Summary of Publication Representations and Responses from ...

WEST SUSSEX JOINT MINERALS LOCAL PLAN

Summary of Publication Representations and Responses

from West Sussex County Council and South Downs

National Park Authority

16 January 2017– 13 March 2017

2

WEST SUSSEX JOINT MINERALS LOCAL PLAN

1

Summary of representations received and Authorities’ responses There were 270 responses received from organisations or individuals. 212 responses were from local residents, members of the public, local businesses or landowners, whilst the remaining 58 responses were from organisations, including the minerals industry,

statutory stakeholders, district and borough councils, parish councils, neighbouring authorities, local community groups, as well as responses from district, town or city councillors, and from an MEP. 113 responses were submitted using the different representation

form formats which included 202 individual representations across different policies and sections of the Plan. An additional 157 responses were received via email/email letter attachments. The following table sets out a summary of the key points of each representation and the response of Authorities. Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/

Organisation Summary of representation WSCC/SDNPA Response

Chapter 1 – Introduction to Minerals Planning

Para

1.2.2

3779 148 Cemex The term ‘adequate and steady’ should be

used rather than ‘sufficient’ in paragraph

1.2.2 to reflect wording used in the NPPF.

There is no requirement to repeat the exact wording

of the NPPF in the Vision which sets out the Plan’s

‘direction of travel’ rather than policy to be

implemented when determining planning

applications. It is intended that the Plan will result in

‘sufficient’ supplies which is considered to reflect

NPPF expectations concerning mineral supply.

Introducti

on

3779 149 Cemex The Plan start date should be specified in

the introduction so the plan period is

clear.

The NPPF (and PPG) does not require the Authorities

to include a start date in the Plan. NPPF suggests

that the preferred timescale for Local Plans is 15

years. The Authorities Local Development Schemes

anticipate adoption of the Plan in 2018 and hence the

plan period is to 2033. However, the actual date of

adoption is uncertain as this depends on how well

preparation of the Plan proceeds and so for this

reason a specific Plan start date has not been

included.

Chapter 2 - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Vision 3787 003 Balcombe BPC congratulates WSCC on the Proposed Support noted.

2

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Parish Council Joint Minerals Plan, particularly desire to

produce minerals ‘in ways that conserve

and enhance the beautiful outdoors of

West Sussex, including the special

qualities of the South Downs National

Park and Areas of Outstanding Natural

Beauty, for the benefit of current and

future generations.'

Vision 3787 003 Balcombe

Parish Council

BPC urges WSCC to keep sight of the

proposal ‘to support growth in West

Sussex,' and not to permit any extraction

that might be counter-productive to that

growth, particularly anything that might

hinder the development of farming,

forestry and rural tourism, all of which

are supremely important to this part of

Sussex as stated in 4.2.6.

Any proposals for mineral extraction will take into

account other potential impacts on development. The

Plan includes policies to ensure such matters are

addressed. For example paragraph 8.2.4 states:

“When planning and considering development it is

important that attention is paid to the West Sussex

and South Downs landscape character areas and the

Historic Landscape Character Assessment.” and

paragraph 8.7.3 states: “As minerals developments

can lead to significant impacts on local communities

(including residents, visitors and local businesses) if

they are not adequately controlled, it is important

that robust policy protection [as provided by policy

M18] for local amenity is in place.”

Vision 3787 003 Balcombe

Parish Council

BPC approves of the wish ‘to minimise

lorry movements and the use of local

roads for minerals’ (2.3.12), and of

ensuring that ‘minerals have been

produced in a manner that protects

…………. the historic and natural

environment, and contributes to a low

carbon economy’ (2.2 Vision).

Support noted.

Vision 4265 030 Keith Taylor

MEP for South

In order to be consistent with the NPPF,

the Vision paragraph 2 should refer to

Use of the term ‘growth’ is appropriate in the context

in which it is used i.e. paragraph within the Vision

3

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


East England “sustainable development” rather than

“growth”.

concerned with economic growth. The Vision when

taken as a whole considers all the facets of

sustainable development - social, economic and

environmental.

Vision 4265 030 Keith Taylor

MEP for South

East England

Paragraph 3 should be changed to:

"Will be a place which seeks to meet its

own needs for minerals and encourage

the sustainable use of natural resources,

whilst aspiring to source sourcing more

and more minerals from alternatives to

primary extraction, and from areas

outside the South Downs National Park

and Areas of Outstanding Natural

Beauty."

The term “aspiring to source” has been specifically

included to recognise that the use of fewer primary

minerals is a ‘direction of travel’ and recognises that

the majority of minerals are derived from primary

sources and it is unrealistic to suggest that this will

radically change over the period of the Plan.

Vision 3997 063 Resident/other The production and extraction of

minerals, for example at Ham Farm, will

in fact detract from visiting the SDNP

because the views from the Downs into

the Weald will be marred by the

workings.

The comment raised is addressed in the sections

which summarises representations on Policy M11

concerning the proposed allocation of Ham Farm

Vision 3763 066 High Weald

AONB Unit

In support of;

● the inclusion of reference to the

need to conserve and enhance the

special qualities of Areas of

Outstanding Natural Beauty in the

first paragraph.

● the third paragraph's commitment

to source more materials from

sites outside the National Park and

Areas of Outstanding Natural

Beauty.

Support noted.

4

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Vision 3077 123 Historic

England (HE)

It would beneficial to include an expanded

reference to the protection of the historic

environment within Section 2.2 Vision of

the Plan

(p 15) to reinforce this recognition of the

importance of the historic environment in

the

county.

The additional text proposed adds further detail but

does not anything new to the Vision. The Vision is a

high level statement and not intended to be a

detailed breakdown of all the anticipated outcomes of

the Plan.

Vision 3427 145 Sussex Wildlife

Trust

Vision and Strategic Objectives show little

consideration of the SDNPA’s approach to

the production of their Local Plan which

takes an ecosystem services approach to

strategic planning. Disappointing that the

JMLP fails to acknowledge the importance

of ecosystem services and net gains to

nature as per NPPF paragraphs 9, 109

and 117.

The additional text proposed adds further detail but

does not add anything new to the Vision. The Vision

is a high level statement and not intended to be a

detailed breakdown of all the anticipated outcomes of

the Plan.

The potential impacts or benefits for ecosystem

services have been considered through the

Sustainability Appraisal and are therefore embedded

in the JMLP.

Vision 3427 145 Sussex Wildlife

Trust

Vision should include reference to ‘net

gains’ to nature’s capital over the lifetime

of the JMLP (NPPF Para. 9, 109 and 117).

Changes proposed to text to make

reference to ‘net gains to natural capital’.

Paragraph 6 to be amended to include reference to

‘net gains’ to biodiversity as follows:

“Will ensure minerals have been produced in a

manner that protects and enhances the historic and

natural environment, delivers gains to natural

capital, and contributes to a low carbon, circular

economy”.

Para

2.3.1

4111 152 Friends of the

Earth

Recommend insertion of the following

text in paragraph 2.3.1

Agree that paragraph should be inserted to explain

the purpose of the Strategic Objectives. It is

5

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


“Strategic objectives are key principles

which the minerals authority should aim

to meet over the plan period. Subsequent

development management policies must

ensure they achieve the strategic

objectives highlighted below... “

proposed that the following new paragraph be

included in the introductory section:

2.2.2 The Strategic Objectives are those

matters which need to be achieved over the

Plan period if the Vision is to be realised.

Implementation of the policies of this Plan will

contribute to the achievement of these

objectives.

Strategic

Objective

s

3125

3779

068

151

Mineral

Products

Association

Cemex

There is no strategic objective to ensure a

steady and adequate supply of

aggregates, in particular soft sand.

Strategic Objective 1 does not reflect

need for plan to make a steady and

adequate supply of mineral throughout

the plan period. This is linked to the fact

that the Plan does not provide for a

steady and adequate supply of soft sand

sites and does not maintain a minimum 7

year landbank throughout the plan period

Not adequately demonstrated that it is

sustainable to source mineral from

beyond the County when winnable

reserves exist in the SDNP.

There is no clear evidence or strategy as

to how this shortfall will be made up.

Strategic Objective 1 states the following intention:

“To promote the prudent and efficient supply and use

of minerals, having regard to the market demand

and constraints on supply in the Plan area.”

This includes aggregates and soft sand.

Strategic Objective 1 is consistent with the NPPF.

The promotion of “prudent and efficient production

and use of minerals” is consistent with para 142 that

states (with emphasis added) “since minerals are a

finite natural resource, and can only be worked

where they are found, it is important to make best

use of them to secure their long-term conservation”.

The second part of the objective that states the

intention to have “regard to the market demand and

constraints on supply in the Plan area” is a

straightforward acknowledgement of the

practicalities concerning minerals supply and reflects

the NPPF requirement that Local Plans be realistic

and deliverable.

It is important to note that the soft sand shortfall

6

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


stated in the Plan is a theoretical estimate based on

a number of key assumptions, as set out in the Local

Aggregate Assessment (Jan 2017). These are that:

1. Levels of future demand can be based on an

average of sales over the past 10 years

2. Future demand will be between 10 and 15%

greater than the average of past sales due to

planned increases in the construction of housing in

West Sussex and neighbouring areas

When considering the stated shortfall it is important

to consider the validity of these assumptions – see

below:

- Assumption 1: Levels of future demand can be

based on an average of sales over the past 10 years

While the future demand for soft sand is based on an

average past 10 years sales, it should be noted that

the pattern of sales over the past 10 years has been

one of significant decline - from 573,000 in 2006 to

244,594 tonnes in 2015. So, while the average of

past 10 years sales is 339, 186 the average of the

past three years sales is 25% less at 253, 288

tonnes.

- Assumption 2: Future demand will be between 10

and 15% greater than the average of past sales due

to planned increases in the construction of housing in

7

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/



This is based on a projection that housing will grow

by 14% in West Sussex and up to 91% of sand and

gravel may be used in homes. It was considered

prudent to factor in some increase to account for this

despite the fact that historic data does not actually

show a correlation between housebuilding and land

won sand and gravel sales. This additional increase

has been included for the sake of flexibility but it

could be argued that including such a factor

overestimates the requirement.

It is worth noting that were the future demand for

soft sand to be based on the average past 3 year

sales, then the soft sand landbank would currently

be 12.1 years. If the allocation at Ham Farm

(725,000 tonnes) is factored in then the soft sand

landbank would increase to approximately 15 years

which is equivalent to the life of the Plan.

In any event, contrary to the suggestion in the

representation the Plan sets out an overall

theoretical shortfall and includes a strategy for

supplying soft sand (which includes meeting this

theoretical shortfall) that is clearly set out in

paragraph 6.2.16 as follows:

- to rely on existing reserves, and suitable windfall

sites being granted planning permission including

sand extracted prior to non- minerals development,

8

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


- allocation of a site (Ham Farm)

- imports from other areas

This strategy is supported by evidence provided in

the Local Aggregates Assessment (on existing sites

and the location of the resource), the Mineral Site

Selection Report (on Ham Farm and imports from

other areas) and Proposed Submission JMLP

Background Document (imports from other areas –

see paras 3.37 and 3.38). Furthermore, it should be

noted that the text of the Statement of Common

Ground on Soft Sand Supply between MPAs within

the South East of England has been agreed and this

has been made available within the evidence base

submitted with the Plan. The latest SEEAWP South

East Aggregates Monitoring Report 2014 & 2015 also

shows that soft sand supplies are sufficient to meet

demand across the South East of England by

confirming the existence of a nearly 14 year

landbank (Paragraph 4.6).

The strategy for soft sand supply has been subject to

Sustainability Appraisal which recommended that a

hierarchical approach should be taken, by clearly

prioritising supply from existing permitted reserves

first and not allocating extensions or additional sites

in the SDNP, then identifying additional

allocations/areas of search beyond the SDNP, and

finally allowing imports from outside the County if

required. This approach has essentially been included

in Policy M2 although it is beyond the scope of the

Plan to place specific restrictions on imports of

mineral.

9

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Strategic

Objective

2

3779 151 Cemex Wording of Strategic Objective 2 is

beyond the scope of the Plan. Key for

MPA to plan for secondary and recycled

aggregates is to establish the quantity

required, what is supplied via existing

sites and what additional sites need to be

allocated during the plan period.

Strategic Objective 2 is not beyond the scope of the

Plan. NPPF (para 143 2nd indent) expects LPAs to

take account of secondary and recycled aggregates.

This objective is important in ensuring that primary

minerals are conserved.

Strategic

Objective

3

3779

3125

151

068

Cemex

Mineral

Products

Association

Strategic Objective 3 is not realistic given

the amount of soft sand required and the

location of the resource within the Plan

Area - supporting evidence indicates that

there are limited resources of soft sand in

West Sussex that is beyond the SDNP.

Insufficient evidence has been provided

to show that it is possible to meet soft

sand needs of West Sussex from outside

the SDNP for the Plan period. The Plan

makes no explicit provision of soft sand

within the Plan Period. This is inconsistent

with NPPF policy on National Parks (para

116) and minerals supply (para 145).

The proposal for only making provision

for a ‘declining amount’ of soft sand from

within the SDNP is not justified and pre-

judges whether exceptional

circumstances and the public interest can

be demonstrated.

Recommend including a Strategic

Objective to ensure a steady and

adequate supply of soft sand.

As stated above the approach taken to estimating of

the required amount of soft sand has been a

conservative one to ensure flexibility however it is

quite possible that the actual future demand could in

fact be less than that estimated.

Proposed Submission JMLP Background Document

includes information concerning imports from other

areas – see paras 3.37 and 3.38. The latest SEEAWP

South East Aggregates Monitoring Report 2014 &

2015 also shows that soft sand supplies are sufficient

to meet demand across the South East of England by


landbank (Paragraph 4.6). Furthermore it should be



the South East has been agreed and this has been

made available within the evidence base submitted

with the Plan. This acknowledges the particular

issues within the south east concerning the supply of

soft sand from within National Parks and Areas of

Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Some marine sands have mechanical, chemical and

physical properties, identical to high quality land-

10

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


based sands and so can be used to replace soft sand

in certain applications including building mortar.

Marine won sand with properties akin to land-won

soft sand is currently sourced from the Bristol

Channel as there are extensive deposits of mobile

sand across the upper Severn Estuary. Research[1]

carried out by the Crown Estate shows the extent of

the potential sand and gravel resource in the English

Channel and Thames Estuary. The report shows that

there are likely to be areas of fine sand within the

area, but that the ‘economic potential of individual

sites can only be proved by a detailed evaluation

programme’.

According to the British Marine Aggregate Producers

Association, marine deposits off the coast of the

Netherlands are dominated by fine to medium sand.

The UK exports some coarse sand and gravel to the

Netherlands and it is possible that this fine to

medium sand could be imported into the UK.

[1] The Mineral Resources of the English Channel

and Thames Estuary (BGS) (2013)

On the other hand no evidence has been provided to

suggest that it is not possible to meet soft sand

needs of West Sussex from outside the SDNP for the

Plan period.

On this basis it is considered that exceptional

circumstances test for major development in the

National Park has not been met as there is scope

meeting demand for soft sand from sources outside

11

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


the designated area.

Through its safeguarding of existing sites, allocation

of a suitable location for soft sand extraction, and

inclusion of a criteria based policy against which

windfall sites could be assessed, the Plan clearly

does explicitly provide for the supply of soft sand

within the Plan Period.

The objective is consistent with Plan approach of

protecting the SDNP and the fact that ‘exceptional

circumstances’ must exist before development can

come forward. The NPPF states at paragraph 115

that great weight should be given to conserving the

landscape and scenic beauty of national parks.

Extraction of sand from the SDNP is not consistent

with this expectation so it is desirable and justifiable

to reduce the level and impact of extraction if

possible. This approach still leaves it open for

proposals to come forward which demonstrate the

existence of exceptional circumstances consistent

with paragraph 116 of the NPPF.

Strategic

Objective

s 3 and 4

3704 036 Steyning

Quarry Action

Group

Excavation of the Ham Farm site would

have an unacceptable and cumulative

impact on the landscape.

Response provided to this point in the section which

summarises representations on Policy M11 (Ham

Farm).

Strategic

Objective

4

3779

151 Cemex Strategic Objective 4 conflicts with policy

M2 clause b that recognises that, in

exceptional circumstances, soft sand sites

can be developed within the SDNP. It also

A modification is proposed to Strategic Objective 4

as follows:

To Protect the South Downs National Park by only

12

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


conflicts with policy M11. providing for silica sand from within it in exceptional

circumstances and when in the public interest.

This avoids any confusion as the exceptional

circumstances and public interest tests apply to all

major development within National Parks and

therefore also applies to soft (and sharp) sand.

Strategic

Objective

4

4273

4294

043

086

The Common

Parish of

Sutton &

Barlavington

Fittleworth

Parish Council

SO unsound;

● What defines ‘exceptional

circumstances’

● Which public is being referred as

the ‘public interest’; the local

community, the SDNP, or the UK

public

The Planning Authority is responsible for deciding

mineral planning applications and will be responsible

for assessing the public interest in such cases. The

‘public interest’ test is taken from national policy for

the Plan to be ‘sound’ it must be consistent with

national policy. Strategic objective 4 relates to

Paragraph 116 of the NPPF which sets out:

Planning permission should be refused for major

developments in these designated areas except in

exceptional circumstances and where it can be

demonstrated they are in the public interest.

Consideration of such applications should include an

assessment of:

· the need for the development, including in

terms of any national

considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or

refusing it, upon the local economy;

· the cost of, and scope for, developing

elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting

the need for it in some other way; and

· any detrimental effect on the environment, the

landscape and recreational opportunities, and the

extent to which that could be moderated.

13

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets

out (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 8-005-20140306)

that:

Whether a proposed development in these

designated areas should be treated as a major

development, to which the policy in paragraph 116 of

the Framework applies, will be a matter for the

relevant decision taker, taking into account the

proposal in question and the local context. The

Framework is clear that great weight should be given

to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in these

designated areas irrespective of whether the policy in

paragraph 116 is applicable.

The determination of whether a proposal is “major

development” is a matter of planning judgment that

in line with NPPF Paragraph 116 takes into account

the specific and local context.

Strategic

Objective

6

3704 036 Steyning

Quarry Action

Group

Excavation of the Ham Farm site would

result in loss of the highest quality

agricultural land. The amount of sand that

can be extracted from the site is

disputed.

Responses provided to these points in the section


(Ham Farm).

Strategic

Objective

7

3779

151 Cemex Strategic Objective 7 – Do not oppose but

deliverability of the objective is

questioned when the Plan’s Vision and

Objectives are to supply materials into

the area by it travelling greater HGV

miles and increasing air pollution from

HGVs.

The Plan’s Vision and Objectives are not to increase

HGV movements. SO5 seeks to protect wharves and

railheads to allow transport of minerals by rail and

water. SO11 seeks to maximise use of rail and water

transport and minimise lorry movements.

Strategic 3794 024 Steyning & SO unsound; The text associated with this objective has been

14

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Objective

7

3704

4306

4277

036

013

050

District

Community

Partnership

Steyning

Quarry Action

Group

Resident/other

Resident/other

Highway & Air Quality:

● A very busy and congested road

● The highway will need major

improvement

● Lead to a detraction in air quality

● Figures for lorry movements in

original report are incorrect

Landscape & Visual:

● Views will be affected – the

surrounding locations are

considered to be of the highest

sensitivity

● Photographs taken when trees

were in leaf, the screening will not

exist in the winter months

● We challenge the overall ratings

on the Landscape Value and

Characteristics and Visual

Sensitivity

● Within the immediate area of the

site are Alderwood Pond, Wiston

House with Wiston Park and the

Cow Shed Studio, all are visitor

attractions. Alderwood Pond has

45 fishing points including 4 for

disabled use - the setting of all

these popular attractions will be

adversely affected.

● The proposed development of the

quarry will adversely impact the

approach from the west.

amended to clarify that the intention of the objective

is not only to minimise impacts on health and

amenity but also to avoid them.

15

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Public Rights of Way:

● The existing footpath adjacent to

the site will become very

unattractive.

Aural Amenity:

● Long term increase in noise

disturbance from increased traffic

Odour:

● A landfill site is proposed following

mineral extraction, which will

result in landfill gas emissions

Damage to the local economy

● Adverse impact on tourism

Enjoyment of the SDNP

Strategic

Objective

7

4038 059 Resident/other SO unsound;

● Ham Farm RAG Assessment

(Mineral Sites Selection Report

April 2016) identified that a

number of residential properties

are in close proximity to the site –

these residents may be subject to

high levels of harm from noise,

dust and light associated with

mineral extraction from the site.

● The proximity is such that no

mitigation would be able to

address this. I therefore believe

this is contrary to the Human

Rights Act 1998, Article 1 of the

First Protocol: Protection of

The text associated with this objective has been

amended to clarify that the intention of the objective

is not only to minimise impacts on health and

amenity but also to avoid them.

16

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Property

Strategic

Objective

8

M13

4264

4038

029

059

Resident/other

Resident/other

SO unsound;

● The proposal will not protect and

conserve the local landscape

● Ham Farm site is immediately

adjacent to the SDNP and will be

clearly visible from the SDNP

● The site is within an area under

covenant - the covenant belonging

to Wappinghorn Manor would

present legal challenges to this

site and could prevent the delivery

of the site.

Responses provided to these points in the section


(Ham Farm).

Strategic

Objective

8

8.3

4294 086 Fittleworth

Parish Council

SO 8 referred to, SO9 should also be

referred to as the relevant SO

Assume this relates to paragraph 8.2.1. Agree that

Strategic Objective 9 is also relevant to this policy.

Propose modification to paragraph 8.2.1:

The relevant strategic objectives are is 8: To

conserve and enhance the landscape and townscape

character of West Sussex and the special qualities

and local distinctiveness of the South Downs National

Park, High Weald AONB and Chichester Harbour

AONB and their settings.

9: To protect and, where possible, enhance the

natural and historic environment and resources

of West Sussex.

17

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Strategic

Objective

9

3704 036 Steyning

Quarry Action

Group

SO unsound (& contrary to Policies M14 &

M17);

Adverse impact on:

● Listed Buildings

● Ecology including toads & bats

● Ancient Woodland

● Potential archaeological remains

The Objectives are intended to be realistic and are

phrased with this in mind. All forms of biodiversity

are mentioned and when referring to specific areas

the term ‘in particular’ has been used so as to avoid

the suggestion that other sites are excluded.

Strategic

Objective

9

3427 145 Sussex Wildlife

Trust (SWT)

Net gains to natural capital is supported

by both national strategies and the NPPF,

therefore we recommend that SO9 is

amended to:

‘To protect and enhance the natural

and historic environment of West

Sussex, creating net gains to natural

capital’

A response and possible modifications to the Plan are

being discussed with Sussex Wildlife Trust.

Draft response as follows:

Wording of the objective is intended to be realistic

and is considered to comply with NPPF which says

that the ‘planning system should contribute to and

enhance the natural and local environment by

minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net

gains in biodiversity where possible…. (Para. 109,

NPPF).

Strategic

Objective

10

3704 036 Steyning

Quarry Action

Group

SO unsound;

Unacceptable risk to watercourses:

● The site is crossed by important

surface and underground streams,

which is highlighted at para 5.136

of the SA

This matter is addressed in the section on Policy

M11.

Strategic

Objective

11

3779

151 Cemex Strategic Objective 11. The Plan will not

minimise HGV movements as it is reliant

on imports of materials from Hampshire

and Surrey.

The Plan does not include a specific reliance on

imports of materials from Hampshire and Surrey as

suggested.

Strategic

Objective

11

3704 036 Steyning

Quarry Action

Group

SO unsound;

Adverse impact on:

● Transport and highways

This matter is addressed in the section on Policy

M11.

18

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


● Nearby quarries have not been

satisfactorily restored

2.3.13

4265 030 Keith Taylor

MEP for South

East England

Paragraph 2.3.13 is contrary to national

policy in a number of ways:

● Sustainable Development Goal 7:

access to affordable and clean

energy for all by 2030

● New oil and gas developments

could have potentially catastrophic

adverse impacts on human health

and the natural environment

● Onshore oil and gas supplies do

not contribute to the country’s

energy security, by contributing to

climate change they do the exact

opposite.

Paragraph 2.3.13 should be changed to:

“Oil and gas are ‘energy minerals’ that

contribute to climate change and must be

left in the ground if we are to meet our

carbon reduction targets. Improved

energy efficiency and the encouragement

of demand side management are better

mechanisms than onshore oil and gas for

reducing reliance on imports, thus

contributing to the country’s energy

security. Oil and gas resources are

present in West Sussex and are currently

exploited on a limited scale. Further

development must not take place in order

The Government supports the exploration and

development of the onshore oil and gas resource and

the text is consistent with national policy on oil and

gas. To be found ‘sound’ the Plan must be consistent

with national policy which, among other things, does

not allow the authorities to prohibit the supply of oil

and gas.

19

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


to protect the environment and local

communities.”

Strategic

Objective

12


MEP for South

East England

SO unsound;

● It’s inconsistent with national

policy

● The extraction of oil and gas is

contrary to the UK’s domestic

climate targets and international

commitments

● The UK cannot support the fossil

fuel industry

SO 12 should be changed to: "To protect

the environment and local communities in

West Sussex from unacceptable impacts

of any proposal for oil and gas

development, whilst recognising the

national commitment to maintain and

enhance energy security in the UK can

only be achieved by creating a clean and

democratic energy system."

To be sound the Plan must be consistent with

national policy which needs to be recognised as the

key driver for hydrocarbon exploration and

development (DCLG/DECC policy paper on Shale gas

and oil published August 2015). The objective as

worded seek to strike a balance between

acknowledging and planning to meet the

Government's commitment to hydrocarbon

exploration and development, and the need to

protect public amenity and the environment. The

Plan’s approach to climate change is set out under

Objective 14.

Strategic

Objective

12

4273 043 The Common

Parish of

Sutton &

Barlavington

SO12 unsound - should specifically state

the oil and gas extraction should not be

acceptable in the SDNP as it would

contradict SO9

The Plan would not be consistent with national policy

if it were to specifically state the oil and gas

extraction should not be acceptable in the SDNP.

Section 6.7 details the Plan’s approach to proposals

involving hydrocarbon development.

The National Park is appropriately protected in a

number of ways within the Plan this is explained in

6.7.3 that states: “The strategy for oil and gas is to

allow development to take place but to ensure that

the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing does not

20

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


take place within the South Downs National Park,

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or other

protected areas and protected groundwater zones.

Oil and gas development not involving high volume

hydraulic fracturing should only take place within the

South Downs National Park or Areas of

Outstanding Natural Beauty in exceptional

circumstances and when it is in the public interest.”

Clause (c) of Policies M7a and M7b states (with

emphasis added): “Proposals for exploration,

appraisal and production of oil and gas...will be

permitted underneath or in close proximity to the

South Downs National Park, AONBs, Source

Protection Zone 1 and Sites of Special Scientific

Interest, which demonstrate that special care will be

taken to avoid harming the setting and/or special

qualities and/or value of these designated areas.”

There is no legislation banning drilling under National

Parks and inclusion of such a ban would make the

Plan unsound due it not being legally compliant.

Strategic

Objective

12

3713 074 CPRE Sussex SO unsound - there is no reference to the

Climate Change Act 2008 framework

Recommendation;

Amend SO12 to include as an additional

material consideration the national policy

commitment to UK carbon reduction

targets and hence the importance of

reducing dependence on oil and gas

throughout the Plan period.

To be sound the Plan must be consistent with

national policy which needs to be recognised as the

key driver for hydrocarbon exploration and

development (DCLG/DECC policy paper on Shale gas

and oil published August 2015). The objective as

worded seek to strike a balance between

acknowledging and planning to meet the



protect public amenity and the environment. The

Plan’s approach to climate change is set out under

Objective 14.

21

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Strategic

Objective

12

4283 071 UK Oil & Gas

Investments

Plc (UKOG)

The Objective remains negatively worded

and as a result, is not considered to be

sound or consistent with national policy.

UKOG suggest an alternative wording of

the Objective, and is considered to be

more cognisant of the aims and

objectives of the NPPF. This wording is:

“To promote oil and gas development,

recognising the national commitment to

maintain and enhance energy security in

the UK, whilst ensuring the environment

and local communities are adequately

protected.”

The objective as worded seeks to strike a balance

between acknowledging and planning to meet the



protect public amenity and the environment.

Strategic

Objective

13

4274

4294

043

086

The Common

Parish of

Sutton &

Barlavington

Fittleworth

Parish Council

SO13 should be strengthened so there is

recompense for the community for any

adverse effects

The intention behind the Objective includes a desire

to reduce the impacts of mineral working (mitigate

against the impacts) and the wording reflects this.

The wording of the objective is ‘high level’ and detail

of its implementation is included in Policy M24 which

reflects the ‘strength’ called for.

Strategic

Objective

14

3713 074 CPRE Sussex The Plan takes too narrow a view of

Government policy on energy. it makes

no reference at all to the Climate Change

Act 2008 framework under which

increasing carbon reduction targets are

set on a 5-yearly basis, requiring

reducing dependence on fossil fuels. This

national policy should be given great

weight in considering any proposal for

It is considered that the word ‘minimise’ is stronger

than ‘reduce’. The objective is not concerned with

renewable energy since that does not fall within the

remit of a minerals plan which is related to Mineral

Development and its associated impacts. Reduction

in dependence on fossil fuels relates to technologies

such as wind, and solar. Development of this type

are dealt with by District Councils. The term ‘carbon

emissions’ is widely understood to include both

22

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


hydrocarbon development Amend

Strategic Objectives 12 and 14 and

paragraphs 5.3.7, 4.1 and 6.7 and Policy

M23 to reflect this.

Recommendation;

Amend SO14 to encapsulate the national

policy commitment to move towards a

low carbon economy and not limit this

policy to mitigate design efficiency and

transportation considerations.

carbon dioxide and methane and any other gases

resulting in the build-up of carbon in the atmosphere

which causes climate change.

Strategic

Objective

14

4298 093 Poole Agenda

21

2.3.15 and SO14 are worthy but mutually

exclusive with 2.3.13

The Authorities do not accept that paragraphs 2.3.15

and SO4 are “mutually exclusive with” paragraph

2.3.13. The Plan as a whole seeks to provide for the

exploration and development of hydrocarbons in a

manner that is both consistent with Government

policy support and will minimise or avoid adverse

impacts. The detailed assessment of impacts

associated with any proposal for hydrocarbon

development will be considered through the planning

application and licensing processes. Clauses are

included in policy M7b intended to ensure that

unacceptable impacts on public health, the

environment and water, public infrastructure do not

occur. Development Management Policy M23

requires all mineral operations to include measures

which seek to avoid or minimise Greenhouse Gas

emissions and maximise use of low carbon energy.

Strategic

Objective

14


Trust (SWT)

The Trust strongly supports SO14 and the

commitment to minimise carbon

emissions. However, although SO14 does

not restrict the application of this

The objective is strategic and therefore general in

nature. As written the objective, which is contained

within a plan concerned with minerals supply, covers

minimisation of carbon emissions and applies to all

23

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


commitment, the preceding paragraph

focuses on ensuring energy efficiency in

design and minimising the transportation

of minerals, neglecting the carbon

emissions associated with oil and gas

extraction.

The Trust recommends that paragraph

2.3.15 is amended to:

‘…This will be done by ensuring energy

efficiency in design, minimising the

transportation of minerals and

considering the overall carbon

emissions associated with the

extraction and use of minerals…’

mineral related activities. It is considered that

carbon emissions resulting from mineral extraction is

adequately explained in the supporting text. Policy

M23 covers the ‘Design and Operation of Mineral

Developments’ including the avoidance or

minimisation of greenhouse gases. Reference to the

end use of minerals is not appropriate as the MPA

have no control over this.

Strategic

Objective

20

4273

4294

043

086

The Common

Parish of

Sutton &

Barlavington

Fittleworth

Parish Council

SO20 should include;

heavy goods vehicle should be limited too

or restricted to particular routes and fines

and sanctions be imposed if these are not

abided by

There is no Strategic Objective 20 on page 14

however it is assumed the representation relate to

SO11 concerning transport. The suggested inclusion

of detail to is not appropriate to an overarching

strategic objective, however the concern raised

would be addressed by policy M20. Paragraph 8.8.7

includes: “Potential and perceived impact of

transportation on amenity may include vibration,

visual intrusion, noise and air quality. For those sites

allocated in the Plan, the issue of transport impact at

a strategic level, including proximity to the Lorry

Route Network, will have been assessed and

accepted ‘in principle’. Specific proposals will still be

required to show that they are acceptable in terms of

their detailed transport impact, whilst proposals on

unallocated sites will need to address both matters of

principle and detail.”

24

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Strategic

Objective

9


Trust

It is realistic to enhance the natural

environment; therefore ‘where possible’

should be deleted as objectives should be

aspirational.

No change proposed. The wording of the objective is

intended to be realistic and is considered to comply

with NPPF which says that the ‘planning system

should contribute to and enhance the natural and

local environment by minimising impacts on

biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity

where possible….” (Para. 109, NPPF). The objective

still aims to achieve an overall enhancement to the

natural environment.

Strategic

Objective

14


Trust

Plan is not legally complaint - Carbon

emissions associated with the extraction

of minerals is not mentioned in wording

supporting SO14 and then reflected

throughout the plan, whereby the carbon

emissions associated with the extraction

and end use of minerals do not seem to

be considered. When read as a whole,

the polices in the plan should contribute

to the mitigation of and adaptation to

climate change. Not compliant with

Section 19 A of the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as

amended by the 2008 Climate Change

Act)) or consistent with national policy

(para 94 of NPPF).

The objective is strategic and therefore general in

nature. As written the objective, which is contained

within a plan concerned with minerals supply, covers

minimisation of carbon emissions and applies to all

mineral related activities.

It is proposed that the word ‘operation’ is included in

the supporting text so it is clear that the strategic

objective includes carbon emissions resulting from

mineral extraction.

Proposed modification:

Para. 2.3.15. “Opportunities will be taken to

minimise carbon emissions within West Sussex and,

where possible, in associated operations outside the

County. This will be done by ensuring energy

efficiency in design, operation and minimising the

transportation of minerals.”

Policy M23 covers the ‘Design and Operation of

Mineral Developments’ including the avoidance or

minimisation of greenhouse gases.

25

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Reference to the end use of minerals is not

appropriate as the MPA have no control over this.

Chapter 4 – Spatial Context

4.4.8 3787 003 Balcombe

Parish Council

Balcombe Parish Council would like to see

a more robust approach taken to

atmospheric emission monitoring, while

accepting that this is not part of WSCC’s

remit. A robust approach should be taken

to atmospheric emission monitoring to

make sure that emissions from individual

facilities are closely monitored and

controlled by the Environment Agency.

Concern noted, however this is a matter that would

be addressed by the Environment Agency. It is the

responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive to

ensure well integrity and control fugitive emissions.

4.10.1


MEP for South

East England

The words “not always” should be

removed from paragraph 4.10.1

The wording has been included in recognition of the

fact that it isn’t always clear how the supply of

minerals relates to the adaptation to, and causation

and mitigation of climate change. It is considered

that this is not an unreasonable statement.

4.10.2


MEP for South

East England

It is misleading for paragraph 4.10.2 of

the Plan to go only so far as to say that

burning fossil fuels “is likely to” impact on

the environment. Burning fossil fuels

“will” impact on the environment. This is

indisputable.

National policy supports the reduction of

carbon emissions. Paragraph 4.10.2

should be amended to: “The use of

energy minerals, such as the burning of

coal, oil or gas, in the UK will result in

impacts on the climate. National energy

policy supports the reduction of carbon

emissions. The Joint Local Minerals Plan

A correction to the sentence in paragraph 4.10.2 is

proposed as follows:

“The use of energy minerals, such as burning of coal,

oil or gas, in the UK will is likely to result in impacts

on the climate.”

It is considered that the other text is an accurate

reflection of government energy policy.

26

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


must be prepared in line with national

policy.”

4.10.2 4270 039 Resident/other The Plan is unsound;

● it does not take into account the

speed of change within the fossil fuel

extractive industry

● hydraulic fracturing is in proximity to

groundwater and residencies, and the

Plan will be unfit to represent the

changes applied by this industry which

will lead to a serious potential risk to

residents and the environment

● no guidance is given relating to the

building of pipelines in order to

minimise the inevitable road traffic

● insufficient guidance is given relating

to climate change and all

developments must be aimed at

minimising any new fossil fuel

resources made available to humans

● minimum distances should be applied

between all fossil fuel extraction sites

● it does not represent the intent by the

industry to extract across the Plan

area

These representations are addressed in the section

of this document which summarises representations

on Section 6.7 of the Plan (concerning the supply of

hydrocarbons).

Chapter 5 - Strategy and Policy Context

Section

5.3

3713 074 CPRE Sussex Section 5.3 should make reference to

chapter 11 of the NPPF on Conserving

and Enhancing the Natural Environment,

and to paras 115 and 116 particularly

that place great weight on the

Appropriate references are made to the NPPF within

the Plan where relevant. NPPF 115 and 116 is

referenced in various parts of the Plan including that

concerned with providing specific policy on

development within protected Landscapes (section

27

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


conservation of the landscape and natural

beauty of National Parks and AONBs.

8.3).

Para

5.3.8

3713 074 CPRE Sussex The reference to Areas of Outstanding

Natural Beauty should refer to Part IV of

the Countryside & Rights of Way Act

2000, not to ss 87-88 of the National

Parks & Access to the Countryside Act

1949.

Paragraph 5.3.8 is concerned with National Parks not

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and so the

reference is correct.

Chapter 6 - Strategic Minerals Supply

Section

6.2

3132 073 Local resident Relates to Policy M1 and paragraphs

6.2.10, 6.2.7

10 year average sales for land won sharp

sand and gravel is cited as 9,800 tonnes

per annum. Yet 30,000 tonnes and

50,000 tonnes of crushed and graded

stone and sharp sand is being produced

from Philpots.

Meaningful land based production data

should be included and reference to the

latest LAA not meaningless 10 year

averages.

The use of an average of past 10 year sales is the

approach expected in the NPPF and PPG.

M1 3787 003 Balcombe

Parish Council

Replace “will be permitted” with “may be

permitted” as this has a more neutral

meaning.

The wording of the NPPF, and, in particular, its

expectation that Plans be ‘Positively prepared’,

suggests that, to be found sound, the Plan should

include policies that positively encourage

development meeting certain criteria, rather than

negatively discourage development that does not

meet the criteria. Essentially, the Authorities are

28

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


expected to prepare a balanced plan that is in line

with Government policy and accepts that there are

compromises. That is the reason for the inclusion of

a range of policies that a) seek to enable mineral

product and energy supply, and b) seek to limit harm

to the environment and amenity to 'acceptable'

levels, and where possible offer some environmental

benefits.

Policy M1 3125 068 Mineral

Products

Association

Clause (a) implies that sufficient

productive capacity will be maintained as

well as an adequate landbank of reserves.

This is an important point given that the

LAA 2016 confirms that reserves are

provided in one extant permission and so

there needs to be flexibility to enable

additional capacity should this be required

in order to ‘maintain a steady and

adequate supply’. In this context, clause

(a) and the ‘need’ requirement of the

policy requires further explanation in the

supporting text to clarify that in order to

'maintain a steady and adequate supply'

sufficient productive capacity (as well as

an adequate landbank or reserves) is

needed.

There is no need for a specific reference to

“productive capacity” in the Plan. Whilst the Plan

provides an indication of the current demand for

aggregates it notes that this will change over time

and so the demand for aggregates is dictated by the

Local Aggregates Assessment - this is recognised in

paragraph 6.2.5 as follows: “As reserves are worked

out and new reserves are permitted there will be

changes to the length of landbanks and so

calculations of requirements based on landbanks

should refer to data in the latest, annually published,

Local Aggregates Assessment.”

Policy M1

3050 006 Northamptonsh

ire County

Council

Northamptonshire are concerned that

there are no provision figures within

Policy M1. Minerals Local Plan process

should lead to a policy that contains the

quantity of sharp sand and gravel

provision to be made over the plan

period. Monitoring could then include

Specific supply requirements have not been included

in policy as it is considered more appropriate to rely

on the Local Aggregates Assessment to establish

need. This is because any requirements included in

policy would quickly become out of date and

irrelevant and so it would not be appropriate to use

such information in decision making. On the other

29

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


triggers for review where appropriate.

The matter of making numerical provision

in policy formed part of the examination

into both the Kent Minerals and Waste

Local Plan and the Oxfordshire Minerals

and Waste Core Strategy as both the

submitted plans were proposing not to

include a figure within policy.

The Kent PI stated that without this

information, there would be no basis in

the Plan on which to assess the need for

mineral or the size of the landbanks and

only once an annual or total figure is

arrived at will it be possible to assess the

need to make additional provision; the

quantity of that provision; the size of the

landbanks; and the sites to meet the

requirement.

Numerical provision should be included

within the policy.

hand the LAA is updated on an annual basis and its

data and conclusions are subject to scrutiny by the

South East Aggregate Working Party prior to

publication, as required by National Policy and

Guidance.

Policy M1 3427 145 Sussex Wildlife

Trust

Policy M1 – include reference to

transportation by rail or water and well

related to ALR.

Typo in para 6.2.21. Should refer to

policy M2 (c).

Reference is in policy M1. Change to reference to

policy M2(c) agreed.

6.2.14 4018 045 Resident/other The plan does not take into account the

reduction in land won sand used. 2006

567000t, 2015 236000t. Marine sand

The reduction in land won sand supply is noted in the

Local Aggregates Assessment as is the possibility of

demand being met from marine won sources. The

30

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


landings have increased from 2006

(768,000 tonnes) to 2015 (1,173,000

tonnes). It appears that marine sand can

and is used for mortar production. In my

view the Ham Farm site is not necessary

for WSCC to provide adequate supplies of

sand, the existing sites and windfall sites

being sufficient. I also note that West

Sussex exports large amounts of

aggregates. See Local Aggregate

Assessment Jan 17. It seems that

supply/demand has altered since the plan

was conceived. The Ham Farm Site

should be withdrawn.

Authorities recognise that some marine sands have

mechanical, chemical and physical properties,

identical to high quality land-based sands and so can

be used to replace soft sand in certain applications

including building mortar. Marine won sand with

properties akin to land-won soft sand is currently

sourced from the Bristol Channel as there are

extensive deposits of mobile sand across the upper

Severn Estuary. Research carried out by the Crown

Estate shows the extent of the potential sand and

gravel resource in the English Channel and Thames

Estuary. The report shows that there are likely to be

areas of fine sand within the area, but that the

‘economic potential of individual sites can only be

proved by a detailed evaluation programme’.







Regardless of this it is still considered that additional

land won supplies of soft sand will be required. The

Plan includes a balanced strategy to meet supplies

that includes the allocation of Ham Farm (as a source

of land won soft sand), that has been assessed as

suitable for allocation.

M2 3787 003 Balcombe

Parish Council



meaning.





31

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/












benefits.

Policy M2 3779 148 CEMEX Reliance on one site is inflexible and

leaves a significant shortfall in soft sand

provision in West Sussex.

The Plan does not identify sufficient sites

and so does not take a positive approach

to supply of soft sand.

Disagree with case put forward in the

Minerals Site Selection report that there

are no exceptional circumstances and it is

not in the public interest to allocate sites

in the National Park because there is no

evidence that soft sand can be supplied

by other quarries beyond the National

Park including beyond the County

boundary.

In accordance with national policy the Plan has been

positively prepared and sets out the circumstances in

which minerals development within West Sussex

would be considered acceptable. There is a tension

between national policies concerning minerals supply

and those relating to the environmental protection,

particularly regarding National Parks, on which the

Plan seeks to identify an appropriate balance.

Paragraph 21 of the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF) states (with emphasis added):

“In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities

should:…..set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for

local and inward investment to match the strategy

and to meet anticipated needs over the plan

period;”. There is therefore no specific requirement

in the NPPF to show how supplies will be met solely

by allocating sites.

It is important to note that the soft sand shortfall

32

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


stated in the Plan is a theoretical estimate based on

a number of key assumptions, as set out in the Local

Aggregate Assessment (Jan 2017). These are that:

1. Levels of future demand can be based on an

average of sales over the past 10 years

2. Future demand will be between 10 and 15%

greater than the average of past sales due to

planned increases in the construction of housing in


When considering the stated shortfall it is important

to consider the validity of these assumptions – see

below:

- Assumption 1: Levels of future demand can be

based on an average of sales over the past 10 years

While the future demand for soft sand is based on an

average past 10 years sales, it should be noted that

the pattern of sales over the past 10 years has been

one of significant decline - from 573,000 in 2006 to

244,594 tonnes in 2015. So, while the average of

past 10 years sales is 339, 186 the average of the

past three years sales is 25% less at 253, 288

tonnes. This decline has occurred during a period of

increased construction activity in West Sussex which

suggests that demand is already increasingly being

met by alternatives to soft sand extracted from

quarries in West Sussex.

33

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


- Assumption 2: Future demand will be between 10

and 15% greater than the average of past sales due

to planned increases in the construction of housing in


This is based on a projection that housing will grow

by 14% in West Sussex and up to 91% of sand and

gravel may be used in homes. It was considered

prudent to factor in some increase to account for this

despite the fact that historic data does not actually

show a correlation between housebuilding and land

won sand and gravel sales. This additional increase

has been included for the sake of flexibility but it

could be argued that including such a factor

overestimates the requirement.

It is worth noting that were the future demand for

soft sand to be based on the average past 3 year

sales, then the soft sand landbank would currently

be 12.1 years. If the allocation at Ham Farm

(725,000 tonnes) is factored in then the soft sand

landbank would increase to approximately 15 years

which is equivalent to the life of the Plan.

In any event, contrary to the suggestion in the

representation the Plan sets out an overall

theoretical shortfall and includes a strategy for

supplying soft sand (which includes meeting this

theoretical shortfall) that is clearly set out in

paragraph 6.2.16 as follows:

- to rely on existing reserves, and suitable windfall

sites being granted planning permission including

34

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


sand extracted prior to non- minerals development,

- allocation of a site (Ham Farm)

- imports from other areas

This strategy is supported by evidence provided in

the Local Aggregates Assessment (on existing sites

and the location of the resource), the Mineral Site

Selection Report (on Ham Farm and imports from

other areas) and Proposed Submission JMLP

Background Document (imports from other areas –

see paras 3.37 and 3.38). Furthermore, it should be



the South East of England has been agreed and this

has been made available within the evidence base

submitted with the Plan. The latest SEEAWP South

East Aggregates Monitoring Report 2014 & 2015 also

shows that soft sand supplies are sufficient to meet

demand across the South East of England by


landbank (Paragraph 4.6).

Some marine sands have mechanical, chemical and

physical properties, identical to high quality land-

based sands and so can be used to replace soft sand

in certain applications including building mortar.

Marine won sand with properties akin to land-won

soft sand is currently sourced from the Bristol

Channel as there are extensive deposits of mobile

sand across the upper Severn Estuary. Research[1]

carried out by the Crown Estate shows the extent of

the potential sand and gravel resource in the English

35

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Channel and Thames Estuary. The report shows that

there are likely to be areas of fine sand within the

area, but that the ‘economic potential of individual

sites can only be proved by a detailed evaluation

programme’.







[1] The Mineral Resources of the English Channel

and Thames Estuary (BGS) (2013)

The Soft Sand Study (2015) (published alongside the

draft Plan as part of the evidence base) concluded

that whilst the radius of economic transportation of

sand is often quoted as being less than 30 miles,

there is robust evidence that it actually travels a

greater distance, up to 45 miles. Since the

publication of that study, further evidence, included

in the BGS/DCLG Collation of the results of the 2014

Aggregate Minerals survey for England and Wales

indicates that soft sand travels even greater

distances. The BGS/DCLG report states that soft

sand has been transported from West Sussex to the

South West of England. This is supported by

evidence from operators.

On the other hand no evidence has been provided to

suggest that it is not possible to meet soft sand

36

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


needs of West Sussex from outside the SDNP for the

Plan period.

On this basis it is considered that exceptional

circumstances test for major development in the

National Park has not been met as there is scope

meeting demand for soft sand from sources outside

the designated area.

Policy M2 3779 148 CEMEX The soft sand strategy does not balance

the three arms of sustainability meet

NPPF requirements for facilitating

sustainable use of minerals

There is no evidence that it is practicable

or sustainable for soft sand to be supplied

from sites outside the National Park when

they may be able to work reserves in the

SDNP sustainably. Insufficient

sustainability assessment has been

undertaken to see whether mineral

working within the SDNPA could continue

without significant harm and what

benefits could be provided through site

restoration.

The strategy for soft sand supply has been subject to

Sustainability Appraisal which recommended that a

hierarchical approach should be taken, by clearly

prioritising supply from existing permitted reserves

first and not allocating extensions or additional sites

in the SDNP, then identifying additional

allocations/areas of search beyond the SDNP, and

finally allowing imports from outside the County if

required. This approach has essentially been included

in Policy M2 although it is beyond the scope of the

Plan to place specific restrictions on imports of

mineral.

Noted that no evidence was presented to support the

assertion that it might be possible to work reserves

in the SDNP sustainably.

Also see above and response to comments made on

the Sustainability Appraisal.

Policy M2 3779 148 CEMEX The approach to soft sand supply does

not plan for an adequate and steady

supply based on the LAA or consider the

productive capacity of sites.

The Plan makes explicit reference to how supply is to

be based on the LAA in paragraph 6.2.5 as follows:

“As reserves are worked out and new reserves are

permitted there will be changes to the length of

landbanks and so calculations of requirements based

on landbanks should refer to data in the latest,

37

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


annually published, Local Aggregates Assessment.”

Furthermore paragraph 6.2.21 states: “The landbank

calculation for the purposes of Policy M2(b) will be

made by using the reserve and annual demand

information set out in the latest Local Aggregate

Assessment.”

Policy M2 clause (c) states that proposals “will be

permitted provided that….the proposal is needed to

ensure a steady and adequate supply is maintained;”

Policy M2 3779 148 CEMEX The soft sand net additional requirement

of 3, 323, 148 tonnes over the plan

period (2016-2033) (set out in Table 21

(page 47) of the LAA) is not mentioned in

paragraph 6.2.14 of the Plan (and text

should be inserted to amend this) and

Policy M2 does not say how this will be

met. Policy M2 should be amended to set

out that it will make provision for this

supply and this will be informed and

reviewed by the LAA and that a minimum

7 year landbank of soft sand reserves will

be maintained.

Specific supply requirements have not been included

in policy as it is considered more appropriate to rely

on the Local Aggregates Assessment to establish

need. This is because any requirements included in

policy would quickly become out of date and

irrelevant and so it would not be appropriate to use

such information in decision making. On the other

hand the LAA is updated on an annual basis and its

data and conclusions are subject to scrutiny by the

South East Aggregate Working Party prior to

publication.

Policy M2 3779 148 CEMEX NPPF policies on minerals supply,

economic and sustainable development

are ignored, in particular it ignores the

fact that minerals can only be worked

where they are found and para 144 states

that the test for maintaining landbanks in

National Parks and AONBs should be ‘as

far as practical’.

There is no test in para 144 of the NPPF that ‘in

relation to mineral working in National Parks and

AONBs, that the test for maintaining landbanks

should be “as far as practical”’. This appears to be a

misinterpretation of this paragraph which actually

states that (with emphasis added): ‘when

determining planning applications, local planning

authorities should:…as far as is practical, provide for

the maintenance of landbanks of non-energy

38

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


minerals from outside National Parks’

Policy M2 3779 148 CEMEX The Authorities should consider further

inclusion of an extension site to the east

of the existing West Heath Quarry, as

part of policy M2, to make up the soft

sand shortfall. Reserves within the site

can be worked sustainably and without

adverse impact on the environment.

Exceptional circumstances exist for its

inclusion in the Plan.

No new evidence has come to light or been

presented that would require the Authorities to

reconsider their position on allocating an extension

site to the east of the existing West Heath Quarry in

the Plan as no evidence has been presented which

suggests soft sand cannot be imported to West

Sussex to contribute to meeting demands for such

mineral in West Sussex.

Policy M2 3779 148 CEMEX Text of policy should be amended to

delete ‘physical’ before ‘extensions’

because extensions can be made which

use same infrastructure but are not

physically connected.

This is unnecessary because paragraph 6.2.2

explains the policy approach to “physical extensions”

and this accepts that “physical extensions” are those

which share the same infrastructure, as follows:

“Physical extensions to

existing sites generally benefit from established

infrastructure (e.g. access roads, processing plant

and offices) which means that it may be more

appropriate to continue activities, where investment

has already been made, rather than develop new

sites.”

Policy M2 3779 148 CEMEX The Authorities should consider inclusion

of an extension site to the east of West

Heath Quarry to make up the Plan

shortfall.

This site has been promoted during the preparation

of the Plan and so the Authorities have thoroughly

considered its inclusion. The results of this are set

out in the Mineral Site Selection Report that

concludes the site should not be allocated as the site

is located with the SDNP and so it would not be

consistent with the NPPF (in particular paragraph

116).

Furthermore PPG states: “The Framework is clear

that great weight should be given to conserving

landscape and scenic beauty in these designated

39

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


areas irrespective of whether the policy in paragraph

116 is applicable.” Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 8-

005-20140306.


Products

Association

Object to the principle of ‘managed

retreat’ from working soft sand in the

SDNP that goes beyond NPPF requirement

that maintenance of landbanks outside of

National Parks should be provided ‘as far

as is practical’. Additional sites need to

be allocated in M11 to make clause (a) of

M2 effective.

Paragraph 3.30 of the Background document

specifically references the paragraph within the NPPF

(144) that makes the ‘as far as is practical’ point

referred to in the representation. Para 116 of the

NPPF states that planning permission should be

refused for major developments in National Parks

except in exceptional circumstances which should

take account of the scope for developing elsewhere

outside the designated area. Evidence of soft sand

resources and reserves suggests that requirements

for soft sand can be met from outside the National

Park and so the exceptional circumstances needed

for allocation within the Park do not exist.

Policy M2 4255 285 Surrey County

Council

Note that the emerging MoU for soft sand

supports the approach in the Plan.

Text of the final draft of the MoU was agreed by

officers at a meeting on 3 April 2017. This document

has been submitted as part of the evidence base

supporting the Proposed Submission JMLP

Policy M2 4255 285 Surrey County

Council

Soft sand supply and demand will need to

be monitored carefully to ensure

sustainable provision to meet future

demands.

Agree. The Plan sets out how soft sand supply and

demand will be monitored in Section 6.2. Such

monitoring will be reported in the annual Local

Aggregates Assessment and so the results will be

published and considered on an annual basis by

SEEAWP.

Policy M2 4044 089 Hampshire

County Council

Careful balance must be struck between

protecting designated areas and meeting

the aggregate supply need in accordance

with national planning policy.

Agree. Para 6.2.2 of the Plan states:

“Land won aggregates can make a contribution to

aggregate supplies but they can only be worked

where they naturally occur. Therefore a balance is

needed between the supply of land won aggregates

and the protection of the environment and local

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/11-conserving-and-enhancing-the-natural-environment#para116

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/11-conserving-and-enhancing-the-natural-environment#para116

40

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


communities.”

Policy M2 4044 089 Hampshire

County Council

Hampshire Waste and Minerals Plan

includes under provision for soft sand and

seeks to meet shortfall by unplanned

opportunities within Hampshire, including

extensions to sites, new sites, borrow pits

and safeguarded resources that may

become available through development.

There is little scope to cover the soft sand

shortfall in West Sussex through increase

in imports to West Sussex from

Hampshire as this would likely lead to

proportional reduction in resources

available to Hampshire. This would in turn

deplete the provisions made in the

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan faster

than anticipated, leading to an increased

shortfall of soft sand in Hampshire, a

resource identified as scarce in

Hampshire.

Since submitting their representation discussions

have taken place with officers from Hampshire

County Council who have agreed to withdraw their

representation subject to the following agreed

proposed modification to paragraph 8.3.7:

“Within designated landscapes the test in paragraph

116 of the NPPF will need to be addressed. This will

include provision of information about the national

need for the mineral, as well as the benefits of

permitting or refusing the application on the local

economy. The expectation is that the search for

alternatives outsidethe nationally designated

landscapes should not be limited to the Plan area (or

Licence Area for hydrocarbons) but should extend

elsewhere within those areas identified nationally as

having potential which are not themselves

subject to national landscape designations.”

Policy M3 246 010 Wiggonholt

Association

Support for Policy M3 paragraph (a) so

far as it goes, that one criterion should be

“There is a demonstrable need for silica

sand of a specific quality and quantity

that will be met by the proposal”. This

can properly be a contributory reason

why a planning permission could be

granted for silica sand working. If,

however, permission is granted, there is

then nothing to stop the mineral company

from using the silica sand for a low-grade

purpose such as soft sand aggregate.

There would then be two consequences if

Agreed.

NPPF (Paragraph 142) states (emphasis added):

However, since minerals are a finite natural

resource, and can only be worked where they are

found, it is important to make best use of them to

secure their long-term conservation.

In terms of silica sand which has large number of

potential end uses depending in part on the quality

of the sand, it is agreed that in line with NPPF Para.

142 its ‘best use’ would not be aggregate use if it

41

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


this happened:

– a high grade mineral resource

would be squandered on a low

grade use, contrary to paragraph

142 of the NPPF that “since

minerals are a finite natural

resource, and can only be worked

where they are found, it is

important to make best use of

them to secure their long-term

conservation”; and

– the planning process would have

been abused by obtaining a

planning permission for one

purpose based on a preferential

regime, but using it for another.

indeed could support higher specification industrial

uses.


Association

The risk of inadequate control over

mineral end uses applies to a number of

minerals but is a particular problem with

silica sand. There is evidence that

squandering is already happening with

silica sand in West Sussex, albeit at a site

granted permission primarily for

construction sand rather than for silica

sand (so only the issue of squandering

scarce resources applies, not misuse of

the planning process). In June 2016 GWP

consultants issued a report “Review of

evidence for a nationally important silica

sand resource at Horncroft, West

Sussex”, for Lady Susan Anstruther and

Henry Bourne. This recorded an

Noted.

42

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


experience at Sandgate Quarry in West

Sussex. In short, very high grade silica

sand at Sandgate Quarry is being used as

construction sand.


Association

The solution to the risk of silica sand sites

being misused for construction purposes

is end use control. This is entirely

feasible but depends on an appropriate

policy basis for applying it through

development management. This is well

illustrated by Policy CSM2 adopted in the

Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan in

July 2016.

The West Sussex Joint MLP Policy M3

paragraph (a) is comparable to the Kent

M&WLP Policy CSM2 paragraph 3(a).

What West Sussex needs is the

equivalent of Kent’s paragraph 3(b). We

suggest inserting a new paragraph after

M3(a) as follows:

“There is a demonstrable mechanism to

ensure that silica sand suitable for those

specific needs will be reserved for them;”.

Agreed.

An additional policy criterion is proposed to be added

to Policy M3: Silica Sand which monitors the use of

mineral resources post excavation for purposes

commensurate with the quality of the sand. A policy

criterion akin to that set out in the Kent Minerals and

Waste Local Plan (2016) should be inserted between

current criterion (a) and (b) and re-ordered

accordingly.

Policy M3

Proposals for silica sand extraction, including

extensions of time and

physical extensions to existing sites, will be

permitted provided that:

(a) There is a demonstrable need for silica sand

of a specific quality

and quantity that will be met by the proposal;

(b) It is demonstrated that the mineral

resources will be used efficiently so that high-

grade sand deposits are reserved for industrial

end uses;

Para.

6.3.3

246 010 Wiggonholt

Association

A landbank is understood as an ongoing

generalised commitment to supply

Agreed.

43

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


onwards mineral across an area and therefore very

different from a commitment (in the

words of the NPPF) to “providing a stock

of permitted reserves to support the level

of actual and proposed investment

required for new or existing plant….” at

an individual quarry (paragraph 146), and

(in the words of the PPG) “The overall

amount required [of reserves permitted]

should be directly linked to the scale of

capital investment to construct and

operate the required facility” (Reference

ID: 27-088-20140306). That is why

neither the NPPF nor the Minerals PPG

uses the term ‘landbank’ in relation to

industrial minerals.

Even though the term ‘landbank’ carries

with it a very different understanding

from the national approach to silica sand,

it is used repeatedly and incorrectly in

just a few paragraphs in pages 49-51 of

the Submitted WSJMLP supporting Policy

M3. It is not clear that the MPAs

recognise the difference, and the Plan as

drafted is certainly confusing to readers.

Whereas the term ‘landbank’ implies an

ongoing commitment, the NPPF is clear

that the intention is to provide a one-off

supply of permitted reserves at silica

sand sites proportionate to such

investment as is being made in plant and

equipment. The way the term is used in

paragraphs 6.3.4 and 6.3.5 is therefore

The draft Mineral Plan needs to clearly distinguish

between the concepts of ‘landbanks’ and ‘permitted

reserves’ and as such the supporting text should be

amended accordingly:

New Paragraph after 6.3.3 (new paragraph 6.3.4):-

National policy requires MPAs to plan for a steady

and adequate supply of silica sand by providing a

stock of permitted reserves to support the level of

actual and proposed investment required for new or

existing plant, and the maintenance and

improvement of existing plant and equipment. This is

carried out by providing a stock of permitted

reserves of at least 10 years at established existing

sites, and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where

significant new capital is required; this would include

entirely new sites.

44

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


misleading.

Implemen

tation and

Monitorin

g Table

pp.50-51

246 010 Wiggonholt

Association

Likewise, under ‘Implementation and

Monitoring’, the ‘Measure/Indicator’ and

‘Trend/Target’ entries are misleading in

their construction of the objective and

how it should be achieved. The NPPF

does not say anything like “Target =

maintain landbanks of at least 10 years at

individual silica sand sites unless

environmental and amenity impacts are

unacceptable….”. Given that silica sand

can be found in highly variable deposits

which can run out quickly, the NPPF is

clearly correct to take the approach it

does. The alternative, as implied in the

‘Target’ for West Sussex, is that

permissions should be continually

forthcoming to extend an existing silica

sand site indefinitely, almost irrespective

of other constraints – such as when the

deposit runs only into extremely sensitive

areas where quarrying was never

intended to be granted. The West Sussex

‘Target’ as drafted would offer silica sand

firms a remarkable licence to operate,

giving them every expectation of an

unending supply of extensions once they

had obtained an initial planning

permission. This ‘foot in the door’

approach could readily lead to

applications for extensions into wholly

inappropriate sites once permission had

Agreed the draft target misinterprets the NPPF.

Delete measure/indicator and trend/target text:-

Landbank for silica sand if evidence shows that it is

required for any individual sites.

Target = maintain landbanks of at least 10 years at

individual silica sand sites unless environmental and

amenity impacts are unacceptable, and if within the

SDNP site does not meet exceptional circumstances

and public interest test.

45

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


been granted originally in an acceptable

location. We doubt that this was what

the MPAs had in mind. The supporting

text needs extensive redrafting to remedy

this.

6.7.1 4265 030 Keith Taylor

MEP for South

East England

Paragraph 6.7.1 is misleading, onshore oil

and gas do not contribute to our energy

security.

Paragraph 6.7.1 should be amended to

say:

“Oil and gas are ‘energy minerals’ that

contribute to climate change and must be

left in the ground if we are to meet our

carbon reduction targets. Improved

energy efficiency and the encouragement

of demand side management are better

mechanisms than onshore oil and gas for

reducing reliance on imports, thus

contributing to the country’s energy

security.”

The text of paragraph 6.7.1 is considered

appropriate. The Government supports the

exploration and development of the onshore oil and

gas resource (DCLG/DECC policy paper on Shale

Gas and Oil published August 2015) and believes

that UK shale development is compatible with its

goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and does not

detract from its support for renewables. In terms of

UK energy policy, it is considered that shale gas can

create a bridge to a low carbon future while

renewable energy is developed, energy efficiency

improvements are made and power from new

nuclear facilities is developed. To be found ‘sound’

the Plan must be consistent with national policy and

legislation.

6.7.2

3787

003 Balcombe

Parish Council

(BPC)

BPC suggest replacing 6.7.2 with:

“‘Conventional’ sources of hydrocarbons

are reservoirs or rocks that are

sufficiently permeable for oil or gas to

flow freely. 'Unconventional' sources are

rocks that are not sufficiently permeable

to flow at commercial rates unless

‘stimulated’, by fracking, acidising or

other techniques.”

Sandstone and limestone formations can

Use of the terms ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’

in the Plan is consistent with the definitions applied

in the Planning Practice Guidance.

46

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


both be permeable or practically

impermeable, so both can be

'unconventional', sometimes described in

the industry as ‘tight'.

The geological stratum currently targeted

in Balcombe is a type of limestone-rich

clay where permeability does not allow

the oil to flow in commercial quantities

without acidisation. This applies to much

of the oil to be found in The High Weald.

6.7.2


MEP for South

East England

Paragraph 6.7.2 is unsound because it

contains unjustified definitions of

‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’

hydrocarbons. The definitions of these

terms in the Department for Communities

and Local Government’s Planning practice

guidance for onshore oil and gas are

incorrect, there are no statutory

definitions of these terms and no

consensus on what they should mean.

The definition in the Plan of

‘unconventional’ hydrocarbons as “oil and

gas which comes from sources such as

shale or coal seams” is too narrow.

Paragraph 6.7.2 should be changed to:

“There are two types of hydrocarbon

resources known as ‘conventional’ and

‘unconventional’. Conventional

hydrocarbons are oil and gas found in




47

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


permeable rock which can be extracted

by natural pressure with no stimulation.

Unconventional hydrocarbons are oil and

gas which can be extracted only by using

some form of stimulation including but

not limited to hydraulic fracturing and

acidisation. A report from the British

Geological Survey (BGS) indicates that

there is unlikely to be shale gas potential

in the Weald Basin in which West Sussex

is located. It also concludes that it may

be that only limited amounts of shale in

the area have the potential to produce oil

in commercial quantities.”

6.7.2 3787

003 Balcombe

Parish Council

Incorrect use of terms “conventional” and

“unconventional”. Suggest replacing

incorrect sentences with ‘Conventional’

sources of hydrocarbons are reservoirs or

rocks that are sufficiently permeable for

oil or gas to flow freely. 'Unconventional'

sources are rocks that are not sufficiently

permeable to flow at commercial rates

unless ‘stimulated’, by fracking, acidising

or other techniques.’ Sandstone and

limestone formations can both be

permeable or practically impermeable, so

both can be 'unconventional', sometimes

described in the industry as ‘tight'.




6.7.4

6.7.5


MEP for South

East England

The strategy described in paragraphs

6.7.4 and 6.7.5 to make provision for oil

and gas development is neither consistent

with national policy nor justified by

credible evidence, particularly in relation

The strategy described in paragraphs 6.7.4 and 6.7.5

to make provision for oil and gas development is

considered consistent with national policy and

justified by evidence. To be found ‘sound’ the Plan

must be consistent with national policy which, among

48

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


to hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”.

To be sound the Plan must be based on

credible evidence. To ignore the growing

body of evidence on the environmental

risks associated with fracking would be a

serious dereliction of duty.

Paragraphs 6.7.4 and 6.7.5 should be

replaced with:

“The strategy for oil and gas is to apply a

moratorium on all new development with

the aim of avoiding the UK’s carbon

budgets being infringed and the UK’s

global credibility in tackling climate

change being seriously damaged.”

It would be wholly inconsistent with the

National Park Authority’s aims to allow oil

and gas exploration (with or without

hydraulic fracturing) in or in close

proximity to the national park in any

circumstances and the Plan should include

an outright ban on this.

other things, does not allow the Authorities to place

moratoriums on development associated with the

supply of oil and gas. The Government supports the

exploration and development of the onshore oil and

gas resource (DCLG/DECC policy paper on Shale

Gas and Oil published August 2015) and believes

that UK shale development is compatible with its

goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and does not

detract from its support for renewables. In terms of

UK energy policy, it is considered that shale gas can

create a bridge to a low carbon future while

renewable energy is developed, energy efficiency

improvements are made and power from new

nuclear facilities is developed. To be found ‘sound’

the Plan must be consistent with national policy and

legislation.

The National Park is appropriately protected in a

number of ways within the Plan this is explained in

6.7.3 that states: “The strategy for oil and gas is to

allow development to take place but to ensure that

the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing does not

take place within the South Downs National Park,

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or other

protected areas and protected groundwater zones.

Oil and gas development not involving high volume

hydraulic fracturing should only take place within the

South Downs National Park or Areas of

Outstanding Natural Beauty in exceptional

circumstances and when it is in the public interest.”

Clause (c) of Policies M7a and M7b states (with

emphasis added): “Proposals for exploration,

appraisal and production of oil and gas...will be

49

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


permitted underneath or in close proximity to the

South Downs National Park, AONBs, Source

Protection Zone 1 and Sites of Special Scientific

Interest, which demonstrate that special care will be

taken to avoid harming the setting and/or special

qualities and/or value of these designated areas.”

6.7.4 4287 078 Resident/other Concerns;

● the first sentence in 6.7.4 does not

make sense – what provision is

being made?

● the caveat "in exceptional

circumstances and when it is in

the public interest" is too vague

Onshore conventional fossil fuel (CFF)

development;

● may have a continuing but minor

future in the UK

● CSS should be in place to offset

the CO2 produced by the

consumer in burning such fuel

Provision is being made for oil and gas.

The term “in exceptional circumstances and when it

is in the public interest” is taken from paragraph 116

of the NPPF which concerns the national policy

approach to major development in Nationals Parks

and AONBs.

This is further explained in paragraph 116 of the

NPPF and section 8.8 of the Plan.

Other comments are noted.

M7a 3054 014 Environment

Agency

We support the inclusion of this policy.

We are pleased to see that the water

environment is specifically referenced and

the protection of water resources is

recognised as an issue.

Clause (c) is especially important to

ensure that there are no impacts from

drilling underneath or next to protected

groundwater zones.

Noted

M7a 3763 066 High Weald Support for clause (i) that exploration and Noted

50

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


AONB Unit appraisal for oil and gas should not be

located inside an AONB unless it has been

demonstrated that there are exceptional

circumstances.

M7a

4311

3622

4240

4302

4292

3843

4311

3622

4153

4189

4280

4282

4120

4129

4179

4192

4252

027

023

268

002

082

025

027

031

037

049

058

065

121

134

202

215

281

Forest Row

Councillor

Keep Kirdford

& Wisborough

Green

Cllr Susan

Murray –

Lewes Town &

District Cllr

Residents

/others

Policy M7a should be amended to reflect

the need NOT to pursue fossil fuel

extraction if:

● the UK country allowance for

oil/gas has reached its target

● the site is located inside or within

sight of a designation

If hydrocarbon activity is permitted,

conditions must include:

● minimisation and mitigation of

impacts

● restoration and aftercare –

including ongoing continuous

monitoring

● compliance with the new Dark

Skies designation.


development of the onshore oil and gas resource. To

be found ‘sound’ the Plan must be consistent with

national policy which, among other things, does not

allow the Authorities to prohibit the supply of oil and

gas.

M7a 3713 074 CPRE Sussex Policy M7a is not ‘effective’ as it is not

flexible enough to deal with changing

The Plan’s approach to hydrocarbons is set out in two

policies in a way that mirrors the Government’s

51

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


circumstances such as the technological

advancement of the hydrocarbon

extraction industry and the anticipated

adjustment in regulatory regimes. Should

anticipate new stimulation techniques

including acidisation. Policy M7a should

be adjusted to provide flexibility that

reflects the different risks proposed by

differing new techniques for hydrocarbon

development which are not classed as

‘hydraulic fracturing’ and would therefore

be considered within the context of this

Policy M7a.

New stimulation techniques such as

acidizing may pose an unacceptable risk

to groundwater contamination and

therefore the presumption against any

form of hydrocarbon development in

Groundwater Source Protection Zones 1,

2 and 3, unless it is demonstrated that

there will be no unacceptable impacts on

groundwater, must also be captured

within Policy M7a, not merely Policy M7b.

Policy M7a is also not consistent with

National Policy in that it makes no

reference to the Climate Change Act 2008

and associated planned reduction in

dependence on fossil fuels as a source of

energy generation/usage and for

transportation.

Revised wording to Policy M7a is

proposed.

approach to regulating onshore hydrocarbon

development in England. The Infrastructure Act 2015

introduces specific safeguards concerning the

onshore extraction of hydrocarbons by hydraulic

fracturing and defines what ‘hydraulic fracturing’

means within the terms of that Act. Specific

legislation placing specific safeguards on the use of

‘acidisation’ as a specific means of onshore

extraction of hydrocarbons does not exist. Any

proposals for the use of such a technique will

therefore be assessed using policy M7a, or if this

technique forms part of the hydraulic fracturing

process by policy M7b. As explained in paragraph

6.7.6 of the PSDJMLP, other regulations,

implemented by the Health and Safety Executive, the

Oil and Gas Authority and the Environment Agency,

exist to ensure that the onshore extraction of

hydrocarbons does not cause issues of health and

safety or harm to the environment (including those

caused by fugitive emissions) and, as part of the

assessment of the proposal, the Authorities will

consult with these bodies to establish their views on

whether issues of their concern can be adequately

addressed.

52

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


M7a 3427 145 Sussex Wildlife

Trust (SWT)

Concerns regarding the use of acidisation

of long lateral wells and the drilling of

injection wells to receive liquid waste

from acidisation.

It is clear from the example of the

Markswell Wood oil well planning

application that methods of extraction

with close similarities to hydraulic

fracturing are being submitted as

‘conventional mineral

exploration/production’. These types of

applications will thereby fall under policy

M7a, which does not currently offer

sufficient protection against adverse

impacts. As the potential impacts of

techniques such as acidisation are not

fully understood, Policy M7a must be

strengthened.

Recommended changes to policy

M7a:

‘Exploration and Appraisal

(a) Proposals for exploration and

appraisal for oil and gas (including

those which propose to use advanced

well stimulation techniques including

acidisation*), not involving hydraulic

fracturing, and including extensions** to

existing sites will only be permitted

provided that:


























addressed.

Policy M22 specifically addresses cumulative impacts

which might arise if more than one mineral

development takes place within a particular area.

Paragraph 6.7.7 notes that “All applications will be

considered against Environmental Impact

Assessment Regulations 2011 (or as subsequently

53

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


(i) it is demonstrated that

greenhouse gases associated with

fugitive emissions will not lead to

unacceptable adverse environmental

impacts or compromise the planning

authority’s duties in relation to

reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(ii) With regard to development proposals

deemed to be major, the site is located

outside the South Downs National Park,

High Weald AONB or Chichester Harbour

AONB, unless it has been demonstrated

that there are exceptional circumstances

and that it is in the public interest, and in

accordance with Policy M13

(iii) proposals utilising acidisation

are located outside of the South

Downs National Park, High Weald

AONB or Chichester Harbour AONB or

other ‘protected area’,

(iv) the site selected is the least

sensitive, deliverable location from which

the target reservoir can be accessed,

taking into account impacts from on-site

activities and off-site activities including

HGV movements

(v) any unacceptable impacts including

(but not limited to) noise, dust, visual

intrusion, transport, vibration, and

lighting, on both the natural and built

environment and local community,

revised).”

54

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


including air quality, soil and the water

quality, can be minimised, and/or

mitigated, to an acceptable level;

including the cumulative effects of

successive well pads and extraction

techniques;

(vi) restoration and aftercare of the site

to a high quality standard would take

place in accordance with Policy M24

whether or not oil or gas is found;

(vii) no unacceptable impacts would arise

from the on-site storage or treatment of

hazardous substances and/or

contaminated fluids above or below

ground.

Production

(b) Proposals for oil and gas production

(including those which propose to

use advanced well stimulation

techniques including acidisation*),

not involving hydraulic fracturing and

including extensions** to existing sites,

will be permitted provided that:

(i) they accord with (a)(i-vii) above;

(ii) no unacceptable impacts would arise

from the transport, by vehicle or other

means, of oil/gas, water, consumables

and waste to or from the site;

(iii) the restoration and aftercare of the

site to a high quality standard would take

55

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


place in accordance with Policy M24.

(iv) No unacceptable impacts would arise




ground

Activity beneath or proximate to

designated areas

(c) Proposals for exploration, appraisal

and production of oil and gas (including

those which propose to use advanced

well stimulation techniques including


fracturing, will be permitted underneath

or in close proximity to designated areas

assets and habitats, which demonstrate:

(i) by appropriate evidence and

assessment that adverse impacts can

be avoided and a robust

environmental impact assessment –

covering all likely impacts and their

mitigation – has been submitted;

(ii) that special care will be taken to avoid

harming the special qualities of the South

Downs National Park and/or setting and

value of the Chichester Harbour AONB,

High Weald AONB, and other designated

areas, assets and habitats.

*such schemes proposing to access

energy reservoirs by acidisation of

56

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


long lateral wells or by drilling


from acidisation

** including extensions of time, physical

extensions or extensions to operations

within the existing site boundary. N.B.

The suitability of proposals for alterations

to permitted operations will be considered

against the Development Management

policies.’

M7a 4283 071 UK Oil & Gas

Investments

Plc (UKOG)

UKOG had previously suggested

alternative wordings to policies M7a, with

specific concerns regarding the site

selected to be the “least sensitive”.

Various scenarios have been described

where this may inhibit development, and

as a result, an alternative wording has

been put forward. There are other factors

that need to be taken into account. Sites

are dependent upon a willing landowner,

and this can restrict the land available to

developers. UKOG therefore suggest a

positively worded alteration to criteria a)

ii that would allow more practicality. The

draft also links to criteria a) iii, which

The term ‘deliverable’ takes account of the need for

landowner agreement. If a landowner was not in

agreement that the site would not be considered

‘deliverable’.

57

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


provides a list of adverse impacts to be

considered. The proposed wording is:

“The site selected is an appropriate,

deliverable location from which the

target reservoir can be accessed,

taking into account impacts from on-

site activities and off-site activities

including HGV movements.”

M7b 3763 066 High Weald

AONB Unit

Support proviso that surface level

proposals for hydrocarbon development

including hydraulic fracturing should only

take place outside designated areas

including the High Weald AONB.

Noted

Policy

M7b

4111 153

154

155

156

157

Friends of the

Earth

Fracking.

1. Policy M7b currently provides a

framework to consider fracking

applications. Our other submissions have

provided responses to issues of climate

change; biodiversity and geodiversity;

ground water and community impacts

within the context of fracking schemes.

This section aims to briefly summarise

these findings from these submissions

with specific reference to policy M7(b).

These link to the policy changes

recommended at the end of this section.

Climate Change Mitigation

The Plan is drafted in a manner that ensures

compliance with Section 19 (1A) of the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Plan includes a

specific Strategic Objective (SO14 concerned with

climate change which is “To minimise carbon

emissions and to adapt to, and to mitigate the

potential adverse impacts of, climate change.” This

objective is specifically implemented by policies M20

(Transport) and M23 (Design and Operation of

Mineral Developments). This is consistent with the

NPPF which indicates that local plans should set out

strategic priorities to include climate change

(paragraph 156). It is agreed that Policy M19 should

also be specifically identified as implementing this

58

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Climate Change Mitigation

2. Despite the need for climate change

mitigation mentioned within strategic

objective 141 of the plan, subsequent

policies focus on transport reduction and

energy efficiency in design, rather than

the process of energy mineral extraction

and subsequent climate change effects.

There is also acknowledgement within the

plan that: “...the use of energy minerals,

such as burning of coal, oil or gas, in the

UK is likely to result in impacts on the

climate”2. Policy M7b fails to adequately

respond to acknowledged climate change

impacts, and does not explicitly

incorporate measures to address climate

change mitigation or adaptation linked to

the extraction and burning of fossil fuels

(as well as methane leakage). Policy M7b

has not therefore been positively

prepared (re tests of soundness3).

- See our Climate Change response with

regards to other fracking issues linked to

Carbon budgets and the Committee for

Climate Change’s 3 tests and a critique of

the Sustainability Appraisal

Biodiversity and Geodiversity

Protected Sites

3. No explicit reference is made to Natura

objective and so the following amendment is

proposed to paragraph 8.8.1:

The relevant strategic objectives isare: 10: To

minimise the risk to people and property from

flooding, safeguard water resources, including

aquifers, from contamination, and ensure the quality

and quantity of the water environment is conserved

and enhanced.

14: To minimise carbon emissions and to adapt

to, and to mitigate the potential adverse

impacts of, climate change.

There is no need for Policy M7b to “incorporate

measures to address climate change mitigation or

adaptation” as this is covered by other policies in the

Plan, specifically M19, M20 and M23. Policy M23

expects that “Proposals for minerals development

will be permitted provided that, where appropriate,

the scale, form, and layout (including landscaping)

take into account the need to…(c) include measures

to:

(i) maximise water and energy efficiency;

(ii) avoid or at least minimise greenhouse gas

emissions,

(iii) minimise the use of non-renewable energy, and

maximise the use of lower-carbon energy generation

(including heat recovery and the recovery of energy

from gas); and

(iv) ensure resilience and enable adaptation to a

59

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


2000 or Ramsar sites in M7b. Cursory

reading of this and Policy M17 could

mislead some into thinking that surface

drilling to enable fracking in such areas

could in certain instances be acceptable,

despite Government’s clear intentions.

M7b should be amended to highlight the

prohibition of surface works for

hydrocarbon development involving

hydraulic fracturing within internationally

designated sites. Precautionary approach

(EIA) should be taken to fracking

developments proposed near to/within

certain distances to such areas, irrelevant

of their scale or size in hectares, in order

to offer further protection to the

objectives of their designation.

Non-designated sites

5 Aims of the biodiversity and

geodiversity policies within the plan

should be more aspirational in protecting

more generic habitats, countryside and

wildlife, including exclusion of biodiversity

offsetting because impacts could be

extensive. In addition, while buffer zones

may also offer another possible way

forward, further consideration of

biodiversity in terms of cumulative

impacts could be more effectively

included within the remit of policy M22

(Cumulative Impact). Such amendments

changing climate.”

This policy will apply equally to hydrocarbon

development.

With respect to methane leakage, paragraph 6.7.6

states: “Planning permission is only one stage in the

process of securing consent to drill. The Authorities

must assume that the other regulatory bodies

(Environment Agency, Health and Safety Executive

and the Department for Energy and Climate Change)

operate as intended. However, consulting with the

other regulatory bodies on planning applications

helps to ensure that the Authorities can be satisfied

that the issues they cover can or will be adequately

addressed. This means that issues including

emissions, control processes, or health and safety

are not addressed through a planning application.”

The plan is concerned with the supply of minerals

and not their end use. The end use of minerals,

including hydrocarbons is largely governed by other

legislation and is not within the scope of a Minerals

Local Plan.


development of the onshore oil and gas resource

(DCLG/DECC policy paper on Shale Gas and Oil

published August 2015) and believes that UK shale

development is compatible with its goal to cut

greenhouse gas emissions and does not detract from

its support for renewables. In terms of UK energy

policy, it is considered that shale gas can create a

bridge to a low carbon future while renewable energy

60

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


would ensure relevant West Sussex

Minerals Plan policies are better able to

protect the vast amounts of undesignated

habitats, woodland and green field land

within PEDL areas linked to fracking.

- See our separate Biodiversity and

Geodiversity response for further

comments on the Sustainability Appraisal,

as well as recommended changes to other

relevant policies

Ground Water

6. The NPPF is clear in its requirements

for plan makers to take into account the

need to consider impacts on water

supplies. Paragraph 94 of the NPPF states

that local planning authorities should

“adopt proactive strategies to mitigate

and adapt to climate change, taking full

account of....water supply”. Paragraph 99

then states that “local plans should take

account of climate change over the longer

term, including factors such as flood risk,

coastal change, water supply”.

7. In view of the evidence available (see

separate ground-water submission), we

insist that policy M7b is reworded to force

potential applicants to demonstrate

‘beyond scientific doubt’ that there would

be no impact to ground water resources,

is developed, energy efficiency improvements are

made and power from new nuclear facilities is

developed. To be found ‘sound’ the Plan must be

consistent with national policy and legislation. There

is no requirement in national policy or legislation for

the Plan to assessed for its impact on current UK

carbon budgets or for it follow advice from the

Committee on Climate Change (CCC). Amongst other

things, national policy and legislation does not allow

the authorities to prohibit the supply of oil and gas.

In response to the CCC’s report, the Department for

Energy and Climate Change (DECC) responded later

last year[1], stating that the three CCC tests can be

met:

“The Government believes that the strong regulatory

environment for shale gas development, plus the

determined efforts of the UK to meet its carbon

budgets, means that the three “tests” put forward by

the CCC will be met.”

The proposed amendments to Policy M23 are not

considered appropriate.

- Addition of the words ‘or reduce’ to clause (ii)

would weaken the impact of the policy in reducing

greenhouse emissions.

- Addition of the words ‘linked both to the design and

operation, and end-use over the lifetime of the

scheme’ to clause (ii) are not appropriate as all

policy protection provided by the plan should be

considered during design and operation and end-use

61

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


whether proposed within or outside of

Ground Water Protection Zones. This

would enable a more rigorous approach

to fracking applications by screening

them for Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA), especially for

groundwater impact within any relevant

scoping exercise.

- See our separate Groundwater response

for our comments on the Sustainability

Appraisal, as well as recommended

changes to other related policies.

Community Impacts

8. Fracking development has the potential

to introduce a range of impacts to local

communities across West Sussex.

Fracking development brings noise6,

visual, lighting, air quality7 and traffic

impacts. Evidence of such impact has

been documented within British and

American government and academic peer

reviewed literature (see our separate

community impacts submission for

further details).

9. Adoption of the precautionary

approach (i.e. requirement for

Environmental Impact Assessment) to

assess potential community impacts for

all stages of fracking development would

is addressed by Policy M24: Restoration and

Aftercare. Furthermore, ultimately, end uses may

involve non-minerals related activities for which

separate planning permission is required and the

merits of proposals for such activity would be

considered by other non-minerals related planning

policy not included in this Plan. The further proposed

changes to clauses (c) (ii) and (c) (iv) are therefore

not necessary or appropriate.

- Addition of the words in terms of design and

operation over the lifetime of the scheme. to clause

(iv) are not appropriate as all policy protection

provided by the plan should be considered during

design and operation during lifetime of the scheme.

[1] Government Response on the Compatibility of UK

Onshore Petroleum with Meeting the UK’s Carbon

Budgets -

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/committee-

on-climate-change-report-and-government-

response-on-the-compatibility-of-uk-onshore-

petroleum-with-meeting-the-uks-carbon-budgets


Policy M7b is intended to be consistent with

legislation (Infrastructure Act 2015 and Onshore

Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations

2016) that sets out where surface activity associated

with hydraulic fracturing may take place. It is not

appropriate to add other areas to the policy which

are not expressly covered by the legislation as this

62

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


ensure policy M7b is justified (i.e. based

on proportionate evidence available);

notwithstanding the “great weight” placed

upon minerals extraction within the NPPF.

- See our separate Community Impact

submission for justification of the above

approach, as well as specific comments

on air, noise, landscape and visual impact

and traffic in relation to fracking.

10. Overall, our recommendations should

ensure policy M7b is ‘justified’ in light of

available evidence, ‘effective’ and

consistent with National Policy – as per

the tests of soundness within the NPPF.

Recommended Amendments to Policy

M7b:

Exploration and Appraisal


appraisal for oil and gas, involving

hydraulic fracturing, including

extensions* to existing sites will only be

considered permitted provided that

where they can demonstrate by

appropriate evidence and assessment

that adverse impacts can be avoided

– either alone or in combination with

other developments. Consideration

would mean the Plan was not legally compliant and

so could not be adopted.

The reference to Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites

(internationally designated sites) is considered

appropriate. Policy M7b does not place a ban on

hydraulic fracturing from these areas, as this would

be incompatible with national policy and legislation,

but it expects that special care will be taken to avoid

harm to these areas. It is noted that the wording

could be made clearer and so a slight amendment is

proposed to clause (c) of Policy M7b as follows:

“Activity beneath or proximate to designated areas

(c) Proposals for exploration, appraisal and

production of oil and gas, involving hydraulic

fracturing, will be permitted underneath or in close

proximity to designated areas, assets and

habitats42, which demonstrate that special care will

be taken to avoid harming these areas and the

special qualities of the South Downs National Park

and/or the setting and intrinsic character and value

of the Chichester Harbour and High Weald AONBs.”

Paragraph 6.7.11 includes the following: “The

applicant will be required to provide information

about how the site has been selected and the extent

of the geographical area of search for the oil and

gas, covering the wider target reservoir. This is

important to demonstrate that the site selected is

the least sensitive location from which the target

reservoir can be accessed and needs to take into

account on-site and off-site activities, including HGV

movements and routing.”

63

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


should include: -

(i) it being demonstrated that


the entire development including





reducing greenhouse gas emissions;

(ii) a precautionary approach to

unconventional oil and gas

development in requiring

environmental impact assessment;

including screening and scoping of

the range of (direct and indirect

cumulative) impacts likely to arise

from such development;

(iii) any surface development is

[INSERT] will be located outside the

following areas (as shown on the policies

map): i. South Downs National Park ii.

Chichester Harbour AONB iii. High Weald

AONB [INSERT] iv. Natura 2000 v.

Ramsar ivi. Groundwater Source

Protection Zone 1 [INSERT] -3; vii. Sites

of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

(viii) Any [INSERT] ‘protected area’

given specific protection from hydraulic

And Paragraph 6.7.12 states: “The site selection

process should also demonstrate how regard has

been had to designations of local, regional and

national importance. In addition, sites of European

importance for nature conservation and areas that

support their ecological integrity must be considered.

This is particularly important for European sites

designated for migratory species such as some birds,

or for wide-ranging species such as bats.”

Furthermore, specific policy protection to biodiversity

and geodiversity is provided in Policy M17.

Groundwater

As written the policy provides adequate protection to

groundwater by specifying that surface development

should not take place with Source Protection Zone 1.

This is consistent with legislation concerning

hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore Policy M7b states

that permission will only be granted where (with

emphasis added) “any adverse impacts including

(but not limited to) noise, dust, visual intrusion,

transport, and lighting, on both the environment and

local community, including air quality and the water

environment, can be minimised, and/or mitigated,

to an acceptable level;”

Clause (d) of Policy M7b states: “d) There is a

presumption against hydrocarbon development

involving hydraulic fracturing in Groundwater Source

Protection Zones 1, 2 and 3 unless it is demonstrated

that there will be no unacceptable impacts on

groundwater.”

64

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


fracturing [INSERT] within current or

future legislation; (iiv) the site selected

is the least sensitive, [INSERT] but

deliverable location from which the target

reservoir can be accessed, taking into

account impacts from on-site activities

and off-site activities including HGV

movements [INSERT] and air quality

impacts

(vii) any [INSERT] robust objective

evidence that there would be no

unacceptable impacts including (but not

limited to) noise, dust, [INSERT]

landscape and visual intrusion,

transport, [INSERT] vibration, and



[INSERT]; especially including air

quality, [INSERT] soil and the water

[INSERT] quality, can be minimised,

and/or mitigated, to an acceptable

level; (iviii) restoration and aftercare of

the site to a high quality standard would

take place [INSERT] to a high quality

standard, in accordance with Policy M24

whether or not oil or gas is found; (ixv)

[INSERT] it being demonstrated that

no unacceptable impacts would arise from

the on-site storage or treatment of



Furthermore, specific policy protection of water

resources is also provided in Policy M16. The

approach to groundwater in the Plan is appropriate

and consistent with national policy and is considered

to offer appropriate policy protection. The

Environment Agency, who are specifically charged

with protecting groundwater, have been consulted

throughout the preparation of the Plan and have not

objected to the wording of this policy in their

representations. In light of comments received on

the the draft version of the Plan (published for

consultation in 2016) the purpose of the policy was

also made clearer with changes to the supporting

text.

Community Impacts

As written the policy provides adequate protection to

communities where it states that permission will only

be granted where (with emphasis added) “any

adverse impacts including (but not limited to) noise,

dust, visual intrusion, transport, and lighting, on

both the environment and local community,

including air quality and the water environment, can

be minimised, and/or mitigated, to an acceptable

level;”

Furthermore, specific policy protection of amenity

and public health is also provided in Policy M18 that states: “Proposals for mineral development will be permitted provided that:

(a) lighting, noise, dust, odours, vibration and other

emissions, including those arising from traffic, are

controlled to the extent that there will not be an

unacceptable impact on public health and amenity;

65

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


ground

Production

(b) Proposals for oil and gas production,

involving hydraulic fracturing, including

extensions* to existing sites, will be


(i) they accord with (a)(i-vix)

above; [INSERT] (ii) it being

demonstrated that greenhouse gases

associated with the entire

development including fugitive

emissions will not lead to




reducing greenhouse gas

emissions. (ii) no unacceptable

[INSERT] adverse impacts would arise


means, of oil/gas, water, consumables,

and wastes to or from the site;

[INSERT] including indirect effects

on Air Quality Management

Areas; (iii) the restoration and aftercare

of the site to a high quality standard

would take place in accordance with

Policy M24. REPETITION (iv) No

unacceptable impacts would arise from



and

(b) the routes and amenity of public rights of way

are safeguarded, or where temporary or permanent

re-routeing can be justified, replacement routes of

comparable or enhanced amenity value are

provided.”

Areas of residential development are also protected

from unacceptable impacts by the development

management policies including Policy M18. The

inclusion of a specific minimum distance away from

residential development cannot be justified as such a

distance will vary depending on the exact

circumstances of what is proposed and any

mitigation which might already exist.

In addition paragraph 6.7.20 notes that “Community

engagement is important for oil and gas

development and applicants will be encouraged to

engage with both the communities and the

Authorities (through pre-application advice). For

complex cases, the use of a planning performance

agreement will be sought. There is also a

‘Community Charter’ which the oil and gas industry

has committed to for communities that host

unconventional oil and gas development.”

Repetition within the Policy is noted and a

modification proposed to address this.

66

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/



ground.

REPETITION


designated areas


and production of oil and gas, involving

hydraulic fracturing, will [INSERT] only

be considered permitted underneath or

in close proximity to other “protected

designated areas”, assets and

habitats42, which demonstrate:

[INSERT] (i) by appropriate

evidence and assessment that

adverse impacts can be avoided and

robust environmental impact

assessment – covering all likely

impacts and their mitigation;

(ii) that special care will be taken to

avoid harming the special qualities of the

South Downs National Park and/or setting

[INSERT] (including its designation

as an International Dark Night Skies

Reserve) and value [INSERT] the

landscape designation objectives and

setting of the Chichester Harbour AONB,

High Weald AONB, [INSERT] as well as

and designated areas, assets and habitats

67

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Groundwater

There is a presumption against


hydraulic fracturing in Groundwater

Source Protection Zones 1, 2 and 3

[INSERT] (and other non-protected

zones) unless it is demonstrated

[INSERT] - via environmental impact

assessment - that there will be no

unacceptable [INSERT] adverse impacts

to groundwater.

M7b

4311

4240

4302

3843

4311

3930

4280

4292

4120

4129

027

268

002

025

027

032

058

065

121

134

Forest Row

Councillor

Cllr Susan

Murray –

Lewes Town &

District Cllr

Residents /

others

Policy M7b does not document the

capacity of the local area to dispose of

toxic waste waters produced in huge

quantities

Any disposal of waste would need to take place in

accordance with an Environment Permit issued by

the Environment Agency. Such permits included

conditions intended to ensure that the management

of waste does not cause harm to human health or

pollution of the environment.

68

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy

M7b

3713 074 CPRE Sussex the Weald is a geologically unstable

region; and in some cases, this process

can also result in the fracturing of the

adjacent rocks and the re-activation of

ancient geological faults; thereby opening

passage ways for the migration of ‘return’

fracking fluids into any over-lying

aquifers. This creates the unmeasurable

potential for long term, irreversible harm

to aquifers and to the quality of our rivers

and groundwater reserves;

Amendment of policy from previous

iterations to provide for the total

prohibition of all fracking operations

within and beneath groundwater

protection zones 1, 2 and 3 is welcomed,

but such provisions of course, only apply

to strategic groundwater sources and the

Precautionary Principle must also be

invoked wherever there is a perceived

threat to our increasingly fragile water

environment.

A Plan that permits hydraulic fracturing

cannot be justified on public policy

grounds. The impossibility of eliminating

the risk of environmental harm is

incompatible with permitting fracking in a

geologically unstable zone when the

required precautionary approach to

regulation is applied.

Changes proposed to Policy M7b.

The Environment Agency have been consulted

throughout the preparation of the Minerals Local

Plan. Their comments on the Proposed Submission

Draft Plan version of policies concerning

hydrocarbons include the following:

“We support the inclusion of this policy. We are

pleased to see that the water environment is

specifically referenced and the protection of water

resources is recognised as an issue.

Clause (c) is especially important to ensure that

there are no impacts from drilling underneath or next

to protected groundwater zones.”

The policy does not prohibit “all fracking operations

within and beneath groundwater protection zones 1,

2 and 3” as suggested. Clause d) was added in

response to the consultation on the draft policy and

this states: “There is a presumption against

hydrocarbon development involving hydraulic

fracturing in Groundwater Source Protection Zones 1,

2 and 3 unless it is demonstrated that there will be

no unacceptable impacts on groundwater”

There is no ban on hydraulic fracturing as a method

of extracting oil and gas and Policy M7b is therefore

required to address any proposals which come

69

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


forward which include this approach to exploit oil and

gas resources.

M7b 4265 030 Keith Taylor

MEP for South

East England

Policy M7b must be future proofed to

ensure applications that include

acidisation (and similar) can be rejected

as it would be wholly inappropriate for a

national park location.

It would be in line with national policy to

extend policy M7b to include the

fracturing of rock under hydraulic

pressure regardless of the volume of

fracture fluid used, matrix fracking, acid

fracking and acidisation as well as all new

emerging types of extraction involving

stimulation.

Footnote 40 should be changed to:

“40: “hydraulic fracturing” in the context

of this policy means all types of well

stimulation used to search for or bore for

or get oil and gas including but not

limited to the fracturing of rock under

hydraulic pressure regardless of the

volume of fluid used, matrix acidising,

acid fracking and acidisation under high

or low pressure.”


























addressed.

The definition of hydraulic fracturing used is

consistent with that used in relevant legislation

70

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


affecting related development.

M7b 4289 080 Resident/other Policy M7b is not in line with national

policy – Environment Agency Document -

"Groundwater Protection: Principles and

Practice (GP3)”

It is essential that the Precautionary

Principle is followed in protecting

groundwater quality (if polluted can take

decades for natural processes to clean it

up)

Any reference to hydraulic fracturing

should be removed and Policy M7b should

be removed in its entirety













There is no ban on hydraulic fracturing as a method

of extracting oil and gas and Policy M7b is therefore

required to address any proposals which come

forward which include this approach to exploit oil and

gas resources.

M7b 3427 145 Sussex Wildlife

Trust

Trust is pleased to see changes to policy

criteria (a)(i)vi, (a)(v) and (d) in policy

M7b.

Recommend changes to policy M7b:

‘Exploration and Appraisal

(a)Proposals for exploration and appraisal

for oil and gas, involving hydraulic

fracturing, including extensions* to

Comments about support for changes to the policies

are noted.









71

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


existing sites will be permitted provided

that:

(i) It being demonstrated that







(ii) any surface development is located

outside the following areas (as shown on

the policies map):

i. South Downs National Park

ii. Chichester Harbour AONB

iii. High Weald AONB

iv. Groundwater Source Protection Zone 1

v. Sites of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI)

vi. Any other area given specific

protection from hydraulic fracturing in

legislation

(iii) the site selected is the least sensitive,


reservoir can be accessed taking into



movements.

(v) any unacceptable impacts including

(but not limited to) noise, dust, visual

intrusion, transport, vibration, and


















addressed.



development takes place within a particular area.

Paragraph 6.7.7 notes that “All applications will be

considered against Environmental Impact

Assessment Regulations 2011 (or as subsequently

revised).”

72

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/




including air quality, soil and the water

quality, can be minimised, and/or

mitigated, to an acceptable level;

including the cumulative effects of

successive well pads and extraction

techniques;



place in accordance with Policy M24


(vii) no unacceptable impacts would arise




ground.

Production





i) they accord with (a)(i-vii) above;

(ii) no unacceptable impacts would arise


means, of oil/gas, water, consumables

and waste to or from the site;




(iv) No unacceptable impacts would arise

73

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/





ground


designated areas



hydraulic fracturing, will be permitted

underneath or in close proximity to

designated areas, assets and habitats,

which demonstrate:

(i) by appropriate evidence and


be avoided and a robust

environmental impact assessment –

covering all likely impacts and their

mitigation – has been submitted;

(ii) that special care will be taken to avoid


Downs National Park and/or setting and

value of the Chichester Harbour AONB,

High Weald AONB, and other designated

areas, assets and habitats.

Groundwater

(d)There is a presumption against




unless it is demonstrated that there will

74

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


be no unacceptable impacts to

groundwater.’

M7a and

M7b

3787

003 Balcombe

Parish Council



meaning.















benefits.

Policy

M7a and

M7b


Earth

Concern about cumulative impacts

associated with of oil and gas

development

Concern that policies M7a and M7b do not

safeguard ‘protected areas’ from

applications involving “acidisation;

horizontal sidetrack; or other means to

reach energy mineral reservoirs” as these

may be considered as conventional

techniques which may not meet the

Infrastructure Act’s definition of hydraulic

fracturing (and the energy reservoirs

being assessed may be conventional)



development takes place within a particular area. Paragraph 8.11.2 states: “The purpose of this policy [M22] is to ensure that the cumulative impact of successive or concurrent minerals and/or waste workings/facilities can have on the environment and communities over time (e.g. through noise, odour and

increased traffic) are addressed. In some instances

the combined impact may be sufficient to merit

refusal of planning permission, but in other cases

phasing agreements may provide for the disturbance

to be reduced to an acceptable level.”






75

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


despite their close similarities to

production aspects of hydraulic fracturing.

The ability of the EA to assess the

potential for impacts for such schemes

has been brought into question. While the

EA now require new and existing onshore

oil and gas operations to apply for

bespoke permits, local communities in

West Sussex are not satisfied that current

system would ensure adequate protection

and amendments to policy M7a are

proposed to ensure the exclusion of such

schemes from protected areas.

Cumulative Effects

Hydrocarbon resource in West Sussex is

of a ‘tight’ nature that requires lots of

wells close to each other to maintain

production levels.

Consideration of cumulative effects will be

needed to consider impacts of successive

wells that will likely be required to apply

acid-stimulation across licensed areas of

the Weald. This consideration has been

included within policy amendments below.

Recommended Policy

Amendments: M7a Hydrocarbon

development not involving hydraulic

fracturing; Exploration and Appraisal





















addressed.

Responses to other changes to the Policies M7(a)

and M7(b) are included in the response to the

Friends of Earth representation on policy M7(b).

Responses to proposed changes to Policy M22 are

provided in the section of the report covering

representations on Policy M22.

76

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/



appraisal for oil and gas [INSERT]




not involving hydraulic fracturing, and

including extensions** to existing sites

will only be permitted [INSERT]

considered where they can

demonstrate by appropriate evidence

and assessment that adverse impacts

can be avoided – either alone or in

combination with other

developments provided that.

Consideration should include:-

i) it being demonstrated that







reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(ii) With regard to development proposals

deemed to be major, [INSERT]

Proposed development sites are

located outside the South Downs National

Park, High Weald AONB or Chichester

Harbour AONB, unless it has been

demonstrated that there are exceptional

circumstances; and that it is in the public

interest; and the [INSERT] proposal is

77

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


in accordance with Policy M13 [INSERT]

and that no other suitable sites are

available outside of such

designations;

[INSERT] (iii) proposals utilising

acidisation are proposed outside of

the South Downs National Park, High

Weald AONB or Chichester Harbour

AONB or other ‘protected area’, in

light of their different potential

impacts and implications for ground

and surface water, waste (etc).

(iiv) the site selected is the least

sensitive, [INSERT] but deliverable

location from which the target reservoir

can be accessed, taking into account

impacts from on-site activities and off-

site activities including HGV movements

[INSERT] and indirect air quality

impact;

(vi) any [INSERT] robust objective










78

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/



and/or mitigated, to an acceptable level;

[INSERT] including the cumulative

effects of successive well pads and

extraction techniques;



place [INSERT] to a high quality



(vii) [INSERT] robust evidence is

supplied to demonstrate that no





ground.

(b) Proposals for oil and gas production

[INSERT] (including those which

propose to use advanced well

stimulation techniques including


fracturing and including extensions** to

existing sites, will [INSERT] only be

considered where they can

demonstrate by appropriate evidence

and assessment that adverse impacts

can be avoided – either alone or in

combination with other

developments provided that.

79

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Consideration should include:-

[INSERT] (i) it being demonstrated

that greenhouse gases associated

with the entire development

including fugitive emissions will not

lead to unacceptable adverse

environmental impacts or

compromise the planning authority’s

duties in relation to reducing

greenhouse gas emissions.

(ii) they accord with (a)(i-vii)

above; (iii) no unacceptable impacts

would arise from the transport, by vehicle

or other means, of oil/gas, water,

consumables and waste to or from the

site;



place in accordance with Policy M24.(N.B.

repetition see i-vii above) (iv) No





ground (Repetition)


designated areas


80

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


and production of oil and gas [INSERT]




not involving hydraulic fracturing, will

[INSERT] only be considered

permitted underneath or in close

proximity to designated areas [INSERT],

assets and habitats41, which

demonstrate:

[INSERT]

i) by appropriate evidence and


be avoided and robust environmental

impact assessment – covering all

likely impacts and their mitigation –

has been submitted;

ii) that special care will be taken to avoid


Downs National Park and/or setting







other and designated areas, assets and

habitats.

[INSERT] *such schemes proposing

81

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


to access energy reservoirs by

acidisation of long lateral wells or by

drilling injection wells to receive

liquid waste from acidisation

** including extensions of time, physical

extensions or extensions to operations

within the existing site boundary. N.B.

The suitability of proposals for alterations

to permitted [INSERT] extant

operations will be considered against the

Development Management policies.

M7b (Hydrocarbon development

involving hydraulic fracturing);

Exploration and Appraisal


appraisal for oil and gas, involving

hydraulic fracturing, including

extensions* to existing sites will only be

considered permitted provided that

where they can demonstrate by

appropriate evidence and assessment

that adverse impacts can be avoided

– either alone or in combination with

other developments. Consideration

should include: -

(i) it being demonstrated that




82

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/






(ii) a precautionary approach to

unconventional oil and gas

development in requiring

environmental impact assessment;

including screening and scoping of

the range of (direct and indirect

cumulative) impacts likely to arise

from such development;

(iii) any surface development is

[INSERT] will be located outside the

following areas (as shown on the policies

map):

i. South Downs National Park

ii. Chichester Harbour AONB

iii. High Weald AONB

[INSERT] iv. Natura 2000

v. Ramsar

ivi. Groundwater Source Protection Zone

1 [INSERT] -3;

83

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


vii. Sites of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI)

(viii) Any [INSERT] ‘protected area’

given specific protection from hydraulic

fracturing [INSERT] within current or

future legislation; (iiv) the site selected

is the least sensitive, [INSERT] but


reservoir can be accessed, taking into



movements [INSERT] and air quality

impacts

(vii) any [INSERT] robust objective











and/or mitigated, to an acceptable

level;

(iviii) restoration and aftercare of the site


place [INSERT] to a high quality


84

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/



(ixv) [INSERT] it being

demonstrated that no unacceptable

impacts would arise from the on-site

storage or treatment of hazardous

substances and/or contaminated fluids

above or below ground

Production





(i) they accord with (a)(i-vix) above;

[INSERT] (ii) it being demonstrated

that greenhouse gases associated

with the entire development

including fugitive emissions will not

lead to unacceptable adverse

environmental impacts or

compromise the planning authority’s

duties in relation to reducing

greenhouse gas emissions.

(ii) no unacceptable [INSERT] adverse

impacts would arise from the transport,

by vehicle or other means, of oil/gas,

water, consumables, and wastes to or

from the site; [INSERT] including

85

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


indirect effects on Air Quality

Management Areas;




REPETITION (iv) No unacceptable

impacts would arise from the on-site

storage or treatment of hazardous

substances and/or contaminated fluids

above or below ground. REPETITION


designated areas



hydraulic fracturing, will [INSERT] only

be considered permitted underneath or

in close proximity to other “protected

designated areas”, assets and

habitats42, which demonstrate:

[INSERT]

6. (i) by appropriate evidence and


be avoided and robust environmental

impact assessment – covering all

likely impacts and their mitigation;

7. (ii) that special care will be taken to

86

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


avoid harming the special qualities of the

South Downs National Park and/or setting







and designated areas, assets and habitats

Groundwater

There is a presumption against




[INSERT] (and other non-protected

zones) unless it is demonstrated

[INSERT] - via environmental impact

assessment - that there will be no

unacceptable [INSERT] adverse impacts

to groundwater.

Policies

M7a and

M7b

3775 289 Wisborough

Green Parish

Council

Policies M7a and M7b on Hydrocarbons

without or with fracking should be

strengthened to protect the environment.

With the local geology faulted, there are

concerns about the processes used, the

potential to impact upon aquifers and the

long term impact upon water supplies.

Taken together with other policies of the Plan, as

written, the policies are considered to provide

adequate protection to the environment and

groundwater. Policy M7b specifies that surface

development associated with hydraulic fracturing

should not take place with Source Protection Zone 1.

This is consistent with legislation concerning

hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore Policies M7a and

87

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


M7b state that permission will only be granted where

(with emphasis added) “any adverse impacts

including (but not limited to) noise, dust, visual

intrusion, transport, and lighting, on both the

environment and local community, including air

quality and the water environment, can be

minimised, and/or mitigated, to an acceptable level;”

Policy M7b was strengthened to include Clause (d)

that states: “d) There is a presumption against

hydrocarbon development involving hydraulic

fracturing in Groundwater Source Protection Zones 1,

2 and 3 unless it is demonstrated that there will be

no unacceptable impacts on groundwater.”

Furthermore, specific policy protection of water

resources is also provided in Policy M16. The

approach to groundwater in the Plan is appropriate

and consistent with national policy and is considered

to offer appropriate policy protection. In light of

comments received on the draft version of the Plan

(published for consultation in 2016) the purpose of

the policy was also made clearer with changes to the

supporting text.









88

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/






Policy M7

a and b


Trust

Pleased to see amendments to supporting

text, the additional criteria in both

policies and changes to the

implementation and monitoring table.

Concern about separating out the policy

as it could lead to other potentially

damaging extraction methods being

employed in protected areas. Particular

concerns about the use of acidisation of

long lateral wells and the drilling of


from acidisation. As the effects of

acidisation are unknown, policy M7a

should be strengthened.

Policies should acknowledge the potential

of hydrocarbons exploration/production to

produce GHGs through fugitive emissions.

Policy wording changes suggested

Support for changes to the policies is noted.


























89

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


addressed.

M7a

M7b


MEP for South

East England

Policies M7a and M7b should be amended

for adverse impacts on the environment

and local community to be “prevented”

rather than merely “minimised” or

“mitigated”.

Policies M7a and M7b require adverse impacts on the

environment and local community to be “minimised

and/or mitigated to an acceptable level”.

M7a

M7b

3077 123 Historic

England

Would welcome additional detail provided

in Policy 7a (iii) and & b (iii) and would

recommend that the wording is modified

to refer specifically to designated and

undesignated heritage assets and their

settings.

Note that specific recognition of historic environment

is appropriate. Proposed minor modification as

follows: Third lines of 7a(a) (iii) and 7b (a) (iii) to

read “…on the natural, historic and built

environment…”

This proposed modification has been agreed with

Historic England and the representation has been

withdrawn on that basis.

M7a

M7b

3622

4106

4125

4130

4139

4140

4141

3821

4142

4143

4144

4146

4147

4148

062

056

127

135

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

169

170

171

Keep Kirdford

& Wisborough

Green

Resident/

others

Opposed to Policies M7a and M7b –

hydrocarbon/fossil fuel extraction should

not take place (reasons stated against

6.7, in conjunction with M17, M22 &

M23).


development of the onshore oil and gas resource. To

be found ‘sound’ the Plan must be consistent with

national policy which, among other things, does not

allow the Authorities to prohibit the supply of oil and

gas.











90

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4149

4150

4151

4152

4153

4154

4155

4156

4157

4158

4159

4162

4163

4164

4165

4167

4168

4169

4171

4172

4173

4174

4175

4176

4177

3868

4178

4179

4180

4181

4182

4183

4184

4185

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

201

200

202

203

204

205

206

207

208












and enhanced.

14: To minimise carbon emissions and to adapt

to, and to mitigate the potential adverse

impacts of, climate change.

Policy M23 expects that “Proposals for minerals

development will be permitted provided that, where

appropriate, the scale, form, and layout (including

landscaping) take into account the need to…(c)

include measures to:



emissions,




from gas); and


91

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4186

4187

4188

4189

4190

4191

4193

4194

4195

4196

4197

4198

4199

4200

4201

4202

4203

4204

4205

3882

4206

4207

3883

4209

4210

4211

4212

4213

4214

3962

4215

4217

4218

4219

209

210

211

212

213

214

216

217

218

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

244

245

246



development.

92

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4220

4221

4223

4224

4225

4226

4227

4228

4229

4230

3982

4231

4233

4234

3963

4235

4236

4237

4238

4239

4241

4242

4243

4244

4245

4246

4247

4248

3942

4249

4250

4251

4252

4253

296

247

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

93

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4235

4254

4258

4259

4261

4208

4222

283

284

290

291

293

234

248

M7a

M7b

3622 024 Keep Kirdford

& Wisborough

Green

A glossary of terms is required to define

words associated with oil/gas exploration

and wastewater (glossary included within

representation)

A glossary is included in the Plan at Appendix G. This

includes explanation of terms and abbreviations used

in the Plan. Other terms, such as ‘hydraulic

fracturing’ are explained within the Plan

Para

6.7.15

3713 074 CPRE Sussex Whilst the AONBs may not enjoy

international reserve status, dark skies

are integral to AONBs. This should be

mentioned at the end of the penultimate

sentence of this paragraph. Research by

CPRE shows that the High Weald AONB

enjoys some of the darkest skies in the

country.

This concern is addressed by clauses within policies

M7a and M7b which state:

“any adverse impacts including (but not limited to)

noise, dust, visual intrusion, transport, and lighting,

on both the natural and built environment and local

community, including air quality and the water

environment, can be minimised, and/or mitigated, to

an acceptable level;”

M8 3787

003 Balcombe

Parish Council



meaning.







94

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/










benefits.


Products

Association

In paragraph 6.8.5 concrete batching and

coated roadstone plants defined

erroneously as ‘secondary processing’

facilities. Industrial land close to the

market for these materials will be suitable

for such facilities and so proposals should

not be considered against this policy.

Amend para 6.8.5 to remove reference to

concrete batching and coated roadstone

plants.

Agree. Modification proposed to Paragraph 6.8.5 as

follows:

The strategy is to allow processing of excavated or

imported material on sites which have a clear link to

the site where the material has been excavated or

imported, until such activity ceases. Proposals for

secondary processing, such as concrete batching and

coated roadstone production, will be considered

against Policy M8 and the development management

policies, including those intended to protect amenity

(see Policy M18).

Policy M9 3779 149 Cemex Policy is not sound because it has not

been positively prepared. Plan fails to

safeguard future areas of soft sand

working from sterilisation yet it has a

windfall strategy.

Reference to ‘sand and gravel’ in policy M9 is an

umbrella term which includes soft sand (including

potential for silica sand) and sharp sand and gravel.

This is explained in paragraph 6.9.8. Maps of the

safeguarding areas, which includes soft sand

(including the potential for silica sand), are included

in Appendix E of the JMLP.

Policy M9

and

paragrap

h 6.9.4.

4137 146 Gladman

Developments

Ltd.

Concern about the scale of safeguarding

proposed in West Sussex including

existing residential planning allocations

contained within adopted and emerging

The scale of safeguarding reflects the need for, and

extent of the mineral and include minerals of local

and national importance. Paragraph 6.9.7 states

that defining MSAs does not carry a presumption

95

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


plans. District Authorities are under

significant pressure to adopt local plans

which reflect the housing needs of the

area.

While there is a need for some level of

protection of mineral assets, the policy

framework needs to better articulate how

the competing development needs will be

balanced. Policy should be re-written to

make reference to how it should be

factored into the balance of assessing

whether or not a site can be considered

sustainable development. An objection

to a development on the grounds of

mineral sterilisation must be part of the

weighted balance made by a Local

Planning Authority, it should not be a

solely determining factor used to refuse

what would other constitute sustainable

development.

that any areas within them will ultimately be

acceptable for mineral extraction. Paragraph 6.9.4

explains that when assessing proposals, the need for

potentially sterilising development will be weighed

against the need to avoid sterilisation of the

underlying mineral and will take account of the

objectives and policies of the development plan as a

whole. This approach is consistent with national

policy.

Policy M9

and

paragrap

h 6.9.4.

4137 146 Gladman

Developments

Ltd.

Policy does not quantify or outline what

development may be categorised as

national and/or wider strategic

importance.

This will depend on the circumstances of each

proposal. The Mineral Resource Assessment (MRA)

will provide details of the quantity and quality of the

mineral and whether it would be appropriate and

practicable to extract the mineral prior to the non-

mineral development taking place. The MRA is

needed to make a decision about whether the

overriding need for the development outweighs the

safeguarding of the mineral.

Policy M9 4137 146 Gladman

Developments

Ltd.

Policy does not explain how it will work in

relation to the allocation of sites through

existing or emerging or future

Allocations in existing, emerging and future local

plans should be considered against policy M9 as they

may lead to sterilisation of minerals. Excluding these

96

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


development documents. It is the

intention of the policy that District

Councils must produce mineral

assessments before they can allocate

sites in emerging plans or are allocated

sites expected to produce them when

they apply for planning permission.

sites would not be justified and would not be

consistent with national policy.

Footnote 50 in paragraph 6.9.13 refers to a separate

guidance on safeguarding. Chapter 4.0 of the

guidance explains how District, Borough and

Parish/Town Councils should have regard to the

safeguarded areas when identifying suitable sites for

non-mineral development in their Local and

Neighbourhood Plans. Signposting to the Minerals

Safeguarding Guidance will be made clearer in the

supporting text.

Policy

M10

3767 141 Bluebell

Railway PLC

Bluebell Railway PLC are interested in the

safeguarding of Ardingly Rail Depot, via

policy M10 of the Proposed Submission

Draft Joint Minerals Local Plan.

The Plan does not contain any reference

to the proposed reinstatement of the

railway link, which is a safeguarded route

within the Mid Sussex Plan (2004) policy

AR2 (or emerging policy DP17 of the Mid

Sussex District Plan) for the Western

Extension between Horsted Keynes and

Haywards Heath. The safeguarded railway

route runs through the Ardingly Rail

Depot which is proposed for safeguarding.

There is a S106 Unilateral Undertaking

given by the operator of Ardingly Rail

Depot, that provides an alignment for the

railway link, which sets out that both the

existing minerals infrastructure and the

The Authorities consider that, as written, Policy M10

is sound and sufficiently flexible to allow for a

planning application for the reinstatement railway

link to be permitted, taking account of the impact of

the link on the functioning of the Ardingly Rail Depot

for minerals uses. Without prejudice to the outcome

of any relevant planning application, it is considered

that, were this information to provide to support the

application, it is unlikely that the proposal would be

found to be inconsistent with Policy M10.

The suggestion that “or part of the site” should be

included within clauses (a)(i)-(iii) is considered

unnecessary and, by itself, its omission would not

change the outcome of any planning application. The

main purpose of these clauses is to judge competing

development which would prejudice the working of a

site, regardless if it's on part of the site or not. If the

97

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


safeguarded Bluebell Railway link could

be accommodated at the site.

Of particular concern to Bluebell Railway

is the wording in supporting of the Policy

M10, which states that “Authorities may

object to other competing development

which may put the safeguarded minerals

facilities at risk” (para 6.10.10) and that

infrastructure will be protected from

“inappropriate neighbouring

developments” (para 6.10.07). The

railway should not be viewed as

competing development during the life of

the JMLP, to 2033.

Bluebell railway do not directly challenge

the JMLP’s Strategic Objective 5 or 11,

however the Reg.18 consultation

comments were not specifically

addressed. The Authorities addressed

concerns by stated that “the site is

existing, operational and permitted...will

continue to be safeguarded in line with

requirements of national policy”.

In 2010, when a planning application was

submitted to WSCC for the enlargement

of a plan at Ardingly, there were

objections from Bluebell Railway, District

and parish Councils due to conflict with

safeguarding within Policy AR2 of the Mid

Sussex Plan. Bluebell Railway withdrew

these objections through the S.106

reinstated line is not considered as competing

development, which it is not, then, de facto, it would

not be considered as preventing or prejudicing the

site, therefore the policy would not block the

reinstatement of the line.

In order to make clear that the safeguarding of

Ardingly Rail Depot will not be viewed as a

competing development, a paragraph is being

proposed as a minor modification to the supporting

text of Policy M10 which states;

The safeguarded site at Ardingly Rail Depot

(Policy M10 (c)(vii)) contains part of the route

of a proposed reinstated railway link between

Horsted Keynes and Haywards Heath, as part of

the Bluebell Railway. This railway link is

safeguarded for this form of development by

existing and emerging local planning policy.

This railway link may require some minor

alterations to the layout of the infrastructure at

Ardingly Rail Depot but it is likely that this can

take place without detriment to the

safeguarded mineral operations.

The boundary within Inset Map 7 of the JMLP is

taken from previous work, dating back to the 2008

Wharves and Railheads Study. This, as well as the

subsequent 2014 study, and other evidence base

98

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


undertaking, that the proposal would not

prejudice the reinstatement of the line.

The main concern for Bluebell is that of

potential conflict in future, and is not

seeking to be viewed as competing

development. Policy M10 and its

supporting text do not provide the clear

indication that Bluebell Railway seek in

this regard. Furthermore, the boundary of

Ardingly, as set out in Inset Map 7, differs

to that in both the 2003 MLP, and the

2010 planning applications by Hanson,

but there is not clarity as to why.

The principal concern for Bluebell Railway

is not one of soundness, but instead to

seek assurance that the Mineral Planning

Authorities recognise the safeguarded

railway route at Ardingly and that this is

not considered as “competing

development”.

Bluebell Railway consider that supporting

text setting out that the safeguarded

reinstated railway link is added between

paragraph 6.10.11 and 6.10.12 of the

JMLP. Furthermore it is felt that clause

(a)(i)-(iii) should all have “or part of the

site” included with them.

reports, have all contained the same boundary, to

which Hanson, or any other parties, have had no

objection. Hanson may have control of other areas of

land in the vicinity (as marked blue in the Bluebell

representation), however this is not considered as

part of the depot, and instead adjoining land, hence

its exclusion.

A discussion has been undertaken with Bluebell

Railway PLC, who are satisfied that the inclusion of a

paragraph (red text above) would allay their

concerns for the safeguarding of the rail dept.

Policy

M10

3961 067 Brighton &

Hove City

Council

Brighton & Hove City Council reiterates

previous comments supporting the

approach to safeguarding minerals

infrastructure set out in policy M10, in

Support noted.

99

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


particular the

wharves located at Littlehampton and

Shoreham.

The City Council works jointly with East

Sussex County Council on mineral

planning matters and supports comments

submitted separately by ESCC to this

consultation.

Policy

M10 (d)-

(e)

4312 008 The Hyde

Group

Hyde Group support the position in the

Joint Minerals Local Plan to safeguard

temporary wharves, including Kingston

Wharf, whereby they will not be

prevented from being redeveloped for

alternative, non-mineral uses, whereby

their redevelopment would form part of a

strategy or scheme that has wider

social/economic benefits, and outweigh

the retention of the site for minerals use.

The area in question is proposed for

allocation in the Draft Adur Local Plan and

the Shoreham Joint Area Action Plan, as

locations for significant redevelopment.

The support of Policy M10 (d)-(e) is noted. The sites

are not considered as suitable for long term minerals

use, and it is considered that there is sufficient

potential additional capacity in other areas of

Shoreham Port to allow these sites to be

redevelopment in future. Their safeguarding is in

place to ensure that, whilst they have planning

permissions, they can continue to supply minerals to

the markets without being prejudiced.

Policy

M10

4124 126 Aggregate

Industries, Day

Group and

Cemex

Aggregate Industries, Day Group, and

Cemex jointly operate the Crawley Goods

Yard, which is safeguarded by Policy M10.

The yard can handle up to a million

tonnes of aggregate per annum, and has

potential for expansion in future. The site

includes a concrete batching plant, an

The Authorities note the joint operators of Crawley

Goods Yard support Strategic Objectives 5 and 11,

and also note the concerns that Policy M10 is

unsound, as it is not explicit in the requirements with

regard to how proposals for the introduction of noise

sensitive uses in proximity to safeguarded sites

100

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


asphalt plant, and planning permission for

an additional concrete batching plant.

The operators support the strategic

objectives of the Plan, particularly

Strategic Objectives 5 and 11, which seek

to protect existing infrastructure, and

maximise the use of rail transport,

respectively.

In order to ensure that the strategic

objectives can be met, there needs to be

policies which are robust and explicit in

their requirements, particularly with

regard to how proposals for the

introduction of noise sensitive uses in

proximity to safeguarded sites will be

considered. In the absence of this, the

Plan is considered unsound.

Previous representations were submitted

on this matter, in June 2016, seeking an

amendment, within a new subsection, to

explicitly protect existing infrastructure

from sensitive development within 150m

of a minerals handling site, in order to

ensure that it can clearly be

demonstrated that development has been

planned, designed and located to mitigate

impact of noise on future occupiers. The

Authorities resisted this change as it is

felt that any noise sensitive development

would be viewed as being able to prevent

or prejudice a site, as set out in M10. The

would be considered.

The Authorities view is that Policy M10 accords with

para 143 of NPPF, which seeks to ensure that sites,

including railheads, are safeguarded. There is no

criteria provided for specifically considering noise

sensitive uses near to sites. The wording of Policy

M10 states that Development on, or near to, sites

hosting permanent minerals infrastructure, that

would prevent or prejudice the operation will not

be permitted….”

Noise sensitive uses could prevent or prejudice the

operation of a safeguarded railway, therefore the

policy can be applied, and development resisted

accordingly, on a case by case basis. By specifically

focusing on noise, through adding the new suggested

clause (b), the policy would address the operators’

concerns, however the policy would then specifically

address one issue which could prevent or prejudice

the operation of a site. This would result in an

unbalanced policy, as there are many other issues

which could prevent or prejudice the operation of a

site, such as dust, light, hours of operation, access

and vehicle movements etc. By keeping the policy

clear of specific types of uses which can prevent or

prejudice an operation, the policy is positively

prepared and effective, as it ensures that non-

mineral development applications consider all issues

that could prevent or prejudice a site, rather than

focusing on a single issue, such as noise.

Furthermore, the safeguarding guidance provides a

clear steer (Chapter 3) on issues that need to be

101

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


suggested amends were made to the

guidance.

The operators welcome the changes to

the Minerals Safeguarding Guidance, but

still feel that it is vital that policy M10

provides further protection to minerals

operators. The operators are not seeking

to block noise sensitive development, but

instead are seeking that this is

enforceable and to ensure all

development is adequately assessed and

planned, to ensure the continuation of

mineral operations.

The plan is contrary to National Policy,

which seeks to safeguard minerals

infrastructure (para 143). Furthermore,

NPPF para 123 recognises that existing

businesses wanting to develop

in continuance of their business should

not have unreasonable restrictions put on

them because of changes in nearby land

uses since they were established. As

drafted, the Plan is not considered to be

justified as it is not the most appropriate

strategy when considered against

reasonable alternatives.

For safeguarding to be effective it needs

to deal comprehensively not just with the

site itself but also with encroaching

development on adjoining or nearby sites

which could prejudice the existing and

addressed for non-mineral development which could

prevent or prejudice the operation of a site.

102

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


future operation of the safeguarded

mineral infrastructure site.

It is key that explicit protection should be

included within the policy itself. Without

this protection the plan is considered to

be unsound. Suggested wording would

make the plan sound when considered

against the reasonable alternatives and

consistent with national policy;

Suggested amendments to Policy M10;

in clause (a), removal of , or near to,

insert a new clause (b);

Existing minerals infrastructure will be

protected from inappropriate

neighbouring

developments that may prejudice their

continuing efficient operation. Sensitive

uses

proposed adjacent to or within 150

metres of a minerals handling site will not

normally be

supported. If sensitive uses are proposed

that would prevent or prejudice the use of

existing

minerals infrastructure it will need to:

(i) clearly demonstrate how the

development has been planned, designed

and located

103

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


to mitigate the impact of noise on future

occupiers;

(ii) be supported by a suitable level of

assessment including a noise impact

assessment

Policy

M10(d)

4123 126 Day Group Days support the amended wording to

Policy M10 which safeguards Kingston

Railway Wharf for a temporary period.

They also support the addition of

paragraph 6.10.11 which confirms that

the wharf is safeguarded whilst it has

planning permission, and further

permissions may be granted for mineral

related development at these sites if

there is not a conflict with other

development policies and objectives.

Kingston Railway Wharf is operated by

Days for the importation of aggregate by

barge together with an aggregates

bagging operation. Their current consents

will expire in October 2018.

Days aim is to relocate closer to the

functional port area. However, there has

been a lack of suitable sites available for

some time. It is hoped that a new site will

be found soon but, in the meantime, it is

important that planning policy, including

the Minerals Local Plan, allows for

Support for Policy M10, and the inclusion of

temporary wharves for safeguarding is noted.

104

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


ongoing temporary consents which can be

granted on a case by case basis, to help

manage this change.

The amended wording ties in with existing

and emerging policies in respect of the

regeneration

proposals for Shoreham Harbour, which

include: Interim Planning Guidance (IPG)

for Shoreham

Harbour (2011), Western Harbour Arm

Development Brief (2013); Draft

Shoreham Harbour Joint Area Action Plan

(2016) (JAAP); and the Adur Local Plan –

Submission Draft (2016).

4118 116 Southern

Housing Group

Southern Housing Group (SHG) are

owners of Free Wharf (a former minerals

wharf in the Western Harbour Arm).

SHG note that the Free Wharf is not

safeguarded within the Proposed

Submission Draft Plan, and also note the

temporary safeguarding of New Wharf

nearby.

SHG fully support the Proposed

Submission Draft Joint Minerals Local

Plan, which does not seek to safeguard

Free Wharf. SHG have reviewed the

evidence base, and consider it to be

sound and in conformity to NPPF.

The Authorities note SHGs support on the approach

to wharf safeguarding.

105

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy

M10

246 010 Wiggonholt

Association

The Wiggonholt Association considers that

Policy M10 Safeguarding Minerals

Infrastructure, is unsound because;

(a) it is not consistent with national policy

(b) it will not be effective

(c) it is not justified.

(a) not consistent with national

policy

NPPF Paragraph 143 states that “local

authorities should safeguard existing,

planned and potential railheads, rail links

to quarries, wharfage…”

Policy M10 will not achieve safeguarding

in the manner intended by NPPF

paragraph 143 because it includes clause

(a)(ii), that allows development

preventing or prejudicing minerals can be

permitted in certain instances;

particularly where redevelopment forms

part of a strategy or scheme that has

wider social and/or economic benefits

that clearly outweigh the retention of the

site or infrastructure for minerals use.

The provision in the West Sussex context,

means that safeguarding of sites which

are supposed to be permanent is not

safeguarding at all, but little more than a

(a) Not consistent with national policy;

Safeguarding of sites is in place to ensure that

sufficient capacity for landing aggregates is available,

and not prejudiced by nearby or adjacent

development or alternative land uses. Clause (a)(ii)

does allow for the redevelopment of sites, however

clause (a)(iii), preceded with an “and” requires that a

suitable replacement site to be identified. The

location of the sites themselves, although restricted

due to the nature of waterside development, are not

the principle concern, particularly when additional

areas/sites are suitable, and redevelopment of

wharves for other uses sits within wider strategy or

schemes, or its use, as a mineral activity, is no

longer suitable. This ensures that the policy on

mineral safeguarding is positive and flexible.

The safeguarding of wharves under clause (d)(ii) is

proposed to ensure that whilst the sites are

operational and have temporary planning

permissions for mineral activity, they are not

prejudiced in their ability to operate as mineral

wharves.

(b) not effective

The Background Paper (January 2017), Chapter 5,

explains the derivation of Policy M10. It explains the

reason for amendments to estimated wharf capacity,

following publication of the Wharves and Railheads

Study (2014). Significant further work was

undertaken, to understand the existing capacity, and

capabilities of wharves at Shoreham to continue to

106

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


statement of the current use of the site.

The safeguarding of temporary wharves

(clause (d)(ii)) have such short lifespans

as wharves due to the exercising of this

proviso, that their safeguarding is

nominal and illusory. This is inconsistent

with NPPF para 143.

This policy will replace Policy 40 in the

Minerals Local Plan (2003), which had no

such proviso allowing wharves to be lost

to other beneficial use, and this should

not be introduced now.

(b) not effective

Policy 40 of the Minerals Local Plan

(2003) failed, and Policy M10 of the

Proposed Submission draft Plan is more

likely to fail due to the misconceived

provisos which would allow mineral

wharves to be lost to other uses.

Policy 40 of the Minerals Local Plan

(2003) safeguarded five specific wharf

sites at Shoreham Harbour and one wharf

at Littlehampton Harbour, and also

allocated an additional site in

Littlehampton. Of these wharves;

- Brighton Power Station ‘A’ wharf (ARC)

is in minerals use

- Rombus wharf has been lost, and now

supply minerals in line with NPPF, and the calculation

of demand, as set out in the Local Aggregates

Assessment (January 2017).

A Shoreham Harbour Statement of Common Ground

was prepared, in the spirit of the Duty to Cooperate,

and the latest version (August 2016) was signed by

Shoreham Port Authority, East Sussex County

Council, Brighton & Hove City Council, Adur District

Council, West Sussex County Council, and the South

Downs National Park. This underpins effective

cooperation between the parties in addressing

strategic cross-boundary issues that relate to

planning for minerals infrastructure and safeguarding

in Shoreham Harbour. This is in response to the

emerging Shoreham Joint Area Action Plan, which

has regeneration aspirations for Shoreham Harbour,

as well as the need to safeguard mineral

infrastructure, as required by NPPF.

Day Group and Kendall's have been consulted

throughout the preparation of the Plan, and neither

are objecting to the policies in the Plan or approach

being taken. There is sufficient potential capacity in

the port operational area (Eastern Harbour Arm) to

justify not safeguarding these wharves, which are

only temporary, and fall within the Western Harbour

Arm, which is the area subject to regeneration

aspirations.

The Authorities argue that the approach, as set out

in Policy M10, is effective.

107

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


only safeguarded as “potential” by Policy

M10

- Halls wharf and Turberville and Penney’s

wharves remain safeguarded.

- Kingston Wharf; was owned by

Shoreham Port Authority, and

safeguarded by the Minerals Local Plan

(2003). This site has been sold by

Shoreham Port Authority for housing,

contrary to safeguarding. This site has

permission until March 2018 for minerals,

and the operator (Day Group) have no

other land interest in Shoreham Harbour.

Loss of this wharf will be significant as it

is located on the A259, it is close to the

harbour entrance, away from residential

areas, and the contribution of Day

Aggregates to aggregate supply with be

lost.

- New Wharf (including Free wharf) - Free

wharf has been lost, and Kendall’s

operate New Wharf. Kendall’s have no

other interest in land around Shoreham,

and therefore there will be a further loss

of capacity. Its loss demonstrated a

failure of safeguarding.

- Railway Wharf, Littlehampton - The site

is safeguarded, however this has been

failed in three ways;

(c) Not Justified.

The Authorities do not dispute the importance of

wharves to land aggregates.

Policy M10 ensures that development on, or near to

wharves, that may prevent or prejudice its

operation, will not be permitted unless “a suitable

replacement site or infrastructure has been identified

and is available (Policy 10, (a)(iii)). This ensures that

the plan is flexible, and positively prepared, in that it

ensures that overall capacity is maintained.

The Plan does provide long term continuity, as it

safeguards permanent mineral wharves (Policy

M10(c)). Evidence suggests that the capacity to be

safeguarded is sufficient for the supply of minerals to

West Sussex. There is currently a significant

headroom in capacity, estimated to be around

600,000 tonnes per annum, as set out in the Local

Aggregates Assessment (January 2017, Table 22).

Discussions were undertaken with the operators of

Railway Wharf (Littlehampton), and the boundary

amended, in accordance with the areas they lease.

There is no identified need, or interest, in the small

area that was allocated within the 2003 Minerals

Local Plan, therefore, there is no need to consider

safeguarding it.

New Wharf is no longer in minerals use, therefore

cannot be safeguarded in this Plan.

108

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


The proposed area for safeguarding is

smaller than that area safeguarded in the

2003 Minerals Local Plan

The draft Interim Policy Statement for

Railway Wharf (2011) states that WSCC

would not object to proposals for the

development of the site;

Arun District Council fails to safeguard the

wharf. Policy EMPDM3 of the Arun Plan

seeks to abandon mineral safeguarding if

this can be achieved.

West Sussex are amenable to having the

site allocated by Arun DC for other uses.

Finally, the adjacent asphalt plant should

also be safeguarded.

The Wharf, Littlehampton (a 2003 MLP

allocation) has been lost.

It is clear that the 2003 plan failed in its

safeguarding, and the new policy (M10) is

not intended to be effective, and would

be less effective than that in the 2003

Plan as there were no provisos for loss of

wharves.

The Authorities try to justify the actual

and proposed losses of wharf capacity for

aggregates by arguing there is ample

capacity available in other wharves. The

Deletion of clauses (a)i-iii would result in a

negatively worded policy, that would not be flexible

or positive.

There is little evidence that extraction of soft sand

from the sea is currently viable. It is for the market

to decide upon its use. There is currently a

significant headroom over 600,000 tonnes per

annum at West Sussex Wharves, whilst there is also

capacity in Brighton & Hove (Shoreham Harbour)

that is unused. The 10-year average of soft sand

sales, taking account of other relevant information, is

329,400 tonnes per annum, however the 3-year

average s much lower, at 253,300 tonnes per

annum, as set out in the Local Aggregates

Assessment. This demand for soft sand is

significantly lower than the current headroom

available in West Sussex wharves.

109

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Wharves and Railheads Study (2014)

shows that 1.32mt aggregate was sold in

2011 and that capacity was around

1.79mt per annum, therefore there is

sufficient capacity available. The study

also notes the prolonged economic

recession and that spare capacity is likely

to be needed. The trend appears to be

that sales are increasing by upto

40,000tpa, therefore the spare capacity

will be used up within 13 years. The

Wharves and Railheads Study (2014)

suggests that annual sales of primary

aggregate within West Sussex are likely

to increase at an average rate of 5.2%

per annum. This suggests no wharves

should be lost as there will not be spare

capacity.

New Wharfs capacity, as set out in the

Wharves and Railheads Study, could be

as high has 140,000tpa. Not safeguarding

this will be a significant blow to the

aggregates industry.

The operators (Day and Kendall’s) have

no access to the theoretical capacity in

Shoreham Harbour, and there will be no

certainty that current operators in

Shoreham would be willing to invest in

new dredgers to increase amounts being

landed.

Shoreham Port, through the Shoreham

110

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Joint Area Action Plan, are seeking to

locate non-aggregate port businesses

displaced from the Western Arm by

regeneration, creating competition for

wharf space. There is no evidence that

the truly effective capacity at Shoreham

and Littlehampton Harbours is sufficient

to satisfy a rising market in practice.

The LAA (January 2017) states that wharf

capacity is 2.274mtpa across the county,

following discussions with operators and

Shoreham Port Authority. This is

significantly more than that set out in the

Wharves and Railheads Study (2014).

There is no clear explanation of where

this additional capacity has come from.

The information requirement is for

landing capacity, not sales.

(c) not justified

Wiggonholt Association share the view

that aggregate landed at Shoreham and

Littlehampton are of very considerable

importance to the economy. The vast

majority (all but around 10,000tpa) of

sharp sand and gravel originated from

marine sources, landed at Shoreham.

They are also used to land crushed rock.

Given the importance of the marine

wharves in Shoreham, their safeguarding

is essential. The strategy however in

111

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy M10 is not suitable. Instead of

setting out criteria which, if met, would

allow wharves to be lost, a strategy is

needed which provides certainty about

the future use if aggregate wharves for

the whole plan period which would;

- provide long term continuity and

reassurance to operators

- provide existing operators with a firm

bulwark against their loss

- ensure the supply of aggregates

anticipated in the Plan, noting the

notional landing capacity within

Shoreham may not actually be available

to aggregate businesses.

- eliminate speculation about the future of

Shoreham and Littlehampton Harbours.

- provide the means to stiffen resolve

against planning proposals which would

supplant aggregate landing sites.

This requires providing certainty, with no

exception, through safeguarding

identified wharves. Demand is likely to

increase, therefore unnecessarily

safeguarding wharves that will not be

needed in the medium to long term is a

small risk. This would include;

112

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


- safeguarding sites (i) - (v) - including

the entire extent of the Railway wharf site

(Littlehampton)

- include the allocated site in

Littlehampton (Minerals Local Plan 2003,

site 11)

- add New Wharf from the proposed list of

temporary wharves

delete criteria (i) - (iii) in para (a) of

Policy M10, and include the term

“unless”

The Plan is also unsound as it does not

consider the alternative of providing soft

sand in future from marine dredged

sources. These may be available, as set

out in the South Downs Soft Sand Study

(2012). The Mineral Site Selection Report

(Jan 2017) also makes this point,

therefore the Plan is in contradiction with

its own evidence base, whereby it has not

been considered as part of the strategy

for supply of soft sand, in line with

Strategic Objective 3.

Policy

M10

4283 071 UKOG The draft Joint Minerals Local Plan (April

2016, Reg.18) Policy M10, which UKOG

were supportive of, with particular

reference to paragraph 6.10.11

(paragraph 6.10.13 in the Reg.19 Plan),

Policy M10 was amended to ensure that those

facilities with temporary permission (as set out in

new clause (d) were also safeguarded, particularly

with reference to sites listed under clause (e) of the

113

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


confirms hydrocarbon exploration,

appraisal and production sites are

considered for safeguarding. UKOG

remain supportive of the principle of this

policy.

The Proposed Submission Draft Policy

M10 was changed, whereby in clause (a)

reference to “existing minerals

infrastructure” has been amended to

“permanent minerals infrastructure”.

The alteration to the wording therefore is

unclear on whether hydrocarbon sites

would fall under this policy, despite the

confirmation in supporting text. UKOG do

not consider the Policy M10 is positively

prepared, effective, or consistent with

national policy. The wording should be

reverted back to that from the Reg.18,

April 2016, version, referring to “existing

minerals infrastructure”

policy.

Hydrocarbon exploration, appraisal and production

sites would be safeguarded accordingly, whereby

those sites with permanent permission would be

subject to the safeguarding as set out in clause (a),

and those with temporary permission would be

subject to safeguarding as set out in clause (d). It

should be noted that the sub-clauses (a(i-ii)) are

repeated under clause (d), and the key difference is

the requirement of clause (a(iii)), which does not

apply to temporary sites.

The change made to Policy M10 between Reg.18 and

Reg.19, is not a change which alters the strategy or

principle of safeguarding, it makes clear that both

temporary and permanent infrastructure is subject to

safeguarding. The Authorities to not agree that this

policy us not positively prepared, effective, or


Chapter 7: Strategic Minerals Site Allocations

Policy

M11

3761

057

Steyning Parish

Council

Steyning PC wishes to emphasise its

strong objection to the proposed

amended allocation at Ham Farm;

● Site tonnage reduced to 725,000

tonnes but no public proof has been

shown to support this.

● The proposal is adjacent to the

South Downs National Park, and will

Borehole data, which is used to determine the

proposed yield for a site, is subject to confidentiality

restrictions, therefore has not been published by the

Authorities. In order to provide some evidence of

yield, the Authorities commissioned an independent

chartered geologist to produce a note ‘Technical note

regarding soft sand reserves at Ham Farm, Cuesta

Consulting’, which provides an independent review of

the potential reserve volumes at the Ham Farm site.

114

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


cause significant visual and

environmental damage over a long

period - naive to think this can be

done within ten years including

restoration.

● Large number of trees will need to

be cut down to provide safe sight

lines

● increase in lorries will exacerbate the

heavy traffic on this road, and no

right hand turning lane proposed.

Insufficient safety.

● the amenity of immediately joining

residents will diminish the values of

their properties.

● The new area includes land which

falls within Wiston Parish Council,

who have not been consulted.

● Requests for archaeological

information with regard to the site

had been refused on the basis that

this information was commercially

sensitive.

● Deliverability of the site questioned

due to the covenant owned by

Wappingthorn Manor.

● Concern that this site may not be

returned to agricultural use due to

the term “could”.

● The proposals at Ham Farm would

be contrary to policies M12(a),

M18(a) and M20 (c) (iii - v).

This suggests that the estimate of 725,000 tonnes,

as set out within the JMLP, is a fair estimate for the

site.

Following the Regulation 18 consultation on the draft

Joint Minerals Local Plan (April 2016), the Landscape

Assessment was updated, taking account of the

amended boundary of Ham Farm (see West Sussex

Minerals Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study

for Potential Mineral and Waste Sites – Minerals

Addendum September 2016). This has shown that

the site boundary, as revised, is more acceptable

than the previous site boundary and was assessed to

have a “Moderate-high landscape and visual capacity

for accommodating mineral extraction.” The site

boundary, as set out in the Regulation 18 Draft JMLP,

was deemed to have moderate capacity. The impact

of any proposal on the landscape will also be

considered against policy M13 of the Plan, this policy

is intended to help ensure that the quality of the

landscape is enhanced and conserved. This

assessment also considered the removal of trees,

particularly those on the southern boundary, which

are considered to have little landscape value. The

ecological value of those trees would be assessed

through policy M17 of the Plan at the planning

application stage.

The Transport Assessment (addendum October

2016), was produced following the Regulation 18

Consultation of the draft JMLP (April 2016), in order

to take account of the latest data available, staff

vehicle movements, also the impact of materials

being imported for restoration of the site. This

115

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


updated assessment shows that the site would not

cause severe harm. Furthermore, any planning

application submitted for Ham Farm would be

assessed against policies in the JMLP, including Policy

M20, on Transport.

The Authorities are aware that, if not managed

properly, mineral activity can have an impact on

health and amenity from air, light and noise

pollution. At all quarries, steps are required to be

taken to minimise noise by ensuring vehicles are

fitted with silencers and acoustic barriers are

constructed as required. Dust suppression measures

are also employed to prevent dust dispersion. Due to

the distance of the site from the main built-up area

of Steyning (including the school and leisure centre),

noise and dust is not expected to have a noticeable

impact on the village, however these issues would be

considered in detail at the planning application stage,

when detailed proposals are put forward. Any

proposals would be tested against all relevant

policies in the Plan. Policy M18 of the Plan ensures

that public health and amenity are considered and

protected. Relevant development principles are also

included specifically v, viii, xix and xxi. Meanwhile,

The Authorities accept potential impact of extraction

on property value, however it must be noted that

this is not a planning consideration.

Wiston Parish Council, as with all parish councils,

have been consulted at every stage of production of

the JMLP, dating back to 2014. The proposed Ham

Farm site boundary change has meant that the site

now extends into Wiston Parish, however it was

116

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


considered that there were no new issues likely to

arise from discussions with Wiston Parish, therefore

no further Regulation 18 consultation was

undertaken.

The information held on Ham Farm by the

Environment & Heritage Team is that provided by the

operators, and, as with borehole data, is

commercially confidential at plan making stage.

Policy M14, on the historic environment, would

ensure that the historic environment is given

consideration, in detail at the planning application

stage. Meanwhile, development principles viii and ix

of para 7.2.4 of the Plan are relevant to the

protection of the historic environment.

The change to the boundary of the Ham Farm

allocation was in response to the existence of a

restrictive covenant, which the proposer of the Ham

Farm site considers does not make the site

‘undeliverable’. Although any decision to enforce the

restrictive covenant is a private matter, the site

allocation was amended to exclude the area of land

covered by the covenant to ensure it is deliverable.

The wording of paragraph 7.2.3 of the JMLP, with

regards to restoration is “The after use of the site

would be a return to agricultural use...”, meanwhile

development principle xx (paragraph 7.2.4) sets out

some options, but does not diverge from an

agricultural use.

At the Plan making stage, the detail available is not

sufficient to test the proposals against policies within

117

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


in the Plan. This would be done at planning

application stage. At this stage, the assessments

have shown that the site is “acceptable in principle”

for minerals uses, which is sufficient for the

allocation of Ham Farm.

Policy

M11

3761 158 Steyning Parish

Council

This representation was submitted by

Steyning Parish Council originally at

Reg.18 stage, and does not specifically

refer to soundness or legal compliance. It

does not provide any new or updated

information. Steyning Parish Council have

submitted three additional reps (057,

159, 160).

The main additional information

submitted following submission in June

2016 (see representation 085 below) is;

● The Ham Farm site is susceptible

to a high risk of groundwater

flooding. The removal of the

groundwater had not been taken

into account. Discussions with

Southern Water member resulted

in the following concerns being

raised;

● Leachate required proper

handling

● water waste cannot be

discharged

● Steyning waste treatment will

not cope with additional

discharge

Southern Water have been consulted throughout the

Plan making process, and have not raised any of the

concerns listed in this representation. Southern

Water have confirmed, through their own

representation on the JMLP, that they are satisfied

with the proposals at Ham Farm, as have the

Environment Agency. Southern Water were also

contacted to seek clarity on the comments raised

and attributed to Southern Water through previous

consultations, who confirmed that these do not

represent southern waters position and confirmed

they did not wish make any additional comment to

those previously submitted

The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment concludes that

the development is considered appropriate with

regards to flood risk. The inclusion of development

principles (x) and (xi) (para 7.2.4.) ensures that

relevant evidence is submitted alongside any

planning application for the site. Proposals would be

assessed for their suitability against Policies M16

(Water resources), M17 (Biodiversity and

Geodiversity) and M18 (Public Health and Amenity),

to ensure that the concerns raised are addressed

fully. At planning application stage, statutory

consultees would also be consulted, with detailed

proposals.

118

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


● HGV tankers would be required

to remove water

● The additional cost could be

£1-2m.

● Discussions with the Ouse and

Adur River Trust outlines the

adverse risks to the water

environment, potential flooding on

local roads, and adjacent

businesses at Alderwood Pond.

Policy

M11


Council

This representation was submitted by

Steyning Parish Council originally at

Reg.18 stage (June 2016), and does not

specifically refer to soundness or legal

compliance. It does not provide any new

or updated information. Steyning Parish

Council have submitted three additional

reps (057, 158, 160).

The Joint Minerals Local Plan, proposing

Ham Farm, has failed to take account of

key planning conditions, nor has it been

properly communicated to the public in

general, specifically those adjacent to the

site.

Steyning Parish Council object to the Plan

on the following grounds;

Failure by WSCC to uncover an existing

restrictive covenant, which is enforceable

The Authorities were made aware of the restrictive

covenant during the Regulation 18 Consultation. The

change to the boundary of the Ham Farm allocation

was in response to the existence of the restrictive

covenant, which the proposer of the Ham Farm site

considers does not make the site ‘undeliverable’.

Although any decision to enforce the restrictive

covenant is a private matter, the site allocation was

amended to exclude the area of land covered by the

covenant to ensure it is deliverable.

The Authorities disagree that the Plan has not had

regard to the NPPF, meanwhile Horsham District

Council have been consulted throughout the Plan

making process, and specifically with regards to Ham

Farm, raise no objections to its inclusion within the

JMLP.

Use of the term ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the

Plan has been misunderstood as this relates

specifically to paragraph 116 in the NPPF which

states that major development should only be

allowed in National Parks (and AONBs) in

119

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


by an adjoining owner, which will prevent

extraction of sand from the Ham Farm

site.

Failure by WSCC in their statutory

duty with regard to the NPPF and

Horsham District Planning Policy

Framework

Unacceptable impact on the

Landscape, and failure to show

that there are exceptional

circumstances to warrant its

allocation.

Impact on the water environment

and flooding, with reference to

Wiston Pond and Alderwood Pond

Deliverability;

o The site was designated for

maize production to feed

the Wappingthorn Farm

Anaerobic Digestion plant -

loss of the field for maize

production will result in

HGVs having to import

material for the AD plant.

o Steyning Parish Council

contest the borehole

testing undertaken, and

data from 1948 appears to

be inconsistent, showing

‘exceptional circumstances’. As Ham Farm is not

within the SDNP this paragraph does not apply.

Furthermore, the ‘West Sussex Minerals Landscape

Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Potential Mineral

and Waste Sites – Minerals Addendum September

2016’, shows that the site has a “Moderate-high

landscape and visual capacity for accommodating

mineral extraction.”

The Environment Agency and Southern Water raise

no objections to the inclusion of Ham Farm. The

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment concludes that the

development is considered appropriate with regards

to flood risk. The inclusion of development principles

(x) and (xi) (para 7.2.4.) ensures that relevant

evidence is submitted alongside any planning

application for the site. Proposals would be assessed

for their suitability against Policies M16 (Water

resources), M17 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and

M18 (Public Health and Amenity), to ensure that the

concerns raised are addressed fully.

Regarding concerns raised that the land should be

used to grow maize for the Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

Plant at Wappingthorn Farm, original plans for this

AD plant anticipated that maize would be grown at

the site to supply the plant, however the need to

feed the plant by importation is something that the

applicant (Wappingthorn Farm) has made provision

for. West Sussex County Council, as Local Highway

Authority, was consulted on the application for the

AD plant at Wappingthorn Farm to assess the

potential for impact on the highway as a result of the

development. The application was assessed in detail

in order to establish vehicle movements. This

assessment considered several potential sources of

120

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


there was clay below the

site.

o There is a lack of inert

material available to

restore the site within the

time scales presented.

Sites near Ham Farm have

not been satisfactorily

restored

Highways and Traffic

o The 2015 highways

assessment did not take

account of the Shoreham

Air Disaster

o Concerns for cyclists

o impact due to congestion

o concerns about safety

o There is no proposed right

turn lane, which was

previously considered

necessary in 2011.

o HGVs loaded with sand are

required to travel at lower

speeds, which is not

accounted for.

o The ARCDY report states

that the roundabout on the

A283 Storrington arm is

over theoretical capacity in

the morning.

o No allowance made for

cumulative impact of

importing inert waste

movement, including for the importation of crops

from locations other than Wappingthorn Farm. The

conclusion was that, due to its size, the amount of

feedstock required by the plant is limited; therefore

any importation of material will also be limited.

Overall, the Local Highway Authority was satisfied

that such a scenario would not cause severe highway

safety or capacity issues and should not prevent the

development. Any such traffic or movement would

not be considered out of the ordinary for a farm.




Authorities. The data from 1948 pre-dates that

provided by the operator. In order to provide some

evidence of yield, the Authorities commissioned an

independent chartered geologist to produce a note

‘Technical note regarding soft sand reserves at Ham

Farm, Cuesta Consulting’, which provides an

independent review of the potential reserve volumes

at the Ham Farm site. This suggests that the

estimate of 725,000 tonnes, as set out within the

JMLP, is a fair estimate for the site.





vehicle movements, and also the impact of materials






121

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


alongside the other

quarries in the area

● Detrimental impact on the Health

and Wellbeing of residents as a

result of noise, light, air pollution.

Impacts on Alderwood Pond and

nearby residents.

● Local economy will be severely

impacted to the interests of the

community. No consultation

undertaken to any local body

around this issue.

● Biodiversity - there are ancient

woodlands, bats, newts and toads.

The Alderwood Pond is designated

a Nature Reserve and Bird

Sanctuary (1984)

● Historic Environment listed

buildings - Wappingthorn Manor is

a listed building with restrictive

covenant, and Horsebrook cottage

is also listed. Full cognisance of

historical issues have not been

addressed, such as roman

occupation and the abandoned

medieval village of Wappingthorn,

This representation included appendices,

in the form of photographs and scanned

documents.

M20, on Transport.









the distance of the site from the main built up area










included specifically xix and xxi.

The Sustainability Appraisal considers that Ham farm

could have a minor positive impact on the economy.

Habitats Regulation Assessment of this site has been

undertaken that shows the site would not have any

impact on habitats which are protected by specific

legislation. The Plan includes a specific policy (M17)

intended to ensure that minerals proposals address

biodiversity and geodiversity issues.

The Authorities are aware that there are a number of

historic and listed buildings within the area. There is

122

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


no evidence that impacts on historic buildings cannot

be overcome. The scope of the development

principles related to historic buildings was expanded

in the Proposed Submission Draft JMLP, and the

impact on listed buildings would be considered at the

planning application stage. Policy M14 of the Plan

also ensures that impact on the historic environment

is considered, and only those proposals that are

acceptable would be permitted.

Policy

M11


Council

This representation was originally

submitted to the council in November

2016, in advance of the WSCC

Environment and Communities Services

Select Committee meeting (16 November

2016), where the proposed submission

draft Plan was scrutinised. It does not

specifically refer to soundness or legal

compliance.

The site, as amended, now falls within the

Wiston parish, who have not been

consulted. Furthermore, the report to the

previous consultation glosses over the

reasons why this site is unacceptable;

Site tonnage reduced to 725,000

tonnes but no public proof has

been shown to support this.

The proposal is adjacent to the

South Downs National park, and

will cause significant visual and

environmental damage over a long

The West Sussex County Council Environmental and

Community Select Committee is a scrutiny

committee, who on 16 November 2016,

recommended to the Cabinet Member for Highways

& Transport, that the Ham Farm site be removed.

The Cabinet Member for Highways & Transport, in

response, stated that he recognised the concerns

being raised locally to the Ham Farm site, however

considered that there was robust evidence which

supported the allocation of Ham Farm, and so its

exclusion risked the soundness of the JMLP, and so it

was not appropriate to remove the site.




Authorities. The data from 1948 pre-dates that

provided by the operator. In order to provide some

evidence of yield, the Authorities commissioned an

independent chartered geologist to produce a note

‘Technical note regarding soft sand reserves at Ham

Farm, Cuesta Consulting’, which provides an

independent review of the potential reserve volumes

at the Ham Farm site. This suggests that the

estimate of 725,000 tonnes, as set out within the

123

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


period - naive to think this can be

done within ten years including

restoration.

Large number of trees will need to

be cut down to provide safe sight

lines

increase in lorries will exacerbate

the heavy traffic on this road, and

no right hand turning lane

proposed. Insufficient safety.

the amenity of immediately

joining residents will diminish the

values of their properties.

The proposals at Ham Farm would

be contrary to policies M12(a),

M18(a) and M20 (c) (iii - v).

JMLP, is a fair estimate for the site.

Use of the term ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the

Plan has been misunderstood as this relates

specifically to paragraph 116 in the NPPF which

states that major development should only be

allowed in National Parks (and AONBs) in

‘exceptional circumstances’. As Ham Farm is not

within the SDNP this paragraph does not apply.

Furthermore, the ‘West Sussex Minerals Landscape

Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Potential Mineral

and Waste Sites – Minerals Addendum September

2016’, shows that the site has a “Moderate-high

landscape and visual capacity for accommodating

mineral extraction.”

The landscape assessment also considered the

removal of trees, particularly those on the southern

boundary, which are considered to have little

landscape value. The ecological value of those trees

would be assessed through policy M17 of the Plan at

planning application stage.











M20, on Transport.


124

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/



















included specifically xix and xxi. Meanwhile, The

Authorities accept the potential impact of extraction



Any proposals at Ham Farm would be considered in

detail at planning application stage against policies

M12(a), M18(a) and M20 (c) (iii - v).

Policy

M11

3704 036 Steyning

Quarry Action

Group

Steyning Quarry Action Group consider

the Joint Minerals Local Plan to be

unsound, not legally compliant, not

positively prepared, justified, effective, or

consistent with national policy. The main

basis for this is the inclusion of the Ham

Farm site as an allocation in the Plan.

This representation is supported by a









125

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


petition of more than 2000 signatures to

date, and also 1600 online signatures -

both submitted during Reg.18 stages.

This proposal, as Ham Farm, was

considered by the West Sussex County

Council Environmental and Community

Select Committee, and rejected.

There are restrictive covenants binding on

the land at Ham Farm and Wappingthorn

Manor, which the Authorities were

unaware of until 2nd June 2016 (Title

Number WSX171768). This demonstrates

a lack of due diligence prior to the site

being proposed for allocation.

The Authorities have demonstrated gross

lack of public consultation and

incompetence, and have failed to consult

Wiston Parish Council following the

boundary amendment, which now

includes an area that falls within the

parish of Wiston. This should have

resulted in a new consultation process.

The representation sets out the SQAGs

views against the associated strategic

objectives and development management

policies;

Strategic Objectives 3 and 4;

Ham Farm is a greenfield site that





The change to the boundary of the Ham Farm
















undertaken.

The policies set out in the JMLP are related to the

different Strategic Objectives. Any planning

application submitted for Ham Farm would be subject

to consideration against all the policies within the

Plan. At planning application stage, specific details

and proposals are submitted, and if any of these

proposals are contrary to the policies in the Plan and

therefore the Strategic Objectives, permission would

be refused.

The Authorities responses are set out in the same

126

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


immediately adjoins the South Downs

National Park, from which it is highly

visible (photograph submitted). It is also

next to an area of ancient woodland

(Alder Wood), a number of listed

buildings and opposite the historic

parkscape of Wiston. Any mining

operation would be visible from Wiston

House.

The allocation of Ham Farm would be

contrary to the Countryside and Rights of

Way Act 2000, which states “Local

Authorities have a duty to have regard to

the purposes of National Park

designations in the consideration of

development proposals that are situated

outside National Park boundaries, which

might have an impact on the setting of

and implementation of the statutory

purposes of these protected areas...”

Extraction would have an unacceptable

impact on the principle purposes of the

national park designation, specifically on

the landscape and scenic beauty (NPPF

Para 115). Mineral extraction represents

major development, for which paragraph

116 of the NPPF required permission be

refused. The site would also be contrary

to the strategic objectives (Character and

Landscape, as set out in policies M12 and

13).

sub-headings as set out by SQAG.

Strategic Objectives 3 and 4














of any proposal on the landscape, including will also

be considered against policy M13 (Protected

Landscapes) of the Plan, that is intended to help

ensure that the quality of the landscape is enhanced

and conserved. The landscape assessment also

considered the removal of trees, particularly those

on the southern boundary, which are considered to

have little landscape value. The ecological value of

those trees would be assessed through policy M17 of

the Plan at planning application stage. The

Authorities do not consider that the allocation of Ham

Farm would be contrary to the Countryside of Rights

Way Act 2000. Policy M13 (Protected Landscapes),

states that;

(b) Proposals for mineral development located

outside protected landscapes will be permitted

provided that they do not undermine the objectives

127

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Strategic Objective 6

The Ham Farm site contains Grade 3A

soils, which will be difficult to retain

through restoration if the site is quarried.

The bore hole testing data is unreliable.

The yield for the site has changed a

number of times (500,000, 850,000, and

now 725,000 tonnes, from a much

smaller site that previously). The

submitted borehole data shows that this

is unreliable. FOI requests were

submitted, but refused by WSCC due to

commercial sensitivity. The needs of local

communities should be carefully weighed

against the operator, and in the interests

of transparency, this data should be

made available.


The detailed technical assessment do not

include amenity at Stage 5 of the site

identification process. There is no

supporting evidence provided, despite

red/amber scores in the Stage 4

assessment of the site, due to a number

of residential properties in close proximity

to the site, whose residents will be

affected by high levels of harm from

noise, dust and light.

of the designation.

Paragraph 116 of the NPPF, states that major

development should only be allowed in National

Parks (and AONBs) in ‘exceptional circumstances’. As

Ham Farm is not within the SDNP this paragraph

does not apply.


The site does not contain the highest level of best

and most versatile agricultural land, and measures

could be taken to protect the soils, which would be

addressed in detail at planning application. Policy

M16 (Air and Soil) seeks to protect soils.

Development principle xvii (paragraph 7.2.4) sets

out that any loss of potentially high quality

agricultural land should be considered, and

mitigation provided, if required.








Consulting’, which provide an independent review of




site.




128

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Extraction and Landfill at Ham Farm will

have a significant negative impact on the

natural environment, cause pollution for

many years causing harm to residents,

contrary to Policy M18.

There will be a visual impact, affecting

public amenity and the users of the SDNP

and the site is visible from Chanctonbury

Ring. Runners and cyclists use the A283

to access the South Downs Way, and

walkers on the Wiston Public Footpath

(FP2599) will be adversely affected by

noise and dust.

Air Quality: The key features, as set out

in the West Sussex Landscape Sensitivity

and Capacity Study (October 2011), from

sand extraction include noise, visual

intrusion of on-site processing, and dust

apparent within the vicinity of sandpits.

This is an admission on the impact on

public amenity where minerals are

extracted. The Air Quality Expert Group

Report on Fine Particulate Matter

(PM2.5), published by DEFRA in 2012,

states that smaller particles, in particular

PM less than 2.5um, are more closely

associated with adverse health effects,

and that Black carbon is a major

component of PM2.5 associated with road

traffic emissions from diesel vehicles. The

report further states that there is clear

evidence that particulate matter has a

















included in the Plan for Ham Farm (paragraph 7.2.6),

specifically v, viii, xiv, xix and xxi.

There are no proposals for landfill at the site as part

of restoration. Furthermore, the West Sussex Waste

Local Plan (April 2014), aspires to zero waste to

landfill, and any landfill need is to be met by the

allocation of an extension at an existing landfill site.

Policy M20 (Transport) would be used to consider

detailed proposals at planning application stage,

meanwhile Policy M18 also considers impact arising

from development related traffic.






129

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


significant contributory role in human all-

cause mortality and in particular in

cardiopulmonary mortality. Long terms

exposure is associated with increased

levels of fatal cardiovascular and

respiratory disease. 2000 pupils attend

Steyning Grammar school, which is in

close proximity to the proposed site, as

do many residential dwellings and

community facilities. The impact of dust

particulates on the local community

should be subject to close scrutiny with

evidence provided by an independent Air

Quality Assessment.

Visual amenity - The rural character of

the site will be severely impacted should

the proposal go ahead. There has been a

failure to consider the inevitable impact of

artificial light pollution, which will create

an unacceptable impact on adjacent

residents, and visitors to the area. There

will be further negative impact on the

SDNP.

Aural amenity - There will be a long-term

increase in noise disturbance from

increased traffic on the A283 and activity

of HGV vehicles accessing the site. This

could continue until 2033, and there

appears to be no assessment of noise

disturbance. Reversing beepers and

tipping will be loud through hours of

operation, which will impact the aural





impact on listed buildings would be considered at











Policy M17 of the Plan also protects ancient

woodland, whilst paragraph 7.2.4 of the Plan sets out

development principles for the Ham Farm site.

Development principle vi protects mature trees.

Natural England have been consulted at every stage

of plan making, as set out in the Regulation 22

Consultation Statement.

The information held on Ham Farm by the

Environment & Heritage Team is that provided by the

operators, and, as with borehole data, is

commercially confidential at plan making stage.



consideration, in detail at planning application stage.

Meanwhile, development principles viii and ix of para

7.2.4 of the Plan are relevant to the protection of the

130

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


amenity of residents living near the site.

Local wildlife will be disturbed and

displaced. National Planning Practice

Guidance advises that a noise impact

assessment should be conducted. An

independent officer should be appointed

to assess this.

Odour and amenity - A landfill site is

proposed following extraction which will

result in landfill gas emissions.

Damage to the local economy - the Visitor

& Tourism Group of the Steyning and

District Community Partnership dispute

that view that the Ham Farm site will not

discourage visitors to the area, and not

have an unacceptable impact on the

landscape. They are also concerned about

the impact on the high street.

Strategic Objective 9:

The site is adjacent to several Grade II

listed buildings, whose setting would be

compromised, contrary to Policy M14 and

Chapter 12 of the NPPF.

No detailed ecology work has been

undertaken, but it is known that

protected amphibians, including toads

which cross the A283 from Wiston Pond

on the opposite side of the road, benefit

from crossing tunnels. Bats are regularly

seen near the Alder Wood. These would

historic environment.













concerns raised are addressed fully. At planning

application stage, statutory consultees would also be

consulted, with detailed proposals.












M20, on Transport.

The development principles for Ham Farm

(paragraph 7.2.4) in the Plan, include xii - xvi are all

on development related traffic, including cumulative

131

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


render the proposal contrary to Policy

M17 and Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

The site is close to ancient woodland.

There is no evidence of consultation with

Natural England.

Alderwood Pond is designated as a nature

reserve and bird sanctuary (1984)

An email from a senior WSCC

archaeologist suggests that

archaeological information held regarding

the site is considered commercially

sensitive and unavailable for the public.

The curator of Steyning Museum shows

archaeological references to

Wappingthorn and Wiston, and links this

site to the Domesday record, confirming

the need for a thorough investigation.


There is an unacceptable risk to

watercourses. The site is crossed by

surface and underground streams, which

could cause significant negative effects on

water, as set out in the Sustainability

Appraisal (para 5.136), which would run

counter to Policies M15 and M16 of the

JMLP and the NPPF.

Impact from quarrying and landfill would

cause unacceptable harm to the

impacts.

132

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Alderwood Pond Fishing site. Alderwood

Pong is registered with DEFRA (EW033-X-

017F). The ponds are fed from stream

and ditch-line watercourses, which, if

polluted, could impact migrating trout,

bat species, and crested newts that exist.

Alderwood Pond has a license to extract

water from the South Stream, that is vital

to refill the ponds when water levels are

low. Alderwood pond is surrounded by

ancient woodland, including an ancient

lime tree.

These watercourses all drain into the

River Adur, therefore polluted water will

need to be drained, captured, pumped

and removed by lorry with care not to

contaminate the water.

Alderwood Pond is a local fishing

business, providing recreation to the

community and visitors. It is the only

pond with disabled access in the area,

and provides a service for;

● St Dunstans Charity for the blind

● Chailey Heritage for disabled

● Simon York Johnstone members,

people with learning difficulties

● St Johns

● Soldiers for rehabilitation.


133

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Access to the site is proposed from the

busy A283, where the road is national

speed limit (60mph). If no right turn

facility is provided, vehicles travelling

from Steyning towards Storrington would

be faced by stationary HGVs in the left

hand lane, causing a hazard. This is

required to meet the requirements of

Design Bulletin 32, with sight lines of 9m

x 215m. To achieve this, considerable

frontage planting would be removed,

causing further damage to the views from

the South Downs National Park.

Since the Shoreham Air Disaster, there

has been a marked increase in traffic on

the A283 during peak times. Increases to

traffic compromises the safety of all

users. The A283 also has a series of tight

bends, narrow roads, and twists, on

which a number of HGVs have crashed.

The A283 is regarded as one of the most

dangerous road sections in the County

Network by County Highway Engineers.

The adjacent quarries of Storrington and

Washington have not been restored

satisfactorily. An extract from the West

Sussex Minerals and Waste Development

Framework (May 2011) demonstrates a

lack of inert material available for

restoration in a reasonable timescale. The

cumulative impact of having to restore

Rock Common and Chantry lane sites

134

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


from material out of county has not been

considered, contrary to Policy M20.

In conclusion, the site should be removed

from the JMLP.

Policy

M11

4138 147 Steyning &

District

Business

Chamber

Steyning & District Business Chamber

object to the inclusion of the Ham Farm

site because;

● The A283 is dangerous and

overcrowded, with serious

bottlenecks at rush hour. Multiple

accidents, with fatalities, are

recorded. Congestion and right turn

access into the site increases

potential for accidents, extensive

tailbacks, and degradation of single

lane route that is already below

standard. There will be an increase

in environmental pollution through

excessive diesel emissions

● Noise pollution from grading plant

will discourage visitors, and impact

the natural habitats for wildlife,

thereby will not enhance the

environment.

● Although not in the SDNP, Ham

Farm will be visible and an eyesore

to visitors to the area. This will

negatively impact tourism and

business members

● The felling of mature trees and the











M20, on Transport.




impacts.










135

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


potential negative impact to the

water supply at Alderwood

Fisheries (who provide activities for

disabled people), is a concern.

Further investigation into other sites,

which are less sensitive and more

appropriate for heavy industrial plant,

should be undertaken.

























of any proposal on the landscape, including will also

be considered against policy M13 (Protected



and conserved. The landscape assessment also

considered the removal of trees, particularly those

on the southern boundary, which are considered to

have little landscape value.

136

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/













concerns raised are addressed fully. At planning

application stage, statutory consultees would also be

consulted, with detailed proposals.

Policy

M11

3794 024 Steyning &

District

Community

Partnership

The Steyning & District Community

Partnership is engaged with promoting

the area as a tourist attraction.

Concerned that the Ham Farm site is

contrary to Strategic Objective 7 of the

Plan;

Highway & Air Quality - There will

need to be major highway

improvements and lighting, further

congestion, queueing trucks which will

impact air quality. This will cause

disruption to events at Wiston Park.

There is no verification of the

transport figures, which have

increased from 46 to 92 (2 way) daily

movements. Question the TA and

right turn outcomes.











M20, on Transport.




impacts.

The West Sussex Minerals Landscape Sensitivity and

137

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Landscape and Visual - the site will be

highly visible to all users and tourists

of the South Downs Way and

Chanctonbury Hill. The photographs in

the landscape reports are taken when

the trees are in leaf. however in

winter they would be bare, therefore

screening referred to would not exist.

Challenge the overall ratings given in

the landscape studies, and the

reliance on screening is overplayed.

Concern about impact on Alderwood

Pond, Wiston House, Wiston park, and

the Cow Shed Studio.

The economic wellbeing of Steyning

relies on attracting people to visit.

Access to Steyning from the South is

already adversely impacted by the

disused cement works. Ham farm

would also cause the same impact

coming from the West.

Public rights of way will be impacted

The Sustainability Appraisal states

that the site would have a minor

positive effect on the local economy

because of employment opportunities.

This will be more than countered due

to the negative impact arising from

the reduction in the number of visitors

attracted to Steyning resulting in

Capacity Study for Potential Mineral and Waste Sites

– Minerals Addendum September 2016), has shown

that the site has a “Moderate-high landscape and

visual capacity for accommodating mineral

extraction.” The impact of any proposal on the

landscape, including will also be considered against

policy M13 (Protected Landscapes) of the Plan, that


landscape is enhanced and conserved.



Detailed proposals will be submitted at the planning

application stage, which would consider impacts in

more detail.




















138

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


damage to the local economy.

The Transport and Landscape studies

lack proof of soundness.

The proposal would result in adverse

visible disturbance to the natural

landscape through noise and light

pollution.

The Ham Farm site should be

removed from the Plan.


Policy

M11

3713 074 CPRE Sussex CPRE Sussex strongly disagrees with the

presumption that the allocation of Ham

Farm, Steyning, for soft sand extraction is

“acceptable in principle, for that

purpose”. CPRE Sussex feel this would be

contrary to the Vision of the Joint

Minerals Local Plan.

Visual Intrusion

Although the site is outside the South

Downs National Park, the declared

purpose, as set out in Strategic Objective

3, is to make provision outside the SDNP

where possible, and to ensure the special

qualities of the national park. The sides

southern boundary abuts the SDNP

boundary.

Extraction would impact the special

qualities of and landscape setting of the

National Park. The representation quotes

The ‘Mineral Site Selection Report (Dec 2016)’ has

been used to assess which sites are “acceptable in

principle”.

The term “acceptable in principle” means that a site

or sites have been assessed as capable of being

developed in a manner that would not have an

unacceptable impact on the environment, local

amenity and businesses and is likely to be acceptable

in planning terms.

This approach is consistent with Planning Practice

Guidance which states (with emphasis):

“Mineral planning authorities should plan for the

steady and adequate supply of minerals in one or

more of the following ways (in order of priority):

1. Designating Specific Sites – where viable

resources are known to exist, landowners are

supportive of minerals development and the proposal

139

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


the UK Government Vision and Circular

2010 (DEFRA, March 2010).

The site is visible from the South Downs

Way National Trail, and other locations,

as acknowledged by the West Sussex

Minerals Landscape Sensitivity and

Capacity Study for Potential Mineral and

Waste Sites - Minerals Addendum (March

2016).

Whether or not unacceptable impacts

from Ham Farm can really be made

acceptable, through use of mitigation, is

the most crucial issue, and has not been

addressed by either the Plan or

Sustainability Appraisal.

Impact on Tranquillity

NPPF Paragraph 123 stipulates that areas

of tranquillity should be protected. CPRE

data indicates that the site lies in an area

marked as dark green, part way between

medium and high tranquillity. The

assessment of the site however states

that “CPRE data indicates that the site lies

within an area defined as ‘disturbed by

noise’ and of medium tranquillity, with

the northern parts being of a higher

tranquillity”, which is a misinterpretation

of the CPRE data and assessment. The

southern boundary of the Ham Farm

adjoins the A283 and is exposed to noise

caused by road traffic, away from the

is likely to be acceptable in planning terms. Such

sites may also include essential operations

associated with mineral extraction;

The representor feels that further, detailed,

assessments should have been undertaken prior to

the proposed allocation of Ham Farm. It is at the

planning application stage that the Authorities are

provided with detailed proposals, and assessments,

which can be used to assess a development’s

acceptability, and permitted, if deemed acceptable

against the policies within the Plan.

The ‘West Sussex Minerals Landscape Sensitivity and


– Minerals Addendum September 2016)’, has shown



extraction.”

The impact of any proposal on the landscape will be

considered against policy M13 (Protected

Landscapes) of the Plan at the planning application

stage, at which point detailed proposals would be

submitted to the Authorities. Policy M13 is intended

to help ensure that the quality of the landscape is

enhanced and conserved, including those areas

outside of protected areas. This is in line with the

Vision and Strategic Objective 8 of the Plan.

Impact on Tranquillity

Policy M12 (Character) would be used to assess the

site at the planning application stage in detail. Policy

140

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


road the area in which the site is located

is relatively undisturbed. Hence the

acknowledgment by the Site

Characterisation that the northern part of

the site is “relatively undisturbed by

noise”. This is true also for countryside

and Wiston Park to the south of the site,

which lie within the National Park.

Extraction at Ham Farm would therefore

impact on the character, distinctiveness

and sense of place of the national Park.

The site would be contrary to Policy M12

of the Plan.

Impact on the setting of listed buildings

There are listed buildings near the site.

The summary within the West Sussex

Minerals Landscape Sensitivity and

Capacity Study for Potential Mineral and

Waste Sites - Minerals Addendum (March

2016) omits reference to the Grade 1

Wiston House, and numerous listed

buildings within the house's grounds

located inside the National park. Whether

the sand put and its impact on the setting

would accord with the National Park's

purpose, as required by NPPF Para 115,

require important consideration.

The representation quotes S.66 of the

Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Area) Act 1990, which

M12 states that mineral development would not be

permitted where;

“(a) they would not have an unacceptable impact on

the character, distinctiveness, sense of place of the

different areas of County, the special qualities of the

South Downs National Park….”

and

“(b) they would not have an unacceptable impact on

the separate identity of settlements and distinctive

character of towns and villages…”

Furthermore, the Authorities are aware that, if not

managed properly, mineral activity can have an

impact on health and amenity (and therefore on

tranquillity) from air, light and noise pollution. At all

quarries, steps are required to be taken to minimise

noise by ensuring vehicles are fitted with silencers

and acoustic barriers are constructed as required.

Dust suppression measures are also employed to

prevent dust dispersion. These issues would be









Impact on the setting of listed buildings

141

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


quotes listed buildings and setting

requiring consideration when assessing

planning applications.. It also references

the case Case No: C1/2013/0843. Neutral

Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 137,

18 Feb 14), in which the Court of Appeal

stressed the importance of planning

authorities genuinely, not merely by way

of lip service, paying “special regard” to

legal requirements.

Historic England Guidance (March 2015)

and NPPG Para 013 also set out the

importance of setting of listed buildings.

CPRE are concerned that the SA

conclusion of “minor negative effect” on

setting are only concerned with visual

intrusion, and not noise, dust and

vibration. The SA further states that

“there is uncertainty as a more detailed

assessment would be required once

proposals are known” negates the

emphatic and misleading statement of

minor negative effects on setting of listed

buildings.

It is CPRE Sussex’s view that the level of

harm to the settings of the listed

buildings, that would be caused by the

usage of the Ham farm site as a sand pit,

should have been the subject of a “more

detailed assessment” as part of the site-

selection process







impact on listed buildings, including on their setting

(see proposed modification) would be considered at

the planning application stage, when detailed

proposals are submitted. Policy M14 of the Plan

ensures that impact on the historic environment is

considered, and only those proposals that are

considered acceptable would be permitted.

Development principle viii (paragraph 7.2.4) states

that;

“a historic building setting impact assessment nearby

listed buildings (included but not limited to

Horsebrook Cottage and Wappingthorn Manor)

should be carried out, and mitigation provided, if

required “.

Impact on Biodiversity, Natural Habitats and

Protected Species.

The Government Circular (06/2005) regarding

Biodiversity requires consideration to be given to

(emphasis added) “the extent that they may be

affected by the proposed development, is established

before the planning permission is granted, otherwise

all relevant material considerations may not have

been addressed in making the decision”.

It is at the planning application stage that detailed

142

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Impact on Biodiversity, Natural Habitats

and Protected Species.

Government Circular 06/2005:

Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Statutory Obligations and their impact

within the planning system, para 98,

states; “presence of a protected species

is a material consideration when a

planning authority is considering a

development proposal that, if carried out,

would be likely to result in harm to the

species or its habitat”

and para 99 “it is essential that the

presence or otherwise of protected

species, and the extent that they may be

affected by the proposed development, is

established before the planning

permission is granted, otherwise all

relevant material considerations may not

have been addressed in making the

decision. The need to ensure ecological

surveys are carried out should therefore

only be left to coverage under planning

conditions in exceptional circumstances,

with the result that the surveys are

carried out after planning permission has

been granted.”

Natural England’s ‘Standing advice for

local planning authorities to assess the

impacts of development on wild birds’

states that;

proposals, and well as ecologic assessments, would

be provided, and permission granted if the proposed

development is deemed acceptable, in line with

Policy M17 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) of the

Plan. Habitats Regulation Assessment of this site

has been undertaken that shows the site would not

have any impact on habitats which are protected by

specific legislation.

Air Quality and Air Pollution

It is at the planning application stage that detailed

proposals would be considered. Policy M15 of the

Plan is concerned with Air Quality, which states that

proposals for mineral development will be permitted,

provided that;

“(a) there are no unacceptable impacts on the

intrinsic quality of…air…

(b) there are no unacceptable impacts on the

management and protection of such resources…”

The inclusion of a development principle related to

the AQMA at Storrington has been included to ensure

that it is given consideration at the planning

application stage. It does not preclude other areas

from consideration of air quality impacts, as set out

in Policy M15.

Impact on health, wellbeing and amenity of

residents.

143

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


“Survey reports and mitigation plans are

required for development projects that

could affect protected species, as part of

getting planning permission. Surveys

need to show whether protected species

are present in the area or nearby, and

how they use the site. Mitigation plans

show how you’ll avoid, reduce or manage

any negative effects to protected species”

and “Ecologists need to decide which

survey and mitigation methods are right

for the project being worked on. If this

can’t be followed, they’ll have to include a

statement with the planning application

explaining why”.

It is CPRE Sussex’s view that the site

should have been surveyed for protected

species, and an assessment made of the

extent that they may be affected by the

usage of the site as a sand pit, as part of

the site-selection process, before the

decision was made to include the site in

the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local

Plan.

Due to the proximity of the site to the

SDNP, the site would have an impact on

biodiversity, including protected species,

inside the SDNP. This should have been

assessed and considered before the site

was allocated.




















The Authorities accept the potential impact of

extraction on property value, however it must be

noted that this is not a planning consideration.

Impact on Water Resources, Water Quality and the

Function of the Water Environment.








application for the site. At the planning application

144

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Air Quality and Air Pollution

The SA (Dec 2016), page 519 states that

the development of Ham Farm is

considered likely to have a minor

negative impact on protecting air quality

for human sensitive receptors, which is

dependent on the scale and type of

activity. This suggests that the SA scoring

is not based on a thorough and objective

assessment.

The JMLP also states that site traffic may

pass through the AQMA in Storrington,

approximately 7km west of the site. The

Annual Status Report (ASR) for Horsham

District Council (July 2016) advises that

“air pollution is associated with a number

of adverse health impacts. It is

recognised as a contributing factor in the

onset of heart disease and cancer.

Additionally, air pollution particularly

affects the most vulnerable in society:

children and older people, and those with

heart and lung conditions” and that the

main source of air pollution in the district

is road traffic emissions from major

roads.

CPRE state that the impact of emissions

from HGVs driving to and from Ham Farm

would have on Air Quality and public

health is not confined solely to

Storringtons AQMA, as the SA report

suggests.

stage, evidence submitted in hydrological

assessments and flood risk assessments would be

assessed for their suitability against Policy M16

(Water resources).

Ham Farm site allocated for soft-sand extraction

without first determining whether its usage for that

purpose is truly ‘acceptable in principle’.






in planning terms.











associated with mineral extraction;

The concerns raised by CPRE are those that would be

considered in detail at the planning application stage.

145

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


There was a need for a thorough and

objective assessment of Air Quality

impact as part of the site selection

process, before the site was allocated.

Impact on health, wellbeing and amenity

of residents.

The JMLP SA Report (Dec 2016, page

513) sets out that there are residential

properties to the east and northwest of

Ham Farm, therefore the site could have

minor negative effects on health from

dust (PM10). The SA also states that this

is dependent on local circumstances, as

well as the scale and type of activities

undertaken, which would be assessed at

the planning application stage.

The appraisal is concerned solely with the

impact of dust arising from the sand pit.

Noise emitted by on-site plant and

generated by HGVs has the potential to

impact on well-being and amenity, as well

as visitors to West Sussex, which have

not been considered.

It is CPRE Sussex’s view, the impact on

health and wellbeing and amenity of

residents should have been

comprehensively assessed as part of the

site-selection process, prior to the

allocation of the site.

146

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Impact on Water Resources, Water

Quality and the Function of the Water

Environment.

The JMLP SA Report (Dec 2016, page

520) sets out that the usage of the site as

a sandpit has the potential to have a

significant negative effect on the water

environment, and that this would be

uncertain until the exact nature of

working at the site is proposed (at

planning application stage).

It is CPRE Sussex’s view, the impact on

water resources, water quality and the

function of the water environment should

have been assessed as part of the site-

selection process, prior to the allocation

of the site.

Ham Farm site allocated for soft-sand

extraction without first determining

whether its usage for that purpose is truly

‘acceptable in principle’.

The SA (Regulation 18), concludes that;

“In general, the Draft JMLP has been

found to have a wide range of positive

effects on the SA objectives”, before

explaining that “significant negative and a

number of minor negative effects have

also been identified (mainly in relation to

147

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


the potential for one or both of the two

allocated sites (Policy M11) to affect

landscape, biodiversity, water resources

and flooding”, the “severity of these

impacts will depend very much on the

nature and scale of the proposed

development at the allocated sites, which

cannot be known until the planning

application stage, and how well proposals

adhere to the development principles

contained in the supporting text to Policy

M11, as well as other relevant

development management policies in the

Draft JMLP.”

This is re-stated in the Regulation 19 SA

Report, which also states that it has not

been determined “how well proposals

adhere to the development principles

contained in the supporting text to Policy

M11, as well as other relevant

development management policies in the

Draft JMLP”.

This makes nonsense of the statement in

the JMLP PSD (Regulation 19), January

2017, page 15, that the allocation of Ham

Farm, Steyning, for soft sand extraction

“is acceptable, in principle, for that

purpose”

Clearly, the allocation of the Ham Farm

site for soft-sand extraction has been

made without first determining whether

148

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


its usage for that purpose is truly

‘acceptable in principle’.

The site should be removed from the

Plan.

Policy

M11

4134 142 Horsham

District Council

Horsham District Council note that their

comments on potential increased traffic

on the road capacity and structure of the

A283 and Washington roundabout have

been addressed by the Plan.

Horsham District also note concerns of

increased HGV usage through the Air

Quality Management Area (Storrington

High Street) have been addressed.

Horsham District welcome the

requirement for a HGV routeing

agreement to ensure lorries avoid the

villages of Steyning and Storrington

The Authorities note Horsham District Council's

comments.

Policy

M11

4301 097 Ashurst Parish

Council

The Joint Minerals Local Plan is unsound

in respect of the inclusion of Ham Farm as

it has failed to give consideration to;

● The landscape and cumulative impacts

- the site lies adjacent to the SDNP

and highly visible from the

Chanctonbury Ring and South Downs

Way. There would be a cumulative

visual impact with Rock Common



– Minerals Addendum September 2016), has shown



extraction.” The impact of any proposal on the

landscape, including will also be considered against

policy M13 (Protected Landscapes) of the Plan, that


landscape is enhanced and conserved.

149

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


(sand pit). This was considered as

grounds for rejection of the proposed

Buncton Manor Farm Site (image

submitted by Steyning PC).

● Nature Conservation and Biodiversity

- the site is adjacent to Ancient

Woodland, which could suffer

moderate harm. Also a risk to

Alderwood Pond and impact on

migrating trout, crested newts, bats,

all which are protected species.

● Historic Environment - there are listed

buildings nearby, and the site is of

archaeological interest with

Palaeolithic and Roman remains

● Water Environment - 50% of the site

is considered as at high risk of

flooding, yet no hydrology survey has

been undertaken. There would also

potentially be a significant impact on

Alderwood Pond and to the water

table surrounding agricultural land

● Air Quality - an increase in HGV traffic

and dust generated will have an

adverse effect on air quality,

impacting on the Nursery School at

Chanctonfold and on the Steyning

Grammar School playing fields.

● Soil quality - the site contains grade 2










Development principle vi protects mature trees.







impact on listed buildings would be considered at the





The site does not contain the highest level of best

and most versatile agricultural land, and measures

could be taken to protect the soils, which would be

addressed in detail at the planning application. Policy

M16 (Air and Soil) seeks to protect soils.

Development principle xvii (paragraph 7.2.4) sets

out that any loss of potentially high quality

agricultural land should be considered, and

mitigation provided, if required.

150

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


and 3 soils, which will be permanently

lost

● Public rights of way - views from

existing public rights of way would be

negatively impacted.

● Transport and Access - The WSCC

Transport Assessment does not give

an accurate representation on the

current high volume of daytime traffic

using the A283, and the high number

of accidents, resulting in diversions

through Ashurst. Additionally, the loss

of maize production at Ham Farm to

feed the Wappingthorn Farm AD Plant,

will result in further traffic to access

the farm vie the B2135 on a

dangerous corner. The access to the

A283 will greatly impact safety.

● Amenity - WSCC has acknowledged

that residential properties are close to

the site and that residents will be

subject to high levels of harm. This

was however not taking into

consideration in the summary and

outcome. There’s no

acknowledgement of nearby

businesses.

● The site was altered without RAG

evaluation and without consulting

Wiston Parish.

Policy M18 would consider the impacts on public

rights of way. Detailed proposals at the planning

application would require consideration of public

rights of way, and subject to the requirements of

Policy M18.












concerns raised are addressed fully.


















151

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


● Overall, the RAG assessment

identified a number of Red and Amber

concerns, but no mitigation is

identified. We therefore believe the

site is unacceptable.



The Authorities accept that the impact of extraction













M20, on Transport.








for. West Sussex County Council, as Local Highway











152

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/
















undertaken.

The Mineral Site Selection Report was updated

following the Regulation 18 Consultation, and version

2 (December 2016) contains an updated site

assessment proforma, taking account of the

amendment to the boundary of Ham Farm. The site

assessment concludes that Ham Farm is acceptable

in principle.

Where, through the RAG assessment, there are

red/amber, amber, and amber/green scores, to

make proposals acceptable, there would be a

requirement to apply mitigation measures. The

assumption being made by the representor, that a

greater number of red/amber scores would result in

a site being ruled out at the plan making stage, and

being regarded as “unacceptable”, is incorrect. The

RAG assessment methodology is explained in

Appendix 4 of the Site Selection Report.

Policy 4128 133 Wiston Parish The altered boundary of Ham Farm now The Authorities have consulted with Wiston Parish

153

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


M11 Council includes a portion of the Parish of Wiston.

The Parish has not been included in any

form of consultation prior to or after the

inclusion in the draft Plan.

The proposed site slopes down east to

west and to the watercourse shown

flowing north east less than 300 metres

from the north western boundary of the

site. The outcomes of assessments (as

set out in para 7.2.4 ((x) and (xi)) would

be negative due to extraction level being

below running water levels.

The estimated soft sand within the site is

commercially confidential, an estimate of

725,000 tonnes is given. This should be

disregarded as there is not supported by

evidence. Full detailed geological survey

data should be made public. Unsupported

figures go against the second and fourth

principles of paragraph 7.1.6

Council at every stage of the production of the Joint

Minerals Local Plan, dating back to January 2017.

Although the site boundary changed following the

Regulation 18 draft Plan Consultation (April-June

2016), the inclusion of the small area to the south

west of the site (and exclusion of the area covered

by the restrictive covenant) would not change the

potential impacts of the site operating as a sand

quarry. Furthermore, it is considered that the new

area would have less impact than the previous area

being considered in terms of impact on the landscape

and views from the South Downs National Park. It

was considered that further, Regulation 18,

consultations was not required, and instead the Plan

was published for a formal representations period,

which Wiston Parish were invited to comment on.

The Authorities consider that there are no legal

compliance or soundness issues regarding the

consultation process.

The Authorities have had no representations or

comments from bodies, including the Environment

Agency and Southern Water, which suggest that

sand cannot be extracted at Ham Farm. The inclusion

of development principles (x) and (xi) (para 7.2.4.)

ensures that relevant evidence is submitted

alongside any planning application for the site. At the

planning application stage, evidence submitted in

hydrological assessments and flood risk assessments

would be assessed for their suitability against Policy

M16 (Water resources).





154

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/









site.

Policy

M11

4061 090 Southern

Water

In line with previous representations,

Southern Water believe that the

development principles for Ham Farm as

set out in Paragraph 7.2.4 address their

original concerns.

Criterion (x) addresses how any the

impact on the water environment will be

addressed particularly in conjunction with

Policy M16.

Criterion (xviii) addresses the issue of

Southern Water infrastructure within or in

close proximity to Ham Farm.

Noted

Policy

M11


Trust

Sussex Wildlife Trust are concerned that

the major requirements for the two site

allocations are included in the support

text of the JMLP rather than the policy.

Additionally, the development principles

for each allocation are overly long and

inconsistent.

Sussex Wildlife Trust are also concerned

that the boundary change for Ham Farm

The purpose of the development principles are

designed to guide the developer on site specific

issues that require consideration at the planning

application stage. The development principles do not

require anything over and above those requirements

set out within the policies of the JMLP, which are

used to determine planning applications.

It is agreed – the word ‘where possible’ can be

deleted so it is consistent with a similar DM Principle

for West Hoathly.

155

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


now means that a mature hedgerow

dissects the site in the south west corner.


do not protect this hedgerow sufficiently.

Additionally, although each site allocation

has over 17 development principles

covering a huge range of planning issues,

neither have a requirement for the

working and restoration of the site to

achieve net gains to biodiversity or for

the working of the site to be based on up

to date ecological surveys. Given the

ethos of the NPPF to move to net gains to

nature (paragraphs 9 and 109) and the

requirements of Biodiversity 2020 and

NPPF paragraphs 143 and 158, this

should be remedied.

The Trust also recommends that the

working and restoration of these

allocations considers the sites’ utilisation

and delivery of ecosystem services.

In order to make the JMLP effective,

policy M11 should clearly demonstrate

what is required from an applicant

seeking to develop one of these strategic

sites. We recommend that there are

separate policies for each strategic site

and that the development principles are

brought into the policies.

The Ham Farm development principles

Proposed modification:

“(vi) in areas where no excavation or ancillary

development is to occur, existing hedgerows, mature

trees and vegetation along perimeters and within the

site, should, where possible, be retained and linked

to new planting to create continuous corridors of

trees and vegetation, connected to wider networks of

hedges in surrounding areas.”

The proposed amendments by Sussex Wildlife Trust

to the development principles are not considered

necessary by the Authorities. In order to gain

planning permission, the proposed amendments to

M17 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) now include the

requirement of net gains. Meanwhile, Policy M24

(Restoration and Aftercare), specifically requires

consideration of biodiversity gains.

Appropriate amendments to policy M17 are being

discussed with Sussex Wildlife Trust.

The potential impacts or benefits for ecosystem

services have been considered through the

Sustainability Appraisal and are therefore embedded

in the JMLP

156

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


should be amended as follows;

(vi) ‘Development, working and

restoration of the site should be based on

up-to-date ecological surveys and

assessments of the site’s utilisation and

delivery of ecosystem services. In areas

where no excavation or ancillary

development is to occur, existing

hedgerows, mature trees and vegetation,

should be retained and linked to new

planting to create continuous corridors of

trees and vegetation, connected to wider

networks of hedges in surrounding areas’

(xx) ‘…Long term restoration should

create net gains to biodiversity and the

delivery of ecosystem services and

maximise the habitat value by taking

opportunities to link the surrounding

hedgerow and woodland structure…’

Policy

M11

3708

3994

4016

4304

4306

004

005

009

011

013

Individuals/resi

dents

In total, *** representations were

received from local residents/the

community. These have be split into

categories/themes below and

summarised;

Landscape / visual impact

Concern of the impact on views of the

Below are responses to the main issues raised during

the Regulation 19 representations period, from

residents and individuals. The response is broken

down in sub-headings by theme, as the summary is.

Landscape / visual impact



– (Minerals Addendum September 2016). This has

shown that the site has a “Moderate-high landscape

157

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


3706

4309

3725

4014

3744

4264

4271

3809

4274

4018

3988

4275

4276

3752

4114

4126

3753

016

019

020

022

026

029

040

041

044

045

046

047

048

100

112

128

131

attractive remote and tranquil

environment, or could end up looking like

Shoreham Cement Works., where it is

unrestored.

Concerns about impacts on the South

Downs National Park (SDNP), and views

from within the park in particular from

Chanctonbury Ring, including views of the

Wiston Park estate, as well as cumulative

impacts in relation to other nearby

quarries.

Contrary to the Countryside and Rights of

Way Act 2000, which states that “Local

Authorities have a duty to have regard to

the purposes of National Park designation

in the consideration of development

proposals that are situated outside

National Park boundaries but which might

have an impact on the setting of and

implementation of the statutory purposes

of these protected areas.”

removal of trees along the southern edge

of the site to provide safe sight lines for

accessing the site.

Comment highlighted that this area was

once under consideration for inclusion in

the SDNP and that protections should

apply to areas just beyond the SDNP

boundary.

and visual capacity for accommodating mineral

extraction.”

The impact of any proposal on the landscape,

including the South Downs National Park will be

considered against policy M13 (Protected



and conserved. It is at the planning application that

detailed proposals are submitted, and the polices in

the Plan are applied.

The landscape assessment also considered the

removal of trees, particularly those on the southern

boundary, which are considered to have little

landscape value. The ecological value of those trees

would be assessed through policy M17 of the Plan at

the planning application stage.

The Authorities do not consider that the allocation of

Ham Farm would be contrary to the Countryside of

Rights Way Act 2000. Policy M13 (Protected

Landscapes), states that;

(b) Proposals for mineral development located

outside protected landscapes will be permitted

provided that they do not undermine the objectives

of the designation.

Nature conservation, biodiversity, geodiversity


undertaken, that shows the site would not have any


legislation.

The Plan includes a specific policy (M17: Biodiversity

and Geodiversity) intended to ensure that minerals

proposals address biodiversity and geodiversity

158

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


3811

3812

4260

4036

132

136

292

294

Nature conservation, biodiversity,

geodiversity

Concerns raised about the impact on;

● Wiston Pond,

● Great Alder Wood Ancient Semi

Natural Woodland

● Little Alder Wood

● Chanctonbury Hill SSSI

● habitat destruction, and

ecosystem impacts

● newts

● bats

● toad crossings over A283

● confusion on whether or not an

Environmental Impact Assessment

has been undertaken.

Historic environment

Concerns about impacts on Horsebrook

Cottage and Wappingthorn Manor Grade

II listed buildings, Wiston House Grade I

listed building, and other nearby listed

buildings

Policy M12: Character - It is felt that the

elements of this policy cannot be

overcome at the Ham Farm site because

of impacts on the sense of place of the

county, and the distinctive character of

adjacent settlements, including the

historic character of Steyning.

issues, at the planning application stage.




Development principle vi protects mature trees and

hedgerows. Natural England have been consulted at

every stage of plan making, as set out in the

Regulation 22 Consultation Statement.

The toad crossings at the A283 will not be affected

by this development. They are engineered under the

road in such a way that the road can continue to be

used as expected.

Historic Environment



consideration, in detail at the planning application

stage. This includes impacts on their setting.

The development principles viii and ix of para 7.2.4

of the Plan are relevant to the protection of the

historic environment.








are also employed to prevent dust dispersion. Any


159

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Water environment and flooding

Concerns about impact on water table,

ground water, aquifers, artesian wells,

chalk springs, and water contamination

into nearby water systems raised.

Concerns over impact on Alderwood

Ponds, who have a water extraction

license from the Environment Agency.

Concerns of impacts on Wiston Pond.

Concerns over non-inert waste landfill,

and contamination of water sources.

The extraction will be below the running

water level, resulting in increased HGV

activity - Concerns based on Southern

Water comments about pollution and

water removal by HGV.

Restoration / after-use

General concerns about restoration, citing

examples of Rock Common, Windmill

Quarry, Washington Sandpit, and that

any problems at existing sites should be

resolved prior to this site coming forward.

Past performance of the operator should

be taken into account here, considering





specifically v, viii, xix and xxi.

Policy M12 of the Plan, on Character, would be

considered at the planning application stage, at

which point detailed proposals would be submitted,

and assessed for their acceptability.

Water, Flooding, and Environment








application for the site. The evidence submitted

within hydrological assessments and flood risk

assessments would be assessed against Policies M16

(Water resources), M17 (Biodiversity and

Geodiversity) and M18 (Public Health and Amenity)

in order to ensure that concerns raised are

addressed fully. At the planning application stage,

statutory consultees would also be consulted, with

detailed proposals.

Soil Quality / Geology

It is at the planning application that detailed

proposals are submitted to the Authorities. Policy

M23, on Design and Operation of Mineral

160

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


the current restoration at other sites they

operate.

Soil Quality / Geology

Concerns raised about subsistence of

properties.

Transport / Access

Concerns raised about;

● congestion, resulting in rat-

running through Steyning.

● There will be no clear visibility to

see what is turning out to the right

before committing to a left hand

turn.

● Unclear what levels of traffic will

be generated by the site, what

routes will be taken, and the noise

and pollution that will be

generated

● Concerns that access to the site

would be dangerous due to sharp

bends in the road, particularly for

HGVs turning in or out of the site.

● the need to improve the A27 in

order to relieve traffic on the

A283.

● increase in traffic congestion will

put visitors off Steyning.

● The dangers of traffic on the A283

Developments, requires that proposals for mineral

development need to;

“(a) integrate with and, where possible, enhance

adjoining land uses and minimise potential conflicts

between land-uses and activities.

(b) have regard to the local context…”

Transport / Access








cause severe harm.

Furthermore, any planning application submitted for

Ham Farm would be assessed against policies in the

JMLP, including Policy M20, on Transport.


(paragraph 7.2.4) in the Plan include xii - xvi which

are all on development related traffic, including

cumulative impacts.

Health / Public Amenity






161

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


are being ignored.

● Concern about the dangerous

section of the A283 known as the

Wiston Bends.

● the condition of the A283, being

poorly cambered and edged, and

the on-going cost of maintenance

(inc. pot holes) as a result of

increased lorry use.

● Access to/from Horsham Road and

Canons Way and the Steyning

Bypass, the junction with B2135

for Ashurst and entrances for

Wiston Estate.

● noise, dust and CO2 traffic

pollution.

● Additional HGVs will increase

danger for other vehicles on the

A283.

● Development Principle IV for the

site mentioned careful design of

the site entrance, so as not to

impact the SDNP, however no

mention if given to the impact it

may have no the next farm

entrance, a few metres away.

Health / Public Amenity

There are no details of mitigation which

will be used to control lighting, noise,

dust, odours, vibrations or other

emissions. Neighbours of the sites have









when detailed proposals are put forward.

Any proposals would be tested against all relevant





specifically v, viii, xiv, xix and xxi. Policy M18 would

also be used to assess the impact of development

related traffic on amenity.

There are no proposals for landfill at the site as part

of restoration. Furthermore, the West Sussex Waste

Local Plan (April 2014), aspires to zero waste to

landfill, and any landfill need is to be met by the

allocation of an extension at an existing landfill site.

West Sussex County Council, as Local Highway












162

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


not been approached to ask how these

effects could be mitigated against, and

the impact on the everyday lives will be

immense, and not taken into account.

The sustainability report pg.615 onwards,

considers that 'The impact upon health at

both allocations will be dependent on

local circumstances and the policy

seeks to ensure that these are addressed

through specific development principles

set out for each site,'

No supporting evidence despite a

Red/Amber score to the suitability of Ham

Farm. Stage 4 assessment of Ham Farm

states that there are a number of

residential properties in close proximity

which may be affected by high levels of

arm from noise, dust and light.

The entrance to the site abuts the

boundary fence at Hammes Farm,

however no mitigation has been included

in the Plan. Mitigation could result in

taking up overall area of the working site,

or moving the entrance further along the

southern boundary, therefore making the

project unsound.

Development Principle IV for the site

mentioned careful design of the site

entrance, so as not to impact the SDNP,

however no mention if given to the

impact it may have no the next farm






Economy / Tourism



The development principles for the site propose that

any development would need to avoid impacts such

as noise, dust, and visual intrusion, that may have

an impact on tourism.

Detailed proposals would be submitted at the

planning application, to consider the impacts of the

development, including Policy M12 (Character),

which states that mineral development will be

permitted provided that;

(b) they would not have an unacceptable impact on

the separate identity of settlements and distinctive

character of towns and villages…”

Cumulative impact

Both the landscape assessments and the transport

assessment addendums considered cumulative

impacts, and were deemed acceptable in principle.

Further information can be found in the West Sussex



Addendum September 2016 and The Transport

Assessment (addendum October 2016)

Buncton Manor Farm is much closer to other sites

(Rock Common and Washington Sandpit), whilst it

primarily ruled out in landscape grounds, due to

views from the Chanctonbury Hill Scheduled Ancient

163

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


entrance, a few metres away.

Extraction, and subsequent landfill at

Ham Farm will have a significant impact,

causing noise, light and air pollution.

The effect of air pollution on the

surrounding community has been

unacceptably dismissed.

Impact of small particle dust, particularly

less than 2.5um, is associated with

adverse health impacts, including

silicosis.

Carbon emissions from HGVs will cause

health impacts.

The site is close to Steyning Grammar

School (2000 pupils)

The loss of Ham Farm to produce maize

for the Wappingthorn AD plant

(DC/13/1958) will mean more HGVs and

further amenity impacts as there will be a

need to import maize due to the loss,

therefore further noise/dust/visual

impacts.

Alderwood Pond Fishing, Elan Nursery,

the Cow Shed art studios and other

businesses will suffer unacceptable harm

as a result of the proposal.

Monument.

Deliverability / viability












site.

he change to the boundary of the Ham Farm















for.

General Comments

164

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Concern over impact on SDNPA

International Dark Sky Status.

Strategic Objective 7 cannot be met by

this proposal - to protect and where

possible enhance the health and amenity

of residents, businesses and visitors.

Economy / Tourism

Concern that there will be an impact on

the economy as tourism will suffer.

Steyning businesses in the high Street

are vulnerable to disruption caused by

problems on access roads to the town.

Increases queues and accidents caused

by

Cumulative impact

The JMLP has not been positively

prepared on the grounds that it

contravenes policy M22: Cumulative

Impact by including Ham Farm site.

Buncton Manor Farm was excluded on the

grounds of cumulative impact, the same

conditions apply to Ham Farm in its

proximity to other sites.

Deliverability / viability

The Proposed site at Regulation 18 stage













The views of the residents have not been ignored. A

number of technical assessments have been

undertaken, which show that, in principle, the

development is acceptable. The policies in the Plan

will be used to judge detailed proposals at the

planning application stage. There has been no

evidence submitted to suggest the site is not

acceptable in principle.

The assessment of need, as set out in the Local

Aggregates Assessment (January 2017) sets out that

there is an identified shortfall for soft sand. This site

would provide some of that shortfall. National Policy

states that Authorities need to plan for a steady and

adequate supply of aggregate minerals, based on s

rolling average of 10 years of historic sales, taking

into account other relevant local information. As this

site has been assessed to be acceptable in principle,

it has been proposed for allocation. Even with Ham

Farm, there would still be a significant shortfall of

soft sand, due to the presence of the South Downs

National Park, where the vast majority of the

resource lies. Paragraph 116 of the NPPF, states

165

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


compared to the Regulation 19 stage has

been more than halved (16ha down to

7.9ha), yet the yield has only decreased

by 15%. The quantities of sand on this

site are questioned.

The viability of the site is being question.

No independent verification on sand

quality has taken place. There’s too much

clay present to make the resource viable.

The JMLP is unsound on grounds of robust

and credible evidence to support the

amount of sand claimed to be provided by

the site. This suggests, that in order to

make the site economically viable, there

will be a pursuing of landfill for the site,

and it is disingenuous to propose this as a

mineral extraction site.

There is a covenant on the major part of

the proposed site held by Wappingthorn

Manor on surrounding land (see land

registry WSX171768).

The proposed site has been assigned in

plan DC/15/1937 to supply maize for the

Wappingthorn Farm anaerobic digester.

that major development should only be allowed in

National Parks (and AONBs) in ‘exceptional

circumstances’. As Ham Farm is not within the SDNP

this paragraph does not apply, meanwhile proposals

within the SDNP have been ruled out, as there has

been no demonstration of exceptional circumstances,

as set out in the Mineral Site Selection Report

(2017), Appendix 8.

The Authorities have complied with the requirements

of regulations with regards to the preparation of the

Plan. Residents near to the sites were informed,

whilst the local Parish Councils have been submitted

at every stage of the plan making process. The

Authorities also held an Exhibition in the Steyning

Centre during the Regulation 18 Consultation in

2016, and attended public meetings, including the

Chanctonbury CLC. Further details are set out in the

Regulation 22 Consultation Statement.

The Authorities can only consider the proposals

submitted to them, not the credentials of a

developer.

Where the use of planning conditions is not possible,

in some circumstances, development proposals could

be considered to be acceptable if planning obligations

are used. Planning obligations can include measures

for environmental, recreational, economic and

community gain in mitigation or compensation for

the effects of minerals development, as set out in

paragraph 8.1.6 of the Plan. This would be

considered at planning application stage.

The Plan has been prepared in accordance with the

NPPF through the Vision, Strategic Objectives, and

Development Management Policies.

166

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


General comments

The Proposed Submission Draft does not

set out that the Community Services

Select Committee of WSCC resolved, on

16.11.2016, that Ham Farm should not

be included in the plan, or that the

decision was overturned by the Cabinet

Member for Highways and Transport. This

does not meet the requirements of legal

compliance.

The views of local residents are being

ignored, and there is a risk of judicial

review proceedings for misuse of powers.

Is there a need to include such a small

site in terms of area? Can it not be

imported?

Due process has not been seen to be

done. The population of Steyning were

not informed via the Steyning parish

council, whilst people from other parishes

entered representations. WSCC have

taken this as “no objections”.

167

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Concerns that the operator of the site has

consistently demonstrated a failure to

satisfactorily restore sites in an

acceptable timescale.

No compensation is being offered to

properties affected.

Belief that there are other potential sites

which are more suitable than Ham Farm,

which would not have negative impacts.

Sites within the SDNP should be included

for allocation. There is no clear evidence

why they have been excluded.

The Ham Farm site is not necessary for

WSCC to provide adequate supplies of

sand, the existing sites and windfall sites

being sufficient. The plan does not take

account of the reduction in land won sand

used (Jan 2017 Local Aggregates

Assessment)

The Authorities have failed in their

statutory duty as they have not correctly

addresses the principles of NPPF on

Conserving and Promoting the

Sustainable Transport (para 29-41),

Enhancing the Natural Environment (109-

125) and facilitating the sustainable use

of minerals (142-149).

168

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Extension to West Hoathly Brickworks

Policy

M11

4267 034 Mid Sussex

District Council

Rep - Sound and legally compliant.

The extension of the clay workings into

adjacent fields will have an adverse

impact on the landscape which is wholly

within the High Weald Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Great care will need to be taken to avoid

damaging key characteristics of the AONB

such as historic field boundaries

(especially that between the new and old

workings) and adjacent ancient woodland.

The Parish Council's concerns about

increased traffic are supported. Road

infrastructure is historic, and ill-suited to

heavy goods vehicles. An extension to the

life of the clay workings will the amount

of time these roads are subject to traffic,

which impacts the quality of life of

communities of West Hoathly and

Sharpthorne.

The restoration scheme proposed for the

existing and proposed working is critical

to mitigate the impact of the proposal in

the longer term. The type of restoration

scheme will also impact on traffic

generation as a full restoration to original

levels is likely to require the importation

The Authorities commissioned a landscape

assessment, which concludes that the site is suitable

for extraction subject to mitigation. Several

development principles have been specifically

included to ensure that there is mitigation to

minimise any impact on the AONB landscape. The

site is to be restored to existing levels. In addition

any application would be considered against Policy

M13 (Protected Landscapes) which is specifically

concerned with ensuring that proposals for mineral

development will not have an unacceptable impact

on the character, distinctiveness, sense of place of

the different areas of the County and the special

qualities of the National Park and Areas of

Outstanding Natural Beauty and their settings.

The Transport Assessment concluded that there are

no issues with allocation of the extension to this site.

The Transport Assessment is available to view with

other evidence base documents and the outcomes

are summarised in the Mineral Site Selection Report.

Proposals of ran extension of the site will need to be

accompanied by proposals for its restoration. Such

proposals will need take account of the Development

Principles for the site as well as Policy M24

concerning restoration and aftercare. Paragraph

8.13.2 states: “The purpose of policy M24 is to

ensure that mineral sites are restored sustainably

and to ensure a beneficial afteruse is achieved.

Although mineral extraction is a temporary land use

169

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


of material to fill the void created by the

clay extraction.

The District Council would request full

involvement, alongside the Parish

Council, in discussions about the

appropriate form of restoration for this

site.

the nature of it can often involve permanent or long

term physical change to land. It can also have a

potentially significant impact upon the environment

and local communities. An important way of

managing such impacts is to ensure that sites are

worked in a phased manner and restored at the

earliest opportunity. Mineral working must not result

in the dereliction of land after the operation has

ceased. The successful restoration and aftercare of

mineral sites should therefore be planned at the

earliest opportunity, whilst offering an element of

flexibility to allow changes in future circumstances.”

Policy

M11

3763 066 High Weald

AONB

Rep - Sound and legally compliant.

The proposal at West Hoathly Brickworks

will adversely affect the High Weald AONB

during its operation. However, the High

Weald AONB Unit are satisfied that the

measures set out in paragraphs 7.2.6

would help to mitigate this impact and

enable a restoration proposal that in the

long term will conserve and enhance the

character of the High Weald AONB. Support noted.

Policy

M11

para

7.2.5 -

7.2.6

2206 099 West Hoathly

Parish Council

Rep - Unsound.

The Parish Council are concerned about

the proposed extension at West Hoathly

Brickworks, which will have a significant

impact on the High Weald Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty (lying wholly

within it).

The Parish Council believe this cannot be

The Authorities commissioned a landscape

assessment, which concludes that the site is suitable

for extraction subject to mitigation. Several

development principles have been specifically

included to ensure that there is mitigation to

minimise any impact on the AONB landscape. The

site is to be restored to existing levels. In addition

any application would be considered against Policy

M13 (Protected Landscapes) which is specifically

concerned with ensuring that proposals for mineral

170

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


viewed as sustainable development. development will not have an unacceptable impact

on the character, distinctiveness, sense of place of

the different areas of the County and the special

qualities of the National Park and Areas of

Outstanding Natural Beauty and their settings.

Policy

M11


Trust

Sussex Wildlife Trust are concerned that

the major requirements for the two site

allocations are included in the support

text of the JMLP rather than the policy.

Additionally, the development principles

for each allocation are overly long and

inconsistent.

Additionally, although each site allocation

has over 17 development principles

covering a huge range of planning issues,

neither have a requirement for the

working and restoration of the site to

achieve net gains to biodiversity or for

the working of the site to be based on up

to date ecological surveys. Given the

ethos of the NPPF to move to net gains to

nature (paragraphs 9 and 109) and the

requirements of Biodiversity 2020 and

NPPF paragraphs 143 and 158, this

should be remedied.

The Trust also recommends that the

working and restoration of these

allocations considers the sites’ utilisation

and delivery of ecosystem services.

In order to make the JMLP effective,

171

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


policy M11 should clearly demonstrate

what is required from an applicant

seeking to develop one of these strategic

sites. We recommend that there are

separate policies for each strategic site

and that the development principles are

brought into the policies.

The West Hoathly development principles

should be amended as follows;

Development principles (v) and (vi)

should be combined to read:

‘In order to minimise impacts on

ancient woodland a buffer of at least

15 metres must be created and

retained where no development shall

take place. Appropriate buffers

should also be created and retained

along the water course and around

mature trees.’

(vi) ‘Development, working and

restoration of the site should be

based on up-to-date ecological

surveys and assessments of the site’s

utilisation and delivery of ecosystem

services. In areas where no excavation

is to occur, existing hedgerows, mature

trees and vegetation should be

protected…’

(xviii) :

172

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


a. ‘…It should create net gains to

biodiversity and the delivery of

ecosystem services, and maximise the

farmland habitat value and connectivity

with the surrounding structure of

hedgerows and woodland…’

b. ‘…Long term restoration should create

net gains to biodiversity and the

delivery of ecosystem services, and

maximise habitat value by taking

opportunities to link it into the

surrounding structure of hedgerows and

woodland…’

Policy

M11

3931

4268

001

035

Resident /

other

The brickworks pose a threat to the

health of the community.

The lorries pose a threat on the road the

local communities

The emissions from the brickworks give

the air an acid feel. There seems to be a

concentration of occurrences of cancer in

the village - if this is not studied and

discounted by the council then sometime

in the future someone may sue.

If the proposed extension is to allow for

25 years of clay resources, then this is

not borne out by the existing planning

permission which allows clay production

until 2028. The West Hoathly quarry site

extension only allows a further 2-3 years

Policies within the Plan (particularly M20 and M18)

are intended to ensure that the development will not

result in unacceptable impacts associated with

transport and on the local community. Relevant

development principles also apply.

The extension is intended to contribute to 25 years

supply. The Plan acknowledges that this supply will

not be met from the extension to West Hoathly

brickworks site alone.

173

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


of production. Thus clay extraction is

afforded until 2031 at the latest. This

conflicts with Policy M5, since the

Minerals Plan seeks to provide for sites

with 25 years production (i.e. to 2041).

This site 9 acre extension fails to provide

the required resources.

Policy

M11


Trust

Development management principles (v)

and (vi) should be combined.

Agree – proposed modification as follows:

(v) creating and retaining appropriate buffers,

where no development shall take place, along the

water course, and around the mature trees and

ancient woodland within and adjacent to the site;

(vi) in order to minimise negative impacts on

mature trees and watercourses, appropriate buffers,

where no development shall take place, should be

created and retained along the watercourse, and

around the mature trees and ancient woodland

within and adjacent to the site around these

features;

Policy

M11


Trust

Development management principles do

not include requirement for working and

restoration to achieve net gains to

The development management principles are site

specific issues that need to be addressed. Net

gains/enhancement to biodiversity would still be

174

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


biodiversity.

covered by policy M17.

Para

7.2.5

3132 073 Local resident The West Hoathly quarry site extension

only allows a further 2-3 years of

production which conflicts with Policy M5

since the Minerals Plan seeks to provide

for sites with 25 years production (i.e. to

2041).

The extension is intended to contribute to 25 years

supply. The Plan acknowledges that this supply will

not be met from the extension to West Hoathly

brickworks site alone.

Chapter 8: Development Management Policies

Policy

M12


Trust

8.2 on Character contains an error.

Implementation and monitoring table for

M12 appears in section 8.3 instead of 8.2.

Agree to amend typographical error.

Policy

M12

3713 075 CPRE Sussex

Section 8.2 should include a reference to

NPPF para 109 and policy M12 should

require development proposals to be

compatible with that paragraph, in

particular vis a vis valued landscapes and

biodiversity enhancement. This is not an

issue that should only be considered at

the site restoration phase as para 8.13.7

implies.

Disagree.

There is no need to directly reference NPPF

Paragraph 109 in Section 8.2 as the plan, building

upon the Strategic Objectives, clearly addresses the

issues of landscapes, geodiversity, soils, biodiversity,

natural resources and remediation through the

relevant Development Management Policies.

Development proposals have to address all relevant

policies of the draft plan. Draft policies M12, M13 and

M17, inter alia, clearly relate to character, landscape

and biodiversity. As such, the statement that the

issue is only considered at Paragraph 8.13.17 is

incorrect.

Policy

M12

3713 075 CPRE Sussex Re policy M12 (a) please see our

comments re the ‘vision’ in relation to

whether the term “local distinctiveness

Criterion (a) of Policy M12 relates to all areas of the

County.

175

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


and character” in respect of the two

AONBs is appropriate and consistent with

national policy.

Policy

M13

3763 066 High Weald

AONB Unit

Support the wording of M13 and consider

that it applies the principles of NPPF 116

appropriately to minerals development.

Noted.

Policy

M13

3713 075 CPRE

Although protecting the ‘setting’ of

protected landscapes is not contained

within the NPPF, the principle is widely

recognised in local plans and numerous

appeal cases therefore demonstrating

that setting is a material consideration.

For example, in a recent appeal (ref:

APP/Q1445/W/15/3130514, Land

South of Ovingdean Road) the

Inspector noted that:

“The site does not form part of the SDNP

but is, nonetheless, adjacent to it. Whilst

the Framework states that National Parks

should enjoy the highest status of

protection in relation to landscape and

scenic beauty, little direct reference is

made to setting. Nevertheless, the

government’s Planning Practice Guidance

(the Guidance) advises that regard should

be given to development proposals

outside the National Park boundaries

which might have an impact on the

setting of the protected area.”

In order for policy M.13 to be effective,

The general purpose of s.85 of the Countryside &

Rights of Way is for relevant authorities (as defined

in s.85 subsections (2) and (3)) to have regard to

the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural

beauty of the area of outstanding beauty. The Joint

Authorities consider that Draft Policy M13 clearly

addresses this and as such is effective.

It is also noted that the representation did not

actually set out any changes to draft Policy M13.

176

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


the policy should include ensure any

proposals do not undermine “the setting

and objectives of the designation.” This

would also be consistent with s.85 of the

Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000

which requires planning authorities “to

have regard to the purpose of conserving

and enhancing the natural beauty of the

area of outstanding natural beauty” … ”in

exercising or performing any functions in

relation to, or so as to affect [our

emphasis], land in an area of outstanding

natural beauty”.

Suggested Policy amendment:

Policy M13: Protected Landscape

(a) Proposals for mineral

development within protected

landscapes (the South Downs

National Park, the Chichester

Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty, and the High Weald Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty will not

be permitted unless:

i. the site is allocated for that

purpose in the adopted plan; or

ii. the proposal is for a small-scale

development to meet local needs that

can be accommodated without

undermining the setting and

objectives of the designation; or

iii. the proposal is for major mineral

development that accords with part

177

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


(c) of this Policy.

(b) Proposals for mineral

development located outside

protected landscapes will be

permitted provided that they do not

undermine the objectives of the

designation.

(c) Proposals for major mineral

development within protected

landscapes will not be permitted

unless there are exceptional

circumstances and where it is in the

public interest as informed

by an assessment of:

i. the need for the development,

including in terms of any national

considerations, and the impact of

permitting it, or refusing it, upon the

local economy;

ii. the cost of, and scope for,

developing elsewhere outside the

designated area, or meeting the need

for the mineral in some other way ;

and

Paragrap

h 8.3.9

3713 075 CPRE In paragraph 8.3.9 we would also prefer

to see the word “potentially” before

“include” in the sentence beginning

“Examples of small scale developments

include,” as not all such ancillary works

will necessarily and automatically fall

Agreed. Amend text of Paragraph 8.3.9 accordingly.

Small scale development includes any development

that is not major development for the purposes of

paragraph 116 of the NPPF. i.e. development which

does not have the potential to cause an

178

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


outside the major development criterion.

unacceptable impact by reason of its scale, character

or nature on the natural beauty, wildlife, cultural

heritage and recreational opportunities of the SDNP

or AONBs. Examples of small scale developments

potentially include ancillary developments such as

weighbridges, offices, haul roads and other minor

amendments to existing planning permissions.

M16 3054 014 Environment

Agency

Support policy and points contained

within it. the supporting text is also very

relevant and provides clear direction in

what a planning application should

consider to ensure that the water

environment is protected.

Support noted

Policy

M16

3713 075 CPRE The Policy (M16) should be amended to

reflect the precautionary principle.

Policy M16: Water Resources

Proposals for mineral development will be

only be permitted provided that they

would if there is adequate and robust

evidence to ensure that they would:

(a) not cause unacceptable risk to the

quality and quantity of water resources,

using the ‘precautionary principle’;

(b) not cause changes to groundwater

and surface water levels which would

result in unacceptable impacts on:

(i) adjoining land;

Disagree.

The supporting text to Policy M16 (Paragraph 8.5.6)

is clear that proposals should be supported by

suitable evidence. As such, it is considered that there

is no requirement to amend the policy wording as

suggested.

For reference, the term precautionary principle is not

set out and proposed for us in planning policy or

determination of proposals in either the NPPF or the

PPG.

179

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


(ii) the quality of groundwater resources

or potential groundwater resources; and

(iii) the potential yield of groundwater

resources, river flows or natural habitats

such as wetlands or heaths; and

(c) protect and where possible enhance,

the quality of rivers and other

watercourses and water bodies (including

within built-up areas).

M17 3054 014 Environment

Agency

We support inclusion of this policy and

the points contained within it.

Support noted.

Policy

M17


Earth

Minerals development, including hydraulic

fracturing (fracking) introduces the

potential for impacts to biodiversity and

geodiversity in West Sussex above and

below ground.

Permitting fracking will hinder the

Authorities’ ability to enforce Section 40

of the Natural Environment and Rural

Communities Act (2006). This places a

duty on every public authority in England

and Wales to “...have regard, so far as is

consistent with the proper exercise of

those functions, to the purpose of

conserving biodiversity”.

The wording of part (b) Policy M17

(Biodiversity and Geodiversity) is

unacceptable in the context of fracking

developments and the relatively unknown

It is not the express intention of Policy M17 to

address issues arising from hydraulic fracturing

associated with methane leakage; lighting and noise

impacts; and impacts to groundwater. These matters

are specifically addressed in policies M16 (Air and

Soil), M16 (Water Resources) and M18 (Public Health

and Amenity) respectively.

The prevention of hydraulic fracturing in certain

areas is provided for in Policy M7b and so there is no

need to repeat this in Policy M17. Policy M7b is

intended to be consistent with legislation

(Infrastructure Act 2015 and Onshore Hydraulic

Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2016) that

sets out where surface activity associated with

hydraulic fracturing may take place. It is not

appropriate to add other areas to the policy which

are not expressly covered by the legislation as this

would mean the Plan was not legally compliant and

so could not be adopted.

The reference to Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites

180

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


impacts to groundwater, as well as

available evidence linked to the impacts

of methane leakage; lighting and noise

impacts linked to 24 hour drilling. The

wording is contrary to the Government

approach of preventing hydraulic

fracturing in protected areas (Special

Protection Areas, Special Areas of

Conservation, RAMSAR and Sites of

Special Scientific Interest). The approach

is inconsistent with paragraph 119 of the

NPPF that states “The presumption in

favour of sustainable development

(paragraph 14) does not apply where

development requiring appropriate

assessment under the Birds or Habitats

Directives is being considered, planned or

determined.”

Policy M7b references some of the

“protected areas” but does not include

Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites which

should be referenced in the policy

wording rather than in footnotes.

Policies M17 and M7b should be amended

to highlight the prohibition of surface

works for hydrocarbon development

involving hydraulic fracturing within

internationally designated sites.

In order to offer further protection to the

objectives of their designation, especially

those with protected species sensitive to

noise, re-wording of the policy to protect

the setting of local, county, national and

international designations is justifiable in

(internationally designated sites) is considered

appropriate. Policy M7b does not place a ban on

hydraulic fracturing from these areas, as this would

be incompatible with national policy and legislation,

but it expects that special care will be taken to avoid

harm to these areas.

Specific reference to the setting of local, county,

national and international designations in Policy M17

is not considered appropriate. Clause (c) of Policy

M7b expects special care to be taken to avoid harm

to these areas which would include that caused by

noise. It is noted that the wording could be clearer

and so a slight amendment is proposed to clause (c)

of Policy M7b as follows:





proximity to designated areas, assets and

habitats42, which demonstrate that special care will

be taken to avoid harming these areas and the

special qualities of the South Downs National Park

and/or the setting and intrinsic character and value

of the Chichester Harbour and High Weald AONBs.”

Para 8.6.7 of the JMLP states: “Protected species are

a material consideration when considering planning

applications. Where there is a reasonable likelihood

that a protected species may be present and affected

by a mineral development proposal, suitable survey

will need to be undertaken to provide the evidence

needed to allow a determination to be made.”

Furthermore paragraph 8.6.9 makes specific

reference to the Habitats Directive as follows: “The

181

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


light of the range of impacts from

fracking. This is supported by Planning

Practice Guidance that states: “Particular

consideration should be given to noisy

development affecting designated sites”.

The aims of the biodiversity and

geodiversity policies within the plan

should be more aspirational in protecting

more generic habitats, countryside and

wildlife, including exclusion of biodiversity

offsetting. In addition, while buffer zones

may also offer another possible way

forward, further consideration of

biodiversity in terms of cumulative

impacts could be more effectively

included within the remit of policy M22

(Cumulative Impact).

Proposed amendments to Policy M17 and

M7(b) would help highlight the limitations

of fracking within proposed “protected

areas”, and limit biodiversity offsetting.

Proposed amendments include

consideration of the cumulative loss of

any type of biodiversity/geodiversity

within Policy M22, as well as the

precautionary principle, to help reduce

exposure of unprotected sites.

Recommended Policy Amendments:

Proposals for minerals development

[INSERT]* will [INSERT] not be permitted

provided [INSERT] unless that:

(a) The development will:

i. avoid significant harm to wildlife species

Habitats Directive require an ‘Appropriate

Assessment’ (AA) to be undertaken on proposed

plans or projects which are not necessary for the

management of the site but which are likely to have

a significant effect on one or more Natura 2000 sites

either individually, or in combination with other plans

and projects. The purpose of AA is to assess the

impacts of a land use plan, including mineral plans

such as this, in combination with the effects of other

plans and projects, against the conservation

objectives of a European Site and to ascertain

whether it would adversely affect the integrity of that

site. Where unacceptable negative effects are

identified, alternative options should be examined to

avoid any potential damaging effects. The scope of

the AA is dependent on the location, size and

significance of the proposed plan or project.”

Appropriate Assessment of the JMLP has been

undertaken and was published alongside the

Proposed Submission JMLP as part of its evidence

base.

The proposed term “will not be permitted unless” is

inconsistent with the NPPF approach of positive

planning.

Check responses below are still relevant following

meeting with Sussex WT and any updates to M17

The additional wording to clauses (a)ii and (a)iii is

unnecessary as the protection sought by these

proposed changes is provided for by the existing

wording.

The additional wording to clause (b) is inappropriate

as the need for appropriate assessment is dictated

by the likelihood of a proposed development having

a ‘significant effect’ on an international site and so it

182

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


and habitats; or

ii. where significant harm cannot be

wholly or partially avoided, ensure that

the harm is effectively mitigated

[INSERT] directly on or, if not possible,

adjacent the development site or;

iii. as a last resort, where there is still

significant residual harm, ensure suitable

compensation for that harm [INSERT]

that delivers mitigation directly on or, if

not possible, adjacent the development

site;

(b) there are no unacceptable impacts on

areas or sites of international or national

biodiversity or geological conservation

importance unless the benefits of the

development clearly outweigh both the

impact on the objectives of the

designation, and on the wider network of

such designated areas or sites. For

energy extraction involving hydraulic

fracturing proposed for internationally

protected sites, appropriate assessment

will be required to demonstrate the

potential for significant effect.

(d) where appropriate, the creation,

enhancement, and management of

habitats, ecological networks,

geodiversity and ecosystem services shall

be secured [INSERT] either directly on or,

if not possible, adjacent the development

site and or if consistent with wider

environmental objectives, including

is possible that some energy extraction activity will

not require appropriate assessment because of its

location and/or the sensitivity of the protected

feature, to energy extraction, for which the

designation has been applied.

The additional wording to clause (d) is inappropriate

as it unnecessarily restricts the location of new and

enhanced habitats which may not be possible on

‘directly on’ or adjacent’ to the development site.

The addition of the suggested footnote is not

appropriate as the Plan as a whole needs to be taken

into account when assessing proposals and the

restrictions which specifically apply to the locations

within which hydraulic fracturing can take place are

specifically set out in Policy M7b.

Comment on Policy M22 are addressed under that

section. Also see summary of representations on

Policy M7b

183

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Biodiversity Opportunity Areas and the

South Downs Way Ahead Nature

Improvement Area;

(e) where necessary, the investigation,

evaluation, and recording of important

sites and features is undertaken and,

where appropriate, representative

features are preserved.

[INSERT] *only parts of this policy are

relevant to fracking developments as it is

not allowed at the surface of “Protected

Areas” (as per the draft Onshore

Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas)

Regulations 2015)). The definition

includes: Natura 2000, Ramsar and Sites

of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI),

Source protection zones (SPZ1), National

Parks, Broads, AONBs et al).

Policy

M17


Trust

Not legally compliant and unsound - Not

appropriate for the policy to suggest that

partial avoidance of significant harm is

acceptable. If significant harm is only

partially avoided the remaining harm will

still need to be mitigated, or as a last

resort compensated for as per para 118

of NPPF. ‘or partially’ should remove.

Criterion should be strengthened to

include a requirement for the

mitigation/compensation to create net

gains to biodiversity.

Policy is not sufficiently comprehensive

M17 will be re-drafted to reflect the comments

made. This will include:

● Removal of the reference to ‘wholly and partially’

in clause a(i);

● Reference to net gains to biodiversity;

● A clearer distinction between the hierarchy of

sites. The need for HRA is covered by the

Habitats Directive which is referred to in

paragraph 8.6.9. It is not considered necessary

to refer to the Directive directly in the policy.

184

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


and does not differentiate between the

requirements for various levels of

protection (contrary to para. 113 of

NPPF). It is not legally acceptable in part

(b) that impacts on sites of international

biodiversity conservation importance will

be acceptable if ‘the benefits of

development clearly outweigh the impact

on the objectives of the designation”.

Contrary to Habitat Regs and not legally

sound.

Policy includes reference to ‘objectives of

designation’. ‘Features of interest’ would

better.

No recognition of the importance of

ensuring that development conserves and

enhances priority and irreplaceable

habitats.

Working and restoration of a site should

consider the current utilisation and

delivery of ecosystem services. JMLP

should take an approach that is

consistent with the SDNPAs approach in

their Local Plan.

Recommended policy amendments:

‘Proposals for minerals development will

be permitted provided that that prior to

determination, up to date ecological

surveys are submitted to ensure:

Agree to change terminology to ‘features of interest’.

Agree to include a clause to ensure that priority and

irreplaceable habitats, including Ancient Woodland,

are conserves and enhanced.

Clause M17 (d) seeks to secure the creation,

enhancement and management of ecosystem

services.

185

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


(a) The development will:

i. avoid significant harm to wildlife species

and habitats; or

ii. where significant harm cannot be

wholly avoided, ensure that the harm is

effectively mitigated or;

iii. as a last resort, where there is still

significant residual harm, ensure suitable

compensation for that harm;

(b) there are no unacceptable impacts on

areas or sites of international biodiversity

importance. Any development with the

potential to impact on an internationally

designated site will be subject to a

Habitat Regulation Assessment to

determine the need for an Appropriate

Assessment;

(c) there are no unacceptable impacts on

areas or sites of national biodiversity or

geological conservation importance unless

the benefits of the development clearly

outweigh both the impact on the features

of interest for the designation, and on the

wider network of such designated areas

or sites;

(d) there are no unacceptable impacts on

areas, sites or features of regional or

local biodiversity or geological

conservation importance unless the

benefits of the development clearly

186

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


outweigh the impact on the objectives of

the designation;

(e) there are no unacceptable impacts on

irreplaceable habitats such as ancient

woodland and appropriate buffers of at

least 15 metres are maintained between

ancient woodland and the development

boundary;

(f) the creation, enhancement, and

management of habitats, ecological

networks, geodiversity and ecosystem

services shall be secured consistent with

wider environmental objectives, including

Biodiversity Opportunity Areas and the

South Downs Way Ahead Nature

Improvement Area, in order to secure net

gains to biodiversity and the delivery of

ecosystem services;

(g) where necessary, the investigation,

evaluation, and recording of important

sites and features is undertaken and,

where appropriate, representative

features are preserved.’

M17

4240

3882

3883

3942

268

230

233

277

Cllr Susan

Murray –

Lewes Town &

District Cllr

Opposed to Policy M17: the cumulative

impact with other operations and on

biodiversity and geodiversity should be

addressed (reasons stated against 6.7, in

conjunction with M7a, M7b, M22 & M23)


Policy M7b is intended to be consistent with

legislation (Infrastructure Act 2015 and Onshore

Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations

2016) that sets out where surface activity associated

187

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


3962

3963

3982

4148

4149

4150

4151

4152

4153

4154

4155

4156

4157

4158

4159

4162

4163

4164

4165

4166

4167

4168

4170

4171

4172

4173

4175

4177

4178

4180

4181

4182

4183

4184

241

262

257

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

185

186

187

188

295

189

190

192

193

194

195

197

199

200

203

204

205

206

207

Resident /

others

with hydraulic fracturing may take place. The policy

includes specific appropriate reference to Natura

2000 or Ramsar sites (internationally designated

sites) is considered appropriate. Policy M7b does not

place a ban on hydraulic fracturing from these areas,

as this would be incompatible with national policy

and legislation, but it expects that special care will

be taken to avoid harm to these areas. It is noted

that the wording could be made clearer and so a

slight amendment is proposed to clause (c) of Policy

M7b as follows:





proximity to designated areas, assets and habitats,

which demonstrate that special care will be taken to

avoid harming these areas and the special qualities

of the South Downs National Park and/or the setting

and intrinsic character and value of the Chichester

Harbour and High Weald AONBs.”

Paragraph 6.7.11 includes the following: “The

applicant will be required to provide information

about how the site has been selected and the extent

of the geographical area of search for the oil and

gas, covering the wider target reservoir. This is

important to demonstrate that the site selected is

the least sensitive location from which the target

reservoir can be accessed and needs to take into

account on-site and off-site activities, including HGV

movements and routing.”

And Paragraph 6.7.12 states: “The site selection

188

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4185

4186

4187

4188

4189

4190

4191

4193

4194

4195

4196

4197

4198

4200

4201

4203

4204

4206

4207

4208

4209

4210

4211

4212

4213

4214

4215

4217

4218

4219

4220

4221

4222

4223

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

216

217

218

220

221

222

224

225

227

228

231

232

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

242

244

245

246

296

247

248

249

process should also demonstrate how regard has

been had to designations of local, regional and

national importance. In addition, sites of European

importance for nature conservation and areas that

support their ecological integrity must be considered.

This is particularly important for European sites

designated for migratory species such as some birds,

or for wide-ranging species such as bats.”

Specific policy protection to biodiversity and

geodiversity is provided in Policy M17.

189

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4224

4225

4226

4227

4228

4229

4230

4231

4233

4234

4235

4236

4237

4239

4241

4242

4243

4244

4245

4246

4249

4250

4251

4254

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

258

260

261

263

264

265

267

269

270

271

272

273

274

278

279

280

284

M18 4111 155 Friends of the

Earth

Object to policies M7b and M22 (also

M18) as their approach to community

impacts is not justified, effective or


Fracking development has the potential to

introduce a range of impacts to local

communities including noise, visual,

lighting, air quality and traffic impacts.

The approach to potential impacts on communities

arising from mineral (including hydrocarbon) supply

activity in the Plan is appropriate and consistent

with national policy and PPG and is considered to

offer appropriate policy protection. District and

Borough Councils, who have responsibilities for

environmental health, as well as the Environment

Agency, have been consulted throughout the

190

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


The Council should take into account

concerns about the process of

“acidisation” about which there is little

available information or evidence in

considering community impact.

Policy M7b does not go far enough in

considering these impacts especially in

the context of cumulative impacts

resulting from a number of schemes

having multiple impacts over a plan area.

To ensure policy M7b is justified (i.e.

based on proportionate evidence

available), Environmental Impact

Assessment should be required for all

stages of fracking development to assess

potential community impacts.

Air quality impacts resulting from fracking

developments have been shown to pose

health risks at the local level.

PPG states that when considering air

quality: “It is important that the potential

impact of new development on air quality

is taken into account in planning where

the national assessment indicates that

relevant limits have been exceeded or are

near the limit".

With regard to air quality and new

developments, para 109 of the NPPF

states that the planning system has a key

role to play in: “...preventing both new

and existing development from

contributing to or being put at

preparation of the Plan and have not objected to the

wording of this policy in their representations.

The detailed assessment of the impacts on the

community (including any associated with

‘acidisation’) will be considered through the planning

application and licensing processes.

Environmental Impact Assessment will be required

as set out by legislation which specifies when EIA is

required.

In light of comments received on the draft version of

the Plan (published for consultation in 2016) the

purpose of the policy was also made clearer with

changes to the supporting text.

The proposed amendment to the policy requiring a

Health Impact Assessment to establish the baseline

of actual health conditions of residents living within a

2km radius of any proposals is not proportionate. It

should be noted that the Plan states at para 8.7.4:

“Mineral development proposals should conform with

the requirements of national planning guidance to

ensure that their impact on the public health and

amenity of local communities is suitably addressed.

For example, where mineral development takes place

in the vicinity of residential areas and other sensitive

uses, conditions controlling hours of operation may

be imposed on planning permissions in order to

safeguard local general amenity. Particular emphasis

should be made on suitably controlling dust and

noise impacts.”

Landscape and visual impacts are dealt with by

191

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


unacceptable risk from, or being

adversely affected by unacceptable levels

of soil, air, water or noise pollution or

land instability”

The potential for even moderate air

quality impact is therefore a key issue.

The potential for fracking schemes to

produce indirect air quality impacts

should also be taken into further

consideration within the policies, including

M22 and M7b.

Noise

24 hour drilling from exploration stages

could lead to noise levels that could be

significantly above ambient night-time

limits allowed for other types of

development (such as wind turbines) over

the medium term. Policy M7b states

schemes may be permitted if noise

impact can be made acceptable but the

lack of enforcement could mean related

conditions are ineffectual.

Para 143 of the NPPF states: “...when

developing noise limits, recognise that

some noisy short-term activities, which

may otherwise be regarded as

unacceptable, are unavoidable to

facilitate minerals extraction...”

Para 144 suggests that local authorities

should also:

“ensure unavoidable noise, dust and

particle emissions and any blasting

policies M12 and M13 and, with specific regard to

hydrocarbon supply, within policies M7a and M7b.

Impacts from transport associated with mineral

development (including hydrocarbons) is addressed

by Policy M20 and, with specific regard to

hydrocarbon supply, within policies M7a and M7b.

192

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


vibrations are controlled, mitigated or

removed at source, and establish

appropriate noise limits for extraction in

proximity to noise sensitive properties”

The 24 hour intensive nature of drilling is

not a “noisy short term activity”. Fracking

involves prolonged periods of noisy day

and night time activities, over the

medium to long term. Policy M7b should

reflect these concerns, rather than simply

suggest a scheme’s acceptability if such

concerns can be minimised or mitigated

to an acceptable level using conditions.

Requirements should include robust

background noise monitoring and

modelling.

A health impact assessment should be

required (see amended policy wording for

Policy M18) as this would assist

establishing existing ambient air quality

and noise levels, and would factor in

ongoing monitoring of the health of

residents and communities.

Landscape and Visual Impact

Infrastructure associated with oil and gas

development is industrialising

development within rural contexts. It may

not be possible to make a development

visually acceptable. All applications

should include a robust landscape and

visual impact assessment as part of an

EIA submission to make the policy robust

and justified.

193

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Traffic

Fracking requires numerous well pads and

so has potential to significantly increase

traffic movements, and lower standards

of highway safety if a traffic management

plan is not adhered to. Impacts on the

safety of non-car users’ needs to be fully

considered.

Para 144 of the NPPF states local

authorities should ensure there: “...are

no unacceptable adverse impacts on the

natural and historic environment, human

health or aviation safety, and take into

account the cumulative effect of multiple

impacts from individual sites”.

Part iii of policy M7b mentions transport

as a consideration, but the safety of other

users such as walkers and cyclists should

not be ignored.

EIA should include a robust transport

assessment.

Impacts of HGV movements on local air

quality should also be taken into account

to ensure consistency with concerns of

Public Health England, which has been

raising this issue with minerals

applications in other parts of the UK.

Recommended Amendments to Policy

M18: Insert new clause (b):

Proposals for mineral development will be


(b) Proposals will be required to submit a

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to

194

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


establish the baseline of actual health

conditions of residents living within a 2km

radius of the site. The HIA shall include

reference to existing air, noise, dust,

seismicity and other considerations; and

Policy

M19

4061

090 Southern

Water

Supports policy M19 particularly

paragraph 8.5.7 as it will address request

for consideration of the hydrological and

hydrogeological environment in relation

to mineral development including

hydrocarbon development as set out in

previous response.

Support noted.

Section

8.10

1704 101 Gatwick Airport

Pleased to see section 8.10 covering

aerodrome safeguarding.

Noted.

Policy

M21

1704 101 Gatwick Airport

Policy M21 ‘Aerodrome Safeguarding’ is

important in that it will ensure that no

proposed minerals developments will

adversely impact on the safety of the

airport.

Noted.

Policy

M22


Earth

Hydrocarbon resource in West Sussex is

of a ‘tight’ nature that requires lots of

wells close to each other to maintain

production levels.

Consideration of cumulative effects will be

needed to consider impacts of successive

wells that will likely be required to apply

acid-stimulation across licensed areas of

the Weald. This consideration has been

included within policy amendments (see

representation ID 080 that includes

proposed amendments to Policy M22).

As written, Policy M22 would ensure that potential

cumulative impacts, arising from a series of

proposals for hydrocarbon supply located within close

proximity of each other, would be properly

considered.

M22 4240 269 Cllr Susan Opposed to Policy M22: the cumulative As written, Policy M22 would ensure that potential

195

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4153

4189

4125

4130

4139

4140

4141

3821

4142

4143

4144

4146

4147

4148

4149

4150

4151

4152

4153

4154

4155

4156

4157

4158

4159

4162

4163

037/1

76

212

127

135

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

185

186

Murray –

Lewes Town &

District Cllr

Residents /

others

impact with other operations should be

addressed (reasons stated against 6.7, in

conjunction with M7a, M7b, M17 & M23)

cumulative impacts, arising from a series of

proposals for hydrocarbon supply located within close

proximity of each other, would be properly

considered.

196

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4165

4166

4167

4168

4171

4172

4173

4175

4177

4178

4180

4181

4182

4183

4184

4185

4186

4187

4188

4189

4190

4191

4193

4194

4195

4197

4198

4200

4201

4203

4204

3882

4206

4207

188

295

189

190

193

194

195

197

199

200

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

216

217

218

221

222

224

225

227

228

230

231

232

197

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


3883

4209

4210

4211

4212

4213

4214

3962

4215

4217

4218

4219

4220

4221

4223

4224

4225

4226

4227

4228

4229

4230

3982

4231

4233

4234

3963

4235

4236

4237

4239

4241

4242

4243

233

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

244

245

246

296

247

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

260

261

262

263

264

265

267

269

270

271

198

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4244

4245

4246

3942

4249

4250

4251

4254

4208

272

273

274

277

278

279

280

284

234

199

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy

M23

3713 075 CPRE Please see our comments in relation to

Strategic Objectives 12 - that the draft

Plan gives insufficient weight to the

Government’s public commitment to

reduce fossil fuel usage and carbon

emissions as the core element of the

Climate Change Act 2008 framework.

Whilst policy M.23 aims for mineral

developments to “avoid or at least

minimise greenhouse gas emissions”

through design, the policy fails to

elaborate in any detail as to whether this

includes the process of extraction, rather

than the physical design of equipment on

site, or off site impacts such as transport

distance reduction for HGVs.

Further clarity is needed to ascertain

whether the approach of policy M23 also

cover the process of exploring/appraising

and extracting energy minerals

themselves (i.e. those which obtained by

conventional means or by hydraulic

fracturing).

The process of extraction and transport associated

with mineral development is addressed through other

draft Mineral Plan policies and, where appropriate,

other Regulatory regimes.

Paragrap

h 8.12.6

3713 075 CPRE In addition, the reference in (vi) to a

compensation scheme is not followed up

anywhere else within the draft Plan

document. In our view it would be

beneficial if the Plan were to indicate in

general terms what kind of compensation

would be likely to be considered

Disagree – compensation should be considered on

case by case basis.

200

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


appropriate and who the Authorities

would consider should benefit from it.

Policy

M23

3713 075 CPRE We would also like to see this policy

contain greater consistency with the

emerging South Downs Local Plan,

particularly Policy SD6: Design. For

example, this emerging policy states

that:

“Development proposals will be permitted

where they adopt a landscape-led

approach and respect the local character

of the built, natural and agricultural

environment, through sensitive and high

quality design that makes a positive

contribution to the overall character and

appearance of the area.”

The design principles associated with

policy M.23 should be reflected as closely

as is appropriate to the National Park

Policy, recognising the differing nature of

mineral plan proposals from housing and

other development. This could include, for

example, ensuring development proposals

are demonstrably informed by an

assessment of the landscape context,

achieve effective and high quality routes

for people and wildlife, take opportunities

to connect green infrastructure,

contribute to local distinctiveness and

Disagree.

The suite of Development Management policies in

the draft West Sussex Minerals Plan addresses the

issues of landscape, biodiversity and amenity inter

alia.

For reference, if the emerging South Downs Local

Plan is adopted in the future it will apply to minerals

development as it would be part of the South Downs

Development Plan.

201

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


sense of place, incorporate hard and soft

landscape treatment which takes

opportunities to connect to the wider

landscape and give due consideration to

avoiding harmful impact upon, or from,

any surrounding uses and amenities.

Policy

M23

4240

4135

4189

4125

4130

4139

4140

4141

3821

4142

4143

4144

4146

4147

4148

4149

4150

4151

4152

4153

4154

4155

269

176

212

127

135

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

Cllr Susan

Murray –

Lewes Town &

District Cllr

Residents /

others

Opposed to Policy M23. The Plan does not

address climate change impacts

associated extraction of hydrocarbons.






















and enhanced.

14: To minimise carbon emissions and to adapt to,

and to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of,

climate change.

202

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4156

4157

4158

4159

4162

4163

4165

4166

4167

4168

4171

4172

4173

4175

4177

4178

4180

4181

4182

4183

4184

4185

4186

4187

4188

4189

4190

4191

4193

4194

4195

4197

4198

4200

179

180

181

182

185

186

188

295

189

190

193

194

195

197

199

200

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

216

217

218

221

222

224

Policy M23 expects that “Proposals for minerals

development will be permitted provided that, where

appropriate, the scale, form, and layout (including

landscaping) take into account the need to…(c)

include measures to:



emissions,




from gas); and




development.

It is beyond the scope of the Plan to control the end

use of minerals/

203

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4201

4203

4204

3882

4206

4207

3883

4209

4210

4211

4212

4213

4214

3962

4215

4217

4218

4219

4220

4221

4223

4224

4225

4226

4227

4228

4229

4230

3982

4231

4233

4234

3963

4235

225

227

228

230

231

232

233

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

244

245

246

296

247

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

260

261

262

263

204

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


4236

4237

4239

4241

4242

4243

4244

4245

4246

3942

4249

4250

4251

4254

4208

264

265

267

269

270

271

272

273

274

277

278

279

280

284

234

Policy

M24

3054 015 Environment

Agency

Support inclusion of policy especially

clause (g). Essential that aftercare

schemes are undertaken in such a way

that prevents unacceptable impacts on

groundwater conditions and flood risk.

Support noted.

Policy

M25

3713 075 CPRE The phrase “where necessary” is

unhelpful: engagement is rarely, if ever,

“necessary”; but it is nearly always

beneficial to the community. The recent

Housing White Paper refers to research

by the Prince’s Foundation which

highlights how effective community

involvement is essential for creating

successful places and securing public

support for new development (see:

http://www.housing-communities.org ) In

the case of hydrocarbons, given public

levels of concern, CPRESx would also

Disagree.

Not all minerals development will require a site

liaison group as a matter of course. For example,

small scale quarries providing building stone for local

vernacular buildings.

Policy M25 and the supporting text encourages the

use of site liaison groups where this is appropriate.

This is considered to be an adequate approach to the

issue of community engagement.

205

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


encourage you to consider requiring

publication of compliance monitoring

criteria and testing results.

The following changes are suggested:

Policy M25: Community Engagement

Proposals for minerals development will

be permitted provided that a site liaison

group involving affected local community

representatives is established by the

operator to address issues arising from

the operation of a minerals development

or facility and that the operator publishes

at least annually monitoring criteria

agreed with the site liaison group,

including testing results.

Appendices

Appendix

B

3787

003 Balcombe

Parish Council

(BPC)

It would be useful to have all existing

hydrocarbon boreholes accurately marked

on the map of the PEDLs (Appendix B).

There are two boreholes in Balcombe

(one drilled vertically in the mid-1980s,

the other drilled in 2013 with a long

lateral).

This is not considered necessary. Details of existing

hydrocarbon sites are included in paragraph 3.3.10

which only mentions one in Balcombe as this is the

only permitted site. Further information on

hydrocarbon sites is included in the Annual

Monitoring Report and will be updated each year.

Sustainability Appraisal

Sustainab

ility

Appraisal

3713 074 CPRE Sussex Very concerned that the Sustainability

Appraisal for the site advises that “the

site is considered likely to have a minor

negative effect on designated landscapes,

Each option has been appraised using clearly defined

and consistently applied assumptions set out in

Appendix 4 of the SA Report. These assumptions are

based upon an agreed SA Framework that has been

206

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


local landscape character or tranquillity”,

(JMLP PSD (Regulation 19) SA Report,

December 2016, page 516), apparently

without consideration of the noise that

would be emitted by on-site plant and

generated by the ingress and egress of

HDVs employed to transport sand away

from the site.

Whether adverse and unacceptable

impacts resulting from the usage of the

Ham Farm site as a soft-sand quarry

could really be made ‘acceptable’ by, for

example, the various mitigation measures

re visual impacts proposed for this site by

West Sussex County Council (JMLP PSD

(Regulation 19) SA Report, December

2016, page 515, 516, is a most crucial

issue, which in our view has not been

addressed either by the JMLP PSD

(Regulation 19), January 2017 or the

supporting JMLP PSD (Regulation 19) SA

Report December 2016.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding Historic

England’s Advice and the NPPG stipulation

just quoted, the conclusion of the JMLP

PSD (Regulation 19) SA Report,

December 2016, page 518, that usage of

the Ham Farm site as a sand pit “is


negative effect” on the settings of the

listed buildings in question is concerned

only with visual impact. No consideration

subject to consultation and is set out in Chapter 4 of

the SA Report.

The scores and judgements associated with SA

Objective 5 (Landscape) draw on the WSCC and

SSNPA Landscape Capacity and Sensitivity Studies.

Both studies considered the tranquillity (including

noise and lighting), remoteness, views and

landmarks, visual receptors, landscape designations,

natural heritage, historic environment and settings

and recreational of each potential minerals site

allocation.

Consideration to the effects of noise, dust and

vibration in relation to resident and visitor amenity is

considered under SA Objective 1 (Health and Well

Being and Amenity.)

Given the strategic nature of the Minerals Local Plan

and the high level and broad scale at which options

are defined there is some uncertainty attached to the

assessment of effects. Where this is the case, this

uncertainty is clearly defined.

The SA Framework and assumptions have been

worked up in keeping with the SEA Regulations and

consistently adopt a precautionary approach to the

assessment of options, e.g. the potential for negative

effects, on for example, the setting of listed buildings

and air quality for human sensitive receptors have

been acknowledged.

More detailed assessments, such as Environmental

Impact Assessment, will be undertaken at the

207

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


is given in the Appraisal to the impact of

noise, dust and vibration and the level of

harm that would result in consequence.

The JMLP PSD (Regulation 19) SA Report,

December 2016, page 519 advises that

“development at this proposed site is



for human sensitive receptors. Although

this impact is very dependent on the type

of mineral site, likely routes to be taken

by HDVs, the scale of the operations and

the type of activities undertaken within

the site and potential mitigation

measures proposed, which would be

assessed at the planning application

stage. The site could have a minor

negative effect on the regulating

ecosystem services”.

The admission that ”there is uncertainty

as a more detailed assessment would be

required once proposals are known”

negates the emphatic and misleading

statement made on the same page, that

usage of the Ham Farm site as a sand pit

“is considered likely to have a minor

negative effect” on the settings of the

listed buildings in question.

In other words, the advice given in the

planning application stage once the detailed design

of the scheme has been established.

208

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


JMLP that “development at this proposed

site is considered likely to have a minor


for human sensitive receptors” and could

have a minor negative effect on the

regulating ecosystem services” has not

been arrived at by means of a thorough

and objective assessment.

Sustainab

ility

Appraisal

079 4288 Local resident

(represented

by Rowan

Smith/Leigh

Day)

Regulation 12(1) Environmental

Assessment of Plans and Programmes

Regulations 2012 requires an

environmental report, which identifies the

likely significant environmental effects of

implementing the plan and also the

“reasonable alternatives taking into

account the objectives and the

geographical scope of the plan …”.

Within the sustainability appraisal, the

Council expressly sets out that, in respect

of soft sand, “only one policy option

(SS2) was considered as a reasonable

alternative option for soft sand”.

The reasoning for this approach is not set

out within the Sustainability Appraisal,

which is of itself a breach of the

Regulations.

Table A4.1 in Appendix 4 of the SA Report (January

2017) contains an audit trail of all the reasonable

alternatives considered during the preparation of the

JMLP. Pages 158 and 159 states “The reason why no

alternative soft sand options were considered is

explained in the Background document to the JMLP.

It explains that the development of new sites in the

SDNP would not pass the exceptional circumstances

test (as mentioned in Policy M2 (a) (iii)). This is

largely due to the fact that Duty to Cooperate

engagement with other authorities has shown it

would be possible to meet demand for soft sand from

reserves beyond the SDNP including those beyond

West Sussex.”

Sustainab

ility

Appraisal


(represented

by Rowan

Smith/Leigh

The SA of Ham Farm assesses the

adverse impact on health, wellbeing on

neighbouring residents is said to be

“minor negative”. However, that planning

The SA Report (January 2017) makes reference to

proposed development management policies to be

included in the JMLP that will provide mitigation that

will reduce and avoid certain adverse effects.

209

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Day) judgment is simply perverse when it is

acknowledged that Ham Farm is within

100m of residential properties and no

evidence is referenced, either within the

plan or Sustainability Appraisal, which

suggests how adequate mitigation could

be put in place to safeguard harm arising

from, amongst other things, visual

intrusion, smell, noise and dust, whilst

maintaining the deliverability of the site.

A rational judgment in the absence of

that evidence would have scored this as

likely to have a “significant negative”

effect.

Sustainab

ility

Appraisal


(represented

by Rowan

Smith/Leigh

Day)

In large part, the soundness of the Ham

Farm allocation is based on little more

than bald assertions within the

Sustainability Appraisal.






the SA Report.

The scores and judgements associated with the

appraisal of site options against the SA Framework /

Assumptions draw on the technical assessments that

were also carried out for the sites including the

WSCC and SDNPA assessments, Habitats Regulations

Assessment, Transport Assessment, Flood Risk

Assessment and Landscape Assessment. For some

of the assumptions in Appendix 4, evidence included

in former planning policy statements and planning

practice guidance has been referred to in support of

some of the assumptions made, in addition to

relevant sections of the Planning Policy Guidance.

210

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Sustainab

ility

Appraisal

3779 148 CEMEX Insufficient sustainability assessment has

been undertaken to see whether mineral

working within the SDNPA could continue

without significant harm and what

benefits could be provided through site

restoration.














West Sussex.”

Sustainab

ility

Appraisal

Conclusio

ns

3794 024 Steyning &

District

Community

Partnership

The site analysis document states that

the site would have a minor positive

effect on the local economy because of

employment opportunities. In our view

this will be more than countered due to

the negative impact arising from the

reduction in the number of visitors

attracted to Steyning resulting in damage

to the local economy.






the SA Report.

Whilst individual views will vary, the assumptions for

SA objective 3 (Local Economy) outline that the

location of mineral sites is unlikely to be the

determining factor in directly affecting tourists’

decisions to visit the area.

In addition, further consideration is given to the

effects of mineral sites on the health, wellbeing and

amenity of visitors to West Sussex under SA

Objective 1, and SA Objective 5 draws on the WSCC

and SDNPA’s landscape assessments to assess the

effects of minerals sites on the landscape, local

211

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


distinctiveness and character of the plan area.

Sustainab

ility

Appraisal

4276

3923

048

051

Resident/other The County Council's Sustainability

Appraisal date April 2016 states that 'the

site has the potential for significant

negative effects on water quality". The

site is crossed by important surface and

underground streams which feed existing

ponds such as Alderwood. Pollution to

these streams would seriously threaten

wildlife, such as newts and migrating

trout. Additionally, Alderwood fishing site

is a local business that serves residents,

tourists, and charities.

Paragraph 5.136 of the SA Report states that three

mineral sites have the potential for significant

negative effects on water quality – Rock Common,

Buncton Manor Farm and Ham Farm. This potential

for significant negative effects is associated with the

multiple water courses and water bodies that flow

through and sit within the sites. However, for all

three sites, this effect is recorded as uncertain due to

such effects being very much dependant on the

exact nature, working and design of each site.

The effects of all three sites on European wildlife

sites has been assessed and ‘screened out’ as part of

the Habitats Regulations Assessment that has been

carried out on the Plan.

Furthermore, the SA Report makes reference to

proposed development management policies to be

included in the JMLP that will provide mitigation that

will reduce and avoid certain adverse effects.

Sustainab

ility

Appraisal

5.119 and

5.136

3997 061 Resident/other Reference to impacts being “uncertain” –

effort has not been made to ascertain the

impacts and leaves it for others to do

once the Plan is in force. This is contrary

to the Precautionary Principle.

There are insufficient mitigatory

measures and no compensatory

measures because the insufficiency of the

effort to ascertain the adverse

environmental impacts has rendered it

impossible to ascertain what these should

be.






the SA Report.

Given the strategic nature of the Minerals Local Plan

and the high level and broad scale at which options

are defined there is some uncertainty attached to the

assessment of effects. Where this is the case, this

uncertainty is clearly defined.

212

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Para i of the Directive requires secondary,

cumulative, synergistic, short, medium

and long-term permanent and temporary,

positive and negative effects to be

described. The first three are almost

entirely absent from the Appraisal and

the positive have been overstated (Table

3.2 at pages 19 to 21).

The SA Framework and assumptions have been

worked up in keeping with the SEA Regulations and

consistently adopt a precautionary approach to the

assessment of options, i.e. the potential for all

effects have been acknowledged.

The SA Report highlights the need for the ongoing

monitoring, mitigation and, where appropriate,

enhancement of effects as the Plan is implemented

and planning applications, excavation and operation

plans are drawn-up.

Table 1.1 of the SA Report sign posts the reader to

the sections of the report that highlight the likely

significant effects of the plan, including secondary,

cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-

term permanent and temporary, positive and

negative effects. These include Chapters 5 and 6

and Appendices 4 and 5.

Sustainab

ility

Appraisal

– 4.6

Table 3.2

Para 5.15

3997 063 Resident/other “SA inevitably relies on an element of

subjective judgement….” However this SA

has gone far beyond legitimate subjective

judgment and it has become a biased

justification for a pre-determined

outcome. There are inconsistencies within

Table 3.2 regarding potential outcomes

and effects of mineral extraction with and

without a JMLP.

Characterising certain negative effects as

“minor” is unjustified, particularly when

characterising the other impacts as

significant positives “…(including






the SA Report.

The following sources have been drawn upon to

judge the likely effects of the new Minerals Local

Plan: A broad analysis of the characteristics of West

Sussex and the sustainability issues if faces set out

in Chapter 3 of the report, extensive national and

local datasets, including GIS data, a wide range of

evidence bases prepared by West Sussex County

213

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Table

A4.3

panel 1

Sustainab

ility

Appraisal

significant positive effects on SA

objectives 5 (landscape),6 (biodiversity),

7 (geodiversity…. Significant positive

effects are also expected for other SA

objectives, including SA objective 11

(water resources and water quality) and

12 (flooding)…”

This is just one example of where the

word “minor” is used unjustifiably for a

negative while the word “significant” is

frequently used when describing any

perceived positive.

Recommendation:

A new Sustainability Appraisal which is

properly objective and not biased towards

the desired and pre-determined outcome.

Council and the South Downs National Park and the

professional experience of the SA team.

The full range of potential effects outlined in Figure

2.1 of the SA Report are appropriately and

consistently applied in Chapters 5 and 6 and

Appendices 5 to 9 of the SA Report in line with the

SA Framework and assumptions set out in Appendix

4 of the SA Report.

3461 106 Local

Reside

nt

Sustainability

Appraisal

This representation relates to Regulation

18(3) of the Town and Country Planning

(Local Planning) (England) Regulations

2012, which says:

“In preparing the local plan, the local

planning authority must take into account

any representation made to them in

response to invitations under paragraph

(1).”

This representation also relates to the

soundness test, as set out in paragraph

182 of the NPPF, related to the plan being

“justified” - i.e. based on robust and

The Authorities have used the most up-to-date

information available at the time (including up to

date Transport and Landscape Assessments) to

inform the evidence for site assessments, including

the Sustainability Appraisal.

The level of detail that is sought by the representor

is that which would be addressed at planning

application stage.

Discussions were undertaken with CEGA outside of

periods of consultation, who confirmed that they are

satisfied with the fact that the sites are not being

214

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


credible evidence including the choices

made in the plan being backed up by

facts.

This representation is specifically about

the Sustainability Appraisal (December

2016) of the Hambrook Grouping of sites

(para 5.151), specifically that;

● the information is out-of-date in

respect of the operator's plans for

exploitation of the sites and have

therefore misunderstood important

points, including around the

cumulative impacts, including

those of the proposed conveyor

belt system; and

● the misunderstanding of the

impacts of both the workings and

the HGVs through residential

areas.

This representation is also about the

Regulation 18 version of the SA

(published alongside the draft Joint

Minerals Local Plan (April - June 2016). It

is specifically interested in table A1.2 of

the SA, as summarised in the Mineral Site

Selection Report, and the main points

include;

● the misunderstanding of the

impacts on the landscape and the

impossibility of effective, and non-

intrusive screening;

● the lack of mention of the CEGA

allocated and so did not wish to pursue further

representations. Furthermore, their comments are

not included in consultation reports, as discussions

between the Authorities and CEGA took place outside

of periods of consultation.

Should a planning application be submitted, then

proposals for any conveyor, and its impact, would be

assessed in detail, against the policies in the Plan at

that time. In any event the use of a conveyor to

transport mineral to a single processing site is likely

to be less harmful than using HGVs to transport

materials around the site. Assessment of cumulative

impacts would be undertaken to satisfy Policy M22 of

the Plan, paragraph 8.11.2 of which explains “The

purpose of this policy [M22] is to ensure that the

cumulative impact of successive or concurrent

minerals and/or waste workings/facilities can have

on the environment and communities over time (e.g.

through noise, odour and increased traffic) are

addressed. In some instances the combined impact

may be sufficient to merit refusal of planning

permission, but in other cases phasing agreements

may provide for the disturbance to be reduced to an

acceptable level.”

215

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


site, who contacted the council in

May 2016 about impacts on their

business; and

● no account has been taken or

understanding shown of the

impacts of the conveyor belt

system, despite their unfounded

and false assertion that the

impacts have been included.

Details on these issues are provided in

the supporting evidence of this

representation.

The SA for the Hambrook Grouping of

sites should be reviewed, and the Mineral

Site Selection Report amended

accordingly.

Sustainab

ility

Appraisal


(represented

by Rowan

Smith/Leigh

Day)

Within the SA, the Council expressly sets

out that, in respect of soft sand, “only

one policy option (SS2) was considered

as a reasonable alternative option for soft

sand”. In truth, only one policy approach

was assessed at all within the SA, and

that is the strategy set out within policies

M2 and M11, no alternatives were

assessed to that preferred option, as is

explained within the plan at para.6.2.15:

“The relevant strategic objectives are;

● To promote the prudent and

efficient production and use of

minerals, having regard to the

Table A4.1 in appendix 4 of the SA Report (January













West Sussex.”

216

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


market demand and constrains on

supply in the Plan area.

● To make provision for soft sand to

meet the needs of West Sussex

from outside the South Downs

National Park, where possible; and

only make provision for a declining

amount of extraction within the

SDNP over the plan period”

The reasoning for this approach is not set

out within the SA, which is of itself a

breach of the Regulations. Rather, it is

hinted at within the draft plan at

para.6.2.17 that no “exceptional

circumstances” exist to extend the

existing sites within the national park.

Reference is then made, within a

footnote, to the Mineral Sites Selection

Report (April 2015). This is where the

reasoning is contained for not selecting

any alternative options.

Development within the park would meet

the Council’s stated objectives for the

need for soft sand, with apparently

significantly less environmental harm

than the preferred option. It is thus a

reasonable alternative to which the

Council was obliged to assess to an equal

degree within the Sustainability Appraisal.

The soundness of the site (Ham Farm) is

based on little more than bald assertions

Also relevant is paragraph 115 of the NPPF which

states:

“Great weight should be given to conserving

landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the

Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty,

which have the highest status of protection in

relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The

conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are

important considerations in all these areas, and

should be given great weight in National Parks and

the Broads.”

The principle of the Authorities’ approach, to quote

the Vision directly, ‘to meet its own needs for

minerals…from areas outside the South Downs

National Park and Areas of Outstanding Natural

Beauty’ is reasonable. However, in isolation Ham

Farm is unlikely to meet the Plan Area’s soft sand

needs, although it would make a significant

contribution towards them. While engagement with

other Mineral Planning Authorities has confirmed it



West Sussex, this is not justification for not

allocating Ham Farm.

217

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


within the Sustainability Appraisal.

The SA should be revised to meet the

legislative requirements of assessing

reasonable alternatives to the same

degree as the preferred option. In

particular, produce a report which

assesses meeting soft sand extraction

from within the South Downs National

Park on an equal basis to that of the

preferred option.

4111 153

154

155

156

Friends of the

Earth

Generally supportive of the approach

taken.

Noted.

Table 6.1 4111 152 Friends of the

Earth

The scoring in table 6.1 against SA

objective (14): ‘greenhouse gases’ is

inaccurate and fails to reflect the reality

or scale of environmental impact

associated with supply of hydrocarbons.

While table 6.1 shows some “minor

negative effects” for SA objective 14

linked to policy M7(b), for reasons set out

above, we fail to see how the policy

approach, that does not accurately

encapsulate or address the objectives and

visions of the plan linked to climate

change mitigation, can be said to warrant

“significant positive effects” – i.e. the

highest possible score.

The SA assesses the effects of potential hydrocarbon

extraction sites within the plan area.

Two elements of the new Minerals Local Plan are

identified as having potential to score significant

positive effects against SA Objective 14 (Climate

Change Mitigation): Strategic Objective 14 (Climate

Change) and Policy M23 – Design and Operation of

Mineral Developments. The former Strategic

Objective 14 effect has been identified due to the

Objective’s emphasis on the need for the new

Minerals Local Plan to minimise carbon emissions and

to adapt to, and to mitigate the potential adverse

impacts of, climate change. The potential for

significant positive effects against SA Objective 14

has been recognised for Policy M23 due to its

requirement for all minerals development to:

i. maximise water and energy efficiency;

218

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


ii. avoid or at least minimise greenhouse gas

emissions;

iii. minimise the use of non-renewable energy,

and maximise the use of lower-carbon energy

generation; and

iv. ensure resilience and enable adaptation to a

changing climate.

Tables

6.1 and

6.2


Earth

Impacts on the “biodiversity” and

“geodiversity” environmental SA

objectives should be amended from

“minor positive and negative” to

“minor/significant negative uncertain and

minor positive”. This is because there are

still potentially significant (unknown) risks

associated with the fracking process,

including to groundwater supply, soil, air.

The potential long-term effects of fracking

water/fluid that will stay underground,

beneath protected areas (important

biodiversity and geodiversity

designations) should be reflected in the

SA scoring.

Despite policy safeguards there will

inevitably be habitat loss of some sort

due to fracking and this requires

recognition within table 6.2.






the SA Report.

Policies M7b (hydrocarbon development involving

hydraulic fracturing) scores uncertain minor negative

effects against SA Objectives 6 (Biodiversity) and 7

(Geodiversity), acknowledging the potential for

adverse effects of facilities on biodiversity and

geodiversity assets within and in the immediate

vicinity of the Plan area. Uncertainty is attached to

these effects until the exact nature, design and

location of proposals are known.

The potential for significant negative effects against

SA objective 6 (Biodiversity) is acknowledged in the

appraisal of Policy M11 (Strategic Minerals Site

Allocations). This is due to the fact that despite

suitable mitigation measures set out within the

policy, both site allocations are in close proximity to

biodiversity assets.


Earth

Some of the impacts on the sustainability

objectives described in Section 6 require



219

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


reworking. Table 6.1 suggests that the

“groundwater” environmental SA

objective will experience “minor positive

and negative” impacts overall, as a result

of the ‘protection from oil and gas

impacts objective’. Our view is that this

should be amended to “minor/significant

negative uncertain”. This would

acknowledge that areas outside of Ground

Water Protection Zones do not currently

have protection, and as a result (without

incorporating the precautionary principle)

there is potential for significant unknown

impacts to the water supply.




the SA Report.

The assumptions set out for the appraisal of options

against SA Objective 11 (water quality) references

the requirements of the Water Framework Directive,

NPPF and Environmental Agency’s Environmental

Permitting Regime which collectively require the

sensitive planning, development and operation of

minerals sites. It has therefore been assumed that

any mineral extraction operation that might occur in

future on a site allocated in the new Minerals Local

Plan will be undertaken in line with the

Environmental Permit, which should help to minimise

potential effects on water supply and quality.


Earth

Table 6.1 suggests that the “health and

wellbeing” environmental SA objective

will experience “significant positive”

impacts overall, as result of the

‘protection from oil and gas impacts

objective’ and should be amended to

“minor/significant negative and minor

positive”. While the oil and gas objective

states “it is important that the impacts of

oil and gas developments are controlled

to protect the environment and local

communities” (pg 19 - 2016), our

conclusion is that relevant policies linked

to oil and gas fail to take this approach

on-board and that without requiring EIA

for these developments from the outset,

Strategic Objective 12 focusses on the protection of

the environment and local communities from the

unacceptable impacts of any oil and gas

development. It is this principle which has been

appraised in Table 6.1 and considered to have a

significant positive effect on SA Objective 1 (health

and well-being), which requires the protection of the

health, well-being and amenity of local residents.

The preferred policies have been appraised

separately in Table 6.2.

The new Minerals Local Plan cannot require EIA to be

undertaken for all oil and gas developments within

the plan area; any proposal for oil and gas

development would be screened to determine the

need for EIA in accordance with EIA regulations. If

220

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


the SA objective for health and well-being

would experience minor/significant

negative and minor positive impacts.

significant effects are considered likely, an EIA will

be required.

Non-Allocated Sites / Other

East of West Heath Common.

Policy

M11

3779 150 Cemex Soft sand lies predominantly in SDNP and

has been worked from this area (West

Heath Quarry) for many years without

significant impact.

Site known as “East of West Heath

Common” should be reconsidered for

allocation this has approx. 1Mt of soft

sand and can be worked sustainably

without impact on SDNP and exceptional

circumstances allowing its development

exist.

Historical working at the site took place prior to

designation of the South Downs National Park. The

NPPF, published in 2012, requires the Authorities to

give great weight to conserving landscape and scenic

beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of

Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest

status of protection in relation to landscape and

scenic beauty.

The assertion that minerals have been worked from

this area without significant impact is not supported

with evidence but in any event this is not an accurate

statement. Mineral working is major development

which, by its nature, will have significant impacts.

Policy

M11

3779 150 Cemex In applying exceptional circumstances

test little weight is placed on:

- Existence of remaining workable

reserves in the SDNP and minerals can

only be worked where they are found

- Potential for economy to be affected if

supply of soft sand is not maintained from

sites in West Sussex inc. SDNP unless

shortfall made up by alternative supplies

The existence of remaining workable reserves in the

SDNPA is fully acknowledged and indeed such

reserves are safeguarded by Policy M9. The strategy

for the supply of soft sand specifically acknowledges

the role played by existing reserves.

There is no evidence that the economy will be

adversely affected. Evidence shows that demands for

the supply of soft sand in West Sussex will continue

to be met.

221

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


- Mineral has been, and can be, worked

within SDNP without causing significant

harm, detriment inc. to purposes for

recreation & can cause opportunities for

biodiversity, access and landscape

enhancement

- Increasing local, regional and national

importance of the soft sand resource in

West Sussex

- No comparative sustainability

assessment of importing sand to, v

working within, West Sussex.

The potential impacts of the extension to West Heath

have been assessed and the conclusions are set out

in the Mineral Site Selection Report.

The assertion that the soft sand resource in West

Sussex has increasing local, regional and national

importance is not supported with evidence. The

latest SEEAWP South East Aggregates Monitoring

Report 2014 & 2015 shows that soft sand supplies

are sufficient to meet demand across the South East

of England by confirming the existence of a nearly 14

year landbank (Paragraph 4.6).














West Sussex.”

Policy

M11

3779 150 Cemex The Folkestone formation runs through

the South Downs National Park so difficult

not to allocate sites within it.

The Plan recognises that due the location of soft

sand resource with relation to the South Downs

National Park, there are difficulties associated with

identifying suitable sites for soft sand supply means

that it will not be possible to maintain soft sand

222

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


supplies at historic levels from sources within West

Sussex. However evidence shows that the demand

for soft sand within West Sussex will be met in future

by alternative sources of supply including imports

from less constrained areas (including those without

a national landscape designation) and from marine

won sources.

Policy

M11

3779 150 Cemex Sites can be found in the SDNP which can

be worked sustainably with less impact

than alternative sites beyond the SDNP

No evidence has been provided to support this

assertion. The Authorities completed an exhaustive

assessment of the availability of potential sites for

soft sand (as set out in the Minerals Site Selection

Report). Other than Ham Farm, no sites were

assessed as suitable. This is in part due to the fact

that allocation of a minerals extraction site within the

SDNP would be contrary to NPPF paragraph 116 that

sets out tests for major development taking place

within National Parks (and AONBs), except in

exceptional circumstances, which do not exist in the

case of new minerals extraction within the National

Park. Furthermore paragraph 144 states that, as far

as practicable, landbanks for non-energy minerals

should be maintained outside of National Parks. It

also important to refer to paragraph 115 which

states: “Great weight should be given to conserving




relation to landscape and scenic beauty.”

223

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Horncroft

Policy

M11

3150 097 Bury Parish

Council

The owner has planted trees to hide the

area in anticipation of future

developments.

A landscape assessment has been carried out which

concludes that mineral development at Horncorft

would have a significant adverse impact on the

national Park landscape.

Policy

M11

4273 043 The Common

Parish of

Sutton &

Barlavington

Note from the Silica Sand Survey

conducted by Cuesta Consulting that all

the potential sites have been examined

on a common basis with the exception of

Horncroft where samples have been

provided under a “confidentiality

agreement” by Sibelco. We feel it is

inappropriate to include this information

in a public consultation process. Either all

the sites should be assessed using a

single transparent process or all the

information should be made public and

subject to challenge.

We are also particularly concerned

regarding the Green/Amber assessment

on Transport and Access which seems to

rely on a 2011 review - does this allow for

the additional potential volume of silica

extraction, in particular the B2138 has, in

our view, become more dangerous with

serious accidents being reported recently

and the Amber rating on Nature

Conservation Geodiversity - this would

appear to merit a Red rating?

As the Horncroft site is not proposed to be allocated

there is no need to set out within the text of the

Draft Minerals Plan itself any particular issues that

development of the site for mineral extraction may

have. Where appropriate, these are set out in the

Minerals Site Selection Report and Transport

Assessment.

224

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Covering letter (dated 10 March 2017)

The covering letter sets out that the

Authorities have failed to undertake

effective cross-boundary co-operation

with regard to silica sand supply

Disagree. Contrary to the MPG representation the

Authorities has undertaken suitable and effective

cross-boundary co-operation. This is set out in the

Regulation 19 Submission Plan Duty to Cooperate

Statement.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraph 4 (Background)

● Presence of an exceptionally high

grade silica sand deposit

● The Horncroft site would meet the

NPPF Para. 116 tests

The Cuesta Study (2016) Paragraph 2.45 sets out

that the Horncroft site has silica sand resources of a

high quality. The quality of the resource at Horncroft

is not disputed by the Authorities.

The proposed Horncroft site allocation would clearly

not meet the NPPF Para. 116 tests. As set out in the

Cuesta Study (2016) (Para. 1.10) in circumstances

where major development (which includes minerals

extraction) is being considered within any of these

designated areas, paragraph 116 of the NPPF sets

out the ‘exceptional circumstances’ and ‘public

interest’ tests which would need to be applied. These

require an assessment of:

● The need for the development, including in

terms of any national considerations, and the

impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon

the local economy.

● The cost of and scope for, developing

elsewhere outside the designated area, or

meeting the need for it in some other way;

and

● Any detrimental effect on the environment,

the landscape and recreational opportunities,

225

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


and the extent to which that could be

moderated.

The Cuesta Study (2016) Para. 1.11 sets out that

these tests would be applicable to any future

applications to develop new extraction sites within

the National Park or to extend existing quarries into

that area. The NPPF para. 116 tests are therefore

also applicable to the allocation of new extraction

sites within Minerals Local Plans.

In summary, the Authorities consider:

● That the silica sand at Horncroft is of such a

high quality that its supply should be viewed

in a national rather than local or regional

context;

● That the proposed allocation of the Horncroft

site for silica sand extraction would not be

needed taking into account permitted

reserves and the planned supply of high

quality (clear glass/sodium silicate use) silica

sand nationally;

● That mineral extraction of silica sand at

Horncroft would have a very low impact on

the economy of the local area (West Sussex)

which is generally prosperous with low rates

of unemployment;

● That, in line with NPPF Paragraph 146, there

is a steady and adequate supply of high

quality silica sand extraction outside

designated landscapes elsewhere in the UK;

and

● That the proposal would have a significant

226

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


adverse impact on the landscape of the South

Downs National Park

The representation is vague on the scope of the

potential employment that could be generated from

mineral extraction at Horncroft. Moreover, no

evidence has been provided that there is any

particular pressing need for additional employment in

rural West Sussex. For example, as of April 2017,

the Office for National Statistics (ONS) data sets out

that the unemployment rate in both Chichester

District and West Sussex as a whole is only 1.1%.

Moreover, the manufacturing industries which are

dependent in part on a supply of high quality silica

sand are not located in Chichester District or indeed

either West Sussex or even the South East of

England. Indeed, there is no history of glass making

or sodium silicate industries in West Sussex.

As such, the impact of not allocating the site upon

the local economy of West Sussex would be minimal.

Any potential minor benefits to the local economy

that may accrue would, very clearly, not outweigh

the harm to the National Park.

Therefore, in light of the above, the Authorities are

clear that the proposed allocation at Horncroft does

not meet any of the NPPF Para. 116 exception tests.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

Paragraphs 5-7 (Response Policy M11

Strategic Minerals Site Allocations)

The Cuesta Study (2016) (Para. 2.51; pp.30) states

that Horncroft has an estimated total resource of 2.5

million m³ of which 94% (of samples provided by the

227

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

It (Horncroft) is a significant resource for

the UK glass and sodium silicate

manufacturing industries. It (Horncroft)

would address issues around the security

of the future supply of this specialist

mineral.

Long-term viable (within the Plan period

to 2033) alternative national supplies of

silica sand for clear glass manufacture

and, in particular, for sodium silicate

manufacture are currently unavailable.

site promoter) would appear to be high grade silica

sand. As such, Horncroft has an estimated high

grade silica sand resource of 2.35m³.

Based on the figure provide by MPG in the March

2016 representation, the total national (UK) market

for high grade silica sand per annum is 1.4 million

tonnes and as such Horncroft could therefore provide

a national (UK) supply of approximately 1.68 years.

However, there is a steady and adequate available

national (UK) supply of high grade silica sand in the

UK located outside of nationally designated

landscapes. This is set out in Table One (attached at

the end of this response). Table One has been

prepared following discussion with other Mineral

Planning Authorities in England and Scotland.

As such, given these alternative permitted reserves

and planned supplies of permitted silica sand

reserves there is, clearly, no justification for

allocation of the Horncroft site in a nationally

designated landscape (South Downs National Park).

The Authorities consider that there is adequate scope

for addressing the national demand for high quality

silica sand outside the South Downs National Park.

In summary, there is the following permitted

reserves and planned resources of high quality silica

sand (use for clear glass and/or sodium silicate) in

England (as of May 2017):

● At least 5.7 million tonnes of permitted

reserves of silica sand suitable for clear

glass/sodium silicate use

228

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


● At least 6.6 million tonnes of planned (Mineral

Plan Allocation Sites) of silica sand suitable

for clear glass/sodium silicate use

● A further 4.2 million tonnes of silica sand

suitable for clear glass/sodium silicate use

identified in Preferred Areas in the Surrey

Minerals Plan

As such, there is a planned (permitted reserves,

Mineral Plan allocation sites, identified in preferred

areas in Mineral Plans) supply of silica sand suitable

for clear glass/sodium silicate use in England of

approximately 16.6 million tonnes.

This does not include further supply of silica sand

suitable for clear glass manufacturing found in sites

where there is variance in the quality of the sand and

which provides a variety of end uses.

In addition, there is the following permitted reserves

in Scotland (as of May 2017):

● At least 9.89 million tonnes of silica sand

suitable for clear glass use in Fife quarries;

● At least 39.9 million tonnes of silica sand

suitable for clear glass/sodium silicate use at

the Loch Aline mine in the Western Highlands

As such, there is a planned (permitted reserves,

Mineral Plan allocation sites, identified in preferred

areas in Mineral Plans) supply of silica sand suitable

for clear glass/sodium silicate use in Scotland of

approximately 49.5 million tonnes.

229

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 8 to 11 (National Importance

of Silica Sand) and Paragraphs 15-16

(Sodium Silicate)

Reserves and resources of silica sand are

extremely limited in the UK, with only six

quarries capable of supplying, suitable

high quality silica sands for the

manufacture of clear glass products, only

three of which are in England.

Only one site currently supplies all UK

requirement of sand for sodium silicate

manufacture. Silica sand reserves are

already in short supply with less than the

minimum required stock of permitted

reserves in England (10 years per site as

required by NPPF para 146), or 15 years

when significant new capital investment is

required.

In order for the UK glass industry to be

supplied even in the near term, further

resources need to be identified, allocated

and permitted in the coming years and

well before 2033 (i.e. end of the Plan

period).

Of particular importance is the potential

for the future use of Horncroft sand in

sodium silicate manufacture. In the UK

only sand from the Lower Greensand of

south and south east England can be

The Cuesta Study (2016 (Para. 6.3-6.15) sets out

the silica sand resources in England and Scotland.

Silica sand sources in England and Scotland are to be

found in a relatively, rather than extremely, limited

range of geological resources. The Authorities

consider that the total UK permitted and planned

resources of high grade silica sand that is key rather

than the absolute number of quarries in England,

Scotland or the UK. Moreover, it is considered that

silica sand resources should be considered on a

mainland UK basis - not just England.

The Cuesta Study (2016) (Para. 3.32) sets out that

North Park in Surrey currently provides the UK

requirement. However the representation does not

set out what the UK national annual requirement of

high grade silica sand for sodium silicate

manufacturing use actually is. It is nonetheless

clearly much less than total of 1.4 million tonnes per

annum set out in paragraph 36 of the MPG

representation for all clear glass and sodium silicate

use.

Moreover, the representation has failed to set out an

accurate summary of what the planned resources in

terms consents, preferred areas and areas of search

of high grade silica sand resources at North Park and

its satellite extraction site (Pendell Quarry) actually

are.

A Position Statement (May 2017) agreed by the

Authorities and Surrey County Council is attached in

Table Two.

230

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


used for sodium silicate manufacture due

to the very low alumina content of these

sands which is required for sodium

silicate, which is not recorded in any

other known UK silica sand deposit other

than Lochaline mine in Scotland. There is

currently only one UK quarry (North Park

Quarry, Surrey) extracting clear glass

quality sand from the Lower Greensand in

the south and south east of England and

this site also constitutes all of the UK’s

supply of sand for sodium silicate

manufacture.

Sodium silicate (water glass) is used in a

wide range of end uses including

detergents, sealants, adhesives, water

treatment, refractories, electronics, flame

retardants and food preservation. For use

in foodstuffs very stringent specifications

must be adhered to. The very high Si02

content of the Horncroft sand means

extremely low content of other elements.

This will make the Horncroft sand suitable

for even the most stringent sodium

silicate food additive and preservation

uses.

The key considerations are:-

● Permitted Reserves (2015) (North Park &

Pendell) up to 2.4 million tonnes of high grade

silica sand suitable for clear glass and sodium

silicate

● Additional unconsented reserves of up to 4.25

million tonnes of high grade silica sand

suitable for clear glass and sodium silicate

● These planned resources are in very close

physical proximity to the existing processing

infrastructure at North Bank - Pendell Farm is

linked by a conveyor belt. Horncroft by

comparison is 30 miles to the south-west (as

the crow flies).

The planning consent at Pendell Quarry was granted

in 2012 and as such has been in the public arena for

a number of years. The Surrey County Council

Planning and Regulatory Committee (9 March 2012)

report (Paragraphs 146 & 149) sets out that:

The GWP report “Assessment of Pendell Farm

Preferred Area for Silica Sand” concludes that the

investigations confirm that the sand in the preferred

area and planning application area is at least good

quality as sand in the existing North Park Quarry.

North Park Quarry is one of the most important

suppliers of container and float glass sand in the UK

with production expected to increase towards the

processing plant capacity over the next few years as

sites in the UK close.

231

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


The GWP report indicates that of the sand extracted

at North Park Quarry, approximately 70% is low iron

sand used for specialist products. The majority of the

low iron sand extracted (c63-68% of the 100% in-

situ low iron sand or 44-48% of total sand extracted)

has a grading suitable for glass manufacture. The

planning application, although covering only part of

the preferred area (Area A), suggests that the

quality of the resource is better than at North Park

Quarry and would yield a higher proportion of

industrial grade silica sands for specialist end uses

such as glass and sodium silicate manufacture (80%

compared with 70%).

As such, the Land NE of Pendell Farm Preferred Area,

as defined in the Adopted Surrey Minerals Plan, of

which the existing consent comprises a sizeable

proportion (approximately 50%), has in excess of

6.0 million tonnes of silica sand, of which in excess

of 5.0 million tonnes is silica sand of sufficient high

quality for specialist end uses such as glass and

sodium silicate manufacture.

Moreover, the MPG representation (March 2016)

(Paragraphs 30-31) acknowledges that the silica

sand from Lochaline Quarry in the Scottish Highlands

could be used for sodium silicate use, as well as clear

glass, and has capacity to increase current annual

production by 40,000 tonnes per annum (from

110,000 to 150,000 tonnes per annum). There are

extensive reserves at Lochaline as recognised in the

representation.

As such, there exists elsewhere in the UK a

232

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


permitted quarry (Lochaline Quarry) with significant

(approximately 350 years) permitted reserves of

high grade silica sand likely to be suitable for sodium

silicate manufacturing use.

In the absence of any robust evidence which clarifies

the annual UK demand (tonnes) for high grade silica

sand suitable specifically for sodium silicate

manufacturing the Authorities consider that there is

clearly a steady and adequate supply in the UK of

the resource for this use and therefore there are no

exceptional circumstances which would justify major

development in a nationally designated landscape for

the extraction of silica sand for sodium silicate

manufacturing. The extractors of the silica sand at

Pendell Quarry clearly have capacity to ‘best use’ the

planned resources there to support UK sodium

silicate manufacturing for a number of years.

The Cuesta Study (2016) sets out that the supplies

of high grade silica sand are limited in the UK when

considered as a whole. However, in line with the

above, the limits on those supplies are not

considered to be to such an extent that would clearly

demonstrate ‘exceptional circumstances’ in line with

NPPF Paragraph 116. Whilst some of the permitted

silica sand sites in England do have permitted

reserves less than 10 years there are significant

planned resources including allocation sites,

applications and preferred areas outside National

Parks (Table One).

233

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 12 to 14 (Why Horncroft

should be Allocated)

The Cretaceous Lower Greensand

geological horizon (present at Horncroft

site) is known to contain high quality

silica sand but only in discrete places.

It is exceptionally rare for silica sand

deposits to have such low levels of

impurities and such consistency as at

Horncroft. Not only is the deposit of

exceptional quality but it is exceptional

for its consistency both horizontally and

vertically to an extent not evident at any

other operational site or known silica

sand resource in the UK.

The Cuesta Study (2016) (Section 2) sets this out.

The silica sand resources at North Park/Pendell

Quarry and Lochaline (Scottish Highlands) are in fact

of comparable quality to that found at Horncroft.

However, as the resource at Horncroft is of such a

high quality then NPPF paragraph 142 is relevant as

it states (emphasis added) “since minerals are a

finite natural resource, and can only be worked

where they are found, it is important to make best

use of them to secure their long-term conservation”.

The resources at Horncroft should not be utilised for

uses where a high quality resource is not a necessity

for example where other silica sand resources from

outside national parks could be utilised instead.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 17 to 20 (Consequences of

the Failure to Allocate Horncroft)

The failure to allocate Horncroft site

would mean that delivery of the material

to market would be significantly and

indefinitely delayed. Obtaining planning

approval by satisfying the criteria based

policy M3 Silica Sands and Policy M13

Protected Landscape and meeting the

exceptional circumstances and public

interest tests is likely to be protracted

with a highly uncertain outcome.

If the site is not allocated and

The resource would clearly not be sterilised in

planning terms as no other built development would

be appropriate either on the site. The policies of the

Plan do not mean that if the site is not allocated it

would automatically follow that a subsequent

planning application would be rejected as such an

application would have to be considered on its merits

at that time.

The Cuesta Study (2016) set out (Paragraph 6.39-

6.45) the views of UK glass industry representatives

including the trade organisation, British Glass, and

concluded (6.45) that:

The overall message to be gleaned from this

234

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


consequently refused planning

permission, it would result in the effective

sterilisation of a proven high quality silica

sand resource suitable for contributing to

the UK indigenous supply for many years.

A lack of supply of glass and in the UK

can only result in either increasing

imports of silica sand (to the detriment of

the national balance of payments) and /

or the cessation of some glass

manufacture in the UK and its relocation

abroad. These scenarios are significant

future possible outcomes for the UK silica

sand industry and the UK glass

manufacturing industry weigh in favour of

the Horncroft site being site-specifically

allocated for future extraction.

Specifically for the production of sodium

silicate, there is quite simply no other

known future silica sand deposit of

suitable quality in England due to the

required low alumina content. There is

therefore no scope for developing

elsewhere outside of the Cretaceous

Lower Greensand in the south and south

east of England.

In terms of sand for clear glass

manufacture, there are only two sites

(North Park Quarry, Surrey and Kings

Lynn, Norfolk) in England suitable for

supplying the manufacture of clear glass

and in each the reserves permitted at

consultation is that there is (perhaps) beginning to

be some modest concern within the glass industry

over the long-term security of supply of silica sand,

and that the industry would certainly welcome

additional supply options, but that there is no

impending critical shortage.

As such, the Authorities acknowledges some modest

supply concerns in the industry but that there is no

evidence of any critical supply issues.

As set out above and in Table Two the site at Land

NE of Pendell Farm in Surrey was consented in 2012

and has comparable quality resources which could be

used for sodium silicate manufacturing as well as

clear glass. As such, contrary to the representation

there are in fact other known sites of comparable

quality.

Contrary to the representation there are identified

planned opportunities for significant future silica

sand extraction elsewhere in the UK outside of

nationally designated landscapes.

The question posed by the representation in

paragraphs 18 and 20 with regard to recycling is:

Is there any technical limitation to the

substitutability of recycled glass for virgin silica sand

in glass manufacturing applications in general?

A detailed response to this issue is set out in Table

Three and should be read in conjunction with the rest

of this response.

235

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


these sites is less than 10 years (see

below).

Opportunities to develop resources

elsewhere in the UK are extremely limited

due to the high quality of sand required

and will be further limited in the very

near future as the present sites become

worked out.

The demand for many of the end uses of

specialist silica sand cannot be met in

other ways. Sodium silicate manufacture

requires specific high quality sand and

there is no known alternative constituent

possible in the process.

The use of recycled glass is at levels,

which current are not likely to be

increased for technical reasons of batch

composition and suitable supply. There is

a low level of recycling of sheet (flat)

glass for practical reasons of recovering

glass from buildings etc.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 21 to 23 (Alternatives for

sand supply for clear Glass Sand and

Sodium Silicate)

There is no evidence in relation to the

national supply and realistic availability of

The NPPF (Para.146) clearly states that “Minerals

planning authorities should plan for a steady and

adequate supply of industrial minerals”. The

representation clearly fails to substantiate that there

is not a steady and adequate supply of silica sand

nationally.

236

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


silica sands.

Even if other MPAs with silica sand

resources are seeking to provide for silica

sand in the Plan period this does not

mean that there is sufficient supply.

Criticism of ‘Areas of Search’

Cuesta Study notes that high purity and

high consistency sands needed for glass

and sodium silicate production within

England are quite limited.

Of the four individual sites (in

Lincolnshire, Cheshire East, Norfolk,

Surrey) which currently supply sand for

glass manufacturing none currently has

more than 10 years of permitted

reserves. Furthermore two of the sites

noted above supply sand only for

coloured glass manufacture (not clear

glass) and other applications.

The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

(Paragraph 008 Reference ID 27-008-20140306) is

clear that Mineral Planning Authorities should plan

for the steady and adequate supply of minerals in

one or more of the following ways (in order of

priority) (emphasis added):

● Designating Specific Sites – where viable


supportive of minerals development and the

proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning

terms. Such sites may also include essential

operations associated with mineral extraction.

● Designating Preferred Areas, which are areas

of known resources where planning

permission might reasonably be anticipated.

Such areas may also include essential

operations associated with mineral extraction;

and/or

● Designating Areas of Search – areas where

knowledge of mineral resources may be less

certain but within which planning permission

may be granted, particularly if there is a

potential shortfall in supply.

As such, the use of designated Areas of Search is

clearly prescribed in national planning guidance as

an appropriate tool for Mineral Planning Authorities

to plan for minerals extraction. Therefore, the

statement in paragraph 21 that Areas of Search are

a “crude and hugely uncertain tool” is not supported

by the Authorities. The use of designated ‘areas of

237

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


search’ is prescribed in national planning guidance.

Moreover, PPG (Para. 008) also clearly states that

National Park Authorities are not expected to

designate either Preferred Areas or Areas of Search

given their overarching responsibilities for managing

National Parks. As such, these national prescribed

planning frameworks are not set out for the National

Park in the draft Plan.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 24 to 39 (Silica Sand in

Scotland)

The position of the sites in Scotland

warrants closer analysis, as it

demonstrates that the potential for them

to cater for existing demand and future

shortfall in supplies in England is more

limited than the headline figures of

reserves indicates.

A sand product suitable for clear glass

manufacturing is produced at Lochaline.

The material could in theory be suitable

quality for sodium silicate manufacture

but none is currently used for this

purpose.

Devilla Quarry currently supplies around

200,000 tonnes per year of sand to its

own glass works in Alloa. The permitted

reserve situation is not known, however

the site has only supplied in-house

The Cuesta Study (2016) (Para. 6.11 to 6.15)

addresses Silica Sand resources in Scotland.

The Devilla Quarry in Fife has permitted reserves of

approximately 3,000,000 tonnes and significant

further unconsented reserves.

This statement is contradicted within the MPG

representation (paragraph 35) and the supporting

table at the end of the representation which sets out

that the actual output of high grade silica sand from

the three current Scottish high grade silica sand sites

is in excess of 70% of 473,000 tonnes (i.e. 331,100

tonnes).

The representation does not make clear who “the

interested party” actually is?

Specifically, it is noted that the representation

states:-

i. The total annual market for high grade silica

238

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


demand for sand for clear glass

manufacturing.

Scotland supplies around 11% of the total

UK silica sand supply [Note: this is all

silica sand uses] (Mineral Extraction in

Britain 2012 – Business Monitor PA

1007). This tallies with earlier data from

The Scottish Executive Silica Sand

Factsheet (2007) which states on page 3

that “Scotland accounts for about 10% of

UK silica sand supply with an estimated

output of 473 000 tonnes in 2004, of

which some 70% was glass sand”.

Market intelligence indicates that annual

production of clear glass grade sands

from the three Scottish sites is currently

understood to be:

Burrowine Moor Quarry 130,000 tonnes

Lochaline mine 110,000 tonnes

Devilla Quarry 200,000 tonnes

Discussions with the interested party

have established that the total market for

clear glass and sodium silicate sand in the

UK is currently around 1.4 million tonnes,

of which about 3% is imported. The

imported sand is for use in specialist

applications /blends requiring even lower

iron oxide levels than is available from

the UK.

sand (clear glass and sodium silicate

manufacturing) in the UK is 1.4 million

tonnes; and

ii. That 3% of this total (approximately 42,000

tonnes) is imported for specialist applications

requiring lower iron oxide levels than is

available in the UK

The Authorities do not agree with the statement here

that there is little prospect of the (three) Scottish

sites being able to make any further significant

supply into England taking into account existing

consents.

The MPG representation (Paragraph 36) argues that

the annual UK market for high grade silica sand is

1.4m tonnes. MPG representation (Paragraph 35)

sets out that the current total annual production in

Scotland is 440,000 tonnes.

As such, the residual need of high grade silica sand

from other UK sources and imports is, according to

the MPG representation, approximately 960,000 per

annum.

The supporting table in the representation

acknowledges that the potential maximum output

from the three Scottish sites is 600,000 tonnes per

annum. As such, there is potential capacity for three

Scottish sites to provide a maximum of a further

160,000 tonnes of high grade silica sand per annum

from existing consents (as of May 2017). This

represents a further 16.5% of the identified residual

need, as set out by MPG, from other UK sources and

239

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Due to mine capacity restrictions at

Lochaline; in-house supply from Devilla

Quarry and recovery rates to clear glass

grade from Burrowine Moor and the

inability for two of the three Scottish sites

to provide sand for sodium silicate

manufacture, there is little prospect of

the Scottish sites being able to make any

further significant supply into England.

Taking Burrowine Quarry alone (since

Lochaline is restricted in annual output

and Devilla Quarry supplies in-house),

this site could only reasonably supply a

small percentage of UK need for clear

glass and none for sodium silicate. Based

on estimated wastage and processing

recovery rates, Burrowine Moor is not

likely to be able to supply more than

200,000 to 250,000 tpy of sand for clear

glass manufacture and none for sodium

silicate manufacture.

imports.

Clearly, at approximately 16% of annual demand this

is a statistically important potential supply and as

such the statement that “there is little prospect of

the Scottish sites being able to make any further

significant supply into England” cannot be

substantiated through MPGs own figures.

Again, using MPG own figures, the Burrowine Quarry

site currently produces 9.28% of UK national need

per annum and could provide up to 17.85%.

On this basis, the Burrowine Quarry site clearly

makes a statistically important contribution to UK

national supply of high grade silica sand and has

capacity to increase that significance further.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 40 to 45 (Other sites in

England)

Details of silica sand sites at

Blubberhouses and Burythorpe, both

North Yorkshire

The foregoing analysis demonstrates that

for a variety of reasons the above

mentioned potential alternative sites in

The representation has clearly failed to set out any

analysis of silica sand sites in England beyond two

sites in North Yorkshire.

Historically Cheshire and Norfolk are significant

suppliers of silica sand, including sand for glass

making, and yet no supply details are provided at all

in the representation.

For example, the representation fails to acknowledge

the live application (by Sibelco) (as of 22 May 2017)

240

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Scotland and Yorkshire are unlikely to be

able to contribute any significant increase

in supply for glass grade sand for clear

glass or sodium silicate manufacture in

the UK.

at Rudheath Lodge in Cheshire for the extraction of

3.3 million tonnes (Planning: ref 16/4724W). The

supporting Planning Statement (Section 3.3)

confirms that 75% of the mineral resource (2.475m

tonnes) is high quality silica sand.

The representation also fails to acknowledge the two

silica sand allocation sites at East Winch and Bawsey

in Norfolk which together could provide 4.2 million

tonnes of high grade silica sand.

For reference, the Blubberhouses site is located in

the Nidderdale Moors Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty (AONB).

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 47 to 48 (Existing production

sites in England)

The information provided through co-

operation with other Mineral Planning

Authorities shows no proper evidence in

relation to the national supply and

realistic availability of silica sand in

England. The information merely indicates

that selected Mineral Planning Authorities

are undertaking Mineral Plan reviews to

seek to provide silica sand.

Even if other Mineral Planning Authorities

with silica sand resources are seeking to

provide for silica sand supply in the Plan

period, this does not mean that there is

sufficient supply. This may be due, for

example, to the use of ‘Areas of Search’

The Authorities do not accept this summary in

Paragraph 47. The representation has clearly failed

to provide publicly available and up-to-date

information on silica sand supply, including:

● Full details of the Pendell Quarry (Surrey)

allocation site in terms of permitted reserves

and planned resources;

● Full details of the planned silica sand

resources in Norfolk as set out in the March

2017 Examination in Public

● Full details of the live (as of 13 March 2017)

application at Rudheath Lodge (Cheshire) for

3.3 million tonnes of silica sand extraction

The actual current permitted and planned supply of

silica sand in the UK is set out in Table One. This is

up-to-date and has been produced in co-operation

with other Mineral Planning Authorities.

http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=16/4724W&query=c39a4d6af0c84a10a72402f350c78f8b&start=&from=m

241

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


by the Mineral Planning Authorities. In

‘Areas of Search’ there is no certainty

that mineral of suitable quality exists; no

certainty that a mineral

operator/developer will come forward to

investigate or develop the site; and no

certainty of landowner support. ‘Areas of

Search’ are a crude and hugely uncertain

tool in seeking to satisfy future silica sand

requirements.

Equally however it could mean that there is in fact an

adequate supply of silica sand.

The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

(Paragraph 008 Reference ID 27-008-20140306) is

clear that Mineral Planning Authorities should plan

for the steady and adequate supply of minerals in

one or more of the following ways (in order of

priority) (emphasis added):

● Designating Specific Sites – where viable


supportive of minerals development and the

proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning

terms. Such sites may also include essential

operations associated with mineral extraction.

● Designating Preferred Areas, which are areas

of known resources where planning

permission might reasonably be anticipated.

Such areas may also include essential

operations associated with mineral extraction;

and/or

● Designating Areas of Search – areas where

knowledge of mineral resources may be less

certain but within which planning permission

may be granted, particularly if there is a

potential shortfall in supply.

As such, the use of designated Areas of Search is

clearly prescribed in national planning guidance as

an appropriate tool for Mineral Planning Authorities

242

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


to plan for minerals extraction. Therefore, the

assertion that Areas of Search are a crude and

hugely uncertain tool is not supported.

Moreover, PPG (Para. 008) also clearly states that

National Park Authorities are not expected to

designate either Preferred Areas or Areas of Search

given their overarching responsibilities for managing

National Parks. As such, these national prescribed

planning frameworks are not set out for the National

Park in the draft Plan.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.


sites in England)

Norfolk County Council (NCC) responded

to SDNP Officers under the Duty to Co-

operate on 2 October 2015. NCC noted in

answer to Question 1 that the landbank

for silica sand at 31/12/2014 was under 5

years. No new applications have been

lodged and consequently no new

permissions have been granted since that

date. This is well below NPPF

requirements.

Norfolk did not respond to the Joint West Sussex

Draft Mineral Plan Regulation 19 consultation in early

2017.

The Norfolk County Council (NCC) Minerals Site

Specific Allocations Development Plan Document

(MSSA) contains a requirement for a Silica Sand

Review of the Plan to be completed by 2016.

NCC has subsequently undertaken a Silica Sand

Review of the Plan between the initial consultation in

March/April 2015 and an Examination in Public held

in March 2017. For reference, the NCC website

provides a Silica Sand Review Examination webpage.

https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/what-we-do-and-how-

we-work/policy-performance-and-

partnerships/policies-and-strategies/minerals-and-

waste-planning-policies/silica-sand-

review/examination

The Norfolk CC Minerals Site Specific Allocations

https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/what-we-do-and-how-we-work/policy-performance-and-partnerships/policies-and-strategies/minerals-and-waste-planning-policies/silica-sand-review/examination





243

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Development Plan Document (DPD) Single Issue

Silica Sand Review (March 2016) was published in

May 2016 in order for representations to be made on

the process of producing the Silica Sand Review and

whether it is legally compliant and sound. Following

the Pre-Submission representations stage, Norfolk

County Council prepared modifications to the Pre-

Submission version of the Single Issue Silica Sand

Review.

The Silica Sand Review sets out its purpose is to

address a predicted shortfall of 2.6 million tonnes in

the quantity of silica sand extraction sites allocated

in the adopted NCC Minerals Site Specific Allocations

DPD:-

Requirement:

Expected production of 750,00 tonnes per annum x

11 years (2016-2026) - 8.25 million tonnes

Silica Sand reserve estimate at 31/12/2015 - 2.64

million tonnes

Estimated resource in previously allocated site at

East Winch (Ref: MIN40) - 3.00 million tonnes

Estimated resource in proposed allocated site in

Silica Sand Review at Bawsey (Ref: SIL01) - 1.2

million tonnes.

Therefore, this leaves a forecasted shortfall of 1.4

million tonnes in the quantity of silica sand allocated

in Norfolk but that this shortfall in allocated

resources would only occur towards the end of the

244

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Plan period (circa 2024). To address this six areas of

search are allocated covering nearly approximately

1,000 hectares of land. Planning applications for the

extraction of silica sand are therefore directed to the

(proposed) allocated Areas of Search.

Therefore, given the NCC Silica Sand Review, it is

considered that Norfolk in fact has Permitted

Reserves and Local Plan Allocation resources for high

quality Silica Sand of a combined 6.6 million tonnes,

which at the higher production rate of 750,000

tonnes per annum would provide approximately 9.0

years supply. On this basis, the planned supply in

Norfolk up to 2024 is not considered by the

Authorities to be ‘well below NPPF requirements’.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.


sites in England)

MPG do not agree with the statement

made by Norfolk CC (2/10/15) that ‘there

are significant resources of silica sand

within Norfolk and it should be possible

for suitable sites to come forward’. The

existence of the outcrop of the Lower

Greensand (as mapped by BGS) is no

indication that economic resources of

silica sand exist and certainly no

indication of suitable quality for glass

manufacture.

The Authorities do not agree with the MPG

representation. The Norfolk Minerals Local Plan

including the Silica Sand Review has clearly set out

that Norfolk has significant silica sand resources.

This fact was clearly iterated hitherto in the

September 2011 Norfolk Core Strategy and Minerals

and Waste Development Management Policies DPD

(2010-2026) which stated (Paragraph 2.14)

(emphasis added):

Silica sand is an essential raw material for many

industrial processes, including the manufacture of

glass. Norfolk is one of the most important sources

of silica sand in Britain, accounting for over 10 per

cent of total output and a much larger proportion of

glass sand production. The majority of the resources

245

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


of silica sand are to the east of King’s Lynn from

upper Sandringham to the west of Hunstanton,

southwards to Ryston (near Downham Market) in

south-west Norfolk (see Key Diagram).

Furthermore, the statement by MPG that ‘the

existence of the outcrop of the Lower Greensand (as

mapped by BGS) is no indication that economic

resources of silica sand exist and certainly no

indication of suitable quality for glass manufacture’ is

clearly not correct given that Sibleco has an

established facility extracting silica sand at Leziate

(near Kings Lynn) which exports via rail to glass

manufacturers in the North of England.

Therefore the statement made by MPG in Paragraph

52 of their representation that ‘there is no indication

or evidence that there are sufficient resources to

continue to supply silica sand in Norfolk’ is clearly

factually incorrect.

A Position Statement (May 2017) has been agreed

with Norfolk County Council and set out in Table

Two, in the appendix at the end of this

document.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraph 53 (Existing production sites in

England)

Surrey County Council (SCC) responded

to SDNP officers under the Duty to Co-

operate on 21st September 2015. SCC

noted in answer to Question 1 that from

“… the results of the AM2014 Survey ……

NPPF (Para. 146) sets out that “Minerals planning

authorities should plan for a steady and adequate

supply of industrial minerals”.

A Position Statement (May 2017) agreed by the

Authorities and Surrey County Council is attached in

Table Two (see appendix at end of document).

The key considerations are:

246

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


the landbank for silica sand in Surrey

based on sales recorded in 2014 is

between 5 and 10 years”.

No new applications have been lodged

and, consequently, no new permissions

have been granted since that date. This

silica sand provision is also below NPPF

requirements.

● Surrey has permitted reserves of 2.4 million

tonnes of high grade (clear glass and sodium

silicate manufacturing quality) silica sand.

● Surrey has identified Preferred Areas with at

least a further 4.25 million tonnes of

resources

The representation has not provided the ten year

sales data, in line with national planning policy

guidance, for Pendell Quarry and the linked North

Park site. As such, it clearly has not substantiated

the conclusion set out that silica sand provision at

the Surrey sites is in fact below NPPF requirements.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.


England)

King’s Lynn Quarry (Norfolk), North Park

and Pendell Quarry (Surrey) and Dingle

Bank Quarry (Cheshire) are the only

three sites in England currently producing

sand of suitable quality for clear glass

manufacture (bottles and jars, windows

and windscreens). North Park is the only

site in the UK producing sand of suitable

quality for sodium silicate manufacture.

Contrary to Paragraph 54 of the representation, and

as clearly set out in the Cuesta Study (Table 6.1; pp.

61) these are the three current sites in England

supplying silica sand of sufficient quality for clear

glass manufacture. However, the United Kingdom as

a whole has six sites actively currently supplying

silica sand of sufficient quality for clear glass

manufacturing when the three sites in Scotland are

included.

North Park is not the only site in the UK producing

sand of suitable quality for sodium silicate

manufacture. The MPG representation contradicts

itself on this point as set out in Paragraph 31 (pp.6)

(emphasis added):-

A sand product suitable for clear glass manufacturing

247

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


is produced at Lochaline. The material could in

theory be suitable quality for sodium silicate

manufacture but none is currently used for this

purpose.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.


England)

Given the real shortage of future silica

sand provision in England, we are of the

firm view that the Horncroft should

properly be allocated.

The Cuesta Study (2016) has properly considered

silica sand provision nationally across all of the

United Kingdom. It is noted that the MPG

representation itself (Para. 36; pp.7) considers

demand for high grade silica sand on a UK wide

basis.

The Cuesta Study notes (Para. 6.46-6.47) that in the

case of high purity and high consistency sands

needed for glass and sodium silicate production, the

alternatives are more limited in extent than silica

sand resources as a whole taking into account lower

grade uses. However, additional high grade silica

sand resources have been identified in each of these

areas (Cuesta; Para. 6.48) in England and Scotland

alike. These additional resources are currently being

taken through the development process.

As set out, in Norfolk this includes one existing

allocation site and one proposed allocation site (as

set out at the recent Norfolk Silica Sand Review

Examination in Public). Combined these two

allocation sites could provide in the plan period,

subject to planning consent, an additional 4.2m

tonnes of higher grade silica sand, in locations

outside of a nationally designated landscape, which

equates to approximately three years supply for the

UK nationally.

248

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


As set out, in Cheshire, as of April 2017, there is a

live application (submitted by Sibelco) for a new high

grade silica sand quarry at Rudheath Lodge in a

location outside of a nationally designated landscape.

The supporting Planning Statement (Para. 1.2)

confirms that the site would provide 3.3 million

tonnes of accessible high grade silica sand at a rate

of 300,000 tonnes per annum.

As such, in addition to existing permitted reserves,

there is within England alone an additional planned

supply (allocations/applications) of 6.675 million

tonnes of high grade silica sand.

Therefore, when the permitted silica sand reserves in

Scotland are taken into account as well as those in

England, the actual supply of silica sand in the UK

through current permitted and planned development

is considered to be steady and adequate in line with

NPPF Paragraph. 146. As such, there is no specific

exceptional circumstances or public interest to justify

an allocation within the South Downs National at

Horncroft.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.


England)

The replies from both Norfolk County

Council and Surrey County Council (the

two English Local Authority areas from

where all silica sand for clear glass and

sodium silicate manufacture is presently

As set out, the representation is clearly incomplete

as it fails to acknowledge the significant planned

supply of silica sand in both Cheshire and Norfolk.

Moreover, the NPPF is clear that the intention is to

provide a one-off supply of permitted reserves at

silica sand sites proportionate to such investment as

is being made in plant and equipment. There is no

249

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


sourced) make clear that neither Local

Authority has sufficient silica sand to

satisfy NPPF requirements, or in the case

of Norfolk County Council, even to the

end of its Mineral Plan period in 2026.

requirement in the NPPF for a perpetual rolling

commitment for 10 or 15 years supply.

The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is

clear on this point (emphasis added):

Stocks of permitted reserves are a monitoring tool to

aid decision-making on planning applications at

existing industrial minerals sites. They should be

used as an indicator to assess when further

permitted reserves are required at an industrial

minerals site. Paragraph: 087 Reference ID: 27-087-

20140306

As such, stocks of permitted reserves are an

indicator only and should be considered alongside

other material considerations. There is no axiomatic

requirement in the NPPF that requires additional

consents at an industrial mineral site or proposed

industrial mineral sites potentially related to

processing facilities once the permitted reserves

have fallen below 10 years.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.


England)

As recorded in the Duty to Cooperate

Statement (January 2017), Norfolk

County Council commented [I1] that the

County was less certain that it could meet

any shortfall in the national demand for

silica sand, especially glass sand and that

the Authorities [WSCC/SDNPA] should

reconsider the need for silica sand

The national economic importance of silica sands is

fully acknowledged in the Cuesta Study (2016).

Norfolk County Council discounted nationally

designated landscapes (Norfolk Coast Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty) in the Minerals Site

Specific Allocations Development Plan Document

(DPD) – Single Issue Silica Sand Review (Paragraph

2.7; pp.7) when defining Areas of Search. For

reference, Norfolk County Council did not submit a

representation re-stating these views in the

250

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


extraction within the joint mineral plan

area. Norfolk County Council also noted

that the economic importance of silica

sand extends well beyond the local area

in which it is extracted and that site in

the National Park area should not be

automatically discounted.

Regulation 19 consultation in early 2017.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.


England)

Central Bedfordshire Council commented

(as recorded in the Duty to Cooperate

Statement January 2017 that the Plan

fails to realistically assess current

reserves of silica sand within the UK and

so dismisses potential sites without

proper consideration, i.e the need may be

more imminent than suggested.

Central Bedfordshire Council has withdrawn the

representation it made during the Joint West Sussex

Minerals Plan Regulation 19 consultation (on

18.04.17).

The Authorities and Central Bedfordshire Council has

subsequently met (Spring 2017) to discuss

specifically the supply of silica sand and have agreed

to work more closely together in future.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 58-59 (Existing production

sites in England)

Evidence presented in this representation

calls into question whether an appropriate

Duty to Cooperate has been undertaken

with relevant Scottish Mineral Planning

Authorities in order to make the Plan

sound.

The conclusion of the Joint Authorities in

the Duty to Cooperate summary that “ ..

The statement is not clearly substantiated - what

evidence is actually being referred to?

As set out the Authorities consider that appropriate

Duty to Cooperate discussions have been undertaken

with other MPAs with regard to silica sand.

251

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


at present adequate provision is being

made to support the likely use of silica

sand ..…” cannot, in our view, be

substantiated by the Duty to Cooperate

responses or the Cuesta report making

the Plan Unsound.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 60-61 (Cuesta Sand Study

2016)

This Silica Sand Study, 2016 was

commissioned by the South Downs

National Park Authority and West Sussex

County Council as part of the evidence

base for the emerging Joint Minerals Plan.

It considers the geology and sands within

the Folkstone Formation and

demonstrates that most, if not all, the

sands in the study area are capable of

being defined as silica sand, and should

be considered as a national resource. The

website of West Sussex County Council

states that this is significant because

silica sand is nationally important and has

different industrial and recreational uses.

The Silica Sand Study (para 2.62 and 7.2

and 7.3) confirm our view that the known

resource of silica sand at Horncroft are of

national importance in terms of their

chemical purity and consistency and are

suitable after processing for clear glass

This suggests that the industry could pursue

opportunities for extraction of high grade silica sand

within West Sussex but outside the National Park.

The Plan would assess any such proposals in

accordance with its policies including Policy M3 which

concerns silica sand supply.

The composition of the sand at Horncroft is set out in

the Cuesta Study (2016) and is not contested.

252

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


and sodium silicate manufacturing.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 64-65 (Cuesta Sand Study

2016)

As mentioned above, we consider that

reserves of silica sand are diminishing

and there are already a limited number of

sites providing the raw sand material for

clear glass and sodium silicate

manufacture. There is acknowledgement

of this in the Silica Sand Study but the

Executive Summary at page 3 goes on to

say:

“ …. at present there is no indication from

the UK glass making industry of an

impending critical shortage.

These uncertainties have to be balanced

against the very clear need for protection

of the South Downs National Park...The

situation will need to be monitored,

however, and there will be a need to

consider the role which South Down

National Park may need to play in

maintaining a long term strategic

continuity of supply of these materials in

future years” (our underlining emphasis).

In the light of our analysis, we consider

that the SDNP should play its role now in

maintaining the supply of these materials

by allocating the Horncroft site.

As set out, the Authorities have demonstrated that

whilst existing permitted reserves are diminishing –

as would be expected as they are worked – there are

nationally a number of significant planned sites

(Norfolk, Cheshire) that could provide high quality

silica sand that are not accounted for in this

representation.

However, whilst the Cuesta Study (2016) is realistic

and acknowledges that the supply of high grade silica

sand is limited in the UK, when the planned supply is

considered in conjunction with the high grade silica

sand reserves in Scotland, the supply is clearly

steady and adequate (NPPF Para. 146) if the figure

of a UK market need of 1.4 million tonnes per annum

(as set out in MPG representation at Paragraph 36) is

accepted.

Moreover, as set out in Table One (see appendix at

end of document), the permitted and planned

supply of high grade silica sand is entirely located

outside of National Parks.

Therefore, given that there is a steady and adequate

national supply of high grade silica sand, in line with

NPPF Paragraph 116, there is clearly no exceptional

circumstances or public interest issue that would

justify allocating a site for silica sand extraction in

the South Downs National Park.

253

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 66-67 (UK Supplies and

Reserves of Silica Sand)

We contend that whether there is a

critical shortage is not the test for proper

action to be taken in the Plan making

process. In our view, we would consider

that the authorities should take a prudent

(see Paragraph 7 of the NPPF) approach

towards future supply in the Submission

by allocating the Horncroft site, as

opposed to ‘sleepwalking’ the U.K into a

critical shortage.

In cognisance of the study, the

Submission Draft acknowledges the

importance of silica sand: Para 6.3.1

states: “Silica sand (also called ‘industrial

sand’) is found in very few parts of the

United Kingdom, it is an industrial mineral

resource of national importance used for

a range of specialist uses.”.

The Cuesta Study (2016) has not stated that ‘a

critical shortage’ is ‘the test’. The Study states the

fact that the UK glass manufacturing industry has

not made representations to the Authorities that

there is an impending critical shortage.

The representation misinterprets NPPF (Paragraph

7). It actually states that the planning system should

‘use natural resources prudently’. Paragraph 7 does

not necessarily imply Mineral Planning Authorities

should allocate mineral sites or not.

That Silica Sand is in fact an industrial mineral is not

in question. This is clearly set out in national

planning guidance.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 68-69

Para 6.3.3 continues: “The strategy for

silica sand is to include a criteria based

policy, against which any proposals can

be considered. This accords with national

policy as, at present, evidence shows that

adequate provision for silica sand is being

made nationally and there is no

The Authorities do not accept the conclusion that the

MPG representation has drawn in paragraph 69.

The quality and extent of the resource at Horncroft is

not in question.

Paragraph 21 of the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF) states (with emphasis added):

“In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities

254

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


requirement for West Sussex to meet any

identified shortfall elsewhere” (our

underlining emphasis).

In our opinion, the conclusions of para

6.3.3 cannot be substantiated, given the

foregoing evidence we have presented

on:

● the proven extent of the high

quality silica sand at the

Horncroft site for clear glass and

sodium manufacture;

● its national significance;

● the issues and concerns about

the shortage of supply; and

● the lack of viable alternative

resources.

should:…..set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for

local and inward investment to match the strategy

and to meet anticipated needs over the plan

period;”.

There is therefore no specific requirement in the

NPPF to show how supplies will be met solely by

allocating sites.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 70-74 (Joint Minerals Local

Plan Proposed Submission Draft)

Para 3.3.9 of the Plan, reflecting the

findings of the Silica Sand Study states

that “Silica sand is found in a few parts of

the UK, it is a rare industrial mineral

resource of national importance used for

a number of specialist uses including the

manufacture of glass and specialist sports

(e.g. golf courses and polo pitches)”; and

that “ …. in the south east of England, it

occurs in the upper reaches of the Lower

Greensand

The part of the representation essentially repeats the

conclusions drawn at paragraphs 68-69. The

Authorities response to paragraphs 70-74 is set out

elsewhere in this table.

255

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


formation”.

The Submission Draft goes on to state in

para 3.3.9 that the Silica Sand Study

established the following: “Most if not all

of the Folkestone Formation sands within

the study are likely to be capable of being

defined as ‘silica sands’ in the broadest

sense. Taken together, they are likely to

be capable of being used in virtually all

specialist end uses, the only exceptions

being hydraulic fracturing (because the

sands generally do not have sufficiently

high roundness); golf bunkers (because

the sands are not sufficiently angular)

and water filtration (because the sands

are generally too fine grained)”

Based on these findings, the authorities

confirm that the Joint Minerals Local Plan

has to consider supply and demand of

silica sand in order to comply with

National Policy.

In this regard, para 6.3.3 of the

Submission Draft confirms the authorities’

strategy for silica sand is to “ …. include a

criteria based policy, against which any

proposals can be considered’. The

authorities consider that this accords with

national policy as, ‘…. At present,

evidence shows that adequate provision

for silica sand is being made nationally

256

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


and there is no requirement for West

Sussex to meet any identified shortfall

elsewhere”.

We submit that this strategy, reflected in

Policy M3 Silica Sands, is incorrect in view

of the evidence of the importance of the

silica sand deposit at the Horncroft site;

the severely restricted alternative options

for supply of high quality silica sand for

clear glass manufacture and sodium

silicate, in particular, and need for

delivery of this specialist mineral within

the Plan period as reserves elsewhere in

the UK diminish. The authorities have

failed to recognise how important the

resource at the Horncroft site is for clear

glass and sodium silicate manufacturing

in the UK.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 75-81; 90

The Proposed Submission Draft Minerals

Site Selection Report (January 2017)

considers how sites proposed for

allocation in the Plan were identified. The

site selection criteria includes a range of

site specific environmental

considerations, but these are not

evaluated against the strategic national

importance of the mineral deposit at

Horncroft. We consider this to be a

The Cuesta Study (2016) fully addresses the issue of

silica sand at a strategic scale and informed the

strategy set out in the Draft Mineral Plan along with

other evidence studies such as the Mineral Site

Selection Report.

257

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


shortcoming of the evaluation.

The Landscape Sensitivity Study indicates

a high landscape impact from the

Horncroft site as a result of access and

existing topography which could expose

working to the wider landscape without

careful phasing of the works. The

proposed work area has

been reduced which significantly

minimises the potential impacts. There is

potential to overcome the remaining

issues excepting the proposed access

which is considered to have significant

impacts on SDNP.

The Horncroft site is well screened from

distant views due to its topographic

location and with well-designed advance

planting the proposed site access point to

the highway can also be adequately

screened. Potential near views from the

west have also benefited from advance

planting. The site is located in a

commercial coniferous woodland with

non-coniferous trees on the western

boundary. Longer range views have been

initially assessed and further work will

enable the design of appropriate

development phasing and progressive

restoration incorporating existing natural

screening.

The NPPF, published in 2012, requires the Authorities

to give great weight to conserving landscape and

scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the

highest status of protection in relation to landscape

and scenic beauty.

The landscape issues raised earlier remain of concern

at the Horncroft site: Medium/high sensitivity to west

of site, High sensitivity along eastern side. Proposed

access is considered to have significant impacts on

the landscape of the South Downs National Park.

258

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 81-85 (Sustainability)

The representation refers to NPPF

Paragraphs 8, 9 and 15,and the

Ministerial Foreword.

The selected passages from the NPPF are noted.

However, the representation notably fails to address

the major development tests set out in Paragraph

116 of the NPPF. Any proposed allocation which

would comprise major development in a National

Park should clearly demonstrate that it has fully met

the tests in NPPF Paragraph 116.

The representation is vague on the scope of the

potential employment that could be generated from

mineral extraction at Horncroft. Moreover, no

evidence has been provided that there is any

particular pressing need for additional employment in

rural West Sussex. As of April 2017, the Office for

National Statistics (ONS) data sets out that the

unemployment rate in both Chichester District and

West Sussex as a whole is 1.1%.

Moreover, the manufacturing industries which are

dependent in part on a supply of silica sand are not

located in Chichester District or indeed West Sussex.

Indeed, there is no history of glass making or indeed

sodium silicate industries in West Sussex or the

South Downs National Park.

As such, the impact of not allocating the site upon

the local economy would be negligible. Any potential

minor benefits to the local economy that may accrue

would very clearly not outweigh the harm to the

National Park.

In terms of the national economy, the Cuesta Study

(2016) acknowledges that there are limitations to

the national supply of silica sand including higher

259

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


grade silica sand.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraph 86 (Sustainability)

The environmental pillar would be

addressed by site design throughout the

life of the development. The effects of

development would be addressed in any

planning application which may come

forward.

See response to paragraph 94 below.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraphs 87

We recognise a national park constitutes

the highest designation for landscape and

any proposed development within such an

area must be carefully considered and

sensitively designed. The few silica sand

operations in the UK require specific

processing capability in order to ensure

consistent products to individual customer

requirements and these must be

delivered to specification on a day to day

basis.

The processing facilities at existing silica

sand sites tend to be large in area due to

the need for: raw material handling,;

several processing steps in one or more

buildings; product stockpiling; blending;

drying; transport loading road and rail;

water supply and water circuit

management; tailings (silt and clay)

Mineral extraction of the scale proposed at Horncroft

would clearly comprise major development as

understood in the context of a National Park. Clearly

the addition of processing facilities which have large-

scale industrial character would also comprise major

development both individually and in conjunction

with mineral extraction.

The NPPF (Para.116) is clear that major development

should be refused in nationally designated

landscapes except in exceptional circumstances and

where it can be demonstrated that they are in the

public interest. These policy considerations very

clearly outweigh the secondary development

management considerations set out in paragraph 89

of the MPG representation.

260

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


treatment and handling etc.

For Horncroft, such a development

footprint could potentially be seen as

incompatible with the setting of a national

park.

In order to reduce the effects to a

minimum any development must consider

the options for minimising: visual and

landscape impact throughout the life of

the site; development footprint; the

access and transportation effects; noise

and dust generation; open areas during

silica sand extraction by undertaking

progressive restoration throughout the

life of the site.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraph 91

Due to the exceptional consistency of the

sand quality at Horncroft it is clear that

only small areas of the site need to be

open at any one time, allowing for ‘tight’

phased extraction and restoration.

Consistent raw sand will be able to be

sourced on a day to day basis from a

small area, thereby minimising the overall

operational area at any one time.

The rate of any possible potential future extraction at

Horncroft set out in Paragraph 91 is pure

speculation. The representation itself argues

elsewhere that national supplies of silica sand are

scarce and therefore Horncroft should be allocated to

address an (assumed) national shortfall. If national

shortfalls of silica sand are significant this clearly

suggests that the site would likely be excavated at a

much faster rate than paragraph 91 suggests.

Moreover, the representation also suggests in

paragraph 91 that the rate of extraction would be

lessened because of the high quality of the resource,

although the representation does not link this to a

261

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


specific end use.

As set out in response to paragraphs 8 to 11 and 15

to 16, there is a steady and adequate supply of high

quality silica sand in Surrey at Pendell Quarry. The

representation (paragraph 15) acknowledges the

capacity of this site for sodium silicate use. As such,

there are no exceptional circumstances for allocating

a silica sand site for that purpose at Horncroft in line

with NPPF paragraph 116.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraph 92-93

A processing facility on the Horncroft site

could possibly be regarded by some as a

significant impact and so the proposal

could proceed without on-site processing.

The raw (as dug) sand could therefore be

loaded directly onto lorries within the site

for direct transportation for remote

processing. In this way the on-site

activities could be restricted to moving

and temporary storing of soils, the

undertaking of restoration works

throughout the year and daily loading of

lorries within the actual phased working.

The proposed transport route from the

site would be southbound only on the

B2138 to join the strategic highway

network at the A29 approximately 1 mile

away from the site.

As set out, mineral extraction of the scale proposed

at Horncroft would clearly comprise major

development as understood in the context of a

National Park. Clearly the addition of additional

processing facilities which have large-scale industrial

character would also comprise major development. It

is the NPPF (Paragraph 116) major development

tests which are the primary material consideration.

262

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraph 94 (and Paragraph 86)

The restoration landform of the site and

opportunities for after uses would need to

be determined as part of any planning

application / environmental assessment

when precise material volumes would be

fully understood and appropriate final

landform options considered as a result.

Examples of uses of the restored site

could be envisaged as containing for

example: designed habitats for Sand

Martins; appropriate flora habitats;

heathland particularly to benefit the Field

Cricket; geological exposures; and

facilitating appropriate access etc.

The site design and restoration of sites and

opportunities for after uses are matters to be

determined through planning applications rather than

the Local (Mineral) Plan.

However, NPPF Paragraph 115 is clear that

(emphasis added):

Great weight should be given to conserving




relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The

conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are

important considerations in all these areas, and

should be given great weight in National Parks and

the Broads.

For reference, the representation does not address

NPPF Paragraph 115.

The South Downs Landscape Officer has provided the

following additional comments on the impact of

mineral extraction at Horncroft on landscape and

cultural heritage:

Landscape:-

The site lies to the south of Horncroft Farm, a

medieval farmstead – the farmhouse is Grade II

listed, dating from 1600 or earlier.

It lies adjacent to the Horncroft Farm Pasture LWS,

designated for its grassland/wetland, and Lords Piece

263

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


LWS for its complex of woodland, grassland and

heathland.

The majority of the site is plantation woodland over

common – which is typically heathy in character and

includes prehistoric earthworks, related to ritual

landscapes.

The presence of designed landscapes – Bignor Park

(Grade II) and Coates Castle (locally designated),

Ancient Woodland and Coates Conservation Area are

all close by. The historic route of Tripp Hill, its

characteristic mature boundary vegetation and rights

of way networks contribute to the local character and

provide opportunities to experience the local

landscape. Medieval assets are present close to

Coldwaltham and are associated with Tripp hill farm

are noted as a particular historic feature in this

location.

Visual:-

The site is exposed in views from local rights of way

– the Serpent Trail and the local byway and

bridleway. Potential longer distance views have also

been identified in the site’s ZTV which suggests it

may be visible from higher ground to the north and

south.

Recommendations:-

The layers of history present in the landscape

contribute to the area’s inherent sensitivity, which is

further increased by significant ecological and

264

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


historic sites in close proximity, and further potential

for visual and experiential effects of working this

site. As a result it remains likely that the site would

not achieve support from a landscape point of view

given the range of potential impacts.

Therefore, given the great weight in National Parks

and other nationally designated landscapes attached

to both conserving landscape and scenic beauty, and

the conservation of cultural heritage, inter alia, the

proposed mineral extraction site at Horncroft would

not satisfy NPPF Para. 115 and would have a

detrimental effect on the environment and landscape

contrary to NPPF Para.116.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraph 95 (Other representations)

Policy M9 Safeguarding Minerals makes

no specific reference to silica sand and it

should do so, taking into consideration

that the Vision and para 6.9.8 indicate

that silica sand will be safeguarded.

However, we note that the safeguarded

zone for soft and silica sand excludes

much of the Horncroft site negating the

effectiveness of the criteria based

approach.

Reference to ‘sand and gravel’ in policy M9 is an

umbrella term which includes soft sand (including

potential for silica sand) and sharp sand and gravel.

This is explained in paragraph 6.9.8 of the JMLP.

Maps of the safeguarding areas, which includes soft

sand (including potential for silica sand), are included

in Appendix E of the JMLP.

The Minerals Safeguarding Areas were based on a

study undertaken by the British Geological Survey

(Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral

Consultation Areas for West Sussex, 2007). The

report identified the Mineral Safeguarding Areas

based on the best available geological information

and consultation with the industry and includes the

entire Folkestone Formation.

265

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraph 96 (Other representations)

We strongly object to the entry in the

‘Implementation and Monitoring’ table

after para 8.3.9 in the Submission Draft.

The entry says, in relation to the

monitoring of the number of applications

refused in AONB’s and SDNP ‘No

trend/targets identified, as it is not

expected that unacceptable proposals will

progress to planning applications or be

permitted’.

This entry strongly suggests that

proposals for minerals workings in SDNP

are being pre-judged even at this stage –

and being pre-judged as being

unacceptable contrary to the principles of

‘presumption in favour of development’

and all ‘applications to be considered on

their merits’. This is not positively

prepared and potentially makes the

Submission unsound.

The principle as set out in NPPF Paragraph 14 is a

presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Policy

M11

4135 143

Mineral

Planning Group

(MPG) on

behalf of The

Barlavington

Estate.

Paragraph 97-102 (Conclusions)

The Submission Draft acknowledges

existence of silica sand in the area and

attempts to consider the supply and

demand of silica sand. However, it fails to

come to the correct policy conclusion

which is that the Horncroft site should be

As set out, the Authorities can demonstrate that

there is a steady and adequate planned supply of

silica sand nationally that is available and located

outside of National Parks. As such, the statement in

paragraph 97 of the MPG representation that “there

are no long term viable alternatives” for UK supply is

clearly incorrect given the planned resources

identified in Table One (see appendix at end of

266

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


included as an

allocated site. This is because its proven

resource for sand suitable for the

manufacture of clear glass and sodium

silicate would address issues and

concerns about future supply and

reserves of a nationally important

material for which there are no long term

viable alternatives for UK supply. This is

especially true for sodium

silicate production.

The resource is without doubt able to

pass the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test

subject to appropriate mitigation

incorporated into any draft concept of

extraction and progressive restoration.

Since silica sand is a mineral of national

importance and one which is in very short

supply throughout the country then it

must be in the public

interest for the Horncroft site to be

developed to contribute to national

supply.

The failure to allocate the site would

mean that it would deter interest from

mineral producing companies given the

uncertainties of obtaining planning

approval where the exceptional

circumstances and public interest tests

need to be met; and the lengthy

timescale and cost for preparing an

application. Given the demand nationally

document).

It has clearly not been demonstrated that there are

no alternative sites available, nor that there are

exceptional circumstances. There would be little

demonstrable impact on the local economy through

the non-allocation of the site. There is clearly scope

for resourcing silica sand outside the National Park.

The allocation would have significant adverse

impacts on the landscape of the National Park.

The supply of silica sand nationally, taking into

account resources in England and Scotland, are

clearly such that mineral extraction in a National

Park would not be in the public interest.

As such, contrary to the representation, the

proposed allocation has not passed the exceptional

circumstances test.

Draft Policy M3 allows for a silica sand site to be

permitted whilst not being allocated in the Minerals

Local Plan. All applications for silica sand sites would

need to be determined in accordance with policy M3.

The national need for silica sand must be balanced

against the national need to consider the purposes of

the duty of the (South Downs) National Park. It is

clear to the Authorities that whilst there are

limitations in the national supply of silica sand (as

set out in the Cuesta Study 2016) there is a steady

and adequate supply of silica sand both in the UK

and in relation to the nearest existing processing

plant (at North Bank Quarry, Surrey).

267

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


for silica sand in the next few years;

diminishing reserves elsewhere, and the

time taken to plan and develop a mineral

site, the necessary investment in the

planning process is unlikely to be made

unless the principle is acceptable through

allocation.

Therefore, Plan Policy M11 ‘Strategic

Minerals Site Allocations’ should include

the site specific allocation of the Horncroft

site for the extraction of silica sand

suitable for clear glass and sodium silicate

manufacture in order to confirm that it is

acceptable, in principle, for that purpose.

In terms of sustainable development, the

site could be designed and worked in

such a way that the resource could be

developed sustainably.

Therefore, there is clearly insufficient justification for

allocating Horncroft for silica sand extraction (NPPF

Para.144).

The proposed mineral site at Horncroft, taking into

account all the material considerations set out in this

response to the representation, would not comprise

sustainable development.

Hambrook Grouping

Legal

complianc

e with the

Regulatio

n 19

process.

3461 102 Resident /

other

NPPF Paragraph 182 states that local

plans are examined by an independent

inspector whose role it is to assess

whether the plan is prepared in

accordance with legal and procedural

requirements, and whether it is sound.

Soundness includes; positively prepared,

justified, effective, and consistent with

national policy.

The Authorities do not feel that the use of the term

“legal compliance”, rather than specifically setting

out in detail what will be sought, was required in a

broadcast letter being sent out over a month prior to

the representations period.

All those that were written to in the broadcast letter,

were also notified at the start of the representations

and provided with links to the Guidance Document

that was published.

268

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


The broadcast letter sent to all

stakeholders on 24 November 2016

states that representations will be sought

on soundness and legal compliance. The

Strategic Planning Manager, through an

email on 16 December 2016, stated that

“legal compliance” includes the duty to

cooperate and all other legal and

procedural requirements as set out in

NPPF paragraph 182. The representor

believes that the Strategic Planning

Manager conflates legal and procedural

matters.

The guidance document does not

reference part of The Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The

guidance notes also conflate legal and

procedural matters.

The on-line form for submitting

representations could be regarded as

restrictive. The impression given is that

representations should relate to policies,

and soundness and legal compliance.

The representor does not feel restricted

by the conflation of legal and procedural

matters, or by the expectation that

representations will relate to policies,

however other respondents may have

been, whereby legitimate representations

have not been made.

The Guidance Document sets out, in detail, the

nature of the representations period and how

stakeholders should respond.

The Authorities are content that the regulations and

requirements have all been met with regards to

Regulation 19 of the Town and Country (Local

Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

269

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


If it is accepted that WSCC have

incorrectly presented the scope of the

representations, the Regulation 19

Representations Period should be re-run.

Site

Assessme

nt

Methodol

ogy

3461 103 Resident /

other

This representation relates to the



“justified” - i.e, based on robust and

credible evidence base, involving

research, backed up by facts.

Appendix 4 of the Mineral Site Selection

report specified the RAG assessment

methodology (Red, Amber, Green traffic

light assessment), which was used to

determine which sites were to be subject

to technical assessments, to produce a

short list of sites.

This methodology has been used to go

further than sifting as it has been used to

classify all unacceptable sites as

“acceptable in principle” irrespective of

scores. While it is reasonable to classify a

site with all green scores as acceptable,

those with red/amber scores should be

viewed as unacceptable. Some issues

have also omitted, which were to be

included. In the case of the Hambrook

Grouping of sites, most of the excluded

issues would have scored “red”, therefore

making the sites “unacceptable” rather

The Mineral Site Selection Report (Dec 2016) has

been used to assess which sites are “acceptable in

principle”.






in planning terms.











associated with mineral extraction;”

Where, through the RAG assessment, there are

red/amber, amber, and amber/green scores, to

make proposals acceptable, there would be a

requirement to apply mitigation measures. The

270

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


than “acceptable in principle”.

These flaws apply, in principle, to all

sites, whether allocated in the Plan or

not. For Gravel sites (as Hambrook

Grouping is), these flaws would not affect

the Plan, however would affect the

classification of the Hambrook sites as

shown in the Mineral Site Selection

Report.

The Outcomes report of December 2016

(Reg.18 draft Plan) stated that “even if a

site is not assessed as ‘acceptable in

principle’, it would not necessarily stop a

site gaining planning permission if

proposals put forward in a planning

application were deemed to address

concerns, and be consistent with policies

in the Plan. The assessment of a site as

‘acceptable in principle’ at the plan-

making stage, makes no difference to the

Authorities’ assessment of a planning

application (which must be treated on its

merits).”

This is not justification for allowing an

inaccurate assessment to remain

uncorrected, as it is not possible to

foresee arguments that could be made in

support of a planning application and

therefore it is not possible to say with

certainty that the inaccurate assessments

would not be relevant - erroneous,

assumption being made by the representor, that a

greater number of red/amber scores would result in

a site being ruled out at the plan making stage, and

being regarded as “unacceptable”, is incorrect. The

RAG assessment methodology is explained in

Appendix 4 of the Site Selection Report.

The assessment of sites, as set out in the Mineral

Site Selection Report, draws together information

from technical assessments that have been

undertaken, and from information gathered from

those promoting sites, as well as information

received during consultation.

The representor feels that information has been

omitted, that should have been included. For

example, the presence of viable resources, or

landowner support. Furthermore, the representor

feels that the site would fail on the Guiding

Principles, the vision and objectives of the Plan.

These are, in the Authorities’ view, issues which

would be assessed at planning application stage in

detail.

For a proposal to be acceptable and gain planning

permission, it would have to show, in detail, how the

criteria set out in the policies of the Plan would be

met. Any proposal that was assessed as not

achieving this, would not be granted permission. It is

important to note that acceptable in principle means

that sites are likely to be acceptable and are not

certain to be acceptable. The level of detail the

representor is seeking is that which would be sought

at planning application stage, not at plan making

271

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


misleading or biased documentation

should not be in the public domain in case

it is misused.

The Mineral Sites Selection Report should

be re-worked by applying correctly a

more appropriately specified site

assessment procedure.

The Proposed Submission Draft Plan

should then be reviewed, and amended

as necessary, in the light of the revised

site assessments.

Further supporting evidence has been

submitted as part of this representation.

This includes that view that the

assessment was not applied properly,

that “site specific information” was not

included, and that regarding the

Hambrook Grouping of sites, the

assessment should be red considering

the;

● Guiding Principles of the Plan

● The Vision of the Plan

● The Strategic Objectives of the

Plan

● The Development Management

Policies - namely M1, M12, M18,

M20.

stage.

The Authorities disagree that the assessments are

“inaccurate” and reiterate the point that, at this

stage, the assessments are high level, seeking to

highlight those issues which are unresolvable, whilst

also providing the authorities with an understanding

of issues that would require consideration should the

sites be allocated. This is the basis of the

development principles of those sites that are being

allocated.

Consultati

on

3461 104 Resident /

other



The Authorities are confident that the requirements

of consultation have been met. The Consultation

272

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/



“justified” - ie “Evidence of participation

of the local community and others having

a stake in the area”.


whole of Regulation 18 of the Town and

Country Planning (Local Planning)

(England) Regulations 2012, and

particularly Reg.18(3) which states that

“in preparing the local plan, the local




(1)”

The West Sussex County Council

Statement of Community Involvement

(SCI) (2012) states the following;

“The preparation of all plans and

documents and the determination of

planning applications have to comply with

the adopted SCI.”

and

“Failure to comply with the SCI may

mean that an Inspector may recommend

that a plan is withdrawn if they consider

that its ‘soundness’ has been

undermined.”

The SCI has not been complied with in

Statement (Reg.22) sets out how the Authorities

have done so.

The representor feels that they should have been

contacted upon publication and consultation of the

“long List” of sites, as published in the Mineral Sites

Study (V1, August 2014), due to their proximity to

the Hambrook Grouping.

The Authorities, at that stage, were not proposing

allocations, and were instead seeking to receive

comments on the assessment of proposals, and

those sites being considered. Therefore, all

stakeholders on the Authorities’ consultation

database,, and all parish councils, as well as those

listed in the Consultation Statement, were contacted.

The Authorities did not feel there was a need to

specifically identify and contact all those living near

to proposals at that stage, as it was early in the plan

making process. At that time this particular

representor was not known to the Authorities and so

was not included on the database, however the

consultation was widely advertised but it appears the

representor did not become aware of the

consultation at that time.

Specific notification of consultation periods was sent

to properties near to those sites that were allocated

in the draft Plan (at both Reg. 18 and 19 stages). As

the Hambrook Grouping was not allocated, those

properties and addresses near to this site were not

contacted.

The Authorities disagree that the representor’s

273

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


the following two ways;

● the representor was not included

in the 2014 engagements (on

Background Paper and the Mineral

Sites Studied) which, as specified

in the SCI, are part of the

Regulation 18 activities

● many of the representors

comments on the Mineral Site

Selection Report have been

ignored and dismissed without

good reason, contravening

Reg.18(3). The Mineral Site

Selection Report still contains

inconsistencies, errors, and

omissions. This means the

Hambrook Grouping assessments

are biased and the conclusion of

“acceptable in principle” is wrong.

Had the representor been invited to

comment at an earlier stage, than at

Reg.18 (on the draft Joint Minerals Local

Plan 2016), their local knowledge could

have been taken into account. The

Authorities argue that the outcome of the

Mineral Site Selection Report would have

no bearing on any site gaining planning

applications, as each site must be treated

on its merits at the time. This is not

justification for allowing inaccurate

assessments to remain uncorrected.

The Mineral Site Selection Report should

comments have been dismissed without good

reason. Fundamentally the representor is seeking for

assessment of the Hambrook Grouping at a level of

detail that is not appropriate for the plan making

stage, but would be necessary if a planning

application was submitted. The Authorities feel that

the scope of the Mineral Site Selection Report is in

keeping with the approach set out in the Planning

Practice Guidance in terms of assessing the likelihood

of whether sites will be acceptable i.e. whether they

are “acceptable in principle”.

274

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


be re-worked for the Hambrook sites to

take account of comments properly.

The representation is supported by the

submission of a suite of letters that have

been exchanged between WSCC and the

representor.

Transport

Assessme

nt

3461 105 Resident /

other







facts.

There is considerable confusion and

inconsistency within and between the

Transport Assessment, the Sustainability

Appraisal, and the Mineral Sites Selection

Report concerning the Hambrook

Grouping. In addition, some impacts have

been down-played and others omitted

from the assessments except for passing

mention. This includes; confusion

between the reports regarding traffic

flows; incorrect descriptions of

Cheesemans Lane and Broad Road; the

amount of junction improvement

required; the environmental and physical

impact of HGVs; and a lack of information

around safety.

The Authorities disagree that there is a requirement

to re-work the SA and Mineral Site Selection Report

due to errors in the TA.

The representor is conflating the outcomes and

specific wording of the transport assessment work.

The Authorities are accepting of the fact that the use

of “108” in the SA (para 5.155) is likely a typo, and

it should read “110”. That said, the overall outcome

of the TA is that there would be no severe harm from

the proposals at Hambrook Grouping, therefore this

typo has no bearing on the conclusion reached in the

Minerals Site Selection Report and, fundamentally

has no bearing on the content ofthe Plan and nor

does it make the Plan unsound.

No evidence has been submitted to justify the

statement that “Cheesemans Lane is too narrow to

allow HGVs to pass”. The Authorities disagree that

Cheesemans Lane is too narrow.The TA, that was

undertaken by professional qualified consultants and

with an accepted methodology, considers that

Cheesemans Lane is acceptable.

275

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


In respect of the Hambrook sites, the

Transport Assessment contains several

errors, inconsistencies and omissions and

is therefore flawed.

The findings and conclusions of the

Transport Assessment have not been

correctly reported or reflected in either

the Sustainability Appraisal or the Mineral

Sites Selection Report.

The Transport Assessment for the

Hambrook sites should be reviewed and

amended in light of the representors

comments, the SA amended accordingly,

and the Mineral Site Selection Report.

The representation is supported by the

submission of supporting evidence of the

issues being raised around the TA.

Based in evidence in the TA, the Authorities consider

that transport impacts associated with the Hambrook

Grouping would not be severe. Furthermore, the

Hambrook Grouping sites are not being allocated in

the Joint Minerals Local Plan, and at planning

application stage, a full and detailed transport

assessment would be required, and all policies in the

Plan would be assessed before permission granted.

This is set out in paragraph 8.9.7 that states:

“Potential and perceived impact of transportation on

amenity may include vibration, visual intrusion, noise

and air quality. For those sites allocated in the Plan,

the issue of transport impact at a strategic level,

including proximity to the Lorry Route Network, will

have been assessed and accepted ‘in principle’.

Specific proposals will still be required to show that

they are acceptable in terms of their detailed

transport impact, whilst proposals on unallocated

sites will need to address both matters of principle

and detail. A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan

will be required for the majority of minerals

proposals. Impacts of transport on the amenity of

local communities will be considered against Policy

M18 and Policy M22 as appropriate.”

Mineral

Site

Selection

Report.

3461 026 Resident /

other




2012, which says:




The Authorities have prepared the Mineral Site

Selection Report, based on the methodology set out.

The detail of the assessment is at a level that is

appropriate for the plan making stage.

Assessments have been undertaken by qualified

professionals and completely without bias

(intentional or otherwise), and, as set out above, are

276

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/



(1).”







facts.

The representor provides quotes from

emails received from officers (June 2016)

stating the importance of the Mineral Site

Selection Report to the evidence base of

the Plan, that their comments would be

considered, and that it is important for

the soundness of the Plan.

The comments provided to date by the

representor have been taken into account

properly, being either nugatory,

dismissive or ignored. Further detail is

provided in this representation’s

supporting evidence, and also

representations 0024 and 0025.

Inadequate responses to previous

comments have biased the classification

of the Hambrook Sites as shown in the

Mineral Site Selection Report. Almost all

the impacts are adverse rather than

beneficial, therefore omissions of impacts

introduces bias. The omissions make the

high level, seeking to highlight those issues which

could not be resolved at the detailed planning

application stage, whilst also providing the

Authorities with an understanding of issues that

would require consideration should the sites be

allocated (thus forming the basis of the development

principles of those sites proposed for allocation.

The detail and issues that the representor wishes to

resolve are of a level that would be addressed at

planning application stage. The outcomes of the

Mineral Site Selection Report would have no bearing

on the outcomes of a planning application, should

one be submitted, which would be assessed on its

merits at that time in accordance with the policies

within the Plan.

277

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


sites appear more acceptable than

otherwise, to the point where they appear

more acceptable than unacceptable.

The faults in the site assessment

procedure, as set out in representation

0022 all work in the same direction - that

important adverse impacts are excluded

from the assessment.

For the Hambrook sites, correcting the

record of the impacts, and correcting the

site assessment procedure and applying it

correctly, would change the classification

from ‘acceptable in principle’ to

‘unacceptable’.

The Authorities defend their position by

stating that whether or not a site is

viewed as acceptable in principle or not

would not impact a site gaining planning

permission if an application were to be

submitted. This is not justification for the

inaccurate assessment to remain

uncorrected. It is not possible to say with

certainty that the inaccurate report will

not be relevant.

Furthermore, other areas of the Mineral

Sites Selection report could be inaccurate,

including the allocated sites, whilst

representations made by others at Reg.18

consultation may also have been ignored

or not taken account of properly.

278

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


The Mineral Site Selection Report should

be re-worked.

The representation includes supporting

evidence on comments made to Mineral

Site Selection Report (April 2016), and

specifically on the Hambrook Grouping of

sites.

Definition

of

Sustainab

ility

3461 108 Resident /

other

The Ministerial Foreword in the NPPF

defines “sustainable development” as;

“Sustainable means ensuring that better

lives for ourselves don’t mean worst lives

for future generations. Sustainable

development is about change for the

better, and not only in our built

environment”

The representor states that gravel

extraction would not be sustainable by

the above definition, as it would mean a

“worse environment” both during and

after extraction. The foreword goes on to

states that sustainable development is

about positive growth, making economic,

environmental and social progress for this

and future generations.

The Authorities, in their response to

comments on the Draft Joint Minerals

Local Plan (Reg.18) stated that “The

Minister’s comments are his personal

The results of the site assessment are that it is

unlikely that any social, environmental and economic

impacts would be so severe as to conclude that it

should be ruled out as unacceptable in principle.

However, were a planning application to be

submitted then these matters would be are

addressed at the planning application stage. The

outcomes of the Mineral Site Selection Report would

have no bearing on the outcomes of a planning

application, which would be assessed on its merits at

that time in accordance with the policies within the

Plan.

The Plan has been prepared to be consistent with the

NPPF.

279

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


view in support of the guidance, rather

than part of the guidance itself”

The representor disagrees with the above

statement.

Para 5.3.2 of the Plan states that NPPF

(Para 7) sets out the three dimensions to

sustainable development (economic,

social and environmental roles), which

underpin the Plan.

The representor provides their view on

these three dimensions from a local

perspective;

Economy; Exploitation of Hambrook

would have severe impacts on CEGA,

Grange Farm, and could have adverse

impacts on the Defense Research

Establishment. Farming activities would

reduce, meaning some loss of jobs. The

jobs created from the extraction would be

few, and overall potential loss of

hundreds. Exploitation of Hambrook

would not contribute to building a strong,

responsive and competitive local

economy.

Social: Most of the impacts on adjacent

communities would be adverse.

Extraction would not support local

communities. Therefore exploitation of

the Hambrook sites would not support

280

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


strong, vibrant, and healthy local

communities.

Environmental: The impacts on the

environment would be adverse, and

extraction at Hambrook would do nothing

to protect and enhance the natural

environment. It would be the opposite,

therefore exploitation at Hambrook would

not contribute to protecting and

enhancing the natural, built and historic

environment.

The Hambrook sites are not allocated in

the Proposed Submission Draft Plan but

all pretence that the exploitation of these

sites would constitute ‘sustainable

development’ should be dropped from the

Sustainability Appraisal Report, the

Mineral Sites Selection Report, and the

Proposed Submission Draft Plan.

Outcomes

Report

3461 109 Resident /

other




2012, which says:





(1).”


The consultation outcomes report provides a

summary of key issues which arose. This is not

intended to distort views, and instead focuses on the

key issues raised, and any resulting changes

required to the Plan.

The Authorities are confident than the outcomes

report serves it purpose, to provide an appropriate

summary of comments and set out the Authorities’

views on these comments.

The representor’s comments and views did not result

281

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/







facts.

This representation includes supporting

evidence, shown as an extract of

paragraph 4.3.5 of the consultation

outcomes report (Dec 2016) of the

Reg.18 draft Plan, which contain the

representors comments/notes. The

outcomes report has omitted and

distorted those comments..

Further rejoinders are provided against

the Authority responses, where they are

incorrect, and where the response

demonstrates that comments on the

Mineral Site Selection Report were

ignored.

Furthermore, comments made on behalf

of CEGA, by Vail Williams, about the

impacts on their business’ operations

have not been included in the outcomes

report.

The first step required in taking account

of the representors comments at Reg.18

is to understand them. The omissions

from and distortions of the comments

suggests the Authorities either did not

in any changes to the Plan with regards to sites, as

they are specifically related to the Hambrook

Grouping, which were not proposed for allocation in

the Reg.18 Draft JMLP (and are not in the

subsequent Proposed Submission Plan).

Discussions were undertaken with CEGA, who

expressed satisfaction with the Plan in light of the

fact that the Hambrook Grouping of sites is not being

proposed for allocation. Furthermore, their

comments are not reported in the Outcome report,

as discussions between the Authorities and CEGA

took place outside of periods of consultation. No

representations were received from CEGA on the

Proposed Submission Draft Plan.

282

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


fully understand the comments, or

deliberately censored them.

The section of the Outcomes report

related to the Hambrook sites should be

re-worked to replace the current

summary of comments from residents

with an accurate summary of the

comments, and followed by updating of

the Authorities responses. Checks should

be made to assess whether all comments

have been summarised fairly in the

outcomes report.

Procedure

for Plan

Preparati

on

3461 110 Resident /

other

This representation is specifically

concerned with the procedure of plan

preparation.

It sets out the general order of work that

has been undertaken to prepare the Plan.

The representors main points are as

follows;

● that officers failed to analyse the

demand for land-won gravel

separately for soft sand in the

early stages of work. The work

suggested that further sites were

required. Had they been treated

separately, then no gravel sites

would have been considered.

● This mistaken analyses in 2014

resulted in a call for sites which

resulted in the nomination of the

The Authorities are required to produce a Local

Aggregate Assessment (LAA) annually, as required

by NPPF Paragraph 143. This must occur regardless

of the plan preparation stages. The first LAA set out

an anticipated demand for sand and gravel (without

splitting out soft sand), which suggested that there

may be a need sharp sand and gravel.

The Call for Sites (April 2014) came in advance of

the publication of the LAA which included separate

consideration of sharp sand and gravel from soft

sand. The industry opted to submit a number of

sharp sand and gravel sites, and it is quite possible

that these would have been submitted in any case

regardless of the outcomes of the Local Aggregates

Assessment. Regardless of this, there is now no need

for additional sharp sand and gravel sites and

therefore no allocations for such sites are proposed

for allocation in the Plan.

283

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


Hambrook sites.

● A mineral site study was

published, which blighted many

properties, and matters made

worse by material errors which

should have been published prior

to publication.

● The engagements on Background

Papers and the Mineral Sites Study

were held without local knowledge,

and therefore without the

involvement of residents who

would be affected by the sites.

● A new LAA was produced,

separating the soft sand demand

from sharp sand and gravel, which

concluded no further sites were

required.

● The Mineral Site Selection Report

April 2016) was published, which

contains many errors,

inconsistencies and omissions,

which appears to have made the

results biased, which can occur

due to officer preconceptions,

negligence, or lack of competence.

Assurance were provided that the

officers are not prejudiced,

therefore they are either negligent

or lack competence.

● An agreement was made with the

Authorities, that detailed

comments would be provided to

the representor on their

Blight is not a planning consideration when preparing

development plan documents.

The engagement exercises on the Background Papers

and Mineral Sites Study were publicised

appropriately and as required. The Authorities wrote

to those it was considered appropriate to contact, as

set out in the Consultation Statement (Reg.22).

The Planning Committee’s main concern was to

consider the content of the Plan and how it would

affect development in future. This is because it is the

Planning Committee that would use the Plan to make

decisions on planning applications.

The “omissions” the representor refers to relate to a

level of detail that is not appropriate for the Plan

making stage when the acceptability of sites is

considered in principle only.

The Mineral Site Selection Report was not under

consideration, and nor were the Hambrook Grouping

of sites, as they are not allocated.

The issues raised by this representor are concerned

with the Hambrook Grouping of sites being referred

to as “acceptable in principle” in the Minerals Site

Selection Report. The assessment of these sites in

this report, which have not been allocated within the

plan due to a lack of demand for sharp sand and

gravel(as set out in the LAA), would have no bearing

on the outcomes of a planning application, which

would be assessed on its merits at that time in

accordance with the policies within the Plan.

284

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


comments, which was not

delivered within the agreed

timetable.

● The Proposed Submission Draft

Plan was completed and changes

made to the Mineral Site Selection

Report prior to the representors

comments being addressed back

to them. Furthermore, the

Planning Committee on 29

November approved the Plan, and

the County Council on 16

December 2016, before the

comments were responded to. The

Committee and Full Council were

told the report was completed.

This is despite the Strategic

Planning Manager stating to the

representor that the report on

sites had yet to be completed.

● Upon delivery of the responses to

the comments made, the

representor feels many were

ignored and dismissed without

good reason. The approach

appears to refute and reject,

rather than respond

constructively, or seek to

accommodate.

● During review of the responses

received, it was discovered that

the Mineral Site Selection Report

incorrectly specified important

issues were omitted, and some

285

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


issues the RAG system incorrectly

applied.

● Comments on the Mineral Site

Selection Report to the Planning

Committee had been censored,

therefore distorting the impression

of concerns.

● The Reg.19 documents reveal that

the includes a different, distorted,

summary of comments than

provided to the representor.

● There is little evidence of quality

assurance and the reports contain

too many errors, inconsistencies

and omissions.

● The WSCC Customer Relations

Team Manager has stated that the

only route to redress is to make

representations, thus the case is

being made over again.

As a result of the above, the TA, SA,

MSSR, Outcomes report and the draft

Plan should be reviewed and revised.

Wider

Considera

tions

3461 111 Resident /

other

If the Inspector considers that, in line

with reps 0022, 0023, 0024, 0025, 0026,

and/or 0028, the following questions are

asked;

A. how likely is it that only the

material relating to the Hambrook

sites is affected?

B. does the County Council have any

All assessments have been prepared objectively

using appropriate professional skill and judgement.

286

Policy/

Chapter/

Para

Unique ID

Rep

No

Name/


evidence that accredited quality

assurance procedures have been

properly applied to the Transport

Assessment, Sustainability

Appraisal, Mineral Sites Selection

Report, and Outcomes Report?

C. should the Transport Assessment,

Sustainability Appraisal, Mineral

Sites Selection Report, and

Outcomes Report in their entirety

be subjected to independent

checks? and

D. how likely is it that the Proposed

Submission Draft Plan and other

reports in the evidence base are

free from material error?

The four questions, A to D, should be

considered. If convincing evidence is not

forthcoming that the Proposed

Submission Draft Plan and the evidence

base in their entirety are free from

material error, independent checks should

be instigated and the material revised as

necessary. If material changes are made,

the Regulation 19 Representations Period

should be repeated

287

Appendix 1 – In response to Mineral Planning Group (MPG) on behalf of The Barlavington Estate.

Table One: UK Silica Sand (for Clear Glass/Sodium Silicate Use) Resources – May 2017

All

Silica Sand

(Tonnes)

Silica Sand for Clear Glass/Sodium Silicate Use

(Tonnes)

Location Permitted

Reserves

Permitted Reserves Planned

Reserves

Preferred

Areas

Areas of Search

(hectares)

Production

per Annum

Norfolk

2,400,000 2,400,000 4,200,000[1] 1,000[2] 793,200

Surrey

2,400,000 2,400,000 4,250,000[3] 100,00

East Cheshire

10,296,049 740,118[4] 2,475,000[5] 441,496

Kent

980,000

North Yorkshire

500,000

Nottinghamshire

12,000,000

SUB-TOTAL: England[6] 28,576,049 5,540,118 6,675,000 4,250,000 1,000 1,234,696

Fife

9,890,000 9,890,000 275,000

288

Highlands

39,930,000 39,930,000 110,000

SUB-TOTAL: Scotland 49,820,000 49,820,000 385,000

TOTAL: UK

78,396,049 [7]

55,360,118

6,675,000

4,250,000

1,000

1,619,696

[1] Norfolk Mineral Plan Allocations at East Winch (20160 and Bawsey (2017) [2] Norfolk Silica Sand Review 2017 [3] At Pendell Farm and Chilmead Farm, Surrey Minerals Plan [4] Does not include permitted reserves of high quality silica sand from quarries which provide a mix of silica sand/soft sand grades and as such the figure should be seen as a minimum [5] Live application at Rudheath Lodge Farm (as of 22 May 2017). The supporting Planning Statement (Section 3.3) confirms that 75% of the mineral resource (2.475m tonnes) is high grade silica sand [6] Excludes figures from MPA such as Central Bedfordshire where silica sand permitted reserves were not available in May 2017 [7] Does not include supply from recycled materials

289

Table Two: Silica Sand: Agreed Position Statements May 2017

Surrey County Council

Only operating plant is at North Park Quarry linked by conveyor to Pendell Quarry. Chilmead Farm is identified as an Area of Search in Surrey

Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy. North Park Quarry processing plant has a maximum operating capacity of 600,000 tpa.

Sites Area Permitted

reserves silica

sand[1]

Unconsented

reserves

Timeline Comment

North Park Quarry 400,000[2] None By 2020 Working towards restoration by Dec

2020

Pendell Quarry

(extension to

North Park

Quarry)

20 ha 2 million

tonnes[3]

See below Current permission to

2020 Permitted

reserves unlikely to be

worked out by 2020

Linked by conveyor to North Park

processing plant. Part worked but

working is currently in abeyance

whilst extraction is concentrated at

North Park Quarry.

Pendell Farm

Preferred Area S

85 ha

(including

Pendell

Quarry)

Potentially in

excess of 3 million

tonnes of silica

sand[4]

Applications likely to

come forward in future

if land ownership

issues can be resolved

Would make a logical extension to

consented area

Pendell Farm –

Area of Search

15 ha Not known Release would be supported to

meet a national need if additional

reserves are necessary.

290

Chilmead Farm

Area of Search

12 ha 1.25 million

tonnes[5]

Not known Release would be supported to

meet a national need if additional

reserves are necessary.

TOTAL 2,400,000 4,250,000

[1] High quality for specialist end uses such as glass and sodium silicate manufacture. [2] 600,000 reserve in 2015 with projected extraction rate of 100,000 tpa [3] Total consented reserve 2.5 million tonnes of which 2 million considered to be high quality. Two years of extraction since 2015 will have reduced this. [4] Surrey Minerals Plan in excess of 5 million tonnes high quality silica sand in Preferred Area S. Delete 2 million tonnes already consented at Pendell Quarry. [5] PMZ 73 Estimate of net available resource. Assessment of Potential Minerals Zones for Extraction of Sand and Gravel in Surrey Aug 2004.

291

Norfolk County Council

Existing operating plant is at Leziate and principally produces glass sand for clear container and flat glass.

Sites Area

(Hectares)

Permitted

reserves

silica

sand[1]

(tonnes)

Unconsente

d reserves

(tonnes)[2]

Timeline Comment

Grandcourt Farm 2,400,000[3] Active Application granted 07.09.07

East Winch 32.8 3,000,000 Application

submitted and

currently being

validated

Allocated in Norfolk Minerals Site Specific

Allocations DPD (2013) The site lies adjacent

to an existing silica sand working, and would

be worked as an extension. The site would

provide mineral for the existing processing

plant at Leziate.

Bawsey 21 1,200,000 Allocation in Norfolk Draft Silica Sand Review

submission document (2017) which is

currently subject to Examination in Public,

hearings held 14-15 March 2017. Expected

modifications representations period June-

July 2017.

292

Silica Sand Review

(2017) – Area of

Search

Approx.

1,000

Areas of Search identified in the Norfolk Draft

Silica Sand Review submission document

which is currently subject to Examination in

Public, hearings held 14-15 March 2017.

Expected modifications representations

period June-July 2017. Representations made

objecting to the inclusion of two Areas of

Search, totalling approximately 900 hectares

TOTAL 2,400,000 4,200,000

[1] High quality for specialised end uses such as glass manufacture. [2] High quality for specialised end uses such as glass manufacture. [3] Figures at 31/12/2015, 10 year rolling average of silica sand production is 696,500 and 3 year rolling average of silica sand production is 793,200 Source: Norfolk County Council Minerals and Waste Draft Silica Sand Review Submission document

293

Table Three: Note on Substitutability of Glass Cullet for Silica Sand

The Mineral Planning Group Ltd. representation on behalf of the Barlavington Estate includes the

following:

"18. If the site is not allocated and consequently refused planning permission, it would result in the effective sterilisation of a proven high quality

silica sand resource suitable for contributing to the UK indigenous supply for many years. A lack of supply of glass and in the UK can only result

in either increasing imports of silica sand (to the detriment of the national balance of payments) and / or the cessation of some glass

manufacture in the UK and its relocation abroad. These scenarios are significant future possible outcomes for the UK silica sand industry and the

UK glass manufacturing industry weigh in favour of the Horncroft site being site-specifically allocated for future extraction."

It goes on to claim that:

"20. The demand for many of the end uses of specialist silica sand cannot be met in other ways. Sodium silicate manufacture requires specific

high quality sand and there is no known alternative constituent possible in the process. The use of recycled glass is at levels, which current are

not likely to be increased for technical reasons of batch composition and suitable supply. There is a low level of recycling of sheet (flat) glass for

practical reasons of recovering glass from buildings etc."

The question posed by the representations is twofold:

1. is there any technical limitation to the substitutability of recycled glass for virgin silica sand

in glass manufacturing applications in general?

2. if that is indeed the case as claimed, would failure to allocate the site result in imports increasing and ultimately supply being so constrained

as to threaten the survival of the UK glass manufacturing industry.

This paper addresses Question 1.

Glass Manufacturing

In 2012, more than 3 million tonnes of glass were manufactured in the UK1. More than 90 percent of all glass produced is soda-lime glass. The basic composition of the produced glass comprises approximately 72 percent silica (from sand)2, 13 percent sodium

oxide (from soda ash), 11 percent calcium oxide (from limestone), and about 4 percent of minor ingredients 3 being used for the manufacture of flat glass, most containers, electric light bulbs and many other industrial and art objects.

294

According to the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) soda ash comprises over half, by value, of the raw materials used to manufacture container glass. The extraction and production of soda ash is an energy-intensive process and hence has been

prone to sharp price rises in the region of £180/tonne. In contrast to this high silica sand prices, the largest component by volume, of virgin container glass, were reported to be around £20 per tonne, while lower silica sand prices are around £11 per tonne. WRAP reports that industry contacts indicate silica sand prices have remained relatively stable in recent years as have limestone and

dolomite at around £15-£20 per tonne for limestone from domestic quarrying and £35-£45 per tonne for dolomite, typically supplied from overseas sources.

Use of Cullet Glass cullet4 is considered to be the only alternative raw material to silica sand in glass manufacture. The supply of cullet available is ultimately

limited by the quantity of glass that has been produced in modern times5. Glass is produced for different purposes so can have different

chemical composition

and so there may be limits to interchangeability. The principal types of glass produced, recycled content and indicated technical limits are shown

in

Table 2 below.

296

It should be noted that a considerable amount of cullet is being imported from the Republic of Ireland to UK glass manufacturing plants and new

capacity has recently been built by Ardagh (UK Glass container manufacturers) so the likelihood of glass manufacturing relocating from the UK

due to shortage of silica sand supply (as suggested by MPG) is very low.

Limits to Recycling

The production of clear glass product - particularly for flat glass (and container applications) - has a particularly rigorous quality requirement.

The ability to substitute cullet for silica sand is reportedly subject to some technical constraints. This is confirmed by the DCLG BGS Silica Sand

Mineral Planning Factsheet September 2009 which advises that:"

"Glass manufacturers are principally concerned with the chemical composition of silica sands, and particularly iron, chromite, and other

refractory mineral contents. Quality requirements depend on the types of glass being manufactured (principally whether it is colourless or

coloured) and to some extent on the requirements of the individual glass manufacturer. … it is the overall composition of the glass batch that is

important and lower levels of iron in one component may be offset by higher levels in another. For example the general lower quality (i.e. higher

iron) of colourless glass cullet has to be balanced by lower iron contents in the colourless glass sand."

It also goes on to state that "Total permitted reserves of silica sand include a wide range of different qualities, many of which are not

interchangeable in use. For example, the figure for colourless glass sand includes material suitable for both container glass and flat glass

manufacture, however, the two uses have very different quality requirements, and a higher iron sand cannot be tolerated in container glass."

Recycling Potential Currently, only about a quarter of the estimated 670,000 to 770,000 tonnes of waste glass generated annually from

construction/demolition/refurbishment projects is returned for melting; the majority is destined for use as aggregate. To allow closed-loop

recycling, keeping the glass free from contamination is the greatest concern and this is even more critical in flat glass manufacture as a small

amount of foreign material contamination can result in the rejection of a large pane of finished glass on quality or safety grounds. In order to

prevent contamination, waste window glass would need to be handled separately which, given the relatively low value of cullet, is not normally

cost effective. British Glass considers that 50% recycled content might be a realistic limit in the manufacture of flat glass, which would represent

a 100% increase on current rates of cullet utilisation in this application. It is reported that the ability to substitute is primarily limited in practical

terms by cullet supply of the desired quality. Flat glass manufacturers source flat glass cullet from fabricators, such as the automobile industry

and double glazing manufacturers as well as specialist recycling plants dealing with end of life vehicle windscreens. The UK Glass

Decarbonisation Roadmap 2050 identifies increasing recycled content of glass as a key route towards decarbonisation of manufacture given that

substituting 1 tonne of recycled glass (cullet) for raw materials saves 322 kWh energy, 246 kg CO2 and 1.2 tonnes virgin raw materials. On that

basis it looks to develop a long term strategy to increase closed-loop glass recycling in the UK.

297

Discussion with British Glass indicates that the key constraint is the marginal cost benefit of using cullet over the cost of developing

infrastructure to achieve a step change in retrieval of cullet at a quality suitable for substitution. They do however anticipate some improvement

on the current 25% rate of flat glass cullet use for glass making. WRAP reported in 2008 that glass industry contacts indicate that the price of

processed, furnace-ready cullet is set relative to the virgin material batch price, with a 3-5 per cent discount which reflects the contamination

risk. However, the energy saving offered by cullet over virgin materials, due to its lower melt temperature, was calculated to be worth about £6

per tonne in 2008. In addition, the associated emission reductions have been valued to be between £5-£6 per tonne based on carbon prices of

around £18 per tonne in the EU emissions trading scheme.

Conclusion

While there may be technical limits to substitution of silica sand with glass cullet in glass manufacture, the current levels of cullet use are a

considerable way off these limits. That is to say, there is considerable room for improvement in substitution rates. The recycling of container

glass is in part driven by legislation requiring the recycling of packaging waste, however, in the absence of any specific regulatory driver

requiring the use of waste flat glass in glass production the primary driver will be market demand. That in turn will be influenced by the

comparative price of virgin material and so it might be argued that were silica sand supply to be constrained, that would drive the price up which

in turn would make retrieval of greater quantities of cullet to quality suitable for remelt more economic, and result in an associated carbon

saving benefit.

1 UK Glass Manufacturing Sector Decarbonisation Roadmap to 2050 British Glass March 2014 2 Clear glass production requires sand with higher silica content than that required to produce green or amber glass according to WRAP. 3 UK Glass Manufacture 2008 A Mass Balance Study 4 “Cullet’ is recycled, broken or waste glass 5 Continuous plate glass production was introduced in 1925 and was revolutionised in 1959 with the introduction of the float glass process that resulted in a considerable increase in output. 6 DCLG BGS Silica Sand Mineral Planning factsheet September 2009 based on Silica & Moulding Sands Association survey in 2007 7 Realising the value of recovered glass: An update WRAP Market Situation Report – September 2008. 8 Realising the value of recovered glass: An update WRAP Market Situation Report – September 2008. 9 Source: WRAP, Collection of flat glass for use in flat glass manufacture (2008). 10 Realising the value of recovered glass: An update WRAP Market Situation Report – September 2008. 11 pers comm Jenni Richards British Glass 12 As a general rule, every 10 % increase in cullet usage results in an energy savings of 2 – 3 % in the melting process. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Manufacture of Glass JRC 2013 13 This view is borne out by Glass Collection & Re-processing Options Appraisal in Scotland Zero Waste Scotland Aug 2012 which reports that the major glass manufacturer - OI - reported it is getting closer to the tipping point at which the value of using cullet is being questioned. This is particularly the case when sand raw material costs remain low at £20/t.

Summary of Publication Representations and Responses from ...

Documents

Transcript of Summary of Publication Representations and Responses from ...