appendix 6: updated flood risk assessment · 2017. 2. 14. · stonepits quarry, benefield, oundle -...

GP PLANNING LTD POST SUBMISSION REPORT

P002-04 Additional Information / NM Appendix 30/07/13

APPENDIX 6: Updated Flood Risk Assessment

4 Coldstream Lane, Hardingstone, Northampton, NN4 6DB Tel 01604 702461 Fax 01604 701821

[email protected] www.abingtonconsulting.co.uk

Abington Consulting Engineers Limited – Company Registration Number 6170809 – VAT Registration Number 754550916

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

FOR PROPOSED

STONEPITS QUARRY

AT

BENEFIELD

OUNDLE

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Exp

ert W

itnes

s

P

roje

ct M

anag

emen

t

F

lood

Ris

k &

Dra

inag

e

Hig

hway

s &

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n

Civ

il &

Stru

ctur

al E

ngin

eerin

g

13th March 2013 Revision C

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield, Oundle - Flood Risk Assessment 1

Contents Page 1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 Planning Policy & Methodology 2 3.0 Development Location & Description 2 4.0 Development Proposals 3 5.0 Sequential Test 3 6.0 Potential Sources of Flooding 4 7.0 Appraisal of Sources of Flooding 4 8.0 Probability 5 9.0 Climate Change 5 10.0 Flood Risk Management Measure 5 11.0 Off Site Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 6 12.0 Management of Residual Risks 6 13.0 Conclusions 7 Appendix 1 Drawings Appendix 2 Calculations


1.0 Introduction 1.1 This Flood Risk Assessment has been produced in support of the planning application for the proposed quarry and agricultural restoration scheme to the south of Upper Benefield, Oundle. 2.0 Planning Policy & Methodology 2.1 Planning policy for flood risk is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) technical guidance published in March 2012. The policy document sets out key planning objectives in relation to land usage and flood risk management. The development proposals are designed to be compliant with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. 2.2 The Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out to assess the effects of the development in respect of surface water run-off, risk from fluvial flooding and risk from other sources of flooding such as groundwater, man made structures and sewers. 3.0 Development Location & Description 3.1 The site is located to the west of Oundle in Northamptonshire between the villages of Upper and Lower Benefield. The site is currently used as an agricultural field. To the south of the site is a watercourse which is a tributary to Lyvedon Brook. A location plan of the site is shown below.

Site Location Plan


3.2 The watercourse to the south of the site is the primary conveyor of surface water run-off from the site and upstream of the site. The topography of the site has a gradient of approximately 1 in 29 falling southwards towards the stream. The proposed quarry area measures approximately 9.88 hectares. 3.3 Calculations set out in Appendix 2 show that the existing surface water run-off from the site for a 1 year return period would be 49.7 l/s using the ADAS method for green field run-off calculation. 4.0 Development Proposals 4.1 The proposal is for the site to be quarried for stone. All areas will remain permeable during the course of the quarrying works including the site access, parking and service areas. 4.2 Upon completion of the quarrying, the site will be restored to existing ground levels using waste material created by the quarry works and overburden, and finished off with topsoil. 5.0 Sequential Test 5.1 In accordance with Table 2 in the NPPF technical guidance, the proposed development should be classified as ‘Less Vulnerable’. 5.2 The Environment Agency’s detailed flood plain map is shown below. It shows the development site falls within flood Zone 1 ‘low probability’ area as defined in Table 1 in the NPPF technical guidance. This includes the entire area of the proposed quarry works.

Environment Agency Flood Plain Map

5.3 Using the Sequential Test set out in the NPPF technical guidance, the proposed quarry use defined in Table 2 is permitted in Zone 1 (refer to Table 3 shown below). Therefore the development passes the Sequential Test.


6.0 Potential Sources of Flooding 6.1 The following sources have been identified as having potential to cause flooding:

Fluvial flooding from the adjacent watercourse. Surface water run-off from the development. Surface water run-off from land uphill of the development. Possible elevated groundwater levels.

6.2 There are no public surface water sewers, reservoirs, canals or other artificial sources of flooding identified in the immediate vicinity of site which might cause a risk of flooding. 7.0 Appraisal of Sources of Flooding 7.1 The extent of fluvial flooding from the adjacent watercourse has been examined using the Environment Agency’s detailed flood map. This has been superimposed onto the topographical survey and quarry layout with the resulting drawing entitled ‘Fluvial Flood Risk’ located in Appendix 1. It can be seen that the 1000 year flood zone and the 100 year flood zone lie just to the south of the site and therefore the watercourse is not considered to be a flood risk to the development. 7.2 During the course of the quarrying operation, worked areas will be lower than existing ground levels and therefore be prone to flooding from rainwater collecting in the excavation. These areas will therefore not yield any run-off. Instead, water will be pumped out into a settlement lagoon. 7.3 Upon completion of each phase of the quarrying work, the void will be filled with overburden and waste stone. As this material constitutes the majority of the material being extracted, after bulking the profile of the restoration topography will be similar to that of the original land form. The overburden material comprises of Blisworth clay which is fairly impermeable and therefore when this is mixed in with the waste stone, the fill material will be as porous, or more porous than the original overburden. Therefore the rate of run-off from the final restoration scheme will be equal to, or less than the existing rate of run-off (refer to paragraph 3.3 above) and will not increase flood risk.


7.4 Land to the north of the site is elevated higher than the proposed quarry site. Between this elevated land and the site is a ditch which collects run-off from the higher ground and discharges it into the watercourse to the south of the site, thereby eliminating much of the risk of flooding from run-off upstream of the site. 7.5 The topography of the site has a significant gradient and therefore groundwater levels will be low. This has been confirmed by the recent boreholes which showed groundwater at approximately five metres below existing ground level. Quarry excavations will occasionally go below the water table and therefore some dewatering will be necessary to prevent flooding when groundwater levels are high. However, dewatering will be infrequent as the quarry will only be worked seasonally. When the site is restored, the groundwater levels will remain well below finished ground levels and will consequently not be a risk to flooding of the development. 8.0 Probability 8.1 The flood mapping shows the site is outside the 1000 year flood area and therefore it is deemed to be at low risk of flooding, typically less than 1 in 1000 annual probability. 9.0 Climate Change 9.1 Table 5 in the NPPF technical guidance suggests that a 20% increase in peak rainfall would be applicable to take account of climate change for a development with a lifespan up to 75 years. 10.0 Flood Risk Management Measures 10.1 Prior to commencing quarrying work, a settlement lagoon will be excavated at the southern end of the site. Perimeter swales will be constructed to capture run-off from the site and these will feed into the settlement lagoon. Any dewatering necessary from the excavations will be pumped into the lagoon which will serve as a retention pond and also allow sedement to settle. A cross section of the site presented in Appendix 1 shows that the lagoon will be located in the Blisworth Limestone which is highly porous. The lagoon will therefore act as an infiltration basin, allowing run-off to discharge into the ground water system and consequently prevent risk of flooding due to potential increased rates of run-off. Refer to drawings entitled ‘Fluvial Flood Risk’ in Appendix 1 which shows the quarry layout and settlement lagoon. 10.2 Although the exact rate of infiltration has not yet been established by testing, an estimate of the infiltration rate k of 3.3 x 10-3 m/s has been estimated using the extract from BS8004 below for freely draining Blisworth Limestone. 10.3 Assuming the site yields high rates of run-off of 100% (this would be a very conservative approach), the area draining to the lagoon would be approximately 9 hectares (the area of the field where the works are to be carried out including any excavation). Groundwater ingress to the quarry will be a maximum of 2.3 l/s (refer to Hafren Water hydrogeology report paragraphs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2). 10.4 Using the parameters set out above, for a 100 year storm plus a 20% allowance for climate change, the infiltration basin size would need to be 866m3 (refer to Microdrainage calculations set out in Appendix 2). The lagoon size shown on the layout drawing is 2134m3 and is therefore larger than would be required to deal with a 100 year storm plus an allowance for climate change. 10.5 As most of the surface water run-off from the development during the quarrying phase will be directed into the ground, during this period the run-off from the site will be reduced to 4.4 l/s for a 1 year return period (refer to calculations set out in Appendix 2).


10.6 No flood risk mitigation measures are required following restoration for the reasons set out in section 7.0.

BS8004 Extract

11.0 Off Site Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures 11.1 There will be no off site impact due to the following mitigation measures:

The development site will be remote from the flood plain. There will be no increased run-off from the site. There will be no raising of ground levels on site which would result in loss of flood plain

storage. The settlement lagoon will ensure that mobilised sediment will not be discharged into the

Brook and will also reduce run-off rates during the quarry phase. 12.0 Management of Residual Risks 12.1 during the quarrying phase, the settlement lagoon should be regularly dredged to ensure infiltration can still occur.


13.0 Conclusions 13.1 The site has been found to pass the Sequential Test. 13.2 The site does not impact on the existing adjacent watercourse flood plain. 13.3 The proposed drainage will ensure that there is no increase in run-off into the adjacent watercourse.

……………………………………………….. 13th March 2013 Ian Brazier BEng (Hons) CEng MICE On Behalf of Abington Consulting Engineers Limited

APPENDIX 1 – Drawings

APPENDIX 2 – Calculations

Abington Consulting Engineers Page 1

4 Coldstream Lane

Hardingstone

Northampton NN4 6DB

Date 14/03/2013 10:06 Designed by Owner

File Checked by

Micro Drainage Source Control W.12.6.1

ADAS 345 Mean Annual Flood

©1982-2011 Micro Drainage Ltd

Input

Area (ha) 9.880 Soil Type Factor (St) 1.000Length (m) 370.000 Paved Area (%) 0.000

Average Slope (1:X) 23.0 Region Number Region 5AAR (mm) 594

Results l/s

Q0 - Peak Flood Flow 51.0Total Q0 51.0

QBAR 57.1

Q1 year 49.7

Q1 year 49.7Q2 years 51.0Q5 years 73.7Q10 years 94.5Q20 years 119.4Q25 years 129.1Q30 years 137.2Q50 years 162.3Q100 years 203.3Q200 years 239.2Q250 years 250.6Q1000 years 328.9


4 Coldstream Lane

Hardingstone

Northampton NN4 6DB


File Checked by


ADAS 345 Mean Annual Flood


Input

Area (ha) 0.880 Soil Type Factor (St) 1.000Length (m) 370.000 Paved Area (%) 0.000

Average Slope (1:X) 23.0 Region Number Region 5AAR (mm) 594

Results l/s

Q0 - Peak Flood Flow 4.5Total Q0 4.5

QBAR 5.1

Q1 year 4.4

Q1 year 4.4Q2 years 4.5Q5 years 6.6Q10 years 8.4Q20 years 10.6Q25 years 11.5Q30 years 12.2Q50 years 14.5Q100 years 18.1Q200 years 21.3Q250 years 22.3Q1000 years 29.3


4 Coldstream Lane

Hardingstone

Northampton NN4 6DB


File cascade.casx Checked by


Cascade Summary of Results for construction phase storage.srcx


Upstream

Structures

Outflow To Overflow To

pump at 2.3 l per s.srcx (None) (None)

Half Drain Time : 5 minutes.

Storm

Event

Max

Level

(m)

Max

Depth

(m)

Max

Infiltration

(l/s)

Max

Volume

(m³)

Status

15 min Summer 0.950 0.950 1932.5 749.9 O K30 min Summer 0.952 0.952 1934.9 751.8 O K60 min Summer 0.802 0.802 1760.8 599.5 O K120 min Summer 0.522 0.522 1443.3 349.4 O K180 min Summer 0.310 0.310 1208.8 189.6 O K240 min Summer 0.163 0.163 1048.1 92.6 O K360 min Summer 0.046 0.046 844.3 24.9 O K480 min Summer 0.037 0.037 681.6 19.9 O K600 min Summer 0.032 0.032 577.7 16.9 O K720 min Summer 0.027 0.027 493.5 14.3 O K960 min Summer 0.022 0.022 391.7 11.6 O K1440 min Summer 0.016 0.016 281.9 8.7 O K2160 min Summer 0.012 0.012 209.4 6.5 O K2880 min Summer 0.009 0.009 164.4 5.1 O K4320 min Summer 0.007 0.007 119.7 3.9 O K5760 min Summer 0.006 0.006 110.7 3.7 O K7200 min Summer 0.005 0.005 84.0 3.4 O K8640 min Summer 0.004 0.004 75.1 3.1 O K10080 min Summer 0.004 0.004 66.3 2.9 O K

15 min Winter 1.058 1.058 2058.3 866.2 O KStorm

Event

Rain

(mm/hr)

Time-Peak

(mins)

15 min Summer 114.995 1630 min Summer 74.588 2360 min Summer 46.096 40120 min Summer 27.576 70180 min Summer 20.179 100240 min Summer 16.091 128360 min Summer 11.613 184480 min Summer 9.206 244600 min Summer 7.689 306720 min Summer 6.635 366960 min Summer 5.254 4801440 min Summer 3.776 7242160 min Summer 2.710 10962880 min Summer 2.140 14684320 min Summer 1.532 21765760 min Summer 1.208 29527200 min Summer 1.004 36488640 min Summer 0.863 424010080 min Summer 0.759 5128

15 min Winter 114.995 16


4 Coldstream Lane

Hardingstone

Northampton NN4 6DB




Cascade Summary of Results for construction phase storage.srcx


Storm

Event

Max

Level

(m)

Max

Depth

(m)

Max

Infiltration

(l/s)

Max

Volume

(m³)

Status

30 min Winter 1.021 1.021 2015.5 826.0 O K60 min Winter 0.780 0.780 1735.6 578.2 O K120 min Winter 0.384 0.384 1289.8 242.2 O K180 min Winter 0.137 0.137 1020.0 76.8 O K240 min Winter 0.046 0.046 854.0 25.0 O K360 min Winter 0.034 0.034 615.3 18.4 O K480 min Winter 0.027 0.027 493.5 14.6 O K600 min Winter 0.023 0.023 419.3 12.5 O K720 min Winter 0.020 0.020 364.1 10.7 O K960 min Winter 0.016 0.016 281.9 8.7 O K1440 min Winter 0.012 0.012 209.4 6.3 O K2160 min Winter 0.009 0.009 155.4 5.0 O K2880 min Winter 0.007 0.007 119.7 4.1 O K4320 min Winter 0.005 0.005 92.9 3.1 O K5760 min Winter 0.004 0.004 75.1 3.1 O K7200 min Winter 0.004 0.004 75.1 2.9 O K8640 min Winter 0.004 0.004 66.3 2.8 O K10080 min Winter 0.003 0.003 57.4 2.7 O K

Storm

Event

Rain

(mm/hr)

Time-Peak

(mins)

30 min Winter 74.588 2460 min Winter 46.096 40120 min Winter 27.576 70180 min Winter 20.179 100240 min Winter 16.091 126360 min Winter 11.613 186480 min Winter 9.206 244600 min Winter 7.689 304720 min Winter 6.635 370960 min Winter 5.254 4761440 min Winter 3.776 7502160 min Winter 2.710 10722880 min Winter 2.140 14484320 min Winter 1.532 21485760 min Winter 1.208 30007200 min Winter 1.004 37848640 min Winter 0.863 399210080 min Winter 0.759 5248


4 Coldstream Lane

Hardingstone

Northampton NN4 6DB




Cascade Rainfall Details for construction phase storage.srcx


Rainfall Model FSR Winter Storms YesReturn Period (years) 100 Cv (Summer) 0.750

Region England and Wales Cv (Winter) 0.840M5-60 (mm) 19.000 Shortest Storm (mins) 15

Ratio R 0.432 Longest Storm (mins) 10080Summer Storms Yes Climate Change % +20

Time / Area Diagram

Total Area (ha) 9.000

Time

(mins)

Area

(ha)

Time

(mins)

Area

(ha)

0-4 4.500 4-8 4.500


4 Coldstream Lane

Hardingstone

Northampton NN4 6DB




Cascade Model Details for construction phase storage.srcx


Storage is Online Cover Level (m) 2.000

Infiltration Basin Structure

Invert Level (m) 0.000Infiltration Coefficient Base (m/hr) 12.00000Infiltration Coefficient Side (m/hr) 12.00000

Safety Factor 2.0Porosity 1.00

Depth (m) Area (m²) Depth (m) Area (m²)

0.000 524.0 2.000 1640.0


4 Coldstream Lane

Hardingstone

Northampton NN4 6DB




Cascade Event: 15 min Winter for construction phase storage.srcx




APPENDIX 7: Response to Archaeological Officers comments

The Stables Long Lane

East Haddon Northampton

NN6 8DU T: 01604 771123

[email protected] www.gpplanning.co.uk

Mrs Gill Pawson BSc MA MRTPI MICWM

GP Planning Ltd Registered in England Number 6019666

Registered Office Mill House, Long Lane, East Haddon, Northamptonshire, NN6 8DU

P002-04/NM/CS

30 July 2013

Ms C. Spokes Development Control Officer Northamptonshire County Council, Development Control, Planning Services, Floor 3, Guildhall Road Block, County Hall, Northampton, NN1 1DN Dear Claire, Response to comments made by Northamptonshire County Council’s Archaeology Officer, dated 6th March 2013 Project – Conservation Stone Quarry to extract Blisworth Limestone (Oundle Variety) Blockstone, Flagstone and Large Walling Stone

Response Consultation from the Northamptonshire County Council Archaeological Officer has highlighted the requirement to undertake a trial trenching exercise at the Stonepits Quarry, as the Heritage Assessment in assessment of the Historic Environment Records has identified the potential for the Roman Activity in the area. The exercise is required to be undertaken prior to the determination of the application. On the basis of the information that was submitted to support the planning application and Environmental Statement, which was a desk based heritage assessment and also a geo-physical survey report, it is considered that the requirement places undue pressure on the applicant to undertake further investigation prior to determination when it has been clearly established that the site holds very little of archaeological significance.

The Requirement for further Trial Trenching The response from the archaeological officer correctly identifies that the Heritage Assessment submitted with the supporting Environmental Impact Assessment recommended that further investigations were to be undertaken at the site. Review of the Historic Environment Records (HER) has identified that the development is located within a general area of archaeological interest, with Roman

30/07/13 2

interest documented as occurring to the north and to the east of the site. Specifically, the only heritage asset that occurs in close proximity to the development area, as identified by the HER, is the undated quarry site (NHER9218) which would have historically produced the stone that was used for construction in the local area. It should be noted that as per the recommendations of the Desk Based Assessment, further geophysical assessment of the site was undertaken to establish the likelihood of archaeological interest. This process identified that there was limited archaeological significance at the site, through concluding:

The survey has revealed very little of archaeological significance. The data contains only a few poorly diagnostic anomalies which could perhaps represent pits, and some weak linear anomalies which indicate the presence of ridge and furrow.

The information set out in paragraphs (para) 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the Heritage Assessment was used as the guide for establishing whether sufficient information had been gathered to assess the potential impact of the quarry on potential archaeology assets. Specifically, para 5.2.6 states that:

Should the geophysical survey indicate the potential for evidence of archaeological interest trial trenching should be carried out to characterise the site, to establish the extent of plough damage, the quality of any survival, and assess the date and range of settlement and other activities at the site’.

In the basis that the geophysical surveys identified that there was little archaeological significance it was considered that there was no requirement to undertake further investigation prior to submission of the application. It is the purpose of the geophysical surveys to provide the evidence base for developing a scheme of targeted trial trenching. On this basis the geophysical surveys did not yield sufficient information to allow for the development of such a scheme. The Archaeological Officer refers to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular paragraph 128 in justifying the request for trial trenching surveys. In response to this, it should be noted that paragraph 128 requires that an applicant should describe the significance of any heritage asset affected and that the level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. For the purposes of the determination of the planning application, it is considered that the information submitted complies with the requirements of the NPPF. The information set out by the desk based assessment and the geo-physical surveys provide clear evidence that the likelihood of archaeological interest at the site is low and that the potential for interest will not be impacted upon by the proposed development. In addition, policy CMD 9 of the Northamptonshire County Council Minerals and Waste Development Framework, Control and Management of Development, Development Plan Document, identifies that where there is the potential for archaeological interest an appropriate desk based and / or field evaluations to identify and determine the nature, extent and significance of each heritage asset is required. These requirements have been met.

30/07/13 3

Further Assessment Should it be considered that the trial trenching is indeed required, then the limited significance of the archaeological interest found during the geophysical surveys should provide significant weight in the consideration of whether this information is required prior to the determination of the application. It is quite reasonable for the Mineral Planning Authority to include a prior to commencement of development type condition on a planning permission that prevents development from beginning prior to further archaeological investigation being undertaken. This is on the basis that the potential for archaeology of significance has been considered to be limited. The referenced conditions are common practice and are considered reasonable and enforceable in general planning terms. Northamptonshire County Council has indeed included such conditions on previous planning applications and it is not considered unreasonable for the same principle to be applied in the case of the proposed development. Examples of these conditions are set out below:

Planning permission 11/00069/EXT

‘No development shall take place within the area indicated until the applicant or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. ‘

A brief for the undertaken both geophysical surveys and trial trenching surveys has recently been issued post determination.

Planning Permissions 09/00079/MIN and 12/00001/MIN

‘No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.

It should be noted that such a request has the potential to stifle development due to the potential costs of the investigations when weighed up against the fact that there is no security of a planning permission. In general it is considered that the potential for negative impact upon archaeology of significance is low. Therefore, any requirement to confirm this through trial trenching can be reasonably done after the grant of planning permission. Yours sincerely Nathan Maddox Planning Consultant



APPENDIX 8: Meeting minutes (21/03/13)

The Stables Long Lane

East Haddon Northampton

NN6 8DU T: 01604 771123

[email protected] www.gpplanning.co.uk

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield

Meeting with Northamptonshire County Council, 21th March 2013 and 11:30

County Hall, Northampton

MINUTES Attendees: Name Initials Organisation Phil Watson Mark Chant

PW MC

Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) Northamptonshire County Council

Claire Spokes CS Northamptonshire County Council Gill Pawson GP GP Planning Ltd (GPP) Lucy Booth LB GP Planning Ltd Nathan Maddox Sian Evans

NM SE

GP Planning Ltd GP Planning Ltd

Apologies: None. Distribution: All Notes: The following is a summary of the key points and actions arising from this meeting.

22/03/13 2

ITEM NOTES ACTION 1 Introduction

The meeting was undertaken in line with the agenda set out on an email from Phil Watson to Gill Pawson dated 20th March 2013.

2 Demand for Stone PW requested further information to identify the commercial viability of the project. Highlighted concern with respects to the market for the stone and whether the local market will be sufficient to sustain the stone over a 17 year period. LB and GP highlighted the extent of the market that was being targeted by the applicant with reference to high quality of the stone, the potential for interior use, the potential to supply stone to a wider market and the strategic change in the type of stone that would be processed at the Harley Way Stone Processing Plant. LB, GP and NM agreed that further information regarding the economic benefits, correlation of the quarry with the building industry, and commercial viability will be provided to NCC.

NM

3 Scale of Development and Landscape Impact The scale of the development in terms of the proposed size of the overburden mound was discussed. The potential for the reduction of the height of the mound was considered through:

Widening the footprint of the overburden mound Investigating the possibility of grading the southern side of the mound

so that it is less intrusive to visual receptors Increasing the application site area to allow for the overburden

material to be stored in alternate locations and over a wider area.

GPP to investigate the potential for rehashing the over burned mound GPP to also provide response to comments raised by NCC Senior Environmental Planner on Landscape and Visual Impact.

NM LB

4 Restoration and Landscaping PW raised concern that the post settlement contours at the site will be lower than shown on submitted contour plan and would be potentially detrimental to the use of the restored and for agriculture. NM stated that initial discussion with the Quarry Design Engineer had indicated that settlement is likely to reduce the restoration contours by between 0.5 and 1m than shown on the submitted contour plan. GPP agreed to investigate the possibility of producing a post-settlement contour plan to show long term restoration levels.

NM

22/03/13 3

PW agreed that no additional visibility modeling would be required based on request from East Northamptonshire District Council.

5 Ecology PW, LB and GP agreed that discussion of the points raised by NCC’s Senior Environmental Planner (SEP) on ecology should be undertaken between SEP and Lockhart Garratt (LG). The consultation response from SEP will be forwarded onto LG and asked to liaise with SEP directly.

NM

6 Highways and Public Rights of Way (PROW) CS highlighted the requirement to address the Highways Authorities comments on access design and also PROW. NM confirmed that further information had been produced relating to visibility splays and also a long section drawing of the first 30m of the haul road. Further information is to be submitted on the protection of the points where footpaths MG17 and MG27 are crossed by the haul road and also clarification on the impact of the development on the long term use of footpath MG18.

NM

7 Section 106 Legal Agreement The requirement for a section 106 legal agreement to control traffic routeing was discussed. PW confirmed that if possible it would be preferable to control vehicle routeing by way of planning condition. Discussed the possibility of developed provisions to a community fund. LB confirmed that the applicant was not averse to providing some community gain and referenced an anonymous request for a new bus stop in both Upper and Lower Benefield. PW enquired about the possibility of a section 106 agreement to ensure the maintenance of the Harley Way to guard against degradation of the road. NM highlighted that the applicant has previously undertaken improvement works along Harley way and in theory a maintenance package was feasible. GP also raised the point that PGR Construction are licensed to undertaken highway maintenance work. NM and LB to discuss the potential for developer contribution with the applicant, and also find out about the applicants existing maintenance commitments along Harley Way. PW to identify the method for engaging with the local residents to discuss the potential for setting up a community fund and report back to GPP.

NM PW

22/03/13 4

8 EIA Regulations and further information PW confirmed that the extra information to be submitted will be re-consulted on by technical consultees. LB requested that if the extra information is to be requested under the EIA regulations that a formal request is submitted by NCC. PW to clarify if the extra information will be re-consulted on under the EIA regulations.

NM

9 Timescale for determination PW confirmed that the application is likely to be determined in July 2013 at the earliest.

Other LB and NM agreed that extra information will be submitted as a single package of documents. NM agreed to review the residents’ consultation responses and provide a summary list to CS indicating the topic areas that are being considered in relation to the consultation responses. A site visit is to be arranged so that PW, CS, Tina Cuss, and GPP (inclusive of Ecological and landscape consultants) visit the site together to discuss the project. GPP to arrange. CS to forward consultation responses from EHO, ENDC, CPRE and Glapthorn PC to NM once in receipt.

NM NM NM CS



APPENDIX 9: Additional information on quarry restoration

PGW&A LLP Quarry Design, Development and Afteruse

A Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales. Registration No. OC327305

Griffin HouseMarket Street

Charlbury Oxford, OX7 3PJ United Kingdom

Tel. 01608 819330

Fax. 01608 810227 [email protected]

www.pgwassoc.co.uk

GP Planning Ltd The Stables Long Lane East Haddon Northamptonshire NN6 8DU FAO Mr N Maddox

23 July 2103 Ref: GPP/SQB/NM230713.letter Dear Mr Maddox

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield This letter addresses the issues raised in the Northamptonshire County Council email dated 07.02.12. • Bulking / settlement

It is estimated that net bulking (i.e. after settlement) will be c. 5 – 7.5% for overburden and c. 15 – 20% for limestone waste. On this basis it is estimated that final restoration landform levels (assuming no importation of material) will on average be c. 0.5 – 1.0m lower than original levels. It is considered that the reduced final restoration landform levels will not be significant in terms of land after-use.

• Phased infilling Drawing Nos. BENE/9 – 14, previously submitted but included with this letter for completeness, give a detailed narrative and illustrate, as far as is reasonably practicable to do so, the phasing of quarry development and backfilling. Temporary perimeter and internal quarry access ramps will be established as necessary on in-situ material and backfill material as quarry development proceeds. Site operating conditions may dictate that the quarry is not developed exactly as illustrated in the drawings and quarry development may involve wider phase strips. However, the principal of minimising the extent of phased excavation and maximising progressive backfilling and restoration will be maintained.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.

Yours sincerely

Mark Pritchard Encs Drawing Nos. BENE/9 – 14



APPENDIX 10: Distance to properties plan



APPENDIX 11: Exemplar photographs of access track

© 2013 GP PLANNING LTD All Rights Reserved

DRAWN BY:

DRAWING NO.:

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

REV NO.:

DATE:NTS

BENEFIELD, OUNDLECHURCHFIELD STONE LTD

EXEMPLAR IMAGES OF ACCESS TRACK

GPP/CSL/BE/13/32

30/07/13

01

LBNM

2. Exemplar access track surfaced with tarmac plannings1. Exemplar construction of site access

Appendix 6 Cover SheetACE_12008_Stonepits Quarry, Benefield_FRA (part 1)RevCfront pageFRAApp1

ACE_12008_Stonepits Quarry, Benefield_FRA (part 2)RevCACE_12008_Stonepits Quarry, Benefield_FRA (part 3)RevCACE_12008_Stonepits Quarry, Benefield_FRA (part 4)RevCApp1-3App1-4App2App2-1ADAS 345 Mean Annual Flood

App2-2ADAS 345 Mean Annual Flood

App2-3Cascade Summary of Results for construction phase storage.srcxCascade Rainfall Details for construction phase storage.srcxTime / Area DiagramCascade Model Details for construction phase storage.srcxInfiltration Basin StructureCascade Event: 15 min Winter for construction phase storage.srcx

Appendix 7 Cover SheetP002-04 Archaeology Letter 130730Appendix 8 Cover SheetP002-04 Meeting Minutes 130321Appendix 9 Cover SheetBENE_1304_1 A Indicative Restoration Contours-1GPP SQB NM 230713.letterStonepits BENE-1305-1A_smoothedStonepits BENE-1305-1B_smoothedAppendix 10 Cover SheetGPP-CSL-BE-13-31 Distance from Properties to QuarryAppendix 11 Cover SheetGPP-CSL-BE-13-32 Exemplar Images of Access Track 130730

appendix 6: updated flood risk assessment · 2017. 2. 14. · stonepits quarry, benefield, oundle -...

Documents