Soft Sand Sites Selection Report January 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 2 3 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. 4 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 5 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. 6 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 7 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