M C CULLIMORE (GRAVELS) LTD THE TOWN AND …caps.gloucestershire.gov.uk/gcc_images/12_0015_CWMAJM_ENV_STA… · 4.11 BIRDSTRIKE IN RELATION TO RAF FAIRFORD ... 5.0 SUMMARY ... Brook

M C CULLIMORE (GRAVELS) LTD

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT)

REGULATIONS 2011

PROPOSED EXTRACTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL ON LAND AT WETSTONE BRIDGE FARM, DOWN AMPNEY, GLOUCESTERSHIRE AND LATTON, WILTSHIRE

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

David Jarvis Associates Ltd 1 Tennyson Street

Swindon Wiltshire SN1 5DT

Tel: 01793 612173 Fax: 01793 613625

Email: [email protected] September 2012

mailto:[email protected]

lbeer

New Stamp

Environmental Statement Land at Wetstone Bridge Farm

September 2012 2 David Jarvis Associates Limited

CONTENTS:

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 BASELINE DATA ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 BASELINE STUDIES .................................................................................................................................. 5

3.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................. 11

3.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................ 11 3.2 PROPOSED METHOD AND SEQUENCE OF WORKING .................................................................................... 12

4.0 PREDICTED POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................................... 15

4.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................ 15 4.2 HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 15 4.3 ARCHAEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 16 4.4 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY ........................................................................................................... 16 4.5 ECOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 17 4.6 HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC ....................................................................................................................... 18 4.7 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................ 19 4.9 DUST ................................................................................................................................................. 20 4.10 SOIL RESOURCE ................................................................................................................................... 22 4.11 BIRDSTRIKE IN RELATION TO RAF FAIRFORD .............................................................................................. 23 4.12 COTSWOLD CANALS .............................................................................................................................. 23 4.13 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 24

5.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 25

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 28

Figures: 1. Location Plan 2. Application Site and Context 3. Existing Conditions 4. Initial Works and Phase 1 Extraction 5. Phase 2 and 3 Extraction 6. Phase 4 Extraction 7. Phase 5 Extraction 8. Phase 6 Extraction 9. Phase 7 Extraction 10. Phase 7 Infilling and Phase 8 Extraction 11. Final Restoration Appendices: 1. Scoping Opinion 2. Hydrological and Hydrogeological Assessment. SLR June 2011 3. (1) An Archaeological Evaluation; (2) Archaeological Desk Based Assessment; (3) Geophysical Survey 4. Landscape and Visual Assessment. David Jarvis Associates Ltd. April 2008 (reviewed 2012). 5. Ecological Impact Assessment. Malford Environmental Consulting. August 2012. 6. Transport Statement. PFA Consulting. September 2012. 7. Noise Assessment. Charles Crawford. March 2008 8. Proposed Canal Reconstruction



1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.1.1 This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. It accompanies a planning application by M C Cullimore (Gravels) Limited to extract mineral on land at Wetstone Bridge Farm, Down Ampney, Gloucestershire and on adjoining land within Latton, Wiltshire.

1.1.2 The ES comprises three main parts:

• text; • technical appendices; and • a Non Technical Summary (NTS) of the ES.

1.1.3 The NTS is a separate document.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 A screening and scoping request was supplied to the mineral planning authorities of

Gloucestershire and Wiltshire County Councils on 2nd March 2010. A joint scoping opinion (Appendix 1) was supplied by the Gloucestershire County Council as lead Authority on 26th March 2010. Issues identified for environmental assessment are as follows: 1. Highways and Traffic 2. Noise and Dust 3. Hydrology and Hydrogeology including Flood Risk 4. Ecology 5. Landscape and Visual Amenity 6. Archaeology 7. Birdstrike in relation to RAF Fairford

1.2.2 The Company has commissioned a number of environmental surveys and assessments in line with the requirements of the screening opinion. An indicative scheme of working was prepared to provide guidance on the likely scale, nature and duration of effects of working.

1.2.3 Following receipt of the specialist assessments the working scheme was adjusted in accordance with recommendations for mitigation.

1.2.4 The environmental conditions prevailing at the site are described below as appropriate in relation to the key issues.



2.0 BASELINE DATA

2.1 General

2.1.1 The site is located approximately 0.5km south west of Marston Meysey village at National Grid Reference SU 1257 9604, shown on Figure 1.

2.1.2 The site is bounded by the C116-C118 Eastern Spine Road to the north, a section of the disused Thames and Severn canal to the south, Marston Meysey brook to the east and a field boundary and drain to the west, shown on Figure 2.

2.1.3 The surrounding land use is predominantly rural though the Company operates a sand and gravel quarry on adjoining land to the east at Roundhouse Farm.

2.1.4 The application site comprises 25.75ha of very gently sloping agricultural land crossed broadly south-west to north-east by a drain, the line of which coincides with the Gloucestershire/Wiltshire county boundary.

2.1.5 The proposed mineral extraction area is approximately 21.1ha, of which approximately

15.5ha lies north of the county boundary in Gloucestershire and the remainder (5.6ha) falls within land to the south in Wiltshire.

2.1.6 The site has a proven sand and gravel mineral reserve of approximately 960,000 tonnes. The reserve varies in thickness between approximately 1.2-3.65 metres and is overlain by approximately 0.35m soils. The mineral deposit quality is as follows; Stone (+ 4mm) = 45% Sand (-4mm/0.063mm) = 52% Silt (-0.063mm) = 3%

2.1.7 This deposit will satisfy a range of British Standard requirements for the construction industry, including those for ready-mixed concrete.

2.1.8 Oxford clay underlies the reserve. Groundwater flows broadly north-west to east-south-east towards the River Thames.

2.1.9 A number of environmental surveys and assessment have been carried out during 2008-10 in relation to:

• Hydrology and Hydrogeology • Archaeology • Landscape and Visual Amenity • Ecology • Highways and Traffic • Noise

2.1.10 Baseline data in relation to these topics is summarised below and described in detail in the

appendices.



2.2 Baseline Studies

Hydrology 2.2.1 A hydrological and hydrogeological assessment and flood risk assessment was carried out

during 2010 by SLR Consulting (Appendix 2).

2.2.2 The locality is drained by Marston Meysey Brook and a number of field drains all of which provide contributory flow to the River Thames which lies approximately 350m to the west of the site.

2.2.3 The site is bounded and crossed by several watercourses of varying size. Marston Meysey Brook passes the eastern boundary of the site and continues another 400m before flowing into the Thames. Drains to the north and west of the site enter the site via culverts and contribute flow to the brook. A disused section of canal passes the south eastern boundary.

2.2.4 Water quality in the Thames, Marston Meysey Brook and Ampney Brook in the locality is typically very good with low levels of suspended solids. The agricultural nature of the catchments in the locality is reflected in the higher levels of nitrates and phosphates in these drains. The Marston Meysey Brook is regularly recorded as dry or with low flows during the summer and early autumn months.

2.2.5 The Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zone Map shows that, with the exception of a very small area near the north east boundary, the entire site lies within Flood Zone 3a and 3b (1-5% annual probability of floods respectively.

2.2.6 The Company carries out regular maintenance of the drains within its ownership. Hydrogeology 2.2.7 The geological sequence in the locality of the site is characterised by First River Terrace sand

and gravel deposits underlain by Oxford Clay. The deposit extends approximately 13km west of the site along the Thames floodplain and east towards Oxford.

2.2.8 Immediately south east of the site the terrace gravels are continuous to the River Thames. To the south west the Oxford clays are present at the surface, separating the site deposit from the river.

2.2.9 The Oxford Clay is underlain by a thin sequence of the Kellaway Sands and then by the Kellaway Clay. Beneath the Kellaway formation lies the Cornbrash formation comprising the uppermost lithology of the Great Oolite Group, a 70-100m thick series of limestones.

2.2.10 The upper geological sequence at the site consists of River Terrace Deposits of sandy gravel

(approximately 1.2-3.65m thick), overlying the Oxford clays (approximately 5-15m thick). The terrace deposit is covered by approximately 0.35m thick layer of topsoil with no alluvium or overburden cover.

2.2.11 The EA classifies the underlying superficial River Terrace Deposits as a Secondary (A) Aquifer. This refers to permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. The Oxford Clay bedrock has been classified as Unproductive Strata which indicates that it has low permeability with negligible significance for water supply or river base flow.



2.2.12 Regionally, the gravel aquifer is restricted by the geological contact with the Oxford Clay to

the north and south of the River Thames and the application site. The gravel deposit is thickest in the Thames Floodplain. Locally, the contributing groundwater catchment to the application site is restricted by the geological contact with the Oxford Clay to the north and topographic controls, namely Marston Meysey Brook north of the site and Ampney Brook 2km to the west of the site. Immediately south-east of the site the River Terrace Deposits are continuous to the River Thames, however south of the western half of the application site, the Oxford Clay is present at surface and separates the River Terrace Deposits on the site from the River Thames.

2.2.13 Review of the Groundwater Vulnerability Map for the area shows that the vulnerability of the upper most aquifer unit (e.g. the sands and gravels) is classified as highly (H3) vulnerable, and is described as ‘coarse textured or moderately shallow soils which readily transmit non-adsorbed pollutants and liquid discharges but which have some ability to attenuate adsorbed pollutants because of their clay or organic contacted’.

2.2.14 Given the low topographical gradients and the presence of near surface permeable deposits, it is anticipated that much incident rainfall onto the application site infiltrates to ground and forms recharge to groundwater in the sand and gravel deposits.

2.2.15 Groundwater levels at the site have been recorded on a fortnightly basis between January 2005 and September 2010 thus a comprehensive set of data has been obtained which can be used to characterise baseline groundwater elevations.

2.2.16 In addition, groundwater level data (January 2005 to October 2010) has been made available for five groundwater monitoring boreholes within the Roundhouse Quarry site, This data allows an understanding of groundwater levels across the whole of the application site. The groundwater monitoring data shows that the groundwater levels within the gravel deposits are shallow and vary between 75.06m AOD and 76.90m AOD. Archaeology

2.2.17 An archaeological desk based assessment was carried out during March 20081 and is provided at Appendix 3. The study established that archaeological remains in the form of cropmarks, possibly of prehistoric or Romano-British date, exist within the application site as well as the remains of a possible Medieval building.

2.2.18 Land immediately to the south of the application site is designated as a Scheduled Monument recognising the presence of nationally important archaeological remains in the immediate vicinity. Further prehistoric, Romano-British and Medieval archaeology has been identified during archaeological investigations directly to the east of the site at Roundhouse Farm.

2.2.19 The study concluded that an archaeological evaluation consisting of a geophysical survey and targeted trial trenching should be carried out to specifications agreed both by Gloucestershire and Wiltshire County Councils.

1 Land South of Marston Meysey Gloucestershire/Wiltshire, Archaeological Desk Based Assessment. Archaeology and Planning Solutions March 2008.



2.2.20 The Company commissioned geophysical survey (see Appendix 3) and trial trenching works which were carried out during 2008-9. The geophysical survey revealed the possible presence of linear features, such as ditches and gullies, and various other anomalies which may be geological or archaeological in origin.

2.2.21 The results of the trenching investigation have been supplied to the curatorial authorities

and are provided at Appendix 3. The evaluation uncovered archaeological deposits dating from the Iron Age (possibly earlier) and the post-medieval periods.

2.2.22 An area of archaeological potential is located in the far eastern part of the site, bordering the western edge of the prehistoric site at Roundhouse Farm which is currently the subject of ongoing archaeological evaluation during mineral extraction works by the Company. The Roundhouse site contained a Bronze Age ritual landscape as well as Iron Age settlement.

2.2.23 Within the Wetstone site other features identified include paleochannels with high environmental potential, together with ditches and gullies of larger field systems and enclosures. Many of the gullies recorded are likely to represent parts of pennanular round house gullies and there also appear to be Bronze Age rubbish pits and substantial postholes indicating fence lines and post built structures. A good range of cultural material (pottery, animal bone and metalwork) was recovered.

2.2.24 At the western edge of the site an undated cluster of features might indicate a nucleus of activity but is difficult to characterise and may not be of archaeological interest.

2.2.25 The post-medieval features include large ditches, representing both field and droveway systems, with the likelihood of a ridge and furrow system in the far southern field and a suggestion of a water meadow system in the north-eastern field. An old stream channel was also recorded crossing the site, which had been ditched in the late 19th or 20th century. Landscape and Visual Amenity

2.2.26 A landscape and visual assessment of proposed development was carried out during March 2012 (Appendix 4).

2.2.27 The landscape context of the site is that of a single regional character area, defined by the Countryside Agency as being the Upper Thames Clay Vales Character Area. At a district level, the site lies within two different county-level landscape character types – The River Basin Lowlands character type (Gloucestershire) and the Open Clay Vale character type (Wiltshire). The area consists of generally low-lying, flat or gently undulating farmland with large numbers of watercourses and waterbodies. Vertical elements in the landscape are provided by trees and occasional small woodlands.

2.2.28 The application site is currently made up of an area of arable farmland with perimeter

hedges and ditches, and a disused canal (with associated vegetation) on the southern edge of the site.

2.2.29 Three categories of visual receptor have been identified, namely users of public rights of way (inherently high sensitivity), occupiers of residential properties (inherently high sensitivity), and users of public roads (moderate sensitivity). For the first two of these categories of receptor, the actual sensitivity is reduced to moderate because views towards the site already include existing sand and gravel extraction operations in the vicinity of the site. For



the same reason, the actual sensitivity of the third category of visual receptor is reduced to moderate-low. Ecology

2.2.30 The Company has commissioned ecological survey and assessment between 2004-2010. The survey was updated during August 2012 and is provided at Appendix 5.

2.2.31 The site and immediate locality are not covered by any nature conservation designations.

2.2.32 The site is largely surrounded by arable fields and itself comprises three large arable fields of little ecological value at the time of survey (supporting arable crop), with marginal habitats including hedgerows, woodland scrub and a disused canal. Some ponds were identified to the south of the site, associated with the floodplain of the River Thames. There are field drains along the eastern and western boundary and running through the site (dividing the three fields).

2.2.33 Aquatic habitats have been affected by routine drain clearance work. The disused canal route along the southern boundary is occasionally cleared out, albeit at the time of the latest survey the channel was heavily choked with vegetation and had very small areas of clear open water. Mature trees are also present either along the boundaries or along the field drains. All habitats are common and widespread, a limited range of plants occur across the whole site, and no nationally scarce plants were found. Largely the site contains wildlife species that are common and widespread.

2.2.34 However, there are some ecological features that are legally protected or that have been identified as nationally/locally important through the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) process. These features have implications for the future development of the site for sand and gravel excavation. These features will need to be addressed as the development planning progresses either through protection (i.e. incorporating into the scheme) or through appropriate mitigation (i.e. translocation). The features are:

• Important hedgerow classified under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997;

• Badger outlier sett at the margins of the site;

• Potential for water vole at the site;

• Potential for bats using trees for roosts, whilst using the whole site (particularly boundary habitats) for foraging and commuting;

• Breeding birds in the hedgerows, trees and scrub;

• UK and local BAP habitats including: a species rich hedgerow; canals; farmland; and woodland.

2.2.35 No specialist terrestrial or aquatic invertebrate survey has been undertaken due to a lack of

habitats likely to contain invertebrate communities of interest.

2.2.26 In summary ecological interest is primarily associated with the linear and boundary features particularly the field drains, the hedgerows, the woodland scrub, the old canal, and the mature trees.



Highways and Traffic

2.2.27 A Transport Statement in support of the application has been prepared by PFA Consulting (Appendix 6).

2.2.28 Wetstone Bridge Farm lies to the south of the C116/C124 between the A419 (T) and Kempsford, some 3km from the junction onto the A419 trunk road. From here it is around 10km to Swindon. The C116/C124 forms the Eastern Spine Road within the Cotswold Water Park. The part of the site fronting the Eastern Spine Road lies within Gloucestershire, although the southern edge is within Wiltshire.

2.2.29 Wetstone Bridge Farm lies within the Upper Thames Valley which forms an important sand

and gravel resource for both Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. One of the key aims for minerals planning both nationally and locally is to reduce carbon emissions by minimising the distance that minerals travel to their point of use.

2.2.30 The Eastern Spine Road is shown as a local lorry route or access route on both the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire freight route maps, whilst the A419 trunk road is identified as a long distance or strategic route. There has been a longstanding proposal to improve the Eastern Spine Road through the Cotswold Water Park as a route to cater for local residents, local industry and longer distance lorry movements. However a major scheme has now been dropped in favour of incremental improvements, and a number of these have now been implemented. The Eastern Spine Road currently carries some 2,701 vehicles per 24 hour average weekday, which is well within capacity. There is no particular road safety problem in the vicinity of Wetstone Bridge Farm. Noise

2.2.31 A noise survey was carried out by Charles Crawford, specialist in noise assessment and control during March 2008 (Appendix 7).

2.2.32 There are a number of noise sensitive receptors in close proximity and a baseline noise survey was carried out to determine the existing noise profile. The measurement locations selected are described below: 1. Wetstone Cottage (Rear garden area).

2. The Round House (At driveway gates near southern boundary with adjacent

Field). Both positions were free field i.e. ≥ 3.5metres from a reflective surface.

2.2.33 Measurements were carried out on 6th and 7th March 2008. For position 2, set 2 was used with the meter microphone mounted 1.5 metres above the ground. The location was visited at regular intervals and 30 minute samples were obtained during each visit. Conditions were acceptable and the actual noise measurements were all taken in dry weather and apart from some short gusts, acceptable wind speeds not exceeding 3.0 m/s occurred throughout the monitoring periods. The wind speed, air temperature and perceptible direction were monitored periodically during the survey using an AZ thermo anemometer model 8908 (EN 500821/1997).

2.2.34 The results of the background levels measured and quoted to the nearest whole number of decibels is provided below.



6th and 7th March 2008 BACKGROUND LEVEL LA90, 1Hr dB

Location 06:00- 07:00

07:00- 08:00

09:00- 10:00

11:00- 12:00

13:00- 14.00

14:00- 14:30

16:00- 18:00

18:00- 18:30

1. 38 42 41 42 41 40 41 41

2. 41 44 43 42 42 41 41 42



3.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 General

Maintaining Supply to the Market 3.1.1 In order to maintain an uninterrupted supply to the local market the Wetstone Bridge site

would need to be fully operational prior to this date. Production at Wetstone will ease the risks to supply caused by flood events and the shortage of 20mm gravel at Roundhouse Farm.

3.1.2 Currently the Roundhouse Farm site operates with a very limited ‘dry’ reserve retained above the 1:5 year floodplain level. The reserve is available to the Company in the event that the remaining working areas within the higher risk area become flooded thereby ensuring an uninterrupted supply to the market. As of October 2011 the remaining ‘dry’ reserve was calculated to comprise approximately 60,000 tonnes almost all of which underlies the plant site (Phase 10) with a very small reserve remaining within Phase 1 which will be extracted prior to the end of 2013. From this point onwards there will a significant risk to continuity of supply caused by flood events.

3.1.3 The north eastern and to a lesser extent, the north western areas of the Wetstone Bridge site lie above the 1:5 year floodplain level, whilst the majority of the remaining area falls within it. Consequently it is intended that reserves in the northern area would remain largely unworked unless the lower reserves become flooded, threatening market supply, or have been exhausted. The northern reserve would also be available to maintain supply in the event that the Roundhouse Farm extraction void is flooded and no remaining ‘dry’ reserve remains on that site.

3.1.4 The Roundhouse Farm site has a relative lack of 20mm gravel which is in greater supply at the application site. This material is in seasonal demand for landscape related developments and the seasonal deficit could be met from Wetstone Bridge.

3.1.5 It is anticipated that, subject to the grant of planning permission, the Wetstone Bridge site would become operational on an intermittent basis during late 2013 through to late 2015, in order to supply 20mm gravel or sand and gravel in the event that production at Roundhouse Farm is interrupted by flood events. There would be no change to the consented period of working and restoration at Roundhouse Farm

3.1.6 The mineral within Phase 10 at Roundhouse Farm would be dug as-raised following removal of the plant and taken to Wetstone Bridge for processing, after which production would switch fully to the application site.

3.1.7 At predicted levels of production (approximately 125,000 tpa) the site would take approximately 10 years to extract, allowing for a reduced level of production during the period whilst Roundhouse Farm remains in operation. Allowing for initial works the total timescale to final restoration would be in the order of 12 years.

Proposed Hours of Working

3.1.8 Proposed operations would operate within the same working hours as presently permitted at the Roundhouse Farm site:



0700 – 1800 Monday to Friday 0700 – 1300 Saturday No working on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays. Extraction Method

3.1.9 Extraction works would incorporate the following:

• handling and placement of soils and overburden using excavator and dump truck;

• dewatering of saturated mineral to allow for dry working and restoration;

• extraction of mineral by 360º tracked excavator;

• transport of mineral by 20 tonne dump truck to a new plant processing site.

Proposed Extraction Stand-Off Margins

3.1.10 Proposed extraction stand–off margins are as follows:

• 75m from Wetstone Bridge Farm, the nearest residential property;

• 10m to retained drains and the disused canal;

• 5m to haul roads (where adjacent to an excavation), retained hedging and woodland.

3.2 Proposed Method and Sequence of Working

3.2.1 Proposed development is illustrated on Figures 3-9 and described below.

Initial Works and Phase 1 Extraction (Figure 4) These works would comprise:

• Soil stripping and storage.

• Construction of the site access, weighbridge and offices with associated hard standings, fencing and signage.

• Installation of mineral screening and washing plant and temporary lagoon.

3.2.2 Mineral extraction within Phase 1. Mineral taken to as-raised stockpile within the plant site prior to commission of the processing plant.

3.2.3 The location of soil storage bunds coincides with the predicted acoustic and visual screening requirements. The bunds would be grassed with 1:3 grade external batters, 1:1 internal. Subsoil would be stored between 3.0-4.0m height and topsoil 2.5m.



3.2.4 Mineral extraction would commence within Phase 1 following the removal of soils.

Backfilling the mineral void with imported inert fill would commence during the latter stages of working.

3.2.5 Drainage sumps would be formed within the extraction areas as work proceeds. Clean water discharge would be to the River Thames via the clean water lagoon, internal ditches and the Marston Meysey Brook under a new discharge licence. Phases 2 and 3 Extraction (Figure 5)

3.2.6 Phase 2A will be the first phase to be worked and restored within an eight week period following Phase 1 extraction. This so as to provide in advance an area of restored land containing a small water body for the amenity benefit of residents at Wetstone Bridge Farm whilst the remainder of works are carried out. The property is owned by the applicant.

3.2.7 Topsoils would be stripped from Phase 2A and placed into temporary storage bunds around the periphery of the phase. Subsoils would be stripped and placed into the Phase 1 void to assist with the construction of silt ponds. The underlying mineral will be extracted and the phase restored using stored subsoil. An internal haul route will be established between the plant site and Phase 3.

3.2.8 Topsoil would then be stripped from Phases 2B and 3 and stored in grassed bunds. Subsoil and excavated clays will be used to construct silt and clean water ponds within the Phase 1 void. Clean water discharge will be to the central site drain.

3.2.9 Phases 2 and 6 (in part) are located on slightly higher ground and are less prone to flood events than the remaining areas of the site. It is intended that the mineral reserve within Phase 2b mineral is worked either during Phases 3-4 when flood events prevent working in these areas or in any event following completion of Phase 4.

3.2.10 In the event that flooding causes Phase 2 to be fully worked before completion of Phases 3-5, then Phase 7 would be worked thereby facilitating uninterrupted production.

3.2.11 It is anticipated that mineral extraction operations would complete at the adjoining Roundhouse Farm site prior to completion of Phase 2 mineral extraction. Phase 2A Restoration and Indicative 2b Extraction (Figure 6)

3.2.12 During Phase 3 working it is anticipated that imported inert filling operations would complete within the adjoining Roundhouse Farm site and would continue within the Wetstone bridge site, providing continuity of inert voidspace for the local market. Phase 4 Extraction (Figure 7)

3.2.13 Topsoil would be stripped and stored at the northern and southern boundaries of working. Subsoil would be placed in Phase 4.

3.2.14 Mineral extraction would progress from Phase 3. Infilling and restoration works would complete in Phase 2A and then progress within Phases 2B and 3



3.2.15 During Phase 4 extraction restoration works would commence on the stretch of disused canal within Phase 3. A description of this aspect of the works is provided at Appendix 8. The canal route would be adjusted to accommodate a stand-off margin to a badger outlier sett.

3.2.16 Following Phase 4 mineral extraction any remaining reserve within Phase 2b would be worked prior to mineral extraction within Phases 5 or 6. Phase 5 Extraction (Figure 8)

3.2.17 Extraction progresses in a northerly direction following soil stripping and storage. Works would be substantially screened by a combination of peripheral bunds sited at the western and north western margins of the site and existing hedgerows. Phase 2B would be infilled and restored during this phase. Phases 6 and 7 Extraction (Figure 9)

3.2.18 Phases 6 and 7 would be worked simultaneously according to flood incidents. During mineral extraction within Phase 7, restoration works would complete within Phases 3 and 4. Extraction would progress in a northerly direction. Residual mineral at the eastern end of Phase 5 would be worked at this time. This section of reserve contains a minor drain and would be worked relatively rapidly under suitable weather conditions in order that the resulting void can be backfilled and a replacement drain reconnected as soon as practicable.

3.2.19 Topsoils from Phase 6 would be stored within the phase and used to restore Phase 5 during infilling works. Phases 6 and 7 infilling and Phase 8 Extraction (Figure 10)

3.2.20 Phase 8 extraction would coincide with infilling works in Phases 6 and 7. In order that the reserve can be worked the processing plant, weighbridge and associated facilities will be removed. The mineral would then be extracted to an as-raised stockpile and transported to another processing facility owned by the company.

3.2.21 The silt and clean water ponds will be subject to minor regarding to provide shallow edge profiles suitable for developing wet woodland and marginal vegetation.

3.2.22 Infilling will finish within Phase 8 and remaining stored soils used to complete the restoration. The internal access road will be removed and the underlying mineral worked. The access onto the Cricklade to Kempsford road would be retained for farm use. Final Restoration (Figure 11)

3.2.23 The site will be restored to agriculture at existing levels with the exception of the former silt and clean water ponds and a strip of lower lying land, approximately 0.5m below pre-extraction levels, running broadly parallel to the restored canal route. These features will provide additional wildlife habitat and a potential amenity corridor associated with the canal. New and additional field hedges will be planted and outline details of proposed species and locations are provided.

3.2.24 A description of the proposed restoration ecological mitigation measures and enhancements is provided at Appendix 5.



4.0 PREDICTED POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

4.1 General

4.1.1 Proposed development has been considered against its potential to cause significant environmental effects in relation to:

• Hydrology and Hydrogeology • Archaeology • Landscape and Visual Amenity • Ecology • Highways and Traffic • Noise • Dust • Soil Resource

4.1.2 In addition consideration has been given to other topics raised as a result of the scoping

process:

• Birdstrike in relation to RAF Fairford • Cotswold Canals • Consideration of Alternatives

4.2 Hydrology and Hydrogeology 4.2.1 A comprehensive assessment, using published and site specific information, of the

hydrogeology and hydrology at the proposed gravel quarry at Wetstone Bridge Farm has been undertaken and is provided at Appendix 2.

4.2.2 The identified possible impacts of the proposed scheme are potential flooding, increased surface water runoff, generation of suspended solids, impacts on water quality and dewatering and alteration of groundwater flow. It has been shown that these potential impacts can be mitigated by appropriate site design and incorporation of best working practices.

4.2.3 In order to minimise the potential for locally dewatering the sand and gravel the following mitigation measures are proposed:

• the area of active dewatering should be minimised with the aim of being no greater than 200 × 200m at any time;

• where possible groundwater inflowing to the excavation void should be discharged to a local soakaway sump to allow groundwater recharge; and

• a temporary side wall clay barrier should be constructed.

4.2.4 Mitigation measures have been proposed to ensure that existing floodwater flow routes are

maintained and not hindered by the proposed workings or the proposed restoration scheme.



4.2.5 It is recognised that sections of the site will be susceptible to flooding when there are high flows in the Meysey Brook. Suitable measures have been proposed to ensure the risk to site operatives during a flood event is managed appropriately.

4.2.6 All engineering works associated with the required watercourse crossings would be developed in consultation with the EA with appropriate consents sought prior to any development works being undertaken.

4.2.7 As required in PPS25, appropriate SuDS measures will be incorporated into the scheme to ensure that during working all surface water will be actively managed and appropriately attenuated. Following restoration of the site there will be no increase in the volume or rate of surface water runoff from existing.

Conclusion

4.2.8 Following review of the mitigation included in the site design and the specific mitigation measures identified in the SLR report, the overall potential significance of impact to the water environment is assessed as being acceptable and ‘near zero’ to ‘low’.

4.3 Archaeology

4.3.1 The site contains archaeological potential. It is concluded that, on the basis of the evidence supplied that the site will be worked in accordance with a written scheme of archaeological resource management previously submitted and approved by the curatorial authorities.

4.4 Landscape and Visual Amenity

4.4.1 For both landscape and visual receptors, the effects of the development will be temporary in

duration, with the site being progressively restored to agriculture and nature conservation areas within a predicted ten year period.

4.4.2 The operational phase of the development is assessed as having an adverse effect on the local landscape character of moderate-slight significance. Following restoration of the site, the effects of the development will be beneficial and of slight significance arising through the planting of new trees and hedges and the creation of new ponds and other nature conservation areas.

4.4.3 With no landscape designations on the site or its immediate environs, the proposed development is assessed as having adverse effects of moderate significance on local amenity value; adverse effects of slight significance on the ecological value of the site; adverse effects on the tranquillity of the local area of moderate-slight significance; adverse effects of moderate-slight significance on the adjacent SAM; and no significant effects on nearby Listed Buildings. The overall effects of the proposed development on landscape value are therefore assessed as being adverse in nature, temporary in duration, and of moderate-slight significance. Following restoration, the development is assessed as having a beneficial effect on long-term landscape value of slight significance.

4.4.4 The operational phase of the development is assessed as having no significant adverse effects on existing landscape elements and features. The restoration of the site will have beneficial impacts of moderate-slight significance through the creation of new ponds and associated vegetation.



4.4.5 The flat landform in the area, combined with woodlands, screenbelts and (often substantial) hedgerows, means that the visibility of the proposed development is limited predominantly to the east, south and west of the site. Of the thirteen viewpoints, three will undergo adverse effects of moderate significance during the operational phase of the project, with one of these undergoing effects of substantial-moderate significance for the initial eight weeks of the proposed development. Of the remaining viewpoints, six will undergo adverse effects of moderate-slight significance or lower, and four will undergo no significant impacts. Following the restoration of the site to agricultural land with additional hedgerows, ponds and associated vegetation, six viewpoints will undergo beneficial impacts ranging in significance from slight-imperceptible to moderate-slight. There will be no significant impacts on the remaining seven viewpoints.

Conclusion 4.4.6 The proposed development would not result in any unacceptable adverse levels of

landscape or visual impact and would provide a slight beneficial effect in the long term.

4.5 Ecology 4.5.1 An Ecological Assessment is provided at Appendix 5. Ecological baseline surveys were

undertaken in 2004, with extended Phase 1 habitat surveys conducted in 2008 and 2010 to verify/update the original findings. An updated survey was carried out in August 2012. The surveys determined type, quality and extent of habitats present, presence of notable plants, and the presence of protected and rare/scarce wildlife. Records were obtained from the Gloucestershire Centre for Environmental Records and the Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre.

4.5.2 The site encompasses three arable fields and surrounding land is predominantly arable. The

eastern and western boundaries of the site are delineated by field ditches, while the three fields are divided by ditches. The northern boundary is a mature, species-rich hedgerow and the southern boundary is a disused canal. There is additional hedgerow/scrub on-site and mature trees are present either along the boundaries or along the field ditches.

4.5.3 The 2008 and 2010 studies verified and generally agreed with the findings and conclusions from the 2004 ecology survey. This has been further updated by the 2012 survey. All habitats are common and widespread, and no notable plants were found. Largely the site contains wildlife species that are common and widespread. However, there are some ecological features that are legally protected or that have been identified as being important through the Biodiversity Action Plan process, and these are largely associated with the linear and boundary habitats in the site. The features of interest are:

• Important hedgerow classified under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997; • Badgers with one main sett and one outlier sett on-site, latrines and foraging along

linear features; • Potential bat roost trees in hedgerows and along the ditch network, and bats using

boundary habitats for foraging and commuting; • Breeding birds in the hedgerows and scrub; • Water vole previously recorded in the some of the ditches, but absent in 2010 and

2012; • Signs of otter located immediately to the south of the study area (2010 survey); • UK and local BAP habitats and species including: species-rich hedgerows and

farmland.



4.5.4 Based on the ecological survey and desk-based review of ecological records, the study area

is considered to have an ecological value at the Local (Parish) scale. However, it is considered that the integrity of any surrounding habitats/communities/species would have no reliance upon the ecology contained within the study area, and would not suffer as a result of the temporary loss of this land during the period of mineral extraction.

4.5.5 For the duration of mineral extraction there is deemed to be an adverse impact associated with the loss of arable land, the removal of a small part of the northern hedgerow, the realignment of the north-south ditch, and the loss of one potential bat roost tree. However, these impacts are only considered to be significant at the Site scale (i.e. impacts contained within the study area boundary) as the key ecological features are avoided or protected, and the majority of wildlife corridors through the study area remain open with significant amounts of alternative habitat elsewhere for migrating and foraging animals to use. Adverse impacts are mitigated or compensated through post-scheme restoration.

4.5.6 The final, long-term scheme enhances and diversifies habitats within the study area through

the construction of wildlife-focused ponds, wet grassland mosaic habitat and new hedgerows. This will enhance habitats for wildlife currently on-site, and link to the wider environment providing habitat for wildlife to expand into. In time this scheme will very likely improve the status and integrity of the study area and wider environs, particularly for badger, otter, bats, water vole, birds, herpetofauna and invertebrates. Long-term ecological effects are therefore considered to be positive and significant at the ‘Local (Parish)’ scale.

Conclusion

4.5.7 Proposed development would not result in any unacceptable levels of adverse impact on the local nature conservation interest or protected species. Suitable mitigation measures will be employed during the works to reduce residual effects to a low level. Such measures could be required by condition attached to any planning permission.

4.5.8 The proposed restoration will provide a net benefit to the long term nature conservation interest of the site.

4.6 Highways and Traffic

4.6.1 A Transport Statement has been carried out by PFA Consulting (Appendix 6). Wetstone

Bridge Farm is located on the south side of the C116/C124 Eastern Spine Road around 3km east of the junction with the A419 (T). From here it is around 10 km to Swindon.

4.6.2 Wetstone Bridge Farm lies within the Upper Thames Valley which forms an important sand

and gravel resource for both Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. One of the key aims for minerals planning both nationally and locally is to reduce carbon emissions by minimising the distance that minerals travel to their point of use.

4.6.3 The Eastern Spine Road is a local lorry route or access route on both the Gloucestershire and

Wiltshire freight route maps, whilst the A419 trunk road is identified as a long distance or strategic route. There has been a longstanding proposal to improve the Eastern Spine Road through the Cotswold Water Park as a route to cater for local residents, local industry and longer distance lorry movements. However a major scheme had now been dropped in favour of incremental improvements, and a number of these have now been implemented. The Eastern Spine Road currently carries some 2,701 vehicles per 24 hour average weekday,



which is well within capacity. There is no particular road safety problem in the vicinity of Wetstone Bridge Farm.

4.6.4 Moreton C Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd began extracting sand and gravel from Roundhouse Farm

immediately to the east of Wetstone Bridge Farm in Autumn 2007, and in 2008 the company estimated that there is a further seven years supply here (3-4 years as of March 2012). It is intended that Wetstone Bridge Farm will eventually take over from Roundhouse Farm, extending the total life of Moreton C Cullimore’s two quarries in the area to fifteen years. In the interim, Wetstone Bridge Farm could fill the gap if Roundhouse Farm if certain materials (i.e. 20mm gravel) were in short supply or in the event of flood events. However, there is no plan to increase the total aggregates produced from the two sites on a daily basis, so that there will be no increase in total trip generation compared with the existing consent for Roundhouse Farm.

4.6.5 Access to Wetstone Bridge Farm will be from a new junction on to the Eastern Spine Road

just west of the lane to Down Ampney. An indicative layout for the junction has been designed. A PICADY assessment has been carried out for the opening year, 2013, and 2022 (ten years after the submission of the planning application) and shows that no queuing or delay will occur in either the AM or PM peak hours. Traffic from Wetstone Bridge Farm will be able to reach the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire freight route network without the need to travel through existing settlements.

Conclusion 4.6.6 The proposals accord with both national and local planning policies which seek to reduce

carbon emissions by exploiting local resources and minimising the distance that minerals travel to their point of use. Therefore, there is no transport reason why the planning application for gravel extraction and restoration at Wetstone Bridge Farm should not be permitted.

4.7 Noise

4.7.1 An assessment of noise levels that would be caused by proposed development has been

made (Appendix 7) in relation to noise sensitive receptors at Wetstone Cottage and The Roundhouse. Wetstone Cottage

4.7.2 The existing noise at this location is generated by traffic on the adjacent C116 Cricklade Road; there are some local cars but mainly passing HGV’s are the primary noise source. Distant traffic on the A419 and occasional aircraft contribute to the overall noise profile. The weekday daytime background noise level (LA 90) here varied between 40 and 46 dB. The equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq 1hr.) for the same measurement periods was 5459 dB.

4.7.3 Activity due to initial works and some final restoration operations could produce a one hour LAeq of up to 67 dB (A) and would therefore be inside the MPS2A2 advisory limit for such temporary operations. Unscreened extraction operations during phase 2A operations could yield levels of 67 outside the advisory limit of 55 dB (A) but since it is planned to cover all operations including restoration during a 8 week period, this is within the timescale for temporary operations. Extraction during phase 2B (Flexible) Operations could produce a one hour LA90 of up to 54 dB (A) with the proposed 2.5m topsoil bund and 50 dB (A) with a 4



metre subsoil bund. This would therefore be inside the MPS2A2 advisory limit of 55 dB for such operations. With the 4m bund, the lowest background level (40 dB A) is not exceeded by more than 10dB (A).

Roundhouse Farm

4.7.4 The existing noise at this location is similar to that at position 1; the weekday daytime background noise level (LA 90) here varied between 43 and 46 dB. The equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq 1hr.) for the same measurement periods was 49-52 dB.

4.7.5 Activity due to initial works and some final restoration operations could produce a one hour

of LAeq up to 47 dB and would therefore be well inside the MPS2A2 advisory limit for such temporary operations. Unscreened extraction operations could also yield a level of 47 which is well inside the advisory limit of 55 dB (A) and the low background level (40 dB A) is not exceeded by more than 10dB (A). Mitigation

4.7.6 The levels during initial works and unscreened extraction would be inside the desirable MPS2A2 noise criteria and no mitigation is necessary. Although mitigation is not required there will be a topsoil screen at least 2.5m high in place at the north eastern boundary which will reduce the maximum extraction noise to 45 dB.

Conclusion

4.7.7 The estimated worst case noise levels from initial and final quarrying operations are below the 70 dB LAeq 1hr. criterion at all noise sensitive receptors. The criterion is considered a normally justifiable limit in MPS2A2 for temporary operations on surface mineral extraction sites. The worst case noise levels from extraction do not exceed the 55 dB LAeq 1hr.criterion, considered a normally justifiable limit for mineral extraction operations in MPS2A2. Furthermore the supplementary aim to limit noise to no more than 10dB (A) above the lowest background level can be achieved at receptor locations 1 and 2.

4.7.8 The assessment shows that mineral extraction operations at Wetstone Bridge Farm can be carried out without exceeding the recommended noise criteria as advised in MPS2A2.

4.9 Dust 4.9.1 Identified potential sources of airborne dust from the application site include:

• soils handling, including restoration; • overburden handling; • mineral extraction; • loading and tipping; • site haulage; • road haulage; • windblow across soil bunds; and • windblow across stripped areas and other areas of bare ground.

4.9.2 With the exception of site haulage other potential sources are considered not significant as a

result of the cohesive nature of the soils and overburden and the saturated nature of the

lbeer

New Stamp



mineral.

4.9.3 Site haulage remains potentially the greatest source of airborne dust, particularly over longer distances when speeds tend to be greater and more effort is required to maintain a smooth damp running surface.

4.9.4 MPS2 advises that residents’ concerns are most likely to be experienced within 100m of the dust source. It is common practice however to allow for potential dust effects from sand and gravel operations to occur up to 250m from source. Proposed site haulage operations associated with the working of all or parts of Phases 2A, 2B, 3 and 8 would occur closer than 250m from the nearest sensitive receptors at Wetstone Bridge Farm House and Wetstone Cottage. Phase 2A working would occur within100m of Wetstone Bridge Farm House although this small phase has been designed to be worked and restored within a short timescale (8 weeks). Subsequent works would be carried out at a distance greater than 100m and behind 2.5 m high grassed screen bunding.

4.9.5 All other phases of working occur at a distance greater than 250m from these sensitive locations and significant adverse impacts due to dust are therefore unlikely to occur. A number of mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential impacts to an acceptable level. The site would be operated in accordance with the guidance provided in the Best Practice Guide appended to ‘The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings’ and, although no prescribed processes will be carried out, PG3/8(96), ‘Secretary of State’s Guidance - Quarry Processes’. The essence of the guidance is that dust emissions can be controlled by effective site management.

4.9.6 The Quarry Manager will determine his response to potential or actual dust emissions, taking into account current and forecast weather conditions.

4.9.7 Particular care will be required in respect of site haulage to control the occurrence of dust emissions. Standard good practices include:

• avoiding abrupt changes in horizontal and vertical alignment; • compaction, grading and maintenance of haul routes; • setting an appropriate speed limit; • fitting all site vehicles and plant with upswept exhausts and radiator fan

shields; • evenly loading vehicles to avoid spillages and • dust suppression by regular spraying in dry conditions.

4.9.8 All site traffic will keep to the designated haul routes. The construction of the main haul

route along the less sensitive eastern end of the proposed extension will reduce the magnitude of any impacts.

4.9.9 The effects of windblow across stripped surfaces and bare ground will be minimised by ensuring that loose soils and other materials are not left untreated on the ground. During dry conditions, water will be applied as necessary to stabilise any loose bare surfaces.

4.9.10 If the effects of windblow against the excavation face remain evident, water will be sprayed on any part of the face not under active extraction to reduce the area of available material.

4.9.11 The mitigation of the fine particles emissions will be achieved primarily by means of the

lbeer

New Stamp



standard mitigation measures for general dust outlined above. Conclusion

4.9.12 The implementation of standard good working practices and the proposed additional mitigation measures are generally accepted by the Government and the surface minerals industry as providing effective control against the impact of airborne dust. With the implementation of these measures, significant residual impacts are unlikely to occur.

4.10 Soil Resource

4.10.1 The site is mainly occupied by three arable fields with a combined area of approximately 23.4ha. The land falls very gently south east from 76.92m AOD in the north west corner to 75.33m AOD in the south east with linear low lying areas coincident with the location of paleochannels (Appendix 3).

4.10.2 With the exception of a very small area near the northern boundary, the entire site lies within the Environment Agency Flood Zone 3 (1% annual probability of flooding). Natural drainage is mainly by vertical percolation.

4.10.3 The upper geological sequence at the site consists of river terrace deposits of sandy gravel

(approximately 1.2-3.65m thick), overlying Oxford clays (approximately 5-15m thick). The terrace deposit is covered by approximately 0.35m thick layer of topsoil with no alluvium or overburden cover.

4.10.4 The site is identified as undifferentiated ALC grade 3 on the 1:250,000 scale Soil Survey of England and Wales. It is currently under arable cultivation for cereal and ley grass crops. For the purposes of assessment the overall ALC is assumed to be sub grade 3a.

4.10.5 Government policy as outlined in the Defra draft Soil Strategy for England and Mineral Planning Guidance No 7 Reclamation of Mineral Workings is to protect valuable soil resources from loss or damage during land disturbance and ensure that stripped and stored soils are used to best effect in land reinstatement. Restoration to a similar quality to that currently present will require the handling of the soil resources to retain both drainage and sufficient depth of moisture-retentive soils.

4.10.6 The soil resources would be easily damaged by being stripped or moved when wet. Consequently, stripping will only take place in the driest parts of the year, using the excavator and dumper method as described by Sheet 1 in the MAFF Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils2.

4.10.7 The scheme design allows for both direct placement and storage of stripped soils over placed imported inert fill materials to existing ground levels. The topsoil resources will be stripped and stored separately in low bunds (no more than 3 m high). The bunds will be constructed either by excavator or bulldozer (Sheets 2 and 14 in the MAFF Good Practice Guide) avoiding over-compaction. They will then be sown with grass to help maintain biological activity and prevent water erosion.

4.10.8 The soils will be removed from storage (Sheet 3 in the MAFF Good Practice Guide) and replaced by excavator during the summer using the loose tipping technique (Sheet 4 in

2 MAFF Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils, (www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/land-use/soilguid/)

lbeer

New Stamp



MAFF Good Practice Guide), which avoids traffic on the restored surfaces. The restored land will be sown to ensure that ground cover is established before the ensuing winter.

4.10.9 Restoration is predominantly to agriculture with areas set aside for wet grassland and small permanent water bodies. With the exception of the permanent water bodies all other worked land will be topsoiled to facilitate agricultural production and management. The area of land associated with the proposed water bodies extends to approximately 1.0ha. Topsoil from these areas will contribute to the wider agricultural restoration. Areas of proposed grassland would be managed by grazing or occasional mechanical cutting.

4.10.10 For the agricultural restoration the aim is to produce land of sub grade 3a quality in blocks of

a suitable size and shape for efficient use of farm machinery. The restoration profile for these areas of land would comprise an approximate average 350mm depth topsoil over approximately 2.0m depth imported inert fill material, typically a mix of clays, subsoil and construction and demolition waste.

4.10.11 Where the opportunity occurs those inert materials least likely to contribute to a beneficial agricultural restoration (i.e. heavy clay) would be spread over the quarry floor first and more suitable materials (i.e. lighter subsoils) retained for spreading over the clays. The surface of the uppermost layer would be rooted with 500mm tines to improve drainage prior to spreading of the topsoil layer. Conclusion

4.10.12 The soil resource will be retained and stripped, stored and placed in accordance with the relevant sections of the MAFF Good Practice Guide.

4.11 Birdstrike in relation to RAF Fairford

4.11.1 The Defence Estates Safeguarding team were consulted during August 2008 and provided with a draft restoration scheme for the site for comment. The scheme remains substantially unchanged.

4.11.2 The Ministry of Defence has no objection to the initial concept as presented (Appendix 8) subject to the full details of the design of the wetland area and associated planting are presented at the planning application stage.

4.11.3 These details are shown on Figure Nº 11. The scheme aims to achieve a balance between meeting the requirements of current guidance3 and providing a contribution to the long term nature conservation value of the site and locality.

4.12 Cotswold Canals

4.12.1 A section of the disused Thames and Severn Canal passes along the southern boundary of

the site. This feature would be reconstructed in a similar manner as that proposed for the adjoining Roundhouse Farm site.

3 ‘Developing Policy and best practice on relation to restoration Following Minerals Extraction- Resolving Conflicts with Aviation’. Richard Walls et al circa 2004

lbeer

New Stamp



4.13 Consideration of Alternatives

4.13.1 Alternatives to the current proposals relate to no development, partial development or development in alternative locations. No Development

4.13.2 In the event that no development was to take place potential sand and gravel reserves within the permission site would remain unworked and demand for the mineral would need to be met from an alternative location. This would be a temporary delay as the Wetstone Bridge site falls within the Mineral Safeguarding Zone identified in the Wiltshire and Swindon Minerals Core Strategy.

4.13.3 The site represents a logical western progression of the adjoining site sand and gravel working at Roundhouse Farm. If permitted the site would ensure continuity of supply from this section of the Cotswold Water Park/Upper Thames Valley in a timely and progressive manner.

4.13.4 Similarly restoration of the Wetstone Bridge site would follow that of the Roundhouse Farm site. Partial Development

4.13.5 This alternative does not offer significant environmental advantages to the current proposal

that would warrant unnecessary sterilisation of the reserve. Development in Alternative Locations

4.13.6 In the absence of proposed development the company would seek to develop other land but not within the immediate locality. As the site falls within the Mineral Safeguarding Zone and can be worked in an environmentally acceptable manner this option need not be considered further.

lbeer

New Stamp



5.0 SUMMARY 5.1 An environmental assessment has been undertaken in respect of a proposal to extract sand

and gravel from land at Wetstone Bridge Farm, Down Ampney, Gloucestershire and at Latton, Wiltshire.

5.2 It is intended that the Wetstone Bridge site will replace sand and gravel production at the Company’s adjoining operation at Roundhouse Farm. At current rates of production all consented reserves at Roundhouse Farm, excluding those underlying the existing plant site, will be exhausted during May 2015.

5.3 In order to maintain an uninterrupted supply to the local market the Wetstone Bridge site would need to be fully operational prior to this date. Production at Wetstone will ease the risks to supply caused by flood events and the shortage of 20mm gravel at Roundhouse Farm. This material is in seasonal demand for landscape related developments and the seasonal deficit could be met from Wetstone Bridge. There would be no change to the consented period of working and restoration at Roundhouse Farm

5.4 The application site has a proven reserve of approximately 960,000 tonnes, equivalent to approximately 10 years working, allowing for a reduced level of production during the initial period when the site would complement the Roundhouse Farm operation.

5.5 This ES and the scheme design are the end products of specialist survey and assessment carried out during 2008-11. The Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire each issued a scoping opinion during June-August 2004 which has formed the basis of the final assessment work.

5.6 Assessment of the proposals against key environmental issues has produced the following conclusions: Hydrology and Hydrogeology

5.7 Following review of the mitigation included in the site design and the specific mitigation

measures identified in the SLR report, the overall potential significance of impact to the water environment is assessed as being acceptable and ‘near zero’ to ‘low’.

Archaeology

5.8 The site contains archaeological potential. It is concluded that, on the basis of the evidence

supplied that the site will be worked in accordance with a written scheme of archaeological resource management previously submitted and approved by the curatorial authorities. Landscape and Visual Amenity

5.9 The proposed development would not result in any unacceptable adverse levels of landscape or visual impact and would provide a slight beneficial effect in the long term. Ecology

5.10 Proposed development would not result in any unacceptable levels of adverse impact on the local nature conservation interest or protected species. Suitable mitigation measures will be

lbeer

New Stamp



employed during the works to reduce residual effects to a low level. Such measures could be required by condition attached to any planning permission.

5.11 The proposed restoration will provide a net benefit to the long term nature conservation interest of the site.

Highways and Traffic

5.12 The proposals accord with both national and local planning policies which seek to reduce carbon emissions by exploiting local resources and minimising the distance that minerals travel to their point of use. Therefore, there is no transport reason why the planning application for gravel extraction and restoration at Wetstone Bridge Farm should not be permitted.

Noise

5.13 The estimated worst case noise levels from initial and final quarrying operations are below the 70 dB LAeq 1hr. criterion at all noise sensitive receptors. The criterion is considered a normally justifiable limit in MPS2A2 for temporary operations on surface mineral extraction sites. The worst case noise levels from extraction do not exceed the 55 dB LAeq 1hr.criterion, considered a normally justifiable limit for mineral extraction operations in MPS2A2. Furthermore the supplementary aim to limit noise to no more than 10dB (A) above the lowest background level can be achieved at receptor locations 1 and 2.

5.14 The assessment shows that mineral extraction operations at Wetstone Bridge Farm can be carried out without exceeding the recommended noise criteria as advised in MPS2A2. Dust

5.15 The implementation of standard good working practices and the proposed additional mitigation measures are generally accepted by the Government and the surface minerals industry as providing effective control against the impact of airborne dust. With the implementation of these measures, significant residual impacts are unlikely to occur. Soil Resource

5.16 The soil resource will be retained and stripped, stored and placed in accordance with the relevant sections of the MAFF Good Practice Guide. Birdstrike in relation to RAF Fairford

5.17 It is considered that the scheme design incorporates the necessary safeguarding measures required to reduce the potential for birdstrike. Cotswold Canals

5.18 A section of the disused Thames and Severn Canal passes along the southern boundary of the site. This feature would be reconstructed in a similar manner as that proposed for the adjoining Roundhouse Farm site.

lbeer

New Stamp



Consideration of Alternatives

5.19 Proposed development represents the best practicable option compared to no development, partial development or development in an alternative location.

lbeer

New Stamp



6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 It is concluded that the proposal is justified by its demonstrated ability to operate under acceptable environmental standards.

lbeer

New Stamp

APPENDIX 1

Scoping Opinion

APPENDIX 2

Hydrological and Hydrogeological Assessment SLR June 2011

APPENDIX 3

An Archaeological Evaluation, Wetstone Bridge Farm, Marston Meysey, Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

Thames Valley Archaeological Services March 2009

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment Archaeology and Planning Solutions

March 2008

Geophysical Survey : Figures 1 – 15 Archaeological Surveys Ltd

APPENDIX 4

Landscape and Visual Assessment David Jarvis Associates Ltd April 2008 (Reviewed 2012)

APPENDIX 5

Ecological Impact Assessment Malford Environmental Consulting August 2012

APPENDIX 6

Transport Statement PFA Consulting September 2012

APPENDIX 7

Noise Assessment Charles Crawford March 2008

APPENDIX 8

Proposed Canal Reconstruction

Documents

M C CULLIMORE (GRAVELS) LTD THE TOWN AND …caps.gloucestershire.gov.uk/gcc_images/12_0015_CWMAJM_ENV_STA… · 4.11 BIRDSTRIKE IN RELATION TO RAF FAIRFORD ... 5.0 SUMMARY ... Brook