Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document
Meeting of the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 15/09/2003
APPENDIX G - SURREY MINERALS REPLACEMENT LOCAL PLAN 2004-2016 - CONSULTATION ON ISSUES AND OPTIONS JULY 2003
Summary & Purpose
Surrey County Council has published a Consultation document on their Surrey Minerals Replacement Local Plan 2004-2016 and has invited the Borough Council to comment. The report sets out the issues and options and provides a response for the consideration of members.
Quality of Life Implications
Natural
Resource Use
Pollution
Prevention and Control
Biodiversity
and Nature
Local
Environment
Social
Inclusion
Safe, Healthy
and Active
Communities
Local
Economy
Positive
Positive
Negative
Negative
N/A
Negative
Positive
APPENDIX G
WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENT AND LEISURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
15TH SEPTEMBER 2003
_________________________________________________________________________
Title
:
SURREY MINERALS REPLACEMENT LOCAL PLAN 2004-2016
CONSULTATION ON ISSUES AND OPTIONS JULY 2003
[Wards Affected: Farnham Castle, Farnham Wrecclesham and Rowledge, Farnham
Weybourne and Badshot Lea, Cranleigh West, Bramley Busbridge and Hascombe,
and Witley and Hambledon]
_________________________________________________________________________
Summary and purpose
:
Surrey County Council has published a Consultation document on their Surrey Minerals Replacement Local Plan 2004-2016 and has invited the Borough Council to comment. The report sets out the issues and options and provides a response for the consideration of members.
_________________________________________________________________________
Quality of life implications
– social, environmental & economic (sustainable development):
Natural Resource Use
Pollution Prevention and Control
Biodiversity and Nature
Local Environment
Social Inclusion
Safe, Healthy and Active Communities
Local Economy
Positive
Positive
Negative
Negative
N/A
Negative
Positive
Minerals have to be worked where they occur and in Waverley this means sand from the Farnham area and clay from the Wealden area of the Borough. The Minerals Plan is very important for the environment of Waverley. The current Minerals Plan was adopted in 1993 and has been in need of review for several years. Therefore the proposed Replacement Plan is timely.
E-Government implications
:
There are no implications.
Resource and legal implications
:
There are no implications for Waverley.
_________________________________________________________________________
Background
1. The current Surrey Minerals Plan was adopted in 1993, and the County Council has now published a Consultation document on the issues and options for a Replacement Plan to last up to 2016. The document can be seen in the Members' Room.
2. The document sets out the Local Plan process to be followed regarding consultation and who is being consulted. The consultation period lasts from July to September 2003 and the Public Inquiry is scheduled for November 2004 to January 2005. Adoption of the Plan is timed for Spring 2006.
3. The document presents a series of topics and issues and poses 43 questions about the matters raised. These questions are summarised in italics in this report. A number of the questions are very general or refer to the large gravel areas of northwest Surrey. This committee report considers the questions on the broad issues and focuses on those aspects which have a bearing on mineral extraction in this Borough. Answers to the questions are put forward for consideration.
Consultation Issue 1: Minerals and sustainable development
4. This section states that sustainable development is about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for future generations. The main issue is that there is likely to be tensions between the environmental/natural resources and economic objectives and the Plan must resolve where the balance lies.
Q. Is the basic objective of the Minerals Local Plan to provide for the supply of minerals needed by the economy and society with the least harm to the environment and residential amenity?
A. If the Plan is to respect the concept of sustainability then this basic objective must be complied with.
Consultation Issue 2: The Need for Aggregates
5. The Government forecasts that for the period 2001- 2016, there will be a demand for all aggregates of 250 million tonnes per annum. This is 11% lower than the 1992-2006 forecast.
The South East figure for land won sand and gravel is 13.25 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) instead of the 1994 figure of 17.4 mtpa. The proposed apportionment for Surrey is 2.62mtpa, rather than 3.4mtpa. It would seem that the need for these minerals is decreasing to some extent, though this trend is not debated in the document.
The proportion of recycled aggregate has increased, and the Plan will aim at 64% land won sand and gravel and 36% recycled and secondary aggregates.
Q. Is this regional balance between land won primary and recycled secondary aggregates of about 2 to 1 appropriate for Surrey?
A. The more that recycled aggregates are used, the less resources will have to be extracted, though this would not apply to the soft sand from the Farnham pits for which there is no substitute, because of the nature of the material.
Q. Should the Plan extend to 2016 or should it be 2025 in order to have a seven year land bank secured at the Plan end date?
A. An advantage of the longer Plan period is that it allows better long term monitoring of the trends in reduction of mineral needs.
Consultation Issue 3: Location of Future Extraction
6. There is a “rundown” policy to reduce the cumulative effects of extraction in north west Surrey and the amount of extraction, but there is no rundown policy for soft sand from the greensand, including Seale/Runfold/Farnham. Rundown is likely to mean extraction in new areas, but the current Plan strategy is to give preference to extensions to existing workings, though this may prolong the impact on local residents.
Q. Should the Plan continue to favour extending sites or turn to new areas?
A. The new sources of soft sand in the Farnham area are likely to be in the vicinity of the existing areas of extraction, therefore extension of the existing pits would be the best strategy, although the impact on the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)would have a cumulative effect.
Q. Are there circumstances where you consider that mineral workings should be permitted in the AONB or a Special Protection Area (SPA)for bird life?
A. An extension of a pit in the AONB might be a consideration if need could be demonstrated, but a new site would be unacceptable as would a site in a SPA, because of the impact on a currently unaffected area.
Consultation Issue 4: Approach to Site Identification
7. Sites are identified by using “sieve” analysis, based on geological advice, which highlights a number of potential sites. Those with the least environmental and other constraints are then identified.
Q. Should sites be specified wherever possible or preferred areas of search be indicated for new locations?
A. Given that new extraction would not be acceptable, the sieve process should focus specifically on existing areas of extraction and not preferred areas of search.
Q. Should the Plan encourage production at a few large sites where possible or opt for a large number of small ones?
A. As continued extraction, if it takes place, is likely to be in the AGLV/AONB in the Farnham area, small new pits could be very intrusive because of the plant and traffic. There are a number of sand pits in the Farnham area that still have a life, so extension is not needed yet. In the longer term, if it is unavoidable, then extension of the established pits would be preferable.
Q. How should the balance be struck between safeguarding residential amenity and protecting environmental designations?
A. In a situation where extraction could take place close to housing, but thereby extend less into an AONB, it may be necessary to try and strike a balance between the two considerations. The question of buffer zones comes into play.
Consultation Issue 5: Recycled and Secondary Aggregates
8. Although recycling is a popular concept, aggregate recycling often attracts substantial local objection because of the lorry traffic, noise, dust and other concerns about local amenity. Most minerals sites are in the Green Belt, where importation of materials for processing is contrary to policy and establishment of a recycling plant may extend the life of the pit.
Q. Is it reasonable to identify suitable mineral sites as appropriate locations for aggregate recycling, even though most of them are in the Green Belt?
A. From the Waverley standpoint, if the recycling of aggregates would result in a lessening of the need for new material then identifying a site in the Borough might have a degree of acceptability in principle, but prolonging the life of the site may meet with objection from residents. Local considerations regarding traffic, noise, dust, visual impacts and other direct and indirect impacts will need to be carefully considered.
Consultation Issue 6: Restoration
9. Changes in waste policy will mean that some forms of landfill will no longer be permitted. More recycling may mean more low level or wet restorations or longer restoration times. The result could be more lakes which could change the character of certain areas. In Waverley, most of the pits have been restored to agriculture, though the Hanson site at Badshot Lea is to be restored to water. The next three questions are grouped together:-
Q. Should restoration be to land or water?
Q. Should the Plan encourage alternatives to agricultural restoration?
Q. Should the Plan specifically encourage restoration schemes that make a contribution to enhancing biodiversity by creating particular natural habitats?
A. The Plan should require applicants to carry out a landscape and biodiversity appraisal as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment that is likely to be required. Judgements about the best after use will depend on the surroundings of the site and on local circumstances.
Consultation Issue 7: Buffer Zones
10. A buffer zone puts distance between mineral workings and houses and other sensitive property. The existing Plan does not have a buffer zone policy.
Q. Should the new Plan have a buffer zone policy?
A. Yes it should to protect residents. Best practice by other minerals authorities should be considered.
Q. If a buffer zone policy is introduced, should it be based on a universal distance around all sites or should there be different distances for different sites?
A. Local circumstances such as landform, and woodland need to be taken into account, but a minimum distance might be appropriate. Criteria will be needed to make judgements on the appropriate distances for buffer zones.
Consultation Issue 8: Rail Aggregate Depots
11. In 1985, Hall Aggregates applied for a rail depot at the Alton Road sand pit at Wrecclesham, though it was withdrawn. The only rail depot currently operating in Surrey is in Woking.
Q. Should the Plan be looking for additional/ alternative depot sites and seek to safeguard them, and discourage depots in the Green Belt?
A. The traffic on Surrey’s roads is so heavy that the use of rail has to be more sustainable, but creation of a railhead in a location like Alton Road would itself have considerable residential amenity implications. The criteria for location of a depot would need to be set out in the Plan.
Consultation Issue 9: Transportation of Minerals by Road
12. Generally, aggregates are transported over relatively short distances. In the Waverley area the Blackwater Valley is an important market. Traffic problems increase when lorries use minor roads, but current development control policies reflect these concerns. Some traffic problems can be overcome if the minerals operator implements or funds road or access improvements. Lorry movements can be limited to reduce impact, but this often leads to prolonging the duration of working and delaying final restoration.
Q. Should lorry movements be limited to reduce short-term impact, even if the limitation prolongs the length of working?
A. It depends on the capacity of the road network. Runfold South is very close to the A31, so the network is able to carry the traffic. Traffic considerations will have to be judged, as they are now, on the basis of the local situation, and any strategic improvements.
Consultation Issue 10: Other Minerals
13. The other mineral most found in Waverley is clay. There is an operating tile works at Swallow Tiles and handmade bricks are made at Cranleigh Brick and Tile Works. Both sites have reserves of clay.
Q. Should the Plan support the principle of satellite sites for clay extraction in order to maintain the operation of existing brickworks?
A. If a reserve can be tapped without harm to the landscape and residential amenity and thereby keep an operation working, then this should be considered.
Q. Should the Plan allow permitted clay reserves to be sterilised by alternative development when their associated brickworks cease operation?
A. It may not be sustainable to sterilise resources that may be needed by future generations, but clay is in plentiful supply in Surrey, so it would depend on the need for the new use.
Conclusion
14. The questions in the consultation document allow the issues to be aired and are a good approach to producing a strategy. The Borough is a major supplier of soft sand and the issues are very significant for Waverley. The answers to the questions provided in the report will make clear the stance of the Borough Council.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the comments in this report, given in response to the questions in the document ”Surrey Minerals Replacement Local Plan 2004-2016 – Consultation on Issues and Options”, be conveyed to Surrey County Council.
________________________________________________________________________
Background Papers
(DoPD)
There are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report.
________________________________________________________________________
CONTACT OFFICER:
Name:
Geraldine Molony
Telephone:
01483 523296
E-mail:
gmolony@waverley.gov.uk
comms/executive/2003/2004/207 37352