is provided and thereafter maintained beyond the statutory five year aftercare period Clarity regarding HGV Carrying Capacity Section 6.5 of the planning application forms states that the likely capacity of HGV’s and commercial vehicles accessing the site would be 38 tonne average/44 tonne maximum Can you confirm whether these figures are accurate since in my experience the capacity of sand and gravel carrying vehicles is significantly less than stated, a conclusion which is supported in the attached link (http://www.mqp.co.uk/vehicle.htm) If the stated figures on the application form are considered accurate it would be helpful if you could support this with weighbridge receipts and confirm that the data represents pay loads and not the gross vehicle weight of the HGV If the carrying capacity figures are not accurate it would be helpful if you could submit accurate data and clarify whether this this has implications to the traffic data stated on the application forms and set out within Paragraph 5.10.3 of your supporting statement? Please can you provide a quantitative calculation of lorry carrying capacity against annual output to assure the MPA of the reliability of your traffic data Clarity regarding output figures There appears to be some inconsistency regarding the capacity and output of the facility, in particular: • Paragraph 4.5.2 of the supporting statement states that the remaining permitted reserves stood at 1.333 million tonnes as of 1.1.2013 Nottinghamshire County Council, County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 7QP • Paragraph 5.1.1 of the supporting statement states that the existing permitted reserves would largely be worked by spring 2015 If work is completed by the end of April 2015 (which is when the southern extension is expected to commence) this equates to production of 571,000 tpa or if extraction is completed by the end of May 2015 this equates to 551,586tpa • The maximum output for the plant site as set out in the planning application is 480,000 tpa • Paragraph 5.10.3 of the supporting statement states that no changes are proposed to the existing output of the site (circa 480,000tpa) and there will be no change in the level of traffic movements • Section one, part two of the planning application states that the total sand and gravel reserve is 1.438mt over 3.3 years starting in April 2015 which equates to 442,461tpa • Section seven of part two of the planning application states that the estimated annual production would be 480,000tpa Whilst the above figures are roughly comparable, there is some tension between the absolute numbers of remaining capacity and annual production levels Can you review the figures provided and submit the most up to date information regarding output/production and remaining capacities/depletion Dust operational History of the Langford Site Paragraph 7.3.11 states that ‘the quarry and its associated plant site have been operating for many years without generating complaints due to dust’ It has been reported to the MPA that there was a dust incident in October 2010 which did generate complaints from the local community Can you review your records and confirm whether such an incident occurred and whether it was recorded (NCC records show that complaints were investigated regarding dust nuisance at this time) I would be interested to hear your views on the circumstances which resulted in this alleged dust incident occurring and the measures which have/could be taken to ensure a repeat does not occur Installation of CCTV cameras to regulate lorry routeing arrangements Representations have been received from the local community requesting the company to consider installing CCTV cameras adjacent to the quarry access junction with the A1133 to provide greater surveillance of vehicle movements and provide additional assurances to the public that lorry routeing arrangements are being supervised by the company Your views on this suggestion would be welcomed In providing a response it would be helpful if you could clarify the arrangements currently in place to ensure lorry routeing controls are adhered as well as any examples of the action taken by the company on the occasions the arrangements may have been breached 10 Floodlighting The Council has received local representations that additional floodlighting has recently been installed within the plant site, and that this floodlighting shines prominently towards Holme village at night Please confirm whether any additional floodlighting is proposed as part of the current planning application and if so please provide details of this lighting It would be helpful if you could confirm whether any additional floodlighting has recently been installed in the plant site and whether there is any action the company can/have taken to reduce any adverse impact Nottinghamshire County Council, County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 7QP 11 Ecological Surveys/Mitigation The pond at Langford Marsh have been assessed within the Environmental Statement as having a HSI Index of “average” for great crested newts; the Addendum Report recommends that further great crested newt survey work is required to establish whether this species is present or not (with results used to inform mitigation proposals) As great crested newts are a European protected species, the results of these presence/absence surveys are required prior to the determination of this application The surveys should take between mid-March and mid-June, with at least two surveys during mid-April to mid-May In addition, the hydrology chapter in the Environment Statement considers changes to hydrology and potential impacts on areas of ecological interest within the locality Whilst impacts to most receptors during extraction are identified as being negligible, the precise nature of up gradient impacts on groundwater is considered to be uncertain The need for mitigation measures for these impacts has been identified and includes monitoring groundwater levels near Langford Marsh SINC; however it is unclear what steps would be taken if an impact was identified during monitoring Further information in this respect is therefore requested prior to determination of the planning application Concluding Paragraphs In accordance with the requirements of Regulation 22(7) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, the MPA have suspended the determination of the planning application until such time that the further information that has been requested is submitted It would be helpful when you respond to this letter for you to submit the requested information within one submission This approach assists the Council and its consultees to re-evaluate the planning application and undertake the required re-consultations in a single resubmission which provides more clarity to the process than a series of repeat submissions Outside the scope of the Regulation 22 request it is acknowledged that the highway officer has not identified a road safety necessity for additional road safety features to be installed on the local highway network Nevertheless I understand that the applicant has agreed to contribute to some interactive speed warning signs on the A1133 as a gift to the local community It would be helpful if you could provide me details of these proposals so that I can reference the matters within my committee report Yours sincerely, Mike Hankin Planning Applications Senior Practitioner – Planning Group Nottinghamshire County Council cc Newark and Sherwood Planning Department Nottinghamshire County Council, County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 7QP