The County Durham Plan
Technical Consultation Report New Minerals and Waste Sites in County Durham November 2010
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 5
Purpose of this report 5 How will the County Durham Plan address new Minerals and 5 Waste Sites? What Happens Next 6 How to Comment 6
2. POTENTIAL NEW MINERALS AND WASTE SITES - AN 7 OVERVIEW
Previous Call for Sites during 7 2005 Recent Call for sites during 7 2008/2009
3. FURTHER CONSULTATION ON CRITERIA FOR STRATEGIC 13 SITES
4. DECISIONS ON STRATEGIC SITES PROPOSED IN THE 19 CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS PAPER
Area of Search at Todhills 19 Brickworks Low Harperley 22 Waste allocation at Thrislington 25 Quarry
5. FURTHER CONSULTATION ON POTENTIAL STRATEGIC 29 MINERALS SITES
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan Contents
Mineral Extraction proposals at 30 Thrislington Quarry Basal Permian Sand extraction at 31 Thrislington Quarry Thrislington Quarry - Eastern 33 Extension Thrislington Quarry - Southern 35 Extension Heights Quarry 37 Proposed Strategic surface 40 mined coal sites Pittington North, Pittington South 40 and Eldon Blue House
6. FURTHER CONSULTATION ON POTENTIAL STRATEGIC WASTE 47 SITES
Waste Handling Facilities - Langley Park Industrial Estate 47 North Waste Transfer Station - OId 49 Brick Works, Bishop Auckland
7. FURTHER CONSULTATION ON CRITERIA FOR 51 NON-STRATEGIC ALLOCATIONS
8. CALL FOR NEW NON STRATEGIC MINERALS AND 59 WASTE SITES
9. DRAFT METHOD FOR THE APPRAISAL OF STRATEGIC 61 AND NON STRATEGIC MINERALS AND WASTE SITES
APPENDICIES
County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Contents
A. RESPONSES TO THE CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND 66 OPTIONS REPORT
Question 46 - Criteria for 66 Strategic Waste Sites Question 47 - Potential Strategic 69 Waste Sites Question 48 - Criteria for making non-strategic Waste 72 Site allocations Question 58 - Criteria for 75 Strategic Minerals Sites Question 59 - Potential Strategic 81 Minerals Sites Question 60 - Criteria for non-strategic Minerals Site 84 Allocations
B. MAPS OF PROPOSED 91 MINERALS AND WASTE SITES
Area of Search at Todhills 91 Brickworks Extension to Heights Quarry 92 New Site - Washpool Craggs, 93 Bolihope Burn in Weardale Eastern and southern extensions to Thrislington Quarry and further sand 94 extraction areas within void of existing quarry. Extension to Bishop Middleham 96 Quarry Extension to Witch Hill Quarry 97 Extension to Cornforth Quarry 98 Extension to Coxhoe Quarry 99 New site - Low Harperley east 100 of Wolsingham Area of Search for sand and 101 gravel at Hummerbeck New site - surface mined coal extraction at Bradley east of 102 Consett
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan Contents
New Site - surface mined coal extraction at Castle 103 Dene/Hurbeck east of Delves New site - surface mined coal - 104 Randolph near Evenwood New site - surface mined coal Marley Hill south west of 105 Byermoor New site - surface mined coal sites (1) Field House (2) Land 106 North of Pittington (3) Pittington South New site - surface mined coal 108 Eldon Blue House Mineral Processing Facility at 109 Broadwood Quarry Waste site at Thrislington 110 Quarry Waste Transfer Station at Old Brickworks near Bishop 111 Auckland Anaerobic Digestion at Langley 112 Park North Industrial Estate
County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Introduction 1
1 Introduction
Purpose of this report
1.1 Consultation on strategic minerals issues took place as part of the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper in Summer 2010. Details of the consultation responses received are set out in Appendix A.
1.2 This technical consultation report forms part of the Council's continuous engagement activities on the County Durham Plan. It has been prepared in order to consult on the approach we adopt to new minerals and waste sites. This report:
1. provides an update on potential new minerals and waste sites; 2. reconsiders our suggested criteria for identifying strategic minerals and waste sites; 3. consults upon a number of 'operator proposed' strategic minerals and waste sites; and 4. clarifies how we intend to address non-strategic minerals and waste sites in the County Durham Plan.
1.3 In addition to this report, three other mineral related consultation reports have also been published as part of work to develop the minerals policies of the County Durham Plan:
"Towards a Minerals Delivery Strategy for County Durham'' - this report will clarify the position in relation to the need for further mineral extraction and will consult further on where and when new minerals working will occur; "Energy Minerals" - this report will consider our approach to energy minerals including surface mined coal, conventional oil and gas and other technologies for utilising deep coal resources including Underground Coal Gasification; and "Safeguarding Mineral Resources for the future - further consultation on Mineral Safeguarding Areas in County Durham" - this report undertakes further consultation on how we should identify economically important minerals and safeguard them through the designation of Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs); and safeguard other mineral handling, processing and transportation infrastructure.
How will the County Durham Plan address new Minerals and Waste Sites?
1.4 Unlike the County Durham Minerals Local Plan (adopted, December 2000) which set out all of County Durham's minerals planning policies within one single planning document, the County Durham Plan will consist of a number of different development plan documents (DPDs), each with different roles:
The Core Strategy DPD will be the principal planning document of the County Durham Plan. It will be to set out the overarching strategy for the future development of the County, including minerals and waste. Once adopted it will cover the period up until the end of 2030 and it will include a vision and strategic objectives, a spatial strategy for non minerals and waste development, core policies, strategic sites and a framework for monitoring and implementation. The Core Strategy DPD will set out the strategic minerals and waste content of the County Durham Plan through a Minerals Delivery
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 5 1 Introduction
Strategy and a Waste Delivery Strategy. All other planning documents within the County Durham Plan will need to conform to the Core Strategy DPD. The Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD will develop the strategic minerals and waste content of the Core Strategy DPD. Where needed and justified it will allocate new non-strategic minerals and waste sites. This DPD will also include a number of development management policies which together with the Core Policies of the Core Strategy DPD will be used to determine new planning applications for minerals and waste development. A Development Management DPD is also to be prepared. This will include all of the non-minerals and waste development management policies of the County Durham Plan. We are currently proposing that the Development Management DPD will also address coal mining legacy issues, the development management policy for Mineral Safeguarding Areas and safeguarding mineral related infrastructure. A Development Allocations DPD is also to be prepared. This document will include all non-minerals and waste allocations other than any strategic sites which will be included in the Core Strategy DPD.
1.5 It is our intention that the Core Strategy will only allocate new strategic minerals and waste sites where they are of strategic significance and central to the delivery of the County Durham Plan. All other new minerals and waste sites would need to be considered through the preparation of our Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD.
What Happens Next
1.6 We will set out the Council's strategic approach to minerals and waste sites in the Core Strategy DPD Publication Report. This report is expected to be published in July 2011. As stated above all potential non strategic minerals and waste sites will be considered through work to prepare the Council's Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD. For further details of the scope of this document and its timetable for preparation please see the Council's adopted Local Development Scheme, (May 2010).
How to Comment
1.7 You can comment on this report in a number of ways, but we would like to encourage you to comment via our interactive website. To visit our interactive website please click here: http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/. Comments can also be sent by email to: [email protected]. If you do not have access to the internet or email, please respond in writing to:
'Minerals and Waste Sites' Consultation Planning Policy Team, Room 4/121 Durham County Council County Hall Durham DH1 5UQ
1.8 If you wish to discuss the contents of this report, please contact either Jason McKewon (0191 383 3071) or Rick Long (0191 383 3774). We would welcome your comments on this report by no later than Friday 14th January 2011.
6 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Potential new Minerals and Waste sites - an overview 2
2 Potential new Minerals and Waste sites - an overview
Previous Call for Sites during 2005
2.1 To date we have undertaken a significant body of work in relation to identifying new minerals and waste sites. We published a Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) Key Issues Paper in January 2005 which requested that operators propose new minerals sites for consideration as allocations. In response to this call for sites we received a number of site specific proposals from the minerals industry for new minerals sites. These were then set out in the former County Council’s Minerals Issues and Options Report (November 2005). It was our intention to progress these through a Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) for County Durham and work was underway to progress this. However, Local Government Reorganisation on 1 April 2009 and the requirement for the new County Council to prepare a new Local Development Framework for County Durham, now known as the 'County Durham Plan' has meant that it has not been possible.
Recent Call for sites during 2008/2009
2.2 In December 2009, as part of advanced work undertaken on the County Durham Plan we undertook a new call for minerals and waste sites. This was done in order to provide the minerals and waste industry with sufficient time to identify proposals for new working and prepare a detailed submission on each site proposal. In total 20 mineral sites, 1 minerals processing hub and 3 waste sites have been proposed as allocations including:
Minerals
1 brick clay site to replace current site (Long Lane Quarry) called Todhills Area of Search; 1 new crushed rock site (Carboniferous Limestone) called Washpool Craggs; 2 new sand and gravel sites called Low Harperley and Hummerbeck; 1 sand site (extension) with the existing quarry at Thrislington; 7 extensions to existing crushed rock sites (6 Magnesian Limestone - Witch Hill Quarry, Bishop Middleham Quarry, Thrislington Quarry, east of the A1(M) and Thrislington Quarry south, west of the A1(M), Coxhoe Quarry, Cornforth Quarry (west) and 1 carboniferous limestone site - Heights Quarry); and 8 new surface coal mine sites - Bradley, Castle Dene/Hurbuck, Randolph, Marley Hill, Eldon Blue House, Field House, Pittington North and Pittington South.
Mineral processing Hub
Broadwood Quarry.
Waste
Allocation for waste development at Thrislington Quarry; Waste Transfer Station at Old Brickworks, near Bishop Auckland; and Anaerobic digestion plant at Langley Park North Industrial Estate.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 7 2 Potential new Minerals and Waste sites - an overview
2.3 Detailed maps of all of these sites are set out in Appendix B of this report. Key information on all these sites are set out in the tables below. The first table also includes sites which were previously submitted to the County Council to be included as allocations in the County Durham Minerals and Waste Development Framework in 2005. Some of these sites have been re-submitted. In instances where sites have not been resubmitted they are included below if there is no information to lead us to believe that they have been withdrawn from the process.
Potential new mineral sites in County Durham
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Operator location quantity in tonnes
Area of Search at 40.63 ha. Potential reserves calculated at Wienerberger. Todhills between 3.4 and 5.2 million Brickworks, near tonnes of Brick Clay and Shale. Byers Green and This site would provide Todhills Newfield. Brickworks with up to 65 years of permitted reserves.
Extension to 14ha. 5.7mt of Carboniferous Aggregate Industries Heights Quarry, Limestone. Extension would Ltd. near Eastgate. involve swap of a proportion of existing permitted reserves constrained by overburden,
Washpool Craggs, 4.1ha. Potential resources 450,000 Sherburn Stone Co. Bolihope Burn in tonnes of Carboniferous Weardale. Limestone over a 5 year period.
Eastern extension 78ha. Magnesian Limestone and High Lafarge Aggregates Ltd to Thrislington Grade Dolomite. 29 million Quarry. tonne of mineral including 11.35 million tonnes of high grade material.
Southern 10.7ha. Magnesian Limestone and High Lafarge Aggregates Ltd. extension at Grade Dolomite. 12.5 million Thrislington tonnes of mineral. Quarry.
Extension to Potential reserves estimated at Lafarge Aggregates Ltd. existing Basal 6 million tonnes of Basal Permian Sand Permian Sand. extraction area, land within Thrislington Quarry.
Extension to 13.2ha. Potential reserves 5.2 million W&M Thompson. Bishop Middleham tonnes of Magnesian Limestone Quarry. of which 50% would be used for
8 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Potential new Minerals and Waste sites - an overview 2
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Operator location quantity in tonnes
aggregate and 50% for non aggregate purposes (agricultural lime).
Extension to 5.1ha (approx). Potential reserves 5 million Sherburn Stone Witch Hill Quarry, tonnes of Magnesian Limestone Co. 1km south of to be used mainly for non Shadforth and aggregate purposes 1.5km west of (agricultural lime). Thornley.
Extension of 23.04ha. Magnesian Limestone. Potential Tarmac Northern Limited. Cornforth Quarry, reserves not specified. Cornforth.
Extension to 43.88ha. Potential reserves 35 million Tarmac Northern Limited. Coxhoe Quarry tonnes of Magnesian Limestone (formerly known at an average production rate as Raisby), 2km of 1 million tonnes per annum. northwest of Trimdon, 1km east of Coxhoe and 9,5km south of Kelloe.
Low Harperley(1), 38.4ha. Potential reserves: 2.5 million Sherburn Stone Co . east of tonnes of fluvial Sand and Wolsingham. Gravel. Proposed working period 16 years, producing between 150,000 and 160,000 tonnes per annum.
Area of Search for 80ha. Potential reserves superficial Hall Construction Ltd. sand and gravel at Glacio-fluvial Sand and Gravel Hummerbeck. and river terrace deposits. 1.5million tonnes in total
Bradley(2), 3km 82ha. Potential reserves 465,000 UK Coal Mining Ltd. east of Consett tonnes of Coal. Fireclay and 1km from reserves present but not Leadgate. assessed.
Castle 156ha. Potential reserves 645,000 UK Coal Mining Ltd.. Dene/Hurbuck, tonnes of coal. 4 year working east of Delves. period in total.
Randolph near 138ha. Potential reserves 475,000 UK Coal Mining Ltd Evenwood. tonnes of coal. 4 year working period in total.
1 A planning application for this site is currently awaiting determination. 2 A planning application for this site is currently awaiting determination.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 9 2 Potential new Minerals and Waste sites - an overview
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Operator location quantity in tonnes
Marley Hill, south 129ha. Potential reserves 1.1mt of coal. UK Coal Mining Ltd. west of Marley Hill Fireclay reserves present but and south east of not assessed. Also glacial Sand Byermoor. and Gravel. 4 year working period in total.
Field House, 72ha. Potential reserves 500,000 UK Coal Mining Ltd. south west of tonnes of coal. Fireclay Rainton. reserves present but not assessed. 2.5 years working period in total.
Eldon Blue 216ha. Potential reserves 1.1 million ATH Resources. House, land tonnes of coal, fireclay and a between Shildon limited amount of aggregates and Coundon.
Land near High 1.6km2. Potential reserves 2.5 million ATH Resources. Pittington tonnes of coal. 5.5 year working (Pittington North) period in total
Pittington South. 0.9km2. Potential reserves 800,000 ATH Resources. tonnes of coal. 3.5 year working period in total.
2.4 Sherburn Stone have also proposed that their existing mineral site in Weardale, Broadwood Quarry be identified as a mineral processing hub. This proposal is in connection with the companies aspirations to work and restore disused carboniferous limestone quarries in Weardale. To date the company has identified one potential mineral site in connection with this proposal, known as Washpool Craggs (see above table).
Proposed Mineral Processing Facility
Site name Site Status Activity Proposed Operator
Broadwood New proposal (2009) at Mineral processing Sherburn Stone Co. Quarry (existing existing active hub. site). Carboniferous Limestone quarry.
2.5 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd has also proposed that the existing Waste Local Plan allocation at Thrislington Quarry for waste management facilities be reallocated. In addition, Seagraves has also proposed the Old brickworks site at Newton Cap Viaduct as a waste site to serve as transfer station for waste from the west of the County. The Trustees of The Langley Estate have proposed an anaerobic digestion plant at Langley Park North Industrial Estate utilising organic waste materials and possibly an energy crop grown on the estate.
10 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Potential new Minerals and Waste sites - an overview 2
Proposed Waste Sites
Site name and Site status Size of site Waste Operator/proposed location management operator capacity
Thrislington Existing 96ha. Allocation for the Lafarge Aggregates Quarry. allocation from development of Ltd. Waste Local Plan waste (Policy 58). management facilities including recovery, recycling and composting and landfilling. Estimated at 210,000 tonnes per annum.
Old Brick Works, None (previous Approx 3 ha. Waste transfer Seagraves Ltd. Toronto, Bishop planning station to serve Auckland. permission for the west of the recycling County. No operations has capacity expired). specified.
Langley Park Derwentside Approx 5.7 ha. 40,000 anaerobic Trustees of the North Industrial District Council digestion plant Langley Estate. Estate. Local Plan saved utilising organic Policy IN5 waste materials allocated the with the eastern portion of possibility of the proposed site supplementing for less attractive this feedstock or un-neighbourly with an energy industrial uses. crop grown on The western the estate if this section of the site proved is not allocated necessary. for development.
Sites which may be taken out of the allocation process
2.6 Two of the sites in the first table are sites are currently subject to planning applications (Low Harperley, east of Wolsingham and Bradley, 3km to the east of Consett). These sites may therefore fall out of the plan preparation process.
2.7 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd has requested that two existing Mineral Local Plan allocations at Thrislington Quarry are re-allocated. However, the Company has made it clear that if planning permission is granted for the eastern extension at Thrislington Quarry it will withdraw their request for both of the existing southern and eastern allocations at
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 11 2 Potential new Minerals and Waste sites - an overview
Thrislington Quarry to be allocated. Members resolved to grant planning permission to an eastern extension to Thrislington Quarry in October 2008, planning permission has yet to be issued.
2.8 Two proposed surface coal mine coal allocations only partly lie within County Durham. These sites include, the Marley Hill surface coal mine site proposed by UK Coal Mining Ltd. The majority of this site (89ha out of total site area of 129ha) and the majority of the coaling area lie within Gateshead Borough; and the High Pittington surface mine coal site proposed by ATH Resources near High Pittington (47ha out of a total site area of 195ha lie within Sunderland Borough). The Council will need to give further consideration to whether it could consider both of these sites as allocations given that parts of these sites lie outside of County Durham. In addition a significant part of the High Pittington site is also subject to a proposal by UK Coal Mining Ltd and pre-application discussions have also started on this site.
Previously submitted Minerals sites which will not be considered
2.9 Five other sites which were originally submitted in 2005 as potential site allocations have since been permitted.:
1. Park Wall North, near Tow Law (surface mined coal and fireclay); 2. Hulands Quarry, near Bowes (carboniferous limestone); 3. Crime Rigg Quarry (magnesian limestone and basal permian sand); 4. Eldon (brick making raw materials - coal measures mudstone). These sites will not therefore be considered; and 5. Windy Hill Quarry extension (building stone).
2.10 Two sites which were originally proposed as site allocations at High Conniscliffe in Darlington Borough (Hanson)(3) and at Aycliffe Quarry (southern extension to existing quarry) (4) have been excluded from this process due to their location in the Tees Valley, outside County Durham. It is also understood that the owners of Aycliffe Quarry, do not now wish to seek a northern extension to that site. (5)
3 Hanson originally proposed a 58 ha site to work 3.7mt of sand and gravel. 4 Stonegrave Aggregates originally proposed a 15ha southern extension to Aycliffe Quarry which would have enabled a further 7 million tonnes of magnesian limestone to be extracted. 5 Stonegrave Aggregates originally proposed a 6.3 ha northern extension to Aycliffe Quarry which would have enabled a further 2.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone to be extracted.
12 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on criteria for Strategic Sites 3
3 Further Consultation on criteria for Strategic Sites
3.1 This section of the report reconsiders our approach to identifying strategic minerals and waste sites.
Strategic Mineral Sites
3.2 Paragraph 11.65 of the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper explained that the Core Strategy will only allocate new mineral sites where they are of strategic significance and central to the delivery of the strategy. All other minerals sites would need to be allocated in the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD. This paragraph also set out criteria to assess whether a proposed mineral site should be viewed as strategic.
3.3 Eighteen responses were received to this issue (see Appendix A), nine of which supported the stated criteria. A wide range of comments were provided including the omission of environmental criteria and any reference to the need for an assessment under the EU Habitats Directive.(6) We acknowledge that the lack of any reference to environmental criteria and reference to the Habitats Directive was an omission. In order to provide certainty, section 9 sets out our draft method for the appraisal of minerals and waste sites.
3.4 In terms of the criteria provided, the Dean and Chapter of Durham identified the need to designate a strategic building stone site in order to supply roofing stone if there is a location of the right quality. Only one mineral operator supported the suggested criteria (Lafarge Aggregates). Three mineral operators, (Aggregate Industries, Sherburn Stone, ATH Resources) and the Mineral Planning Association all disagreed. ATH Resources argued that surface mined coal should be considered as a strategic resource and that the sites they have put forward should be identified as strategic sites. Sherburn Stone, while agreeing with the criteria for sand and gravel sites and magnesian limestone, suggested a different approach for carboniferous limestone which would involve designating a quarry in their ownership as central processing point which would then be served by a number of satellite extraction sites. The Mineral Planning Association stated that 'the stress should be on the most importance of the production unit and not on the size of the permission (although sometimes the two will coincide)'.
3.5 A number of mineral operators suggested that their new site proposals should be considered as strategic sites including, Lafarge Aggregates Ltd who suggested that both the basal permian sand resources within Thrislington Quarry and the eastern extension to Thrislington Quarrry should be considered as strategic until such time as the planning permission is issued.(7)Similarly, Aggregate Industries suggested that Heights Quarry should be considered as a strategic mineral site. ATH Resources suggested that their sites to the North and South of Pittington and Eldon Blue House should also be considered as strategic sites. Please see section 5.
6 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 7 In October 2008 members resolved to grant planning permission to an extension to Thrislington Quarry east of the A1(M).
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 13 3 Further Consultation on criteria for Strategic Sites
3.6 While there was some agreement with the many of the proposed criteria, this agreement was not universal. In particular, individual mineral operators will naturally argue that individual criteria require changing where it does not meet their objectives and site requirements.
3.7 We have carefully considered the comments provided by aggregate mineral operators and the Mineral Planning Association and would wish to respond positively by seeking to amend the criteria for strategic aggregate sites. We now consider that a criteria can not be based simply on the extent of potential permitted reserves or the potential contribution that a new or extended aggregate site could make to annual production. We now consider that the following criteria would be more appropriate:
'New aggregate sites or large extensions to existing aggregate sites that make significant contribution to ensuring that County Durham meets its forecast aggregates requirement over the life of the County Durham Plan'.
3.8 The revised criteria takes into account the importance of the new or existing production unit, forecast need over the plan period and residual need which cannot be met by existing sites and the permitted reserves they contain. In applying this criteria we will consider the extent and distribution of existing permitted reserves. However, in instances where permitted reserves of certain minerals are already extensive and more than sufficient to meet the aggregates requirement over the life of the County Durham Plan, we do not believe we can justify considering operator proposed sites as strategic allocations. As permitted reserves of certain minerals decline over the plan period, there will be further opportunities to revisit whether new strategic sites or extensions are needed when the Core Strategy DPD and the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD are reviewed in coming years.
3.9 On the basis of the forecasts we have already set out in the technical consultation report, "Towards a Minerals Delivery Strategy" we are of the firm view that there is no need to identify any further strategic sites for magnesian limestone. In taking this view, it must be stated that the eastern extension to Thrislington Quarry will be considered as a strategic site. The Council has already resolved to grant planning permission at this site in order to provide supplies of high grade dolomite for the steel industry. In addition we recognise the importance of this site to aggregates production.(8)
3.10 On the basis of the forecasts we have already set out we are of the firm view that there is scope to identify strategic sites for:
1. Sand and gravel: The Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper stated that 'in addition to the working of existing permitted reserves we must allocate and/or permit sufficient land to enable the extraction of an additional 4.9 million tonnes of sand and gravel to be extracted in the period to 2030. We must also ensure that at least a minimum seven year sand and gravel landbank is maintained at all times. In order to prevent the landbank falling below the minimum seven year period we have calculated that a further 2.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel will need to be permitted towards the end of the plan period.' While the level of residual need has now been revised to take
8 As stated above, Lafarge Aggregates have requested that the site be considered as strategic until such time as the decision notice is issues to confirm the grant of planning permission.
14 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on criteria for Strategic Sites 3
into account additional permitted reserves, please refer to "Towards a Minerals Delivery Strategy for County Durham", given the long term nature of strategic sites we still consider it important to require that sites are at least 15 years in duration and contain over 2.5 million tonnes. Individual sites would need to make a significant contribution to annual production requirements i.e. more than 150,000 tonnes per annum. 2. Carboniferous Limestone: The Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper stated, 'It is currently forecast that permitted reserves of carboniferous limestone (estimated at 7.36 million tonnes at the end of 2008) will be exhausted by 2024 with a significant reduction in annual production by 2018. In order to maintain sales at current levels to 2030, we would need to make provision for nearly 11 million tonnes, although nearly half of this shortfall could be met if working were to resume at one large site in Weardale.' Given the long term nature of strategic sites we still consider it important to require that sites are at least 15 years in duration and a significant contribution to meeting forecast need over the plan period. 3. Brick making raw materials: in order to meet the long term needs of the County's brickworks.
3.11 We do not believe that strategic sites are either needed or required for other minerals in County Durham:
Surface Mined Coal: We are of the firm view that surface mined coal sites will not be considered as strategic as they are not central to the achievement of the strategy of the County Durham Plan. While the coal recovered could constitute a useful addition to domestic coal production in England, for use in the domestic power generation market, none of this mineral will directly supply markets in County Durham. While all three of the sites proposed by ATH Resources are relatively large in size and are believed to contain a large quantity of coal(9), at least in a County Durham context, the sites are short term sites. PPS12 is clear that in general the core strategy will not include site specific detail which can date quickly. Our view is that all three of these sites should be considered through the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD and/or through the submission of a planning application by the operator. Natural building and roofing stone: We do not consider that natural building and roofing stone is fundamental to the delivery of the strategy of the County Durham Plan. However, we do intend to ensure that we put into place and operate an approach to the supply of natural building and roofing stone which is consistent with Annex 3 (Natural building and roofing stone) of MPS1.
Sustainability Appraisal Recommendation and reasoning: No suggested alternatives to the criteria set out above. However, agree with principals concerning fire clay, coal and other minerals.
9 Pittington North 2.5 million tonnes with an estimated extraction period of 4.5 years, Pittington South 800,000 tonnes with an estimated extraction period of 2.5 years and Eldon Blue House 1,100,000 tonnes with an estimated extraction period of 3 years.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 15 3 Further Consultation on criteria for Strategic Sites
Intended approach: The following definition of a strategic minerals sites will be used:
Aggregates (crushed rock and sand and gravel)
New aggregate sites or large extensions to existing aggregate sites that make significant contribution to ensuring that County Durham meets its forecast aggregates requirement over the life of the County Durham Plan. Strategic sand and gravel sites will only be sites which are at least 15 years in duration and contain over 2.5 million tonnes. Individual sites would need to make a significant contribution to annual production requirements i.e. more than 150,000 tonnes per annum. Strategic Carboniferous Limestone sites will also need to be at least 15 years in duration and a make a significant contribution to meeting forecast need over the plan period for this mineral.
Brick-making raw materials
A site could be considered strategic if it makes a significant contribution to meeting the long term needs of individual brickworks. Sites which produce fireclay in combination with coal will not be considered as strategic. This is because coal is the primary mineral which is extracted.
Coal – Surface mine workings (also known as opencast)
Surface mined coal sites will not be considered as strategic as they are not central to achievement of the strategy.
Other minerals
With the exception of one named site which is essential for the supply of high grade dolomite for the steel industry, we do not consider that any other mineral sites can be viewed as strategic due to their size and limited scale of production.
Strategic sites will need to accord with the spatial approach to new minerals development set out in the Core Strategy.
Sites need to be environmentally acceptable. This will be informed by both Sustainability Appraisal and an assessment under the Habitats Directive. (10)
Sites need to be deliverable e.g. a committed operator with agreement of the land owner.
10 Sites appraised under the Habitats Directive will be screened in order to assess whether a full assessment is required.
16 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on criteria for Strategic Sites 3
Strategic Waste Sites
3.12 The Core Strategy will only allocate waste sites where they are of strategic significance and central to the delivery of the Core Strategy. All other waste sites would need to be allocated in the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD. Paragraph 11.25 to 11.28 of the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper set out criteria to assess whether a proposed waste site should be viewed as strategic.
3.13 Fifteen responses were received to this issue, ten of which supported the stated criteria. Only one respondent, who is promoting their own site for waste transfer disagreed. One respondent identified an drafting error in paragraph 11.27, bullet point 1 stated "Non-strategic sites will need to accord with the spatial approach to new waste development set out in the Core Strategy. Some respondents referred to matters of detail relating to the environmental acceptability criteria, for example:
'environmental criteria ought to include impact on settlements'; 'there are a range of other environmental considerations that should be taken into account when assessing strategic waste sites i.e SSSIs, locally designated sites, priority habitats and ancient woodland'; 'criteria lack specific reference to locating sites in accessible locations, and consideration to the need for significant developments to be supported by Transport Assessments and would wish to see demand management measures implemented'; and 'criteria should include the development of an environmentally beneficial restoration plan with resources allocated for the future benefit of the community', 'social impact of transport impacts'.
3.14 Many of the matters referred to by respondents are implicit as part of consideration of 'environmental acceptability', although it is important to note that it would be inappropriate for the plan to assess proposed allocations with the same rigour as planning applications through the development management process. In order to provide certainty, section 9 sets out our draft method for the appraisal of minerals and waste sites.
Sustainability Appraisal Recommendation and reasoning: The criteria cannot be appraised against the SA framework, but general comments on criteria are:
First line to be amended to: The Core Strategy will only allocate new strategic waste sites where they are of strategic significance, central to the delivery of the strategy and are in accordance with the spatial approach and other overarching policies set out in the Core Strategy. Response - accepted. Suggest the criteria should also include the notion of 'social amenity' (in terms of health, safety, and local amenity) as well as environmental acceptability. Response - not accepted, these matters will be covered by environmental acceptability. Second line to be amended: It is right to say that sites will be subject to appraisal. However, it is suggested that a sites' 'acceptability' should be informed by Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment. Response - accepted.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 17 3 Further Consultation on criteria for Strategic Sites
Ensure criteria align with the criteria for non-strategic waste sites and accord with over-arching environmental policies. Response - comments noted. Once sites have been deemed ‘acceptable’ after a balanced appraisal of positive and negative effects (and included in the DPD), it is suggested that they should be subject to further and more rigorous assessment at site level. Response - this will be via testing through a planning application. Suggest that setting numerical parameters (e.g. 25% of more of a total waste stream) is restrictive and may not be as decisive as other arguments for identifying a site as strategic. Moreover, stipulating that a specific site manages a high percentage of a particular waste stream may have significant negative environmental and social impacts. Response - points noted and accepted, criteria refers to 'flexibility'. As with the criteria for non-strategic waste site allocations, it is suggested that this criteria should include exploiting opportunities for generating energy from waste (including contributing to district heating networks) and seeking to minimise the environmental impact of transporting waste. Response - points noted and accepted.
Intended approach: The following definition of a strategic waste sites will be used:
The Core Strategy will only allocate new strategic waste sites where they are of strategic significance, central to the delivery of the strategy and are in accordance with the spatial approach and other overarching policies set out in the Core Strategy. Any strategic site for waste management would need to make a major contribution to the sustainable management of waste in County Durham by providing significant new capacity for municipal and/or commercial and/or industrial waste. A strategic site could be any proposal which would manage 25% or more of a total waste stream, but this would need to be applied flexibly on the basis of the role and purpose of any individual proposal.
Strategic sites will need to accord with the spatial approach to new waste development set out in the Core Strategy. Sites need to be environmentally acceptable. This will be informed by both Sustainability Appraisal and an assessment under the Habitats Directive. (11) Sites need to be deliverable e.g. a committed operator with agreement of the land owner. Consideration should be given to exploiting opportunities for generating energy from waste.
Question 1
We would welcome your views on our revised criteria for identifying strategic minerals and waste sites.
11 Sites appraised under the Habitats Directive will be screened in order to assess whether a full assessment is required.
18 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and 4 Options Paper
4 Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper
4.1 This section of the paper sets out our decisions (where decisions have been reached) on the minerals and waste sites which were identified as strategic minerals and waste sites in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper. The tables in this section set out profiles of each potential site based upon operator submissions to the Council. In instances where decisions have not yet been made, our intention is that we will announce which sites should be allocated as strategic sites when we publish the Publication Draft of the Core Strategy in July 2011.
Area of Search at Todhills Brickworks
Map 1 Area of Search at Todhills Brickworks
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 19 Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and 4 Options Paper
Operator Wienerberger Ltd Proposal type and Site allocation for brick clay and shale. 40.63 ha in extent. site area Site Location The site lies between the villages of Newfield and Byers Green, immediately to the south of the existing brick works. Major No environmental designations lie within the proposed Strategic Area of Environmental Search. Both short and long distance visual impacts need to be addressed Designations & in order to mitigate environmental impacts and significant tree planting has Constraints already taken place as part of the long term strategy for the development of the brick works. Planning History The site is currently allocated as an Area of Search under Policy M11 of the Minerals Local Plan. This policy is currently saved and remains operational until it is replaced or deleted from the statutory development plan. A number of brick clay and shale sites have previously been worked in the vicinity of the brick works. Since April 2004 the extraction of brick shale has been from a site known as Long Lane, which is located immediately to the west of the brick works. This permission is due to end in 2018. Mineral Resource Potential permitted reserves have been calculated at between 3.4 and 5.2 and Geology million tonnes. This would provide for the needs of the brick works for up to 65 years. Details of the It is anticipated that working would be required to progress in a southerly proposal direction, commencing to the south of the brick works. The site would be excavated to access the brick shale with material won on a campaign basis over a 6 to 8 week period every year. The storage and processing of brick shale deposits would be carried out at the brick works and it is anticipated that all extraction and transport of brick shale shall be worked and transported in land under the control of Wienerberger Ltd. The site is currently under agriculture. Following the cessation of working the site would be restored to agricultural land. Economic Additional resources are needed to provide sufficient resources to guarantee Justification the future of the brick works. identified by operator Deliverability This site was allocated in the Minerals Local Plan as an area of search in December 2000. Since that date no planning application has been forthcoming. Wienerberger is currently progressing working at an adjacent site at Long Lane, it is envisaged working at this site would occur once Long Lane was exhausted. In terms of deliverability the proposed area of search is leased to Wienerberger Ltd. The proposed extraction of the brick shale would be carried out by Hall Construction under the management of Wienerberger Ltd.
Responses to the Issues and Options Consultation
4.2 Question 59 of the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper asked which sites should be identified in the Core Strategy as strategic minerals sites. While the response to this question was limited to 14 responses, five respondents supported this site, none objected.
20 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and 4 Options Paper
Only one specific comment was made in relation to this site, the Highways Agency advised that while the site does lie some distance from the Strategic Road Network, depending on their intended use / intensity of use, there may be impacts at the Strategic Road Network. Irrespective of the classification of a site as "strategic" in the Core Strategy or elsewhere in a separate DPD, the Agency would wish full consideration to be given to the transport implications of individual sites and the cumulative impact of the whole plan. The CPRE made a general comment that, 'Identification of any sites should take into account post-extraction uses and restoration, and implications for and expansion of the transport network both during and after use.'
4.3 The proposal for the future extraction of brick making raw materials at Todhills offers to play a vital role in providing feedstock for the adjacent brick works at Todhills once existing supplies of mineral from the adjacent Long Lane site are exhausted.(12) The proposal would guarantee supplies of feedstock to Todhills brick works in the long term providing resources to be used in the second half of the plan period and into the long term and security for Wienerberger to invest in the plant for the future.
4.4 The proposal would accord with the provisions of national policy as set out in MPS1 'Planning and Minerals'. It would allow brick clay to be extracted as close as possible to the brick works, thereby reducing the energy requirement to transport minerals to the minimum and minimising the transport of mineral and any impact upon the strategic route network and the local highways network. It would meet the requirement to provide resources sufficient to for 25 years of production, thereby helping to guarantee the future of the brickworks, the production of local bricks for use in County Durham and the North East region and safeguard the employment at the brick works. If the Council decides to identify through the County Durham Plan a requirement for a 25 year landbank of permitted reserves at each brick manufacturing plant this site, would meet this requirement for Todhills brick works.
4.5 Given that insufficient information exists to identify either a site specific or preferred area for the extraction of brick making materials, it is our intention that the site is allocated as a strategic Area of Search for brick making raw materials. The Area of Search does not represent an area where proposals for mineral extraction will automatically be approved. Proposals for working in the Area of Search will be considered in terms of their specific impacts and will need to conform with policies dealing with the protection of the environment and the quality of life of local people. In particular proposals for working will need to include phased working and restoration, and would need to minimise and mitigate visual and landscape impacts and on surrounding communities, although as stated above in order to minimise visual impacts significant tree planting has already occurred.
4.6 We have completed our assessment of this proposal. This has involved a strategic level planning assessment, and a Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment. The strategic level planning assessment has considered the operators submission and has concluded that the proposal is acceptable. Similarly, the Sustainability Appraisal assessment has appraised this site using our SA Framework and has concluded that the site should be considered as a strategic allocation. The Habitats Regulation Assessment has considered potential impacts upon Natura 2000 sites via a pathway
12 The current planning permission at the Long Lane site requires that working at this site is completed by April 2018.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 21 Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and 4 Options Paper
analysis and has concluded that no specific impacts are likely on Natura 2000 sites. It should be stressed however, that this 'plan level' assessment does not however obviate the need for the detailed consideration of impacts. The plan led system still requires a planning application to be made which demonstrates through a detailed assessment that a site accords with policy and has an acceptable impact on local communities and the environment.
Intended approach: The Core Strategy DPD will allocate a strategic Area of Search for brick clay extraction to the south of Todhills Brickworks.
Question 2
Please use this question to make any comments on this strategic site proposal.
Low Harperley
Map 2 Low Harperley
22 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and 4 Options Paper
Operator Sherburn Stone Co Ltd. Proposal type and Strategic Mineral Site Allocation for sand and gravel. 38.4 ha in extent. site area Site Location The proposed site extends along the northern side of the River Wear, approximately 5.4 km to the east of Wolsingham and 1.3 km south of the A689. Major The proposed site falls within an existing Area of High Landscape Value and Environmental the eastern part of the site as been previously designated as historic parkland. Designations & No other environmental designations lie with the proposed site. Constraints Planning History The Minerals Local Plan recognised the mineral resource potential of the area and part of the site is designated as a Mineral Consultation Area. Mineral Resource Potential permitted reserves are estimated as 2.5 million tonnes. The site and Geology would be worked over approximately 16 years, producing 150,000 to 160,000 tonnes every year. Economic The proposal would provide a significant quantity of sand and gravel which Justification would make a major contribution to meeting the County’s future needs for this mineral. Details of the It is proposed that the site would be progressively worked and restored in a proposal number of phases, with working starting in the central portion of the site, then occurring in the southern part and then finally the northern part of the site. The southern part of the site would be restored to nature conservation, the central part of the site would be restored to 3 fishing lakes and the northern part of the site would be restored to a large recreational lake for low impact water sports. The areas restored to wetland habitats would be developed as a nature reserve and a nature conservation management plan has been prepared for this area. Mineral processing plant and storage areas would be located on site with the mineral being transported to market via the A689. This would result in 64 lorry movements a day (32 outward and 32 return journeys). The company have raised the possibility of utilising the adjacent Weardale Railway to transport the mineral. However, given the current status of the railway the company have indicated that the proposed scheme of working could make provision for a rail handling facility to utilise the adjacent Weardale Railway. The development of the site would result in the generation of 13 direct jobs. In terms of deliverability, the company has secured the necessary rights to extract the sand and gravel Deliverability Sherburn Stone has secured the necessary rights to extract the mineral and a planning application has also been submitted to the County Council.
Responses to the Issues and Options Consultation
4.7 Question 59 of the Issues and Options Paper asked which sites should be identified in the Core Strategy as strategic minerals sites. While the response to this question was limited to 14 responses, six respondents supported this site, none objected. Only two specific comments were made in relation to this site, the Highways Agency advised that while the site does lie some distance from the Strategic Road Network, depending on their intended use / intensity of use, there may be impacts at the Strategic Road Network.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 23 Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and 4 Options Paper
Irrespective of the classification of a site as "strategic" in the Core Strategy or elsewhere in a separate DPD, the Agency would wish full consideration to be given to the transport implications of individual sites and the cumulative impact of the whole plan. The National Grid company advised the Council that the site is crossed by on of National Grid's high voltage overhead transmission lines and they would wish to retain the line in situ. The CPRE made a general comment that, 'Identification of any sites should take into account post-extraction uses and restoration, and implications for and expansion of the transport network both during and after use.'
4.8 This proposed site met both our original and revised strategic site criteria (see section 3). While a planning application has been submitted, it is also being considered as a strategic site allocation following a request by the proposed operator to twin track this site through both the plan making and development management process. However, if the planning application is determined prior to the Core Strategy's Publication in July 2011, this site will no longer be considered as a strategic site.
4.9 Given the extent of potential permitted reserves within the site, Low Harperley offers the potential to play a strategic role in the provision of sand and gravel supply in County Durham. The potential reserves within the site would help enable the County's quarries to meet the NERAWP recommended annual production requirement (312,500 tonnes per annum), the NERAWP recommended sub-regional apportionment of 5 million tonnes to the period to 2020 and make a significant contribution to meeting the Council's forecast for need over the plan period to 2030. Given that the site would be worked over approximately 16 years, it could make a contribution to future sand and gravel supply requirements throughout the majority of the plan period and would contribute to the maintenance of a seven year landbank for sand and gravel. We understand that that Sherburn Stone has secured the necessary rights to extract the mineral and a planning application has also been submitted to the County Council. Accordingly we consider that it is deliverable.
4.10 We are still considering the potential impact of the Low Harperley proposal through a strategic level planning assessment, and through the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment processes. The strategic level planning assessment has considered the operators submission and has concluded at this stage that the proposal may be acceptable. However, further Sustainability Appraisal assessment work is still required before a definitive recommendation has been reached. The Habitats Regulation Assessment has considered potential impacts upon Natura 2000 sites via a pathway analysis and has concluded that no specific impacts are likely on any Natura 2000 site. While assessment of this site is continuing and has not been finalised the indications from this process are that the allocation of Low Harperley site is a possibility. It should be stressed however, that this 'plan level' assessment does not however obviate the need for the detailed consideration of impacts. The plan led system still requires a planning application to be made which demonstrates through a detailed assessment that a site accords with policy and has an acceptable impact on local communities and the environment.
Intended approach: Subject to further Sustainability Appraisal assessment work we are minded to allocate Low Harperley as a strategic site for sand and gravel extraction.
24 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and 4 Options Paper
Question 3
Please use this question to make any comments on this strategic site proposal.
Waste allocation at Thrislington Quarry
Map 3 Waste Allocation at Thrislington Quarry
Operator Lafarge Aggregates Ltd
Proposal type and Site specific allocation; around 96 ha site area
Site Location and Thrislington Quarry is a very large Magnesian Limestone and Basal Permian surroundings Sand quarry south of Cornforth and west of A1(M). It is located relatively centrally within the more populated eastern part of County Durham. It lies approximately 1.5 km east of Ferryhill.
The villages of West Cornforth and Bishop Middleham are approximately 0.5 km to the north and southeast respectively. The proposed waste allocation lies within the western part of the existing quarry void.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 25 Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and 4 Options Paper
Operator Lafarge Aggregates Ltd
Environmental The Thrislington Special Area of Conservation, also comprising a Site of Designations & Special Scientific Interest and Thrislington Plantation National Nature Reserve Constraints adjoins the southern edge of the quarry void.
The site is visually contained and the quarry floor is well screened from most public vantage points.
Residential properties lie to the north of the quarry, in West Cornforth, off Garmondsway Road and Stobbs Cross Road. These dwellings are over 200m from the quarry void and are screened from it by screening mounds. The quarry is well located in relation to the strategic road network by virtue of the West Cornforth by-pass and the new eastern access to the A177. The site is located lies upon a principal aquifer and the proposal may at least in part be located below the natural water table. Permitted quarrying operations will take a substantial part of the void below the water table and consequently detailed proposals will need to take this into account. Issues to consider are, the effectiveness and long term sustainability of the water control; and leachate management.
Planning History The site has a long and complex planning history in terms of minerals. It is currently allocated for waste development in saved Policy 58 of the County Durham Waste Local Plan inert recycling operations already take place within the quarry.
Waste type and Proposal is for the site to manage a range of non-hazardous wastes as well scale as inert waste management activities (including recovery, recycling and composting and landfilling). Potential capacity was previously stated as 210,000T pa.
Economic The extraction of minerals from the quarry has left a relatively flat quarry floor Justification at around 30-40 metres below the original ground level. The site is located identified by relatively centrally within the more populated central /eastern part of the operator County and therefore appears relatively well located in relation to potential sources of waste. It also benefits from existing links to the strategic road and network as well as access to a rail link. The site owner argues that the continued allocation of Thrislington Quarry for the development of a range of non-hazardous wastes as well as inert waste management activities (including recovery, recycling and composting and landfilling), would offer opportunities for the co-location of activities. The site owner considers that the identification of Thrislington Quarry for the development of waste management facilities would contribute significantly towards meeting targets for waste management in Durham.
Deliverability Thrislington Quarry is owned and operated by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd.
Responses to Issues and Options consultation
4.11 Question 47 of the Issues and Options Paper asked which sites should be identified by the Core Strategy as strategic waste sites. Of the responses received to this question, the Durham Wildlife Trust was against the proposal to allocate Thrislington as a strategic
26 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and 4 Options Paper
site, arguing that the potential biodiversity value of Thrislington should exclude it from development as a waste site, and the Environment Agency and Highways Agency identified potential concerns about groundwater protection and the capacity of the strategic road network. Natural England felt that before they could advise on whether the site should be allocated as a strategic waste site, they would need to consider the detailed assessment of the site with regards to Sustainability Appraisal / Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment processes, given the international and nature conservation designations adjacent to the site. Bishop Middleham Parish Council felt that no further landfill sites should be allocated. Bowburn and Parkhill Community Partnership wish to see traffic from the site avoid Bowburn, and the CPRE reserved its position on the proposal, until the scale of landfill provision and waste facilities has been determined. Other respondents supported its allocation, including Sedgefield Village Residents Forum, Stanley Town Council, and Cornforth Parish Council, who considered that the proposal could benefit the village through employment, provided that traffic and environmental safeguards could be rigorously enforced.
Consideration of the Proposal for a strategic site allocation
4.12 The proposal for waste development at Thrislington Quarry offers the potential to play an important role in the managing future waste arisings in County Durham. (This was acknowledged though the site allocation in the County Durham Waste Local Plan). It has the potential to accommodate significant capacity and a range of potential waste facilities, according to need. The site’s location at the centre of the County, close to some of the County’s key population centres and areas for planned future expansion, gives it a particular strategic advantage. It has suitable access to the strategic highway network and offers the potential for sustainable transport of waste material utilising the rail network. However some critical issues remain to be addressed:
1. The potential impact on the adjacent The Thrislington Special Area of Conservation/ Site of Special Scientific Interest and Thrislington Plantation National Nature Reserve, through Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA); 2. The potential impact on groundwater, particularly from any proposed landfill element of waste development. The need for a landfilling element in the proposal and its deliverability in this location remain to be demonstrated; 3. The compatibility of proposed waste facilities will permitted and proposed minerals operations at the Quarry; and 4. The potential impact of additional traffic generated as a result of the waste development proposal on the strategic transport network.
4.13 Critical amongst these considerations is the potential impact of the proposal on the adjacent Thrislington Special Area of Conservation. The HRA must be able to demonstrate that no significant impacts are likely, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. However, until the proposals for waste development are worked up in more detail and particularly until the precise form, technologies and scale of waste development is clarified, it is not possible to assess the potential impacts on the Thrislington Special Area of Conservation, and demonstrate that any potential impacts or emissions from proposed waste operations at the site would not cause significant damage and undermine the integrity of the SAC. This is fundamental to compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. Similarly, until the proposals for waste
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 27 Decisions on Strategic Sites Proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and 4 Options Paper
development are worked up in more detail and particularly until the precise form, technologies and scale of waste development is clarified we will not be in a position to complete the Sustainability Appraisal assessment work for this site.
4.14 Whilst the potential for waste development at Thrislington remains and is acknowledged, the proposal needs to be developed in further detail to allow the merits of the site to be assessed. However, the Council has sought further information from Lafarge Aggregates Ltd which is needed to enable us to complete our work to assess this site through the Habitats Regulation Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal process.
Intended Approach: We are not currently in a position to determine whether the identified land at Thrislington Quarry should be allocated as a Strategic Waste site in the Core Strategy DPD.
Question 4
Please use this question to make any comments that you may have on either this strategic site proposal or the approach outlined above.
28 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites 5
5 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
5.1 Question 47 and question 59 of the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper sought views on which sites should be identified by the Core Strategy as strategic minerals and waste sites. Question 47 suggested a waste site allocation at Thrislington Quarry and question 59 suggested brick clay and shale site adjacent to Todhills brickworks and a sand and gravel site at Low Harperley, east of Wolsingham.
5.2 Sixteen respondents responded to question 47, (see Appendix A). Six specifically supported Thrislington Quarry, including Lafarge Aggregates and the local parish council, (Cornforth Parish Council). A number of respondents raised concerns in relation to the environmental impacts of waste development at the quarry including the Environment Agency, due to the potential impact of this site if it were to be used for landfill due to its location on a principal aquifer, and the Highways Agency due to the possible impact of this site on the strategic road network. Two other potential sites were proposed for waste development, the Old Brickworks at Bishop Auckland, and Langley Park North Industrial Estate (see section 2).
5.3 Thirteen respondents replied to question 59, (see Appendix A). Five respondents supported the allocation of land adjacent to Todhills brickworks as a strategic site and six respondents supported the allocation of Low Harperley as a strategic site. In addition Lafarge Aggregates Ltd argued that the yellow sands at Thirslington should be considered as strategic, ATH Resources argued that surface coal at Pittington North and Pittington South and Eldon Blue House should be considered as strategic and Sherburn Stone argued that the importance of the plant at Broadwood Quarry as a central processing point for minerals won from satellite extraction sites should be recognised. In addition in response to question 58, Aggregate Industries also suggested that a north western extension to Heights Quarry should be identified as a strategic site as the existing quarry is strategic supplying coated roadstone and carboniferous limestone for ready mixed concrete.
5.4 The potential site allocations outlined in this section are set out in response to operator suggestions for strategic sites. Unless otherwise stated below, we do not support these sites as strategic sites. They are set out in this section for consultation purposes only. At this stage we have not yet come to a view on whether these sites should be supported and allocated in the plan. As such they do not have any status in the new County Durham Plan.
5.5 We will consider each potential strategic allocation over the coming months. Only those sites which are judged as strategic and which the County Council considers to have acceptable environmental and amenity impacts will be included in the Core Strategy DPD (Publication Report).
5.6 Any sites we do not consider to be strategic in nature will not be considered through the preparation of the Core Strategy DPD. They will be considered through the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 29 5 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
Mineral Extraction proposals at Thrislington Quarry
5.7 This sub-section of the report sets out proposals by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd for further mineral extraction at Thrislington Quarry. It should be noted that a number of planning permissions currently exist at Thirslington Quarry including a permission to work Magnesian Limestone and High Grade Dolomite from a site west of the A1(M) (marked in blue on map and shown as Thrislington Permission Area) and permission to work Basal Permian Sand from an area within the existing quarry floor west of the A1(M) (marked in solid red). These permissions currently end in 2015.
5.8 Lafarge Aggregates have proposed two new areas for sand working within the existing quarry void west of the A1(M) and the reallocation of two areas which were previously allocated by the County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000). The area east of the A1(M), south of Stobbs Cross Lane, west of the A177 and north of Bishop Middleham Quarry (and its proposed extension) is known as the eastern extension to Thrislington Quarry. This area was subject to a member resolution to grant planning permission in October 2008. This permission has however, yet to be issued. The area west of the A1(M), east of the dormant Rough Furze Quarry is known as the southern extension to Thrislington Quarry. Two other areas are shown on the map hatched as proposed allocations. These are a proposal by Tarmac Northern to extend Cornforth Quarry to the west of this quarry and a proposal by W&M Thompson to extend Bishop Middleham Quarry to the west.
Map 4 Eastern and southern extensions to Thrislington Quarry and proposed areas for new sand extraction within existing Quarry.
30 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites 5
Basal Permian Sand extraction at Thrislington Quarry
Site Land within Thirslington Quarry
Operator Lafarge Aggregates Ltd.
Proposal type and Area of Search for Basal Permian sand extraction (two areas - both on quarry site area floor west of the A1(M)). (Please note these areas are additional to the existing sand permission area at Thrislington Quarry).
Site Location and Thrislington Quarry is a very large Magensian Limestone and Basal Permian surroundings. Sand quarry south of Cornforth and west of A1(M). It is located relatively centrally within the more populated eastern part of County Durham. It lies approximately 1.5 km east of Ferryhill. The villages of West Cornforth and Bishop Middleham are approximately 0.5 km to the north and southeast respectively. The area with permission for extraction is in excess of 100 hectares. Mineral extraction has left a relatively flat quarry floor, at around 30-40 metres below the original ground level.
The quarry plays an important role in mineral supply in the County and about a third of the Magnesian Limestone extracted is high grade limestone (known as industrial dolomite). This is processed in the kilns at the adjoining works to produce burnt dolomite which is of considerable importance to the steel industry. The balance of Magnesian Limestone extracted, and some underlying Basal Permian Sand, is marketed as aggregates. Residues from the quarrying activities are also blended with fines from the Works to form agricultural lime.
Environmental The site is visually contained and the quarry floor is well screened from most Designations & public vantage points. Residential properties lie to the north of the quarry, in Constraints West Cornforth, off Garmondsway Road and Stobbs Cross Road. These dwellings are over 200m from the quarry void and are screened from it by screening mounds. The quarry is well located in relation to the strategic road network by virtue of the West Cornforth by-pass and the new eastern access to the A177. The Thrislington Special Area of Conservation, also comprising a Site of Special Scientific Interest and Thrislington Plantation National Nature Reserve adjoins the southern edge of the quarry void. The site is located within a major aquifer and the proposal may at least in part be located below the natural water table.
Planning History The quarry has a long planning history. Quarrying of high grade Magnesian Limestone commenced at Thrislington Quarry in 1954 and several planning permissions were granted between 1953 and 1997 for the extraction of this and other minerals (Magnesian Limestone, Basal Permian Sand and Mudstone). Part of the existing quarry including a part of the proposed Basal Permian Sand allocation is allocated in the County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) for waste facilities. In October 2008 the Council resolved to grant planning permission to extend Thrislington Quarry to the east of the A1(M). Once issued this permission will permit the extraction of approximately 29 million tonnes of Magnesian Limestone from a 78ha site, of which some 11.35 million tonnes would be used for high grade purposes.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 31 5 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
Site Land within Thirslington Quarry
Geology and Basal Permian Sands are wind blown dune sands which underlie the Mineral Magnesian Limestone. The sands due not exist underneath the Magnesian Resources Limestone everywhere. In County Durham they outcrop and are accessible at depth in four broad areas. Within Thrislington Quarry they are believed to be present beneath most of the main quarry floor, in a linear deposition broadly west-south-west to east-north-east.
Details of proposal Lafarge Aggregates Ltd indicate that within the quarry there are two areas which contain in excess of an estimated 6 million tonnes of Basal Permian Sand. These two areas are in addition to existing permitted reserves which Lafarge Aggregates Ltd have advised the Council (in January 2010) are now estimated at 3 million tonnes.
Economic Lafarge's Aggregates Ltd response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Justification by Paper stated that they would wish to see the Basal Permian Sand (yellow operator sands) at Thrislington be considered as strategic. No other justification has been provided.
Deliverability Thrislington Quarry is owned and operated by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd.
5.9 The Council will need to carefully consider this strategic site proposal. In particular, given the sites location adjacent to international and national nature conservation designations we will need to consider environmental and amenity impacts most carefully. We note however, that the existing quarry has been worked without any apparent significant adverse impacts occurring.
5.10 We will also need to consider the need for this site. We do not question that the Basal Permian Sand resource is a key mineral resource in County Durham. Currently, all sand production in the County originates from three Basal Permian Sand and Magnesian Limestone quarries on the escarpment. In terms of the wider supply situation the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper is also clear that significant additional supplies of sand and gravel are required in order to meet future need. It should be noted however, that the Council’s supply forecasts did not take into account the extent of permitted reserves now claimed by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd within the existing permitted working area at Thrislington Quarry. Given that Lafarge Aggregates Ltd now claim an estimated 3 million tonnes within the existing permitted area at Thrislington Quarry, it is apparent that the Council must reconsider its forecast for sand and gravel to take into account the additional 2.35 million tonnes which the existing permitted area now contains, (please refer to the technical consultation paper - "Towards a Minerals Delivery Strategy for County Durham''). However, if the existing Basal Permian Sand permitted reserves are in the order of 3 million tonnes and given the scale of recent production it is likely that the existing permitted reserves are likely to be more than sufficient to enable continued production of sands form this quarry throughout the plan period to 2030, (given that planning permission for the extraction of Basal Permian Sand within the current working area ends in January 2015, an extension to the working period for the existing permitted reserves will be required. On this basis while the additional sand resources at Thrislington Quarry may be needed beyond 2030, it does not appear that the resources Lafarge Aggregates Ltd have now identified would be required to be worked during the plan period. However, their may be some merit in identifying the Basal Permian Sand areas identified as a strategic sand reserve for long
32 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites 5
term use beyond 2030. In this respect the Minerals Local Plan identified a similar approach for high grade dolomite and designated a high grade dolomite reserve for long term needs under Policy M18 of the Minerals Local Plan.
Question 5
A) Should we consider the two identified areas containing Basal Permian Sand within Thrislington Quarry as a strategic mineral site allocation? (In providing your reply please explain why this site should or should not be considered).
B) If we do not allocate these areas, is there any merit in identifying these areas as a strategic sand reserve for long term use beyond 2030?
Thrislington Quarry - Eastern Extension
5.11 This sub-section considers a request by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd to re-allocate the County Durham Minerals Local Plan allocation east of the A1(M).(13) The adopted Minerals Local Plan allocated two areas of land, a southern extension to Thrislington Quarry west of the A1(M) and an eastern extension to Thrislington Quarry, east of the A1(M) on the grounds of an identified need for additional supplies of high grade dolomite for use in the steel and chemical industry.(14)
Site Extension to Thrislington Quarry east of A1(M)
Operator Lafarge Aggregates Ltd.
Proposal type and Site specific allocation - 78ha (area shown on map above). site area
Site Location and Thrislington Quarry is a very large magnesian limestone and basal permian surroundings. sand quarry south of Cornforth and west of A1(M). It is located relatively centrally within the more populated eastern part of County Durham. It lies approximately 1.5 km east of Ferryhill. The villages of West Cornforth and Bishop Middleham are approximately 0.5 km to the north and southeast respectively. The proposed extension area lies to the east of the A1(M) and south of Stobb Cross Lane (Road C24). The northern boundary of the site runs along Stobb Cross Lane to the Hare and Hounds Public House, and the A177. The eastern boundary runs along unclassified road 35.17 at College House and continues towards properties at Highland Farm. The southern boundary extends westward to the A1(M) past the active Bishop Middleham Quarry lying immediately to the south. The A1(M) forms the western boundary of the proposed site.
13 The proposed allocations east of the A1(M) and south of the existing quarry but west of the A1(M) have only been proposed by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd in order to safeguard the status of this site in the interim until the Council issues the planning permission for the extension to Thrislington Quarry east of the A1(M). 14 Previous planning documents prepared by the Council recognised that the area east of the existing quarry as the only area in Great Britain, other than Whitwell in Derbyshire, containing dolomite for use in these industries.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 33 5 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
Site Extension to Thrislington Quarry east of A1(M)
Environmental The Thrislington Special Area of Conservation, also comprising a Site of Designations & Special Scientific Interest and Thrislington Plantation National Nature Reserve Constraints adjoins the southern edge of the quarry void. The quarry is well located in relation to the strategic road network by virtue of the West Cornforth by-pass and the new eastern access to the A177. There is recorded archaeology in the east of the site. The site is located lies upon a principal aquifer.
Planning History Thrislington Quarry has a long and complicated planning history. The key (key points) points are:
1. Quarrying of high grade magnesian limestone commenced at Thrislington Quarry in 1954 and several planning permissions were granted between 1953 and 1997 for the extraction of this and other minerals (limestone, Permian sand and mudstone). 2. The proposed site specific allocation was allocated within the County Durham Minerals Local Plan under saved Policy M56 in order to provide supplied of high grade dolomite. 3. In October 2008 the Council resolved to grant planning permission to extend Thrislington Quarry to the east of the A1(M). This permission has yet to be issued. Planning permission at the quarry west of the A1(M) is due to cease in January 2015.
Details of proposal It is proposed to extract approximately 29 million tonnes of Magnesian Limestone over 32 years. About 11.35 million tonnes of stone would be used for high grade purposes. Approximately 1.2 million tonnes saleable material per year. 400,000 tonnes would be suitable for use as high grade dolomite and would be processed in the existing kilns to produce burnt dolomite, 700,000 tonnes of the remaining magnesian limestone would be used for aggregates and 100,000 tonnes would be used for agricultural lime. Final restoration would be achieved within the 2 years before the site enters aftercare (5 years statutory aftercare, and an additional 5 years).
Economic The eastern extension would play an important role in future mineral supply Justification in the County. About a third of the Magnesian Limestone extracted from the extension would be high grade limestone (known as industrial dolomite). This is processed in the kilns at the adjoining works to produce burnt dolomite which is of considerable importance to the steel industry. The need for high grade dolomite can not be met from the existing quarry west of the A1(M) as the purity of the limestone in the remainder of the reserves is declining. The balance of magnesian limestone which would be extracted would be marketed as aggregate. Residues from the quarrying activities would also be blended with fines to form agricultural lime.
Deliverability Lafarge Aggregates Ltd have secure the rights to work the site. They originally intended to start work within the site 2009 as the as high grade material from this area is required to be blended with the remaining consented reserves in the main quarry to maximise use of the mineral. Blending needs to commence during 2011, to make existing reserves suitable for kiln feed use and to provide certainty of supply to the works and hence to the steel industry.
34 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites 5
5.12 Unlike the other proposed strategic site proposals within this section, the eastern extension to Thrislington Quarry east of the A1(M) is currently allocated for future mineral working by saved Minerals Local Plan Policy M56. It has also been been subject to a full planning application accompanied by a environmental statement, and a member resolution to grant planning permission in October 2008. Once remaining details are satisfactorily resolved the Council expects to issue the planning permission. When planning permission is issued it will not be necessary to allocate this site in the County Durham Plan.
Question 6
If planning permission is not issued for this proposal should we still consider this land as a strategic mineral site allocation? (In providing your reply please explain why this site should or should not be considered).
Thrislington Quarry - Southern Extension
5.13 This sub-section considers a request by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd to re-allocate the County Durham Minerals Local Plan allocation south of the existing quarry and west of the A1(M).(15) The adopted Minerals Local Plan allocated two areas of land, a southern extension to Thrislington Quarry west of the A1(M) and an eastern extension to Thrislington Quarry, east of the A1(M) on the grounds of an identified need for additional supplies of high grade dolomite for use in the steel and chemical industry.(16)
Site Extension to Thrislington Quarry west of the A1(M) and south of the existing quarry
Operator Lafarge Aggregates Ltd.
Proposal type and Site specific allocation - 8.4 ha (approx) (area shown on map above). site area
Site Location and Thrislington Quarry is a very large Magnesian Limestone and Basal Permian surroundings. Sand quarry south of Cornforth and west of A1(M). It is located relatively centrally within the more populated eastern part of County Durham. It lies approximately 1.5 km east of Ferryhill. The villages of West Cornforth and Bishop Middleham are approximately 0.5 km to the north and southeast respectively. The proposed extension area lies to the west of the A1(M) and south of existing planing permission boundary for the existing quarry. Rough Furze Quarry (a inactive IDO quarry) lies to the west. The southern boundary follows the field boundary at the south of Rough Furze Quarry east to the A1(M).
15 The proposed allocations east of the A1(M) and south of the existing quarry west of the A1(M) have only been proposed by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd in order to safeguard the status of these sites in the interim until the Council issues the planning permission for the extension to Thrislington Quarry east of the A1(M). 16 Previous planning documents prepared by the Council recognised that the area east of the existing quarry as the only area in Great Britain, other than Whitwell in Derbyshire, containing dolomite for use in these industries.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 35 5 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
Site Extension to Thrislington Quarry west of the A1(M) and south of the existing quarry
Environmental The Thrislington Special Area of Conservation, also comprising a Site of Designations & Special Scientific Interest and Thrislington Plantation National Nature Reserve Constraints lies to the north west. Rough Furze Quarry which is now a County Wildlife Site lies to the west. The quarry is well located in relation to the strategic road network by virtue of the West Cornforth by-pass and the new eastern access to the A177. The site is located lies upon a principal aquifer.
Planning History Thrislington Quarry has a long and complicated planning history. The key (key points) points are:
1. Quarrying of high grade Magnesian Limestone commenced at Thrislington Quarry in 1954 and several planning permissions were granted between 1953 and 1997 for the extraction of this and other minerals (Magnesian Limestone, Basal Permian Sand and Mudstone). 2. The proposed site specific allocation was allocated within the County Durham Minerals Local Plan under saved Policy M55 in order to provide supplied of high grade dolomite. 3. In October 2008 the Council resolved to grant planning permission to extend Thrislington Quarry to the east of the A1(M). This permission has yet to be issued. Planning permission at the quarry west of the A1(M) is due to cease in January 2015.
Details of proposal No details have been provided by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd. This is because this site has only been proposed in order to safeguard the status of this site in the interim until the Council issues the planning permission for the extension to Thrislington Quarry east of the A1(M).
Economic The Minerals Local Plan allocation was originally allocated to provide high Justification grade dolomite for use in the steel industry. The Minerals Local Plan set out a sequence of working which would have required the working of the southern allocation prior to the eastern allocation. That sequence of working was however, not followed as Lafarge Aggregates Ltd subsequently determined that while the site does high grade dolomite it does not contain as much as had previously been hoped. No details have been provided by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd. This is because this site has only been proposed by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd in order to safeguard the status of this site in the interim until the Council issues the planning permission for the extension to Thrislington Quarry east of the A1(M).
Deliverability No information on deliverabilty has been provided.
5.14 The proposed southern allocation to Thrislington Quarry west of the A1(M) is slightly different to the proposed eastern allocation east of the A1(M). While the proposed southern extension to Thrislington Quarry west of the A1(M) is is currently allocated for future mineral working by saved Minerals Local Plan Policy M55, it has not been subject to a planning application or a member resolution to grant planning permission. The proposed allocation west of the A1(M) has only been proposed by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd in order to safeguard the status of this site in the interim until the Council issues the planning permission for the extension to Thrislington Quarry east of the A1(M). The Council does not now support the
36 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites 5
proposed southern allocation to Thrislington Quarry, on the basis that once the planning permission is issued for the eastern extension to Thrislington Quarry east of the A1(M) more than sufficient high grade dolomite will then be permitted to meet the needs of the steel industry for the foreseeable future.
Question 7
We do not consider that this site should be allocated. Do you agree? (In providing your reply please explain why this site should or should not be allocated).
Heights Quarry
Map 5 Proposed 'Strategic' extension to Heights Quarry.
Please note that the area show on the map above reflects the boundaries of the original study area which extended to 22 ha. The 14 ha extension lies within this area and is not
shown on the map above.
Site Heights Quarry – Extension to Heights Quarry.
Operator Aggregate Industries Ltd
Proposal type and Site specific allocation - 14 ha in extent (approximately) site area
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 37 5 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
Site Heights Quarry – Extension to Heights Quarry.
Site Location and Heights Quarry is a large active Carboniferous Limestone quarry some 85 ha surroundings. in extent of which 30 ha is currently subject to mineral extraction and processing activities. The quarry lies in upper Weardale on the northern slopes of the valley, above the A689, approximately 1.5km to the west of the village of Westgate. The company originally proposed a study area (22ha in extent) within which an extension area would be identified during the course of the preparation of the County Durham Plan. This has now been done. Accordingly the proposed allocation extends to 14 ha. It comprises rough and improved grazing land and adjoins the western boundary of the quarry.
Environmental The quarry lies inside the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Designations & accordingly the impact of the proposal upon the AONB and its landscape Constraints qualities will need to be considered. Three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lie in the vicinity of the quarry including West Rigg Open Cutting and Slit Woods SSSIs lie 1.5km to the west of the proposed area of search. Westerburn Wood SSSI lies 1.5km to the south east. Two County Wildlife Sites lie over 1km to the west and south west of the proposed area of search. The proposed area of search is likely to be agricultural land classification grade 4 or 5. A public footpath runs through the proposed area of search.
Planning History The original planning permission at the quarry dates from 1963. This permitted the extraction of Carboniferous Limestone and Fluorspar. In addition a number of other permissions have been granted at the site including the erection and retention of a roadstone coating plant.
Mineral Resource The quarry extracts Carboniferous Limestone from the Great Limestone and Geology sequence (part of the Upper Carboniferous Limestone Group). The operator estimates that 5.7mt of economically recoverable carboniferous limestone lies within the area of proposed extension. Potentially this could be worked at a rate of up to 390,000 tonnes per annum over a fifteen to twenty year period.
Details of The operator has indicated that topographical and geological circumstances proposal require substantial quantities of overburden (boulder clays, sandstones and shales) to be moved to allow extraction of the existing permitted reserves to continue. Potentially once the remaining unconstrained reserves are worked further working of the areas which are constrained by deep overburden may mean the quarry becomes uneconomic. The operators has also indicated that the topography of the extension area is more favourable to extraction. Consequently, the proposal suggests the exchange of the permitted extreme northern sector of the existing site (9ha in extent) where the overburden reaches a thickness of more than 25 metres for an area of land some 14ha adjacent to the western boundary of the site, (approximately 4.48 million tonnes of mineral remain to be worked within the permitted area, (31.12.09).
The operator indicates that the current plant within the site would need to be retained in order to process the mineral extracted from the proposed extension area. Access to the proposed extension area would be via the existing metalled road joining the A689. The operator indicates that a phased restoration of the extension area and existing permitted area would be required.
38 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites 5
Site Heights Quarry – Extension to Heights Quarry.
Economic Existing output at the quarry includes a range of limestone products including Justification products for use in the concrete and coated roadstone production, fills and rock armour. A significant proportion of mineral is processed in plant at the existing quarry. The processing plant includes a coated roadstone plant (one of only four in the County) which uses a significant proportion of the aggregate in the production of coated roadstone. The operator has also indicated that there is a continuing market demand for the products from the site, including coated roadstone from the asphalt plant. The operator also indicates that the proposed extension would secure the existing direct (23 jobs) and indirect employment associated with the site (some 40-50 jobs).
Deliverability It is understood the company have secured the mineral rights to enable extraction.
5.15 The Council will need to carefully consider this strategic site proposal. In particular, given the sites sensitive location inside the North Pennines AONB and near international and national nature conservation designations we will need to consider both environmental and amenity impacts most carefully, particularly those of the current permission against that provided by the alternative working area.
5.16 We will also need to consider the economic justification for continued working including the circumstances at the exiting quarry. Available evidence indicates that the quarry does constitute an important component of the County's mineral supply infrastructure, in particular for Carboniferous Limestone. Within County Durham, currently only five quarries have planning permission enabling the extraction of Carboniferous Limestone. Heights Quarry is second largest of the five remaining quarries containing an 4.48 million tonnes of Carboniferous Limestone and in recent years has contributed a significant percentage of the County's sales for this mineral, (436,000 tonnes in 2008). Given the geological circumstances at the existing quarry, the proposed area of search could secure the future of this quarry and enable extraction to continue at current levels. Without the proposed area of search the quarry could potentially close, significantly reducing the supply of crushed rock and Carboniferous Limestone within in the County. Given the extent of remaining permitted reserves of this mineral closure of this quarry would be of concern.
5.17 In terms of the wider supply situation for Carboniferous Limestone the potential closure of Heights Quarry will need to be considered in the context of the overall supply situation for Carboniferous Limestone. Our latest estimate is that permitted reserves of carboniferous limestone were 10.9 million tonnes on 31.12.09. This figure includes additional permitted reserve (4.59 million tonnes) following the grant of planning permission in May 2009 to allow an extension to Hulands Quarry in Teesdale in May 2009. On the basis of recent production levels we believe that even after taking into account the contribution of the extension to Hulands Quarry, permitted reserves of Carboniferous Limestone will be exhausted by 2024 with a significant reduction in annual production by 2018. In order to maintain sales at current levels to 2030, we would need to make provision for nearly 8.1 million tonnes(17), although nearly half of this shortfall could be met if working
17 This figure is our revised forecast please see the technical consultation report, "Towards a Minerals Delivery Strategy".
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 39 5 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
were to resume at one large site in Weardale.(18) This shortfall does not however include making any provision to maintain a 10 year landbank for this mineral at the end of the plan period.'
Question 8
Should we consider the proposed Heights Quarry extension as a strategic mineral site? (In your response please explain why this site should/should not be allocated).
Proposed Strategic surface mined coal sites
5.18 This sub-section considers a request by ATH Resources to allocate three surface mined coal sites as strategic sites in the Core Strategy DPD.
Pittington North, Pittington South and Eldon Blue House
Map 6 Land North of Pittington and Pittington South.
18 In May 2007 Tarmac Northern Ltd submitted an Environmental Statement and a revised schedule of working and restoration conditions to the Council, proposing to work part of this site in order to extract 3,750,000 tonnes of carboniferous limestone from 30 ha of the 76.4 ha permission area over a 15 year period.
40 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites 5
Site Proposed surface mine coal site - Pittington North
Agent Entec Uk Ltd.
Proposal type and Area of Search for potential surface mine coal site. 1.6 km2 in area. site area
Site Location and Pittington North is located to the north of Low Pittington, with High Moorsley surroundings. to the east and West Rainton to the north west. The eastern boundary of the site is the boundary between County Durham and the City of Sunderland Council. To the north east, east, south and south west the site is directly adjacent to minor roads and open countryside with isolated settlements. To the south west and west is the A690 and built up land associated with West Rainton. The site itself is predominately agricultural land with three properties in the area; Pittington Station House, Field House Farm and Greengables.
Environmental The ATH Resources submission includes detailed information relating to Designations & landscape and visual impact, ecology, cultural heritage and other issues within Constraints 2km of the site. The site consists mainly of arable/pasture farmland with a small number of water bodies. Agricultural land grade is identified as Grade 3. In terms of visual and landscape impact a number of settlements lie in close proximity to the proposed site, in particular West Rainton, Rainton Gate, Low Pittington and Low Moorsley. The A690 lies directly to the north west. A number of protected species and designated nature sites lie either within the site or within 2km radius of the site. In terms of cultural heritage there are designated features located very close to the southern part of the site, including the Grade I Listed Church of St Lawrence, Grade II listed buildings within the village of Pittington, Pittington Hall Conservation Area, scheduled ancient monuments and Ramside Local List Park. Archaeological features may lie within the site. A key issue which will need to be considered is the environmental and amenity impact of the proposal on the surrounding area and nearby settlements.
Planning History No mineral working is known to have taken place previously within the immediate area. The area to the north and north west of West Rainton have however been subject to extensive mineral extraction in the past.
Mineral Resource The Pittington North site is estimated to contain around 2.5 million tonnes of and Geology economically extractable coal, (dependent on final site design and size).
Details of ATH Resources estimate that the site would take 66 months to work and proposal restore, with 54 months of coaling. The coal would be extracted by surface mined methods and would be processed on site. Coal would be transported off site by road via the A689 to Junction 60 of the A1(M), but there is potential for links into the national rail network to be use. No indication is however given in relation to the number of lorry movements. Restoration of the site would be undertaken in a progressive manner.
Economic It is currently anticipated that the coal would supply existing power stations in Justification Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire as well as major industrial users in the North East of England. This would reduce the United Kingdom's independence on imports. ATH Resources indicate that both sites would generate between 60 and 70 direct employment opportunities on the sites through site operators, haulage drivers and management and administration staff.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 41 5 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
Site Proposed surface mine coal site - Pittington North
Deliverability The proposed site includes land with Sunderland City Council administrative area, this area of land can not be considered by the County Council. No information is currently available as to whether ATH Resources have secured the rights to work this site form the land and mineral owner. In this respect the Council has also been approached by UK Coal Mining Ltd to work part of the proposed site, a site allocation has been proposed which will be considered through the Minerals and Waste Allocations and Policies DPD and pre-application enquiries have also been instigated.
Site Proposed surface mine coal site - Pittington South
Operator ATH Resources.
Agent Entec UK Ltd.
Proposal type and Area of Search for surface mined coal. 0.9 km2 in area. site area
Site Location and Pittington South is located directly to the west of High Pittington with Lady surroundings. Piece's Lane running through the centre of the site. The site is predominately agricultural land with open countryside surrounding it to the north, west and south. Low Pittington, High Pittington and Hallgarth Manor border the area on the eastern boundary.
Environmental The ATH Resources submission includes detailed information relating to Designations & landscape and visual impact, ecology, cultural heritage and other issues within Constraints 2km of the site. The site consists mainly of arable/pasture farmland. There is some land which is identified at being at risk of flooding associated with the Pittington and Coalford Becks which run across the site. Agricultural land grade is identified as a mixture of Grade 3 and Grade 4. In terms of visual and landscape impact a number of settlements lie in close proximity to the proposed site, in particular High and Low Pittington. Ramside Hall, Hotel and Golf Course lies to the west. A number of protected species and designated nature sites lie either within the site or within 2km radius of the site. In terms of cultural heritage there are designated features located very close to the southern part of the site, including the Grade I Listed Church of St Lawrence, Grade II listed buildings within the village of Pittington, Pittington Hall Conservation Area, scheduled ancient monuments and Ramside Local List Park. Archaeological features may lie within the site.
A key issue which will need to be considered is the environmental and amenity impact of the proposal on the surrounding area and nearby settlements.
Planning History No mineral working is known to have taken place previously within the immediate area. The area to the north and north west of West Rainton have however been subject to extensive mineral extraction in the past.
Mineral Resource Approximately 800,000 tonnes of coal (dependent on final site design and and Geology size).
42 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites 5
Site Proposed surface mine coal site - Pittington South
Details of proposal ATH Resources estimate that the site would have a total life of around 42 months (30 months of extraction and 12 months for site preparation and restoration). The coal would be extracted by surface mined methods and would be processed on site. Coal would be transported off site by road via the A689 to the A1(M), but there is potential for links into the national rail network to be use. No indication is however given in relation to the number of lorry movements. Restoration of the site would be undertaken in a progressive manner.
Economic It is currently anticipated that the coal would supply existing power stations Justification in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire as well as major industrial users in the North East of England. This would reduce the United Kingdom's independence on imports. ATH Resources indicate that both sites would generate between 60 and 70 direct employment opportunities on the sites through site operators, haulage drivers and management and administration staff.
Deliverability No information is currently available as to whether ATH Resources have secured the rights to work this site form the land and mineral owner.
Map 7 New surface mined coal site - Eldon Blue House
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 43 5 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
Site Proposed surface mine coal site - Eldon Blue House
Operator ATH Resources.
Agent Entec Uk Ltd.
Proposal type and Area of Search for Opencast coal. site area
Site Location and The area of search is located between Shildon and Coundon (please note the surroundings. boundaries below are indicative at this stage). The site is bounded by the A689 and Coundon Industrial Estate to the north, the unclassified road U42.9 and property of Eldon Hope to the east, the C34 road and Old Eldon to the south, Eldon and Coundon Grange to the south-west and Grange Hill and open countryside to the west. The Eldon Brickworks and associated clay pits comprise part of the site. The site is predominately in agricultural use with some woodland.
Environmental The ATH Resources submission includes detailed information relating to Designations & landscape and visual impact, ecology, cultural heritage and other issues within Constraints 2km of the site. A number of protected species lie either within the site or within 2km radius of the site. Ancient woodland in the east of the site. In terms of the cultural heritage, Howlish Hall, which is a Grade II listed building lies within the site. The site is also close to the registered historic park and garden at Windlestone Hall which contains listed buildings and structures. Archaeological features associated with the medieval village of Old Eldon in the south west of the site and features associated with the late 19th and early 20th century collieries and wagon ways. Within the site boundary there is a number of public rights of way. The initial restoration concept for the site refers to improvements to the landscape resource. A key issue which will need to be considered is the environmental and amenity impact of the proposal on the surrounding area and nearby settlements.
Planning History The majority of the proposed area of search has not been worked for minerals extraction. The south-western part of the site does however include Todhills Brickworks and associated clay pits. An application to extend the clay pit at Todhills was approved by the Council in March 2008. In addition coal and fireclay has previously extracted from a site known as Eldon Deep, to the south of the brickworks.
Mineral Resource Up to 1.1 mt of coal, fireclay and a limited amount of aggregate. and Geology
Details of ATH Resources estimate that the site would take 48 months to work and proposal restore, with 36 months of coaling. Although this is dependent on the final site boundary and subsequent coal reserve which would be worked. The coal would be extracted by opencast methods and would be processed on site. The company state that direct access to the site could be obtained from the A689. No indication is however given in relation to the number of lorry movements. Restoration of the site would be undertaken in a progressive manner.
44 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites 5
Site Proposed surface mine coal site - Eldon Blue House
Economic It is currently anticipated that the coal would supply existing power stations in Justification Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire as well as major industrial users in the North East of England. This would reduce the United Kingdom's independence on imports. ATH Resources indicate that 60 direct employment opportunities would be provided by the site, with additional indirect employment opportunities.
Deliverability The proposed area site contains Eldon Brickworks and associated clay pit. ATH Resources intend to raise the possibility of a joint venture with Wienerberger. If this is not possible they indicate that the site could be worked separately from the brickworks operation.
5.19 The Council will need to carefully consider these three strategic site proposals. In particular any environmental and amenity impacts most carefully.
5.20 We do not believe that surface mine coal sites should be considered as strategic sites in the Core Strategy DPD. As stated in section 3 (paragraph 3.11) of this report we are of the firm view that surface mined coal sites should not be considered as strategic as they are not central to the achievement of the strategy of the County Durham Plan. Instead all surface mined coal sites should be considered through the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD and/or through the submission of a planning application by the operator.
5.21 We are also concerned that deliverability of both Eldon Blue House and Pittington North are unproven. ATH Resources have not made clear how the Eldon Blue House site could be worked in relation to the planing permission to work brick making raw materials at Eldon. Similarly, given the knowledge that another mineral operator has also proposed part of Pittington North for coal working we are not satisfied that the Pittington North site can be delivered by ATH Resources.
Question 9
We do no intend to identify Pittington North, Pittington South or Eldon Blue House as strategic sites in the Core Strategy DPD. Do you agree or disagree? (In providing your reply please explain why these sites should or should not be allocated).
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 45 5 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
46 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Waste Sites 6
6 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Waste Sites
6.1 The Core Strategy will allocate only new strategic waste sites where they are of strategic significance and central to the delivery of the County Durham Plan. All other new sites would need to be considered through the preparation of our Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD.
6.2 Only one waste site was proposed through the call for sites; a resubmission of the existing allocated site at Thrislington Quarry, proposal by Lafarge Aggregates. This related to the development of waste management facilities within the existing quarry void (around 96ha) including recovery, recycling and composting and potentially landfilling, with capacity estimated at 210,000 tonnes per annum.
6.3 In addition, in response to the Issues and Options consultation in Summer 2010, Seagraves Ltd have proposed the Old Brickworks site at Newton Cap Viaduct near Bishop Auckland as a waste site to serve as transfer station for waste from the west of the County and the Trustees of the Langley Estate have proposed an anaerobic digestion plant (40,000Tpa) at Langley Park North Industrial Estate utilising organic waste materials and possibly an energy crop grown on the estate.
Waste Handling Facilities - Langley Park Industrial Estate North
Map 8 Waste Handling Facilities - Langley Park Industrial Estate North
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 47 6 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Waste Sites
Site Waste Handling Facilities - Langley Park Industrial Estate North
Agent Grays Chartered surveyors.
Proposal type Site allocation for waste handling facility Trustees of the Langley Estate have and site area proposed an anaerobic digestion plant (40,000Tpa) at Langley Park North Industrial Estate utilising organic waste materials and possibly an energy crop grown on the estate.
Grid reference 421545
Site Location The proposed site area covers the existing Langley Park Industrial Estate, and together with an additional piece of land to the west which is currently not surroundings allocated for industrial or waste uses.
Environmental Waste operations would take place under cover. A key issue which will need Designations & to be considered is the environmental and amenity impact of the proposal on Constraints the surrounding area and nearby settlements, particularly on Langley Park to the south and the site’s accessibility and whether access on to the A691 road can be acceptable provided for and the additional traffic accommodated.
Planning History The Derwentside District Council Local Plan zoned the existing industrial estate as being suitable for un-neighbourly uses and the site currently houses the Pet Crematorium and Olivers Tree Services, the latter dealing with the re-cycling of timber etc, as a bi-product of their business.
Waste type and Trustees of the Langley Estate have proposed an anaerobic digestion plant scale (40,000Tpa) at Langley Park North Industrial Estate utilising organic waste materials and possibly an energy crop grown on the estate.
Economic The proposal is for the development of an anaerobic digestion plant utilising Justification organic waste materials with the possibility of supplementing this feedstock with an energy crop grown on the estate if this proved necessary. If the biogas produced is used for the production of electricity, the heat which the development generates could be utilised on adjoining land or possibly for a community heating scheme in Langley Park. The applicant suggests that the development of such a plant in this location would contribute positively to the waste handling facilities in the County, represent a sustainable source of energy and help the County to meet not only its waste but its renewable energy targets.
Deliverability The site is owned by Langley Estates.
48 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Waste Sites 6
Waste Transfer Station - OId Brick Works, Bishop Auckland
Map 9 Waste Transfer Station – Former Newton Cap Brick Works site, Toronto, Nr. Bishop Auckland
Site Waste Transfer Station – Former Newton Cap Brick Works site, Toronto, Nr. Bishop Auckland.
Operator Seagraves.
Agent Dr Malcolm Bell.
Proposal type and Proposed site allocation. Site area not specified. site area
Grid reference 420530
Site Location and Former brickworks site, located east of Toronto, North of Bishop Auckland surroundings and Newton Cap viaduct (A689).
Environmental Brandon to Bishop Auckland Railway path lies around 200m to the east. Designations & Potential constraint on bats habitats. Part of the site lies within a Mineral Constraints consultation Area. A key issue which will need to be considered is the environmental and amenity impact of the proposal on the surrounding area and nearby settlements, particularly properties in Toronto.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 49 6 Further Consultation on Potential Strategic Waste Sites
Site Waste Transfer Station – Former Newton Cap Brick Works site, Toronto, Nr. Bishop Auckland.
Planning History The proposal site forms part of the former Newton Cap Brickworks. The use of the site for brick making ceased in the early 1990’s. Planning permission for a new building and recycling operations was granted in 2003, but was not implemented. The permission expired in 2008.
Waste type and Seagraves Ltd have proposed the site as a waste transfer station to serve the scale west of the County.
Economic Proposal submitted in response to the Issues and Options consultation in Justification Summer 2010. The site has also been proposed for housing and has been put forward through the SHLAA process. It is currently classed as unsuitable (red).
Deliverability The site is owned by Seagraves Ltd.
6.4 The Waste Technical Paper is clear that significant new waste capacity is needed for waste recycling and recovery, particularly for Municipal Waste. It is important that facilities can be readily accommodated in terms of use and physical capacity, and are deliverable. However, notwithstanding the merits of the two proposals at the former Newton Cap Brickworks and Langley Park North Industrial Estate, on the basis of their proposed relatively modest scale and the role that each would be likely to play in the County’s waste management network, we do not believe that either should be considered as a strategic site in the Core Strategy DPD. As stated in section 3 of this report we are of the firm view that sites would only be considered as strategic where they are central to the achievement of the strategy of the County Durham Plan. Our view is that both of these sites should be considered through the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD and/or through the submission of a planning application by the operator.
Question 10
Do you agree that we should not consider the proposal for a waste facility at Langley Park North Industrial Estate as strategic site allocation, and that the proposal should instead be considered through the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD? (In providing your reply please explain why this site should or should not be considered).
Question 11
Do you agree that we should not consider the proposal for a waste facility at the former Newton Cap Brickworks as strategic site allocation, and that the proposal should instead be considered through the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD? (In providing your reply please explain why this site should or should not be considered)
50 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on criteria for non-strategic allocations 7
7 Further Consultation on criteria for non-strategic allocations
7.1 This section of the report reconsiders our approach to criteria for making non-strategic minerals and waste allocations in the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD. These criteria were originally designed to simply state the key criteria which will be considered in allocating new non-strategic minerals and waste sites. As explained below a number of respondents have raised matters of fine detail which we consider are implicit in the criteria. To provide certainty the criteria for making strategic non minerals and waste sites should be read in conjunction with section 9 of this paper which sets out in detail our proposed method for appraising sites.
Minerals
7.2 Paragraph 11.67 set out our draft criteria for making non-strategic minerals allocations. In total 21 respondents replied to question 60 of which 9 supported the stated criteria and 7 of which disagreed providing suggested alternatives to criteria set out. A range of comments were made and are summarised in the table below.
Summary of responses to Question 60 - Criteria for making non strategic minerals allocations and Council Response
Summarised Comment Council Response
It is difficult to understand why a spatial The Core Strategy is a spatial plan. In order to approach to new mineral working needs to accord with Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12) be set out in the Core Strategy. The criteria 'Local Spatial Planning' and the Planning in relation to this issue aside, the remaining Inspectorate Guidance, 'Guidance On Minerals And criteria are appropriate. Waste Policies In Local Development Frameworks' it must seek to set out how much mineral working is required, where in broad terms it should be accommodated, when it is needed and who will deliver it. The spatial approach to new mineral working will be set out for five Minerals Delivery Areas, this will set out in broad terms where new mineral working should be guided over the plan period. Acceptance of remaining criteria noted.
There are a range of other Agreed there are a range of other environmental environmental considerations that considerations which need to be taken into account. should be taken into account when Paragraph 11.30 sought to highlight the broad assessing non-strategic waste sites. As range of matters which would need to be a minimum requirement, we recommend addressed. These environmental considerations that the criteria include impacts on are covered under the criteria, sites need to be SSSIs, locally-designated sites and environmentally acceptable. They will be subject priority habitats, in particular ancient to both sustainability appraisal and an assessment woodland. In addition, we suggest that under the Habitats Directive. The restoration and after-use of site allocations will be considered under the same criteria.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 51 7 Further Consultation on criteria for non-strategic allocations
Summarised Comment Council Response
a further criterion is used: Sites can be To provide certainty the criteria for making strategic restored to a high-standard, offering non minerals and waste sites should be read in significant benefits to communities and conjunction with section 9 of this paper which sets the environment. out in detail our proposed method for appraising Quality and deliverability of an sites. environmentally beneficial restoration scheme should be included. Further refinement may be needed on what is ‘environmentally acceptable'. There is no reference to considering impacts on local communities.
We are not sure that the need for sites to be This criteria was designed to apply to all mineral environmentally acceptable' is a strong sites wherever they are proposed. enough phrase. It would be helpful to have The first criteria set out in para 11.67 of the Core clarity that these sites should not be in or Strategy Issues and Options Paper, however refers have an impact upon the AONB. to 'Non-strategic sites will need to accord with the spatial approach to new waste development set out in the Core Strategy'. The technical consultation paper 'Towards a Minerals Delivery Strategy for County Durham" proposes a spatial strategy for five minerals delivery areas including the North Pennines Minerals Delivery Area. This will provide the desired clarity, it will seeks to ensure where practicable that major new mineral working does not occur in or adjoining the North Pennines AONB. The approach will be worded to be in accordance with paragraph 14 of MPS1. Environmental considerations will however need to be considered against other factors in the planning balance.
The criteria would benefit from specific The stated criteria as drafted should have included reference to the impact of any proposed a criteria relating to transport. This was an omission. minerals site allocations, particularly with We propose that the transport criteria be worded regards to undertaking the necessary in line with the proposed changes to the waste transport assessments to ensure that there transport criteria, "Where possible, the location is no impact on the operation of the Strategic minimises the environmental impact of transporting Road Network. minerals and has an acceptable impacts upon the local and Strategic Road Network."
The criteria for surface mined coal sites Not accepted. The Minerals and Waste Policies should also identify the alternative tests set and Allocations DPD will only seek to allocate out in MPG3 which qualify the test of environmentally acceptable sites. If a proposed site environmental acceptability is not environmentally acceptable, operators may submit a planning application which demonstrates that local and/or community benefits clearly outweigh the likely impacts. It is also noted that none of the proposed site allocations proposed by operators have set out local and/or community benefit to outweigh likely impacts.
52 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on criteria for non-strategic allocations 7
Summarised Comment Council Response
The criteria look OK but for surface mined Not accepted. Please refer to technical consultation coal, areas where consent will not normally paper, 'Energy Minerals'. This paper consults upon be granted need to be identified. our proposed approach to a constraints based approach for surface coal.
Paragraphs 11.67-11.68 deal with criteria for The Council will consider its approach to identifying identifying non-strategic MSAs. ‘Heritage' heritage quarries (quarries with the potential for quarries might well fall into this category. EIA building stone necessary for the repair of historic may well be required in respect of any buildings) once information becomes available from proposals that come forward. English Heritage. At the plan making level the criteria 'sites need to be environmentally acceptable. They will be subject to both sustainability appraisal and an assessment under the Habitats Directive' will be sufficient. Environmental Impact Assessment will be applicable to relevant planning applications which meet the relevant thresholds.
If not identified as a strategic mineral site in A potential extension to Heights Quarry is consulted the Core Strategy the criteria for non strategic upon in Section 5 of this technical consultation mineral sites need to enable Heights Quarry report. to extend to ensure an adequate and steady supply of Carboniferous limestone.
Although not a resource within Durham The Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations County, there may need to be thought given DPD will set out the development management to access, potentially through your county, framework which in association with Core Strategy for the underground resources of zinc and policies will be used to determine all future minerals lead around Nenthead, between Cumbria planning applications. and Northumberland.
Again, we support Option B in a modification Comments noted. The wording set out in the Core of the last criterion for aggregates sites. You Strategy Issues and Options Paper summarised seem to confuse need, current landbank size the relevant issues very concisely. The Council and extent of existing permitted reserves and understands the concept of need. The position on it would make sense to separate these need or 'residual need' was set out in paragraphs elements to define their role more accurately. 11.36 to 11.41 of the Core Strategy Issues Paper. In our view, need is the total provision during the plan period for aggregates which is the The Council will seek to ensure a steady and product of multiplying the apportionment by adequate supply of aggregates and will adopt a the plan period in years plus a provision for flexible approach which takes into account a range a full landbank to exist at the end of the plan of matters including distribution of mineral in the period, minus permitted reserves. However, landbank and type. The criteria will be amended. it is also our view that the mpa must adopt a flexible approach which takes account of the Support of remaining criteria noted. distribution of mineral in the landbank and the type of mineral as found in MPS1 and discussed already in this document. Therefore, you need to amend to last criterion and add a further one as follows, for aggregates mineral sites - need is the total provision during the plan period for
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 53 7 Further Consultation on criteria for non-strategic allocations
Summarised Comment Council Response
aggregates which is the product of multiplying the apportionment by the plan period in years plus a provision for a full landbank to exist at the end of the plan period, minus permitted reserves at the beginning of the plan period for aggregates mineral sites - need must also take account of the mineral type within the landbank, its principal end uses, its distribution between sites and the likelihood of its extraction within the plan period. We support the other criteria listed.
Sustainability Appraisal Recommendation and reasoning: No suggested alternatives to the criteria stated in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper.
7.3 Taking into account the above the criteria for non strategic minerals sites are set out below:
Non-strategic mineral sites will need to accord with the spatial approach to new mineral working set out in the Core Strategy. Sites need to be environmentally acceptable. This will be informed by both Sustainability Appraisal and an assessment under the Habitats Directive. Sites need to be deliverable e.g. a committed operator with agreement of the land or owner of mineral rights. For aggregates mineral sites – the extent and distribution of existing permitted reserves and the likelihood of its extraction, current landbank size for the mineral, principal end uses and residual need over the plan period will all be key considerations. For brick clay and shale sites – the extent of existing permitted reserves and the ability of those reserves to provide a landbank sufficient to provide for 25 years for each brick manufacturing unit will be key considerations. For surface mined coal sites – the key test will be environmental acceptability. Where possible, the location minimises the environmental impact of transporting minerals and has an acceptable impacts upon the local and Strategic Road Network.
Question 12
Taking into account the above, do you have any further comments? (Please note that these criteria will be used in conjunction with the appraisal method outlined in section 9).
54 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on criteria for non-strategic allocations 7
Waste
7.4 Paragraph 11.10 set out our draft criteria for making non-strategic waste allocations. In total 18 respondents replied to question 48 of which 13 supported the stated criteria and 2 of which disagreed providing suggested alternatives to criteria set out. A range of comments were made and are summarised in the table below.
Summary of responses to Question 48 - Criteria for making non strategic waste site allocations and Council Response
Summarised Comment Council Response
There may also be a need to establish a It is not practical or possible to establish thresholds on threshold of what is ‘environmentally what it environmentally acceptable, site allocations acceptable' or refine the wording of the proposals will need to be considered on their merits criteria to ‘no significant adverse impacts' taking into account all relevant environmental matters. on the environment. We disagree with the suggested wording, in considering allocations it is sufficient to consider sites as either environmentally acceptable or not environmentally acceptable.
There are a range of other environmental Agreed there are a range of other environmental considerations which should be taken considerations which need to be taken into account. into account when assessing Paragraph 11.30 sought to highlight the broad range non-strategic waste sites. As a minimum of matters which would need to be addressed. These requirement, we recommend that the environmental considerations are covered under the criteria include impacts on SSSIs, criteria, sites need to be environmentally acceptable. locally-designated sites and priority They will be subject to both sustainability appraisal and habitats, in particular ancient woodland. an assessment under the Habitats Directive. In In addition, we suggest that a further instances where waste allocations are for non criterion is used: Sites can be restored to permanent development the restoration and after-use a high-standard, offering significant of potential waste site allocations will be considered benefits to communities and the under the same criteria. To provide certainty the criteria environment. for making strategic non minerals and waste sites should be read in conjunction with section 9 of this paper which sets out in detail our proposed method for appraising sites.
The social impact of access to such sites Agreed. This matter will be addressed under the test should be considered of environmental acceptability and through the requirement for a sustainability appraisal.
Criteria should include the requirement In instances where waste allocations are for non to develop an environmentally beneficial permanent development the restoration and after-use restoration plan with identified of potential waste site allocations will be considered management body and allocation of under the test of environmental acceptability. resources
Any environmental criteria out to include These environmental considerations are covered under impacts on settlements and residents. the criteria, sites need to be environmentally acceptable. They will be subject to both sustainability appraisal and an assessment under the Habitats Directive.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 55 7 Further Consultation on criteria for non-strategic allocations
Summarised Comment Council Response
In relation to the criteria to minimise the Agree, transport criteria modified to read, 'The location environmental impacts of transporting minimises the environmental impact of transporting waste, this should also relate to the waste and has an acceptable impacts upon the local physical impact on the operation of the and Strategic Road Network.' transport network and more specifically the Strategic Road Network.
Such sites should deal with less than Not accepted. It is sufficient to identify only the 25% of a total identified waste stream to threshold for strategic sites. All other sites will be non ensure that there is no conflict with the strategic. definition of a strategic site
The issues relating to the habitats All non strategic waste site allocation proposals will be directive are very important and warrant considered through work to undertake a Habitats scrutiny. Regulations Assessment upon the Minerals and Waste Some sites will not have an impact upon Policies and Allocations DPD. All sites will be screened European designations. for potential impacts upon European sites and subject to a full habitats regulation assessment if necessary.
Sites should also be subject to an an At the plan making level the criteria 'sites need to be Environmental Impact Assessment. environmentally acceptable. They will be subject to both sustainability appraisal and an assessment under the Habitats Directive' will be sufficient. Environmental Impact Assessment will be applicable to relevant planning applications which meet the relevant thresholds.
56 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Further Consultation on criteria for non-strategic allocations 7
Sustainability Appraisal recommendation and reasoning: General comments on the criteria:
The criteria should be linked to and accord with overarching policies in the Core Strategy – e.g. policies on biodiversity and climate change. This will ensure a more integrated approach in the allocations and help strengthen the criteria. Response - not accepted, these matters will be covered by environmental acceptability. First line to be amended to: Non-strategic sites will need to accord with the spatial approach to new waste development and other strategic policy areas set out in the Core Strategy. Response - point accepted. Suggest the criteria should also include the notion of ‘social amenity’ (in terms of health, safety and local amenity) as well as environmental acceptability. Response - not accepted, these matters will be covered by environmental acceptability. Second line to be amended: It is right to say that sites will be subject to appraisal. However, it is suggested that a site’s ‘acceptability’ should be informed by Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment. Response - accepted. It is suggested that sites should be subject to further and more rigorous assessment (Sustainability Appraisal HRA) at site level. Response - this will be via testing through a planning application. Agree that opportunities to exploit district heating and minimise the environmental impact of transporting waste through non-strategic waste sites should be sought. Response - points noted and accepted.
7.5 Taking into account the above the criteria for non strategic waste sites are set out below:
Non-strategic sites will need to accord with the spatial approach to new waste development and other strategic policy areas set outset out in the Core Strategy. Sites need to be environmentally acceptable. This will be informed by both Sustainability Appraisal and an assessment under the Habitats Directive. Sites need to be deliverable e.g. a committed operator with agreement of the land owner. Any opportunities for generating decentralised energy from waste, including contributing to district heating networks, are exploited. Where possible, the location minimises the environmental impact of transporting waste and has an acceptable impacts upon the local and Strategic Road Network.
Question 13
Taking into account the above, do you have any further comments? (Please note that these criteria will be used in conjunction with the appraisal method outlined in section 9).
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 57 7 Further Consultation on criteria for non-strategic allocations
58 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Call for new Non Strategic Minerals and Waste Sites 8
8 Call for new Non Strategic Minerals and Waste Sites
8.1 Through previous work to prepare new minerals and waste planning documents for County Durham and more recent work associated with the County Durham Plan we feel we have given adequate opportunity for operators to propose and submit details of strategic minerals and waste sites. However, we would like to give the minerals and waste industry a further opportunity to consider if they would like to submit any other minerals or waste sites as non-strategic site allocations in the County Durham Plan.(19) In doing so operators should consider that the technical consultation report, 'Towards a Minerals Delivery Strategy for County Durham' sets out our view on the scale and type of new mineral working that is required over the plan period to 2030.
8.2 Should operators or landowners identify any additional proposals for new non-strategic minerals or waste sites they are asked to contact us prior to the deadline for this consultation to discuss a realistic timescale for the submission of the information outlined below.
Information required to support proposals for new minerals and waste sites
8.3 Submission of key information in support of site proposals is important given the requirement to consult local communities and other stakeholders on proposed new minerals and waste sites and undertake a Sustainability Appraisal, which complies with the EC Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment and an assessment under the Habitats Regulations. Submissions for new minerals and waste sites and extensions to existing sites should be (eventually) accompanied by the following details:
A.1 For both minerals and waste site proposals:
1. Nature of development: Identify type of waste facility and waste stream/waste streams to be managed, or mineral/minerals to be extracted specifying whether mineral processing and storage operations will be accommodated on site. (Where two or more minerals are found together the concurrent working of minerals should be considered). 2. Ownership and Operator information: Details of land ownership and who will operate the site. (For minerals site proposals, details of mineral ownership are also required). 3. Site description: Details of site location, gross and net site area (in hectares), current land use, and character and relationship with surrounding land uses. A site location plan, on an Ordnance Survey base, should be supplied which clearly identifies, with a red outline, the boundaries of the proposed allocation site and its relationship with surrounding land-uses. 4. Transportation: Details of likely transportation requirements, including outline of proposed vehicular access route to and from the site to the strategic route network and average daily HGV movements. Proposals for long term strategic sites should also address the feasibility of rail transport where the proposed allocation lies in proximity to existing rail alignments. 5. Environmental/Amenity Considerations: Details of any relevant mitigation measures proposed, to reduce any impacts of the proposal on landscape, biodiversity (including
19 In addition to a general call for minerals sites in 2005 via our Minerals and Waste Development Framework Key Issues Paper (January 2005) in December 2008 we published a general call for new minerals and waste sites and in June 2010 the Core Strategy Issues Paper provided a further opportunity for strategic sites to be submitted.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 59 8 Call for new Non Strategic Minerals and Waste Sites
designations and protected species), geo-diversity, cultural heritage (including archaeology, listed buildings, conservation areas etc), townscape, recreational areas and public rights of way, natural resources including agricultural land/soils and water resources including water quality and flood risk. 6. Details of opportunities for environmental enhancement and community benefits, (including how the proposal might contribute to the delivery of supporting strategies such as the Durham Biodiversity Plan, County Durham Landscape Strategy and Public Rights of Way Plan for County Durham). 7. Climate Change adaptation and mitigation measures should also be identified and considered where applicable. 8. Indication of direct employment either created or safeguarded by the proposal.
A.2 Information for Waste Sites only (In addition to A1):
1. Details of types of waste arising to managed including source(s) if known and volumes (in tonnes) (For landfill/landraising proposals, details of annual and total volume of material to be imported (in M3). 2. Economic justification, addressing the need for the proposed waste facility and the contribution of the proposal to meeting forecast requirements over the plan period and/or the proposed period of working if longer, and proposed markets for any recycled or reprocessed materials from the site.
A.3 Information for Minerals Sites Only (In addition to A1):
1. Geological plan/plans should clearly identify the extent of the deposit to be worked and in addition the potential availability of workable mineral outside the proposed allocation. 2. Economic justification, addressing the need for the proposed mineral development, including in relation to the landbank position, why need cannot be met by existing permissions or by the use of suitable secondary or recycled materials, qualitative considerations (if applicable), the contribution of the proposal to meeting forecast requirements over the plan period and/or the proposed period of working if longer, and proposed markets and end uses for the mineral extracted. Proposals for extensions to existing mineral sites should set out the relationship to the existing site, including remaining permitted reserves at the current site and remaining working life of existing reserves given current extraction levels. 3. Total quantity of mineral to be extracted over the life of the proposed development in tonnes, annual production rate in tonnes, time period for extraction and restoration in years including a preferred start date and end date for extraction. 4. Broad details of the proposed working and restoration scheme identifying phasing of working and restoration operations. 5. Broad details of anticipated site processing and requirement for on site storage of minerals.
60 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Draft Method for the Appraisal of strategic and non strategic minerals and 9 waste sites
9 Draft Method for the Appraisal of strategic and non strategic minerals and waste sites
9.1 In order to provide certainty and clarity we believe it is important to set out a clear methodology for assessing proposals for minerals and waste sites to be considered as strategic sites in the Core Strategy DPD and non strategic sites which to be considered in the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD.
9.2 For each site submitted for consideration, we will initially consider operator submissions and a desk top survey will be undertaken to check and identify potential constraints upon development. Regard will be had to any relevant national planning guidance for each specific mineral or waste type; the emerging/adopted broad spatial strategy of the Core Strategy specific to the development; and need where national policy requires consideration.
9.3 Both strategic and non-strategic site allocations will need to be environmentally acceptable. Regard will also be had to the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures on the following:
Biodiversity and Geo-diversity
European Sites (SPA and SAC) and listed Ramsar Sites. European and National BAP Protected Species. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (and National Nature Reserves). Local Nature Reserves. Regional and local (biodiversity and geo-diversity) sites. Ancient Woodland. Amenity woodland. Land supporting habitat and protected species in County Durham Biodiversity Action Plan.
Picture 1 We will need to consider impacts on the County's biodiversity.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 61 Draft Method for the Appraisal of strategic and non strategic minerals and 9 waste sites
Landscape
North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Landscape sensitivity and compatibility with County Durham Landscape Strategy.
Picture 2 We will need to consider impacts on the County's landscape.
Cultural and Historical heritage and Archaeology
Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site. Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. Nationally important archaeological remains including (Scheduled Ancient Monuments). Locally important archaeological remains. Historic Parks and Gardens. Locally important landscapes. Neville's Cross Historic Battlefield.
Land and Water
Agricultural land quality (grades 1, 2,3a) and soil resource. The hydrological environment (major aquifer, ground water protection zones and surface water environment). Flood risk compatibility of proposed development and potential to increase flood storage capacity. Public rights of way, public open space and common land. The North Durham Green Belt.
Transport, Residential amenity and Cumulative Impacts
Transport impacts including impacts upon the local and strategic transport network and potential for bulk transportation by rail.
62 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Draft Method for the Appraisal of strategic and non strategic minerals and 9 waste sites
Amenity impacts on local and rural communities (visual, air quality/dust, noise, blasting etc). Cumulative impact where a particular locality is or has been subject to a significant number of mineral operations and other developments at any one time or over a period of time.
Picture 3 Transport impacts will be a consideration.
Restoration
For all non permanent development, proposed restoration strategy will need to be compatibility with paragraph 18 of MPS1, MPG7 and emerging Core Strategy approach. Where appropriate we will consider the compatibility/likelihood of the proposal delivering relevant objectives of supporting strategies i.e. County Durham Biodiversity Action Plan, the County Durham Landscape Strategy etc. In instances where a biodiversity after-use is proposed any planning application will need to provide details of how the site is managed. Where appropriate resources will need to be allocated to ensure management.
Deliverability
The deliverability of the proposed site e.g. committed operator with agreement of land or owner of mineral rights.
For minerals sites:
Type of mineral to be extracted and the use the mineral extracted will be used for. Quantity of mineral located in site, extent of resource located outside of site, annual rate of working and estimated duration of working. For aggregate mineral sites we will also consider the following: residual need i.e. the scale of new working required during the plan period having already considered the contribution of existing permitted reserves to meeting forecast need;
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 63 Draft Method for the Appraisal of strategic and non strategic minerals and 9 waste sites
the length of the landbank for the mineral type in question; the distribution of permitted reserves between sites and the ability of existing sites to produce a steady and adequate supply of mineral to meet the County's overall targets i.e 3,712,500 tonnes of crushed rock and 312,500 tonnes of sand and gravel per annum. In instances where a significant proportion of permitted reserves is contained within a single site and is unlikely to be extracted in its entirety over the plan period this will be taken into account. The key consideration will be whether existing sites are judged to be able to meet the County's targets.
Waste related information
Type, quantity and source of waste to be managed at site.
Economic Justification
Number of direct and indirect jobs associated with the proposed development.
9.4 Advice will be sought on a range of technical matters from Durham County Council specialists and from relevant key consultees. These will include:
County Ecologist. County Landscape Architect. County Archaeologist. County Sustainability Team. County Waste Management Unit. County Development Management Team. County Highways Development Control Team. County Sustainbility Section. Public Rights of Way Section. Design and Conservation Section. Key statutory consultees such as the Highways Agency, Environment Agency, English Heritage. And Natural England.
Durham County Council specialists and relevant key consultees will be specifically asked to identify site specific information relating to their areas of responsibility i.e. the range of environmental assets on and adjacent to the site and provide a view on the proposals impacts on their specific areas of interest and a view as to whether the proposal would have an unacceptable impact or whether the impact is likely to be acceptable by itself or acceptable with suitable mitigation measures. This assessment will be used to assess the suitability of the site for minerals or waste development and will in turn inform the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment of the DPD. The assessment will specifically look at the strategic environmental impacts of a proposal and would not replicate an assessment undertaken by Development Management in considering a planning application. All proposals will be subject to formal consultation through issues and options to assess the opinions of local communities, interest groups and other interested parties and stakeholder groups.
64 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Appendicies
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 65 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Question 46 - Criteria for Strategic Waste Sites
Criteria for Strategic Waste sites
Do you agree with the suggested criteria for identifying Strategic Waste sites?
Potential Options:
A. Yes
B. No, with suggested alternatives to criteria set out.
Question 46 responses - Criteria for Strategic Waste Sites
Respondent Details Q46(i) Criteria for Strategic Q46(ii) Criteria for Strategic Waste Waste sites - Do you agree sites - You can use this question to with the suggested criteria explain why you have chosen this for identifying Strategic option (please restate which option Waste sites as stated within you prefer) and to suggest alternative the Issues and Options criteria if appropriate? Paper?
Mrs Margaret Forster Yes Coxhoe Parish Council agree with the Coxhoe Parish Council proposed criteria and consider that any environmental criteria ought to include impact on settlements and residents.
Mr James Cokill No The citeria should also include the Durham Wildlife Trust development of an environmentally beneficial restoration plan with resources allocated for future management for the benefit of the community.
Mr P Seagrave No B: the approach is far too determinist. Seagraves (Contractors) There is also a need for a strategic site Ltd to pick up waste coming from the west. The Old Brickworks can do that. At the moment the strategic waste site allocations appear to focus only on who will actually take the final waste, not on strategic waste transfer needs.
C Reynolds No There is no option for strategic sites stated. Para 11.27 refers to non strategic sites. Clearly an editing mistake! Para 11.27 needs to be revised with the inclusion of the proviso that the
66 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Respondent Details Q46(i) Criteria for Strategic Q46(ii) Criteria for Strategic Waste Waste sites - Do you agree sites - You can use this question to with the suggested criteria explain why you have chosen this for identifying Strategic option (please restate which option Waste sites as stated within you prefer) and to suggest alternative the Issues and Options criteria if appropriate? Paper?
site manages 25% or more of a total waste stream (the type of stream to be identified).
Lesley Swinbank Yes Sedgefield Town Council
Ms G Gibson Yes C.P.R.E. prefers Option A. The social CPRE impact of transport access to strategic waste sites should be considered The issues relating to Habitats Directive are very important and need careful scrutiny.
Mr David Atkinson Note that the criteria outlined in Lafarge Aggregates Ltd paragraph11.27 implies that all sites should be subject to an assessment under the Habitats Directive - this is probably not correct as some sites will not have the potential to impact on European designations. .
Mr Andrew Bailey Yes These criteria are already being met for Great Aycliffe Town the facilities in and around Newton Council Aycliffe.
Miss Bosanko Yes
Mr Stephen Ragg Yes County Durham Association of Local Councils
Cumbria County Council yes, although I attach our waste site criteria list to spark some more thought
Mr Russell Morgan Yes Stanley Town Council
Julia Bowles Yes Sedgefield Village Residents Forum
Mr Martin Kerby No Whilst the commitment to assess sites RSPB Northern England under the Habitats Directive is welcome, region there are a range of other environmental considerations that should be taken into
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 67 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Respondent Details Q46(i) Criteria for Strategic Q46(ii) Criteria for Strategic Waste Waste sites - Do you agree sites - You can use this question to with the suggested criteria explain why you have chosen this for identifying Strategic option (please restate which option Waste sites as stated within you prefer) and to suggest alternative the Issues and Options criteria if appropriate? Paper?
account when assessing strategic waste sites. As a minimum requirement, we recommend that the criteria include impacts on SSSIs, locally-designated sites and priority habitats, in particular ancient woodland. In addition, we suggest that a further criterion is used: Sites can be restored to a high-standard, offering significant benefits to communities and the environment.
Mr K Henderson Yes
Mr Kyle Maylard No No, the Agency believes that the criteria Highways Agency lack specific reference to locating sites in accessible locations and consideration should be given to the need for significant developments to be supported by Transport Assessments and would wish to see demand management measures implemented. This could be achieved through reference to current guidance - Guidance on Transport Assessments (GTA) and in relation to the assessment of traffic impacts on the Strategic Road Network, in Circular 02/2007.
Mr Chris Paragraph 11.27 sets our criteria for Woodley-Stewart strategic waste site allocations. We are North Pennines AONB not sure that the need for sites to be Partnership environmentally acceptable' is a strong enough phrase. It would be helpful to have clarity that these sites should not be in or having an impact upon the AONB. The same applies to the criteria for non-strategic waste site allocations and question 48 on page 99.
Mrs Joan Sanderson Yes The County Council would agree with Northumberland County the criteria suggested in Option A. Council
68 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Respondent Details Q46(i) Criteria for Strategic Q46(ii) Criteria for Strategic Waste Waste sites - Do you agree sites - You can use this question to with the suggested criteria explain why you have chosen this for identifying Strategic option (please restate which option Waste sites as stated within you prefer) and to suggest alternative the Issues and Options criteria if appropriate? Paper?
Mr Mike F Smith Bishop Middleham Parish Council feel Bishop Middleham that the Authority should make positive Parish Council steps to move away from allocating any more landfill sites and would wish to be involved in any debate around criteria and allocation of new landfill sites, including Thrislington.
Mr Robin Statham Questions 45, 46 and 47: The Lanchester Partnership information provided is insufficient to express views on the options cited.
Natural England Yes generally agree with the three criteria, but should also consider minimising the environmental impacts of transporting waste/ Yes generally agree with all five criteria. There is however on both questions no reference to considering impacts on local communities. There may also be a need to establish a threshold of what is ‘environmentally acceptable' or refine the wording of the criteria to ‘no significant adverse impacts' on the environment.
Question 47 - Potential Strategic Waste Sites
Potential Strategic Waste Sites
Which sites should be identified by the Core Strategy as strategic waste sites?
A. Thrislington Quarry.
B. Any other site (please name and give reasons).
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 69 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Question 47 responses
Respondent Q47(ii) Potential Strategic Waste Sites - You can use this question to Details explain why you have chosen Thrislington Quarry or to let us know if there are other sites to consider (please name and give reasons)?
Mrs Margaret Coxhoe Parish Council have no strong views to offer on the Thrislington site Forster and have no other suggestions to offer. Coxhoe Parish Council
Mr James Cokill The potential biodiversity value of Thrislington should exclude it from Durham Wildlife development as a waste site. Trust
Mr P Seagrave B: the Old Brickworks, Bishop Auckland. Seagraves (Contractors) Ltd
C Reynolds Oprion A. It is noted that Thrislington Quarry is located on a major aquifer which would need to be well protected from damage by runoff / percolation from the waste disposal activities. Presumably, there are other quarries or suitable sites / areas that are known to the County Councils's waste management team and these could be identified. It is disappointing that only 1 site has been proposed.
Ms G Gibson It is premature to identify specific sites when the scale of landfill provision and CPRE distribution of waste handling sites is not yet determined. CPRE reserves its position on the suitability of Thrislington Quarry Whichever site is to be used the transport implications must be considered.
Mr David Atkinson The western part of the main Thrislington Quarry is allocated as a potential Lafarge location for the development of waste facilities in the adopted Durham Waste Aggregates Ltd Local Plan (through saved Policy W58). In line with OptionA set out in this part of the consultation document, it is strongly agreed that the quarry should remain a strategic waste site in the emerging Core Strategy. Most notably, the extraction of minerals from the quarry has left a relatively flat quarry floor at around 30-40metres below the original ground level. Located relatively central within the more populated eastern part of the County, in terms of the proximity principle, the site is considered well located in relation to potential sources of waste material. It also benefits from existing and established links to the strategic road network as well as a rail link. Allied to this, existing waste management activities within Thrislington Quarry include inert recycling operations, mean that the site is already an established waste management facility. In this context it is envisaged that through the continued allocation of Thrislington Quarry for the development of a range of non-hazardous wastes as well as inert waste management activities (including recovery, recycling and composting and landfilling), that any future waste uses on the site would benefit from opportunities presented by the co-location of activities. For these reasons, the identification of Thrislington Quarry for the development of waste management facilities would contribute significantly towards meeting targets for waste management in Durham.
Mr Andrew Bailey Already exists.
70 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Respondent Q47(ii) Potential Strategic Waste Sites - You can use this question to Details explain why you have chosen Thrislington Quarry or to let us know if there are other sites to consider (please name and give reasons)?
GreatAycliffeTown Council
Miss Bosanko A
Ms Janet If Thrislington must be used plan a travel route that avoids the village of Blackburn Bowburn OR provide a relief road Bowburn & Parkhill Community Partnership
Mr Russell Option A was preferred. Morgan Stanley Town Council
Julia Bowles A if the community are accepting of the proposal SedgefieldVillage Residents Forum
Mr R Sunman Cornforth Parish Council believes that this proposal could benefit the village Cornforth Parish in forms of employment, provided that traffic and environmental safeguards Council could be rigorously enforced.
Mr Kyle Maylard The potential Strategic Waste site at Thrislington Quarry lies adjacent to the Highways Agency A1(M), albeit between junctions 60 and 61. Given its location, depending on its intended use / intensity of use, there is the potential for there to be particular impacts at the Strategic Road Network. Irrespective of the classification of a site as "strategic" in the Core Strategy or elsewhere in a separate DPD, the Agency would wish full consideration to be given to the transport implications of individual sites and the cumulative impact of the whole plan. In respect of any other sites which may form part of the Core Strategy as a Strategic site, the Agency would wish that full consideration is given to their specific form during the progression of the document and the Agency would wish to be involved in discussions relating to any particular site that would have specific concerns in relation to the impact upon the safe and efficient operation of the Strategic Road Network.
Mr Mike F Smith Bishop Middleham Parish Council feel that the Authority should make positive Bishop Middleham steps to move away from allocating any more landfill sites and would wish to Parish Council be involved in any debate around criteria and allocation of new landfill sites, including Thrislington.
Ms S Wickerson We have some concerns with the Sustainable Resource Management section Environment of the report. Groundwater is at serious risk from landfill activities unless they Agency are located in the right place and subject to the right operational controls. In considering potential locations for new waste sites the Environment Agency's Landfill Location Policy RGN3 must be applied and the Core Strategy should be amended to acknowledge this policy. To protect groundwater this policy
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 71 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Respondent Q47(ii) Potential Strategic Waste Sites - You can use this question to Details explain why you have chosen Thrislington Quarry or to let us know if there are other sites to consider (please name and give reasons)?
provides guidance in the location, type and design of landfill. Section 11.29 and Appendix 3(iii) of the Core Strategy puts forward Thrislington Quarry as a potential strategic waste site. We note this proposal and stress that it must adhere to the policies contained within RGN3. We will possibly object to the proposal if it does not meet the requirements of this policy. We presently have concerns with regards to the this site as it is located on a Principal Aquifer. Although we accept that the site is currently identified as a waste site under the County Durham Waste Local Plan, we would prefer this site to be reassessed with regards to the potential impact to groundwaters prior to Thrislington being identified as a waste site within the LDF. We would like to opportunity as soon as possible to provide site specific comments for areas that are being considered for allocation so that they can help inform this process.
Natural England Given the international and nature conservation designations adjacent to the Thrislington Quarry site, we would need to consider the detailed assessment of the site with regards to SA/SEA and HRA processes before advising on whether the site should be allocated as a strategic waste site.
Question 48 - Criteria for making non-strategic Waste Site allocations
Criteria for making non-strategic Waste site allocations
Do you agree with the suggested criteria for identifying Waste site allocations?
Potential Options:
A. Yes
B. No, with suggested alternatives to criteria set out.
72 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Question 48 responses - Criteria for making non strategic Waste Site Allocations
Respondents Details Q48(i) Criteria for making Q48(ii) Criteria for making non-strategic Waste site non-strategic Waste site allocations - Do you agree allocations - You can use this with the suggested criteria question to explain why you have for identifying Waste site chosen this option (please restate allocations? which option you prefer) and to suggest alternative criteria if appropriate?
Mrs Margaret Forster Yes Coxhoe Parish Council agree with Coxhoe Parish Council the proposed criteria and consider that any environment criteria ought to include impact on settlements and residents.
Mr James Cokill No, with suggested Criteria should include the Durham Wildlife Trust alternatives to criteria set out. requirement to develop an environmentally beneficial restoration plan, with identified management body and allocation of resources.
C Reynolds Yes However I believe that in addition it be stated that such sites deal with less than 25% of a total identified waste stream to ensure there is no conflict with the definition of a strategic site.
Lesley Swinbank Yes Sedgefield Town Council
Mrs Wendy Eagle Yes
Ms G Gibson Yes C.P.R.E. prefers Option A. The CPRE social impact of transport access to non-strategic waste sites should be considered. The issues relating to Habitats Directive are very important and need careful scrutiny.
Mr David Atkinson Note that the criteria outlined in Lafarge Aggregates Ltd paragraph11.27 implies that all sites should be subject to an assessment under the Habitats Directive - this is probably not correct as some sites will not have the potential to impact on European designations.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 73 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Respondents Details Q48(i) Criteria for making Q48(ii) Criteria for making non-strategic Waste site non-strategic Waste site allocations - Do you agree allocations - You can use this with the suggested criteria question to explain why you have for identifying Waste site chosen this option (please restate allocations? which option you prefer) and to suggest alternative criteria if appropriate?
Mr Andrew Bailey Yes Although there is no strategic landfill Great Aycliffe Town Council site within or near Newton Aycliffe, there is capacity to concentrate on recycling, recovery and reuse of materials.
Miss Bosanko Yes
Mrs Joan Sanderson Yes The County Council would agree Northumberland County with the criteria suggested in Option Council A.
Sue A Brett Yes, although I attach our waste site Cumbria County Council criteria list to spark some more thought
Mr Russell Morgan Yes Stanley Town Council
Julia Bowles Yes SedgefieldVillage Residents Forum
Mr Martin Kerby Whilst the commitment to assess RSPB Northern England sites under the Habitats Directive is welcome, there are a range of other environmental considerations that should be taken into account when assessing non-strategic waste sites. As a minimum requirement, we recommend that the criteria include impacts on SSSIs, locally-designated sites and priority habitats, in particular ancient woodland. In addition, we suggest that a further criterion is used: Sites can be restored to a high-standard, offering significant benefits to communities and the environment.
Mr K Henderson Yes
Mr Kyle Maylard No, with suggested The Agency is supportive of the Highways Agency alternatives to criteria set out. Core Strategy's criteria to minimise the environmental impacts of
74 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Respondents Details Q48(i) Criteria for making Q48(ii) Criteria for making non-strategic Waste site non-strategic Waste site allocations - Do you agree allocations - You can use this with the suggested criteria question to explain why you have for identifying Waste site chosen this option (please restate allocations? which option you prefer) and to suggest alternative criteria if appropriate?
transporting waste, however believe this should also relate to the physical impact on the operation of the transport network and more specifically the Strategic Road Network. Notwithstanding the above, the Agency would wish to be consulted as and when waste allocations come forward through the LDF system.
English Heritage Paragraph 11.30 sets out suggested criteria for identifying non-strategic waste site allocations. We are advised that sites which may come forward will be subject to sustainability appraisal and an assessment under the habitats directive. Such proposals are also likely to require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in respect of which English Heritage is also a consultee.
Natural England Yes generally agree with the three criteria, but should also consider minimising the environmental impacts of transporting waste/ Yes generally agree with all five criteria. There is however on both questions no reference to considering impacts on local communities. There may also be a need to establish a threshold of what is ‘environmentally acceptable' or refine the wording of the criteria to ‘no significant adverse impacts' on the environment.
Question 58 - Criteria for Strategic Minerals Sites
Criteria for Strategic Minerals Sites
Do you agree with the suggested criteria for identifying strategic minerals sites?
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 75 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Potential Options:
A. Yes.
B. No with suggested alternatives to the criteria set out.
Question 58 responses
Respondent Details Q58(i) Criteria for Q58(ii) Criteria for Strategic Minerals Strategic Minerals Sites - Sites - You can use this question to Do you agree with the explain why you have chosen an option suggested criteria for (please restate which option you prefer) identifying strategic or to let us know if there are other minerals sites? criteria to consider?
Mrs S Laverick Strategic sites for opencast - members Lanchester Parish agreed in principle but felt that the Council statements / criteria should be more robust.
Mrs Margaret Forster Coxhoe Parish Council have no strong Coxhoe Parish Council views to offer
Mr Geoff Storey No with suggested Heights Quarry is a strategic site supplying Aggregate Industries alternatives to the criteria coated roadstone (one of only 3 asphalt UK Ltd set out. plants in the County) and Carboniferous limestone for ready mixed concrete. The potential north western extension area should be identified as a strategic mineral site.
Mr James Cokill Why have no environmental Durham Wildlife Trust considerations been listed for the assessment of strategic minerals allocation?
C Reynolds Yes.
Ms G Gibson Yes. C.P.R.E. prefers Option A Identification of CPRE any sites should take into account post-extraction uses and restoration, and implications for and expansion of the transport network both during and after use.
Mr David Atkinson Whilst Lafarge agrees with the suggested Lafarge Aggregates Ltd criteria for identifying future strategic mineral site allocations, Lafarge would wish that the Yellow Sands at Thrislington be considered as strategic. Information was provided on this to the Council in January 2010 and the following is an extract: Mineral proving boreholes drilled
76 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Respondent Details Q58(i) Criteria for Q58(ii) Criteria for Strategic Minerals Strategic Minerals Sites - Sites - You can use this question to Do you agree with the explain why you have chosen an option suggested criteria for (please restate which option you prefer) identifying strategic or to let us know if there are other minerals sites? criteria to consider?
from the 1950's through to 1970's and subsequent water monitoring boreholes drilled in the 21 st century have proved the existence of the Yellow Sand beneath most of the main quarry floor. An isopachyte (mineral thickness) plan prepared in 1991 shows the Sand being present beneath most of the quarry floor, in a linear disposition broadly west-south-west to east-north-east. It pinches out to the north-west consistent with being a shoreline deposit, and attains a thickness of over 20metres towards the southern boundary of the quarry. This interpretation is broadly confirmed by a limited number of water monitoring boreholes drilled in 2006 that fully penetrate the Sand in the centre of the quarry and on the eastern boundary. Logs of these boreholes are available if requested. The area shown in pink on Figure1 represents proven resources of Yellow Sand which with the benefit of appropriate permissions and technical design could yield reserves in excess of 6million tonnes. Criteria for Strategic Mineral Sites (Magnesian Limestone) As noted above, Lafarge will be seeking the inclusion of the eastern extension at Thrislington Quarry as a strategic site until such time that the decision notice is issued to confirm the grant of planning permission.
Mr Andrew Bailey Yes. Great Aycliffe Town Council
Mr Richard Cowen 1) The criteria for waste sites mention the Durham Bird Club Habitats Directive. DBC supports this but questions whether there should not also be a similar consideration regarding proposed mineral extraction sites.
Miss Bosanko Yes.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 77 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Respondent Details Q58(i) Criteria for Q58(ii) Criteria for Strategic Minerals Strategic Minerals Sites - Sites - You can use this question to Do you agree with the explain why you have chosen an option suggested criteria for (please restate which option you prefer) identifying strategic or to let us know if there are other minerals sites? criteria to consider?
Mr Lee Weatherall No with suggested ATH Resources do not agree that the ATH Resources alternatives to the criteria criteria for identifying strategic minerals set out. sites are correct. Surface coal mining should be considered as a strategic resource and therefore included in the criteria for strategic minerals sites. The sites which we have put forward on behalf of ATH Resources during the call for minerals and waste site submissions could provide a significant amount of coal, which would be suitable for use in the domestic power generation market. By providing coal from domestic resources it will help the UK to be as self sufficient as possible and reduce potential issues which can arise from importing coal such as environmental implications of transporting coal and changing political situations in foreign countries. By utilising domestic sources of coal it will help to secure our energy needs in the coming years. Furthermore, with the support last year for clean coal generation and Teesside being a potential location for a new clean coal plant then there could be significant environmental benefits from using locally sourced coal. On this basis it is considered that surface mined coal sites should be included in the Core Strategy Preferred Options Policy on strategic minerals sites. A policy dealing with surface mined coal should name specific sites given that coal could be a very strategic resource for the UK's energy needs in the coming years, and we support the inclusion of the sites which have been put forward on behalf of ATH Resources.
Mr Russell Morgan Yes. Stanley Town Council
Mr Michael Hodges No with suggested (i) Whilst we agree with the principal of Sherburn Stone Co Ltd alternatives to the criteria only allocating sites in the Core Strategy set out. which are of strategic significance, consideration should be given to setting different criteria for different types of
78 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Respondent Details Q58(i) Criteria for Q58(ii) Criteria for Strategic Minerals Strategic Minerals Sites - Sites - You can use this question to Do you agree with the explain why you have chosen an option suggested criteria for (please restate which option you prefer) identifying strategic or to let us know if there are other minerals sites? criteria to consider?
crushed rock in the same way that defining specialist crushed rock landbanks has been put forward as an option at Question 50 Landbanks. As there are extensive reserves of magnesian limestone in County Durham, the suggested criteria at paragraph 11.65 would seem appropriate. However, with regard to carboniferous limestone, given the location and geology of the accessible resources in Co Durham, it is difficult to envisage that any new sites could be developed that would comply with the suggested criteria without the need to undertake major new mineral working in the North Pennines AONB. As it is likely that such a development would result in substantial environmental impact and would therefore be unacceptable, we would propose an alternative approach for determining strategic allocations in relation to carboniferous limestone. This would involve allocating a site for processing of carboniferous limestone extracted from other locations in Co Durham such as those envisaged at Question 53 Option C i.e. former un-restored quarries in the North Pennines AONB. The mineral processing point itself should be in location where the impacts associated with the import and processing of the limestone are acceptable in order that the site can be operated over a long term such as 20 years or more as per the criteria currently set out. Such an approach to strategic allocations would both assist in meeting the aims Question 53 Option C in an environmentally and sustainable manner and in meeting the potential shortfall in carboniferous limestone reserves identified at Paragraph 11.53. A site which would be suitable for such an approach currently exists at Broadwood Quarry, Frosterley. The plant at Broadwood has been in operation for a number of years and therefore not only can it be considered to be a suitable
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 79 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Respondent Details Q58(i) Criteria for Q58(ii) Criteria for Strategic Minerals Strategic Minerals Sites - Sites - You can use this question to Do you agree with the explain why you have chosen an option suggested criteria for (please restate which option you prefer) identifying strategic or to let us know if there are other minerals sites? criteria to consider?
location for a central processing point in terms of its impact on the local environment but it is also ideally located to accept minerals won from a number of satellite extraction sites including former quarries in the North Pennines AONB We agree with the suggested criteria in relation to sand and gravel sites.
Mr Martin Kerby No with suggested The criteria do not include any RSPB Northern alternatives to the criteria environmental considerations, which is England set out. clearly inadequate.
Mr K Henderson Yes.
Mr H J Williams See comments on Q 55. We believe there The Dean & Chapter of is a need to designate a strategic natural Durham roofing stone site if there is a location of the right quality. We are aware of Ladycross Quarry in south Northumberland and the export of its stone slates to many other parts of Britain. As this is a single quarry working a specific sandstone bed it has a limited life. Conservation of many historic buildings including some in the World Heritage Site requires a source of good quality new roofing quality stone, the Ladycross quarry is a speedily reducing finite resource.
Mrs Joan Sanderson Yes. The County Council would agree with the Northumberland County criteria suggested in Option A. Council
Mr M Ratcliffe We believe your suggested criteria for Mineral Planning identifying strategic sites is misguided and Association therefore support Option B. The stress should be on the importance of the production unit and not on the size of the permission (although sometimes the two will coincide). For example, a modest extension to an important unit will be of more strategic significance than a larger consent for a less important site. Thus your example of a twenty year duration for a hard rock quarry may mislead as to
80 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Respondent Details Q58(i) Criteria for Q58(ii) Criteria for Strategic Minerals Strategic Minerals Sites - Sites - You can use this question to Do you agree with the explain why you have chosen an option suggested criteria for (please restate which option you prefer) identifying strategic or to let us know if there are other minerals sites? criteria to consider?
strategic importance if a ten year extension can keep a strategically important working going for longer.
Question 59 - Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
Potential Strategic Minerals Sites
Which sites should be identified by the Core Strategy as Strategic Minerals Sites?
A. Brick clay and shale extraction adjacent to Todhills Brickworks.
B. Sand and Gravel site at Low Harperley.
C. Any other site (please name and give reasons).
Question 59 responses
Respondent Q59(i) Potential Strategic Q59(ii) Potential Strategic Minerals Sites - Details Minerals Sites - Which You can use this question to explain why sites should be identified you have chosen an option or a combination by the Core Strategy as of options [please restate which option(s) Strategic Minerals Sites? you prefer] or let us know if there are other options to consider?
Mrs Margaret Coxhoe Parish Council have no strong views Forster to offer on any specific strategic minerals sites Coxhoe Parish allocation and have no suggestions to make Council on other options
C Reynolds Brick clay and shale extraction adjacent to Todhills Brickworks.; Sand and Gravel site at Low Harperley.
Ms G Gibson Identification of any sites should take into CPRE account post-extraction uses and restoration, and implications for and expansion of the transport network both during and after use.
Mr David Atkinson Whilst Lafarge agrees with the suggested Lafarge Aggregates criteria for identifying future strategic mineral Ltd site allocations, Lafarge would wish that the
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 81 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Respondent Q59(i) Potential Strategic Q59(ii) Potential Strategic Minerals Sites - Details Minerals Sites - Which You can use this question to explain why sites should be identified you have chosen an option or a combination by the Core Strategy as of options [please restate which option(s) Strategic Minerals Sites? you prefer] or let us know if there are other options to consider?
Yellow Sands at Thrislington be considered as strategic. Information was provided on this to the Council in January 2010 and the following is an extract: Mineral proving boreholes drilled from the 1950's through to 1970's and subsequent water monitoring boreholes drilled in the 21 st century have proved the existence of the Yellow Sand beneath most of the main quarry floor. An isopachyte (mineral thickness) plan prepared in 1991 shows the Sand being present beneath most of the quarry floor, in a linear disposition broadly west-south-west to east-north-east. It pinches out to the north-west consistent with being a shoreline deposit, and attains a thickness of over 20metres towards the southern boundary of the quarry. This interpretation is broadly confirmed by a limited number of water monitoring boreholes drilled in 2006 that fully penetrate the Sand in the centre of the quarry and on the eastern boundary. Logs of these boreholes are available if requested. The area shown in pink on Figure1 represents proven resources of Yellow Sand which with the benefit of appropriate permissions and technical design could yield reserves in excess of 6million tonnes. As noted above, Lafarge will be seeking the inclusion of the eastern extension at Thrislington Quarry as a strategic site until at such time as the decision notice is issued to confirm the grant of planning permission.
Ms Bethany Tucker The following site identified in the Core Strategy National Grid Issues and Options Paper as a potential minerals site is crossed by one of National Grid's high voltage overhead electricity transmission lines: Low Harperley National Grid does not object to the proposals outlined, however the following points should be taken into consideration: National Grid does not own the land over which the overhead lines cross, and it obtains the rights from individual landowners to place our equipment on their land. Potential operators of the sites should be aware that it is National Grid policy to seek to retain our existing overhead lines in-situ
82 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Respondent Q59(i) Potential Strategic Q59(ii) Potential Strategic Minerals Sites - Details Minerals Sites - Which You can use this question to explain why sites should be identified you have chosen an option or a combination by the Core Strategy as of options [please restate which option(s) Strategic Minerals Sites? you prefer] or let us know if there are other options to consider?
because of the strategic nature of our national network. We advise developers and planning authorities to take into account the location and nature of existing electricity transmission equipment when planning a development. Statutory electrical safety clearances must be maintained at all times. These distances are outlined at the following web page (not provided in this paper). Should the site be taken forward as a minerals site, the operators should be made aware of the above issues.
Miss Bosanko Brick clay and shale extraction adjacent to Todhills Brickworks.; Sand and Gravel site at Low Harperley.
Mr Lee Weatherall Any other site (please As we have previously stated in our ATH Resources name and give reasons). representations on the Minerals and Waste Site Submissions on behalf of ATH Resources last year, the sites which ATH are wishing to promote could provide nearly 4 million tonnes of coal over the lifetime of these sites. The Government commitment last year to the development of clean coal confirms that coal will still be very important for the UK's energy needs. Therefore we believe that the Eldon Blue House and Pittington North and South sites previously promoted should be named as potential strategic minerals sites as coal could be a very important strategic mineral resource in Durham.
Mr Russell Morgan Brick clay and shale Option/s A and/or B were preferred. Stanley Town extraction adjacent to Council Todhills Brickworks.; Sand and Gravel site at Low Harperley.
Mr Michael Hodges Sand and Gravel site at The strategic importance of the plant at Sherburn Stone Co Low Harperley. Broadwood Quarry as a central processing point for minerals won from satellite extraction sites should be recognised in the plan to accord with the proposed approach set out in the responses to Questions 53 and 58 above.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 83 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Respondent Q59(i) Potential Strategic Q59(ii) Potential Strategic Minerals Sites - Details Minerals Sites - Which You can use this question to explain why sites should be identified you have chosen an option or a combination by the Core Strategy as of options [please restate which option(s) Strategic Minerals Sites? you prefer] or let us know if there are other options to consider?
Mr K Henderson Brick clay and shale extraction adjacent to Todhills Brickworks.; Sand and Gravel site at Low Harperley.
Mr Kyle Maylard While the potential Strategic Minerals sites at Highways Agency Todhills and Low Harperley lie some distance from the Strategic Road Network,, depending on their intended use / intensity of use, there may be impacts at the Strategic Road Network. Irrespective of the classification of a site as "strategic" in the Core Strategy or elsewhere in a separate DPD, the Agency would wish full consideration to be given to the transport implications of individual sites and the cumulative impact of the whole plan. In respect of any other sites which may form part of the Core Strategy as a Strategic site, the Agency would wish that full consideration is given to their specific form during the progression of the document and the Agency would wish to be involved in discussions relating to any particular site that would have specific concerns in relation to the impact upon the safe and efficient operation of the Strategic Road Network.
Mrs Janet Murrell Brick clay and shale extraction adjacent to Todhills Brickworks.; Sand and Gravel site at Low Harperley.
English Heritage Similarly, possible impacts of mineral extraction at Low Harperley on the Scheduled Monument of Harperley POW camp need to be fully examined (Appendix 3(iv) refers).
Question 60 - Criteria for non-strategic Minerals Site Allocations
Criteria for making non-strategic Mineral site allocations
Do you agree with the suggested criteria for Mineral site allocations?
84 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Potential Options:
A. Yes.
B. No with suggested alternatives to the criteria set out.
Question 60 responses - Criteria for non strategic mineral site allocations
Respondent Details Q60(i) Criteria for Q60(ii) Criteria for making non-strategic making non-strategic Mineral site allocations - You can use Mineral site allocations this question to explain why you have - Do you agree with the chosen this option (please restate which suggested criteria for option you prefer) and to suggest Mineral site alternative criteria if appropriate? allocations?
Miss Rachael Bust Question 60, Criteria for Making Coal Authority Non-Strategic Mineral Site Allocations Comment - The Coal Authority supports the recognition of Durham County Council to address new energy technologies, in the form of Coal Bed Methane extraction and Underground Coal Gasification, within the Core Strategy. Whilst County Durham contains a significant area of surface coal resources, there are also deep coal resources present in the east of the County. This presents opportunities to generate energy through emerging new methods and Annex 4 of MPS1 states that Mineral Planning Authorities should include appropriate policies in their development plan documents to encourage development of such technologies The Coal Authority considers that the Core Strategy will need to contain some specific policies for energy minerals. In relation to coal mining this is likely to include policies setting out local requirements for working practices, restoration and aftercare of surface mining sites, extensions to existing sites, sustainable transport of minerals, and broad locations for working, having regard to coal industry proposals Reason - In order to set out a policy framework which aims to implement national planning policy in MPS1 and MPG3 CONCLUSION The Coal Authority welcomes the opportunity to make these early comments, we are of course willing to discuss the comments made above in further detail if desired and would be happy to negotiate alternative suitable
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 85 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Respondent Details Q60(i) Criteria for Q60(ii) Criteria for making non-strategic making non-strategic Mineral site allocations - You can use Mineral site allocations this question to explain why you have - Do you agree with the chosen this option (please restate which suggested criteria for option you prefer) and to suggest Mineral site alternative criteria if appropriate? allocations?
wording to address any of its concerns. The Coal Authority also wishes to continue to be consulted both informally if required and formally on future stages. Thank you for your attention.
Mrs Margaret Forster Yes. Coxhoe Parish Council support the Coxhoe Parish Council suggested criteria in principle and have no other suggested criterion to put forward.
Mr David Brewer Yes. CoalPro agrees with the criteria but has Confederation of UK some reservations. The criteria for surface Coal Producers mined coal sites should also identify the (COALPRO) alternative tests set out in MPG3 which qualify the test of environmental acceptability.
Mr Geoff Storey No with suggested If not identified as a strategic mineral site Aggregate Industries UK alternatives to the criteria in the Core Strategy the criteria for non Ltd set out. strategic mineral sites need to enable Heights Quarry to extend to ensure an adequate and steady supply of Carboniferous limestone.
Mr James Cokill No with suggested Quality and deliverability of an Durham Wildlife Trust alternatives to the criteria environmentally beneficial restoration set out. scheme should be included.
C Reynolds Yes. However, if appropriate sites can be identified now they should be defined in this Document. If suitable sites are identified after publication of this Document they should be included as an addendum to the Document.
Ms G Gibson C.P.R.E. considers a policy using the CPRE criteria outlined will be useful and beneficial.
Mr David Atkinson Lafarge agrees with the suggested criteria Lafarge Aggregates Ltd for identifying future non-strategic mineral site allocations. We trust that the above comments are helpful and look forward to being involved in the future stages of the preparation of the County Durham Plan Core Strategy. In the meantime, if you have any queries, or you would like to discuss
86 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Respondent Details Q60(i) Criteria for Q60(ii) Criteria for making non-strategic making non-strategic Mineral site allocations - You can use Mineral site allocations this question to explain why you have - Do you agree with the chosen this option (please restate which suggested criteria for option you prefer) and to suggest Mineral site alternative criteria if appropriate? allocations?
any aspect of this consultation response in more detail, then please do not hesitate to contact me.
Mr Andrew Bailey Yes. Great Aycliffe Town Council
Miss Bosanko Yes.
Sue A Brett No with suggested Although not a resource within Durham Cumbria County Council alternatives to the criteria County, there may need to be thought given set out. to access, potentially through your county, for the underground resources of zinc and lead around Nenthead, between Cumbria and Northumberland.
Mr Russell Morgan Yes. The County Council would agree with the Stanley Town Council criteria suggested in Option A.
Mr Michael Hodges No with suggested For the reasons set out in relation to Sherburn Stone Co Ltd alternatives to the criteria question 51it is difficult to understand why set out. a spatial approach to new mineral working needs to be set out in the Core Strategy. The criteria in relation to this issue aside, the remaining criteria are appropriate.
Mr Martin Kerby No with suggested Whilst the commitment to assess sites RSPB Northern England alternatives to the criteria under the Habitats Directive is welcome, set out. there are a range of other environmental considerations that should be taken into account when assessing non-strategic waste sites. As a minimum requirement, we recommend that the criteria include impacts on SSSIs, locally-designated sites and priority habitats, in particular ancient woodland. In addition, we suggest that a further criterion is used: Sites can be restored to a high-standard, offering significant benefits to communities and the environment.
Mr K Henderson Yes.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 87 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
Respondent Details Q60(i) Criteria for Q60(ii) Criteria for making non-strategic making non-strategic Mineral site allocations - You can use Mineral site allocations this question to explain why you have - Do you agree with the chosen this option (please restate which suggested criteria for option you prefer) and to suggest Mineral site alternative criteria if appropriate? allocations?
Mr Kyle Maylard The Agency has no specific comment to Highways Agency make, but would like to reiterate the comments made above in response to questions 52 - 58. The Agency feels that the criteria would benefit from specific reference to the impact of any proposed minerals site allocations, particularly with regards to undertaking the necessary transport assessments to ensure that there is no impact on the operation of the Strategic Road Network.
Mr Chris This relates to non-strategic mineral Woodley-Stewart allocation criteria. We are not sure that the North Pennines AONB need for sites to be environmentally Partnership acceptable' is a strong enough phrase. It would be helpful to have clarity that these sites should not be in or have an impact upon the AONB.
Mr Robin Statham The criteria look OK but for surface mined Lanchester Partnership coal, areas where consent will not normally be granted need to be identified.
Mr M Ratcliffe Again, we support Option B in a Mineral Planning modification of the last criterion for Association aggregates sites. You seem to confuse need, current landbank size and extent of existing permitted reserves and it would make sense to separate these elements to define their role more accurately. In our view, need is the total provision during the plan period for aggregates which is the product of multiplying the apportionment by the plan period in years plus a provision for a full landbank to exist at the end of the plan period, minus permitted reserves. However, it is also our view that the mpa must adopt a flexible approach which takes account of the distribution of mineral in the landbank and the type of mineral as found in MPS1 and discussed already in this document. Therefore, you need to amend to last criterion and add a further one as follows, for aggregates mineral sites - need is the
88 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report A
Respondent Details Q60(i) Criteria for Q60(ii) Criteria for making non-strategic making non-strategic Mineral site allocations - You can use Mineral site allocations this question to explain why you have - Do you agree with the chosen this option (please restate which suggested criteria for option you prefer) and to suggest Mineral site alternative criteria if appropriate? allocations?
total provision during the plan period for aggregates which is the product of multiplying the apportionment by the plan period in years plus a provision for a full landbank to exist at the end of the plan period, minus permitted reserves at the beginning of the pan period for aggregates mineral sites - need must also take account of the mineral type within the landbank, its principal end uses, its distribution between sites and the likelihood of its extraction within the plan period. We support the other criteria listed.
English Heritage Paragraphs 11.67-11.68 deal with criteria for identifying non-strategic MSAs. ‘Heritage' quarries might well fall into this category. EIA may well be required in respect of any proposals that come forward.
Natural England Further refinement may be needed on what is ‘environmentally acceptable'. See comments on Q46. There is no reference to considering impacts on local communities.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 89 A Responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report
90 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
This appendix contains maps to show all of the sites currently proposed for new minerals and waste development in County Durham (please refer to section 2 of this report).
Area of Search at Todhills Brickworks
Map 10 Area of Search at Todhills Brickworks, near Byers Green and Newfield.
Area of Search at Todhills Brickworks, near Byers Green and Newfield.
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Operator location quantity in tonnes
Area of Search at 40.63 ha Potential reserves calculated at Wienerberger Todhills between 3.4 and 5.2 million Brickworks, near tonnes of brick clay and shale. Byers Green and This site would provide Todhills Newfield Brickworks with up to 65 years of permitted reserves.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 91 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
Extension to Heights Quarry
Map 11 Extension to Heights Quarry, near Eastgate.
Please note that the area show on the map above reflects the boundaries of the original study area which extended to 22 ha. The 14 ha extension lies within this area and is not
shown on the map above.
Extension to Heights Quarry, near Eastgate.
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Operator location quantity in tonnes
Extension to 14ha 5.7 mt of Carboniferous Aggregate Industries Ltd Heights Quarry, Limestone. Extension would near Eastgate. replace existing a proportion of existing permitted reserves via a mineral swap.
92 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
New Site - Washpool Craggs, Bolihope Burn in Weardale
Map 12 Washpool Craggs, Bolihope Burn in Weardale.
Washpool Craggs, Bolihope Burn in Weardale.
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Operator location quantity in tonnes
Washpool Craggs, 4.1ha Potential resources 450,000 Sherburn Stone Co Bolihope Burn in tonnes over a 5 year period. Weardale.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 93 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
Eastern and southern extensions to Thrislington Quarry and further sand extraction areas within void of existing quarry.
Map 13 Eastern and southern extensions to Thrislington Quarry and proposed areas for new sand extraction within existing Quarry.
It should be noted that a number of planning permissions currently exist at Thirslington Quarry including a permission to work Magnesian Limestone and High Grade Dolomite from a site west of the A1(M) (marked in blue on map and shown as Thrislington Permission Area) and permission to work Basal Permian Sand from an area within the existing quarry floor west of the A1(M) (marked in solid red). These permissions currently end in 2015.
Lafarge Aggregates have proposed two new areas for sand working within the existing quarry void west of the A1(M) and the reallocation of two areas which were previously allocated by the County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000). The area east of the A1(M), south of Stobbs Cross Lane, west of the A177 and north of Bishop Middleham Quarry (and its proposed extension) is known as the eastern extension to Thrislington Quarry. This area was subject to a member resolution to grant planning permission in October 2008. This permission has however, yet to be issued. The area west of the A1(M), east of the dormant Rough Furze Quarry is known as the southern extension to Thrislington Quarry. (Please note there are two other areas shown on the map hatched as proposed allocations. (These are a proposal by Tarmac Northern to extend Cornforth Quarry to the west and a proposal by W&M Thompson to extend Bishop Middleham Quarry to the west).
94 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
Eastern extension to Thrislington Quarry
Site name and location Size of site Mineral to be Operator extracted and quantity in tonnes
Eastern extension to Thrislington Quarry, 78ha 29 million tonne of Lafarge east of the A1(M), north of existing Magnesian Aggregates Ltd Bishop Middleham Quarry (and proposed Limestone including extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry) 11.35 million tonnes and south of Cornforth Quarry. of High Grade Dolomite (to be used for non-aggregate purposes in the steel industry).
Southern extension to Thrislington Quarry.
Site name and location Size of Mineral to be Operator site extracted and quantity in tonnes
Southern extension to Thrislington 10.7ha Magnesian Lafarge Quarry, west of A1(M). It also lies to the Limestone and high Aggregates Ltd south east of Thrislington SAC and east Grade Dolomite. of the dormant Rough Furze Quarry. 12.5 million tonnes of mineral.
Extension to existing Basal Permian Sand extraction area, land within Thrislington Quarry.
Site name and location Size of Mineral to be Operator site extracted and quantity in tonnes
Thrislington Quarry. Two areas for new Two Potential reserves Lafarge sand working within existing quarry areas. estimated at 6 million Aggregates Ltd permission area, west of the A1(M) tonnes of Basal (marked in blue). The 1st area is north Permian Sand. west of the existing sand extraction. The 2nd area lies east of Thrislington SAC).
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 95 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
Extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry
Map 14 Extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry
Extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Operator location quantity in tonnes
Extension to 13.2ha Potential reserves 5.2 million W&M Thompson Bishop Middleham tonnes of Magnesian Limestone Quarry of which 50% would be used for aggregate and 50% for non aggregate purposes (agricultural lime).
96 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
Extension to Witch Hill Quarry
Map 15 Extension to Witch Hill Quarry
Extension to Witch Hill Quarry
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Operator location quantity in tonnes
Extension to Witch 5.1ha Potential reserves 5 million Sherburn Stone Co Hill Quarry, 1km (approx) tonnes of Magnesian Limestone south of Shadforth to be used mainly for non and 1.5km west of aggregate purposes (agricultural Thornley. lime).
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 97 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
Extension to Cornforth Quarry
Map 16 Extension of Cornforth Quarry, Cornforth
Extension of Cornforth Quarry
Site name and Size of Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Site Operator location site quantity in tonnes
Extension of 23.04ha Potential reserves not Tarmac Northern Limited Cornforth Quarry, specified. Cornforth
98 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
Extension to Coxhoe Quarry
Map 17 Extension to Coxhoe Quarry
Extension to Coxhoe Quarry
Site name and location Size of site Mineral to be extracted Proposed Site and quantity in tonnes Operator
Extension to Coxhoe Quarry 43.88ha Potential reserves 35 Tarmac Northern (formerly known as Raisby), million tonnes of Magnesian Limited 2km northwest of Trimdon, Limestone at an average 1km east of Coxhoe and production rate of 1 million 9,5km south of Kelloe. tonnes per annum.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 99 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
New site - Low Harperley east of Wolsingham
Map 18 New site - Low Harperley, east of Wolsingham
New site - Low Harperley, east of Wolsingham
Site name and location Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Site quantity in tonnes Operator
Low Harperley(20), east of 38.4ha Potential reserves: 2.5 million Sherburn Stone Wolsingham. tonnes of sand and gravel. Co, Proposed working period 16 years, producing between 150,000 and 160,000 tonnes per annum.
20 A planning application for this site is currently awaiting determination.
100 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
Area of Search for sand and gravel at Hummerbeck
Map 19 New Site - Area of Search for sand and gravel at Hummerbeck
New site - Area of Search for sand and gravel at Hummerbeck
Site name and Size of Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Site Operator location site quantity in tonnes
Area of Search 80ha Potential reserves superficial Hall Construction Ltd for sand and glacio fluvial sand and gravel gravel at and river terrace deposits. 1.5 Hummerbeck million tonnes in total
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 101 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
New site - surface mined coal extraction at Bradley east of Consett
Map 20 New site - surface mine coal extraction at Bradley, east of Consett
New site - surface mine coal extraction at Bradley, east of Consett
Site name Site Size of Mineral to be extracted Proposed Site Operator and location Status site and quantity in tonnes
Bradley(21), New site 82ha Potential reserves 465,000 UK Coal Mining Ltd 3km east of proposal tonnes of coal. Fireclay Consett and (2005) reserves present but not 1km from assessed. Leadgate.
21 A planning application for this site is currently awaiting determination.
102 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
New Site - surface mined coal extraction at Castle Dene/Hurbeck east of Delves
Map 21 New site - surface mine coal extraction at Castle Dene/Hurbuck, east of Delves.
New site - surface mine coal extraction at Castle Dene/Hurbuck, east of Delves.
Site name Site Size of Mineral to be extracted Proposed Site Operator and location Status site and quantity in tonnes
Castle New site 156ha Potential reserves 645,000 UK Coal Mining Ltd Dene/Hurbuck, proposal tonnes of coal. 4 year east of Delves. (2005) working period in total.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 103 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
New site - surface mined coal - Randolph near Evenwood
Map 22 New site - surface mine coal extraction at Randolph near Evenwood.
New site - surface mine coal extraction at Randolph near Evenwood.
Site name Site Size of Mineral to be extracted Proposed Site Operator and location Status site and quantity in tonnes
Randolph near New site 138ha Potential reserves 475,000 UK Coal Mining Ltd Evenwood. proposal tonnes of coal. 4 year (2005) working period in total.
104 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
New site - surface mined coal Marley Hill south west of Byermoor
Map 23 New site - surface mine coal extraction at Marley Hill.
New site - surface mine coal extraction at Marley Hill.
Site name Site Size of Mineral to be extracted Proposed Site Operator and location Status site and quantity in tonnes
Marley Hill, New site 129ha Potential reserves 1.1mt of UK Coal Mining Ltd. south west of proposal coal. Fireclay reserves Marley Hill and (2005) present but not assessed. south east of Also glacial sand and Byermoor. gravel. 4 year working period in total.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 105 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
New site - surface mined coal sites (1) Field House (2) Land North of Pittington (3) Pittington South
This map shows three proposed new surface mined coal sites. Two Proposals by ATH Resources, Land North of Pittington and Pittington South. The third site Field House, proposed by Uk Coal Mining Ltd (highlighted in red/bold) lies within the Land North of Pittington Site.
Map 24 New Surface Mine Coal Sites, Field House, Pittington North and Pittington South
New site - surface mine coal extraction at Field House, south west of Rainton.
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Site location quantity in tonnes Operator
Field House, 72ha. Potential reserves 500,000 tonnes of UK Coal Mining Ltd. south west of coal. Fireclay reserves present but Rainton. not assessed. 2.5 years working period in total.
106 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
New site - surface mined coal site, Land north of Pittington.
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Operator location quantity in tonnes
Land north of 195ha. Potential reserves 2.5 million tonnes. ATH Resources. Pittington. 5.5 year working period in total.
New site - surface mined coal site - Pittington South.
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and quantity Proposed Operator location in tonnes
Pittington South. Included above. Pittington South site 800,000 tonnes. ATH Resources. 3.5 year working period in total.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 107 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
New site - surface mined coal Eldon Blue House
Map 25 New surface mined coal site - Eldon Blue House
New site - surface mined coal site - Eldon Blue House, land between Shildon and Coundon.
Site name and Site Size of Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Operator location Status site quantity in tonnes
Eldon Blue New site 216ha Potential reserves 1.1 million ATH Resources House, land proposal tonnes of coal, fireclay and a between (2009) limited amount of aggregates Shildon and Coundon.
108 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
Mineral Processing Facility at Broadwood Quarry
Map 26 Mineral Processing hub at Broadwood Quarry
Mineral Processing Hub - Broadwood Quarry, Weardale.
Site name and Size of site Mineral to be extracted and Proposed Operator location quantity in tonnes
Broadwood Quarry Mineral None - it is proposed that mineral Sherburn Stone Co processing could be won at satellite quarries hub and brought to this site for processing and onward shipment.
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 109 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
Waste site at Thrislington Quarry
Map 27 Waste Site at Thrislington Quarry
Proposed allocation for waste management facilities at Thrislington Quarry.
Site name and Site Status Size of site Waste Management Proposed location Capacity Operator
Thrislington Existing allocation 96ha Allocation for the Lafarge Quarry from Waste Local development of waste Aggregates Ltd Plan (Policy 58) management facilities including recovery, recycling and composting and landfilling. Estimated at 210,000 tonnes per annum.
110 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites B
Waste Transfer Station at Old Brickworks near Bishop Auckland
Map 28 New Site - Waste Transfer Station at Old Brick Works near Bishop Auckland
Proposed Waste Transfer Station at Old Brickworks near Bishop Auckland
Site name and Size of site Waste Management Capacity Proposed Operator location
Old Brick Works, Approx 3 ha Waste transfer station to serve Seagraves Ltd Toronto, Bishop the west of the County. No Auckland capacity specified
Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites County Durham Plan 111 B Maps of proposed Minerals and Waste Sites
Anaerobic Digestion at Langley Park North Industrial Estate
Map 29 Proposed Anaerobic Digestion facility at Langley Park North Indutstrial Estate
Proposed allocation for anaerobic digestion at Langley Park North Industrial Estate.
Site name and Site Status Size of site Waste Management Proposed location Capacity Operator
Langley Park Derwentside Approx 5.7 40,000 anaerobic digestion Trustees of the North Industrial District Council ha plant utilising organic waste Langley Estate Estate Local Plan saved materials with the possibility Policy IN5 of supplementing this allocated the feedstock with an energy eastern portion of crop grown on the estate if the proposed site this proved necessary. for less attractive or un-neighbourly industrial uses. The western section of the site is not allocated for development
112 County Durham Plan Technical Consultation Report: New Minerals and Waste Sites
To find out more about the County Durham Plan contact:
Write to: Planning Policy Team Durham County Council, Civic Centre Newcastle Road, Chester-le-Street County Durham, DH3 3UT
Telephone: 0300 123 70 70
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.durham/gov.uk/ldf
Interactive Website: http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning
[email protected] 0300 123 70 70