Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 27/11/2006
Draft Surrey Minerals Plan



(REVISED) APPENDIX N

Waverley Borough Council

EXECUTIVE – 13TH jUNE 2006

Title:
DRAFT SURREY MINERALS PLAN
[Wards Affected: Farnham Weybourne and Badshot Lea
and Peperharow]
Summary and purpose:

The purpose of the report is to set out the proposals in the Draft Surrey Minerals Plan 2006 with special reference to how they affect Waverley.

Environmental implications:

The environmental considerations are very significant, because of the scale of the proposed extractions, and the likely impacts on the landscape.

Social / community implications:

The social impact of the proposals will be the detrimental effect on the lives of people living near the sites.

E-Government implications:

There are no e-Government implications arising from this report.

Resource and legal implications:

There are no resource or legal implications, apart from the need for Section 106 agreements for the development of the sites.
_________________________________________________________________________
Background

1. The existing Surrey Minerals Plan was adopted in 1993 by Surrey County Council. It had a ten year life span. In 2003, the process of reviewing the Plan was begun and an Issues and Options paper was published, using the new Local Development Framework approach to Plans. Waverley Borough Council was consulted and gave comments (explained below). The County Council took account of the comments received from the consultees and has now produced the Draft Preferred Options Plan. The consultation period is 28th April to 9th June 2006. A Waverley Forum was held for Members on 15th May 2006 and their comments are incorporated in this report.

The format of the Plan

2. Part A of the Plan deals with the Preferred Option, and Part B is the Minerals Core Strategy; the overall picture. Part C covers Development Control Policies, and Part D deals with the primary aggregates and the extraction sites. Part E covers the restoration of the sites.

The County Council Consultation Questions

3. The objectives of the Plan have been summarised in the consultation form and consultees are invited to comment. An officer response is given to each one.
The sites – the need for primary aggregates in Surrey

4. Having looked at the overall objectives, the next consideration is the need for primary aggregates. The justification of the County Council for extraction is based on the following equation:-

The South East’s minerals policy is set out in Regional Planning Guidance Note 9 (RPG9). It sets out the “apportionment” (allocation ) for Surrey. The proposed apportionment for primary aggregates in Surrey is 2.62 million tonnes per annum (mtpa). This makes a total of 34mt during the plan period 2004-2016. At the end of 2003 the total permitted aggregate reserve was 13.96mt. This is broken down as 6.3mt of concreting aggregate and 7.7mt of soft sand. This means that an additional 20.10mt of aggregate are needed. Surrey apportionment for 2004-2016 = 34.06mt
5. The County Council justifies its identification of sites for extraction on the basis of this requirement.

The Sites in Waverley

6. The next consideration is the sites. There are two sites in Waverley that are proposed for extraction and a site in Guildford Borough close to the Waverley boundary:

A new site at Monkton Lane, Farnham. Extension to Runfold South, Farnham. A further site at Eashing Farm, Eashing in Guildford Borough.

Monkton Lane, Farnham (see Annexe 1)

Extension to Runfold South Farnham (See Annexe 3)

Eashing Farm, Eashing (See Annexe 4)

The views of the Minerals Forum

7. A forum was held for Members on 15th May 2006, and they had a number of views on the Minerals Plan.

General issues

8. Regarding the issues raised by the Borough Council at the Issues and Options stage in 2003, the Forum was concerned that:

the principle of only extending sites and not creating new ones had not been adopted by the Minerals Plan; the concept of standard buffer zones had not been adopted; that the safeguarding of rail depots had not been included.

The sites

9. The Forum was of the view the Monkton Lane site and the Runfold South site should not be included in the Plan and agreed with the points made in the appraisal above.

10. There was concern about the Eashing site, though the reassurances given by the County Council about noise, visual effect and transport were accepted by most present.

Conclusion

11. The overall objectives of the Plan are to be supported, and the figures for the apportionment are accepted. However, a number of the comments by the Borough Council made on the Issues and Options Paper 2003 have not been taken into account, and the Borough wishes to see this rectified.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the County Council be advised that the Borough Council objects to the Minerals Plan for the reasons set out in the report, namely:-

1. no standard standoff boundaries have been included;

2. there is no safeguarding for rail depots;

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/exec/2006-07/040