(If Applicable) Chapterpol Ic Ypar

districts, a with local amenity, in should first seek as a population part of the extraction is eople eople per hectare, are. It is projected ncrease 16% by to mity to settlements the impacts. impacts and then, if this is not minerals sector in Somerset… possible, should identify options for mitigation of Paragraph Paragraph 1.5 West Somerset ia the most sparsely populated of the None population density of less than 0.5 people per hect that theby 2030,year Somerset's i population will 608,500 Mendip, the district of mostSomerset mineralwhere location covers approximately 74,000 hectares and h of 73,944. Mendip has a population density of 1.5 p reflecting the rural nature of this district Paragraph 19.4 Mineral development can have significant impacts on mineral particularresource where is in close proxi and must therefore be carefully managed. Proposals to avoid adverse environmental Building Building stones are an important resource and a key economic None PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE MINERALS PLAN MINERALS THE TO MODIFICATION PROPOSED None None None None None. rits, and as such ement section, under osed wording reflectsosed wording that claimed or new, claimed or new, ve additional adverse nd, with averagend, with population sufficient quantities are ontext may help to clarify of 530, 200 is not a 0m is not comparable to the off also site need to would be is acknowledged thatis acknowledged the inerals sector - these small e e England average. This tone for building repair. If t is not possible to detail exact the in mainthe towns area. the county as it also includes t may prejudice other mineral n n must be read soas a whole, ansported into the county, and ithin the context quoted, and industries are very different, as Page Page 1 of 70 Disagree. A balance needs to be struck and the prop positive use can be made of this material providing retained on site for restoration. Also note the Pla It is considered that this paragraph still stands w Somerset is one of the most rural counties in Engla density of 1.5 people per hectare less than half th figure takes in all of Mendip includingas a whole, amendText to place population density figures in c this area - Paragraph 1.5 Disagree. Shows sourcesDisagree. Shows of building stone can be re depending on circumstances In context, building stones are a key part of the m scale quarries provide a local specific source of s these sites don't operate, have stone towill be tr matchit wouldn't in a geological sense, and may ha impacts from additional transport etc. it However, here could be improved. wording Noted PROPOSED LPA RESPONSE LPA PROPOSED sectors listed in para 1.9, but the scale of these are their potential markets. recognising that due to commercial sensitivities, i numbers. Additionally, the population figure quoted reflection of the numberindividuals of working in 0-18 and over 65 age ranges. It is correct that £16 (for example) the impacts of transporting material taken into account Each planning proposal must be judged me on its own inserting thisis notproposed viable;wording as i proposals in the area from different parties Noted Noted. Noise is in thedealt Developmentwith Manag Protecting Local Amenity. agricultural tracks is of considerable economic importance in Somerset population in the East Mendips the establishment quarries of new above reclamation if there is a demonstrable need for the mineral" regarding regarding minerals sector - unsubstantiated statement. about peat working SUMMARY OF SUMMARY MAINOF ISSUES RAISED working of unworked permissions of unworked working sites above new unconventional oil and gas development should not be permitted during the plan period from "other industries uses" to "other quiet afteruses" TESTS OF SOUNDESS CHALLENGED (YES/NO)

PARA.

POLICY 7 7.38 N Not in favour of using stone for 1 1.12 N Case not made that minerals industry 6 6.42 N on Suggeststhe density wording of 7 7.35 N Suggests delete sentence "it favours 7 7.1 N Suggests deletion of wording 7 SMP5 7.21 N Suggests additional text to support the

CHAPTER 8 N of Copy letter sent to Planning Control 9 SMP7 9.6 N Objects to fracking and states that 10 10.4 N about Suggests afteruses rewording Somer Friends Valley of the Earth REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION (IF ORGANISATION APPLICABLE) Somer Friends Valley of the Earth Somer Friends Valley of the Earth Somer Friends Valley of the Earth Somer Friends Valley of the Earth Somer Friends Valley of the Earth Somer Friends Valley of the Earth Somer Friends Valley of the Earth Dixon CONTACT CONTACT NAME Dixon Sweet Dixon Dixon Dixon Dixon Dixon Dixon

REP ID

RESPONDENT NUMBER 6.2 R6.2/14 Richard 6.2 R6.2/1 Richard 1 R1/1 Mervyn 6.2 R6.2/10 Richard 6.2 R6.2/15 Richard 6.2 R6.2/13 Richard 6.2 R6.2/11 Richard 6.2 R6.2/12 Richard 6.2 R6.2/16 Richard 6.2 R6.2/17 Richard Somer Valley Friends of 10 10.8 N Seeking statement on financial This is addressed in Chapter 18, Restoration and Aftercare, particularly None. Dixon the Earth guarantees to cover restoration at Torr paragraphs 18.11 and 18.12 - this deals with the financial implications of the and Whatley Quarries reclamation scheme; and also makes it clear that financial bonds or other provisions may be required in certain circumstances.

6.2 R6.2/18 Richard Somer Valley Friends of 18 18.17, N Suggests add tick for aggregates to Relates to restoration policy Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites Dixon the Earth Table 7 Row 9 must:" Check-boxes deleted.

6.2 R6.2/2 Richard Somer Valley Friends of 3 3.7 N Challenges assertion that building Building stones are a key part of the minerals sector - these small scale Building stone is an important resource and a key part of the Dixon the Earth stone is a key part of the economic quarries provide a local specific source of stone for building repair. If these economic minerals sector in Somerset… minerals sector in Somerset sites don't operate, stone will have to be transported into the county, and it wouldn't match in a geological sense, and may have additional adverse impacts from additional transport etc. However, it is acknowledged that the wording here could be improved.

6.2 R6.2/3 Richard Somer Valley Friends of 3 3.10 N Suggests rewording to recognise the This wording does not preclude the re-opening of an existing quarry, but will be Para 3.10 Dixon the Earth role of existing unworked quarries clarified to make this clearer. clarify what information is required if potential applicants wish to propose a new building stone quarry, including re-opening of existing inactive or dormant building stone sites

6.2 R6.2/4 Richard Somer Valley Friends of 11 SMP9 Y Safeguarding maps/plans not high Appreciate that maps that encompass entire county are difficult to display in a p136 Dixon the Earth enough quality maximum A3 format. Amend text to signpost larger (A1) version available on website or on request. Larger format maps are available from www.somerset.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste or available on request from the Planning Policy team.

6.2 R6.2/5 Richard Somer Valley Friends of 4 4.2 N Suggests rewording to acknowledge The SMP needs to read as whole, and as part of the development plan. This None Dixon the Earth the role of central government in development plan document is the Somerset interpretation of national supply of aggregates legislation, and needs to project Somerset context. This current Government very strongely advocates localism, and as such a mention of central government is contrary to this. 6.2 R6.2/6 Richard Somer Valley Friends of 6 6.3 N Challenges the objectivity that Disgaree. Reference can be added to verify this statement The Carboniferous Limestone deposit in the Mendips Hills is a Dixon the Earth Carboniferous Limestone deposit in nationally and locally important aggregate resource (see map 3).16 the Mendip Hills is a nationally and locally important aggregate resource Insert NEW footnote: 16 British Geological Survey mineral resource information in support of national regional and local planning: Somerset, 2005

6.2 R6.2/7 Richard Somer Valley Friends of 6 6.15 N Suggests wording on the impact of the It is considered that this paragraph still stands within the context quoted, and None Dixon the Earth aggregate levy recognising that due to commercial sensitivities, and an ever changing assessment of the secondary aggregate market (in turn influenced by a great many external factors), it is difficult to obtain a full picture. It is likely that over the Plan Period, this figure will vary widely, and as such is included in annual monitoring. The SMP does not influence the pricing of aggregates, or the amount and type of aggregate levy, and it is inappropriate for the Plan to comment on this.

6.2 R6.2/8 Richard Somer Valley Friends of 6 6.33 N States that distance to market is Minerals can only be worked where they occur, so there will nearly always be a None Dixon the Earth irrelevant in the context of a free transport element involved in mineral extraction. It is appropriate to make market reference to this, and also to evolution of working practices - given the length of the Plan period.

6.2 R6.2/9 Richard Somer Valley Friends of 6 SMP2 6.39 N Suggests Somerset adopt 10 year Maintaining a 15 year landbank is felt appropriate taking on board the None Dixon the Earth supply provision rather than 15 years significance of Somerset as a supplier of crushed rock. Relevant monitoring will be undertaken annually through the Local Aggregate Assessment.

8.1 R8.1/1 Dave Pring Environment Agency Gener N Satisfied with the Plan as it relates to Noted None al the EA's interests

Page 2 of 70 8.1 R8.1/2 Dave Pring Environment Agency 8 N Suggest inclusion of advisory text Propose revised wording - in chapter 16 relating to the protection of water 16.5 It is vital that the County Council as Mineral Planning Authority within the plan, detailing the resources works closely with the Environment Agency on a range of issues. All requirement for any peat extraction applicants proposing development that has the potential to affect any approvals to be subject to, inter alia, water resource should consult with the Environment Agency and also agreed water quality monitoring and refer to the policies ensure that the proposal satisfies current mitigation related conditions environmental standards and support the achievement of within the Water Framework Directive targets.

NEW PARA: 16.6 In the context of peat workings, the MPA may apply appropriate water quality monitoring and mitigation related conditions to quantify the extent to which de-watering operations from peat workings contribute to identified problems, and the means by which the issue may be addressed.

9.4 R9.4/1 Ross English Heritage Gener N There is much to commend the Noted None Simmonds al document. English Heritage has commented on previous versions and note that these comments have helped to influence the content

9.4 R9.4/2 Ross English Heritage 7 SMP5 Y Suggests reference to "acceptable Disagree: The NPPF does not contain the phrase "no harm". The respondent None Simmonds levels [of] adverse impact" is not appears to be misdirecting themselves. consistent with national policy, which advocates no harm. States that it is In various forms the NPPF does however, refer to " harm or loss ” of a heritage not helpful to quantify harm asset. For example, paragraph 132 the NPPF states: "As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or los s should require clear and convincing justification"”(bold my emphasis).

Also paragraph 133 which states that: "Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply.(bold my emphasis)

The NPPF is more consistent with the uses the phrase "unacceptable adverse impacts ". For example: Para 143 of NPPF clearly states that in preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should...6th bullet point "set out environmental criteria, in line with the policies in this Framework, against which planning applications will be assessed so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment…”(bold my emphasis) The use of the phrase unacceptable adverse impacts is also repeated within the NPPF in paragraph 144 3rd bullet point which states:" ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment” (bold my emphasis)

The need to amend the MLP as suggested by English Heritage is not accepted.

9.4 R9.4/3 Ross English Heritage 8 N Supports the view that no new further Noted None Simmonds permitted extraction should take place

9.4 R9.4/4 Ross English Heritage 8 N English Heritage notes the "Somerset Noted None Simmonds question" as an interesting debate, rather than national policy

Page 3 of 70 9.4 R9.4/5 Ross English Heritage 15 DM3 Y Suggests reference to "unacceptable" Disagree: The NPPF does not contain the phrase "no harm". The respondent None Simmonds in criteria (a) is not consistent with appears to be misdirecting themselves. national policy, which advocates no harm. States that it is not helpful to In various forms the NPPF does however, refer to " harm or loss ” of a heritage quantify harm asset. For example, paragraph 132 the NPPF states: "As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or los s should require clear and convincing justification"”(bold my emphasis).

The need to amend the MLP as suggested by English Heritage is not accepted.

9.4 R9.4/6 Ross English Heritage 9 and N Support reference to Bath World Noted None Simmonds 1 Heritage Site, along with the precautionary approach to mineral extraction "below the water table", as well as the implication of "oil and gas development"

9.4 R9.4/7 Ross English Heritage 16 DM5 Y Suggests reference to "unacceptable Disagree: The NPPF does not contain the phrase "no harm". The respondent None Simmonds adverse impacts" is not consistent with appears to be misdirecting themselves. national policy, which advocates no harm. States that it is not helpful to In various forms the NPPF does however, refer to " harm or loss ” of a heritage quantify harm. Suggests splitting the asset. For example, paragraph 132 the NPPF states: "As heritage assets are policy into two parts - if there is harm irreplaceable, any harm or los s should require clear and convincing go to the second part of the policy justification"”(bold my emphasis).

The need to amend the MLP as suggested by English Heritage is not accepted.

Page 4 of 70 9.4 R9.4/8 Ross English Heritage 9 SMP7 Y Suggests reference to "unacceptable Disagree: The NPPF does not contain the phrase "no harm". The respondent None Simmonds adverse impacts" should be amended appears to be misdirecting themselves. to no harm. In various forms the NPPF does however, refer to " harm or loss ” of a heritage asset. For example, paragraph 132 the NPPF states: "As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or los s should require clear and convincing justification"”(bold my emphasis).

The need to amend the MLP as suggested by English Heritage is not accepted.

9.4 R9.4/9 Ross English Heritage Appen N Welcome the terms defining the Noted None Simmonds dices historic environment in the glossary

12 R12/1 Richard RSPB Gener N Outlines main interests of this Noted None Archer al respondent and the approach taken in the response

12 R12/2 Richard RSPB Gener Y Summarises fundamental reservations Noted - more detailed responses given to subsequent more detailed points None Archer al and about the Plan, in particular the peat HRA chapter and the associated Habitat Regulations Assessment

12 R12/3 Richard RSPB 8 N States that it is important to recognise Noted – policy SMP6 clearly states that this is in relation to the granting of None. Archer that any proposed time extension on planning permission. an existing peat site would require a new planning permission

Page 5 of 70 12 R12/4 Richard RSPB N Objection to Inspector and SoS Noted None. Archer comments to Chat Moss case

12 R12/5 Richard RSPB N RSPB deduce that SoS/Inspector SCC officers cannot find any evidence to support this conclusion. None Archer means extraction for the purpose of selling commercial peat

12 R12/6 Richard RSPB N disagree with the Chat Moss Noted None Archer Inspector’s ‘common sense’ interpretation that site extensions should only relate to physical extensions in the NPPF

12 R12/7 Richard RSPB N We note the statements in the peat Agreed. Quote should be of paragraph 930 of the Inspector’s Report: "Each 8.15 The NPPF does not explicitly cover the issue of time extensions to Archer chapter at paras 8.15 and 8.16, which case needs to be considered on its merits taking account to any arguments as existing peat sites, and so the Council takes direction from the recent we believe are erroneously attributed to need for the peat and having regard to the impact on climate change and appeal against the planning application to extend the period of peat to the Chat Moss Inspector. biodiversity from continued extraction." extraction at Chat Moss Peat Works (see text box), where the Inspector stated that: “In referring to “new or extended sites” [the] draft Framework is not referring to applications for permission for extension of time for working sites that have become time expired”. : "Each case needs to be considered on its merits taking account to any arguments as to need for the peat and having regard to the impact on climate change and biodiversity from continued extraction."

8.16 The Inspector clarifies this further in paragraphs 929 – 930 123- 124, stating that: “If there was intended to be a blanket ban on the granting of further planning permission for peat the draft Framework would simply state that “no planning permission for peat extraction should be granted.” It does not state this, and it does not state this for a reason. That reason is that Government recognises that there is insufficient indigenous supply of peat to meet residual demand to 2030… if it is established that there will be insufficient indigenous supply to meet residual need to 2030, the granting of planning permission in the present appeals will accord with policy and the draft Framework.” “the common sense interpretation of the Framework must be that it relates to physically new sites or to physical extensions of existing sites. It is quiet on whether any new planning permissions can be granted for peat extraction.”

12 R12/8 Richard RSPB N Government has yet to fully clarify the Noted. SCC will consider new guidance as it emerges. None Archer position of the NPPF regarding potential time extensions on existing peat sites.

12 R12/9 Richard RSPB N Peat sales figures Noted. None Archer 12 R12/10 Richard RSPB 8 N Peat sales figures Noted None Archer

Page 6 of 70 12 R12/11 Richard RSPB 8 Y Lack of clarity from the government The testing of NPPF policy through the Chat Moss planning application and None Archer regarding time extensions subsequent appeal provides further clarity, as it sets a precedent for the interpretation of this national policy. This council agrees with the Inspector that: “the common sense interpretation of the Framework must be that it relates to physically new sites or to physical extensions of existing sites”; and that it is not referring to time extensions.

The peat policy has been amended significantly, to be clear that the exceptions policy, and the circumstances in which planning permission may be granted (to demonstrate a significant net environmental benefit). In addition, a separate process will continue for reg 63 sites. This is a provision under Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

Part of the validation checklist at planning application stage, will be a requirement for an environmental assessment – where the applicant would need to clearly demonstrate and evidence net ecological gain.

12 R12/12 Richard RSPB 8 Y The Somerset Question - MP should Paragraph 8.10 of the Plan makes reference to the consideration, by the None Archer conclude that Somerset has no special Sustainable Growing Media Task Force, of the ‘Somerset question’. The issue case of the Somerset question is quoted to provide context to the complex issues surrounding peat extraction in Somerset. The Plan does not intend to make any conclusions about the Somerset question, which is being considered at the national level, but mentions it to ensure a balanced view is maintained.

12 R12/13 Richard RSPB 8 8.19 N Stocks already exceed requirements Noted None Archer

12 R12/14 Richard RSPB 8 8.19 N Time extentions will not be granted on Noted None Archer the basis of need

12 R12/15 Richard RSPB 8 N lack of data from industry - important Disagree. In the absence of data from the peat industry, SCC has undertaken None Archer that the principle of time extensions is detailed research on peat reserves, as evidenced in the Topic Paper 3: Peat. not adopted in the Plan (see above), pending clarity by government The SPPA was consulted on the Topic Paper, and did not have any comment on this research or its conclusions. Verbal discussion with Ben Malin indicated that the SPPA were broadly satisfied with SCC’s estimate of permitted reserves. Notes from the peat workshop on 19/06/13 stated that: "Initial indications suggest that SPPA are SCC in broad agreement about peat reserves "

12 R12/16 Richard RSPB 8 Y lack of independently-verifiable data Disagree. In the absence of data from industry, Chapter 7 of Topic Paper 3, None Archer from the MPA, and seek clarification outlines comparison between different independent data sources, in order to from you as to why your authority does reach a conclusion about peat sales – ie, ONS “Minerals Extracted in Great not seek to access annual sales data Britain, Business Monitor PA 1007”; and data from the Mineral Valuations from the British Geological Society’s Office. annual yearbook minerals report, or via tax returns through HM Revenues & Customs.

12 R12/17 Richard RSPB 8 8.14- N RSPB commitment to restoration Noted None Archer 8.23

12 R12/18 Richard RSPB 8 8.14- N RSPB recognise and share the desire Noted None Archer 8.23 to see better restoration and afteruse conditions on ‘legacy sites’, ie. those sites where restoration and afteruse conditions drawn up at the time of planning consent are now inadequate.

Page 7 of 70 12 R12/19 Richard RSPB 8 8.22 Y OBJECT to the proposal at para 8.22 NPPF is clear about physical extensions. There does however, need to be 8.22 Granting such a modification may warrant a small additional area Archer that it may be possible to allow a flexibility to allow for specific scenarios, particularly as described by the of working being permitted (ie a spatial extension to an existing site) ‘small additional area’ to be worked as Somerset Drainage Board Consortium, who stated that: "We know of several or a limited time extension to an existing permission… part of a net-gain environmental peat sites where restoration is incomplete or inadequate and reworking the site package. It is absolutely clear from the is required to reduce flood risk or maintain the integrity of the land drainage NPPF that no permission should be network. This could be included alongside nature conservation as a reason for given for extensions to existing sites; granting new permissions. We would therefore request that SMP7 includes the phrase “… contributes to flood risk and water level management, biodiversity and the ecological network, with no net increase in peat reserves.” SCC proposes to remove explicit reference to spatial extensions, however, to ensure that this isn't a generally accepted approach. The phrasing does, however, need to ensure that there will be the flexibility should water management issues arise.

12 R12/20 Richard RSPB 8 8.21 Y We do not agree that there are any Noted. RSPB concludes that the SoS is referring to extraction for the purposes None Archer ‘exceptional circumstances’ when of selling peat – SCC officers cannot find any evidence to support this grant ‘planning permission for peat conclusion. extraction on an existing site’

12 R12/21 Richard RSPB 8 SMP6 Y Read on its own, it is not clear that This policy should be read in the context of the supporting text. 8.22 Granting such a modification may warrant a small additional area Archer SMP6 only refers to possible time of working being permitted (ie a spatial extension to an existing site) extensions and not to spatial or a limited time extension to an existing permission… extensions of existing sites

12 R12/22 Richard RSPB 8 SMP6 Y Objection to managing water levels a) – noted Planning permission for peat extraction will only be granted to Archer and flooding through restoration b) Agree – the wording should be set out so explain that any proposal would facilitate reclamation of previously worked sites, in which a significant relate specifically to either: managing water levels and enhancing biodiversity net environmental benefit can be demonstrated. Such proposals must: and local ecological networks; or enhancing biodiversity and local ecological a) relate specifically to managing water levels and/or enhancing networks. There is no scope as the policy stands for a proposal on the grounds maintain and enhance biodiversity and local ecological networks; and of water management in isolation. This wording could be improved. b) only remove peat that is physically required to implement that c) Water management on the Somerset Levels and Moors is a significant issue reclamation. – as evidenced by the flooding in the first part of this year. And flooding in 2013! Drainage Board mention several peat sites they know of where restoration is incomplete or inadequate and reworking the site is required to reduce flood risk or maintain the integrity of the land drainage network. d) This policy is intended to support ROMP processes - the circumstances in which planning permission may be granted (to demonstrate a significant net environmental benefit). In addition, a separate process will continue for reg 63 sites. This is a provision under Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. e) Noted. f) Noted.

Text in red responds to feedback on proposed changes via Habitat Regulations Assessment

12 R12/23 Richard RSPB 8 8.23 N Object to paragraph regarding carbon Disagree. The role of the Minerals Plan is to set policy for the future – it is None Archer impacts of current permissions unable to withdraw historical permissions granted under previous planning policy regimes.

12 R12/24 Richard RSPB 10 10.17 N Support for afteruse as nature Noted None Archer conservation

12 R12/25 Richard RSPB 10 10.17 Y Object to objective of flood and water Disagree. This paragraph does not identify water or flood management as a Due to the sensitive nature of peat sites and their surrounding Archer management; also would like to see primary objective, but this is clearly a significant issue for consideration for the environment, the main after-use for those sites will be nature zonation map Somerset Levels and Moors (particularly evidenced by the flooding in the first conservation. Approval for proposals for the restoration, aftercare and part of this year) and SCC officers maintain that this issue should remain. This after-use of former peat workings will be given to those schemes is supported by the Somerset Internal Drainage Board. which will deliver a significant net environmental benefit, relating specifically to managing water levels and/or enhancing enhance With regards to the final sentence of para 10.17, it is a requirement for the Plan biodiversity and local ecological networks. Such schemes may to offer flexibility, should national policy and guidance change. This paragraph additionally include managing water levels. Other after-uses must does not aim to prescribe the uses, but simply the boundaries within which any demonstrate that they do not conflict with this approach schemes would be considered. SCC officers feel that this paragraph offers the right balance in promoting enhancing biodiversity and ecological networks above all else.

Page 8 of 70 12 R12/26 Richard RSPB 18 18.14 Y should recognise specifically the This should be read in conjunction with Table 7. and also policy DM2 – the Plan None Archer potential impacts of other afteruses on being read as a whole designated wetland sites, especially the SPA/Ramsar site and SSSIs, not just ‘the local environment’

12 R12/27 Richard RSPB 8 8.29- Y Concerns re capacity of SCC re reg 63 Government Policy on the Reg 63 process makes it clear that the None. Archer 8.33 sites compensatory pathway is but one of a number of ways of dealing with permissions that threaten European Sites (indeed modification/revocation is clearly a method of last resort to be pursued only when all other options have been exhausted). There is no intention to delay matters “indefinitely” since there is a clear legal obligation on SCC to act in a timely fashion. If land or time swaps affect land that is vital to the functioning of the SPA then this should be picked up during appropriate assessment of the application and will not be proceeded with.

12 R12/28 Richard RSPB 8 Y Object to the Plan's perceived lack of SCC would not want to pre-judge the outcomes of the Reg 63 process, and None. Archer site definition on the delivery of believe it is necessary to remain flexible with regards to this process. strategic locations 12 R12/29 Richard RSPB 10 SMP8 Y Objects to a lack of an ‘afteruse The Plan does not identify geographical zones for restoration. The approach is None. Archer zonation map to focus first and foremost on restoration for nature conservation, and as such, zoning is not seen as necessary. Any restoration scheme would be considered with respect to Table 7: Reclamation Checklist, which is clear about the need to regard biodiversity and conservation targets and objectives.

Any schemes for other uses will need to demonstrate that they do not conflict with this approach. In addition, this is not a requirement of national policy.

12 R12/30 Richard RSPB 8 8.36 N lack of accurate and up to date We agree that accurate and up-to-date information from the peat industry is None Archer information from the peat industry on imperative. We continue to encourage the peat industry to submit data on permitted reserves volume and sales.

However, we are reassured by the amount of time spent on looking at peat reserves, leading to a Topic Paper that has broad support on peat reserves.

12 R12/31 Richard RSPB HRA Y A range of comments on the HRA SCC note the concerns that have been expressed. Surveys of peat areas NEW PARA 8.6. It is important to note that wintering and migratory Archer outside of the designated sites were carried out in 2010 for birds and in 2011 bird species cited on the SPA / Ramsar designations also make use for aquatic invertebrates. As many of policies within the MLP are not site or of areas outside the designated site boundaries. These areas time specific it is not possible to confidently assess the impacts at this level of ecologically support the integrity of the SPA / Ramsar. Surveys for plan making and it more appropriately dealt with at the project level when more outside the SPA / Ramsar indicate the use is made by wintering birds, focussed and up to date surveys can be undertaken. Agreed. A paragraph will particularly lapwing and wigeon, of all peat areas (insert reference to be added to the HRA to emphasise this and summarise the findings of the report). Similarly surveys for aquatic invertebrates cited on the 2010 and 2011 surveys. The ‘Ecological Zones of Influence’ illustrated in the Ramsar designation make use of Godney Moor, Glastonbury Heath HRA also used invertebrate data in the definition of the Somerset Levels and and Common Moor (insert reference to report). The location of these Moors Ramsar. areas based on criteria set out in the Habitats Regulations Assessment is shown in Map 6 in Appendix B. [NB: renumber SCC welcome the support given to the findings of the HRA. The RSPB appear subsequent paragraphs] to have similar concerns to NE. To this end, the need to amend paragraph 6.22 in the Habitats Regulations Assessment is already acknowledged. Natural 8.34 Where proposals for peat extraction potentially affects an England state in their response that they are satisfied with the assessment of international or a European site for nature conservation, either within the HRA on the issue and go on to state, ‘However, it should be noted that any the designated site or in areas that ecologically supports it integrity, a proposals brought forward will need to consider likely significant effects in test of likely significance under the provisions of the Habitat relation to the SPA and Ramsar site, including the Ecological Zone of Influence Regulations will need to be carried out as described in policy DM2. as identified in Appendix 2 of the HRA.’

The MLP should add text to this effect within the peat section. The policy states that proposals gives and /or to biodiversity considerations and would recommend that the criteria for water levels and biodiversity are separated so that the biodiversity must be enhanced by proposals not ‘and/or’ as currently proposed. Guidance on HRA (Tyldesley et al, 2012) allows for assessment at lower tier levels where there is uncertainty but policy must include the test criteria. Recommend that additional text is added on requirement for ‘test of likely significant effect’ both within and in the Ecological Zone of Influence (including reference to appropriate map) and that the applicant needs to supply all necessary data to enable for this to be carried out.

Page 9 of 70 12 R12/32 Richard RSPB 14 Y We are very concerned that your The species led Habitat Evaluation Procedure, as set out in the Somerset 14.8 The County Council supports the use of biodiversity offsetting Archer authority proposes to use its own Offsetting Methodology, and which we consider a tool for calculating the value using the methodology developed by Somerset County Council. offsetting methodology as the sole of habitat loss to a species is more scientifically based than current subjective Biodiversity offsetting is a method for calculating its species led basis for assessing and implementing methods, has now been used successfully in over 20 plans and projects, both Habitat Evaluation Procedure which is set out in its Biodiversity offsetting measures for any time within the HRA process and for other applications in Somerset and is under Offsetting Methodology (Reference website). The method calculates extensions or ‘environmental benefits’ consideration for national adoption by Defra in a project run by the Centre for the value of habitat lost… to existing peat permissions, or for that Ecology and Hydrology (CEH). The RSPB supported a joint report of the matter, other non-peat mineral meeting on species in offsetting, which included consideration of the method 14.9 The value of habitat loss to species populations will be calculated schemes in the county (paras 14.8 & used in Somerset, produced by CEH. However, we acknowledged the need for using the Habitat Evaluation Procedure ensuring the Government’s 14.9 and table 7 ‘Reclamation further amendments to paragraph(s) 14.8 to 14.10 would help to clarify our target of not net loss, and gain where possible. Account is also given Checklist’). In particular, it is clearly approach to such matters. spatially to the location of any off site replacement habitat to ensure not acceptable under The that the affected populations are maintained, and then preferably in a Conservation of Habitats and Species location that enhances Somerset’s ecological networks. Regulations 2010 for your authority to seek to apply offsetting metrics to 14.10 Offsetting is not a means for legitimising all developments. The qualifying features within a European Somerset methodology includes criteria where development would be or Ramsar site, nor we suggest, is this unacceptable such for habitats within European and international appropriate to apply to existing peat sites, ancient woodland and other priority habitats (reference s41 sites outside the SPA or Ramsar site NERC Act) and for habitats that supports the maintenance of species which may be used by SPA/Ramsar populations that cannot be mitigated. Forward planning is considered species or their assemblages. We feel essential in order that more sensitive areas are avoided in the first obliged therefore to strongly OBJECT instance, and then minimises and mitigates impacts effectively before to the use of your offsetting “offsetting” (or habitat replacement) is even considered. Developers methodology in the Plan are recommended to seek advice from the County Council at an early stage. As knowledge of species ecology and ecological continues to evolve, it is appropriate that up to date information be used to inform decision making. Documents such as Somerset's Priority Species List provide one source of information that will be used to avoid the accidental loss of species that are not given formal or statutory protection. The Somerset Priority Species List can be found on the following website: www.somerc.com/downloads/

12 R12/33 Richard RSPB Gener Y We believe the Plan in its current form We agree that this is a time of significant change for peat policy. Greater clarity None. Archer al fails the test set out in para 2.4, to regarding the future of peat extraction will come from the national level, and we (Plan) provide a clear picture of the future await with interest. Meanwhile we believe the Plan provides a strong steer on a and give greater certainty about peat complex topic. extraction.

12 R12/34 Richard RSPB 8 N Refer to RSPB's joint response with Noted None. Archer the Somerset Wildlife Trust to Guy Robinson, dated 5 December 2013

12 R12/35 Richard RSPB 4 N We SUPPORT the draft Vision. Noted None. Archer

12 R12/36 Richard RSPB 4 N We SUPPORT Objective D Noted None. Archer

12 R12/37 Richard RSPB 4 N We SUPPORT Objective H Noted None. Archer

12 R12/38 Richard RSPB 5 5.2 Y Paragraph 5.2 is inadequate in that it Paragraph 5.2 is a statement of fact. This is expanded in para 5.3 None Archer fails to identify internationally important nature conservation sites as well as nationally important ones.

12 R12/39 Richard RSPB 6 SMP3 6.56 & Y States that all planned reserves within Disagree. The MPA is not in a position to second guess what industry might None Archer 6.58 the plan period should be identified and/or need to propose throughout the plan period. Somerset has a significant now, and there should be no need for landbank for crushed rock, but it must maintain a positive policy framework further expansion within the Plan regarding future development, not least to ensure steady and adequate supply. period. The lack of certainty in this According to the NPPG, “ There is no maximum landbank level and each regard undermines the Plan and the application for minerals extraction must be considered on its own merits HRA with regard to potential impacts regardless of the length of the landbank. However, where a landbank is below on SAC habitats and critical SAC the minimum level this may be seen as a strong indicator of urgent need .” species Referring to the Development Plan as a whole will provide the coverage being sought.

Page 10 of 70 12 R12/40 Richard RSPB 9 SMP7 Y Object to current wording within the It is important to consider the Plan as a whole – policy DM2 covers this issue None Archer text and to policy SMP7 on the and is referred to in paragraph 9.24 of the Plan. Policy DM2 has been further grounds that it does not reflect the clarified in response to other representations. strongest commitment to the protection of designated SPA/Ramsar Also, as stated in para 14.2, European legislation, transposed into national sites policy and guidance, the NPPF and other statutory requirements ensure that European and National designations give appropriate protection to these sites.

Furthermore it is noted that environmental impacts will be considered as part of the EIA screening process. According to the NPPG, "an Environmental Impact Assessment is therefore required if the project is likely to have significant environmental effects… ”

13 R13/1 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 14 N Strong support for the approach to Noted None Osbourn ecological networks in the Plan

13 R13/10 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 5 N Welcomes the strong theme of Noted None Osbourn sustainability running through the Plan and is particularly pleased that recognition of the importance of biodiversity, ecological networks and ecosystem impacts has been valued in the context of supporting sustainability

13 R13/11 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 6 SMP1 N Supports SMP1 Noted None Osbourn 13 R13/12 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 6 6.55 N Suggests alternative wording for Agreed – clarify wording as suggested Coherence in the ecological network relates to connectivity: a Osbourn footnote mentioned in para 6.55 coherent ecological network features sufficient habitat linkages to enable different species to move between core areas of habitat, so that they do not become isolated and hence vulnerable to extinction. Resilience concerns the maintenance of these networks into the future. Coherence is that the ecological network allows species to move between relevant habitats and so that they do not become isolated and hence vulnerable to extinction. Resilience concerns the maintenance of these networks into the foreseeable future.

Page 11 of 70 13 R13/13 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 6 6.55 N Seeks clarity on biodiversity offsetting Agreed that wording can be clarified 14.8 The County Council supports the use of biodiversity offsetting Osbourn using the methodology developed by Somerset County Council. Biodiversity offsetting is a method for calculating its species led Habitat Evaluation Procedure which is set out in its Biodiversity Offsetting Methodology (Reference website). The method calculates the value of habitat lost…

14.9 The value of habitat loss to species populations will be calculated using the Habitat Evaluation Procedure ensuring the Government’s target of not net loss, and gain where possible. Account is also given spatially to the location of any off site replacement habitat to ensure that the affected populations are maintained, and then preferably in a location that enhances Somerset’s ecological networks.

14.10 Offsetting is not a means for legitimising all developments. The Somerset methodology includes criteria where development would be unacceptable such for habitats within European and international sites, ancient woodland and other priority habitats (reference s41 NERC Act) and for habitats that supports the maintenance of species populations that cannot be mitigated. Forward planning is considered essential in order that more sensitive areas are avoided in the first instance, and then minimises and mitigates impacts effectively before “offsetting” (or habitat replacement) is even considered. Developers are recommended to seek advice from the County Council at an early stage. As knowledge of species ecology and ecological continues to evolve, it is appropriate that up to date information be used to inform decision making. Documents such as Somerset's Priority Species List provide one source of information that will be used to avoid the accidental loss of species that are not given formal or statutory protection. The Somerset Priority Species List can be found on the following website: www.somerc.com/downloads/

13 R13/14 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 8 SMP6 Y SWT objects to Policy SMP6: Peat on The approach taken is considered to be compliant with the NPPF. It takes into None Osbourn a number of grounds, and wishes to consideration legal cases in regard to Chat Moss, support for restoration in the see the policy removed and replaced NPPF and also adopted Minerals Plan policy – specifically it is noted that with an unequivocal commitment not Greater Manchester’s Mineral Plan adopted April 2014 includes a peat policy to grant permission for further peat that is similar in its approach i.e. “Planning permission for peat extraction will extraction on any grounds, which SWT only be granted where: 1. The site has been previously worked for peat; and 2. considers is the only local policy The removal of peat is physically required to facilitate restoration and only peat response that would be in line with the physically required to implement that restoration is removed; and 3. The site is Government’s position and national to be restored to lowland raised bog; ” Quoting from the Inspector’s Report on policy on peat extraction. the Manchester Plan [bold formatting adding for emphasis by SCC] “ I note the submissions about possible increases to climate change and the shift of demand to overseas peat deposits should the policy remain as drafted, but my concern is the soundness of Plan and I conclude that current Policy 6 is justified, conforms with national policy and so it is sound .” [It is noted that Policy 6 in the submitted Minerals Plan for Greater Manchester is the peat policy referred to above.]

Page 12 of 70 13 R13/15 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 8 SMP6 Y Objects to SMP6 on the grounds that Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states what is required in preparing Local Plans. None Osbourn national policy on peat permissions Regarding peat, it is noted that: “ local planning authorities… should not identify has not been apporpriately interpreted new sites or extensions to existing sites for peat extraction ”. The Somerset and followed Minerals Plan is entirely compliant with this matter. Furthermore, in a bid not to encourage peat production, SCC has not carried forward the “Peat Production Zones” that existed within the Minerals Local Plan adopted 2004; and not safeguarded peat resources.

Also it is noted that NPPF paragraph 143 states that “ local planning authorities should… put in place policies to ensure worked land is reclaimed at the earliest possible opportunity, taking account of aviation safety, and that high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites takes place… ” Again SMP6 complies with this approach.

The comments in this representation conflict with legal rulings – in particular Chat Moss – and thus are considered to be more subjective.

In terms of the market for peat-free alternatives, this is not a subject which Somerset County Council has any remit. However, the switch to peat-free alternatives is clearly reliant on the provision of good quality alternatives.

The Somerset Minerals Plan is considered to align with the Government direction of travel in providing very clear steer away from peat extraction. Only in exceptional circumstances might peat extraction be permitted. The County Council's approach aligns with government guidance in the Birds and Habitats Directive (Outline Government Position (1998) - which remains extant .

The logic that this representation applies to the Chat Moss decisions applies the stakeholder’s own perspective on this issue. It is acknowledged in the representation that “Our interpretation of this is that…” reflecting the personal nature of the view expressed. Again, this shows that it would be contradictory for Somerset County Council to take an approach that is a clear no in all 13 R13/16 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 8 SMP6 Y Objects on the grounds that SMP6 Thecircumstances. opening part of this objection acknowledges SCC’s position and appears to None Osbourn undermines existing mechanisms in recognise that land swaps and time extensions on other permissions in return the ROMP process and section 63 of for early cessation of working are valid ways of removing threats to designated the Habitat Regulations for preventing (European) Sites. Furthermore, SWT appear to acknowledge that these options harm to Natura 2000 sites should be looked at before modification or revocation which they identify (correctly in my opinion) as methods of last resort. The argument with regards to peat permissions hinges therefore on interpretation of Government policy which SWT believe is that no new permissions whatsoever should be granted in any circumstances. So the comment is in fact a repeat of the prior representation.

Future plans for Reg 63 work are subject to the availability of resources. Whilst the Minerals Plan can set an overall framework for considering this matter, and enable such discussions to comply with local policy, it is impossible for SCC to be prescriptive in the Minerals Plan about this work.

13 R13/17 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 9 SMP7 Y Object to current wording within the It is important to consider the Plan as a whole – policy DM2 covers this issue None Osbourn text and to policy SMP7 on the and is referred to in paragraph 9.24 of the Plan. Policy DM2 has been further grounds that it does not reflect the clarified in response to other representations. strongest commitment to the protection of designated SPA/Ramsar Also, as stated in para 14.2, European legislation, transposed into national sites policy and guidance, the NPPF and other statutory requirements ensure that European and National designations give appropriate protection to these sites.

It is noted that according to National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014), guidance on the law affecting European sites and Sites of Specific Scientific Interest is being prepared by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and will replace the advice previously set out in Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. Furthermore it is noted that environmental impacts will be considered as part of the EIA screening process. According to the NPPG, " an Environmental Impact Assessment is therefore required if the project is likely to have significant environmental effects… ”

Page 13 of 70 13 R13/18 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 10 N SWT welcomes and supports the Noted None Osbourn inclusion of ecological networks as a key factor

13 R13/19 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 10 N Suggested change to subheading in SCC Officers have sought a meeting with SWT to discuss the Topic Paper. None at this time, but changes can be incorporated in any update of Osbourn reclamation topic paper Although we have not yet had a response, we would still welcome this the Topic Paper opportunity

13 R13/2 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 14 N SWT supports the use of the Noted None Osbourn quantitative habitat evaluation protocol in the form of Somerset's biodiversity offetting metric and methodology

13 R13/20 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 10 N SWT suggest a reworking of page 62 Disgaree. The text box is factual and does not state that the Nature after None Osbourn of the Plan to better contextualise Minerals programme is embedded in the Plan's approach. Nature After Minerals in relation to ecological networks

13 R13/21 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 10 10.16 Y SWT objects to paragraph 10.16 Disgaree - this is covered by SCC's response to peat-focused objections from None Osbourn linked with its comments on peat this representor

13 R13/22 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 10 10.17 Y Objects to the wording in paragraph Disagree. This paragraph does not identify water or flood management as a Due to the sensitive nature of peat sites and their surrounding Osbourn 10.17 - in particular the pneultimate primary objective, but this is clearly a significant issue for consideration for the environment, the main after-use for those sites will be nature sentence. Somerset Levels and Moors (particularly evidenced by the flooding in the first conservation. Approval for proposals for the restoration, aftercare and part of this year) and SCC officers maintain that this issue should remain. This after-use of former peat workings will be given to those schemes is supported by the Somerset Internal Drainage Board. which will deliver a significant net environmental benefit, relating specifically to managing water levels and/or enhancing enhance With regards to the final sentence of para 10.17, it is a requirement for the Plan biodiversity and local ecological networks. Such schemes may to offer flexibility, should national policy and guidance change. This paragraph additionally include managing water levels. Other after-uses must does not aim to prescribe the uses, but simply the boundaries within which any demonstrate that they do not conflict with this approach schemes would be considered. SCC officers feel that this paragraph offers the right balance in promoting enhancing biodiversity and ecological networks above all else.

13 R13/23 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 10 N SWT remains concerned that SCC has The Minerals Plan gives a renewed focus on reclamation of peat sites None Osbourn not previously proactively sought restoration for peat workings.

13 R13/24 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 14 DM2 N General support for policy DM2 Noted None Osbourn 13 R13/25 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 14 N Strong support for the approach to Noted None Osbourn ecological networks in the Plan

13 R13/26 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 14 N Support the species-led biodiversity Noted None Osbourn metric and methodology developed by SCC

Page 14 of 70 13 R13/27 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 14 14.8 & N Raises concern that offsetting is not a Agreed that wording should be clarified 14.8 The County Council supports the use of biodiversity offsetting Osbourn 14.9 means of ligitmising all developments. using the methodology developed by Somerset County Council. Recommends additional clarity in Biodiversity offsetting is a method for calculating its species led wording Habitat Evaluation Procedure which is set out in its Biodiversity Offsetting Methodology (Reference website). The method calculates the value of habitat lost…

13 R13/28 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 14 14.10 N Seeks clarification in paragraph 14.10 Agreed that wording should be clarified 14.8 The County Council supports the use of biodiversity offsetting Osbourn using the methodology developed by Somerset County Council. Biodiversity offsetting is a method for calculating its species led Habitat Evaluation Procedure which is set out in its Biodiversity Offsetting Methodology (Reference website). The method calculates the value of habitat lost…

13 R13/29 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 14 before N States that the box on biodiversity and Agreed this text box can be deleted Delete text box Osbourn 14.12 minerals development on p79 seems redundant

Page 15 of 70 13 R13/3 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 9 SMP7 Y Object to policy SMP7 as we do not The Plan must be read as a whole - in particular DM 2 provides protection for None Osbourn consider it currently offers sufficient the county's ecological assets protection to Somerset' ecological assets

13 R13/30 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 18 DM7 N Supports DM7 Noted None Osbourn 13 R13/4 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 8 SMP6 Y Further, there is a key aspect of the The detail of the objection is considered later in SWT’s representations, so the None Osbourn plan which we consider unsound and MPA will respond to the later representations. That said, it is noteworthy that object to: policy SMP6. Our concerns this paragraph in SWT’s response implies that SWT has taken a consistent regarding issues around peat position on peat in objecting to SCC’s response. In reality the position is more extraction were detailed in our nuanced than that. SWT’s response to SCC’s Preferred Options consultation response to the Peat Issues Paper question on its draft “peat production” policy reads as follows: (December 2009), and we subsequently raised our concerns “SWT does not support the extraction of peat, and in our response to the about emerging peat policy with the previous Options consultation explained why this is the case, and these authority in a joint letter with the RSPB comments and concerns still stand. We also highlighted the need for in December 2012; subsequent Regulation 63 RoMPs to be undertaken, and are pleased that this work has consultation between our organisation now commenced. SWT wants to work with peat extractors, local businesses, and national peat specialists have our local authorities and other stakeholders towards local solutions to the cemented these concerns, and we ecological restoration of peat workings in Somerset, and the RoMP process is once again reiterate them in this a key step towards this. Whilst we strongly oppose any new areas of peat response. workings being permitted, we can envisage circumstances where a considered small time extension to peat extraction on existing permitted sites outside of the Natura 2000 network could be allowed if it meant the revocation and early restoration of other sites within the Natura 2000 or local ecological network, which would not necessarily come about through a formal RoMP. Such a “swap” might enable peat producers to relinquish extraction permissions at ecologically significant sites in exchange for improving the economic viability of another of their existing permitted sites. However, such an option should only be exercised where the limitations around compensation for voluntary revocation through the RoMP process (which is set by Defra, we understand) render the compensation offer economically unattractive to the peat producer; whilst we recognise that the Minerals Authority has the powers under the Habitats Regulations 2010 to impose revocation of permissions on Natura 2000 sites where those operations are affecting the integrity of the designated site and its features, the cases where this can legally be applied may not be widespread, and therefore a mechanism to achieve voluntary revocation on sites which still have potential to be restored to a peat-based habitat could be desirable. Therefore we can appreciate the motivations behind writing a policy 13 R13/5 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust Forew N Support for the Foreword Noted None Osbourn ord

13 R13/6 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 1 N Mention should be made under the Agreeed Add paragraph on the LNP - new 1.16 Osbourn "Environmental characteristics" section of Somerset's Local Nature Partnership

13 R13/7 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 2 N For consistency, should't the Topic Agreed. Amend title of Annex to Topic Paper 5, to read Reclamation (instead Osbourn Paper 5 Annex be called of Restoration) "Reclamation" rather than Restoration?

13 R13/8 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 4 N Supports the vision Noted None Osbourn

13 R13/9 Michelle Somerset Wildlife Trust 4 N Supports Objectives D, E and H Noted None Osbourn

14 R14/1 Ben Malin 3 3.11- N Welcomes the analysis in paragraphs These comments are noted. The Key Issues section of the Minerals Plan offer None. 3.13 3.11 to 3.13 and adds a number of only a snapshot of the issues faced by the Minerals Plan, rather than the detail points which cover (summarise) other covered in the peat chapter 8. It should be noted that paragraph 8.26 in the points contained in the response Plan states that if a Government review of peat policy scheduled for 2015 results in a significant change in national policy approach or direction for peat production, SCC will undertake an early focused review of the Plan.

Page 16 of 70 14 R14/10 Ben Malin 8 8.14- N SPPA also questions the linear model The SPPA have acknowledged and supported the work done to establish a None 8.19 used and more detail is provided as reasonable estimate of peat reserves in Somerset. SCC has asked for data this approach is not consistent with from SPPA on numerous occasions without a meaningful, detailed response. DEFRA modelling. The SPPA is ready Thus SCC has established the position based on primary research and to engage further on both of these secondary data available. issues and suggest a further meeting to discuss the discrepancies in the data

14 R14/11 Ben Malin 8 8.14- N The SPPA therefore proposes a Noted None 8.19 constructive dialogue to reach agreement over use and residual demand for peat based on the voluntary phase out targets

14 R14/12 Ben Malin 8 8.14- N The question of availability to The spread of permitted reserves is not considered relevant to the issue of None 8.19 individual companies rather than the compliance with national policy on peat industry as a whole has also been inadequately addressed as uneven availability could give rise to significant imports

14 R14/13 Ben Malin 8 8.14- N An equally important point is that the The policy allows for consideration of time extensions of existing sites under None 8.19 analysis takes no account of the exceptional, specified circumstances potential loss of existing permitted reserves if end dates cannot be extended or through modification or revocation of permissions within the SPA

14 R14/14 Ben Malin 8 8.14- N There is also no consideration of the No comment None 8.19 availability of suitable existing peat reserves for use in professional horticulture or the impact of importing peat for that purpose

14 R14/15 Ben Malin 8 8.14- N Finally, the current conclusion of Plan It is considered that safeguarding of peat reserves would be contrary to None 8.19 is likely to the sterilisation of reserves government policy and thus is not supported by the Minerals Plan in Somerset from already damaged sites, only to be replaced by imported peat from less responsible sources with significantly greater transport and carbon impacts. Such an approach is counterproductive and leads to perverse outcomes

14 R14/16 Ben Malin 8 8.20- N To include a policy for future peat Delete heading. Whilst there is a theme of reclamation running through these Delete heading. Revise wording to para 8.26: "… Minerals Plan. This 8.26 extraction and a welcome commitment paragraphs, it is not essential for the paragraphs to be headed “reclamation will follow relevant guidance from the Planning Inspectorate (add to a review mechanism under the footnote to: heading 'Reclamation' is inappropriate http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/local_plans/discrete_p and unacceptable. These topics olicy_review_guidance.pdf) . should properly be dealt with under the previous heading

Page 17 of 70 14 R14/17 Ben Malin 8 8.20- N Whilst the commitment to including the It is not considered “presumptive in the extreme” to refer to “the latest national None 8.26 impact of carbon emissions in any policy and guidance on this issue and/or the most recent research available” as analysis is welcome, the Plan cannot the Minerals Plan does. rely on SCC research which has not been agreed with the Task Force (now the Growing Media Panel). It is presumptive in the extreme to assume that SCC research can be considered valid without peer review, where the Task Force concluded this topic too complex to reach reliable conclusions (see below). Consideration of the carbon impact in Somerset must also take account of the carbon emissions resulting from the import of peat if locally harvested peat is not available. The SPPA proposes detailed dialogue on this issue to reach an agreed position with SCC.

14 R14/18 Ben Malin 8 SMP6 N The SPPA position with respect to Noted. This appears to be a comment on the general position, rather than a No change Policy SMP6 is that: 1. This policy comment for or against the proposed policy, not least because the policy does must not preclude extensions of time allow for exceptional criteria where such a time extension might be granted for existing peat extraction planning permissions as to do so would be contrary to the NPPF. Instead, where such proposals are made careful consideration needs to be given to each case, looking in particular at the consequences for climate change and biodiversity

14 R14/19 Ben Malin 8 SMP6 N The SPPA position with respect to There appears to be a degree of internal conflict here between comments 2 None Policy SMP6 is that: 2. This policy and 3, with the former referring to restoration schemes – in a way that must not preclude amendments to the potentially would be compliant with the proposed policy – and the latter then working of existing sites which arguing against that as being sufficient reason. involves minor increases in the extractable peat reserve, such as the removal of unworked reserves to facilitate improved boundary protection or integrated restoration. Such minor benefits are often the only incentive for operators to consider integrated restoration schemes of the type that SCC wishes to promote (see below). 3. To permit only the removal of peat physically required for restoration works prevents small additional volumes of peat from being removed which finance or create an incentive for enhanced conservation outcomes to larger scale areas.

14 R14/2 Ben Malin 8 8.4 N Notes that green compost is denser Agreed wording change. Amend para 8.4 than sedge peat.

14 R14/20 Ben Malin 8 SMP6 N See R14/19 See R14/19 See R14/19

Page 18 of 70 14 R14/21 Ben Malin 8 SMP6 N The SPPA position with respect to The proposed wording is not considered to be compliant with national policy in None Policy SMP6 is that: 4. This policy that the proposed alternative wording could be said to be a positively worded should provide for new permissions to policy that encourages peat production if there’s a demand for it. This is be granted only where it can be considered to be entirely contrary to the direction of national policy. demonstrated that: • There is a Furthermore the policy in effect implies that the applicant would be trying to continued demand for peat; • If that coerce the MPA into granting permission otherwise it will import peat from peat is not supplied from Somerset it elsewhere. That is not considered to be tenable position. If the wording on the will be imported; • The carbon potential for importation is not intended to apply to the applicant, then the emission, ecological and transport applicant would be powerless to influence that issue. The carbon comparison impacts of supplying that demand from implies there is a deliverable tool at this time to assess this matter, which the Somerset is far less than from using SPPA state elsewhere is not the case. imported peat; • Local bio-diversity gain can be secured; • The proposal is compliant with development control policies

14 R14/22 Ben Malin 8 SMP6 N The policy should include a review The Plan does include a review mechanism in paragraph 8.26. It is not Revise wording to para 8.26: "… Minerals Plan. This will follow mechanism to account for changes in considered appropriate to countenance an interim position that allows for SCC relevant guidance from the Planning Inspectorate (add footnote to: Government policy during the lifetime to informally alter its policy without formally altering its policy. In other words, http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/local_plans/discrete_p of the Minerals Local Plan. Policy must whilst there may be scope for agreeing permission that is contrary to local olicy_review_guidance.pdf) . allow for the possibility that a policy for well articulated, robust reasons, there is no reason to circumvent the responsible sourcing approach will plan-making process demonstrate that sourcing peat from archaic deposits such as those in Somerset is more responsible than importing. In the event that this occurs and Government policy is reviewed this policy must allow new ‘Areas of Search’ to be designated and permissions to be issued without the delay of waiting for the Minerals Local Plan to be revised.

14 R14/23 Ben Malin 8 8.35 N Whilst SCC has no direct control over It is not considered that a sufficiently strong case has been made to deviate None this issue, the potential impact of from government policy, certainly not in terms of the default position taken by increased peat imports can be Somerset County Council. mitigated by monitoring peat use and allowing the release of additional local peat reserves where appropriate. Reduced transport impact could form part of the justification for granting future peat extraction planning permissions where it can be demonstrated that local peat would reduce the need to import peat to the area for processing. Whilst at present this would be a departure from current Government policy that may not always be the case. There may also be instances where a departure from Government policy is justified owing to local factors.

14 R14/24 Ben Malin 8 8.36 N This statement shows a fundamental Suggest delete the final sentence of paragraph 8.36. The first two sentences 8.36 Peat reserves and imports can only be monitored accurately with misunderstanding of peat harvesting are statements of fact. The final statement is potentially subjective and hence the support of the industry. Peat imports nationally have made up and the way that the industry operates. could be deleted. around 68% 54 of peat used in England/UK according to the most recently available statistics. This is despite there being a plentiful supply of national peat.

Page 19 of 70 14 R14/25 Ben Malin 8 8.37 N The SPPA recognises the potential The preference of the SPPA is in effect to promote further peat extraction and None impact of peat imports on local that is considered contrary to government policy communities and on carbon emissions. The preference of the SPPA is to minimise imports and to maximise the proportion of local peat to meet the demand for that peat which is required in future. At present neither the NPPF nor the ‘Pre- Submission Minerals Local Plan’ paper supports this approach. The Minerals Local Plan must include a degree of flexibility, however, as Government policy is not necessarily fixed for all time and could be amended as the ‘responsible sourcing’ approach is adopted

14 R14/26 Ben Malin 8 8.38 N This is misleading in the extreme and It is considered an over-statement to say that this paragraph is misleading in 8.38. Several of the peat factory sites have a planning status that an error that must be corrected. Most the extreme. However, it is recognised that this paragraph could be clarified allows them to operate independently of any peat extraction if not all existing processing facilities in further with a minor amendment. permission. The future use of these sites will not is unlikely to be Somerset have no restriction limiting under the control of the County Council, unless… that facility to the use of Somerset peat. SCC cannot prevent the import of either peat or non-peat substrates for processing at those facilities and the Somerset Minerals Plan should explicitly recognise that fact at the outset. To fail to do so will inevitably lead to bad plan making

14 R14/27 Ben Malin 8 8.39 N Paragraph 2.39 is a more accurate Noted [it is assumed that this refers to 8.38 and 8.39 rather than 2.38 and 2.39] None appraisal of the situation and appears to contradict paragraph 2.38

14 R14/28 Ben Malin 8 8.40 N Whilst relocation appears unlikely, the It is not for the Minerals Plan to include a policy dedicated to the future use of None planning system can encourage land which – as the SPPA adamantly points out – is outside the MPA control rationalisation by supporting economically more attractive uses for factory sites. Without active encouragement of appropriate and viable alternative uses by the planning system, however, it is likely that the remaining processing facilities will remain in industrial use. A paragraph is insufficient and a specific policy is required to support this objective

Page 20 of 70 14 R14/29 Ben Malin 8 8.41 N It is important to be clear what can be ROMPs need to be considered with reference to the Development Plan. SCC None achieved under the ROMP process will undertake ROMPs in accordance with legislation. without giving rise to a liability for compensation owing to an adverse impact on working rights or asset value. So far as the SPPA is aware, no local peat extraction planning permission includes vehicle movement limits and any attempt to impose limits through the ROMP process would inevitably be resisted. If the intention of the limits were to attempt to sterilise reserves, such an approach would inevitably impact on working rights and give rise to a liability for compensation on the part of SCC. The Minerals Local Plan cannot include a policy that will give rise to a liability for compensation if it is adhered to with respect to ROMP applications.

14 R14/3 Ben Malin 8 8.4 N Comment on future prospects for the Paragraph 8.4 focuses on the potential for mixing Somerset sedge peat with None professional horitcultural market other products. No change.

14 R14/30 Ben Malin 8 8.41 N There is also the need to over-harvest Noted; however, it is not considered that a sufficiently strong case has been None during good years in order to retain made to change the proposed wording in this paragraph. stocks to cover very poor years such as 2012. It would be nonsensical have windrows of dried local peat on the ground which could not be hauled owing to planning restrictions whilst, at the same time importing peat to the local area to meet demand. To do so would exacerbate traffic problems rather than solve them, and do nothing to reduce peat use

14 R14/31 Ben Malin 8 8.41 N This approach is also ill considered as This point is somewhat unclear. But it should be noted that paragraph 8.41 is None it attempts to deal with aggregate peat not policy in itself, simply it highlights there is an issue here which SCC will demand on an individual site by site consider this with respect to relevant policies in the Development Plan basis. This policy therefore has the potential to restrict availability of Somerset peat and increase imports, whilst at the same time delaying the completion of working and restoration. This would lead to increased transport movements associated with imported peat and unnecessary pumping and disturbance within local extraction sites

14 R14/32 Ben Malin 18 N The SPPA is broadly supportive of the Noted None proposed approach, which is not overprescriptive, and focuses on appropriate locations for different types of afteruse and allows case by case analysis rather than a zoning approach

Page 21 of 70 14 R14/33 Ben Malin 18 N It should be noted, however, that It is considered reasonable for the County Council to have an approach that None planning legislation permits restoration considers nature conservation as the major after-use and all other proposals to three types of after-use: amenity, must not be in conflict with this approach agriculture or forestry. All peat sites should be restored to amenity after- use, but the detail is a matter for discussion. In many instances uses that promote nature conservation will be appropriate, but as set out in the Pre-Submission Plan that does not preclude other appropriate uses

14 R14/34 Ben Malin 8 N Range of comments about carbon Noted, but it would be premature to make any change to the Minerals Plan at None assessment linked with peat extraction this time, acknowledging the current position. It is not considered that the Minerals Plan should prejudge any form of hierarchy of peat sources that favours one source above another for any reason. This would be contrary to government policy.

14 R14/4 Ben Malin 8 8.7- N States a range of points regarding In summary it is considered that this section of the Minerals Plan does take None 8.13 national policy direction account of many of the points made by SPPA, in so far as those points can be considered by the Minerals Plan at this time. Paragraph 8.8 does acknowledge that the phase-out targets are voluntary. The work of the Growing Media Task Force is acknowledged in this section of the Plan. This section also refers to the Government response to the Task Force report. Hopefully SPPA welcomes the Plan’s inclusion of this reference to the Task Force and its Report. As acknowledged in this representation, the Responsible Sourcing project has yet to publish its report, so the results of this project cannot be considered at this time. The section is considered to give a reasonable summary of the national policy direction, which is its intention.

14 R14/5 Ben Malin 8 After N Makes a number of points about the It is acknowledged that the position is complex, in that the brevity of the None 8.13 Chat Moss precedent NPPF’s coverage of peat does not equate to clarity on the issue. The question raised of whether or not a growing media producer has an alternative mothballed source of peat does not impact on the national policy position. Acknowledging national policy is what it is, locally it is important for the market to deliver viable alternatives – and that is not a job for the Minerals Plan.

14 R14/6 Ben Malin 8 8.14- N States that the Minerals Plan must be Paragraph 8.26 in the Plan states that if a Government review of peat policy None 8.19 flexible to deal with the developing scheduled for 2015 results in a significant change in national policy approach position or direction for peat production, SCC will undertake an early focused review of the Plan. It is for central government to consider the results of the responsible sourcing scheme and then revise government policy if appropriate.

14 R14/7 Ben Malin 8 8.14- N Supports the view that applications for Noted None 8.19 extensions of time should first be considered in the context of whether there is sufficient local supply to meet residual demand

14 R14/8 Ben Malin 8 8.14- Y Disputes that there is sufficient supply The SPPA have acknowledged and supported the work done to establish a None 8.19 to meet residual demand and that, as reasonable estimate of peat reserves in Somerset. SCC has asked for data a result, time extensions will not be from SPPA on numerous occasions without a meaningful, detailed response. granted based on the need for peat. Thus SCC has established the position based on primary research and Also disputes peat figures on which secondary data available this is based

14 R14/9 Ben Malin 8 8.14- Y SPPA also disputes the assertions Calculations take into account the volume of saleable peat, as explained in None 8.19 made about availability of peat until Appendix A in the Peat Topic Paper. 2030 as annual supply is a function of surface area available for harvesting, not total reserve.

Page 22 of 70 15.4 R15.4/1 Zoe Buddle Natural England HRA N Natural England concurs with the Welcome the support given to the findings of the HRA. The need to amend No changes to the Plan, but amend Paragraph 6.22 in the Habitats findings of the HRA. There only paragraph 6.22 of the Habitats Regulations Assessment is acknowledged. The Regulations Assessment. After the word ‘plan’ add ‘and project’ comment is that in Para 6.22 that the Localism Act 2011 resulted in significant change to the plan making system use of the word ‘plan’ in the ‘facts’ (the including the introduction of “lower tier “neighbourhood plans”. Neighbourhood wording of which was actually supplied plans being currently prepared in Somerset by communities such as by NE) as there are no lower tier plans Cannington in theory could contain planning policies that relate to the Minerals related to MLP Local Plan. By referring to both plan and projects would address both eventualities

15.4 R15.4/10 Zoe Buddle Natural England 13 Y Quarrying in the AONB The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the Development Plan in Somerset. Likewise, it is not for the Somerset Mienral highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic Plan to replicate national policy (such as that contained on the NPPF). beauty . Proposals for mineral development within or adjacent to an Paragraph 13.5 points readers towards the relevant paragraph in the NPPF Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will need to take full account of relating to AONB and National Parks) the relevant AONB Management Plan;. and proposals within or adjacent to Exmoor National Park will need to take full account of the The NPPF doesn't mention setting in landscape terms and as a result the Plan Exmoor National Park Local Plan. references the BGS definition for infromation, rather than policy. Paragraph 13.7 clearly states that this is reference material

15.4 R15.4/11 Zoe Buddle Natural England 6 SMP3 Y Policy SMP3 should be strengthened The need to amend and strengthen Policy SMP3 is not accepted. None to explicitly state and afford protection to designated sites. In our opinion the It should be remember that the MLP should be read as a whole. The MLP wording " measures to mitigate to approach to Biodiversity and Geodiversity is set out in detail within Chapter 14 acceptable levels " is too vague and and Policy DM2. not in accordance with the wording in the NPPF, which states (see para 118) As acknowledged in paragraph 14.1 “Somerset is rich in biodiversity, with a that biodiversity should be conserved range of species and habitats that are of international and national importance and enganced Paragraph 14.2 states that the approach taken by the MLP to European legislation, transposed into national policy and guidance, the NPPF and other statutory requirements ensures that European and National designations are given appropriate protection. Furthermore, in line the advice within the NPPF, paragraph 14.6 outlines the expectations that “gains in biodiversity are sought via the planning process”.

15.4 R15.4/12 Zoe Buddle Natural England 14 DM2 Y Advises that DM2 requires Agreed that wording could be clarified b) measures will be taken to mitigate to acceptable levels (or, as a last strengthening. resort, proportionately compensate for) adverse impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity. Such measures shall ensure a net gain in biodiversity where possible. Biodiversity offsetting will be used to calculate the value of a site to species and habitats. The Habitat Evaluation Procedure will be used in calculating the value of a site to species affected by the proposal where the conservation value of the habitat is considered to be replaceable and mitigation techniques have been proven.

The weight of protection afforded to a site that contributes to the county’s biodiversity and/or geodiversity will reflect the significance of that contribution including, but not limited to, the site’s statutory designations(s) or its role in maintaining connectivity and resilience of the local ecological network. given to a site will be that afforded by its statutory or non statutory designation, its sensitivity and function in maintaining the biodiversity of the county, and its role in maintaining the connectivity and resilience of the county’s ecological networks.

Page 23 of 70 15.4 R15.4/13 Zoe Buddle Natural England 14 14.9 N We have concerns regarding the It is disappointing to here that NE have concerns regarding the proposed use of 14.8 The County Council supports the use of biodiversity offsetting proposed use of off-setting in the off-setting given that the calculation method described has been developed using the methodology developed by Somerset County Council. Policy DM2. Whilst policy DM2 does and used operationally since 2009 initially with Natural England advice for use Biodiversity offsetting is a method for calculating its species led not specify the methodology to be in assessing the affects of habitat loss on a SAC horseshoe bat population. Habitat Evaluation Procedure which is set out in its Biodiversity used for offsetting, paragraph 14.9 Offsetting Methodology (Reference website). The method calculates states that ‘Offsets will be calculated The term ‘offset’ was used at the request of Natural England in 2009. This the value of habitat lost… only using the Somerset Biodiversity metric has since developed to that currently used and has been used on 15 Offsetting Methodology developed by HRA both for plan and projects, which have been submitted to and approved 14.9 The value of habitat loss to species populations will be calculated Somerset County Council’. Natural by Natural England, and including nationally for the Hinkley C New Build and using the Habitat Evaluation Procedure ensuring the Government’s England advises that offsetting should regionally for Cheddar Reservoir 2. target of not net loss, and gain where possible. Account is also given not be considered in relation to spatially to the location of any off site replacement habitat to ensure designated sites. Paragraph 14.9 The “Somerset” methodology acts more as a tool for scientifically assessing that the affected populations are maintained, and then preferably in a should be removed and the policy habitat value. To this end the need to avoid the use the term ‘biodiversity location that enhances Somerset’s ecological networks. make it absolutely clear that off-setting offsetting’ and its inferences is acknowledged and the metric has now been will not apply to designated sites. labelled ‘Habitat Evaluation Procedure’. This assesses a development site by a 14.10 Offsetting is not a means for legitimising all developments. The calculated method rather than the current subjective approach and gives more Somerset methodology includes criteria where development would be certainty to the amount of mitigation required both on and if necessary off site. unacceptable such for habitats within European and international sites, ancient woodland and other priority habitats (reference s41 The “Somerset” methodology also works by ensuring developments avoid NERC Act) and for habitats that supports the maintenance of species sensitive sites in the first instance, and then minimise and mitigate impacts populations that cannot be mitigated. Forward planning is considered effectively before “offsetting” (or habitat recreation) is even considered. It is essential in order that more sensitive areas are avoided in the first not applied in all cases and especially where irreplaceable habitat such as instance, and then minimises and mitigates impacts effectively before those that occur on European sites or that supporting species which is “offsetting” (or habitat replacement) is even considered. Developers immitigable. All applications of the metric within the HRA process in Somerset are recommended to seek advice from the County Council at an early have evaluated habitat outside the designated site in areas that ecologically stage. As knowledge of species ecology and ecological continues to support the integrity of a designated site’s features. evolve, it is appropriate that up to date information be used to inform decision making. Documents such as Somerset's Priority Species List Therefore we disagree that it cannot be used in assessing the integrity of provide one source of information that will be used to avoid the designated sites and do not accept the need to remove Paragraph 14.9. accidental loss of species that are not given formal or statutory However, we acknowledged the need for further amendments to paragraph(s) protection. The Somerset Priority Species List can be found on the 14.8 to 14.10 would help to clarify our approach to such matters following website: www.somerc.com/downloads/

15.4 R15.4/14 Zoe Buddle Natural England 14 DM2 Y Queries what is meant by " The weight Agreed that clarification is needed b) measures will be taken to mitigate to acceptable levels (or, as a last of protection afforded to the site …. " resort, proportionately compensate for) adverse impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity. Such measures shall ensure a net gain in biodiversity where possible. Biodiversity offsetting will be used to calculate the value of a site to species and habitats. The Habitat Evaluation Procedure will be used in calculating the value of a site to species affected by the proposal where the conservation value of the habitat is considered to be replaceable and mitigation techniques have been proven.

15.4 R15.4/15 Zoe Buddle Natural England 18 N Restoration checklist Noted Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites must:" Check-boxes deleted.

15.4 R15.4/16 Zoe Buddle Natural England 18 N Restoration checklist Noted Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites must:" Check-boxes deleted.

15.4 R15.4/17 Zoe Buddle Natural England 18 N Restoration checklist Agreed - There seems no reason why oil & gas development of any nature Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites should be excluded from careful conservation of soils particularly Best and must:" Check-boxes deleted. Most Versatile soils. 15.4 R15.4/18 Zoe Buddle Natural England 18 N Restoration checklist Noted Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites must:" Check-boxes deleted.

15.4 R15.4/19 Zoe Buddle Natural England 18 N Restoration checklist Noted Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites must:" Check-boxes deleted.

Page 24 of 70 15.4 R15.4/2 Zoe Buddle Natural England 8 N Peat - general Noted None

15.4 R15.4/20 Zoe Buddle Natural England 18 N Restoration checklist Agree Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites must:" Check-boxes deleted.

15.4 R15.4/21 Zoe Buddle Natural England 18 N Restoration checklist Agree Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites must:" Check-boxes deleted.

15.4 R15.4/22 Zoe Buddle Natural England 18 N Restoration checklist Agree Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites must:" Check-boxes deleted.

15.4 R15.4/23 Zoe Buddle Natural England 18 N Restoration checklist Agree Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites must:" Check-boxes deleted.

15.4 R15.4/24 Zoe Buddle Natural England 18 N Restoration checklist Agree Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites must:" Check-boxes deleted.

15.4 R15.4/3 Zoe Buddle Natural England 8 8.22 Y Concerns re spatial extensions NPPF is clear about physical extensions. There does however, need to be 8.22 Granting such a modification may warrant a small additional area flexibility to allow for specific scenarios, particularly as described by the of working being permitted (ie a spatial extension to an existing site) Somerset Drainage Board Consortium, who stated that: "We know of several or a limited time extension to an existing permission… peat sites where restoration is incomplete or inadequate and reworking the site is required to reduce flood risk or maintain the integrity of the land drainage network. This could be included alongside nature conservation as a reason for granting new permissions. We would therefore request that SMP7 includes the phrase “… contributes to flood risk and water level management, biodiversity and the ecological network, with no net increase in peat reserves.” SCC proposes to remove explicit reference to spatial extensions, however, to ensure that this isn't a generally accepted approach. The phrasing does, however, need to ensure that there will be the flexibility should water management issues arise.

15.4 R15.4/4 Zoe Buddle Natural England 8 N There may be limited scope for time Noted None extensions in relation to reducing the period over which peat is extracted from sites within the Somerset Levels and Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site and facilitating high quality restoration schemes to benefit the European Site and its component Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Our view is limited to a scenario where the duration of peat extraction from an existing peat permission within the European Site may be reduced in exchange for a corresponding increase in the duration of peat extraction from an existing permission outside the European Site, and which is of no functional importance for species notified as qualifying features of the European Site. Such an arrangement would be exceptional

15.4 R15.4/5 Zoe Buddle Natural England 8 N Any proposals brought forward will The Plan should be read as a whole - policy DM2 (biodiversity and Map 6 to be amended to include Ecological Zones of Influence. need to consider likely significant geodiversity) addresses this issue. Agree that it would be helpful for the peat effects in relation to the SPA and map (Map 6) to include Ecological Zones of Influence. Ramsar site

15.4 R15.4/6 Zoe Buddle Natural England 8 N Environmental benefits should protect Noted None and enhance the features of the SPA or Ramsar site and must not conflict with them.

15.4 R15.4/7 Zoe Buddle Natural England 8 SM6 Y that Policy SMP6 could be improved The Plan should be read as a whole - policy DM2 (biodiversity and None. by making a direct reference to the geodiversity) addresses this issue. need to protect the SPA/Ramsar site

Page 25 of 70 15.4 R15.4/8 Zoe Buddle Natural England 4 N Environmental objectives of the Plan - Disgaree - enhancement is covered by Objective D None add "enhance" to Obj H

15.4 R15.4/9 Zoe Buddle Natural England 14 N Environmental objectives of the Plan Ecological networks are a theme throughout the Plan, and work with the New para 14.8. Areas of restoration in the ecological networks will be Somerset Wildlife Trust is included. Wording to be included to reference identified by local wildlife partnerships as part of an on-going process. emerging areas of restoration, and strengthened policy wording Ecological networks will be updated regularly in response to habitat changes resulting from restoration and further data being prepared (renumber subsequent paras)

26 R26/1 Richard Compton Bishop Parish Gener N Introductory comments that highlight Noted. None Parker Council al areas of interest

26 R26/2 Richard Compton Bishop Parish Appen N Notes about Callow and Battscombe Noted. None Parker Council dices Quarries

26 R26/3 Richard Compton Bishop Parish 20 DM9 Y States that local impacts of mineral The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the None Parker Council transportation are give insufficient Development Plan which also takes in District Council determined applications, attention such as those mentioned. The Development Plan provide other protection policies (through, for example DM9 - Minerals Transportation. Impacts such as assessing the load on the road network would be made at application stage by the planning officer, and conditioned as necessary, for example by limiting mineral traffic to the freight network.

26 R26/4 Richard Compton Bishop Parish 13 N States that impact of quarrying at The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the None Parker Council Cheddar render consideration of visual Development Plan which also takes in District Council determined applications, impacts meaningless such as those mentioned. The Development Plan provide other protection policies. Impacts such as visual impacts would be assessed by the planning officer, and conditioned as necessary, perhaps by rolling restoration of areas of the site whcih have been finished working.

26 R26/5 Richard Compton Bishop Parish 13 & N Supports test of likely significance. Noted None Parker Council 14 Also emphasises importance of AONB designation

26 R26/6 Richard Compton Bishop Parish 9 SM7 Y Policy gives insufficient consideration The Plan should be considered as a whole, thus policy SMP7 should be None Parker Council to visual / landscape impact considered in combination with other relevant policies - in particular DM1

27 R27/1 Lorraine Gloucestershire County 6 N Earlier concerns have been Noted None Brooks Council addressed. Support for approach to crushed rock supply

28 R28/1 Vicky Brice Axbridge Town Council Gener N Supports Plan and the flexibility Noted None al embedded therein

28 R28/2 Vicky Brice Axbridge Town Council 8 N The need to promote biodiversity and Noted None land sustainability is a feature throughout the Plan, in particular the peat policy

28 R28/3 Vicky Brice Axbridge Town Council 9 N The SMP considers the local Noted None significance of growing national interest in recent oil and gas developments, including “fracking” and comments that development proposals must be carefully considered with reference to relevant planning policies at all levels.

28 R28/4 Vicky Brice Axbridge Town Council Gener N Acknowledges careful thought that has Noted None al got in to 23 policies following previous consultation/draft. Members are impressed with the presentation and wording

Page 26 of 70 28 R28/5 Vicky Brice Axbridge Town Council 14 N One criticism - the Council would like Monitoring indicator 12 covers biodiversity (p118) None to have seen more specific mention on regular wildlife habitat inspections especially on new projects

29 R29/1 John Salmon Land and Mineral 6 N Highlights that at least one of the Revise wording in paragraph 6.1 to acknowledge this additional market. Aggregates represent an essential part of the economy. They are used Management Ltd, on quarry operators produces high purity extensively in construction, and are critical for the maintenance of behalf of Castle Hill carboniferous limestone - assessed existing infrastructure and new development such as roads, housing, Quarry Company Ltd and certificated by Feed Materials schools and flood defences. Carboniferous Limestone is used to Assurance Scheme. Insufficient produce quality aggregate and high purity mineral powders for use in recognition of importance of Somerset the livestock feedstuffs industry as a supplier of this material, if necessary through the extension of Castle Hill or Cannington Park quarries

34 R34/1 David Asham and East Mendip Gener N Population figures for the East and Population figures provided exclude the principle towns of Mendip, while None. Rawlins Group al West Mendip areas, and recognising that these are not rural areas, Somerset County Council must corresponding population densities for consider the whole of Mendip and so needs to work from a population figure these areas. which includes these towns.

34 R34/10 David Asham and East Mendip 5 SD1 N Proposes alternative wording to policy This policy text is required in its entirely by central Government for inclusion in None Rawlins Group SD1 all Local Plans, regardless of their subject matter. Changes to this wording may mean that the Plan would be found unsound at Examination in Public stage.

34 R34/11 David Asham and East Mendip Gener N Data on population supplied Noted None Rawlins Group al 34 R34/2 David Asham and East Mendip 4 N The vision and Plan Objectives are The Plan seeks to protect local communities in Somerset via a number of None Rawlins Group listed as protecting the quality of life policies - the Development Management policies (1-9) are all in place to protect for local communities and history. This local amenity, environment and communities. the plan fails to do.

34 R34/3 David Asham and East Mendip 5 N Policy SD1 presumes quarrying will This policy text (SD1) is required in its entirely by central Government for None Rawlins Group continue and the Council will work inclusion in all Local Plans, regardless of their subject matter. Changes to this proactively with local communities. It wording may mean that the Plan would be found unsound at Examination in has not done so in the past – it does Public stage. Somerset County Council undertakes a monitoring regime not even independently monitor associated with mineral sites, and also carried out ad hoc monitoring and blasting etc. recording of blast levels, should an issue be indicated. Quarries monitor their own blasting, and these blast records are available for inspection by the County Council.

34 R34/4 David Asham and East Mendip 6 6.51 N The proposed Mineral Plan is in Noted None Rawlins Group conflict with the County Council Plan – paragraph 6.51. It should be remembered that very few people living in the Eastern Mendip are now employed in the quarry industry.

34 R34/5 David Asham and East Mendip 4 N Highlights impacts of quarrying on the Noted None Rawlins Group natural and historic environment

34 R34/6 David Asham and East Mendip 4 N Highlights that local communities have Noted None Rawlins Group been ignored and suffer from both extraction and transporation. Also that they are rarely employed by the quarry industry

34 R34/7 David Asham and East Mendip 4 N As R34/5 Noted None Rawlins Group

Page 27 of 70 34 R34/8 David Asham and East Mendip 5 N Proposes revised wording for policy Somerset County Council has limited scope for amending this policy to align None Rawlins Group SD1 with guidance from central government. Furthermore, it is noted that Somerset County Council has a duty from central Government, through the Managed Aggregate Supply System to provide a proportion of national aggregate supply. This plan provides protection for local communities, and the environment, whilst recognising that minerals will continue to be extracted in the county.

The underpinning concept behind the Managed Aggregate Supply System is that Mineral Planning Authorities which have adequate resources of aggregates make an appropriate contribution to national as well as local supply, while making due allowance for the need to reduce environmental damage to an acceptable level. Furthermore, Government expects resource-poor areas to make some contribution to meeting local and national needs, where that can be done sustainably.

34 R34/9 David Asham and East Mendip 6 SMP3 N Objects to wording of policy SMP3, It is noted that Somerset County Council has a duty from central Government, None Rawlins Group focused in particular on the East through the Managed Aggregate Supply System to provide a proportion of Mendips national aggregate supply. This plan provides protection for local communities, and the environment, whilst recognising that minerals will continue to be extracted in the county.

Cumulative impacts are considered via processes such as Environmental Impact Assessment, and also the application of production limits as covered elsewhere in the Plan. The Plan must be read as a whole

36.3 R36.3/1 Becky Collier Campaign to Protect 9 N We would like to stress our concerns As detailed in the 'Regulation overview' text box within chapter 9, the MPA None Rural England about any future proposals for must assume that the other regulatory bodies involved in any energy minerals hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" in the application operate as intended. Mendip Hills and environs. We wonder what test of competance the Environment Agency would apply to applicants , whether it has the necessary manpower, resources, expertise and experience of fracking and how the MPA would intend to draw up the necessary conditions

36.3 R36.3/2 Becky Collier Campaign to Protect 9 N The geological structure of the Noted. Changes have been proposed to provide greater clarity about the 9.30 Noting the geological complexity of some areas of Somerset, the Rural England Mendips Hills is too complicated, and complexity of the underlying geological structure, and chapter 16 focuses on application must demonstrate that drilling at the proposed location will the extent and depth of its cave the protection of water resources and flood risk. not generate adverse impacts on the integrity of the underlying system not fully understood or geological structure. As necessary, Somerset County Council will seek mapped, to allow fracking in this area Text in red responds to feedback on proposed changes via Habitat Regulations expert advice (for example, from the British Geological Survey (BGS)) without the risk of irretrievable Assessment to verify that all geological data bearing on the application has been environmental damage. In particular, considered and that sufficient data are available to make an informed the complexity of Mendip decision. Advice will also be sought from Natural England with regard hydrologyand geology could lead to a to ecological data relating to geological features. The consideration of serious threat to the local water supply technical matters such as these would be covered within any proposed which would be difficult, if not Planning Performance Agreement (see text box below). impossible, to mitigate or repair. 9.310 It is noted that the complex geology of the Mendip Hills potentially makes it more technically challenging to assess some of the impacts. In particular, folds in the rock strata make it harder to interpret 2D seismic survey data.

9.31 Seismic profiling is used to gain a better understanding of the rock strata, for example the location of caves and passages.

Page 28 of 70 36.3 R36.3/3 Becky Collier Campaign to Protect 9 N The precautionary principle should Noted None Rural England particularly apply to the hot springs in Bath. The City of Bath is a World Heritage Site and contributes £92m to the local economy but at present there is no protection for the hot springs beyond the City boundary. The Mendip Hills are the southern source of the hot springs, but geological opinion is divided about the existence of adirect connection between the Mendips and the relevant water-bearing strate. Until this can be conclusively established the search for energy minerals should not be permitted in any area that could threaten the hot springs.

36.3 R36.3/4 Becky Collier Campaign to Protect 9 N Aside from safety issues, we are also Noted None Rural England concerned about the impact of fracking on rural communities, transport networks and the Mendip landscape. Our roads are too narrow to cope with the inevitable construction traffic and the Mendip landscape is unique (much of it AONB) and should all be protected from the clutter of concrete pads, tracks, pipes and fencing would bring.

36.3 R36.3/5 Becky Collier Campaign to Protect 13 DM1 Y States that DM1, landscape, does not Text change to better reference designated areas has been made, which ...National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the Rural England reflect the strong wording of para 116 addressed this point. highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. of the NPPF Proposals for mineral development within or adjacent to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will need to take full account of the relevant AONB Management Plan;. and proposals within or adjacent to Exmoor National Park will need to take full account of the Exmoor National Park Local Plan

40.1 R40.1/1 Joe Keech Devon County Council Gener N Welcomes pre-submission Plan and is Noted None al pleased to confirm that it has been engaged in the Plan's preparation as a neighbouring Mineral Planning Authority

40.1 R40.1/2 Joe Keech Devon County Council 6 SMP2 N Welcomes policies SMP2 and SMP3 Noted None & SMP3

40.1 R40.1/3 Joe Keech Devon County Council 6 SMP4 N The main cross-boundary issue Noted None between Devon and Somerset is the maintenance of the supply of sand and gravel from the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds, particularly with regard to the Whiteball operations that straddle the county boundary. The commitment in policy SMP4 to the delivery of further resources to support the two counties' supply is therefore supported

40.1 R40.1/4 Joe Keech Devon County Council 11 SMP9 N Supports SMP9 (linked with Noted None safeguarding of Budleigh Salterton Peddle Bed resource) which aligns with Devon CC's approach

Page 29 of 70 41.1 R41.1/1 John Salmon Land and Mineral 6 SMP2 Y Argues that a provision needs to be Agreed, informed by evidence supplied by the operator 6.35 Somerset’s crushed rock landbank is predominantly made up of Management Ltd, on included for the maintenance of the carboniferous limestone used in construction aggregate, behalf of John Silurian Andesite landbank supplemented by higher PSV (polished stone value) igneous rock used Wainwright & Co Ltd for road surfacing. Somerset has a landbank for crushed rock of approximately 451 425 million tonnes (20123 figure).

6.36 (NEW PARA) Somerset’s crushed rock landbank is predominantly made up of the Carboniferous Limestone used in construction aggregate, supplemented by higher PSV (polished stone value) Silurian Andesite used for road surfacing. Based on current evidence, approximately 2% of the total crushed rock landbank is Silurian Andesite i.e. approximately 8 million tonnes.

6.367 Based on the level of provision proposed in the Somerset’s first LAA 2014 of 10.8145 million tonnes per year, Somerset has sufficient crushed rock reserves for the next 401 years. Focusing on Andesite alone, based on current evidence, the Andesite landbank is anticipated to last approximately 22 years. However, it should be noted that the LAA will be updated annually and these figures are likely to change in the future in accordance with market demand and permitted reserves.

6.39 Should Somerset’s permitted reserves of crushed rock (Carboniferous Limestone or Silurian Andesite) fall below a 15 year supply…

Policy SMP2 The Mineral Planning Authority will seek to maintain make provision for a 15 year landbank of permitted Carboniferous Limestone and Silurian Andesite reserves…

41.1 R41.1/2 John Salmon Land and Mineral 11 and SMP9 N The NPPF requires mineral planning Safeguarding areas in the Mineral Plan have been proposed to cover not only None Management Ltd, on Appen authorities to safeguard selected the mineral resource, but also include a buffer zone for future expansion, it is behalf of John dices mineral related infrastructure and considered that any mineral related infrastructure is covered by this. Wainwright & Co Ltd facilities to support the operation of economically viable mineral resources. In this context a site to process coated roadstone at Moons Hill Quarry should be specifically safeguarded.

43 R43/1 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 5 SD1 N Support for policy SD1 Noted No comment Ltd

43 R43/10 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK Gener N DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT It is believed that this issue is sufficiently clear in the Plan - also see responses None Ltd al POLICIES to R43/13 and R43/16 There should be a general presumption within all of the development management policies that an assessment of the impact of a development is made after mitigation measures have been proposed.

43 R43/11 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 13 DM1 N Policy DM1: Landscape and Visual It is important that these two points are kept separate to ensure it is clear that a None Ltd Amenity proposal resulting unacceptable impacts will not result in planning permission. Clauses a) and b) to this policy could be merged as they appear to be mutually reinforcing.

43 R43/12 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 14 DM2 Support of the policy. Noted None Ltd

43 R43/13 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 15DM3 Y Part (a) of this Policy is too restrictive Noted a) the proposed development will not generate unacceptable adverse Ltd and conflicts with part c) impacts on the historic envrionment or where an adverse impact or impacts have been identified, these can be adequately mitigated ; and

Page 30 of 70 43 R43/14 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 16 DM4 N The word “unacceptable” should be Noted Planning permission for mineral development will be granted subject Ltd inserted before “adverse impact” to be the applicant demonstrating that the proposed development will not consistent with the wording in other have an unacceptable adverse impact on development management policies

43 R43/15 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 16 16.15 & N There is no confirmed link between The current text for paragraph 16.15 quotes a technical report, produced in None Ltd 16.16 groundwater recharge in the Mendip 2012 which is considered to be the most recent research on this subject. Para Hills and groundwater discharge from 16.6 is a recognised fact, as evidenced by the footnote citing the relevant Bath Hot Springs. Furthermoredetailed legislation. See change in response to R108/15 information collected over the last 30 years or so on the Bath Hot Springs has not indicated any impact with substantial sub water table quarrying in the Mendip Hills.

43 R43/16 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 16 DM5 Y The words "or where an adverse Agreed a) they do not generate unacceptable adverse impacts on the water Ltd impact or impacts have been environment or other water interests, or where an adverse impact or identified, these can be adequately impacts have been identified, these can be adequately mitigated ; and mitigated" should be added to the end of part (a)

43 R43/17 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 17 N Support for the policy Noted None Ltd

43 R43/18 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 18 DM7 Table 7 N Suggests that the words "where Noted Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites Ltd relevant" are inserted with reference to must:" Check-boxes deleted. identified criteria

43 R43/19 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 19 DM8 N Support for policy DM8 Noted None Ltd

43 R43/2 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 6.8 N Paragraph 6.8 talks about the Agreed that reference to the hierarchy in this paragraph is potentially 6.8 To promote the sustainable provision of aggregates the Somerset Ltd sustainable provision of aggregates confusing. Delete paragraph. Minerals Plan is informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by and that the Somerset Minerals Plan is recycled and secondary aggregates. informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by recycled and secondary aggregates. Whilst the sustainable use of recycled and secondary aggregates is welcomed and makes a valued contribution to overall aggregates demand it must be recognised that recycled or secondary aggregates cannot replace primary aggregates in certain applications.

43 R43/20 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 20 20.1 N Highlights conflict between para 20.1 It should be recognised that the paragraph cited by the representor is followed A significant proportion of the minerals extracted in Somerset are from Ltd and wording in para 4.10 of the in the LAA by a paragraph which begins "Having noted the capacity of the the Mendip Hills, in the eastern area of the county where the local Somerset LAA 2013 major road network, it is also important to note the constraints associated with road network is particularly constrained when taking all traffic the local roads in the eastern area of the county". Furthermore, it is also noted movements into account. that the Somerset Mineral Plan is one of the documents which constitutes the Development Plan for Somerset, and as such must be read in conjunction with other Plans for the county. The wording in the LAA refers only to minerals, whereas the Mineral Plan must take a wider view of the county and take account of many factors which can be influenced by mineral extraction. The LAA does not set policy, but is a supporting document to the Mineral Plan. It is acknowledged that wording in this paragraph could be clarified.

43 R43/21 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 21 DM10 N Support for the policy Noted None Ltd 43 R43/22 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 22 DM11 N Support for the policy Noted None Ltd 43 R43/23 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 23 DM12 N This policy is supported but should The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the None Ltd only be applied in certain Development Plan. Conditions regarding production limits and the use of this circumstances and not for all new policy would be determined on a case by case basis by the planning officer. mineral reserve proposals.

Page 31 of 70 43 R43/24 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 24 DM13 N Support for the policy Noted None Ltd

43 R43/3 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 6.8 N Paragraph 6.8 talks about the Agreed that reference to the hierarchy in this paragraph is potentially 6.8 To promote the sustainable provision of aggregates the Somerset Ltd sustainable provision of aggregates confusing. Delete paragraph. Minerals Plan is informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by and that the Somerset Minerals Plan is recycled and secondary aggregates. informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by recycled and secondary aggregates. Whilst the sustainable use of recycled and secondary aggregates is welcomed and makes a valued contribution to overall aggregates demand it must be recognised that recycled or secondary aggregates cannot replace primary aggregates in certain applications.

43 R43/4 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 6.15 N Paragraph 6.15 estimates that the Agreed that reference to the hierarchy (in paragraph 6.8 - to which this 6.8 To promote the sustainable provision of aggregates the Somerset Ltd potential capacity of existing facilities representation cross-refers) is potentially confusing. Whilst the Plan can give Minerals Plan is informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by for recycled and secondary significant support to the provision of recycled and secondary aggregates the recycled and secondary aggregates. aggregates in Somerset is over implementation of a rigid hierarchy is not practicable. Delete paragraph 6.8 160,000 tonnes per year although it is noted that the County Council is of the opinion this is an under-estimation. This represents approximately 1.5% of the average 10 years annual sales figure for crushed rock of 10.81 million tonnes per annum (paragraph 6.29 of the presubmission Somerset Minerals Plan refers). How then can recycled/secondary aggregates top the hierarchy of supply options?

43 R43/5 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 N It would be useful if the Plan makes Disgaree. This is not considered essential for the Plan. The position is likely to None Ltd reference to an example where change over time, and the MPA responds to data supplied by industry in secondary aggregates are produced collating figures on secondary and recycled aggregates. within the County.

43 R43/6 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 SMP2 N This policy is generally supported in Noted None Ltd that it provides for a landbank beyond the minimum 10 years referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), recognising Somerset’s strategic role in aggregates supply and its position as a leading national supplier of aggregates.

43 R43/7 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 SMP2 N The policy should refer to “will make Agreed The Mineral Planning Authority will seek to maintain make provision Ltd provision for” rather than “seek to” as for a 15 year landbank… proposed.

43 R43/8 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 6.56 N This paragraph implies that planning Agreed When determining planning applications for new permitted reserves Ltd applications for all new permitted (including extensions to existing quarries) the County Council will reserves, including extensions to consider whether the economic and other benefits outweigh the any existing quarries will have adverse adverse impacts of the development. impacts. This may not be the case. It is therefore suggested that the word “any” is included before “adverse impacts of the development”.

Page 32 of 70 43 R43/9 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 6.60 N The reference to "excess" should be Agreed that wording should change in response to NPPG Informed by national guidance 31 , the Mineral Planning Authority Ltd deleted from the paragraph acknowledges that adopts the position that an adequate or excess landbank is not in itself a reason for witholding planning permission Tthere is no maximum landbank level and each application for minerals extraction must be considered on its own merits regardless of the length of the landbank; adverse impacts must be considered alongside planning benefits. [also amend footnote reference from Guidance on MASS to the NPPG]

44 R44/1 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK Gener N Outlines nature of consultation Noted None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip al response and representor as trade Quarry Producers organisation

44 R44/10 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 6.60 N The reference to "excess" should be Agreed that wording should change in response to NPPG Informed by national guidance 31 , the Mineral Planning Authority Ltd, on behalf of Mendip deleted from the paragraph acknowledges that adopts the position that an adequate or excess Quarry Producers landbank is not in itself a reason for witholding planning permission Tthere is no maximum landbank level and each application for minerals extraction must be considered on its own merits regardless of the length of the landbank; adverse impacts must be considered alongside planning benefits. [also amend footnote reference from Guidance on MASS to the NPPG]

44 R44/11 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK Gener N DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT It is believed that this issue is sufficiently clear in the Plan - also see responses None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip al POLICIES to R43/14 and R43/17 Quarry Producers There should be a general presumption within all of the development management policies that an assessment of the impact of a development is made after mitigation measures have been proposed.

44 R44/12 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 13 DM1 N Policy DM1: Landscape and Visual It is important that these two points are kept separate to ensure it is clear that a None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip Amenity proposal resulting unacceptable impacts will not result in planning permission. Quarry Producers Clauses a) and b) to this policy could be merged as they appear to be mutually reinforcing.

44 R44/13 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 14 DM2 N Support for policy DM2 Noted None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip Quarry Producers

44 R44/14 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 15DM3 Y Part a) of this policy is too restrictive Agreed a) the proposed development will not generate unacceptable adverse Ltd, on behalf of Mendip and conflicts with part c)… …The impacts on the historic envrionment or where an adverse impact or Quarry Producers words "or where an adverse impact or impacts have been identified, these can be adequately mitigated ; and impacts have been identified, these can be adequately mitigated" should be added

44 R44/15 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 16 DM4 N The word "unacceptable" should be Agreed …the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on… Ltd, on behalf of Mendip inserted before "adverse impact" to be Quarry Producers consistent with the wording in other development management policies

Page 33 of 70 44 R44/16 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 16 16.15 & N There is no confirmed link between The quotation is believed to be accurate (from the BGS report) but it is agreed Quoting from a report commissioned by Bath & North East Somerset Ltd, on behalf of Mendip 16.16 groundwater recharge in the Mendip that a better quotation from this report might clarify the point being made. Council: 78 "Exploration outside the B&NES area needs to be Quarry Producers Hills and groundwater discharge from considered carefully to safeguard the flow to the hot springs Even Bath Hot Springs. Detailed information before the publication of the BBB report (Burgess et al., 1980) it collected over the last 30 years or so seemed likely that most of the flow to the Bath springs results from on the Bath Hot Springs has not recharge on the high ground of the Mendip Hills, and that it must be indicated any impact with substantial travelling through the deepest part of the basin beneath the Radstock sub water table quarrying in the sub-basin in which coal was formerly mined from the Upper Mendip Hills. Suggests paragraphs Carboniferous, in order to acquire its elevated temperature ". 16.15 and 16.16 are deleted or amended to reflect the uncertainty

44 R44/17 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 16 DM5 Y The words "or where an adverse Agreed a) they do not generate unacceptable adverse impacts on the water Ltd, on behalf of Mendip impact or impacts have been environment or other water interests, or where an adverse impact or Quarry Producers identified, these can be adequately impacts have been identified, these can be adequately mitigated ; and mitigated" should be added to the end of part (a)

44 R44/18 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 17 DM6 N Support for policy DM6 Noted None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip Quarry Producers

44 R44/19 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 18 DM7 Table 7 N Suggests that the words "where Noted Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites Ltd, on behalf of Mendip relevant" are inserted with reference to must:" Check-boxes deleted. Quarry Producers identified criteria

44 R44/2 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 5 SD1 N Support for policy SD1 Noted None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip Quarry Producers

44 R44/20 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 19 DM8 N Support for policy DM8 Noted None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip Quarry Producers

44 R44/21 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 20 20.1 N Highlights conflict between para 20.1 It should be recognised that the paragraph cited by the representor is followed A significant proportion of the minerals extracted in Somerset are from Ltd, on behalf of Mendip and wording in para 4.10 of the in the LAA by a paragraph which begins "Having noted the capacity of the the Mendip Hills, in the eastern area of the county where the local Quarry Producers Somerset LAA 2013 major road network, it is also important to note the constraints associated with road network is particularly constrained when taking all traffic the local roads in the eastern area of the county". Furthermore, it is also noted movements into account. that the Somerset Mineral Plan is one of the documents which constitutes the Development Plan for Somerset, and as such must be read in conjunction with other Plans for the county. The wording in the LAA refers only to minerals, whereas the Mineral Plan must take a wider view of the county and take account of many factors which can be influenced by mineral extraction. The LAA does not set policy, but is a supporting document to the Mineral Plan. It is acknowledged that wording in this paragraph could be clarified.

44 R44/22 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 21 DM10 N Support of the policy Noted None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip Quarry Producers

44 R44/23 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 22 DM11 N Support for the policy Noted None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip Quarry Producers

44 R44/24 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 23 DM12 N This policy is supported but should The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip only be applied in certain Development Plan. Conditions regarding production limits and the use of this Quarry Producers circumstances and not for all new policy would be determined on a case by case basis by the planning officer. mineral reserve proposals

44 R44/25 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 24 DM13 N Support for the policy Noted None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip Quarry Producers

Page 34 of 70 44 R44/3 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 6.8 N Paragraph 6.8 talks about the Agreed that reference to the hierarchy in this paragraph is potentially 6.8 To promote the sustainable provision of aggregates the Somerset Ltd, on behalf of Mendip sustainable provision of aggregates confusing. Delete paragraph. Minerals Plan is informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by Quarry Producers and that the Somerset Minerals Plan is recycled and secondary aggregates. informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by recycled and secondary aggregates. Whilst the sustainable use of recycled and secondary aggregates is welcomed and makes a valued contribution to overall aggregates demand it must be recognised that recycled or secondary aggregates cannot replace primary aggregates in certain applications.

44 R44/4 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 6.15 N Paragraph 6.15 estimates that the Agreed that reference to the hierarchy (in paragraph 6.8 - to which this 6.8 To promote the sustainable provision of aggregates the Somerset Ltd, on behalf of Mendip potential capacity of existing facilities representation cross-refers) is potentially confusing. Whilst the Plan can give Minerals Plan is informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by Quarry Producers for recycled and secondary significant support to the provision of recycled and secondary aggregates the recycled and secondary aggregates. aggregates in Somerset is over implementation of a rigid hierarchy is not practicable. Delete paragraph 6.8 160,000 tonnes per year although it is noted that the County Council is of the opinion this is an under-estimation. This represents approximately 1.5% of the average 10 years annual sales figure for crushed rock of 10.81 million tonnes per annum (paragraph 6.29 of the presubmission Somerset Minerals Plan refers). How then can recycled/secondary aggregates top the hierarchy of supply options?

44 R44/5 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 6.14 N Paragraph 6.14 refers to a number of Agreed. Revise wording accordingly. There are a number of permitted recycled aggregate facilities in Ltd, on behalf of Mendip permitted recycling facilities in Somerset located in former quarries or waste transfer stations. In Quarry Producers Somerset located in former quarries or addition active quarries also generate recycled aggregates, and inert waste transfer stations. Reference waste is treated on-site (for example, as part of major new should be made in the Plan to development schemes) via mobile crushers. recycling capability at existing quarries, for example recycled asphalt planning being re-used in asphalt plants or the recycling of concrete products.

44 R44/6 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 N It would be useful if the Plan makes Disgaree. This is not considered essential for the Plan. The position is likely to None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip reference to an example where change over time, and the MPA responds to data supplied by industry in Quarry Producers secondary aggregates are produced collating figures on secondary and recycled aggregates. within the County.

44 R44/7 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 SMP2 N This policy is generally supported in Noted None Ltd, on behalf of Mendip that it provides for a landbank beyond Quarry Producers the minimum 10 years referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), recognising Somerset’s strategic role in aggregates supply and its position as a leading national supplier of aggregates.

44 R44/8 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 SMP2 N The policy should refer to “will make Agreed The Mineral Planning Authority will seek to maintain make provision Ltd, on behalf of Mendip provision for” rather than “seek to” as for a 15 year landbank… Quarry Producers proposed.

Page 35 of 70 44 R44/9 John Penny Aggregate Industries UK 6 6.56 N This paragraph implies that planning Agreed When determining planning applications for new permitted reserves Ltd, on behalf of Mendip applications for all new permitted (including extensions to existing quarries) the County Council will Quarry Producers reserves, including extensions to consider whether the economic and other benefits outweigh the any existing quarries will have adverse adverse impacts of the development. impacts. This may not be the case. It is therefore suggested that the word “any” is included before “adverse impacts of the development”.

49 R49/1 Sarah B&NES 9 N Representor is pleased to see explicit Noted None Johnston reference to Bath Hot Springs in the "Energy Minerals" and "Water Resources and Flood Risk" sections

49 R49/2 Sarah B&NES 9 9.22 - N Notes content of paragraphs 9.22, Noted None Johnston 9.27 9.23 and 9.27

49 R49/3 Sarah B&NES 16 16.15 - N Pleased to note contents of Noted None Johnston 16.17 paragraphs 16.15, 16.16 & 16.17

57.1 R57.1/1 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.3 N Proposed text fails to take account of The wording of paragraph 7.3 could be expanded to clarify the MPA’s position 7.3 It is vital to ensure that an adequate supply of building stones is Management Ltd, on the national importance of the stone and support at the start of this chapter. available so that the local character of the county is maintained. The behalf of Ham & Doulting produced by the representor Somerset Minerals Plan provides a positive policy framework to Stone Ltd support investment in appropriate sites, facilities and skills.

57.1 R57.1/10 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.25 N Objects to notion of cap on output i.e. It is proposed that paragraph 7.25 be deleted, and Table 3 be reformatted as Delete para 7.25 Management Ltd, on restrictions on small-scale of building Figure. Within these changes, the wording on scale in what was Table 3 will be behalf of Ham & Doulting stone operations and suggests that revised. That said, it is noted that the representation blurs the distinction Stone Ltd each proposal should be considered between tonnes/annum and m 3. The Preferred Options of the Somerset on a case by case basis against the Minerals Plan included reference to 2000 tonnes/annum and since then the acceptability of any environmental County Council has changed the reference to m 3 to align with the English Stone impact Forum’s definition. Industry feedback has identified that 1 cubic metre of dimension stone equates to roughly 2.3 tonnes. Thus, the 2000 m 3 stated in the pre-submission Minerals Plan would equate to roughly 4600 t / a. And the 2400 t/a referenced in the representation would equate to approximately 1000m3, well within the guidance suggested in the Plan - and with significant scope for expansion (subject to due consideration via the planning process). Also it is important to note that this is NOT a blanket cap. The wording of paragraph 7.25 refered to what is considered small-scale, whereas the policy itself does NOT refer to small-scale.

57.1 R57.1/11 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.28 N Requests further clarification in use of Agreed that wording could be clarified in this paragraph including the deletion A case may be made for the importation and working of relatively Management Ltd, on terms "relatively small" and "informed of the identified words. small quantities or natural stone into quarry sites, informed by market behalf of Ham & Doulting by market demand" demand… Stone Ltd

57.1 R57.1/12 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.33 N Requests further clarification in use of Agree that wording should be clarified. A case may be made for the importation and working of relatively Management Ltd, on term "low tonnage". Suggests revised small quantities of natural stone into quarry sites is likely to be based behalf of Ham & Doulting wording Text in red responds to feedback on proposed changes via the Habitat on factors such as the economic viability of operations, the range of Stone Ltd Regulations Assessment products an operator can provide to the market, the impact of the proposed stone working on local jobs and the retention of skills in Somerset., informed by market demand, where such stone: In such cases, key considerations for the County Council will include: alignment with the vision and objectives of the Somerset Minerals Plan; economic and other benefits to the local and/or wider communities; cumulative impacts (alongside other activities at the site and/or adjacent sites) on the natural and historic environment, or local amenity (for example, arising from the transport of materials); how the wastes arising from the working of such imported material will be managed; and impacts on the use of appropriate, Somerset-sourced building stone

Page 36 of 70 57.1 R57.1/2 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.9 N Seeking greater clarity in the text that Agreed that paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10 could flow more clearly. Revise wording 7.9 During the plan period operators may propose changes to existing Management Ltd, on would give support to the expansion of to highlight the different types of proposal for building stone extraction. permissions, site extensions and/or new sites for the stones currently behalf of Ham & Doulting existing quarries and new quarries in worked. and the County Council’s planning policy must consider this Stone Ltd the future possibility.

7.10 Furthermore, proposals may come forward for the Somerset Minerals Plan must consider how to support the extraction of needed stones that are not currently worked but which form an integral and important part of the county’s historic environment. 57.1 R57.1/3 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.14 & N Addresses issues of scale - stating Paragraph 7.14 is considered to be a statement of fact. It is noted that the 7.19 Stakeholders have expressed a preference (via consultation Management Ltd, on 7.19 that much of the building stone representation blurs the distinction between tonnes/annum and m3. The feedback) for the development of a larger number of small quarries as behalf of Ham & Doulting quarried in Somerset are not small Preferred Options of the Somerset Minerals Plan included reference to 2000 a source of local building stone (compared with a smaller number of Stone Ltd scale. "Tout quarry already has a tonnes/annum and since then the County Council has changed the reference to larger quarries). 37 This helps to reduce the carbon footprint of such 2,400 t/a output limit". States that m3 to align with the English Stone Forum’s definition of what is small scale. development, in particular by reducing the need to transport material stakeholder preference for the Assuming that (using the industry feedback conversion of 1 cubic metre of over longer distances; also it reflects the current nature and scale of development of a larger number of dimension stone equating to roughly 2.3 tonnes) the 2000 m3 stated elsewhere building stone activity in Somerset. smaller scale quarries is at odds with in the pre-submission Minerals Plan would equate to roughly 4600 t / a and the way industry is developing. most building stone quarries in Somerset fall within that level of output. And the 2400 t/a referenced in the representation would equate to approximately 1000m 3, well within the guidance suggested in the Plan.

It is noted that the representation refers to a number of small-scale quarries, which aligns with the proposed approach. A minor change is proposed to paragraph 7.19 to simplify the focus of this paragraph to be on stakeholder feedback.

57.1 R57.1/4 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.21 N Proposes that "local" should be Disagree. The policy wording highlights the importance of the link between None Management Ltd, on deleted to ensure that the Minerals stone extraction and the local historic environment. It does not preclude the behalf of Ham & Doulting Plan is supportive of the industry export or sale of stone extracted in Somerset outside the county. Stone Ltd 57.1 R57.1/5 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 SMP5 N Proposes alternative wording to Disagree with proposed wording. The policy wording highlights the importance a) there is an identified need for the specified stone currently used in Management Ltd, on criterion (a) in SMP5 to acknowledge of the link between stone extraction and the local historic environment. It does Somerset to maintain or enhance the local historic environment; and behalf of Ham & Doulting wider/national demand for local stone not preclude the export or sale of stone extracted in Somerset outside the Stone Ltd county. However, agree that wording could be clarified.

57.1 R57.1/6 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests row 1 should be deleted Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to location and Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to the MSA Management Ltd, on since it places an unnecessary burden MSAs behalf of Ham & Doulting on the development of the stone Stone Ltd industry

57.1 R57.1/7 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests revised wording for row 3 Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to the benefits Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to the benefits Management Ltd, on since the current wording fails to of the proposed location of the proposed location behalf of Ham & Doulting recognise the economic importance of Stone Ltd having more than one supplier of any given stone.

57.1 R57.1/8 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests revised wording for row 8 - Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to landscape - Reformat Table as figure/tool with revised reference to landscape Management Ltd, on stating that current wording could be including reference to policy DM1 behalf of Ham & Doulting open to interpretation Stone Ltd

57.1 R57.1/9 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Objects to notion of cap in defining Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to permitted Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference permitted Management Ltd, on small-scale in row 9 extraction levels. extraction levels. Retain reference to English Stone Forum definition behalf of Ham & Doulting Stone Ltd

Page 37 of 70 59 R59/1 John Salmon Land and Mineral 6 SMP2 Y Argues that a provision needs to be Agreed, informed by evidence supplied by the operator 6.35 Somerset’s crushed rock landbank is predominantly made up of Management Ltd included for the maintenance of the carboniferous limestone used in construction aggregate, Silurian Andesite landbank supplemented by higher PSV (polished stone value) igneous rock used for road surfacing. Somerset has a landbank for crushed rock of approximately 451 425 million tonnes (20123 figure).

6.39 Should Somerset’s permitted reserves of crushed rock (Carboniferous Limestone or Silurian Andesite) fall below a 15 year supply…

Policy SMP2 The Mineral Planning Authority will seek to maintain make provision for a 15 year landbank of permitted Carboniferous Limestone and Silurian Andesite reserves…

59 R59/10 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests revised wording for row 8 - Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to landscape - Reformat Table as figure/tool with revised reference to landscape Management Ltd stating that current wording could be including reference to policy DM1 open to interpretation

59 R59/11 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Objects to notion of cap in defining Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to permitted Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference permitted Management Ltd small-scale in row 9 extraction levels. extraction levels. Retain reference to English Stone Forum definition

59 R59/12 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests phase 1 ecological survey Agreed that Table should be reformatted; and language should cross-check Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to DM chapter Management Ltd may not always be needed & suggests other content of the Plan (in particular regarding the DM chapter on biodiversity applicant should be allowed to and geodiversity) demonstrate that it is not required in row 17

59 R59/13 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.25 N Objects to notion of cap on output i.e. It is proposed that paragraph 7.25 be deleted, and Table 3 be reformatted as Delete para 7.25 Management Ltd restrictions on small-scale of building Figure. Within these changes, the wording on scale in what was Table 3 will be stone operations and suggests that revised. That said, it is noted that the representation blurs the distinction each proposal should be considered between tonnes/annum and m 3. The Preferred Options of the Somerset on a case by case basis against the Minerals Plan included reference to 2000 tonnes/annum and since then the acceptability of any environmental County Council has changed the reference to m 3 to align with the English Stone impact Forum’s definition. Industry feedback has identified that 1 cubic metre of dimension stone equates to roughly 2.3 tonnes. Thus, the 2000 m 3 stated in the pre-submission Minerals Plan would equate to roughly 4600 t / a.

Also it is important to note that this is NOT a blanket cap. The wording of paragraph 7.25 refered to what is considered small-scale, whereas the policy itself does NOT refer to small-scale.

59 R59/14 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.28 N Requests further clarification in use of Agreed that wording could be clarified in this paragraph including the deletion A case may be made for the importation and working of relatively Management Ltd terms "relatively small" and "informed of the identified words. small quantities or natural stone into quarry sites, informed by market by market demand" demand…

Page 38 of 70 59 R59/15 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.32 N The support of the natural stone Noted None Management Ltd industry in Somerset which the industry seeks in a Minerals Plan by importing stone into processing facilities does not conflict with the vision and objectives of the Minerals Plan but upholds them.

59 R59/16 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.33 N Requests further clarification in use of Agree that wording should be clarified. A case may be made for the importation and working of relatively Management Ltd term "low tonnage". Suggests revised small quantities of natural stone into quarry sites is likely to be based wording Text in red responds to feedback on proposed changes via the Habitat on factors such as the economic viability of operations, the range of Regulations Assessment products an operator can provide to the market, the impact of the proposed stone working on local jobs and the retention of skills in Somerset., informed by market demand, where such stone: In such cases, key considerations for the County Council will include: alignment with the vision and objectives of the Somerset Minerals Plan; economic and other benefits to the local and/or wider communities; cumulative impacts (alongside other activities at the site and/or adjacent sites) on the natural and historic environment, or local amenity (for example, arising from the transport of materials); how the wastes arising from the working of such imported material will be managed; and impacts on the use of appropriate, Somerset-sourced building stone

59 R59/17 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.39 N Emphasises that the Plan should not Disagree. Paragraph 7.39 should not be read in isolation. The importance of None Management Ltd prohibit the removal of waste stone space within quarries is highlighted in paragraph 7.38. from the quarry where it can be exported without any adverse impact on restoration potential or local roads. Somerset's policy on waste retention adversely affects the economic viability of a number of quarries. Suggests alternative wording for para 7.39

59 R59/18 John Salmon Land and Mineral 18 18.9 N Text should be modified to recognise Disagree. Paragraphs 18.9 and 18.10 discuss the context for the restoration None Management Ltd that in some instances top soil is not scheme, acknowledging that certain types of soil are more appropriate in required for quarry restoration and its certain circumstances. It acknowledges that topsoil might not necessarily be use would sterilise an important nature appropriate. resource. Suggests alternative wording.

59 R59/2 John Salmon Land and Mineral 11 N States that the NPPF requires MPA to Safeguarding areas in the Mineral Plan have been proposed to cover not only None Management Ltd safeguard selected mineral related the mineral resource, but also include a buffer zone for future expansion, it is infratstructure and facilities to support considered that any mineral related infrastructure is covered by this. the operation of economically viable mineral resources & states that a site to process coated roadstone at Moons Hill Quarry should be specifically safeguarded

59 R59/3 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.3 N Proposed text fails to take account of The wording of paragraph 7.3 could be expanded to clarify the MPA’s position 7.3 It is vital to ensure that an adequate supply of building stones is Management Ltd the national importance of the stone and support at the start of this chapter. available so that the local character of the county is maintained. The produced by the representor Somerset Minerals Plan provides a positive policy framework to support investment in appropriate sites, facilities and skills.

Page 39 of 70 59 R59/4 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.9 N Seeking greater clarity in the text that Agreed that paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10 could flow more clearly. Revise wording 7.9 During the plan period operators may propose changes to existing Management Ltd would give support to the expansion of to highlight the different types of proposal for building stone extraction. permissions, site extensions and/or new sites for the stones currently existing quarries and new quarries in worked. and the County Council’s planning policy must consider this the future possibility.

59 R59/5 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.14 & N States view that most of the building Paragraph 7.14 is considered to be a statement of fact. It is noted that the 7.19 Stakeholders have expressed a preference (via consultation Management Ltd 7.19 stone quarries in Somerset are not representation blurs the distinction between tonnes/annum and m3. The feedback) for the development of a larger number of small quarries as small scale and states that Preferred Options of the Somerset Minerals Plan included reference to 2000 a source of local building stone (compared with a smaller number of stakeholder preference for the tonnes/annum and since then the County Council has changed the reference to larger quarries). 37 This helps to reduce the carbon footprint of such development of a larger number of m3 to align with the English Stone Forum’s definition of what is small scale. development, in particular by reducing the need to transport material smaller scale quarries is at odds with Assuming that (using the industry feedback conversion of 1 cubic metre of over longer distances; also it reflects the current nature and scale of the way industry is developing. dimension stone equating to roughly 2.3 tonnes) the 2000 m3 stated elsewhere building stone activity in Somerset. in the pre-submission Minerals Plan would equate to roughly 4600 t / a and most building stone quarries in Somerset fall within that level of output. It is noted that Ashen Cross would not fall within the definition of small scale, but most building stone quarries in Somerset would.

59 R59/6 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.21 N Proposes that "local" should be Disagree. The policy wording highlights the importance of the link between None Management Ltd deleted to ensure that the Minerals stone extraction and the local historic environment. It does not preclude the Plan is supportive of the industry export or sale of stone extracted in Somerset outside the county.

59 R59/7 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 SMP5 N Proposes alternative wording to Disagree with proposed wording. The policy wording highlights the importance a) there is an identified need for the specified stone currently used in Management Ltd criterion (a) in SMP5 to acknowledge of the link between stone extraction and the local historic environment. It does Somerset to maintain or enhance the local historic environment; and wider/national demand for local stone not preclude the export or sale of stone extracted in Somerset outside the county. However, agree that wording could be clarified.

59 R59/8 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests row 1 should be deleted Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to location and Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to the MSA Management Ltd since it places an unnecessary burden MSAs on the development of the stone industry 59 R59/9 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests revised wording for row 3 Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to the benefits Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to the benefits Management Ltd since the current wording fails to of the proposed location of the proposed location recognise the economic importance of having more than one supplier of any given stone.

61.1 R61.1/1 Martin South Somerset District 9 N The situation regarding community Update text to reflect suggested change. Text box on p58: Woods Council benefit, tax incentives for energy companies and the Government's In June 2013 HM Treasury outlined its basic approah to community announcement in January 2014 for benefit on proposals that entail hydraulic fracturing (fracking). business rate retention have changed the dynamics between business In January 2014 the Government announced that Councils will be interest and community engagement eligible for 100% of business rates collected from shale gas sites, and on shale gas. It is suggested that in that financial benefits to local communities will also be strengthened. finalinsing the Minerals Plan that the In 2013 , the industry announced that local communities would receive most up-to-date infromation and £100,000 when a test well is fracked – and a further 1 per cent of context is added. revenues if shale gas is discovered. This could be worth £5 to £10 million for a typical producing site over its lifetime. The County Council will maintain...

(source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/local-councils-to- receive-millions-in-business-rates-from-shale-gas-developments).

Page 40 of 70 61.1 R61.1/2 Martin South Somerset District 4 N Suggests insertion of text to reflect The MPA has a duty to protect mineral resources through, and as such the None Woods Council other land uses Somerset Mineral Plan advocates measures such as prior extraction of minerals. This objective in the Plan does not preclude the possibility of other development, but provides a mechanism to consult the MPA over mineral resources.

61.1 R61.1/3 Martin South Somerset District 11 SMP9 N Requirement for updated GIS layer for Noted None Woods Council mineral safeguarding areas, post adoption

61.1 R61.1/4 Martin South Somerset District 11 SMP9 Y SSDC object to this policy as too This policy does not prevent other forms of development in the areas shown in None Woods Council restrictive – it does not allow for non- Map 9, which if they are non-mineral development, are within the determining mineral development where it may be power of the relevant planning authorities.. This policy is to enable the County needed in order to provide wider Council (as Mineral Planning Authority) to enter into discussions with the sustainability benefits, such as relevant district or borough council and developer about the best way to meeting the community’s need for develop while recognising the mineral resource in the area. It could additional housing (including appropriate, for example, to prior extract the mineral resource before affordable housing), or community development begins. facilities (e.g. village hall, local shop, primary school). Therefore suggest adding the following criterion: “e) there is an overriding need for the non- mineral development which can be shown to provide wider sustainability benefits”. Note that maps in Appendix B appear to show some overlap between the Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) and South Somerset’s emerging Local Plan proposals at the Chard strategic site allocation, and ‘directions of growth’ at Somerton, Langport/Huish Episcopi, Wincanton, and Ansford/Castle Cary.

84.1 R84.1/1 Rachael Bust The Coal Authority 9 9.14 & N Supports paragraphs 9.14 and 9.15 Noted None 9.15 84.1 R84.1/2 Rachael Bust The Coal Authority 9 SMP7 N Supports SMP7 Noted None

84.1 R84.1/3 Rachael Bust The Coal Authority 9 9.39 & N Seek a minor wording change within Agreed 9.40 If a proposal is submitted for such working, the Mineral Planning 9.40 our energy minerals supporting text: Authority will determine that proposal against the policies in the "Change Requested – Amend Development Plan. Ultimately such proposals will be determined on paragraph 9.40 to read: “If a proposal their individual merits having regard to national planning policy in the is submitted for such working, the NPPF Mineral Planning Authority will determine that proposal against the policies in the Development Plan. Ultimately such proposals will be determined on their individual merits having regard to national planning policy in the NPPF."

84.1 R84.1/4 Rachael Bust The Coal Authority 11 SMP9 N Supports coverage of coal in SMP9 Noted None

84.1 R84.1/5 Rachael Bust The Coal Authority 18 DM7 N Supports DM7 on restoration and Noted None aftercare

94.1 R94.1/1 Clive Miller Clive Miller & Associates Appen N Quarry also produces aggregates Noted. No text change suggested - this site is primarily a building stone site None Ltd, on behalf of dices alongside building stone Lakeview Stone Supplies Ltd

Page 41 of 70 99 R99/1 Joanna Exmoor National Park Gener N Use and context of the word It is felt that within context, all uses of the word environment are justified - Remove from Chapter One Symons al 'environment' within the Plan rather than using text such as 'locality' or 'setting' which can be rather generic. Social characteristics However, in Chapter One, simple deletion of the subheadings/categories Economic characteristics should help to clarify meaning. Environmental characteristics

99 R99/10 Joanna Exmoor National Park 13 13.3 N The Authority objects to para 13.3 and Agreed. Text would have more clarity with this footnote text included in main Parts of the county are designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Symons Authority suggests that the text in the footnote paragraph 13.3. Beauty (AONBs) to recognise the high scenic quality of the landscape should be incorporated into the text, and conserve its natural beauty. Furthermore, part of Exmoor National that the impacts on the landscape Park lies in Somerset. Exmoor National Park Authority is a separate setting of the National Park be Minerals Planning Authority. Nonetheless Somerset County Council considered alongside landscape should be mindful of the impacts of a proposal on the distinctive character, and recommends that landscape character of the National Park. development proposals and component landscape strategies have regard to relevant LCAs

99 R99/11 Joanna Exmoor National Park 13 13.7 Y Suggests that proposals within Agreed. Amend text of DM1 to reflect same premise for AONB as for National Proposals for mineral development within or adjacent to an Area of Symons Authority National Park should be treated in the Park Outstanding Natural Beauty will need to take full account of the same way as proposals within AONB. relevant AONB Management Plan;. and proposals within or adjacent E.g. in DM1 - need to take full account to Exmoor National Park will need to take full account of the Exmoor of National Park purposes and National Park Local Plan. appropriate poicies in ENP Local Plan

99 R99/12 Joanna Exmoor National Park 13 13.12 N Suggesting that proposals may Noted None Symons Authority warrant special consideration for tranquility issues if situated in proximity to Exmoor National Park.

99 R99/13 Joanna Exmoor National Park 18 DM7 N Changes to DM7 re: locally When considering the protection given by the NPPF to National Parks, None. Symons Authority characteristic landscapes and features alongside the protection included in out Plan (and indeed the likelihood of any proposal coming forward for mineral development that would adversely impact on the visual amenity and distinctive landscape character of Exmoor National Park or its setting) Officers feel the Plan hits the right balance on this matter. Officers have spent some considerable time trying to consolidate the approach on site restoration. Here we felt that when taken in conjunction with broader principles identified in chapter 10 on site reclamation, including policy SMP8, we have covered the issue landscape character adequately when reading the Plan as a whole. Point 4 of the Reclamation Checklist requires a high level of collaboration over landscape scale restoration, which we believe covers the concerns raised.

99 R99/14 Joanna Exmoor National Park 19 Table 8 N Clarification of the Exmoor Dark Sky The Dark Sky status is mentioned in Table 8 and this is considered sufficient, None Symons Authority designation, and what this means in noting also that it is not a statutory designation planning terms 99 R99/2 Joanna Exmoor National Park 1 1.14 N Support of paragraph 1.14 Noted None Symons Authority (recognising the wealth of environmental assets in Somerset)

99 R99/3 Joanna Exmoor National Park 2 2.24 N The Authority supports paragraph 2.24 Noted None Symons Authority which states that ‘The Development Plan should be read as a whole, including all relevant plans and policies of the four Districts and one Borough Council of Somerset, and Exmoor National Park Authority’

Page 42 of 70 99 R99/4 Joanna Exmoor National Park 3 3.16 N In reiteration of our previous Chapter 10, and the corresponding policy - SMP8 provides information on this None Symons Authority comments, the Authority suggests that important area, and in particular the policy gives key areas for reclaimation led the approach to restoration is approches to focus on. strengthened by replacing the word ‘adequate restoration’ with ‘effective restoration’ in relation to the importance of site restoration (paragraph 3.16).

99 R99/5 Joanna Exmoor National Park 6 6.87 N Support for the policy Noted Symons Authority 99 R99/6 Joanna Exmoor National Park 7 SMP5 7.3 N Support of both para 7.3 (adaquate Noted None Symons Authority supply of building stone) and of the corresponding policy, SMP5: Proposals for the extraction of building stone

99 R99/7 Joanna Exmoor National Park 10 10.3 N Support for paragraph 10.3 Noted None Symons Authority 99 R99/8 Joanna Exmoor National Park 10 10.5 N The Authority supports subject to Noted None Symons Authority amendments paragraph 10.5

99 R99/9 Joanna Exmoor National Park 13 13.2 N The Authority supports section 13 Noted None Symons Authority which sets out the text and development management policy for landscape and visual amenity.

102 R102/1 Gill Smith Dorset County Council 6 N Dorset CC gives support for the Noted. None continuing work between the two authorities (evidenced by the signed The County Council is mindful of its responsibilities under the Duty to MoU) and support for SMP2 and the Cooperate and looks forward to further work with neighbouring authorities associated 15 year landbank. regarding strategic cross border issues.

106 R106/1 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd Gener N Summarising the nature of the Noted None al response and the representor

106 R106/10 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 SMP2 N Support for a landbank that is greater Noted None than 10 years being maintained

106 R106/11 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 SMP2 N The policy should refer to will make Agreed The Mineral Planning Authority will seek to maintain make provision provision for rather than seek to as for a 15 year landbank… proposed.

106 R106/12 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 6.56 N Paragraph 6.56 implies that planning Agreed When determining planning applications for new permitted reserves applications for all new permitted (including extensions to existing quarries) the County Council will reserves, including extensions to consider whether the economic and other benefits outweigh the any existing quarries will have adverse adverse impacts of the development. impacts. This may not be the case. It is therefore suggested that the word any is included before adverse impacts of the development.

106 R106/13 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 SMP3 N Support for SMP3 Noted None

106 R106/14 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 10 SMP8 N Support for SMP8 Noted None

106 R106/15 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 11 SMP9 N Support for SMP9 Noted None

106 R106/16 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd Gener N DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT It is believed that this issue is sufficiently clear in the Plan (e.g. also see None al POLICIES responses to R43/13 and R43/16) It should be acknowledged that the impacts referred to within the policies are considered after the adoption of any proposed mitigation measures.

Page 43 of 70 106 R106/17 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 13 DM1 N Clarification of the term 'adjacent' in The term 'adjacent' in this context is defined for the reader in paragraph 13.7 None Policy DM1 (within 1km of the designation boundary)

106 R106/18 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 14 DM2 N Support of the policy. Noted None 106 R106/19 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 15 DM3 N Support for the policy. Noted None

106 R106/2 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 5 SD1 N Support for policy SD1 Noted None 106 R106/20 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 16 DM4 N Inclusion of the word 'unacceptable' in Noted. Planning permission for mineral development will be granted subject the policy wording the the applicant demonstrating that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on 106 R106/21 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 16 DM5 Y Part c) is too uncertain and strays from Agreed that a change is merited to clarify what is meant by compensatory Add explanatory note that in most cases compensatory arrangements land use planning and should be arrangements. Also rebalance content between policy DM5 and supporting refer to measures taken to ensure the permanent supply of water deleted. Surely part d) is sufficient text. rather than direct payments

106 R106/22 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 17 DM6 N Support Noted None

106 R106/23 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 18 DM7 Table 7 N It should be stated that this table Noted. Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites should be applied "where relevant" must:" Check-boxes deleted.

106 R106/24 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 18 DM7 N the requirement to provide financial Paragraph 144 of the NPPF does state that: "•provide for restoration and None information is not in accordance with aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental government guidance. standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional circumstances"

106 R106/25 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 19 DM8 N Support Noted None

106 R106/26 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 20 DM9 20.1 N Highlights conflict between para 20.1 It should be recognised that the paragraph cited by the representor is followed A significant proportion of the minerals extracted in Somerset are from and wording in para 4.10 of the in the LAA by a paragraph which begins "Having noted the capacity of the the Mendip Hills, in the eastern area of the county where the local Somerset LAA 2013 major road network, it is also important to note the constraints associated with road network is particularly constrained when taking all traffic the local roads in the eastern area of the county". Furthermore, it is also noted movements into account. that the Somerset Mineral Plan is one of the documents which constitutes the Development Plan for Somerset, and as such must be read in conjunction with other Plans for the county. The wording in the LAA refers only to minerals, whereas the Mineral Plan must take a wider view of the county and take account of many factors which can be influenced by mineral extraction. The LAA does not set policy, but is a supporting document to the Mineral Plan. It is acknowledged that wording in this paragraph could be clarified.

106 R106/27 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 21 DM10 N Support of the policy Noted None

106 R106/28 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 22 DM11 N Support of the policy Noted None

106 R106/29 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 23 DM12 N Support of the policy Noted None

106 R106/3 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 SMP1 N Support for SMP1 Noted None

106 R106/30 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 24 DM13 N Support of the policy Noted None

106 R106/4 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 SMP1 N Comment that recycled aggregates Noted None influenced by the level of development rather than the availability of natural resources. Aggregate produced in Somerset for use elsewhere should be recycled elsewhere linked with development in those areas

Page 44 of 70 106 R106/5 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 6.8 N Paragraph 6.8 talks about the Agreed that reference to the hierarchy in this paragraph is potentially 6.8 To promote the sustainable provision of aggregates the Somerset sustainable provision of aggregates confusing. Delete paragraph. Minerals Plan is informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by and that the Somerset Minerals Plan is recycled and secondary aggregates. [NB: renumber subsequent informed by a hierarchy of supply paras] options, topped by recycled and secondary aggregates. Whilst the sustainable use of recycled and secondary aggregates is supported and makes a valued contribution to overall aggregates demand it must be recognised that Somerset is a nationally important supplier of crushed rock.

106 R106/6 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 6.8 N In addition it should also be Agreed that reference to the hierarchy in this paragraph is potentially 6.8 To promote the sustainable provision of aggregates the Somerset recognised that recycled or secondary confusing. Delete paragraph. Minerals Plan is informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by aggregates cannot replace primary recycled and secondary aggregates. [NB: renumber subsequent aggregates in certain applications. paras]

106 R106/7 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 6.15 N Paragraph 6.15 estimates that the Agreed that reference to the hierarchy (in paragraph 6.8 - to which this 6.8 To promote the sustainable provision of aggregates the Somerset potential capacity of existing facilities representation cross-refers) is potentially confusing. Whilst the Plan can give Minerals Plan is informed by a hierarchy of supply options, topped by for recycled and secondary significant support to the provision of recycled and secondary aggregates the recycled and secondary aggregates. [NB: renumber subsequent aggregates in Somerset is over implementation of a rigid hierarchy is not practicable. Delete paragraph 6.8 paras] 160,000 tonnes per year although it is noted that the County Council is of the opinion this is an under-estimation. This represents approximately 1.5% of the average 10 years annual sales figure for crushed rock of 10.81 million tonnes per annum (paragraph 6.29 of the pre-submission Somerset Minerals Plan refers). How then can recycled/secondary aggregates top the hierarchy of supply options?

106 R106/8 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 6.14 N Paragraph 6.14 refers to a number of Agreed. Revise wording accordingly. There are a number of permitted recycled aggregate facilities in permitted recycling facilities in Somerset located in former quarries or waste transfer stations. In Somerset located in former quarries or addition active quarries also generate recycled aggregates, and inert waste transfer stations. Reference waste is treated on-site (for example, as part of major new should be made in the Plan to development schemes) via mobile crushers. recycling capability at existing quarries, for example recycled asphalt planning being re-used in asphalt plants or the recycling of concrete products

106 R106/9 Steve Lamb Quarry Plan (GB) Ltd 6 N Suggest it would be useful if the Plan Disgaree. This is not considered essential for the Plan. The position is likely to makes reference to an example where change over time, and the MPA responds to data supplied by industry in secondary aggregates are produced collating figures on secondary and recycled aggregates. within the County.

108 R108/1 David Payne Mineral Products 6 SMP1 N Support for SMP1 Noted None Association 108 R108/10 David Payne Mineral Products 13 DM1 N Support for reference to 'mitigate to It is important that these two points are kept separate to ensure it is clear that a None Association acceptable levels'. Questions whether proposal resulting unacceptable impacts will not result in planning permission. clauses a and b could be merged to improve the policy.

108 R108/11 David Payne Mineral Products 14 DM2 N Support of the policy. Noted. None. Association

Page 45 of 70 108 R108/12 David Payne Mineral Products 14 DM2 N Recommend that clause b should Agreed that wording should be clarified b) measures will be taken to mitigate to acceptable levels (or, as a last Association more correctly state that the Somerset resort, proportionately compensate for) adverse impacts on Biodiveristy Offsetting Methodology biodiversity and geodiversity. Such measures shall ensure a net gain will be used to calculate the value of a in biodiversity where possible. Biodiversity offsetting will be used to site. calculate the value of a site to species and habitats. The Habitat Evaluation Procedure will be used in calculating the value of a site to species affected by the proposal where the conservation value of the habitat is considered to be replaceable and mitigation techniques have been proven.

108 R108/13 David Payne Mineral Products 14 N We recommend that the supporting Agreed - amend row 2 in the Reclamation checklist (Table 7) Employ biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism to determine the Association text highlights that minerals sites, ecological value of a site for species and to calculate the amount of including restored sites and unworked restorative habitat required to replace that lost. Offsets should be estate, may provide opportunities to calculated using the Somerset Biodiversity Offsetting Methodology be used as offsets for other developed by Somerset County Council, and planned and delivered developments providing they meet the where appropriate via the ecological networks methodology, model criteria (additionally and value as and maps developed by Somerset County Council. Minerals sites, calculated through using the including restored sites and unworked estate, may provide Methodology). opportunities to be used as offsets for other developments providing they meet the criteria (as calculated through using the Methodology).

108 R108/14 David Payne Mineral Products 15 15.5 N Recommend that reference is made to Agreed - insert reference to guidance (as a footnote mentioned in criterion (a) 75 Additional guidance can be obtained from English Heritage/Minerals Association English Heritage/Minerals and Historic of paragraph 15.5) and Historic Heritage Forum Mineral Extraction and Archaeology: a Heritage Forum Mineral Extraction Practice Guide available for download from the English Heritage and Archaeology: A Practice Guide website

108 R108/15 David Payne Mineral Products 16 16.15 N Recommend that statement about The quotation is believed to be accurate (from the BGS report) but it is agreed Quoting from a report commissioned by Bath & North East Somerset Association Bath Hot Springs drawing water from that a better quotation from this report might clarify the point being made. Council: 78 "Exploration outside the B&NES area needs to be the Mendip Hills is checked for considered carefully to safeguard the flow to the hot springs Even accuracy before the publication of the BBB report (Burgess et al., 1980) it seemed likely that most of the flow to the Bath springs results from recharge on the high ground of the Mendip Hills, and that it must be travelling through the deepest part of the basin beneath the Radstock sub-basin in which coal was formerly mined from the Upper Carboniferous, in order to acquire its elevated temperature ".

108 R108/16 David Payne Mineral Products 18 Table 7 N The use of the Somerset Biodiversity Noted None Association Offsetting Methodology to assess the value of a site is supported.

108 R108/17 David Payne Mineral Products 18 Table 7 N As management and restoration of Noted None Association minerals sites can and does result in net gains for biodiversity, the need for off-site compensation through offsetting is likely to be limited for minerals developments. In any case, offsetting should be one option available, along with others such as on- site compensation and use of s106 agreements for offsite works, to deliver compensation for residual losses

108 R108/18 David Payne Mineral Products 18 Table 7 N We recommend that the boxes Noted Revised wording: "Where relevant, proposals for all minerals sites Association checked for different minerals are re- must:" Check-boxes deleted. assessed as some of these appear to be arbitrary and inconsistent.

Page 46 of 70 108 R108/19 David Payne Mineral Products 23 DM12 N The justification for this policy appears Agree that supporting text could provide more clarity. Transport is certainly one 23.1 It is important to recognise t The potential cumulative effects Association weak. We recommend that the aspect, but so are the cumulative impacts on the natural and historic impacts of permitted development have the potential to impact on the supporting text should make clear that environment and human health, including noise, dust and particle emissions natural and historic environment and human safety . in particular this really applies to the need to and any blasting vibrations (as explained in paragraph 144 of the NPPF). acknowledging the concentrated nature of quarrying activity in the manage impacts of transport arising Mendip Hills; and The Mendip Hills, in particular, is home to a large from increases in production (covered number of quarrying sites, and it is important for the planning process by Policy DM9). In any event such to ensure that adequate controls are in place. impacts would normally be controlled through conditions. 23.2 Production limits can be usefully applied to mineral development in Somerset to protect local communities and the natural and historic environment of Somerset to avoid or mitigate against adverse impacts on local amenity and the natural and historic environment (such as noise dust and vibration). This should be considered in the context of policy DM8 and Table 8, and for minerals transportation in the context of policy DM9.

108 R108/2 David Payne Mineral Products 6 SMP2 N Support for policy SMP2 Noted None Association

108 R108/3 David Payne Mineral Products 6 6.33 N Welcome reference to large landbanks Noted None Association not necessarily meaning new reserves should not be permitted, which properly reflects the role of landbanks described in NPPF and NPPG

108 R108/4 David Payne Mineral Products 6 SMP3 N Support for policy SMP3 Noted None Association

108 R108/5 David Payne Mineral Products 6 6.60 N Welcome correct interpretation of Agreed that wording should change in response to NPPG Informed by national guidance 31 , the Mineral Planning Authority Association national policy and guidance an acknowledges that adopts the position that an adequate or excess adequate landbank is not in itself a landbank is not in itself a reason for witholding planning permission reason for witholding permission. But Tthere is no maximum landbank level and each application for recommend reference to "excess" is minerals extraction must be considered on its own merits regardless deleted of the length of the landbank; adverse impacts must be considered alongside planning benefits. [also amend footnote reference from Guidance on MASS to the NPPG]

108 R108/6 David Payne Mineral Products 6 SMP4 N Support for policy SMP4 Noted None Association 108 R108/7 David Payne Mineral Products 7 SMP5 N The term needed may give the wrong Disagree regarding the first part of this representation. The term needed is not a) there is an identified need for the specified stone currently used in Association impression of actual need and market used in policy SMP5 and sufficient explanation is given in the supporting text Somerset to maintain or enhance the local historic environment; and for different tyeps of stone. Use of a and, as acknowledged, supporting Topic Paper. Focusing on the second part, term such as "additional reserves agreed that the wording in criterion (a) could be clarified needed over the Plan period" might be less neat but more accurate. We recommend that the reference to stone "currently used in Somerset" is amended to "produced in Somerset"

108 R108/8 David Payne Mineral Products 11 SMP9 N Support for policy SMP9 Noted None Association

108 R108/9 David Payne Mineral Products 13 13.7 N proposal to include further wording Paragragh 13.7 details the need to make appropriate reference to AONB None Association relating to AONB management plans, management plans. and their relative planning weight.

109 R109/1 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.3 N Proposed text fails to take account of The wording of paragraph 7.3 could be expanded to clarify the MPA’s position 7.3 It is vital to ensure that an adequate supply of building stones is Management Ltd, on the national importance of the stone and support at the start of this chapter. available so that the local character of the county is maintained. The behalf of Lovell Stone produced by the representor Somerset Minerals Plan provides a positive policy framework to Group Ltd support investment in appropriate sites, facilities and skills.

Page 47 of 70 109 R109/10 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.25 N Objects to notion of cap on output i.e. It is proposed that paragraph 7.25 be deleted, and Table 3 be reformatted as Delete para 7.25 Management Ltd, on restrictions on small-scale of building Figure. Within these changes, the wording on scale in what was Table 3 will be behalf of Lovell Stone stone operations. Reference to revised. That said, it is noted that the representation blurs the distinction Group Ltd Bowden's Lane already having an between tonnes/annum and m 3. The Preferred Options of the Somerset output of 3000 tonnes / year Minerals Plan included reference to 2000 tonnes/annum and since then the County Council has changed the reference to m 3 to align with the English Stone Forum’s definition. Industry feedback has identified that 1 cubic metre of dimension stone equates to roughly 2.3 tonnes. Thus, the 2000 m 3 stated in the pre-submission Minerals Plan would equate to roughly 4600 t / a. And the 3000 t/a referenced in the representation would equate to approximately 1300m 3, well within the guidance suggested in the Plan - and with significant scope for expansion (subject to due consideration via the planning process). Also it is noted that this is NOT a blanket cap. The wording of paragraph 7.25 refered to what is considered small-scale, whereas the policy itself does NOT refer to small-scale.

109 R109/2 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.9 N Seeking greater clarity in the text that Agreed that paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10 could flow more clearly. Revise wording 7.9 During the plan period operators may propose changes to existing Management Ltd, on would give support to the expansion of to highlight the different types of proposal for building stone extraction. permissions, site extensions and/or new sites for the stones currently behalf of Lovell Stone existing quarries and new quarries in worked. and the County Council’s planning policy must consider this Group Ltd the future possibility.

109 R109/3 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.14 N States that much of the building stone Paragraph 7.14 is considered to be a statement of fact. It is noted that the None Management Ltd, on quarried in Somerset are not small representation blurs the distinction between tonnes/annum and m3. The behalf of Lovell Stone scale, including Lovell Stone Group Preferred Options of the Somerset Minerals Plan included reference to 2000 Group Ltd Ltd’s quarry at Bowden’s Lane, as tonnes/annum and since then the County Council has changed the reference to defined by the English Stone Forum as m3 to align with the English Stone Forum’s definition of what is small scale. those which produce less than Assuming that (using the industry feedback conversion of 1 cubic metre of 2,000m3 per year. Bowden’s Lane dimension stone equating to roughly 2.3 tonnes) the 2000 m3 stated elsewhere Quarry already has a 3,000 t/a output in the pre-submission Minerals Plan would equate to roughly 4600 t / a and limit. most building stone quarries in Somerset fall within that level of output.

109 R109/4 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.21 N Proposes that "local" should be Agree that wording should be clarified Policy SMP5 supports the provision of local building stone, stating Management Ltd, on deleted to ensure that the Minerals Somerset County Council’s planning policy regarding proposals for the behalf of Lovell Stone Plan is supportive of the industry extraction of building stone. for local demand, which As noted in Table Group Ltd 2 the evidence broadens the range of stones identified by the County Council as “needed” beyond those currently worked in Somerset.

109 R109/5 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 SMP5 N Proposes alternative wording to Disagree with proposed wording. The policy wording highlights the importance a) there is an identified need for the specified stone currently used in Management Ltd, on criterion (a) in SMP5 to acknowledge of the link between stone extraction and the local historic environment. It does Somerset to maintain or enhance the local historic environment; and behalf of Lovell Stone wider/national demand for local stone not preclude the export or sale of stone extracted in Somerset outside the Group Ltd county. However, agree that wording could be clarified.

109 R109/6 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests row 1 should be deleted Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to location and Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to the MSA Management Ltd, on since it places an unnecessary burden MSAs behalf of Lovell Stone on the development of the stone Group Ltd industry

109 R109/7 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N States that the wording in Row 8 could Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to landscape - Reformat Table as figure/tool with revised reference to landscape Management Ltd, on be open to interpretation including reference to policy DM1 behalf of Lovell Stone Group Ltd

109 R109/8 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Objects to any restriction for building Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to permitted Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to permitted Management Ltd, on stone quarries to be less than "2000" extraction level extraction levels behalf of Lovell Stone Group Ltd

Page 48 of 70 109 R109/9 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N States that requirement for Phase 1 Agreed that Table should be reformatted; and language should cross-check Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to DM chapter Management Ltd, on ecological survey may not apply in all other content of the Plan (in particular regarding the DM chapter on biodiversity behalf of Lovell Stone cases and geodiversity) Group Ltd

110 R110/1 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.3 N Proposed text fails to take account of The wording of paragraph 7.3 could be expanded to clarify the MPA’s position 7.3 It is vital to ensure that an adequate supply of building stones is Management Ltd, on the national importance of the stone and support at the start of this chapter. available so that the local character of the county is maintained. The behalf of Wolff Stone Ltd produced by the representor Somerset Minerals Plan provides a positive policy framework to support investment in appropriate sites, facilities and skills.

110 R110/10 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.39 N Emphasises that the Plan should not Disagree. Paragraph 7.39 should not be read in isolation. The importance of None Management Ltd, on prohibit the removal of waste stone space within quarries is highlighted in paragraph 7.38. behalf of Wolff Stone Ltd from the quarry where it can be exported without any adverse impact on restoration potential or local roads. Somerset's policy on waste retention adversely affects the economic viability of a number of quarries. Suggests alternative wording for para 7.39

110 R110/2 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.9 N Seeking greater clarity in the text that Agreed that paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10 could flow more clearly. Revise wording 7.9 During the plan period operators may propose changes to existing Management Ltd, on would give support to the expansion of to highlight the different types of proposal for building stone extraction. permissions, site extensions and/or new sites for the stones currently behalf of Wolff Stone Ltd existing quarries and new quarries in worked. and the County Council’s planning policy must consider this the future possibility.

110 R110/3 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.14 & N States view that most of the building Paragraph 7.14 is considered to be a statement of fact. It is noted that the 7.19 Stakeholders have expressed a preference (via consultation Management Ltd, on 7.19 stone quarries in Somerset are not representation blurs the distinction between tonnes/annum and m3. The feedback) for the development of a larger number of small quarries as behalf of Wolff Stone Ltd small scale and states that Preferred Options of the Somerset Minerals Plan included reference to 2000 a source of local building stone (compared with a smaller number of stakeholder preference for the tonnes/annum and since then the County Council has changed the reference to larger quarries). 37 This helps to reduce the carbon footprint of such development of a larger number of m3 to align with the English Stone Forum’s definition of what is small scale. development, in particular by reducing the need to transport material smaller scale quarries is at odds with Assuming that (using the industry feedback conversion of 1 cubic metre of over longer distances; also it reflects the current nature and scale of the way industry is developing. dimension stone equating to roughly 2.3 tonnes) the 2000 m3 stated elsewhere building stone activity in Somerset. in the pre-submission Minerals Plan would equate to roughly 4600 t / a and most building stone quarries in Somerset fall within that level of output. And the 2400 t/a referenced in the representation would equate to approximately 1000m3, well within the guidance suggested in the Plan.

110 R110/4 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.21 N Proposes that "local" should be Agree that wording should be clarified Policy SMP5 supports the provision of local building stone, stating Management Ltd, on deleted to ensure that the Minerals Somerset County Council’s planning policy regarding proposals for the behalf of Wolff Stone Ltd Plan is supportive of the industry extraction of building stone. for local demand, which As noted in Table 2 the evidence broadens the range of stones identified by the County Council as “needed” beyond those currently worked in Somerset.

110 R110/5 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 SMP5 N Proposes alternative wording to Disagree with proposed wording. The policy wording highlights the importance a) there is an identified need for the specified stone currently used in Management Ltd, on criterion (a) in SMP5 to acknowledge of the link between stone extraction and the local historic environment. It does Somerset to maintain or enhance the local historic environment; and behalf of Wolff Stone Ltd wider/national demand for local stone not preclude the export or sale of stone extracted in Somerset outside the county. However, agree that wording could be clarified.

Page 49 of 70 110 R110/6 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N States that Table 3 only relates to Noted. The table is indeed focused on stone extraction and that is its intention. None Management Ltd, on stone extraction i.e. it does not cover behalf of Wolff Stone Ltd building stone processing

110 R110/7 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.28 N Requests further clarification in use of Agreed that wording could be clarified in this paragraph including the deletion A case may be made for the importation and working of relatively Management Ltd, on terms "relatively small" and "informed of the identified words. small quantities or natural stone into quarry sites, informed by market behalf of Wolff Stone Ltd by market demand" demand…

110 R110/8 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.32 N Implies supports for the Plan's vision Noted None Management Ltd, on and objectives (not contradictory with behalf of Wolff Stone Ltd representor's position)

110 R110/9 John Salmon Land and Mineral 7 7.33 N Requests further clarification in use of Agree that wording should be clarified. A case may be made for the importation and working of relatively Management Ltd, on term "low tonnage". Suggests revised small quantities of natural stone into quarry sites is likely to be based behalf of Wolff Stone Ltd wording Text in red responds to feedback on proposed changes via the Habitat on factors such as the economic viability of operations, the range of Regulations Assessment products an operator can provide to the market, the impact of the proposed stone working on local jobs and the retention of skills in Somerset., informed by market demand, where such stone: In such cases, key considerations for the County Council will include: alignment with the vision and objectives of the Somerset Minerals Plan; economic and other benefits to the local and/or wider communities; cumulative impacts (alongside other activities at the site and/or adjacent sites) on the natural and historic environment, or local amenity (for example, arising from the transport of materials); how the wastes arising from the working of such imported material will be managed; and impacts on the use of appropriate, Somerset-sourced building stone

111.1 R111.1/1 Mark Funnell National Trust 13 N Chapter 13 – Landscape and Visual Noted. Text change to ensure that generic use of 'countryside' is also clear to It is important to ensure that appropriate provision are made to protect Amenity This chapter does not appear reader that this stretches to, and includes the coastline. and/or enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the to mention the coast, although both Primarily to recognise the existance of the mineral resource south east of countryside and landscape, including coastal areas in Somerset coast and countryside are important Minehead, should a mineral proposal come forward in this area. within Somerset and therefore arguably relevant for considerations of landscape and visual amenity. The Somerset coast (excluding Exmoor NP and North Somerset) stretches from Minehead – near to which Dunster Castle experiences views both to and from the coast – to Brean Down, also owned by the Trust. It is considered that reference to the importance of maintaining the character of the coast, in particular the undeveloped coast, should be made within the Plan.

111.1 R111.1/2 Mark Funnell National Trust 13 Y At present, it is questioned whether Agreed that wording could be clarified; however, it is important not to reproduce ...National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the this chapter is consistent with current national policy, so a balance needs to be achieved. Minor modifications to highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. national policy (e.g. NPPF para 114). policy DM1 help to ensure clarity on this issue. Proposals for mineral development within or adjacent to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will need to take full account of the relevant AONB Management Plan;. and proposals within or adjacent to Exmoor National Park will need to take full account of the Exmoor National Park Local Plan

Page 50 of 70 111.1 R111.1/3 Mark Funnell National Trust 15 DM3 N Chapter 15 – Historic Environment Listed buildings are included in Scheduled Monuments, and all heritage assets 15.6 Applications for minerals development in Somerset must This chapter appears focused on in Somerset are detailed on the Historic Environment Record. It is demonstrate that the proposal will not substantially harm the integrity, scheduled monuments / acknowledged that further wording on the setting of heritage assets is needed character or setting of a designated heritage assets. Where this archaeological sites and makes no in a minor wording change to paragraph 15.6 cannot… specific mention of other heritage assets such as listed buildings or conservation areas. Even more importantly, this chapter makes very little mention of the setting of heritage assets. At the very least, para 15.6 should have “or their setting” added at the end of the first sentence. Policy DM3 only mentions ‘setting’ once, and then only requires an ‘archaeological assessment’, whereas affects on the setting of an important listed building may require a broader heritage impact assessment. Policy DM3 should be amended accordingly.

111.1 R111.1/4 Mark Funnell National Trust 15 Y At present, it is questioned whether It is important to achieve an appropriate balance without reproducing text from None this chapter is consistent with current the National Planning Policy Framework. The importance of the setting of the national policy (e.g. NPPF para’s 128, asset is acknowledged in this chapter, and the Plan refers to English Heritage 129 and 132). English Heritage as key source of information guidance on ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ is also relevant.

112.1 R112.1/1 Steve Hellier Highways Agency Gener N Role of Highways Agency, and detail Noted None al of Department of Transport guidance.

112.1 R112.1/2 Steve Hellier Highways Agency Gener N We note that the Pre-submission Correct - this Development Plan Document is intended to be a strategic None al Minerals Plan does not discuss the document for mineral development; it does not allocate new sites. transport impacts on specific minerals site proposals.

112.1 R112.1/3 Steve Hellier Highways Agency 20 DM9 N Notes that the Pre-submission Correct - this Development Plan Document does not allocate sites, and is None Minerals Plan does not discuss the intended to be a strategic document for mineral development; it does not transport impacts on specific minerals allocate new sites. site proposals.

112.1 R112.1/4 Steve Hellier Highways Agency 20 DM9 N Reinforces that central tenet of DM9 Highway safety is included within the list of requirement to satisfy this policy None should be highway safety

112.1 R112.1/5 Steve Hellier Highways Agency 23 DM12 N Clarification as to the reach of the The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the Production limits can be usefully applied to mineral development in policy - it is not clear whether this Development Plan, which provide other proetction policies (through, for Somerset to protect local communities and the natural and historic includes any unacceptable adverse example DM9 - Minerals Transportation. Impacts such as assessing the load environment of Somerset to avoid or mitigate against adverse impacts impacts on the Strategic Road on the SRN would be made at application stage by the planning officer, and on local amenity and the natural and historic environment (such as Network conditioned as necessary. Additional wording in paragraph 23.3 should help to noise, dust and vibration). This should be considered in the context of clarify. policy DM8 and Table 8, and for minerals transportation in the context of policy DM9.

Page 51 of 70 112.1 R112.1/6 Steve Hellier Highways Agency Gener N It is likely that some sites will be a few Noted. The requirement for Transport Assessment is covered in Policy DM9. None al miles of the SRN and are likely to generate trips onto it. Many of these trips will be HGV movements. At present it is difficult to determine what the traffic impacts will be on the safe and efficient operation on specific junctions on the trunk road. It also appears that the references made to traffic movements relate only to HGV’s and do not take into account of other traffic arising from the mineral workings, including staff travel.

Guidance on Transport Assessment states that a Transport Assessment (TA) should be prepared to accompany a planning application for any development which is forecast to generate:

• 100 or more two-way vehicle movements per day; or • 30 or more two-way vehicle movements in any hour; or • Significant freight or HGV moments per day, or significant abnormal loads per year.

The imperative to identify these improvements at an early stage is set out in government policy. Para 15 of 112.1 R112.1/7 Steve Hellier Highways Agency Gener Nthe Thank DfT you Circular for consulting states that: the Agency Noted None al on the pre-submission minerals plan. You will not that Dft Circular 02/2013, which sets out the Agency’s involvement in spatial planning matters, emphasises that transport impacts and potential mitigation needs to be understood and agreed at the plan making stage.

112.1 R112.1/8 Steve Hellier Highways Agency Gener N The Agency strongly advises that an Noted None al appropriate level of traffic assessment is undertaken to provide a suitable evidence base and enable the Agency to form a clearer view on the impact of the proposals on the SRN. The Agency will be happy to discuss these matters with you. We recognise that minerals planning plays an important role in maintaining supply and Somerset County Council as the Mineral Planning Authority will take the lead role in implementation of the objectives and the policies of this Mineral Plan.

112.1 R112.1/9 Steve Hellier Highways Agency 25 25.5 N Support for the policy, and for further Noted None engagement with partner organisations, such as the Highway Agency

Page 52 of 70 124 R124/1 Frances 16 N • The possible threat to the The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the None Britten environment and livelihoods by the Development Plan, which provide other amenity protection policies. Conditions effect on the lowering of the water regarding the operation of mineral sites, for example in relation to water table . The need to monitor the whole abstraction, are set through planning conditions at the time of determination by of the East Mendip region the relevant planning officer. • The rate of extraction of water to accommodate the removal of stone to Furthermore, the chief regulator for water matters in England is the the depth just above sea level by the Environment Agency. SCC have been in close touch with the EA over a 4 major quarries in East Mendip which number of issues, and they have contributed to the evidence that informs the surround the Parish of Downhead Minerals Plan on this issue. • A plan put in place should the water table show signs of derogatory effects on the landscape and spring supplies - possibly also affecting the Bath Hot Springs !

124 R124/2 Frances 13 N The effect on the local Environment ( Noted None Britten noting that E Mendip is excluded from the AONB, and therefore an even greater value should be placed on Asham Wood ,a SSSI and SAC overseen by Natural England and owned by Hansons (This area ,designated a sacrificial quarrying area, should make the unquarried areas County Wildlife Sites and be the responsibility of these operating quarries)

124 R124/3 Frances 19 N Working hours and patterns - The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the None Britten especially concerning weekend Development Plan, which provide other amenity protection policies. Conditions working regarding the operating and working hours of mineral sites are set through planning conditions at the time of determination by the relevant planning officer.

124 R124/4 Frances 18 N Restoration work should be managed Restoration conditions are set by the planning officer at the point of None Britten long term with particular care for determination, and linked to the length and type of planning proposal. planted trees and hedgerows

124 R124/5 Frances 19 N Dust suppression and monitoring The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the None Britten should continue to be a priority Development Plan, which provide other amenity protection policies. Conditions regarding the operating and working hours of mineral sites are set through planning conditions at the time of determination by the relevant planning officer. Chapter 19 focuses in particular on the protection of local amenity, including dust supression

124 R124/6 Frances 9 N Fracking in this area due to the Noted None Britten importance of private water supplies and the value of the environment should not even be considered.

Page 53 of 70 124 R124/7 Frances Gener N For those who take, it should be their Noted None Britten al responsibility to give back We are Custodians in each of our Lifetimes, to value and protect our land for Future Generations For those who take, it should be their responsibility to give back We are Custodians in each of our Lifetimes, to value and protect our land for Future Generations For those who take, it should be their responsibility to give back We are Custodians in each of our Lifetimes, to value and protect our land for Future Generations

124 R124/8 Frances Gener N Noise pollution: dominated in this area The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the None Britten al by the wind direction and season (the Development Plan, which provide other amenity protection policies. Conditions importance of working hours adhered regarding the operating and working hours of mineral sites are set through to) planning conditions at the time of determination by the relevant planning officer. Chapter 19 focuses in particular on the protection of local amenity, including noise

124 R124/9 Frances Gener N Light pollution… the high sky in this The Somerset Mineral Plan must be read as a whole, and as part of the None Britten al area as far reaching as Shepton Mallet Development Plan, which provide other amenity protection policies. Conditions is affected. The question of preserving regarding the operating and working hours of mineral sites are set through energy may also be addressed on the planning conditions at the time of determination by the relevant planning officer. excessive and unnecessary need of Chapter 19 focuses in particular on the protection of local amenity, including light light

124 R124/10 Frances Gener N Compensation - for all local people Noted - also with reference to defining compensatory arrangements in the None Britten al who may be affected by loss or context of chapter 16 and the protection of water resources reduction of water due to permissions granted. This would need to be a clause clearly stated in the S106 Agreement

137 R137/1 Margaret 9 N Fracking should not be permitted as it Noted None Green causes excessive pollution of air and water, is hazardous to humans, livestock and wildlife. It is a significant cause of climate change. In constrast, renewable energy from solar and wind farms(large and small) is a clean sustainable source of energy sufficient for the whole world now and in the future.

168 R168/1 Christine 9 9.16 N Comment regarding shale gas Noted. The Somerset Mineral Plan must follow central Government planning None Wakelin- extraction on learning from policy, and any change, such as additional environmental regulations would Gilden envirionmental regulations in other need to come first from them. countries

175.1 R175.1/1 A R David Ashwick Parish Council 9 N Fracking - general comment on the Noted None Thorley context of this response

175.1 R175.1/2 A R David Ashwick Parish Council 9 Regulat N Considers that assuming other SCC must be clear in its remit and not extend into areas covered by other None Thorley ory regulatory bodies operate as intended regulatory bodies. The respondent is referred to the Regulatory roadmap overvie is a recipe for disaster available from the DECC website. It is important also to note the role of DECC w, p56 in considering these matters

175.1 R175.1/3 A R David Ashwick Parish Council 9 9.20 N Raises several comments about The core of the representation is believed to be the integrity of the well casing, None Thorley preventing failures in the well and that is a matter for the Health & Safety Executive. Again the Regulatory Roadmap makes clear HSE’s responsibilities in this regard

Page 54 of 70 181 R181/1 Mary Scott 9 SMP7 N Fracking - general principle. Noted None Contribution towards CO2 emissions. Concerns re: quantity of water used and risk of contamination of aquifers.

181 R181/2 Mary Scott 16 DM5 N Fracking - The policy should require Noted None developers to demonstrate zero “adverse impacts on the water environment or other water interests”

184 R184/1 Saskia 9 N Fracking - general principle. Concerns Noted None Rothfield about health, environment and pollution.

195 R195/1 Prudence Gener N Disappointed that earlier detailed Earlier comments have influenced wording in the Plan; for example, reference None Piper al comments have not been taken on to compensation in the energy minerals policy was challenged by this board. Reflects that it may be too late representor and no longer appears in the policy. Wording in the Plan is still for changes subject to change, informed by the evidence available

195 R195/10 Prudence 13 DM1 N The new mountain at Leighton (Ton) Noted None Piper makes a nonsense of this.

195 R195/11 Prudence 14 DM2 N Off-setting only works on paper This is not the case. In Somerset the County Council’s species-led metric for None Piper evaluating sites in impact assessment has been used successfully on over 20 projects and plans since 2009

195 R195/12 Prudence 16 DM4 N Derogation is never acceptable It is noted that derogation is not desirable and the Plan puts in place strong, None Piper clear policy on this issue

195 R195/13 Prudence 16 16.14 N Is there no knowledge newer than The County Council's evidence base is kept up-to-date in this fast moving field; None Piper 1973? but older work/research - particular linked with geological matters - can still be valuable and should not be forgotten

195 R195/14 Prudence 16 DM5 Y States that part (a) is unsatisfactory. Clarify reference to compensation in the supporting text ... In most cases, compensatory arrangements refer to measures Piper Part (b) monitoring must be regular, taken to ensure the permanent supply of water rather than direct carried out by LPA and paid for by the payments operator. c) compensation will have to be in perpetuity. How is this to be achieved?

195 R195/15 Prudence 17 DM6 N Diversion always loses the historical RoW diversions are considered via a due process None Piper context

195 R195/16 Prudence 21 DM10 N How is this to be policed? Enforcement of conditions is a separate process None Piper

195 R195/17 Prudence 22 DM11 N Wrong - not if it's considered strategic No distinction is made in this policy regarding strategic sites, though clearly None Piper (Torr) larger quarries operate on a larger scale

195 R195/18 Prudence 25 N Monitoring indicators too vague Disgaree. It is considered that indicators will provide valuable information on Piper clear, specific topics

195 R195/19 Prudence 25 25.18 N Review and revision not possible Noted that review and revision of the Plan requires effective monitoring and None Piper without many constant, expensive, revision can be a complex process independent checks

195 R195/2 Prudence 4 N To the NPPF, ecological and Noted None Piper landscape assets are of secondary importance compared to the constant supply of rocks

Page 55 of 70 195 R195/3 Prudence 6 SMP1 N SMP1 should reflect the Waste Support for the production of recycled and secondary aggregates does reflect None Piper hierarchy the waste hierarchy and a link is made in the Minerals Plan to the Somerset Waste Core Strategy, which embeds the waste hierarchy

195 R195/4 Prudence 6 SMP2 6.27 - N 6.27 - how local is LAA? 6.33 - existing The LAA focuses on Somerset. It is not considered appropriate to link the None Piper 6.39 permissions should be given up and granting of new permissions with the relinquishment and restoration of existing restoration started before new permissions; however, new reserves have not actually been identified (i.e. permissions and new reserves allocated) in the Plan, and the Plan does support phased restoration at the identified; 6.39 - landbank of 41 years earliest possible opportunity and plan period suggests permissions will only be needed in new sites during the plan period

195 R195/5 Prudence 6 SMP3 6.52 - N Ecological and social benefits are The description of potential ecological and social benefits is considered None Piper 6.59 greatly overstated. 6.59 - when has reasonable. Cumulative impacts are taken into account, not least through the this ever been considered in formal EIA process as outlined proposals?

195 R195/6 Prudence 7 SMP5 N Support for SMP5 and supporting text Noted None Piper

195 R195/7 Prudence 9 N Welcome cautious approach, but Noted None Piper central govt policy will always trump local one

195 R195/8 Prudence 9 SMP7 N Support for SMP7 Noted None Piper

195 R195/9 Prudence 10 SMP8 N Difficult to follow and interpret (link Concerns are noted; however, it is believed that the proposed approach is None Piper between strategic and development more straight-forward to implement management content)

203 R203/1 Nita Rothfield 9 N Outlines/introduces opposition to Noted None fracking

203 R203/10 Nita Rothfield 9 N Concluding remarks/concerns about Noted None fracking

203 R203/2 Nita Rothfield 9 N Raises concerns about water usage Noted None and related imapcts and water storage on-site

203 R203/3 Nita Rothfield 9 N Raises concerns about earthquakes Noted None

203 R203/4 Nita Rothfield 9 N Raises concerns about lack of Noted None transparency from industry

203 R203/5 Nita Rothfield 9 N Raises concerns about horizontal Noted None drilling i.e. it's not simply a case of simple vertical drilling, and the difficulty in retaining well integrity in such complex operations. Impact of methane emissions and lack of disclosure in USA on chemicals used

203 R203/6 Nita Rothfield 9 N Raises concerns about noise and light Noted None pollution from operations when drilling is 24/7

203 R203/7 Nita Rothfield 9 N Raises concerns about site restoration Noted None if the site does not yield a profit

Page 56 of 70 203 R203/8 Nita Rothfield 9 N Raises concerns about public health Noted None impacts

203 R203/9 Nita Rothfield 9 N Raises concerns about novel nature of Noted None technology

224 R224/1 Nicholas 9 SM7 N States that SCC must reserve the right SCC is required to follow government policy None Cotterell at all times to withold planning permission

224 R224/2 Nicholas 9 9.7 Y States that evidence base (Topic SCC is required to follow government policy. It is a fast moving field and SCC None Cotterell Paper 4) is not up-to-date, in particular has recently been working to update the Energy Minerals Topic Paper regarding impact on carbon emissions

266 R266/1 Guy Watts 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

266 R266/2 Guy Watts Gener N Opposes planning process / plan- A 'plan on a page' summary is not practicable because condensing the text None al making process. Seeks simple would lead significant issues being open to interpretation and that the text summary about Plan wouldn't be able to give sufficient detail on complex planning issues.

276 R276/1 Olwen 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Gillespie 284 R284/1 Carolyn 9 N Raises concerns about water Noted None Thompson shortages

284 R284/10 Carolyn 9 N Refers to other sources of information Noted None Thompson

284 R284/2 Carolyn 9 N Raises concerns about water use and Noted None Thompson contamination

284 R284/3 Carolyn 9 N Raises conerns about climate change Noted None Thompson

284 R284/4 Carolyn 9 N Raises concerns about current water Noted None Thompson use

284 R284/5 Carolyn 9 N Raises concerns about impact of Noted None Thompson fracking in USA

284 R284/6 Carolyn 9 N Raises concerns about the economic Noted None Thompson case for fracking

284 R284/7 Carolyn 9 N Raises concerns about the impacts of Noted None Thompson fracking on agriculture/farming

284 R284/8 Carolyn 9 N Cites motion passed by North Dorset Noted None Thompson District Councillors

284 R284/9 Carolyn 9 N Raises concerns that no political party Noted None Thompson included fracking in their manifesto

295 R295/1 John White Gener N Why is the Minerals Plan under the It is assumed this refers to the Foreword and, potentially, the NPPF. The None al political economic head? Minerals Plan is written to accord with NPPF and the Foreword is from our Member responsible for Business, Inward Investment and Policy

295 R295/10 John White 7 N Repeats concern that Blue Lias is not Minerals Topic Paper on building stone is informed by research undertaken by None suitable material respected experts and the building stone chapter/strategy is informed by engagement with a wide variety of people and companies linked with building stone in Somerset

Page 57 of 70 295 R295/2 John White Gener N States there is confusion about the No comment None al distinction between mineral and rock; once extracted it has no value

295 R295/3 John White Gener N Queries use of the term geodiversity Use of the term historic environment is informed by feedback from English None al and inter-relationship with the historic Heritage and the approach to geodiversity is outlined in chapter 14 environment

295 R295/4 John White SA 1.79 Y Does not agree with SA's conclusion Shared with LUC - response integrated within Statement of Consultation None that peat production is positive

295 R295/5 John White SA 1.87- N Questions SA re air quality Shared with LUC - response integrated within Statement of Consultation None 1.90

295 R295/6 John White SA N States that SA does not assess what Shared with LUC - response integrated within Statement of Consultation None the extraction of hydrocarbons is likely to mean

295 R295/7 John White 9 N Raises concern about finding relevant Noted None text on shale gas extraction

295 R295/8 John White Gener N States that rationale behind current The Minerals Plan includes strong, clear policies on protecting the natural and None al policy is flawed historic envrionment

295 R295/9 John White Gener N Challenges use of the term It is noted that the term sustainable is used by different people in different None al "sustainable" ways. The Minerals Plan is clear in its use of terminology

297 R297/1 Dominic 9 N Raises concerns about "permissive" The Plan must be positively prepared to be found sound. It is believed the rep None Maskell nature of the Plan's approach to refers to the box on community engagement which includes “will seek” rather energy minerals than para 9.27

297 R297/10 Dominic 16 DM5 N "will only…if…etc". Yes indeed! a) or Policy DM5 is written to be more restrictive than some of the other policies to None Maskell risk; b) emphasises long-term (up to support effective risk management when considering extraction below the water 50 years). table. It is not considered appropriate to fix a time period for monitoring in this policy

297 R297/2 Dominic 9 9.19 N Will EA use its powers? SCC must be clear in its remit and not extend into areas covered by other None Maskell regulatory bodies. The respondent is referred to the Regulatory roadmap available from the DECC website. It is important also to note the role of DECC in considering these matters.

297 R297/3 Dominic 9 9.28 - N Stresses importance of environmental Noted None Maskell 9.29 risk assessments and adhering to requirements of EIA process

297 R297/4 Dominic 9 9.32 N Tourism and economic benefit of Agreed. Amend 9..32 Underground caves and passages have a crucial role in the Maskell caves should be mentioned movement of water through the hills, an important consideration when seeking to protect groundwater resources. Furthermore, some local sites are protected as SSSIs, and others have provided important archaeological information and some are a destination for cavers and tourists .

297 R297/5 Dominic 9 9.34 N Long-term is being overlooked again Disgaree – this paragraph refers to a key point in planning, that one must refer None Maskell to the Development Plan as a whole.

297 R297/6 Dominic 9 9.34 N "Seek" to sign is not tough enough; It is believed the rep refers to the box on community engagement which None Maskell applicants must be required to sign the includes “will seek” rather than para 9.27. PPA

Page 58 of 70 297 R297/7 Dominic 9 9.34 N Treasury-promoted inducements are a Noted. The mention of funds is a statement of fact, rather than one of policy. None Maskell red herring

297 R297/8 Dominic 9 SMP7 N Policy should be negatively worded i.e. The Plan must be positively prepared to be found sound. None Maskell permission not granted unless

297 R297/9 Dominic 16 DM4 N Policy should be negatively worded i.e. The Plan must be positively prepared to be found sound. Change wording from Change wording from derogation to adverse impact Maskell permission not granted unless. Delete derogation to adverse impact "use of" as too restrictive. Define derogation

303 R303/1 Daniel 9 9.19 N Raises concerns about the relative Noted None Murguialday proportions of chemicals remaining confidential

303 R303/2 Daniel 9 SMP7 Y There is no definition of what The need to amend Policy SMP7 is not accepted. No change Murguialday "acceptable" or "unacceptable" impacts on the environment and local It should be remember that the MLP should be read as a whole. The communities are. This concern applies respondent rightly acknowledges the role that Table 8 plays within the MLP in to most policies in the Plan. Table 8 providing guidance on this matter with regard to the protection of local amenity. reflects some third party guidance but This is based on experience gain as the Minerals Planning Authority in is limited in scope determining major planning applications such as those in connection with the depending of the quarry at Torr (2010/0984).

303 R303/3 Daniel 9 SMP7 N Risk assessment should include Noted None Murguialday reference to long-term studies

304 R304/1 Rachael 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Wood 304 R304/2 Rachael 9 N Raising concerns about impacts re Noted None Wood aquifers and areas that food sources derive from

304 R304/3 Rachael 9 9.30 N Highlights concerns about risk Noted None Wood assessment in areas with complex geology

304 R304/4 Rachael 9 N Asks if flow back water is considered Noted None Wood at planning stage

304 R304/5 Rachael 9 N Concerned about the chemicals added Noted None Wood to the fracking fluid

304 R304/6 Rachael 9 N Concerned by the risks associated Noted None Wood with fracking in an area of higher population density

304 R304/7 Rachael 9 SMP7 Y Asks what level of impact would be Impacts will be assessed from a range of perspectives, including support from None Wood deemed acceptable? How can technical experts where that is shown to be required. A screening process environmental risks be properly takes place for formal Environmental Impact Assessment. Also see responses assessed when it has been to the representations regarding the underlying geological structure (e.g. from established that this would be R306 and R307) which have prompted certain changes to the policy and its "technically challenging"? Disputes supporting text economic benefits

304 R304/8 Rachael 9 N Promotes more sustainable sources of Noted None Wood energy

305 R305/1 Karen 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Haywood 306 R306/1 Mark Lumley 9 N Introductory comments on fracking Noted No comment and background of representor

Page 59 of 70 306 R306/11 Mark Lumley 9 9.22 N States that risk of gas leaking Disagree. According to Mineral Resource Information in Support of National, None abandoned mines should be Regional and Local Planning: Somerset (comprising Somerset, North Somerset considered Bath and North East Somerset, the city of Bristol, and part of Exmoor National Park): Abandoned Mine Methane might be seen as having potential as the counties have historical mine workings. However, as the majority of mines had little or no gas and required continuous pumping to avoid flooding (which ceased in 1973), the prospects for mine gas drainage are perceived as poor. In many cases, the mineshafts were also backfilled with colliery waste.

306 R306/12 Mark Lumley 9 9.27 N Local communities should get a vote Disagree. Planning decisions must be made by the Planning Authority. SCC None to decide whether or not drilling is encourages early engagement with local communities as stated. allowed

306 R306/13 Mark Lumley 9 9.30 Y Challenges the use of 2D seismic in Agreed that this should be clarified. 9.30 Noting the geological complexity of some areas of Somerset, the karst areas application must demonstrate that drilling at the proposed location will Text in red responds to feedback on proposed changes via Habitat Regulations not generate adverse impacts on the integrity of the underlying Assessment geological structure. As necessary, Somerset County Council will seek expert advice (for example, from the British Geological Survey (BGS)) to verify that all geological data bearing on the application has been considered and that sufficient data are available to make an informed decision. Advice will also be sought from Natural England with regard to ecological data relating to geological features. The consideration of technical matters such as these would be covered within any proposed Planning Performance Agreement (see text box below).

9.310 It is noted that the complex geology of the Mendip Hills potentially makes it more technically challenging to assess some of the impacts. In particular, folds in the rock strata make it harder to interpret 2D seismic survey data.

9.31 Seismic profiling is used to gain a better understanding of the rock strata, for example the location of caves and passages.

306 R306/14 Mark Lumley 9 9.31 Y Challenges the use of 2D seismic in Agreed that this should be clarified. 9.30 Noting the geological complexity of some areas of Somerset, the karst areas application must demonstrate that drilling at the proposed location will Text in red responds to feedback on proposed changes via Habitat Regulations not generate adverse impacts on the integrity of the underlying Assessment geological structure. As necessary, Somerset County Council will seek expert advice (for example, from the British Geological Survey (BGS)) to verify that all geological data bearing on the application has been considered and that sufficient data are available to make an informed decision. Advice will also be sought from Natural England with regard to ecological data relating to geological features. The consideration of technical matters such as these would be covered within any proposed Planning Performance Agreement (see text box below).

9.31 Seismic profiling is used to gain a better understanding of the rock strata, for example the location of caves and passages.

306 R306/2 Mark Lumley 9 9.2 N The need to mitigate climate change is Agreed that paragraph 9.2 wording could be clarified, and the reference to 9.2. The importance of energy security and the need to mitigate not compatible with the endorsement climate change targets in this paragraph is misplaced. climate change by working toward carbon reduction targets combine of a process that will generate from to increases the significance of energy supply, and the use of C02 domestic (energy mineral) resources. Bigger household gas and electricity bills further heighten public interest in this issue.

Page 60 of 70 306 R306/3 Mark Lumley 9 9.2 N Objects to speculative drilling. Need The planning process will consider the potential impacts of the proposal. None compelling reasons to drill Planning permission, including for test drilling, will only be granted after detailed scrutiny of the proposal and its impacts.

306 R306/4 Mark Lumley 9 9.3 N Text presupposes that peop[le are by Disagree. This paragraph does not presuppose people’s views. However, for 9.3… Reflecting this, there is an increasing interest (in particular from default in favour and should be the sake of additional clarity, the second sentence could be reworded. industry and central government) in developing…. amended

306 R306/5 Mark Lumley 9 9.4 N States that this is misleading. Need to This interpretation of the paragraph is noted; however, the paragraph remains None clarify that this sort of development is factually correct and needs to be considered alongside the following paragraph distant cousin from what takes place in 9.5. USA

306 R306/6 Mark Lumley 9 9.5 N Suggests that default position should Disagree. This would be predetermining an application that would not represent None be no to extraction in geologically a sound approach to planning. complication karst region, surrounded by reservoirs

306 R306/7 Mark Lumley 9 9.6a N Should reflect more than "evidence Plan-making must be based on evidence and that is the approach taken with None available" and include latest theories the Somerset Minerals Plan. and reasonable assumptions

306 R306/8 Mark Lumley 9 9.14 N Should make clear that testing phase Disagree. It would be inappropriate for SCC to preclude a particular type of None will not include fracking technology for use at the testing phase, because potentially – if shales are the target – then fracking may be required to deliver a test. Again it is inappropriate to predetermine any application. According to National Planning Practice Guidance: The exploratory phase seeks to acquire geological data to establish whether hydrocarbons are present. It may involve seismic surveys, exploratory drilling and, in the case of shale gas, hydraulic fracturing.

306 R306/9 Mark Lumley 9 9.15 - N Seeks clarifications to text on water 9.15 – disagree. It is water that is pumped out of the coal seam. (Also it is None 9.19 and chemicals used noted that the management of wastewaters is a permitting matter, regulated by the Environment Agency.)

9.17. Disagree – the chemicals are described in more detail in paragraph 9.17.

9.18. Disagree. This is considered to be a reasonable description informed by the evidence available, for example, the report from the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report on Shale Gas (2012): “ Fracturing fluid flows back to the surface (‘flowback water’) but it now also contains saline water with dissolved minerals from the shale formation (’formation water’). Fracturing fluid and formation water returns to the surface over the lifetime of the well as it continues to produce shale gas (‘produced water’). Although definitions vary, flowback water and produced water collectively constitute ‘wastewaters’ (EPA 2011) .”

9.19. Disagree. The paragraphs is considered to accurately reflect the current position, and elsewhere in the Plan SCC states it will encourage early engagement with local communities on any fracking proposal.

306 R306/10 Mark Lumley 9 9.20 N Seeks default position that there Disagree – this is considered to undermine due process in planning when None should be an outright ban on all considering transport impacts e.g. with reference to transport-related policies in transportation and storage of fracking the Development Plan. Also note that the Environment Agency has the chemicals and waste (produced) water regulatory responsibility for mining waste activity. over the Mendip plateau and surrounding area to negate the risk of widespread disperal into our caves, reservoirs and water courses

Page 61 of 70 307 R307/1 Robin 9 N Introductory comments on fracking Noted None Taviner and background of representor

307 R307/2 Robin 9 9.31 Y Raises concerns about use of 2D Agreed that this should be clarified. 9.30 Noting the geological complexity of some areas of Somerset, the Taviner seismic profiling to identify the location application must demonstrate that drilling at the proposed location will of caves and passages Text in red responds to feedback on proposed changes via Habitat Regulations not generate adverse impacts on the integrity of the underlying Assessment geological structure. As necessary, Somerset County Council will seek expert advice (for example, from the British Geological Survey (BGS)) to verify that all geological data bearing on the application has been considered and that sufficient data are available to make an informed decision. Advice will also be sought from Natural England with regard to ecological data relating to geological features. The consideration of technical matters such as these would be covered within any proposed Planning Performance Agreement (see text box below).

9.31 Seismic profiling is used to gain a better understanding of the rock strata, for example the location of caves and passages.

307 R307/3 Robin 9 9.22 N Raises concerns about the potential Noted None Taviner impact of fracking on Bath Hot Springs

308 R308/1 Pat Bazley 9 N Introductory comments on fracking Noted None

308 R308/2 Pat Bazley 9 N Raises concerns about impacts of Noted None fracking on developing renewables and longer-term picture

308 R308/3 Pat Bazley 9 N Raises concerns about environmental Noted None impacts of fracking

308 R308/4 Pat Bazley 9 N Raises concerns about durability of Noted None well casing

308 R308/5 Pat Bazley 9 N Asks Somerset to say "no" to fracking Noted None

309 R309/1 Darren 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Chivers

309 R309/2 Darren 9 N Highlights Mendip DC Noted None Chivers motion/resolution on fracking

309 R309/3 Darren 9 N Raises concerns about regulation Noted None Chivers linked with communities, biodiversty and historic environment

309 R309/4 Darren 9 N Raises concerns about seismic activity Noted None Chivers

309 R309/5 Darren 9 N Raises concerns about visual impacts Noted None Chivers

309 R309/6 Darren 9 N Raises concerns about sinkholes Noted None Chivers

Page 62 of 70 309 R309/7 Darren 9 N Raises concerns about water pollution Noted None Chivers and use of chemicals

309 R309/8 Darren 9 N Refers to B&NES resolution and asks Noted None Chivers SCC to say no to fracking in the Mendips

310 R310/1 Simon 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Penton 311 R311/1 Alex Hart 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

312 R312/1 David Poyner 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

313 R313/1 Louise Shaw Gener N Objects to advertising of consultation The mistake in the reference to the correct day is regrettable; however, using None al tightly constrained resources, the County Council has advertised and promoted the consultation extensively around the county

313 R313/2 Louise Shaw 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

314 R314/1 Andre Sestini Gener N General comments on Mendip DC's Noted None al position

314 R314/10 Andre Sestini 9 9.22 N Suggests Designations in District Disagree. The list is not exhaustive and should not be considered to be. It is noted that in the areas covered by the current round of PEDL Local Plans should be added to this Rewording the paragraph as text and simplifying it should help to focus the text licences there are numerous designations of local, regional and/or non-exhaustive list more on the intentions of this paragraph national and/or international importance, which will inform considerations on a case by case basis and are protected by policy and legislation. For example, tThese include (but are not limited to): Mendip Hills AONB, Water Source Protection Zones, City of Bath World Heritage Site (and in particular Bath Hot Springs), Chew Valley Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation.

314 R314/2 Andre Sestini Gener N Mendip DC welcomes the Plan, the Noted None al consultation and the evidence base work supporting it

314 R314/3 Andre Sestini Gener N Broad support for the Plan Noted None al 314 R314/4 Andre Sestini 7 N Support to the revised approach to Noted None local building stone

314 R314/5 Andre Sestini 9 N Support the policy on energy minerals Noted None

314 R314/6 Andre Sestini 11 N Does not object to safeguarding areas This policy does not prevent other forms of development in the areas shown in None but would welcome confirmation that Map 9, which if they are non-mineral development, are within the determining Mendip DC strategic allocations would power of the relevant planning authorities.. This policy is to enable the County not be constrained by this policy Council (as Mineral Planning Authority) to enter into discussions with the relevant district or borough council and developer about the best way to develop while recognising the mineral resource in the area. It could appropriate, for example, to prior extract the mineral resource before development begins.

Page 63 of 70 314 R314/7 Andre Sestini 8 N Mendip DC supports: the approach Noted None that peat extraction will only be granted on previously-worked sites; the recognition given to transport and factory site impacts associated with the phasing out of peat production; and the commitment to promote and support after-uses of factory sites

314 R314/8 Andre Sestini 9 N Outlines Mendip DC's position on Noted None energy minerals development (in particular linked with fracking)

314 R314/9 Andre Sestini 9 N Suports the need for wide-ranging risk Noted None assessment and comprehensive economic assessment (the latter should include both positive and potentially negative imapcts to the local economy)

315 R315/1 Beryl Bicheno 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

315 R315/2 Beryl Bicheno 9 N Highlights Mendip DC Noted None motion/resolution on fracking

315 R315/3 Beryl Bicheno 9 N Raises concerns about impacts of Noted None fracking

316 R316/1 Sky Dancer 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

317 R317/1 Emma Lloyd 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

318 R318/1 Grace 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Thomas

319 R319/1 Louise Kerti 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

320 R320/1 Richard Allen 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

321 R321/1 Tom 9 N Opposes fracking Noted None Smallwood 322 R322/1 Michael Penn 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

323 R323/1 Barney 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Butterell 324 R324/1 Helen 9 9.1 - Y Highlights the role of Plans in Noted None Jackson 9.3 supporting reduction in greenhouse Brown gas emissions - NPPF para 93

324 R324/2 Helen 9 9.7 N Refers to relevant national, European Agreed, this could be taken as read, but can be made more explicit 9.7 Any proposal must be considered within current National, Jackson and international legislation European and International legislation, in light of the latest scientific Brown information, government advice and best practice guidance at the time of proposal application. Minerals Topic Paper 4 provides a snapshot of the issues involved at the time of writing the Somerset Minerals Plan.

Page 64 of 70 324 R324/3 Helen 9 9.10 N Refers to requirements for EIAs Disagree. National planning practice guidance makes clear that the EIA None Jackson screening process operates on a case by case basis. Brown 324 R324/4 Helen 9 9.19 N States that SCC should require full This is not stricly a planning matter, in that it is covered by environmental 9.19 Only substances that have been assessed as being non- Jackson disclosure on chemicals used and permitting via the Environment Agency; however, wording in paragraph 9.19 hazardous pollutants under the Groundwater Directive (see glossary) Brown highlights importance of information can be added to strengthen the emphasis on this important issue may be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. The Environment Agency pertaining to water contamination risks has powers to require full disclosure of chemicals used. Information on the chemicals used by an operator in hydraulic fracturing fluid will normally be made available to the public. Whilst the content of fracking fluids remains principally a permitting matter, the County Council will encourage transparency on this issue in the planning process (acknowledging though the relative proportions of the chemicals used may remain commercially confidential).

324 R324/5 Helen 9 N States that the Plan does not discuss It is not considered that the Plan should include content about NORMs, None Jackson NORM principally because this is a matter for regulation by the Environment Agency. Brown

324 R324/6 Helen 9 9.25 N States that wording on precautionary Noted. None Jackson approach is inadequate Brown

324 R324/7 Helen 9 9.27 N Refers to evidence base and the need Noted None Jackson to understand why some countries are Brown banning fracking

324 R324/8 Helen 9 9.30 N Proposes that 3D mapping should be Agree that wording here should be clarified. But it is not considered appropriate 9.30 Noting the geological complexity of some areas of Somerset, the Jackson required. 2D mapping is not adequate to prejudge that 3D mapping will be required. application must demonstrate that drilling at the proposed location will Brown not generate adverse impacts on the integrity of the underlying Text in red responds to feedback on proposed changes via Habitat Regulations geological structure. As necessary, Somerset County Council will seek Assessment expert advice (for example, from the British Geological Survey (BGS)) to verify that all geological data bearing on the application has been considered and that sufficient data are available to make an informed decision. Advice will also be sought from Natural England with regard to ecological data relating to geological features. The consideration of technical matters such as these would be covered within any proposed Planning Performance Agreement (see text box below).

9.31 Seismic profiling is used to gain a better understanding of the rock strata, for example the location of caves and passages.

325 R325/1 Amber 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Hopkins

325 R325/2 Amber 9 N Highlights Mendip DC Noted None Hopkins motion/resolution on fracking

325 R325/3 Amber 9 N Raises concerns about impact on Noted None Hopkins communities, biodiversity and historic environment

325 R325/4 Amber 9 N Raises concerns about earthquakes Noted None Hopkins and visual impacts

325 R325/5 Amber 9 N Raises concerns about sinkholes Noted None Hopkins

325 R325/6 Amber 9 N Raises concerns about water pollution Noted None Hopkins

Page 65 of 70 325 R325/7 Amber 9 N Refers to B&NES resolution and asks Noted None Hopkins SCC to say no to fracking in the Mendips

326 R326/1 Anthony Mills 9 N Opposes fracking Noted None

327 R327/1 Garry J 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Pursell

327 R327/2 Garry J 9 N Highlights Mendip DC Noted None Pursell motion/resolution on fracking

327 R327/3 Garry J 9 N Raises concerns about regulation Noted None Pursell

327 R327/4 Garry J 9 N Raises concerns about seismic activity Noted None Pursell and visual impacts

327 R327/5 Garry J 9 N Raises concerns about sinkholes Noted None Pursell

327 R327/6 Garry J 9 N Raises concerns about water pollution Noted None Pursell and use of chemicals

327 R327/7 Garry J 9 N Refers to B&NES resolution and asks Noted None Pursell SCC to say no to fracking in the Mendips

328 R328/1 Ishtar Babilu 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Dingir

328 R328/2 Ishtar Babilu 9 N Highlights Mendip DC Noted None Dingir motion/resolution on fracking

328 R328/3 Ishtar Babilu 9 N Raises concerns about impact on Noted None Dingir communities, biodiversity and historic environment

328 R328/4 Ishtar Babilu 9 N Raises concerns about earthquakes Noted None Dingir

328 R328/5 Ishtar Babilu 9 N Raises concerns about visual impact Noted None Dingir

328 R328/6 Ishtar Babilu 9 N Raises concerns about sinkholes Noted None Dingir 328 R328/7 Ishtar Babilu 9 N Raises concerns about water pollution Noted None Dingir

328 R328/8 Ishtar Babilu 9 N Refers to B&NES resolution and asks Noted None Dingir SCC to say no to fracking in the Mendips

329 R329/1 Anan Davis 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

330 R330/1 Chris Scott 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

331 R331/1 Deborah 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Eades 332 R332/1 Kathy Read 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

333 R333/1 Lyn Lovell 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

Page 66 of 70 333 R333/10 Lyn Lovell 9 N Summary/conclusion of concerns Noted None about fracking

333 R333/2 Lyn Lovell 9 N Raises concerns about water Noted None protection

333 R333/3 Lyn Lovell 9 N Raises concerns about safety - the Noted None wells leaking

333 R333/4 Lyn Lovell 9 N Raises concerns about water sourcing Noted None

333 R333/5 Lyn Lovell 9 N Raises concerns about visual impact Noted None

333 R333/6 Lyn Lovell 9 N Raises concerns about economics Noted None

333 R333/7 Lyn Lovell 9 N Raises concerns about structural Noted None stability

333 R333/8 Lyn Lovell 9 N Raises concerns about global warming Noted None and pollution

333 R333/9 Lyn Lovell 9 N Raises concerns about impact on Noted None renewables

334 R334/1 Kevin 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Greenwood

335 R335/1 Peter 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Osborne

336 R336/1 Sue Evans 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

337 R337/1 Anna 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Stennett 338 R338/1 Ferelith 13 DM1 Y States that DM1, landscape, does not Text change to better reference designated areas has been made, which ...National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the Drummond reflect the strong wording of para 116 addressed this point. highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. of the NPPF Proposals for mineral development within or adjacent to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will need to take full account of the relevant AONB Management Plan;. and proposals within or adjacent to Exmoor National Park will need to take full account of the Exmoor National Park Local Plan

338 R338/2 Ferelith 16 & DM4 & N Add "derogation" to the Glossary Noted. Further changes to this text mean that 'derogation' has now been None Drummond Appen DM5 removed from the text. dices 339 R339/1 Felix Oram 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

340 R340/1 Josh Ashwin Swindon Borough 4 N Supports Obj A and approach to Noted None Council / Wiltshire maintaining crushed rock supply Council

340 R340/2 Josh Ashwin Swindon Borough 6 6.26 - N Supports approach to crushed rock Noted None Council / Wiltshire 6.29 supply Council

340 R340/3 Josh Ashwin Swindon Borough 6 6.26 - N Notes that provision may need to be Noted None Council / Wiltshire 6.29 reviewed if construction sector picks Council up e.g. via LAA

340 R340/4 Josh Ashwin Swindon Borough 6 SMP2 N Supports SMP2 and 15 year landbank Noted None Council / Wiltshire approach Council

340 R340/5 Josh Ashwin Swindon Borough 7 SMP5 N Supports policy approach to building Noted None Council / Wiltshire stone Council

Page 67 of 70 340 R340/6 Josh Ashwin Swindon Borough 7 SMP5 N Suggests wording change to criterion Disagree with proposed wording. However, agree that wording could be a) there is an identified need for the specified stone currently used in Council / Wiltshire (a) in the policy to acknowledge clarified. Somerset to maintain or enhance the local historic environment; and Council market outside of Somerset i.e. "surrounding area"

341 R341/1 Amy Watkins 9 N Opposes fracking Noted None

341 R341/2 Amy Watkins 9 N Raises concerns that the Minerals Noted None Plan cannot adequately protect Somerset environment, economy and people from impacts of fracking

341 R341/3 Amy Watkins 9 9.30 N Highlights concerns about risk Noted None assessment in areas with complex geology

341 R341/4 Amy Watkins 9 N Asks if flow back water is considered Noted None at planning stage

341 R341/5 Amy Watkins 9 N Concerned about the chemicals added Noted None to the fracking fluid

341 R341/6 Amy Watkins 9 N Concerned by the risks associated Noted None with fracking in an area of higher population density

341 R341/7 Amy Watkins 9 SMP7 Y Asks what level of impact would be Impacts will be assessed from a range of perspectives, including support from None deemed acceptable? How can technical experts where that is shown to be required. A screening process environmental risks be properly takes place for formal Environmental Impact Assessment. Also see responses assessed when it has been to the representations regarding the underlying geological structure (e.g. from established that this would be R306 and R307) which have prompted certain changes to the policy and its "technically challenging"? Disputes supporting text economic benefits

341 R341/8 Amy Watkins 9 N Promotes more sustainable sources of Noted None energy

342 R342/1 Mary 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Applegate 343 R343/1 Patricia 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None Bolton 344 R344/1 Jim Rosser 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

345 R345 Dawn Minall 9 N Opposes fracking in Somerset Noted None

346 R346/1 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.3 N Proposed text fails to take account of The wording of paragraph 7.3 could be expanded to clarify the MPA’s position 7.3 It is vital to ensure that an adequate supply of building stones is Management Ltd, on the national importance of the stone and support at the start of this chapter. available so that the local character of the county is maintained. The behalf of Alan R Purnell produced by the representor Somerset Minerals Plan provides a positive policy framework to Ltd support investment in appropriate sites, facilities and skills.

346 R346/10 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests phase 1 ecological survey Agreed that Table should be reformatted; and language should cross-check Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to DM chapter Management Ltd, on may not always be needed & suggests other content of the Plan (in particular regarding the DM chapter on biodiversity behalf of Alan R Purnell applicant should be allowed to and geodiversity) Ltd demonstrate that it is not required in row 17

Page 68 of 70 346 R346/11 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.25 N Objects to notion of cap on output i.e. It is proposed that paragraph 7.25 be deleted, and Table 3 be reformatted as Delete para 7.25 Management Ltd, on restrictions on small-scale of building Figure. Within these changes, the wording on scale in what was Table 3 will be behalf of Alan R Purnell stone operations and suggests that revised. That said, it is noted that the representation blurs the distinction Ltd each proposal should be considered between tonnes/annum and m 3. The Preferred Options of the Somerset on a case by case basis against the Minerals Plan included reference to 2000 tonnes/annum and since then the acceptability of any environmental County Council has changed the reference to m 3 to align with the English Stone impact Forum’s definition. Industry feedback has identified that 1 cubic metre of dimension stone equates to roughly 2.3 tonnes. Thus, the 2000 m 3 stated in the pre-submission Minerals Plan would equate to roughly 4600 t / a. Ashen Cross is not small scale under this defintion; however, it is important to note that this is NOT a blanket cap. The wording of paragraph 7.25 refered to what is considered small-scale, whereas the policy itself does NOT refer to small- scale. 346 R346/12 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.28 N Requests further clarification in use of Agreed that wording could be clarified in this paragraph including the deletion A case may be made for the importation and working of relatively Management Ltd, on terms "relatively small" and "informed of the identified words. small quantities or natural stone into quarry sites, informed by market behalf of Alan R Purnell by market demand" demand… Ltd

346 R346/13 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.33 N Requests further clarification in use of Agree that wording should be clarified. A case may be made for the importation and working of relatively Management Ltd, on term "low tonnage". Suggests revised small quantities of natural stone into quarry sites is likely to be based behalf of Alan R Purnell wording Text in red responds to feedback on proposed changes via the Habitat on factors such as the economic viability of operations, the range of Ltd Regulations Assessment products an operator can provide to the market, the impact of the proposed stone working on local jobs and the retention of skills in Somerset., informed by market demand, where such stone: In such cases, key considerations for the County Council will include: alignment with the vision and objectives of the Somerset Minerals Plan; economic and other benefits to the local and/or wider communities; cumulative impacts (alongside other activities at the site and/or adjacent sites) on the natural and historic environment, or local amenity (for example, arising from the transport of materials); how the wastes arising from the working of such imported material will be managed; and impacts on the use of appropriate, Somerset-sourced building stone

346 R346/2 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.9 N Seeking greater clarity in the text that Agreed that paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10 could flow more clearly. Revise wording 7.9 During the plan period operators may propose changes to existing Management Ltd, on would give support to the expansion of to highlight the different types of proposal for building stone extraction. permissions, site extensions and/or new sites for the stones currently behalf of Alan R Purnell existing quarries and new quarries in worked. and the County Council’s planning policy must consider this Ltd the future possibility.

346 R346/3 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.14 & N Addresses issues of scale - stating Paragraph 7.14 is considered to be a statement of fact. It is noted that the 7.19 Stakeholders have expressed a preference (via consultation Management Ltd, on 7.19 that much of the building stone representation blurs the distinction between tonnes/annum and m3. The feedback) for the development of a larger number of small quarries as behalf of Alan R Purnell quarried in Somerset are not small Preferred Options of the Somerset Minerals Plan included reference to 2000 a source of local building stone (compared with a smaller number of Ltd scale. "Ashen Cross already has a tonnes/annum and since then the County Council has changed the reference to larger quarries). 37 This helps to reduce the carbon footprint of such 6,500 t/a output limit". States that m3 to align with the English Stone Forum’s definition of what is small scale. development, in particular by reducing the need to transport material stakeholder preference for the Assuming that (using the industry feedback conversion of 1 cubic metre of over longer distances; also it reflects the current nature and scale of development of a larger number of dimension stone equating to roughly 2.3 tonnes) the 2000 m3 stated elsewhere building stone activity in Somerset. smaller scale quarries is at odds with in the pre-submission Minerals Plan would equate to roughly 4600 t / a and the way industry is developing. most building stone quarries in Somerset fall within that level of output. It is noted that Ashen Cross would not fall within the definition of small scale, but most building stone quarries in Somerset would.

Page 69 of 70 346 R346/4 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 7.21 N Disagree. The policy wording highlights the importance of the link between None Management Ltd, on stone extraction and the local historic environment. It does not preclude the behalf of Alan R Purnell export or sale of stone extracted in Somerset outside the county. Ltd 346 R346/5 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 SMP5 N Proposes alternative wording to Disagree with proposed wording. The policy wording highlights the importance a) there is an identified need for the specified stone currently used in Management Ltd, on criterion (a) in SMP5 to acknowledge of the link between stone extraction and the local historic environment. It does Somerset to maintain or enhance the local historic environment; and behalf of Alan R Purnell wider/national demand for local stone not preclude the export or sale of stone extracted in Somerset outside the Ltd county. However, agree that wording could be clarified.

346 R346/6 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests row 1 should be deleted Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to location and Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to the MSA Management Ltd, on since it places an unnecessary burden MSAs behalf of Alan R Purnell on the development of the stone Ltd industry

346 R346/7 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests revised wording for row 3 Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to the benefits Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference to the benefits Management Ltd, on since the current wording fails to of the proposed location of the proposed location behalf of Alan R Purnell recognise the economic importance of Ltd having more than one supplier of any given stone.

346 R346/8 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Suggests revised wording for row 8 - Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to landscape - Reformat Table as figure/tool with revised reference to landscape Management Ltd, on stating that current wording could be including reference to policy DM1 behalf of Alan R Purnell open to interpretation Ltd

346 R346/9 Nick Dunn Land and Mineral 7 Table 3 N Objects to notion of cap in defining Agreed that wording of this Table should be clarified with regard to permitted Reformat Table as figure/tool - with revised reference permitted Management Ltd, on small-scale in row 9 extraction levels. extraction levels. Retain reference to English Stone Forum definition behalf of Alan R Purnell Ltd

347 R347/1 Emma-Jane Quantock Hills AONB 1 N This section does not address Agreed that a change to the subheading may be appropriate Landscape character Natural envrionment Preece Service landscape character but instead deals with biodiversity and landscape designation. Perhaps the title is wrong or if the title is correct there needs to be information about landscape character

347 R347/2 Emma-Jane Quantock Hills AONB 13 13.7 N Reference needs to be made to the The reference is made to AONB management plans. The wording is not written None Preece Service current AONB management plans. as a note to self. This para does not read correctly

Page 70 of 70