Strategic Planning Committee 5 July 2016

Application No: 15/03410/CCMEIA

Proposal: Proposed surface mine, (to include auger mining) for the extraction of coal, sandstone and fireclay, with restoration to agricultural and ecological uses

Site Address Highthorn, Widdrington, Northumberland, NE61 5EE

Applicant: Banks Mining H J Banks And Company Ltd Inkerman House, St John's Road, Meadowfield , Durham DH7 8XL

Agent: None

Valid Date: 12 October 2015 Expiry Date:

7 July 2016

Case Officer Details:

Name: Mrs Frances Wilkinson

Job Title: Specialist Planning Services Manager

Tel No: 01670 622629

Email: Frances.Wilkinson@northumberland.gov.uk

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright (Not to Scale)

Introduction 1.1 This application is being reported to the Strategic Planning Committee as

it is a major application for minerals extraction that has generated a large number of letters of representation and raises significant issues that merit consideration by the Committee. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment to assist with the Council’s assessment of these issues. Further information was requested from the applicant under Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations relating to ecology, hydrology and the offsite enhancement works proposed. This information was submitted in April 2016.

1.2 A public meeting was held on 25 February 2016. The meeting was

attended by just over 200 members of the public. A note of the meeting is attached as appendix 1 to this report. A Committee site visit took place on 17 June 2016.

1. Description of the Proposals 2.1 The proposed site is located in the south east of Northumberland

approximately 6km north of Ashington. The site lies to the east of the A1068. The nearest settlements to the site boundary are Widdrington Station approximately 0.5 km at its nearest point to the west, Widdrington 0.7km to the north west, Cresswell and Ellington 1.6km and 1.3 km to the south. There are a number of nearby properties, notably Druridge, Hemscott Hill, Houndalee, Highthorn and Blakemoor Farm. To the east is an extensive area of dunes and beach.

2.2 The application site covers 325ha of which 250ha would be directly

affected by mining activities. The remaining 75ha would be undisturbed or used for mitigation and enhancement. The majority of the application site is in agricultural use, the land being classified as of a moderate quality (grade 3b). There is a block of commercial woodland (Fox Covert) to the south. The proposal would involve the extraction of 3 million tonnes of coal from 6 coal seams. Fireclay and sandstone are also present on site and the applicant estimates that approximately 10,000 tonnes of each material could be extracted. Extraction would take place over 5 years with total operations lasting 7 years, taking account of the time to set up the site and complete restoration.

2.3 The site would be worked in 5 phases with coaling taking place in a north-

south direction. The depth of extraction ranges from 13m in the west of the site to a maximum depth of 71m in the east of the site. Auger mining is proposed in some parts of the site. There would be 2 overburden mounds located in the north west and south west of the site up to 25m and 27m in height respectively. The site compound, comprising site offices,

welfare facilities, plant maintenance area, coal processing, weighbridge and wheel wash, would be located in the west of the site adjacent to the A1068. A Public Right of way that crosses the site would require a temporary diversion for the life of operations.

2.4 The proposal would involve a maximum of 150 lorries leaving the site

each day. Coal would be taken from the access point on the A1068 south to either Battleship Wharf at Blyth or Butterwell disposal point where the coal would be placed on to rail transport. The proposed hours of operation are 7am – 10pm Mondays to Fridays and 7am to 1pm on Saturdays, with coal dispatch being 7am to 7pm Mondays to Fridays and 7am to 1pm on Saturdays. Some maintenance and drainage works are proposed on a 24 hour basis if required. The applicant has indicated that there would be at least 50 new jobs and the retention of at least 50 jobs transferred from their existing sites as they approach completion.

2.5 The site would be progressively restored with the majority of the site used

for coaling operations restored back to agricultural uses, with new field patterns and hedgerows being created. Wetland habitats including ponds and scrapes would be created in the south of the site associated with the Hemscott Burn. Field corner copses would be created and planted with broadleaved species. A number of new or upgraded public access routes would be created across and in the vicinity of the site linking in to the existing footpath network.

2.6 The application also includes proposals for off-site mitigation and

enhancement works. These are focussed on the creation of new wetland habitats, improvement of existing wetland areas including Hemscott Hill Ponds, new public access routes, improvement works to Chibburn Preceptory which is on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register, landscape improvement works to the coniferous shelter belts and new native species rich hedgerow planting. These would take place during years prior to the commencement of development and throughout years 1 – 4 of site operations.

2.7 The application also included details of a partnership and £400,000

funding that is being proposed - Discover Druridge – that would aim to bring together interested parties to develop initiatives that would encourage more visitors to Druridge Bay. The application also provided details of proposals to secure the cessation of sand extraction from the beach at Hemscott, a skills fund and a community benefit fund.

2. Planning History C/X/56/206 – Radar opencast coal site C/E/D/078 – prospecting for coal

14/04199/SCOPE – scoping request for proposed surface coal mine, Highthorn 4. Consultee Responses –

Cresswell Parish Council

No objections provided that the sand extraction permission is withdrawn and cancelled; the applicant confirms that there will be no future extension and the site will be 7 years ‘green to green’; the noise and pollution restrictions are adhered to and the lands is restored as agreed.

Widdrington Station and Stobswood Parish Council

No objections. The Council is satisfied with the proposed overburden mounds to be provided which are to be shaped and positioned within the landscape. It is considered that by allowing the application to proceed much needed jobs will be secured for the area including support to local businesses. It is envisaged that further development would arise out of the legacy of the site and enhance the nature reserves in the area which are currently lacking in investment as there is a need to encourage visitors to stay in the locality. The Discover Northumberland Routes currently being proposed should enable amenities to be reinstated to the area including the tourist trail. The applicant's Community Benefit Fund is welcomed. The skills fund should encourage the advancement of tourism to the area.

Widdrington Village Parish Council

Extremely concerned about the proposed access point on a fast stretch of the A1068 with restricted visibility and would like to see the access point moved to the junction with Mile Road and a roundabout created. The location of the workshops near to residential properties is poor. The proposed hours of operation would result in noise disturbance to nearby properties and should be reconsidered. Cyclists using the A1068 will be endangered. There is no bus route past the site or footpath between the site and the nearest bus stop. A requirement to provide a combined cycle and pedestrian path would mitigate the hazard. Would like to have seen more analysis of the long term effect on local employment opportunities. If granted, sufficient financial arrangement should be put in place to enable full restoration of the site in the event of financial failure of the operator.

Environment Agency

Original comments: No objections subject to conditions covering restoration; the monitoring of sensitive habitat areas and a scheme for site water management. A number of informatives are also recommended covering site waste management, overburden seeding, amenity issues and pollution prevention. Additional comments have been made on the matter of pumping ground water and a suggestion that the planning authority may want to consider whether there is sufficient space on site to manage the water and to discharge into water courses should the additional pumping by the Coal Authority not prove feasible. Comments on Further Information:

Historic England No objections. The proposed development will potentially impact on the setting and significance of four key designated heritage assets within c.2km of the site boundary. In the opinion of Historic England there will be a small amount of harm to these assets through indirect impacts on their setting; however it is of a temporary and short-term nature. The proposed improvement measures at Low Chibburn Perceptory and Dower House in Years 1 to 4 could enable the monument to be removed from the Historic England Heritage at Risk register, and are welcomed but are not considered to be directly relevant in Historic England’s decision making process.

Natural England Original comments: No objections subject to conditions. No objections in terms of the internationally designated sites (Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site) that are in close proximity, but it is recommended that the Council undertakes screening for the likelihood of significant effects under the Habitats Regulations. There is no objection in terms of the SSSIs (the Northumberland Shore SSSI and Creswell Ponds SSSI) subject to conditions relating to a monitoring regime for Cresswell Ponds, and for the Northumberland Shore SSSI, the timing of site restoration and requirements for the dune restoration works. In terms of soils, land quality and reclamation there are no objections subject to suitable conditions. Natural England standing advice should be applied regarding protected species. Comments on the Further Information: The evidence provided indicates that there is no hydrological link between the application site and the Cresswell Ponds SSSI and so the condition relating to monitoring is suggested as advice only.

RSPB Original comments: Objects to the application as there is insufficient details and assurances over the restoration plans and safeguards against future changes to the industry. Acknowledges that the applicant has worked to address some of the issues raised; however, critical details of the proposed mitigation are yet to be resolved, in particular how the proposed mitigation and enhancement can be delivered. Current on site restoration and mitigation plans have the potential to be damaging to pink footed geese by introducing features that make areas less suitable for geese. It needs to be shown that sites can carry the numbers of birds they are aimed at delivering for without further displacement. It is vital to ensure financial guarantees are in place to secure site restoration. The cessation of sand extraction is put forward as a benefit but permission will expire in 2020 so the actual benefit of this mitigation must be seen in the context of it being relatively short term. Would like to see maximum decibel figures reported and assessed in the Environmental Statement as startle response for geese is critical. The Marine Conservation Zone should be given

appropriate consideration in the Environmental Statement with regards to discharge. The Environmental Statement has not adequately assessed Cresswell Ponds SSSI in terms of the potential for impacts on the hydrological regime of the SSSI if the water table is lowered. Saline intrusion and contamination could impact site integrity and interest features. This needs addressing and monitored to ensure the SSSI is adequately safeguarded. Comments on the Further Information: Some concerns raised in original comments have been addressed but retain concerns about the deliverability of the Discover Druridge and Restoration First enhancements. Until the RSPB has sight of the conditions and legal agreements, the objection on this matter is maintained. The mitigation proposed for pink footed geese should be secured through planning condition. Concerns about climate change and coal extraction.

Northumberland Wildlife Trust

Original comments: Objects to the application. The outline proposal to enhance 100ha of agricultural land for nature conservation, which could be transformative in providing habitat links to existing habitat on Druridge Bay is welcomed. However, it is not clear how this will be delivered. No mechanism has been proposed by which any gain can be secured in the medium to long term, as land would either remain with or revert to current landowners, creating a lack of empowerment for influencing management up to and beyond the maximum period by which a legal agreement could be potentially enforced. Much of the proposed areas are currently being utilised by wildlife and, as such, further displacement may occur. As such this proposal does not equate to genuine net gain for key species such as geese. Saline intrusion is possible (as is potential contamination from extant mine workings) and this may impact on the site integrity and the capacity to properly manage the interest features; the EIA hasn’t fully addressed this therefore the NWT is not assured the SSSI will be adequately safeguarded. The proposal may act to cut linkages between breeding sites for marsh harriers and therefore reduce the rate of colonisation. Consideration must be given to the potential impact arising from discharges given that the coastline is currently a proposed Marine Conservation Zone. The Discover Druridge proposal recognises the long term tourism potential of the area but little regard has been given to the impact on existing visitors enjoyment of wildlife and the environment. There is significant concern over all aspects of this proposal for the local community. This is a well- loved and utilised landscape and as such there is a natural concern to ensure it is not spoilt. Comments on the Further Information: Some concerns raised in original comments have generally been

addressed. The mitigation for pink footed geese has been clarified as has the hydrological issues relating to the SSSI and the objection on these matters is withdrawn. The NWT has been reassured about most areas of land management and species concern originally raised. Retain concerns about the uncertainty of the long term deliverability of the intended net gains. Concerned about coal extraction and climate change and possible impact on peoples enjoyment on wildlife and so continue to object to the proposal.

National Trust Original comments: Objects to the application as there is a lack of evidence within the documents that there will be any medium to long term guarantee that the identified benefits will be realised. The applicant does not own the land on which they are proposing restoration, or the wider area encompassing the 'Discover Druridge' partnership. Measures such as landowner commitment through agri-environment schemes or 'other voluntary arrangements', and legal agreements such as Section 39 agreements do not give sufficient guarantee that land management practices on the application site will bring about environmental benefit; such schemes are extremely difficult to enforce, resulting in the anticipated environmental benefits not being realised. The 'Discover Druridge' partnership ambition is commendable but it is unclear how this will be delivered in the longer term, and this uncertainty should be taken into consideration when balancing the national, local or community benefits against the likely impacts of the planning permission. The intention of the applicant to secure the cessation of further sand extraction as part of the permission is welcomed; the benefits of this proposal should be balanced against how long extraction would actually continue. The Marine Conservation Zone is just offshore from the application site. There may be indirect impacts through discharge offshore. This does not appear to have been addressed within the application, and it would be helpful to understand the level of impact, and any mitigation measure that might be required. The dynamic nature of the nearby dunes systems means that they might be very sensitive to changes in wind patterns or turbulence. With large overburden mounds being created nearby, we consider it essential that the studies confirm whether there will be any impact upon the dunes from changes to the nearby topography. Comments on the Further Information: Some concerns raised in original comments have generally been addressed but retains concerns about the deliverability of the Discover Druridge and Restoration First enhancements; would like to see the landowners to be signatories to the S106 agreement. Until there is a more robust legal framework for securing these wider objectives the objection is maintained.

Northumberland Coast AONB Partnership

No objections. The proposed opencast site will have no impact on the AONB itself, and given that it is inappropriate to seek a boundary extension to the AONB to the south as the area does not currently fulfil the criteria for inclusion, the AONB Partnership has no further comments about this planning application.

Coal Authority Supports the application. It is essential that the planning process takes account of the fundamental principle that minerals can only be worked where they occur. It is considered that the coal industry can operate within the standards set out in the NPPF. The proposal would contribute to the Government’s policy framework for a diverse and secure energy supply. There are coal mining legacy features and hazards in the vicinity of the proposal. The Coal Authority is pleased to note that such issues have been afforded due consideration as part of the ES.

Northumbrian Water (NWL)

No objections. A public sewer runs adjacent to the site and may be affected by the proposed development. NWL will be contacting the developer direct to establish the exact location of our assets and ensure any necessary diversion, relocation or protection measures required prior to the commencement of the development.

Network Rail No objections subject to conditions and further discussion with the applicant, planning conditions regarding the routing of abnormal loads and informatives covering abnormal loads and bridge strike.

NCC Public Protection

No objections subject to conditions. Conditions are recommended to cover contaminated land, noise, blasting, mine gases, air quality. Good practice is recommended for site lighting. A non residential coal risk assessment is recommended

NCC Public Health

No observations to make having reviewed the relevant documentation and relevant sections of the ES.

NCC Building Conservation

No objections. The proposal would not result in the total loss of heritage assets. There would be no direct impacts on their significance, setting or value. There would be some short term indirect impacts on the setting of the heritage assets. The small amount of temporary harm to setting would appear to be negligible as well as time limited.

NCC Archaeology

No objections subject to conditions. The application site lies within an area with high potential for significant unrecorded archaeological remains spanning the prehistoric to modern periods. It is recommended that direct impacts to the archaeological resource are mitigated via a phased programme mitigation including fieldwalking, ‘strip, map and sample’ and targeted environmental sampling, with provision for targeted areas of full archaeological excavation if concentrations of very significant archaeological features are identified. Provision should be made for an appropriate level of recording and dissemination of the results of the archaeological mitigation work, proportionate to the significance of the archaeological resource and consistent with the objectives of paragraph 141 of the NPPF. If necessary, this may include full publication of the fieldwork results and an appropriate outreach exercise. Consideration should also be given to

incorporating the results of the archaeological work into the proposed ‘Discover Druridge’ programme. This programme should be secured through condition.

NCC Ecology No objections subject to conditions. Original comments: Broadly concur with the conclusions of the ecological assessments that the proposal would not have a significant adverse ecological impact, subject to conditions and mitigation measures. However, there are a number of issues that require clarification before a final response can be provided. These are clarification on the provision of suitable habitats for pink footed geese; information on potential impacts on the Marine Conservation Zone; clarity on the long term deliverability and management of the proposals for ecological enhancement. Comments on Further Information: Considers that the information shows that impacts on pink-footed geese can be reduced to insignificant levels, subject to a planning condition securing the mitigation. The habitats proposed for onsite restoration and offsite enhancement have the potential to be of immense value for the key species found in the Druridge Bay area, especially breeding waders, wintering waders and wildfowl and other rapidly declining species associated with wet grassland such as yellow wagtail. This is because of the scale of the proposals but also because of the location of the sites, neighbouring Druridge Pools Nature Reserve on three sides and linking it to East Chevington Nature Reserve, as well as an area close to the complex of ponds in the Blakemoor Burn area. These are appropriate habitats to be creating at this site and that their creation is technically feasible. The securing of long term management is a matter that needs considerable care, and the most appropriate mechanism would be a legal agreement either under S.39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or as part of the S.106 Agreement. There is always a level of risk when dealing with long term agreements given the uncertainties that accumulate over time. However, this risk is considered to be low for a number of reasons, including the ease with which the relevant habitats can be created and the fact that the land forming required will make it difficult to use the land for other purposes. The presence of purple milk-vetch has recently been noted close to or on the edge of the application site boundary outwith the proposed operational area. It is widespread in the dunes in Druridge Bay but there are no habitats within the working area of the site that are likely to support it because they are too nutrient-rich. Consequently the development does not have implications for this important species.

NCC Lead Local Flood Authority

No objections subject to conditions relating to surface water management, water run off rates and a water mitigation

NCC FCERM No objections to the planning application from a coastal erosion

(Coastal Authority)

perspective

5. Public Responses At the time of writing the report, 2499 letters of objection were recorded from 2022 properties. Many of the objections received are in the form of standard letters, with 6 main templates having been used. Other objection letters have also been received. A summary of the main points being raised are:

Highways – the road already has a lot of traffic including slow moving vehicles such as caravans, tractors, cyclists and horses and the proposal will increase this, especially with traffic from Ferneybeds; there is concern about the safety implications of the additional HGVs, accidents will increase.

Nature conservation – there would be an adverse effect on the SSSIs, for example, possible contamination and the implications of any groundwater changes on the quality of the Cresswell PondsSSSI; wildlife will be dispersed and it will take several decades to get it back; species that could be affected include pink footed geese, otters, nesting birds, owls, red squirrels, bats and numerous other species; cumulative impacts with Ferneybeds.

Impact on tourism and the tourism industry in the area – Druridge Bay attracts people seeking peace and quiet and this would be affected; tourism is more important to the local economy than mining; local businesses are thriving and employing local people; local tourist businesses will be affected for the duration of the site; views are a factor in attracting visitors to the area and the mine will look out of place in the flat coastal landscape.

Impacts on residential amenity – from noise, dust, blasting, lighting from this site and the mitigation proposed doesn’t address these; cumulative effects from many years of coal mining in the area; noise will also affect wildlife, the beach and dunes; the Saturday morning and evening working will impact on the beach area during high user times.

Landscape impacts including cumulative impacts with the wind farms and Ferneybeds developments.

Impact on dark skies from light pollution.

Impacts on water courses.

Impact on heritage features.

The site is closer to the coastline than at any time since the 1960s with heritage coast, SSSIs and listed buildings being affected.

The site is in a coal mining area of constraint in the Minerals Local Plan.

The proposal is contrary to the 2006 Druridge Bay Management Plan.

Market for coal is declining and is likely to continue to do so.

The amount of coal to be produced isn’t ‘nationally significant’.

It is cheaper to purchase imported coal, imported coal has lower sulphur and nitrogen and it’s unlikely that power generators would wish to enter further contracts with UK suppliers.

Price of coal is declining and this could have implications for the restoration of the site.

Climate change impacts from burning the coal and related to this the Government’s proposals to phase out coal burning power stations over the next few years.

Coal mining is the past.

Power generation from renewable energy has increased and can provide more jobs.

Loss of property values.

The applicant will not confirm that they will not extend the site. A petition has been submitted via an organisation called ‘38 degrees’ with 11,239 signatures objecting on the grounds that the site would damage delicate ecosystems; the site is important for wildfowl and owls, tourist businesses would be destroyed. A petition has been submitted with 5788 signatures stating that the planning application should be rejected. The petitions have not been cross checked to determine whether those signing the petition have also submitted letters of objection. Under the terms of the Council’s petitions protocol, a petition is classed as one written representation. At the time of writing the report, 1072 letters of support had been recorded from 857 properties. Many of the supports received are in the form of standard letters, with 3 main templates having been used. Other letters of support have also been received. A summary of the main points being raised are:

Discover Druridge would bring benefits to tourism in the area

The proposal includes significant wildlife enhancements; many hectares of new wetland and grassland would be created which would improve the Druridge Bay area for visitors and local people and the additional trees, hedgerows and meadows proposed will benefit wildlife and the landscape.

The proposed new footpaths, cycle ways, bridle paths and bird hides will encourage more visitors to the area.

Restoration following coal extraction provides opportunities to improve the nature conservation and tourism value of an area, as shown by the Hauxley Nature Reserve, Ladyburn Lake at the Druridge Bay country park, East Chevington Nature Reserve, all of which have been created from the restoration of surface coal mines; also Northumberlandia which would not have been created without the surface coal mine.

The applicant has a proven track record of operating and restoring sites.

The longer term landscape improvements that would result from the restoration proposals and the offsite enhancement proposals would be a benefit to the area.

The cessation of sand extraction at Druridge Bay would be a significant benefit.

The site would sustain 50 existing jobs and would create 50 new jobs benefiting local people and the local economy.

The proposal would also sustain jobs indirectly through, for example, contracts for local businesses.

The applicant already contributes £35 million to the North East economy annually and Highthorn would add to this.

The proposed Skills Fund of £225,000 will be beneficial.

Coal still plays a vital role in the UK’s energy needs and there remains a need for coal.

30% of electricity is generated from coal but 80% of coal used is imported. It is important to support local jobs and the local economy by mining coal in Northumberland.

The necessity for coal will not diminish overnight and it is better to invest in the local economy rather than importing coal.

The proposal represents a significant investment in Northumberland; it could contribute about £70 million to the economy in wages, supplier contracts, business rates and community benefits

The proposal represents an indigenous supply of coal. The CBI and the North East Chamber of Trade have written in support of the application, highlighting the positive impact it would have on the North east economy and the importance of investing in meeting the country’s energy needs as part of building a more prosperous and competitive UK economy. A petition with 153 signatures has been submitted in support of the planning application on the grounds that mining is a part of the cultural heritage of the North East and this area of employment is respected and valued. The development of this site will maintain and create jobs for local people. Continued employment will enable those individuals to be able to provide for their families and contribute to the local economy. Due to the high level of redundancies in other sectors of employment in Northumberland, it is essential job prospects are created where possible. The use of coal is essential in being able to generate electricity. The country does not have the facilities to meet the demands for electricity without using coal and as a result of this much of the coal needed is imported. Keep the industry local and let local people benefit. The petition has not been cross checked to determine whether those signing the petition have also submitted letters of objection. Under the terms of the Council’s petitions protocol, a petition is classed as one written representation. The above is a summary of the comments. The full written text is available on our website at: https://publicaccess.northumberland.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

6. Planning Policy 6.1 National Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 6.2 Development Plan Policy Northumberland Minerals Local Plan (2000) Castle Morpeth Local Plan (2003) 6.3 Emerging Development Plan Policy Northumberland Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft October 2015 Northumberland Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft Major Modification June 2016 6.3 Other Documents Other relevant documents include: Coal Industry Act 1994, section 53 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1) 2011 Energy White Paper 2011 Energy Security Strategy 2012 Written Ministerial Statement and Speech, UK Energy Policy, November 2015 Northumberland Landscape Character Assessment 2010 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd edition 2013

Historic England Good Practice Planning Advice Notes 2 and 3 Northumberland Economic Strategy Northumberland Tourism Destination Plan Druridge Bay: A Strategy for Management to 2010 7. Appraisal 7.1 The main issues for consideration in determining this application are:

Principle of the development

Residential amenity

Landscape and Visual impact

Impact on ecology

Heritage impact

Impact on residential amenity

Impact on the highway network

Impact on public rights of way

Benefits of the proposed development

Principle of the Development

7.2 The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations require applicants to

explain what considerations have been given to alternatives in developing their proposal. Unlike other forms of development, there is not the same flexibility with location as minerals can only be worked where they are found and so this limits the scope for the consideration of alternative sites. The Environmental Statement submitted with the application does set out the design evolution for the proposals to demonstrate how certain design criteria have influenced the various iterations in terms of site size, working and restoration methods. The criteria used to inform the proposal include:

No excavation or storage within important national designations such as SSSIs or local wildlife sites

HGVs should avoid the minor road network

No excavations or operations should take place within the dunes or the Heritage Coast

All workings should be to the east of the A1068

The scheme should be designed to extract the coal in the most efficient manner possible

The proposal should deliver significant benefits suitable for the location 7.3 The proposal that is the subject of this application has a smaller footprint

than earlier iterations, having increased the separation distances from sensitive locations including residential properties, ecological sites and the dunes. The design and location of the overburden mounds has also changed through changes to the working method with the aim of minimising the visual impact through the use of existing features and avoiding blocking longer distance views to the Cheviots.

7.4 The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and

how these are expected to be applied by Local Planning Authorities. The NPPF has not changed planning law insofar as the starting point for considering development proposals remains the development plan. However, it is a significant material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

7.5 Annex A of the NPPF, specifically paragraphs 214 and 215, makes clear

that, following an initial 12 months period of grace (which expired on 27 March 2013), due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The closer that policies in the plan align with the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given to them.

7.6 The primary development plan document for the area is the

Northumberland Minerals Local Plan (2000). The Castle Morpeth Local

Plan (2003) also covers the application site. A number of the policies within the Local Plans were “saved” in 2007. The saved policies of the Minerals Local Plan therefore continue to form part of the development plan and many core elements of the plan remain relevant to the consideration of this particular application. However, it must be acknowledged that the weight that can be afforded to relevant Minerals Local Plan policies varies due to their differing degree of conformity and conflict with the NPPF. This is also the case with the Castle Morpeth Local Plan. Furthermore, the Minerals Local Plan was only intended to guide minerals development in Northumberland up until 2006 and therefore cannot be considered as being up-to-date.

7.7 The consequence of this is that the presumption in favour of sustainable

development set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF is engaged. Paragraph 14 provides definitive guidance on how applications should be determined by stating: ‘At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. For decision-taking this means:

Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay;

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.’

7.8 In specific relation to minerals development, the NPPF at paragraph 142

recognises that minerals are essential to supporting sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. The importance of ensuring a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs is noted. However, since minerals are a finite resource and can only be worked where they are found, paragraph 142 stresses the importance of making the best use of them to secure their long term conservation. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should give great weight to the benefits of minerals extraction, including to the economy; ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, take account of cumulative impacts; ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions are controlled, mitigated or removed at source and provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity. Paragraph 149 is specific to the extraction of coal and states:

‘permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; or if not it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts’.

7.9 Whilst the NPPF has not introduced a firm presumption in favour of

mineral extraction, it has softened the presumption against such development as previously identified in the previous minerals policy statements which were in place when the Minerals Local Plan was prepared and adopted. It is in this context that a number of policies of the Northumberland Minerals Local Plan cannot be considered as being up-to-date. This is the case with Policy C3 which seeks to prevent minerals development in certain parts of the County. It states: ‘Unless there are exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the special landscape, heritage and nature conservation interests of the area would not be adversely affected, planning permission will not be granted for opencast coal sites in the following areas as defined on the proposals map:

North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

Tyne/Derwent Watershed;

Northumberland Coast between Amble and Lynemouth’.’ 7.10 Policy C3 is considered as being out-of-date in the context of paragraph

149 of the NPPF by requiring exceptional circumstances to justify mineral extraction in certain parts of the County, as opposed to requiring environmental acceptability or national, local or community benefits that would outweigh any adverse impacts. As such it is considered that weight cannot be afforded to Policy C3 in the determination of the application and more weight should be given to the NPPF.

7.11 The key test in terms of the development plan and compliance with the

NPPF is whether the site is environmentally acceptable or can be made so through the use of planning conditions or obligations; if not do the national, local or community benefits clearly outweigh the likely impacts. The following sections consider these tests in more detail.

7.12 In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF weight may also be given

to the policies in emerging plans, depending on: the stage of preparation of the plan, the extent to which emerging policy aligns with the NPPF and the extent of unresolved objections to the emerging plan. Therefore some weight can be given to the policies in the Northumberland Local Plan Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2015) which is a material consideration in the determination of this application. The policies within the emerging Core Strategy aim to deliver the strategic objective of managing the prudent use of Northumberland's natural resources, which

includes minerals, while minimising the adverse impacts of their extraction and transportation on both communities and the environment by seeking to ensure that these finite resources are not unnecessarily sterilised; land is made available to ensure a steady and adequate supply of minerals; and extraction, as well as the associated processing and transportation, does not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment and local communities. The key policies, which reflect paragraph 149 of the NPPF are Policies 52 and 53 which set out criteria to assess the environmental acceptability and benefits of mineral extraction, Policy 54 which covers restoration and Policy 56 which is specific to coal. The Major Modifications published for consultation on 15 June have not altered this.

Residential Amenity

Introduction 7.13 The principal impacts of working for residential amenity would be in

respect to noise, dust (including air quality) and blasting. Visual impact is addressed below. The closest dwellings and their proximity to the site and proposed operations are set out in the table below. The properties named are either specific or representative of groups of dwellings. Distances are approximate and are in metres.

Property Application boundary

Nearest operational boundary

Excavation area

Hemscott Hill Farm

Within application boundary

280 440

Highthorn Cottages

18 140 180

Houndalee Cottages

20 260 600

Druridge Cottages

280 600 770

Blakemoor farm 620 720 850

Ellington Caravan Park

670 770 890

Stonecroft 180 300 930

High Chibburn 160 320 910

Ramsey, Mile Road, Widd’ton Station

510 510 1010

Hagg Cottages 550 690 740

Cresswell village 1640 1700 1780

Widdrington 670 680 1830

Village

Ellington Village 1390 1400 1500

Air Quality and Dust 7.14 Mineral sites can give rise to dust emissions. Dust particles from minerals

sites, including surface coal mines, vary in size. Dispersal in the wider area depends on the size of the dust particle and the wind speed. The larger dust particles (greater than 30micrometre (μm)) make up the greatest proportion of dust emitted from minerals extraction operations and these generally deposit within 100m of source. Intermediate sized particles (10 - 30 μm) are likely to travel up to 200-500m. The smaller particles (less than 10μm) may travel 1km or more.

7.15 The Planning Practice Guidance advises that consideration should be

given to sensitive land uses within 1km when assessing air quality and dust impacts. The Environmental Statement has identified 13 dust sensitive receptors around the proposed site which would potentially be at risk from the small dust particles generated by site activities and 6 sensitive receptors for the larger dust particles. The air quality assessment in the Environmental Statement includes consideration of meteorological conditions as the strength and prevailing wind directions and rainfall have a bearing on the extent of the potential impacts. It also considers the potential for emissions during each phase of operations, including vehicle movements generated. The assessment has identified that the element of the operation that has the greatest potential for dust release is the construction and deconstruction of the two overburden mounds and the two most affected properties would be Stonecroft, 300m from the northern overburden mound and Highthorn, 270m from the southern overburden mound.

7.16 The key consideration is whether the National Air Quality Objectives for

the small dust particles (the PM10 and PM2.5) are likely to be breached. The National Air Quality Objectives are:

PM10 - 50μg/m3 daily mean not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year and 40μg/m3 annual mean

PM2.5 - 25μg/m3 annual mean (NB proposed objective)

7.17 The assessment submitted with the Environmental Statement has established the background PM10 levels, both existing and predicted in future years, at the 13 receptors. It has then used two methods to predict the PM10 levels with the site being operational. Two methods have been used to reflect the two time periods used in the National Air Quality Objectives. Both methods are based on a worst case scenario and do not factor in any mitigation. The predicted PM10 concentrations at the 13 receptors range from 11.9 – 17.1μg/m3 annually and 12.6 – 21.2μg/m3

daily mean. These figures are below the National Air Quality Objectives. As well as considering PM10 the Environmental Statement also considers PM2.5. The Environmental Statement concludes that the annual mean objective would not be exceeded.

7.18 The Planning Practice Guidance advises that in cases where the PM10

levels are unlikely to exceed the National Air Quality Objectives, good practice measures should be employed to manage dust emissions. These could be secured through planning conditions. A draft Environmental Management Plan was submitted with the planning application that includes mitigation measures that could be used, such as the use of water bowsers, seeding the perimeter mounds, suspending operations in certain circumstances, following good practice for blast design as well as monitoring of both PM10 levels and dust during site operations. There is evidence from other surface coal mines in the County that these measures can minimise the impacts of dust and control dust emissions to acceptable levels. These mitigation and monitoring measures can be secured through planning conditions. Together with the requirements of the environmental permit that would be required for the operation of the site, they would ensure that dust emissions can be controlled and would not result in unacceptable impacts on air quality.

7.19 The Council’s Public Protection team has been consulted on the proposed

development and is satisfied with the methodology used to assess impacts on air quality and that mitigation measures can be put in place through the imposition of planning conditions to control emissions to acceptable levels.

7.20 A number of the letters of objection have raised concerns about the health

impacts of dust emissions, especially the smaller PM10 particles. Public Health was consulted on the proposed development, has reviewed the relevant documentation and has no observations to make on the proposal. Whilst the concerns of local residents are understandable, in the light of the above assessment, the controls that can be put in place through planning conditions, which have been used at other mineral sites in the County, and the pollution control regime, it is considered that the proposal would be unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on health.

Noise 7.21 The Planning Practice Guidance advises that during normal working hours

(0700 – 1900) mineral planning authorities should establish a noise limit through planning conditions at noise sensitive properties that does not exceed the background level by more than 10dB(A), subject to a maximum of 55dB(A) LAeq 1h (freefield). During the evening (1900 –

2200) limits should not exceed background levels by more than 10dB(A). During the night (2200 - 0700) limits should not exceed 42dB(A) LAeq 1h (freefield) at noise sensitive properties. The Guidance recognises that mineral operations will have some short term noisy activities that cannot meet the limits set for normal operations. These include soil stripping, construction and removal of overburden and soil mounds, construction of permanent landforms and certain aspects of site road construction and maintenance. The advice in the Planning Practice Guidance is that increased temporary daytime noise limits of up to 70 dB(A) LAeq 1h (freefield) for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year should be considered to facilitate essential site preparation and restoration work where it is clear that this would bring about longer term environmental benefits. Where work is expected to take longer than 8 weeks a lower limit over a longer period of time should be considered. In wholly exceptional cases where there is no viable alternative, a higher limit for a very limited period may be appropriate to attain environmental benefits.

7.22 A noise assessment has been carried out and is included within the

Environmental Statement. Monitoring was undertaken at 12 properties round the site. These locations were agreed with the Council’s Public Protection team as representative properties to establish background noise levels.

7.23 Noise generated from the development would vary as operations progress

across the site. Predictions have therefore been made about noise levels during the five phases of development at 13 properties (the 12 properties referred to above plus Ellington caravan site) together with 4 additional noise sensitive ecological locations. The assessment concludes that the site would meet the levels set out in the Planning Practice Guidance at all noise sensitive properties for all temporary operations. The assessment also concludes that the predicted noise levels for attenuated plant would be within 55dB(A) or 10dB(A) above background levels.

7.24 As well as the construction of soil mounds around the site perimeter,

proposed noise mitigation measures as set out in the draft Environmental Management Plan submitted with the application include the use of acoustically insulated plant, broadband reversing alarms, regular monitoring of all site plant and machinery to ensure silencer performance is maintained and regular noise monitoring at the 13 locations referred to in paragraph 7.23 above. In addition, the noisier operations such as soil stripping and replacement, creation of soil mounds, construction and removal of the outer faces of the overburden mounds would be restricted to 0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 – 1300 hours on Saturdays.

7.25 The assessment has also taken into account predicted noise from the traffic generated by the site. The assessment concludes that along most of the proposed haulage routes, changes in levels of road traffic noise would be less than 1dB(A) and so would be negligible. The C415 and C403 roads at Cambois would have an increase of about 1.3dB(A). Government guidance on road traffic noise states that a change of between 1 and 2.9dB(A) would be a minor impact. The C125 road that serves the Butterwell Disposal Point would have a predicted increase of 4.1dB(A). This reflects the current lower levels of traffic on this road. Government guidance advices that a change of between 3 and 4.9dB(A) would be a moderate impact.

7.26 Noise from the traffic generated by the proposal is unlikely to have a

significant impact on the majority of noise sensitive properties along the proposed haulage routes. There are 8 residential properties identified on the C125. The nearest property to the road sits approximately 37m back from the road and the furthest approximately 220m. Whilst there may be some limited impacts at these properties should the Butterwell Disposal Point be used, it is not considered to be unacceptable.

7.27 The Council’s Public Protection team is satisfied with the methodology

used to assess noise impacts and that mitigation measures can be put in place through the imposition of planning conditions, including specific noise limits at properties, in line with the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.

Blasting 7.28 The applicant has indicated that, because of the nature of the overlying

rock, blasting would be required on the site. There are two effects from blasting – ground vibration and air overpressure. There has been much research undertaken on blasting activities and how it may affect buildings, structures and people. This has informed good practice guidance and industry standards produced by bodies such as the United States Bureau of Mines and British Standards, which in turn informed the former national minerals policy guidance notes. The Planning Practice Guidance has now superseded these former minerals policy guidance notes. The Planning Practice Guidance identifies that blast vibration is an issue which should be addressed but does not provide any guidance on an assessment methodology or appropriate limits.

7.29 The former minerals policy guidance notes advised that acceptable

ground vibration levels are between 6 – 10mms-1 at a 95% confidence level and no individual blast should exceed 12mms-1. BS 6472 recommends 6 – 10mms-1 at 90% confidence levels. These levels would avoid the risk of cosmetic damage occurring to buildings and are

recognised as accepted good practice at surface coal sites and other similar operations around the country.

7.30 Air overpressure also has the potential to cause damage to buildings.

Research has shown that poorly mounted pre-stressed windows might crack at 150dB and structural damage can occur at 180dB. Air overpressure is very influenced by meteorological conditions and British Standards have therefore not set limits for air overpressure. They advise that air overpressure should be minimised at source through the careful design and implementation of blasts to ensure that these levels are not reached.

7.31 The Environmental Statement includes a vibration assessment that

assesses the predicted ground vibration levels at 9 locations around the site, being representative of the nearest sensitive receptors. The assessment has shown that there would be a number of locations where the ground vibration would be perceptible, as human perception of such vibration can occur at low levels (around 1.5mms-1). However the assessment has demonstrated that the blasts can be designed to ensure that the ground vibration levels would not exceed the standard of 6mms-1 referred to above. The maximum predicted levels range from 0.7mms-1 to 6mms-1.

Location Maximum ppv (mms-1)

Houndalee Cottages East: 1.6

Stonecroft: 0.8

High Chibburn: 0.9

Druridge Farm Cottages: 1.1

Hemscott Hill: 2.6

Blakemoor Farm: 0.9

Ellington caravan Park: 0.9

Highthorn: 6.0*

Widdrington Station: 0.7

*different blast design required 7.32 It is considered that the effects from blasting would be within the limits

established in good practice and current standards. The Council’s Public Protection team is satisfied with the assessment and recommends that conditions could be imposed which limit the number of blasts, set a limit in ground vibration and requires the applicant to monitor the impact of blasting at relevant receptors. These conditions have been imposed on coal site within the County and have been effective in ensuring the effects from blasting are acceptable.

Lighting 7.33 The Environmental Statement includes a lighting assessment. In line with

the advice of the Council’s Public Protection team, the site is split into two areas for the purposes of the lighting assessment. The majority of the site is considered to be Zone E2, ie a rural location, small village or relatively dark urban location. The area lying nearer to the coast is considered to be an E1 zone, ie an intrinsically dark landscape. Different obtrusive light limitations apply to the different zones. The Institute of Lighting Engineers has recommended limits for average light spill from developments as:

E1 zone – 2 lux pre curfew and 0 lux post curfew

E2 zone – 5 lux pre curfew and 1 lux post curfew 7.34 The lighting assessment in the Environmental Statement is based on a

lighting scheme for the site and considers the light spill pre curfew (dusk to 11pm) and post curfew (11pm to 7am) for a number of locations within the site compound and at 17 indicative locations around the site. The only predicted increase is at Houndalee Cottages, within the E2 zone, and this would be an increase of 0.02 lux. Cumulative effects have also been included within the assessment.

7.35 The Public Protection team is satisfied with the assessment methodology

and its conclusions, pointing out that artificial lighting in the void would be at depth which would limit the potential for light spill and that the lighting columns within the site compound would be 6 and 9 metres in height which is less than the soil mounds in this part of the site, thus limiting the light spill from the site compound activities.

Summary of Impacts on Residential Amenity 7.36 There would be some disturbance to residential properties for the duration

of the proposed development. However, having considered the impact of the proposed development on residential amenity in terms of noise, it is considered that the impacts could be controlled through condition. In terms of air quality and dust, appropriate mitigation is proposed and this could be secured through conditions. In terms of blasting and lighting, it is considered that the impacts of the proposal on residential amenity would be within accepted limits. Based on the assessment above, it is not considered that cumulative effects from noise, dust/air quality, blasting or lighting would be unacceptable. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policies S3, EP19 and EP20 of the Minerals Local Plan, Policy 52 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft, paragraphs 123, 124, 125 and 144 of the NPPF and the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance.

Landscape and Visual Impact Introduction 7.37 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was included within

the Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application. This sets out the baseline landscape of the site and its surroundings. It also includes an assessment of landscape effects (the effects on the landscape as a resource) and visual effects (the effects on specific views and on the general visual amenity experienced by people). The LVIA generally reflects the methodology recommended in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (third edition) prepared by the Landscape Institute and IEMA. It includes an assessment of the effects on landscape character and visual effects on settlements, properties, footpaths, roads and public open space.

7.38 The Northumberland Landscape Character Assessment (2010) shows the

application site lying within the Coastal Coalfields character area (area 39a), which is part of the larger Coalfield Farmland character type. The proposed site is adjacent to the Druridge Bay character area (40a) which is part of the wider Broad Bays and Dunes character type. The table below summarises these character areas. The LVIA acknowledges the relationship between the two character areas and the intervisibility between them.

Character area

Summary of Key characteristics Guiding Principle Sensitivity to surface coal mining

Coastal Coalfields (area 39a) Within which the application site sits

A relatively flat plain that has been heavily modified by mining and industrial activity. Restoration has generally resulted in oversimplified geometric landscapes of pasture and conifer blocks which lack distinctive features. There are pockets of unaltered rural character including fragments of ancient woodland and many of the older village centres feature attractive sandstone buildings.

Plan - positive action is required to restore or enhance the areas and management is required to ensure that change is acceptable and results in strengthen character.

Moderate

Druridge Bay (area 40a) The adjacent LCA

An attractive, almost unbroken stretch of sandy beach and mature sand dunes backed by a variety of landscapes that owes their origins to mining and industrial activity. To the south lies the power station and former smelter; to the north is a simplified landscape of

Manage – generally able to absorb development without significant detriment to their character but changes need to be sympathetic and sustainable and the key

High

reclamation, in places enhanced by subsidence wetlands.

qualities may still require a degree of protection.

7.39 Policy EP3 of the Minerals Local Plan sets out the considerations for

assessing landscape impacts. It is considered that the criteria in this policy is generally consistent with the NPPF which seeks to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on the natural environment and that valued landscapes are protected and enhanced. The criteria in Policy EP3 include:

Quality, character, local distinctiveness and quality

Visual prominence

Potential loss or gain of landscape features including the removal of dereliction and the opportunity to improve the landscape

The maintenance of open countryside and viable countryside uses between settlements.

7.40 Policy 30 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft Plan seeks to

maintain and enhance landscape character. Policy 52 (b) of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft Plan requires applicants to demonstrate that the proposal can be effectively and appropriately integrated with its surroundings and the character of the landscape, both during and after extraction. Policy 53 (c) identifies environmental enhancements through restoration and offsite as a benefit of mineral extraction that will be considered. Policy 56a is specific to coal extraction within this part of the County and sets out specific matters that proposals will need to address including extraction proposals the cumulative effects, the effects on the enhancement and restoration of the character of the landscape and the effects on the character of the landscape.

Effects on landscape features 7.41 The key landscape features within the site comprise the field boundaries.

In the north this includes include young hedges and wire fences that could readily be replaced on restoration. The network in the south includes older hedges that remain relatively intact in terms of overall pattern but many are occupied by fences and hedges in poor or declining condition. There are some individual hedges where the surviving network is stronger. There are 8 groups of trees within the proposed application boundary and 7 of these would be retained. Only one high value category tree would be removed. The other trees that would be removed are identified as being in the low value categories, although these can still contribute to landscape character.

7.42 These changes would result in a loss of features over the life of the site

and until maturity of planting and management, and this would have some impact on the historical interest and ‘time depth’ of the landscape.

However, the impacts on the topography and surface features of the site would be low and it would be restored to broadly existing levels and character. As a result it is considered that the overall impacts would be broadly positive in the longer term on completion and semi-maturity of restoration. In this respect the proposed development is considered to be consistent with Policies 53 © and 54 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft.

7.43 The restoration proposals provide for the reinstatement of field

boundaries, the planting of a small number of tree copses, developing areas of species rich grassland and wildlife islands and new wetland areas. The features proposed for site restoration are considered appropriate to the area and would make a positive contribution to the landscape in the longer term and so is consistent with Policy 56aii of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft.

Effects on Landscape Character 7.44 It is considered that the applicant has given consideration to the design of

the site to reduce its impacts on the landscape, particularly:

the programming of soil stripping and the design and phasing of perimeter soil mounds mean that they would be ‘green’ for a high proportion of the operational period, generally concealing surface and sub-surface activities;

the design of the two overburden mounds as relatively low linear features with a curving profile help assimilate them into the surrounding topography;

the phased construction and removal of the overburden mounds has been designed to minimise visual intrusion of bare overburden mounds and vehicle movements;

minimising the area of proposed operations and land area affected. 7.45 As a result, the effects of the proposal in the shallow views typical of the

Coastal Coalfields character area generally wouldn’t be significant from many longer and middle distance vantage points over much of the operational period. The main impacts are considered to be on the local landscape within the immediate locality of the site (within around 1.5km).

7.46 During the initial development phase the site would be visually intrusive in

many local views given the nature of the operations including soil stripping and the formation of soil and overburden mounds. However, this would be moderated from certain views because of the location of the proposed overburden mounds, in particular the north one, in relation to existing blocks of woodland that would help to screen some of the early construction. The effect would moderate progressively as soil and overburden mounds green up during years 1 and 2. The appearance of

the site would then remain relatively constant, comprising largely of green mounds with little movement or activity visible, until phase 4 (early in year 6) when overburden mounds would start to be de-constructed. It is considered that the overall effect on the local landscape within the immediate locality of the site during the operational period would be medium to medium high. There would be areas within the locality where the effects of the site on the landscape would remain medium to medium high for the duration of site operations. This would include certain points along the A1068 where the mounds would contrast with the naturally flat topography of the coastal plain and obstruct deeper views.

7.47 The proposal would have some effects on the more sensitive Druridge

Bay character area given the intervisibility with the coastal plain hinterland. The proposal would not be visible from the beach other than at a limited number of places where there are short breaks in the dunes, nor would it be visible from the more enclosed areas of dune. It would be visible in some views from the publicly accessible dune tops and from the transitional area between the dunes and the coastal plain farmland, including the C110 road between Druridge and a point to the north of Cresswell, where views often have an inland focus. The effects of the proposals on the conservation and enhancement of landscape character within this part of the Druridge Bay coastal strip has been addressed to some degree through the site design (which has a stand off of approximately 500m from the C110 road) and the restoration proposals. However, the effect of the proposal within this immediate area would be substantial for much of the operational period where the mounds would appear as engineered features and would obstruct some views across open countryside, although it should be noted that some of the longer distance views to the hills to the north west would be retained. The proposal would not have a significant adverse effect from elsewhere within the wider Druridge Bay character area or the majority of the Druridge Bay itself.

7.48 The site would be progressively restored. The impact on landscape

character would diminish as the site returns to close to its present character. Landscape effects would be low on completion of restoration (year 7) reflecting the loss of landscape features and resulting immaturity of the emerging landscape balanced against the positive effects of advance landscape works that are proposed. The proposals would be broadly positive in the longer term, when the landscape features would have had time to mature.

7.49 In summary, it is considered that there would be no adverse effects on the

wider landscape. There would be some moderate – substantial adverse effects on the local landscape character over the medium term but there would be no long term harm. The long term improvements to the

character of the landscape resulting from the restoration would take some time before they outweigh the impacts. However, these improvements would be enduring. There would therefore be some conflict with Policy EP of the Minerals Local Plan and Policy 56aiii of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft, but in the longer term the proposed restoration of the site would be consistent with the guiding principles for this landscape character area which is to enhance its character and so would be consistent with Policy 53© of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft.

Visual Effects on Settlements 7.50 The proposed development would be visible, and would have some

localised significant effects in views from some countryside footpaths around Widdrington and Widdrington Station and from certain approaches by road, but would not be widely visible from private properties or public vantage points within the settlements.

7.51 The proposed development would be unlikely to be visible from public

vantage points within Cresswell and there would not be significant effects in views from the sea shore where the main recreational focus of the village lies. The proposed development would be more visible in views from the properties on the northern edge of Cresswell, although at some distance from the proposal (approximately 1.6km) and also in views from approaches to the village by road from the north and west.

7.52 The proposed development would only be visible from the very western

edge of Ellington and this would only affect a small number of properties at The Knoll because of intervening topography and vegetation. The site would be seen at some distance (approximately 1.4km) from these properties and any change in view would be of a relatively small scale.

Visual Effects on Properties 7.53 Officers agree with much of the findings of the LVIA in terms of the visual effects on individual properties, although for a number of properties, the potential impacts are considered to be slightly higher than assessed. 7.54 Given the distance from the proposed development, the intervening

topography and orientation of the properties, it is considered that the proposed development would have a low impact on a number of properties in the vicinity including:

Blakemoor Farm,

The Drift Café,

houses at The Knoll in Ellington,

Alma Cottage,

Hagg House and Hagg Farm Cottage,

The Willows

High Chibburn

Rookwood House

North Linton Farm

Properties opposite the Widdrington Reform Church;

properties on the eastern edge of Widdrington Station. 7.55 It is considered that the proposed development would have a low-medium

impact on the following properties:

Kennels Cottage

Warkworth Lane Cottage,

Ellington Caravan Park,

Teviotdale and Teviot Cottage and a medium impact on the following properties:

Houndalee Farm and Cottages,

Houndalee Cottages,

Stonecroft

the properties at Druridge. The impact on some of these properties identified in this paragraph and paragraph 7.54 would be higher during the earlier stages of operations until the soil mounds and overburden mounds are established.

7.56 The Environmental Statement has assessed the level of effect on

Highthorn, the closest residential property to the proposed development, as substantial and officers would concur with this conclusion. Highthorn lies approximately 140m to the south of the nearest operational boundary of the site and approximately 270m from the southern overburden mound (27m high). The southern overburden mound would be prominent in the skyline when viewed from the property given its proximity and the orientation of the property.

7.57 The views from some properties would undoubtedly change from open

countryside to views of parts of the surface mining operation. The impact on their visual amenity would be highest during overburden and soil mound construction. These effects would reduce at the majority of these once the soil mounds and overburden mounds have established. It is considered that the proposals would not have an overbearing effect on the visual amenity of these properties, given the separation distances involved and are not considered to be unacceptable. The effects would however remain substantial for Highthorn throughout operations.

Visual Effects on Public Rights of Way and Amenity Space 7.58 The LVIA included a detailed assessment of all the relevant public rights

of way in the vicinity of the site. Officers agree with much of the findings of the LVIA although there are 4 public rights of way where the potential

impacts are considered to be slightly higher than assessed over parts of the route. Officers consider that the proposals would have medium - high impacts in certain views from those parts of these public rights of way that are in the vicinity of the site, notably those to the south around Ellington-Cresswell and at Widdrington. These impacts would be temporary and would not be for the full length of the route. The impacts on the Northumberland Coastal Path are considered to be low given the general lack of visibility from the foreshore where most of the path lies because of the dune topography.

7.59 There are a number of public amenity areas in the vicinity of the proposed

site. The visual effects on the beach are considered to be imperceptible given the general lack of visibility because of the dunes. Although there is a seaward focus to the experience of the dunes, inland views from parts of the publicly accessible dunes also contribute in some places. The view from the dunes varies considerably due to the complexity of the topography. The LVIA concludes that, of the 9.4km length of dunes (both publicly accessible and in private ownership) in the Bay, there would be intermittent views of the site from a 4km section of the dunes of distances ranging from 500m to 1.5km. There would also be intermittent views from a 2.5km section at distances of between 1.5km and 3.5km. Officers consider that any impact from these more distant areas would not be significant given the distance from the proposed development. Overall, the impact on the dunes nearest to the proposed development is considered to be low-medium. The impacts on Cresswell Pond to the south and Druridge Pools to the north are considered to be medium and low respectively and there would not be any impact on the Country Park or East Chevington Nature Reserve given the distance from the propose development and intervening topography.

Visual Effects on Roads 7.60 Officers consider that the proposal would have medium - high impacts on

the A1068 where it runs adjacent to the perimeter soil mounds and the C116 Widdrington to Druridge road during the early period of operations. These would fall to low-medium impacts for the majority of the operational period. The visual effects on the C110 (which is also part of the Sustrans National Route 1 at this point) between Druridge and Cresswell would be higher from certain view points along the route due to the scale and extent of the features in the view. Impacts on other roads in the vicinity would be low.

Effects on designated landscapes 7.61 The National Park lies approximately 19 kilometres (12miles) to the north

west and the southern part of the Northumberland Coast Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty lies approximately 10 kilometres (6 miles) to the north. It is considered that the distances between the designated landscapes and the application site mean that the proposed development would not have an impact on the special qualities of the AONB and National Park.

7.62 A number of the letters of objection have raised concerns about the impact

the proposal would have on any southern extension of the AONB that may be proposed in the future. This was an aim of the Council and partnership organisations a few years ago, as shown by Policy L3 in the document: ‘Druridge Bay – A Strategy for Management to 2010’ prepared by the Druridge Bay Partnership in 2006 and referred to by a number of objectors. This aspiration is also referred to in the document: ‘Northumberland’s Existing Green Infrastructure Assets’.

7.63 A Landscape Character Assessment of coast and countryside areas

adjacent to the AONB was undertaken in 2007. This concluded that, whilst it was a highly valued landscape, the area around Druridge Bay did not fulfil all the criteria for natural beauty to warrant it being put forward in a potential review of the AONB boundary. This was in part due to the fact that many of the restored landscapes lacked time depth, as shown by the immaturity of much of the landscape, comprising relatively recent opencast restoration often of rather low quality, with rectilinear field boundaries and linear coniferous shelterbelt planting forming a simplified landscape. The AONB Partnership has no plans to seek a boundary extension in this area as a significant period of time will need to pass before a degree of maturity will be apparent in the landscape, and the rectilinear pattern is softened by projects such as farm woodland planting and habitat creation schemes. It is therefore considered that little weight can be given to the impact that the proposal may have on any future aspiration to extend the AONB.

7.64 Policy C3 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan identifies a number of Areas of

High Landscape Value including the coastal Area of Druridge Bay and states that proposals that would have a detrimental effect on AHLVs will not be permitted. The eastern part of the application site lies within the AHLV. Although Policy C3 is saved, national policy has moved away from the designation of locally significant areas of landscape value to one of landscape character. Policy C3 is not consistent with the approach in the NPPF paragraph 113 and so weight cannot be given.

7.65 Letters of objection have raised concerns about the impact on the

Heritage Coast. Policy C5 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan states that proposals that would adversely affect the Heritage Coast will not be permitted except in circumstances of overriding national need, where no suitable alternative location for development can be found. This Policy is

not consistent with the NPPF and so cannot be afforded weight. The NPPF seeks to maintain the character of the undeveloped coast, protecting and enhancing its distinctive landscapes, particularly in areas defined as heritage coast, and improve public access to and enjoyment of the coast. The application site does not fall within the Heritage Coast but does lie close to it. The proposed site cannot be seen from the foreshore (other than a limited number of places where there is a gap in the dunes) and the visual impact on the dunes is considered to be generally low - medium. The application includes proposals to extend the network of paths in the area both during operations and on restoration, offering the potential for additional longer term benefits for public access and enjoyment. It is not considered that the impacts on the Heritage Coast would be unacceptable.

Cumulative Effects 7.66 There are currently no other active coal sites in the area other than

Butterwell and Potland which are likely to be restored before operations commence at Highthorn, should planning permission be granted. However, the area in the vicinity of the proposed development has been subject to surface coal mining over a number of years and the proposed development would see the impact on the local landscape and communities continue but not intensify. There is the potential for Highthorn to be operational at the same time as Ferneybeds with some potential for cumulative impacts in the local area but from most areas the combined effect would be of a similar magnitude to Highthorrn on its own. There would be some sequential cumulative impacts with the wind farms when travelling on some of the roads and footpaths in the area but this would be temporary, for the duration of the proposed development. Cumulative impacts with the sand extraction at Hemscott is not considered as the sand extraction permission would be relinquished, should permission be granted for this proposal.

Conclusions on Landscape and Visual Impact 7.67 It is considered that there would be no impact on the special qualities of

the National Park or AONB given the separation distances and intervening topography. There would some impacts on views from the Heritage Coast from certain points. These impacts would be temporary and for the duration of the development and are not considered to be unacceptable.

7.68 There would be no adverse effects on the wider landscape. The

proposals have been designed as far as they can be to integrate with their surroundings and the character of the landscape, particular regard having been given to the design of operational landforms. Whilst the the proposed development would see the impact on the local landscape and

communities continue it would not intensify impacts and in this respect is not considered to conflict with Policy EP3 of the Minerals Local Plan. The restoration proposals are well considered and seek to redress some of the effects of previous opencast working and deliver appropriate forms of enhancement and in this respect are consistent with Policies 53©, 54 and 56aii of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF. There would nevertheless remain some harm to the character of the local landscape and the visual amenity of the local area over the medium term. There would therefore be some conflict with Policies EP3 and EP19 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policy 56aiii of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft.

Impact on the Highways Network Introduction 7.69 Part 4 of the NPPF encourages opportunities for sustainable transport

modes, depending on the nature and location of the development, and sets out the assessment requirements for developments that generate significant amounts of movement. The Minerals Local Plan includes two policies relating to the transport of minerals. Policies EP17 and EP18 are supportive of the use of alternative means of transport to road and seek to ensure that transport considerations are taken into account, including the suitability of the road or rail network to accommodate the traffic, the routing of the traffic to avoid settlements and the effect on highways safety and maintenance and the environment. These policies are generally consistent with the NPPF and so can be given weight. Policies 41 and 43 of the Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft aim to promote sustainable connections and ensure that development does not result in a detrimental impact on the highway. Policy 52 (g) of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft requires appropriate weight to be given to the suitability of the transport network including movements, access and impacts on non-motorised users and encourages non road transport when considering minerals proposals.

7.70 The Environmental Statement includes a Highways and Transport

Assessment that assesses the adequacy of the site access and the impact that the proposal would have on the highway network both individually and cumulatively with other permitted development in the locality. There are two main traffic generators considered within the Highways and Transport Assessment – the HGVs transporting minerals from the site and vehicles associated with staff and visitors to the site. The Highways Authority has considered the Highways and Transport Assessment and is satisfied with the methodology used to assess the highways impact.

7.71 The applicant anticipates that the site could generate up to a maximum of 150 loaded HGV trips per day transporting minerals from the site. This equates to a maximum of 300 HGV trips per day in total (2 way). Based on the proposed working hours for coal dispatch of 7am to 7pm, a 5.5 day working week and the maximum HGV numbers, this equates to 25 HGVs per hour (2 way). The applicant has stated that the HGVs would deliver coal to the Butterwell Disposal Point approximately 6.4km (4 miles) to the south west or to the Port of Blyth, approximately 16km (10 miles) to the south east. The fireclay and stone that could also be extracted from the site would also exit the site and travel south along the A1068. The number of HGV movements associated with these other minerals would be small and would come within the maximum of 150/300 HGV trips per day.

7.72 Other vehicles would enter and leave the site. The highways and

transport assessment included with the Environmental Statement estimates that around 20 visitors per day, including deliveries, would visit the site. The assessment is based on 150 employees. For the purposes of assessing the impacts on the highway network, the Highways and Transport Assessment has assumed that this would be split over 2 shifts, with 75 staff employed on each shift and all employees would travel by car individually. The Highways and Transport Assessment estimated that 15 staff would be administrative staff arriving and departing the site at peak travel times. The remaining 60 staff would travel during the site shift times which would be outwith the peak travel periods.

7.73 A number of abnormal loads would also be required. These would

predominantly be required at the start and end of the mining operations as they would be associated with the delivery of plant. Abnormal loads would use the A189 and the A1068.

Site Access and Car Parking Provision 7.74 Vehicles would enter and leave the site via a new access that would be

created from the A1068. The access would comprise a priority access with a ghost island turning pocket on the A1068 to assist vehicles turning right into the site. The proposed ghost island has been designed to accommodate two HGVs. An island is proposed within the junction mouth to separate vehicles entering and leaving the site. All exiting vehicles would turn left out of the site and all returning HGVs would enter the site from the south. The Highways Authority has appraised the proposed site access and has concluded that it is acceptable. The proposed junction would conform to national and local highways standards and appropriate visibility splays could be secured.

7.75 The applicant is proposing that 187 car parking spaces would be provided within the site compound area. The Highways Authority considers that this level of car parking is appropriate for the development and the staffing levels proposed.

7.76 In this respect, the proposed development is considered to be consistent

with Policy EP18 of the Minerals Local Plan. Highways Capacity and Safety 7.77 The Highways and Transport Assessment included within the

Environmental Statement is based on two alternative haulage routes for the coal HGVs:

A1068 – A189 – C415 – C403 - Port of Blyth Disposal Point

A1068 – C125 – Butterwell Disposal Point. Once at the disposal point, the coal would be loaded on to trains for transport to the wider markets.

7.78 The haulage route for HGVs would primarily use the A class road network

which is designed and constructed to accommodate HGV movements. Although the routes would also involve C class roads these are both established HGV routes which have been upgraded to accommodate HGV movements.

7.79 The Highways and Transport Assessment in the Environmental Statement

has considered the capacity of the haulage routes. The baseline data used to inform this was commissioned from the County Council. The Highways Authority has appraised the information to assess whether the highways capacity is adequate.

7.80 For a rural single carriageway principal road such as the A1068, the

design capacity stated within national standards is in the region of 23,000 vehicles per day averaged throughout the year. The maximum level of traffic anticipated on the A1068, including existing traffic flows, traffic generated by the proposed development and traffic generated by existing consented development, would equate to 20,922 vehicles per weekday averaged throughout the year. The additional traffic flows generated by the development would therefore not exceed the design capacity of the road.

7.81 For dual carriageways such as the A189, the design capacity stated within

national standards is in the region of 70,000 vehicles per day averaged throughout the year. The maximum level of traffic anticipated on the A189 dualled section, including existing traffic flows, traffic generated by the proposed development and traffic generated by existing committed development, would equate to 43,768 vehicles per weekday averaged

throughout the year. The additional traffic flows generated by the development would therefore not exceed the design capacity of the road.

7.82 The Highways Authority has considered the capacity of the C class roads

leading to the two potential disposal points. There would not be any capacity issues from the proposed development although there would be a requirement for a realignment of the junction at the Butterwell Disposal Point should permission be granted.

7.83 A road safety assessment has been included within the Highways and

Transport Assessment. This provided information on the number, nature and location of accidents on the proposed haulage routes over a 5 year period. A total of 137 accidents were identified. Two of these involved HGVs and both were classed as ‘slight’. It is accepted that the increase in HGVs may increase the risk of accidents. However, the nature of the roads and their designation and design are such that, in normal circumstances, users of the highway would be able to consider the additional HGV movements in an appropriate manner.

7.84 In this respect, the proposed development is considered to be consistent

with Policy EP18 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policy 52 (g) of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and the NPPF.

Sustainable Transport 7.85 The Highways Authority considers that the existing pedestrian and cyclist

infrastructure on the proposed haulage routes is appropriate for the location and type of pedestrian and cyclist movements expected on such roads. The Highways Authority does not consider it necessary for improvements resultant from the development. However, the applicant is proposing to create a new 2km stretch of segregated cycle and footway parallel to the A1068 between Houndalee Cottages and the junction of the A1068 and Mile Road. This would be created during the first 6 months of operations as it would form part of the diversion route for the footpath diversion required, and would remain following site restoration.

7.86 There are no public transport facilities within close proximity to the site.

The nearest bus stop is approximately 1.2km (0.7 miles) and the nearest train station at Widdrington Station is approximately 2.3km (1.4 miles). It is accepted that improved connections would not be a reasonable requirement of the development given its temporary nature and the shift patterns that would operate.

7.87 The majority of employees would travel to site by the private car. The

NPPF, Policy T5 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan and Policies 41 and 43 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft support the location of

development close to public transport and encourage the use of alternatives to the private car. Minerals can only be worked where they occur and so there is not the same flexibility or choice of location as there is with other development types. The Highways Authority has confirmed that it would not be reasonable to require improvements to the public transport network or cycle and pedestrian links as a requirement of the development. The Highways and Transport Assessment has included a commitment to prepare a travel plan to encourage car sharing and cycle parking facilities. This could be conditioned should planning permission be granted.

7.88 It is considered that the nature of the proposed development would make

it unreasonable to require the ‘standard’ measures for sustainable locations that may apply to built development. The applicant is proposing a travel plan which could be secured by condition. The applicant is also proposing that rail transport could be used to transport coal to the markets. It is therefore considered that, in this respect, the proposed development accords with Policies EP17 and EP18 of the Minerals Local Plan, Policies 41, 43 and 52(g) of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and the NPPF.

Summary of Impacts on the Highways Network 7.89 Traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated safely on the

highway network without any adverse impacts on capacity. The proposed new access is considered to be acceptable. The Highways Authority has confirmed that there are no national or local policy reasons why the application cannot be approved in highways terms, subject to appropriate conditions relating to securing the highways works at the Butterwell Disposal Point and ensuring impacts on the highway are managed. This would include conditions covering the sheeting of HGVs, the use of wheel cleaning equipment and ensuring the access is constructed before mining operations commence.

7.90 Many of the objection letters have raised concerns about the impact of the

additional traffic on the highway network. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. The Highways Authority is satisfied that this is not the case with this proposal. The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Policy EP18 of the Minerals Local Plan, Policy 52 (g) of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and Part 4 of the NPPF.

Impact on Public Rights of Way 7.91 Policy R8 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan, Policy EP16 of the Minerals

Local Plan and Policy 52(h) of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft seek to safeguard the public rights of way network and require alternatives to be provided where they are affected. Policies R8 and 52(h) also seek to secure improvements to the public rights of way network wherever possible. Policy 54 (e) of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft states that, on restoration, proposals should deliver, where appropriate, improved public access and/or open space, including links to the surrounding green infrastructure and the expansion of the rights of way network.

7.92 Visual impacts on users of the Public Rights of Way network are

addressed above. 7.93 A public footpath crosses the application site between Houndalee Farm

and Hemscott Hill. This route would require diversion for the duration of site operations, and would be diverted during the initial site set up in the first 6 months. A diversion is proposed, routing the public footpath along the southern and western periphery of the site. Once the site is restored this footpath would be returned to its original route. That part of the route adjacent to the A1068 would be retained following restoration for pedestrian and cycle use.

7.94 The applicant is proposing to provide additional footpaths and bridleways

both during site operations and following site restoration. During year 2 a new 1km multi user route would be provided parallel to the C116 between High Chibburn and Druridge and a path to the Chibburn Preceptory would be provided. These would be outwith the application boundary. On restoration a new bridleway would be provided across the restored site from Stonecroft in the north, linking into the Ellington Bridleway in the south. The applicant is proposing that the new routes would be permissive. The routes proposed outwith the application boundary would be secured in a S106 agreement should planning permission be granted.

7.95 In conclusion, one public right of way would be affected by the proposal.

The applicant proposes to temporarily divert this during site operations and it would be reinstated on site restoration. In addition, the applicant is proposing to enhance the public footpath and bridleway network in the vicinity through additional permissive paths, which is welcomed by the Council’s Public Rights of Way team which has no objections to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions. The proposed development is considered to accord with Policy R8 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan, Policy EP16 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policies 52 (h) and 54 (e) of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft.

Ecology Introduction 7.96 Policies C9, C10 and C11 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan seek to

protect local and regional nature conservation sites and protected species and their habitats and are generally consistent with the NPPF. Policy 52c of the Northumberland Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft requires appropriate weight to be given to the conservation and enhancement of nature conservation sites and where possible to provide a net gain for biodiversity. Policy 53 c identifies enhancement measures as a benefit of mineral extraction. Policy 56 aiii requires proposals for coal mining to address the effects on the conservation and enhancement of the nature conservation interest of the Druridge Bay coastal strip. Policy 29 sets out a number of criteria for assessing proposals on biodiversity. This includes securing biodiversity gains and wider ecological enhancement, avoiding unacceptable harm and adequately mitigating against unacceptable harm that cannot be avoided. The NPPF also seeks to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains where possible and paragraph 144 seeks to ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment from mineral extraction.

7.97 A number of ecological surveys, extending beyond the application site

boundary, were undertaken and have informed the Environmental Statement along with an assessment of any likely significant effects on ecological interests.

Designated Sites 7.98 The proposed site is not affected by any statutory designations. However,

there are a number of statutory and non-statutory designated sites within the area including:

Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site

Northumberland Marine proposed SPA

Northumberland Coast SSSI

Creswell Ponds SSSI

Hadston Links SSSI

Coquet Island to St Mary’s Marine Conservation Zone

Cresswell Dunes Local Nature Reserves

Warkworth Lane Ponds Local Wildlife Site

Hadston Links LWS

Northumberland Wildlife Trust reserves at Druridge Pools, Creswell Ponds and Cresswell Foreshore

7.99 Natural England is satisfied that the proposal is unlikely to have a

significant effect on the internationally designated sites. A Habitats

Regulations screening assessment has been undertaken by the County Ecologist which concluded that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the SPA, the proposed SPA and Ramsar site. Natural England concurs with this conclusion.

7.100 Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect

on the SSSIs and that they do not represent a constraint in determining the planning application subject to a number of conditions being imposed should planning permission be granted. Concerns were expressed by the NWT and the RSPB about the potential impact on the Cresswell Ponds SSSI from any lowering of the water table that might occur and the potential for saline intrusion. The applicant submitted additional information on any potential hydrological connectivity between the application site and the SSSI. This established that, like many similar water features on the coalfield, because the pond area sits on a layer of glacial clay or till which is impervious, the scope for connectivity is very limited and any changes to the groundwater that may arise from the development would not have an adverse impact on Cresswell Ponds. The NWT and the RSPB are satisfied with the additional information and are no longer objecting on this ground.

7.101 The Coquet Island to St Mary’s Marine Conservation Zone was formally

designated in January 2016. Further information was submitted by the applicant on the potential of the proposed development to impact on the Marine Conservation Zone. The water from the site would ultimately be discharged into the sea and therefore the Marine Conservation Zone. The information submitted by the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on any of the features for which the Marine Conservation Zone was designated, subject to conditions and the separate Environment Agency consenting process. The NWT is still not entirely reassured about the potential impact on the Marine Conservation Zone. However, the County Ecologist is satisfied with the additional information submitted and the conclusions. The Environment Agency has not objected on this point, nor has Natural England. It is considered that the environmental permitting regime operated by the Environment Agency would provide sufficient safeguards for the Marine Conservation Zone. It is not appropriate for the planning system to duplicate the controls of other regulatory regimes.

Protected species 7.102 A number of surveys were undertaken within the application site and the

wider vicinity to inform the Environmental Statement. Six species of bat were recorded. The main area of bat activity was recorded at Hemscott Hill Ponds outwith the proposed working area, although they were recorded as foraging and commuting over the wider area. No bat roosts

were found within the site although a total of 13 trees were recorded as having a medium potential to support a bat roost. The proposed operations would have some impact on the use of the site by bats as there would be a loss of habitats used for foraging and commuting. The impact is considered to be low and is unlikely to affect the conservation status of the species. Bat boxes are proposed and their provision could be secured through a condition should planning permission be granted. On site restoration, the additional hedgerows and areas of wetland would provide improved foraging and commuting areas for bats. Bats can also be affected by lighting. Research has shown that even the most sensitive species are unlikely to be affected by lighting levels below 3.6 – 4.7 lux. The Environmental Statement includes a lighting assessment that assessed lighting levels from a number of points, including Hemscott Hill near to the main area of recorded bat activity. The lighting assessment established that current lux levels in the area are below the 3.6 lux level and any increase in levels as a result of light spill from the development would be small and still maintain levels below 3.6 lux.

7.103 The site is not used by red squirrel or otter but they were recorded in the

vicinity. Badgers were also recorded during the surveys. Brown hare was recorded within the proposed working area and wider vicinity. There would be a small impact on these species given the loss of habitat for badger and brown hare during site operations and a medium risk of short term disturbance to red squirrel in one offsite plantation whilst one area of soil mounds is being formed and removed. Supplementary feeding using red squirrel specific feeders in plantations around the site is proposed along with managing the grass on the overburden mounds to benefit brown hare. These could be secured through condition. It is considered that there would be no unacceptable impacts on these protected species.

7.104 Surveys for great crested newts were carried out on the site and at other

water bodies in the vicinity. The County Ecologist is satisfied with the surveys that were carried out by the applicant and the conclusion presented in the Environmental Statement and is satisfied that great crested newts would not be affected by the proposal.

Birds 7.105 Internationally important populations of pink footed geese use the site and

the wider area. Other significant bird fauna in the wider area include regionally important numbers of whooper swans on farmland to the south of the proposed working area; a number of species protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act including barn owl and a wide range of breeding and wintering waders.

7.106 Without mitigation there could be a significant effect on pink footed geese through the loss of foraging habitat used by up to 3000 pink footed geese over the winter period and also indirectly from noise associated with the operations. The mitigation proposed in the Environmental Statement is the management of undisturbed land in the early phases of operations to improve habitat quality, the possible identification of off-site refuge area for later operational phases and incorporation of management for pink footed geese in grazed coastal pastures. The NWT, RSPB and the County Ecologist raised concerns about the availability of suitable habitat for pink footed geese throughout the lifetime of operations and on restoration. Objectors have also raised concerns about the impacts on pink footed geese. The applicant has submitted additional information on this issue which identifies areas of the site available for the management of pink footed geese at each phase of operation. The additional information also identifies that a Biodiversity Action Plan would be prepared for the site and this could secure appropriate mitigation. The County Ecologist, NWT and the RSPB are satisfied with this further information and are no longer objecting on this point, subject to a condition to secure the mitigation.

7.107 Farmland breeding birds would also be temporarily displaced. This

includes yellow wagtail where the effects are classed as significant because of the proportion of the County breeding total affected. Mitigation is proposed through the creation of 18.6 hectares of new offsite wetland habitats (described as Druridge Ponds in the Environmental Statement) to the south of the properties at Druridge and improvement works to Hemscott Hill ponds covering 9.2 hectares. These wetland habitats would be secured through planning conditions. Given that they are proposed as mitigation for the displacement of habitats for yellow wagtail, they would have to be in place early on in the site development and this would be reflected in the planning condition. Their long term protection and management would be secured through an agreement under Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The RSPB and the NWT remain concerned that the long term management would not be in perpetuity and consider that this means the long term guarantees about the maintenance and management of these areas are uncertain. Notwithstanding the comments of the NWT and the RSPB, it is considered that the proposed mitigation and the period for the management agreement proposed provide for appropriate mitigation to offset the impacts on yellow wagtail and other farmland breeding birds.

Other Habitats 7.108 In terms of habitats, the application site is considered to be of variable

value. Habitats recorded include arable fields, improved grassland, a small area of semi improved grassland (partly outwith the operational area), a small area of marshy grassland, an area of deciduous woodland

(Fox Covert Plantation), a water body associated with Hemscott Burn and a number of hedgerows. There are no Priority Habitats within the proposed working area other than the hedgerows, 4 of which within the proposed working area are classed as in favourable condition and the rest of which are classed as unfavourable condition, and the small area of semi-improved grassland. Whilst these features would be removed during site operations, the onsite restoration proposals include areas of new native, broadleaf tree planting over 3.4 hectares, 10km of species rich hedgerows and 50.5 hectares of species rich wet grassland which would improve the ecological diversity of the site.

Cumulative Impacts 7.109 The Environmental Statement considers the cumulative effects of the

proposal in relation to the Hemscott sand extraction, the two nearby wind farms and the Ferneybeds surface mine. Ferneybeds is a relatively small site, with a coaling period of 3 years and the ecological value of the site was identified as being relatively poor. Potential cumulative effects are identified with Hemscott sand extraction; these would be removed should permission be granted for Highthorn as the sand extraction permission would be relinquished. There is a potential for cumulative effects with the wind farms in the vicinity. However, a mitigation strategy is in place for the wind farms to the north and south and the mitigation proposed through these, together with the measures for pink footed geese proposed would be sufficient to ensure that any cumulative impacts would be insignificant.

Ecological Enhancement 7.110 As well as the onsite restoration proposals, the applicant is also proposing

a number of offsite ecological enhancement works in addition to the offsite mitigation works outlined in paragraph 7.107 above. This includes:

a 4.5 hectare extension to Druridge Pools in year 1;

the creation of 11 hectares of wetland known as Chibburn Ponds in years 1-2

a further 6 hectare extension to Druridge Pools in year 2

5.5km of new species rich hedgerows and shelter belt management to the north of the application.

7.111 These features would be created by the applicant and their long term

management would be secured through a management plan agreed under the terms of S39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act which the applicant and the landowners would be signatories to. Wet grassland and shallow open water in this area is of great value to a wide range of wintering wildfowl and waders as well as breeding waders and other key species and so these enhancement measures are welcomed by the County

Ecologist, the NWT and the RSPB. They have the potential to be transformative in terms of the value of Druridge Bay to a wide range of species and also to visitors with an interest in wildlife. They would form a valuable link between the ecological sites created through the restoration of previous surface coal mines at Hauxley and East Chevington in the north with Druridge Pools, Cresswell Ponds and Warkworth Ponds in the south.

7.112 The County Ecologist, the NWT and the RSPB highlight that the benefits

of these ecological areas depends on their appropriate long term management being adequately secured and resourced. As outlined above, the RSPB and NWT have concerns about the ability to secure the long term management of the wetland areas over the longer term. It is not considered appropriate to discount the ecological benefits because of concerns about potential issues with future implementation or potential future enforcement issues with the S39 Agreement. The ecological enhancement measures are considered to represent a local benefit of considerable value and it is unlikely that they would be delivered through another mechanism in the foreseeable future.

Conclusions 7.113 Many letters of objection have raised concern about the impacts on the

wildlife of the area and it is clearly an area where local residents and visitors value the local wildlife. The application site itself is of relatively low ecological value, being dominated by uniform farmland. The site is significant for pink footed geese and other bird and animal species are also present. The wider area has a wide range of breeding and wintering waders and whooper swans. The proposed operations would result in some disruption to local wildlife and the loss of some ecological features.

7.114 It is considered that there would not be an adverse effect on any statutory

designated sites and no objections have been raised by Natural England, the County Ecologist or the NWT and RSPB in this respect.

7.115 The site operations would remove habitat and foraging areas until

restoration is well established. On site management and early mitigation works are proposed to help offset impacts. Wider enhancement measures are also proposed and together these would provide 50 hectares of additional wetland habitat. The onsite restoration proposals would add a further 50 hectares of wetland. Together these areas would bring significant benefits to the wider area, have the potential to provide key links between important ecological sites in the area and to significantly enhance the value of Druridge Bay to a wide range of species in the longer term.

7.116 The extent of the benefits depends on the appropriate long term management of the wetland areas. The applicant proposes that the long term protection of the new wetland areas is secured through the use of a S39 Agreement. The NWT and the RSPB maintain their objection to the proposal because of concerns about the long term management of the enhancement areas and the concern that S39 Agreements can sometimes fail to achieve the original intention and have proved difficult to enforce. The County Ecologist does acknowledge that there is always a level of risk when dealing with long term agreements given the uncertainties that inevitably accumulate looking further into the future. However, the County Ecologist regards this risk as being low. This is because of the ease with which the relevant habitats can be created and the fact that the land forming required will make it difficult to use the land for other purposes. Furthermore, if there was a hiatus in appropriate management, this is most likely to consist of inadequate grazing/cutting to achieve the desired sward heights, which will not cause irreversible adverse effects and can easily then be corrected. The County Ecologist advises that ensuring that the S39 agreement is sufficiently detailed in the first place and has a rigorous monitoring regime built into it is the most important way of reducing this risk overall. The County Ecologist, the NWT and the RSPB have fed into the framework for the management plan that would be secured through the S39 Agreement. The general aims of the management plan are considered to be appropriate. More detail on the S39 Agreement would be set out in detail in the S106 Agreement should permission be granted. Whilst the concerns of the RSPB and the NWT are recognised, it is not considered appropriate to discount the benefits because of concerns about potential issues with future implementation or potential future enforcement issues.

7.117 On balance therefore, it is considered that whilst there would be some

significant impacts on ecology during site operations, acceptable mitigation is proposed that would compensate for those impacts. The wider enhancement measures proposed provide a significant opportunity to enhance the value of Druridge Bay for ecology in the longer term. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policies C9, 10 and C11 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan, Policies 29 and 52, 53 © and 54 of the Northumberland Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF.

Cultural Heritage Designated Assets 7.118 Section 16 and 66 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act

1990 requires planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, monument, area and their setting, as well

as any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Policy C38 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan seeks to protect listed buildings and their setting from unsuitable development. This policy does not entirely align with the NPPF which identifies different levels of harm and the weight that should be given to this in the planning balance and so it is considered that full weight cannot be given to it. Policy 52 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft requires appropriate weight to be given designated and undesignated heritage assets and their settings when assessing whether minerals proposals are acceptable. Policy 33 states that proposals that result in harm to or loss of the significance of heritage assets will not be permitted except in exceptional circumstances where the harm is outweighed by public benefit which cannot be met in any other way and is appropriately mitigated against. Paragraphs 132 – 135 of the NPPF set out the degree of harm that can be caused by development that could potentially affect the setting and significance of heritage assets. The degrees of harm are identified as ‘total loss’, substantial harm’ and ‘less than substantial harm’. The NPPF sets out how these degrees of harm should be weighed in the planning balance.

7.119 There are a number of designated heritage assets within a 2.5km radius of

the application site boundary, the area covered in the desk based assessment submitted with the Environmental Statement. This assessment identified 26 listed buildings and 3 Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) within the study area. The key assets identified by the Council’s Building Conservation Officer and Historic England are:

Church of the Holy Trinity, Widdrington: Grade I listed building, approximately 950 m to the north west of the nearest site boundary;

Cresswell tower house, Grade II* and SAM – approximately 2km to the south east of the nearest site boundary

Low Chibburn medieval preceptory, C16 house and WWII pillbox: SAM, approximately 1km to the north of the nearest site boundary;

Widdrington Castle and 18th century Gothic castle and gardens: SAM, approximately 800 m to the north west of the nearest site boundary.

7.120 The other listed buildings in the study area are Grade II. Other than the

buildings at Hemscott Hill Farm, they are located outwith the application boundary and their setting would not be harmed by the proposed development due to the distance and/or intervening topography. There may be a small impact on the setting of Hemscott Hill Farmhouse; this would be less than substantial and would be temporary and reversible.

7.121 The Environmental Statement included a landscape and visual impact

assessment (LVIA) that contains an assessment of the key heritage assets identified in paragraph 7.119 above. This has enabled a built conservation assessment to be made on the potential degrees of harm

and visual impact of the proposal on the character and setting of the key heritage assets.

7.122 Historic England and the Council’s Building Conservation Officer have

considered the potential impact of the proposed development on the key heritage assets. They consider that there would be no direct impacts on the significance, setting or value of designated heritage assets but there would be short term indirect impacts on the setting of some of the key heritage assets. This would arise because of the potential obstruction of views caused by the overburden and soil mounds and also from noise created by the site operations. Both Historic England and the Council’s Building Conservation Officer consider that these impacts would be short term and, given the distances from the site, noise could be mitigated through conditions. The Building Conservation Officer considers that the ability to retain and restore the character, appearance, setting and significance of the heritage assets in the long term would be unaffected by the proposal.

7.123 The NPPF confirms that SAMs and Grades I and II* listed buildings are

heritage assets of the highest significance. The more important the asset the greater the weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Both Historic England and the Council’s Building Conservation Officer are satisfied that the proposal would result in reversible, short term harm to the setting and significance of the key heritage assets and the harm would therefore be less than substantial. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.’

7.124 The Planning Practice Guidance advises that public benefits constitute

anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress, and may also include heritage benefits. It is considered that the scheme would deliver public benefits in particular the supply of minerals in line with paragraph 144 of the NPPF and the wider package of benefits proposed as part of the proposal. Taking this into account, it is considered that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets and so the development would accord with Policies 33 and 52 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and part 12 of the NPPF. This conclusion has had regard to the duties imposed by section 66 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.

Archaeology

7.125 Policies C39 and C40 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan seeks to protect scheduled ancient monuments, other nationally important archaeological sites and their setting and regionally or locally important sites. These policies do not entirely align with the NPPF which identifies different levels of harm and the weight that should be given to this in the planning balance and so it is considered that full weight cannot be given to them.

7.126 The NPPF states that applicants should describe the significance of any

heritage assets affected. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and be no more than is sufficient o understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. A desk based assessment and geophysical survey was undertaken across the site and the results are included in the assessment within the Environmental Statement. This identified the following known archaeological features within the application site:

WWII decoy control building

Ridge and furrow earthworks The Environmental Statement considers that the effects on the WWII decoy building would be significant and mitigation proposed is a programme of archaeological recording. The Environmental Statement considers that the effects on the ridge and furrow earthworks would be slight.

7.127 In addition to the known archaeological resource, the assessment

identified that the site may include the following as yet unrecorded archaeological features:

WWII anti-invasion features, including anti-glider ditches

Evidence of historic coal extraction or exploratory mining activity

Prehistoric flint scatters

Prehistoric features and / or deposits The Environmental Statement considers that the likely significance of effects on these features would be negligible to medium and for the historic coal extraction slight to large. Mitigation measures proposed in the Environmental Statement includes further archaeological investigation and recording in advance of any soil stripping.

7.128 The County Archaeologist considers that the site retains a high potential for significant unrecorded archaeological features and deposits spanning the prehistoric to modern periods because of its coastal location which would have been attractive to prehistoric populations as well as WWII coastal defences.

7.129 As a result of soil stripping and earth moving works it is considered likely

that the proposed development would impact on below ground archaeological remains. It would be normal practice to require a greater understanding of these unrecorded remains prior to determination.

However it is considered that, given the extensive nature of the application area and the nature of the anticipated archaeological remains, it would not be possible to assess their nature, location or extent with any confidence prior to determination. The County Archaeologist considers that it would be appropriate for the impacts on the archaeological resource to be mitigated by the implementation of a phased programme using a range of techniques including fieldwalking, ‘strip, map and sample’ and targeted environmental sampling. Within this framework, provision should be allowed for targeted areas of full archaeological excavation if concentrations of very significant archaeological features are identified. The results of this evaluation would then be used to form a mitigation strategy for site operations. This programme of works could be secured through condition and would represent a proportionate approach in the context of the scale of the application site and the expected nature of archaeological remains.

Undesignated Heritage Assets 7.130 The WWII decoy control building is located within the area of the proposed

site compound and is proposed for removal as part of the site operations. The mitigation proposed by the applicant is to undertake a programme of archaeological recording. The preferred approach would be to retain the structure within the development area or relocate it offsite as part of any heritage trail developed through the ‘Discover Druridge proposal; however, the County Archaeologist has confirmed that if this is not possible then acceptable mitigation would be for the applicant to undertake a programme of historic building recording. The approach to managing this building could be secured within the phased mitigation programme referred to above.

7.131 A pillbox at Hemscott Hill is located on the eastern side of the C110. The

pillbox did not exist in isolation but was part of a wider network of defence features at Druridge Bay. The defensive focus of the pillbox on the north, south and eastern approaches informs the setting of the asset. The proposed development would be located inland and approximately 600m west of the pillbox, away from these defensive foci. The proposed development would be visible from and in juxtaposition with the pillbox, but the location of the proposed development away from most significant approaches to the pillbox is such that it would not materially impact the setting or significance of the pillbox.

Conclusions 7.132 Special regard has been given to the harm to listed buildings and their

setting and to other designated heritage assets. It is considered that the harm to four designated heritage assets would be less than substantial.

There would be some direct impacts on archaeology but this could be managed through a phased programme of mitigation that could be secured through condition. One non designated heritage asset, which Historic England has recently declined to list, is proposed for removal as part of the site operations but an acceptable form of mitigation could be secured through condition. Historic England, the Council’s Building Conservation Officer and County Archaeologist are not objecting to the proposed development and overall, subject to the recommended conditions, it is considered that the proposal would accord with the NPPF and relevant development plan policies in these respects.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology Surface Water and Flooding 7.133 A hydrology and hydrogeology assessment has been included within the

Environmental Statement. The vast majority of the site lies within the catchment areas of the Hemscott Burn (97.8%) with the remainder lying within the catchment areas of Cresswell Ponds to the south and Druridge Pools to the north. The majority of the application site lies within Flood Zone 1 but an area to the east falls within Flood Zones 2 and 3 because Hemscott Burn and the adjacent agricultural land are subject to extreme coastal flooding; this is defined by the 4m AOD contour.

7.134 Once surface water from the site has passed through the onsite treatment

areas it would be discharged directly into the Hemscott Burn and to a water channel in the north which eventually flows into the Hemscott Burn. The assessment concludes that the site is not at significant risk of flooding and provided that discharge flows are maintained at greenfield rates the risk of flooding elsewhere should not be increased. Discharge consents would be required from the Environment Agency and the Local Lead Flood Risk Authority in terms of quality and quantity of water discharge and neither have objected to the proposed development on flood risk grounds, subject to conditions including a requirement for a surface water management scheme during operations and details of the surface water system on restoration.

7.135 Given that discharge flows into Hemscott Burn would be maintained at

greenfield rates the assessment concludes that there would not be excessive erosion along the outfall channel into the sea. The Council’s coastal team has no objection to the proposal.

Groundwater 7.136 A number of the coal seams in the area have been subject to historic deep

mine workings. As a result of historic pumping at Ellington Colliery

groundwater levels in the bedrock beneath the site have been drawn down but limited recovery has occurred since the colliery closed. Some of the coal seams within the proposed extraction area are inundated with water and dewatering would be required as part of the site operations. The Environmental Statement identified a number of options for managing groundwater levels within the proposed workings and further information was submitted on this by the applicant in April 2016. The Coal Authority has established pumping operations at Lynemouth with a view to controlling the groundwater level at approximately -34m AOD. The applicant’s preferred option would be for the Coal Authority to increase its rate of pumping at Lynemouth to achieve a level of groundwater draw down to between -68m to -73m AOD which would allow dry working of all the seams proposed to be extracted. It is understood that discussions are taking place between the applicant and the Coal Authority about this.

7.137 From discussions with the Coal Authority, it is understood that this level of

pumping could be possible but it would have to be subject to test pumping to establish how the ground water reacts the change in pumping rates and then adjust the pumping rates accordingly to achieve the desired groundwater levels. This is a standard approach that the Coal Authority adopts for its pumping operations.

7.138 The other two options proposed by the applicant would involve retaining

coal barriers around the flooded workings or to dewater during extraction using on-site pumping and storage.

7.139 The Environment Agency has not objected to the proposal in terms of

impact on groundwater subject to a condition relating to site water management, which could incorporate any necessary measures for onsite pumping and storage should it prove necessary.

7.140 Concerns were expressed by the NWT, the RSPB and some of the

objectors about the impact of lowering the water table on the nearby Cresswell Ponds SSSI. The applicant has submitted further information on this matter and the NWT and the RSPB are now satisfied that any dewatering would not impact on the SSSI.

Contamination Issues 7.141 There is a former foot and mouth burial site approximately 1.7 km to the

north west of the site and a former pyre site at Hemscott Hill. The former Sisters landfill site is approximately 1.9km to the north west. The Environmental Statement includes an assessment of any potential disturbance to these sites and concludes that there would be no impacts. Given the distance from the site and the geology it is not considered that there would be any disturbance to the former burial or pyre sites or the

former landfill site from the proposed development. The Environment Agency has not raised any concerns about the proposal in this respect.

Conclusions 7.141 It is considered that the proposal would not have unacceptable

environmental effects in terms of hydrology and hydrogeology. No surface or groundwater issues have arisen that could not be controlled by planning conditions and other regulatory regimes. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy RE5 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan, Policy 52i of the Northumberland Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and paragraphs 103, 107, 120 and 143 of the NPPF.

Impact on Tourism 7.142 Many of the letters of objection have raised concerns about the impacts on

tourism from the proposed development, considering that tourism is important for the area. Objectors are concerned that there would be a loss of employment in the tourism sector as visitors would stop coming to the area because of the presence of the surface mine and these jobs would not be compensated for by the temporary employment that would be provided by the proposed development.

7.143 The tourism sector is important to the County’s economy. The

Northumberland Economic Strategy 2015 – 2020 identifies tourism as sector strength to be developed. The ‘Northumberland Destination Management Plan 2015 -2020’ states that tourism is the second most important employment sector in Northumberland. Objectives in this plan include developing attractions and activities, protecting the special qualities of the County whilst developing opportunities for visitors to appreciate and understand the landscapes, natural heritage and wildlife, and to grow Northumberland’s reputation as a distinctive visitor destination.

7.144 There are a number of tourism related businesses in the vicinity of the

application site including the Drift Café near Cresswell and the Ellington caravan site and two caravan sites at Cresswell. The owners of the Drift Café and the Ellington caravan site have submitted letters of objection, raising concerns about the impacts of the proposal on their businesses. These tourism related businesses have been assessed in the LVIA submitted with the Environmental Statement. The paragraphs on visual impacts above demonstrate that there would be a low visual impact on the Drift Café and a low-medium impact on Ellington caravan site although this impact would be greater at Ellington caravan park during the early stages of the site operations.

7.145 Policy EP15 of the Minerals Local Plan does require account to be taken of the impact of mineral extraction on tourism and recreation and Policy EP14 requires consideration to be given to the effects on other local businesses as well as the jobs that mineral developments may create. There is little general support in the NPPF for arguments against mineral extraction on the basis of impact on tourism. However, the NPPF is supportive of a prosperous rural economy, including giving support in planning policies to rural tourism. It is accepted that minerals developments can have negative associations or perceptions when considered from the tourism perspective and that local businesses could be vulnerable to some risk associated with this negative perception. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would adversely affect tourism businesses and the wider objectives or specific initiatives to promote Northumberland as a visitor destination and there are examples in the County of tourist related businesses co-existing with surface coal mines, for example, the Milkhope Centre and Northumberlandia.

Agricultural Land Quality 7.146 Policy 28 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft sets out the principles

for the natural environment, including recognising that soil is a vulnerable natural resource and it prioritises poorer quality agricultural land for development over higher quality land. Policy 52 requires applicants for minerals developments to demonstrate that the soil resource is managed in a sustainable way. It also sets out expectations for development affecting best and most versatile agricultural land. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of higher quality.

7.147 The majority of the application site is currently in agricultural use and so

approximately 250ha of agricultural land would be lost during site operations. The agricultural land within the planning application boundary is classed as grade 3b which is defined as a moderate quality. Following restoration, approximately 228 ha would return to agricultural use.

7.148 Natural England has considered the impact on agricultural land and soils

and has no objections to the proposal, being generally satisfied that the proposed site working and restoration proposals meet the requirements for sustainable minerals development. Natural England has recommended a number of conditions relating to soil handling and storage and restoration should planning permission be granted.

7.149 Given the soils handling methodology proposed, conditions that could be

imposed and the restoration proposals, it is not considered that there

would be an overall loss of agricultural land quality following restoration of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with Policies 28 and 52 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and paragraph 112 of the NPPF.

Mine Gas 7.150 A number of gases are associated with abandoned mines. These include

methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen and stythe gas. Stythe gas is one that can be formed by a slow but continual process of coal oxidation. It has depleted concentrations of oxygen, and where normal atmospheric air has been displaced, it can be dangerous. The gas can migrate to the surface through cracks and fissures in the rock and old access points to mines but this does not pose a risk provided that it can safely dissipate into the atmosphere. There are a number of abandoned mine workings within several of the coal seams within the site and these are a potential source of stythe gas where they are not flooded.

7.151 A mine gas risk assessment has been submitted with the Environmental

Statement. This concludes that the risks associated with the proposed development would be low. The assessment notes that all occupied dwellings around the site are located on glacial clay which has low conductivity and so would impede the migration of mine gases. The assessment recognises that the clay has been removed from part of the site as a result of historic surface coal mining; however, there is no built development on these areas. The site would be restored using backfilled material excavated from the site and restored to agricultural, woodland and nature conservation afteruses. Any risks of mine gases from old workings would be minimised through onsite safety measures.

7.152 It is considered that the risks from mine gas would be low and are unlikely

to increase as a result of the proposed development. The proposed development has the potential to reduce the risk by providing an alternative pathway for the gases and by removing abandoned workings, a potential source of mine gas. This has been confirmed by Public Protection in their consultation response to the planning application.

Stability 7.153 Policy 52 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft requires that

applicants should demonstrate that the operation and restoration of the site, including the quarry slopes and storage mounds, do not create land instability. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that quarry slope stability is one of the potential environmental impacts that should be assessed. It advises that the appraisal of slope stability for new workings should be based on existing information, which aims to:

identify any potential hazard to people and property and environmental assets and assess its significance, and;

identify any features which could adversely affect the stability of the working to enable basic quarry design to be undertaken.

7.154 A geotechnical assessment was submitted as part of the Environmental

Statement. The assessment notes that there are no unexpected or abnormal geotechnical risks associated with the proposals and identifies a number of potential effects which are typical for all mineral operations. The assessment makes a number of recommendations regarding the mound construction methodology, the slope profiles of the excavation area and standoff distances from properties, underground mineral workings that may be encountered, backfilling, haul road construction and stockpiled minerals.

7.155 The assessment concludes that the site can be worked in a safe manner,

taking account of the mitigation measures set out in the assessment. Site operations would also be subject to the requirements of the Quarries Regulations which includes regular reviews of geotechnical assessments, and would be subject to regular inspections by the Health and Safety Executive. It is considered that the proposal would therefore be in accordance with Policy 52 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.

Conclusion on the Environmental Acceptability of the Proposal 7.156 It is acknowledged that the scheme has been designed to try and

minimise environmental impacts. On matters relating to residential amenity, ecology, heritage, hydrology, stability, mine gas and highways, the scheme is considered to be environmentally acceptable or can be made so through conditions or through a S106 Agreement. However, despite the attention given to the design of the scheme and the phasing of operations, including progressive restoration, it is considered that there would remain some residual impact on the local landscape and visual amenity from certain areas or properties that cannot be made environmentally acceptable through the imposition of conditions or legal agreement.

7.157 The second ‘test’ in paragraph 149 of the NPPF therefore needs to be

considered. This states:

‘it provides national, local or community benefits that clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission’.

Supply and Demand 7.158 Paragraph 142 of the NPPF states that when determining planning

applications local planning authorities should give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy.

7.159 Many objectors to the application make reference to the falling price for

coal and that this is a reflection of a falling demand for the coal. Many objectors and the RSPB and the Northumberland Wildlife Trust also highlight the need to move away from the burning of fossil fuels because of the carbon dioxide that is released and the impacts this has on climate change and that the consequences for climate change of burning the coal should be taken into account.

7.160 In terms of the low price of coal, this is considered to be a matter for the

markets and is consideration that should be given weight. 7.161 The Government has stated its intention of moving towards a low carbon

economy as shown by the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, which the UK is committed to do under the Climate Change Act 2008. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1) published in 2011 recognises that the UK economy is reliant on fossil fuels; that fossil fuel power stations play a vital role in providing electricity supplies, they provide diversity in the energy mix and they are likely to play a significant role for some time to come. EN1considers that some fossil fuel generating capacity would be required in the future but it is important that this is low carbon through the development of carbon capture and storage. The 2011 Energy White Paper also refers to the role of coal in the energy mix and the 2012 Energy Security Strategy acknowledges the flexibility that coal provides. These documents indicate that there would still be a requirement for coal in the energy mix during the transition to a low carbon economy.

7.162 The Written Ministerial Statement issued in November 2015 notes that

30% of the UK electricity demand still comes from unabated coal. It states that one of the greatest and most cost-effective contributions we can make to emission reductions in electricity is by replacing coal fired power stations with gas. The Minister announced that a consultation would be launched in the spring of 2016 on when to close all unabated coal-fired power stations. She indicated that the consultation will set out proposals to close coal fired power stations by 2025 and to restrict its use from 2023. This consultation has not yet been published. The Minister did add that this would only proceed if there was confidence that the shift to gas could be achieved within these timescales. The Written Ministerial Statement has not changed the NPPF or the Planning Practice Guidance and it is not considered that the Statement changes the weight that should be given to

paragraph 144 of the NPPF which gives great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction.

7.163 The burning of the coal that would be extracted from the site would

contribute to CO2 emissions. Establishing the extent of this would be based on very generic estimates and assumptions and so little reliance could be placed on any conclusions. What can be stated is that projections indicate that more than 3 million tonnes of coal would be required for use over the lifetime of the Highthorn site. The application site is closer to the UK power stations than imported coal would be and carbon dioxide emissions from the transport of coal from Highthorn would likely be less than that from places such as Russia and Columbia.

7.164 Statistics indicate that the demand for coal is likely to continue during the

period that Highthorn would be extracting coal, should planning permission be granted. Objectors have stated that the amount of coal proposed for extraction from Highthorn is only a very small proportion of the UK demand. It is considered that it would represent a secure indigenous supply and the use of this resource is considered to represent a national benefit carrying great weight in line with paragraph 144 of the NPPF.

Employment and Economic Impacts 7.165 Letters of representation have been submitted by employees of the

company, local suppliers and others as well as Widdrington Station and Stobswood Parish Council, the CBI and the North East Chamber of Commerce supporting the employment creation and support to local businesses. Objectors to the proposal state that the jobs would be temporary, many would be transferred from existing sites operated by the company rather than being new jobs and any planning permission could not require a set number of employees or that the jobs are given to local people. Based on experience at other similar operations the applicant estimates that proposal would create at least 100 full-time jobs during the working of the site, with approximately 50 new jobs and approximately 50 staff transferred from their other sites coming to the end of their operational phase. The applicant also operates an apprentice scheme in partnership with Northumberland College and states that the partnership arrangement ensures that these apprenticeships are taken by people who live in the local area.

7.166 The proposal would make a contribution to the local economy and the

employment, albeit temporary, would be beneficial even if not all the jobs were filled locally. The proposal is in accordance with Policy EP14 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policy 53a of the Northumberland Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft in this respect.

7.167 The applicant estimates that during the lifetime of Highthorn approximately

£48,000,000 would be spent on local suppliers and there would be a contribution of approximately £1,500,000 in business rates. However these wider economic spin offs are not material planning considerations and should not be given weight in the planning balance.

Ecological Benefits 7.168 The application includes a number of ecological enhancement measures

in addition to those required to mitigate significant effects on the birds in the area. These enhancement measures are the creation of a number of wetland and species rich wet grassland, 5.5km of new species rich hedgerows and shelter belt management to the north of the application site and are outlined in above. It is not proposed to assess them under this section as they have already been addressed under the environmental acceptability section above. However, as noted above, it is considered that the ecological enhancements have the potential to be of immense value for the key species found in the Druridge Bay area, especially breeding waders, wintering waders and wildfowl and other rapidly declining species associated with wet grassland such as yellow wagtail. This is because of the scale of the proposals but also because of the location of the sites, near to Druridge Pools Nature Reserve on three sides and linking it to East Chevington Nature Reserve, as well as an area close to the complex of ponds in the Blakemoor Burn area, which provides the potential for important linkages between these areas.

Chibburn Preceptory 7.169 Chibburn Preceptory is a Scheduled Ancient Monument that is on Historic

England’s at risk register. The NPPF identifies scheduled monuments as heritage assets of the highest significance. The applicant is proposing a series of measures aimed at improving its condition, accessibility and setting, with the aim of securing its removal from the at-risk register. The requirement to undertake these works would be secured through a S106 Agreement and would be implemented during years 1 – 3. Historic England considers that these measures could enable the monument to be removed from the at-risk register and welcome the proposals. This is considered to be a national benefit.

Discover Druridge 7.170 The applicant has put forward proposals for a long term partnership to

secure long term improvements to Druridge Bay. They have given this the working title of ‘Discover Druridge’. The aim would be to attract people to the area and keep them at Druridge Bay through the development of

initiatives to encourage people to explore the Druridge Bay area. The application includes a master plan that identifies a number of example projects that could be implemented such as improved car parking, interpretation signage for WWII features, improved bird hides and the development of promotional material for the area.

7.171The applicant would provide £400,000 to set up and deliver some of the

projects agreed by the partnership that would be established to take forward the concept over the longer term. The funding and a draft constitution for the partnership, including how other organisations would be involved, would be secured through the S106 Agreement should permission be granted.

7.172 This initiative has the potential to deliver benefits for the wider Druridge

Bay area and has the potential to contribute to many of the priorities and objectives in the document: ‘Northumberland Destination Management Plan 2015 -2020’ such as developing opportunities for visitors to appreciate and understand the landscapes, natural heritage and wildlife and the key priority area of developing nature based tourism. This is considered to be a local benefit with considerable potential to improve the wider Druridge Bay area.

Sand Extraction at Hemscott Hill 7.173 Permission was granted in 1960 for sand extraction from approximately 40

hectares of dunes and foreshore at Hemscott Hill. The planning permission granted in 1960 did not have an end date but a condition included through the first minerals review requires sand extraction to cease by the end of December 2020. The working method in the current minerals review application provides for the extraction of up to 62,000 tonnes of material per annum and retains the condition to cease extraction by the end of December 2020. The applicant is proposing that the planning permission for the sand extraction would be relinquished should planning permission be granted for the surface coal mine. This would be secured through a S106 agreement.

7.174 A number of objectors, the RSPB and the NWT do not consider that this

should be given much, if any weight in the planning balance given the time period remaining on the permission. There is some uncertainty over the extent to which that site would be worked before the planning permission expires in 2020 and it is acknowledged that the permission has only 4 and a half years remaining for extraction. However, the effects of fulfilling the planning permission in full could be substantial, affecting important landscape features in a sensitive landscape character area and has the potential for ecological impacts. Cresswell Parish Council has stated that they would have no objections to the proposed development provided that

the sand extraction permission is withdrawn. Letters of representation also support the proposal to relinquish the sand extraction permission. The proposal to relinquish the sand permission is consistent with Policy 53 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and should therefore significant weight as a local benefit.

Fireclay 7.175 The application identifies that approximately 10,000 tonnes of fireclay

could be extracted. The National Planning Practice Guidance identifies fireclay as a mineral of national importance. No evidence has been submitted by the applicant about the quality of the fireclay or whether any markets have been established for its use although it is known that fireclay from coal sites in the County has previously had markets. The extraction of fireclay concurrently with the coal would be of some national benefit and would be consistent with Policy 53(e) of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft.

Skills Fund 7.176 The applicant is proposing that a payment of 15 pence per tonne of coal

extracted is paid into two funds for community benefits. 50% of this would be, in effect, ring fenced for a skills fund. The applicant proposes that the skills fund would help local people access employment, or help local small businesses to fund apprentices or trainees, with priority would be given to the local environment, tourism and conservation sectors. The establishment of the skills fund would be secured through a S106 Agreement.

7.177 The remaining 50% would be held in a community benefit fund available

for local community groups and organisations to apply to for community based projects. These measures would be in line with Policy 53 of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft.

Other matters raised in the letters of representation 7.178 A number of letters of objection make reference to the risks associated

with the low price of coal and the potential delay or mothballing of the site until market conditions improve. If an extension of time was required then a planning application would be required and the County Council would have to determine the acceptability or otherwise of the planning application in the light of the planning policies in place at that time. Conditions could be imposed to ensure that, if the site was to remain unworked for a period of time, then an alternative restoration scheme would have to be submitted, approved and complied with.

7.179 Concerns have been expressed that a proposal for coal mining is associated with the area’s past and would run contrary to measures aimed at building a new economy for the area. There is no evidence that this would be an effect and so it is considered that it can carry very little weight in the planning balance.

7.180 Objectors, the RSPB and the NWT are concerned about the ability of the

applicant to restore the site in the light of the reduced coal price and the experience in other parts of the country that other operators have experienced. The applicant is willing to enter into a restoration guarantee to ensure that adequate funds would be available to complete site restoration should they be unable to do so. The restoration guarantee would be secured in a S106 Agreement.

7.181 A number of the standard objection letters refer to a loss pf property

values and the fact that the applicant has not confirmed whether they will extend the site in the future. Neither of these points are material planning considerations.

8. Conclusions 8.1 The key development plan policy, Policy C3 of the Minerals Local Plan

cannot be given weight in the decision making process because it is not considered to be consistent with the NPPF. The NPPF is therefore a significant material consideration. The key policy test for coal mining proposals is set out in paragraph 149 which requires a proposal to be environmentally acceptable, and if not national, local or community benefits should clearly outweighs the impacts. The consideration of environmental impacts and the benefits is finely balanced in this particular case.

8.2 There would be some disturbance from the operations to the amenity of

those living nearby associated with noise, dust and blasting; these would be at acceptable levels and could be controlled through the imposition of suitable mitigation measures and planning conditions.

8.3 The proposal would result in the loss of 250 hectares of moderate quality

agricultural land during site operations but this would be reinstated on restoration. The proposal would deliver an appropriate restoration and afteruse of the site, including opportunities to increase the ecological interest of the area. Restoration of the site would be secured through conditions.

8.4 Although concerns have been raised about the impacts of traffic the

Highways Authority has raised no objections subject to conditions.

8.5 Careful consideration has been given to ecological impacts as required by the relevant development plan and emerging planning policies, the NPPF and Section 53 of the Coal Industry Act 1994. A significant impact has been identified on pink footed geese and yellow wagtail and the applicant has identified measures that would provide acceptable mitigation for these species during site operations. Whilst there would be some loss of ecological features and some disturbance to wildlife, it is considered that the mitigation measures proposed are such that the proposal would be acceptable in this regard. The wider offsite enhancement measures, together with the wetlands proposed as part of the site restoration, have the potential to significantly improve the ecology of the wider area.

8.6 Careful consideration has been given to the impacts on heritage assets,

and regard has been given to the requirements of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act and Section 53 of the Coal Industry Act 1994 and the potential harm has been given considerable weight in the planning balance. In terms of built heritage, the proposal is considered to result in less than substantial harm and, when weighed against the public benefit, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on these assets. There would be some impact on archaeological features but an acceptable mitigation programme could be secured through planning condition.

8.7 Consideration has been given to the impacts of the development on

hydrology and hydrogeology, ground stability and mine gas and the impacts are considered to be acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions where appropriate.

8.8 The applicant has given careful consideration to the design of the site and

how it would be worked and restored, including the design of the overburden mounds and how they are constructed and removed and progressive restoration. However, there would still be some residual harm to some aspects of the local landscape and local visual amenity in the medium term during site operations and for a period of time following restoration until the restored landscape matures. Because of this, the proposal would not wholly satisfy the first ‘test‘ in paragraph 149 of the NPPF as the residual impacts on the local landscape and visual amenity from some areas could not be addressed through conditions or legal agreement. The benefits of the proposal therefore need to be considered. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that great weight should be given to minerals extraction, including to the economy. This is a national benefit that carries significant weight. There are also a number of other benefits proposed which would bring significant ecological benefits to the wider Druridge Bay area as well as supporting wider tourism objectives. In this respect the proposed development is considered to accord with Policy 53

of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft and paragraph 149 of the NPPF

8.9 Given the residual harm to some aspects of the local landscape and local

visual amenity residual there would be some conflict with Policies EP3 and EP19 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policies 52b and 56aiii of the Core Strategy Pre Submission Draft. The proposed development is considered to accord with Policy 53 of the Core Srtategy Pre Submission Draft which addresses the benefits of mineral extraction. The NPPF is a significant material consideration in this case which should carry substantial weight. It is considered that the national and local benefits that the proposal would provide clearly outweigh the harm to the local landscape and visual amenity and so the proposed development would accord with national policy. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted.

9. Recommendation 9.1 It is recommended that the Committee: a) be minded to approve the application subject to the conditions set out below

and the completion of a S106 agreement relating to the following:

The withdrawal of the application for determination of new conditions under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995 in respect of sand extraction at Hemscott Hill within seven days of the commencement of development and no further planning application for the extraction of sand within the area currently subject of the sand permission

Discover Druridge - A draft constitution prior to the commencement of development to establish the Partnership which would include its creation, operation and regulation and the payment of the £400,000 contribution to facilitate the Partnership.

Section 39 Agreement - to put in place an agreement under s39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Agreement would secure the creation and long term protection of the Restoration First wetlands, hedgerow planting and shelter improvement works and details of the site restoration plan; would cover a period of at least 25 years, with 5 yearly reviews.

Skills Fund – to establish a Skills Fund prior to the commencement of coal extraction; payments into the Fund to be made every three months.

Permissive paths – to submit a scheme for the proposed permissive footpaths, which would be to bridleway standard that lie outwith the application site boundary.

Chibburn Preceptory enhancements - to implement the enhancement works associated with Chibburn Preceptory, subject to obtaining all necessary regulatory consents, namely

o Condition survey o Installation of metal parkland style fence o Improved access link along the route of Widdrington footpath o Creation of circular permissive route within the Preceptory o Installation of upgraded interpretive boards o Improved signage to the Preceptory o Sowing of wild flower meadow around the monument

Liaison committee – to submit a draft constitution for approval by the County Council

Restoration guarantee - to submit to the County Council for approval a draft restoration guarantee, which would include details of the provision of appropriate financial provisions to secure the restoration of the site in accordance with the restoration conditions.

b) Delegate authority to the Senior Planning Manager to finalise the planning

conditions

Conditions Approved documents 1. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance

with the following documents and plans:

a) Description of the working method as contained in the Highthorn Planning Application and Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 6 Working Method.

b) Mitigation measures as set out in the Highthorn Planning Application and

Environmental Statement Volume 1 Section 26

c) Drawings: PA02 – application boundary PA06 – composite working method PA07 – phase 1 working method PA08 – phase 2 working method PA09 – phase 3 working method PA10 – phase 4 working method PA11 – phase 5 working method PA12 – restoration first PA13 – restoration strategy PA16 – compound layout PA18 – surface water drainage scheme and treatment areas PA19 – overburden construction phasing 24 – access details

2. From the commencement of development to the completion of soils

replacement, a copy of this permission, including all documents hereby approved and any other documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission and legal agreements, shall always be on display in the site offices and subsequently shall be made available to all persons with a responsibility for the site’s restoration and aftercare.

Matters Requiring Subsequent Approval 3. The development hereby approved shall also only be carried out in

accordance with a scheme or schemes to be approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority which shall, include provision for the matters listed below. Those details required by condition 3a through to condition 3q shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. Those details required by conditions r and s shall be submitted within 6 months of the decision notice.

Those details required by conditions t and u shall be submitted prior to the commencement of restoration. Those details required by condition 3v) shall be submitted within 2 months of the completion of restoration.

a) A definitive ‘Soil Handling Strategy’, which shall clearly describe the

proposed soil stripping, handling and replacement methods to be used at the site, appropriate to the grade of soil and intended after-use. The ‘Soil Handling Strategy’ shall also include details of the proposed soil depths upon restoration and plant and machinery to be used. The ‘Soil Handling Strategy’ shall be based on the following documents (or updated versions of these):

I. Soil handling strategy detailed within the Highthorn Planning Application and Environmental Statement, Volume 1, paragraphs 6.14 – 6.19 along with Appendix 13, section 8;

II. Department of the Environment Guidance on Good Practice for the Reclamation of Mineral Working to Agriculture (1996);

III. Defra's Good Practice Guide for Handling Soil, Sheets 1–4 (handling soil using 360o excavators and dumptrucks) and sheet 15 if low ground pressure bulldozers are to be used during restoration.

b) A scheme for the retention and protection of peripheral hedgerows, except

where essential access is required).

c) Details of the grass seeding for the outer face of the overburden mounds and the maintenance regime.

d) A scheme for the monitoring of stythe gas emissions from the site.

e) A scheme for the type and location of permanent and when necessary

temporary lighting that ensures that all lighting/illumination are not obtrusive beyond the site boundary.

f) A scheme for surface water management which shall include:

I. A construction method statement relating to the settlement lagoons and the overburden storage areas;

II. The treatment and removal of suspended solids from surface water run off;

III. Details of how potential silt release in to the water course will be minimised;

IV. Plans showing how and where silt released into the water course will be captured and controlled;

V. Details of the stream diversions that shall be undertaken; VI. A monitoring regime.

The scheme shall demonstrate that the surface water discharge from the site is no greater than the existing greenfield run off rate from the undeveloped site

g) A scheme for the monitoring of environmentally sensitive areas which

shall include: I. A monitoring programme detailing the surface water bodies to be

monitored, which shall include Cresswell Ponds SSSI; II. Details of the monitoring programme including the monitoring of

changes in water quality and levels; III. Information on the person(s) responsible for the monitoring that

demonstrates that they are qualifies for the monitoring activities.

h) Details of the type and height of fencing to be provided around the site boundary, alongside public rights of way and within the site.

i) Details of the proposed highway works to create the site access in the

location shown on Drawing 24. The development shall not be brought into use until the highways works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

j) A Construction Method Statement providing for:

I. details of temporary traffic management measures, temporary access, routes and vehicles;

II. vehicle cleaning facilities; III. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; IV. the loading and unloading of plant and materials; V. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

VI. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt.

k) Details of abnormal load deliveries including routing.

l) Details of wheel cleaning equipment to be installed at the access.

m) A Travel Plan for the site setting out measures proposed to encourage sustainable journeys.

n) Details of the early mitigation measures at Druridge Ponds and Hemscott

Ponds as shown on Drawing PA12 and described in the document ‘Highthorn Planning Application and Environmental Statement Volume 1’ Chapter 26.

o) A mitigation scheme for pink footed geese. p) A Noise Action Plan, which may be included within an Environmental

Management Plan, including the exact locations of noise monitoring points and proposed monitoring frequency. The locations of noise monitoring points should be chosen so as to ensure that the possibility of off-site noise affecting measurements is reduced to a minimum.

q) A Dust Action Plan, which may be included within an Environmental Management Plan, including the exact locations of monitoring points and proposed monitoring frequency and methodology to be used for assessing monitoring results. The Dust Action Plan shall utilise the baseline Real Time and Passive Dust Monitoring information.

r) Details of cycle parking. Thereafter, the cycle parking shall be retained in accordance with the approved details and shall be kept available for the parking of cycles at all times.

s) A water mitigation and failure safety plan, to include all lagoons,

demonstrating how surface water will be dealt with in the event of a failure of the lagoons.

t) A detailed Restoration Scheme, with timescales, for the site in accordance with the details shown on Drawing PA13 approved under condition 1. The Restoration Scheme shall include (but not be limited to):

I. the final contours for the site (at 2 metre intervals), indicating how such contours tie in with the existing contours on adjacent land;

II. the replacement of soils including depths to an overall lminimum depth of 300mm for topsoil and 900mm for subsoil, handling and replacement methods including identifying the origin and final locations for soils for use in the agricultural restoration as defined by soil units, together with details balancing the quantities, depths and areas involved, and methods for ripping and stone and othe material removal;

III. the initial drainage of the restored site IV. Details of the highway reinstatement works to close the site access

junction with the A1068..

u) An Aftercare Strategy for the aftercare of the site. The strategy shall identify the measures, with timescales, to be taken during the aftercare period for which agriculture, woodland and ecological use is intended, which shall include (but not be limited to):

I. Cultivation after replacement of topsoil II. the erection of fences;

III. the seed mix including species and rates for the areas of agricultural afteruse;

IV. the planting of trees and hedges; i. the species to be planted, and the percentage of the total to be

accounted for by each species; ii. the size of each plant and the spacing between them;) iii. the preparations to be made to the ground before planting; iv. the fencing off of planted areas; v. A detailed specification for the ecological uses including a

modified programme of soil respreading, cultivation, seeding

(including species composition, supplier of the mix, seeding rate and seeding method), fertilising, management and cutting and weed growth management;

vi. A detailed specification for woodland and hedge uses, including species composition, supplier of the plants, planting pattern and density and the management and monitoring of the planting area during the aftercare period;

vii. a subsequent maintenance and management programme during the aftercare period once the hedgerow, tree, and shrub planting has been carried out, which shall include the weeding of the planted area, repairing of any damaged fencing, and the replacement of any plants which die or are seriously affected by disease and a detailed schedule as to when the aftercare period commences for each area.

III. the provision of appropriate site interpretation material based on the results of the archaeological works to be undertaken.

IV. The provision of field boundary features and wildlife islands having regard to the details shown on Drawing PA13.

Commencement 4. The development hereby permitted shall commence no later than 3 years

from the date of this permission. 5. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified in writing of the date of

commencement of development and of the following at least seven days prior to their commencement: a) the commencement of coal, fireclay or stone extraction b) the commencement of the export of coal, fireclay or stone from the site.

Completion 6. The extraction of minerals shall cease no later than 5 years from the

commencement of extraction as notified to the Mineral Planning Authority. 7. The site shall be restored in terms of the replacement of all soils:

a) no later than 12 months after the cessation of minerals extraction; or b) if the period referred to in a) above extends beyond the end of September,

by the end of July the following year. 8. In the event of extraction ceasing or significantly reducing for a period of 6

months from that specified in the approved working phasing programme as detailed in paragraphs 6.54 – 6.73 (inclusive) of the Application and Environmental Statement Volume 1 Section 6 Working Method and as shown on the phasing plans Figures PA7 - PA11 (inclusive) as approved under condition 1, the Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified in writing within

one month of the date of such cessation or reduction. Within one month of that date of notification, a revised scheme for the restoration of the site or modification of the phasing, including timescales for completion, shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval. The revised scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Works Required for Site Preparation 9. Before substantive soil stripping (other than for preliminary works themselves) begins, the following works shall be carried out, where relevant in accordance with the relevant schemes agreed under conditions 3. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified, in writing, within two working days of each of the specified works being carried out. a) the construction of the approved site drainage cut-off ditches, water treatment

areas, and other drainage facilities appropriate to the area to be stripped; b) the formation of the site offices and compound with surfaces formed with

tarmacadam, concrete, or consolidated clean stone, levelled to preclude ponding of water;

c) the formation of the site access, with surfaces formed with tar-macadam or concrete levelled to preclude ponding of water;

d) perimeter fencing and fencing alongside rights of way e) protective fencing alongside hedgerows and outside the canopies of trees

bounding the site; f) the installation of wheel cleaning equipment to prevent the transfer of mud to

the public highway; g) the provision of notice boards of durable material and finish:

i. to be placed at the site entrance, indicating the name, address, and telephone number of the company responsible for the operation of the site, and details of where any complaint can be made; ii.to be placed so as to be clearly visible to all drivers of heavy goods vehicles exiting the site access, instructing them to turn left out of the site;

h) the provision within the site of a water supply as appropriate for the agreed dust suppression measures and sufficient number of water bowsers and/or dust suppression equipment

i) the implementation of works to create the wet scrapes required for the offsite ecological mitigation at Duridge Ponds and Hemscott Ponds, as detailed on Plan PA12.

Working Hours 10. Operations authorised by this planning permission shall be restricted to the

following periods Overburden and soils handling: 0700 - 1900 hours Monday to Friday, 0700 – 1300 hours Saturday

Excavation and mineral extraction including auger mining: 0700 - 2200 hours Monday to Friday, 0700 – 1300 hours Saturday Coal processing: 0700 - 2200 hours Monday to Friday, 0700 – 1300 hours Saturday HGV loading and coal dispatch: 0700 - 1900 hours Monday to Friday, 0700 – 1300 hours Saturday Plant maintenance: 0700 - 1900 hours Monday to Friday, 0700 – 1700 hours Saturday and 0800 – 1600 hours Sunday With the exception of site drainage, no operations including the maintenance of vehicles and plant or working shall take place outside these hours or at any time on Bank, or other public holidays, save in cases of emergency. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is practicable after the occurrence of any such operations or working. Site Access and Transport 11. Vehicular access for all vehicles to and from the site shall be via the access

as shown on Drawing 24. All mineral laden HGVs shall turn left on exiting the site.

12. No material of any type shall be taken from the development site until the site

access as shown on Drawing PA24 has been formed in accordance with the details agreed under Condition 3i)

13. The public highway shall be kept clear of any mud, dust or other debris that

may be deposited by vehicles associated with site operations. Before leaving the site all heavy goods vehicles shall have their wheels and bodies cleaned so that no dirt is deposited on the public highway.

14. The total number of heavy goods vehicles entering and leaving the site shall

not exceed 300 (150 in and 150 out) per operational day Monday to Friday and 150 (75 in and 75 out) on Saturdays. A record of all goods vehicles leaving the site shall be maintained by the operator and a certified copy of this record shall be provided to the Mineral Planning Authority within 2 working days of request.

15. Full details of all loaded vehicles (and weights thereof) leaving the site and

their destination shall be kept available for inspection by the Mineral Planning Authority for the duration of site operations.

16. All loads of all laden minerals heavy goods vehicles leaving the site shall be fully covered by sheeting to prevent any mineral leaving the loads of that vehicle.

17. The development shall not be brought into use until the car parking area

indicated on the approved plans, including any disabled car parking spaces contained therein, has been hard surfaced, sealed and marked out in parking bays. Thereafter, the car parking area shall be retained in accordance with the approved plans and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles associated with the development.

18. No material shall be exported to the Butterwell Disposal Point until details of

the proposed highway works at the junction between the C125 and Butterwell Disposal Point Access Road, including located junction widening and signage to prevent vehicles travelling west along the C125, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No material shall be exported to the Butterwell Disposal Point until the highway works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Soil Stripping and Storage 19. The method of soil stripping, handling and replacement within the site shall

only be undertaken in accordance with the ‘Soil Handling Strategy’ approved under condition 3i) and shall be appropriate to the quality of the soils and intended after-use.

20. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given at least two working days’

notice in writing (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays), of any intended individual phase of topsoil or subsoil stripping.

21. All topsoil shall be stripped from any areas to be excavated, or used for the

stationing of plant and buildings, the storage of subsoil and overburden, haul roads, and other areas to be traversed by heavy machinery, and stored until required for restoration in accordance with the scheme submitted and approved under condition 3t). The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to verify that the full depth of topsoil has been satisfactorily stripped prior to the commencement of subsoil stripping.

22. No plant or vehicles shall cross any areas of unstripped topsoil except for the

purpose of stripping operations. 23. Sufficient subsoil or similar material agreed to by the Minerals Planning

Authority (as identified by the ‘Soil Handling Strategy’ approved under condition i) shall be stripped from any areas to be excavated or used for the stationing of plant and buildings, the storage of overburden, haul roads, and other areas to be traversed by heavy machinery to ensure that a minimum of

1.2 metres depth of such material is available for replacement over all areas intended for agricultural or other land-based afteruses.

24. The stripping and movement of topsoil and subsoil shall only be carried out

under sufficiently dry and friable conditions, to avoid soil smearing and compaction, and to ensure that all available soil resources are recovered. Appropriate methods of soil stripping shall be separately agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority for any permanently wet or waterlogged parts of the site.

25. No stripping, movement, replacement or cultivation of topsoil or subsoil shall

be carried out during the months of October, November, December, January, February and March inclusive without the prior written consent of, by methods and for a period agreed with, the Mineral Planning Authority.

26. Topsoils and subsoils shall be stored according to their quality or any

approved soils stripping plan, in separate heaps which do not overlap or unless a suitable separation layer is used involving geosynthetic material or a layer of sand. A minimum stand-off distance of 2 metres shall be maintained between soil storage mounds and the site boundary and/or site drainage ditches.

27. Prior to the creation of any soil mounds, a soil mound seeding scheme shall

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The soils mounds shall thereafter be seeded in accordance with the approved scheme.

28. No topsoil, subsoil or soil making materials shall be removed from the site or

imported to the site. 29. Within 3 months of the commencement of soil stripping, and every 12 months

thereafter, the Mineral Planning Authority shall be supplied with a plan indicating the area stripped of topsoil and subsoil, the location of each soil storage heap, and the quantity and nature of material within the mounds together with details of the type of plant used to strip/store those materials. A balance of the quantities of material stored with the proposed depth profile by each soil quality to be replaced following restoration shall also be provided. The plan shall identify any potential shortfall of soil material.

Site Working 30. The development, including soil handling, storage and replacement,

extraction and restoration, shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved documents in condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with conditions 3i) and 3t))

31. Overburden and soils shall only be stockpiled in the areas shown on Drawing PA06 ‘composite working method’ to heights not exceeding those shown on the plan.

32. Coal, fireclay and stone shall only be stockpiled in the areas shown on

Drawing PA16 ‘compound layout’ to heights not exceeding 4 metres. Site Maintenance 33. From the commencement of the development, until restoration of the site, the

following site maintenance operations shall be carried out: a) the maintenance of fences in a stockproof and secure condition, between

any areas used for development, and adjoining agricultural land; b) the retention of fencing around trees and hedgerows; c) the care and maintenance of trees and hedgerows to be retained within

the site boundary and treatment of those affected by disease, in accordance with accepted principles of good woodland management and good arboricultural practice (including the provision of protective fencing);

d) the maintenance of all the hard surfaced access roads within the site, over which licensed road vehicles operate, clean from mud;

e) the maintenance of drainage ditches, water treatment areas, and the clearance of mud and silt from water treatment areas to avoid reducing their capacity for intercepting sediment;

f) all areas of the site, including undisturbed areas and all topsoil, subsoil and overburden mounds, shall be managed to minimise erosion and shall be kept free from injurious weeds (as defined by The Weeds Act 1959). Cutting, grazing or spraying shall be undertaken, as necessary and appropriate to the approved after-use of the land where the materials in mound are to be replaced, to control plant growth and prevent the build-up of a seed bank of such weeds, or their dispersal onto adjoining land.

Buildings, Plant and Machinery 34. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 20 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no buildings, plant, or machinery, other than approved under condition 1 above, shall be erected or placed on the site other than with the prior written approval of the Minerals Planning Authority.

35. Plant and machinery on the site shall not be used to process, treat, or

otherwise refine materials other than those extracted from the site. Noise 36. Except when short term operations (as identified in Planning Practice

Guidance paragraph 22 these being activities such as soil-stripping, the

construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance) are taking place, the noise emitted from operations on the site shall not result in noise levels greater than those listed below at the properties/locations listed in table 4 of the document Highthorn Planning Application and Environmental Statement Volume 1and identified in the Noise Action Report approved in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority under condition 3p, between the hours set out in condition 10.

37. Noise emitted as a result of short term operations (as identified in Planning

Practice Guidance paragraph 22 these being activities such as soil-stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance)shall not exceed 70dB LAeq, 1Hr (freefield) as measured at the properties identified in table 4 as identified in the of the document Highthorn Planning Application and Environmental Statement Volume 1and approved in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority under condition 3p, between the hours set out in condition 10, the duration of such activities shall not exceed 8 weeks in relation to each of the respective noise monitoring properties in any 12 month period.

38. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given at least 2 working days notice

in writing (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays), prior to the commencement of short term operations (soil stripping; soils handling; soil mound construction and removal; soil replacement and construction and removal of the outerfaces of the overburden mound).

39. Noise monitoring shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme

approved under condition 3p. On request, the operator shall, within 2 working days furnish the Mineral Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded and the plant and equipment operating on the site at the time.

40. All plant and machinery used on site shall be fitted with an effective silencer

and operate within the doors or cowls of its engine(s) in the closed position. 41. The details of reversing warning devices to be fitted to plant and machinery

shall be approved in writing in advance of them being used on site with the Mineral Planning Authority and only the approved devices shall be used.

Blasting 42. Blasting within the site shall take place only between the hours of 1000 and

1600 Monday - Friday and at no time on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays, during the hours of darkness or restricted daylight. Any charges which misfire or any blasts which cannot be detonated within the prescribed

period for safety reasons may be detonated as soon as possible after the specified period if, in the opinion of the operator this is necessary for safety purposes. Any such occurrences shall be notified to the Mineral Planning Authority within 24 hours of the event.

43. Blasting shall not occur more than four times in any one day. 44. Prior to the commencement of blasting a blasting scheme shall be submitted

to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. This scheme shall include: a) Provisions for a test blast to be carried out, including details of its timing

and notification to be provided to the Mineral Planning Authority and other relevant parties;

b) Details of how the blasts will be carried out including shot firing rules; c) Confirmation as to whether blasting will take place on the hour or half

hour. Notices giving details of when blasting is to occur shall then be placed at appropriate locations on the boundary of the site and shall be maintained for the duration of site operations. 45. Each blast within the site shall be preceded by the sounding of a siren. Red

warning flags shall be placed at appropriate locations on the boundary of the site to indicate that blasting is taking place. After a blast, a siren will be sounded to indicate that the blast has been successfully completed.

46. The peak particle velocity resulting from blasting within the site shall at no

time exceed 12 mm/sec at any vibration sensitive premises measured at any point immediately outside of those vibration sensitive premises. Furthermore, 95% of all blasts recorded over a 12 month period shall not exceed 6 mm/sec peak particle velocity.

47. Prior to the commencement of blasting the site operator shall submit to the

Mineral Planning Authority for written approval a scheme for the monitoring of peak particle velocity and vibration attributable to blasting at sensitive properties. This scheme shall include the locations of the sensitive properties. The monitors shall then be maintained at the approved sensitive properties during the period of blasting on site. If requested by the Mineral Planning Authority additional monitoring shall be conducted should it be required following any justified complaint. The results of all monitoring shall be made available to the Mineral Planning Authority upon request within 48 hours.

Dust 48. The Dust Action Plan approved in accordance with condition 3q shall be

implemented for the duration of the development. It shall be reviewed

annually and the revised Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter take place in accordance with the revised Plan.

49. Monitoring of dust levels shall be carried out by the operator in accordance

with the Dust Action Plan agreed in accordance with condition 3q. On written request the operator shall, within two working days, furnish the Mineral Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded.

Water and Drainage 50. The surface water drainage scheme shall be implemented in accordance with

the approved details under condition 3 during the development and all water from the operational part of the site shall be discharged into the approved water treatment area prior to discharge into any ditch, stream, watercourse, or culvert outside the site.

51. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on

impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank it contains plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. The bund shall be sealed with no drain for removal of contained liquids. Any bund contents shall be bailed or pumped out under manual control and disposed of safely. A mobile drip tray shall be made available throughout the duration of the development.

52. Prior to the stripping of soil from the mineral extraction area, a scheme for the

installation of groundwater monitoring boreholes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the location(s) of the boreholes and the how the monitoring shall be undertaken. The scheme shall be implemented for the duration of the development.

Ecology 53. No site clearance works or development affecting trees, scrub, ground

vegetation or other semi-natural vegetation shall take place between March and August inclusive unless survey work immediately prior to the start of works confirms that breeding birds are absent. If nesting birds are found then work in that area must be avoided until the birds have fledged.

54. Potential bat roost trees shall be inspected immediately prior to felling and the results be given in writing to the Mineral Planning Authority within 2 working days of the inspection.

55. Mitigation measures in relation to bats as contained in paragraph 14.27 of the

document entitled ‘Highthorn Planning Application and Environmental Statement Volume 1’ shall be adhered to and details of the location and design of bat boxes and site directional lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to their placement and these shall be subsequently retained for the duration of development.

56. Mitigation measures in relation to red squirrels as contained in paragraph

14.27 of the document entitled ‘Highthorn Planning Application and Environmental Statement Volume 1’ shall be adhered to and details of the location and design of the feeders shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to their placement and these shall be subsequently retained for the duration of development.

57. No works associated with the Hemscott Hill dune restoration shall take place

from within the Northumberland Shore SSSI and there shall be no vehicle access along the foreshore and all access shall be from the roadside. The restoration work period shall occur outside the winter months of 1 October – 31 March unless appropriate mitigation has previously been approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.

58. An updated Biodiversity Action Plan shall be submitted to the Mineral

Planning Authority for written within 6 months of the commencement of development and shall thereafter reviewed on an annual basis. The actions identified in the Biodiversity Action Plan and subsequent updates shall be implemented within the timescales identified in the Biodiversity Action Plan.

Archaeology 59. A programme of archaeological work is required in accordance with the brief

provided by Northumberland Conservation (NC ref CM28/1: 25324 dated 08/062016). The archaeological scheme shall comprise three stages of work. Each stage shall be completed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before it can be discharged.

a) No development or archaeological mitigation shall commence on site until a written scheme of investigation based on the brief has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. b) The archaeological recording scheme required by the brief must be completed in accordance with the approved written scheme of investigation.

d) The programme of analysis, reporting, publication and archiving if required by the brief must be completed in accordance with the approved written scheme of investigation.

Contamination 60. If during development contamination not previously considered is identified,

then a method statement regarding this material and how it shall be managed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall then be implemented in full.

61. Maintenance of piezometers PZ1 and PZ6 during site operations and for 6

months following restoration and monitoring on a monthly basis during this period

62. The Geotechnical Assessment report shall be reviewed at quarterly intervals

and the results submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for written approval. The development shall thereafter take place in accordance with any actions identified in the revised assessment.

Restoration 63. Restoration of the site shall be in complete accordance with the approved

documents in condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with condition 3t).

64. In accordance with the restoration requirements, all areas of hardstanding,

including site compounds, access road other than that part to be retained as shown on the approved Drawing PA13 ‘Restoration Strategy’ (or subsequently approved drawing), and haul roads, shall be broken up and removed from the site or buried at sufficient depth not to affect the final restoration of the site.

65. In accordance with the restoration requirements, all water treatment areas

shall, unless to be retained in accordance with the approved plans, be emptied of slurry, filled with dry inert material, and restored to levels shown on the approved restoration plan.

66. In accordance with the restoration requirements, all fixed equipment,

machinery, and buildings shall be removed from the site within 2 years of completion of mineral extraction.

Replacement of Overburden

67. Overburden shall be replaced to such levels, and in such a way that, after the replacement of subsoil and topsoil, the contours of the restored land conform

to the approved restoration contours. The final layer of overburden shall be graded to minimise the risk of ponding. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the overburden replacement has been complied with, and shall be given an opportunity to inspect the surface before further restoration works are carried out.

68. Prior to the replacement of subsoil, the overburden shall be scarified and

surface picked of any large stones or boulders that may have a detrimental effect on the final restoration.

Replacement of Soils 69. All soils shall be moved and replaced in complete accordance with the

approved documents in Condition 1 and the ‘Soils Handling and Management Strategy’ and Restoration Scheme approved in accordance with condition 3a) and 3t).

70. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified in writing, with at least two

working days notice (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays) prior to each phase of soil replacement.

71. The movement and replacement of soils shall only be carried out under

sufficiently dry and friable conditions, to avoid soil smearing and compaction. The material stripped and stored in accordance with condition X shall only be respread when the conditions referred to in the ‘‘Soils Handling and Management Strategy’ are met.

72. No movement, replacement or cultivation of subsoil shall be carried out during

the months of October, November, December, January, February and March inclusive, without the prior written consent of, by methods and for a period agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority.

73. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect each stage of soil replacement prior to further restoration being carried out, and shall be kept informed as to the progress and stage of all works. A record plan of the progress of restoration shall be maintained at the site office and made available to the Mineral Planning Authority in request.

Maintenance of Site Restoration Records 74. During the restoration period, the developer shall maintain on site separate

plans for the purpose of recording successive areas of overburden, subsoil, and topsoil replacement approved by the Mineral Planning Authority.

75. Within 3 months of the restoration of the final topsoil layer, the developer shall

make available to the Mineral Planning Authority a plan with contours at

sufficient intervals to indicate the final restored landform of the site, together with details of the depth and composition of the reinstated soil profiles.

Ponds 76. Prior to restoration commencing on any pond area, a scheme for how the

pond areas will be constructed, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the profiles, lining and depths, cross sections, type of liner and methodology of how the liner will be installed. These will be fully implemented as approved. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity, with reasonable notice, to inspect the finished surface. No planting of ponds or pond margins shall be undertaken without the prior written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority. No topsoil shall be applied to areas to be restored to ponds without the prior written permission of the Mineral Planning Authority.

Aftercare - General 77. Following the completion of soils replacement for each full field enclosure or

other whole manageable and practical compartments of the land, as approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority, shall be put into aftercare. Effective aftercare management for these compartments of land shall take place in accordance with the following aftercare conditions, the approved documents in Condition 1, and scheme subsequently agreed to in accordance with conditions 3u).

78. The aftercare period shall extend for a period of five years effective

management from the date of topsoil replacement. The Aftercare Period for all areas of new woodland planting shall be extended to 10 years from the planting of the area of woodland.

Annual Review 79. Before 30 September of every year, or such other date approved in writing by

the Mineral Planning Authority, during the aftercare period not less than 4 weeks prior to the annual review meeting held in accordance with condition 80, a report conforming to the requirements of the Planning Practice Guidance (refer to paragraphs 050 – 058) shall be submitted by the developer to the Mineral Planning Authority and Natural England or successor), recording the operations carried out on the land since the date of soil replacement operations were completed, or previous aftercare meeting, and setting out the intended operations for the next 12 months.

80. Every year during the aftercare period the developer shall arrange to attend a site meeting to be held before 30th November, to discuss the report prepared in accordance with condition 79, to which the following parties shall be invited: a. the Mineral Planning Authority; b. Natural England (or successor); c. all owners of land within the site; d. all occupiers of land within the site; e. representatives of other statutory and non-statutory bodies as appropriate. 81. The aftercare of the site shall take place in accordance with the scheme

approved under condition 3u). 82. No later than the end of September, the land shall be sown with a short-term

grass seed mixture or other approved crop, the details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority before sowing takes place.

83. Where adverse weather conditions or other delays prevent compliance with

condition 82, alternative treatment of the reinstated soils, to stabilise these over the winter period shall be approved in writing beforehand by the Mineral Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Provision of Surface Features 84. From the date of commencement of the aftercare period in any part of the

site: a) the installation of water supplies for any livestock shall be completed

within 12 months; b) the erection of stock-proof fences and gates shall be completed within 24

months; c) access tracks shall be completed within 24 months (and prior to the

commencement of any underdrainage installation or alternative time to be agreed in advance in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority);

d) hedgerows shall be planted within the first available season following the completion of soils replacement (which runs between 1 November and 31 March); and

e) proposed woodland areas shall be sown with an agreed grass seed mix within the first available season. Trees shall then be planted in suitably prepared ground during the next available planting season (which runs between 1 November and 31 March).

85. The works referred to in condition 84 shall be carried out in accordance with

details set out in the report prepared in accordance with condition 3u. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given a minimum of 1 week’s written

notice, prior to commencement of, and following completion of each of the above works.

Drainage on Areas to be Restored to Agriculture 86. Within 3 months, following the completion of each phase of restoration,

surface drainage works (including watercourses, field boundary ditches, and surface grips) shall be installed to intercept run-off, prevent erosion, and avoid flooding of the land. During each calendar year, such drainage works shall be completed prior to the end of September, and maintained or improved as necessary throughout the aftercare period.

87. A comprehensive under drainage system, conforming to the normal design

criteria for restored land, and in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority beforehand, shall be installed in the proposed agricultural land shown on Drawing PA13 ‘Restoration Strategy’ and restoration and aftercare details approved under condition 3t) and 3u) for such afteruse no later than 24 months from the commencement of the aftercare period. At least 7 days' notice of the intention to carry out the approved under drainage shall be given to the Mineral Planning Authority, such works to proceed only subject to their approval.

88. Within three months following the completed installation of the approved

under drainage, an underdrainage record plan shall be forwarded to the Mineral Planning Authority.

Cultivation after installation of field drainage on areas to be restored to agriculture 89. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after installation of the

underdrainage, the land shall be subsoiled, using an agricultural winged tine subsoiler, operating at a depth and tine spacing approved in writing beforehand by the Mineral Planning Authority. Exposed stones larger than 100mm in any dimension and other objects liable to obstruct future cultivation shall be removed. The agricultural land shown on Drawing PA13 and restoration details approved under condition 3t) and 3u) for such afteruse shall then be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of a seed mix. The seed shall be sown before the end of September.

Establishment and maintenance of grass sward for areas to be restored to agriculture 90. During the aftercare period the following shall be carried out in respect of the

agricultural land shown on Drawing PA13 and restoration details approved under condition 3t) for such afteruse: -

a) The soil shall be tested and fertiliser shall be applied to the land at a rate targeted to achieve the following nutrient levels in accordance with the DEFRA Index system: -

Potash - Index 2 Phosphate - Index 2 pH - 7

b) Soil testing and applications of lime and fertiliser shall be made at the time of reseeding if required and subsequently at intervals not exceeding 12 months thereafter.

c) Reseeding any areas where a grass sward fails to become well established with the approved species mixture;

d) The grass sward to be reduced to 50-100mm in length, by cutting or grazing, before the end of October during each year of aftercare, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority;

e) the condition of the grass sward to be inspected annually, with appropriate measures taken to control weed infestation;

f) No vehicles (with the exception of low grade pressure tyres required for agricultural work), machinery or livestock shall be permitted on the land during the months of November, December, January, February and March, without the prior written consent of the Mineral Planning Authority.

Establishment and maintenance of grass sward for areas to be restored to nature conservation 91. Areas restored to nature conservation are to be managed in accordance with

the nature conservation management plan (or whatever name it’s given) and the relevant sections of the approved aftercare scheme.

Maintenance of hedges and trees 92. Hedges and trees planted shall be maintained during the five year Aftercare Period in accordance with good woodland and/or agricultural practice, such maintenance to include the following: - (a) The early replacement of all dead, damaged or diseased plants. (b) Weeding early in each growing season, and as necessary thereafter to encourage healthy growth of plants. (c) Maintaining any fences around planted areas in a stock proof condition. (d) Appropriate measures to combat all pests and/or diseases that may significantly reduce the viability of the planting scheme.

Contact Officer: For further information contact Frances Wilkinson on 01670 622629. Background Papers: Development Management File: 15/03410/CCMEIA