AGENDA ITEM 7
Cabinet CAB/024/10 Date: 19th October 2010 Part I Report
To approve the Essex Mineral Development Document Preferred Approach for consultation
Report by: Councillor John Jowers, Cabinet Member for Communities and Planning Enquiries to Officer: Lesley Stenhouse (Mineral and Waste Planning Manager) [email protected], Telephone 01245 437695, and Hamish Barrell (Senior Planner) Telephone 01245 437526
1. Purpose of report
To approve the Minerals Development Document (MDD), Preferred Approach for public consultation.
The Preferred Approach sets out for the first time what the proposals are regarding the policy framework for minerals planning across the County including where mineral development will occur for the period 2009 to 2028. The Preferred Approach follows previous Issues and Options consultation where the Council sought views on a range of issues and on suggested sites for minerals provision in Essex. The Preferred Approach Paper sets out what approaches the Council is seeking to take in terms of the Core Strategy, Development Control Policies; and Site Allocations.
Once formally approved there will be a five week period for printing and distribution followed by an extended ten week period of public consultation (the consultation will meet the requirements of our respective Statement of Community Involvement).
2. Decision Areas
Cabinet is asked to approve the MDD Preferred Approach for consultation in December 2010.
3. Recommendations
1. That Cabinet approves the MDD Preferred Approach for subsequent consultation starting in December 2010. 2. That the Cabinet Member of Communities and Planning is given delegated powers to approve any subsequent minor alternations which do not affect the substance of the MDD Preferred Approach.
4. Relevance to Corporate Objectives and other Strategic Plans
Essex Works Corporate Plan 2008-2011
The over-arching priority of the refreshed Corporate Plan is Putting our customers first. This includes keeping our residents better informed and improving our dialogue with local communities by consulting and involving them in the design and delivery of the Council’s activities. The Preferred Approach seeks to involve Essex residents in the issues surrounding future mineral provision to 2028.
Increasing recycling is a further priority in the Corporate Plan. By placing the mineral supply hierarchy at the core of this document, the Preferred Approach to aggregate recycling will assist in reducing the amount of construction and demolition waste going to landfill.
Environment, Sustainability and Highways (ESH) Directorate Plan
The Directorate Plan for ESH refers to supporting plans / public engagement plans regarding major consultations to be conducted. This includes the MDD.
Sustainable Planning & Development (now SEE) Service Plan
It is a strategic priority for the Minerals and Waste Development Documents to be adopted by 2015, and the Preferred Approach is a key milestone.
Essex Mineral and Waste Development Scheme
This document, approved by both ECC and the Secretary of State, sets out the agreed timetable, key milestones and resources to produce the MDD. This includes consultation on the Preferred Approach.
Essex Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
This document sets out the methodology for consultation on the MDD and has been approved by Full Council. The SCI stipulates that there will be consultation on the Preferred Approach and sets out in detail the principles and process for such consultation and engagement. It also addresses the Development Document production process and timetable that we must work to.
5. Legal Implications
While the MDD is at a consultative stage there is no need for a detailed consideration of the proposals from a legal perspective. These proposals may change as a result of the public representations.
Page 2 It is noted that through this consultative document the Council is discharging its duty under Regulation 251, providing that the distribution of the consultative document is wide enough to reach those members of the public that we decide we have a duty to consult. As a related matter ECC needs to ensure that we comply with our SCI.
6. Finance and Resources Implications
Costs associated with the consultation will be met from existing agreed budgets.
7. Corporate Governance
Section S151 Officer comments:
There are no specific S151 issues.
Monitoring Officer comments:
There are no additional comments on the report (to those already stated above under the Legal Implications heading) which seeks to progress the matter to the next stage.
8. Human Resources Implications
Any staff resourcing associated with the consultation will be met from existing Mineral and Waste Planning and Sustainable Environment & Enterprise staff and agreed budgets. No additional external resources will be required.
9. Risk Implications
There is a statutory requirement to keep Mineral Development Plan documents up to date. The last Plan was adopted in 19962. There have been revisions to national planning policy3 and to the quantity of minerals to be planned for to maintain a steady flow of minerals supply4. There is a need to maintain a landbank of permitted reserves of at least 7 years. The current landbank, based on figures as at 31 December 2008, is 8.6 years. There is a need to plan to meet future requirements, as in the absence of a planning framework there will be no overall direction or control to ensure planning applications come forward in the right location with least environmental harm, potentially to the detriment of the Essex environment. The absence of a robust plan and the resulting ‘planning by appeal’ scenario could result in the: • Inability to control mineral development in Essex • Loss of reputation to the Council • Potential blight as public await identification of preferred sites
1 The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 2 Minerals Local Plan 1996 3 Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals and Planning (MPS1) Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning 4 National and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2005-2020 • Increase in service costs for Council as it responds to a greater number of appeals and public local inquires over the plan period.
The MDD Preferred Approach has been prepared and developed against a number of other assessments which are referred to in the MDD Preferred Approach. The Preferred Approach represents a specific consultation stage for the MDD and, as such, an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) has not been undertaken as it is still being developed. However, content and requirements at the different consultative stages, such as the Preferred Approach, are checked against the Statement of Community Involvement, which has gone through EqIA.
10. Information Services Implications
This consultation is reliant upon an electronic on-line consultation software package which is on the ECC webpage. Specific support for this package is provided by the software company as part of its contractual arrangements with Essex County Council. The document and consultation is not dependent upon any additional support from Information Services.
11. Congestion Impact
Minerals can only be extracted where they occur naturally. The majority of aggregate produced in Essex is used within Essex. That said, the MDD seeks to provide a strategy for the delivery of aggregate to meet the County’s needs. The strategy is based on a hybrid of dispersal and extensions that optimises the functional route hierarchy. One of the key aims behind the strategy is to reduce mineral miles – the distance between the source and Essex market. The overall volume of mineral traffic will not increase as a result of this plan. On the contrary, the MDD is seeking to locate future sites so that the number of miles travelled by mineral lorries maybe reduced.
Traffic impacts, including congestion, from these mineral sites have been subject to thorough evaluation from both the Highways Authority and Highways Agency. The sites selected should provide a better fit between where mineral is extracted (and processed), and where mineral is needed for future growth and development.
12. Background
Essex County Council (ECC) is in the process of producing the Mineral and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) as required under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) to meet its obligation as a statutory planning authority. The MDD will replace the Essex Mineral Local Plan (adopted 1996). The MDD will set out the Authorities’ vision, objectives, Core Strategy policies and plans (and how they will be delivered) for the area with respect to mineral related development over a 15 year period from the date of adoption. The plan period is 2009 – 2028 inclusive. The MDD will provide a policy framework to ensure that there is a steady and adequate supply of minerals in the County to meet the apportionment requirement in full. Aggregate is a key raw material for the construction sector e.g., in the form of
Page 4 concrete, asphalt, mortar and construction fill. Its supply is therefore critical to economic growth and development.
The Strategy applies the minerals supply hierarchy to reduce mineral use and minimise mineral waste, recycled aggregates and primary spatial options. The primary spatial strategy provides for the best possible geographic dispersal of sites across the County (to support key areas of growth and development and potential future major infrastructure proposals and reduce mineral miles) with a focus on extending existing sites.
Extending existing sites utilises existing infrastructure and mineral supply patterns across the County. It is also more likely to provide certainty of delivery, minimise environmental disturbance and avoid loss / sterilisation i.e., last opportunity to obtain the resource prior to closing the site.
However, extensions alone would not resolve the issues around gaps in supply e.g., south and west of the County and sourcing aggregates as close to their point of use as possible. While recognising the important role that rail depots can play all districts in the County are subject to growth. The provision for a dispersed pattern of sites across the County minimises the demands placed on the transport network, cost of transport, carbon emissions and optimises the functional route hierarchy. It is therefore important to provide for new sites in the west of the County to re-dress the spatial imbalance and limit the need for HGVs to travel from the centre or east. Additional weighting in the site selection process, discussed below, should provide for a portion of the tonnage needed in the west to make the ‘dispersal’ component of the spatial strategy viable.
Based on national mineral planning policy (MPS1) and the sub regional apportionment for Essex there is a need to plan for an additional 42 million tonnes (mt) of aggregate over the plan period in Essex. Following a 'Call for Sites' in 2005 and 2009, forty-three potential sand and gravel extraction sites were suggested to the Minerals Planning Authority. These, in total, could supply approximately 118 mt of sand and gravel. To identify and realise these preferred sites to meet the strategy we have assessed the 43 sites which came forward from the call for sites and earlier Issues and Options consultation. The site selection methodology has comprised six stages:
STAGE 1: Assessment of each site against four 'Essential' criteria (geology, transport connection, workability within the plan period, environmentally acceptability); STAGE 2: Assessment of each site against a wide range of other Site Selection Criteria; STAGE 3: Cross-checking and moderation of all site assessments / scores; STAGE 4: Ranking of sites to identify the higher scoring sites which could provide a dispersed spread across the county; STAGE 5: Assessment of the cumulative impacts of these higher scoring dispersed sites; STAGE 6: Following Sustainability Appraisal, confirmation of the 'Preferred Sites' for inclusion in this document.
We have identified 19 preferred sand and gravel sites of which 15 are extensions and 4 are new. Provision is also required for silica sand (Martel’s Ardleigh) and brick clay (Bulmer Brickworks).
13. Area of County Affected
The MDD Preferred Approach consultation will be county-wide.
14. Options/Proposals
The Preferred Approach balances planning policy guidance, evidence and views received through previous public consultation stages (the Issues and Options stage) and sets out the preferred approaches from those reasonably available. It also addresses the reasons why other reasonable alternative options have been rejected. Subject to consultation responses there may be changes to the strategy at the next stage – submission version.
15. Consultation with other relevant Portfolio Holder(s)
Consultation has been undertaken with officers in other relevant portfolios (including highways, natural environment, asset management etc) in addition to other key consultees.
16. Consultation with Policy Development Groups
Regular meetings have been held with the Minerals & Waste Member’s Panel since the beginning of this year.
17. Consultation with Local Members
Local Members with suggested mineral sites in their areas have been invited to attend two special Mineral and Waste Members Panel meetings for briefings on the Spatial Strategy, Site Selection methodology and Preferred sites.
18. Background papers
During the extended ten week consultation period hard and electronic copies of the summary document, main Preferred Approach document and accompanying background papers and supporting independent assessments will be widely distributed.
Hard copies of the main documents and CDs of background papers will be available for inspection at County and District Offices and in Essex public libraries. Wider distribution of the summary and CDs containing all the other documents will be sent or made available to Parish Councils, mineral industry representatives, neighbouring properties to mineral sites and other stakeholders and statutory consultees.
Page 6 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Foreword
The ‘Preferred Approach’ represents the next important stage in the preparation of the Essex Mineral Development Document. This new document sets out the hard choices that we need to make, in order to ensure adequate mineral supplies for the County over the next fifteen years.
In arriving at these stated preferences, the Mineral Planning Authority has drawn upon a substantial body of factual evidence, considerable professional expertise, and in excess of 3000 consultation responses received since preparation of the document began in 2005.
We are extremely grateful for all of your contributions so far. The Government places great emphasis on community involvement in policy making and significant efforts have been made to ensure all those likely to be affected by the plan have had a chance to be involved.
The Preferred Approach stage is a particularly important time to continue this involvement since it provides the main opportunity to influence the future direction of minerals policy and the selection of future sites.
The previous two formal ‘Calls for Sites’ saw 46 suggested mineral extraction sites put forward by the minerals industry and local landowners. In addition to the overall strategy and the need to explore alternatives to primary extraction, we are now in a position to set out our assessment of these extraction sites. The main Preferred Approach document clearly explains the way these choices have been made.
It is imperative to continue to plan for minerals in Essex. We are currently working to the Minerals Local Plan (1996) which was developed under very different legislation. Our sand and gravel land-bank (that is the quantity of mineral with planning permission for extraction) currently stands at 8.6 years - nearing the 7 year minimum set down by national policy. If allowed to fall below 7 years, our plan-led approach will give way to a flurry of planning application-led development. This would create uncertainty for the mineral companies with preferred sites, construction industry and considerable worry for the communities living in the mineral-rich parts of the County.
It is very important the MDD be put in place in order to ensure sufficient mineral for the future, at the right location and with the least adverse environmental effects. We believe the vision, strategies, policies and sites set out in this Preferred Approach sets us well on the way towards meeting this objective.
I would encourage you to take time to study the Preferred Approach document and continue to provide us with your views.
Councillor John Jowers
Cabinet Member for Communities and Planning
Essex County Council i Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
1 Introduction and Context 1 2 Policy Linkages 8 3 Our Vision and Strategic Objectives 10 4 Core Spatial Strategy 16 Reducing Minerals Use and Minimising Waste 17 Aggregate Recycling Spatial Options 18 Primary Spatial Options 22 5 Core Strategy Themes 29 Reducing Minerals Use 29 County Target for Aggregate Recycling 33 Safeguarding for Mineral Deposits 38 Safeguarding Transhipment Sites 42 Safeguarding Secondary Processing facilities’ 45 Landbank 48 Biodiversity and Mineral Site After-Use 52 6 Generic Development Management Approaches 56 Non-Preferred Sites/Windfalls 56 Access and Transportation 59 Health and Environmental Protection 63 Efficient Use of Resources 69 Mineral Working and Restoration 72 7 Policies 75 8 Preferred Mineral Extraction Sites 80 Site Selection 80 The Methodology 81 Site Selection Outcomes 85 9 Mineral Transhipment Sites 141 New Safeguarded Mineral Transhipment Sites 141 Safeguarding Existing Mineral Transhipment Sites 144 10 Delivery & Monitoring 150 11 Have we missed anything? 159
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Tables
Table 1 Future Provision of Aggregates 2009- 2028 (20 years) 22 Table 2 Future Silica Sand Provision 2009 - 2028 (20 years) 23 Table 3 Consulted Alternatives - Landbank 50 Table 4 Consulted Alternatives - Health & Environmental Protection 66 Table 5 Consulted Alternatives - Efficient Use of Resources 69 Table 6 STAGE 1 Criteria 82 Table 7 Traffic Light Scoring System 83 Table 8 How Sites Scored 86 Table 9 How Silica Sand Sites Scored 133 Table 10 How Brickclay Sites Scored 136 Table 11 Phasing of Existing and Proposed Sites over the Plan Period 151 Table 12 Monitoring Indicators 155
Maps
Map 1 Preferred Spatial Strategy for Aggregate Recycling 19 Map 2 Preferred Spatial Strategy for Sand & Gravel Extraction 25 Map 3 Mineral Resources 39 Map 4 Functional Route Hierarchy 60 Map 5 Locations of Preferred Extraction Sites and Safeguarded Transhipment Sites 89 Map 6 Bradwell Quarry - Rivenhall Airfield 94 Map 7 Colchester Quarry - Five Ways Fruit Farm, Stanway 105 Map 8 Little Bullocks Farm, Little Canfield - Area A 107 Map 9 Tower Field, Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe 111 Map 10 Blackleys Quarry Gate Farm - Sites 1 & 2 115 Map 11 Church Farm, Alresford 120 Map 12 Maldon Road, Birch 122 Map 13 Shellow Cross Farm, Roxwell / Willingale 125 Map 14 Easton Park, Great Dunmow 127 Map 15 Broadfield Farm, Rayne 130 Map 16 Frating Hall Farm, Frating 132 Map 17 Park Farm, Ardleigh Area 3 135 Map 18 Bulmer Brickfields 137
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
1 Introduction and Context
1.1 This is the Mineral Development Document (MDD) Preferred Approach under Regulation 25 (Issues and Options) and covers the administrative area of Essex County Council, excluding Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock Unitary Authorities. The focus of the document is on the economic mineral resources of Essex being sand and gravel, silica sand, brick clay, brickearth and chalk. The planned date for adoption of the MDD is 2013, so the plan period will be 1 Jan 2009 – to 31 Dec 2028, with a base date of 31 December 2008.
1.2 Essex County Council (ECC) is responsible for preparing the Local Development Framework documents concerned with minerals and waste (MWDF). The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) was adopted in 2009 setting out the Council’s approach for involving local communities, stakeholders and consultees in the process. This year we also adopted a revised development scheme [link to be inserted] setting out the timetable we are working to. In respect of development plan documents (DPDs) the Council has chosen to prepare separate Mineral and Waste Development DPDs. The process for MDD preparation is set out in Figure 1 overpage.
Essex County Council 1 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Figure 1 Plan Preparation Stages of the MDD
1.3 As with the Further Issues & Options 2009 this document encompasses our preferred approach to Core Strategy, Development Management Policies and Site Allocations:
The Core Strategy (CS) sets out the key principles to guide the future winning and working of minerals in the County. It includes the spatial vision, spatial strategy, strategic objectives, core policies, and monitoring framework. Development Management Policies (DM) sets out the criteria against which planning applications for minerals development will be considered. The Site Allocations include specific proposals and policies for the provision of future minerals supply within the County.
2 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
1.4 This format of this 'combined' document approach is to be reviewed and if deemed necessary the Core Strategy / Development Management policies may be split from the Site Allocation component before the Examination in Public (EiP).
1.5 We are asking for your opinions on the preferred approaches. Your comments will help us shape the submission document which has the specific wording on policies and proposals that will affect those living, working in or visiting the County over the Plan period - so get involved and have your say.
1.6 The MDD Preferred Approach consultation documents can be accessed via the Internet at http://consult.essexcc.gov.uk. This provides an interactive service through which people can review and comment on the documents.
1.7 ECC have identified a range of stakeholders to whom we will send copies of the various consultation documents, in line with our Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Depending on their identified need they will receive hard copies of some or all of the main WDD documents and possibly a CD containing the PDF.
1.8 The consultation documents will also be published on the Council's websites, which can be viewed online or printed as required. These can be found on:
The Essex County Council website at: www.essex.gov.uk/MDD-consultation
1.9 A number of independent high level assessments addressing sustainability issues will also be published here.
1.10 Hard copies of consultation documents will also be made available for inspection at Libraries across Essex, at District and Borough Council offices and at County Hall in Chelmsford.
1.11 The main document identifies a range of issues being discussed and one or more options for each issue on which we need your views.
1.12 The consultation runs for an ten week period from 6 December 2010. The Council would prefer comments to be made online, at http://consult.essexcc.gov.uk, in line with the Government’s approach to providing services electronically.
1.13 However, there are a number of ways to respond; A standard form is available on the website for submitting other forms of response, use of the form will help the team to understand and consider the responses made. The form should be used to respond to all questions, any responses that do not fit in the space provided should be clearly marked on a separate page and attached to the form. The response form can be found at: www.essex.gov.uk/MDD-consultation
Completed response forms should be returned within the 10 week consultation period using one of the following methods :
Email to [email protected]
Fax to 01245 437 213
Essex County Council 3 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Post to The Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team, Freepost CL3636 Essex County Council E3 County Hall Chelmsford CM1 1QH
1.14 All representations will be available to view online; these and the outcomes from the workshops will be taken into account to inform the preparation of the next stage of the MDD, the Submission Document. The Submission Document is scheduled for consultation in December 2011.
Road Shows
1.15 Minerals and Waste Planning staff will be available at venues at each district within Essex for the public to approach. This will include locations near preferred sites. A consultation timetable for the Public is available on our website.
Workshop Consultation
1.16 We are looking to hold a series of stakeholder workshops to provide an opportunity for discussion and debate on the two themes of (1) ‘spatial strategy’ and (2) ‘site selection methodology’. A consultation timetable for the Public is available on our website. During the consultation, there will be a number of consultation workshops at various locations across the county at dates and times that will be published on the website. A number of individuals and organisations have already expressed an interest in being involved as a result of articles in various publications and through meetings held over the past few months.
1.17 In line with the commitments made in the SCI, we will also consider attending public meetings to explain in more detail the issues and options under consideration.
What Happens Next?
1.18 All representations will be available to view online; We will use the views we gather during consultation on this document (as well as any new or revised information, including the Sustainability Appraisal) to prepare the Mineral Development Document submission document.
1.19 We expect to consult on this in winter 2011 prior to it being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for the Examination in Public (EiP).
1.20 As we have mentioned earlier depending upon the advice of the Planning Inspector it may be that the core strategy and development control policies will be addressed separately from the site allocations at the next stage.
4 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
BACKGROUND
Our County - Spatial Context
1.21 Essex is located to the north-east of London, within the East of England region and borders the counties of Hertfordshire, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Kent (the latter in the South East region) and two unitary authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock. Our two-tier administrative system includes 12 District and Borough Councils.
1.22 Essex has a rich heritage of settlement. The town of Colchester has pre-Roman origins, however, most historic towns have developed since Roman times. Most people in Essex now live in urban areas with the two largest settlements being Chelmsford and Colchester.
1.23 Our economy has grown rapidly over the last decade, along with London and the East of England generally. Our total population has also increased during this time and is forecast to increase by 13% or another 175,000 additional residents over the next 25 years.
1.24 Studies for the East of England Regional Assembly on future housing needs (1) suggested that 102,000 new homes would be needed between 2001 and 2021. Alongside this was an assumption of 131,000 new jobs across Essex, Southend and Thurrock (combined) to support the new housing. Despite the current recession and the revocation of the RSS it is the long term ambition for growth 'per se' to continue.
1.25 Over the plan period growth is expected to occur in all districts within Essex with a particular focus in Chelmsford, Colchester, Basildon and Harlow. It will include regeneration of previously developed (brown-field) land. There is a general presumption against inappropriate development such as on greenfield land in the London Metropolitan Green Belt which covers a significant portion of the south of the county. Under Planning Policy Guidance 2 (Greenbelts) mineral extraction itself need not be inappropriate development, nor conflict with the purposes of designating Green Belts.
1.26 There are also a number of significant infrastructure schemes either planned or potentially programmed in Essex or adjoining authorities within the plan period. In addition, to ongoing works for the M25 widening and 2012 Olympics, future projects include CrossRail, Shellhaven Container Port, Bathside Bay / Haven Port, Stansted G1, Bradwell Power Station and others associated with the highway network. Minerals are also needed for maintenance and improvement of existing highways to meet future growth. There are opportunities for the use of recycled products in the construction phases of these projects.
1.27 The growth agenda places demands on natural resources. Construction aggregates are essential to maintaining and delivering the houses, schools, hospitals and essential infrastructure we need. Aggregates are used in a variety of ways including concrete, mortar, asphalt and construction fill.
1 based on relevant economic, social, physical and demographic factors and set out in the former Regional Spatial Strategy
Essex County Council 5 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
ESSEX AT A GLANCE
Population and Economy
Total population is 1,376,400 (and growing) ; Theres 3 growth areas - Haven Gateway, M11 corridor and Thames Gateway; While mineral production represents a small proportion of our economic output (quarrying provides several hundred jobs) it underpins our construction and manufacturing industries.
Transport Infrastructure
Strategic transport network and resulting 'wheel and spoke' pattern reflect the significance of London with highways based on a route hierarchy; Trunk roads and rail routes all suffer from congestion and capacity limitations.
Environment
70% of our 369,394ha land area is farmland- half the soil being high grade; Much of our long (180mile) coastline is adjacent to sites of international / national habitat importance and subject to development pressures; 29 species and 15 habitats are classed as vulnerable / need protection / promotion; For a County our size we have a typical number of Listed Buildings (14,000), Scheduled Monuments (296), registered Historic Parks and Gardens (37) and recorded archaeological sites (21,000); This region is expected to face severe climate changes including floods, droughts and sea level rises.
Geology
Extensive deposits of sand and gravel - particularly in the north; More localised workable deposits of silica sand, chalk, brick earth and clay; Aggregate marine dredging occurs off the coast and lands in London and Thurrock (Thames River); Theres no hard rock deposits / extraction so it must be imported by rail.
Mineral Infrastructure
We are the largest producer and consumer of sand and gravel in the East of England; There are 24 active sand and gravel sites, 2 brick clay and 1 chalk site (2008); There are 4 wharfs and 4 rail depots capable of handling aggregate; Aggregate is also recycled from around 30 active dedicated sites (2009).
6 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
1.28 The majority of aggregate (75%) extracted in Essex are used within the County. Of the one-quarter of Essex's aggregate that leaves the County most is transported to London. We are also a significant importer of 'hard rock' from the East Midlands and South West with around 500,000 tonnes coming directly into the County by rail and an unknown quantity from the wharfs at Thurrock.
1.29 Moving minerals by road puts a strain on an already pressurised highway network. Road movement can cause congestion, adverse local impacts and contribute to climate change. However, there are limitations on alternative transport modes. The rail network is also under pressure but more importantly has less potential to handle intra-County movements of materials.
1.30 Our rural environment covers three quarters of the county and consists of undulating countryside, rolling fields, picturesque and historic villages, internationally significant coastline and ancient woodlands. There are also a number of important rivers and parts of river systems that meander through the low-lying, gently undulating topography of Essex. The main rivers are the Stour, Colne, Blackwater, Chelmer, Crouch, Lee and Stort. Protecting valued countryside may constrain where mineral development can take place. However, once extraction has occurred quarries can present opportunities for environmental enhancement including biodiversity, recreation, agriculture, surface water storage and potential to alleviate flood risk.
1.31 With the need for ongoing construction, regeneration and development many towns in Essex will continue to rely upon locally sourced supplies of aggregate. Ever changing and competing interests for land threatens the sterilisation of Essex's mineral resources through development over mineral bearing land. We therefore have a big challenge ahead to ensure that future mineral development meets the needs of current and future generations whilst protecting and enhancing the local and global environment and people’s quality of life – a sustainable future, for Essex.
Essex County Council 7 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
2 Policy Linkages
2.1 There is a requirement to align to national and regional planning policies. The most significant change of note since January 2009 has been the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy which stated the sub-regional apportionment for Essex. This, in itself, does not fundamentally change the amount of aggregate we need to plan for. We still need to have regard to the National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregate Provision and evidence put together by the Aggregate Working Party.
2.2 All national planning and mineral policy is being currently reviewed by CLG with the understood intention of streamlining and shifting more responsibility to the local level. Despite the likelihood of possible changes to mineral policy this is not a good reason to further delay the Preferred Approach. If this results in the need to change the approach taken in this document then this will be reflected in subsequent consultations to the degree necessary.
2.3 At the local level a fundamental part of the new LDF planning system is to ensure a step change in the collective effectiveness of the whole public sector of Essex. This includes ‘joining-up’ the contents of development plan documents with other plans and strategies especially where they relate to the use and development of land.
2.4 The vision from our Sustainable Community Strategy (referred to as the 'Essex Strategy') is particularly relevant as the MWDF provides for aspects of its delivery and spatial representation. The Strategy states:
2.5 'To support Essex people to liberate their potential and enjoy the best quality of life in England.'
2.6 The measures set out in the Essex Strategy (and therefore the Local Area Agreement) are grouped into the four themes of:
Our People: Personal health and well-being
Our Community: Sense of belonging to local neighbourhood
Our Economy: Financial Well-being
Our World: Engagement in Environmentally-friendly behaviours
2.7 The mineral related subjects / topics discussed later in this document can be tied to these themes, as shown in Figure 2, with the relevant linkages identified throughout this document by use of the above icons.
8 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Figure 2 Essex Strategy Priorites
Listening to the Community and Stakeholders
Since the Further Issues and Options paper was published in January 2009 the following consultation updates are relevant:
We had 1406 individual responses on our Further Issues and Options (January 2009) consultation; We had 670 individual responses to our consultation on the Site Allocations - Issues and Options Paper (August 2009); Three consultation workshops were held in Braintree, Chelmsford and Colchester in January 2009 with the findings presented in the Land Use Consultants Report (April 2009) (http://www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/ECCWebsite/content/binaries/ documents/Planning396/final_report_on_workshops.pdf) Public meetings were held during 2009 in Woodham Mortimer, Danbury, Thorrington, Witham, Ardleigh and two were held in Henham.
Essex County Council 9 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
3 Our Vision and Strategic Objectives
Vision
3.1 The spatial vision should paint a picture of how we would like Essex to be by the end of the plan period. It should be locally distinctive and include the desires of as much of the community as we can. The vision needs to be both challenging and deliverable; a goal we can aspire to and have a realistic prospect of achieving.
3.2 In the Further Issues and Options report we examined the key issues that we would need to respond to in the MDD:
Key Issues
What would we imagine Essex to be like, if sustainable mineral supply were to have been achieved? What steps would we need to get us there? How can we safeguard our mineral resources for future generations, and avoid mineral sterilisation? How might we minimise mineral consumption and avoid mineral waste, whilst maintaining and promoting high standards of development? How might we optimise the production and use of recycled aggregate? Given the geology of Essex, the distribution of growth and the requirement to make adequate provision to supply 4.41 million tonnes of sand and gravel per year, where in the County should future sand and gravel supplies come from? How might we protect and safeguard our existing and future 'Preferred' extraction sites for all minerals? What approach should we take to agricultural reservoir proposals which demand the removal of aggregate, and borrow pit developments? Given that most mineral will be transported by road through the plan period, how can we minimise the distances travelled to minimise carbon emissions and increase efficiency? Given the role of rail heads and wharves to facilitate mineral imports and exports, how might we protect and safeguard these for the future? Should we consider certain secondary processing plant and recycling facilities of strategic significance, and how might we protect these for the future? How might mineral site working, restoration and after-use contribute to improving the County's biodiversity, landscape and green infrastructure? How can we safeguard our valuable natural assets through minerals planning, and contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation?
3.3 Firstly, we need to apply the 'Mineral Supply Hierarchy' to construction and development. We need to first look to reduce the quantity of mineral used and waste generated, then use as much recycled material as possible, before looking to further primary extraction, albeit that a certain level of primary mineral supply must be guaranteed.
10 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
3.4 Design and construction choices made in Essex today will directly affect the environment for years to come. The energy used in buildings, and in the production and movement of construction materials, should be recognised for the contribution it makes to the release of greenhouse gases and climate change. Minimising greenhouse gas emissions through design and the re-use and recycling of construction and demolition wastes in particular, should be a top priority. The full life-cycle of mineral use is of fundamental importance to the planning process, and should be central to the Minerals Development Document.
3.5 Sustainable construction practice is developing and covers many aspects including water and energy consumption, material choice, transportation and design versatility. The Essex Design Initiative Urban Place Supplement is evidence of this. Essex District and Borough Planning Authorities are developing sustainable construction policy through their own Local Development Frameworks, and minerals policy will sit alongside and complement these. It is important to have close working relationships with the Districts and Boroughs.
3.6 To help combat climate change it is essential that Essex promotes the re-use of materials and examines its capacity to produce recycled aggregate. There is limited aggregate recycling data, but it is estimated to be a small but growing proportion of Essex’s overall aggregate production produced from construction and demolition waste. Existing recycling capacity would appear to be relatively well distributed across the County, including Thames Gateway, Haven Gateway, the M11 Corridor and Chelmsford, and there are three large aggregate recycling sites. It is considered in this document whether these large sites should be protected.
3.7 In terms of the extraction of primary aggregates, sand and gravel are by far Essex’s largest and most important primary mineral resource. The Council, as Mineral Planning Authority, is expected to make provision for relatively high levels of supply to meet needs and demands primarily being those generated within the County itself. Other mineral resources actively extracted are in contrast small scale, and spatially more confined. The MDD will need to ensure a continued supply of aggregates while at the same time maintaining high standards of environmental protection.
3.8 The extraction of aggregates has occurred in most parts of the County in the past. At present, extraction sites are mainly clustered around the centre and north-eastern parts of the County. The majority of aggregates are historically 'planned' sites identified in the Minerals Local Plan and its predecessor. Some sites, known as 'windfalls', result from the needs of other developments, predominantly agricultural reservoirs.
3.9 Many sand and gravel deposits occur in areas that are liable to flood. Sand and gravel extraction is defined in PPS25 as a Water Compatible use and need not be excluded from taking place in areas that are at risk of flooding. However processing of minerals is defined as Less Vulnerable and is not considered appropriate in all Flood Zones.
3.10 Seventy five percent of the aggregate extracted within the County is used within the County and distributed via the main road network. We should seek to minimise the distances travelled by operators to markets to lower carbon emissions. While only a quarter is used beyond our borders (most of which ends up being used
Essex County Council 11 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
within the larger London market) we must recognise that the County relies upon the importation of significant quantities of hard rock. Rail and waterborne transportation are more attractive for such movements. As such, its important to protect relevant 'transhipment' sites. There is no direct landing of aggregates including marine-dredged aggregate although this may be possible at Essex ports such as Harwich Haven / Bathside Bay.
3.11 Essex has always been able to meet its aggregate apportionment and our permitted aggregate land-bank reserves of 8.6 years (including Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea) are above the 7 year minimum requirement. However, a long-term trend of falling sales and permitted reserves is recognisable. In a do nothing scenario, in which no new permissions are granted, Essex’s existing aggregate reserves will fall below the minimum 7 year landbank requirement within 2 years.
3.12 Additional resources are clearly needed at this time if we are going to continue to meet demand over the plan period. Unless this is addressed, planning applications will be determined on an ad hoc basis, without the benefit of certainty or basis for determining the appropriate location for minerals. Its intended that the MDD provides the framework for a planned approach that directs development to the most appropriate locations to serve the community of Essex.
3.13 Climate change will also require us to be more innovative in the after-uses of mineral sites. Pressures on our vulnerable coastline habitats will increase and it will become important to increase the amount of green infrastructure available inland.
3.14 The following statement provides a possible Vision for the MDD. However, if the alternative choices presented in this document were to be implemented it would likely affect how this statement reads.
12 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Our Preferred Vision
By 2028 we will have achieved the following:
Sustainable Construction
Sustainable construction practices, incorporating the efficient use of minerals, will be the norm across the County, with all types of development designed and constructed using the best practicable sustainable construction materials and techniques.
Efficient Mineral Use and Re-use
Minerals will be considered a valuable resource to be used and re-used efficiently, to minimise waste.
High Levels of Construction and Demolition Waste Re-use and Recycling
On re-development sites, a high proportion of construction and demolition materials will be re-used and recycled, on-site wherever possible. There will be a network of strategic aggregate recycling sites across the County to serve major centres, with a wide range of construction products for the construction industry. These facilities will be constructed and operated to a high design standard, and the image of recycled products raised, with improved quality to meet the construction industry's requirements.
Mineral Re-use and Recycling Integral to all Major Construction Project Specifications
All major construction projects will be actively seeking to use a proportion of re-used or recycled materials, or products with recycled content and project specifications will make provision for recycled materials.
Minimal Sterilisation of Mineral Resources
The needless sterilisation of mineral resources will be avoided through the designation of Mineral Safeguarding Areas. Major developments proposed on land overlying potentially economic deposits will demonstrate that prior extraction has been considered. Prior extraction will be required where this can be achieved without undue harm to the environment, local amenity or the actual development, and where this is consistent with other sustainability objectives.
Safeguarding of Mineral Reserves and Preferred Sites
Existing mineral extraction sites, and Preferred sites in the MDD will be safeguarded and consultation required when other developments are proposed on or affecting these sites, to ensure the site and other operations are protected.
Safeguarding of Mineral Infrastructure
Essex County Council 13 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Important mineral facilities, such as strategic aggregate recycling centres, secondary processing, rail heads, wharves and depots associated with such uses, will be safeguarded from inappropriate development to prevent their loss and to minimise impact on their continued operation.
Primary Mineral Provision
Essex will maintain its important role as a significant producer of sand and gravel within the region. It will plan for the majority of extracted aggregate to be used within the County, accepting most will be transported by road. It will meet national, regional and sub-regional apportionment, whilst not over supplying in order to protect the Essex environment and the mineral resource.
The lack of aggregate resources in the south west of the County will have been addressed, to ensure planned urban growth can take place without unnecessary long distance transportation of mineral through associated mineral infrastructure. Sources of aggregate, both primary, secondary and recycled, will be planned, co-ordinated, and where possible located in proximity to growth areas, particularly Chelmsford, Basildon, Colchester, Harlow, the Harwich Haven and Thames Gateways and the M11 corridor, as well as maintaining the existing infrastructure of rail depots and marine wharves for importing aggregates to these areas.
Primary extraction sites will have regard to important sites of cultural, historic or biodiversity value and will have good transport connections. Consideration will be given to the cumulative impacts of extraction on the local communities, landscape and flood risk. Essex residents will have certainty of where Preferred sites are located, how applications for 'windfall' sites will be determined, and how their standard of amenity will be protected.
Brick clay, brickearth and silica sand sites will continue to be protected and planned for.
Restoration and After-use
Restoration and after-use will continue to be integral to site selection and to the consideration of mineral extraction proposals, to ensure proposals have regard to existing landscape character and the need to enhance biodiversity and geodiversity. The focus of after-use will shift from purely agricultural use to enhancement of the local environment by means of increased provision for biodiversity, geodiversity, climate change (including providing storage for surface water) and public rights of way. This change in emphasis will result in improvements to the environment, and re-connection of de-graded or fragmented habitats, with sensitivity to surrounding land uses.
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Minerals Transportation, sites and facilities for mineral development will be planned, located and operated having regard to the need to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
14 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Strategic Objectives
3.15 These strategic objectives of the MDD clarify what is needed to achieve the vision within the timescale of the plan.
3.16 Previous comments received in response to the Further Issues and Options paper objectives were generally supportive of the objectives but concerns were raised about deliverability, protection of the environment and a biodiversity focus on site selection, consistency with national policy and clarification about wording of some objectives.
3.17 In particular a number of responses sought the rationalisation of various objectives. It is appropriate to combine several of them hence a reduction in the number from 11 to 7 objectives:
Strategic Objectives
1: That reliance on primary mineral resources in Essex will be reduced, firstly through the more efficient use of the primary resource and reducing the amount of mineral waste; then the use of recycled aggregates.
2: To identify and safeguard the following resources in Essex:
Sand and gravel, chalk, silica sand, brickearth and brick clay which have potential future economic and/ or conservation value i.e., unnecessary sterilisation should be avoided; Existing and potential secondary processing and aggregate recycling facilities that are of strategic importance for future mineral supply, to ensure these are not compromised by new development.
3: To identify sites and policy criteria for a steady and adequate supply of minerals to assist in the economic growth of Essex and to meet the agreed sub-regional aggregate apportionment.
4: To afford protection to designated sites of landscape, wildlife, geodiversity, cultural and heritage importance, commensurate with their importance, from mineral operators;
5: To achieve more sustainable minerals transportation by giving preference to local sources of aggregate, optimise how sites access the strategic highway network and enable the long haul movement of minerals by rail and water.
6: To secure high quality restoration of extraction sites with appropriate aftercare to achieve appropriate and beneficial after-uses.
7: To maintain and/ or enhance landscape, biodiversity and residential amenity for people living in proximity to minerals development. Restoration of mineral workings will deliver tangible benefits to affected local communities.
Essex County Council 15 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
4 Core Spatial Strategy
4.1 The Core Strategy comprises our Vision, Objectives, Spatial Strategy and Core Strategy themes. The Core Spatial Strategy provides the strategic framework and a steer to where minerals development will be focused through the plan period. The Core Spatial Strategy, as presented below, is in order of the Minerals Supply Hierarchy. The Core Strategy Themes address our key values and challenges.
4.2 We have structured subsequent sections of this document in a consistent two column format with each preferred option having been chosen with regard to the following background information:
Evidence Base - The chosen option should be founded on a robust and credible evidence base. Reference is given to any statistics or evidence used. Particular use has been made of the information compiled for the Contextual Baseline Report (Jan, 2009) referred to hereafter as the MDD Baseline '09; Sustainability Appraisal/ Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) - Sustainable development is central to the reformed planning system. Our policy themes and topics have been subject to a formal SA/SEA prepared by specialists within ECC Spatial Planning team and published alongside this document. It contains an assessment of each preference and rejected alternatives to determine if there will be any significant impacts on the economic, social and physical environment of Essex (and beyond). It is also noted that regard has been given to the SFRA and HRA; The Vision - all policies and preferences are intended to be informed by and translate the vision. The vision is the key to 'place shaping' and brings together how the plan will be implemented and minerals developed in Essex's unique context; Consultation Responses - the intent of this document is to capture the essence of what stakeholders and the wider community has told us about the pertinent matters raised.
4.3 The document sets out if any reasonable alternatives were considered. An overview of the advantages and disadvantages of each is given to be read, in conjunction, with the reason for the selection of preferred approach.
4.4 A range of policies will be needed in the MDD to implement the preferred approach. This is addressed in Chapter 7 although the exact wording is not set out. Taking on board any comments received during consultation this will follow in the submission document. Finally, delivery and monitoring of the MDD is explored in Chapter 11. This sets out what targets we think we should use to show whether or not the policies are being successful and the organisations that will help us meet those targets.
16 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Reducing Minerals Use and Minimising Waste
4.5 It is set out in MPS1 that we must promote the mineral supply hierarchy. Through the policies in the MDD, we shall aim to minimise mineral waste and to maximise the re-use of construction minerals. This will be achieved by:
Exploring how we might encourage efficient mineral use through sustainable project procurement practises with Local Strategic Partners; Requiring that de-construction is undertaken, in preference to demolition within construction projects; Reducing mineral waste in mineral workings. Encouraging on-site recycling of construction, demolition and excavation wastes on redevelopment sites; Raising the quantity and quality of recycled product available, to promote its increased use.
4.6 We did not set out any specific options in the Further I&O paper (Jan 2009) as the aspects are addressed elsewhere in the document. For instance, the latter two bullet points above concern improving the supply of recycled material and will be addressed in the spatial strategy section on 'Recycled Aggregate' and 'County target for aggregate recycling'. These are set out below.
4.7 Construction material choice should be considered at the earliest stages of project development, if more efficient and sustainable construction material use is to be achieved. Re-development projects should be informed by an audit of what is available on site, and by an assessment of the availability of re-used and recycled products which meet the project's specifications and the encouragement of its use. For material re-use and recycling to be achieved, sufficient time will need to be built into the work programme, and sufficient space provided on site, to enable de-construction work and material recycling to take place. Where it is not feasible for re-use and recycling to take place on site, alternative recycling, salvage and storage depots will be required.
4.8 The public sector can encourage and influence sustainable construction practices, through their own procurement practises on capital projects and requirements imposed by the planning system. For instance, many Essex local planning authorities have started to promote sustainable construction through their Local Development Documents. Our aim is to promote the re-use and recycling of construction and demolition waste. This has the potential long term benefit of reducing demand for primary aggregate. The former is addressed below in the section on 'Reducing Minerals Use' and the latter in the 'Recycled Aggregate Spatial options'.
4.9 Reducing mineral waste is developed further in the section 'Efficient Use of Resources'.
Essex County Council 17 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Aggregate Recycling Spatial Options
4.10 Recycled aggregates consist of aggregate materials that are recovered from construction and demolition processes and from excavation waste on construction sites. The aim is to raise both the quantity and the quality of recycled material and to promote its use so as to:
Reduce the amount of construction and demolition waste sent to landfill; Increase the availability of the recycled product; and Establish a uniform quality of product that meets relevant standards and protocols thereby increasing the number of occasions when recycled product are used in place of primary mineral, Reduce the need for new extraction sites and resulting environmental harm.
4.11 As discussed in the 'County target for aggregate recycling section' there may currently be sufficient overall capacity. However, it was noted in the Further Issues and Options (2009) that there would need to be a step change in the quality of aggregate recycling facilities available in the County. We considered having a network of 'large' Strategic Aggregate Recycling Sites (SARS) in addition to a pool of smaller scale dedicated sites recycling aggregate across the County (Option 3 I&O). SARS were defined as:
Capacity to recycle a minimum of 100,000 tonnes p.a. of construction and demolition waste; Permanence within employment / industrial areas, or being a temporary facility with an end date which at least extends to the end of the plan period i.e., 2028; Sufficient size to accommodate washing plant, in addition to crushing and screening plant, with dedicated storage areas for feed waste, processing plant and stockpiles of raw and processed material; Proximity to those towns formally described as Key Centres for Development and Change and good connection to the main highway network.
4.12 A related issue being consideration of a County target for recycling aggregate in Essex is set out in the section below 'County Target for Aggregate Recycling'.
4.13 There will also be the need to consider the potential for aggregate recycling when considering Integrated Waste Management Facilities (IWMFs) in the Waste Development Document.
18 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
4.14 All districts in Essex, with the exception of Castle Point, appear to have some permitted aggregate recycling capacity. The opportunity for larger, more sophisticated, operations is only considered feasible in certain areas where construction and demolition waste generation is greatest e.g., towns formally described as Key Centres for Development and Change. Existing facilities which already largely match the criteria of SARS are already located in proximity to Chelmsford, Basildon and Colchester. Only the Harlow area appears to require the establishment of a future facility.
4.15 Map 1 below should be read in conjunction with the preferred option below.
Map 1 Preferred Spatial Strategy for Aggregate Recycling
Essex County Council 19 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 1 While dedicated aggregate recycling The provision of a network of sites are generally well distributed permanent and long term temporary Harlow, Basildon and Castle Point recycling facilities able to make are underrepresented (MDD significant and long term Contextual Baseline 2009). contributions to recycled aggregate A modest increase in aggregate production. Only SARS in proximity recycling capacity is needed by end to key urban areas need of plan period (WDD Capacity Gap safeguarding. Compilation report, 2010) There were 6 responses to the 'call An additional SARS is supported in for SARS' in Jan 2009. None are or around Harlow either by naming preferred allocations (Appendix A). appropriate industrial or employment land, provision within an existing or Sustainability Appraisal future IWMFs or development of a 'resource management park'. 4.16 The Preferred Approach is more sustainable due to the strategic Other non-strategic sites and on-site positioning of large recycling facilities recycling will be encouraged through and the subsequent reduction of criteria based policy at appropriate transportation and associated emissions, industrial areas and as temporary costs and environmental impacts. permissions at mineral workings and waste disposal sites. Increases in Contribution to Vision environmental impacts, HGV 4.17 We are aiming to raise both the movements or duration of mineral / quantity and quality of recycled materials waste sites must be avoided. and to promote their use on Reason re-development sites, a network of strategic and non-strategic aggregate A SARS network in proximity to 'Key recycling sites. Sites should be planned, Centres for Development and co-ordinated and where possible located Change', as shown on Map 1, is in proximity to Government growth and considered the best means for the regeneration areas. MPA to promote raising the quality of recycled products and provide for Consultation Responses (Jan 2009) economies of scale. There are 3 4.18 A majority agreed with a 2 tiered existing sites which either meet the approach to aggregate recycling (Option relevant definition now or have the 3). Most disagreed that 2 SARS in potential to in the future. Its Chelmsford and 1 in Rochford provided recognised that the Harlow area enough geographic coverage (Option could be better served in the future 4). Existing and / or planned industrial and suitable sites are to be areas / employment land should be encouraged there. named for the purpose of providing SARS (Option 5). Responses to Options 10&11 (non-strategic sites and on-site recycling) are consistent with earlier options 3-5 and are outlined in the Policy Choices section.
20 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives Considered
4.19 Rather than seeking to differentiate between strategic and non-strategic aggregate recycling sites a criteria only based approach to aggregate recycling could be adopted to promote these types of sites.
Strengths
This approach would follow on from existing Local Plan policies MLP5 and W7D which have been used to support many of the aggregate recycling sites currently permitted; This approach is sufficient to address the needs of non-strategic aggregate recycling sites or on-site recycling particularly temporary permissions on mineral sites; Provides flexibility by not tying down land / sites to a very specific use.
Weaknesses
There is anecdotal evidence that it is difficult to find suitable sites for aggregate recycling; particularly in areas without existing mineral sites. A site specific approach could remedy this; By not safeguarding sites there is a risk that existing aggregate recycling sites would be displaced by higher value land uses over the course of the Plan period. Given the difficulty of finding new sites this is too high a risk to run; Many respondees noted the lack of geographic coverage of the three sites proposed in the Further Issues and Options paper (2009). A greater spread of strategic aggregate sites may not come about without a targeted approach directing them to appropriate locations; In not delivering a site specific safeguarding approach its considered less consistent with PPS10.
Policy Linkages
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 1 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policy CS2 and CS10.
Question 1
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
Essex County Council 21 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Primary Spatial Options
Primary Mineral Supply
4.20 Ensuring sufficient mineral resources are available for aggregate supply in England is based on the long standing arrangements of the Managed Aggregate Supply system. This sets out the amount of sand and gravel that we should plan for or 'sub-regional apportionment'.
4.21 As a significant producer and consumer of sand and gravel in the East of England region the sub-regional apportionment was for 4.41mtpa from the combined 4.55mtpa for Essex, Southend and Thurrock. While the RSS has now been revoked, it is intended (Chief Planning Officer letter 6 July 2010) that the technical advice provided by the aggregate working parties is to continue to inform the amount we need to plan for.
4.22 Since the Further Issues & Options paper 2009 the national and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2005-2020 has reduced the amounts that the East of England has to plan for. The RAWP agreed to base the revised figures for individual authorities on their proportionate sales contribution over the last 10 years. The revised apportionment figure for Greater Essex is 4.31mtpa and equates to a 0.1mtpa reduction or 2%. We are looking to use the apportionment figure approved by the East of England Regional Assembly in March 2010 and have agreed with Thurrock Borough Council on the appropriate split between our two authorities.
4.23 It is therefore estimated that an extra 42.225mt will need to be identified for the 20 year plan period (2009 - 2028 inclusive). This takes into account existing permitted reserves and subsequent permissions and committee resolutions to grant planning permission since 31 December 2008. The increased amount needing to be planned for compared to the 39.025mt identified in the Further Issues and Options (2009) reflects a fall in reserves due to a recent reassessment at two sites and longer Plan period to 2028. The calculations are set out in Table 1 below:
Table 1 Future Provision of Aggregates 2009- 2028 (20 years)
Million Tonnes
Essex only apportionment 20 years @ 4.31mtpa = 86.2
Less Existing Permitted reserves at 31 December 2008 -39.2
Therefore the MDD must plan for: 47
Less new permissions during 2009/10 -4.415
Less aggregate proportion of Martell’s Quarry silica sand and gravel permission -0.360
ESS/018/07/TEN issued in 2008 (780,000 t X 46%)
22 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Million Tonnes
Total additional sand and gravel resources to be identified 42.225
4.24 The figure of 42.225mt does not make any provision for the committee resolution to grant planning permission, subject to S106, of a total of 4mt at Easton Park, Great Dunmow.
4.25 The requirement for silica sand and brickclay is 237,000t and 30,000t respectively as detailed in Table 2 below:
Table 2 Future Silica Sand Provision 2009 - 2028 (20 years)
Million Tonnes
Plan Provision for Plan Period 20 years @ 45,000tpa 0.9
Less new permissions during 2007 (including ESS/18/07/TEN) (Silica sand - 0.663 proportion only)
Total additional silica sand resources to be identified 0.237
Spatial Options for Land Won Sand and Gravel
4.26 A preferred sites approach to plan for future land won sand and gravel sites is being adopted as opposed to an Areas of Search or windfall led approach. This is due to:
Extent of the potential land won sand and gravel resources; Availability of potentially suitable sites put forward by the industry and land owners; The need to provide certainty for local communities and the industry to ensure deliverability.
4.27 PPS12 requires a spatial approach be adopted for where sites are to be identified. While it is difficult to conceive different options for localised mineral deposits like brick clay or silica sand (i.e., minerals can only be dug where they occur naturally) there is scope to consider it for our sand and gravel resource which is considerably more extensive across Essex. MPS1 gives a steer to consider the benefits of extensions to existing mineral workings rather than new sites.
4.28 This is demonstrated by the 43 suggested sites, the majority of which are located in north Essex; along the A120 and to the east of Colchester. There are some sites that have come forward outside these areas; particularly as a result of our “Call for Sites” in January 2009 which focused on a gap in the South West.
4.29 The need for resources in the south west was questioned at the consultation workshops, where industry flagged the need to have regard to the rail and water transhipment sites at Harlow and on the Thames River in Thurrock.
Essex County Council 23 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
4.30 In the January 2009 paper three distinct Spatial Options were developed (extensions, dispersal and concentration with the potential for a fourth 'hybrid' approach) with the following aims:
to meet the apportionment requirement in full for the plan period; to optimise the location of sites to serve the local Essex market, to seek to reduce transportation distances and mineral miles (the majority of aggregate will continue to be distributed by road, to serve the local market which is predominantly in Essex); to have regard to the locations of potential future major infrastructure proposals; to have regard to the main mineral infrastructure, including 'imports' to Harlow and Chelmsford rail depots, and 'exports' via Chelmsford and Marks Tey rail depots and Fingringhoe wharf; To have regard to the need to consider additional silica sand provision in proximity to Martells Quarry.
4.31 These aims are still considered to be relevant. There are also important secondary issues to be addressed outside the above spatial strategy. How the after-use of sites might contribute towards habitat creation is addressed in the section 'Biodiversity and Mineral Site After Use. Future consideration of the need to provide for additional landfill void space will be addressed in the Waste Development Document.
4.32 The preferred approach is set out in Map 2 below which is to base the strategy on a hybrid of dispersal and extensions. Sites could in theory come forward anywhere within the sand and gravel layer. For the sake of convenience based on the sites that have come forward, Essex can be divided between three main supply areas as shown below. The central core area is based around the A12, A120 and A131 highways. Two other areas are located immediately to the west and east i.e., within the ‘M11 Corridor’ growth corridor and Haven Gateway respectively. These three areas are considered to be able to supply sand and gravel to the majority of the County by road accessing the functional route network. The main aggregate movements expected between main supply and urban growth areas are indicated, as are external movements (particularly hard rock entering the County).
24 Essex County Council Map 2 Preferred Spatial Strategy for Sand & Gravel Extraction Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 25 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
4.33 Evidence Base Preferred Approach 2 Without greater dispersal there will To provide for the best possible be increasing imbalance in the distribution of supply across the geographic dispersal of sites across (2) the County (to support key areas of County growth and development and reduce Potential big 'transport carbon' mineral miles) with a focus on savings from cutting haulage (3) extending existing sites (with distances for aggregate primary processing plant). Position Paper - Spatial Strategy for Aggregate Extraction in Essex Reasons (Appendix A)
Extending existing sites utilises 4.34 Sustainability Appraisal existing infrastructure and mineral supply patterns across the County. 4.35 The preferred option accords well It is also more likely to provide with the sustainability objectives, certainty of delivery, minimise providing spatial certainty to the environmental disturbance and distribution of sites, whilst ensuring that avoid loss / sterilisation i.e., last the sourcing for aggregates are as close opportunity to obtain the resource to their point of use as possible. prior to closing the site. 4.36 Contribution to Vision However, extensions alone would not resolve the issues around gaps 4.37 Its consistent with land won sand in supply e.g., south and west of the and gravel being planned, co-ordinated County and sourcing aggregates as and where possible located in proximity close to their point of use as to growth areas; particularly Chelmsford, possible. While recognising the Basildon, Colchester, Harlow and within important role that rail depots can growth corridors. play, provision for a dispersed 4.38 Consultation Response pattern of sites across the County minimises the demands placed on 4.39 The respondees favoured a the transport network, cost of hybrid option of which extension was the transport, carbon emissions and most common component (50%) i.e., optimises the functional route consistent with the preferred approach. hierarchy. It is therefore important However, when considering 'single' to provide for new sites in the west options 29% favoured extensions, 12% of the County to re-dress the spatial for concentrated and only 8% for imbalance and limit the need for dispersal. The reasons given for HGVs to travel from the centre or extensions were based around their east. Additional weighting in the site existing infrastructure and potential to selection process should provide for limit the environmental impact which a portion of the tonnage needed in many felt dispersal alone would not the west to make the ‘dispersal’ achieve. component of the spatial strategy viable.
2 MDD: Contextual Baseline report - sec 6 3 MineralPlanning Issue 1, 26 Dec 2009 - refer also to www.ukmineralsforum.co.uk
26 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternative (1) Concentrated Supply of Sites
4.40 The aim of this alternative is to concentrate aggregate supply in the heart of Essex. This is based on the triangular area of Chelmsford, Braintree and Colchester and utilising the main highway network of A12, A120 and A131 and shown on Map 2. This Option could incorporate a mix of extensions and new sites, as well as small or large sites.
4.41 Strengths
Central location to serve the County; Potential for good road connections; Geology would support some large sites with potentially benefits associated with economies of scale; Concentration ‘first’ option could provide some sites that are extensions and others with high potential for biodiversity habitat creation.
4.42 Weaknesses
Deliverability would be dependent upon relatively fewer sites and similarly production dominated by a few outlets. This is contrary to the principle of promoting market competition (i.e., MPS1 Practice Guide); Given the relative distance from the M11 corridor and Haven gateway, transport costs and carbon emissions will likely become greater from the central part of the County to these areas. An implication of increasing road distances from source to use (i.e., from the central part of County to the periphery) would be to increase aggregate imports through existing transhipment facilities with associated costs of double-handling and carbon use.
Alternative (2) Dispersal or Extension as stand alone approaches
4.43 The hybrid of dispersal and extensions is our preferred approach because it provides the best of both worlds.
4.44 A dispersal approach which relies on new sites starting up, which generally take time, would be less deliverable. It also ignores the investment and efficiencies that operations from existing sites have. Further the site assessment process does tend to support the notion by respondents and whats stated in MPS1 that extensions would generally have lower levels of environmental impacts.
4.45 An extension approach alone, while supported by many respondents, would fail to adequately address the sustainability issues around mineral miles. Based on likely future patterns of supply, the miles to transport aggregate to areas of demand in the County would increase over the plan period with resulting increases in transport costs, carbon emissions and congestion of the highway network. While extensions may typically have less environmental impacts on a site by site basis what wasn't appreciated by some respondents was the potential for cumulative adverse effects of having so many existing sites operating in close proximity. This could impact particularly on those local communities in areas rich in mineral resource.
Essex County Council 27 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Policy Linkages
4.46 The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 2 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policy CS6 and CS10.
Question 2
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
28 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
5 Core Strategy Themes
Reducing Minerals Use
5.1 Minerals are a finite resource and it is therefore important to reduce the demand for primary minerals as far as possible, in order to conserve the remaining resource for future generations.
5.2 The efficient use of minerals reduces the overall demand. This is achieved by re-using materials, using secondary and recycled aggregate and avoiding over-ordering. There is potential for some material to be salvaged through de-construction, and for increased recycling of construction and demolition wastes. It is a facet of the wider mandate for 'sustainable construction' which encompasses design, energy and water consumption.
5.3 The relevant policy framework for consideration by the MPA includes MPS1 and PPS1 supplement: Planning and Climate Change. The current consultation on PPS1 (4) states that in providing for new infrastructure, places should be shaped to achieve lower carbon emissions and greater resilience to the impacts of climate change. The use of recycled materials with construction projects and other sustainable construction practices could contribute to this goal.
Nationally up to 18% of the 70m tonnes of 5.4 This is supported by the C&D waste produced annually is surplus requirement to produce Site Waste or over-ordered material - 'The Department Management Plans (5) by the for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory construction sector with the dual Reform' intent of improving materials resource efficiency and reducing fly-tipping. In addition, there are also other non-obligatory codes and standards which have been developed to influence mineral use in construction and design. These include the Building Research Establishment's BREEAM standards and Code for Sustainable Homes which specifically include the use or reuse of recycled materials. Some of these are being put into effect through District LDFs.
5.5 In the 2009 paper we sought ideas on how the MPA can best promote efficient mineral use in construction (Option 8). It was noted that the MPA does not regulate the use of minerals, only their extraction and management. It would therefore need to rely on the co-operation of different agencies; particularly Local Strategic Partners to encourage and promote reduction in design through sustainable procurement strategies. Having considered these we are now proposing to address the issue as follows below.
4 Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate 5 Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008 (SI 2008 no.314)
Essex County Council 29 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 3 National standards and initiatives That ECC, in partnership with our (refer MDD Contextual Baseline); Local Strategic Partners and other Public Sector Spend, and ECC's in agencies, promote sustainable particular, is significant. ECC's third construction practises, the efficient party spend is c£800m/year use of materials and incorporation (2006/07) or 25% of the £8bn total; of a proportion of re-used, recycled Approx. 200,000 tonnes of recycled or secondary aggregate in new aggregate is used each year on (6) projects. While this would be ECC projects . delivered, in part, through the development management process Sustainability Appraisal it also deliberately encompasses 5.6 The preferred option has a positive other non-regulatory initiatives i.e., effect across the majority of the procurement, education and web sustainability objectives. An alternative based resources to link supply of which promotes sustainable construction aggregate materials with demand above that required by national policy etc. has the potential to negatively impact Reason upon economic sustainability objectives.
Other local planning authorities in Contribution to Vision Essex are following the lead to 5.7 It is envisaged that sustainable promote sustainable construction construction practises would be the norm through policies in their LDFs. in 2028. The ECCs main role would be We're seeking to build on this while co-ordination of public sector agencies providing flexibility in involved in construction projects to implementation. deliver more sustainable practises. 'Quick wins' are envisaged through Government initiatives would assist over procurement. ECC has expressed this period are expected e.g., changes its commitment to explore to building construction standards. opportunities to purchase recycled Consultation Response materials in its Sustainable Procurement Strategy. In addition, 5.8 Respondees and workshop there are other public sector participants suggested the MPA could agencies in Essex that are promote sustainable construction significant project commissioning practices include procurement, bodies in their own right. A education, requirements to use recycled co-ordination of effort is seen as material, incentives and supplementary being central to effective spatial documents. The preferred approach planning (PPS12). (left) provides considerable flexibility to implement these (Ref: Further I&O Option 8, CS16 and DC23).
6 Estimated total based on aggregate use by departments within Essex in recent years
30 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
5.9 There are limited means available for the MPA to influence / control the reduction of mineral use other than promoting alternatives and consideration in design (e.g., procurement).
Alternative (1) Setting Higher Standards
5.10 A higher standard of sustainable construction (e.g., using one or more of the codes or standards referred to above) could be required in the MDD. Although the approach being promoted has the potential for 'quick wins' e.g., through public sector procurement it is acknowledged that gains could be greater or achieved sooner by setting higher standards in the MDD now. There is also the expectation such higher standards would become mandatory at the national level in due course. However, no compelling case as to what standards or codes need to be specified in Essex has come through consultation to date and as mentioned earlier there may be economic costs.
Alternative (2) Do Nothing Approach
5.11 It is also reasonable to consider taking the approach of doing nothing:
Strengths
As noted by many industry reps there is little the MPA can do itself to require sustainable construction measures. Reliance on national standards for sustainable construction may be a more direct approach than relying on an approach implemented through the planning system. National standards for sustainable construction have been raised in recent years and there is an expectation that this will continue which will result in gains without the need for the intervention by the MPA.
Weaknesses
We would not be taking any initiative to address sustainable construction sought in MPS1 and climate change in PPS1 supplements and this may be seen as being inconsistent with national policy; Fails to realise the many opportunities for sustainable construction, e.g., procurement, that could be seized through better co-operation of public sector agencies; Reliance on national initiatives may not provide solutions that are flexible enough to address local characteristics / circumstances e..g., the public sector arrangements in Essex are complex and solutions may be boosted by the co-ordination of a lead agency (i.e., MPA).
Policy Linkages
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 3 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policies CS1 & DM1.
Essex County Council 31 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Question 3
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
32 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
County Target for Aggregate Recycling
5.12 While we must still meet our apportionment for primary mineral extraction a way of limiting the use of aggregates dug from the ground is to increase the provision of recycled aggregates. Having a target for recycled aggregate could support the mineral supply hierarchy and, if set appropriately, would provide another incentive to view construction and demolition (C&D) waste as a resource. As such, we sought views in the Jan 2009 paper as to what we should, in the absence of a specific national or regional policy, set as our own target.
5.13 Assumptions about alternative materials (construction and demolition wastes) are set out in the national and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England (2005–2020). These suggest a figure of 117mt or 7.3mtpa for the East of England region. BRE (2009) provided a figure for the region of 10.32mt or 7.2mtpa when excavation wastes are excluded.
5.14 There are however two relevant targets for construction and demolition wastes to consider:
The re-use, recycling and other material recovery to a minimum of 70% by 2020 (7); Inert-landfill diversion of 90% of the 1,967,000tpa arisings in both Essex and Southend by 2031 (8).
5.15 With an estimated 14% of C&D wastes going to landfill we are already meeting the EU Waste Directive target. The recycling of aggregate makes a significant contribution towards this. Essex has sufficient current or potential aggregate recycling capacity from 25 existing static sites for processing up to 1.3mtpa (although this includes sites which are not currently operational) (9). This represents the potential for achieving a landfill diversion of approximately three-quarters of the C&D waste associated with the emerging WM2 target without regard to mobile plant recycling and the diversion of waste to other beneficial uses (e.g., exempt sites).
5.16 Just as there are uncertainties in setting targets there is also uncertainty in obtaining data on aggregate recycling and landfill disposal rates. The apparently high recycling capacity in Essex may indicate that a proportion of London's C&D waste stream is processed in Essex. However, the above figure for total recycling capacity within Essex includes sites that are non-operational at the current time. Also actual recycling production has been estimated to be considerably less than the apparent capacity (refer to the MDD Contextual Baseline report 2009 and update of 0.4mtpa in the 2008/09 AMR).
5.17 Figure 3 below forecasts the waste management routes for C&D in the context of the emerging targets referred to above. There appears to be a need to marginally reduce the quantity of waste going to inert landfills by 2031 if we were to meet the WM2 target. It is assumed that waste going to other beneficial uses will diminish to
7 EU Waste Directive (June 2008) Article 11b 8 Draft RSS Policy WM2 (derived from the BRE, 2009 report above) 9 WDD Capacity Gap Report 2010
Essex County Council 33 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
no more than 5% by 2012. This trend, based on Defra data for England, is thought to reflect the use of more efficient recycling technology and the tightening of regulations on other beneficial use e.g., exempt sites. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 are expected to play a role in this regard.
Figure 3 Potential Contribution of Aggregate Recycling to Landfill Diversion Targets
34 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 4 Sites and their capacity (10); To make provision for and maintain Outputs and assumptions about (11) a minimum of 1.4mtpa of recycling static and mobile capacity ; (12) / recovery capacity for construction C&D Arisings t. and demolition wastes from Aggregate recycling output and data dedicated and operational sites. collection difficulties (13).
Reason Sustainability Appraisal
Sets a tangible target figure which 5.18 The preferred option and is important to contribute to alternatives show a degree of similarity delivering the change in practises in their performance against the associated with the mineral supply sustainability objectives. The lack of a hierarchy (MPS1). The target spatial context leads to uncertainty provides the MDD with a degree of against a number of the objectives, flexibility to address the EU Waste which would be clarified through other Directive and what was intended to policies. become RSS Policy (i.e., WM2). Even if these targets do not become Contribution to Vision requirements they provide useful benchmarks for setting our target. 5.19 Setting a target was not reflected in the wording of the existing vision but Given the difference between the in all other respects it would be target and existing 'permitted' consistent with the vision and, in capacity it may not seem particular, seeking to maximise the challenging but sets a useful recycling of aggregates across the benchmark and need for County. monitoring. We would need to replenish temporary permissions for Consultation Responses recycling sites (e.g., quarries) as 5.20 Option 9 (FI&O 2009 paper) they expire. addressed an aspirational target. Most The target of 1.4mtpa assumes that of the 20 respondees supported it but by 2028 there is the need to provide there was less agreement as what it for 1,750,000mtpa of C&D waste should be. Most supported the 55% arisings with 10.5% landfilled or recycling option although some used in landfilling engineering, 5% mentioned that the EU target was more going to beneficial use and mobile relevant. The 35% of respondees units processing 10% of all recycled opposed to a target came from the aggregates. mineral industry with their concern being the insufficiency of existing data.
10 WDD Capacity Gap Compilation Report 2010 11 MDD: Contextual Baseline Report, ECC, January 2009 12 BRE 2009 East of England Construction and Demolition Waste Arisings – Final report 13 Annual Monitoring Report 2008/09
Essex County Council 35 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Variations to Preferred Approach 4
5.21 Given the uncertainties involved about adhering to an external target and the difficulties in obtaining accurate data on C&D recycling there are many plausible variations on the preferred option (above). These include:
Variations Comment
Providing for Southend-on-Sea's C&D Would only be a marginal increase to the waste stream. amount we need to plan for. Although the borough is not understood to have any static capacity it only makes up 3% of the total arisings in the East of England.
Discounting non-operational sites from May provide a more realistic capacity but the total aggregate recycling capacity would require more monitoring to of Essex determine each individual sites status. Potentially increases the need for capacity within Essex.
Assume aggregate recycling from May reduce the capacity we would need mobile plants is higher than the 10% to plan for. The CLG (2006) report assumed. suggested 19.8%. However, anecdotal evidence suggests the greater use of mobile plant in London may distort this figure and 10% may be more relevant to the context of Essex.
Consider making provision for higher The evidence behind what was to become C&D arisings based on different the emerging RSS i.e., WM2 is considered scenarios e.g., ERM (2007) presented to be more up to date and realistic. a worst case scenario for 'economic growth and housing' of up to almost 5mtpa by 2021.
Setting 'No Target' as an Alternative:
5.22 It would be reasonable alternative to not set any target for Essex at this stage of the MDD process and await the outcome of emerging policy and whether or how they are adopted.
Strengths
Avoids possible future costs of reviewing target; Avoids issues associated with accuracy of the baseline evidence particularly given the difficulties in obtaining a representative sample of survey returns; The most important factor to consider may be actual annual production rather than total permitted aggregate recycling capacity which the MPA has no direct control over.
Weaknesses
36 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Without any target there is a lack of incentive to drive waste up the hierarchy; Government guidance encourages the LDF process to be flexible (PPS12) and therefore there is merit in considering a target now regardless of what national policy or requirements emerge as well as the potential uncertainty with data; Avoiding setting a target does not move the discussion beyond the Issues and Options consultation which many suggested was desirable (see responses above).
Policy Linkages
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 4 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policy CS3.
Question 4
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
Essex County Council 37 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Safeguarding for Mineral Deposits
5.23 In order to ensure long-term security of supply and address competing demands on land-use,it is necessary to safeguard proven minerals resources. The identification and mapping of all mineral resources of potential future economic or conservation value is required under MPS1. However, there is no presumption that such resources will ever be worked. The British Geological Society paper 'Guide for Mineral Safeguarding in England' provides a best practise explanation of how this should occur.
5.24 Essex has the brickearth consultation area in the Mineral Local Plan (ref pg 79). However, the ubiquitous nature of sand and gravel in the County was sufficient reason not to previously consider delineating the sand and gravel resource within a consultation area (e.g. MIN4 of the Structure Plan). Government policy and the advice of bodies such as BGS has moved on and we have needed to re-consider our previous stance.
5.25 In the Further Issues and Options paper we considered the safeguarding of brickearth, brick clay, chalk and sand and gravel deposits as shown on Map 3. The mapping of such deposits is to be based on the mapping BGS has developed specifically for use in development plan preparation and considers are deposits of current or potential economic interest. The extent of these deposits are indicated schematically in the map below.
5.26 In 2007 targeted consultation with the mineral industry was carried out. It suggested the following quality and quantity of sand and gravel deposit would be capable of being economically worked:
There is a minimum of 3 ha of the resource; The average thickness of deposit is 1 metre or more; The ratio of overburden to sand and gravel is less than 3:1; The proportion of fines (particles passing 1/16mm mesh) is less than 40%; The deposit is laying within 25 metres of the surface.
5.27 A separate approach was taken for chalk, brickearth and brick clay, where prior extraction should be considered where development overlies a potentially workable deposit. In the 2009 paper we also sought to protect areas of active and permitted working from the encroachment of incompatible development.
38 Essex County Council Map 3 Mineral Resources Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 39 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
BGS Mineral Resources Mapping: Preferred Approach 5 Scale 1:100,000. MLP Brickearth Consultation Area The 'mineral safeguarding area' Consultation exercise with mineral would be broadly based on the industry by engineering geology resources shown on Map 3 above. consultants. The MPA would consider prior Permitted development data (10 out extraction as a windfall before of 12 districts in Essex). There alternative development occurs on were 20 sites in 2006, 9 sites in sites greater than 5ha for sand and 2007 and 12 sites in 2008 greater gravel, 3ha for chalk and greater than 5ha. Implies less than 1% of than a single residential curtilage for all development proposals need any brickearth or brick clay. The consideration although more applicant would be expected to numerous than a 10ha selection. provide information to determine what quality and quantity of deposit Sustainability Appraisal would be capable of being economically worked (as per criteria 5.28 The lack of a defined spatial above). context leads to uncertainty but may be clarified through application of other plan The MPA would also oppose policies. The preferred approach is likely incompatible development within to have significantly positive impacts on 250m of a permitted and/or promotion of the minerals supply preferred mineral allocation site. hierarchy and sustainable use of minerals, however there may be Reasons negative impacts on economic development. It is consistent with Government policy (e.g., MPS1) and practical in Contribution to Vision the sense that it builds on lessons learnt from safeguarding brick-earth 5.29 Safeguarding is considered to be in the MLP. As sand and gravel is an integral component of the overall widespread, safeguarding could vision for mineral development in Essex. incur more costs and delays on alternative development. As such, Consultation Response we would depart from BGS advice and consider only the largest 5.30 A majority (77%) of respondees developments for prior extraction. agreed with the approach set out to For sand and gravel a figure of 5ha defining MSA boundaries (based on the is considered an appropriate 'sieve' preferred approach above although the as it may represent a significant sand and gravel trigger was set higher mineral resource. Very few at 10ha). Several respondees developments are over 5ha in considered this approach to be Essex. Setting a distance of 250m inconsistent with national policy. Almost is a pragmatic means of protecting all respondees (94%) agreed to the existing or potential workings from consultant's criteria above. Ref:'Further incompatible activities. I&O Options 13, 14, 15, 16and CS12'.
Evidence Base
40 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives Considered
5.31 To delineate the economic mineral resource around preferred sites only. The MPA would seek consideration of prior extraction before any incompatible development at such sites could occur and would oppose inappropriate development within 250m of a preferred mineral allocation site.
Strengths
Interpreted by several industry reps to better relate to 'proven' rather than implied mineral resources although this is not the view of the majority of respondees; Avoids existing mapping inaccuracies and inferences although this may not be significant as prior extraction would not be expected if on-site investigations do not confirm a viable resource - such geo-technical investigations would be most likely needed regardless; Unlikely to overlap with any urban areas or environmental designations as simply mapping the deposit from BGS sources. As there is no presumption that such resources will ever be worked such mapping does not carry any implication that this would be the case; May impose lower upfront costs on development or complications on the project management of construction by virtue that a significantly lesser area of mineral resource would be safeguarded - but this would be at the expense of missed opportunities (see below).
Weaknesses
Safeguarding existing and active mineral workings is already done (Structure Plan MIN4). The change in national policy with MPS1 was to avoid a narrow definition to just mineral sites needed to make up an apportionment; Contrary to BGS advice in the 'Guide for Mineral Safeguarding in England'; May miss real opportunities for prior extraction beyond preferred sites which would otherwise require extensive investigation works to define now and which is beyond the scope of defining MSAs; Missed opportunities for prior extraction not only allow mineral resources to be wasted (sterilised) but also result in the need for aggregate to be bought in from elsewhere.
Policy Linkages
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 5 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policies CS4 & DM6.
Question 5
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
Essex County Council 41 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Safeguarding Transhipment Sites
5.32 Essex has no deposits of hard rock, and therefore relies on imported supplies. These imports constitute a significant proportion of aggregates used in the County. Most of the material comes from the East Midlands and South West regions and its importation contributes to the existing mineral infrastructure e.g. rail depots serving the south and west of the County. We also recognise that some indigenous aggregate will continue to be used in other markets; particularly London's.
5.33 Safeguarding existing transhipment facilities is the existing policy of MLP6. The continued requirement for safeguarding existing, planned and potential rail heads, wharfage and associated storage, handling and processing facilities is set out in MPS1. This includes both Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSA) for the mineral resource itself and Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) that extend around mineral resources and infrastructure. These need to be reflected in proposal maps of District or Borough LDFs. Other development proposals, that might constrain future uses for these purposes, should not normally be permitted. In the 2009 paper we sought views on how to implement these provisions.
42 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 6 The location and role of the The MPA is looking to safeguard the transhipment sites (MDD: rail heads and wharfage facilities of Contextual Baseline Report). Chelmsford, Marks Tey, Harlow Mill, Site boundaries and detail of Port of Harwich and, while extraction specific safeguarded sites are set continues, Fingringhoe. out in Chapter 10. A 250m MCA distance is based on When proposals for other the Statement of Community development would result in the Involvement standard for direct above facilities being lost the neighbour notification . applicants will be required to demonstrate that these sites no Sustainability Appraisal longer meet the needs of the aggregates industry or there are 5.34 The preferred approach is likely appropriate alternative facilities to have significantly positive effects on available / or ones that can be made safeguarding air quality, minimising available. greenhouse gas emissions, economic development and promotion of Fingringhoe is to be safeguarded for sustainable transport. the life of the permitted reserve. Once permitted reserves are Contribution to Vision exhausted the site is no longer to 5.35 The need to safeguard be safeguarded for this use because transshipment sites is clearly articulated of poor road servicing. in the vision. It is also proposed that proposals Consultation Responses for other development within 250m of these rail heads and wharfage 5.36 There was overwhelming support facilities should demonstrate that for the MPA to take a stance against they would not prejudice or be other development that might prejudice prejudiced by those facilities. existing transshipment facilities (from 18 respondees in 2005). Debate in 2009 Reason (14 respondees) centred on the Retaining existing rail heads, safeguarding of additional transhipment wharfage and associated storage, facilities. Fingringhoe wharf was the handling and processing facilities most common facility noted both by and making provision for new those for and against the suggested facilities, where necessary, is safeguarding. Several respondees considered vital to secure the long wished to safeguard wharfs outside the distance movement of minerals. Plan area. Another noted that more Given the proximity of London, a widespread safeguarding accords with large consumer, it is inevitable that MPS1. This is dealt with in the aggregates produced in Essex will subsequent section. There was general also serve this market and beyond. support (21 respondees) for a 250m Indeed this aspect forms part of the MCA around these facilities. Further I&O future demand modelling that feeds Option 19 & 20; CS18(b). into the apportionment.
Essex County Council 43 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives Considered
5.37 Existing rail heads and wharfage are considered to be of strategic importance for the maintenance of existing mineral infrastructure for the supply of aggregates needed in Essex. As such, their safeguarding needs to be continued to prevent their conversion to other uses, in the possibility of such proposals for other development being made. Such a possibility is not unrealistic given development pressures experienced in recent years, the general scarcity of land particularly for sites located in town centres and the Governments commitment for new development to be focused in existing centres (14). It is not considered a reasonable alternative to safeguard our existing mineral transhipment infrastructure as the consequences could be significant and irreversible.
5.38 No other suitable (future) sites for establishing rail depots have come forward. This may be an indication of the difficulty of finding such sites given the demanding criteria that would need to be fulfilled. The issue around whether to safeguard the wharf at Fingringhoe is dealt with in Chapter 10.
Policy Linkages
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 6 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policy CS5 and DM12.
Question 6
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
14 CLG's Planning for Town Centres - Guidance 2009 in support of PPS4
44 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Safeguarding Secondary Processing facilities’
5.39 The future growth and development of Essex will require considerable quantities of concrete and asphalt.
5.40 Asphalt is a critical product particularly for constructing and maintaining the road network. In addition, pavements, airport runways, school playgrounds, car parks, most footpaths or cycleways, and other similar structures are based on asphalt.
5.41 Concrete is used in a widespread manner across the construction sector including foundations, walls, floors, roofs and partitions of buildings, as well as bridges, power stations and many other kinds of physical structures. It has been described as second only to water as the most consumed substance on the planet (15).
5.42 Government guidance promotes the appropriate safeguarding of facilities that produce or manufacture these products (MPS1). As with transhipment facilities safeguarded sites need to be reflected as allocations in District LDFs. However, there are considerably more secondary processing facilities compared to transhipment sites and there has not been any past policy on safeguarding them within Essex. Many, but not all, are located on active mineral sites. In the 2009 paper we sought views on how to implement these provisions by considering how we could differentiate between what constitutes 'strategic' and 'non-strategic' facilities.
15 Mineral Product Association, Summer 10, Issue 2
Essex County Council 45 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 7 Known concrete, mortar and asphalt While the MPA supports an facilities are listed in the Contextual approach of safeguarding any future baseline report (Appendix D). secondary processing facilities Limited consultation with industry considered to be of strategic representatives for asphalt plants importance and not otherwise located outside mineral / safeguarded at a mineral or transshipment sites. transhipment site. It is considered that there are no additional sites Sustainability Appraisal which warrant site specific 5.43 The lack of a defined spatial provision. Non-strategic sites would context leads to uncertainty against a be addressed through criteria based number of the objectives but would be policies and not specifically clarified through the application of other safeguarded. plan policies. Reason Contribution to Vision There are at least six asphalt plants 5.44 Strategic secondary processing widely located in Essex. Only two facilities would be safeguarded. (Essex Regiment Way and Suttons Wharf) are located outside existing Consultation mineral or transhipment sites and have permanent planning 5.45 The 2009 paper sought views on permission. Although undoubtedly what constitutes a strategic secondary important they are small scale processing plant. No respondee 'collection based systems' which are disagreed with safeguarding such unlikely to serve or meet the long facilities per se. Most supported some term strategic needs of critical sort form of cut off to avoid the need to service delivery or infrastructural safeguard all facilities although one rep. projects. Identification of non supported the notion of safeguarding all strategic sites are to be left to the facilities. market. 5.46 Criteria suggested included There are 24 concrete batching or functional route hierarchy, environmental mortar plants identified. Many are acceptability, co-location with associated located beyond mineral sites. The facilities (including transshipment sites), numbers involved do not suggest and proximity to markets, efficiency and that any individual kit is critical in its viability among others. (16) own right. In addition, most have permanent planning permission and are physically re-locatable.
Any mineral related facilities at active quarry sites will benefit from safeguarding by virtue of the stance to safeguard the mineral working.
16 Further I&O Option 24.
46 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives Considered
5.47 Rather than differentiating between secondary processing facilities that could be strategic - safeguard all known secondary processing facilities on a site by site basis.
Strengths
National policy in MPS1 does not discriminate between what is strategic or not; Some secondary processing facilities located on mineral sites may be of strategic importance and would benefit from being safeguarding regardless of whether it continues to be associated with active mineral working.
Weaknesses
5.48 Sites at quarries exist by virtue of the temporary mineral permission utilising the mineral at the site. For facilities associated with secondary processing to extend after the expiry of the time mineral planning permission would:
In the retention of an incongruous industrial development in the countryside; Extend the length of impacts on local communities and potentially conflict with a site's restoration scheme.
Policy Linkages
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 7 are developed further in Chapter 6, ref: Policy CS5 and DM7.
Question 7
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
Essex County Council 47 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Landbank
5.49 Landbanks are mechanisms for securing and maintaining mineral supplies at the County level. They work by reflecting the time taken to obtain planning permissions and bring sites into production. Landbanks are also a critical indicator for deciding when new permissions for extraction are needed.
5.50 MPS1 sets out that the landbank for sand and gravel reserves should be at least 7 years. At the time of the Further Issues and Options paper Essex's landbank was 10.2 years (base date of 31 December 2007). Despite sales having fallen due to the recession reserves have also fallen quite sharply due to a reassessment at 2 sites. The combined landbank for Essex, Southend and Thurrock stands at 8.6 years (base date 31 December 2008).
5.51 It has been the intention (refer to the Further Issues and Options 2009) of the MPA to set policies in the MDD to maintain and monitor the landbanks for the respective minerals of land won sand and gravel; silica sand and brick clay. This is to ensure that the respective land-banks do not fall below their required levels and do not result in an over supply of minerals contrary to the minerals supply hierarchy.
5.52 Aspects around the approach to these landbank policies have been the subject of consultation in both December 2005 and January 2009. These included:
What extent the MDD should be reviewed if triggered by the landbank indicator; Whether further planning permissions be allowed if the landbank is above 14 years; Whether further planning permissions be allowed unless the landbank is below 7 years; If the landbank should include an allowance based on the likelihood of windfall sites coming forward; Whether the sand and gravel landbank should be based on the whole of the County; Whether a single landbank for sands and gravels be maintained or separate landbanks for concreting aggregates and building/ soft sands? Whether resources should be deducted from the actual landbank to arrive at a real landbank; If the landbank should include a separate allowance identifying dormant sites.
5.53 National guidance for silica sand and brick clay specifies the respective minimum sizes for such landbanks (at least 10 and 25 years respectively) based on the capacity of the mineral processing facilities and relevant sites. Additional resources have been identified as being needed at both Martells and Bulmer Brickworks as discussed in the spatial strategy section.
48 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 8 Sand and gravel reserve and To maintain a single County-wide production trends are set out in the land-bank of at least 7 years for MDD: Contextual Baseline Report, sand and gravel based on the ECC, January 2009. County apportionment and site The latest figures for the sand and specific landbanks of 10 years for gravel landbank as at 31st Martells silica sand and 25 years for December 2008 equate to an Bulmers and Marks Tey brick clay estimated 8.6 years with reserves sites. of 39mt (EERAWP AMR 2008, 2010). To review the MDD either within 5 years of adoption as part of a “plan, Sustainability Appraisal monitor, manage” approach to planning or should the sand and 5.54 The preferred approach has gravel land-bank fall below 7 years; negligible impacts upon the majority of whichever comes sooner. It is not the sustainability objectives. intended to identify resources now Contribution to Vision to provide for a 7 year landbank beyond the plan period. 5.55 It is assumed that in making provision for sand and gravel the Reasons sub-regional apportionment will be A single landbank for the whole met. Brick clay and silica sand will sand and gravel resource was continue to be planned for. debated most recently at the EIP in Consultation Responses 1995 and continues to be viewed as the most practical way forward for 5.56 A majority of the 18 respondees the MDD. It would appear agreed that a partial review of the Plan unnecessary and impractical to should be based upon the sand and propose separate landbanks for gravel landbank only (Option 17). In different geographic areas or Option 18 a majority of 18 respondees distinguish building sand and (50%) favoured a trigger for when plan concreting aggregates. review should take place being the landbank falling below 7 years. A large There are good reasons for applying group (39%) alternatively favoured both triggers (5 year or 7 year reviewing the plan every 5 years from landbank) as indicators for Plan date of adoption. review for consistency with PPS12 (particularly relevant to aggregate 5.57 Also, reference is made to the recycling) and MPS1. discussion in the Issues and Options (2005) paper i.e., CS3 (a), (b), (c), (e), The length of the plan period is CS4, CS5 and CS6 (see Table 3 below). sufficient to enable the identification of further resources through monitoring should it be deemed necessary through future reviews of the MDD.
Essex County Council 49 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives Considered
5.58 To partially review the Plan based on land won sand and gravel only.
Strengths
Sand and gravel is the most important mineral resource in Essex; May save costs and delays associated with review based on additional triggers.
Weaknesses
Would not address any important changes to national or regional policy during the Plan period; Focus of any review would rest on primary extraction whereas we also need to be receptive to the whole minerals supply hierarchy.
5.59 Other issues were canvassed during the Issues and Options paper (2005) (e.g., CS3, CS4, CS5 and CS6). The MPA responded in detail in section 9 of the Further Issues and Options paper 2009 (refer: Managing and maintaining the aggregate land-bank). The following is a summary of what was covered.
Table 3 Consulted Alternatives - Landbank
Alternatives Reps - Comments ECC Response
Trigger against Mixed views between National guidance provides criteria permissions industry reps seeking rather than stipulating when a over & above a certainty and community land-bank is too large. Its considered 14 year reps suggesting a 14 year arbitrary to set a limit of 14 years land-bank. landbank is excessive. where no further planning permissions for mineral extraction would be given (ref: CS3A- 2005).
Presumption Mixed views between Similarly it is considered arbitrary to against industry reps seeking decline further planning permissions permissions certainty and community unless there is a danger the land-bank unless the reps suggesting no would drop below 7 years (ref: CS3B land-bank permissions are - 2005). Would also place an artificial could fall below necessary unless the restriction on mineral industry 7 years landbank falls below 7 investment. years.
Making Mixed views between Considered variable and problematic provision for community reps seeking based on historical trends. The windfalls in the for a windfall allowance presumption is that windfalls would landbank (ref: and industry reps saying only be granted in exceptional CS3E): it was too variable to circumstances as set out in the determine. section below on non-preferred sites.
50 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives Reps - Comments ECC Response
Creating Most reps supported a Given the widespread nature of the multiple single landbank. A few sand and gravel resource within the Landbanks: argued for a better County it would be arbitrary to break relationship between the land-bank down into discrete extraction and urban areas. The relationship between development. extraction and urban development is addressed through the spatial strategy.
Identifying Generally mixed views The quality of processing plants is separate between community reps sufficient to produce different sizes landbanks for saying its unnecessary and quality of sand etc. Many concreting and unfeasible and operators have invested in dry silo aggregates and mineral reps suggesting plants to dry the material out to make building/soft the difference in quality it saleable. sands: needs recognition.
Differentiating Mixture of views across There are no known constraints which between real reps. One rep noted would prevent permitted reserves and actual Essex's reliance on a few from being realised over the landbank landbanks large sites means period. production capacity is more relevant.
Differentiating Many community reps Dormant sites provide a relatively between favoured differentiating. small contribution to Essex's total Dormant Sites One noted the proportion supply. The process to remove each within the was too small. dormant site is complex and landbank (ref: expensive for the MPA. CS6C)
Policy Linkages
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 8 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policies CS7, CS8 & CS9.
Question 8
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
Essex County Council 51 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Biodiversity and Mineral Site After-Use
5.60 The legacy or after-use of mineral extraction at a site presents opportunities that in many instances would not otherwise be realisable. In the past mineral workings needed to demonstrate that they could ensure good restoration and many sites were returned to their previous uses such as agriculture. The agricultural value of land prior to mineral extraction continues to remain relevant for determining after-use (refer to protection of versatile soils in PPS7). Also, many operators in Essex are continuing to propose it as their predominant after-use.
5.61 However, there is now recognition that reclaimed mineral sites can have multi-functional benefits. These include a wide range of environmental enhancements. This latter aspect is based on advancements to our understanding of the economic value of ecosystem services (e.g., Essex Rural Commission report 2009).
5.62 Given that through the site allocations approximately 700ha of land becomes available there is the potential for mineral site after-use to contribute significantly to relevant targets sought in Essex e.g.,
UK Biodiversity Action Plan; ECC's commitment to delivering these targets is enshrined by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act duty (s40); National Indicator 197 and Local Sites (Improved Local Biodiversity – proportion of Local Sites where active conservation management is being achieved); Targets in relevant green infrastructure initiatives.
5.63 Taking 18% of the East of England Biodiversity Forum's priority BAP habitat figure would imply a County provision of almost 1000ha of total new habitat is needed from all sources by 2020.
5.64 Assessing after-use of mineral sites is usually dealt with at the application stage. Nevertheless, planning for mineral sites offers an ideal opportunity to provide a strategic steer. In respect of habitat creation, evidence suggests that the creation of large new inland habitats is better as opposed to multiple smaller habitats. These would build upon our existing green infrastructure base (potentially linking fragmented habitats and providing passive recreation) and would assist us in adapting to climate change. Flexibility would be retained for other aftercare uses based on their merits. In doing so links can be made to ‘key spatial priorities’ for the County and their possible delivery through well planned restoration and aftercare.
5.65 Previously (2005) we asked you what importance you considered biodiversity was as the after-use of a site. Then in the Jan 2009 paper we asked you to consider more specifically how this could be addressed e.g., building on existing evidence and survey information, adopting a more strategic approach such as Living Landscapes or focusing on developing PROWs. Mineral site phasing of working and restoration is addressed in a subsequent chapter.
52 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 9 Total area of preferred site To provide for multi-functionality in allocations amounts to 700ha. after-use schemes while achieving 600ha are composed of Grade 1 or a minimum 200ha of UK BAP 2 soils. priority habitat creation comprising: Statistics on designations, sites for biodiversity, green infrastructure, New large, terrestrial habitats priority habitats and species in Essex; (Contextual Baseline). Biodiversity enhancement at a Appendix A: Biodiversity Paper. site specific level for other / smaller sites and/or Sustainability Appraisal Contributions to support the restoration / management of 5.66 The preferred approach accords remote sites in proximity to a well with the majority of the sustainability proposal e.g., LoWS etc. objectives. However, alternative options are likely to have more positive effects Reasons on the protection of soils and opportunities for economic development. In Essex many of our preferred sites are located on versatile soils and Contribution to Vision this has to be taken into account alongside other sustainability 5.67 Its envisaged that there will be a considerations. However, the shift away from purely agricultural after-care arrangements for all new after-use to enhancement by means of sites provide some opportunities for amenity use, biodiversity and public habitat creation and some sites access. could provide larger inland areas of Consultation priority habitats. Large sites are more robust and less sensitive to 5.68 In 2005, 91% supported damage from pollution, non-native biodiversity enhancement and landscape species and disturbance; and they reinforcement - 63% as an overriding generally support higher numbers priority. 86% supported restoring of scarce species. versatile soils back to agricultural use. If soils weren't versatile then 53% In striving to meet the habitat considered agriculture a lower priority. creation target, restoration will be There were mixed views on whether informed by up to date landscape community benefits be focused at the and biodiversity survey local or regional level (Ref: CS14, CS15, information. DC1, DC2, DC3, DC4 and DC6). There are now a range of 5.69 The preference (Option 26, 2009) mechanisms to support the long was to ensure applications draw from term management of sites including landscape and biodiversity survey Natural England's Environmental information. The ‘Living Landscape’ Stewardship Scheme (ESS). approach was also supported though some noted its lack of definition and support from national or regional policy.
Essex County Council 53 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
5.70 Agriculture as an after-use and the protection of soil versatility (refer to Mineral Working and Restoration section) remains important- especially within the arable countryside of Essex. While generally we expect that sites on Grade 1 and 2 land are retained in agricultural after-use the status quo is no longer considered a reasonable alternative (refer also to the section on Health and Environmental Protection). Rather a step change on how after-use is prioritised is considered necessary to recognise the:
Significant loss of habitats and species across Essex in recent history; Strong mandate (i.e., Government policy) for the enhancement of biodiversity and adaption to climate change; and Support from many stakeholders for biodiversity (see above).
5.71 It is felt that without the setting of an ambitious target this change will not be achieved. Other potential after-uses e.g., leisure and recreation facilities, are also possible on a case by case basis but it is not intended to give them any specific preference within the MDD. Active leisure and recreation facilities are beyond the jurisdiction of the MPA to provide as it would require supporting policy and separate planning permission from the district authority.
5.72 Along with the prospect of other uses we are suggesting setting an achievable target for habitat restoration and enhancement through after-use schemes. Along with any land thats devoted for biodiversity there will be costs associated with its long term management. Its not expected that this will be a significant weakness of the preferred approach above. These can be addressed including recourse to the ESS e.g., the High Level or second tier Entry Level Scheme and use of volunteers including friendship groups and NGOs etc.
Alternative (1): 'Living Landscape' approach
5.73 An alternative explored in the Further Issue and Option paper was implementing a Living Landscape approach. Living Landscapes is an initiative by the Wildlife Trusts. In Essex it involves mapping 80 Living Landscape areas across Essex with the aim of bringing these fragmented landscapes back to life.
Strengths
Could contribute in a meaningful way to re-connecting habitats and a variety of biodiversity and recreational landscape; Links with Local Area Agreement's (LAA) Local Indicator 10.1 – Progressing the Living Landscapes vision – the number of Living Landscapes Areas with a Management Vision; Enjoys a considerable level of local support.
54 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Weaknesses
Is not specifically supported by national planning policy; Links between Living Landscape and the LAA process are likely to change during the course of the MDD; The correlation between suggested mineral sites and Living Landscape areas is mixed.
Alternative (2): General Habitat Restoration and Enhancement
5.74 Another approach would be to generally prioritise habitat restoration and enhancement on a case by case basis. No specific target or direct link with other national or local initiatives is made.
Strengths
Provides flexibility in what habitat restoration is undertaken and achieved; Could contribute to re-connecting habitats and a variety of biodiversity targets.
Weaknesses
Misses an opportunity for more strategic 'spatial planning' and integration with biodiversity targets; Does not prioritise or distinguish between different habitats and therefore underrepresented habitats may be ignored; Difficult to monitor success of the approach and its wider contribution to goals for improving biodiversity.
5.75 Policy Linkages
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 9 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policy CS11.
Question 9
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
Essex County Council 55 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
6 Generic Development Non-Preferred Sites/Windfalls Management Approaches
6.1 As stated earlier, under Primary Spatial options, there is not a reasonable alternative to continuing with a plan-led approach to primary mineral supply. In order that future extraction is focused on identified Preferred Sites, proposals for the extraction of sand and gravel elsewhere are generally to be resisted. Under the Minerals Local Plan (Policy MLP4) this has resulted in applications needing an 'over-riding justification'; usually as an exception to minerals policy.
6.2 The most common exceptions have been water reservoirs for agricultural need or borrow pits for engineering / infrastructural projects. In the future our new approach to safeguarding the sand and gravel resource may also yield a new type of proposal - prior-extraction to avoid sterilising a mineral resource.
6.3 There has been a trend over time for agricultural reservoirs to become slightly more frequent and larger in size as shown by the graph below. Windfalls have become more prevalent towards the end of a plan period. Further it is recognised that water management is challenging in Essex and with the climate anticipated to be drier, especially in summer, the demand for water storage will increase, as water resources are stressed.
Figure 4 Windfall Sites Granted Planning Permission 1980-2010
6.4 Not-withstanding this, the trend has raised understandable concerns by the community about the overall policy stance to windfalls. There is also concern about the lack of an obligation for developers to adhere to the proposed cropping regime or make use of the agricultural reservoir once excavation is complete.
6.5 As such, we asked in Jan 2009 upon what basis or circumstances we might consider windfalls; whether we stick to our existing presumption against them or whether appropriate policy criteria could be drawn up.
56 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 10 6.6 Tonnages, trends and comparison A general presumption against between the different windfall types. non-preferred sites unless there is Information on large scale infrastructure either insufficient reserves in the projects supplemented by relevant land-bank or some other over-riding consultation with stakeholders e.g., justification. The proposal would Highways Agency, Environment Agency, also have to be environmentally water and sewerage companies). Ref: acceptable. This is not intended to MDD: Baseline '09. apply to windfalls associated with prior extraction of non-mineral Sustainability Appraisal development. 6.7 The preferred approach is viewed Reason as the most sustainable long term. Whilst mineral sites may be more The need to maintain a plan-led sustainably located when assessed on approach and provide certainty for a site by site basis, it will be harder to local communities in respect of assess long term cumulative effects of mineral development remains the distribution of sites on a windfall paramount. That is what the wider basis. community expects. Contribution to Vision The MPA considers that its two 'calls for sites' to date for the MDD has 6.8 The vision refers to providing given sufficient opportunity for certainty as to how 'windfall' sites are consideration of future farming determined. needs (including the impacts of Formal Consultation Responses climate change) and for relevant reservoir proposals to come 6.9 Only 28% of respondees favoured forward. Rather than seeking making criteria based policy exceptions. additional water storage for farming Windfalls were perceived by this group the focus should be on more as being low impact and providing sustainable cropping patterns. The significant benefits besides additional MPA will therefore continue to be sand and gravel (Option 7- 2009). 44% stringent in respect of its of respondees favoured maintaining the assessment of applications for existing approach of development windfalls and where permitted would primarily driven by allocations as did a seek to restrict their use for other majority back in 2005 (CS 3(d) and purposes. Windfalls for prior CS7). 28% of respondees favoured a extraction associated with hybrid approach primarily for reasons of alternative development will be flexibility and ensuring sites continue to assessed on their merits as its the come forward. intent of the preferred approach to safeguarding to avoid mineral 6.10 Most respondees, although sterilisation. mineral reps were notably more divided, expected the MPA to restrict the use of agricultural reservoirs for alternative purposes (DC5 - 2005).
Essex County Council 57 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternative Approach Considered
6.11 Adopt appropriate criteria for borrow pits, agricultural reservoirs and prior extraction (as set out below) to allow assessment of future sites for minerals extraction and processing etc. Circumstances to consider for the acceptability of each type of application (in addition to environmental acceptability) are also listed:
6.12 Borrow Pits: Evidence of infrastructure need, absence of an existing quarry in close proximity and alignment with a relevant highway project.
6.13 Agricultural reservoirs: Agricultural need for crop type, design of reservoir to minimise evaporation, evidence of abstraction licence, absence of other existing available reservoirs and location on poorest quality soils.
6.14 Prior Extraction: Imposition of conditions to ensure that the site can be adequately restored to a satisfactory after-use should the main development be delayed or unimplemented.
Strengths
This would provide additional guidance to decision makers when applications for windfalls are being considered; Acknowledges what some perceive as inevitability regarding climate change spurring the demand for agricultural reservoir proposals; Acknowledges the lack of funding certainty around provision for infrastructural projects and potential difficulties of them coming forward now.
Weaknesses
The criteria based approach would weaken the general presumption against non-preferred sites and certainty for plan users; Lists of criteria are never going to be exhaustive and would, in particular, fail to adequately address cumulative effects; Difficulty to plan for and rely upon in terms of contributions to the apportionment of sand and gravel.
Policy Linkages:
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 10 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policy DM8.
Question 10
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
58 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Access and Transportation
6.15 The overall context to mineral transportation has been set out in previous sections. In particular, other sections of this document relate to:
Re-distributing sites to serve urban markets within Essex as set out in the Spatial Strategy to reduce the length, duration and number of movements; The land-bank and consequently needing to work to the same sand and gravel apportionment. Therefore there should be no increase in the overall number of vehicle movements within Essex during the plan period; Protecting wharfage and rail head facilities to enable long distance haulage while lessening the overall environmental impact of such transport as set out in the section - Safeguarding Transhipment Sites.
6.16 The focus of this section is on achieving a good transport connection at each mineral site. This is considered critical to the safe, efficient and environmentally sensitive movement of aggregate from mineral sites to their market destination, through optimising the highway network.
6.17 Despite encouragement for sustainable modes of transport in the policy framework (e.g. MPS1, Supplement to PPS1 and PPG13) the scope for moving aggregate by rail or water within Essex remains limited. The majority of aggregate is used within Essex and every district / borough is subject to growth. As such, we expect to remain reliant on the highway network during the MDD period and, as such, aggregate transport will continue to generate heavy lorry movements. None-the-less we asked both back in 2005 and last year whether there were measures we should be considering to better promote more sustainable modes of transport.
6.18 We are looking to minimise pressure on the highway network, traffic safety and congestion by optimising use of functional highway network. It may also be possible to reduce carbon emissions through the spatial strategy or encourage HGV fleets to convert to alternative fuel sources (e.g., bio-methane). We need to continue addressing the understandable concerns from communities regarding Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) when they could potentially end up living near to an active mineral site.
Essex County Council 59 60 Essex Minerals Map 4 Functional Route Hierarchy County Development Council Document: Preferred Approach Paper Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 11 MLP3 'Transportation' was the second most frequently applied The order of preference for (17) aggregate transportation from a policy within the MLP . mineral site would be: The functional route hierarchy is set out in the Essex Local Transport Transport, where in the public Plan 2006/ 2011 (refer to Map 4). interest, via rail or water. Road access via a short length Sustainability Appraisal of existing road to the main highway network. 6.19 The preferred option accords well with sustainability objectives, promoting Road access direct to the main sustainable transport, and reducing highway network. transport related emissions, nuisance Road access onto a secondary and costs. road before gaining access to the main highway network. Contribution to Vision
Reason 6.20 Its sought that primary extraction sites will have good transport Although we would like to maximise connections. Its also relevant to the modal share for water borne and minerals transportation being planned, rail freight, realistically aggregates located and operated having regard to will continue to need to be carried the need to mitigate the impacts of by road to serve the County climate change. markets. Having a clear policy direction on how this will occur is Consultation responses important to mitigate the adverse impacts by getting lorry traffic onto 6.21 Some helpful suggestions were appropriate routes as quickly as made to support more sustainable possible i.e., motorways, trunk modes of transport. Respondees to roads, strategic routes, main Option 21 reinforced the need to retain distributors, radial feeder and the existing route hierarchy. Many secondary distributors etc. This will noted the role of the route hierarchy in protect the safety and efficiency of protecting residential amenity. It is also the road network and minimise noted that the transportation of situations where lorries will directly aggregate through villages and local impact on local residential amenity. roads was typically the biggest concern of responses on many extraction proposals.(18)
17 AMR08/09 18 Ref: Further I&O: Option 21, CS18, DC21 and DC24.
Essex County Council 61 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives Considered
6.22 No reasonable alternatives to applying the functional route hierarchy have come forward. The use of the hierarchy can place a significant constraint on an operator's ability to extract sand and gravel as any deposit needs to be able to achieve an appropriate access to the highway network. The hierarchy was widely supported by consultees including the Highways Agency and Highway Authority.
6.23 Despite representations to fund new sustainable transport initiatives it is not something the MPA is effectively resourced to do. The MPA can only encourage initiatives through policy and advocacy including processes such as the Local Transport Plan, Essex Freight Strategy and DTLR freight grants. Other ideas put forward in representations are addressed elsewhere in this document. Sites which have specifically proposed rail or water transportation are addressed in the section on sites. Another concept to co-locate related mineral facilities is covered in the subsequent section on efficient use or primary materials.
Policy Linkages:
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 11 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policy DM11.
Question 11
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
62 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Health and Environmental Protection
Impact of Mineral Extraction and Associated Activities
6.24 Mineral extraction and processing is by its very nature an environmentally intrusive activity which can have a significant effect both on the environment and people who live, work and enjoy parts of Essex.
6.25 Mineral working can cause the alteration of topography, landscape and localised hydrology (e.g. creation or alteration of waterways), noise, dust, traffic, loss of tranquillity and visual amenity amongst others. This can result in severance and disruption of landscape and habitat loss, impacts on sites of nature conservation, archaeological and cultural heritage value and adverse amenity impacts on local host communities. Furthermore, due to the concentration of mineral resources in certain parts of the county, future working can also result in a build-up of impacts.
6.26 Many of Essex’s mineral extraction sites are understandably located some distance away from major centres of population. However, rural localities have important qualities in their own right including proximity to environmentally designated sites.
Mitigation Measures
6.27 The capacity of a local area to accommodate mineral working is heavily dependant upon the proximity of the development, the type of operations proposed, how they are planned for and mitigated, and the programme of implementation and monitoring.
6.28 Local amenity can be protected by minimising work in sensitive areas and creating ‘buffers’ between residents and minerals workings. The distance of 100m as adopted in the MLP remains applicable. Other important factors that can influence the acceptability of minerals extraction to local communities is the order in which the minerals are extracted (known as the ‘phasing’ of operations) and the choice of route, location and suitability of access arrangements for vehicles entering and leaving a site.
Other measures for mineral operators to include:
Undertaking activities (e.g., aggregate recycling and secondary processing) from inside a building; Creating bunds and using natural vegetation for screening the visual impact and potential noise nuisance; Setting appropriate operational hours and restricting the volume of vehicle movements Use of water bowsers to suppress dust during spells of dry weather; and Wheel washing and sheeting of lorries to prevent debris from being deposited on the road network.
Essex County Council 63 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Consultation and Agreements on Mitigation and Operational Aspects
6.29 In accordance with Government policy (PPS1, MPS1, MPS2) emphasis is placed on the importance of community involvement in the planning process. Mineral operators are encouraged to have effective consultation and liaison with the local community and stakeholders. This is both before planning applications are submitted and during the operation, restoration and aftercare of sites.
6.30 Addressing the above impacts can be addressed best through the operational aspects of quarry management when there have been successful negotiations between planning officers, the local community and the minerals industry. Agreements between the MPA and operator can be formalised through what are known as ‘section 106 agreements.’
Past consultation on Health and Environmental Protection
6.31 Past consultation (MDD: Development Control Policies paper 2005) canvassed the following issues:
Protection of designated sites; Protection of the countryside outside designated sites; Heritage conservation; Water; Noise; Operating hours; Dust; Light pollution; Stand off distances; Minerals transportation; Public rights of way and Aircraft safety.
6.32 In addition, the Further Issues & Options paper 2009 addressed:
Protection of Groundwater Requirements for Health Impact Assessments
6.33 It was also stated in the Further I&O paper that the MPA intended to produce a limited suite of Development policies against which all planning applications for mineral sites (including aggregate recycling and extraction) can be assessed.
64 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 12 Policy MLP13 (General Set out those environmental and Development Control) was the most health criteria that should be referred to policy from the MLP in assessed as part of any application determining applications during without specifying any weighting 08/09; between different aspects of the Specimen Planning Conditions environment. As such, specific (2009); mention would be given to: Development and Public Rights of Way: Advice note for developers Effects of noise, lighting and and development management emissions to air (e.g., dust); officers (2010). Landscape and countryside; Highway Network (including Sustainability Apprasil PROWs); 6.34 There is no significant difference Historic and archaeological between the preferred option and the resources; alternative option suggested, as the Water environment including themes highlighted are all largely flooding; governed by national policies. However Agricultural grades 1, 2 or 3a application of guidance at the local level Nature conservation particularly allows for issues not specifically ecological or wildlife highlighted within national guidance to designations; be promoted through the plan. Safeguarding around airports and aerodromes; Contribution to Vision Cumulative Impacts. 6.35 Residents will have certainty on Reason how their standard of amenity will be protected. Provides a basis for encouraging the best mineral schemes to Consultation Responses developers (both primary and recycling) and rejecting 6.36 A notable point was the number unacceptable planning applications. of residents and community groups who Identifies the issues that are most sought greater weight be given to the likely to be of concern over and protection of residential amenity. See (19) above any relevant national or also alternatives below in Table 4. regional policies and guidance. Also has regard to the location of sites that have come forward to date from previous 'call for sites'. More specific guidance may also be found in local plans and emerging LDFs for districts and boroughs.
19 Further I&O: Option 23 and 27, DC12, DC13, DC14, DC15, DC16, DC17, DC18, DC19, DC20, DC21, DC22 and DC25.
Essex County Council 65 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives Considered
6.37 A reasonable alternative would be not to set out any relevant policy. Development management and the consideration of applications would be informed by relevant national policy and guidance. As noted previously national planning and mineral policy is currently the subject of review by CLG.
Strengths
Avoids duplication at the local level and ensures flexibility as national and regional policies do not stand still; Its noted that this approach wouldn't be inconsistent with current national policy. PPS12 does not set out how development management matters are to be addressed while MPS2 addressed many of the issues discussed above. Some aspects like PROWs and designated sites of international and national importance are already protected; Any 'list' of factors to be taken into consideration in the development management process will inevitably not be exhaustive.
Weaknesses
Does not give decision makers any guidance on issues of general relevance to Essex. It is noted that local decision makers do place heavy reliance upon existing MLP13; May weaken the ability of Officers to undertake successful negotiations and decision makers to ensure appropriate levels of on-site mitigation; Provides little reassurance to a potentially affected community that their concerns would be addressed; The current CLG review focused on streamlining and greater local level responsibility suggests it may be better to continue to include provisions in the MDD where the issues are relevant at the local level as they are for health and environmental protection.
6.38 Various other alternatives were explored in the Issues and Options - Development Control paper (2005). Many of the aspects covered are addressed above (preferred approach) but consideration is given as to whether any are of sufficient importance in their own right to warrant a more detailed / prescriptive policy approach. A summarised outline of the issues is presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4 Consulted Alternatives - Health & Environmental Protection
Alternatives - DC Paper Reps - Comments ECC Response
For designated sites give Most conceded the No need to deviate from the proportionately greater need for consistency approach outlined in PPS9. weight to regional or with current Govt. local sites. Policy.
Specific protection to Mixture of different Most issues are likely to be countryside outside approaches suggested. site specific. Scope for MPA designated sites to produce guidance to
66 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives - DC Paper Reps - Comments ECC Response
improve standard of site screening and bunding.
Make sequential Mixed views between Unnecessary to specify as approach and / or industry reps seeking national policy and EIA Historic Landscape flexibility and community regulations are sufficient. Character Assessment seeking environmental part of a Heritage policy. protection.
Specifically address use Most sought high The SPZ1 is limited of water (including standards of water geographically in Essex. reservoirs) and impact of efficiency and protection Other matters can be flooding and of water quality / SPZ1 addressed (e.g., SFRA) groundwater. / flooding. without a separate policy on water.
More flexibility in Mixed views between These matters are better applying noise limits. industry reps seeking addressed on a case by case flexibility and community basis if not defined by national seeking strict noise policy. standards.
That operating hours be Most suggested this to Guidance is provided in the same at mineral be appropriate. specimen conditions but some sites. flexibility is still possible.
Criteria to assess Mixture of views, but Requiring dust action plans acceptability of dust general support for dust could be an information emissions / require dust action plans. requirement of an application. action plans.
Inclusion of lighting Most agreed and some Lighting should be addressed within DC policy. sought greater including scope to consider measures were needed the wider ramifications of light with many noting it was pollution. more than an issue of local amenity.
Should stand off Mixed views between A guide of 100m has served distances be required industry reps seeking well to date in MLP and and if so what. flexibility and community addresses many of the seeking to retain or impacts associated with noise, increase the 100m odour, dust and lighting. stand off distance.
Improve the approach to Mixture of different Making explicit reference to protecting PROWs views mainly around the PROW (above) with greater protection of accompanying provision of PROW (2005). ECC guidance to implement
Essex County Council 67 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives - DC Paper Reps - Comments ECC Response
Relatively few will suffice to inform the commented on the 2009 application process. approach (Option 26C).
Requiring a Health Mixed views between No evidence has been Impact Assessment community seeking HIA forthcoming of any unique or (HIA) on all applications and specific health effects to mineral interests Essex. National policy generally opposed. guidance and EIA requirements would suffice.
Incorporation of Aircraft Different ideas While reliance will continue to Safety in policy. suggested but reliance be had to Circular 1/2003 and on Circular 1/2003 a relevant local policy; the consistent theme. safeguarding of aerodromes should be explicitly referred to (above) given their strategic importance.
Policy Linkages:
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 12 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policies DM2, DM3, DM17, DM18, DM19 & DM20.
Question 12
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
68 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Efficient Use of Resources
6.39 In order to secure the long-term conservation of our remaining land-won resources in the future it is necessary to ‘get the best' out of using them now. This ensures we can minimise the requirement for new land won sand and gravel.
6.40 The Mineral Planning Authority is limited to the land use system and conditions it can require of operators to comply with. However, minerals planning can encourage the use of high quality minerals for the purposes for which they are most suitable. It also has the potential to encourage the efficient use of water at mineral sites. Relevant aspects which we have sought to canvass in previous consultations (specifically 2005) are set out in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Consulted Alternatives - Efficient Use of Resources
Issues Description
Processing and Employing processing and washing plant at all mineral washing plant extraction sites including windfalls encourages the efficient use of materials. Primary processing plant has been generally located at the majority of mineral extraction sites in Essex although this has been less often the case at windfall sites.
Off-site processing In the event that off-site processing is necessary what criteria facilities are relevant to assess the acceptability of such facilities. Where it has been deemed unacceptable to process material on-site the choice of an off-site facility will depend on a number of factors including proximity to the site of extraction.
Importation of When importation of non-indigenous materials is allowed at Non-Indigenous sites with primary processing plant. Typically non-indigenous Materials mineral importation has been excluded on new permissions to ensure there are no delays to quarry workings and subsequent restoration.
Use of Water Ensuring a proposal will make the most efficient use of water resources in minerals processing. Most operators recirculate used water when undertaking primary processing through lagoon systems at mineral sites. However, secondary processing also uses significant quantities of water. Some mineral operators are understood to have developed their own water efficiency targets in this regard.
Essex County Council 69 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Evidence Base Preferred Approach 13 Location of existing primary (20) To stipulate a presumption in the processing facilities ; MDD at all mineral sites: Importation is covered under Specimen Planning conditions; for primary processing and Importation of non-indigenous against non-indigenous materials has been justified on aggregate importation (except some mineral sites but never where it can be demonstrated greater than 33%. that there are exceptional circumstances or sustainability Sustainability Appraisal benefits) . 6.41 The preferred approach is likely Although the MPA encourages any to have positive effects on safeguarding water efficiency measures at air quality, minimising greenhouse gas individual mineral sites it will not emissions and promotion of sustainable make specific provision for this transport. matter. Contribution to Spatial Vision Reason 6.42 Requiring primary processing, Primary processing of aggregates allowing imported material and reducing allows use on higher value the demand on water resources are applications. Technological associated with the efficient use of improvements in recent years allow resources and minimising the impacts smaller and more mobile kit to be of climate change. However, importation brought even onto relatively small can also work against local resident's mineral sites. Encouraging such on certainty for how their standard of site processing reduces the number amenity will be protected. of lorry movements on the highway network. Consultation responses
Importation can increase vehicle 6.43 Most (72% of 18 total reps) movements and extend the overall supported on site processing (DC7A). life of a quarry. Restricting A few suggested it unnecessary if nearby importation gives clarity to the mineral facilities exist, noise and dust working programme, life of quarry, are acceptable or length of extraction and vehicle movements. would not be extended. There were differences (18 total reps) between the The Environment Agency is the lead mineral sector and others over the agency for regulating the taking and benefits and negatives of using use of water from rivers or non-indigenous material on a quarry site groundwater. (DC8). Most (17 total reps) were in favour of greater water efficiency. One noted re-circulation was already 90% efficient (DC15b).
20 MDD: Contextual baseline report
70 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives Considered: Importation
6.44 Reasons why on-site primary processing can be impractical or unnecessary were suggested by respondees. However, these do not amount to a case against making on-site processing the general approach.
6.45 The specific promotion of water efficiency is a reasonable alternative. However, given the dominant role of the EA and its permitting regime for water extraction it is not deemed that any significant benefits would be realisable.
6.46 Allowing for the importation of a small proportion of Non-Indigenous Materials is considered a reasonable alternative.
Strengths
Importation allows for the blending of materials to produce higher value products. It may also be able to address differences in types and qualities of sand and gravel products across the County. As there can be circumstances where it is demonstrated to be uneconomic to process material on-site, particularly at small windfall sites, some allowance may need to be made to allow these aggregates to be taken to another sites close by with existing primary processing plant. There have been instances where up to 33% importation has been allowed in proportion to indigenous extraction.
Weaknesses
6.47 Despite there being certain circumstances where importation has been allowed the general presumption should be against importation:
Restricting importation gives clarity to the working programme, life of quarry, and vehicle movements. It ensures that sites do not become de facto industrial operations which would have an incongruous impact upon the countryside. While there may be sustainability benefits importation should never be allowed to increase vehicle movements beyond what is acceptable or extend the overall life of a quarry.
Policy Linkages:
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 13 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policies DM4 & DM5
Question 13
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
Essex County Council 71 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Mineral Working and Restoration
6.48 Mineral working is a temporary land use but in the absence of careful site restoration it can result in permanent adverse impacts on the environment, dereliction and lost opportunities. Restoration covers any operations associated with the winning and working of minerals that are designed to return the land to an acceptable landform and after-use. It includes events that take place before and during mineral extraction (stripping and protection of soils) and operations after extraction up until an after-use is established on site (cultivating, fertilising, planting, draining and otherwise treating the land).
6.49 The progress of restoration determines the amount of disturbance at any one time. It also establishes the long-term potential of the land for a wide range of after-uses. That can benefit the local and / or wider community. In the past restoration of mineral sites to former levels was typical but this is becoming less common.
6.50 The ‘phasing’ of operations is an important factor influencing the acceptability of minerals extraction to local residents. It also reveals the initial success of the restoration scheme i.e., which aspects have worked and those that have been less successful.
6.51 MPG 7: Reclamation of Mineral Workings (date) remains relevant, however, the focus and some practices have changed since publication. Restoration and progressive working was canvassed in the Development Control paper (2005) including whether achievement of high level is desirable and factors to consider in achieving an appropriate level.
6.52 It is also important to ensure that the commencement and duration of extraction supports the overall spatial strategy. If sites in the County all came forward at the same time this would not ensure a steady supply across the plan period. Equally if sites in different parts of the County came forward at different times this could affect the ability to derive the benefits of dispersal e.g., minimising mineral miles.
72 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Snapshot of restoration practises at Preferred Approach 14 current mineral sites (MDD: Baseline '09); The release of sites would occur in Ancedotal evidence from the a co-ordinated manner across the mineral industry about obtaining County during the Plan period. inert waste material in Essex is mixed. What is known is that Final landform and sequence of applications for disposal of inert working are agreed at the start of a wastes are common and there is proposal. Progressive extraction likely to be a shortage of inert and restoration are to be required. landfill sites in the future (Waste Versatile soils should be maintained Capacity Compilation report or improved and provision made for 2010); the after-use and any measures to Site monitoring records. enhance the environment e.g., public access, beneficial biodiversity Sustainability Appraisal and geodiversity. The restoration level of sites will generally be 6.53 The Preferred Approach accords decided on a case-by-case basis well with the Sustainability Objectives. but must be sympathetic to Whilst there would be no impact in the surrounding landscape. Where inert short term, there would be measurable land-fill is needed it will be benefits in the medium term which would addressed through the WDD. subsequently increase in the long term.
Reason Contribution to Spatial Vision The co-ordination of the commencement and duration of 6.54 Restoration is integral to site sites would support the spatial selection and assessment of mineral strategy. extraction proposals.
Agreeing on the restoration scheme Consultation responses from the start allows for gradients 6.55 Of the 20 reps to DC3, 10 said and drainage to be incorporated into that the MPA should continue to seek the overall design. Maintaining restoration to former land levels, 7 said versatile soils on site is consistent no or not necessarily and 3 gave other with MPG7. Progressive restoration reasons including assessing it on a case will limit operational impacts and by case basis. In DC3B (19 reps in facilitate the earliest possible total), landscape was a dominant issue reclamation and realisation of any in deciding an appropriate restoration potential environmental benefits. level. Most respondees considered Low level restoration may be the progressive working and restoration to default position due to the difficulties be desirable although some mineral and costs in obtaining inert waste industry reps noted that there could be materials. Opportunities for practical constraints (DC4a). There were promoting geodiversity but need to predictable differences between industry have regard to local landscape. and community reps concerning whether a more stringent approach is needed to ensure progressive restoration (DC4b) Evidence Base and the need for bonds as a mechanism to achieve this (DC4c).
Essex County Council 73 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Alternatives Considered
6.56 Progressive restoration is generally considered to be desirable. Although reasons why progressive restoration can be impractical or unnecessary in certain circumstances were suggested by respondees during consultation these are considered to be exceptions. As such, there is not considered to be a reasonable alternative to insisting upon it in the MDD.
6.57 While it may be desirable to reinstate former land levels it is no longer always possible to ensure. The likelihood of low level restoration carries with it countryside and landscape impacts which will need to be addressed at the time an application is made. The requirement of bonds is not something the MPA views it can reasonably instigate given national guidance.
Policy Linkages:
The policy principles outlined in Preferred Approach 14 are developed further in Chapter 7, ref: Policies DM10, DM13, DM14, DM15 & DM16.
Question 14
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach set out in the above box? Please explain your answer.
74 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
7 Policies
7.1 Following the assessment of alternative approaches we have assessed the scope of policy subjects and topics that we believe are necessary to achieve our objectives. We consider that policies are needed on these matters to implement the approaches we've set out in this document.
7.2 There may be subjects or topics which you consider should either be covered by future planning policies, or which should be deleted from the lists presented. We want your views on whether or not you think the planning policies outlined below cover the correct topics and themes. To aid this consultation an indication of the key policy issues follows, grouped to indicate where a policy is considered necessary. However, it is not our intention at this stage to provide the final wording of the policies.
7.3 The relevant Preferred Approach (PA) numbers are listed after each suggested policy.
Efficient Use of Minerals / Promotion of the Mineral Supply Hierarchy
Reference: Objective 1
Core Strategy Policies CS1- Promoting sustainable construction practices should cover: through partnership with our Local Strategic Partners (PA3)
CS2- Establishing a network of strategic aggregate recycling sites in proximity to key centres for development and change - (PA1)
CS3- The setting of a target for aggregate recycling (PA4)
Development DM1- Setting out when sustainable construction Management policies practices should be considered and in respect of what should cover: development i.e., district level developments (PA3)
DM2 - Criteria for locating recycling aggregate facilities (PA12)
DM3 -Criteria for locating secondary processing facilities (PA12)
DM4 -Presumption against the importation of non-indigenous aggregate at each mineral site (PA13)
DM5 -Criteria for locating primary processing facilities at each mineral site (PA13)
Essex County Council 75 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Safeguarding mineral and non-mineral related facilities
Reference: Objective 2
Core Strategy Policies CS4 - The location and extent of Mineral Safeguarding should cover: Areas (PA5) There is a minimum of 3 ha of the resource; The average thickness of deposit is 1 metre or more; The ratio of overburden to sand and gravel is less than 3:1; The proportion of fines (particles passing 1/16mm mesh) is less than 40%; The deposit is laying within 25 metres of the surface.
CS5 - Protect relevant strategic facilities for mineral development (PA6 and PA7).
Development DM6 - Protecting mineral resources by setting out when Management policies the MPA would typically seek prior extraction before should cover: other development proceeds i.e., sites greater than 5ha for sand and gravel, 3ha for chalk and greater than a single residential curtilage for brickearth or brick clay (PA5).
DM7 -Protecting lawfully established facilities involved in the recycling, processing or manufacture of aggregate products by setting out when the MPA would typically object to a proposal that might compromise the operation (PA7).
Provision of an appropriate level of primary mineral supply
Reference: Objective 3
Core Strategy Policies CS6 -Allocating land according to the spatial strategy should cover: of dispersal and extensions (PA2)
CS7 - Maintaining a County wide landbank for sand and gravel that does not fall below the minimum of seven years (PA8)
76 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
CS8- Maintaining a site specific landbank of 10 years for silica sand and 25 years for brick clay (PA8)
CS9 - Review of the plan every five years (PA8)
Development DM8 - Presumption for preferred sites only unless its Management policies associated with the need to avoid mineral sterilisation should cover: - refer to safeguarding (PA10)
DM9 - For the MPA to require information about production and reserves.
DM10- Ensuring that commencement and duration of a permission for extraction in accordance with the spatial strategy and provides for a steady supply across the County during the plan period (PA14)
Achieving More Sustainable Transportation of Minerals
Reference: Objective 5
Core Strategy Policies CS10 -Allocating sites for extraction / recycling should cover: according to the spatial strategy (as above i.e., PA6)
Development DM11- Setting out a sequential approach for Management policies transportation with particular reference to the functional should cover: route hierarchy (PA11)
DM12- Protecting transhipment sites by setting out when the MPA would typically object to a proposal that might compromise the operation (PA6)
Restoration and After-Use
Reference: Objective 6
Core Strategy Policies CS11 - Promotion of after-uses that (PA9): should cover: Promote multi-functionality while providing for a minimum level of priority habitat creation (BAP); Protect versatile soils;
Essex County Council 77 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Mitigate the impacts of climate change (e.g., flood storage); Have other sustainability benefits e.g., enhanced accessibility (PROW), leisure and recreational uses -
Development DM13- To seek long term enhancement, have Management policies proposals addressed at earliest stage, address flooding should cover: / bird strike (PA14)
DM14- Restoration levels would be set having regard to availability of materials and need to restore and respect the landscape character and distinctiveness of individual places and areas - (PA14)
DM15- Minimum 5 year aftercare scheme, responsibilities for ongoing management of aftercare, benefits to local or wider community (PA14)
DM16- Progressive restoration with a detailed programme for working within the site including measures to protect versatile soils, existing public access arrangements and available supply of restoration material (PA14)
Protecting the Environment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts on Local Residential Amenity
Reference: Objective 4 and 7
Development DM17- Avoiding unacceptable effects on residents Management policies through adequate separation of sensitive land-uses should cover: from minerals development (PA12)
DM18- Encourage and support the establishment of Community Liaison Groups (PA12)
DM19- Ensure effects associated with visual, dust, lighting are mitigated etc (PA12)
DM20- Ensure the protection of designated sites, landscape and countryside, highway and PROW, historic and archaeological resources, geodiversity, water resources and versatile soils - (PA12)
78 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Question 15
Do you agree that these planning policy areas cover the correct topics and themes? Please explain your answer.
It is noted that ‘a planning authority may prepare Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) to provide greater details on the policies of its development plan documents' (PPS12, Paragraph 6.1).
7.4 It is necessary to have clear reasons for producing q supplementary planning document. We must be clear how a supplementary planning documents will add value to the assessment of development proposals. There are two forms a SPD could take:
A development brief which provides additional guidance for a specific geographical area or site(s). An issue based document which provides additional information on a specific theme. This type of supplementary planning document is not based on a specific physical location, but deals with a theme that is relevant to development across the entire authority.
Question 16
Do you consider there could be a specific need for a Supplementary Planning Document or Area Action Plan to expand on a particular issue in the MDD? Please explain your answer.
Essex County Council 79 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
8 Preferred Mineral Extraction Sites
Site Selection
8.1 This chapter sets out how the Mineral Planning Authority has gone about selecting the 'Preferred Sites' from all those suggested for future mineral extraction. It provides the full results of the site selection approach and gives further details of the issues to be addressed, and opportunities presented, by each of the selected 'Preferred sites'. Importantly, the chapter seeks your views on the methodology used and all the site selection outcomes.
8.2 The position in relation to existing and potential mineral transhipment sites is also addressed towards the end of this chapter.
8.3 Through this Minerals Development Document we need to identify sufficient mineral extraction sites to meet the County’s mineral needs to the year 2028.
8.4 In addition to the existing quarry sites which will continue into the plan period, there is need to find enough new extraction sites (including extensions to existing sites), to supply:
42.225 mt of sand and gravel reserves 0.237 mt of silica sand reserves at Martells Quarry 0.030 mt of brickclay reserves at Bulmer Brickworks
8.5 Following the Mineral Planning Authority's 'Call for Sites', forty-three potential sand and gravel extraction sites were suggested by the minerals industry and local landowners. These sites, in total, could supply in the region of 118 mt of sand and gravel.
8.6 Three potential silica sand extraction sites came forward, one of which has subsequently secured full planning permission. The remaining two sites could supply approximately 0.75 mt of silica sand.
8.7 One small brickclay extraction site at Bulmer brickworks was also submitted. This single site could supply around 0.03 mt of brickclay, sufficient for 25 years production at the brickworks.
8.8 Mineral extraction is, by its nature, a temporary use of land. The new extraction sites selected through this plan will take the place of existing extraction sites which have, or will come to the end of their working lives as the plan period progresses.
8.9 All extraction sites are required to be restored to beneficial use - in most cases, this is to agricultural use. Because of this, there is likely to be no net increase in the area of land devoted to active mineral extraction in the County as a result of this plan. The plan will, however, cause new areas of land to come into active mineral working, and there will be some re-distribution of mineral extraction activity across the County.
80 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
8.10 The overall volume of mineral traffic will not increase either as a result of this plan. On the contrary, the Core Strategy is seeking to locate future sites so that the number of miles travelled by mineral lorries is reduced. The sites selected should provide a better fit between where mineral is extracted (and processed), and where mineral is needed for future development.
8.11 The methodology used to select the 'Preferred Sites' from all those suggested is described below.
8.12 The outcome of the 'Call for Strategic Aggregate Recycling Sites' is addressed in Appendix A.
The Methodology
8.13 The site selection methodology was designed to deliver mineral extraction sites which would:
meet the overarching core strategy - that is, provide a dispersed spread of sites with an emphasis on extensions;
AND
be environmentally acceptable.
8.14 Government guidance (PPS12) makes it clear that the overarching core strategy should drive the site selection process, however, we need to be sure the sites chosen would not cause unacceptable harm to the environment, either individually, or in combination.
8.15 All suggested mineral extraction sites have been assessed using information from a wide range of sources. This has included input from internal and external specialists and consultants, input from statutory consultees (such as the Environment Agency, Natural England, English Heritage and District and Parish Councils) and input from over 3000 public representations received in response to all previous MDD: Issues and Options paper consultations.
8.16 The site selection methodology has comprised six stages:
STAGE 1: Assessment of each site against four 'Essential' criteria;
STAGE 2: Assessment of each site against a wide range of other Site Selection Criteria;
STAGE 3: Cross-checking and moderation of all site assessments / scores;
STAGE 4: Ranking of sites to identify the higher scoring sites which could provide a dispersed spread across the county;
STAGE 5: Assessment of the cumulative impacts of these higher scoring dispersed sites;
STAGE 6: Following Sustainability Appraisal, confirmation of the 'Preferred Sites' for inclusion in this document.
Essex County Council 81 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Further information on the STAGE 1 and STAGE 2 assessment criteria, and the scoring system, is provided below.
Stage 1
8.17 The four Essential Criteria at STAGE 1 were considered fundamental prerequisites for a mineral extraction site.
Table 6 STAGE 1 Criteria
Essential Criteria Requirement
Geology Sufficient geological site investigation and borehole evidence has been supplied by the Site Promoter to confirm the nature and quantity of the mineral resource and this has been independently verified by the MPA's geology consultant.
Highway, Rail or Water From the information provided by the Site connection Promoter, the Highway Authority / Highway Agency have been able to confirm that the site would be capable of achieving satisfactory access to the functional route hierarchy.
Where the Highway Authority / Agency have identified the need for significant road improvements, the Site Promoter has supplied sufficient further evidence to demonstrate this could be delivered.
Where mineral would be moved by rail or water, neither Network Rail or the Port Authority (as appropriate) has raised objection to the site.
Able to be worked (at least in From the information provided by the Site part) within the plan period Promoter (on anticipated start dates, life of site and access arrangements), and taking account of the other mineral extraction sites selected through this plan, it is feasible the site could be worked, at least in part, within the plan period.
Environmentally acceptable From information and consultation responses provided by key consultees, from the Habitat Regulations Assessment and from the Sustainability Appraisal, it is feasible the site could be worked without causing significant adverse impact to: an international or European designated site (RAMSAR, SPA, SAC);
82 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
an international and / or national BAP priority habitat or species; a nationally important historic environment designation or the environs thereof eg resulting in the permanent loss of a Listed Building or Scheduled Monument.
8.18 Any site which failed to meet the requirements of one or more of the Essential Criteria was not considered suitable as a 'Preferred Site'. Having said this, all sites were scored across the full range of STAGE 2 criteria (detailed below) to provide a comprehensive assessment of their merits, impacts or other potential issues.
Stage 2
8.19 At STAGE 2 sites were assessed against a wide range of other Site Selection Criteria, grouped under the following headings:
Mineral resource and timetable Planning history Landscape Ecology and Designations Historic Environment Agriculture Proximity to Sensitive Uses Water / Hydrology Traffic and Transportation Recreation Amenity and Pollution Restoration and After-use
8.20 Please refer to Appendix B for:
- full details of the criteria considered under each of these headings;
- a blank copy of the Site Assessment form;
8.21 Each site was allocated a score under each of the headings listed above. This score was based on a traffic-light scoring system, where:
Table 7 Traffic Light Scoring System
Colour Description Score
RED The impact / issue is so severe it could not be adequately 0 mitigated and it is considered the site should not proceed
AMBER 3 There is a major impact / issue which may be acceptable 1 (in most cases with substantial mitigation)
Essex County Council 83 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Colour Description Score
AMBER 2 There is a moderate impact / issue which may be 2 acceptable (in most cases with mitigation)
AMBER 1 There is a minor impact /issue which may be acceptable 3 (and may involve mitigation)
GREEN There is no impacts / issues OR impacts / issues are 4 considered insignificant
Stage 3
8.22 A total score was calculated by adding all the individual site scores together.
8.23 The criteria groups have been treated as having equal importance, with no additional weighting being given for any element ie recreation is as important as ecology; water issues as important as historic environment etc. It was recognised that ranking sites on this basis alone, however, would not deliver a dispersed spread of extraction sites; a fundamental requirement of the preferred core strategy.
Stage 4
8.24 With the relative shortage of sites to serve the western part of the County (including areas defined for significant future growth eg Harlow) it was considered necessary to show some preference for sites in this area. To achieve this, a further weighting of 6 additional points were awarded to sites in the west. All sites were then ranked according to their total scores with this weighting applied, and the highest scoring sand and gravel sites identified to supply the 42.225 mt of sand and gravel reserves required.
Stage 5
8.25 The highest scoring sites were then reviewed by the Highway Authority and by Essex County Council’s Historic Environment, Landscape and Ecology specialists to see if any unacceptable cumulative impacts would arise by these sites operating in combination.
8.26 The Preferred Sites would not all be worked at the same time. This would be environmentally unacceptable and the market for aggregate - both in terms of the demand for aggregate, and the operational supply of aggregate - would not support such an approach. Please see the 'Delivery and Monitoring' chapter for further information on the likely phasing and lifespan of the Preferred Sites.
Stage 6
8.27 The site assessment methodology and site selection results were reviewed and confirmed by the Sustainability Appraisal team before the list of Preferred Sites was finalised.
Your views on the Site Selection Methodology
84 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
8.28 An important purpose of this Preferred Approach consultation is to seek your views on the methodology that has been used to select the 'Preferred Sites'. This will be the main opportunity to influence the way future extraction sites are selected.
8.29 If you agree with the approach taken OR if you consider improvements could be made to the methodology OR if you believe an entirely different methodology should have been used, please let us know by answering the question below.
Question 17
Do you agree with the Site Selection Methodology? Please explain your answer. (Provide details of how you think the methodology might be improved OR suggest an alternative methodology that would achieve a more robust outcome).
Site Selection Outcomes
Statement 1
IMPORTANT: The Status of the Preferred Sites identified in this document
Please be aware that the sites selected as 'Preferred Sites' at this Preferred Approach stage may not remain as 'Preferred Sites' when the final version of the plan emerges at the Submission stage. Similarly, sites currently rejected could later be included as 'Preferred Sites'. This is because new information could emerge in response to this consultation which would require changes to be made to the way sites are assessed, or to individual site scores.
It is only when we have an Adopted plan - that is, after the Submission version of the document has been through Examination in Public and the Council has agreed to any changes required by the independent Planning Inspector - that complete certainty in the choice of Preferred Sites can be given.
8.30 Please refer to Appendix B to view copies of the completed Site Assessment forms for all the suggested mineral extraction sites.
8.31 A Summary Table showing the scores achieved by all sites (using the methodology previously described) has been included at the rear of this document. Sites are ranked in order by their total score with sand and gravel sites listed first. Sites which were not considered suitable following Stage 1 are listed at the end.
All sites fall into one of the following categories:
Higher scoring sites – These sites scored highest following STAGE 2 (in the range 51 to 41 points) and are selected as ‘Preferred Sites’; Lower scoring sites – These sites scored least well (41 points or fewer);
Essex County Council 85 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Stage 1 Fails – These sites were considered unable to meet one of more of the four Essential Criteria;
Table 8 below shows which sites fall within each category
Table 8 How Sites Scored
Higher Scoring Sites (Selected)
Ref no. Site Score Ext / NE / Central / New western site
(* with 6 point western
weighting applied)
A2 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall 47 Ext Central Airfield
A3 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall 46 Ext Central Airfield
A13 Fiveways Fruit Farm, 45 Ext NE Colchester Quarry, Stanway
A22 Lt Bullocks Farm, Gt & Lt 45 Ext Western* Canfield – Area A
A28 Tower Field, Ballast Quay, 44 Ext NE Fingringhoe Quarry
B3 Park Farm, Ardleigh 44 Ext NE
(sand and gravel component)
A23 Lt Bullocks Farm, Gt & Lt 44 Ext Western* Canfield – Area B
A38 Blackleys Quarry, Gate Farm 43 Ext Central Site 1, Gt Leighs
A4 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall 43 Ext Central Airfield
A39 Blackleys Quarry, Gate Farm 43 Ext Central Site 2, Gt Leighs
A31 Maldon Road, Birch 42 Ext NE
A16 Church Farm, Alresford 42 Ext NE
86 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A14 Fingringhoe Quarry, Ballast 42 Ext NE Quay, Fingringhoe
A40 Shellow Cross Farm, Roxwell 42 New Western* / Willingale
A24 Easton Park, Gt Dunmow 42 New Western*
A9 Broadfield Farm, Rayne 41 New Central
A17 Frating Hall Farm, Frating 41 New NE
A5 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall 41 Ext Central Airfield
A6 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall 41 Ext Central Airfield
A7 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall 41 Ext Central Airfield
Lower scoring sites (Not selected)
A11 Tile Kiln, Valley Farm, Sible 41 Ext Central Hedingham
A30 Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe 41 Ext NE
B1 Slough Farm, Ardleigh 40 Ext NE
(sand and gravel component)
A27 Land at Ugley, Ugley 40 New Western*
A25 Elsenham Quarry, Elsenham 40 Ext Western*
A20 Sunnymead, Elmstead and 39 Ext NE Heath Farm, Alresford
A29 Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe 39 Ext NE
A35 Tyndales Farm, Danbury 39 New Central
A19 Lodge Farm, Alresford 37 Ext NE
A10 Covenbrook Hall Farm, 36 New Central Stisted
A12 Bellhouse Farm South, 35 Ext NE Colchester Quarry, Stanway
A34 Thorrington Hall Farm, 35 New NE Thorrington
Essex County Council 87 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A37 Alsteads Farm, Lt Waltham 35 New Central
A41 Patch Park Farm, Abridge 35 New Western*
A1 Appleford and Colemans 33 New Central Farm, Witham
A21 Thorrington Hall Farm, 33 New NE Thorrington
Stage 1 Fails (Not Selected)
A8 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall 40 Ext Central (Due to sites Airfield A2-A7 being selected this site would not be able to be worked within the plan period)
A36 Olivers Nurseries, Witham 42 New Central (Highway access unacceptable)
A26 Frogs Hall Farm, Takeley 40 New Western* (Highway access unacceptable)
A18 Gurnhams, Lt Bentley 36 New NE (Highway access unacceptable)
A33 Armigers Farm, Thaxted 42 New Western* (Highway access unacceptable)
A15 Admirals Farm, Gt Bentley 36 New NE (Highways access unacceptable)
A42 Ardleigh Rail, Ardleigh 29 New NE (Adverse impact to a Scheduled Monument)
A43 Parkgate Farm, Silver End 34 New Central (Due to sites A2-A7 being selected this site would not be able to be worked within the plan period & Highway access not achievable)
8.32 The Preferred sites identified in Table 8 are identified on the Map 5 below. This demonstrates that a dispersed spread of sites with an emphasis on extensions could be delivered.
88 Essex County Council Map 5 Locations of Preferred Extraction Sites and Safeguarded Transhipment Sites Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 89 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
8.33 The following Preferred sites would serve the western part of the County:
A22 & A23 Little Bullocks Farm, Little Canfield;
A40 Shellow Cross, Roxwell / Willingale;
A24 Easton Park, Great Dunmow.
These sites would yield 8.21 mt of sand and gravel over the plan period, meeting 18% of the identified sand and gravel reserves. Two sites are extensions (both to Crumps Farm quarry) and two sites are new.
The following Preferred sites would serve central Essex:
A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 & A7 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall
A38 & A39 Blackleys Quarry, Great Leighs
A9 Broadfield Farm, Rayne.
These sites could supply 22.35 million tonnes over the plan period; 50% of the identified sand and gravel reserves, and comprise 8 extension sites and 1 new site.
And provision for the north-east of the County would come from:
B3 Martells Quarry, Ardleigh (part Silica sand, part sand and gravel)
A13 Fiveways Fruit Farm, Colchester Quarry (Stanway);
A14 & A28 Fingringhoe Quarry
A16 Church Farm, Alresford
A17 Frating Hall Farm, Frating
A31 Birch
These sites would supply 13.91 million tonnes of mineral, approximately 31% of the identified sand and gravel reserves. There would be six extension sites and one new extraction site.
8.34 In scoring the suggested sites for brickclay and silica sand, it was evident that Sites C2 and B1 were the Preferred choice, fully meeting the particular mineral requirements in each case.
8.35 Please refer to the 'Delivery and Monitoring' chapter to see how it is envisaged these sites would come forward through the plan period. It would be expected that no extension site would come into active working until the existing site had been fully extracted and all necessary restoration phases completed. In respect of the multiple extension sites at Bradwell Quarry, it is to be recommended that a Masterplan approach is taken to this whole site to ensure the most appropriate phasing of extraction and restoration is achieved, maximising the site's biodiversity enhancement potential.
90 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Question 18
Do you agree that the distribution of Preferred Sites shown on Map 5 above reflects the preferred spatial strategy - that is, provides a dispersed spread of sites with an emphasis on extensions? Please explain your answer.
Preferred Sand and Gravel Sites
8.36 The following section provides details of the Preferred Sites and lists the particular issues that would need to be addressed through any planning application. Site Promoters would also be expected to have full regard to current best practice in mineral working, to the requirements of national minerals planning policy (including Minerals Planning Policy Statements 1 & 2 and the Practice Guides), and to other mineral planning policies emerging through this document.
8.37 Any significant issues noted through the Sustainability Appraisal are recorded alongside the site details.
Essex County Council 91 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
8.38 The following question should be used when responding to the sites identified as Preferred Sites in this document. The following pages provide details of these sites.
8.39 Each site is identified with a plan, a schedule of key facts, and a list of issues that would need to be addressed in any planning application for mineral development. Potential opportunities are also listed.
8.40 Please consider all of the information provided, and refer to the Site Summary Table (at the back of this document) and the completed Site Assessment Forms (included in Appendix B) before formulating your answer(s).
Question 19
A) Please indicate the site against which you would like to comment
B) Do you agree with the selection of this site as a Preferred Site
Yes; Yes provided the following additional issue is addressed in any planning application; No.
B) If you responded 'Yes provided the following additional issue is addressed in any planning application' please specify the issue and how this should be addressed. (Where possible, please limit your answer to a maximum of 150 words).
C) If No, please specify the site assessment criteria and score with which you disagree - using the criteria headings listed below - and give the reason(s) for your answer. (Where possible, please limit your answer to a maximum of 150 words per heading).
Mineral resource and timetable; Planning history; Landscape; Ecology and Designations; Historic Environment; Agriculture; Proximity to Sensitive Uses; Water / Hydrology; Traffic and Transportation; Recreation; Amenity and Pollution; Restoration and After-use; Other
92 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 & A7 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield
A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 & A7 : General issues to be addressed and site opportunities
The following apply to all six sites:
1. A Masterplan would be required covering the Bradwell quarry site in its entirety. This should ensure all pre-extraction activity, site working and restoration is considered as a whole, and restoration potential is maximised. Particular consideration must be given to the relationship with the permitted strategic waste development at Rivenhall, and to the final low-level restoration contours, to ensure the final landform blends with the surrounding topography; 2. Mineral from the site would be processed through the existing processing plant; 3. Mineral traffic would use the existing main site access onto the A120. HGV movements would be restricted in line with current levels of working to avoid adverse impacts to the trunk road. The phasing of site working would need to reflect HGV movement limitations. A Transport Assessment would be required; 4. Improvements to the crossing points at Ash Lane and Church Road would be necessary; 5. Restoration provides opportunity to enhance biodiversity across the quarry site.
Essex County Council 93 94 Essex Minerals Map 6 Bradwell Quarry - Rivenhall Airfield County Development Council Document: Preferred Approach Paper Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A2
Address: Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield
District: Braintree
Estimated yield: 0.25 mt (0.75 mt already approved under ESS/38/06/BTE and ESS/37/08/BTE which provide planning permission for the development of a strategic waste management facility at Rivenhall)
Area: 24 ha (including area of waste management facility)
Estimated life: 1 year
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level restoration involving replacement of overburden, subsoils and topsoils
After-use: Agriculture / Strategic Waste Management Facility
A2: Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
Site A2 lies south of and is adjacent to the current mineral extraction site at Bradwell Quarry.
1. Land at the eastern end of the suggested site forms part of two recently approved strategic waste facility planning permissions at Rivenhall. The working and restoration of site A2 would need to be integrated with / not compromise permitted waste development; 2. Existing copses within and to the east of the site should be retained and protected during operations; 3. There has been a long history of settlement and occupation within this landscape. An historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 4. PROW footpaths Kelvedon 31 and Silver End 57 cross the site and would require temporary diversion during operations; 5. Part of this site comprises the best quality Grades 1 and 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would be predominantly back to agricultural use.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant Impacts:Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
Essex County Council 95 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A3
Address: Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield
District: Braintree
Estimated yield: 1.0 mt
Area: 9 ha
Estimated life: 1 year
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level restoration involving replacement of overburden, subsoils and topsoils
After-use: Agriculture
A3: Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
Site A3 lies to the east of and is adjacent to the current mineral extraction site at Bradwell Quarry;
1. The working and restoration of site A3 would need to be integrated with / not compromise permitted waste development at Rivenhall; 2. There has been a long history of settlement and occupation within this landscape. An historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 3. PROW bridleway Kelvedon 40 crosses the site and would require temporary diversion during operations; 4. Part of this site comprises the best quality Grades 1 and 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would be predominantly back to agricultural use.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts:Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
96 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A4
Address: Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield
District: Braintree
Estimated yield: 3.0 mt
Area: 25.5 ha
Estimated life: 3 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level restoration involving replacement of overburden, subsoils and topsoils
After-use: Agriculture
A4 Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
Site A4 lies north and east of, and is adjacent to the current mineral extraction site at Bradwell Quarry;
1. Rivenhall has recently received planning permissions for the development of a strategic waste management facility. The working and restoration of site A4 would need to be integrated with / not compromise permitted waste development; 2. There has been a long history of settlement and occupation within this landscape. An historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 3. Adequate stand-off distances / bunding / screening would be required to protect Herons Farm and Deeks Cottage (on the northern boundary of the site) and Haywards Cottage; 4. Appropriate bunding would be required to reduce the impact on the Protected Lane on the northern boundary (Cuthedge Lane); 5. PROW footpaths Bradwell 53 and 68 and bridleways Bradwell 24, 70 and 81 cross the site and would require temporary diversion during operations; 6. Part of this site comprises the best quality Grades 1 and 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would be predominantly back to agricultural use.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
Essex County Council 97 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A5
Address: Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield
District: Braintree
Estimated yield: 3.0 mt
Area: 35 ha
Estimated life: 3 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level restoration involving replacement of overburden, subsoils and topsoils
After-use: Agriculture
A5: Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
Site A5 lies to the south of the proposed extension Site A2. Sheepcotes Farm, which is a Listed Building, occupies the north-western corner;
1. Rivenhall has recently received planning permissions for the development of a strategic waste management facility. The working and restoration of site A5 would need to be integrated with / not compromise permitted waste development; 2. There has been a long history of settlement and occupation within this landscape. A detailed historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA. This should include an assessment of the historic interest of the derelict buildings on the site, to establish if these should be retained; 3. Storeys Wood Local Wildlife Site (Bra 178) abuts the south-east boundary. Adequate stand-off / buffering must be provided to prevent damage to this site; 4. The site is visible from properties on the edge of Silver End. Measures should be taken to reduce this impact through bunding / screening; 5. PROW footpaths Silver End 54, 55 and 57 cross the site and would require temporary diversion during operations; 6. This site comprises the best quality Grade 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would be predominantly back to agricultural use.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
98 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A6
Address: Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield
District: Braintree
Estimated yield: 2.5 mt
Area: 37.5 ha
Estimated life: 2.5 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level restoration involving replacement of overburden, subsoils and topsoils
After-use: Agriculture / Strategic Waste Management facility (in north west)
A6 Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
Site A6 lies to the east of proposed extension Sites A2 / A5 and south of Site A3. The site encompasses Woodhouse Farm and barn, and Allshots Farm and barn (all Grade 2 Listed), a scrapyard and a residential property. The Polish Site is excluded, though surrounded on three sides by the site;
1. Rivenhall has recently received planning permissions for the development of a strategic waste management facility, part of which covers the north-western corner of this site. The working and restoration of site A6 would need to be integrated with / not compromise permitted waste development; 2. There has been a long history of settlement and occupation within this landscape. The existing moat at Woodhouse Farm is considered highly sensitive to quarrying activities, and measures must be taken to ensure this is not affected, including by dewatering. A basic record of any WW II buildings and structures which survive or may remain within the site should be carried out. An historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 3. Protection must be afforded to the Listed Buildings and their settings, which includes existing trees; 4. Storeys Wood Local Wildlife Site (Bra 178) adjoins the southern boundary. A buffer of at least 100m would be required around this woodland, and protection afforded to the woodland contained to the south and west of the site; 5. PROW footpath Kelvedon 8 crosses the site and would require temporary diversion during operations; 6. This site comprises the best quality Grade 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration be predominantly back to agricultural use.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land
Essex County Council 99 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
100 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A7
Address: Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield
District: Braintree
Estimated yield: 6.5 mt
Area: 95 ha
Estimated life: 6.5 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level restoration involving replacement of overburden, subsoils and topsoils
After-use: Agriculture
A7: Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
Site A7 extends southwards from the Protected Lane (Cuthedge Lane), and eastwards from Sites A3 & A4. The site is not contiguous with current workings but at 6.5 million tonnes it is the largest suggested extension area;
1. Rivenhall has recently received planning permissions for the development of a strategic waste management facility. The working and restoration of site A7, and any other Bradwell extension sites, would need to be integrated with / not compromise permitted waste development; 2. There is a long history of settlement and occupation within this landscape, and there is a high probability of remains of a Roman date surviving to the east of the site. An historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 3. This open site would be overlooked from the Protected Lane along the northern boundary (Cuthedge Lane) and there are a few long views of the site from further north, though generally these are limited because of the landform. The pleasant character of the bridleway along the southern boundary could be significantly affected by the works. Bunding / screening would be required on both the northern and southern boundaries; 4. Monks Farm Cottages (Listed Building), located just beyond the south-east corner of the site would require protection; 5. PROW footpaths Kelvedon 2 and 7 cross the site and would require temporary diversion during operations. Bridleway Kelvedon 1 would be protected as detailed above; 6. This site comprises the best quality Grade 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would be predominantly back to agricultural use.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land
Essex County Council 101 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
102 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A13 Five ways Fruit Farm, Colchester Quarry
Site: A13
Address: Warren Lane, Stanway
District: Colchester
Estimated yield: 2.95 mt
Area: 15.5 ha
Estimated life: 6 years
Method of exportation: Road and Rail
Method of restoration: Part low level, part former levels
After-use: Agriculture
A13: Site issues to be addressed and opportunities
This site would be a northward extension of the existing extraction site at Colchester Quarry (Stanway). Mineral would be exported via the existing access onto Warren Lane, and onward movement would be by road or rail, via Marks Tey rail siding;
1. This site bounds the existing quarry void and if worked would need to be integrated with the restoration of the wider quarry; 2. Planning permission for a Strategic Waste Facility has been given at Stanway (Ref: ESS/63/06/COL). The working of this quarry extension must not compromise the effective implementation of this waste permission, the site of which is safeguarded in the Waste Local Plan; 3. Additional housing land has been identified in the vicinity of Fiveways Fruit Farm in Colchester Borough Council’s adopted Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD. The quarry extension site would need to be worked ahead of any housing development located in close proximity, and should not compromise the achievement of the additional housing proposed for the Colchester plan period (end date 2021); 4. A Transport Assessment would be required. The Eight Ash Green interchange (A12 J26) is currently experiencing peak hour capacity problems so it is important that expansion of the Colchester Quarry site be managed so that the impact to the trunk road network is not worsened and adequate mitigation is provided. Expectation that HGV movements would not exceed current levels; 5. Warren Lane Pit LoWS lies adjacent to the site and would require protection eg through buffering; 6. The site has potential for protected and notable species. An ecological assessment based on appropriate survey work would be required with any application / EIA; 7. The site lies in a sensitive area of archaeological deposits. Early consultation with English Heritage would be required to discuss the setting of the earthworks at Grymes Dyke scheduled monument which lies immediately to the east. An historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 8. This site comprises the best quality Grade 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would ensure the protection of these soil resources; 9. Restoration provides opportunity for biodiversity enhancement.
Sustainability Appraisal
Essex County Council 103 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
104 Essex County Council Map 7 Colchester Quarry - Five Ways Fruit Farm, Stanway Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 105 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A22 & A23 Little Bullocks Farm, Great & Little Canfield
A22 & A23: General issues to be addressed and opportunities
The following issues are applicable to both of the suggested extraction sites at Little Bullocks Farm:
1. Mineral would be processed through the existing processing plant and exported via the existing site access; 2. A Transport Assessment would be required with any application / EIA. Expectation that HGV movements would not exceed current levels; 3. Extraction would not commence until after extraction at the existing quarry and all necessary restoration phases have been completed; 4. The sites have potential for protected and notable species. An ecological assessment based on appropriate survey work would be required with any application / EIA; 5. The sites lie within the Stansted 13km safeguarding zone and therefore must be worked and restored without creating areas of standing water or employing putrescible waste for infill purposes, as both would attract birds which may be hazardous to aircraft. (The use of putrescible waste for infilling would require netting or other similar containment to exclude birds). Planting species would also need consideration; 6. These sites both comprise the best quality Grade 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would be predominantly back to agricultural use; 7. Both sites offer potential for biodiversity enhancement.
106 Essex County Council Map 8 Little Bullocks Farm, Little Canfield - Area A Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 107 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A22
Address: Little Bullocks Farm, Great & Little Canfield
District: Uttlesford
Estimated yield: 0.64 mt
Area: 6.9 ha
Estimated life: 12 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level restoration
After-use: Agriculture, amenity and nature conservation
A22: Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
A southerly extension site for the existing Crumps Farm Quarry, located south of the B1256, to the east of Hope End Green.
1. The eastern end of the site lies in a small secluded valley with a small river, nearby woodland and a Local Wildlife Site(LOWS) (Ufd 180 - Canfield End pastures). Steps should be taken to screen views of the extraction area from this direction, including views from the Public Right of Way (PROW) Lt Canfield 19; 2. The river and LoWS require protection eg through buffering and through the assessment of potential hydrological impacts. Existing vegetation to the south of the site should be protected and retained; 3. In relation to floodrisk, the site layout should ensure a sequential approach is adopted whereby elements of greater vulnerability, such as buildings and stockpiles are located in Flood Zone 1. Given that the majority of the site is located in Flood Zone 1, this should be achievable. The flood risk associated with the ordinary watercourses should be assessed as part of a site specific Flood Risk Assessment, and suitable mitigation measures adopted; 4. The site lies in a potentially sensitive area for archaeology. An historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
108 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A23
Address: Little Bullocks Farm, Great & Little Canfield
District: Uttlesford
Estimated yield: 0.06 mt
Area: 5.5 ha
Estimated life: 2 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level
After-use: Agriculture, amenity and nature conservation
A23: Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
A small westerly extension site for the existing Crumps Farm Quarry, located south of the B1256, to the north-east of Hope End Green.
1. The site is adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site (Ufd 172- Runnels Hey), an area of ancient woodland. This site must be protected e.g. through buffering. 2. A hydrological assessment should accompany any application / EIA; 3. The site has potential for protected and notable species. An ecological assessment based on appropriate survey work would be required with any application / EIA; 4. The site lies in a potentially sensitive area overlooking a tributary of the River Roding with the possibility of archaeological deposits surviving. A historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 5. Residential property off Canfield Drive with views of the site should be protected by appropriate bunding / screening; 6. PRoW footpaths Great Canfield 2 and Little Canfield 8 cross the site and would require temporary diversion during operations.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
Essex County Council 109 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A14 & A28 Fingringhoe Quarry
A14 & A28 General site issues to be addressed and opportunities
These sites would be extensions to the existing quarry site at Fingringhoe utilising the existing Ballast Quay Wharf facilities. No road transportation is currently permitted from this site, nor would be permitted.
1. The Sites lie approximately 800m from the Colne Estuary SPA/Ramsar and so requires further consideration of potential for disturbance to bird species. (Information on specific requirements are included within the Habitat Regulations Assessment Report). The use of land outside the SPA/Ramsar by birds (e.g. golden plover) may require further exploration. The Habitats Regulations Assessment has identified that an Appropriate Assessment would be required. 2. Expectation is that wharf traffic would not exceed current levels. Any significant increases in seaward traffic from the wharf facilities would require consideration. Confirmation that proposals would not require any increase in the dredging of channels to facilitate transport, over and above current operations, would be required. 3. Freshwater flows to heads of channels are of importance to the estuary, so it will be important to determine no likelihood of localised impacts on hydrology. Activities that would have an adverse effect on water flows into the SPA / Ramsar site (including drawdown of the underlying aquifer), either as a result of dewatering or abstraction for mineral operations, should be avoided.
110 Essex County Council Map 9 Tower Field, Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 1 1 1 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A14
Address: Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe
District: Colchester
Estimated yield: 0.6 mt
Area: 7.5 ha
Estimated life: 5 - 9 years
Method of exportation: By barge from existing wharf
Method of restoration: Limited infilling at lower level using inert waste imported by barge
After-use: Agriculture
A14: Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
1. This proposal would impact upon the landscape and landform, removing the existing ridge. Careful consideration must be given to the phasing of site working and the final restoration contours to ensure the final landform blends with the surrounding topography and the restoration of the existing quarry; 2. Clarification of the nature and extent of imports needed to achieve satisfactory restoration contours would be required with any application / EIA; 3. The area is low-lying, and potential sea-level rise means that coastal squeeze should be considered further, dependent on the location and strategies for defences; 4. The site has potential for protected and notable species. An ecological assessment based on appropriate survey work would be required with any application / EIA; 5. The spring and pond to the west of the site have been noted. Hydrological investigation would be required; 6. A number of properties along Abberton Road to the north would have views of the site. A minimum 100m stand-off would be required from all residential properties and appropriate bunding / screening undertaken to reduce the visual impact to the north of the site. It is recognised that the 100m stand-off would reduce the extent of the site that could be worked; 7. There is probability of surviving below-ground level remains of prehistoric, Roman and Saxon dates. The gravels also have the potential to hold Palaeolithic remains. Quarrying could impact on the setting of the Fingringhoe church / hall complex and the Conservation Area. A historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 8. PROW footpath Fingringhoe 11 crosses the site and would require temporary diversion during operations; 9. Restoration offers opportunity for biodiversity enhancement.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site allows for transportation of minerals by water.
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
112 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A28
Address: Tower Field, Fingringhoe Quarry, Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe
District: Colchester
Estimated yield: 0.1 mt
Area: 1.5 ha
Estimated life: 1 - 3 years
Method of exportation: By barge from existing wharf
Method of restoration: Limited infilling at lower level using inert waste imported by barge
After-use: Agriculture
A28: Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
1. The spring and pond to the north of the site have been noted. Hydrological investigation would be required; 2. There is possibility of surviving below-ground remains of prehistoric, Roman and Saxon date. Quarrying could also impact on the setting of Fringringhoe church / hall complex. An historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 3. Effective bunding / screening would be required to reduce the visual impact on properties to the north. The landform requires this be carefully considered; 4. Clarification of the nature and extent of imports needed to achieve satisfactory restoration contours would be required with any application / EIA.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site allows for transportation of minerals by water.
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
Essex County Council 113 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A38 & A39 Blackleys Quarry
A38 & A39 General Site issues to be addressed and opportunities These sites would be extensions to the existing site at Blackleys Quarry and would make use of the existing haul road access to the junction on the A131;
1. A Transport Assessment would be required with any application / EIA. Expectation that HGV movements would not exceed current levels; 2. Extraction would not commence until after extraction at the existing quarry and all necessary restoration phases have been completed; 3. Site adjoins Great Leighs Racecourse the future of which is uncertain. Liaison with the Borough Council is recommended; 4. The site has records of protected and notable species. An ecological assessment based on appropriate survey work would be required with any application / EIA; 5. Part of the site comprises best quality Grade 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would be back to agricultural use.
114 Essex County Council Map 10 Blackleys Quarry Gate Farm - Sites 1 & 2 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 1 15 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A38
Address: Land at Gate Farm, off Blackley Lane, Great Leighs
District: Chelmsford
Estimated yield: 1.07 mt
Area: 22 ha
Estimated life: 12 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Infilling to former levels using imported inert waste and on-site overburden
After-use: Agriculture
A38 Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
1. The site would have a visual impact upon properties to the north and footpaths on the site. Appropriate mitigation must be provided through bunding / screening; 2. Site has possibility for below ground remains relating to the nearby Roman Road. A historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 3. PRoW footpaths Great Leighs 2, 3 & 4 cross the site and would need to be temporarily diverted during operations.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land.
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
116 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Site: A39
Address: Land at Gate Farm, off Blackley Lane, Great Leighs
District: Chelmsford
Estimated yield: 0.75 mt
Area: 21.2 ha
Estimated life: 10 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Infilling to former levels using imported inert waste and on-site overburden
After-use: Agriculture
A39: Specific issues to be addressed and opportunities
1. A new crossing would be required across Blackley Lane and retention of the existing haul road access to the junction on the A131; 2. The copse to the north of the site should be protected e.g. through buffering; 3. The site is likely to have a visual impact for a number of properties to the south-west, users of Blackley Lane and the footpath by the north-west boundary. This would require mitigation through appropriate bunding / screening.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land.
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
Essex County Council 117 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A16 Church Farm
Site: A16
Address: Church Farm, Alresford
District: Tendring
Estimated yield: 2.0 mt
Area: 20 ha
Estimated life: 20 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level
After-use: Agriculture, wetland, woodland and possible golf course
A16 Site Mitigation and Opportunities
1. This site would be an extension to the existing Alresford Quarry and would make use of the existing access onto Alresford Road; 2. A Transport Assessment would be required with any application / EIA. Expectation that HGV movements would not exceed current levels; 3. The site is approximately 600m from the Colne Estuary SPA / RAMSAR so further consideration would need to be given to potential impacts on bird species. (Information on specific requirements are included within the Habitat Regulations Assessment Report). A watercourse adjacent to the site drains to the Colne Estuary (distance about 3km) and the possible effects on water quality would require investigation. Operations requiring dewatering should avoid pumping of water into Sixpenny Brook or any other watercourse that drains into a European site unless it can be confirmed that this can be achieved with no adverse impact on water quality; 4. Freshwater flows to heads of channels are important to the estuary, so it would be important to determine no likelihood of localised impacts on hydrology; 5. Habitats Regulations Assessment has identified the need for an Appropriate Assessment; 6. Alresford Lodge Pit LoWS lies to the west and must be protected during operations e.g. through buffering; 7. There is evidence of and potential for protected and notable species on site. An ecological assessment based on appropriate survey work would be required with any application / EIA; 8. The use of the access track may be restricted during flood events, and arrangements to mitigate and manage this should be assessed as part of the site specific Flood Risk Assessment; 9. There are views onto the site from many properties to the north and east which would need to be screened with appropriate bunding / screening. The site is well screened to the west & south, but additional screening and setting works back away from the Church site would also be required; 10. The area has the potential for extensive surviving archaeological deposits. The presence of a scheduled monument on the southern boundary (the remains of St Peter’s church and part of the graveyard) increases its importance and extraction would impact on the setting. Early consultation with English Heritage would be necessary. A historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA;
118 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
11. Part of the site comprises the best quality Grade 2 agricultural soils. It is expected that this area be restored predominantly to agriculture; 12. Restoration proposals should make clear how water resources would be managed beyond the active life of the site. Restoration also provides opportunity for biodiversity enhancement.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Primary school located to the east of the site, and site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land.
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
Essex County Council 119 120 Essex Minerals Map 11 Church Farm, Alresford County Development Council Document: Preferred Approach Paper Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A31 Birch
Site: A31
Address: Maldon Road, Birch
District: Colchester
Estimated yield: 4.0 mt
Area: 30 ha
Estimated life: 13 years
Method of exportation: By conveyor to Birch Quarry and onward by road
Method of restoration: Low level restoration using overburden and silts
After-use: Agriculture, amenity land and lakes
A31: Site issues to be addressed and opportunities
This is an extension site for Birch Quarry, located on the southern side of Maldon Road west of Birch. Mineral would be moved by conveyor under Maldon Road for processing, and exported via the existing site access.
1. A Transport Assessment would be required with any application / EIA. Expectation that HGV movements would not exceed current levels; 2. Extraction would not commence until after extraction at the existing quarry and all necessary restoration phases have been completed; 3. The eastern tree line is to be protected and retained with no extraction to the south; 4. There is evidence of protected and notable species on site. An ecological assessment based on appropriate survey work would be required with any application / EIA; 5. Whilst predominantly within Flood zone 1, an area of Flood Zone 3 runs along the ditch line to the north-east. Any buildings / stockpiles should be located within Flood zone 1. The flood risk associated with the ordinary watercourses should be assessed as part of a site specific Flood Risk Assessment, and suitable mitigation measures adopted; 6. The site is visible from the Maldon Road on the long northern boundary. Bunding / screening would be required to screen this view, and the view from the footpath to the south (Birch 13). The opportunity exists for early advance planting; 7. A minimum 100m stand-off distance and appropriate bunding / screening to be provided for Roundbush Bungalow on the south-west corner of the site; 8. Roundbush Farm to the south-west includes a group of Listed Buildings which must be protected. The site lies in what is expected to be a sensitive archaeological area. An historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 9. Consideration must be given to the final low-level restoration contours to ensure the final landform blends with the surrounding topography, is workable for agricultural purposes and accessible for amenity use; 10. Restoration provides the opportunity for biodiversity enhancement.
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
Essex County Council 121 122 Essex Minerals Map 12 Maldon Road, Birch County Development Council Document: Preferred Approach Paper Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A40 Shellow Cross Farm, Roxwell / Willingale
Site: A40
Address: Land at Shellow Cross Farm, Elm Farm and Newland Hall Farm, Roxwell / Willingale, Ongar
District: Chelmsford and Epping
Estimated yield: 3.5 mt
Area: 105 ha
Estimated life: 14 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level restoration using in-situ clays and soils
After-use: Agriculture and nature conservation
A40: Site issues to be addressed and opportunities
This would be a new site located to the west of Roxwell comprising two parcels of land linked by a cross-country haul route. The processing plant would be located within the northern parcel of land and a new access created onto the A1060.
1. No access would be permitted from Elm Road to the south; 2. A Transport Assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 3. The landscape has a medium to high sensitivity to change, and the southern area would have the greatest impact due to its size. Appropriate phasing of site working and restoration would be required to minimise this impact. Processing plant in the northern area should be sited at low level; 4. Appropriate buffering would need to be provided around Rowe’s Wood LoWS and Bushey-hays / Ashwood Spring LoWSs. Operations should avoid simultaneous open void space on either side of the designated woodlands; 5. There is evidence of and potential for protected and notable species on site. An ecological assessment based on appropriate survey work would be required with any application / EIA; 6. The site is likely to have a visual impact on several properties on Elms Road to the south, properties with views of the northern area and footpaths that cross the site. Appropriate bunding / screening would be required to reduce this impact. A minimum 100m stand-off should be maintained to all residential property; 7. The quarry lies within a potentially sensitive historic area. Early consultation with English Heritage would be needed as the proposal could affect a number of Listed Buildings and scheduled sites (including moated sites). A historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 8. A hydrological survey and assessment would need to inform any application / EIA. The risk of flooding associated with the small ditches and watercourses around the edge of the site would need to be assessed as part of a site specific Flood Risk Assessment, and suitable mitigation measures adopted. 9. PRoW footpaths Roxwell 2, 14 & 17 and a Bridleway Roxwell 68 cross the site and would need to be temporarily diverted during operations; 10. The site comprises best quality Grade 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would be predominantly back to agricultural use; 11. Restoration provides opportunity for biodiversity enhancement.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land.
Essex County Council 123 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
124 Essex County Council Map 13 Shellow Cross Farm, Roxwell / Willingale Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 125 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A24 Easton Park, Gt Dunmow
Site: A24
Address: Easton Park Estate, Great Dunmow
District: Uttlesford
Estimated yield: 4.0 mt
Area: 40 ha
Estimated life: 15 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Infilling to former levels using overburden and imported inert waste
After-use: Agriculture, amenity and nature conservation
A24: Site issues to be addressed and opportunities
This site is identified as a Preferred Site in the current Minerals Local Plan. A planning application for sand and gravel extraction is currently being considered.
1. A new access from the B1256/A120 junction would be required. A Transport Assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 2. High Wood SSSI lies to the south east of the site and would require protection during operations e.g. through buffering. The site has records of protected and notable species. An ecological assessment based on appropriate survey work would be required with any application / EIA; 3. Views from the north of the site should be screened; 4. A hydrological survey / assessment would be required with any planning application / EIA; 5. PRoW footpaths Little Easton 5, 22 and 24 cross the site and would require temporary diversion during operations; 6. This site comprises the best quality Grade 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would be back to agricultural use; 7. The site lies within the Stansted 13km safeguarding zone and would need to be worked and restored without creating areas of standing water, or employing putrescible waste for infill purposes as both would attract birds that may be hazardous to aircraft. (The use of putrescible waste for infilling would require netting or other similar containment to exclude birds). Planting species would also need consideration;
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land.
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
126 Essex County Council Map 14 Easton Park, Great Dunmow Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 127 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A9 Broadfield Farm, Rayne
Site: A9
Address: Broadfield Farm, Rayne
District: Braintree
Estimated yield: 4.28 mt
Area: 90 ha
Estimated life: 14 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level restoration using overburden
After-use: Agriculture, nature conservation and creation of PROW
A9: Site issues to be addressed and opportunities
A new site located to the west of Rayne and east of Blake End. It has been demonstrated that a satisfactory junction arrangement could be provided to serve this site from the B1256. There are no HGV restrictions on the B1256 and westbound vehicles could access the A120 at Great Dunmow. Eastbound vehicles have more direct access to the A120. A very small section of the south-west of the site is within Flood Zones 2 & 3 but extraction is considered compatible with the fluvial flood risk.
1. Advance planting is well established on the southern boundary and provides effective screening which would increase with time. The northern area is currently very open and would require appropriate bunding / screening; 2. Rumley Wood Local Wildlife Site lies 60 m beyond the northern boundary, and Blackbush Wood LoWS 300m to the north-west. Both sites must be protected from the impacts of extraction e.g. through appropriate buffering; 3. There is evidence of and potential for protected and notable species on site. An ecological assessment based on appropriate survey work would be required with any application / EIA; 4. The site lies within the Stansted 13km safeguarding zone which would restrict the potential for water-based restoration; 5. A minimum of 100 m stand-off distance from the extraction area must be maintained from the closest residential properties, most of which are on the Dunmow Road; 6. There is a high possibility for disturbance of below ground level remains within close proximity to the Roman road, including possible remains of a high status Roman villa, and prehistoric and Palaeolithic archaeology. A historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 7. Part of this site comprises the best quality Grades 2 agricultural soils and it is expected that restoration would be predominantly back to agricultural use; 8. Restoration provides opportunity for biodiversity and recreation enhancement, the latter through the provision of a public right of way(s).
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site includes Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land.
128 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
Essex County Council 129 130 Essex Minerals Map 15 Broadfield Farm, Rayne County Development Council Document: Preferred Approach Paper Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
A17 Frating Hall Farm
Site: A17
Address: Frating Hall, Frating
District: Tendring
Estimated yield: 4.00 mt
Area: 47 ha
Estimated life: 16 - 20 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Low level
After-use: Agriculture and an agricultural reservoir
A17: Site issues to be addressed and opportunities
This is a new site located to the south-west of Frating Green with access onto the A133. Vehicles leaving the site are likely to use the A133 / A120 Hare Green junction to join the trunk road. As the A120 is a dual carriageway within this area the Highways Agency believes the additional traffic could be accommodated.
1. The A120 / A133 junction allows access for vehicles travelling to and from the west only. The adequacy of the slip roads and roundabout junction with the A133 / A133 spur, and access for eastbound vehicles would need thorough investigation. This would be particularly the case if the site were to be promoted as a source of material for the expansion of Harwich Port, which would generate movements between the site and the A120 (east); 2. A Transport Assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 3. The site lies within a Source Protection Zone, and is 200m from a surface water agricultural abstraction point (Frating Hall Farm) and 250m from a general farm and domestic groundwater abstraction point. A hydrological assessment would be required as part of any application / EIA; 4. There are houses to the north-east and east which would have views of the site. A mobile home park lies to the north-west. A minimum of 100m stand-off distance should be provided to all residences and appropriate bunding / screening provided to screen visual impacts. There is screening, at least in summer, on most of the site boundaries and this should be retained; 5. The presence of cropmarks and enclosures indicates the high sensitivity of this area. The two main enclosures lie in the southwest corner of the site. The Listed farm and Hall complex at Frating Hall and Listed properties which front Main Road must be protected. A historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 6. The site comprises the best and most versatile Grade 1 & 2 agricultural soils. It would be expected that restoration would be predominantly back to agriculture; 7. PROW footpaths Frating 1, 8 and 10 footpaths cross the site and would need to be temporarily diverted during operations; 8. Restoration provides opportunity for biodiversity enhancement.
Sustainability Appraisal
Significant impacts: Site contains Grade 1 or 2 agricultural land.
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
Essex County Council 131 132 Essex Minerals Map 16 Frating Hall Farm, Frating County Development Council Document: Preferred Approach Paper Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Preferred Silica Sand Sites
Table 9 How Silica Sand Sites Scored
Preferred Sites for Silica Sand extraction
Site Ref. Name Score Ext / New NE / Central / western site
B3 Park Farm, Ardleigh 44 Ext Within the vicinity of Martells Quarry (sand and gravel component)
Site which scored fewer points (not selected)
B1 Slough Farm, Ardleigh 40 Ext Within the vicinity of Area 1 Martells Quarry
(sand and gravel component)
Essex County Council 133 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
B3 Park Farm Ardleigh
Site: B3
Address: Slough Lane, Ardleigh
District: Colchester
Estimated yield: 0.303 mt of silica sand 0.260 mt of sand and gravel
Area: 6.07 ha
Estimated life: 6 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Infilling to former levels using inert and commercial and industrial waste
After-use: Agriculture
B3: Site issues to be addressed and opportunities
This site would be an extension to the existing Martells Quarry and would make use of the existing access onto Slough Lane.
1. Extraction would not be able to commence until extraction and all necessary restoration has been completed on the existing working area; 2. Connection to be made to internal haul route to enable use of existing Slough Lane crossing point, and access to processing plant; 3. Continued use to be made of the private track access to the A120, via the lorry park, as per the existing permission. Expectation that HGV movements would not exceed current levels; 4. Evidence that existing geological SSSI would not be adversely affected to form part of any application / EIA; 5. The site is approximately 700m from a river. A hydrological assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 6. Bunding / screening would be required to reduce visual and landscape impacts to the south-east and north-east; 7. Early consulation with English Heritage would be required to discuss setting of the Scheduled Monument (multiperiod cropmark complex) adjacent to the north eastern boundary. High potential for other deposits given evidence on B1. A historic environment assessment would be required with any application / EIA; 8. The site comprises best quality Grades 1 & 2 agricultural soils. It is expected that this area be restored predominantly to agriculture; 9. Opportunities to enhance the existing geological SSSI to the west to be explored within any application / EIA.
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
134 Essex County Council Map 17 Park Farm, Ardleigh Area 3 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 135 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Preferred Brickclay Sites
Table 10 How Brickclay Sites Scored
Preferred Sites for Brickclay Extraction
Site Ref. Name Score Ext / New NE / Central / western site
C2 Bulmer Brickfields 51 Ext Within the vicinity of Bulmer Brickworks
C2 Bulmer Brickfields
Site: C2
Address: The Brickfields, Bulmer, Sudbury
District: Braintree
Estimated yield: 0.03 mt
Area: 6.07 ha
Estimated life: 25 years
Method of exportation: Road
Method of restoration: Part backfilling with overburden to a lower level and natural regeneration
After-use: Part agriculture, part wildlife area
C2: Site issues to be addressed and opportunities
This is a very small extension site to the east of the existing Brickworks extraction area. Extraction would take place on a few days each year.
1. Extraction would not commence until after extraction from the existing permitted area and all necessary restoration phases have been completed; 2. There is the potential for multi-period below ground archaeological remains. A historic environment assessment should accompany any planning application / EIA; 3. Restoration provides opportunity for biodiversity enhancement.
To comment on this site, please use QUESTION 19.
136 Essex County Council Map 18 Bulmer Brickfields Minerals Development Document: Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 137 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Other Sites
8.41 As equally important as your views on the Preferred Sites, we also need to be confident that the suggested sites which have not been selected have been fairly and robustly assessed. For each of these 'Other' sites, listed below, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with their non-selection by answering Question 20 set out below. The other sites are:
A1 - Appleford and Coleman's Farm, Rivenhall End A8 - Bradwell Quarry A10 - Covenbrook Hall Farm, Stisted A11 - Tile Kiln, Sible Hedingham A12 - Bellhouse Farm South, Colchester Quarry A15 - Admirals Farm, Great Bentley A18 - Gurnhams, Little Bentley A19 - Lodge Farm, Alresford A20 - Sunnymead, Elmstead and Heath Farm, Alresford A21 - Thorrington Hall Farm, Thorrington A25 - Elsenham Quarry A26 - Frogs Hall Farm A27 - Land at Ugley A29 - Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe A30 - Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe A33 - Armigers Farm, Thaxted A34 - Thorrington Hall Farm, Thorrington A35 - Tyndales Farm, Danbury A36 - Olivers Nurseries A37 - Alsteads Farm, Little Waltham A41 - Patch Park Farm, Abridge A42 - Ardleigh Rail B1 - Slough Farm, Ardleigh
8.42 The following question should be used when responding to the non-selection sites identified in this document.
8.43 Please refer to the Site Summary Table (at the back of this document) and the completed Site Assessment Forms (included in Appendix B) before formulating your response.
138 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Question 20
OTHER SITES
A) Please indicate the site against which you would like to comment
B) Do you agree with the non-selection of this site:
Yes No
C) Please explain you answer.
Where you disagree with the non-selection of a site, please give the site assessment heading (listed below) and score with which you disagree, and give the reason(s) why you disagree. (Where possible please limit your answer to 150 words per heading/score).
Criteria headings:
Mineral resource and timetable; Planning history; Landscape; Ecology and Designation; Historic Environment; Agriculture; Proximity to Sensitive Uses; Water / Hydrology; Traffic and Transportation; Recreation; Amenity and Pollution; Restoration and After-use; Other
Further Extraction Sites
8.44 Further mineral extraction sites are NOT being sought by the Mineral Planning Authority. It is considered sufficient sites have already been put forward by the minerals industry and local landowners in response to the two previous 'Calls for Sites' (in 2005 and 2009), and previous MDD: Issues and Options papers. It is considered the site selection process has been able to identify sufficient sites that could meet the Preferred core strategy without causing unacceptable harm to the environment.
Essex County Council 139 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
8.45 Having said this, the Mineral Planning Authority wishes to make clear the position should a new or revised site be suggested to us in response to this consultation. The Site Promoter(s) would be required to supply:
A complete and signed Site Proforma (available via the website); A site plan showing the application boundary, indicative extraction area(s) and site access; An indicative restoration scheme; Sufficient geological site investigation and borehole information to confirm the presence of the stated mineral resource; A completed copy of the Site Assessment form (See Appendix XX for a blank copy) together with full supporting documentation to support the submission. This could include an ecological assessment, transport assessment, historic environment assessment, hydrological assessment etc - as appropriate to support the submission.
8.46 We would expect there to be clear evidence that the site would score more highly than the Preferred Sites identified in this document for that site to be considered by the Mineral Planning Authority.
8.47 PLEASE NOTE: Notification of an intention to submit a new / revised site must be made by the consultation closing date. All necessary information (listed under 8.2) must be submitted within 4 weeks of the consultation closing date.
8.48 Further consultation if further suggested sites are submitted
8.49 Where the site is a revision of an existing suggested site, such that the site area is reduced in order to reduce environmental impact, the Mineral Planning Authority would not undertake further public consultation.
8.50 If the revision extended the site boundary in any direction, or if the site was an entirely new suggested site, the Mineral Planning Authority would undertake further targetted consultation only, as appropriate.
140 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
9 Mineral Transhipment Sites
New Safeguarded Mineral Transhipment Sites
9.1 In response to the original ‘Call for Sites’ for mineral transhipment in 2005, three suggested mineral transhipment sites were put forward:
D2 - Ballast Quary, Fingringhoe; D3 - Sadds Wharf, Maldon; D4 - Brightlingsea Quarry.
9.2 The position of wharf D4 was subsequently reconsidered by the Site Promoter and a further wharf proposal was submitted in November 2006:
D5 – Brightlingsea Quarry wharf;
9.3 A smaller extraction site at Thorrington Hall Farm (A34) was also submitted at this time. The original wharf submission (D4) was withdrawn by the Site Promoter in 2009.
D2 Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe
9.4 Fingringhoe Quarry has exported mineral by barge from Ballast Quay for many years. A legal agreement, offered up by the site operator, prevents mineral being transported by road from or to the quarry site as the surrounding road network is not considered suitable for mineral traffic.
9.5 The site operator wishes to secure the long term future of the quarry and has submitted four extension sites for consideration in the MDD (Sites A14, A28, A29 & A30). To safeguard the future movement of mineral from the quarry, both from the existing area and from future extension areas (Site A28 and A14 are currently both selected as Preferred Sites), there would be benefit in safeguarding this mineral transhipment facility (D2).
9.6 Safeguarding would not be appropriate once extraction at Fingringhoe Quarry is finished. At this point safeguarded status would be withdrawn.
D3 – Sadds Wharf
9.7 Sadds Wharf is located on the northern bank of the River Chelmer at the point where Heybridge Creek joins the river. The site is accessed from Station Road, Maldon. Since the site was suggested as a mineral transhipment site an outline planning application for mixed use development (residential, office, business and leisure development) has been considered by Maldon District Council (Ref: MAL/08/00149/OUT). Though initially refused, the application was subsequently granted on appeal. In light of this, it is not now considered appropriate to pursue the safeguarding of this site for mineral transhipment.
D5 – Brightlingsea Quarry Wharf
Essex County Council 141 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
9.8 Site D5, the new wharf facility proposed at Brightlingsea quarry, has been put forward by the Site Promoter to enable a doubling of the current extraction rate from Brightlingsea quarry and to serve a new extraction site at Thorrington. Site A21 or A34 would be linked via a conveyor to the new wharf facility.
9.9 At Brightlingsea Quarry it is proposed that the current level of HGV traffic continue and an equivalent volume of mineral be exported by barge. Returning barge traffic would bring inert waste to the quarry to facilitate site restoration; this may include some aggregate recycling activity.
9.10 The preferred spatial strategy seeks to promote a dispersed spread of extraction sites to serve the growth requirements across the county and cut down mineral miles. There would appear no clear justification for speeding up the rate of extraction from Brightlingsea Quarry in the north-east of Essex; an area of the county well served by existing quarry sites, particularly if this would also result in an inadequate supply of inert fill to keep pace with the resulting void space. It could be argued that a stronger case could be made if the new wharf were also to serve a new mineral extraction site at Thorrington (Site A21 / A34), however, neither of these sites has emerged as a Preferred Site at this stage, and this facility would ultimately result in an increase in the volume of mineral leaving the county for other markets. By way of compensation there could be an increase in mineral imports by road elsewhere in the County.
9.11 There would appear no clear justification for the creation of a new mineral wharf facility on this protected and attractive length of Essex coast.
9.12 There is no evidence of a shortage of mineral transhipment facilities for the importation of hard rock and other non-indigenous minerals to the county. Mineral has previously been imported and exported through Brightlingsea harbour, and this general purpose wharf remains available.
Question 21
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach to safeguarding new mineral transhipment facilities? Please explain your answer.
142 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
SCHEDULE D
POTENTIAL MINERAL TRANSHIPMENT SITE
Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe
Site: D2
Depot: Wharf
District: Colchester
Transhipment site issues to be addressed
1. Safeguarded status would be withdrawn once mineral extraction at Fingringhoe Quarry is completed.
Essex County Council 143 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Safeguarding Existing Mineral Transhipment Sites
The current Minerals Local Plan safeguards existing rail depots at:
Harlow Mill Station; Marks Tey; Chelmsford Rail Sidings.
9.13 All three facilities remain in active use and it is proposed to continue to safeguard these areas through the Minerals Development Document so that they remain available for mineral transhipment.
9.14 The current Minerals Local Plan also safeguards the Port of Harwich for its potential to accommodate a large new aggregate import facility. Whilst no such proposal has been submitted under the current plan, it is proposed to continue to safeguard this area through the forthcoming plan period to ensure this potential remains available. The small naval yard area will be excluded from the safeguarded area as this is now under new ownership and offers no likelihood of mineral transhipment.
9.15 The approach outlined, and shown on Map 5, accords with MPS1 which seeks to encourage the bulk movement of minerals by rail and sea.
The following plans show the safeguarded mineral transhipment facilities boundaries.
144 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
SCHEDULE F
SAFEGUARDED RAIL TRANSHIPMENT SITE
Harlow Mill Station
Site: F1
Depot: Rail
District: Harlow
Area: 1.9 ha
Essex County Council 145 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
SCHEDULE F
SAFEGUARDED RAIL TRANSHIPMENT SITE
Chelmsford Rail Sidings
Site: F2
Depot: Rail
District: Chelmsford
Area: 0.3 ha
146 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
SCHEDULE F
SAFEGUARDED RAIL TRANSHIPMENT SITE
Marks Tey Rail Siding
Site: F3
Depot: Rail
District: Colchester
Area: 0.3 ha
Picture 1
Essex County Council 147 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
SCHEDULE F
SAFEGUARDED PORT TRANSHIPMENT SITE
Port of Harwich
Site: F4
Depot: Water
District: Tendring
Area: 69.1 ha (will need updating in view of changed boundary)
148 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Question 22
Do you agree with the Preferred Approach to existing safeguarded mineral transhipment facilities? Please explain your answer.
Essex County Council 149 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
10 Delivery & Monitoring
10.1 The Minerals Development Document must show how the Vision, objectives and core strategy will be delivered, by whom and when. It is important all parties essential to the delivery of the plan, including landowners, mineral operating companies and developers are signed up to it.
10.2 The ‘Preferred Sites’ for future mineral extraction will only come about if brought forward by the minerals industry (with the landowners’ support). The mineral companies’ first task will be to secure full planning permission for mineral extraction from their site.
10.3 Based on the existing mineral extraction sites which will continue into the plan period, and the ‘Preferred Sites’ identified in this document, the following mineral companies would be involved: Carr and Bircher, Brett, Edwards Waste Management, Lafarge, SRC, Aggregate Industries, Dewicks, Tarmac, Frank Lyons, Blackwater Aggregates, Hanson, Thames and Colne River Aggregates.
10.4 Subject to planning permission being granted, and based on the information provided by the Site Promoters, the ‘Preferred Sites’ would come into operation over the following time periods:
150 Essex County Council Table 11 Phasing of Existing and Proposed Sites over the Plan Period
Site Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
WEST
Widdington
Elsenham Minerals
Lt Bullocks Fm, Lt Canfield
Shellow Cross Fm, Willingale Development
Easton Park, Gt Dunmow
CENTRAL
Curry Fm, Bradwell-on-Sea Document:
Asheldham
Royal Oak, Danbury Preferred Barling Essex Goldsands, Southminster Approach County Blackleys Quarry, Gt Leighs
Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Council Paper Bulls Lodge, Chelmsford 151 152 Essex Minerals Broadfield Fm, Rayne
County NORTH EAST Development Colchester Quarry Council Brightlingsea
Martells Quarry, Ardleigh Document: Fingringhoe Quarry
Birch
Alresford Creek Preferred
Frating Hall Fm Approach
Existing Sites Paper Extensions to Existing Sites
New Sites Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
10.5 The continued growth of the County should not be hindered by a lack of appropriate aggregates from Essex sources. The County Council will seek to work closely with local stakeholders and the minerals and waste industry, to provide appropriate advice, prior to the submission of any application for new mineral extraction or aggregate recycling. The intent will be to ensure that development will deliver the objectives of the Plan.
10.6 Key new infrastructure (e.g. new roads or railheads) is unlikely to be required to deliver the Vision and Objectives of the Core Strategy (accepting that the specific sites will need to have put acceptable access arrangements in place). However, loss of port and/or rail facilities for aggregate handling could hinder the delivery of the Plan, and so this will be monitored particularly carefully.
10.7 Other aspects of delivery include the greater use of recycled aggregate products through public sector procurement, restored minerals sites contributing to the achievement of Essex BAP targets and the like. These matters have been discussed in detail in preceding text.
Question 23
Do you agree with the approach to delivery mechanisms set out above? Please explain your answer.
10.8 Monitoring is important to understand the characteristics of the local area, assess the impact of policies and whether the strategy is delivering sustainable development so that the policies can be reviewed as appropriate.
10.9 Our Preferred Approach(s) are based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. However, as the data that has informed its preparation changes and is updated over time there will be a need to monitor what is happening and to respond in the most appropriate way.
10.10 ECC is required to produce an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) to review the progress of Local Development Documents against the milestones set out in the Local Development Scheme and assess the extent to which the policies in the documents are being achieved.
10.11 A comprehensive suite of performance indicators and targets will be developed to help inform the monitoring process and will provide the basis for the AMR. These will integrate with national indicators and targets, applying more localised indicators and targets as appropriate. If national indicators change then the monitoring framework will be amended to adjust to the new indicators. Annual Monitoring Reports of the district councils will be examined each year to assess whether the supply of aggregates might be restricting housing and/or commercial developments; if it is, the MPA’s own AMR will consider how the problem could be rectified.
Essex County Council 153 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
10.12 We will consult fully on the full range of performance indicators in due course, once we have a clearer picture of the response to the preferred approaches set out in this paper. However the following table gives an indicative picture of the type of local performance indicators we are developing.
154 Essex County Council Table 12 Monitoring Indicators
Indicator Related Target Implementation Data Source Frequency By Whom? Objective of Monitoring
1 The figure of 4.41mtpa is not a Annually ECC, In industry control, Minerals Production of production target, (via influenced by market Mineral primary land won but will be a factor in established 3 demands and the industry Mineral aggregates by the assessing the annual requirements of any returns MPA. relationship with the survey for operators Development windfall schemes sub-regional RAWP/DCLG) apportionment
2 Production of Through granting of secondary and planning permission Planning 1.4mtpa of recycling Annually ECC, Document: recycled 1 (subject to applications / recovery capacity i.e., AMR Mineral operators aggregates by environmental and decisions MPA. considerations).
3 At least 31mt at any Identification of sites Annually Preferred Mineral time, with production to be promoted with (via ECC, Mineral Essex industry potential of 4.41mtpa mineral industry established Size of landbank. 3 returns + from permitted pits when landbank in annual operators
details of new Approach
County for a period of seven danger of falling survey for permissions years below target level RAWP/DCLG) Council Paper 155 156 Essex Minerals Indicator Related Target Implementation Data Source Frequency By Whom? Objective of County Monitoring Development 4 Locations of new Planning authority
Council SARS in proximity to Recycling will support in Planning all key centres for Annually facilities in 1 principle applications applications ECC growth and i.e., AMR accordance with in accordance with and decisions development. spatial strategy strategy Document:
5 Planning authority Planning Locations of new All permissions will support in applications extractions in (other than windfalls) Annually 3 principle applications ECC Preferred accordance with to be on identified And i.e., AMR that accord with spatial strategy. Sites in Essex decisions strategy Approach 6 Planning authority ECC, Number of will raise objection to Planning safeguarded Annually District 2 Nil applications that applications depots/ wharves i.e., AMR
would cause sites to and decisions Paper lost to other uses. Councils be lost.
7 MSAs to be Area of identified by ECC, ECC, commercial and objections Planning mineral deposits Annually District / Borough 2 Nil raised to applications sterilised by i.e., AMR applications within and decisions non-mineral Councils them that would development. sterilise deposits Indicator Related Target Implementation Data Source Frequency By Whom? Objective of Monitoring
8 Number of applications proposing Use of non-road Planning non-road modes modes to be Annually 5 Maximisation applications ECC Minerals for transport of encouraged through i.e., AMR and decisions material (a) to or the DM process from the site (b) within the site Development
9 Planning applications ECC to promote Amount of land and Contribution towards through DM process Annually
newly restored for 6 decisions, ECC, Site Operators Document: BAP target and in subsequent i.e., AMR habitat creation and on-site site Monitoring. monitoring of progress Preferred Essex Approach County Council Paper 157 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
Question 24
Do you agree with the Monitoring Indicators set out in the above table? Please explain your answers.
158 Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Paper
11 Have we missed anything?
11.1 Under Regulation 25 of the new Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008, the Minerals Planning Authority is required to notify a wide range of specific and general consultation bodies,residents and those carrying on business in Essex of the subject of the plan being prepared, and invite representations about what the Minerals Development Document ought to contain.
11.2 This document encompasses our preferred approach to Core Strategy, Development Management Policies and Site Allocations. However, there may be areas that have been missed, or matters not explained in sufficient detail.
Question 25
Have We Missed Anything?
Are there any other matters you think should be considered in the MDD?
1. Yes 2. No 3. If Yes, please state what other matters should be included, and provide reasons for your answer.
Essex County Council 159 Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
MDD Preferred Approach Summary
1 Background 3 2 Planning for Mineral Supply 4 3 Essex at a Glance 5 4 Our Vision 6 5 Our Objectives 7 6 Core Spatial Strategy 7 7 Core Strategy Themes 10 8 Generic Development Management Approaches 11 9 Policies 12 10 Preferred Mineral Extraction Sites 12 11 Safeguarded Mineral Transhipment Sites 15 12 Delivering and Monitoring 16 13 How to contribute to the consultation 16
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
Foreword
The ‘Preferred Approach’ represents the next important stage in the preparation of the Essex Mineral Development Document. This new document sets out the hard choices that we need to make, in order to ensure adequate mineral supplies for the County over the next fifteen years.
In arriving at these stated preferences, the Mineral Planning Authority has drawn upon a substantial body of factual evidence, considerable professional expertise, and in excess of 3000 consultation responses received since preparation of the document began in 2005.
We are extremely grateful for all of your contributions so far. The Government places great emphasis on community involvement in policy making and significant efforts have been made to ensure all those likely to be affected by the plan have had a chance to be involved.
The Preferred Approach stage is a particularly important time to continue this involvement since it provides the main opportunity to influence the future direction of minerals policy and the selection of future sites.
The previous two formal ‘Calls for Sites’ saw 46 suggested mineral extraction sites put forward by the minerals industry and local landowners. In addition to the overall strategy and the need to explore alternatives to primary extraction, we are now in a position to set out our assessment of these extraction sites. The main Preferred Approach document clearly explains the way these choices have been made.
It is imperative to continue to plan for minerals in Essex. We are currently working to the Minerals Local Plan (1996) which was developed under very different legislation. Our sand and gravel land-bank (that is the quantity of mineral with planning permission for extraction) currently stands at 8.6 years - nearing the 7 year minimum set down by national policy. If allowed to fall below 7 years, our plan-led approach will give way to a flurry of planning application-led development. This would create uncertainty for the mineral companies with preferred sites, construction industry and considerable worry for the communities living in the mineral-rich parts of the County.
It is very important the MDD be put in place in order to ensure sufficient mineral for the future, at the right location and with the least adverse environmental effects. We believe the vision, strategies, policies and sites set out in this Preferred Approach sets us well on the way towards meeting this objective.
I would encourage you to take time to study the Preferred Approach document and continue to provide us with your views.
Councillor John Jowers
Cabinet Member for Communities and Planning
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
1 Background
1.1 Essex County Council is the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) for the whole of Essex (excluding the unitary authorities of Thurrock and Southend). As such, it is required to produce a Development Plan Document for Minerals (MDD) setting out how the County will meet the demand for minerals for the plan period which is from the 1 Jan 2009 – to 31 Dec 2028.
1.2 The process for producing and adopting the MDD is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act (2004) legislation and Government regulations and policy in the form of Planning Policy Statements (e.g. PPS12) and supported by guidance from the Planning Advisory Service (PAS). Central to the approach is to ensure that all those potentially affected by the MDD are consulted from the earliest stages of development and therefore have an opportunity to contribute to the way their local area is developed.
1.3 The MDD will be submitted for independent examination by the Planning Inspectorate to ensure it is sound before it can be adopted by the MPA. Once adopted the MDD will provide the framework for future development and determining Planning Applications for, and changes to, minerals development. Mineral development includes extraction, processing, aggregate recycling and transhipment.
1.4 This Preferred Approach paper uses the evidence gathered through previous (Issue and Option) consultations in 2005, 2006 and 2009 to set out the preferred approach to the Core Strategy and development management policies and to identify the Strategic Sites necessary to deliver the plan.
1.5 The information received from stakeholders during this consultation (along with any update from the Sustainability Appraisal) will inform the development of the Submission Document. At this time there will be a further consultation period in winter 2011 prior to it being submitted to the Secretary of State (SoS) for public examination.
Purpose of the MDD: Preferred Approach
1.6 The “Preferred Approach” stage of the MDD is our most important consultation stage yet.
The purpose of the MDD Preferred Approach paper is to:
Set out for the first time how we are proposing that minerals planning is going to occur in the County and where mineral development will occur; Enables stakeholders to contribute to the formulation of the Vision, Objective, Strategy and Policies before preparation of the submission document.
1.7 Essex is required to produce the MDD with Core Strategy, Development Management Policies and Site Allocations. All three of these elements are covered in this Preferred Approach paper.
The Core Strategy sets out our Vision, Objectives, Core Spatial Strategy and Core Strategy Themes.
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
Development Management policies and themes will be used to assess planning applications and make sure all developments are in line with the core strategy; Site allocations showing which land has been set aside for quarries and transhipment facilities.
1.8 When the MDD is tested for ‘soundness’ at its examination we must be able to demonstrate that our process for decision making has been robust. For this reason we have set out the evidence we have relied upon. The document highlights how national policy, technical evidence and consultation responses have all been taken into account. We have also had specific regard to:
The findings of the Sustainability Appraisal / Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA). Sustainable development is central to the reformed planning system. Our policy themes and topics have been subject to this formal SA/SEA process by specialists within ECC. The results are published alongside this document. The accompanying Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment. These were prepared by independent consultants. What you’ve told us in previous consultations. In the Issues and Options we sought views on a range of issues and on suggested sites for minerals provision in Essex. We have received almost 3,000 written representations to date.
We would like your views again on the proposals we have put forward as well as any reasonable alternatives and why these have not been carried forward. Do you think we have set the right approach? If not what should we change? We have set out how you can respond at the end of this document.
2 Planning for Mineral Supply
2.1 Planning for minerals supply is undertaken within the longstanding arrangements for mineral planning under the Managed Aggregate Supply system (MAS). MAS provides the national and regional guidelines for aggregate provision based on forecast demand, taking into account trend data (sales and permitted reserves); movement and econometric growth forecasting.
2.2 In 2009 the Government released updated national and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2005-2020. These guidelines reduced the amounts that the East of England had to plan for.
2.3 The Aggregate Working Party (AWP), the members of which comprise the Minerals Planning Authorities, Industry, Central Government and amenity groups, agreed to base the revised figures for each County in the East of England on proportionate sales contribution over the last 10 years.
2.4 In July 2010 the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which previously set out, among other matters, the mineral sub-regional apportionment for sand and gravel was revoked by the Secretary of State. In spite of this the Mineral Planning Authorities were specifically advised to continue planning for minerals supply within the existing arrangements. This means we are to continue being guided by the technical advice from the AWPs.
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
2.5 Through the MDD we need to identify sufficient mineral extraction sites to meet the above mineral needs of the County to the year 2028. Given the Government Guidelines update and work of the AWP our apportionment drops from 4.41mtpa to 4.31mtpa. In addition to the existing quarry sites which will continue into the plan period, there is need to find enough new extraction sites (including extensions to existing sites), to supply 42.225 million tonnes of sand and gravel reserves. This represents the best source of evidence available to us at the current time on what our relevant mineral supply needs are.
2.6 The revoking of the RSS may also result in other indirect changes to the associated demand for aggregate use. Housing targets for individual districts may change but overall growth should still occur in line with the underlying evidence. Planning Authorities were advised to have regard to the ‘Option 1’ target for housing. For the East of England this is the level of provision based on the draft RSS submitted to the SoS for the period 2011- 2031.
2.7 Aggregate for new housing represents only a fraction of the total demand for aggregates used in the construction industry which also include schools, hospitals, offices, factories, roads, bridges, flood defences and other infrastructure. Development growth is subdued during the recession, however, there are always maintenance and infrastructure improvements e.g., top coating roads with asphalt, pipe work support and railway ballast.
2.8 Based on national guidance we also need to provide for our other mineral resources. In particular, Mineral Policy Guidance 15 and Mineral Policy Statement 1 suggest we need 10 and 25 year landbanks at individual facilities for the production of silica sand and brick clay respectively. There is need to find enough new extraction sites to supply 0.237mt of silica sand reserves at Martells Quarry and 30,000 tonnes of brickclay reserves at Bulmer Brickworks. 3 Essex at a Glance
3.1 The Preferred Approach should be based on what is locally distinctive about Essex. The context for mineral planning within Essex is based on the following aspects.
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
Population and Economy
Total population is 1,376,400 (and growing) ; Theres 3 growth areas - Haven Gateway, M11 corridor and Thames Gateway; While mineral production represents a small proportion of our economic output (quarrying provides several hundred jobs) it underpins our construction and manufacturing industries.
Transport Infrastructure
Strategic transport network and resulting 'wheel and spoke' pattern reflect the significance of London with highways based on a route hierarchy; Trunk roads and rail routes all suffer from congestion and capacity limitations.
Environment
70% of our 369,394ha land area is farmland- half the soil being high grade; Much of our long (180mile) coastline is adjacent to sites of international / national habitat importance and subject to development pressures; 29 species and 15 habitats are classed as vulnerable / need protection / promotion; For a County our size we have a typical number of Listed Buildings (14,000), Scheduled Monuments (296), registered Historic Parks and Gardens (37) and recorded archaeological sites (21,000); This region is expected to face severe climate changes including floods, droughts and sea level rises.
Geology
Extensive deposits of sand and gravel - particularly in the north; More localised workable deposits of silica sand, chalk, brick earth and clay; Aggregate marine dredging occurs off the coast and lands in London and Thurrock (Thames River); Theres no hard rock deposits / extraction so it must be imported by rail.
Mineral Infrastructure
We are the largest producer and consumer of sand and gravel in the East of England; There are 24 active sand and gravel sites, 2 brick clay and 1 chalk site (2008); There are 4 wharves and 4 rail depots capable of handling aggregate; Aggregate is also recycled from around 30 active dedicated sites (2009).
4 Our Vision
4.1 The Spatial Vision is a portrait of how we would like mineral development to evolve in Essex during the plan period. All subsequent policies and preferences are intended to be informed by and translate our vision. Our vision, set out in Chapter 3 of the main document, must reflect the unique characteristics of Essex (such as those factors set out in the above box).
4.2 By 2028 we will have achieved the following:
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
Sustainable construction / efficient mineral use and reuse; High levels of Construction and Demolition Waste Reuse and Recycling; Minerals Reuse and Recycling integral to all major construction project specifications; Minimise the loss of mineral resources from needless sterilisation; Effective safeguarding of permitted mineral reserves and preferred sites; Effective safeguarding of mineral facilities; Appropriate Primary Mineral provision causing least environmental harm; Improved restoration and after-use with greater emphasis on wider environmental enhancement; Climate change mitigation and adaption from Minerals use.
We are seeking your views on whether the Vision is clear and if it recognises all the major changes that can reasonably be foreseen at this time.
5 Our Objectives
5.1 A number of strategic objectives are proposed in Chapter 3 of the main document as mechanisms for the delivery of the vision. The vision and strategic objectives need to be both aspirational and deliverable. They are to encompass your views, and as such, will evolve as the MDD is produced. A summary of the Proposed Key Objectives are summarised below:
To encourage the more efficient use of minerals, greater use of recycled aggregates and reduce the amount of wastage; To identify and safeguard minerals resources of economic or conservation value, railhead and wharf facilities and safeguard strategic minerals infrastructure; To identify primary minerals sites for a steady and adequate supply of minerals to meet the agreed sub-regional apportionment; To protect designated sites of landscape, wildlife, geodiversity, cultural and heritage importance from mineral operators; To secure the high quality restoration of extraction sites at the earliest opportunity; To secure sustainable enhancements for communities and mitigate adverse environmental impacts including that on local landscape character and biodiversity.
We need to set clear and measurable objectives to achieve the vision and therefore need to know if our Proposed Strategic Objectives would deliver the plan and if they are achievable.
6 Core Spatial Strategy
6.1 The Core Spatial Strategy, in Chapter 4, provides the overarching framework and a steer to where minerals development will be focused through the plan period. The Core Spatial Strategy, as presented below, is presented in order of the Minerals Supply Hierarchy:
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
Reducing Minerals Use and Minimising Waste
6.2 The strategy aims to firstly reduce demand for minerals in construction and to minimise waste. The preferred approach is to promote sustainable construction practices through bringing a range of measures to bear including; developing appropriate procurement practices, partnership working and public sector co-ordination.
6.3 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy CS1 and Policy DM1.
Aggregate Recycling Spatial Approach
6.4 This strategy aims to promote a network of permanent and long term temporary aggregate recycling facilities as strategic sites alongside our existing countywide sites. These ‘strategic sites’ would be in the vicinity of key urban areas, as shown on Map 1, and of a size to provide economies of scale and on site facilities to raise the quality of recycled products.
Map 1 Preferred Spatial Strategy for Aggregate Recycling Sites
6.5 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy CS2 and Policy CS10.
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
Primary Spatial Options
6.6 In Essex there are extensive deposits of land won sand and gravel. The strategy aims to meet the apportionment requirement in full for the plan period while reducing transportation distances and mineral miles. This involves optimising the location of sites to serve the local Essex market and having regard to the locations of potential future major infrastructure proposals and the main mineral infrastructure e.g., transhipment sites.
Map 2 Preferred Spatial Strategy for Sand & Gravel
6.7 The Preferred spatial strategy that has emerged to meet these requirements is a hybrid of dispersal and extensions. Map 2 shows the three main supply areas for extraction in the west, centre and north-east. As discussed further in the Preferred Mineral Extraction Sites chapter there is a need for new sites in the south and west of the county. These ‘new’ sites may have a greater local impact than sites in more established quarrying locations, but are essential to the achievement of the spatial strategy.
6.8 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy CS6, CS10 and Policy DM10.
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
7 Core Strategy Themes
7.1 A number of topic areas are proposed to form the MDD’s Core Thematic Policies within Chapter 5. The Core Strategy themes address our key values and challenges and have been identified as being central to the delivery of the MDD.
County Target for Aggregate Recycling
7.2 In addition to promoting strategic aggregate recycling facilities the Preferred Approach also seeks to retain and enhance our overall aggregate recycling capacity in the County. This is to be achieved through the setting of a County wide aggregate recycling capacity target.
7.3 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy CS3.
Safeguarding for Mineral Deposits, Transhipment Sites and Secondary Processing Facilities
7.4 The value of mineral resources and associated investment in mineral development infrastructure by the industry can be considerable. Our aim is to ensure their potential use is protected during the life of this Plan and beyond.
7.5 The Preferred Approach proposes the safeguarding of all minerals of economic resource potential (including sands and gravels) from development over a scale of 5ha. This is not to preclude other development over 5ha from taking place, but rather that the potential for prior extraction is considered so as to avoid any needless waste of mineral resources.
7.6 In addition, we are also seeking to oppose incompatible development within 250m of permitted mineral allocation and transhipment site on principle.
7.7 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy CS4, Policy DM6, Policy DM7 and Policy DM12.
Landbank
7.8 The Preferred Approach proposes to manage and maintain a single County-wide landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel. We are seeking to work to our apportionment of 4.31mtpa reflecting the best source of existing evidence.
7.9 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy CS7, Policy CS8, Policy CS9 and Policy DM9.
Biodiversity and Mineral Site After-Use
7.10 The preferred approach aims to address the after-use of mineral extraction sites that come forward during the plan period once extraction ceases and the site is restored.
7.11 We recognise that it is not always possible to prescribe what each site should become. Due to so many sites being located on versatile soils many developers are understandably proposing agricultural uses. However, some degree of multi-functionality is desirable in after-use schemes. In particular, given the pressures on our counties’ biodiversity we are proposing a target for BAP priority habitat creation.
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
7.12 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy CS11.
Your views are sought as to whether the approaches we have taken in the Core Strategy are the most appropriate to achieve the vision and objectives or if there are any that we have not considered.
8 Generic Development Management Approaches
8.1 In addition to existing policy frameworks and pollution control regimes, a range of policies for development management are needed. These are addressed in Chapter 6. These manage and control both the effects of new mineral development and that of other development which might potentially impact on mineral resources or facilities. The Preferred Approach outlines the following development management themes, and suggests policy options and criteria to manage and control these.
Non-Preferred Sites / Windfalls
8.2 A plan led approach to primary mineral supply is assumed in the MDD and we must be clear how non-preferred sites are to be addressed when they are put forward by applicants.
8.3 The preferred approach is for a general presumption against the granting of windfall sites. An important exception is where it is necessary to avoid sterilisation of a mineral resource when other development is to take place.
8.4 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy DM8.
Access and Transportation
8.5 Heavy Goods Vehicles entering or leaving mineral sites can cause safety, efficiency and amenity issues both for highway authorities and local communities.
8.6 If rail or boats are not practical modes of transportation then the Preferred Approach expects aggregate transportation to make best use of the functional route hierarchy for highway access.
8.7 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy DM11.
Health and Environmental Protection
8.8 Mineral extraction and processing is by its very nature an environmentally intrusive activity. However, if environmental considerations are integrated into the mineral operation the impacts can, in many instances, be made acceptable.
8.9 The expectation within the preferred approach is for local amenity, landscape, historic and archaeology, water, versatile soils and nature conservation sites to be protected.
8.10 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy DM2, Policy DM3, Policy DM17, Policy DM18, Policy DM19 and Policy DM20.
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
Efficient Use of Resources
8.11 The aim of the preferred approach is to ‘get the best’ out of our remaining land-won mineral resources. Primary processing will be undertaken at all quarrys, non-indigenous aggregate importation at mineral sites will be minimised and water efficiency measures encouraged where possible.
8.12 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy DM4 and Policy DM5.
Mineral Working and Restoration
8.13 The aim is to phase the commencement of preferred sites across the County and plan period. It also aims to phase working and progressively restore individual sites. Releasing sites in a co-ordinated manner across the County during the plan period will help ensure a steady supply of aggregate. Mineral extraction, by its nature, is a temporary use of land and it is expected that progressive restoration will limit the impacts of working e.g., on local communities.
8.14 The policy principles are developed further in Chapter 7: reference Policy DM13, Policy DM14, Policy DM15 and Policy DM16.
Your views are sought as to whether the approaches we have taken in the Development Management section are the most appropriate or if there are any that we have not considered.
9 Policies
9.1 The submission version of the MDD will need clear policies for the Core Spatial Strategy, Core Strategy Themes and Development Management sections. It is necessary to develop the principle of these policies at this preferred approach stage based upon the themes within this document.
9.2 The principles and emphasis of suggested policy wording is set out in Chapter 7 of the main document with links back to the preferred approaches in the earlier Chapters.
9.3 Whilst it is important that the MDD does not repeat existing national policy, local circumstances specific to Essex may require a more detailed or locally-specific policies to interpret existing national policy and regional evidence. 10 Preferred Mineral Extraction Sites
10.1 There is a need to identify Preferred Sites for future extraction to meet the preferred core strategy and spatial strategy of dispersal and extensions.
10.2 Following the 'Call for Sites' in 2005 and 2009, forty-three potential sand and gravel extraction sites were suggested to the Minerals Planning Authority. These, in total, could supply approximately 118 million tonnes of sand and gravel. To identify and realise these preferred
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
sites to meet the strategy we have assessed the 43 sites which came forward from the call for sites and earlier Issues and Options consultation. A key issue in Chapter 9 is to comment upon the site selection methodology. The site selection methodology has comprised six stages:
10.3 STAGE 1: Assessment of each site against four 'Essential' criteria (geology, transport connection, workability within the plan period, environmentally acceptability);
10.4 STAGE 2: Assessment of each site against a wide range of other Site Selection Criteria;
Mineral resource and timetable Planning history Landscape Ecology and Designations Historic Environment Agriculture Proximity to Sensitive Uses Water / Hydrology Traffic and Transportation Recreation Amenity and Pollution Restoration and After-use
10.5 STAGE 3: Cross-checking and moderation of all site assessments / scores;
10.6 STAGE 4: Ranking of sites to identify the higher scoring sites which could provide a dispersed spread across the county;
10.7 STAGE 5: Assessment of the cumulative impacts of these higher scoring dispersed sites;
10.8 STAGE 6: Following Sustainability Appraisal, confirmation of the 'Preferred Sites' for inclusion in this document.
10.9 The following table and map set out our preferred sites to deliver the Core Strategy. Sites in the west have been weighted to ensure the Core Spatial Strategy for dispersal can be realised. We are not only asking for your opinion on the merits or otherwise of these ‘preferred sites’ but also those sites which have not been selected at this time. It is possible that the preferred sites list may need to be amended e.g., as the result of the outcome of this consultation. This may necessitate the selection of sites which are currently not our preference so as to make up the apportionment as the MDD progresses towards its adoption.
Table 1 Preferred Mineral Extraction Sites
Ref no. Site Name Ext / New NE / Central / western site
A2 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield Ext Central
A3 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield Ext Central
A13 Fiveways Fruit Farm, Colchester Quarry Ext NE
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
Ref no. Site Name Ext / New NE / Central / western site
A22 Little Bullocks Farm, Gt Canfield – Area A Ext Western
A28 Tower field, Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe Quarry Ext NE
B3 Park Farm, Ardleigh Ext NE (sand and gravel component)
A23 Little Bullocks Farm, Gt Canfield – Area B Ext Western
A38 Blackleys Quarry, Gate Farm Site 1 Ext Central
A4 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield Ext Central
A39 Blackleys Quarry, Gate Farm Site 2 Ext Central
A16 Church Farm, Alresford Ext NE
A31 Maldon Road, Birch Ext NE
A14 Fingringhoe Quarry Ext NE
A40 Shellow Cross, Roxwell / Willingale New Western
A24 Easton Park, Great Dunmow New Western
A9 Broadfield Farm, Rayne New Central
A17 Frating Hall Farm. Frating New NE
A5 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield Ext Central
A6 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield Ext Central
A7 Bradwell Quarry, Rivenhall Airfield Ext Central
10.10 Three potential silica sand extraction sites also came forward, one of which has subsequently secured full planning permission. Either of the remaining two sites would be capable of supplying the 750,000 tonnes of silica sand.
10.11 One small brickclay extraction site at Bulmer brickworks was also submitted. This single site could supply around 30,000 tonnes of brickclay, sufficient for 25 years worth of production at the brickworks.
Table 2 Preferred Non-Aggregate Mineral Sites
Ref no. Site Name Ext / New
B3 Park Farm, Ardleigh Ext
C2 Bulmer Brickfields Ext
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
Map 3 Locations of Preferred Extraction Sites and Safeguarded Transhipment Sites
11 Safeguarded Mineral Transhipment Sites
11.1 In response to the original ‘Call for Sites’ for mineral transhipment in 2005 three suggested mineral transhipment sites were put forward. Table 3 below sets out our preference.
Table 3 Preferred Transhipment Sites
Ref no. Site Name Depot Key Notes
D2 Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe Wharf For life of quarry operation only.
11.2 Existing safeguarded transhipment sites as set out in the Mineral Local Plan will continue to be safeguarded.
Your views are sought as to whether the site assessment process carried out reflects the best methodology and whether the Preferred Sites and safeguarded transhipment sites are appropriate to deliver our spatial strategy and meet our apportionment needs?
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
12 Delivering and Monitoring
12.1 The MDD must be deliverable and flexible to change. Once the MDD has been adopted, it is important that it is monitored and reviewed on a regular basis, to ensure that it continues to be effective and can be successfully delivered. This is explored in Chapter 13 of the main document which sets out:
What targets we think we should use to show whether or not the policies are being successful; and The organisations that will help us meet those targets.
12.2 In particular, it is recognised that much of the MDD will be delivered through the determination of individual planning applications for mineral development facilities. Essex will need to work closely with stakeholders, including the mineral industry, to ensure that new sites come on line in a timely fashion to provide a steady supply of minerals throughout the plan period.
It is essential that delivery and monitoring of the MDD is effective so we would like your views as to the best methods, in addition to requirements set out in national guidelines.
13 How to contribute to the consultation
13.1 We are asking for your opinions on the preferred approaches. Your comments will help us shape the submission document which has the specific wording on policies and proposals that will affect those living, working in or visiting the County over the Plan period - so get involved and have your say.
13.2 The MDD Preferred Approach consultation documents can be accessed via the Internet at http://consult.essexcc.gov.uk. This provides an interactive service through which people can review and comment on the documents.
13.3 ECC have identified a range of stakeholders to whom we will send copies of the various consultation documents, in line with our Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Depending on their identified need they will receive hard copies of some or all of the main WDD documents and possibly a CD containing the PDF.
13.4 The consultation documents will also be published on the Council's websites, which can be viewed online or printed as required. These can be found on:
The Essex County Council website at: www.essex.gov.uk/MDD-consultation
13.5 A number of independent high level assessments addressing sustainability issues will also be published here.
13.6 Hard copies of consultation documents will also be made available for inspection at Libraries across Essex, at District and Borough Council offices and at County Hall in Chelmsford.
13.7 The main document identifies a range of issues being discussed and one or more options for each issue on which we need your views.
Essex County Council Minerals Development Document: Preferred Approach Summary
13.8 The consultation runs for an ten week period from 6 December 2010. The Council would prefer comments to be made online, at http://consult.essexcc.gov.uk, in line with the Government’s approach to providing services electronically.
13.9 However, there are a number of ways to respond; A standard form is available on the website for submitting other forms of response, use of the form will help the team to understand and consider the responses made. The form should be used to respond to all questions, any responses that do not fit in the space provided should be clearly marked on a separate page and attached to the form. The response form can be found at: www.essex.gov.uk/MDD-consultation
Completed response forms should be returned within the 10 week consultation period using one of the following methods :
Email to [email protected]
Fax to 01245 437 213
Post to The Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team, Freepost CL3636 Essex County Council E3 County Hall Chelmsford CM1 1QH
13.10 All representations will be available to view online; these and the outcomes from the workshops will be taken into account to inform the preparation of the next stage of the MDD, the Submission Document. The Submission Document is scheduled for consultation in December 2011.
Road Shows
13.11 Minerals and Waste Planning staff will be available at venues at each district within Essex for the public to approach. This will include locations near preferred sites. A consultation timetable for the Public is available on our website.
Workshop Consultation
13.12 We are looking to hold a series of stakeholder workshops to provide an opportunity for discussion and debate on the two themes of (1) ‘spatial strategy’ and (2) ‘site selection methodology’. A consultation timetable for the Public is available on our website. During the consultation, there will be a number of consultation workshops at various locations across the county at dates and times that will be published on the website. A number of individuals and organisations have already expressed an interest in being involved as a result of articles in various publications and through meetings held over the past few months.
13.13 In line with the commitments made in the SCI, we will also consider attending public meetings to explain in more detail the issues and options under consideration.
Essex County Council