Proudler,Justine (Economy Transport and Communities)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christopher,Lauren (Economy Transport and Communities)
30 November 2015 13:59
Proudler,Justine (Economy Transport and Communities)
CM4/1215/125 Hilltop Farm
Dear Justine,
The Flood Risk Management team has had sight of the letter sent to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) on the 7th
November from Mr Hunt of Central Planning. ln regards to the letter the FRM team would like to make clear our
position following this letter.
The objection the FRM team recommended to the LPA on application CM4lL215l125 still stands. Despite a meeting
between the FRM team, Mr Hunt and Mr Tilley of Provectus Remediation Ltd, the FRM team have yet to receive the
information requested. Until such a time that this information has been received, through whichever means
deemed necessary, the recommended objection will remain.
-
ln reference to Mr Hunt's letter there appear to have been some misunderstandings, particularly in regards to the
request for information pertaining to the third watercourse. The information requested is not simply to allow the
FRM team to determine if a Land Drainage Consent application will be required. This information has been
requested to understand the dynamics of the water environment within the site and the flood risk concerned with
the blocking off of this flow path. ln addition the provision of the requested information will allow for the FRM team
to determine if a condition is required to protect this river corridor as is such with watercourse 1 and 2. From the
meeting held at County hall on Friday 4th November, it was discussed that a buffer was unlikely due to the
insignificance of the watercourse and that any flood risk would be mitigated with the designed water management
system. However, the information is still required to be submitted formally to show a clear and transparent process.
Land Drainage consent was discussed because if the ditch/watercourse is proven to connect to the water network,
the proposed works would require consent.
Regarding the potential of a sough flowing through the site, the comments within the letter go someway to justify
that the information requested is required. Mr Hunt confirms that the magnetic survey would not have sufficiently
identified a sough, clarification of which was requested as an addendum to the FRA. The request for this information
is required to understand the flood risk associated with a sough flowing through the site. lt is not to determine how
the working will affect the sough, more how the sough will affect the working should it become exposed during the
cut. A sough may be channelling water through the site from miles into the hillside and has the potentialto convey
an unprecedented amount of water. By requesting information pertaining to the existence of a sough in the Flood
Risk Assessment, the FRM team are requesting how the potential of flood risk from this source will be managed.
Therefore, the comments within Mr Hunt's letter determining that water will be dealt with within the base of the
workings are welcomed. lt should be noted that water flowing from a sough will be additionalto any rainfall or
drainagelhydrology. The FRM team would still request an addendum to the FRA detailing the potential flood risk
and the mitigation that is proposed to deal with the potential of a sough to be submitted formally - however unlikely
or likelv the risk mav be.
It is noted from the letter that Mr Hunt and his client are happy to supply this information directly to the team.
Upon receipt of the information the FRM team would be in a position to draft some conditions to recommend to the
LPA however the final decision on the application rests with the LPA.
Kind regards,
Lauren
Lauren Christopher I Senior FIood Risk Technician
Flood Risk Management Team
DERBYSHIRE
County Council
Mr R Hunt
Central (M&W) Planning
Jordan's Farm
Top Street,
Appleby Magna
Swadlincote
Derbyshire DE127AH
Mike Ashworth - Strategic Director
Derbyshire County Gouncil
Economy, Transport and Communities
Shand House
Dale Road South
Matlock
Derbyshire
DE4 3RY
Telephone:
01629539661
Facsimile:
Our Ref:
Your Ref:
Date:
CM4t1215t125
I
December 2016
development.management@derbyshire. gov. uk
Dear Mr Hunt
TOWN AND COUNTHY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2011
Proposed Surface Goal Mining Scheme with Restoration to Agriculture and
Nature Conservation Benefits at Hill Top Farm, Derby Road, Clay Cross
Application Gode No. GM4/12151125
I refer to your letter of the 7 November 2016. I have considered the content of
your letter and consulted further with officers in the Council representing the Lead
Local Flood Authority (LLFA) regarding the matters you raise.
The requirement for further information in my letter of 12 October 2A16 was duly
made under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environment
lmpact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the EIA Regulations). The Council
remains of the opinion that the additional information required is necessary to
complete the requirements for an environmental statement (ES) as defined in the
EIA Regulations. The requirement relates to an aspect of the environment (water)
likely to be significantly affected by the development and is listed in Schedule 4
(lnformation for inclusion in environmental statements) of the EIA Regulations.
The impact of the development on the water environment is considered to be a
'main' environmental impact. the significance of which cannot be adequately
assessed for this development in the absence of certain additional information
that has been requested.
Where a significant effect on the environment is likely, Schedule 4 of the EIA
Regulations requires an ES to provide a description of the measures envisaged
to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any such impacts. The Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA) submitted in support of the above application is not
considered to provide the necessary information as it does not contain sufficient
information to cover environmenta[ impacts on the water environment associated
with the proposal, and any potentiat mitigation measures.
rffi'
{t
www.derbyshire.gov. uk
*k*
I have, on behalf of the Council, reviewed the content of my letter of the 12
October in light of the matters you raise. The additional information under that
letter is still considered to be required by Regulalion 22. To provide you with
further clarity, the reference to errors and contradictions in the FRA does not form
part of the Regulation 22 requirement but does require clarification as detailed
below. I set out below, with underlining, the nature of the information that is
required. Please note that the Council as LLFA maintains its objection to the
proposal until such time as sufficient information is received. The further
comments of the Council as LLFA dated 30 November 2016 are appended to this
letter.
Watercourse in the central area of the site (referred to as watercourse 3)
The information relating to the third watercourse was not requested in order for
the LLFA to determine whether a land drainage consent would be required. This
information is still required and is necessary to understand the dynamics of the
water environment within the site and the flood risk concerned with blocking off of
this flow path. Further information is therefore required to ascertain the presence
of watercourse 3 in the central area of site and whether it has connectivelv to the
wider river network. Details of how any potential flood risk would be mitigated
within the designed water management svstem on the site should also be
provided. Please refer to the comments of the LLFA of the 11 October and 30
November 2A16 for further details relating to this request. This information is
requested under Requlation 22(1) of the Town and Country Planninq
(Environmental lmpact Assessment) Requlations 201 1.
Potential sough in the northern two fields
Your letter of the 7 November 2016 confirms that the magnetic survey undertaken
would not have sufficiently identified the presence of a sough in the northern two
fields at the site. The information relating to the presence of a sough was
requested in order to understand the flood risk associated with a sough flowing
through the site, it is not to determine how the working of the site would affect the
sough but how the sough would affect the working should it become exposed
during the extraction operations. ln the event that a sough is found to be present
it may potentially channel water through the site from a kilometre or more into the
hillside and could convey a significant flow of water. The comments in your letter
about how water from this source would be dealt with in the base of the workings
is welcomed, however, water flowing from a sough would be additional to any
rainfall or other drainage/hydrology contribution. Having taken into consideration
the details provided in your letter. I confirm that furlher information
about the potential flood risk from this source and details of how it would be
managed and/or mitigated should it be identified. Please refer to the comments
of the LLFA of the 1 1 October and 30 November 2016 for turther details relating
to this request. This information is requested under Regulation 22(1) of the
Town and Country Planninq (Environmental lmpact Assessment) Reoulations
2011.
It is recommended that the submission of further information is provided as a
single document or suite of documents as an addendum to the submitted FRA
dated July 20i 6.
*r.
J:
s*
.-t
u,
{!
\*d
www.derbysh
ire. gov.
uk
f,arElrrxt
lrf.qFtr
ln the previous notification of the requirement of further information under
Regulation 22(1) dated 12 October 2016 the Authority requested that the
information was provided by I December 2016. ln view of the need to clarify the
request, the Authority is willing to extend the period of time for the submission of
the information requested above; however, I note that you state in your letter that
the applicant does not intend to supply a response in relation to the previous
Regulation 22 request. Please can you confirm, in writing by 16 December 2016,
whether the applicant intends to respond to the clarified Regulatian 22 request as
detailed above. Should the applicant agree to provide a response a suitable time
period for submission can be agreed.
Other points for clarification
Errors within the document submitted as an FRA dated July 2016 - please
correcUrespond to the identified errors and contradictions in the FRA by way of a
letter.
Consultation response from Yorkshire Water dated 27 September 2016- I note
that the applicant intends to consult directly with Yorkshire Water regarding its
comments and a solution for dealing with the sewer/rising water main. lt is
welcomed that the applicant intends to consult with Yorkshire Water about a
suitable solution, however, any exchanges of correspondence regarding this
matter and any proposed solutions should also be provided to the planning
authority. Sections of the sewer/rising water main appear to fall within the
application site, it is therefore necessary to understand how any solutions would
impact on the proposed working scheme for the site and whether there would be
any consequential local amenity or environmental impacts.
Yours sincerely,
Justine Proudler
Development Management
)r
gt
rt
wil
{!
':K.-
\^/
www.derbyshire.gov. uk
rNvEarI)tsrx
tDottl