Minerals and Waste Joint Plan Preferred Options Consultation November 2015 – January 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Minerals and Waste Joint Plan Preferred Options Consultation Authorities Response to Responses August 2016 Summary of Responses to the Preferred Options Consultation Minerals and Waste Joint Plan Preferred Options Consultation November 2015 – January 2016 Summary of consultation responses The Preferred Options consultation stage, although not a statutory requirement in preparing a local plan, was nevertheless undertaken in order to provide an opportunity for members of the public, statutory bodies and other interested parties to comment on the authorities preferred policy approach and sites which the authorities have identified as ‘preferred’ for inclusion within the plan, before formal pre-submission publication of the Plan. Consultation The Preferred Options consultation ran for nine weeks from 16th November to 15th January 2016. A wide range of consultees and stakeholders were contacted either by letter or by email. All consultees were sent details of the consultation along with either a paper or electronic copy of the summary leaflet. Details of how to access other documents on the Joint Plan website and how to make comments were provided in the letter or email, with an option of receiving paper copies also given if requested. A reminder email was sent to each of the ‘specific’ consultees and Parish Councils two weeks prior to the close of the consultation. The Preferred Options consultation was publicised through a range of means consisting of: A promotional banner on the NYCC website providing full details of the consultation and links to all of the consultation documents; Press release issued jointly by the three authorities, plus an additional ‘reminder’ press release two weeks prior to the close of the consultation: Article in the NYCC electronic newsletter NY NOW (4,014 subscribers); Posters displayed in libraries and on parish council notice boards; Twitter and Facebook announcements by all three authorities; Information on the North York Moors and City of York website. Parishes with sites in their area were sent detailed site allocation plans Individual twitter posts for each of the drop-in sessions held A series of drop-in sessions were held in 16 locations across the Joint Plan area. These were advertised in the press releases, on posters, on the consultation page of the Joint Plan website and within the letters and emails sent directly to consultees and via social media. The drop-in sessions were held during the afternoons and evening within the hours of 12 – 7pm, the exact times were dependent on the availability and opening times of the specific venue. The drop-in events were visited by a total of approximately 186 individuals. Responses to consultation A total of 2934 substantive comments were received from 603 respondents. A summary of responses received during this consultation stage is available to view below. A large number of responses were received on matters relating to oil and gas (hydrocarbons). These have been grouped into themes and presented in a supplementary table following the main table, together with a summary response. Minerals and Waste Joint Plan Preferred Options Report - Summary of Comments August 2016 2968 York Green Party S 1842 Due regard to Habitat Directive and protection of special sites is very important. 001: Background Response to comment: Noted. 734 Kirby Hill, Little Ouseburn & Thorpe Underwood Parish Council O 1710 The document states that 'The role of the Development Plan is to guide future development in the area. It forms the starting point 001: Background for decision making on planning applications.' In North Yorkshire the Development Plan has come after the development with regard to AWRP. Consultation/public opinion has counted for nothing to date. Establishing AWRP shapes future policy in regard to waste in North Yorkshire for the next 20 plus years. The approval of AWRP should have waited until the Plan was fully consulted upon. Response to comment: Noted. Permission for the AWRP has now been granted. 2860 O 1546 Object to the Background Chapter. 001: Background Response to comment: Noted. 2817 O 1615 Object 001: Background Response to comment: Noted. Page 1 of 921 3829 DNS P1.03 1648 Support keeping up to date with new legislation, this will be hard to do once Plan is adopted as national legislation may override 001: Background local policies if it is different, such as Government agreeing to bury toxic waste under AONBs. What are the 'material considerations' the council refers to? This needs defining further. Could the Plan not explicitly convey material considerations would not include developments which 'would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area; harm that would not be off-set by any proposed mitigation.' Response to comment: Noted. The policies and reasoned justification in the Plan provide further definition of the matters to be taken into account 3829 DNS P1.04 1793 Paragraphs 1.04 and 1.05. 001: Background The 2011 Localism Act is out of date for while it gave communities the right to have their voices heard, they can now be overruled by the 'community' government minister. There needs to be a joint initiative to stop national policies overriding the joint local approach to decision making. Response to comment: Noted Page 2 of 921 631 Husthwaite Parish Council DNS P1.13 1723 The Plan needs to re-assess how it takes account of NPPF paragraph 93 and the main thrust of the Paris Climate Change Accord (Dec 001: Background 2015). Unless amended to remove or oppose shale gas extraction the plan could be subject to legal challenge. Response to comment: The Plan needs to be generally consistent with national policy, which does not preclude shale gas development 121 Environment Agency DNS 1336 Unless further comments are provided comments on preferred sites remain the same as previously made. 044: Site Allocations Satisfied with the process used to allocate sites in terms of flood risk. For all sites where flood risk has been identified as an issue, the mitigation requirements section should make it clear that for an FRA to be satisfactory it will need to include necessary mitigation, such as compensatory storage, attenuation and SuDS as appropriate. Response to comment: The mitigation requirements as outlined in Appendix 1 can be made clearer in the next publication as part of the identification of development management matters to be considered in any future application where appropriate. 3377 1542 The documentation is difficult to follow and the Drop-in Sessions were held during the day when working residents could not attend. 044: Site Allocations Response to comment: Noted. Where practicable, drop in sessions were generally arranged to include both day-time and evening periods to allow a range of opportunities to attend Page 3 of 921 3473 DNS 1661 Concerned about quarrying in North Yorkshire, especially near North Stainley, Scruton, West Tanfield and the coastal areas. 044: Site Allocations Designated areas should not be quarried. Response to comment: Noted 129 Yorwaste Ltd DNS 0947 It is noted that there is no mention of a waste transfer station in the Hambleton District. 044: Site Allocations Response to comment: No site submissions have been received proposing an additional waste transfer facility or expansion to an existing facility, to those already in operation, within the Hambleton District area. 53 Hambleton District Council DNS 1411 The site proformas provide details on the preferred and discounted sites and sets out information relating to size of site, mineral 044: Site Allocations output and estimated daily vehicle movements. These figures relate to the whole site rather than just the area which has been preferred, which makes it difficult to come to conclusions on the real impacts of the development. It would be helpful if more accurate figures could be presented in the next stage of the Plan. The environmental impacts of sites in the Hambleton area need to be reassessed. If the environmental impacts of the sites cannot be acceptably mitigated consideration should be given to discounting the allocations. Response to comment: Improvements will be made to the clarity of the information provided regarding the sites. Issues raised will be considered through the Site Assessment process where relevant and also within the identification of the key sensitivities and identification of development management matters to be considered in any future application where appropriate. 129 Yorwaste Ltd DNS 0948 It is noted that there is no mention of a waste transfer station in the Ryedale District. 044: Site Allocations Response to comment: A waste transfer station at Kirby Misperton within Ryedale District is currently being constructed, and it is referred to on page 228 within Appendix 2 to the Preferred Options Consultation. Page 4 of 921 3461 DNS 1407 All the points below need to be considered for mineral sites proposed near small rural communities or conservation areas: 044: Site Allocations prevailing winds leading to noise and dust pollution; traffic impact on unsuitable local roads; cumulative impact of numerous mineral extraction sites; excessive amounts of aggregate currently available so no additional immediate requirement for mineral extraction; impact upon wildlife and agricultural land; has the extension of existing sites being considered as opposed to the creation of new sites; consideration should be given to importing required minerals rather than developing new extraction sites. Response to comment: Issues raised will be considered through the Site Assessment process where relevant. 342 Mone Brothers Excavations Ltd DNS 1287 Eggborough Sandpit has extant planning permission for extraction of sand, restoration to be by inert waste infill and also inert waste 044: Site Allocations recycling. This site has not been included in the list of preferred and discounted sites, but feel it should be included. Response to comment: The existing operations already have planning permission. Site has not been referred to in Appendix 1 as no submission for an allocation for new minerals or waste development at Eggborough Sandpit has been made.