Soft Sand Sites Selection Report January 2020

West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan

Soft Sand Sites Selection Report

January 2020

Contents

1. Executive Summary ...... 4 2. Introduction ...... 7 What this report includes ...... 8 What this report does not include ...... 10 Why has this Report been published? ...... 10 3. The Site Identification and Selection Process ...... 11 Stage 1: Identifying the ‘longlist’ and review of site assessment methodology and criteria ...... 12 Stage 2: Identifying the ‘shortlist’ by ruling out sites that are considered to be undeliverable at this stage ...... 13 Stage 3: Undertake RAG assessments and Sustainability Appraisal of ‘shortlisted sites’...... 13 Stage 4: Issues and Options Consultation ...... 13 Stage 5: Update RAG assessments, taking account of consultation responses, undertaking and updating technical assessments and make preferred site selection...... 14 Appendix 1: Key assessment information and criteria ...... 19 Appendix 2: RAG assessment methodology...... 25 Appendix 3: Sites previously considered and ruled out ...... 33 Appendix 4: Stage 3 (desk-assessment) site proformas ...... 35 Buncton Manor Farm ...... 35 Chantry Lane Extension (SDNPA) ...... 48 Coopers Moor (SDNPA) ...... 57 Duncton Common (SDNPA) ...... 65 East of West Heath Common (SDNPA) ...... 76 Ham Farm ...... 86 Minsted West (SDNPA)...... 95 Severals East (SDNPA) ...... 105 Severals West (SDNPA) ...... 113 Appendix 5: Stage 5 RAG assessment site proformas ...... 124 Appendix 6: Assessment of soft sand resources outside the South Downs National Park ...... 138 Appendix 7: Glossary and Abbreviations ...... 227

1. Executive Summary

1.1 West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) (the Authorities) are required to plan for a steady and adequate supply of minerals as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan (JMLP) was adopted in July 2018. Policy M2 of the JMLP requires the authorities to undertake a Single Issue Soft Sand Review. The review must address the shortfall in soft sand to the end of the JMLP Plan Period (2033), as set out in the Authorities Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA). The Soft Sand Review must consider allocating sites for soft sand extraction.

1.2 The main purpose of this Soft Sand Site Selection Report (“the 4SR Report”) is to support the Proposed Submission Draft Soft Sand Review, by setting out how the sites being proposed for allocation were identified and assessed. The report builds on the 4SR published in January 2019, as part of the Regulation 18 Issues and Options Consultation, and takes account of information received through that consultation, and the outcomes of further technical work.

1.3 The report shows how site selection considerations were identified and considered when assessing potential sites. This report, and the approach to site selection, builds on the Mineral Site Selection Report (January 2017) that supported the Proposed Submission Draft Joint Minerals Local Plan, which was subject to examination hearings during September 2017. The Planning Inspector concluded, in his report, that the site selection methodology and its application, including the traffic light system, is robust and sound. He also concluded that the methodology and criteria is justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

1.4 The site selection process for the Soft Sand Review of the JMLP has involved consideration of a substantial evidence base, including separate assessments of impacts on habitats, transport, landscape, and flood risk. This evidence is summarised in this report and is available in full on our website: www.westsussex.gov.uk/mwdf.

1.5 The following summary table sets out the site assessment stages and the outcomes of each stage. Further detailed information concerning each stage is set out within the main body of this report.

Table 1: Site assessment summary

Key: = passed assessment stage

= failed assessment stage

Greyed out = was not assessed at relevant stage.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Preferred site Initial longlist RAG Issues Consultation selection (4SR assessm and outomes, (Stage 1) January ent Options Technical 2019) Consultat assessment (4SR ion on and SA January shortlist outcome 2019) (‘acceptable in principle’)

Soft Sand Buncton Manor

Farm* East of West Heath

Common Minsted West The Severals (East

and West) Duncton Common Coopers Moor Chantry Lane

Extension Ham Farm Buncton Crossways Burton East Burton West Dunford Rough Hawkhurst Farm Limbourne Sandpit Lower Chancton

Farm

Minsted East Ridlington Farm Rock Common West Rock Common

South Wiggonholt Note: This table only presents whether or not an assessment stage has been passed by a site. Because a site has passed a stage, it does not mean that it’s necessarily acceptable for extraction. At Stage 5, sites which have passed are considered “acceptable in principle” and would still require consideration of key issues at planning application stage, if an actual proposal were to come forward.

2. Introduction

Background

2.1 Minerals are essential to the nation’s prosperity, and are required to support growth and development. It is important that there is an adequate and steady supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings and goods that society, industry and the economy needs. It is also important that this provision is made in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.

2.2 The West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan (JMLP) was adopted in July 2018. The Plan sets out strategic policies for a number of different mineral types. Policy M2 of the JMLP requires the authorities to undertake a Single Issue Soft Sand Review. The review must address the shortfall in soft sand to the end of the JMLP Plan Period (2033), as set out in the Authorities Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA).

2.3 Paragraph 207 of the NPPF states that Mineral Planning Authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply by, amongst other things, identifying specific sites, preferred areas and/or areas of search and locational criteria as appropriate. The Soft Sand Review must consider allocating sites for soft sand extraction.

2.4 In terms of identifying minerals sites, government guidance set out within the national Planning Practice Guidance1 advises that this should consider the following:

• The presence of viable resources • Support from landowners for minerals development • Acceptability, in planning terms.

2.5 Specifically in terms of aggregates (which include soft sand), Planning Practice Guidance states that provision for land won aggregates extraction should take the form of specific site allocations, wherever possible, but the identification of preferred areas and/or areas of search may be appropriate.

2.6 With regard to identifying sites in National Parks, which is also where the vast majority of the soft sand resource lies in West Sussex, the Guidance states that “National Park Authorities are not expected to designate

1 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 27-008-20140306

Preferred Areas or Areas of Search given their overarching responsibilities for managing National Parks.” If sites are to be allocated within a National Park or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, they can only be permitted in ‘exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

2.7 Mineral extraction is considered to be ‘major development’ as defined in the Glossary of the NPPF and the Town and County Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Paragraph 172 of the NPPF states that planning permission should be refused for major development in national parks other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Footnote 55 of the NPPF says that the question of whether a development proposal is ‘major’ in a national park is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined.

2.8 It is also important that the chosen sites are consistent with the JMLPs Vision and Strategic Objectives. The adopted Plan includes five ‘guiding principles’ for the future of minerals development in West Sussex, as set out in paragraph 7.1.6 of the JMLP. These have been built upon for the soft sand review, and set out in the Proposed Submission Draft Soft Sand Review document.

What this report includes

2.9 This report sets out how the potential soft sand sites have been assessed for allocation in the JMLP, through the Soft Sand Review. This report builds on the Soft Sand Selection Site Report (January 2019), and applies the same methodology as that of the Mineral Site Selection Report (January 2017) that supported the Proposed Submission Draft Joint Minerals Local Plan, which was subject to examination hearings during September 2017. The Planning Inspector concluded, in his report, that the site selection methodology and its application, including the traffic light system, is robust and sound. He also concluded that the methodology and criteria is justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

2.10 This report identifies sites which are considered to be ‘acceptable in principle’ to be developed for soft sand extraction, because they are considered to be;

• Suitable for development; • Available, and

• Considered viable.

2.11 ‘Acceptable in principle’ does not take account of the need for soft sand. In the case of aggregates, which includes soft sand, need is considered via the Authorities’ Local Aggregate Assessments (LAAs).

2.12 The allocation of soft sand site(s) in the JMLP, through the Soft Sand Review, will not mean that it will necessarily be developed. A developer would have to submit a detailed proposal as part of making a separate planning application, and this proposal would have to be considered suitable when assessed against the policies of the JMLP, and other relevant Local Plans, for it to gain planning permission.

2.13 The report considers each potential soft sand site, setting out current information on each one, against the following key considerations:

• Landscape designations/visual impact • Nature conservation and geodiversity • Historic environment • Water environment (including flooding) • Air quality • Soil quality • Public Rights of Way • Transport (including access) • Services and utilities • Amenity • Cumulative impact • Airport Safeguarding Zones • Site specific information

2.14 Due to the heavily constrained nature of soft sand resources with the Plan area, and the requirement of national policy to, as far as practically possible, provide for minerals landbanks outside of protected areas (NPPF, paragraph 205), the Authorities undertook an assessment of soft sand resources outside the SDNP, within West Sussex. This assessment took account of the considerations listed above, and is set out in Appendix 6 of this report. The assessment concludes that there is very little unconstrained resource remaining outside settlement areas that has not been, or is currently being worked. The evidence concludes that there are unlikely to be resources which are both viable and deliverable in the few areas outside the SDNP.

What this report does not include

2.15 The report does not include any other mineral sites as this Single Issue Review is for soft sand only.

Why has this Report been published?

2.16 This report has been published to provide evidence to support the Proposed Submission draft Soft Sand Review of the Joint Minerals Local Plan. It explains the site selection process and how the sites proposed for allocation have been assessed and chosen. If also takes account of comments made on the Soft Sand Site Selection Report (January 2019), via the Issues and Options Consultation. During April – August 2019, technical assessments (including Sustainability Appraisal) have been updated on those sites shortlisted in January 2019,

3. The Site Identification and Selection Process

3.1 This chapter sets out the soft sand site identification and selection process for the soft sand review. We are currently now at Stage Five. This diagram sets out when each stage took place, providing a timeline.

Stage 1: Identifying the ‘longlist’ July - Sept (previously considered sites +

2018 call for sites) and review of site

assessment methodology

Stage 2: Identify the ‘shortlist’ Sept - Oct by ruling sites out that are

2018 considered to be undeliverable at Assessment Aggregates Local this stage.

Stage 3: Undertake RAG Oct – Dec assessments and Sustainability 2018 Appraisal on shortlisted sites.

Jan - March Stage 4: Issues and Options

2018 Consultation

Stage 5: Update RAG assessments taking account of consultation April – Sept responses, updated technical 2019 assessments and make preferred site selection.

Note: RAG = Red; Amber; Green

3.2 Each of the above stages of site selection is described in more detail below.

Stage 1: Identifying the ‘longlist’ and review of site assessment methodology and criteria

3.3 The initial stage of soft sand site selection was to identify a ‘longlist’ of potential sites. Work on the JMLP between 2014 and 2017 considered a number of different soft sand sites. That work drew upon similar work that had previously been undertaken between 2008 and 2010 as part of the preparation of a Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (MWCS). All previously considered sites are being reconsidered as part of the Soft Sand Review.

3.4 As well as considering previously assessed soft sand sites, a site nomination process was undertaken that involved asking landowners, agencies and minerals operators to put sites forward to be considered for allocation in the JMLP via the Soft Sand Review (known as the ‘Call for Sites’). The minerals industry and landowners are well placed to nominate sites because they have local knowledge about the quality and viability of mineral resources and so can provide information about the likely deliverability of sites. This process was undertaken during August – September 2018.

3.5 In total, the ‘longlist’ includes 21 sites. Only two of these sites are outside the South Downs National Park. Only one of the 21 sites to make up the ‘longlist’ is new, in that it was not considered previously for allocation in the JMLP.

3.6 As the JMLP site assessment methodology, which included a RAG assessment, was considered to be sound by the Planning Inspector as part of the JMLP examination (see para 2.8), the same methodology has been applied to the review for soft sand sites. The assessment of the sites uses a ‘traffic light’ (Red Amber Green (RAG)) methodology to assess the sites’ performance against the considerations listed within the site proformas by assigning a RAG score to each of the constraints. The methodology used to assess the sites is included in Appendix 2.

3.7 The table of key considerations and criteria, has been reviewed and updated, and is located within Appendix 1 of this report. The review of the methodology included consultation with internal technical specialists for their view on whether or not there are any updates required to the methodology (and RAG assessment criteria). This included consultation with;

• Ecologist • Public Rights of Way Officer and South Downs Way Officer • Landscape Officers • Aviation Officer

• Air Quality Officer • Highways and Transport • Archaeologist • Drainage and Flood Risk Team • SDNPA Strategy Leads • SDNPA Area Rangers for sites within the SDNP

Stage 2: Identifying the ‘shortlist’ by ruling out sites that are considered to be undeliverable at this stage

3.8 A review of the information held on the 21 sites on the longlist was undertaken, to ascertain which sites are viable, and which are considered to be undeliverable.

3.9 Of the 21 sites, 12 were considered to be unsuitable for further assessment, either due to viability or deliverability. These sites, and the reason for their ruling out, are set out within Appendix 3.

3.10 The remaining nine sites were shortlisted and moved on to Stage 3. The shortlisting of the sites does not mean that they are suitable for allocation, or considered to be acceptable. The sites were shortlisted for assessments as potential sites as there were no identified overriding viability or deliverability issues, such as lack of landowner support, low yields, or legal issues such as covenants, that cannot be overcome.

Stage 3: Undertake RAG assessments and Sustainability Appraisal of ‘shortlisted sites’.

3.11 The Authorities undertook RAG assessments of the nine sites that were shortlisted. As these sites were assessed previously (as part of the work on the JMLP), a review of the assessments was undertaken, and changes made accordingly, taking account of the minor changes to the methodology, and any new information that has come to light. As a number of technical assessments were undertaken on the shortlisted sites as part of the work on the JMLP, their outcomes were included in the RAG assessments, where relevant.

Stage 4: Issues and Options Consultation

3.12 The previous version of this report was published as part of the Issues and Options Consultation (Jan – March 2019). Stakeholders were asked a number of questions related to site selection methodology and on the sites

being considered.. Comments received were reviewed, and further changes needed to the site assessment methodology were made where required.

Stage 5: Update RAG assessments, taking account of consultation responses, undertaking and updating technical assessments and make preferred site selection.

3.13 Following the Issues and Options Consultation, officers took account of comments received, prior to technical assessment being undertaken on the shortlisted sites. Discussions with operators were also undertaken, and further information was received on a number of sites, including; • the Severals East and West sites are now being considered as a single site. • Potential for use of a conveyor system to move material from Buncton Manor Farm to Rock Common for processing. • Potential additional access options for both Severals and Chantry Lane

3.14 Information on the technical assessments undertaken following the Issues and Options consultation, as well as the previous technical work to date is set out below.

3.15 The Authorities have also prepared a topic paper which considers each of the proposed sites within the SDNP, and whether they would constitute major development, and therefore require assessments to consider whether exceptional circumstances exist, and it would be in the public interest, as required by Paragraph 172 of the NPPF. The outcomes of the paper have been included within each proforma in Appendix 6.

Habitats Regulations Assessment

3.16 The purpose of a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) is to assess the impacts of plans and proposals on the integrity of sites which are of European or global significance for the habits or species or contained within them (e.g. Special Areas for Conservation, Ramsar sites) (collectively known as 'European Sites'). If the assessment reveals that minerals development in a particular location could have any significant negative effects on a European Site, then mitigation measures and/or alternative options should be examined to avoid any potentially damaging effects. If it is not possible to mitigate the effects then it may be necessary to eliminate the site from further consideration.

3.17 An HRA (December 2016) was undertaken as part of the previous site selection work to support the JMLP. This can be accessed on our website.

3.18 During November 2018, the Authorities undertook a review of the existing HRA work to assess whether it is still fit for purpose for use as part of the Soft Sand Review. We concluded that the HRA work to date assesses all the potential impact pathways associated with the nine potential soft sand sites.

3.19 A short note (available on our website) was prepared. Consultation with both Natural England and the Environment Agency (as statutory consultees) on this approach undertaken in November 2018. Both the statutory consultees confirmed that they were satisfied with this approach.

3.20 In order to support the Proposed Submission draft SSR, the HRA was updated in summer 2019. This is available on our website, and its findings are included in the RAG assessments

Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study

3.21 The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing value landscapes (NPPF, Para 170). Furthermore, national policy states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NPPF, Para 172).

3.22 The Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Studies do the following:

• Provides an assessment of the landscape around a site and the potential to accommodate mineral workings in that location; and

• Provides guidance on the extent to which each site might be able to accommodate mineral development without having a significant detrimental impact on the character of the area, taking into account current practices of design and mitigation. The study also considers appropriate outline restoration schemes and afteruses for each site.

3.23 Following the Issues and Options Consultation, an updated landscape assessment was commissioned. This is available on our website, and its findings are included in the RAG assessments

Transport Assessment

3.24 The NPPF states that Plans should take account of whether: • opportunities for sustainable modes of transport have been considered • safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved • significant impacts from the development on the transport network, or highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree (NPPF, Para 108).

3.25 A detailed Transport Assessment (December 2015, and addendum March 2016) was carried out on sites as part of the previous work for the JMLP, which can be accessed on our website. 3.26 . This assessment included: • A comprehensive review of the associated traffic impacts that would occur if a site were worked; • access safety implications; and • routing strategies.

3.27 A further Transport Assessment has been undertaken, taking account of up to date data and information. This is available on our website, and its findings are included in the RAG assessments

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

3.28 The NPPF states that Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including associated factors such as flood risk, coastal change, water supply and changes to biodiversity and landscape. The NPPF also states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, and where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The NPPF expects that consideration of this matter will be via the preparation of a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

3.29 In allocating land for development, the NPPF expects local planning authorities to apply a ‘Sequential Test’ to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate to the type of development or land use proposed. The SFRA provides the evidence to inform the Sequential Test. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) that accompanies the JMLP therefore provides information about flood risk to inform decisions about site selection. The SFRA updates, and expands, on the work carried out to prepare the SFRA document produced in 2010 to accompany the original work on the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

3.30 An updated SFRA has also been undertaken. This is available on our website, and its findings are included in the RAG assessments

Sustainability Appraisal (including Ecosystem Services Assessment)

3.31 The Authorities have undertaken an updated Sustainability Appraisal of the potential sites and options for the Soft Sand Review. The first stage of Sustainability Appraisal is the undertaking of SA Scoping. Scoping has five key stages; 1. Identifying other relevant policies, plans and programmes, and sustainability objectives 2. Collecting baseline information 3. Identifying sustainability issues and problems 4. Developing the SA framework 5. Consulting the scope of the SA.

As the JMLP SA was considered to be appropriate in terms of scoping, the Authorities undertook consultation with the statutory consultees on the SA Scoping Report (June 2014) during September 2018. The consultation made clear the changes that will be considered, such as the publication of an updated NPPF. The statutory consultees considered the SA Scoping report to be appropriate and their comments are appended to the SSR SA Report which is available on the JMLP website.

3.32 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) (which incorporates Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)) considers the likely social, economic and environmental implications of the sites that have been shortlisted.

3.33 The Soft Sand Review Sustainability Appraisal can be accessed on our website.

Updating RAG assessments

3.34 The RAG assessments have all been updated, and conclude on whether each site is ‘acceptable in principle’. Conclusions are included on whether a site is considered as potentially being ‘major development’, and a list of key issues is included, to help highlight key development issues that would need consideration and overcoming at planning application stage.

3.35 Acceptability in principle means that a site is considered to be suitable for development, available, and considered to be viable. Those sites that are ‘acceptable in principle’ will be considered for allocation, alongside other

evidence to inform decisions on the approach to be taken as part of the soft sand review, including strategy. The decisions to be made will include;

• Taking account of the latest Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA); • taking account of further engagement with other Minerals Planning Authorities, landowners and the minerals industry; • an assessment of the impacts of major development on the South Downs National Park. • taking account of the outcomes of the Issues & Options Consultation and subsequent updated technical assessments.

3.36 The updated (Stage 5) proformas are set out in Appendix 6 of this report. The outcomes of the assessments are that the following sites are considered acceptable in principle; • Ham Farm • Chantry Lane Extension • East of West Heath Common • Minsted West • The Severals (East and West)

3.37 The preferred site selection will be subject to a formal representations (Reg.19) period, prior to the Authorities submitting the soft sand review for examination.

Appendix 1: Key assessment information and criteria

Considerations Constraints Source of information Landscape • Consider the potential impact on • The significance of any landscape • GIS Designations/Vi designated landscapes – There are two and visual impact is dependent on • The South Downs Integrated sual Impact AONBs within West Sussex; Chichester a number of site specific issues, Landscape Character Harbour and the High Weald. The South such as the proximity to sensitive Assessment (2005)(updated Downs National Park covers almost the viewpoints, presence of screening 2011) whole of the chalk outcrop, almost half features, direct effects on • West Sussex Landscape the Folkestone Beds, and part of the landscape fabric, proximity to Sensitivity and Capacity Study gravel reserve north of Chichester landscape designations and the (October 2011) and • Potential for enhancement existing landform. addendums (March 2016 and September 2016) • SDNPA addendums to Landscape Study (2015) • Updated Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2019) • Consultation with landscape specialists • Consultation with ecological specialists Nature • Consider proximity to sites of • International sites are afforded the • GIS conservation international/national/local importance for highest level of protection. These • Consultation with ecological and nature conservation and potential for include Ramsar sites, Special and geological specialists geodiversity adverse effects. Protection Areas (SPA) and Special • West Sussex JMLP Habitat • Consider location of Regionally Important Areas of Conservation (SAC). Regulations Assessment Geological and Geomorphological Sites • Mineral development should not (December 2016) and covering (RIGS) take place where it would letter (January 2017) • Potential for enhancement adversely affect a site of European • Joint Minerals Local Plan Importance. Single Issue Soft Sand • The likelihood of any adverse Review Habitats impact on National Nature Regulations Assessment Reserves (NNR) will also be (2019) considered. • Many Sites of Special Scientific

Considerations Constraints Source of information Interest (SSSI) are also designated as sites of international importance and there are numerous sites distributed throughout the county. Minerals development should not occur on land within or outside SSSIs if it is likely to have an adverse effect on the SSSI. • Potential impact on locally designated sites and priority habitats. Historic • Consider proximity to a Registered • Presumption in favour of the • Consultation with specialists of environment Historic Park or Garden. preservation of: archaeology and the historic • Consider proximity to listed buildings and • listed buildings, environment scheduled monuments scheduled monuments • Proximity to non-designated heritage and their setting assets • nationally important archaeological remains in situ and their settings • the preservation of nationally important archaeological remains if mineral proposals would cause damage or have a significant impact on them.

• Proposals for minerals development should not affect the character or appearance of conservation areas. • Although historic parks and gardens have no statutory controls, they should be protected. The effect of a proposed

Considerations Constraints Source of information development on a registered park or garden or its setting will be considered. Water • Consider proximity to Source Protection • The NPPF technical guidance on • GIS environment Zones or major/minor aquifers. flooding states that mineral • Consultation with Environment (including • Consider proximity to vulnerable water working and processing is classed Agency flooding) bodies. as a less vulnerable development • Strategic Flood Risk • Areas subject to flooding need close (except for sand gravel which is Assessment (SFRA) consideration – dependent on type of considered water compatible) in January 2019 development. terms of flood risk vulnerability. • Mineral extraction can provide • Mineral extraction development opportunities for flood water and general needs to take account of the water storage. presence of Source Protection Zones the major aquifer that coincides with the chalk of the South Downs. Air quality • Adverse emissions can be a concern at • The impact of development on air • Officer assessment some facilities (dealt with at planning quality is likely to be particularly application stage if necessary through use important where proposed of controls). development is within or close to • Consider proximity to sensitive human an Air Quality Management Area receptors. Proximity to Air Quality (AQMA), where the proposed Management Areas development could affect air quality such that it may cause an AQMA to be designated. Soil quality • Consider proximity or location of best and • The presence of the best and most • GIS most versatile agricultural land versatile agricultural land (defined • Consultation with landscape • Consider location of sensitive land and as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of specialists soils the Agricultural Land • Officer assessment • Potential of enhancement Classification), should be taken into account. Where significant development of agricultural land is unavoidable, poorer quality land (grades 3b, 4 and 5) should be used in preference to that of a

Considerations Constraints Source of information higher quality. Much of the land within the gravel resource area is of higher agricultural grades, therefore although there will be a preference for finding sites on the lowest grade agricultural land, sites on the highest agricultural land may be unavoidable. Public Rights of • Consider the presence of public rights of • The significance of any impact is • GIS Way (PRoW) way dependent upon the location of • Consultation with PRoW Team • Potential for enhancement public rights of way and areas used and SDNPA Rangers for recreation. This is particularly important with the South Downs National Park in relation to the second purpose ‘to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities’. Transport • The Advisory Lorry Route (ALR) is defined • Minerals have to be worked where • Consultation with transport (including in the West Sussex Transport Plan 2011- they occur therefore will not specialists access) 2026. The ALR is divided into the always be close to the ALR, • Traffic studies were relevant ‘Strategic Lorry Route’ (SLR), which are although access to the ALR is • West Sussex Minerals Local the preferred routes for movements desirable. The challenge is to Plan Transport Assessment crossing the County and those avoid the use of unsustainable (December 2015), and movements starting and ending should roads by locating mineral sites addendums (March 2016 and use them in preference to local lorry close to the ALR and to minimise October 2016) routes where possible. The ALR also the environmental and amenity • West Sussex Highways: includes ‘Local Lorry Route’ (LLR) which impact of the transportation of Transport Assessment of should only be used for the start or final minerals. Soft Sand Sites (November leg of a journey or between built up areas • Distance to market (demand for 2019) of West Sussex. aggregate) Services and • Water, Gas, Electricity, • Sites which have utilities passing • GIS utilities Telecommunications underneath may not be • Officer assessment showstoppers but will be a • Utility providers consideration in terms of the costs

Considerations Constraints Source of information and benefits of dealing with them. • It is important for sites to have access to services and utilities to ensure the efficient running of mineral sites. • Extensions to existing sites can utilise existing infrastructure and minimise environmental disturbance and may often be more sustainable. However, in some instances, new sites may be more sustainable. Therefore, it is important that they have suitable access to services and utilities to enable the site to be operated efficiently and is deliverable. Public amenity • The National Planning Policy Framework • Noise, dust, smell, light, vibration, • Officer assessment (NPPF) states that the adverse impact of air quality, impact on residents and minerals workings on neighbouring neighbouring uses, impact on communities should be minimised. wider areas (users of the • Consider proximity of local communities countryside) whose amenity may be impacted by development. Cumulative • The NPPF states that policies and • Officer assessment impact proposals should take account of existing activity and impacts, the duration and nature of proposals for new or further workings, and the extent of impacts that a particular site, locality, community, environment or wider areas of mineral working can reasonably be expected to tolerate over a particular or proposed period. Airport • Many types of development can attract to • Mineral development sites should • Officer assessment Safeguarding birds, including large flat-roofed not have an adverse impact on the

Considerations Constraints Source of information Zone structures, landfill sites, gravel pit operational integrity or aviation restoration schemes and nature reserves facilities of the airport safeguarded areas of Gatwick, Shoreham or Goodwood Airports. The relevant managing bodies will need to be consulted if a sites lies within 15km radius of an airport. It may be possible to incorporate mitigation measures to overcome aviation objections. Site specific • Minerals type/quantity • It also important that sites • Officer assessment information • Total reserve (tonnes) allocated within the Joint Minerals • Marketable reserve (tonnes) Local Plan deliverable. • Estimated annual yield (tonnes) • Therefore additional information • Suggested working arrangements about the sites is required to • Suggested after-use determine whether a site can be • Landownership delivered during the plan period. • Developer/Operator • Sites which cannot be demonstrated will come forward should be excluded. • If the relevant information is not forthcoming, the Authorities will not be able to consider such sites as allocations as it would not be a ‘sound’ approach to progress a site without technical justification.

Appendix 2: RAG assessment methodology

In order to determine which soft sites are suitable to allocation, the Authorities will apply a desk based assessment using a traffic light system (RAG or Red, Amber, Green). This is the same assessment that formed part of the Mineral Site Selection Report (2017), which was considered to be acceptable by the Planning Inspector during examination hearings of the Joint Minerals Local Plan. This assessment is based on the professional judgement of specialist officers of both WSCC and SDNPA, and considered to be appropriate.

Table A sets out a description of the different scores that were applied.

Table A: Site assessment framework description Score Description Mitigation The impact or issue is so severe that it could not be adequately Red n/a mitigated. It is considered the site should not proceed. There is a major impact or issue Likely to require major Red/Amber which may be acceptable subject levels of mitigation in order to mitigation to make the site acceptable There is a moderate impact or Likely to require moderate Amber issue which may be acceptable levels of mitigation in order subject to mitigation to make the site acceptable There is a minor impact or issue Likely to require low levels Green/Amber which may be acceptable subject of mitigation in order to to mitigation make the site acceptable Likely to require negligible Green There are no impacts or issues. or low levels of mitigation.

Each site was assessed against the site assessment information and criteria (set out in Appendix 2 of this report) using this traffic light system:

• Landscape designations / visual impact; • Nature conservation and geodiversity; • Historic environment; • Water environment (including flooding); • Air Quality; • Soil Quality; • Public Rights of Way (PRoW); • Transport (including access); • Services and utilities; • Public amenity;

• Cumulative impact; • Airport Safeguarding; and • Site specific information: o Mineral type/quality; o Potential yield; o Ownership and o After use and restoration.

Sites which received an overall ‘red’ assessment are ruled out as they are considered to have issues deemed as ‘showstoppers’ preventing inclusion within the Joint Mineral Local Plan through the Soft Sand Review.

The RAG assessment methodology was reviewed and updated since the adoption of the JMLP, including consultation with specialist officers from both authorities. Following the Issues and Options Consultation, further minor changes have been made to the methodology. No significant changes have been made to the RAG assessment criteria table. The minor changes made are all set out below.

Consideration Changes made Nature conservation and Update to refer to Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), geodiversity previously SNCIs.

Removal of RIGS from ‘red’ score as it is considered that the presence of a RIGS is not a ‘showstopper’.

Change of wording from ‘moderate’ to ‘proportionate’ with regards to mitigation in the ‘amber’ score column.

Inclusion of proximity to priority habitats to considerations

Historic Environment Update to refer to listed buildings and scheduled monuments, rather than referring to 1979 Act sites, for consistency with NPPF.

Correction to only refer to sites within 100m of Listed buildings or schedules monuments in Red/Amber scoring.

Change of wording from ‘moderate’ to ‘proportionate’ with regards to mitigation in the ‘amber’ and ‘green/amber’ score column.

Services and Utilities Reference added to waste water to considerations

Airport Safeguarding Reference to building heights added to considerations Zone Buffer area increased from 13KM to 15KM.

Landscape Impacts The Authorities published a Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study in October 2011. This Study was revisited through part of the technical assessment stage on shortlisted sites for the JMLP process in 2017. It is considered that the study provides a good basis for the site assessments. An updated study has been prepared, using the same methodology of previous studies. The study focuses on sensitivity scores, which will be applied to the RAG assessment. The definition of sensitivity (as set out in Figure C of the latest Landscape Assessment Study) is set out below.

Sensitivity Definition score Key characteristics of the landscape are highly vulnerable to High change. The nature of the development could result in a significant change in character. Key characteristics of the landscape are vulnerable to change. There may be some limited opportunity to accommodate Medium-High development without changing landscape character. Great care would be needed in locating mineral/waste sites. Some of the key characteristics of the landscape are vulnerable to change. Although the landscape may have some Medium ability to absorb some development, it is likely to cause some change in character. Care would be needed in locating mineral/waste sites. Few of the key characteristics of the landscape are vulnerable to change. The landscape is likely to be able to accommodate Medium-Low development with only minor change in character. Care is still needed when locating mineral/waste sites to avoid adversely affecting key characteristics. Key characteristics of the landscape are robust and would not be adversely affected by development. The landscape is likely Low to be able to accommodate development without a significant change in character. Care is still needed when locating mineral/waste sites to ensure best fit with the landscape.

Site Assessment Framework The assessment of sites was carried out in line with the framework set out below.

Assessment Framework Considerations Red Red/Amber Amber Green / Amber Green Landscape • Proximity to or location within AONBs or The site is within an The site is within an The site is within or The site is near to or Site is not within an Designations/Visual SDNP AONB or the SDNP and AONB or the SDNP and adjacent to an AONB or adjacent to an AONB or the SDNP and Impact • Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity would have a severe could have a major the SDNPA and may AONB/SDNPA and would have no impact • Landscape Character impact on the impact that would have a moderate could have a minor on these designations Sensitivity designation require high levels of impact that can be impact. Low levels of • Visual Sensitivity mitigation. mitigated. mitigation would be The site is considered • Landscape Value The site is considered required. to have low sensitivity • Potential for enhancement (Biodiversity to have high sensitivity The site is considered The site is considered Opportunity Areas and Green to have high-medium to have medium The site is considered The site is considered Infrastructure Opportunity Areas) The site is considered sensitivity sensitivity to have medium-low to have a high capacity • Consider Zone of Visual Influence on to have a low capacity sensitivity for mineral activities Chichester Cathedral Spire. for mineral activities The site is considered The site is considered to have a low-moderate to have a moderate The site is considered Potential for No potential for capacity for mineral capacity for mineral to have a moderate- enhancement enhancement activities activities high capacity for mineral activities No impact on the visual Site could have a influence of Chichester severe impact on the Little or no potential for Some potential for Potential for Cathedral Spire. visual influence of enhancement enhancement. enhancement Chichester Cathedral Spire. Site could have a major Site may have a Site has little or no impact on the visual moderate impact on impact on the visual influence of Chichester the visual influence of influence of Chichester Cathedral Spire that Chichester Cathedral Cathedral Spire would require high Spire that would levels of mitigation require moderate levels of mitigation Nature conservation and • Proximity to international designations - Site is within an SAC or Site is adjacent to or Site near to an SAC or The site may cause The site will cause no geodiversity SAC, SPA, SPA which could be near an SAC or SPA SPA and would cause minor harm to an SAC harm to any of the • Proximity to national designations – severely harmed and could cause major moderate harm – or SPA. designations. SSSI, RAMSAR, National Nature Reserve harm – would require would require • Proximity to Regionally Important Site is within a national high levels of proportionate levels of The site may cause There are good Geological and Geomorphological Sites designation/contains mitigation. mitigation. minor harm to national opportunities for (RIGS) national designations designations enhancement. • Proximity to Local Designations – Local which could be severely Site is near to or Site is near to national Nature Reserve, Local Wildlife Site harmed contains national designations which The site may cause No or negligible (LWS) (formerly SNCI) designations which could suffer moderate minor harm to RIGS requirement for • Potential for enhancement Site contains local could be majorly harm – would require mitigation. • Proximity to Ancient Woodland designations which harmed – would proportionate levels of The site may cause • Proximity to priority habitats could be severely require high levels of mitigation minor harm to local harmed mitigation designations Site is near to RIGS The site contains Site contains RIGS which could be There are opportunities irreplaceable ancient which may be majorly moderately harmed – for enhancement woodland that could be harmed. Would require proportionate lost. high levels of mitigation would be The site is near to mitigation. required. (between 100-250m) No enhancement of ancient woodland opportunities on Site contains or is Site is near to locally and minor levels of designations and no adjacent to locally designated sites which mitigation are likely to mitigation could be designated sites and may be moderately be required.

Assessment Framework Considerations Red Red/Amber Amber Green / Amber Green applied. likely to have a major harmed. Proportionate impact – would require mitigation would be Minor mitigation may a high level of required. be required on all mitigation. levels of designation The site is near to The site contains or is (within 100m) ancient adjacent to ancient woodland and is likely woodland which would to require require high levels of proportionate levels of mitigation to ensure no mitigation to ensure no harm. harm.

Limited opportunities Opportunities for for enhancement enhancement exist Historic environment • Proximity to a Registered Historic Park The site could cause The site may cause The site may cause The site may cause This site would cause or Garden (including consideration of severe harm to a major harm to a moderate harm to a minor harm to a no harm to the historic setting and context) registered park or registered park or registered park or registered park or environment. • Proximity to listed buildings and garden. garden. Would require garden in the absence garden. proximity to scheduled monuments a high level of of a moderate level of (including consideration of setting and The site contains mitigation. mitigation. Registered parks or context) historic buildings, gardens between 250m • Proximity to non-designated heritage monuments or Registered parks or Registered parks and 500m of the site assets archaeological remains gardens within 100m of between 100m and could fall into this which could be severely the site could fall into 250m of a site could category. Note: Setting and context links to the harmed. this category fall into this category. landscape designations and visual impacts The site may cause considerations. The site may cause The site may cause minor harm to historic major harm to historic moderate harm to buildings, monuments buildings, monuments historic buildings, or archaeological or archaeological monuments or remains in the absence remains in the absence archaeological remains of proportionate levels of a high level of in the absence of of mitigation. mitigation. proportionate mitigation. Listed buildings or Listed buildings or Scheduled Monuments Scheduled Monuments Listed buildings or between 250 – 500m within 100m of a site Scheduled Monuments could fall into this could fall into this between 100 – 250m category category, where a high could fall into this level of mitigation category, where a would be required proportionate level of mitigation would be required Water environment • Proximity to Source Protection Zones or The site is within SPZ1 The site could have a The site is within SPZ2 The site is near to and There are no issues (including flooding) major/minor aquifers. and could cause major major impact on an and may cause harm in may have a minor surrounding the water • Proximity to vulnerable water bodies harm SPZ (1) or aquifers in the absence of impact on SPZ2 or environment. (Water bodies that may be impacted by the absence of a high mitigation aquifers in the absence mineral workings. The Water Framework The site contains level of mitigation. of some mitigation. Site located in SPZ3 Directive objectives ensure no vulnerable water bodies The site is classed as: deterioration in current water quality which could suffer The site is classed as: ‘Exception Test The site is classed as: ‘Development is and to seek good status in all water severe harm ‘Exception Test Required’ according to ‘Development is appropriate’ according bodies). Required’ according to the Flood Risk appropriate’ according to the Flood Risk • Areas subject to flooding need close The site is classed as: the Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood to the Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood consideration – dependent on type of ‘Development should Vulnerability and Flood Zone Compatibility Vulnerability and Flood Zone Compatibility

Assessment Framework Considerations Red Red/Amber Amber Green / Amber Green development (Ref: Planning Practice not be permitted’ Zone Compatibility Table in the Planning Zone Compatibility Table in the Planning Guidance, 2014). according to the Flood Table in the Planning Practice Guidance and Table in the Planning Practice Guidance and • Mineral extraction can provide Risk Vulnerability and Practice Guidance and other sources of Practice Guidance and other sources of opportunities for flood water and Flood Zone other sources of flooding could have a other sources of flooding would have no general water storage. Compatibility Table in flooding could have a moderate impact flooding could have a impact. the Planning Practice major impact requiring requiring mitigation. minor impact that can Note: The sites will be subject to a separate Guidance. high levels of be mitigated. Good opportunities for Sequential Testing exercise in accordance No opportunities for mitigation. The site is near flood water and water with the NPPF. flood water and water vulnerable water The site may have a storage storage The site contains or is bodies which could be minor impact on near vulnerable water moderately impacted in vulnerable water Phase 1 and 2 bodies which could be the absence of bodies in the absence Hydrogeological Risk majorly impacted in the mitigation. of some mitigation. Assessment would be absence of a high level required prior to of mitigation Some opportunities for Good opportunities for allocation. flood water and water flood water and water Little or no storage. storage. opportunities for flood water and water Phase 1 storage. Hydrogeological Risk Assessment would be Phase 1 required prior to Hydrogeological Risk allocation. Assessment would be required prior to allocation.

Air quality • Adverse emissions can be a concern at The site is within an N/A The site is near to an N/A The site poses no risk some facilities (dealt with at planning AQMA, or HGV AQMA and may have of adverse impact to application stage if necessary through movements could have adverse impacts on air AQMAs. use of controls). an adverse impact on quality • Proximity to Air Quality Management AQMA. Areas

Note: Impacts on AQMA could be mitigated by conditions. Soil quality • Proximity or location of best and most The entire site contains Large parts of the site Small parts of the site The site is near to best The site contains low versatile agricultural land best and most versatile contain best and most contain best and most and most versatile land quality soil. There • Consider location of sensitive land and land which could be versatile land which versatile land which which would require would be opportunities soils severely impacted by could be majorly could be moderately minor mitigation. to restore the site and • Potential of enhancement this site. impacted. impacted. enhance the quality of Good opportunities for soil. No potential for Little potential for Opportunities for enhancement. enhancement as site is enhancement at the enhancement exist. already considered to site. be of the highest standard. Public Rights of Way • Consider the presence of public rights of The site could cause n/a The site is near to or n/a There would be no (PRoW) way (highways act reference – 1980, unresolvable issues to contains PRoW which in detrimental issues to section 41 PRoW the event of operation PRoW and long • Highways Act 1980 – Section 130(1) could introduce distance trails. duty of highway authority to assert and Site could cause potential hazard to protect the rights of the public to the serious detrimental ProW and PRoW users. use and enjoyment of any highway… impact on long distance

Assessment Framework Considerations Red Red/Amber Amber Green / Amber Green • Impact on long distance trails (e.g. trails Mitigation would be Serpent Trail, South Downs Way). required, which could include diversion or • Potential for enhancement (would be screening. sought at all sites) Site could cause moderate negative impacts on long distance trails Transport (including • The Advisory Lorry Route (ALR) is The site has severe The site poses a high The site poses a The site poses a minor The site would not give access) defined in the West Sussex Transport access or transport risk of causing major moderate risk of risk of causing harm rise to highway Plan 2011- 2026. The ALR is divided into issues. Mitigation harm due to transport causing harm due to due to transport and concerns. the ‘Strategic Lorry Route’ (SLR), which would not prevent the and access issues. transport and access access issues. are the preferred routes for movements adverse impact of issues. crossing the County and those transport activities These could be These could be movements starting and ending should associated with the mitigated through These could be mitigated through use them in preference to local lorry mineral working in the planning obligations mitigated though planning obligations routes where possible. The ALR also local area. and mitigation planning obligations and mitigation includes ‘Local Lorry Route’ (LLR) which measures and mitigation measures. should only be used for the start or final measures. leg of a journey or between built up areas of West Sussex. Services and utilities • Water (including waste water), Gas, The site contains The site contains The site contains The site is near to There are no services Electricity, Telecommunications services or utilities services or utilities services or utilities that services or utilities or utilities near to, or which could be severely which would require could require which can be within the site. impacted on – no high levels of consideration through mitigated. mitigation measures mitigation through re- re-routing or other No issues. can be used. routing, or mitigation measures.

The location of the cables/pipes hampers the ability to maximise the yield from the site.

Amenity • The National Planning Policy Framework The site contains or The site is in proximity The site is in proximity The site is in proximity There are no land uses (NPPF) states that the adverse impact of directly neighbours to land uses that may to land uses that may to land uses that may that would be directly minerals workings on neighbouring uses that could be be subject to high be subject to moderate be subject to minor impacted by operations communities should be minimised. severely impacted. levels of harm. This harm. This includes harm. This includes at this site. • Consider proximity of local communities includes impact of impact of noise, dust impact of noise, dust whose amenity may be impacted by No mitigation can be noise, dust and light. and light. and light. development. applied. • Proximity to sensitive receptors Mitigation measures Moderate levels of Minor mitigation works including hospitals, schools, churches would be required to mitigation could be could be employed to etc. deem this site employed at the site to ensure there is no • Consideration of impact on amenity of workable. ensure no harm is harm is caused. PRoW users. caused.

Note: This excludes the impact that HGV movements would have which are covered by the transport considerations scoring. Cumulative impact • NPPF states that policies and proposals The site could result in The site may cause The site may cause There may be a There are no concerns should take account of existing activity cumulative impacts considerable harm due moderate harm due to cumulative impact due of cumulative impact at and impacts, the duration and nature of which are deemed to to the the proximity/operation to the the site. proposals for new or further workings, pose a high risk. proximity/operation of of other developments proximity/operation of

Assessment Framework Considerations Red Red/Amber Amber Green / Amber Green and the extent of impacts that a other developments including other mineral other development, particular site, locality, community, including other mineral workings. There is a including other mineral environment or wider areas of mineral workings. There may need to control/limit workings. Minor working can reasonably be expected to be a requirement to HGV movements at this mitigation at this site, tolerate over a particular or proposed delay mineral working site to ensure through routing period. at this site until other cumulative impact is arrangements or HGV sites in the areas are kept to a minimum. movement controls are Note: The detailed Transport Assessment will completed. likely to be necessary. consider the cumulative traffic/transport Continuation of current impacts for each site assessed. use, e.g. an existing mineral site, extended over an additional time period. Airport Safeguarding Zone • Aircraft are vulnerable to birdstrikes, The site is within an N/A Site is within an N/A The site is not within and 80% of all strikes occur on an Airport Safeguarding Airport Safeguarding an Airport aircraft’s take-off or landing phase of Zone and the nature of Zone (defined as Safeguarding Zone. flight, therefore highlighting the the site requires silt 15km). necessity for wildlife management on lagoons which are likely and within proximity of an airfield. to attract birds and Either: Aerodrome administrators are increase the risk of bird - nature of the site responsible for monitoring bird activity strike for aircraft. means that it is within a 13km radius of the aerodrome. unlikely to attract This is to mitigate the bird strike risk to birds and increase aircraft and be aware of what species the risk of bird are in the local area. strike for aircraft. • Many types of development can attract OR birds, including, large flat-roofed - Or site is likely to structures, landfill sites, gravel pit be capable of restoration schemes and nature being worked in reserves. such a way, • Buildings and structure heights require employing consideration to ensure they do not mitigation infringe the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces measures, that that extend out to 15km from Gatwick means that it is airport. unlikely to attract birds and increase the risk of bird strike.

Appendix 3: Sites previously considered and ruled out Site Code Mineral Reason(s) for elimination Unacceptable impact on landscape character. The proposal would lead to destruction of distinctive landform which forms part of Buncton Crossways M/HO/4B Sand foothills and contributes to landscape character. There is also uncertainty about the deliverability of the site. Unacceptable impact on landscape character and uncertainty over Burton East M/CH/1E Sand deliverability of the site. Unacceptable impact on landscape character. Effect on landform Burton West M/CH/10D Sand could have significant visual impact and effect on landscape character. There is also uncertainty about deliverability of the site. Dunford Rough M/CH/9B Sand Deliverability issues. Restrictive covenants and access difficulties. Deliverability issues. Site withdrawn from consideration by Hawkhurst Farm M/CH/9A Sand landowners. The site was promoted through the Call for Sites process (Aug- Sept 2018). It is an historic sandpit that ceased operating in the 1990s. As the site is not within the Folkstone Formation (where Limbourne Sandpit n/a Sand the quality of sand is that it being sought), and there is no operator interest, the sites viability and deliverability are uncertain. Improvements to the A283 are needed before access can be Lower Chancton Farm M/HO/3C Sand achieved. There is also uncertainty about deliverability of the site. Unacceptable impact on landscape character. The site would have Minsted East M/CH/8B Sand a detrimental visual impact along the extent of the valley floor. There is also uncertainty about deliverability of the site. Unacceptable impact on landscape character. The site is visible Ridlington Farm M/CH/10B Sand from higher ground of the National Park and there would be an

Site Code Mineral Reason(s) for elimination adverse visual impact on wider views in context of foothills of Sussex Downs. There is also uncertainty about the deliverability of the site. Unacceptable impact on landscape character. The proposal would be seen in context of the South Downs National Park and long views to the site will increase visual impact. The proposal would Rock Common South M/HO/3B Sand also have an adverse impact on public amenity as a result of cumulative impact of workings in the area. There is also uncertainty about deliverability of the site. Hydrogeological concerns. Site withdrawn from consideration by Rock Common West M/HO/3A Sand landowners. Unacceptable impact on landscape character. The proposal would have an adverse effect on landscape character and loss of Wiggonholt M/HO/1B Sand landscape features. There is also uncertainty about deliverability of the site.

Appendix 4: Stage 3 (desk-assessment) site proformas

Buncton Manor Farm

Site description District/Parish Horsham/Washington Area (ha) 23ha Mineral type Soft Sand Potential yield 1,000,000 tonnes Current use Agricultural use Owner Wiston Estate Potential operator The Dudman Group of Companies

Restoration Landscape assessment (2016): options - Returning the site to agricultural use and reinstating the original profile of the site following extraction. Restoring and improving the existing structure of hedgerows and hedgerow trees, with the aim of maximising connectivity with the surrounding wooded areas; - Restoring the area to a mosaic of characteristic heathland, scrub and woodland of high habitat value with a mixture of appropraite native species in accordance with a management plan which should be drawn up prior to consenting extraction; - There is the potential to create links with the site and the former mineral workings to the west which has recently been restored to pasture and scrub habitat. Site specific Approximate timescales: information Site available in the next 6-10 years. The site would take (operational 10 – 15 years to complete, dependent on yield. considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to New site existing site or new site

Planning policy Site located in the area covered by Policy 26 (Countryside Protection) in the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015). This policy seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the landscape and as such any potential landscape impacts associated with the development would need to be overcome to ensure conformity with the policy.

Planning history The site was promoted for allocation in the JMLP in 2014.

Key Criteria RAG SCORE

However, the potential to reduce the impact on the wider setting of Chanctonbury Ring may be limited due to the elevated position of the Ring on the scarp crest of the downs and the fact that the proposed site would be just under 1.5 km to the north.

Given the gently undulating landform and degree of visual containment of the site due to existing vegetation, there is potential for providing appropriate screening of parts of the site from the surrounding farmland. However it is important to recognise that additional planting would not completely screen views of the more open east of

the site from the slopes of the National Park (although the site would be part of views within a wider panorama). From some viewpoints (particularly those from the South Downs escarpment) there may be potential adverse effects on views, including cumulative effects with the existing Rock Common Sand Pit. Due to their close proximity, these sites (as well as other potential sites developable over a similar time frame such as Rock Common (M/HO/3A) are likely to be visible simultaneously in views from the National Park which could result in an unacceptable impact on special qualities of the National Park particularly the ‘breath-taking’ panoramic views.’ There is scope for the improvement of the current condition and habitat value of the site, but taking into consideration the cumulative effects noted above it is judged that the site has a Low capacity for accommodating mineral extraction.

SDNPA Landscape Officer: This site has the potential for significant impacts on views from the SDNP from Chanctonbury Hill and the Open Access land along the Scarp slope of the chalk ridge to the north of Chanctonbury Hill. In some locations these impacts are screened by the topography and slope profile combined with woodland along the scarp slope. However there are areas where there is clear visibility over the site, albeit at distance within a wide panorama.

The site, a series of agricultural fields, is poorly screened with denuded and gappy hedgerows, particularly along its southern boundary. It is well screened from the Underhill Road due mainly to roadside vegetation, topography and the set back from the road. The landscape, a section of the Scarp footslopes character area, is undulating and quite variable in scale from enclosed and intimate where wooded areas and hedgerows are frequent, through to more open sections of arable land where the topography and scale of the landscape is more consistent and less enclosed. Woodland and hedgerow screening could be effective at reducing this impact to some degree locally, although this approach is less likely to effectively mitigate the impact on views from the higher ground to the south of the site.

There are open and panoramic views from the chalk ridge which overlook the existing Rock Common and Chantry Lane sandpits. These pits are sequentially and simultaneously visible from the PROW and access land on the chalk ridge to the south. This site would also be visible sequentially in some locations. Opening a further quarry in this location prior to restoration of Chantry Lane and Rock Common would lead to unacceptable combined cumulative impacts on the panoramic views from

the chalk ridge.

Chanctonbury Hill, and its surrounding downland are a well-known and accessible tourist destination in the SDNP. Views at this location would be considered to be of the highest sensitivity owing to the location being within a National Park, on a National Trail and at a viewpoint destination. Access to the area is from the car parks at the foot of Chanctonbury Hill and south of Washington. There are also a significant number of users on the National Trail.

Nature The site is near to a number of areas of Ancient Amber conservation Woodland, the closest is within 20 metres of the The site is in close proximity to an number of areas and site (to the south east). of Ancient Woodland. These areas could suffer geodiversity moderate harm and as such would require designations proportionate levels of mitigation. & potential The site is 150 metres north of the Lower Adur Arun issues Watershed Biodiversity Opportunity Area.

Several small watercourses lie within or adjoin the site which ultimately drain into the River Adur. There could be some ecological sensitivities associated with these.

Habitat Regulations Assessment (2016): The site was screened out for Appropriate Assessment. Whilst the site is 8.1km from the Arun Valley SPA/SAC/Ramsar, there is no scope for

pathways connecting any European sites.

There are a number of listed buildings within the Historic Amber environment vicinity including: The site may cause moderate harm to nearby Listed designations Upper Chancton Farmhouse (Grade II) 600 metres Buildings and archaeological remains (part of the to the north of the site site falls within an Archaeological Notification Area), Abbotts Farmhouse (Grade II) 640 metres to the in the absence of proportionate levels of mitigation. north east Rock Windmill (Grade II) 460 metres to the west

There are also nine listed buildings to the east of the site within 1km, the closest being Polecats Cottages which are 100 metres away.

Through the centre of the proposal site runs a documented Late Anglo-Saxon estate boundary (the Washington Estate Boundary), an undesignated archaeological/ historical feature potentially of national significance.

Further information, through desk-based and field- based non-intrusive and intrusive archaeological assessment is required in respect of this feature.

The western part of the site is a Historic Environment Record (HER) Archaeological Notification Area (Amber scale), owing to the location just outside of the site of recorded prehistoric, Roman and later sites in Rock Common

Quarry. Immediately adjacent to the north-central part of the proposal site runs the projected alignment of the Sussex Greensand Way Roman road, mapped as an HER record.

Related prehistoric, Roman and later features and artefacts may exist below ground within the proposal site (potential local/ regional significance).

The Wiston Park Historic Parkscape is 440 m to the south east of the site.

Water • The site is located in Flood Zone 1 Amber environment • The site does not lie within a groundwater The site could have an impact on a major aquifer in (including protection zone. the absence of adequate mitigation. flooding) • EA maps indicates that the south western The SFRA (2016) considers the development of the part of the site is part of a Principal Aquifer site to be appropriate, however the watercourse and small parts of the site are Secondary should be maintained and allowed to flow at all times. undifferentiated) Aquifer. The proposals for the site may mean that the original route may need to be amended, but a route for water • Groundwater Vulnerability Zones: Major to flow along must be maintained. Aquifer (intermediate)

There should be no below groundwater table quarrying. As groundwater is being dewatered at Rock Common, groundwater levels underneath the site are unlikely to be representative of natural conditions. Groundwater monitoring and an assessment will have to be made on the natural groundwater table at this site.

Environment Agency (November, 2015):

Windmill Landfill lies adjacent to the site - the development must not have any detrimental impact upon the infrastructure of the landfill. Therefore an assessment needs to be made on what is a safe working/quarrying distance that can be made. Constraints include but not limited to locations of boreholes (Gas & Groundwater) infrastructure, engineered liner and surface water drainage system.

Flood Risk Assessment (2016): The results of the sequential test is that the development is appropriate as there is a negligible risk and negligible susceptibility to groundwater and whilst there has been minor highway flooding in the area there have been no incidents of flooding at the site itself. There is a low risk of surface water flooding. The watercourse should be maintained and allowed to flow at all times. The proposals for the site may mean that the original route may need to be amended, but a route for water to flow along must be maintained. Air quality Site not located within an Air Quality Management Amber Area but the impact on air quality caused by off site The site could have an impact on air quality should traffic movements would need to be considered in traffic from the site pass through an AQMA. the Transport Assessment and Air Quality

Assessment.

Traffic from this site may pass through The AQMA at the A283 High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington is 4km west of the site and, in the absence of any speciic routing, this road could be used by vehicles

accessing or leaving the site .

Soil quality The site is grade 3 soil quality. Amber The site contains grade 3 soil. Any loss of potentially high quality agricultural land Any loss of potentially high quality agricultural land should be considered and avoided or mitigation should be considered and avoided or mitigation provided. provided.

Public rights There are no PRoW through or directly adjacent to Amber of way the site but there are three PRoW close to the site: Whilst PRoW would not be directly affected by the Footpath 2617 is 300 metres away, site, users of PRoW would experience a negative Footpath 2616 is 320 metres away and visual impact from the site. Footpath 2604 is 240 metres away.

Opportunities to enhance future public access would be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application. Green/Amber Transport and Transport assessment (February 2016): access Three access options: The existing access onto the A283 is the preferred - Directly onto the A283 via the existing option and would require substantial improvement private access to the farm (note: the A283 works. The site has a High Acceptability rating. forms the boundary of SDNP). This access would need to be substantially upgraded Mitigation measures on the A24/A263 Washington before it could be considered suitable. This is Road roundabout may be needed. the preferred option and has a High Acceptability rating.

- Access via the Hollow (southern) A new section of road would need to be built and this option may result in visibility issues.

- Access via the Hollow (northern)

Routing traffic directly onto the A24 via the Hollow is unlikely to be supported.

The development of the site is likely to generate 36 two way vehicle movements over its 10 year lifespan. It would have an impact on the A283 between the site and the A24/A283 Washington Road roundabout and the A283 The Pike, east of the site access.

Also see assessment of Cumulative Impacts

Windmill Landfill lies adjacent to the site - the Services and Amber development must not have any detrimental impact utilities Potential issues due to the adjacent landfill site. An upon the infrastructure of the landfill; therefore an appropriate assessment would be needed to ensure assessment would be needed to assess what is a development at the site did not compromise the safe working/quarrying distance. integrity of the landfill site infrastructure.

Constraints include but not limited to locations of boreholes (Gas & Groundwater) infrastructure, engineered liner and surface water drainage system.

Also see Environment Agency comments included in Water Environment section above. Amenity The nearest residential properties are at Polecats Red/Amber Cottages (100m to the south east). There are a The site is located close to a number of residential number of other residential properties in the area properties which may be subject to high levels of including Upper Chanton Farm and properties along harm, however this may be avoidable through Water Lane to the east. mitigation. Amenity issues arising from mineral developments,

including noise, dust and light pollution may be capable of mitigation. The opportunity for, and the nature of such mitigation measures would need to be considered at the project stage. Red/Amber Cumulative Landscape assessment (2016): impact Potential for cumulative impacts with Rock Common The area has seen a number of workings over the and other nearby potential minerals sites (Rock common extension and Ham Farm). Phasing of years, including Rock Common which is still active. working and restoration should be considered, There are also a number of other sites in the including delaying development until other nearby sites have been restored. Note, Rock Common surrounding area that are being considered through extension is no longer being considered. the Soft Sand Review, including Ham Farm, 1.6km to the east.

Transport assessment (February 2016): The cumulative impact of multiple sites could be The Transport Assessment assessed the impact of significant in term of landscape and highway impact. four sites (Chantry Lane extension, Rock Common,

Buncton Manor Farm and Ham Farm) being worked at the same time an additional 157 vehicles per hour could be loaded onto the A24/A263 Washington Road roundabout. Rock Common is no longer being assessed. The traffic impact is not likely to be severe although the ARCADY assessment of forecast traffic flows with development-related traffic suggests that traffic flows would exceed the capacity of the junction and would therefore require mitigation. There is also a landfill site immediately south of the site which is being restored. Ham Farm to the east is also being considered . Further to the west of the site is Sandgate Park and Hampers Sand pit.

Chantry Lane Sand Pit in Storrington is currently inactive but an extension to the site is being considered .

Airport Within the aeronautical safeguarding zone for Amber safeguarding birdstrike (Shoreham Airport). The site is likely to be capable of being worked and restored in a way that minimises the risk of attracting birds.

Key issues/constraints • Potential impact on listed buildings close to the site; therefore an assessment of its impact would be required and possible mitigation needed; • The site is less than 250m metres from the South Downs National Park boundary and is highly visible from the SDNP (including from the National Trail and Chanctonbury Hill Scheduled Monument). • The site is in close proximity to Ancient Woodland, therefore mitigation measures would be required; • The existing access, onto the A283 is the preferred option for accessing the site, although it would require a substantial upgrade. • The site is adjacent to a former landfill site, therefore a stand-off and mitigation measures would be required to ensure infrastructure associated with the effective aftercare of the landfill is not damaged; • Monitoring of groundwater levels is required and there should be no quarrying below the groundwater table level; • There may be impacts on residential amenity due to the proximity of some dwellings to the site; • Potential significant cumulative impacts on the surrounding landscape and the Highway network as a result of the amount of existing and proposed quarrying activity in the area; • There may be impacts on the AQMA in Storrington as a result of HGV movements.

Chantry Lane Extension (SDNPA)

Site description District/Parish Horsham/Storrington and Sullington Area (ha) 2.5 Mineral type Soft sand Potential yield 1 million tonnes Current use Extension to existing workings. Adjoining land uses: Chantry Quarry and pasture. Owner Dudman Group Ltd Potential operator Dudman Group Ltd

Restoration West Sussex Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study options 2011: Returning the site to its existing profile, or to a more naturalistic profile, and then restoring it to a mixture of woodland and agricultural use following extraction. Long term restoration should aim to maximise the habitat value by taking opportunities to improve habitat connectivity with the surrounding areas of mature woodland. Site specific A draft redevelopment plan has been drawn up for information Chantry Lane Industrial Estate and the Sand Quarry. This (operational includes housing and employment or an educational considerations) campus. Consultation on the detailed proposals is planned with local and neighbouring parish councils, Horsham District Council, West Sussex County Council and The Highways Agency. The existing site is also being considered through the Neighbourhood Plan process. Planning history and current permissions Extension to Extension to existing site existing site or new site

Planning policy The site is located in the area covered by policy DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement) of the Horsham Core Strategy (2007) where development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste. Note: The Horsham Core Strategy will be superseded by the South Downs Local Plan for parts of the District which fall within the boundary of the SDNP.

Planning history Existing sand quarry. The site was considered in the Minerals Local Plan (2003) but was not allocated. The site was also considered in the Minerals Development Plan Document issues and Options (2005) and was considered acceptable subject to detailed assessment of impacts on landscape and the water environment. The site was promoted for inclusion in the JMLP through the 2014 site nomination process, and re-promoted through the call for sites (2018).

Can it be delivered? Availability The site was put forward as part of the site nomination process and is thought to be owned by the operator. The site is available immediately

Deliverability The operator is interested in delivering the site which would replace an existing area of permitted reserve.

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Within South Downs National Park Red/Amber visual The site falls within the SDNP and follows designations WSCC Landscape Study 2011: its northern boundary. The site itself has a medium landscape sensitivity, though the The site is considered to have a Medium sensitivity to access has a medium-high landscape extraction and Moderate capacity for accommodating sensitivity. The site has a moderate mineral extraction. Supplement to WSCC Sensitivity Study capacity for mineral extraction. 2011 (SDNPA, 2015):

The highway improvement works needed Whilst the site has a Medium sensitivity, the site access has to make the development acceptable on a Medium-High sensitivity. highways terms, may result in an Chantry Lane is shown with a proposed northern access unacceptable landscape impact. onto the A283. This aspect of the proposed site has

potential to cause significant urbanising impacts on the existing character and views of the chalk ridge to the south. Overall character of the A283 could also be affected to a significant degree by necessary highway improvement works. Levels, boundaries, signage and detailed design will require careful consideration and may not be acceptable in Landscape terms.

Nature Adjacent to a SSSI and RIGS. The RIGS comprise of open Green/Amber conservation faces in the existing quarry. The site is adjacent to a SSSI and RIGS. and geodiversity This site has been ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment designations as part of the Habitat Regulation Assessment 2015. The site lies approximately 5km from Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar. A watercourse adjacent to the site drains into the River Stor and into this European site. There is therefore a potential pathway for sediment to impact the European site. However, the site will not have an adverse effect on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water flows or quality as input of water from the River Stor onto the SPA/Ramsar is only permitted through opening of sluice gates in very dry conditions as an ‘emergency measure,’ as the water quality within the River Stor is already poor. It is therefore clear that flows from the River Stor are not essential for the continued maintenance of the integrity of the SPA/Ramsar site.

Historic Within the site, until 1947 at least, was a range of buildings Green/Amber environment called "New Barn". A building is shown within the site The site may have a minor negative effect designations boundary on the draft 1st ed OS map of 1806-7, and upon on archaeological remains and the setting Yeakell & Gardner's map of Southern Sussex of 1778-1783. of various historical assets. The barn(s) may simply be a field barn(s), but given its

origins over 200 years ago, there may have been earlier barns here or indeed the barns may be all that remained of There is some uncertainty as to the scale an early farmstead. This is a large site partly on the Lower of the impacts and as such a detailed Greensand, a formation where earlier prehistoric occupation archaeological impact assessment would (eg. mesolithic flint scatters) is common, and on a large site be required. Mitigation measures would such as this, the possibility that other remains of ancient need to be adopted to prevent harm to occupation may be present, below ground and should be any archaeological remains.

taken into account, eg. the sites of former barrows.

The site is acceptable, provided impacts upon any buried archaeological remains can satisfactorily mitigated. An Archaeological impact assessment would be required (archaeological desk-based assessment and a non-invasive and invasive field evaluation). Surveys and reports should be carried out and submitted with any planning application.

Water • Flood Zone 1 Green/Amber environment • Low risk susceptibility to surface water flooding The site is considered to be appropriate. (including flooding) • Negligible risk of groundwater flooding • Medium risk of flooding from artificial sources • Flood Vulnerability Classification: water-compatible • Possible WFD impacts – watercourse adjacent to site tributary to River Stor which drains into Arun. Any risk of sediment entering the watercourses which lead into the River Stor & then into River Arun would need to be fully assessed and mitigated (European Site). According to the HRA- provided that standard planning conditions are incorporated preventing increased sediment loading in, or pollution, of watercourses from this site there would be no mechanism for an in combination effect on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar. • If used for sand, Gault clay would need to be removed – and potential impacts considered. SFRA Update and Sequential Test of Mineral Sites 2017: The site is considered to be appropriate.

Air quality The site is located near to an Air Quality Management Area. Amber Off site traffic movements would need to be considered in It is likely that traffic from the site would the Transport Assessment. need to pass through a near-by AQMA and this could lead to an adverse impact on air Traffic from this site is likely to pass through the AQMA at quality. the A283 High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington. If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required

Soil quality The site contains Grade 2 and Grade 4 agricultural land. Amber Half of the site contains Grade 4 agricultural land, the other half is Grade 2. This means there may be a minor negative effect on protecting or enhancing soil/land quality.

Public rights of Public Footpath 2664 runs in a southeasterly direction along Green way the boundary of the existing quarry. It emerges onto No detrimental issues for PROW – on the Chantry Lane beside the entrance to the existing quarry. basis that no works are undertaken within Existing PROW recorded immediately adjacent to any site 20m of public footpath 2664. are to remain accommodated on their legal line and are not to be disturbed, obstructed or public access deterred. Where it is proposed that material is to be extracted or deposited adjacent to these paths, such works are not to be undertaken within 20 metres of the PROW in order that there will be no future subsidence or slippage to cause the PROW to fall away, or spread of material to cause deposition on the PROW. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application.

Transport Assessment 2015: Amber Transport and The overall acceptability of the site is assessed as Medium access Acceptability. The site poses a moderate risk of harm.

A new access directly onto the A283 (part of the Lorry route Mitigation measures (such as the network) has been proposed by the potential operator as formation of a new access) and the existing Chantry Lane/A283 access is unacceptable for restrictions on the hours of operation visibility reasons. All traffic from the new access would turn could make the site acceptable in terms of right out of the site/left into the site thereby avoiding transport and access. Storrington.

The site may generate approximatly 108 two way movements per day over a 10 year period.

According to the Transport Assessment (2015) - subject to successfully mitigating the impact of development on peak hour congestion through restrictions on the hours of operation, no highway improvements, other than the new access, are considered necessary to facilitate the extraction of minerals at this site. Services and A BT line runs through site. Amber utilities Southern Water identified water infrastructure in close Infrastructure (water utilities) may need proximity to the site. Diversion of infrastructure may be to be re-routed. possible at the developer’s expense, subject to a feasible alternative route being available.

Amenity Close proximity to the built up area of Storrington. A Green/Amber number of residential properties back onto the existing Potential impacts on residents of quarry along the northern boundary. Storrington (e.g noise, dust and light) could be mitigated against.

Cumulative The site is an extension to a sand pit. Minerals are also Amber impact worked to the north of the site. Continuation of existing operations and other existing mineral sites for a longer time period.

Airport Not in a safeguarding zone. Green safeguarding The site does not fall within an airport safeguarding zone.

Key issues/constraints

• The site is located within the SDNP. • The site is considered to have a Medium sensitivity to extraction, with the mature perimeter trees features and access of a higher sensitivity. Landscape capacity is considered to be Moderate. Highway improvements (e.g signage) needed to make the site acceptable on Highway grounds may have an unacceptable landscape impact. • Adjacent to a SSSI • 5km from the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar, although unlikely to be affected by the site- provided sediment loading into nearby watercourses is adequately controlled through appropriate conditions. • The remains of an ancient occupation may be present below ground and as such an Archaeological Impact Assessment would be required. • The site would be developed as an extension to the existing quarry. The existing access to the site is not supported by Highways and therefore a new access would be required. Traffic from this site is likely pass through the AQMA at the A283 High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington. • Development of the site could result in the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land as half of the site is grade 2 agricultural land, while the other half is grade 4 agricultural land. • The cumulative impact of this site with any other existing or proposed sites in area would need to be considered. • There are no significant deliverability issues associated with this proposal, subject to the acceptability of any new access in relation to highway safety and any associated impact on the landscape.

Coopers Moor (SDNPA)

Site description District/Parish Chichester/Duncton Area (ha) Approx. 6 Mineral type Soft sand Potential yield 500,000 tonnes Current use Woodland - birch regeneration and chestnut coppice Owner Leconfield Estate Potential operator Dudman Group Ltd.

Restoration Conservation wetland or infill using inert, restoration options material to raise levels to enable agricultural and woodland afteruse. Site specific The site would be worked as an extension to the existing information Heath End Sandpit. (operational considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to The site is separated from the existing Heath End sandpit existing site or by Duncton Common Road. new site

Planning policy Within Chichester District Rural Policy Area. Note: The Chichester District Local Plan (1999) will be superseded by the South Downs Local Plan for parts of the District which fall within the boundary of the SDNP.

Planning history Site was considered acceptable in the Minerals DPD Issues and Options November 2005 subject to retention of woodland edge; provision of additional screening; buffers to woodland; assessment of nature conservation impact; assessment of impact on water environment and mitigation of impact on public amenity.

The site was promoted for inclusion in the JMLP through the 2014 site nomination process, and has been re- promoted through the call for sites (2018).

Can it be delivered? Availability Landowner has promoted the site for mineral extraction Deliverability Landowner keen to deliver site as part of the Duncton Common scheme

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Within the South Downs National Park. RED visual designations The site is not suitable due to its highly Landscape Study (LUC, 2011): visible and sensitive location which would be severely affected by mineral Although comprising of predominantly woodland, extraction. restricting views into the area and enabling the visual containment of extraction activities within existing tree cover, the scale of the site, which narrows to the west, reduces the scope to mitigate against adverse impacts on the more sensitive features within the site, such as the mature broadleaf trees and the water courses. The site is also tranquil in character and overlooked by higher ground to the south, which means adequate screening of views from the ridge may not be achieved by retaining and enhancing trees and vegetation around the perimeter. These factors reduce the overall capacity of the landscape to accommodate development of this nature without adverse impacts on the habitat value and visual amenity. With the proximity of the existing extraction site to the northeast, there is potential for cumulative effects on the special qualities of the wider Wealden Farmland and Heathland Mosaic character area, within the SDNP, and the potential for this type of development to visually intrude into views from Duncton Viewpoint and the chalk ridge to the south.

The site is considered to have a Medium-High sensitivity and Low-Moderate capacity for mineral extraction.

Supplement to WSCC Sensitivity Study 2011 (SDNPA, 2015): High sensitivity Coopers Moor is considered to have high sensitivity on all/many aspects of the study to a degree which it is recommended for exclusion.

Nature conservation Site includes BAP habitat and woodland. AMBER and geodiversity Site is adjacent to SNCIs and within 2km designations Heath End Sandpit SNCI directly adjacent to the north of a SAC/SSS and as such moderate of the site. River Rother SNCI 1km to the north. levels of mitigation would be required. Duncton Common SNCI 0.4km to northwest. SAC/SSSI (Duncton and Bignor Escarpment) located under 2km to the south of the site.

Historic environment There are several Listed Buildings nearby, including RED/AMBER designations Redlands Farmhouse and Milestone Cottage The site could cause major harm to the approximately 150m to the southeast. The site lies near setting of a number of listed buildings, a several known archaeological sites, including a SAM and may harm buried archaeological Scheduled Ancient Monument (linear barrow cemetery remains in the absence of high levels of - one of the most important surviving examples on the mitigation. Greensand); there may be further buried archaeological remains within the site, and visible field boundary earthworks, pre-dating the present (early 19th- century?) wood. The potential impact of mineral extraction upon the setting of the nearby SAM should be considered in the light of the long-standing location of the SAM upon an unworked ridge within the existing sand pit, still in operation.

Acceptable provided that visual impact upon Listed Buildings nearby, and impacts upon any visible and buried archaeological remains can satisfactorily be

mitigated. Archaeological, geoarchaeological and historic buildings impact assessment required (archaeological desk-based, Walkover Survey and where feasible non-invasive and invasive field evaluation), surveys and reports to be carried out and submitted with any planning application. Lidar strongly recommended.

Water environment • 25% of site in Fluvial Flood Zone 2/3 AMBER (including flooding) Groundwater levels should be considered • High risk of surface water flooding (25% of site and assessed. at risk). A phase 1 Hydrogeological Assessment • Low risk susceptibility of ground water flooding would be required prior to allocation. (20% of site at higher risk). • Flood Vulnerability Classification: water- compatible • Below groundwater table working – more complex operation and would need to consider impacts on drainage/flood risk. • Groundwater levels likely to be high. Depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and assessed. Prefer no working below groundwater table. • Risk Assessment of the water environment (Qualitative Hydrological & Hydrogeological Risk Assessment) - recommend phase 1 prior to allocation. • Stream at western end of the site feeds into the River Rother, known for trout breeding and sensitive ecological qualities.

Air quality Site not located within an Air Quality Management Area AMBER but off site traffic movements will need to be considered Traffic associated with the site may have in the Transport Assessment. an adverse impact on a number of AQMAs. Traffic from this site may pass through the AQMA at the A283 High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington and the AQMA’s in Chichester (A27/A286 Stockbridge roundabout, A286- Orchard St and A285- St Pancras).

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required

Soil quality Grade 4 therefore no loss of BMV agricultural land. GREEN The site contains low quality soil.

Public rights of way No PROW cross/enter the site. A network of footpaths GREEN and bridleways are located close to the site (to the There would be no direct impact on any north, south, east and west) including the Serpent Trail. PRoW, although the site would be visible The Duncton Viewpoint is located approximately 2.5km from Public rights of way. to the south of the site and offers views of the landscape to the north, including towards this site. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application.

Transport and Site likely to be an extension to Heath End site GREEN access therefore operator indicates that access would be via Subject to no intensification of use. existing Heath End site access direct onto the A285. Heath End and Coopers Moor separated by Duncton Common Road.

High level transport assessment (2011): On the basis that there would be no intensification of use of the existing site or the access onto the public highway, there would seem no reason to resist this possible allocation. As appropriate it may be necessary to implement a cap on daily vehicle movements. Services and utilities Scottish and Southern high voltage cables run along the AMBER boundary of the site. The site contains high voltage cables, BT Overhead BT plant along northern part of the site. plant and water infrastructure which may need to be re-routed. A Southern Water supply boundary lies to the north of the site. Water infrastructure crosses the site and is also in close proximity to the site. Diversion may be possible at the developer’s expense subject to a feasible alternative route being available.

Amenity Residential properties to the east (110m) and southeast GREEN/AMBER (150m) of the site. Nearby residential properties may be affected by noise, dust and light but minor mitigation measures would ensure no harm is caused.

Cumulative impact Site is located in an area with a history of mineral AMBER extraction. Heath End sand pit is located to the north Continuation of existing operations for a and Duncton chalk quarry to the south. Concern that longer time period. extension would delay restoration of Heath End sandpit and about continuation of working in the area.

Airport safeguarding Not applicable GREEN The site is not within an Airport Safeguarding Zone

Key issues/constraints

The site is located within SDNP.

The site is considered to have a high sensitivity.

The site does not contain any nature conservation designations but is located in close proximity to Lavington Common SSSI to the northwest. There are several Listed Buildings nearby (within 150 metres). Development of the site may require diversion of a number of utilities. Development of the site could have a negative impact on a number of residential properties in close proximity to the site.

Duncton Common (SDNPA)

Site description District/Parish Chichester/Duncton and Petworth Area (ha) 28.5 Mineral type Soft sand (concrete and building sand) Potential yield 1.8mt Current use Forestry/ heathland

Original proposed scheme: Depending on water table, either a landscaped lake or reafforested. Owner Leconfield Estate Potential operator Dudman Group Ltd

Restoration A mix of conservation dry (heath) and wetland habitats. options Site specific Wet heathland site/bog with important species. information (operational considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to Possible extension to Heath End sand pit. existing site or new site Planning policy Within Chichester District Rural Policy Area where development is restricted. Located in a Zone of Visual Influence of Chichester Cathedral Spire.

Note: The Chichester District Local Plan (1999) will be superseded by the South Downs Local Plan for parts of the District which fall within the boundary of the SDNP. Planning history The site was not allocated in the Minerals Local Plan (2003). The site was not considered to be acceptable in the Minerals Development Plan Document (2005) due to landscape impact and nature conservation impacts. Revised site area proposed.

The site was promoted for inclusion in the JMLP through the 2014 site nomination process, but not allocated. The site was re-promoted through the call for sites (2018)

Can it be delivered? Availability The site is within single ownership and would therefore be regarded as available. Deliverability Operators have expressed an interest in working the site as an extension to Heath End.

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Within South Downs National Park. Views from the RED visual designations Duncton Viewpoint. The site falls within the SDNP and is visible from Duncton view point. Landscape Study (LUC, 2011): The site is not suitable due to its The site predominately comprises plantation forest, high landscape sensitivity which restricting views into the area and enabling the visual would be be severely harmed by containment of extraction activities within exisitng tree mineral extraction from the site. cover. The site is however tranquil in character and occasional broadleaf trees and the water courses reduce the overall capacity of the landscape to accommodate development of this nature without adverse impacts on the habitat value. The development of the site has the potential to affect the amenity and recreational value of the adjacent areas, as it forms a link between areas to the east and west of high recreational value. There may however, be scope to re-route the Serpent Trail and the bridleways that form this important link.

The site is considered to have a Medium sensitivity to extraction, and a Low-moderate capacity for mineral extraction.

Supplement to WSCC Sensitivity Study 2011 (SDNPA, 2015):

The site is considered to have high sensitivity on all/many aspects of the study to a degree which it is recommended for exclusion.

Nature conservation A small, but important area of wet heathland habitat within RED and geodiversity Duncton Common has been identified as an SNCI (C116). The site could severely harm an designations Evidence that site has supported breeding nightjars and important area of wet heathland woodlarks in the past. Habitat for number of species habitat within a SNCI and also harm including rare Bog Asphodel. nearby BAP habitats, ancient woodland and the Arun Valley Site contains priority habitat lowland heath, rare species SPA/Ramsar. inventory records and falls within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area. The site includes BAP habitat and woodland.

Heath End Sandpit SNCI (SNCI C74) and RIGS lies immediately to the east.

Lavington Common SSSI lies immediately to the west. Impact on sand lizards and uncommon spiders from noise and vibration needs to be considered.

Duncton Common SNCI is 250m to the south of the site and the River Rother SNCI 0.5km to the north.

This site lies approximately 2.3km from Duncton to Bignor Escarpment SSSI/SAC. However, there is no pathway connecting this site to the SAC.

An area classified as Ancient Woodland (Kilsham Copse) is located adjacent to the site to the east. A buffer should be considered.

The site also lies approximately 8km from the Mens SAC and 9km from Ebernoe Common SAC. Whilst the site

contains large amounts of woodland it lies outside of the

key foraging distance of Barbastelle and Bechstein bats from these European sites and therefore is not screened in for this pathway of impact.

A watercourse adjacent to the site drains into River Rother and into Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar. There is therefore a potential pathway for sediment to impact this European site. Spawning ground for sea trout.

This site was ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment as part of a previous Habitat Regulation Assessment carried out in 2011. The initial screening exercise identified that water quality was a pathway requiring consideration due to the potential impact of sediment within close proximity to European designated sites. It was concluded that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that this site will not have an adverse effect on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water quality.

Historic environment The site lies adjacent to several Listed Buildings with a high RED/AMBER designations concentration to the southeast (between approximately The site may cause major harm to 0.5km and 1.5km). The closest is Cathanger Farmhouse the setting of listed buildings, which is located approximately 300m to the north. Scheduled Ancient Monuments and it may harm archaeological items within The site adjoins one Scheduled Ancient Monument and lies the site. near another (a single barrow and a linear barrow grouping). A buffer of a minimum of 20 metres, excluded from mineral working and to include tree planting as screening, is recommended to protect the fabric and settings of the single barrow SAM on the north-west side of the site. The long-standing location of the other SAM upon

an unworked ridge within the existing Duncton Common sand pit, still in operation, together with the good tree screen between the pit to the west and this site, should be taken into account as a mitigating factor when considering the potential visual impact of mineral working upon the linear barrow cemetery this SAM. Archaeological finds are recorded from just within this site, and medieval/ early post-medieval earthworks are known at the eastern edge of Lavington Common, and may extend into this site. Potential objection - Objection to application SDNP/111/14/CND - extension of winning and working of minerals at neighbouring Heath End Sandpit - has been recommended on archaeological grounds.

Acceptable only provided that visual impact upon nearby Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and impacts upon visible and buried archaeological remains can satisfactorily be mitigated. Archaeological and geoarchaeological impact assessment required (archaeological desk-based, Walkover Survey and wherever feasible non-invasive and invasive field evaluation), surveys and reports to be carried out and submitted with any planning application. A Lidar survey as a preliminary to any field evaluation is strongly recommended (as this is a wooded site).

Water environment Habitats Regulation Assessment 2010/11: AMBER (including flooding) Site screened in for Appropriate Assessment: Part of the site falls within Source The site lies approx. 2.3km from Duncton to Bignor Protection Zone 2/3. The majority of Escarpment SAC. However, there is no pathway connecting the site is at a low risk of flooding, the site to the SAC. The site is also 8km from the Mens SAC however the water table is high and

and 9km from Ebernoe Common SAC. Whilst the site as such impacts from the method of contains large amounts of woodland it lies outside of the working, drainage and flood risk key foraging distance of Barbastelle and Bechstein bats would need to be considered. from these European sites and therefore is not screened in for this pathway of impact. A watercourse adjacent to the site drains into River Rother and into Arun SPA/Ramsar. There is therefore a potential pathway for sediment to impact this European site. Appropriate Assessment: There are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the site will not have an adverse effect on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water quality (dilution and planning conditions).

• Flood Zone 1 (10% of site in Fluvial Flood Zone 2/3 (Eastern Edge of the site) • Low risk of surface water flooding (10% of site at higher risk) • Negligible risk of ground water flooding (20% of site in higher risk area) • Minor Aquifer (small area of site within Major Aquifer) • Flood Vulnerability Classification: water-compatible • Below groundwater table working – more complex operation and would need to consider impacts on drainage/flood risk. • Groundwater levels likely to be high. Depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and assessed. Prefer no working below

groundwater table. • Risk Assessment of the water environment (Qualitative Hydrological & Hydrogeological Risk Assessment) - recommend phase 1 prior to allocation. • The stream which is an important tributary of the River Rother, is known to be important for Sea Trout. Stream contains spawning ground for Sea Trout. Buffer zones need to be considered. • Any risk of sediment entering the watercourses which lead into the River Rother would need to be fully assessed and mitigated. Also potential hydrological impacts on nearby heathland habitats.

Air quality Site not located within an Air Quality Management Area but AMBER off site traffic movements will need to be considered in the HGV movements may have an Transport Assessment. adverse impact on the Chichester AQMA. Traffic from this site may pass through the AQMA at the A283 High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington and the AQMA’s in Chichester (A27/A286 Stockbridge roundabout, A286- Orchard St and A285- St Pancras).

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required. Local concern about air quality.

Soil quality Grade 4 therefore no loss of BMV agricultural land. GREEN The site only contains low quality soil.

Public rights of way Public Bridleway 671 which runs along the northern AMBER boundary. Public Footpath 672/2 - the Serpent Trail bisects

the site from east to west. Public Footpath 3527 also PRoW 3527 and 672/2 cross the site crosses the site from north to south. There is a parking and while Public Bridleway 671 runs along picnic areas close to the western boundary. A number of the northern boundary. Mineral non-statutory forestry paths and tracks cross the site. extraction may lead to a moderate Open access land at Lavington Common lies immediately risk to these PRoW. to the west of the site. All existing PROW are to be accommodated on their legal line and not to be disturbed, obstructed or public access deterred until and unless legal diversion or extinguishment (a public path order – PPO) is proposed and legally confirmed. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application.

Transport and Potential for combined access with the existing Heath End GREEN access site, direct onto the A285. Impact of traffic on narrow The site would not give rise to roads through villages and Coultershaw bridge. highways concerns – provided there is no intensification of use. High level transport assessment (2011): On the basis that there would be no intensification of use of the existing site or the access onto the public highway, there would seem no reason to resist this possible allocation. As appropriate it may be necessary to implement a cap on daily vehicle movements. Services and utilities Southern Water: utilities along southern boundary GREEN/AMBER BT boundary along edge of site. The site boundary is close to a number of utilities.

Amenity Four residential buildings to the south of the site and RED/AMBER another across the road. Heath End to the east. Buffer The site is close to four residential

zones need to be considered. properties. Mitigation measures such as a buffer zone may be needed.

Cumulative impact The site would be an extension to an existing site which AMBER would lead to further mineral working in the area but if Continuation of existing operations worked when existing site finished there would be no for a longer time period. additional impacts, but a continuation of working in the area which has expericenced mineral working for over 50 years.

Landscape Study (LUC, 2011): With the proximity of the existing extraction site to the northeast, there is potential for cumulative effects on the special qualities of the wider Wealden Farmland and Heathland Mosaic character area within the SDNP, and the potential for this to become visually intrusive in views from Duncton Viewpoint and the chalk ridge to the south.

Airport safeguarding Not applicable. GREEN The site is not within an Airport Safeguarding Zone

Key issues/constraints

The site is located within the SDNP. The site is considered to have a high landscape character sensitivity to mineral extraction, with the higher area in the northeast, also adjacent to ancient woodland, particularly sensitive.

Mineral extraction is likely to result in the loss of an SNCI and have negative impacts on adjacent national designations. The site contains priority habitat lowland heath, rare species inventory records and falls within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area. The site includes BAP habitat and woodland.

The site is located within close proximity of both listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Public Footpath 672/2 - the Serpent Trail bisects the site from east to west. Public Footpath 3527 also crosses the site from north to south. Both would require diversions.

East of West Heath Common (SDNPA)

Site description District/Parish Chichester/Harting and Rogate Area (ha) 14 Mineral type Sand – Folkestone Beds Potential yield 950,000 tonnes Current use Agricultural site located to the north east and south east of scheduled monuments. Farm buildings are located to the west of the site and the village of Nyewood is located to the east of the site. Owner Cemex

Potential operator Cemex Restoration A lake, with nature conservation and informal recreation options integrating the extension into the masterplan restoration scheme for the main quarry and eastern extension restoration scheme Site specific The water table may be an issue. information (operational considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to Extension to existing site. existing site or new site Planning policy Within Chichester District Rural Policy Area where development is restricted to proposals complying with a number of other policies. Note: The Chichester District Local Plan (1999) will be superseded by the South Downs Local Plan for parts of the District which fall within the boundary of the SDNP. Planning history Site was put forward in the site nomination process for the JMLP (2018) and the call for sites (2018). It was not considered in the Minerals Local Plan (2003) or Minerals Development Plan Document Issues and Options (2005).

Can it be delivered? Availability The site is within single ownership (CEMEX) and is therefore considered available. Deliverability The operator is interested in bringing the site forward within the next 1-5 years.

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Within the South Downs National Park Amber visual The site is near to the centre of the South Downs designations WSCC Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study National Park. The site is of medium landscape (2011): sensitivity and low capacity to accommodating mineral extraction. Although low lying and generally flat, with views into the area restricted by existing vegetation, the site has a secluded quality and an intricacy of landscape Careful mitigation of views would be required. pattern and elements. There also sensitive features such as a Moat to the south, and habitats in the immediate vicinity. Mineral workings in this location have the potential to adversely affect the fabric and setting of these features so mitigation would need to be planned and executed carefully. Access to the site is likely to require careful consideration, including potential impacts on views from the surrounding network of small lanes and tracks and localised effects of traffic movement and noise.

The site has a high sensitivity and Low capacity for accommodating mineral extraction.

SDNPA Supplement to WSCC Sensitivity Study 2011 (2015): The site is considered to have a Medium sensitivity to extraction. The site would require careful consideration of access issues and routing of existing PROW, together with

detailed mitigation for views and intrusion.

Nature This site lies approximately 6km from Wealden Amber conservation Heaths Phase II SPA and East Hampshire Hangers The site is located close to a number of national and SAC. and local designations which may be moderately geodiversity harmed by the site – especially if sediment enters designations Assuming quarry traffic uses the A3 via A272, there the adjacent watercourse, although this could be is potential for an impact pathway via traffic controlled through conditions. emissions to the Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA.

West Heath Common SNCI (SNCI C64) lies to the west of the site and consists of the existing quarry and permitted extension area. The area within this SNCI is notable for supporting four species of reptile and important wet heath habitat. Records show it supports breeding nightjar and has supported woodlark. Enlarging heathland habitat would be likely to benefit these key heathland bird species.

The River Rother SNCI (SNCI C069 H53) follows the course of the River Rother approximately 0.3km north of the site. Brick kiln Copse, Pondtail Plantation, Millhanger Copse, Harting Pond and Stream SNCI (SNCI C048) is located approximately 0.2km to the southwest of the site.

Fyning Moor SSSI is located approximately 1.5km to the northeast of the site.

There are a number of Ancient Woodland sites in

close proximity to the site (within 2km), the closest located within 25 metres of the eastern boundary of the site.

Outside the Heathland Reunited project area but it could contribute to that network of sites.

This site has been ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment as part of the Habitat Regulation Assessment 2015. The screening exercise identified that air and water quality were pathways requiring consideration due to the potential for increased mineral traffic movements and the impact of sediment within close proximity to European designated sites. The Assessment stated that there is no reason to conclude that the proposed mineral site will have adverse effects on air quality at any European designated sites but transport assessments undertaken for this site should take into account any impacts on Wealden Heaths Phase 2 SPA or Woolmer Forest SAC if there will be a significant increase in vehicle movements on the A3 within 200m of those sites. It was further concluded that there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the site will not have adverse effects on water quality at any European designated sites.

Historic The site is approximately 350m from a Scheduled Amber environment Monument comprising two, probably prehistoric The site could be considered suitable if the site designations barrow mounds. does not cause an unacceptable visual impact on the nearby Scheduled Monument, and any There is presently no screening between the existing impacts upon buried archaeological remains can be satisfactorily mitigated.

site and the Scheduled Monument.

Within/near the site, worked flint of mesolithic date has been recovered during trial pit excavation in the 1980s. There may be further finds of this date. Also near the site are the sites of two former barrows (tumuli), and part of a third, part of the West Heath Bronze Age barrow cemetery. The barrow mounds themselves were fully recorded by archaeological excavation in the 1970s and 1980s, and have been removed; but between and around the barrows there may be presently unknown archaeological features associated with the mounds (eg. Prehistoric fence lines, cremation burials). North-west of the site there may be present early prehistoric rive terrace sands/ gravels, which may contain Early Palaeolithic flint tools, and microfossils relevant to the understanding of the ancient environment. Parlour Copse directly to the south of the site boundary could also be compromised.

The site is considered acceptable provided visual impacts upon the adjacent Scheduled Monument, and impacts upon buried archaeological remains are satisfactorily be mitigated. Archaeological, geoarchaeological, Scheduled Monument visual impact assessments would be required (archaeological desk-based assessment and non- invasive and invasive field evaluation), surveys and reports should be carried out and submitted with any planning application.

Water • Fluvial Flood Zone 2 and 3b (Part of Site, Red/Amber environment approx. 25%). The site is located on a major aquifer and could (including have negative impacts in the absence of a high • Under climate change scenarios (updated flooding) level of mitigation. February 2016) there is a 50% chance that peak river flows could be between 10% and A Phase 1 hydrogeological risk assessment would 40% greater over the three time periods be required prior to allocation. (2020s, 2050s and 2080s) and that peak rainfall allowances could see river levels rise by 5% and 40%. • Negligible risk susceptibility to groundwater flooding • Flood Vulnerability Classification: water- compatible • Major Aquifer • Depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and assessed • No working below groundwater level preferable • Phase 1 qualitative Hydrological and Hydrogeological Risk Assessment prior to allocation • Hydrological impacts, notably on the important wet heath habitat to the west, would need to be assessed.

SFRA Update and Sequential Test of Mineral Sites January, 2017: Development is appropriate

Air quality The site not located within an Air Quality Green Management Area but off site traffic movements will The site poses no risk of adverse impact to need to be considered in the Transport Assessment. AQMAs. If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air The site may have impacts outside the Plan area Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality due to its proximity to the County boundary. Assessment would also be required.

The HRA (2015) notes that traffic from the site may pass through a number of SPAs and SACs and should be considered in a Transport assessiment- should daily HGV movements exceed 200.

Soil quality The site contains Grade 3 and Grade 4 soil and Green therefore is unlikely to contain Best and Most The site contains low quality soil. Versitile agricultural land.

Public rights of Public Footpath 861 is located 500m to the west of Amber way the proposed site and runs northwards along the Public Footpath 861 may be affected by the eastern boundary of the existing quarry. This conveyor which links the existing site and the footpath forms part of the Serpent Trail. proposed site together. Mitigation measures may All existing PROW are to be accommodated on their be needed. legal line and not to be disturbed, obstructed or public access deterred until and unless legal diversion or extinguishment (a public path order – PPO) is proposed and legally confirmed. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application. High acceptability (Transport Assessment 2015): Green Transport and The site would not give rise to highway concerns. access The existing access arrangement off Durford Lane, is considered to be fit for purpose. Should, however,

the potential mineral site result in an intensification of traffic using Durford Lane it may be necessary to provide improvements

If the site came forward in isolation to the other sites situated along the A272 corridor, there would be a total of 4 vehicle movements per hour (2 PCU) travelling via Midhurst. This level of traffic would not have a severe impact on Midhurst. Although a Transport Assessment for the site should consider their operation in further detail.

Services and None identified Green utilities No services or utilities near to, or within the site.

Amenity One residential property to the immediate north of Amber the site. A number of residential properties and farm Potential impact on residential properties and buildings are located to the south of the site. Public Rights of Way. Mitigation methods could be used to ensure no harm is caused to local residents.

Cumulative There is a history of mineral extraction at West Amber impact Heath to the west of this site. The operator has Continuation of existing operations for a longer indicated that the site would be worked following the time period, though, as the site would not be working of the existing quarry. worked until the existing quarry has been exhausted, there should be no intensification of the site.

Airport None Green safeguarding The site does not fall within an Airport Safeguarding Zone.

Key issues/constraints

• The site is located within the SDNP. • The site has a medium sensitivity to mineral extraction. Careful consideration of access issues and routing of the existing Public Right of Way would be needed. Restoration to heathland would be encouraged. • There are ancient Woodland sites within 2km of the site. • The site is close to a Scheduled Monument and as such the visual impacts upon the monument and any impacts upon buried archaeological remains would need to be satisfactorily mitigated. • The site is located on a major aquifer and near an area of important wet heath habitat, both of which would need to be considered and may require a high level of mitigation. • Traffic from the site may pass through a number of SPAs and SACs which should be considered if daily HGV movements exceed 200. • There is potential for a negative impact on a small number of residential properties and users of Public Rights of Way. • The site contains reserves of soft sand which could be worked as an extension to an existing site. • There are potential deliverability issues with this site that need to be considered further to determine whether they can be mitigated satisfactorily.

Ham Farm

Site description District/Parish Horsham / Steyning and Wiston Area (ha) 8ha Mineral type Soft sand Potential yield 725,000 tonnes Current use The existing site is arable farmland with isolated residential properties in the surrouding area. Adajcent to the north and east is woodland. Wiston Park is to the south of the site. Owner F de. Boer Potential operator Dudman Group Ltd

Restoration Landscape and Sensitivity Capacity Study – Ham Farm options Addendum (LUC, 2016)

- Reinstating the original profile of the site, and returning the land to agricultural use. Restoring and improving the structure of hedgerows and hedgerow trees, with the aim of maximising farmland habitat value, and connectivity with the surrounding structure of hedgerows and lines of trees. - Restoring all or part of the site to woodland following extraction. Long term restoration should aim to maximise the habitat value by taking opportunities to link it into the surrounding hedgerow and woodland structure.

Site specific Operator indicated preferred restoration would be to information agricultural afteruse using imported clean restoration (operational material, with opportunity to enhance existing woodland. considerations) Planning history and current permissions Extension to New site existing site or new site Planning policy Site located in the area covered by Policy 26 (Countryside Protection) in the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015). This policy seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the landscape and as such any potential landscape impacts associated with the development would need to be overcome to ensure conformity with the policy. Planning history The site was promoted for inclusion in the Joint Minerals Local Plan through the 2014 site nomination process. Subsequently, the operator submitted an amended boundary for the site, following public consultation during April – June 2016. The site was included as a proposed allocation in the Proposed Submission Draft Joint Minerals Local Plan (January 2017). The site was removed from the Plan as part of the modifications to Policy M2 of the JMLP, following examination.

The site was re-promoted via the Call for Sites in 2018 for the soft sand review.

Can it be delivered? Availability The site was put forward as part of the site nomination process in 2014 and in 2018. Operator has confirmed landowner support for the site. Deliverability The deposit has been tested. The operator is interested in delivering the site, subject to the land being available.

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Adjacent to the South Downs National Park. Amber visual The site lies adjacent to the SDNP designations LUC Landscape and Capacity Study – Ham Farm addendum and has a medium sensitivity and (2016): moderate-high capacity to mineral extraction.

Cumulative impacts would need to be The site is considered to have Medium sensitivity and a considered. Moderate-high capacity overall for accommodating mineral extraction. Previous iterations of the boundary included sensitive areas of the site to the north.

SDNPA Addendum to WSCC Minerals Local Plan site Assessment: The site is visually sensitive in views from the top of the scarp in sections where woodland does not block wider views. The ZTV shows visibility from Wiston Park and it is likely that there would be some negative experiential impacts (tranquillity, remoteness) on visitors to the parkscape should this site come forward. Views to the south from the parkscape would not be affected.

Design of the site operations should be undertaken sensitively and with appropriate levels of screening. Existing trees around the perimeter of the site should be retained.

The entrance to the site should be carefully designed to minimise urbanising impacts on the SDNPA. Works should be carefully phased to minimise impacts. Specific restoration plan to agriculture would be desirable for this site given its rural location. Potential for cumulative impacts with Rock common. Phasing of

working and restoration required should both sites come forward.

Nature The site is 125m West of Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (Great Green / Amber conservation Alder Wood) The site is near to Ancient Semi and Natural Woodland which could suffer geodiversity There are no European sites within 10km of this site and no some minorharm which may require designations impact pathways present. mitigation.

The site has been ‘screened out’ for Appropriate Assessment as part of the updated Habitat Regulation Assessment (2015). The screening exercise identified that there was no scope for pathways connecting any European Sites.

Historic The LUC 2015 Addendum Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Red / Amber environment assessed the site as having a cultural heritage sensitivity The site may cause moderate harm designations judgement of ‘low-medium’. to a nearby Listed Building and to archaeological remains in the There are a number of listed buildings within close proximity of absence of mitigation measures. the site. The Grade II listed Horsebrook Cottage is 60 meters to the north of the western edge of the site (some visibility, although predominantly restricted by vegetation); Grade II listed Old Rectory and Roundhouse 300m to the west of the site (although currently screened by trees and hedgerow); Grade II listed Water Tower and Sun Room at Wappingthorn, to the northeast of the site (restricted visibility due to screening by trees); and numerous listed buildings to the south-west in the grounds of the Grade I listed Wiston House (visibility from house and buildings to the site is restricted by woodland at the northern boundary of Wiston Park, but filtered views are possible from the northern side of the Park into the western end of the site).

The site lies south of one of the putative alignments of the Sussex Greensand Way Roman road. It is possible that archaeological remains associated with the road may exist within the site. Deposits of River Terrace sands/ gravels have been mapped on the site. These may contain Early Palaeolithic flint tools, and contain microfossils relevant to understanding of ancient environment. A handaxe of Palaeolithic date has been reported from north of the site. Its find-spot lies within the area of mapped River Terrace sands/ gravels. On a large site such as this, the possibility that other remains of ancient occupation may be present should be taken into account.

Acceptable provided that visual impact upon the nearby Listed Buildings, and impacts upon any buried archaeological remains can satisfactorily be mitigated. Archaeological impact assessment required (archaeological desk-based assessment and non- invasive and invasive field evaluation), and Historic Building visual impact assessment required. Surveys and reports to be carried out and submitted with any planning application.

Water No European sites within 10km of this site. There is no scope for Green/Amber environment pathways connecting any European sites. The site is considered to be located in (including • Flood Zone 1 an area which is compatible with flooding) mineral working, although half of the • Low risk susceptibility to surface water flooding (10% of site is at risk of groundwater site in higher risk area) flooding. • 50% of site at high risk susceptibility to ground water flooding • Flood Vulnerability Classification: water-compatible • There are a number of surface water streams that • Mainly Gault Clay over Folkestone Beds to the west. If used for sand, the clay will need to be removed.

SFRA Update and Sequential Test of Mineral Sites September 2016 concluded that the development is appropriate.

Air quality The site is not located within an Air Quality Management Area but Amber off site traffic movements will need to be considered in the HGVs associated with the mineral Transport Assessment. operation may have an adverse effect on air quality- especially if traffic Traffic from the site may pass through the AQMA at the A283 needs to pass through an AQMA. High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington.

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would be required

Soil quality The site contains grades 3 best and most versatile agricultural Red/Amber land, therefore the development of the site may result in the loss The site contains Grade 3 soils, which of BMV agricultural land. could be majorly impacted by mineral extraction.

Public rights of Public Footpath 2599 runs to the north and west, around 60 Amber way metres from the site. Consideration should be given to the Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by Public footpath which runs to the the PROW Teams through any future planning application. north and west of the site.

Transport and Transport Assessment addendum (October 2016): Green access The overall acceptability of the site is assessed as High The site would not give rise to Acceptability highway concerns as the site could be accessed via the Lorry Route Access via the A283. Network (A283 - A24 (north and The extraction of minerals, and associated vehicle movements south)/ A27). (such as staff travel or imports of restoration materials) at Ham

Farm is expected to generate approximately 96 two way vehicle movements per day over the course of its 10 year lifespan. This equates to around 8, 2-way movements per hour.

It is estimated that the HGV traffic associated with the movement of minerals from this site would be equally distributed along the A283 eastbound and westbound. The results of the traffic impact assessment show that the traffic related to the development would not have any adverse impact on the Lorry Route Network and would not, therefore, have a severe impact if the site were to come forward on its own.

The location of the existing gated access to the agricultural land is considered to be in the optimum position, meanwhile the Transport Assessment addendum for the site considered that there is no requirement or justification for a right-turn lane due to the proportion of traffic that would turn right into the site. Services and Presence of EDF power line. Amber utilities Scottish and Southern Energy: some high voltage cable runs Various utilities (electricity, BT and across the site. water mains) run close to the boundary/through the site. These BT line runs through the site. utilities may need to be re-routed. Southern Water: Water mains along southen boundary. Diversion of the infrastructure may be possible at the developer’s expense, subject to a feasible alternative route being available.

Amenity A number of residential properties are located in close proximity Red/Amber to the site’s southeastern and northwestern boundaries. A number of residential properties are in close proximity to the site. These residents may be subject to high levels of harm from noise, dust and light associated with mineral

extraction from the site.

Cumulative Potential for cumulative impacts with Rock common in respect of Green impact visual impact and transport. Rock Common West is no longer

being considered as a potential extension to the existing site.

Airport Within Shoreham aeronautical safeguarding zone. Amber safeguarding The site falls within an Airport Safeguarding Zone

Key issues/constraints • The site is located adjacent to the SDNP and would be worked as a new soft sand site. • The site is considered to have a medium landscape character sensitivity to sand extraction and a moderate-high landscape capacity for accomodating mineral extraction. • The site is adjacent to a Listed Building (Horsebrook Cottage), as well as a number of other listed buildings nearby. • The development of the site would result in a small loss of grades3 Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. • A Public Right of Way (2599) runs to the north and west of the site. • The site has a High Acceptability rating in terms of Transport and Access. • Various utilities run close to and through the boundary of the site. • There are a number of residential properties located in proximity to the site. • The site falls within the Shoreham aeroautical safeguarding zone. • There are no significant deliverability issues associated with this proposal.

Minsted West (SDNPA)

Site description District/Parish Chichester/Stedham with Iping Area (ha) 11 Mineral type Soft sand, Folkestone Beds Potential yield 2mt Current use Agricultural field Owner All Souls College Potential operator Dudman Group Ltd

Restoration A mix of wet and dry uses, with emphasis on nature options conservation and heathland – designed to complement restoration as existing Minsted Sandpit and surrounding

land uses. Site specific Operator indicated that the site would be worked as an information extension to an existing quarry and an open water would (operational be connected to an existing water body. considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to Extension to existing site (Minsted) existing site or new site Planning policy Within Chichester District Rural Policy Area where development is restricted. Note: The Chichester District Local Plan (1999) will be superseded by the South Downs Local Plan for parts of the District which fall within the South Downs National Park. Planning history The site was not allocated in the Minerals Local Plan (2003). The site was considered to be acceptable in the Minerals Development Plan Document Issues and Options (2005) subject to the reduction of the site to exclude the south west edge, provision of screening and buffers to the stream and SNCI, an assessment of the impact on the water environment and impact on public rights of way.

The site was promoted for inclusion in the Plan through the 2014 site nomination process and the 2018 Call for Sites.

Can it be delivered? Availability The site is within single ownership. Operator has indicated support from landowner, and immediate availability. Deliverability The site was promoted through the site nomination process and the operator is interested in delivering the site after extraction at the existing Minsted sandpit comes to an end.

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape Within South Downs National Park Red/Amber and visual Within the South Downs National Park. designations Landscape Study (LUC, 2011): The site has a Medium landscape Whilst surrounding woodland and forestry limit visibility with sensitivity (the site access has a medium- the wider area to an extent, the site lies in close proximity to high sensitivity) and Low-Moderate a local nature reserve to which it is linked by a number of capacity for accommodating mineral paths and bridleways, and which contributes to the extraction. recreational value of the wider area. The potential effects of Some potential for enhancement. development on the tranquillity of the area and inter-visibility with the upper slopes of the chalk escarpment increase the sensitivity of the site. Although broadly enclosed, with views into the area restricted by existing vegetation, the site has a secluded and tranquil quality which reduces the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development of this nature without adverse impacts on the character of the surrounding area.

The site access is considered to have a Medium-High landscape sensitivity and the site has a Low-Moderate capacity for mineral extraction.

Supplement to WSCC Sensitivity Study 2011(SDNPA 2015): The site has a Medium-High sensitivity. Potential for further screening planting to mitigate some impacts to the south of the site, although longer views would be lost as a result. Cumulative impacts with existing site and long term restoration issues. Re-routing of the PROW which crosses to the south of the existing site would be necessary.

Restoration proposals would be key to this site and should be contiguous with that of the existing site which are proving to be difficult to resolve. Water quality is considered to be a significant long term issue.

Nature Henfield Wood SNCI (SNCI C123) lies approximately 200m to Red/Amber conservation the west of this site, Stedham Common SNCI within 0.5km to Site near to national designations which and northeast, and Severals Bog approximately 0.6km to the could experience negative impacts from the geodiversity east. Ipping Common (SSSI and LNR) is 0.5km to the north development of the site. of the site. designations

The hydrological impact of the existing Impact on water levels/ wet heath areas of Stedham quarry on national designations is currently Common within Iping Common SSSI needs to be considered. unknown.

Buffers likely to be required to streams and woodland.

This site lies approximately 6km from Singleton and Cocking Tunnel SAC. There is no scope for adverse impacts on this European site.

Within the Heathland Reunited project area therefore could contribute to that network of sites.

This site has been ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment as part of the Habitat Regulation Assessment 2015. The initial screening exercise identified that water quality was a pathway requiring consideration due to the potential impact of sediment within close proximity to European designated sites. It was concluded that there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that this site would not harm the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water quality as any increase in

sediment that might arise from dewatering associated with this minerals site would be subject to such a scale of dilution that its effect on the SPA/Ramsar site would be negligible, particularly since the main channel of the River Arun does not form part of the SPA/Ramsar site and sediment loading in watercourses could be controlled by conditions.

Historic Buildings, no longer existing, are shown in the south-western Amber environment part of this site on a map of c. 1808-9 and may represent a The site is located within 200m from a designations former farmstead or barnyard. This is a large site on the Scheduled Monument which may Lower Greensand, a formation where earlier prehistoric experience moderate harm, in the absence occupation (e.g. Mesolithic flint scatters) is a common of moderate mitigation. occurrence. On a large site such as this, the possibility that

Mesolithic or other remains of ancient occupation may be present should be taken into account, eg. the sites of former Listed buildings, registered parks and barrows (tumuli). potentially archaeological remains are located in close proximity to the site.

There are a number of Scheduled Monuments to the northwest of the site; Bowl Barrow on Fitzhall Rough is the closest at 200m away.

Three listed buildings located to the southeast of the site (all within 0.5km). Two listed buildings to the northeast of the site, one within 0.5km and one just over 0.5km from the site. Also listed building to the west of the site, under 0.5km. There are three Conservation Areas close to the site, Stedham (1.2km northeast), Iping (1.7km north) and Trotton (1.8km northwest).

Woolbeding Estate and Gardens is located north east of the site, managed by the National Trust.

Acceptable provided that impacts upon any buried archaeological remains can satisfactorily be mitigated. An Archaeological impact assessment would be required (archaeological desk-based assessment and non-invasive and invasive field evaluation), surveys and reports to be carried out and submitted with any planning application.

Water Habitat Regulation Assessment December 2016: Red/Amber environment Site screened in for Appropriate Assessment: There may be a significant hydrological (including 6km from Singleton and Cocking Tunnel SAC. There is no impact on the Iping Common SSSI should flooding) scope for adverse impacts on this European site. However, the extension and the existing site be the site does lie adjacent to a watercourse that drains to the worked simultaneously and the conditions river Rother and ultimately into the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar. attached to the existing site not be adhered There is therefore a potential pathway for sediment impacts. to. Appropriate Assessment: A hydrological risk assessment would need Due to the effects of dilution the effect on the SPA/Ramsar to be undertaken prior to allocation. site would be neglible, particularly as the main channel of the River Arun does not form part of the SPA/Ramsar site. Secondly, it is assumed that sediment loading in watercourses near the site will be controlled by conditions since it is an offence to pollute surface watercourses.

• Flood Zone 1 • Most of site at low risk of surface water flooding (less than 5% at higher risk) • Negligible risk susceptibility of groundwater flooding • Flood Vulnerability Classification: water-compatible • Medium risk of flooding from artificial sources (close to existing quarry lake) • Major Aquifer • Extension to existing site (Minsted) – current concerns

100

that the operators at Minsted are not satisfying the planning conditions and as such there are potential hydrological impacts on Iping Common SSSI. The Environment Agency recommends that until the condition is met and any risks are understood and mitigated that a further extension to this site should not come forward. • Groundwater levels likely to be high. Depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and assessed. Prefer no working below groundwater table. Risk Assessment of the water environment (Qualitative Hydrological & Hydrogeological Risk Assessment) - recommend phase 1 prior to allocation.

SFRA Update and Sequential Test of Mineral Sites July 2015: Development is appropriate

Air quality Site not located within an Air Quality Management Area but Amber off site traffic movements will need to be considered in the Traffic movements to/from the site may Transport Assessment. lead to an adverse impact on the Chichester AQMA. Traffic from this site may pass through the AQMA’s in Chichester (A27/A286 Stockbridge roundabout, A286- Orchard St and A285- St Pancras).

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required

101

Soil quality This site is classed as non-agricultural and part Grade 3 Green therefore unlikely to result in loss of BMV agricultural land. The site contains low quality soil.

Public rights Bridleway 907 runs along the northern boundary of the Amber of way proposed site (to the south of the existing quarry) joining Bridleway 907 could require a long Public Bridleway 909/4 to the northeast of the site. Footpath diversion- should the existing site and the 910 is located 150m to the east of the site, bridleway 3358 extension area be joined together. and footpath 903are located 0.4km to the southeast. Existing PROW recorded immediately adjacent to any site are to remain accommodated on their legal line and are not to be disturbed, obstructed or public access deterred. Where it is proposed that material is to be extracted or deposited adjacent to these paths, such works are not to be undertaken within 20 metres of the PROW in order that there will be no future subsidence or slippage to cause the PROW to fall away, or spread of material to cause deposition on the PROW. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application.

High-level transport assessment (2011): On the basis that this proposed allocation seeks an extension to the existing workings and on the understanding that there would be no intensification, it is considered that the further extension would be acceptable. It is recommended that this site and other potential soft sand sites in the area are sequentially developed (if allocated).

102

Transport Assessment 2015: High acceptability Access via the existing site (from Minsted Road) is acceptable for the proposed level of development. Traffic would turn right in/left out of the site onto Minsted Road to the A272. Cumulative impact There would be a 5% increase in traffic on the A272 west of Durford Land and a 1% increase in traffic on the A272 East of Minsted Road if East of West Heath Common, Minsted West and Severals West be worked at the same time. Therefore the cumulative impact of the three sites is below the threshold for further assessment as the impact is not expected to be severe.

Services and Scottish and Southern line runs in close proximity to south Amber utilities east corner of site. The site contains infrastructure (a BT line) and is in close proximity to a water mains BT line runs through site. Southern Water - water mains which may require re-routing or another along western boundary. form of mitigation.

Amenity There are a number of residential properties opposite the site Amber along Minsted Road and at Quag’s Corner. Potential impact on residential properties and Public Rights of Way. Moderate levels of mitigation would be required to ensure no harm is caused.

Cumulative There is a history of mineral working in close proximity to the Amber impact site. There is the potential for cumulative impact due to the Continuation of existing operations for a

103

site’s proximity to Severals East and West. longer time period. Landscape Study (LUC, 2011): With the proximity of the existing extraction site to the north, there is potential for cumulative effects on the special qualities of the wider Wealden Farmland and Heathland Mosaic character within the SDNP.

Airport Green safeguarding The site is not within an Airport Safeguarding Zone.

Key issues/constraints

• The site contains reserves of soft sand which could be worked as an extension to an existing site (Minsted). • There are potential deliverability issues with the site that need to be considered further to determine whether they can be mitigated satisfactorily. • The site has a Medium landscape sensitivity (the site access has a medium-high sensitivity) and Low-Moderate capacity for accommodating mineral extraction. • There is a Scheduled Monument within 200m of site. • The site is located in close proximity to a number of national designations that could have negative impacts. This site was ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment as part of a previous Habitat Regulation Assessment carried out in 2011. It was concluded that there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that this site will not have adverse effects on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water quality. • The Environment Agency raised concerns about existing groundwater issues. The hydrological impact of the existing quarry on national designations is currently unknown and requires further assessment. • Bridleway 907 could require a long diversionary route and there is potential for impact on a number of residential properties. • Minsted Extension could be accommodated with further screening planting and re-routing of the PROW which crosses to the south of the existing site. Restoration proposals would be key to this site and should be contiguous with that of the existing site. Water quality is considered to be a significant long term issue.

104

Severals East (SDNPA)

Site description District/Parish Chichester/ Woolbeding with Redford Area (ha) 20 Mineral type Soft sand Potential yield 1,000,000 tonnes Current use Commercial forestry Owner Cowdray Estate Potential operator Raymond Brown Quarry Products Ltd

105

Restoration Potential for heathland and/or broad-leaved woodland options restoration with interspersed ponds for nature conservation. Improved public access, linking with Midhurst Common/the Serpent Trail. Site specific information (operational considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to One of two new sites coming forward, lies adjacent to existing site or Severals West new site Planning policy Within Chichester District Rural Policy Area where development is restricted.

Note: The Chichester District Local Plan (1999) will be superseded by the South Downs Local Plan for parts of the District which fall within the boundary of the SDNP. Planning history Site was not allocated in the Minerals Local Plan (2003) or the JMLP (2018). Site was not considered to be acceptable in the Minerals DPD Issues and Options November (2005) due to landscape impact.

Can it be delivered? Availability The site is within single ownership and the owner wishes to develop the site for mineral extraction. The site is available within the next 1 to 5 years. Deliverability The operator has agreement with the landowner for the use of the site.

106

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape Within South Downs National Park AMBER and visual The site falls within the boundary of the designations Landscape Study (LUC, 2011): SDNP and has a Medium-High sensivity to extraction. The site falls Whilst the woodland and forest limit intervisibility with the within an area of medium tranquility. surrounding area to an extent, the site forms a link between Midhurst Common, to the east, and Steadham Common to the west, traversed by dense network of paths and bridleways, Some potential for landscape including The Serpent Trail. The site therefore contributes enhancement at the restoration phase. significantly to the recreational value of the wider area. The potential effects of the development on the areas of ancient woodland, the tranquillity and sense of remoteness of the area and the recreational value of the area increase the sensitivity of the site. Although predominantly comprising plantation forest, restricting views into the area and enabling the visual containment of extraction activities within existing tree cover, areas of broadleaf trees reduce the overall capacity of the landscape. The southern part of the site narrows considerably, reducing scope to locate extraction away from sensitive landscape features in adjacent areas of woodland and heathland.

The site is considered to have a Medium- High sensitivity and Low-Moderate capacity for mineral extraction.

Supplement to WSCC Sensitivity Study 2011 (SDNPA, 2015): The site has a Medium-High sensitivity. Severals East and West both singularly and jointly, would be likely to have significant impacts on access and PROW. The existing use of the land for forestry plantation reduces its overall sensitivity on landscape grounds and to some extent how

107

tranquillity is measured as the woodland is not perceived to be ‘natural’. For this reason it has been considered that restoration proposals to heathland/woodland mosaic would be beneficial in the long term provided that sufficient areas of the sites can be restored to land rather than wet restoration with the associated water quality issues that this involves.

Nature An SNCI lies to the west and east of the site. Adjacent to RED/AMBER conservation Midhurst Common SNCI (east). Stedham Common SNCI 0.7km Site contains priority habitat of lowland and west. River Rother SNCI 0.3km north. Iping Common SSSI and heath and ancient woodland which geodiversity LNR is located 1km to the west of the site. would be majorly harmed by mineral designations extraction and as such high levels of Area of Ancient Woodland (replanted) partially located within the mitigation would be required. north of the site, buffer zone would protect from other land uses.

Site contains priority habitat of lowland heath and ancient woodland, contains rare species inventory records and is within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area. Impact of changes to water table on heathland needs to be considered.

This site lies approximately 6km from Singleton and Cocking Tunnel SAC. There is no scope for adverse impacts on this European site.

This site was ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment as part of a previous Habitat Regulation Assessment carried out in 2011. The initial screening exercise identified that water quality was a pathway requiring consideration due to the potential impact of sediment within close proximity to European designated sites. Concluded that this site will not have any likely significant effects on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water flows or quality.

108

Historic Heathbarn farmhouse (grade II listed) to the north east of the GREEN/AMBER environment indicated site boundary. Grade II listed Toll House located 0.4km The site may cause minor harm to the designations away to the north east. setting of listed buildings, Conservation Areas and archaeological remains. There are four Conservation Areas within 2km of the site, Moderate mitigation measures should Midhurst, Iping, Stedham and Woolbeding. be adopted – including the undertaking of a Lidar survey.

Woolbeding Estate and Gardens north east of the site, managed by the National Trust.

Early archaeological assessment strongly recommended - as a preliminary to any field evaluation a Lidar survey should be carried out (as this is a wooded site). Evaluation should be undertaken pre-determination and the results made available to consider at the application stage.

Water Habitat Regulation Assessment 2010/11: AMBER environment Site screened in for Appropriate Assessment: Vulnerable water issues. EA to check. (including The site lies approximately 6km from Singleton and Cocking flooding) The risk and level of harm would be Tunnel SAC. There is no scope for adverse impacts on this dependent on the depth of the proposed European site. However, the site does include a watercourse that mineral working (above or below the drains to the river Rother and ultimately into the Arun Valley water table) and the method of SPA/Ramsar. There is therefore a potential pathway for sediment working. impacts so this site has been screened in for further consideration. A phase 1 hydrological and hydrogeological risk assessment should Appropriate Assessment: be undertaken before allocation. There are adequate safeguards (dilution and planning conditions)

in place to ensure that the site will not have an adverse effect on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water flows or quality.

109

• Flood zone 1 • Negligible risk to groundwater flooding • Low risk of surface water flooding • Depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and assessed • No working below groundwater table preferable • Risk Assessment of the water environment (Qualitative Hydrological & Hydrogeological Risk Assessment) - recommend phase 1 prior to allocation • Localised flooding experienced in 2013/14 at Woolbeding Estate and Gardens • Possible Water Framework Directive impacts – drainage to watercourse which drains to Rother to Arun • Any risk of sediment entering the watercourses which lead into the River Rother would need to be fully assessed and mitigated

Air quality Site not located within an Air Quality Management Area but off AMBER site traffic movements will need to be considered in the Transport HGVs may need to pass through a Assessment. number of AQMAs in Chichester which would have a negative impact on air Traffic from this site may pass through the AQMA’s in Chichester quality. (A27/A286 Stockbridge roundabout, A286- Orchard St and A285- St Pancras).

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required

110

Soil quality Grade 4 no loss of BMV agricultural land. GREEN The site contains no BMV agricultural land.

Public rights Public Footpaths 3617 and 3618 run through the northern section AMBER of way of the site. Footpath 921 follows the eastern boundary of the site. The site would pose a potential hazard Both footpaths 3617 and 921 form part of the Serpent Trail. for users of PRoW. Planning obligations All existing PROW are to be accommodated on their legal line and and mitigation measures may make the not to be disturbed, obstructed or public access deterred until site acceptable in terms of PRoW. and unless legal diversion or extinguishment (a public path order – PPO) is proposed and legally confirmed. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application.

Transport Possible access from Severals Road/A272. Suitability of access AMBER and access road needs to be assessed. The impact of additional HGV traffic The site poses a moderate risk of on Midhurst and the villages to the west of the site should be causing harm – especially if HGV traffic suitably considered. passes through villages. High level transport assessment (2011) concluded: Risks associated with transport/access Access is possible directly onto the A272. It is recommended that may be reduced if Severals West and the sites (Severals West and Severals East) are sequentially East are developed sequentially. developed. Services and To be identified using evidence provided by utility/service GREEN utilities providers. There are no services or utilities near to, or within the site.

Amenity Severals House and residential properties to the south of the site. RED/AMBER Heathbarn Farm and 1 and 2 Severals Cottages lie immediately There are a number of sensitive to the east of the site. receptors close to the site who would be

111

subject to high levels of harm. Mitigation measures may enable the site to be workable.

Cumulative There is a history of mineral working in close proximity to the RED/AMBER impact site. The site may cause considerable harm due to the site’s proximity to other mineral sites. Landscape Study (LUC, 2011): With the proximity of the existing extraction site to the northwest, there is potential for cumulative effects on the special qualities of the wider Wealden Farmland and Heathland Mosaic character area, with the SDNP.

Airport Not applicable GREEN safeguarding The site does not fall within an airfield safeguarding zone.

Key issues/constraints

The site is located within the SDNP. The site is considered to have a medium to high landscape character sensitivity to extraction, with the areas of ancient woodland and the water course to the west of the site of higher sensitivity. The site has moderate to low landscape capacity overall for accommodating mineral extraction.

Site contains priority habitat of lowland heath and a small area of ancient woodland. This site was ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment as part of a previous Habitat Regulation Assessment carried out in 2011. It was concluded that this site will not have any likely significant effects on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water flows or quality. Further assessment of groundwater issues is required.

The site could have a negative impact on a small number of adjacent residential properties. Public Footpaths 3617 and 3618 run through the northern section of the site and would require diversion.

112

Severals West (SDNPA)

Site description District/Parish Chichester/ Woolbeding with Redford Area (ha) 55 Mineral type Soft sand, Folkestone beds Potential yield 1 – 3 mt Current use Commercial forestry Owner Cowdray Estate Potential operator Raymond Brown Quarry Products Ltd

113

Restoration Potential for heathland and/or broad-leaved woodland options restoration with interspersed ponds for nature conservation. Improved public access, linking with

Midhurst Common/the Serpent Trail. Site specific information (operational considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to One of two sites assesses as part of the JMLP, lies existing site or adjacent to Severals East new site Planning policy Within Chichester District Rural Policy Area where development is restricted.

Note: The Chichester District Local Plan (1999) will be superseded by the South Downs Local Plan for parts of the District which fall within the boundary of the SDNP. Planning history Site was not allocated in the JMLP (2018) or the Minerals Local Plan (2003). Site was not considered to be acceptable in the Minerals DPD Issues and Options November (2005) due to landscape and conservation impact.

114

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Within South Downs National Park Red/Amber visual Within the South Downs National Park designations Landscape Study (LUC, 2011): Medium-high landscape sensitivity and a Although comprising large areas of plantation forest, low-moderate capacity for accommodating restricting views into the area and enabling the visual mineral extraction. containment of extraction activities within existing tree cover, the site has areas of ancient woodland which Potential for enhancement to reduces the overall capacity of the landscape to heathland/woodland mosaic. accommodate development of this nature without adverse impacts on the habitat value and tranquil character of the area. Whilst the woodland and forestry limit inter-visibility with the surrounding area to an extent, the site forms a link between Midhurst Common, to the east, and the Steadham Common to the west, traversed by dense network of paths and bridleways, including the Serpent Trail. The site therefore contributes significantly to the recreational value of the wider area.

The site is considered to have a Medium-High sensitivity and Low-Moderate capacity to extraction.

Supplement to WSCC Sensitivity Study 2011 (SDNPA, 2015): The site has a Medium-High sensitivity. Severals East and West are together be likely to have significant impacts on access and PROW. The existing use of the land for forestry plantation reduces its overall sensitivity on landscape grounds and to some extent

115

how tranquillity is measured as the woodland is not perceived to be ‘natural’. For this reason it has been considered that restoration proposals to heathland/woodland mosaic would be beneficial in the long term provided that sufficient areas of the sites can be restored to land rather than wet restoration with the associated water quality issues that this involves.

Nature Severals Bog SNCI (SNCI C105) is situated within the Red/Amber conservation site along the western edge. Even with a buffer strip, the The Several Bog SNCI falls within the and geodiversity bog habitat could be vulnerable to local changes in boundary of the site and may be negatively designations hydrology as a result of mineral working. affected by the development of the site. High levels of mitigation may be needed to Quaggs Corner SNCI (SNCI C53) lies to the west of this protect the SNCI and the SAC from harm. site.

The stream to the west, Severals Stream, is a tributary of the River Rother. Buffers may be required to the stream and SNCIs.

Area of Ancient Woodland (replanted) located within the north/northwest of the site.

Potential hydrological impacts. Any risk of sediment entering the watercourses which lead into the River Rother would need to be fully assessed and mitigated.

HRA 2011: The site lies approximately 6km from Singleton and Cocking Tunnel SAC. There is no scope for adverse impacts on this European site. However, the site

116

includes a watercourse that drains to the river Rother and ultimately into the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar. Thre is therefore a potential pathway for sediment impacts so the site has been ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment.

The screening exercise identified that water quality was a pathway requiring consideration due to the potential impact of sediment within close proximity to European designated sites. It was concluded that this site will not have any likely significant effects on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water flows or quality as the main channel of the River Arun does not form part of the SPA/Ramsar. As such any increase in sediment that might arise from dewatering associated with this minerals site would be subject to such a scale of dilution that its effect on the SPA/Ramsar site would be negligible, particularly since the main channel of the River Arun does not form part of the SPA/Ramsar site.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (2015): The HRA (2015) supported the findings of the 2011 assessment. It also noted that sediment loading in watercourses near the site will be controlled by conditions since it is an offence to pollute surface watercourses irrespective of whether they drain to a European site or not. The HRA(2015 concluded that the site will not have any likely effects on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water flows or quality.

117

Historic There are a number of listed buildings located within Green/Amber environment 1km of the site. The closest is ‘Badgers’, Quags Corner The development of the site may cause designations located approximately 0.3km to the west of the site. minor harm to nearby listed buildings, Woodlands Cottage and Heathbarn farm are also located Conservation Areas and archaeological 0.4 km from the site. remains in the absence of low level mitigation. There are four Conservation Areas within 2km of the site, Midhurst, Iping, Stedham and Woolbeding.

An early archaeological assessment is strongly recommended - as a preliminary to any field evaluation a Lidar survey should be carried out (as this is a wooded site). Evaluation should be undertaken pre- determination and the results made available to consider at the application stage.

Water Habitat Regulation Assessment 2010/11: Red/Amber environment Site screened in for Appropriate Assessment: The site is near vulnerable water bodies (including The site lies approximately 6km from Singleton and (Severals Bog SNCI) which could be majorly flooding) Cocking Tunnel SAC. There is no scope for adverse impacted in the absence of a high level of impacts on this European site. However, the site does mitigation. include a watercourse that drains to the river Rother and ultimately into the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar. There is A Hydrological Risk Assessment would be therefore a potential pathway for sediment impacts so required prior to allocation. this site has been screened in for further consideration.

Appropriate Assessment: Due to the effects of dilution the effect of Severals West on the SPA/Ramsar site would be neglible, particularly as the main channel of the River Arun does not form part of the SPA/Ramsar site. Secondly, it is assumed

118

that sediment loading in watercourses near the site will be controlled by conditions since it is an offence to pollute surface watercourses.

• Flood zone 1(Site borders Flood zone 2/3) • Under climate change scenarios (updated February 2016), there is a 50% chance that the western edge of the site could fall within FZ2/3 as river levels could rise by between 10% and 40% during the three time periods (2020s, 2050s and 2080s) • Under climate change scenarios (updated February 2016), the adjacent river could rise by between 5% and 40% during the three time periods (2020s, 2050s and 2080s) due to peak rainfall allowances • Negligible risk to groundwater flooding (25% at higher risk) • Low risk of surface water flooding (5% at higher risk) • Groundwater levels likely to be high. Depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and assessed. Would prefer no working below groundwater table. • Possible Water Framework Directive impacts – drainage to watercourse which drains to Rother to Arun Risk Assessment of the water environment (Qualitative Hydrological & Hydrogeological Risk Assessment) - recommend phase 1 assessment prior to allocation.

119

SFRA Update and Sequential Test of Mineral Sites September 2016: Development is appropriate as explained in the “Nature conservation and geodiversity designations” section of this document.

Negligible risk of ground water flooding. Low risk of surface water flooding. Air quality Site not located within an Air Quality Management Area Amber but off site traffic movements will need to be considered HGV movements may impact upon AQMAs in the Transport Assessment. located in Chichester.

Traffic from this site may pass through the AQMAs in Chichester (A27/A286 Stockbridge roundabout, A286- Orchard St and A285- St Pancras).

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required

Soil quality Mainly Grade 4 therefore no significant loss of BMV Green agricultural land (although the site also contains a small The site contains low quality soil. area of Grade 2 and Grade 3 agricultural land).

Public rights of Footpath 3619 loosely follows the western boundary of Amber way the site before turning eastwards along the southern The site contains permissive footpaths and a boundary. A number of permissive paths run through the number of footpaths close to the boundary of site, one of which forms part of the Serpent Trail. the site. Existing PROW recorded immediately adjacent to any Mitigation measures such as a stand-off site are to remain accommodated on their legal line and between the extraction area and the are not to be disturbed, obstructed or public access

120

deterred. Where it is proposed that material is to be footpaths may be needed. extracted or deposited adjacent to these paths, such

works are not to be undertaken within 20 metres of the PROW in order that there will be no future subsidence or slippage to cause the PROW to fall away, or spread of material to cause deposition on the PROW. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application

Transport and Transport assessment 2015: Amber access The site poses a moderate risk of causing The overall acceptability of the site is currently assessed harm – and would be dependent on which as Low/Medium access arrangement is used. Access to the site via Severals Road is inappropriate for

HGV traffic due to the narrow width, steep gradient and road alignment. Alternative access arrangements include: - Direct access onto the A272 (this may be difficult to achieve due to level differences between the site and the road and a road safety audit would be required), - Access via lane crossing Woolmer Bridge. Road would require widening and resurfacing. Further detailed analysis would be needed to conclude which access arrangement is the most suitable. The results of the cumulative impact of the development of all three sites (Severals West, East of West Heath Common and Minsted West) on the A272 is not expected to be severe.

121

Services and To be identified using evidence provided by Green utilities utility/service providers Based on the information currently available- there are no services or utilities near to, or within the site.

Amenity Severals House is located to the east of the site along Red/Amber Severals Road and residential properties to the south of The site is in close proximity to residential the site. properties and as such the site may cause disturbance (noise, dust and light) to local residents. Mitigation measures should be adopted to reduce the risk of harm.

Cumulative There is a history of mineral working in close proximity Red/Amber impact to the site. The site may cause considerable harm due to its proximity to other developments (Minsted Landscape Study (LUC, 2011): quarry). For this reason it may be necessary With the proximity of the existing extraction site to the to delay mineral working at the site until northwest, there is potential for cumulative effects on other sites in the area are completed. the special qualities of the wider Wealden Farmland and Heathland Mosaic character area within the SDNP.

Airport Not applicable Green safeguarding The site is not within an Airport Safeguarding Zone.

122

Key issues/constraints

• The site is located within the SDNP. • The overall acceptability of the site in terms of access and transport is assessed as Low/Medium (Transport Assessment 2015). • Medium-high landscape sensitivity and a low-moderate capacity for mineral extraction. • The site is likely to have significant impacts on access and PROW. The existing use of the land for forestry plantation reduces its overall sensitivity on landscape grounds and to some extent how tranquillity is measured as the woodland is not perceived to be ‘natural’. For this reason it has been considered that restoration proposals to heathland/woodland mosaic would be beneficial in the long term provided that a sufficient area of the site can be restored to land rather than wet restoration with the associated water quality issues that this involves. The site contains Severals Bog SNCI (SNCI C105) along the western edge. Even with a buffer strip, the bog habitat could be vulnerable to local changes in hydrology as a result of mineral working. Further assessment of groundwater issues is required. • The site could have a negative impact on a small number of adjacent residential properties.

123

Appendix 5: Stage 5 RAG assessment site proformas

Buncton Manor Farm

Site description District/Parish Horsham/Washington Area (ha) 23ha Mineral type Soft Sand Potential yield 1,000,000 tonnes Current use Agricultural use Owner Wiston Estate

124

Potential operator The Dudman Group of Companies Restoration LVIA (2019) options • Reinstating the original profile of the site and returning the land to agricultural use. Restoring and improving the structure of hedgerows and hedgerow trees, with the aim of maximising farmland habitat value, and connectivity with the surrounding structure of hedgerows and lines of trees. • • Restoring all or part of the site to woodland following extraction. Long term restoration should aim to maximise the habitat value by taking opportunities to link it into the surrounding hedgerow and woodland structure. • • There is potential to create links with the former mineral workings site to the west which has recently been restored to pasture and scrub habitat Site specific Approximate timescales: information Site available in the next 6-10 years. The site would take (operational 10 – 15 years to complete, dependent on yield. considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to New site existing site or new site

Planning history The site was promoted for allocation in the JMLP in 2014, and was ruled out through the site selection process.

125

Key Criteria RAG SCORE

Landscape The site is around 100 metres north from the South Red and visual Downs National Park. The site falls outside the boundary of the SDNP. designations Landscape assessment (2019): The site has a Medium-High sensitivity to Overall, the site is considered to have Medium- extraction and an overall Moderate to Low capacity High sensitivity to extraction. Given the gently for accommodating mineral extraction. undulating landform and degree of containment provided by the existing structure of hedgerows and The site is highly visible from important Public Rights tree cover, there is the potential for providing of Way within the SDNP, specifically from the South appropriate screening of the site from the Downs Way and from the Chanctonbury Ring surrounding farmland and nearby views. However, (scheduled ancient monument). the visibility of the site across a broader area of the South Downs National Park from a noted viewpoint and the presence of the water course and mature Some potential to screen the site through the use of vegetation potentially reduces the capacity of the of woodland and hedgerow planting. the site to accommodate development. Additional boundary planting may not sufficiently reduce visibility from the South Downs to an acceptable level and may result in impact upon its special qualities, especially when seen in conjunction with the sand pit at Rock Common.

Nature The site is near to a number of areas of Ancient Amber conservation Woodland, the closest is within 20 metres of the The site is in close proximity to an number of areas and site (to the south east). of Ancient Woodland. These areas could suffer geodiversity moderate harm and as such would require designations The site is 150 metres north of the Lower Adur Arun proportionate levels of mitigation. & potential Watershed Biodiversity Opportunity Area.

126

issues In the HRA, the site has been ‘screened in’ due to Several small watercourses lie within or adjoin the potential impacts arising from an increase in traffic site which ultimately drain into the River Adur. which would require transport assessments and, There could be some ecological sensitivities where necessary, air quality assessments as part of associated with these. a project level Appropriate Assessment.

Habitat Regulation Assessment (2019): The site was ‘screened in’ due to air quality. The nearerst site is the Arun Valley SPA/SAC/Ramsar site. Due to the nature of the potential impact pathways (disturbance and water quality) and the distances involved, there is no scope for impact pathways connecting to this European site. There is potential for an increase in traffic on the Lorry Route Network which may pass within 200m of air quality sensitive European sites. Transport assessments and, where necessary, air quality impact assessment would be required as part of a project level Appropriate Assessment.

127

Cottages which are 100 metres away.

Further information, through desk-based and field- based non-intrusive and intrusive archaeological assessment is required in respect of this feature.

The western part of the site is an Historic Environment Record (HER) Archaeological Notification Area (Amber scale), owing to the location just outside of the site of recorded prehistoric, Roman and later sites in Rock Common Quarry. Immediately adjacent to the north-central part of the proposal site runs the projected alignment of the Sussex Greensand Way Roman road, mapped as an HER record.

Related prehistoric, Roman and later features and artefacts may exist below ground within the proposal site (potential local/ regional significance).

The Wiston Park Historic Parkscape is 440m to the south east of the site.

128

Water Flood Risk Information (2019) Red/Amber environment • The site is located in Flood Zone 1; The site could give rise to groundwater impacts and (including • Part of the site is at high risk (15%) and could have an impact on a major aquifer. Further flooding) medium risk (17%) of groundwater flooding. assessment and mitigation would be required. The remainder of the site is negligible The site was subject to the sequential and exception susceptibility; test and was considered to be appropriate (with • The site is low risk of surface water flooding mitigation). The watercourse should be maintained although there is a water course running and allowed to flow at all times and the proposals for across the boundary of the site which needs to the site may mean that the original route may need be managed at all times; to be amended, but a route for water to flow along • There has been minor highway flooding must be maintained A flood risk assessment and recorded in the area but not within the site drainage strategy would need to be undertaken for itself. the site at development management stage. SFRA Update and Sequential Test of Mineral Sites

(2019): Updated data puts part of the site into high and medium risk of ground water flooding. The rest of the flood risk information relating remains unchanged and the results of the sequential and exception tests is that the development is appropriate. Other Water Environment Information • The site does not lie within a groundwater protection zone. • EA maps indicates that the south western part of the site is part of a Principal Aquifer and small parts of the site are Secondary undifferentiated) Aquifer. • Groundwater Vulnerability Zones: Major Aquifer (intermediate)

129

Environment Agency (2019): Potential groundwater impacts mean that they would not want to see quarrying below groundwater level. As groundwater is being dewatered at Rock Common, groundwater levels underneath the site are unlikely to be representative of natural conditions. Therefore groundwater monitoring and an assessment will have to be made on the natural groundwater table at this site.

Air quality Site not located within an Air Quality Management Amber Area but the impact on air quality caused by off site The site could have an impact on air quality should traffic movements would need to be considered in traffic from the site pass through an AQMA. the Transport Assessment and Air Quality

Assessment.

In the absence of any specific routing, traffic from this site may pass through the AQMA at the A283 High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington which is 4km

130

west of the site.

Soil quality The site is grade 3 soil quality but it is not Red/Amber categorised as 3a or 3b. This means that large parts The site contains Grade 3 soils, which could be of site could contain best and most versatile majorly impacted by mineral extraction. agricultural land. An Agricultural Land Classification Survey may be required to determine whether the site is best and most versatile land.

Any loss of potentially high quality agricultural land should be considered and avoided or mitigation provided.

Opportunities to enhance future public access would be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application. Green/Amber Transport and Transport Assessment (2019): access Using a conveyor to transport the material to the The development would generate 48 two-way car existing Rock Common site is the preferred access movements per day and 40 car movements per option as this would represent a continuation of the day. Routing depends upon which access is selected. If access onto the A283 is selected, no existing operations. The site has a High restrictions on routing would apply because it is Acceptability rating in terms of transport impacts. part of the LRN. It is understood from the information submitted that no traffic is to be routed through Storrington.

131

Three possible access options: 1. Material to be transported by conveyor belt to the existing processing plant at Rock Common Quarry. The site would continue to make use of the existing quarry access onto the Hollow. On the understanding that the access would be no more intensively used than associated with permitted uses, this is identified at the preferred access option in the TA. 2. Use of an existing access (previously used by Biffa for the closed Windmill Quarry Landfill). Access has restricted visibility and it is recommended that it is only used for emergency purposes. 3. Directly onto the A283 via the existing private access to the farm. Improvements would be necessary to the junction which is outside of the applicant’s control therefore unclear whether this could be realised.

No significant or severe safety or capacity issues and site is considered to have a high acceptability in terms of access and other highway impacts. Also see assessment of cumulative impacts

Environment Agency (2019): The proximity to Services and Amber Windmill landfill site means an assessment needs to utilities Potential issues due to the adjacent landfill site. An be made on what is a safe working/quarrying assessment would be needed to ensure development distance. Constraints include but not limited to at the site did not compromise the integrity of the locations of boreholes (Gas & Groundwater)

132

infrastructure, engineered liner and surface water landfill site infrastructure. drainage system.

Constraints include, but not limited to, locations of boreholes (Gas & Groundwater) infrastructure, engineered liner and surface water drainage system.

Also see Environment Agency comments included in Water Environment section above. Amenity The nearest residential properties are at Polecats Amber Cottages (100m to the south east). There are a The site is located close to a number of residential number of other residential properties in the area properties which may be subject to moderate levels including Upper Chanton Farm and properties along of harm, however this may be avoidable through Water Lane to the east. mitigation. Amenity issues arising from mineral developments,

including noise, dust and light pollution may be capable of mitigation. The opportunity for, and the nature of such mitigation measures would need to be considered at the planning application stage. Red/Amber Cumulative Landscape assessment (2019): impact Potential for cumulative impacts with Rock Common The area has seen a number of workings over the and other nearby potential minerals sites (Rock Common extension and Ham Farm). Phasing of years, including Rock Common which is still active. working and restoration should be considered, There are also a number of other sites in the including delaying development until other nearby sites have been restored. Note, Rock Common surrounding area that are being considered through extension is no longer being considered. the Soft Sand Review, including Ham Farm, 1.6km to the east and Chantry Lane (3.6km to the west).

Transport assessment (2019):

133

The Transport Assessment looked at the impact of three sites (Chantry Lane extension, Buncton Manor Farm and Ham Farm) on the A24/A263 Washington roundabout. Buncton Manor Farm and Ham Farm could result in an additional 92 daily two way movements on the A283 eastern arm of the Washington roundabout which equates to a 0.6% increase in daily traffic.

In terms of the eastbound movements along the A283 towards all three sites would result in a total of 109 two way movements arriving and departing via the A283 to and from Steyning, equivalent to a 0.5% increase in daily westbound vehicle movements and 0.5% in the eastbound direction (viewed against future year flows on the A283). It is not considered that any significant or severe safety or capacity issues would arise as a consequence of the cumulative operation of the proposed three sites. There is also a landfill site immediately south of the site which is being restored. Ham Farm to the east is also being considered. Further to the west of the site is Sandgate Park and Hampers Sand pit. Chantry Lane Sand Pit in Storrington is currently inactive but an extension to the site is being considered. The site promoter commented at Regulation 18 consultation that the Rock Common is coming to the end of sand extraction and will be entering into its restoration phase. Buncton Manor Farm could be

134

timed to be developed once Rock Common is restored which may be towards the end of the plan period.

135

Key issues/constraints

• Potential impact on listed buildings close to the site; therefore an assessment of its impact would be required and possible mitigation needed; • The site is less than 250m metres from the South Downs National Park boundary and is highly visible from the SDNP (including from the National Trail and Chanctonbury Hill Scheduled Monument). • The site is in close proximity to Ancient Woodland, therefore mitigation measures would be required; • A late Anglo-Saxon estate boundary runs through the site a desk-based and field-based archaeological assessment would be required; • Potential air quality impacts on European sites arising from vehicle movements. Transport assessment and air quality impact assessment required as part of project level Appropriate Assessment; Using a conveyor to transport material to the existing Rock Common site would be preferred (representing a continuation of existing operations and using the existing access); • The site is adjacent to a former landfill site, therefore an assessment of same quarrying distances, stand-off and mitigation measures would be required to ensure infrastructure associated with the effective aftercare of the landfill is not damaged; • The site could give rise to groundwater impacts and could have an impact on a major aquifer therefore further assessment and mitigation would be required; • Monitoring of groundwater levels is required and there should be no quarrying below the groundwater table level; • There may be impacts on residential amenity due to the proximity of some dwellings to the site and existing sites close by; • Potential significant cumulative impacts on the surrounding landscape as a result of the amount of existing and proposed quarrying activity in the area; • There may be impacts on the AQMA in Storrington as a result of HGV movements.

Sustainability Appraisal Outcomes

Buncton Manor is one of the sites likely to have the most severe cumulative impact, which would need to be mitigated by

136

timing of the development. It is highly visible within the landscape, particularly from Chanctonbury Ring, although the site itself is outside of the SDNP. There is potential for negative impact on PROW and soils.

Overall Conclusion

The site is not considered suitable for extraction, and therefore ruled out. The site is highly visible from important Public Rights of Way within the SDNP, specifically from the South Downs Way and from the Chanctonbury Ring (scheduled ancient monument).

137

Chantry Lane Extension (SDNPA)

138

Restoration LVIA (2019) options Restoring all or parts of the site to support a mix of nationally important heathland habitats including open heather heath, acid grassland, bracken, gorse, woody scrub, and oak-birch woodland, alongside the implementation of an appropriate management plan, to be agreed prior to consent;

• Returning the site to its existing profile and then restoring to agricultural use following extraction. Long term restoration should aim to maximise the habitat value of the farmland, minimising soil erosion and pollution (of soil and ground water), and to improve the historic and landscape character by restoring and enhancing hedgerows and woodland structure. • Opportunities should be taken to improve habitat connectivity. • Restoration proposals should be considered in combination with the restoration of the existing Chantry Lane site to the west Site specific A draft redevelopment plan has been drawn up for information Chantry Lane Industrial Estate and the Sand Quarry. This (operational includes housing and employment or an educational considerations) campus.

Planning history and current permissions Extension to Extension to existing site existing site or new site

Planning policy The site is within the South Downs National Park. The South Downs Local Plan was adopted in 2019 and sets out the policy framework for development in the National Park.

139

Can it be delivered? Availability The site was put forward as part of the site nomination process and is thought to be owned by the operator. The site is available immediately Deliverability The operator is interested in delivering the site which would replace an existing area of permitted reserve.

140

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Within the South Downs National Park Red/Amber visual The site falls within the SDNP and follows designations LVIA (2019) its northern boundary. The site itself has a medium landscape sensitivityThe site has The site is considered to have a Medium sensitivity to a moderate capacity for mineral extraction and Moderate capacity for accommodating extraction. mineral extraction.

Although partially enclosed, with some views into the site The highway improvement works needed somewhat limited by existing vegetation, there is some to make the development acceptable on intervisibility with the South Downs and the site contributes highways terms, may result in an to the foreground of views south from the A283 which unacceptable landscape impact. reduces the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development of this nature without adverse effects on the surrounding area including some of the Special Qualities such as views to the Downs.Any proposed site access via Sullington Lane has the potential to adversely affect the wider approach to Sullington Conservation Area. With the proximity of the adjacent Chantry Lane extraction site to the west and nearby Sandgate Quarry to the north there is potential for cumulative effects on the wider Arun to Adur Scarp Footslopes character area within the SDNP

141

Nature Adjacent to a SSSI (Chantry Mill) and an assessment would Amber conservation need to be made of interest features and how they would be The site is adjacent to an SSSI which and retained. The RIGS comprise of open faces in the existing would need to be reatined. quarry. geodiversity designations It has been screened into the HRA but the This site has been ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment site is expected to be capable of coming as part of the Habitat Regulation Assessment 2019. forward without adverse effect on the • The site lies approximately 4.7km from the Arun integrity of European sites subject to Valley SPA/Ramsar. A watercourse adjacent to the appropriate project level Appropriate site drains into the River Stor and into this European Assessment and mitigation. site. There is therefore a potential pathway for sediment to impact the European site; • The site also lies 10.6km from the Mens SAC and within the wider 12km bat impact zone; • There is potential for an increase in traffic arising from the site onto the Lorry Routes network which may pass within 200m of air quality sensitive European sites. The site will not have an adverse effect on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water flows or quality as input of water from the River Stor onto the SPA/Ramsar is only permitted through opening of sluice gates in very dry conditions as an ‘emergency measure,’ as the water quality within the River Stor is already poor. It is therefore clear that flows from the River Stor are not essential for the continued maintenance of the integrity of the SPA/Ramsar site. Any risk of contamination can be controlled through conditions.

The site would be an extension to the existing site and would therefore be ‘neutral’ as regards generation of traffic

142

movements. There would not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the air-quality sensitive European sites. It will be necessary to undertake a transport assessment to determine whether there is an increase in traffic movements and, where necessary, associated air quality work.

Potential impacts on the barbastelle and Bechstein bat populations associated with The Mens SAC will need to be addressed through habitat and protected species survey and any avoidance and mitigation measures to inform a project level Appropriate Assessment.

The site is acceptable, provided impacts upon any buried archaeological remains can be satisfactorily mitigated. An Archaeological impact assessment would be required (archaeological desk-based assessment and a non-invasive and invasive field evaluation). Surveys and reports should

143

be carried out and submitted with any planning application.

Water Flood Risk information (2019) Green/Amber environment • Flood Zone 1; The site is considered to be appropriate. A (including flood risk assessment and drainage flooding) • Low risk susceptibility to surface water flooding; strategy would need to be undertaken for • Negligible risk of groundwater; the site at development management • Medium risk of flooding from artificial sources; stage. • Flood Vulnerability Classification: water-compatible. Any risk of contamination of watercourses can be controlled by condition. SFRA Update and Sequential Test of Soft Sand Sites (2019): Development is appropriate. Other Water Environment Information • Possible WFD impacts – watercourse adjacent to site tributary to River Stor which drains into Arun. Any risk of sediment entering the watercourses which lead into the River Stor & then into River Arun would need to be fully assessed and mitigated (European Site).

The HRA (2019) concludes that the site will not have an adverse effect on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water flows or quality as input of water from the River Stor onto the SPA/Ramsar is only permitted through opening of sluice gates in very dry conditions as an ‘emergency measure,’ as the water quality within the River Stor is already poor. Any risk of contamination can be controlled through conditions.

144

• If used for sand, Gault clay would need to be removed and the potential impacts considered.

Air quality The site is located near to an Air Quality Management Area. Amber The Transport Assessment acknowledges that the site may It is likely that traffic from the site would give rise to 2-3 daily HGV movements to the west via the need to pass through a near-by AQMA and AQMA at Storrington. The impacts of this will need to be this could lead to an adverse impact on air considered. A routing strategy would need to be agreed quality.

Traffic from this site is likely to pass through the AQMA at the A283 High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington. If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required

Soil quality The site contains Grade 4 agricultural land, which is of lower Amber quality, however parts of site could contain best and most The site contains Grade 4 soils largely, but versatile agricultural land. An Agricultural Land could contain some Grade 3 soils, which Classification Survey may be required to determine whether could be majorly impacted by mineral the site is best and most versatile land. extraction.

145

there will be no future subsidence or slippage to cause the PROW to fall away, or spread of material to cause deposition on the PROW. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application. Transport Assessment (2019): Amber Transport and access A new access directly onto the A283 (part of the Lorry route network) has been proposed by the potential operator as The site is considered to have medium the existing Chantry Lane/A283 does not meet current acceptability in terms of access but high visibility standards. The new access runs southwards of the acceptability in terms of of other A283 eastwards and then runs northwards to connect to the highway impacts. A suitable access can A283 via a new priority junction. The principle of a new be achieved from the site to the A283 but access is considered acceptable in highway terms. the impact of HGVs travelling through the AQMA would need to be considered. An alternative access to connect a new access road to Sullington Lane, which then connects to the A283 is not considered appropriate because Sullington lane is narrow and has a slight uphill gradient to the A283 and restricted visibility to the east for emerging traffic.

The site may generate approximatly 88 two way movements per day. The Transport Assessment acknowledges that the site may give rise to 2-3 daily HGV movements to the west via the AQMA at Storrington. The impacts of this will need to be considered. A routing strategy would need to be agreed

- The site is considered acceptable and any allocation policy should include specific requirements for the provision of details for a new access onto the A283 along with control on

146

HGV routing.

Services and A BT line runs through site. Amber utilities Southern Water identified water infrastructure in close Infrastructure (water utilities) may need proximity to the site. Diversion of infrastructure may be to be re-routed. possible at the developer’s expense, subject to a feasible alternative route being available.

Amenity Close proximity to the built up area of Storrington. A Amber number of residential properties back onto the existing The site is located close to a number of quarry along the northern boundary. residential properties which may be Amenity issues arising from mineral developments, subject to moderate levels of harm, including noise, dust and light pollution may be capable of however this may be avoidable through mitigation. The opportunity for, and the nature of such mitigation. mitigation measures would need to be considered at the planning application stage.

Cumulative The site is an extension to an existing sand pit, although no Amber impact extraction has taken place for a number of years. Sandgate In terms of amenity, the site is an Park and Hampers Lane are to the north of the site and further east is Rock Common, the former Windmill landfill extension to an existing site, although site (in restoration) and the proposed Ham Farm site. there are other sites (active and proposed sites) close by which may give rise to

moderate harm as a result of the Transport assessment (2019): cumulative impacts which could be The Transport Assessment assessed the impact of three controlled by condition. With regard to sites (Chantry Lane extension, Buncton Manor Farm and highway impacts, it is not considered that Ham Farm). any significant or severe safety or capacity issues would arise as a result of the

147

In terms of the eastbound movements along the A283 cumulative operation of the Bunton Manor towards all three sites would result in a total of 109 two way Farm, Chantry Lane and Ham Farm. movements arriving and departing via the A283 to and from Steyning, equivalent to a 0.5% increase in daily westbound vehicle movements and 0.5% in the eastbound direction (viewed against future year flows on the A283). It is not considered that any significant or severe safety or capacity issues would arise as a consequence of the cumulative operation of the proposed three sites.

Airport Not in a safeguarding zone. Green safeguarding The site does not fall within an airport safeguarding zone.

Key issues/constraints

• The site is located within the SDNP; • The site is considered to have a Medium sensitivity to extraction, with the mature perimeter trees features and access of a higher sensitivity; Landscape capacity is considered to be Moderate. Highway improvements (e.g signage) needed to make the site acceptable on Highway grounds may have an unacceptable landscape impact; • Adjacent to a SSSI and RIGSs; • 4.7km from the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar, although unlikely to be affected by the site - provided sediment loading into nearby watercourses is adequately controlled through appropriate conditions; • The site would be an extension to the existing site and would therefore be ‘neutral’ as regards generation of traffic movements and therefore no adverse impact on the integrity of the air-quality sensitive European sites. A transport assessment to determine whether there will be an increase in traffic movements and, where necessary, associated air quality work would be required at planning application stage; • Potential impacts on the barbastelle and Bechstein bat populations associated with The Mens SAC will need to be addressed through habitat and protected species survey and any avoidance and mitigation measures to inform a project level Appropriate Assessment;

148

• The remains of an ancient occupation may be present below ground and as such an Archaeological Impact Assessment would be required. • The site is acceptable in terms of flood risk and the sequential test concludes that ‘development is appropriate’; • Any risk of contamination of the adjacent watercourse (River Stor) can be controlled through conditions; • The site would be developed as an extension to the existing quarry. The existing access to the site is not supported by Highways and therefore a new access would be required. Some traffic from this site is likely pass through the AQMA at the A283 High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington and this would need to be assessed; • The cumulative impact of this site with any other existing or proposed sites in terms of amenity would need to be considered. There is not considered to be any detrimental highway impacts arising from the cumulative impact of sites. • There are no significant deliverability issues associated with this proposal, subject to the acceptability of any new access in relation to highway safety and any associated impact on the landscape.

• Sustainability Appraisal Conclusion Chantry Lane may be slightly less sensitive in terms of landscape but there are a number of designations and known heritage assets that may be impacted on without sensitive working of the site. As an extension to an existing quarry some of the impacts may be easier to minimise.

Major Development Assessment Conclusion

Chantry Lane Extension is likely to be major development as there is the potential for impact on the landscape and natural beauty. There may also be impact on wildlife and cultural heritage, depending on the scheme details. Conclusion

The site is considered to be ’acceptable in principle’ to be worked as an extension to the existing quarry.

149

Coopers Moor (SDNPA)

150

Restoration LVIA (2019) The recommendation is not to develop this options site to the low capacity and visual sensitivity, however should circumstances result in extraction required to take place: • Careful siting of access tracks and roads, avoiding significant mature, broadleaf and coppiced trees; • Mitigate the impact on access point onto rural roads and sensitive verges; • Create and retain appropriate buffers around the water courses internally within the site; • Retain mature trees around the perimeter and reinforce with additional planting of Beech / Oak trees to improve on existing screening seen from surrounding public rights of way and residential properties; • Link new planting with the existing structure of woodland, tree belts and hedgerows within the surrounding farmland to the south; • Ensure appropriate screening of views into the site from Duncton Common Road to the north, the A285 and the public path to the southwest is included. • Mitigation and restoration measures would have to provide a high net gain to Ecosystem Services. Site specific The site would be worked as an extension to the existing information Heath End Sandpit. (operational The operator has commented that the site experienced considerations). severe loss of trees during the 1987 storm and has been left to natural regeneration to provide a short-term commercial land use. The trees will be felled within the next ten years as part of the Estate’s agreed plan. Planning history and current permissions Extension to The site is separated from the existing Heath End sandpit existing site or by Duncton Common Road. new site

Planning policy The site is within the South Downs National Park. The South Downs Local Plan was adopted in 2019 and sets out the policy framework for development in the National Park.

151

The site was promoted for inclusion in the JMLP through the 2014 site nomination process, and has been re- promoted through the call for sites (2018).

Can it be delivered? Availability Landowner has promoted the site for mineral extraction Deliverability Landowner keen to deliver site as part of the Duncton Common scheme

152

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Within the South Downs National Park. RED visual designations The site is not suitable due to its highly LVIA (2019) visible and sensitive location which would be severely affected by mineral Overall, the site is considered to have a High extraction. sensitivity, with woodland, streams, heathland habitats and road network vulnerable to With the proximity of the existing extraction site to the northeast, there is potential for cumulative effects on the special qualities of the wider Wealden Farmland and Heathland Mosaic character area, within the South Downs National Park, and the potential for this type of development to visually intrude into views seen from Fryan’s Hanger and the chalk ridge to the south. 26. There would only be a limited potential for the enhancement and improvement of the habitat value, recreational value and the condition of landscape features in conjunction with the development of the site.

Nature conservation Site includes BAP habitat and woodland. AMBER and geodiversity Site is adjacent to SNCIs and within 2km designations Heath End Sandpit SNCI directly adjacent to the north of a SAC/SSSI and as such moderate of the site. River Rother SNCI 1km to the north. levels of mitigation would be required. Duncton Common SNCI 0.4km to northwest. SAC/SSSI (Duncton and Bignor Escarpment) located under 2km to To assess the impact on European sites, the south of the site. further assessments would be required to inform a project level HRA. Habitat Regulation Assessment (2019):

153

The site was ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment due to air quality, water quality and bats. There is a potential pathway for sediment to enter the River Rother which flows into the Arun Valley SPA/SAC/Ramsar site but due to the distances, the scale of dilution would be negligible and any sediment loading could be controlled by condition. The site has potential to increase traffic movements on the Lorry Route Network which passes within 200m of European sites but as the site would be an extension to an existing site, the impact would be ‘neutral’ and there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of European sites. A transport assessment and, where necessary, air quality assessment, would be required to inform a project level HRA to ensure there would be no adverse effects. The site also lies within the 6.5km and 12km of the bat impact zones. There may be potential imapcts on the barbastelle and Bechstein bat populations associated with The Mens SAC, Ebernoe Common SAC and Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC which will need to be addressed through habitat and protected specicies survey and any avoidance and mitigation measures should inform a project-level Appropriate Assessment.

Historic There are several Listed Buildings nearby, including RED/AMBER environment Redlands Farmhouse and Milestone Cottage approximately 150m to the southeast. The site lies near designations The SAM may be harmed, whilst there several known archaeological sites, including a the potential harm to buried Scheduled Ancient Monument (linear barrow cemetery - archaeological remains in the absence of one of the most important surviving examples on the high levels of mitigation. Greensand); there may be further buried archaeological remains within the site, and visible field boundary

154

earthworks, pre-dating the present wood. The potential The site could cause harm to the setting impact of mineral extraction upon the setting of the of a number of listed buildings. nearby SAM should be considered in the light of the long-standing location of the SAM upon an unworked ridge within the existing sand pit, still in operation.

Acceptable provided that visual impact upon Listed Buildings nearby and impacts upon any visible and buried archaeological remains can satisfactorily be mitigated. Archaeological, geoarchaeological and historic buildings impact assessment required (archaeological desk-based, Walkover Survey and where feasible non-invasive and invasive field evaluation), surveys and reports to be carried out and submitted with any planning application. Lidar strongly recommended.

Water environment Flood Risk information (2019) AMBER (including flooding) Groundwater levels should be considered

and assessed. • 25% of site in Fluvial Flood Zone 2/3 ;

• High risk of surface water flooding (25% of site SFRA Update and Sequential Test of Soft at risk) primarily associated with the watercourse Sand Sites (2019): large parts of the site that runs NW through the site; are at high or moderate risk of • Groundwater flooding: High Risk (38% ), groundwater and surface water flooding. Moderate Risk (60%), remainder of site The results of the sequential test is that negligible; susceptibility under climate change the development is appropriate with scenarios (February 2016), there is a 50% mitigation. A flood risk assessment and chance that the western edge of the site could drainage strategy would need to be fall within FZ2/3 as river levels could rise by undertaken for the site at development between 10% and 35% during the three time management stage. periods (2020s, 2050s and 2080s);

155

• Under climate change scenarios (February 2016),

the adjacent river could rise by between 5% and 40% during the three time periods (2020s, 2050s and 2080s) due to peak rainfall allowances;

SFRA Update and Sequential test of Soft Sand Sites (2019): large parts of the site are at high or moderate risk of groundwater and surface water flooding. The results of the sequential and exception tests is that the development is appropriate with mitigation.

Other Water Environment Information • WFD impacts – watercourse running through the site drains into the River Rother to Arun; • Below groundwater table working – more complex operation and would need to consider impacts on drainage/flood risk; • Groundwater levels likely to be high. Depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and assessed. Prefer no working below groundwater table; • Risk Assessment of the water environment (Qualitative Hydrological & Hydrogeological Risk Assessment) recommended and suitable site allocation criteria included; • Stream at western end of the site feeds into the River Rother, known for trout breeding and sensitive ecological qualities.

156

Air quality Site not located within an Air Quality Management Area AMBER but off site traffic movements will need to be considered Traffic associated with the site may have in the Transport Assessment. an adverse impact on a number of AQMAs, although the site would be an Traffic from this site may pass through the AQMA at the extension to an existing quarry so an A283 High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington and the impacts will not be cumulative. AQMA’s in Chichester (A27/A286 Stockbridge roundabout, A286- Orchard St and A285- St Pancras).

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required

Soil quality Grade 4 therefore no loss of BMV agricultural land. GREEN The site contains low quality soil.

Transport and Site likely to be an extension to Heath End site, GREEN access therefore the operator indicates that access would be Site is considered to have high via existing Heath End site access direct onto the A285. acceptability in terms of access and

157

Heath End and Coopers Moor separated by Duncton other impacts, subject to no Common Road. There would therefore need to by either intensification of use. a haul road or conveyor belt to transport the material to the existing site.

Transport Assessment (2019): On the basis that there would be no intensification of use of the existing site or the access onto the public highway, the site is considered to have high acceptability in terms of access and other highways impacts. Services and utilities Scottish and Southern high voltage cables run along the AMBER boundary of the site. The site contains high voltage cables, BT Overhead BT plant along northern part of the site. plant and water infrastructure which may need to be re-routed. A Southern Water supply boundary lies to the north of the site. Water infrastructure crosses the site and is also in close proximity to the site. Diversion may be possible at the developer’s expense subject to a feasible alternative route being available.

Amenity Residential property abutting site to the north east of AMBER site, other properties in close proximity to east on Nearby residential properties may be Duncton Common Road. affected by noise, dust and light but minor mitigation measures would ensure no harm is caused.

158

Airport safeguarding Not applicable GREEN The site is not within an Airport Safeguarding Zone

Key issues/constraints

• The site is located within SDNP. The site is considered to have a high sensitivity; • The site does not contain any nature conservation designations but is located in close proximity to Lavington Common SSSI to the northwest and is close to Heath End SNCI, River Rother SNCI and Duncton Common SNCI; • The site would not have an adverse effect on European sites as a result of potential pathways for sediment to enter the River Rother and Arun Valley SAC/SPA/Ramsar; • The site is within the 12km zone for the Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC and any potential impacts on bats would need to be addressed through a habitat and protected species survey to inform a project level Appropriate Assessment; • Traffic from the site may pass within 200m of European sites therefore a transport assessment and, where necessary, air quality assessment would be required to inform a project level HRA; • There are several Listed Buildings nearby (within 150 metres) and the site lies near to several known archaeological sites including a SAM which would require assessment and mitigation; • Site would be an extension to an existing quarry and has high acceptability in terms of access and other highways impacts provided there would be no intensification of use; • Part of the site is in Flood Zone 2/3 and part of the site is at risk of surface water flooding and groundwater flooding; • Below the groundwater table would need to consider the impacts on drainage/flood risk. A qualitative hydrological and hydrogeological assessment is recommended and suitable site allocation criteria included; • No direct impacts on PRoW although the site would be visible from PRoW; • There is potential for a negative impact on a small number of residential properties; • Development of the site may require diversion of a number of utilities; • The site is in proximity to land uses that may be subject to moderate harm.

159

Sustainability Appraisal outcomes

Although development of this site may have minimal impact on soils and transport, there would be unacceptable harm to the landscape, designated areas and heritage assets.

Major Development Assessment Conclusion

Coopers Moor is likely to be major development as there is the potential for impact on the landscape and natural beauty, cultural heritage, and recreational opportunities. There may also be impact on wildlife, depending on future scheme details.

Overall Conclusion

The site is not considered suitable for extraction, and therefore ruled out. It would be highly visible and is in a sensitive location which would be severely affected by mineral extraction.

160

Duncton Common (SDNPA)

Site description District/Parish Chichester/Duncton and Petworth Area (ha) 28.5 Mineral type Soft sand (concrete and building sand) Potential yield 1.8mt Current use Forestry/ heathland

Original proposed scheme: Depending on water table, either a landscaped lake or reafforested. Owner Leconfield Estate Potential operator Dudman Group Ltd

161

Restoration LVIA (2019) Due to capacity and landscape sensitivity in options certain areas the recommendation is for the partial development of this site, based on mitigation measures that could include: • Phasing of extraction, so that a series of areas are developed in sequence, reducing the potential for the visual intrusion that development of the entire area at one time would result in; • Careful siting of access tracks and roads, avoiding pockets of mature broadleaf trees; • Mitigate the impact on access point onto rural roads and sensitive verges; • Create and retain appropriate buffers around the water courses through the site; • Create and retain appropriate buffers around areas of ancient woodland to the northwest of the site and link new planting with the existing structure of mature woodland; • Retain footpaths, bridleways and the Serpent Trail in their existing alignment, and ensure appropriate screening of views into areas of extraction activity from them. Site specific Wet heathland site/bog with important species. information (operational considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to Possible extension to Heath End sand pit. The operator existing site or has commented that the site is commercial forestry and new site all trees are due to be felled within the next 10 to 12 years according to the landowners forestry management plan. Planning policy The site is within the South Downs National Park. The South Downs Local Plan was adopted in 2019 and sets out the policy framework for development in the National Park. Planning history The site was not allocated in the Minerals Local Plan (2003). The site was not considered to be acceptable in the Minerals Development Plan Document (2005) due to landscape impact and nature conservation impacts. Revised site area proposed.

The site was promoted for inclusion in the JMLP through the 2014 site nomination process, but not allocated. The site was re-promoted through the call for sites (2018)

162

163

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Within South Downs National Park. Views from the RED visual designations Duncton Viewpoint. The site falls within the SDNP and is visible from Duncton view point. LVIA (2019) The site is not suitable due to its medium to high landscape It is judged that the site has Medium High sensitivity to sensitivity which would be be disturbance and therefore a Moderate to low capacity for severely harmed by mineral accommodating mineral extraction. The northern and extraction from the site. western fringes of the site of the lowest capacity. Within the site capacity is limited to areas of existing coniferous plantation. Moderate capacity is dependent on the protection of the mature oak veteran trees and retention of the surrounding vegetation buffer to ensure adequate level of screening remain, preventing harm to the special Qualities of the SDNP. The restoration proposals must be in keeping and clearly enhance the wider landscape character.

There is a long-term potential for the enhancement and improvement of the habitat value, recreational value and the condition of landscape features in conjunction with the development of the site to provide an overall environmental net gain.

164

Nature conservation A small but important area of wet heathland habitat is RED/AMBER and geodiversity within 200 metres of the siste to he south (SNCI – C116). The site could severely harm an designations This has supported breeding nightjars and woodlarks in the important area of wet heathland past and is a habitat for a number of species including rare habitat within a SNCI and also harm Bog Asphodel. nearby BAP habitats, ancient woodland and the Arun Valley Site contains priority habitat lowland heath, rare species SPA/Ramsar. inventory records and falls within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area. The site includes BAP habitat and woodland. To assess the impact on European sites, further assessments would be Heath End Sandpit SNCI (SNCI C74) and RIGS lies required to inform a project level immediately to the east. HRA.

Lavington Common SSSI lies immediately to the west. Impact on sand lizards and uncommon spiders from noise and vibration needs to be considered.

Duncton Common SNCI is 250m to the south of the site and the River Rother SNCI 0.5km to the north.

This site lies approximately 1.9km from Duncton to Bignor Escarpment SSSI/SAC.

An area classified as Ancient Woodland (Kilsham Copse) is located adjacent to the site to the east. A buffer should be considered.

Habitat Regulation Assessment (2019) The site was ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment due to air quality, water quality and bats. There is a potential

165

pathway for sediment to enter the River Rother which flows

into the Arun Valley SPA/SAC/Ramsar site but due to the distances, the scale of dilution would be negligible and any sediment loading could be controlled by condition. The site has potential to increase traffic movements on the Lorry Route Network which passes within 200m of European sites but as the site would be an extension to an existing site, the impact would be ‘neutral’ and there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of European sites. A transport assessment and, where necessary, air quality assessment, would be required to inform a project level HRA to ensure there would be no adverse effects. The site also lies within the 6.5km and 12km of the bat impact zones. There may be potential imapcts on the barbastelle and Bechstein bat populations associated with The Mens SAC, Ebernoe Common SAC and Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC which will need to be addressed through habitat and protected specicies survey and any avoidance and mitigation measures should inform a project- level Appropriate Assessment.

Historic environment The site lies adjacent to several Listed Buildings with a high RED/AMBER designations concentration to the southeast (between approximately Scheduled Ancient Monument which 0.5km and 1.5km). The closest is Cathanger Farmhouse may result in harm to archaeological which is located approximately 250m to the north. features within the site.

The site adjoins one Scheduled Ancient Monument and lies The site may cause major harm to near another (a single barrow and a linear barrow the setting of listed buildings grouping). A buffer of a minimum of 20 metres, excluded from mineral working and to include tree planting as screening, is recommended to protect the fabric and settings of the single barrow SAM on the north-west side of the site. The long-standing location of the other SAM upon

166

an unworked ridge within the existing Heath End sand pit, still in operation, together with the good tree screen between the pit to the west and this site, should be taken into account as a mitigating factor when considering the potential visual impact of mineral working upon the linear barrow cemetery this SAM. Archaeological finds are recorded from just within this site, and medieval/early post- medieval earthworks are known at the eastern edge of Lavington Common, and may extend into this site. Acceptable only provided that visual impact upon nearby Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and impacts upon visible and buried archaeological remains can satisfactorily be mitigated. Archaeological and geoarchaeological impact assessment required (archaeological desk-based, Walkover Survey and wherever feasible non-invasive and invasive field evaluation), surveys and reports to be carried out and submitted with any planning application. A Lidar survey as a preliminary to any field evaluation is strongly recommended (as this is a wooded site).

Water environment Flood Risk Information (2019) AMBER (including flooding) • Flood Zone 1 (10% of site in Fluvial Flood Zone 2/3 Part of the site falls within Source (Eastern Edge of the site); Protection Zone 2/3. • Low risk of surface water flooding (10% of site at The majority of the site is at a low higher risk associated with watercourse near south risk of flooding, although a small part eastern boundary.); of the site is within FZ 2/3 which may increase under climate change • Groundwater: High risk (7%), Moderate Risk (11%), projections. Part of the site is also at remainder of site seasonal high groundwater levels medium or high risk of groundwater are 5m or more below ground; and surface water flooding. The water

167

• Under climate change scenarios (February 2016), table is high and as such impacts there is a 50% chance that peak river flows could from the method of working, increase between 10% and 35% during the three drainage and flood risk would need to time periods (2020s, 2050s and 2080s); be considered. • Under climate change scenarios (February 2016), the adjacent river could rise by between 5% and 40% during the three time periods (2020s, 2050s and The result of the sequential test 2080s) due to peak rainfall allowances; (2019) is that the development is appropriate. A flood risk assessment • Part of the site falls within a flood warning area.; and drainage strategy would need to be undertaken for the site at SFRA Update and Sequential Test of Soft Sand Sites development management stage. (2019): Part of the site is at high and moderate risk of groundwater and surface water flooding. The result of the sequential test is that the development is appropriate. • Other Water Environment Information Minor Aquifer (small area of site within Major Aquifer); • Below groundwater table working – more complex operation and would need to consider impacts on drainage/flood risk; • Groundwater levels likely to be high. Depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and assessed. Prefer no working below groundwater table; • Risk Assessment of the water environment (Qualitative Hydrological & Hydrogeological Risk Assessment) recommended and suitable site allocation criteria included; ; • The stream which is an important tributary of the River Rother, is known to be important for Sea Trout.

168

Stream contains spawning ground for Sea Trout. Buffer zones need to be considered; • Any risk of sediment entering the watercourses which lead into the River Rother would need to be fully assessed and mitigated. Also potential hydrological impacts on nearby heathland habitats.

Air quality Site not located within an Air Quality Management Area but AMBER off site traffic movements will need to be considered in the HGV movements may have an Transport Assessment. adverse impact on AQMAs, although the site would be an extension to an Traffic from this site may pass through the AQMA at the existing quarry so an impacts will not A283 High Street/Manley’s Hill, Storrington and the AQMA’s be cumulative. in Chichester (A27/A286 Stockbridge roundabout, A286- Orchard St and A285- St Pancras).

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required. Local concern about air quality.

Soil quality Grade 4 therefore no loss of BMV agricultural land. GREEN The site only contains low quality soil.

Public rights of way Public Bridleway 671 which runs along the northern AMBER boundary. Public Footpath 672/2 - the Serpent Trail bisects PRoW 3527 and 672/2 cross the site the site from east to west. Public Footpath 3527 also while Public Bridleway 671 runs along crosses the site from north to south. There is a parking the northern boundary. Mineral and picnic areas close to the western boundary. A number extraction may lead to a moderate of non-statutory forestry paths and tracks cross the site. risk to these PRoW. Open access land at Lavington Common lies immediately to the west of the site.

169

All existing PROW are to be accommodated on their legal line and not to be disturbed, obstructed or public access deterred until and unless legal diversion or extinguishment (a public path order – PPO) is proposed and legally confirmed. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application.

Transport and Potential for combined access with the existing Heath End GREEN access site, direct onto the A285. Impact of traffic on narrow The site is considered to have high roads through villages and Coultershaw bridge. acceptability in terms of highways impacts provided there is no Transport Assessment (2019): intensification of use and there is a routing agreement in place. The site would form a continuation of the existing sand pit and would use the access onto the public highway. The site is considered to have high acceptability in terms of access and other highways impacts. Traffic movements may need to be controlled by a routing agreement to avoid the town of Petworth. Services and utilities Southern Water: utilities along southern boundary GREEN/AMBER BT boundary along edge of site. The site boundary is close to a number of utilities.

Amenity Four residential buildings to the south of the site and AMBER another across the road. Heath End to the east. Buffer The site is close to four residential zones need to be considered. properties. Mitigation measures such as a buffer zone may be needed.

170

Airport safeguarding Not applicable. GREEN The site is not within an Airport Safeguarding Zone

Key issues/constraints

• The site is located within the SDNP. The site is considered to have a high landscape character sensitivity to mineral extraction, with the higher area in the northeast, also adjacent to ancient woodland, particularly sensitive; • Mineral extraction is likely to result in harm to an SNCI and have negative impacts on adjacent national designations. The site contains priority habitat lowland heath, rare species inventory records and falls within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area; • There is an area of Ancient Woodland adjacent to the site which may require a buffer; • The site would not have an adverse effect on European sites as a result of potential pathways for sediment to enter the River Rother and Arun Valley SAC/SPA/Ramsar; • The site is within the 12km zone for the Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC and any potential impacts on bats would need to be addressed through a habitat and protected species survey to inform a project level Appropriate Assessment; • Traffic from the site may pass within 200m of European sites therefore a transport assessment and, where necessary, air quality assessment would be required to inform a project level HRA; • The site is located within close proximity of both listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument which would require mitigation; • Impacts on buried archaeological remains should be assessed and mitigated; • Site is in Flood Zone 1 and 10% of the site is in Flood Zone 2/3. 10% of the site is at higher risk of surface water flooding and part of the site is at moderate to high risk of groundwater flooding;

171

• Below the groundwater table would need to consider the impacts on drainage/flood risk. A qualitative hydrological and hydrogeological assessment is recommended and suitable site allocation criteria included; • Public Footpath 672/2 - the Serpent Trail bisects the site from east to west. Public Footpath 3527 also crosses the site from north to south. Both would require diversions; • The site is in proximity to land uses that may be subject to moderate harm.

Sustainability Appraisal Outcomes

Development of this site could not avoid an unacceptable landscape impact or severe harm to designated areas, heritage assets or the water environment.

Major Development Assessment Conclusion

Duncton Common is likely to be major development as there is the potential for impact on the landscape and natural beauty, cultural heritage, recreational opportunities and wildlife.

Overall Conclusion

The site is not considered suitable for extraction, and therefore ruled out. The site is not suitable due to its medium to high landscape sensitivity which would be be severely harmed by mineral extraction from the site.

172

East of West Heath Common (SDNPA)

173

Potential operator Cemex Restoration LVIA (2019) options • Restoring parts of the site (along the northern edge) to support a mix of nationally important heathland habitats including open heather heath, acid grassland, bracken, gorse, woody scrub, and oak-birch woodland. Appropriate options include expansion of riparian/ heathland woodland scrub linked to watercourses/ land drainage system to manage water table and option for developing areas of open water alongside the implementation of an appropriate management plan, to be agreed prior to consent; • Returning the site to its existing profile and then restoring to a mix of heathland and open water linked to riparian woodand, scrub and wet meadow following extraction. Long term restoration should aim to maximise the habitat value of the site with a mosaic of habitats linked into the surrounding farmland and seek to improve the historic and landscape character by restoring and enhancing hedgerows and woodland structure. • Opportunities should be taken to improve links with the surrounding woodland and copses, including Downpark Common and Chase Copse Site specific The water table may be an issue. information (operational considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to Extension to existing site. existing site or new site Planning policy The site is within the South Downs National Park and therefore policies in the adopted South Downs Local Plan (2019) apply. There is a safeguarded non-motorised travel route (Policy SD20) which runs along the northern edge of the existing site and to the north east of the proposed site. Planning history Site was put forward in the site nomination process for the JMLP (2018) and the call for sites for the SSR (2018). It was not considered in the Minerals Local Plan (2003) or Minerals Development Plan Document Issues and Options (2005).

Can it be delivered? Availability The site is within single ownership (CEMEX) and is therefore considered available.

174

Deliverability The operator is interested in bringing the site forward within the next 1-5 years.

175

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Within the South Downs National Park Amber visual The site is near to the centre of the South Downs designations LVIA (2019) National Park. The site is of medium landscape sensitivity and a moderate capacity to It is judged that the site has a Medium sensitivity accommodating mineral extraction. that results in a Moderate capacity overall for accommodating mineral extraction. Sand quarries, streams and water bodies are a typical feature of this Careful mitigation of views would be required. landscape’s character, It is inevitable that a change from agriculture fields to permanent body of open water will have an effect on the special qualities of the SDNP, however due to the level of existing woodland this is a landscape that has the ability to absorb development of this nature. 33. There is a long-term potential for the enhancement and improvement of the habitat value, recreational value and the condition of landscape features in conjunction with the development of the site to provide an overall environmental net gain.

Nature This site lies approximately: Amber conservation • 6.8km from Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA; The site is located close to a number of national and • 6.3km from East Hampshire Hangers SAC; and local designations which may be moderately geodiversity • 7km Butser Hill SAC; harmed by the site – especially if sediment enters designations • 9.6km Kingley vale SAC; the adjacent watercourse, although further • 9.3km Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC. assessments would need to be carried out at planning application stage and some of the impacts wcould be controlled through conditions. Assuming quarry traffic uses the A3 via A272, there is potential for an impact pathway via traffic emissions to the Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA.

176

Fyning Moor SSSI is located approximately 1.5km to the northeast of the site.

There are a number of Ancient Woodland sites in close proximity to the site (within 2km), the closest located within 25 metres of the eastern boundary of the site.

Outside the Heathland Reunited project area but it could contribute to that network of sites.

Habitat Regulation Assessment (2019) This site has been ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment as part of the Habitat Regulation

177

Assessment 2019. The screening exercise identified that air and water quality were pathways requiring consideration due to the potential for increased mineral traffic movements and the impact of sediment within close proximity to European designated sites. The HRA concluded that given the large distances involved, any effect on water quality would be negligible and it can therefore be concluded that the site will not have an adverse effect on European sites.

The site is within the 12km zone for the Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC. Potential impacts on bats will need to be addressed through a habitat and protected species survey and any required avoidance and mitigation measures to inform a project level HRA.

Historic The site is approximately 350m from a Scheduled Amber environment Monument comprising two, (probably) prehistoric The site could be considered suitable if the site designations barrow mounds. does not cause an unacceptable visual impact on the nearby Scheduled Monument, and any

178

impacts upon buried archaeological remains can There is presently no screening between the existing be satisfactorily mitigated. site and the Scheduled Monument.

179

planning application.

Water • Flood Risk Information (2019) Red/Amber environment The site is located on a major aquifer and could • Fluvial Flood Zone 2 and 3b (Part of Site, (including have negative impacts in the absence of a high approx. 22%); flooding) level of mitigation. • Under climate change scenarios (February A Phase 1 hydrogeological risk assessment would 2016) there is a 50% chance that peak river be required prior to any permission being granted. flows could be between 10% and 35% greater over the three time periods (2020s, 2050s and 2080s) and that peak rainfall allowances could The SFRA update (2019) considers the see river levels rise by 5% and 40%; development of the site to be appropriate. A • Low risk of surface water flooding (outside of flood risk assessment and drainage strategy would ordinary water courses). need to be undertaken for the site at development management stage.

High risk of groundwater flooding (Seasonal groundwater levels are either at the surface or within 0.025m of the surface);

SFRA Update and Sequential Test of Mineral Sites (2019): Sequential and exception test passed and development is appropriate.

Other Water Environment information: • Marehill clay above Folkstone beds, groundwater likely to be high; • Major Aquifer; • Depth of working and de-watering operations

180

will need to be explored and assessed; • No working below groundwater level preferable; • Qualitative Hydrological and Hydrogeological Risk Assessment recommended and suitable site allocation criteria included; • Hydrological impacts, notably on the important wet heath habitat to the west, would need to be assessed.

The HRA (2019) notes that traffic from the site may pass within 200m of European sites and should be considered in a Transport Assessiment and where necessary, air quality assessment.

Soil quality The site contains Grade 3 and Grade 4 soil and Green therefore is unlikely to contain Best and Most The site contains low quality soil. Versitile agricultural land.

181

public access deterred until and unless legal diversion or extinguishment (a public path order – PPO) is proposed and legally confirmed. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application. There is a safeguarded non-motorised travel route which runs along the northern boundary of the existing site and to the north east of the proposed site. Policy SD20 (Walking Cyclling and Equestrian Routes) of the South Downs Local Plan (2019) permits proposed provided they contribute to a network of atractive and funtional non-motorised travel routes, with appropriate signage, throughout the National Park. Transport Assessment (2019) Green Transport and The site is considered to have high acceptability access The site would continue to use the existing access in terms of access and other highways impacts. arrangement off Durford Lane and there would be no intensification of use which could be secured by condition.

If the site came forward, there would be a total of 5- 6 vehicle movements per hour . Given that the site is an extension to an existing site, it is not considered that it would result in unacceptable or severe highways impacts. The site is considered to have high acceptability in terms of access and other highways impacts.

182

Services and None identified Green utilities No services or utilities near to, or within the site.

Amenity A number of residential properties and farm buildings Amber are located to the south and west of the site, the Potential impact on residential properties and closest being 190m to the west. Public Rights of Way. Mitigation methods could be used to ensure no harm is caused to local residents.

Airport None Green safeguarding The site does not fall within an Airport Safeguarding Zone.

Key issues/constraints

• The site is located within the SDNP; • The site has a medium sensitivity to mineral extraction. Careful consideration of access issues and routing of the existing Public Right of Way would be needed. Restoration to heathland would be encouraged. • There are Ancient Woodland sites within 2km of the site, the closest being 25 metres away; • The site is close to a Scheduled Monument and as such the visual impacts upon the monument and any impacts upon buried archaeological remains would need to be satisfactorily mitigated; • The site is located on a major aquifer and near an area of important wet heath habitat, both of which would need to be considered and may require a high level of mitigation;

183

• Part of the site is flood zone 2 and 3 and there is a high risk of groundwater flooding. The sequential and exception tests are passed and ‘development is appropriate’; • The depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and assessed; • A qualitative hydrological and hydrological risk assessment would need to be carried out at planning application stage; • The site would not have an adverse effect on European sites as a result of water quality; • The site is within the 12km zone for the Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC and any potential impacts on bats would need to be addressed through a habitat and protected species survey to inform a project level Appropriate Assessment; • Traffic from the site may pass within 200m of European sites therefore a transport assessment and, where necessary, air quality assessment would be required to inform a project level HRA; • The site is in proximity to land uses that may be subject to minor harm.

Sustainability Appraisal Conclusion

This site has lower landscape sensitivity than some of the other sites. It would require careful consideration of the designated areas, heritage assets, water environment and cumulative impact. As an extension to an existing quarry the impacts may be easier to minimise. A pipeline instead of a conveyor could be a more sensitive solution to convey material to the existing plant.

Major Development Assessment Conclusion

East of West Heath Common is likely to be major development as there is the potential for impact on wildlife. There may also be impact on the landscape and natural beauty, cultural heritage, and recreational opportunities, depending on future scheme details

Conclusion

The site is considered to be ‘acceptable in principle’.

184

Ham Farm

185

Restoration LVIA (2019) options • Reinstating the original profile of the site and returning the land to agricultural use. Restoring and improving the structure of hedgerows and hedgerow trees, with the aim of maximising farmland habitat value, and connectivity with the surrounding structure of hedgerows and lines of trees.

• Restoring all or part of the site to woodland following extraction. Long term restoration should aim to maximise the habitat value by taking opportunities to link it into the surrounding hedgerow and woodland structure

Site specific Operator indicated preferred restoration would be to information agricultural afteruse using imported clean restoration (operational material, with opportunity to enhance existing woodland. considerations) Planning history and current permissions Extension to New site existing site or new site Planning policy Site located in the area covered by Policy 26 (Countryside Protection) in the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015). This policy seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the landscape and as such any potential landscape impacts associated with the development would need to be overcome to ensure conformity with the policy. The Horsham District Local Plan is being reviewed and consultation on the Issues and Options document took place between April and May 2018. Planning history The site was promoted for inclusion in the Joint Minerals Local Plan through the 2014 site nomination process. Subsequently, the operator submitted an amended boundary for the site, following public consultation during April – June 2016. The site was included as a proposed allocation in the Proposed Submission Draft Joint Minerals Local Plan (January 2017). The site was removed from the Plan as part of the modifications to Policy M2 of the JMLP, following examination.

The site was re-promoted via the ‘Call for Sites’ in 2018 for the Soft Sand Review.

186

187

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape and Adjacent to the South Downs National Park. Amber visual The site lies adjacent to the SDNP designations It is judged that the site has a Medium sensitivity that results and has a medium sensitivity and in a Moderate capacity overall for accommodating mineral moderate capacity to mineral extraction. extraction. The site is of medium to small scale, comprising arable farmland Cumulative impacts would need to be with no distinctive or landmark features, although it shares considered. characteristics with Central Scarp Footslopes character area to the south. The gently sloping profile, mature trees and hedgerows (both at the perimeter and bounding internal fields) and the water course to the west of the site increase the overall sensitivity.

There is a long-term potential for the enhancement and improvement of the habitat value and the condition of landscape features in conjunction with the development of the site to provide an overall environmental net gain.

Given the relatively flat landform and degree of containment provided by the existing structure of hedgerows and tree cover, there is the potential for providing appropriate screening of the site from the surrounding farmland and views from the A283 to the south. However, the visibility of the site across a broader area of the South Downs National Park and the presence of the water courses and mature vegetation reduces the capacity of the northern and western parts of the site to accommodate development.

Additional planting may not reduce visibility of the north-eastern

188

part of the site from the South Downs, albeit that from this location the site will be seen within the wider panorama of the lowlands and comprise a small feature within it.

Nature The site is 125m West of Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (Great Amber conservation Alder Wood) The site is near to Ancient Semi and Natural Woodland which could suffer geodiversity There are no European sites within 10km of this site and no some minor harm which may require designations impact pathways present. mitigation.

Habitat Regulation Assessment (2019): The site has been In the HRA, the site has been ‘screened in’ due to potential impacts on water quality, air quality ‘screened in’ due to potential impacts and bats. There is potential for an increase in traffic arising from arising from an increase in traffic the site onto the Lorry Route Network which may pass within which would require transport 200m of air quality sensitive European sites. Transport assessments and, where necessary, assessments and, where necessary, air quality impact air quality assessments as part of a assessment would be required as part of a project level project level Appropriate Assessment. Appropriate Assessment.

Historic There are a number of listed buildings within close proximity of Amber environment the site. The Grade II listed Horsebrook Cottage is 60 metres to The site may cause moderate harm designations the north of the western edge of the site (some visibility, to a nearby Listed Building and to although predominantly restricted by vegetation); Grade II listed archaeological remains in the Old Rectory and Roundhouse 300m to the west of the site absence of mitigation measures. (although currently screened by trees and hedgerow); Grade II listed Water Tower and Sun Room at Wappingthorn, to the northeast of the site (restricted visibility due to screening by trees); and numerous listed buildings to the south-west in the grounds of the Grade I listed Wiston House (visibility from house and buildings to the site is restricted by woodland at the northern boundary of Wiston Park, but filtered views are possible from the

189

northern side of the Park into the western end of the site).

Acceptable provided that visual impact upon the nearby Listed Buildings and impacts upon any buried archaeological remains can satisfactorily be mitigated. Archaeological impact assessment required (archaeological desk-based assessment and non- invasive and invasive field evaluation), and Historic Building visual impact assessment required. Surveys and reports to be carried out and submitted with any planning application.

Water No European sites within 10km of this site. There is no scope for Green/Amber environment pathways connecting any European sites. The site is considered to be located in (including an area which is compatible with flooding) mineral working and part of the site Flood Risk Information (2019): is at risk of groundwater flooding. • Flood Zone 1;

• Low risk susceptibility to surface water flooding; A flood risk assessment and drainage • Several surface water streams run along the boundaries of strategy would need to be undertaken the site; for the site at development

190

management stage. • Groundwater flooding: 17.5% of the site is at moderate risk, the remainder of the site is low; • SFRA (2019) Update concludes that ‘development is appropriate’; • Mainly Gault Clay over Folkestone Beds to the west. If used for sand, the clay will need to be removed and impacts should be considered.

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would be required

Soil quality The site contains Grade 3 soil but it is not categorised as 3a or Red/Amber 3b. This means that large parts of site could contain best and The site contains Grade 3 soils, which most versatile agricultural land. An Agricultural Land could be majorly impacted by mineral Classification Survey may be required to determine whether the extraction. site is best and most versatile land.

Any loss of potentially high quality agricultural land should be considered and avoided or mitigation provided.

Public rights of Public Footpath 2599 runs to the north and west, around 60 Amber way metres from the site. Consideration should be given to the

191

Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by Public footpath which runs to the the PROW Teams through any future planning application. north and west of the site.

Transport and Transport Assessment (2019): Access is proposed directly onto Green access the A283 via a new junction which is considered acceptable but The site would not give rise to would require some cutting back of existing planting to achieve highway concerns as the site could visibility splays and a right access turning lane for safety be accessed via the Lorry Route reasons. Network (A283 - A24 (north and The extraction of minerals, and associated vehicle movements south)/ A27) and it is therefore (such as staff travel or imports of restoration materials) at Ham considered to have high Farm is expected to generate approximately 96 two way vehicle acceptability in terms of access and movements per day over the course of its 10 year lifespan. This other highway impacts equates to around 8, 2-way movements per hour.

Services and Presence of EDF power line. Amber utilities Scottish and Southern Energy: some high voltage cable runs Various utilities (electricity, BT and across the site. water mains) run close to the boundary/through the site. These BT line runs through the site. utilities may need to be re-routed. Southern Water: Water mains along southen boundary. Diversion of the infrastructure may be possible at the developer’s expense, subject to a feasible alternative route being available.

192

Amenity A number of residential properties are located in very close Red/Amber proximity to the site’s southeastern and northwestern A number of residential properties boundaries. are in close proximity to the site. These residents may be subject to high levels of harm from noise, dust and light associated with mineral extraction from the site. Mitigation measures would be required. Although there are other mineral workings in the area, the Cumulative Green/Amber impact nearest active site is Rock Common which is approx. 2.9km away and there is a cluster of sites nearer to Storrington (Sandgate Park, Hampers Farm and Chantry Lane) which is over 5km away. There are no concerns about cumulative impacts arising from Transport assessment (2019): highways impacts. The Transport Assessment assessed the impact of three sites (Chantry Lane extension, Buncton Manor Farm and Ham Farm) There are other mineral workings in on the A24/A263 Washington roundabout. Buncton Manor Farm the vicinity but Ham Farm is situated and Ham Farm could result in an additional 92 daily two way further west. movements on the A283 eastern arm of the Washington roundabout which equates to a 0.6% increase in daily traffic.

193

Airport Within Shoreham aeronautical safeguarding zone. Amber safeguarding The site falls within an Airport Safeguarding Zone

Key issues/constraints • The site is located adjacent to the SDNP and would be worked as a new soft sand site; • The site is considered to have a medium landscape character sensitivity to sand extraction and a moderate landscape capacity for accomodating mineral extraction; • Transport Assessment and, where necessary, air quality impact assessments would be reuqired as part of a project level Appropriate Assessment to assess the potential for an increase in traffic arising from the site on air quality sensitive European sites; • Part of the site is at risk of groundwater flooding and there are several surface streams that run along the boudnaries of the site. The sequential test of sites concludes that ‘development is appropriate’; • The site is adjacent to a Listed Building (Horsebrook Cottage), as well as a number of other listed buildings nearby; • The development of the site would result in a small loss of grades 3 soils and may require an agricultural land classification survey to determine whether the soils are categorised as the ‘best and most versitile’; A Public Right of Way (2599) runs to the north and west of the site; • The site has a High Acceptability rating in terms of Transport and Access; • Various utilities run close to and through the boundary of the site; • There are a number of residential properties located in proximity to the site and there are other minerl workings in the vicninty but Ham Farm is situated further west; • The site falls within the Shoreham aeroautical safeguarding zone. • There are no significant deliverability issues associated with this proposal.

Sustainability Appraisal Outcomes

This site has a lower landscape sensitivity than some of the other sites. It would require careful consideration of the

194

designated areas, heritage assets, amenity and cumulative impacts. This site was considered acceptable for allocation in the Submission JMLP.

Conclusion

The site is ’acceptable in principle’

195

Minsted West (SDNPA)

196

Restoration LVIA (2019) Restoring all or parts of the site to support a options mix of nationally important heathland habitats including open heather heath, acid grassland, bracken, gorse,

woody scrub, and oak-birch woodland, alongside the implementation of an appropriate management plan, to be agreed prior to consent;

• Opportunities should be taken to improve habitat connectivity with the Steadham Common LNR and surrounding fragmented areas of heathland.

• Restoration proposals should be considered in combination with the restoration of the existing site to the north Site specific Operator indicated that the site would be worked as an information extension to an existing quarry and an open water would (operational be connected to an existing water body. considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to Extension to existing site (Minsted) existing site or new site Planning policy The site is within the South Downs National Park. The South Downs Local Plan was adopted in 2019 and sets out the policy framework for development in the National Park.

197

Planning history The site was not allocated in the Minerals Local Plan (2003). The site was considered to be acceptable in the Minerals Development Plan Document Issues and Options (2005) subject to the reduction of the site to exclude the south west edge, provision of screening and buffers to the stream and SNCI, an assessment of the impact on the water environment and impact on public rights of way.

The site was promoted for inclusion in the Plan through the 2014 site nomination process and the 2018 Call for Sites.

The existing Minsted site has been subject to a ROMP (Review of Old Mineral Permissions) which was determined at the SDNPA planning committee in Autumn 2019.

198

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape Within South Downs National Park Red/Amber and visual Within the South Downs National Park. designations LVIA (2019) Overall, the site is considered to have a The site has a High - Mediumlandscape Medium-high sensitivity to extraction. sensitivity and Low-Moderate capacity for accommodating mineral extraction. The site is comprised of simple arable fields, is defined by Some potential for enhancement. adjacent woodland and does have a sense of rurality, remoteness and tranquillity which is little affected by the adjacent quarry. The site provides some ecosystem services including a sense of tranquillity which, combined with the sense of place due to views of the South Downs ridge, contribute to the Special Qualities of the SDNP.

The key value of the site is that it is within the SDNP and displays some of the Special Qualities. In addition there are some nearby nature designations and heritage assets.

Although broadly enclosed, with views into the area generally restricted by existing vegetation, the site has a secluded and tranquil quality which reduces the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development of this nature without adverse impacts on the character of the surrounding area, including a number of Special Qualities such as tranquillity and views to the Downs. With the proximity of the existing extraction site to the north, there is potential for cumulative effects on the special qualities of the wider Wealden Farmland and Heathland Mosaic character area within the SDNP. It is judged that the site has a Low to Moderate capacity overall

199

for accommodating mineral extraction. There is a long term potential for the enhancement and improvement of the habitat value, recreational value and the condition of landscape features in conjunction with the development of the site to provide an overall environmental net gain.

quarry on national designations is currently Impact on water levels/ wet heath areas of Stedham unknown. Common within Iping Common SSSI needs to be considered.

To assess the impact on European sites, Buffers likely to be required to streams and woodland. further assessments would be required to inform a project level HRA.

Within the Heathland Reunited project area therefore could contribute to that network of sites.

Habitat Regulation Assessment (2019): The site was ‘screened in’ for Appropriate Assessment due to air quality, water quality and bats. There is a potential pathway for sediment to enter the River Rother which flows into the Arun Valley SPA/SAC/Ramsar site but due to the distances, the scale of dilution would be negligible and any sediment loading could be controlled by condition.

200

The site has potential to increase traffic movements on the Lorry Route Network which passes within 200m of European sites but as the site would be an extension to an existing site, the impact would be ‘neutral’ and there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of European sites. A transport assessment and, where necessary, air quality assessment, would be required to inform a project level HRA to ensure there would be no adverse effects. The site also lies within the 6.5km and 12km of the bat impact zones. There may be potential imapcts on the barbastelle and Bechstein bat populations associated with The Mens SAC, Ebernoe Common SAC and Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC which will need to be addressed through habitat and protected specicies survey and any avoidance and mitigation measures should inform a project-level Appropriate Assessment.

There are a number of Scheduled Monuments to the northwest of the site; Bowl Barrow on Fitzhall Rough is the

201

closest at 200m away.

Woolbeding Estate and Gardens is located north east of the site, managed by the National Trust.

Water Flood Risk Information (2019) Red/Amber environment • Flood Zone 1; There may be a significant hydrological (including impact on the Iping Common SSSI should flooding) • Most of site at low risk of surface water flooding (less the extension and the existing site be than 5% at higher risk); worked simultaneously. • Moderate risk susceptibility of groundwater flooding A hydrological and hydrogeological risk (Seasonal groundwater levels reach between 0.025m assessment would need to be undertaken at and 0.5m of the surface); planning application stage. • Medium risk of flooding from artificial sources (close to

existing pond at Stedham Common Sand Pit). The SFRA Update (2019) considers the

202

Other Water Information development of the site to be appropriate. • Major Aquifer A flood risk assessment and drainage strategy would need to be undertaken for • Extension to existing site (Minsted) – current concerns the site at development management stage. that the operators at Minsted are not satisfying the planning conditions and as such there are potential hydrological impacts on Iping Common SSSI. The Environment Agency recommends that until the condition is met and any risks are understood and mitigated that a further extension to this site should not come forward. • Groundwater levels likely to be high. Depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and assessed. Prefer no working below groundwater table. • Risk Assessment of the water environment (Qualitative Hydrological & Hydrogeological Risk Assessment) recommended and suitable site allocation criteria included; • Possible Water Framework Directive (WFD) impacts due to drainage to the watercourse which drains to Rother to Arun.

203

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required

Soil quality The site contains Grade 3 agricultural land but it is not Red/Amber categorised as 3a or 3b. This means that large parts of the The site may contain BMV soils. site could contain best and most versatile agricultural land. An Agricultural Land Classification Survey may be required to determine whether the site is best and most versatile land.

Transport Access via the existing site (from Minsted Road). Green and access Subject to no intensification of use, the site The impact of additional HGV traffic on Midhurst and the would is considered to have high villages to the west of the site should be suitably considered. acceptability in terms of access and other Transport Assessment (2019): highways impacts. On the basis that this proposed allocation seeks an extension

204

to the existing workings and on the understanding that there would be no intensification, it is not considered that this proposal would result in unacceptable or severe high impacts and the site is considered to have high acceptability in terms of access and other highway impacts. Cumulative impact The Transport Assessment has looked at the cumulative impact of East of West Heath Common, Minsted West and Severals East and West and it is not considered that any significant or severe safety or capacity issues would arise as a consequence of the cumulative operation of all three sites.

Cumulative There is a history of mineral working in close proximity to the Amber impact site. There is the potential for cumulative impact due to the Continuation of existing operations for a site’s proximity to Severals East and West. longer time period.

205

Airport Green safeguarding The site is not within an Airport Safeguarding Zone.

Key issues/constraints

• The site contains reserves of soft sand which could be worked as an extension to an existing site (Minsted); • There are potential deliverability issues with the site that need to be considered further to determine whether they can be mitigated satisfactorily; • The site has a High - Medium landscape sensitivity and Low-Moderate capacity for accommodating mineral extraction. • There is a Scheduled Monument within 200m of site. • The site is located in close proximity to a number of national designations that could have negative impacts. This site was ‘screened in’ as part the Habitat Regulation Assessment (2019);

• The site would not have an adverse effect on European sites as a result of potential pathways for sediment to enter the River Rother and Arun Valley SAC/SPA/Ramsar;

• The site is within the 12km zone for the Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC and any potential impacts on bats would need to be addressed through a habitat and protected species survey to inform a project level Appropriate Assessment;

• Traffic from the site may pass within 200m of European sites therefore a transport assessment and, where necessary, air quality assessment would be required to inform a project level HRA;

• The Environment Agency raised concerns about existing groundwater issues. The hydrological impact of the existing quarry on national designations is currently unknown and requires further assessment; • Access to the site would be via the existing sand pit and it is therefore considered to have high acceptability in terms of access and other highways impacts;

206

• Bridleway 907 could require a long diversionary route and there is potential for impact on a number of residential properties; • Minsted Extension could be accommodated with further screening planting and re-routing of the PROW which crosses to the south of the existing site. Restoration proposals would be key to this site and should be contiguous with that of the existing site; The site contains infrastructure and is in close proximity to a water mains which may require re- routing.

Sustainability Appraisal Conclusion

This site has a slightly lower landscape sensitivity than some of the other sites. It would require careful consideration of the designated areas, heritage assets, water environment and cumulative impact.

Major Development Assessment Conclusion

Minsted West is likely to be major development as there is the potential for impact on the landscape and natural beauty, cultural heritage, recreational opportunities and wildlife.

Conclusion

The site is considered to be ’acceptable in principle’ to be worked as an extension to the existing quarry.

207

Severals East and West (SDNPA)

Note: Following the Regulation 18 consultation, and meetings with Raymond Brown Quarry Products Ltd., the site is being assessed as a single site.

Site description District/Parish Chichester/ Woolbeding with Redford Area (ha) Severals East = 20ha, Severals West = 55ha Mineral type Soft sand Potential yield 1.7mt approx. Current use Commercial forestry

208

Owner Cowdray Estate Potential operator Raymond Brown Quarry Products Ltd Restoration Restoring the site to support a mosaic of nationally options important heathland habitats including open heather heath, acid grassland, bracken, gorse, woody scrub, and oak-birch woodland, alongside the implementation of an appropriate management plan, to be agreed prior to consent; • Returning the site to its existing profile and then restoring to woodland following extraction. Long term restoration should aim to maximise the habitat value by taking opportunities to improve habitat connectivity with the Steadham Common LNR, surrounding fragmented areas of heathland and Minstead Common to the west. • Restoration proposals should be considered in combination with the restoration of other sites in the vicinity.

The site promoter has commented that the restoration could include a mixture of deciduous broad leaf tree species incoroprating the diversity of woodland/heathland habitat that links Midhurst Common to Stedham Common. Site specific Western part of the site could be used fr processing with information a conveyor from the east which could go underground. (operational There considerations). Planning history and current permissions Extension to Previously considered as two sites and Severals West was existing site or assessed as part of the JMLP but now considered as one new site sites. Planning policy The site is within the South Downs National Park. The South Downs Local Plan was adopted in 2019 and sets out the policy framework for development in the National Park. Planning history Site was not allocated in the Minerals Local Plan (2003) or the JMLP (2018). Site was not considered to be acceptable in the Minerals DPD Issues and Options November (2005) due to landscape impact.

Can it be delivered? Availability The site is within single ownership and the owner wishes to develop the site for mineral extraction. The site is available within the next 1 to 5 years.

209

Deliverability The operator has agreement with the landowner for the use of the site.

210

Key Criteria RAG Score

Landscape Within South Downs National Park AMBER and visual Severals East and West The site falls within the boundary of the designations LVIA (2019) SDNP and has a Medium-High sensitivity and a moderate to low

capacity for extraction. The site falls It is judged that each site has a Medium high sensitivity to within an area of medium tranquility. disturbance that results in a Moderate to Low capacity overall

for accommodating mineral extraction. Some potential for landscape There is a long-term potential for the areas of coniferous enhancement at the restoration phase. plantation to be enhanced and improved upon in conjunction with the development of the site, including the habitat value, recreational value and the condition of landscape features, to provide an overall environmental net gain.

Nature An SNCI lies to the east of the site and the Severals Bog SNCI RED/AMBER conservation (SNCI C105) is situated within the site along the western edge. Site contains priority habitat of lowland and Even with a buffer strip, the bog habitat could be vulnerable to heath and ancient woodland which geodiversity local changes in hydrology as a result of mineral working. would be majorly harmed by mineral designations extraction and as such high levels of Stedham Common SNCI is adjacent to the west of the site. River mitigation would be required. Rother SNCI 0.3km north. Iping Common SSSI and LNR is located 1km to the west of the site. Quaggs Corner SNCI (SNCI To assess the impact on European sites, C53) lies to the west of this site. further assessments would be required to inform a project level HRA. The stream to the west, Severals Stream, is a tributary of the River Rother. Buffers may be required to the stream and SNCIs.

Area of Ancient Woodland (replanted) partially located within the north and west of the site . A buffer zone would protect it from

211

other land uses.

The site contains priority habitat of lowland heath and Ancient Woodland, contains rare species inventory records and is within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area. Impact of changes to water table on heathland needs to be considered.

Habitat Regulation Assessment (2019)

The site has potential to increase traffic movements on the Lorry Route Network which passes within 200m of European sites but as the site would be an extension to an existing site, the impact would be ‘neutral’ and there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of European sites. A transport assessment and, where necessary, air quality assessment, would be required to inform a project level HRA to ensure there would be no adverse effects. The site also lies within the 6.5km and 12km of the bat impact zones. There may be potential imapcts on the barbastelle and Bechstein bat populations associated with The Mens SAC, Ebernoe Common SAC and Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC which will need to be addressed through habitat and protected speccies survey and any avoidance and mitigation measures should inform a project-level Appropriate Assessment.

212

Historic There are a number of listed buildings located within 1km of the GREEN/AMBER environment site. The ‘Badgers’, Quags Corner is located to the west of the The site may cause minor harm to the designations site. setting of listed buildings, Conservation Heathbarn farmhouse (grade II listed) to the north east of the Areas and archaeological remains. indicated site boundary. Grade II listed Toll House located on the Moderate mitigation measures should edge of the site in the north east . Heathlands Farm buildings to be adopted – including the undertaking the south of a Lidar survey.

There are four Conservation Areas within 2km of the site, Midhurst, Iping, Stedham and Woolbeding.

Woolbeding Estate and Gardens north east of the site, managed by the National Trust.

Water Flood Risk Information (2019) AMBER environment • Flood zone 1; The risk and level of harm would be (including dependent on the depth of the proposed flooding) • Groundwater flooding: 16% of the site at high risk, the majority of the rest of the site at moderate risk; mineral working (above or below the water table) and the method of • Low risk of surface water flooding, small part of the site at working. high risk ; • Localised flooding experienced in 2013/14 at Woolbeding Estate and Gardens. The SFRA (2019) considers the development of the site to be SFRA Update (2019): Outcome from the sequential and exception appropriate. A flood risk assessment

213

test is that development is appropriate. and drainage strategy would need to be undertaken for the site at development management stage. Other Water Environment Information

• Groundwater levels likely to be high. Depth of working and de-watering operations will need to be explored and

assessed. No working below groundwater table preferable • Risk Assessment of the water environment (Qualitative Hydrological & Hydrogeological Risk Assessment) recommended and suitable site allocation criteria included. • Possible Water Framework Directive impacts – drainage to watercourse which drains to Rother to Arun • Any risk of sediment entering the watercourses which lead into the River Rother would need to be fully assessed and mitigated

The site promoter has stated that: • Quarrying will remain above the water table to avoid impact to the groundwater levels; • The quarry has been limited to the north of the springs/tributaries to the south of the site to avoid any impacts to surface water run-off; • Adequate stand off to Severals bog, Quaggs Corner and Severals Stream to avoid adverse hydrological impacts.

214

St Pancras).

If traffic would have a negative impact on an Air Quality Management Area, then an Air Quality Assessment would also be required

Soil quality Grade 4 no loss of BMV agricultural land. GREEN The site contains no BMV agricultural land.

Public rights Footpath 3619 loosely follows the western boundary of the site AMBER of way before turning eastwards along the southern boundary. A number The site would pose a potential hazard of permissive paths run through the site, one of which forms part for users of PRoW. Planning obligations of the Serpent Trail. Footpaths 3617 and 3618 run through the and mitigation measures may make the northern section of the site. Footpath 921 follows the eastern site acceptable in terms of PRoW. boundary of the site. Both footpaths 3617 and 921 form part of the Serpent Trail. Footpath 1127 runs northwards towards Stedham. Existing PROW recorded immediately adjacent to any site are to remain accommodated on their legal line and are not to be disturbed, obstructed or public access deterred. Where it is proposed that material is to be extracted or deposited adjacent to these paths, such works are not to be undertaken within 20 metres of the PROW in order that there will be no future subsidence or slippage to cause the PROW to fall away, or spread of material to cause deposition on the PROW. Opportunities to enhance future public access will be pursued by the PROW Teams through any future planning application. Public All existing PROW are to be accommodated on their legal line and not to be disturbed, obstructed or public access deterred until and unless legal diversion or extinguishment (a public path order – PPO) is proposed and legally confirmed.

215

Transport Transport Assessment (2019) AMBER and access Possible access from Severals Road/A272. Suitability of access The site poses a moderate risk of road needs to be assessed. Access would be a simple priority causing harm – especially if HGV traffic junction or a priority junction with a ghosted lane. Any new passes through villages. Risks access would need to account for the level difference between the associated with transport/access may site and the A272 and may require intensive engineering works. be reduced if Severals West and East It is recommended that HGV routing is via the A272 only and no are developed sequentially. Due to the HGV traffic should enter or exit from the south via Bepton. vehicular access, it is recommended that the site is rated with a medium

acceptability for access and high acceptability for overall highway impact.

Services and To be identified using evidence provided by utility/service GREEN utilities providers. There are no services or utilities near to, or within the site.

Amenity There are several residential properties within the vicinity of the RED/AMBER site and close to the site boundaries. Severals House is within There are a number of sensitive the centre of the site. receptors close to the site who would be subject to high levels of harm. Mitigation measures may enable the site to be workable.

Cumulative Severals East and West would be a new site but there is a history AMBER impact of mineral working in close proximity to the site at Minsted The site would be a new site but it is in Sandpit and a proposed site at Minsted West. close proximity to other mineral

216

workings (Minsted Sand pit) and a proposed site at Minsted West.

Airport Not applicable GREEN safeguarding The site does not fall within an airfield safeguarding zone.

Sustainability Appraisal Conclusion Although development of this site may have a lower impact on soils and transport, there would potentially be unacceptable harm to the landscape, water environment, designated areas and heritage assets.

Major Development Assessment Conclusion

Severals East and West are likely to be major development as there is the potential for impact on the landscape and natural beauty, cultural heritage, recreational opportunities and wildlife.

Key issues/constraints

• The site is located within the SDNP. The site is considered to have a medium to high landscape character sensitivity to extraction, with the areas of ancient woodland and the water course to the west of the site of higher sensitivity. The site has moderate to low landscape capacity overall for accommodating mineral extraction. • Site contains priority habitat of lowland heath and a small area of Ancient Woodland. Impact changes to the water table on the heathland needs to be considered; • There are SNCI close to and within the site. Even with a buffer strip, the bog habitat could be vulnerable to local changes in hydrology as a result of mineral working; • The stream to the west, Severals Stream, is a tributary of the River Rother. Buffers may be required to the stream and SNCIs; • This site was ‘screened in’ through the HRA due to air quality, water quality and bats. . It was concluded that this site will not have any likely significant effects on the Arun Valley SPA/Ramsar through reduced water flows or quality. Further assessments would be required at project level to assess the impact on European sites; • The site may cause minor harm to the setting of listed buildings close to the site, Conservation Areas and

217

archaeological remains. Assessment and mitigation measures would be required at planning application; • Groundwater flooding at the site and the depth of working and de-watering would need to be explored and assessed; • Possible Water framework Directive impacts due to drainage to a watercourse which drains into the River Rother to Arun; • Traffic may pass through the AQMA in Chichester; • There are existing PROW adjacent to the site are to remain accommodated on their legal line and are not to be disturbed, obstructed or public access deterred until and unless legal diversion or extinguishment is confirmed. • A new access onto the A272 is possible but would require extensive engineering works. The site is rated with a medium acceptability for access and high acceptability for overall highway impact; • There are several properties close to the site and one within the centre of the site; • Although it is a new site, there has been mineral working in the area (Minsted) and there is a potential site nearby (Minsted West).

Conclusion

The site is considered to be ‘acceptable in principle’

218

Appendix 6: Assessment of soft sand resources outside the South Downs National Park

1.0. Introduction

1.1. This appendix presents the outcomes of work that the Authorities have undertaken to look at the potential for soft sand to be worked in those areas in West Sussex outside the South Downs National Park (SDNP) to support the consideration of soft sand supply options. This Appendix provides a summary of the assessment of sites promoted for soft sand excavation outside the SDNP, as well as detailed review of the potential of three locations where BGS data suggests the soft sand resource is present outside the SDNP. Evidence from existing studies that have looked at the quality of the soft sand resource in the areas outside of the SDNP is presented in section 4.

2.0. Summary of promoted sites outside the SDNP

2.1. Section 3 and other appendices of this Report explain how soft sand sites were identified and assessed as part of the work related to the Soft Sand Review of the Joint Minerals Local Plan (JMLP).

2.2. In 2014 (when the Authorities began preparing the JMLP), a site nomination exercise was undertaken which involved asking landowners, agencies and minerals operators to put sites forward for consideration (known as the ‘Call for Sites’). Only two soft sand sites outside the SDNP were put forward for consideration (or ‘promoted’), these were Ham Farm and Rock Common West. The Rock Common West site was eliminated because the Environment Agency had concerns that minerals extraction would exacerbate an unsatisfactory situation relating to the restoration of Rock Common sandpit. In addition, the landowner indicated that there is no intention to develop the site.

2.3. An area east of the existing soft sand site at Rock Common was also identified as a potentially suitable area with known soft sand resources. Contact with the landowner in that area resulted in a further site (Buncton Manor Farm) being promoted by a potential operator. The site was then assessed in accordance with the mineral site assessment methodology but this assessment concluded that the site would not be acceptable in principle due to landscape impacts as it is highly visible from the SDNP, National Trail and the Chanctonbury Ring Scheduled

219

Ancient Monument (SAM). Full details of the site assessment are provided in this report.

2.4. In 2018, following adoption of the JMLP, and inclusion of the requirement to undertake a Single Issue Soft Sand Review of the JMLP, the Authorities undertook a further call for sites specifically for soft sand (August – September 2019). This did not garner any new proposed sites outside the SDNP.

2.5. In total, as part of the Soft Sand Review, only two sites were shortlisted (within the 4SR). These are Buncton Manor Farm and Ham Farm.

3.0. Search for further potential sites outside the SDNP

3.1. A desktop assessment was carried out by the Authorities to determine whether there were any new areas of soft sand that could be suitable for extraction outside the SDNP that had not previously been considered.

3.2. This assessment involved mapping the following criteria and constraints using GIS:

• Soft sand resource; • Constraints (SDNP, SAC, SPA, Ramsar, SSSI, RIGs, SNCI, Ancient Woodland, National Nature Reserves, Local Nature Reserves and Flood Zones); • Advisory Lorry Route and Railway; • Urban Areas; • Previously worked soft sand sites and former landfill sites; • Soft sand sites outside the SDNP that have been considered and eliminated; • The proposed Ham Farm allocation.

3.3. This lead to the identification of three main areas where there are relatively unconstrained soft sand resources outside the SDNP (See maps of Areas 1, 2 and 3):

• Area 1: East of Storrington • Area 2: East of Henfield • Area 3: Area between Hassocks and Hurstpierpoint

Area 1: East of Storrington

220

3.4. This area includes three existing sites (Sandgate Park, Hampers Lane and Rock Common); the proposed allocation in the JMLP (Ham Farm); Buncton Manor Farm (rejected allocation), Rock Common West (rejected allocation) and a former landfill site (The Windmill). The Ham Farm site is the last area of soft sand resource outside the SDNP that is adjacent to the A283. The rest of soft sand that lies outside the SDNP extends eastwards, north of the A283. Access to this area would be difficult and would involve the use of small rural roads or a new access to meet the A283.

Area 2: East of Henfield

3.5. This area of resource forks and includes a narrow band extending eastwards and another band dispersing south-eastwards towards the SDNP boundary. There is no direct access to the Lorry Road Network, therefore obtaining a suitable access to the potential resource would be difficult, involving the use of small rural roads or a new access to meet the A283 (south) or A23 (east).

Area 3: Area between Hassocks and Hurstpierpoint

3.6. There is a small area of soft sand resource that lies between the settlements of Hassocks and Hurstpierpoint. There is a line of development which extends between the two settlements, a golf course and consequently only a small area of remaining land which is unconstrained by development nearby. The area of land is also not well- related to the Lorry Route Network. Access to the A23 is along the B2118 approximately 5km to the north at Sayers Common, or 4km south using the A273.

4.0. Summary of existing evidence about the soft sand resource

West Sussex Mineral Safeguarding Study

4.1. The West Sussex Minerals Safeguarding Study (2007) provides a summary of the mineral deposits in West Sussex for the purpose of defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas. The bedrock soft sand resources are confined to the Folkestone Formation which consists of medium to coarse-grained sands and weakly cemented sand rock. Parts of the sequence can vary both vertically and laterally into fine medium-grained sands but variations in particle size are not well known but generally the sands are at their thickest in the centre (40-70

221

metres) and they thin out towards the east (10-20 metres)2. This information is supported by information provided by an operator at a stakeholder engagement event held in 2008. The agent (representing a potential operator) stated that they had undertaken some investigations (including limited borehole testing) which found that any mineral east of Steyning was found to be finer and more contaminated deposits which may make extraction uneconomic on a significant scale3.

4.2. The same agent was asked to provide any further evidence that he had of the quality of the soft sand resources in this location to inform this work. He confirmed that the Folkestone Formation generally becomes finer grained the further east you go along the southern arm of the outcrop and more irregular both in occurrence, quality and thickness. He confirmed that he had not had the opportunity to carry out a great deal of investigative work east of Ham Farm which may be down to there being no sensible of area outcrop large enough to warrant an investigation.

4.3. Furthermore, he says that there are deposits of Folkestone Beds in the Plumpton area (in East Sussex) which suggest that there may be suitable deposits between Ham Farm (in West Susex) and Streat (in East Sussex), however access to these areas would be difficult and the vast majority of this area, including places he makes particular reference to in his response (Truleigh Sands, Perching Sands Farm), is within the SDNP.

Soft Sand Study (2012)

4.4. The Soft Sand Study (2012)4 provided an initial desktop assessment of the potential for future soft sand to be supplied from the area of West Sussex outside the SDNP. It states that the only resources in West Sussex outside the SDNP are those located close to the Park boundary, between Storrington, Henfield and Keymer (covered by the areas described above). Currently active pits and those considered as site allocations in these areas are all located in the western part of this outcrop, close to Storrington. The remainder of this part of the outcrop, further east, is narrower, implying a reduced thickness of mineral, although it may be feasible to develop small scale sandpits within these areas (subject to more detailed geological investigations and

2 BGS (2007). Minerals Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas for West Sussex. 3 WSCC (2009). Consultation and Engagement Report 2008 – 2009: Version 1 Background Papers. 4 Capita Symonds (2012) South Downs National Park Soft Sand Study.

222

acceptability in planning and environmental terms). It concludes that any future development of the resources within this area might be able to substitute for West Sussex sites within the eastern part of the National Park. No soft sand sites have been worked in the eastern part of the outcrop in at least the last four decades5.

5.0. Conclusion

5.1. The Authorities sought to identify soft sand sites outside the SDNP to help meet requirements for soft sand over the plan period. This has involved contacting landowners as part of the ‘call for sites’ exercises in 2014, 2015 and 2018, which resulted in the submission of only three soft sand sites outside the SDNP (of which Rock Common West was subsequnely withdrawn.

5.2. A review of the three areas of soft sand that lie outside the SDNP has revealed that there is very little remaining unconstrained resource that lies outside settlement areas that has not been, or is currently being, worked. There is likely to be difficulties with the location of the rest of the resource due to access to the road network and the amenity of residents and businesses nearby. Furthermore there is also uncertainty about the availability and the deliverability of the resource in these areas and evidence suggests that the resource becomes thinner and more contaminated making it less economic for extraction. It is highly likely that this why no sites in the more eastern Areas (2 and 3) have ever been promoted for inclusion in the Plan or pursued for mineral extraction. The fact that existing soft sand sites tend to be located more towards the western end of the outcrop, nearer to Storrington (see Area 1 map), supports this view.

5 Capita Symonds (2012) South Downs National Park Soft Sand Study.

223

Soft Sand outside the South Downs National Park - Area 1

R IV ER A 4 D 2 U A R

STORRINGTON

Sandgate Park

Hampers Lane Sand Pit

Buncton Manor Farm

A283 Rock Common

Ham Farm

4 2 A

A2 83

Soft sand sites Special Area of Conservation

The Windmill former landfill site National Nature Reserves

National Park Local Nature Reserves

Regionally Important Geological Sites Flood Zone 3

Ancient Woodland Flood Zone 2

Sites of Nature Conservation Importance Soft Sand

4 2

A Specially Protected Areas Railway

Site of Special Scientific Interest Advisory Lorry Routes Reproduced from or based upon 2015 Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of HMSO © Crown Copyright reserved. 1:25,000 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to RAMSAR Site Urban Areas prosecution or civil proceedings West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100023447 ± Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2016, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Soft Sand outside the South Downs National Park - Area 2

HENFIELD

Regionally Important Geological Sites RAMSAR Site

Sites of Nature Conservation Importance National Nature Reserves

Site of Special Scientific Interest Local Nature Reserves

National Park Special Area of Conservation

Ancient Woodland Soft Sand

Flood Zone 3 Advisory Lorry Routes

Flood Zone 2 Railway Reproduced from or based upon 2015 Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of HMSO © Crown Copyright reserved. 1:20,000 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to Specially Protected Areas Urban Areas prosecution or civil proceedings West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100023447 ± Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2016, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community BURGESS HILL Soft Sand outside the South Downs National Park - Area 3

HURSTPIERPOINT

HASSOCKS

Regionally Important Geological Sites RAMSAR Site

Sites of Nature Conservation Importance National Nature Reserves

Site of Special Scientific Interest Local Nature Reserves

2 3 National Park Soft Sand

Ancient Woodland Advisory Lorry Routes

Flood Zone 3 Railway

Flood Zone 2 County Boundary

Specially Protected Areas Reproduced from or based upon 2015 Ordnance Survey mapping Urban Areas with permission of the Controller of HMSO © Crown Copyright reserved. 1:15,000 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to Special Area of Conservation prosecution or civil proceedings West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100023447 Contains OS data © Crown± Copyright and database right 2016, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Appendix 7: Glossary and Abbreviations

Acronym/Term Explanation ALR Advisory Lorry Advisory lorry routes are strategic and local roads Route recommended for use by lorries and heavy goods vehicles in West Sussex. Most are dual carriageways or modern single carriageways. Their use is supported within the West Sussex Local Transport Plan. More information about the ALR and a map of the route is available online. Aggregates Sand, gravel and crushed rock (known as primary aggregates), mineral waste such as colliery spoil, industry wastes and recycled materials (known as secondary aggregates), and such material as construction and demolition waste (recycled aggregates). Aggregates are used in the construction industry to produce concrete, mortar, asphalt, etc. AONB Area of An area designated by the Countryside Agency Outstanding under Section 87 and 88 of the National Parks Natural Beauty and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The primary objective is conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. West Sussex has two Areas: Chichester Harbour and High Weald. Ancient Areas that had continuous woodland cover since Woodland at least 1600 and have been cleared only for underwood or timber production. Biodiversity Shorter term for ‘biological diversity’ which applies to all terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part. Conservation An area, as defined in the Planning (Listed Areas Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, designated as being of special architectural or historical interest and therefore protected from any alterations which would destroy its character. Ecosystems An ecosystems services approach provides a Services framework for looking at whole ecosystems in decision making, and for valuing the ecosystem services they provide, to ensure that society can maintain a healthy and resilient natural environment now and for future generations. HRA Habitats Statutory requirement for Planning Authorities to

227

Acronym/Term Explanation Regulation assess the potential effects of land-use plans on Assessment designated European Sites in Great Britain. The Habitats Regulations Assessment is intended to assess the potential effects of a development plan on one or more European Sites (collectively termed ‘Natura 2000’ sites). The Natura 2000 sites comprise Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). SPAs area classified under the European Council Directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC; Birds Directive) for the protection of wild birds and their habitats (including particularly rare and vulnerable species listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive, and migratory species). Landbank The landbank is a stock of planning permissions for mineral extraction and it is used to secure and maintain an adequate supply of minerals. The length of the landbank is calculated by dividing the total reserve remaining on sites with planning permission by the annual requirement (based on the apportionment). Listed Building A building officially listed as being of special architectural or historic interest as defined in the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. MCA Minerals A mechanism that aims to ensure that in two-tier Consultation Area authority areas consultation takes place between county and district planning authorities when mineral interests could be compromised by non- mineral development. MSA Mineral Areas of known mineral resources that are of Safeguarding sufficient economic or conservation value to Areas warrant protection for generations to come. MPA Mineral Planning A local authority with responsibility for processing Authority mineral applications. West Sussex County Council and the South Downs National Park Authority are both Mineral Planning Authorities. Mt Million Tonnes mtpa Million Tonnes per Annum National Park A National Park must be an extensive tract of countryside, that because of its natural beauty

228

Acronym/Term Explanation and the opportunities it affords for open air recreation, Natural England considers it especially desirable that legal measures are taken to safeguard it under the provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949. Primary Virgin materials such as sand and gravel which Aggregates are extracted from the ground. Protected Species Individual wildlife species which have statutory protection under a range of legislation provisions (e.g. the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1982, the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, Protection of Badgers Act 1992). Recycled Aggregate which has been extracted from the Aggregates ground (as primary aggregate), but which has subsequently been used and recovered for re- use. It comprises material derived from construction and demolition waste Ramsar Sites designated under the European Ramsar site Convention to protect wetlands that are of international importance, particularly wildfowl habitats. RIGS Regionally A non-statutory regionally important geological or Important geomorphological site, designated by locally Geological and developed criteria. Geomorphological Sites Restoration The process of returning a site to its former use, or restoring it to a condition that will support an agreed after-use, such as agriculture and forestry. SM Scheduled A nationally important archaeological site Monuments included in the Schedule of Monuments maintained by the Secretary of State under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Secondary Secondary aggregates can be a lower grade Aggregates virgin material such as chalk, or previously used aggregate or used materials which were not previously aggregates, for example shredded tyres. SSSI Sites of Special A site statutorily notified under the Wildlife and Scientific Interest Countryside Act 1981 as being of special nature

229

Acronym/Term Explanation conservation interest. SSSI include wildlife habitats, geological features and landforms. SPA Special Protection A site of importance for rare and vulnerable birds Areas under the EU Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds. SAC Special Areas of A site of international importance designated Conservation under the EU Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. SFRA Strategic Flood A study carried out by local planning authorities Risk Assessment in consultation with the Environment Agency. The SFRA provides information on the areas that may flood and the impacts of climate change. SA Sustainability A single appraisal tool which provides for the Appraisal systematic identification and evaluation of the economic, social and environmental impacts of a proposal. Sharp sand and Course sand and gravel suitable for use in making gravel concrete. Silica Sand Also known as industrial sand, contains a high proportion of silica in the form of quartz. It is produced from unconsolidated sands and crushed sandstones and is used for applications other than as construction aggregate. Soft Sand Fine sand suitable for use in such products as mortar, asphalt and plaster. NNR National Nature A site of national nature conservation importance Reserves managed by English Nature and established under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

230

231