Planning Statement (incorporating Design & Access Statement)€¦ · Chesterfield Canal...

Planning Statement

(incorporating Design & Access Statement)

Chesterfield Canal

Restoration between Eckington Road & Hague Lane, constituting the remainder of

the restoration scheme within Chesterfield Borough

Version 1.00

Date 24th June 2020

Looking away from Staveley along

the line of the Chesterfield Canal

Chesterfield Canal Restoration: Planning Statement (incorporating Design & Access Statement)

of 35

Contents

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Background to the Project ................................................................................................................. 5

3 Site Location ..................................................................................................................................... 6

4 Summary of the Proposal .................................................................................................................. 7

5 Planning Policy .................................................................................................................................. 9

6 Design & Access Statement ............................................................................................................ 12

7 Summary of Supporting Documentation .......................................................................................... 25

8 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix 1: Copy of Pre-Application Meeting Notes .............................................................................. 31

Appendix 2: Copy of EIA Screening Request Decision Notice (CHE/20/00213/EIA) ............................... 34

Looking east from Eckington Road towards

the railway bridge, taken March 2020 when

volunteer work halted due to the Covid-19

pandemic


of 35

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Planning Statement supports a full planning application for the restoration of 2.6km of the

Chesterfield Canal between Eckington Road & Hague Lane. The extents constitute the remaining length

of the Chesterfield Canal to be restored within the boundaries of Chesterfield Borough.

1.2 Starting at Eckington Road, the scheme will briefly consist of:

• crossing the Staveley-Seymour railway line (site of bridge no. 13b)

• construction of Railway Lock (no. 5b)

• construction of the 2.6km of canal channel, including approximately 2.1km on a raised

embankment, with the formerly embanked central section known as the Puddlebank

• construction of 4no. overbridges: Arkwright Trail bridge (no. 13c), Bellhouse Bridge (no. 14),

Packsaddle Bridge (no. 15) and Red Bridge (no. 16)

• construction of a new aqueduct over the river Doe Lea

1.3 To facilitate the works, temporary access roads and compounds will be required. Several lengths of

Public Rights of Way (PROW) will need to be realigned through the scheme.

1.4 The scheme will provide a restored length of canal in furtherance of the partnership goals of multiple

partners as set out in section 2 below, and be another step towards the long term goal of complete

restoration of the Chesterfield Canal in time for the 250th anniversary of the original opening in 2027.

1.5 In preparing this application, pre-application advice was sought from Chesterfield Borough Council (CBC)

as the Local Planning Authority (LPA). This advice is included in Appendix 1 to this statement.

1.6 Prior to submission of this application, a Screening Opinion was sought under the Town and Country

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. This was submitted to CBC on the 31st

March 2020, planning reference CHE/20/00213/EIA, and a decision notice was issued on 17th April 2020

confirming that the scheme would not be classed as EIA development and therefore this planning

application would not require an accompanying Environmental Statement. A copy of this decision notice

is included in Appendix 2 to this statement.

1.7 The following plans are submitted in support of this application:

Drawing No. Title Drawing Size

9213-42-DCC-PL-100 Site Location Plan A1

9213-42-DCC-PL-101-1 Restoration Proposals – Proposed General Arrangement – June 2020

A1


A1


A1


A1


A1

9213-42-DCC-PL-102-1 Drainage – Proposals for Field and Surface Water Drainage – June 2020

A1


A1


A1


A1


A1


of 35

Drawing No. Title Drawing Size

9213-42-DCC-PL-103-1 Cross Sections Showing Topography, Embankment Profiles and Drainage Proposals (Canal W/L at 55.8m)

A0


A0


A0


A0


A0

9213-42-DCC-PL-104-1 Footpath, Bridleway and Trail Network Proposals – June 2020

A1


A1


A1


A1


A1

9213-42-DCC-PL-200-1 Mineral Rail Bridge (13b) and New Canal Lock (5b) General Arrangement

A1

9213-42-DCC-PL-203-1 Doe Lea Aqueduct (Bridge 14a) General Arrangement A1

1.8 The following documentation is also submitted in support of this application. This is summarised for

convenience in section 7 below.

Report No. Title

20190610 Chesterfield Canal Restoration Eckington Road to Hague Lane Phase 1 Habitat Survey & Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

- GCN eDNA (MEGZ Ponds)

CheCa02 Protected Species Surveys, River Doe Lea

CheCa030405 Protected Species Surveys, Puddlebank (Draft)

CKJ-JBAU-XX-00-RP-HM-0001-S1-P02

Flood Risk Assessment

CCTWFD19 Chesterfield Canal Water Framework Directive Assessment

TJC2020.23 Heritage Statement

GML19233 Enhanced Coal Mining Risk Assessment – Chesterfield Canal Restoration Route, Staveley, Derbyshire

GML19233/1/1 Phase I Geo-Environmental Assessment, Chesterfield Canal Restoration Route, Doe Lea Valley


of 35

2 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

The Chesterfield Canal

2.1 The Chesterfield Canal originally opened in 1777. It ran for 46 miles (approx. 74km) from Chesterfield to

West Stockwith on the River Trent north of Gainsborough, passing through the major towns of Worksop

and Retford along with many smaller communities. Commercial traffic on the canal dropped off with the

coming of the railways, and in 1907 a collapse in the Norwood Tunnel close to Kiveton severed the length

from Chesterfield to Killamarsh from the national network. The canal further declined in the early 20th

century, until in 1968 only the 26 miles (approx. 42km) from Worksop to the River Trent was still

navigable.

2.2 Since 1989, 12 miles (approx. 19km) of the canal have been restored, along with 37 locks, 11 major

bridges and 2 new marinas. Navigation has been extended westward from Worksop as far as the eastern

portal of the Norwood Tunnel at Kiveton Park. This section is fully navigable and linked to the national

canal network via the River Trent. In Derbyshire, over 5 miles (8km) has been restored between the start

of the canal in Chesterfield and Eckington Road, Staveley.

2.3 The restoration efforts to date have all been completed by the committed partnerships of local and

national organisations outlined below.

2.4 There remains approximately 8.5 miles (14km) to be restored between Staveley and Kiveton Park. This

planning application is for the remaining 2.6km within Chesterfield Borough.

The Chesterfield Canal Trust (CCT)

2.5 CCT is the successor to the Chesterfield Canal Society, formed in 1976 with the aim of restoring the

Chesterfield Canal to full navigation. It is a membership organisation, currently with over 1900 members

from the local area and all over the world. The formal objectives of CCT are:

• To promote the restoration to good navigable order of as much as is considered possible of the

Chesterfield Canal and to maintain and improve the Waterway for the use and benefit of the public

• To promote the fullest use of the Waterway for the benefit of the public

• To promote, and educate the public, in the history, use of and associated wildlife of the Waterway

The Chesterfield Canal Partnership (CCP)

2.6 CCP is a partnership of organisations that have an interest in achieving the following aims:

• To restore the Chesterfield Canal to full navigation using, wherever possible, the historic route

• To explore the potential to create and develop a new navigable link between the Chesterfield

Canal and the Sheffield & South Yorkshire Navigation

• To protect, conserve and enhance the natural and built heritage of the canal

• To improve and widen all forms of public access to the canal

• To promote the sustainable economic and social regeneration of the Chesterfield Canal corridor in

order to improve the quality of life in the surrounding communities

2.7 The membership of CCP includes CCT, the Canal & River Trust, all District & County level local

authorities along the full route of the canal and the Inland Waterways Association. Previously, CCP has

been the coordinating body managing and delivering on the restoration aims. This role is now

transitioning to CCT due to the ongoing budgetary pressures placed on local authorities.

2.8 Since the CCP was formed in 1995, a significant amount of theoretical work has been done to examine

the practicality and the benefits of the restoration. This has included high-level feasibility studies and

more detailed examination of the technical feasibility, economic and social benefits, hydrology and

ecology.

2.9 The outcome of all of this work was collated into an overall plan for the restoration, presented in two

volumes: Next Navigation West (Staveley to Killamarsh) and Next Navigation East (Killamarsh to Kiveton

Park). These set out all aspects of the restoration in detail and form the backbone to this application and

the wider restoration strategy.


of 35

Why Restore the Chesterfield Canal?

2.10 Waterway projects across the UK have a proven record of delivering substantial benefits to the

communities through which they run and to the wider surrounding region. The evidence collated within

the ‘Next Navigation’ reports demonstrates the significant positive effects that restoration of the

Chesterfield Canal will have on the quality of life in the area, acting as a focus and catalyst for social,

economic and environmental regeneration.

2.11 Social Benefits: the restored Chesterfield Canal will be a waterway for all – a linear water park and

greenspace open and accessible to all. The canal is already well used for walking, cycling, fishing and

canoeing – all activities which will be enhanced and developed as the project proceeds. Dedicated events

such as the Chesterfield Canal Festival and the Walking Festival also encourage local communities to

enjoy the canal, or they can take a trip on the two trip boats that the Chesterfield Canal Trust operates in

the area (from Tapton Lock and Hollingwood).

2.12 Economic Benefits: the restored Chesterfield Canal creates a range of economic opportunities. The

developments at Staveley Town Basin (proposals being led by Derbyshire County Council), the Staveley

Works corridor and the Chesterfield Waterside site all take advantage of a waterside location to improve

the attractiveness of businesses and residential properties. Katey’s Coffee Shop, which operates out of

the Chesterfield Canal Trust’s headquarters at Hollingwood Hub, is a small but very successful example

of the economic benefits.

2.13 Whilst direct economic benefit is unlikely from the proposed scheme, the application is a key link to

getting the remainder of the Chesterfield Canal restored and realising the significant benefits of the

completed project. Smaller economic benefits are possible through cycle/boat hire and similar activities.

2.14 Environmental Benefits: ‘artificial’ waterways have been integral elements of the landscape for almost

250 years. They form both routes and barriers, and their presence has strongly influenced the

environment in which we live. Restoring the rural stretch of canal from Staveley to Renishaw will

contribute to the protection and enhancement of the local landscape, whilst also providing an increased

diversity of inter-connected terrestrial and aquatic habitats. This connectivity is why waterways form an

integral part of the green infrastructure of multi-functional open spaces and natural assets.

3 SITE LOCATION

3.1 For further details, refer to the site location plan (drawing 9213-42-DCC-PL-100).

3.2 The isolated length of the existing restored Chesterfield Canal runs approximately north-east from

Chesterfield, passing through Brimington and Hollingwood to Staveley, in the east of the Borough. This

scheme will connect to and extend the isolated length to the limits of Chesterfield Borough.

3.3 The proposed works start at Eckington Road (OS Grid Ref SK 43574 75333) and proceed initially east.

The site lies between Staveley and the Hartington Industrial Estate, and runs alongside and under Ireland

Close and the Staveley-Seymour railway line. The environment becomes progressively more rural and

from the northern tip of Bellhouse Lane (OS Grid Ref SK 43888 75323) the proposals are in open

countryside.

3.4 At the northern tip of Bellhouse Lane, the canal alignment turns roughly north-east, and crosses the Doe

Lea valley on a raised embankment. Remains of the historic embankment are still visible, particularly

adjacent to the River Doe Lea. Several deep cuts have been made through the embankment for services

and to open out the river (which used to flow through twin brick culverts under the canal), and the whole

valley has suffered due to mining subsidence. The result is that the original embankment is now up to 3m

lower than it was originally and will require raising as part of the proposed works.

3.5 From Bellhouse Lane to the junction with the Norbriggs Cutting (OS Grid Ref SK 44642 75994), the canal

forms the natural divide between the arable farmland to the north west and the Norbriggs Flash Local

Nature Reserve to the south east. The majority of the adjacent length of the Nature Reserve is farmed.

3.6 From the junction with the Norbriggs Cutting, the canal turns north until it reaches the end of the proposed

works on the south side of the access track from Hague Lane to the sewage treatment works (OS Grid

Ref SK 44476 77148), which is the Borough boundary. Throughout this length, the canal runs through

arable farmland on both sides.


of 35

4 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL

4.1 In broad terms, the intention is to rebuild the length of canal across the Doe Lea valley, where the original

canal route has been seriously affected by mining subsidence and subsequent land use. The priority is to

create a new waterway corridor on the original route, and to endow it with a similar character to that which

the original canal would have had if it had survived.

4.2 The scheme divides into two lengths with different characteristics:

4.3 Between Eckington Road and Bellhouse Lane, the canal is within a short transport corridor, including

the Staveley-Seymour railway line, Staveley Northern Loop Road and the canal. These run in close

proximity and are all crossed by Eckington Road and the disused Great Central Railway route (now the

Trans-Pennine Trail), which taken together make the length heavily engineered, with multiple structures

and hard surfaces.

4.4 From Bellhouse Lane to Hague Lane, the canal is largely on a raised earth embankment in rural

countryside.

4.5 Eckington Road to Bellhouse Lane

4.5.1 This length is dominated by the crossing of the canal and the Staveley-Seymour railway line. The railway

line is currently disused, and the track bed has been taken up, however it is still considered to be live by

Network Rail as various options remain for its re-use. This includes for use as access to the proposed

HS2 Infrastructure Maintenance Depot on the former Staveley Works site.

4.5.2 The historic bridge at this location has recently been excavated under licence from Network Rail in order

to examine its condition. The bridge was infilled by Network Rail following their purchase of the derelict

canal from the British Waterways Board in 1980.

Figure 4.1: Excavation of the existing structure under licence, 20/10/2017

4.5.3 The bridge structure is in sound condition, but as with the surrounding area it has suffered from mining

subsidence. This, combined with the greater loading requirements for modern railways mean that it is no

longer possible to use the structure at the original water level. However, the original bridge abutments will

be reused with a lowered invert level. The rail bridge deck will not be reinstated as part of this scheme,

but it will be possible for it to be so should the line come back into use in the future.


of 35

4.5.4 As such, the water level in this length has been dropped from the historic 55.8mAOD to the current

54.1mAOD. The water level is set by the fall at Staveley Town Lock to the west, which was constructed

by the volunteers of the Chesterfield Canal Trust work party as part of the Staveley Town Basin

development granted planning permission in 2010 (CHE/09/00769/FUL).

4.5.5 Immediately east of the railway, the canal will return to the original water level of 55.8mAOD using a new

lock. The design rationale for this decision is discussed further in section 6 below.

4.5.6 Proceeding east, the canal will then pass underneath a new Trans-Pennine Trail high-level bridge, along

a short length of engineered channel suitable for visitor moorings and underneath a new access bridge at

the northern end of Bellhouse Lane.

4.6 Bellhouse Lane to Hague Lane

4.6.1 Historically, the canal initially followed the contour of the land, before striking out on a raised

embankment, known as the Puddlebank. This carried the canal from one side of the Doe Lea valley to the

other, with the river passing underneath the canal through a pair of brick culverts. The canal then followed

the contours of the land once again from the north end of the Norbriggs cutting.

Figure 4.2: The original Puddlebank, taken May 1970 before the banks were removed

4.6.2 The structure of the Puddlebank largely remains, although it has suffered from mining subsidence and

local breakthroughs for the river and utilities. The banks of the canal were bulldozed out and used in an

attempt to address some of the mining subsidence issues on adjacent farmland. The resulting effect is

that the existing structure is now substantially lower than the original water level, up to 3m in places.

4.6.3 New material will be imported to raise the height of the Puddlebank to the historic 55.8mAOD water level.

This will also mean that the length of embanked canal will be extended in both directions from the original

Puddlebank. The design rationale for that decision is discussed further in section 6 below.

4.6.4 The brick culverts carrying the Doe Lea through the Puddlebank were removed in the 1970s. They will not

be reinstated but replaced by a clear-span aqueduct over the river, in order to suit modern flooding and

ecological requirements.

4.6.5 This section will include a new pedestrian & cycle bridge to connect the towpath to the multi-user trail

along the former Norbriggs cutting, along with a private farm access bridge at Huggester Farm. There will

be a weir and spillway opposite the Norbriggs cutting to return excess water to the river Doe Lea, as per

the historic arrangement at this location.


of 35

5 PLANNING POLICY

5.1 Local Planning Policy

Chesterfield Borough Council Local Plan 2011-2031

5.1.1 The current Local Plan was adopted in July 2013. Restoration of the Chesterfield Canal is a key strategic

objective (S12) and the importance of the canal as integral green infrastructure is noted to the major

development sites at Waterside and the Staveley & Rother Valley Corridor. The specific impact of the

restoration in attracting visitors to the canal and wider borough is also noted.

5.1.2 Strategic Objective S12 states ‘Restore the Chesterfield Canal to a navigable state along all its length

within the borough’. Delivery of the proposed scheme will fully achieve this objective.

5.1.3 Figure 5.1 below shows an extract of the Local Plan ‘Submission Policies Map’ with the scheme proposal

superimposed upon it. The relevant identifiers from the key are included.

Figure 5.1: Extract of the Local Plan ‘Submission Policies Map’ with the proposal superimposed

5.1.4 With the exception of the short length between Eckington Road and the Trans-Pennine Trail Bridge, the

entirety of the scheme is within the green belt as defined by policy CS9 (Green Infrastructure &

Biodiversity). A significant proportion is also within the area of saved policy EVR2 (Development in the

Open Countryside and Other Open Land).

5.1.5 Within the background to policy CS9, the Chesterfield Canal corridor is recognised as a key element of

the borough’s identity. CS9 aims to protect and enhance the green infrastructure corridor, and restoration

of the Chesterfield Canal is entirely in line with the policy aims. It will enhance connectivity and improve

public access to the green infrastructure by formalising and improving the access along the canal, further

increasing opportunities for walking and cycling. Visual access to the local nature reserve will be

significantly enhanced without the need for intrusive access. Restoration of the canal will both conserve

and enhance the distinctive landscape character of this section of the Doe Lea valley, defined as it is by

the historic earth embankment on which the canal used to run.

Green Belt (Green Infrastructure &

Biodiversity) – CS9

Development in the Open Countryside &

Other Open Land – EVR2

Chesterfield – Staveley Regeneration

Route – (Major Transport Infrastructure)

CS21 & (Markham Vale) PS4

Future Extension

(NEDDC)

Restored Chesterfield Canal

Current Application


of 35

5.1.6 Policy EVR2 follows broadly similar lines to that of CS9 but includes further specific conditions for the

types of development that will be permitted within the policy areas. The canal would be classed as

recreation and tourism development under the policy, and so permissible providing it satisfies the

conditions. The primary conditions are that the scale, siting, design, materials and landscape treatment

are such that the visual effect is minimised, and that the proposal does not detract from an area where

the character is vulnerable due to the prominence or narrowness. As the scheme is largely a restoration

and reinstatement of existing features, the only modification to the existing landscape is in terms of the

scale of the embankment, which will remain modest by comparison to the wider landscape setting.

5.1.7 Approximately the first 650m of the scheme, as measured from Eckington Road, is along the line of a

route preserved under policy CS21 (Major Transport Infrastructure). This route was originally preserved

as part of the Staveley Northern Loop Road proposals and it would appear that these have now been

superseded. Indeed, it is notable that in the new Local Plan currently in examination (see below), this

route has been removed from the replacement policy LP24. Notwithstanding that, restoration of the canal

would not preclude development of this road in the future, albeit it would be more complex.

5.1.8 Restoration of the Chesterfield Canal will also support delivery of the plan policies CS14 (Tourism and the

Visitor Economy) and CS19 (Historic Environment). CS14 specifically encourages proposals for tourism

development where they relate to the restoration and enhancement of the Chesterfield Canal, whilst the

restoration will also enhance the setting of the canal in accordance with CS19.

Chesterfield Borough Council Local Plan 2018-2033 (In examination, not yet adopted)

5.1.9 CBC is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan. This was presented for examination in June 2019

and the report of the examiner was issued in May 2020. The emerging plan is therefore well advanced

although not yet currently adopted.

5.1.10 In accordance with paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework, weight may be given to

relevant policies in the emerging plan according to: the stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the

extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies, and the degree of consistency of the

relevant policies in the emerging plan to the NPPF. With regard to all criteria, on the scale set out in the

NPPF, the current status of the emerging plan means a greater weight can be given to the relevant

policies.

5.1.11 The relevant policies in the emerging plan are therefore presented to provide evidence for the future

direction of thinking with regard to the restoration of the Chesterfield Canal.

5.1.12 Strategic Objective S12 is proposed for retention, unchanged within the new Local Plan. Delivery of the

proposed scheme will fully achieve this objective as stated above.

5.1.13 A new policy is proposed to specifically consider the Chesterfield Canal, LP19. This is an updated and

enhanced version of the 2006 Local Plan policy EVR14 (Restoration of the Chesterfield Canal) which was

subsumed into CS9 as part of the current Local Plan. LP19 will safeguard the route of the Canal against

future development that prejudices the existing character and/or the future potential for improvement and

enhancement. It will also encourage adjacent development to conserve, enhance and restore the canal

along the original route wherever possible.

5.1.14 The key essence of policy CS9 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity) relevant to the restoration of the

Chesterfield Canal is proposed for retention within the new policy LP16 (Green Infrastructure).

5.1.15 No specific replacement for policy EVR2 is proposed, but the key essence of the policy is retained within

other proposed policies, including most notably LP1, LP2, LP3 and LP16.

5.1.16 Policy CS14 (Tourism and the Visitor Economy) is proposed for retention as policy LP8. There are two

minor additions proposed to the list of where tourism development will be encouraged, both of which are

relevant to the restoration of the Chesterfield Canal: ‘opportunities to encourage physical activity’ and

‘enhancing and improving access to the Green Belt, Green Wedges and Strategic Gaps’.

5.1.17 Policy CS19 (Historic Environment) is proposed for retention as policy LP22.

5.1.18 As noted above, there is a strip of land between Hall Lane and the borough boundary to the north-east

that is subject to policy CS21 (Major Transport Infrastructure). This area of land is proposed for removal

from the replacement policy LP24.


of 35

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)

5.1.19 There are no SPDs currently published by CBC that are applicable to this scheme.

5.1.20 It is noted that there is an SPD currently in development with regard to the Historic Environment. This

SPD is currently at the scoping stage and therefore no further detail on this is available and the scheme

can only be considered in light of the core Local Plan policies identified above.

Neighbourhood Plans

5.1.21 There are no current areas with a Neighbourhood Plan included in the scheme.

North-East Derbyshire District Council & Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

5.1.22 The proposals forming part of this planning application are wholly within the CBC LPA boundary.

However, the restoration project will include future lengths in the North-East Derbyshire (NEDDC) and

Rotherham (RMBC) LPA areas. It is therefore prudent to briefly consider the planning policy relating to

the future restoration works within these areas.

5.1.23 The NEDDC Local Plan was adopted in November 2005. The key planning policy is R12 (The

Chesterfield Canal), although the restoration receives specific mention at various other points throughout

the plan. Policy R12 safeguards the route of the Chesterfield Canal, including the alternative route

through Killamarsh, from development prejudicing future restoration, and permits proposals associated

with the recreational, leisure, nature conservation and historical potential of the Chesterfield Canal along

its route.

5.1.24 NEDDC has submitted a new Local Plan for examination, which recently restarted following a pause

associated with the change in political constitution of the council. The above policy is proposed for

retention as new planning policy ID8 (Chesterfield Canal), with modifications to reflect the revised

alternative route through Killamarsh.

5.1.25 The RMBC Local Plan was adopted in September 2014. It confirms the council’s support for the

restoration of the Chesterfield Canal in line with Strategic Objectives 8 (Landscape, historic environment

and settlement identity) and 9 (Greenspaces, sport and recreation), and policies CS19 (Green

Infrastructure) and CS23 (Valuing the Historic Environment). The Chesterfield Canal is identified as a

Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor connecting the southern Rother Valley with Wales, Kiveton Park

and through to Worksop in North Nottinghamshire.

5.2 National Planning Policy

5.2.1 Guidance in the latest revision of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) is consistent

with the adopted Chesterfield Borough Council Local Plan and does not require any further consideration

here.


of 35

6 DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT

6.1 It must be stated at this point that the guidance about writing Design and Access Statements as schemes

themselves evolved could not be followed in this case. This proposal forms a part of the ongoing process

of connecting the isolated length of the Chesterfield Canal to the national network. As such, the broad

principles of the scheme, and much of the detail, have been in place for many years.

6.2 Design Rationale

6.2.1 As noted above, this length of the Chesterfield Canal restoration is dominated by the Puddlebank, and in

particular by the mining subsidence that has affected it since this length of the canal fell into disuse.

6.2.2 At Staveley Town Basin and at Renishaw, the canal has been restored to its original water level of

55.8mAOD. The canal was constructed on the level all of the way from Hollingwood to Killamarsh, a

distance of over six miles. However, a decision has already been taken to reduce the level underneath

the Staveley-Seymour railway, and the lock constructed at Staveley Town Basin to do so. At the time of

the Staveley Town Basin planning application, it was intended that a second lock would be constructed to

the east of the railway to return to the historic water level.

6.2.3 In the years since that application, further consideration has been given to the design of the Puddlebank

section. In particular this considered whether, given the mining subsidence, it would actually be preferable

to adopt a lower water level throughout this length and site the return lock closer to Renishaw, most likely

at Miner’s Crossing.

6.2.4 In reviewing the design in this manner, a number of design constraints have been evaluated. These

constraints and the impact they have had on the selection of a final design solution are set out below.

Design Constraints

6.2.5 The relevant water levels are 54.1mAOD at Eckington Road and 55.8mAOD at Renishaw (outside of the

boundaries of this application). Therefore, there is a need to raise the water level by 1.7m by means of

one or more locks between these two points.

6.2.6 There are five known utilities that cross the line of the canal between the railway and Bellhouse Lane.

Allowing for 1.5m water depth and 0.4m of additional protection slab over the utility, any service with a

crown level within 1.9m of the proposed water level at the crossing point would need to be diverted. The

five known utility services include: a 450mm diameter sewer with a crown level of approximately

52.8mAOD; a 900mm diameter sewer with a crown level of approximately 53.1mAOD; a 700mm diameter

water pipe with a crown level of approximately 51.5mAOD; a 500mm diameter water pipe with a crown

level of approximately 53.6mAOD and a 200mm diameter gas main with a crown level of approximately

53.7mAOD.

6.2.7 There needs to be a supply of water to the section of canal at Renishaw. The long pound between

Hollingwood and Killamarsh was the low point of this length. Water was predominantly supplied from two

feeds: the River Rother, which supplies the canal in Chesterfield and from where water cascades down

the canal at each lock; and the River Doe Lea, which supplied the canal via a lengthy take-off channel

that fed into the southern end of the Norbriggs Cutting. The latter has suffered from subsidence and

reinstatement of this supply is not currently practical. Therefore, the primary feed to the canal at

Renishaw must come from the canal at Staveley, and so water must be supplied around or through any

dropped pound. This will necessitate a passive siphon or active pumping depending on the scheme.

6.2.8 It is noted that the railway crossing is not considered as a direct constraint to the design of this section

of the canal. The water level at the crossing point was previously set by the Staveley Town Basin

application based on discussions with Network Rail.


of 35

Defining the Design Options

6.2.9 Early development of the design solution for the Puddlebank is discussed in the Next Navigation West

report published by the Chesterfield Canal Partnership and publicly available on the Chesterfield Canal

Trust website. In summary, the choice of water level was never considered and would be set at

55.8mAOD throughout. The focus was instead primarily on the choice of plan alignment, in particular

whether the Puddlebank should be constructed on the original line or a new one. In order to minimise the

visual intrusion on the landscape, it was determined that the construction would be on the original line for

the majority of the length. However, where the canal historically followed the contours of the land to the

north of the Norbriggs Cutting, it was proposed to move the canal alignment to the east in order to

maintain the same relationship with the surrounding landscape.

6.2.10 The current proposals are for the canal to be retained on the original line and not relocated to the east.

This is in response to the preference of the landowners in this area.

6.2.11 As such, the design options defined for evaluation were all assumed to follow the original line and the

primary differences would be in the adopted water level. Three options were evaluated:

• ‘High Level’

Adopt a water level across the Doe Lea valley of 55.8mAOD, matching the historic level. This

would entail installing a lock immediately east of the Staveley-Seymour railway. There would be

no need for diversion of utilities based on the level (it may still be necessary to divert either the

gas main or the smaller water main to enable construction of Bellhouse Lane Bridge). The siphon

pipe planned to feed water from Staveley Town Basin to the Puddlebank could be installed.

• ‘Low Level’

Adopt a water level across the Doe Lea valley of 54.1mAOD to match the current dropped pound

level at Eckington Road. This would require diversion of four of the utility services (all but the

deepest water main). A lock would be installed in the vicinity of Miner’s Crossing, to the north of

this scheme and within the NEDDC LPA. This would necessitate permanent pumping of water

from the 54.1mAOD pound to the 55.8mAOD pound at Renishaw due to the lack of other water

supplies at this point.

• ‘Intermediate Level’

Adopt a water level across the Doe Lea valley of 55.0mAOD, by installing locks at both of the

locations identified above. This would allow the canal to cross the two sewers but would still

necessitate diversion of the smaller water main and the gas pipe. A controlled siphon pipe and a

permanent pumping system would both be necessary.

Selecting an Overall Design Solution

6.2.12 In order to select the most appropriate solution, the three options above were evaluated against the

following criteria:

• Cost, including the initial construction costs and maintenance costs

• Construction impacts

• Programme

• Impact upon installed services

6.2.13 An outline cost comparison was carried out, focussing primarily on the cost differential between the

options. Much of the work required does not vary across the scheme and so this was not included. The

cost comparison therefore focussed on the earth-moving, locks, water control mechanisms and the

diversion of utilities.

6.2.14 The High Level option was the cheapest solution, followed by the Low Level option and with the

Intermediate Level option as the most expensive. The cost comparison is particularly sensitive to two

large unknowns – the cost of purchase of the clay materials required to raise the level of the Puddlebank

and the cost of diverting the two sewers. The former has a significant impact on the cost of the High Level

option and is mitigated by the offer of approximately 95% of the required material free of charge. The

latter has a significant impact on the cost of the Low Level option. Preliminary estimates of £500,000 per

sewer were used in the analysis, and based on budget estimates obtained for the diversion of the smaller

water main and the gas pipe the sewer diversion costs are likely to be under-estimated.


of 35

6.2.15 The resulting effect is that there is greater certainty in the relative cost of the High Level option, whilst the

Low Level option is most likely to get more expensive. Therefore, the High Level option remains

preferable on cost grounds.

6.2.16 In assessing the construction impact, the impact of the construction work on the site is largely

independent of the water level. Instead, the primary consideration is the transport of the clay materials

required to raise the level of the Puddlebank, which dramatically increases as the water level increases.

For the Low Level option, approximately 75,000m3 of clay would need to be imported. This increases to

approximately 175,000m3 of clay for the High Level option.

6.2.17 As noted above, approximately 160,000m3 of clay has been offered to the scheme free of charge. This is

currently sited on the former Foxlow tip site. This material can be transported under the Midland Mainline

freight railway using the existing bridge alongside the River Rother, and then through the north of the

Hartington reclamation scheme and onto the mothballed Staveley-Seymour railway. From this location it

can proceed along the railway and directly onto the construction site, avoiding the use of any public

highways. Preliminary discussions on this proposal have taken place with representatives from Network

Rail who have agreed in principle, subject to detailed discussions.

6.2.18 Being able to transport the significant majority of the clay off the public highway mitigates the primary

construction impacts of the works on the local population. There is therefore little discernible difference

between the construction impacts of the different design options.

6.2.19 The Chesterfield Canal Trust has set a goal of completing restoration of the canal by 2027. To achieve

this ambitious programme, rapid progress needs to be made on this scheme, in order to link the restored

canal at Staveley with the semi-restored canal at Renishaw. It is therefore preferable to proceed with the

design option that can be pursued quickest. In this case, the preference is therefore for the High Level

option, avoiding the lengthy lead-in associated with the utility diversions.

6.2.20 As outlined, above the scheme will impact upon a number of installed utilities. These include the five

identified in paragraph 6.2.6 above, along with an extensive land drainage system installed in the

farmland north of the Norbriggs Cutting.

6.2.21 At Bellhouse Lane, the requisite diversions are set out in paragraph 6.2.11 above. The water main and

gas pipe diversions would be relatively simple, but the sewer diversions are much more complex. These

are large sewers that feed into the treatment plant to the north of the scheme area. To reduce the crown

level would most likely require splitting the pipe into multiple smaller pipes and/or introducing pumping

along the route. Neither of these are ideal for the long-term maintenance of the sewers, and thus avoiding

the need to modify them is the first preference. Taken together with the other utilities, the High Level

option is the first preference, then the Mid Level and lastly the Low Level.

6.2.22 For the land drainage system, the ideal situation would be that the land drainage could discharge directly

into the canal. However, to do this the drains would need to have an invert level higher than the proposed

water level, which is not the case. Therefore, the drains need to pass underneath the canal. Where the

proposed bed level is higher than the land drains, this needs no further consideration. However, if the

drains are within the water depth (i.e. an invert level between canal water level and bed level), either a

siphon or pumped drainage system would be necessary. Both of these would require additional

maintenance and are liable to failure, and as such would not be acceptable to either the canal or the

adjacent landowner. Based on these criteria, the High Level option is the best for mitigating the impacts

upon the drainage, as the Low Level and Mid Level options would both impact upon a portion of the

installed land drainage to the north of the scheme.

6.2.23 In conclusion, the High Level option is the best solution on the grounds of cost, construction programme

and mitigating the effect on utilities. The only major negative to the High Level option would be the

construction impact associated with road haulage of the significant quantities of clay materials required to

raise the Puddlebank, and this has been mitigated by the proposals to transport the clay off-road. As

such, the High Level option is the one adopted in this scheme.


of 35

6.3 Detailed Design, Appearance & Landscaping

6.3.1 The layout and details of the scheme are discussed further below. The text should be read in conjunction

with the scheme drawings listed in the introduction to this Planning Statement.

6.3.2 In general, the scheme is described as if travelling along the canal from the west (Eckington Road),

proceeding first east to Bellhouse Lane, then north-east towards the end of the Norbriggs Cutting and

finally turning north to the end of the scheme at Hague Lane.

6.3.3 More detail on each of the key features of the scheme is given after the general description, and is cross-

referenced by the paragraph number given in brackets.

General Description

6.3.4 The section of the canal forming part of this scheme will extend from the restored canal below Eckington

Road, proceeding east at a water level of 54.1mAOD. Immediately after the end of the existing bridge

structure, the offside (south) bank will revert to a soft bank with sloping sides. The towpath side (north)

will continue as an engineered vertical bank with brick facing and a stone coping.

6.3.5 The canal will narrow through the original railway bridge (6.3.16) and on leaving the footprint of the

railway will immediately enter the new Railway Lock (6.3.21). This will raise the water level back to the

original water level of 55.8mAOD.

6.3.6 At the head of the lock, the Trans-Pennine Trail will cross the canal on a high-level bridge (6.3.29). The

canal will widen out again and continue to run east, with a vertical engineered bank on the towpath side

and soft banks on the offside. The towpath between the lock and Bellhouse Lane will be suitable for

short-term visitor moorings.

6.3.7 At the north end of Bellhouse Lane, the canal will be crossed by a new access bridge (6.3.31). The canal

will start to turn towards the north-east and will follow a gently winding course until it reaches the

Norbriggs Cutting. Immediately to the east of Bellhouse Lane bridge, a winding hole will be constructed at

the location of the former Bellhouse Basin.

6.3.8 The first evidence of the Puddlebank (6.3.12) will start immediately to the east of Bellhouse Lane bridge,

where land levels have dropped due to mining subsidence. This will become more pronounced further

along this length until it reaches Doe Lea Aqueduct (6.3.24). Typically, the channel will retain soft banks

other than across the aqueduct itself and for an approach length either side, which will use engineered

banks.

6.3.9 To the north east of the aqueduct, the canal reaches the junction with the former Norbriggs cutting. A new

pedestrian and cycle bridge, Packsaddle Bridge, will connect the multi-user trail along the cutting with the

towpath (6.3.33).

6.3.10 The canal then turns to the north and follows a gently winding course all the way to Hague Lane. As the

route follows the original line, which has since suffered from mining subsidence, the canal will continue to

be on a low level embankment for the majority of this length. Other than at bridges, soft banks will be

used throughout, with opportunities taken for offside habitat creation through the form of reed shelves.

6.3.11 Throughout the scheme, the towpath will run along the left hand side of the water when viewed as if

travelling from Eckington Road towards Hague Lane. The towpath will be constructed of compacted stone

chippings with a hawthorn hedge separating it from the private farmland.

The Puddlebank

6.3.12 The Puddlebank is the dominating structure of this section. It is a large earth embankment that allows the

canal to cross the Doe Lea valley without having to descend to the valley floor. It was a pioneering

structure when first constructed and is believed to be the last part of the Chesterfield Canal to be

completed in 1777.

6.3.13 Significant elements of the original Puddlebank remain. However, the landscape in this area has suffered

drastically from mining subsidence, and in places the valley floor has dropped by over four metres. In

combination, the canal banks were bulldozed out in the 1970s, with the resulting material used to

compensate for subsidence in the surrounding farmland, and several channels were cut through for

drainage and a pipeline. Together, these mean that extensive earth works are necessary to raise the

height of the Puddlebank to its historic level, making this the largest earth-moving operation in the

restoration of this section of the canal.


of 35

Figure 6.1: Remains of the Puddlebank, viewed from within the Norbriggs Flash LNR

6.3.14 The Puddlebank will begin almost immediately after Bellhouse Lane. Whilst the dominating structure

extends to the junction with the Norbriggs Cutting, the remainder of the section will also be on an

embankment, albeit much smaller.

6.3.15 The raised Puddlebank will utilise imported clay material combined with the existing, subject to detailed

design considerations. Construction will be in accordance with modern requirements for earth-cored

embankments.

Crossing the Staveley-Seymour Railway

6.3.16 When the railway was originally constructed, a bridge was built to carry it over the canal. This was later

widened. After the canal fell into decline, Network Rail purchased the canal underneath the structure to

enable it to remove the steel girder bridges and infill the canal to form an earth embankment.

Figure 6.2: The old railway bridge, viewed looking west towards Eckington Road


of 35

6.3.17 The railway line is currently mothballed and the track removed. In 2017, a licence was obtained by

Derbyshire County Council to enable volunteers of the Chesterfield Canal Trust work party to excavate

and investigate the condition of the original bridge structure. It has been found to be in excellent

condition, only requiring some minor remedial repairs.

6.3.18 Given the condition, it is proposed to reuse the original structure. As with much of the ground in this area,

it is lower than previously due to mining subsidence. Additionally, it is likely that any reinstatement of the

railway would require a thicker bridge deck structure and ballasting arrangement than previously.

Together these have dictated the lowering of the water level through the structure.

6.3.19 A new engineered channel will be constructed between the walls of the original structure to ensure that

the lowered invert does not compromise the structural integrity of the existing abutments. This will also

allow for an increased towpath width to suit the requirements of the Trans-Pennine Trail and for the

installation of the siphon pipe.

6.3.20 There is no intention to reinstate a railway bridge deck as part of this scheme.

Railway Lock (No. 5b)

6.3.21 The new lock will be located immediately east of the railway bridge. A standard 22m x 2.3m chamber will

allow for a single full-length narrowboat to rise by 1.7m from the dropped pound at 54.1mAOD to the

historic pound level of 55.8mAOD.

6.3.22 The siting of the lock allows for the historic pound level to be regained prior to the crossing of a cluster of

utilities between the proposed Trans-Pennine Trail Bridge and Bellhouse Lane. Four of these utilities

would need to be diverted if the lock were located any further to the east.

6.3.23 The lock construction will be very similar in appearance to that of the recently completed Staveley Town

Lock (no. 5a), located approximately 450m to the west at Staveley Town Basin. A reinforced concrete

foundation and walls will be faced in red-brick and topped off with a stone coping. Lock gates will be

constructed in timber, with mitred double gates at the bottom end and a single gate at the top end.

Figure 6.3: Staveley Town Lock (no. 5a), at Staveley Basin. Railway Lock (no. 5b) will be similar in

construction and appearance


of 35

Doe Lea Aqueduct (No. 14a)

6.3.24 Originally, a pair of small brick-lined culverts were constructed to convey the River Doe Lea through the

Puddlebank. These were removed in the 1970s after the canal had fallen derelict, leaving the river in an

open channel.

6.3.25 Modern requirements for flood mitigation and ecological connectivity preclude reinstatement of the

original culverts. The canal will therefore cross the river on a new aqueduct. This will have a 37m clear

span across the existing opening, in order to maintain the current embankment profile. Retaining the

existing profile means that the flood profiles remain unchanged and the existing habitat connectivity either

side of the Puddlebank will not be affected by the scheme.

6.3.26 The new aqueduct will be constructed from concrete or steel subject to detailed design and contractor

involvement. It will bear onto piled foundations at either end and will have no intermediate piers. The

towpath will be integral to the aqueduct, and as such this will replace the existing steel footbridge across

the river at this location.

Bridges

6.3.27 There will be four new bridges over the canal along this section:

• Trans-Pennine Trail Bridge (No. 13c)

• Bellhouse Bridge (No. 14)

• Packsaddle Bridge (No. 15)

• Red Bridge (No. 16)

6.3.28 The scheme starts at Eckington Road Bridge (No. 13) which is existing. Additionally, the planning

drawings also show White Bridge (No. 17). The latter is outside of the planning boundary and will form

part of a future application to NEDDC, but is included on the scheme drawings for reference to aid

understanding of the future connectivity.

6.3.29 The Trans-Pennine Trail Bridge (No. 13c) will cross the canal just beyond the head of Railway Lock

(No. 5b). This will provide a route for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians between the Arkwright Trail to

the south and the Trans-Pennine Trail (TPT) to the north, replacing the existing circuitous system of

ramps and paths that crosses the canal line at approximate towpath level. Note that the existing

connection between the TPT and the canal towpath will be re-routed along the towpath through the

railway bridge and up to the side of the lock and thus will not cross the canal to the west of the railway.

6.3.30 This bridge will be a high-level bridge, approximately six metres above the canal. It will replace the

original Great Central Railway bridge that has been demolished, although it will be very different in style.

Instead, the structure will be similar in appearance to the existing canal bridges at Constitution Hill,

Staveley and Foundry Bridge, Renishaw, albeit it will have a longer span and minimal abutments.

Figure 6.4: The original GCR bridge, shown here in 1987 after the canal had been infilled. The

bridge has since been replaced by a system of ramps


of 35

6.3.31 Bellhouse Bridge (No. 14) will be located at the end of Bellhouse Lane. It will replace an original bridge

that has since been demolished. Its primary purpose is to facilitate landowner access to the farmland to

the north of the canal, but it will also provide pedestrian, cycle and maintenance vehicle access from

Bellhouse Lane onto the canal towpath and also to the TPT.

6.3.32 The bridge will be suitable for agricultural vehicles, requiring a wide bridge with a relatively flat deck. The

structure will be constructed from reinforced concrete with a brick facing, similar to the style previously

used for the reinstatement of Bilby Lane bridge.

Figure 6.5: Bilby Lane bridge, constructed in 2002 to remove the last obstacle to navigation

between Chesterfield and Staveley, will form the template for both Bellhouse Bridge

(no. 14) and Red Bridge (no. 16)

6.3.33 Packsaddle Bridge (No. 15) is located across the main line of the canal at the junction with the

Norbriggs Cutting. It replaces an original bridge that has since been demolished, and will be a pedestrian

and cycle bridge to connect the multi-user trail along the Norbriggs Cutting to the canal towpath. It will be

similar in style to Foundry Bridge, Renishaw, with a reinforced concrete structure faced in red-brick, and

ramped approaches.

Figure 6.6: The original Packsaddle Bridge, which has since been removed, will be replaced by a

raised bridge suitable for navigation


of 35

Figure 6.7: Renishaw Foundry Bridge, opened in 2009 on the isolated section of canal restored at

Renishaw. This will form the template for Packsaddle Bridge (no. 15), and a similar

deck style will be used for the longer span Trans-Pennine Trail Bridge (no. 13c).

Photo © Eckington Parish TV

6.3.34 Red Bridge (No. 16) will be sited on the existing farmer’s access track north of the Norbriggs Cutting. It

replaces an old bridge that has since been demolished. It will be very similar in style and construction to

Bellhouse Bridge. An access track will be included linking the towpath around the bridge, which will only

be utilised by maintenance vehicles that cannot access under the bridge. There will be no public access

to the farmland.

Water Control

6.3.35 Fundamental to the operation of the canal is the supply and management of water. The pound between

Railway Lock and Killamarsh will be a high spot on the canal which has no natural water supply.

Therefore, water will be supplied via a siphon pipe from Staveley Town Basin. A weir will be included at

Norbriggs.

6.3.36 The siphon pipe will allow the existing supplies to Staveley Town Basin to continue beyond Railway

Lock. A buried pipe will be installed from the head of Staveley Town Lock to the head of Railway Lock.

There is existing provision for this pipe in the structures of the Ireland Close bridge and the Eckington

Road bridge. Provision is made in the design for the installation of this pipe through the Staveley-

Seymour railway bridge (6.3.16). An outlet for periodic flushing of the siphon will be included alongside

the existing Hartington side weir, which will be the low point of the pipe.

6.3.37 Opposite the Norbriggs Cutting, there are the remains of an original weir. As with the entirety of the canal

in this area, it has suffered from mining subsidence and so a replacement weir will be constructed. This

will allow excess water to drain back to the Doe Lea. The towpath will be carried over the weir on a

concrete slab, similar to the arrangement at the existing Hartington side weir. Water will discharge onto a

concrete or brick lined spillway before discharging to an open channel along the foot of the Puddlebank.


of 35

Drainage

6.3.38 The central section of the Puddlebank is well established from the historical construction. However, due

to the mining subsidence referred to previously, it will be necessary to extend the embanked length of

canal to the North and to the South-West of the original embankment. This will interrupt the existing

surface water flows and introduce the potential for ponding or water-logged ground within the existing

arable farmlands.

6.3.39 Additionally, there is extensive land drainage already installed at Huggester Farm and it is essential that

the canal restoration does not prevent this from operating.

6.3.40 On the farmland to the South-West, where there have been no records or evidence of existing land

drainage discovered, a new ditch will be provided at the base of the embankment. A piped section will be

installed under the access ramp from Bellhouse Lane bridge. The ditch will discharge at two points. At the

western-most low point, a piped discharge will take water underneath the embankment and feed the flood

compensation area, which will be excavated deeper than required in order to retain some water in the

permanent state. At the eastern extents, the ditch will run out into the existing wetlands adjacent to the

river.

6.3.41 Where the existing land drainage is installed at Huggester Farm this will be protected and enhanced as

necessary. The existing drainage will typically be left in-situ underneath the embankment, but new

connections and collector drains will be installed upslope. Additionally, a new collector drain will be

installed at the base of the embankment on the downslope to ensure that run-off from the embankment

does not run directly across the farmland.

6.3.42 All new drainage will use existing discharge points.

6.4 Access

6.4.1 Waterways, and especially navigable ones where boats enliven the scene, are enduringly popular

features of both urban and rural England. It is crucial, therefore, that the proposals for restoring this

section of the Chesterfield Canal make full allowance for the public to gain access to enable them to

enjoy what will be an important asset to the area. The canal may be historic, and partial access to it

already available, but this scheme will be a step change and so this section of the statement will consider

access in its widest terms.

‘Inward Access’ from outside the area

6.4.2 The primary purpose of restoring any waterway is to make it accessible to boats. Whilst historically these

would have been solely working boats, in the modern age leisure craft will dominate.

6.4.3 Until the entirety of the restoration scheme is completed and the isolated length of canal between

Chesterfield and Renishaw is connected to the rest of the network, boat users are likely to be limited to

the Chesterfield Canal Trust trip boats and the occasional visiting trailable boat. The latter can access the

canal using slipways constructed at Staveley Town Basin and at Tapton Lock, and no further access

provision is required as part of this scheme.

6.4.4 Leisure boating access may increase in the medium-term, prior to the completion of the remainder of the

restoration scheme, if one or both of the proposed marinas at Staveley Town Basin and the Staveley

Works site (as part of the Chatsworth Settlement Trust proposals) are developed. This is particularly likely

if one or both of the proposed marinas include the option for residential moorings. Such boats would be

lifted into the canal by crane, for which there is dedicated provision already made at Staveley Town Basin

and so no further access provision is required as part of this scheme.

6.4.5 Visiting boaters generally need little in the way of facilities, with the main requirements being for the

provision of drinking water and the disposal of domestic waste and sewage. Dedicated facilities are

already provided below Tapton Lock, and additional facilities will be provided in due course at Staveley

Town Basin. There is no need, nor is it appropriate for the setting, to consider additional facilities within

the scheme proposed here.


of 35

6.4.6 Dedicated visitor moorings will be available at Bellhouse Lane for short-term visitors. These will have

bollards and/or rings to enable boaters to tie up. Bollards will additionally be provided at lock mooring

points, to enable boaters to tie up temporarily whilst setting the lock. There is typically little restriction on

mooring locations on a canal, but elsewhere boaters will use their own metal spikes driven into the bank

in order to secure their ropes.

6.4.7 Typical canal narrowboats, and indeed many trailable boats, are longer than the standard width of the

canal. It is therefore necessary to ensure that there are suitable points for them to turn (known as

‘winding’). Winding holes are proposed at the site of the former Bellhouse Basin, at the junction with the

Norbriggs Cutting and at the northern end of the scheme. No winding holes are provided at the western

end of the scheme as it will be connected to the navigable canal already restored which includes suitable

provisions, including the widening known as Hartington Harbour immediately west of the proposed

scheme.

6.4.8 The re-opening of a restored canal will bring boaters into areas that many of them would not otherwise

have visited. Additionally, there is always an initial surge in boating upon opening as boaters take the

opportunity to explore a new length of the navigable network. In both cases, the surrounding area profits

from the money spent by boaters in local shops, pubs and restaurants. The canal therefore makes the

surrounding area more accessible to the wider public and ultimately more prosperous.

Access for the general public

6.4.9 Towpaths on English waterways are typically a shared space, with walkers and boaters often sharing the

path with cyclists, anglers and, in some instances, horses. The latter may be ridden or used to tow boats,

which, whilst relatively rare today, was the original purpose of a towpath.

6.4.10 The towpath from Bellhouse Lane to Hague Lane will primarily be used by walkers, as the Trans-Pennine

Trail provides an alternative and preferable route for cyclists and mounted horses. However, some cycling

use is to be expected from users joining the towpath at Packsaddle Bridge (from the existing multi-user

trail along the Norbriggs Cutting). A 3m wide towpath is therefore proposed for the cycle route proceeding

north from Packsaddle Bridge (since this is expected to dominate), with a slightly narrower 2.5m wide

towpath across the Puddlebank in order to minimise the earth-moving required.

6.4.11 The canal towpath is dedicated as the Cuckoo Way for the entirety of the 46 miles of the Chesterfield

Canal. For the majority of this scheme, the footpath is a public right of way, dedicated as Staveley

Footpath No. 71.

6.4.12 Throughout this length of canal, the towpath will be on the left of the canal when travelling from Eckington

Road towards Renishaw. This maintains the historic relationship with the canal but does mean that the

towpath is on the far side of the canal from the primary adjacent housing areas at Lowgates and Mastin

Moor. The water therefore forms a barrier to ready access from these communities, and so dedicated

access points will be provided. This has the benefit of controlling access and not encouraging deviation

from the existing footpaths, which is especially beneficial in the Norbriggs Flashes local nature reserve.

6.4.13 In total, there are six access nodes into the scheme:

• Canal west of Eckington Road

• Franklyn Drive

• Trans-Pennine Trail & Arkwright Trail

• Bellhouse Lane

• Packsaddle Bridge

• White Bridge

6.4.14 For more detail of all of the modifications proposed to the existing public rights of way and undedicated

routes discussed below, refer also to the scheme drawings referenced in the introduction to this Planning

Statement.

6.4.15 From the restored canal west of Eckington Road, access will continue along the towpath directly from

the previously restored canal. This is the existing Staveley FP1 and part of the Trans-Pennine Trail (TPT),

also for use by horses and cyclists.


of 35

6.4.16 From Franklyn Drive, there is an existing undedicated path connecting the canal corridor with the

junction between Franklyn Drive and Eckington Road. This will be partially realigned during the scheme

and connect into the canal towpath and the TPT. It will be suitable for pedestrians, horses and cyclists.

6.4.17 The existing access arrangements from the Trans-Pennine Trail (TPT) and the Arkwright Trail will be

the most altered as part of the scheme. At present, the length of the canal towpath designated as part of

the TPT connects to the Arkwright Trail via Staveley FP50 & Staveley FP49. Together they connect to the

northbound TPT via Staveley BW48. As part of the scheme, Staveley FP50 will be diverted through the

railway crossing to connect with Staveley FP71 (the canal towpath heading east). The existing

connections from Staveley FP71 to the northbound TPT will be reprofiled, and a new access bridge will

be constructed to connect the Arkwright Trail to the northbound TPT. Therefore, access and will be

maintained for all routes and the connections from the Arkwright Trail and the canal towpath to the

northbound TPT will be simplified. All of these connections will be suitable for pedestrians, horses and

cyclists.

6.4.18 At the northern end of Bellhouse Lane, access will be available to pedestrians and cyclists over

Bellhouse Bridge, connecting into the canal towpath. This will also maintain the existing connectivity

between Bellhouse Lane and the TPT.

6.4.19 At the junction with the Norbriggs Cutting, Packsaddle Bridge will be constructed. This will allow

pedestrians and cyclists to cross over the canal and connect to the towpath from Staveley FP22. The

latter is the multi-user trail along the Norbriggs Cutting, and other footpaths within the nature reserve and

surrounding farmland connect into this prior to its junction with the main line of the Chesterfield Canal.

6.4.20 White Bridge is located immediately to the north of the scheme. The bridge itself is within the NEDDC

LPA and is not included in this scheme. At present, the access track from Hague Lane to the sewage

treatment plant is designated as Eckington FP153 and the canal towpath continuing north is designated

as Eckington FP162. Access to both will be available from the end of the restored canal path and will be

maintained when White Bridge is constructed as part of any future scheme.

6.4.21 Throughout, there will be no steps along any of the routes and gradients will be restricted to a maximum

of 1 in 20 to allow for wheelchair access. The paths will typically be constructed from compacted stone

similar to the towpath on the existing restored lengths of canal.

Maintenance Access

6.4.22 The restored canal will require access for routine maintenance, typically including grass cutting and

vegetation clearance, bin emptying, management of water control and statutory inspections. Additionally,

lock gates typically need replacing every 25-40 years.

6.4.23 Throughout the scheme, the towpath will be suitable for maintenance vehicles. The access points for

these will be gated and padlocked to ensure that no unauthorised vehicles can access the towpath.

Where bridges would not have sufficient vertical clearance for maintenance vehicles, alternative access

will be provided around them. This is shown on the scheme drawings at Packsaddle Bridge and Red

Bridge. At the latter, the access links to the farmland will be for maintenance vehicles only and there will

be no public access of any kind.

6.4.24 Bellhouse Lane is also currently used for maintenance access to the Trans-Pennine Trail. This route will

be preserved, but in order to minimise regular interaction between maintenance vehicles and users of the

footpaths, a separate access route will be provided between Bellhouse Lane and the TPT, which will be

for maintenance vehicles only. The area between this maintenance access route and the Bellhouse Lane

moorings will be retained for silt deposition in the course of routine dredging works along the canal.

6.4.25 Access to Railway Lock for the purposes of replacing lock gates will be available from Bellhouse Lane.


of 35

Construction Access

6.4.26 The primary construction access points will be from the south-western corner of the scheme, divided into

transport of clay along the railway, as noted in 6.2.17 above, and road access from Ireland Close (A6192

Northern Loop Road). From these access points, materials will be moved along the route of the canal.

6.4.27 If it is not possible to transport clay along the railway, e.g. due to refusal by Network Rail or technical

limitations, the clay would need to be transported by road. The road route would be to turn left out of the

Foxlow tip site, using the existing signal-controlled junction, then turn left at the roundabout between Hall

Lane and Ireland Close, before left turning into site. This would not route lorries through the town. It is

noted that part of the route (along Ireland Close) would be shared with the Hartington Reclamation route

and require coordination within a suitable Traffic Management Plan.

6.4.28 Additional road access may be obtained from the northern limit of the scheme off Hague Lane. This is an

existing access route used for lorries into the Sewage Treatment Plant so is suitable by inspection. It will

require coordination within a suitable Traffic Management Plan, and it is suggested that this should form a

planning condition that can be approved in coordination with the chosen contractor when appointed.

6.4.29 To allow construction works to take place east of the river without significant transport of material by road,

a temporary access bridge is proposed over the Doe Lea to the north of the aqueduct construction site.

This will be subject to the appropriate consent process with the Environment Agency alongside the permit

for the permanent works.

6.4.30 No construction access will occur along Bellhouse Lane other than that already approved under scheme

CHE/18/00602/FUL for the Chesterfield Canal Trust volunteer work party compound.

6.5 Conclusion

6.5.1 The re-building of the last section of the canal in Chesterfield borough represents an important step in the

restoration of the Chesterfield Canal to a fully navigable standard throughout its 46-mile length, ultimately

bringing added prosperity and health benefits to the area. The design will ensure that the original

character of this lost section of canal will be re-created, adding a high-quality landscape, leisure and

environmental asset to the Staveley area. The design will also ensure that the canal can be enjoyed by all

sectors of the community via easy access to and along the towpath.


of 35

7 SUMMARY OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

7.1 For full details, refer to the supporting documentation referenced in each section below. This summary is

provided for convenience only.

7.2 Ecology

Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA)

7.2.1 The Phase 1 survey was carried out in Summer 2018. This identified where appropriate mitigation works

could be determined directly and where further survey work would be required.

7.2.2 Additional survey work was recommended for a number of Protected Species as listed below. These

surveys have been completed or are in progress at the time of application.

• Great Crested Newts (eDNA sampling complete, population survey ongoing – refer to ‘Protected

Species Surveys – Great Crested Newts’ below)

• Otter (survey complete – refer to ‘Protected Species Surveys – Doe Lea’ below)

• Water Vole (survey complete – refer to ‘Protected Species Surveys – Doe Lea’ below)

• White-Clawed Crayfish (survey complete – refer to ‘Protected Species Surveys – Doe Lea’ below)

• Badger (survey complete – refer to both ‘Protected Species Surveys – Doe Lea’ and ‘Protected

Species Surveys – Puddlebank’ below)

• Reptiles (survey complete – refer to ‘Protected Species Surveys – Puddlebank’ below)

• Bats (survey ongoing – refer to ‘Protected Species Surveys – Puddlebank’ below)

Protected Species Surveys – Great Crested Newts

7.2.3 As recommended within the PEA, further survey work was carried out to identify whether Great Crested

Newts (GCN) are present within 500m of the scheme. Identified ponds are shown on the map in figure 7.1

below. The survey work was carried out in two stages, using environmental DNA (eDNA) testing followed

up with a full population survey in the event of a positive eDNA result.

7.2.4 The first phase of eDNA testing was carried out on all identified ponds in spring 2019, with the exception

of the single pond owned by the Coal Authority which denied access on health and safety grounds. They

did not possess any details for GCN activity in this pond and so it has not been possible to confirm the

presence or absence of GCN at this location. This pond is located over 200m from the canal, separated

by the TPT, access to the sewage works and active farmland. It is therefore considered unlikely that the

canal restoration scheme would have any impact on GCN activity at this pond, should there be any.

7.2.5 During separate surveys conducted on the Puddlebank in early 2020, additional standing water bodies

were identified in the farmed areas of the Norbriggs Flash LNR. Additional eDNA testing was carried out

on these in spring 2020.

7.2.6 One pond (referred to as ‘Pond 1’ on Figure 7.1 and in the detailed report), the main water body within the

Norbriggs Flash LNR, returned a positive eDNA test. A full population class assessment is therefore

being conducted on this pond in spring 2020. This survey is ongoing at the time of submission of the

planning application and the results will be updated when available.

7.2.7 A negative eDNA result was returned for all other ponds tested.

7.2.8 The results of the GCN surveys are included in two parts:

• Ponds labelled as ‘MEGZ Pond xx’ in figure 7.1 were tested as part of ongoing surveys being

carried out for the Markham Vale development, which includes the Staveley Basin site. These

results are included in the document titled ‘GCN eDNA (MEGZ Ponds)’

• All other survey results are included in the Protected Species Survey report for the Puddlebank

(see below)


of 35

Figure 7.1: Location of identified ponds (note Pond 3 is an isolated length of the canal at

Renishaw and does not relate to this scheme)

Protected Species Surveys – Doe Lea (White-Clawed Crayfish, Water Vole, Otter &

Badgers)

7.2.9 From the PEA, a first group of surveys were identified clustering on the river Doe Lea, including White-

Clawed Crayfish, Water Vole and Otters. As Badgers could be active on any part of the extended site,

they were also included in this phase.

7.2.10 A 450m stretch of the river was surveyed, centred on the site of the Doe Lea aqueduct. Surveys were

undertaken in July and October 2019.

7.2.11 There was no evidence of White-Clawed Crayfish or the non-native Signal Crayfish. On closer

inspection, a large majority of the river was found to be unsuitable for White-Clawed Crayfish. No further

survey work or mitigation was recommended.

7.2.12 There was evidence of historic Water Vole presence but no signs of recent occupation. As such, an

inspection prior to the start of site works has been recommended to confirm any recent occupation.

7.2.13 Evidence was identified to suggest Otters are active in the area, although there was no evidence that

they are resting in the vicinity of the works. Suitable construction mitigations to avoid a barrier to otter

movement and prevent them from entering the site are recommended.

7.2.14 Badger survey work was limited due to vegetation growth. Additional survey work was recommended,

and this is incorporated in the Puddlebank surveys below.

Future Extension

(NEDDC)

Current Application

Zone within 500m

of application

Pond 1

Pond 2

Pond 4

Restored

Chesterfield

Canal

MEGZ Pond VI MEGZ Pond V

Ponds within MEGZ

surveys found to be dry

Additional standing water

bodies identified in 2020


of 35

Protected Species Surveys – Puddlebank (Reptiles, Bats & Badgers)

7.2.15 The second group of surveys identified from the PEA followed the restoration route, including Reptiles,

Bats & Badgers.

7.2.16 Surveys for this element started in January 2020. Reptile and Badger surveys concluded in May 2020.

Bat surveys are due to conclude in Summer 2020 along with the population class assessment for GCN. A

draft report is included with this application and will be updated on conclusion of the final surveys.

7.2.17 Badger information is confidential and so is not discussed here. Mitigation methods are proposed.

7.2.18 There was no specific evidence of Reptiles found during the surveys, although the possibility of their

presence remains strong. A precautionary method statement is suggested for the construction, to include

how to proceed if reptiles are discovered.

7.2.19 Bat surveys were divided into two stages. A ground level tree assessment was carried out to determine

trees or other features with the potential to provide suitable bat roosts. From this, a total of seven trees

were identified, three of which had a potential greater than ‘low’ and were thus recommended for further

surveys. Activity surveys are currently ongoing on these three trees and the results will be included in the

updated report when completed.

Summary

7.2.20 In conclusion, the ecology reports have identified that the impact of the canal restoration on the local

biodiversity is very low, subject to the mitigation and compensation measures identified being

implemented.

7.2.21 The reports further highlight that the canal restoration is an excellent opportunity to increase the

biodiversity value of the area and provide a green corridor for local wildlife.

7.3 Flooding

7.3.1 This section of the canal crosses the Doe Lea valley. Therefore, it is critical to understand the importance

of the canal restoration works on the flood behaviour in the area. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment

(FRA, document reference CKJ-JBAU-XX-00-RP-HM-0001) assesses the impacts in full, with a brief

summary presented here for convenience.

Flooding effects arising due to the scheme

7.3.2 A large majority of the scheme is already sufficiently escarped or embanked to be classified as flood zone

1. Indeed, for much of its length, the canal forms the boundary between flood zones 1 and 2, as indicated

in figure 4-2 within the FRA report. However, where the Puddlebank crosses the Doe Lea, the footprint is

within flood zones 2 and 3. With reference to the CBC SFRA flood maps, the areas within flood zone 3

are classed as flood zone 3b (functional floodplain).

7.3.3 The proposed scheme is considered to be ‘water compatible’ under the NPPF and is thus deemed to be

acceptable in all flood zones.

7.3.4 Flooding behaviour of the Doe Lea upstream of the canal crossing is dominated by the existing profile of

the river channel and the Puddlebank where the historical culverts were removed in the 1970s. Under the

present scheme design, there is no intention to modify the existing profile below the modelled peak flood

levels. The existing opening will be crossed by a single span aqueduct.

7.3.5 As there is no change to the existing profile, there will be no change to the existing flooding behaviour

providing that the soffit of the aqueduct is higher than the modelled peak flood levels. The FRA report

confirms that there will be at least 5.7m clearance in this situation. There is therefore no change to the

existing flooding behaviour.

7.3.6 Raising of the Puddlebank will increase the footprint within the modelled flood events. A flood

compensatory scheme has therefore been designed and included within the FRA report, in order to

ensure that there is no loss of floodplain storage for all modelled events. Compensatory storage areas will

be located south (upstream) and north (downstream) of the Puddlebank, resulting in a net storage volume

gain in both instances. Note that the compensatory scheme presented is for planning purposes only and it

is proposed that the detailed design and approval of these is subject to a planning condition.


of 35

7.3.7 Raising of the Puddlebank will have introduce a barrier to surface water flows from the farmland up-slope

of the site. For details of the appropriate mitigation, refer back to the Design and Access Statement

(6.3.38)

7.3.8 The scheme will not significantly increase surface water runoff rates given that the landscaping will be

fundamentally similar to the existing scenario without significant areas of hardstanding.

Flooding effects acting on the site

7.3.9 The FRA report concludes that the site itself is considered to be at low risk of surface water flooding or

that resulting from sewers or groundwater, owing to the raised profile. Further, the scheme is considered

to be at low risk of flooding from reservoir breach or failure.

7.3.10 Water within the canal will be managed in accordance with standard operational practices for a canal and

the risk to users of flooding from the canal itself is negligible.

7.3.11 In all of the modelled flood events, the canal and the towpath are sited well above the flood level, and will

therefore remain operational and safe for users during such events. Dry access and egress from the site

is possible for all towpath users via the footpaths at White Bridge, Packsaddle Bridge and the multitude of

routes at Eckington Road.

7.4 Water Quality

7.4.1 When the canal is restored along the length of this scheme, operating it will require water. Canals lose

water through evaporation, seepage and operation of locks. Additionally, management of water levels

means it is necessary to discharge water over side weirs at periodic intervals along the canal.

7.4.2 Water for the operation of this section of canal will come from the existing restored length above Staveley

Town Lock, fed via the siphon pipe that will discharge at the head of Railway Lock. This water is supplied

primarily from the River Rother at Chesterfield, along with a smaller supply where Trough Brook

discharges fully into the canal at Hollingwood. No new water supplies will be developed as part of this

application.

7.4.3 Increasing the length of restored canal will have several impacts on the water regime:

• increase in evaporation and seepage losses, potentially requiring higher abstraction quantities at

the primary abstraction point on the river Rother

• altering the discharge patterns from side weirs, particularly reducing the quantities discharged to

the river Rother at Mill Green and Hartington, and introducing a new discharge to the river Doe

Lea at Norbriggs

• increase in losses due to lockage due to the addition of Railway Lock. Due to the operation of the

siphon pipe, only lockage water and minimal side weir losses should occur at Hartington

7.4.4 The changes to the water regime could have an impact on the water quantity and quality in the rivers

Rother and Doe Lea, thence affecting the Water Framework Directive (WFD) status of these water

bodies. An assessment of this impact has been carried out and is submitted in support of this application

(Chesterfield Canal Water Framework Directive Assessment, document reference CCTWFD19).

7.4.5 The WFD assessment used modelling work carried out in an earlier study of the impact on future

restoration of the canal through to Killamarsh on the abstraction from the river Rother. This study

concluded that the existing abstraction is sufficient for the purposes of supplying the current application.

7.4.6 The WFD assessment concludes that the potential impact on water quality is likely to be small. It notes

concerns with the potential impacts on the river Rother at low flows. However, it should be noted that,

given there is no requirement for any greater abstraction than that necessary to feed the currently

restored extents, this is no different to the existing situation. Additionally, the impact of the abstraction on

low flow conditions is being separately managed by the Environment Agency as part of the licensing

process for previously exempt abstractions.


of 35

7.5 Heritage

7.5.1 A Heritage Statement (document reference TJC2020.23) is included in support of this application, in order

to assess the impact of the scheme upon any designated and non-designated heritage assets.

7.5.2 The Heritage Statement concludes that the primary features of historical and archaeological interest are

those directly relating to the canal itself. The remains of structures cleared since the canal fell derelict are

identified as being of local significance, with the Puddlebank being of regional significance owing to its

pioneering engineering and a lack of detailed understanding as to the methods of its construction.

7.5.3 As restoration of the canal is proposed along the original route, the scheme will have a direct impact on

the archaeological resources along the route and will potentially lead to a partial loss or destruction of the

heritage significance. The report highlights that a balanced judgement must be made between the loss of

archaeological resource and the wider benefit to the historic environment associated with the restoration

of the canal.

7.5.4 In particular, the report recommends that archaeological evaluation and recording is carried out in

accordance with the NPPF and policy CS19 of the CBC Local Plan. Particular attention should be paid to

the Puddlebank owing to its enhanced significance and the irreversibility of any changes made during

restoration in order to satisfy modern engineering design standards.

7.5.5 The report does not consider any further archaeological evaluation is necessary prior to determination of

the planning application but recommends that the requirements identified above are secured by a suitable

planning condition.

7.6 Ground Conditions

7.6.1 An initial assessment of the ground conditions has been made via desktop study, in two stages.

7.6.2 A Phase I Geo-Environmental report was commissioned to look at the potential for land contamination.

This noted the potential for contamination where the canal has been backfilled, and particularly around

the former gas works on Bellhouse Lane. With regard to the former point, it should be noted that the

memories of those who were around when the canal was decommissioned across the Puddlebank note

that the primary means of doing so was to bulldoze the banks outwards (rather than infilling the channel),

as the resulting material was used to raise other local areas suffering from mining subsidence. Thus, for

the large part of the route, the actual amount of backfill material is very limited.

7.6.3 The site sits entirely within a Coal Mining Reporting Area, and significant lengths are within a

Development High Risk Area, indicating the potential for shallow mine workings that may present a risk to

surface developments. Given the history of the site and the known effects of mining subsidence to date,

this is not surprising. A desktop enhanced Coal Mining Risk Assessment has been carried out. This

concludes that there remains a risk of surface movement due to recorded and possible unrecorded mine

workings. It makes recommendations for intrusive ground investigations that will be incorporated into the

detailed geotechnical investigations to be undertaken prior to the detailed design.


of 35

8 CONCLUSIONS

8.1 In summary, this planning application seeks to restore 2.6km of the Chesterfield Canal between

Eckington Road & Hague Lane, constituting the remaining length of the Chesterfield Canal to be restored

within the boundaries of Chesterfield Borough.

8.2 Starting at Eckington Road, the scheme will briefly consist of:

• crossing the Staveley-Seymour railway line (site of bridge no. 13b)

• construction of Railway Lock (no. 5b)

• construction of the 2.6km of canal channel, including approximately 2.1km on a raised

embankment, with the formerly embanked central section known as the Puddlebank

• construction of 4no. overbridges: Arkwright Trail bridge (no. 13c), Bellhouse Bridge (no. 14),

Packsaddle Bridge (no. 15) and Red Bridge (no. 16)

• construction of a new aqueduct over the river Doe Lea

8.3 The design has carefully considered all of the constraints, in order to come up with a balanced solution

that is in the best interests of all parties now and into the future.

8.4 Restoration of the Chesterfield Canal is a key strategic objective for Chesterfield Borough Council and the

proposals are in accordance with all of the relevant planning policies. Alongside the strategic and policy

support, the restoration is very well supported politically and by the local population.

8.5 The restoration will have no impact on the flooding characteristics of the Doe Lea or on the water quality

of the Doe Lea or the Rother.

8.6 With appropriate mitigation, the scheme will have a very low impact on the local biodiversity and will

instead be an opportunity for increasing the biodiversity value of the area and enhancing green corridors.

8.7 Restoring this section of the canal will be a significant step forward towards complete restoration of the

Chesterfield Canal and the significant social, economic, health and environmental benefits that that will

bring. Even partially complete, the meanwhile benefits will be extensive.


of 35

APPENDIX 1: COPY OF PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES

Meeting Notes

Date & Time of Meeting 19/06/2019 9:00 – 10:30

Attendees

George Rogers (CCT Development Manager)

Paul Staniforth (CBC Development Management & Conservation Manager)

Aim of Meeting

Pre-application meeting regarding the planning application to CBC.

The planning application will consist of the remainder of the Chesterfield Canal restoration within Chesterfield Borough, from Eckington Road to Hague Lane. This will include the reconstruction of the Puddlebank, construction of 2no accommodation bridges, 2/3no pedestrian/cycle bridges, an aqueduct over the River Doe Lea and the crossing of the Mineral Line, a total distance of approximately 2.6km.

CCT is aiming for completion of restoration by 2027, and this section will be one of the key next elements to be delivered, subject to planning permission, land agreements and funding being resolved.

Meeting Notes

PS explained his knowledge of the canal project.

I then set out the proposed scheme for this application and the key issues associated with the design of the works:

- HS2 - Utility crossings, particularly the Yorkshire Water sewers - Earth moving quantities, particularly with regards to potential clay supply from Foxlow - Position of locks & levels with regards to the above

PS understood CCT’s position in needing to get planning submitted, and reminded us that HS2 would be a consultee as was already understood.

Following internal CCT discussions regarding the impact of wider developments in the Borough on the sewer network in this area, I raised this with PS. He wasn’t able to give any update on whether the sewers are going to be replaced. Additionally, he noted that being so close to the sewage works there may be limited options for lowering.

Earth moving quantities and proposed routes for bringing material to site was discussed. Bellhouse Lane would definitely not be appropriate and options should be explored as much as possible, with a preference to the Fitzwise option, followed by road access from Ireland Close and along the canal route. PS raised whether access at the other end would need to be considered (e.g. through the Ash Renishaw site or similar) but neither him nor I were conversant enough in this area to comment further.

Meeting Notes

In terms of required documentation, I went through the list I had prepared, and we commented as follows:

- Drawings – plans, sections, structural details etc would be required - Planning statement – this should also include outline construction methods and a background to the

design proposals, i.e. the options considered and why whichever is adopted, basically the process I went through in explaining the scheme to him. This should also include information regarding construction traffic (number of trips, routing etc)

- Heritage/archaeology assessment - Coal Mining Risk Assessment - Ground investigation – to understand the risk of contamination from any disturbed ground, even if

staying on site. - Ecology. PS advice is that we should seek an EIA screening opinion as otherwise it is open to

challenge, but he is confident it wouldn’t need to proceed to a full Environmental Statement. PS advises engaging with Environment Agency & Derbyshire Wildlife Trust now, in order that suitable enhancements can be included as part of the scheme.

- Flood Risk Assessment, although PS doesn’t think this need be onerous, and wouldn’t need to consider flood risk associated with the canal water. However, the impact of bringing water in via canal and any impacts on the river etc, which I think in essence is the Water Framework Directive assessment, should be considered. The best we can do here is get some advice from the Environment Agency (I might know more after a similar meeting for Cromford).

PS wasn’t particularly committal on the marina concepts as no proposals were available to look at and discuss. A marina at Bellhouse Lane should consider the impact on traffic / parking / services / amenities etc, so would need that to be well addressed in any application. He didn’t raise any particular concerns re greenbelt.

PS will confirm the Borough boundary at Hague Lane, he needs to check exactly where the line is.

With regards to the compound planning application, this is going before planning committee on Monday 1st July. It will be recommended for approval and Paul doesn’t see anyone on planning committee voting against it.

of 35

APPENDIX 2: COPY OF EIA SCREENING REQUEST DECISION NOTICE

(CHE/20/00213/EIA)

Planning Statement (incorporating Design & Access Statement)€¦ · Chesterfield Canal...

Documents

Transcript of Planning Statement (incorporating Design & Access Statement)€¦ · Chesterfield Canal...