BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH
AGENDA ITEM
Environment Committee
10th December 2007
5
Report of the Corporate Manager – Sustainable Development
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK:
PREFERRED OPTIONS FOR THE CORE STRATEGY AND LOCATIONS FOR
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT
1
1.1
Purpose of Report
To submit representations on behalf of the Council in response to the
consultation on the Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
2
Executive Summary
The County Council is working on producing the Minerals and Waste
Development Framework and is undertaking consultation on the Preferred
Options from 15th October to 13th December 2007. The Environment Committee
has delegated authority to make comments on behalf of the Council and a
recommended response is detailed in Appendix 1. In addition, the Committee is
asked to consider the positive and negative aspects of river valley extraction and
indicate whether it wishes to support such a strategy in the Nene Valley along
with the allocation of sites to support such a strategy.
3
Proposed Action
The Committee is invited to RESOLVE:
to submit the representations detailed in Appendix 1 on behalf of the
Council in response to the consultation on the Northamptonshire Minerals
and Waste Development Framework: Preferred Options for the Core
Strategy and Locations for Minerals and Waste Development.
3.1
3.2
whether to supplement Appendix 1 with representations of either objection
or support to the preferred strategy of allowing sand and gravel extraction
in the Nene Valley between Northampton and Wellingborough and to the
allocation of sites M6, M7 and M8 within the Borough for this purpose.
4
4.1
Background
The County Council is preparing the Minerals and Waste Development
Framework (MWDF) which will replace the Minerals and Waste Local Plans
(adopted May and March 2006). Consultation on ‘Issues and Options’ relating to
the Core Strategy and Locations for Minerals and Waste Development
documents took place earlier in the year. At that stage the Council submitted
various comments which were approved by the Chair and Vice Chair of the
Environment Committee following the recommendation of the Environment
Committee of 14th March 2007.
4.2
Following consideration of the consultation responses and further technical work,
the County Council is now consulting on a ‘Preferred Options’ document which
forms the next stage in preparing the framework. A summary of the document
was included in a briefing note issued to all Members and dated 15 th November
2007. The consultation period will close on 13th December 2007. It is anticipated
that, following consideration of representations, the plans will be submitted to the
Secretary of State in spring 2008.
5.
5.1
Discussion
The proposed policies in the framework are included in Appendix 2 whilst maps
indicating the location of sites proposed for mineral extraction and waste related
development within the Borough are included in Appendix 3. Appendix 1 sets out
a proposed consultation response. In addition, however, the Committee is asked
to consider the information in paragraphs 5.2 to 5.10, below, and decide how it
would wish to respond to that part of the preferred strategy which would allow
mineral extraction to continue in the Nene Valley.
5.2
The adopted Minerals Local Plan discourages extraction in river valleys on the
grounds that: extraction from the central parts of the Nene Valley and
subsequent restoration to lakes has altered the landscape character of the
valley; and the glacial areas would provide a reasonable alternative supply whilst
having a less marked impact on the landscape than would be the case in the
river valleys.
5.3
This issue is, however, not as clear cut as originally thought. River valley
restoration is more conducive to increasing biodiversity and the County Council
has concluded that a mix of agricultural land and water meadows, rather than
lakes, would be possible. Impacts, including those on the landscape, can also be
as great in the pre-glacial and glacial areas owing to the need to bring in
replacement fill or re-profile the land following extraction. In addition, glacial
deposits are inferior to those in the river valleys and deposits are far more limited
in extent than originally envisaged.
5.4
The preferred option put forward by the County Council, which is supported by
a Sustainability Appraisal (SA), aims to focus extraction on the pre-glacial and
glacial deposits but complement this with material from the previously and
currently worked river valleys of the Nene (between Northampton and
Wellingborough)and the Great Ouse whilst safeguarding the unworked river
valleys, including the Ise and Nene (East of Stanwick).The inclusion of parts of
the Nene would also support the preferred strategy of locating mineral extraction
close to where it is likely to be required. The positive and negative impacts of
river valley and glacial extraction are highlighted in the following table.


River Valley Extraction
Positives
Past restoration to lakes has created areas of great 
wildlife benefit which have since been identified as
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and are
proposed to be identified as a Special Protection
Area (pSPA) in recognition of the area’s 
international importance for birds.
Greater public access has been provided to the
valley e.g. by the introduction of the Local Nature
Negatives
Extraction in the Nene
Valley has dramatically
altered the character and
landscape of the valley.
Future restoration will not
be to a predominantly
water-based form; this
will mean that inert waste





Reserve at Summer Leys and the Nene Way
must be brought to the
Footpath.
area.
The area of the Nene between Northampton and
Wellingborough is close to the growth areas and
transport costs are therefore potentially reduced.
Future restoration will not be to a predominantly
water-based form, but provides the opportunity to
enhance existing biodiversity for e.g. by creating
wet meadows.
The Valley has the potential to become a tourist
attraction and is an important part of delivering
Green Infrastructure. After uses could facilitate this
delivered with assistance by the River Nene
Regional Park.
Good quality (and therefore viable) resource.
Glacial Extraction
Positives
Negatives
Provides an alternative  Landscape impacts in the glacial areas can be
resource to river valleys
significant through either the need to restore to
enabling
untouched
agriculture through bringing in replacement fill or
valleys to be protected.
alternatively re-shaping the land following
extraction.
 Resources are more limited in extent than
previously envisaged
 Resources are not as good quality (and therefore
not as viable) as river deposits.
5.5
It is, however, unclear how the subsequent proposed allocation of sites would
accord with the strategy of focusing on the pre-glacial and glacial deposits since
approximately two thirds of the estimated capacity of 16.81 million tonnes of
sand and gravel is actually from river deposits and almost 50% (8.2 million
tonnes) consists of river sand and gravel on land within or adjacent to the
Borough. Sites MA6, MA7 and MA8 (see Appendix 3) are adjacent to each other
and the Borough Council therefore objected at the ‘Issues and Options’ stage to
the cumulative impact that the allocation of these three sites would have on the
environment.
5.6
The County Council has undertaken a risk assessment and sensitivity analysis of
the sites which sets out a range of mitigation measures intended to address
issues such as air emissions, noise and vibration, environmental nuisance and
the impact on the general amenity of local villages, views and rights of way.
Amongst the mitigation measures suggested in respect of sites MA6, MA7 and
MA8 (see Appendix 3) is the proposed phasing of mineral extraction operations
in the local area to avoid cumulative impacts.
5.7
Site MA6 (Billing) is located to the south of the A45 and Ecton Lane. . The
transport assessment indicates that Ecton Lane is unsuitable for HGVs and that
routing should be from Crow Lane (Northampton) onto the A45 Nene Valley
Way.
5.8
Site MA7 (Earls Barton western extension) is also located to the south of the A45
and appears to include part of site MA6. Vehicle movements are expected to be
high with access likely to be from the A45 via the Grendon Road and from a
conveyor link. It is anticipated that existing routing agreements will remain in
place so that the development would be unlikely to impact on local villages. In
addition, there are weight limits on the Grendon South Road.
5.9
Site MA8 (Earls Barton West) is allocated in the adopted Local Plan. Although
part of the site is located to the north of the A45 the bulk of the proposed
allocation lies to the south of the trunk road. It is anticipated that the
development will generate a high level of additional movements with access also
likely to be from Grendon Road with the possibility that additional access may be
required to the A45. The Preferred Options document indicates that extraction
from site MA8 will not be permitted to be substantially worked until site MA7 has
been substantially worked. It is anticipated that existing routing agreements will
remain in place so that the development would be unlikely to impact on local
villages. In addition, there are weight limits on the Grendon South Road.
5.10
Although the risk assessment undertaken in respect of sites MA6, MA7 and MA8
identified a range of potential environmental, landscape and other impacts it
concluded that whilst there is some residual risk of environmental nuisance, land
use conflict and amenity impact from fugitive dust, vehicle emissions, noise and
vibration and impact on water resources, this risk is low with appropriate
management.
6
6.1
Legal Powers
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
7
7.1
Financial and value for money implications
None arising directly from the report.
8
Risk analysis and Implications
Nature of risk
Consequences Likelihood of
if realised
occurrence
Failure to respond The views of the High
to consultation on Council will not
the MWDF
be taken into
account
8.1
Implications for Resources
None arising directly from this report
8.2
Implications for Stronger and Safer Communities
None arising directly from this report
8.3
Implications for Equalities
None arising directly from this report
Control
measures
Submit
a
response
on
behalf of the
Council
within
the consultation
period,
9
Author and Contact Officer
Sue Bateman, Senior Planning Officer
Marie Regan, Planning Officer
10
Consultees
Keith Smith, Amenities Services Development and Performance Manager
11
Background Papers
None unpublished