Ryarsh Protection Group

Phil Shelton Geotechnical Consultancy 85 Oulton Road Stone, Staffordshire ST15 8DX +44 (0) 7834 598616 [email protected]

PS3053 Inspector Nick Palmer 13 September 2019 c/o Programme Officer Kent County Council Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team 1st Floor, Invicta House Maidstone ME14 1XX e-mail [email protected]

Dear Sir

Examination of the Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013-30 and the Kent Mineral Sites Plan

1 PREAMBLE 1.1 Phil Shelton Geotechnical Consultancy Limited (PS Geotech), has been appointed by the Ryarsh Protection Group (RPG) to prepare a representation to this Examination on the legal compliance and soundness of the Kent Mineral Sites Plan pre-submission draft (KMSP) and supporting documents.

1.2 In fact, this representation has already been prepared by Green Balance (March 2019) “Kent Mineral Sites Plan Regulation 19 – Response to the Consultation”. It is understood that this has already been submitted to Kent County Council (KCC) and copied to the Inspector. It is re-attached to this document for completeness.

1.3 Unfortunately, Green Balance are unable to attend the Hearing between 8th and 10th October 2019 or take any further active role in this matter because the lead author, Mr Richard Bate, has retired. Hence the appointment of PS Geotech.

1.4 It is confirmed that PS Geotech has reviewed the representation prepared by Green Balance and is in complete agreement with its reasoning and conclusions. It is not PS Geotech’s intention here to discuss the detail of the arguments made by Green Balance relating to the ‘soundness’ of KCC’s Minerals Sites Plan, but to simply restate the areas of contention and provide reasons why it is believed that we should be permitted to attend and participate in the Hearing.

1.5 In particular, it has come to RPG’s attention that representations have also been made to this Hearing by Waterman Infrastructure and Environment Ltd (Waterman), on behalf of a quarry operator, Borough Green Sandpits Ltd (BGS), which apparently contradict those prepared by Green Balance. Waterman has also requested leave to attend and participate in the Hearing. If this leave is granted, then it seems only appropriate that the interests of RPG are also represented.

2 ISSUES RELATING TO KCC’S MINERALS SITES PLAN

Soft Sand Requirements 2.1 In checking the calculations made by KCC for the predicted future requirements of soft sand production within Kent, Green Balance found that while the correct methodology had been applied, arithmetic errors were made. This is explained in detail in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.8 (Green Balance, 2019). In brief, it was found that the Residual need [for soft sand], to be allocated was overestimated. Instead of a need to allocate a further 4.96Mtonnes of soft sand permitted reserve, only 1.943Mtonnes is actually required. The figures presented by KCC are therefore considered unsound.

2.2 The reasoning behind this is fully described in the submission made by Green Balance.

2.3 It is noted that the representation presented by Waterman contradicts this finding, but not because of arithmetic differences, but rather by through the methodology used. Waterman argues that instead of using the 10 Year average method, [approved by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – Paragraph 207], a different method should be used based on forecasted need.

2.4 PS Geotech would argue that while the quantities reported by KCC were incorrect arithmetically, the methodology used was correct, and therefore not unsound. In other words, there is no need to change the methodology of calculating future soft sand requirements, simply correct the quantities.

Fulfillment of Residual Need 2.5 In paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 (Green Balance, 2019), it is shown that as a result of actual need for soft sand being so much less than estimated in the Pre-Submission Plan, it is considered that the spare capacity in soft sand supply now anticipated (with the release of site M3) is quite sufficient for the Plan period. We consider strongly that the third indent in paragraph 3.12 should be deleted. This would allow soft sand to be sourced from (i.e. permission granted at) “Other new sites not identified in the Mineral Sites Plan, deemed as acceptable sustainable mineral development in accordance with local planning policy and all material planning considerations including national planning policy”.

2.6 The reasoning behind our view that this indent should be deleted is fully explained by Green Balance.

2.7 But in summary, this is viewed as opening a ‘back door’ for the re-designation of current ‘Omission Sites’ following the approval of the Plan.

2.8 It is recognized that the Inspector will not permit the discussion of the merits or otherwise of Omission Sites within this Hearing. However, it is clear that others are strongly advocating the establishment of Omission Sites (for instance Waterman on behalf of BGS are arguing for the re-designation of site M8 in Ryarsh) and the inclusion of this ‘back door’ could be seen as a way that this can be achieved.

3 Attendance at Hearing In view of the issues raised above, and in particular the submissions made by Waterman on behalf of BGS, it is considered that it would be helpful if representatives of the RPG attend the Hearing to participate in discussions relating to the soundness and legal compliance of the Plan.

It is proposed that the attendees should include: • Dr Philip Shelton BSc PhD CEng MIMMM FGS • • • • •

4 Summary

Phil Shelton PhD BSc CEng MIMM FGS +44 (0) 7834 598616 [email protected]

Matters Statement for Examination in Public commencing on 8 October 2019 on behalf of the Ryarsh Protection Group

A. The Ryarsh Protection Group 1. The Ryarsh Protection Group (RPG) is an action group formed in January 2018. It has 3,615 registered supporters (via a petition to Parliament) amongst residents from Ryarsh and surrounding communities including, Addington, Birling, Leybourne, Trottiscliffe, Snodland, West Malling and well beyond. 16 residents form its core committee. Around 1,299 people signed individual letters supporting the Group in response to the KCC Options Consultation.

2. RPG submitted a report “Kent Minerals Sites Plan Regulation 19, Response to the Consultation” in March 2019, prepared by Green Balance, in relation to the KCC Minerals Sites Plan (MSP). Although n general RPG indicated support for the MSP, areas for proper amendment were identified. This Report was forwarded to the Inspector and a copy is Appended to this Matt.

B. Omission Sites 3. Since March 2019 and the final Regulation 19 consultation, RPG have seen reports from others particularly from Watermans Infrastructure and Environment Limited (available in the KCC Documents Library), representing Borough Green Sandpits Ltd, the promoter of the M8 site.

4. The M8 Ryarsh site is an “omission site”. Following representations in response to Regulation 19 and in his Guidance Notes, the Inspector states “A number of alternative development sites have been put forward in representations, which are known as ‘omission sites’. I will not be considering the merits or otherwise of these sites as part of the examination as they do not form part of the Plan being examined.”

5. RPG acknowledges the Inspector has no interest in examining omission sites and will not therefore comment on the significant deficiencies of the M8 site. However should the M3 site for whatever reason fall short of its MSP provision in regard to soft sand, then the RPG would, at that stage, would seek to present its own reasons as to the unsuitability of the M8 site.

C. Future soft sand provision 6. RPG wishes to comment need for an adequate supply of soft sand. 7. The Watermans Report focuses specifically on the method used to calculate the future need for soft sand within Kent and the manner and methodology in which the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) accounted for future soft sand requirements of Kent and the other members of the South East England Aggregate Working Party (SEEAWP).

8. Watermans also comment on the proposed allocation of a single additional site for soft sand (Chapel Farm, Site M3) and the exclusion of West Malling Sandpit (Site M8) for reasons of its location in the Green Belt. As we now know, the M8 site, being an omission site, should not be part of any discussions at the Examination in Public (“the Hearing”).

9. The Watermans Report makes specific representations on the need for soft sand in Kent. It asserts that KCC has underestimated the need for soft sand. RPG disagree with this assertion. The Watermans Report also asserts that KCC has not fully complied with the duty to co-operate and so the plan is not legally compliant.

10. In their report, Watermans are, however, proposing a significantly different strategy for soft sand provision than that provided in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Report indicates a huge need of approximately 16Mt of soft sand would be required to support the future delivery of new housing and associated development in Kent and Medway in line with the house building targets. Watermans indicate that this estimate does not factor in the soft sand which would be required to deliver future infrastructure projects (some of which are listed in the Report). They concede that, although soft sand is used in asphalt production for example, the proportion of soft sand sales into asphalt production is relatively minor. When existing permitted reserves are considered, the need reduces to approximately 8.29Mt. This compares to 2.5Mt need calculated by the MPA.

11. In its Report in response to Regulation 19, prepared by Green Balance, RPG have, in fact, demonstrated (paragraph 2.7) that the appropriate calculation for soft sand yields a figure of 1.94mt with a buffer of 1.26mt for future allocated reserves.1

12. Watermans further indicate that the MPA underestimates the need for soft sand as a result of using the 10 year sales average figure in calculating future demand rather than taking into account house building targets for Kent and Medway. Taking into account factual data for previous

1 Green Balance’s report points to arithmetical errors on the MPA’s part, but no further errors: the MPA’s methodology, unlike that adopted by Watermans, was sound. house building and soft sand sales Watermans suggest a hugely exaggerated assessment of future needs. Their report also uses relatively old soft sand sales data.

D. Future Provision 13. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides at para.207:

“Maintaining supply 207. Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by: a) preparing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment, either individually or jointly, to forecast future demand, based on a rolling average of 10 years’ sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options (including marine dredged, secondary and recycled sources)[.]”

14. The National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 207 expects mineral planning authorities to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates, including soft sand. This policy was unchanged in the NPPF revisions in July 2018 and February 2019. Two key features are:

(a) To maintain a landbank of permitted reserves for seven years’ supply; practice has established that this includes seven years on the end-date of the Minerals Local Plan; (b) To calculate a year’s supply as the average of supply in the previous 10 years, “based on a rolling average”. (Taking the average of the demand for a mineral over the last 10 years reflects the volatility in supply from one year to another and the difficulty of making reasonable forecasts of demand more than a very short period ahead.)

15. As above, the Watermans Report has largely rejected the NPPF methodology.

16. Instead, Watermans have adopted their own methodology to go far beyond “any other relevant local information” to calculate extremely large volumes of soft sand which generate some 16 Mt tonnes of soft sand (soft sand cumulative over the remaining Growth Infrastructure Framework – GIF – house building period or 11.07mt) Watermans Page 10 . This approach is misleading and is flawed. 17. Watermans have also proceeded on the basis that Kent amounts to an isolated island. In table 1 Soft sand sales and dwellings completed and table 3 Soft sand based on tonnes per dwelling, they assume that all Kent soft sand is consumed and sold in Kent. This is clearly incorrect.

E. The need for soft sand in neighbouring counties and the duty to co-operate 18. Under Section 33(A) of the Localism Act 2011, the MPA is under a duty to co-operate with neighbouring minerals planning authorities over cross-boundary strategic issues such as the regional need for soft sand. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 expected local planning authorities “to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross- boundary impacts” (paragraph 181). This requirement was reflected in NPPF 2018 and as amended in February 2019.

19. Here, the MPA considered a surplus of 0.7Mt sufficient to “contribute to the wider regional need for this material”. In its Report in response to Regulation 19 the RPG have demonstrated that using the same MPA methodology, the buffer is in fact 1.26mt. If the previous figure of 0.7mt was considered sufficient as a contribution to the wider need, then clearly 1.26mt is more so.

20. Further, much of Kent’s soft sand resource is currently used outside Kent in everyday commercial activities. It is easy to see why. Two examples are provided:

20.1 The Sevenoaks Quarry, almost on the border of Kent and Surrey, takes soft sand west into Surrey and beyond. Sand lorries from this facility are not checked at the Surrey border almost adjacent to the site. Kent soft sand is transported to neighbouring counties.

20.2 Cemex facilities located throughout the south east produce dry mix, concrete etc. Although largely for economic and transport reasons the end product, at for example its Northfleet site in Kent, is sent to sites mainly in Kent, there are other facilities in other local counties which use soft sand from within Kent. This means existing Kent supplies of soft sand are already being transported to areas in London and the south east and beyond.

21. In very many ways soft sand excavated in Kent is transported from quarries and used outside the county. 22. The Watermans Report, in looking at “other relevant local information” (NPPF para 207), has adopted an extreme position to determine soft sand provision. RPG believes the Watermans methodology in the provision of current and future soft sand usage, stems from its commercial interests with its client Borough Green Sandpits Ltd. It largely casts aside the existing NPPF and MSP methodology in the provision of soft sand.

23. Furthermore it is the view of RPG that KCC in its MSP have taken into account future growth as listed by the Inspector in question 65 in arriving at current and future soft sand provision. No doubt this will become evident in the course of the Hearing.

F. Specialised sand 24. As for specialised sand, there exist many suppliers in the UK particularly of silica sand, including a mine in Lochaline (the only underground sand mine in Europe). The Lochaline mine in its own Information base indicates a huge deposit of pure white sandstone. The sandstone is drilled, blasted, loaded into dump trucks and taken to the surface plant, where it is crushed, washed, screened, scrubbed and spiralized. It is transported all over the UK. Most of this sand is transported by ship from the adjacent dedicated pier. From its two distribution centres at Liverpool and York it delivers its products throughout the UK to industrial end users at their manufacturing sites wherever they may be located in the UK.

G. The Hearing 25. At the Hearing, RPG wishes to make representations on significant matters relating to the MSP particularly relating to Matter 1 and Matter 3. This has been communicated to the Inspector via the Programme Officer.

26 RPG’s representatives at the Hearing will be Claire Petricca-Riding (Solicitor) and Dr Phil Shelton.

Ryarsh Protection Group 13 September 2019 APPENDIX KENT MINERAL SITES PLAN REGULATION 19

RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION

for Ryarsh Protection Group

by Green Balance

March 2019

1 Cover image: The M8 site at Ryarsh seen from a footpath in Trosley Country Park in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, highlighted in red. (Photo: Ben Oag)

Report author: Richard Bate, Partner, Green Balance

Green Balance Providence Cottage Upper Green Road Shipbourne Kent TN11 9PL Tel./fax.: 01732 811456 Email: [email protected] Web: www.greenbalance.co.uk

2 1 Purpose

1.1 Green Balance has been asked by the Ryarsh Protection Group to prepare a response to Kent County Council’s Minerals Sites Plan Regulation 19 Consultation. A site containing soft sand at The Roughetts, Ryarsh, numbered M8, was put forward for consideration in an Options Consultation in December 2017, but was not selected for the Pre-Submission Plan now the subject of the Regulation 19 Consultation. The Ryarsh Protection Group supports that exclusion. It continues to consider that the Ryarsh site is unsuitable for allocation, and expects to make further representations to the Examination of the Plan anticipated later in 2019. The Pre-Submission Plan allocates one additional site for soft sand extraction, at Lenham (site M3).

1.2 Ryarsh Protection Group is an action group formed in January 2018. It has 3,615 registered supporters (via a petition to Parlaiment) amongst residents from Ryarsh and surrounding communities including, Addington, Birling, Leybourne, Trottiscliffe, Snodland, West Malling and well beyond. 16 residents form its core committee. Around 1,299 people signed individual letters supporting the Group in response to the KCC Options Consultation.

1.3 Both Partners of Green Balance are experienced minerals planners, and Richard Bate is a previous Secretary of the South East Regional Aggregates Working Party.

2 Soft sand requirements for the Minerals Sites Plan

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 207 expects mineral planning authorities to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates, including soft sand. This policy was unchanged in the NPPF revisions in July 2018 and February 2019. Two key features are:

(a) To maintain a landbank of permitted reserves for seven years’ supply; practice has established that this includes seven years on the end-date of the Minerals Local Plan;

(b) To calculate a year’s supply as the average of supply in the previous 10 years, “based on a rolling average”. (Taking the average of the demand for a mineral over the last 10 years reflects the volatility in supply from one year to another and the difficulty of making reasonable forecasts of demand more than a very short period ahead.)

2.2 The Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan (KMWLP) adopted July 2016 did this in Policy CSM2, supported by explanation in paragraphs 5.2.9-10 and 5.2.21-22. The annual need for soft sand at the time was 0.65mtpa, generating a need to provide 15.6mt of soft sand for both the Plan and a 7-year landbank at 2030. Taking into account permitted reserves at the time, there was a need to allocate land for 4.96mt at that time.

2.3 The quantities of mineral required are recognised in policy as rolling forward as each year’s data become available. The calculations were therefore different in each of the KMWLP, the Options Consultation (December 2017) paragraph 2.10, and the Pre- Submission Plan (December 2018) Figure 2. To calculate the average of the 10-year requirement, each year a new annual supply quantity is added for the most recent year and

3 the annual supply quantity for the oldest year used in the previous calculation is dropped. Furthermore, the latest information is used on permitted reserves which remain unworked in the ground. The data for the calculations are published in KCC’s annual Local Aggregates Assessment. The results are in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Calculations of residual need for soft sand allocations

Adopted KMWLP Needs based on most recent data 10-year average demand 650,000tpa 568,000tpa Need in rest of Plan period [a] 11,050,000t (17 years from 2013) 6,816,000t (12 years from 2018) Additional 7 years’ landbank at 4,550,000t 3,976,000t end of Plan period (2030) [b] Total requirement [a] + [b] 15,600,000t 10,792,000t Landbank of permitted reserves 10,640,000t (at end of 2012) 8,849,000t (at end of 2017) Residual need, to be allocated 4,960,000t 1,943,000t

2.4 Using the data available to it, KCC has made a significant error in the calculation of need for soft sand. The correct calculation is in the right hand column of Table 1 above. The 1.943mt there differs from the ‘requirements’ calculated in Figure 2 in the Pre-Submission Plan. In essence, KCC has added an extra year into the Plan period, and so increased the claimed need by 0.568mt. (The need of 1.943mt in Table 1 above is exactly 0.568mt less than the need of 2.51[1]mt in Figure 2 in the Pre-Submission Plan.) The error is serious, so the next two paragraphs explain the source of the problem and how the mistake was made.

2.5 The Title of the KMWLP states that it covers the period “2013-2030”. This is repeatedly expressed in the Plan as a 17 year period. However, the Plan is opaque about the start and finish date within the annual calendar: is it 1st January, or 1st April, or some other date? Often this does not matter, but when calculating aggregates requirements it does. What the KMWLP actually meant can fortunately be worked out from the calculations it used. For soft sand this becomes clear from paragraph 5.2.21. This uses a landbank “at the end of 2012” as the basis for establishing existing supply. The 17 years of the Plan period, plus the need for a 7 year landbank at the end of the Plan period, must start on 1st January 2013 for the calculations to be correct. (Otherwise the landbank at the end of 2012 would have to be reduced somewhat, to allow for excavations between 1st January 2013 and whatever other date the Plan might have started on in 2013.) If the Plan started on 1st January 2013, then 17 years of the Plan gives its end date as 1st January 2030.

2.6 In Figure 2 of the Pre-Submission Plan, the annual need is calculated over an 11 year period from 2019 to 2030. We now know that this must refer to 1st January 2019 to 1st January 2030. A 7 year landbank is added to this at the end, to enable an 18 year requirement to be calculated. 18 x 0.568mt gives a total requirement of 10.224mt. (This stage in the calculation is, surprisingly, omitted from Figure 2.) Permitted reserves are stated: “as of the end of 2017 = 8.85mt”. There is only 1 year between the date of the known permitted reserves and the date 1st January 2019 when total requirements are counted from, so there is only a need to allow for losses from the reserves due to excavations in the calendar year 2018. However, KCC has instead subtracted a notional 2 year allowance for excavations out of the permitted reserves. Figure 2 specifically refers to

4 “available reserves at the end of 2019” whereas it should have referred to “available reserves at the start of 2019” (or ‘end of 2018’).

2.7 The reason this matters is not simply that the Plan ought to calculate its soft sand needs correctly. It is also that a correct lower figure for residual need of 1.94mt gives a substantially bigger margin for error over the life of the Plan between this need and the proposed supply. The M3 site proposed to be allocated contains 3.2mt. This means that the Plan’s supply buffer will actually be 1.26mt (rather than 0.69mt if the erroneous number in Figure 2 of the Pre-Submission Plan is used) – i.e. over 80% larger. This provides considerable reassurance that the allocation of just the M3 site will be sufficient to meet any foreseeable eventualities in demand.

2.8 As a smaller additional point in the calculations, we do not consider that KCC should have made any estimate at all for the decline in permitted reserves from the known figure at the end of 2017, whether to the end of 2019 or to the end of 2018. There are too many assumptions involved. It would be more acceptable to base all calculations on the date 31st December 2017/1st January 2018. That would use a known reserve figure and simply require an extra year to be added into the needs in the remaining years of the Plan (i.e. 12 + 7 years instead of 11 + 7 years), as we have done in Table 1 above. (This produces the same numerical outcome but in a mathematically less contentious way.)

2.9 Furthermore, and particularly as a result of actual need for soft sand being so much less than estimated in the Pre-Submission Plan, we consider that the spare capacity in soft sand supply now anticipated (with the release of site M3) is quite sufficient for the Plan period. We consider strongly that the third indent in paragraph 3.12 should be deleted. This would allow soft sand to be sourced from (i.e. permission granted at) “Other new sites not identified in the Mineral Sites Plan, deemed as acceptable sustainable mineral development in accordance with local planning policy and all material planning considerations including national planning policy”.

2.10 Our objections to this are: (i) there is a sufficient margin of error in supply capability anyway, so no further consideration should be given to the possible release of other sites (para. 2.7 above); (ii) the indent is very lazy policy which in effect undermines the rest of the Plan on soft sand supply: at a stroke it eliminates the certainty which planning aims to offer, and there is little point in having a Plan if a different pattern of mineral working could just as easily emerge; (iii) one of the purposes of planning carefully for the allocation of the most suitable sites in a Plan is to ensure that no more mineral sites, often intrusive into people’s lives, are open at any one time than is really necessary; (iv) this paragraph indent is making up policy ‘on the hoof’: it is not itself a Policy, and it contravenes the adopted Policy CSM2 in the KMWLP to which the Mineral Sites Plan is intended to be subservient: CSM2 states of aggregates “Sites will be identified in the Mineral Sites Plan to support supplies of land-won aggregates at the stated levels above. A rolling average of ten years' sales data and other relevant information will be used to assess landbank requirements on an on-going basis, and this will be kept under review through the annual production of a Local Aggregates Assessment.”

5 CSM2 does not say ‘other sites will be permitted if deemed acceptable’, and it is not the job of the Mineral Sites Plan to impute that.

2.11 We consider that the Plan is unsound because it has miscalculated the requirement for soft sand: it is not justified and the method makes errors in the application of national policy – and so is not consistent with this. Significant changes are required to paragraph 3.13 and to Figure 2.

2.12 We consider that the Plan is unsound because it includes the third indent of paragraph 3.12, which is not justified.

3 Workable reserves on the M8 site

3.1 At the Options Consultation stage, the M8 site identified by Kent County Council had an area of 20.8 hectares. However, constraints on the site made clear that working the entire site would not be permissible. The principal constraints were the need for a setback from Roughetts Road to offer some protection to the amenities of residents living along Roughetts Road and also exclusion of the southern-most part of the site which is covered by ancient woodland.

3.2 The mineral company with an interest in the site, Borough Green Sandpits Ltd (BGS), to some extent appreciated these constraints and has promoted proposals which would work about 12ha of the site and yield 3.6mt1. Of this, about 0.5mt would be classed as silica sands, suitable for a selection of industrial uses. The site is to be worked primarily for soft construction sand, but the higher quality silica sands would be sold into other markets as appropriate.

3.3 There is now clarity that the yield from the site will be less than 3.6mt. The assessment of yield by Greenfield Associates was based on a ‘Potential Extraction Area’ marked in brown in their report (File ref.: WM Roughetts Exc V5.dwg dated 13.02.2017) issued in February 2017. This shows a lobe of workable area south of a line passing through the borehole location BH12W. This was still the expectation in the KCC Options Consultation: here a ‘Supporting Evidence Addendum’ shows the same drawing by Greenfield Associates but revised on 25.01.18 (in ways which did not affect the workable area). However, the proposals changed in September 2018. BGS’s consultants Corylus Ecology issued a Botany Report which showed that excavations in this southern lobe would have impacted ancient woodland and other valued habitats. This was taken into account in the Waterman Transport Assessment for BGS the same month. This includes a Plan (electronic page 255) with a revised ‘Potential Extraction Area’ showing no working south of a line through the Borehole BH12W. The larger margin left on the southern side of the site would avoid direct damage to all the ancient woodland and to the most important part of the unimproved acid grassland. This is the Plan which was incorporated by KCC into its Mineral Site Assessment 2018 in December 2018 and presented to Councillors. Unfortunately, although the potential extraction area has been revised, the yield from the

1 Reconnaissance Drilling & Mineral Reserve Assessment of Land at The Roughetts, West Malling, Kent, February 2017, Greenfield Associates, paragraph 8.2. 6 site has not: the yield figure of 3.6mt identified in February 2017 exceeds what could be obtained from the land now promoted for working by BGS and considered by KCC. The reduction in yield does not yet appear to have identified.

3.4 In our view, there are likely to be further constraints on the extent of working, due to the need to protect bats, all species of which are protected. Corylus Ecology have provided BGS with Ecological Surveys updates, in an email dated 28th September 2018. In respect of Bats, Corylus reports: “The tree with the confirmed bat roost is in the line of trees along the western boundary of the Site and it has been confirmed that these trees will be retained with a buffer as part of the extraction proposals. Mitigation to protect the trees from damage during the extraction would be required but no further mitigation would be needed. Restrictions in relation to lighting may be recommended once the data has been fully analysed to limit any impacts to commuting corridors or foraging habitat.”

3.5 The line of trees on the western boundary is shown as lost to the excavation in all Plans for the site, including the KCC Mineral Site Assessment 2018. The welcome commitment to protecting the line of trees which includes the confirmed bat roost is therefore a revision of earlier proposals. A modest additional setback will be required on the western boundary to preserve the habitat of this protected species.

3.6 The additional buffer likely to be required to protect the bats will reduce the amount of mineral which could be worked from the site. The mineral resource is deepest along the western boundary. Boreholes BH1 and BH2 towards the west of the site are reported by Greenfield Associates to have the greatest and third-greatest thicknesses of mineral out of the 14 reported across the site (Table 2). The exact effect on the total quantity of mineral obtainable from the site does not yet appear to have been calculated, but the overall supply would clearly drop discernibly.

3.7 Taking together the increased buffers to mitigate ecological impacts on both the south and west sides of the M8 proposed site, the yield from the site will clearly drop from the originally anticipated 3.6mt. This finding matters because the overall supply from the Ryarsh M8 site might well turn out to be very similar to the 3.2mt anticipated as available from the Lenham M3 site in the Pre-Submission Local Plan, rather than M8 offering discernibly more mineral. (We note that the capacity of the M3 site has been reduced from the 4mt anticipated there in the Options Consultation, by the removal of the eastern area.) In addition, so far as meeting the needs of the construction industry is concerned, the M8 site offers a smaller quantity of soft sand excluding silica sand (3.1mt) than the M3 site, even before making allowances for necessary additional set-backs for ecological mitigation.

3.8 This information does not challenge the soundness of the Plan: it would, however, challenge any case for releasing the Ryarsh M8 site instead of the Lenham M3 site.

4 Impact on the Green Belt

4.1 In 2018 Kent County Council commissioned a Detailed Technical Assessment of the M8 site at Ryarsh. This found that “there is potential that a negative impact upon openness could arise due to the location and layout of Site compounds, including any material

7 stockpiles, and that the location and design of screening bunds could also have a short-term negative impact upon openness. The Site would require careful design to ensure that such impacts are minimised.” Given that an alternative site existed which could be allocated, not in the Green Belt, KCC concluded that the very special circumstances needed to override the presumption against the development did not exist. Allocating the site would therefore not be consistent with local and national Green Belt policy. We consider that the planning process has been correctly followed in this respect. By excluding the M8 site from the Plan on this basis, the Plan is therefore sound on this point.

5 Impact on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Position and elevation of the M8 site

5.1 It is important to appreciate the lie of the land in this area. The chalk scarp of the North Downs runs down into a valley and then, south of Ryarsh village, rises up again (south of the M20 motorway). This is the area of soft sand. There is a direct line of sight from the North Downs across the shallow valley into the M8 site. Furthermore, the M8 site is the highest ground in its immediate vicinity and is largely tilted (rather than a level plateau) so that its main face is to the north. Ground levels drop gently across the site from west to east and there is a relatively sharp drop on the western edge towards a golf course. Its elevation and tilt distinctly increase the visibility of the M8 site from the North Downs. These features make the M8 site much more visible than would otherwise be the case for land about 2km from a viewpoint. Figures 1 and 2 below indicate the exposure of the site to views from the north. Figure 1 provides a view from the public footpath across the site to the north, showing how the land drops away in the foreground (both to the north and east). Figure 2, from the bridge over the M20, shows how the site slopes down northwards towards the motorway (exposing the site to view from further north).

Figure 1 View approximately north from the footpath across the M8 site, showing the site dipping down to the north

8 Figure 2 View of the M8 site sloping north down towards the M20

Observations on visual impact of the M8 site from the AONB by Ryarsh Protection Group

5.2 Ryarsh Protection Group has not commissioned its own LVIA of the proposed allocation, particularly as M8 is not included in the Pre-Submission Plan. However, it can give some indicators of the scale of the visual damage which working the site would cause by presenting photographs of the site when seen from the North Downs Way, which is a National Trail and the most prominent footpath in the area, which for a substantial stretch overlooks the site at a distance of about 2km.

5.3 The photographs below (by Ben Oag) show the visibility of the M8 site from well- frequented positions on the North Downs Way and in Trosley Country Park. We do agree with Waterman that “Ideally, the field work and photography should be undertaken in the winter in order to obtain a representative ‘worst case scenario’ in terms of visibility and the screening effect of vegetation” (paragraph 3.14). Photographs 3-6 below assist this, together with a plan indicating camera positions. An additional photograph by Andy Betts shows the M8 site clearly visible from the Downs above Birling, east of the above sites.

9 Figure 3 View of the M8 site from the top of the North Downs within the heavily-used Trosley Country Park. (Note: a detail of this photo is shown on the front cover of this report)

10 Figure 4 View of the M8 Site from Viewpoint 1

Figure 5 View of the M8 site from Viewpoint 2 with a telephoto lens

11 Figure 6 View of the M8 site from Viewpoint 3 (‘Viewpoint 3a’ is not included: it is the same as viewpoint 3 but taken with a stronger telephoto lens.)

Figure 7 View of the M8 site from north of Birling near Holly Hill Lodge at GR 670624 (photo: Andy Betts)

12 Assessment of impacts on the AONB by Waterman for BGS

5.4 We consider the Landscape and Visual Appraisal by Waterman (May 2018) very unsatisfactory in relation to its assessment of the impact of the M8 site on the Kent Downs AONB. We were surprised that, as a starting point, the baseline plan in ‘Figure 2: Designations and Access’ failed to mark the AONB at all. We strongly disagree with the statement in paragraph 3.10 of the report that “The visibility from the Kent Downs AONB to the north of the site will be limited due to the overall low topography of the area and intervening vegetation along the M20 restricting views towards the site.” The M8 site is elevated above its surroundings (a point acknowledged at paragraph 5.1 of the report) and clearly visible from locations in the AONB to the north.

5.5 Waterman’s ‘Figure 4: Viewpoint Locations and ZTV’ rightly shows the high potential for visibility of the site from the AONB scarp to the north (marked dark green). Just one viewpoint for assessment is selected from this area (Viewpoint 8). The analysis comments on page 23 that “The site is not visible from this location”, even though we consider it is. The more general point is also made that even “During the winter months, when branches are bare, there would be no visibility of the site due to the relative distance of the viewpoint location”. Much the same point is repeated in the visual evaluation of Viewpoint 8 in paragraph 6.11 on page 27. The final sentence of the Summary and Conclusions of the report, at paragraph 7.6 is that “The proposed development would not be visible from the wider setting”. Typical visibility of the site from prominent positions in the AONB is indicated in the Ryarsh Protection Group’s own photographs above.

Appraisal of Landscape and Visual Issues by Amey for Kent County Council

5.6 KCC commissioned an Appraisal of Landscape and Visual Issues from Amey for each of the sites proposed in the Options Consultation. This includes a review of the promoter’s LVIA on the M8 site, by Watermans. Amey say of Watermans’ Baseline Assessment of this site that “Only cursory mention is given to the presence of the Kent Dows AONB, and the boundary of this designation is not shown on Figure 2.” As a result “Further detail is required regarding likely effects on the Kent Downs AONB. This information needs to have regard to the statutory purposes and special qualities of the designation.” It is clear too that Watermans’ choice of viewpoints was deficient, including the observation “Additional viewpoints from within the AONB would be particularly helpful”. On ‘Identification and Description of Effects’, the assessment observed that “There is no comment made as to whether or not effects are likely to be significant or not”, leading to the request that “Further information regarding effect upon the Kent Downs AONB is required”. Amey’s review at paragraph 6.1.4 concluded, simply, that “There is lack of consideration of likely effects upon the Kent Downs AONB. This is a nationally important landscape, and further information regarding potential effects is considered fundamental to understanding whether or not this a suitable Site for the type of development proposed” (emphasis in original). We support this commentary on Waterman’s report.

13 Sustainability Appraisal of the Pre-Submission Draft Plan by Amey for KCC

5.7 Amey have also prepared the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Pre-Submission Draft, and this goes further in its commentary on the impact on the AONB provided by the promoter. This states that “A landscape and visual assessment has been undertaken which concludes that the proposed development would have significant highly localised landscape and visual effects that would not impact on the integrity of the surrounding landscape character and the proposed mitigation measures would considerably reduce potential visual effects. The assessment concludes that the proposed development would not be visible from the wider setting” (page 93). We consider there are significant errors in this statement, which has been made despite Amey’s earlier Appraisal of Landscape and Visual Issues of the site. We conclude that the SA is misleading and unsound on this point as it is not justified.

Response by the Kent Downs AONB Unit to the KCC Options Consultation

5.8 The Kent Downs AONB Unit took a similar view to Amey’s Appraisal of Landscape and Visual Issues in seeking more attention to impact on the AONB. It commented “The site is within the setting of the Kent Downs AONB. Views to the south from the AONB were a principal reason for the designation and are a feature which merits protection – this means the impact of proposals on views from the AONB need careful consideration. While views of the site from the AONB appear relatively limited, a visual impact assessment should be undertaken prior to allocation.”

Assessment of the impact on the AONB by Kent County Council

5.9 We consider that Kent County Council did not review adequately the effect of the proposed M8 allocation on the AONB, despite commissioning the Appraisal of Landscape and Visual Issues from Amey (on all the main possible allocation sites) and noting the Kent Downs AONB Unit response to the Options Consultation. Had it given proper attention to this issue, and if a report to the authority had not been seriously deficient on this issue, we consider that impact on the AONB would have been identified specifically as another reason why the Ryarsh M8 site should not have been allocated. While this is not a matter of unsoundness in the Pre-Submission Plan (as M8 is not allocated), it does provide significant reason to support the non-allocation of site M8, and would challenge any possibility that might emerge for this site to be allocated in the Mineral Sites Plan.

5.10 Kent County Council has reviewed the suitability of sites listed in the Options Consultation, particularly in a Mineral Site Assessment 2018. We refer to v.2, December 2018. This is a particularly confused document insofar as the impact of the M8 site at Ryarsh on the Kent Downs AONB is concerned. This was the main document taken to the Council for approval of the emerging Pre-Submission Plan.

5.11 First, in a ‘Red Amber Green’ assessment, the document notes on ‘Landscape Designations/ Visual Impact’ that “It is likely that the site would require mitigation/screening to prevent any adverse impacts on the setting of the AONB and the open countryside. A landscape assessment would be required.” This criterion was ranked ‘Amber’ (“a moderate impact or issue which may be acceptable by mitigation”). Any familiarity with the site would

14 quickly demonstrate that the site cannot be screened from the AONB to the north, other than for the immediate setting of dwellings behind Woodgate Road. Views from the North Downs Way would pass over the top of any realistic screening of the site.

5.12 Second, we are surprised that KCC’s review of working the site, for the Mineral Sites Plan, did not properly reflect the advice received on AONB issues. The Assessment states “Kent Downs AONB Unit confirmed that it was broadly in agreement with the findings of the promoter’s report that views of the proposed site from the AONB would be limited and concluded that, subject to a requirement for appropriate mitigation, it would not object.” The Kent Downs AONB Unit response did not refer to the promoter’s report (see above): indeed since Amey’s landscape assessment correctly notes that the promoter’s study did not properly address views from the AONB, the AONB Unit would be hardly likely to corroborate them. The AONB Unit did not say whether it was objecting to the site allocation or not, but provided a brief and generalised observation on matters which needed to be addressed. It is not clear why the AONB Unit considered ‘views of the site from the AONB appear relatively limited’, and its use of the word ‘appear’ does suggest a lack of actual knowledge. We have supplied it with photographs to show that this is far from the case.

5.13 Third, the KCC Mineral Site Assessment 2018 went on to conclude on the AONB: “Overall effects on the nearby Kent Downs AONB are also considered unlikely to materially affect the designation, but this needs to be confirmed by careful assessment. In light of the above, the County Council considers that subject to certain matters being satisfactorily addressed at the planning application stage, the site is acceptable in principle on landscape grounds.” This is remarkable: both the main experts consulted advised that the work had not yet been done to make an assessment of impact on views from the AONB, so KCC is to say the least premature in concluding that allocation of M8 would be unlikely materially to affect the AONB. Nor could it reasonably conclude, as a result, that the site was acceptable on landscape grounds. Had the M8 site been allocated, we would have concluded that the Plan was not justified and therefore unsound based on KCC’s review of the impact of the site on the Kent Downs AONB.

6 Cumulative impact of mineral working in Ryarsh

6.1 The Ryarsh community and immediate surrounding area has had to put up with a succession of quarries over a very long period of time, including the current Wrotham Quarry close to Addington. The impact of working the M8 site would be to add a further 24 years of quarrying operations into the local community, about which local people are understandably horrified. It is encouraging that there has been some formal appreciation of the problem recently.

6.2 The Options Consultation on the M8 site summarised the ‘Stage 2 RAG [Red Amber Green] Assessment’ on this point as follows: “The surrounding area has been subject to extensive quarrying activity for a number of years. The cumulative impacts on the environment and local community, along with the impact on the highway network would need to be appropriately considered.”

15 6.2 The ‘Red Amber Green’ analysis of the Ryarsh M8 site in the KCC Mineral Site Assessment 2018 comments under the heading ‘Cumulative development’: “Wrotham Quarry is located approximately 800m from the site with a former quarry approximately 100m away. Given the history of quarrying activity in the area past and present and the site being located proximate to the AONB, cumulative impact would be expected in terms of additional traffic in the area and the adverse impact associated with quarrying activity more generally, and the effect this would have on the community and the environment” (page 36). As a result of this assessment, the issue was given an ‘Amber-Red’ rating (“a major impact or issue which may be made acceptable by mitigation”)

6.3 The Mineral Site Assessment 2018 subsequently reported that the site had been assessed against KWMLP Policy DM12 Cumulative Development, which states that “Planning permission will be granted for minerals and waste development where it does not result in an unacceptable adverse, cumulative impact on the environment or communities. This is in relation to the collective effect of different impacts of an individual proposal, or in relation to the effects of a number of developments occurring concurrently and/or successively.” Without any analysis whatever, the finding (page 84) was that “The assessment of potential impacts which could arise form development in this location has not revealed that unacceptable cumulative impacts would arise, however cumulative impacts will require further consideration if a proposal were to come forward.” This does not in any way reflect the earlier finding and is without justification.

6.4 If Policy DM12 is to have any worthwhile meaning, we consider that it should apply here to constrain development of further mineral working in Ryarsh. Whilst the Ryarsh community is clearly pleased that site M8 has not been allocated in the Mineral Sites Plan, we note that this was done by Kent County Council without reference to Policy DM12. In our view this issue is another reason why the M8 site should not be allocated.

7 Best and Most Versatile agricultural land

7.1 The M8 site is not given an agricultural land grade in the MAGIC map for the Post- 1988 Agricultural Land Classification. However, the Provisional Agricultural Land Classification from 1972 shows that the site is partly Grade 2 (on the eastern and northern sides) and partly Grade 3. The Sustainability Appraisal reiterates this on page 92, based on information from Natural England. The likelihood is that much of the site or possibly all of it is Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, which should normally be protected from development. NPPF policy in paragraph 170-171 would apply. This is a higher rating than the ‘Grade 3’ suggested in the Mineral Site Assessment 2018 and the Grade 3b claimed by the site promoter in Transport Assessment (Waterman, September 2018, paragraph 2.1).

8 Other issues

8.1 The Ryarsh Protection Group has previously submitted evidence of numerous other prospective problems from working the M8 site. So far as allocation of the site is concerned, in our view there is a need to resolve the following issues before the site should be considered suitable for allocation, because they could not be remedied later at planning application stage:

16 Road safety

8.2 The junction of Roughetts Road with the A20: this would be the route by which fully- laden lorries would exit the vicinity of Ryarsh, but the junction involves a distinct slope up to the A20. We are concerned that the modelling for road safety (by Watermans for BGS) has not properly recognised the danger to the HGVs and other traffic on the fast-moving A20 from these heavy vehicles attempting to turn either left or right from a hill-start.

Restoration

8.3 The site would be excavated to a depth of over 25m in some parts with the aim of reaching approximately to water table level. Infilling is proposed but there are serious concerns that: (a) there is wholly insufficient inert fill available to restore the site to pre-existing levels in any reasonable period of time; (b) restoration to a lower level, possibly with partial infilling, may be a superior option, and is one that KCC has asked BGS to investigate but on which no progress seems to have been made; and (c) the community should not be obliged to suffer at least double the number of vehicle movements arising from bringing in filling materials as well as taking out sand.

Local amenity

8.4 Working the site would impose a very heavy cost on local amenity due to the proximity of operations to dwellings along and close to Roughetts Road. The proposed siting of plant would be close to Roughetts Road. At these short distances no amount of screening or other mitigation would adequately control the noise, impacts of lorry movements, or dust emissions from operations/plant/lorries.

- - - - -