DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecological Appraisal A2 4Th Arm Coastbound Slip Road, Wincheap, Canterbury

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecological Appraisal A2 4Th Arm Coastbound Slip Road, Wincheap, Canterbury Ecological Appraisal for A2 4th Arm Coastbound Slip Road, Wincheap, Canterbury October 2017 Status: Issue Quality management Project: A2 4th Arm Coastbound Slip Road, Wincheap, Canterbury Project No: B09037 Report title: Ecological Appraisal Report author: Name: Paul Evans Title: Ecologist Approved by: Name: Dr Jo Parmenter Title: Director Status: Issue Date of last revision: 27 October 2017 Client Details Client: Pentland Properties Ltd Client Address: The Estate Office |Etchinghill Golf | Etchinghill |Folkestone |Kent |CT18 8FA Contact Details The Landscape Partnership Ltd Greenwood House | 15a St Cuthberts Street | Bedford | MK40 3JG Tel: 01234 261315 Jonathan Scott Hall| Thorpe Road| Norwich| CB8 9DE Tel: 01603 230777 The Granary | Sun Wharf | Deben Road | Woodbridge |CB8 9DE Tel: 01394 380509 The Landscape Partnership Ltd is a practice of Chartered Landscape Architects, Chartered Ecologists and Chartered Environmentalists, registered with the Landscape Institute and a member of the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment & the Arboricultural Association. Registered Office: Greenwood House 15a St Cuthberts Street Bedford MK40 3JG. Registered in England No 2709001 Quality standards This report is certified BS 42020 compliant and has been prepared in accordance with The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s (CIEEM) Technical Guidance Series ‘Ecological Report Writing’ and Code of Professional Conduct. The copyright of this document rests with The Landscape Partnership. All rights reserved. Contents Non-technical summary 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Commission 1 1.2 Legislation and policy background 1 1.3 Reporting standards 1 1.4 Site location and context 1 1.5 Acknowledgements 1 1.6 Description of the project 2 1.7 Objectives of this appraisal 2 1.8 Previous ecological studies 3 1.9 Duration of appraisal validity 3 2 Methodology 4 2.1 Desk study methodology 4 2.2 Phase 1 habitat survey methodology 4 2.3 Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) survey methodology 5 2.4 Great crested newts: environmental DNA (eDNA) survey 6 2.5 Reptile survey 7 2.6 Badger survey 8 2.7 Preliminary bat roost assessment methodology: Trees 8 2.8 Assessment methodology 10 2.9 Mitigation hierarchy 11 3 Results 12 3.1 Desk study results 12 3.2 Phase 1 habitat survey results 16 3.3 Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) survey results 18 3.4 Great crested newts: environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis 19 3.5 Reptile survey results 20 3.6 Badger survey 21 3.7 Preliminary bat roost assessment results: Trees 21 4 Evaluation of conservation status and impact assessment 22 4.1 Assessment rationale 22 4.2 Evaluation of conservation status and assessment of designated sites 22 4.3 Evaluation of conservation status and assessment of habitats and green infrastructure 24 4.4 Evaluation of conservation status and assessment of species 25 4.5 Cumulative impacts 27 5 Mitigation and avoidance measures 28 5.1 Avoidance measures 28 5.2 Proposed mitigation for known impacts 28 5.3 Compensation for ecological impacts 29 5.4 Species licensing 29 6 Enhancement options 30 6.1 Ecological enhancement 30 6.2 Pollution control measures 30 6.3 Habitat enhancement options 30 6.4 Small-scale species enhancement options 30 7 Recommendations 31 7.1 Recommendations for further survey 31 7.2 Other recommendations 31 7.3 Recommended conditions 31 8 Conclusions 32 8.1 Overall assessment of value and impact 32 8.2 Further survey requirements 32 9 References 33 Figures 1. Location Plan 2. Phase 1 Habitat Survey 3. Preliminary Ground Level Bat Roosts Assessment: Trees 4. Reptile Survey Results Appendices 1. Summary of relevant legislation 2. Impact and assessment methodology 3. Red Line Boundary and Development Proposals 4. Landscape Proposals 5. Technical Advice Note for Field and Laboratory Sampling of Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental (eDNA) 6. Designated sites (information provided by Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre) 7. Great Crested Newts: Pond 1 Environmental DNA (eDNA) Laboratory Results 8. Detailed Reptile Survey Results 9. Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) Guidance on Lighting Non-technical summary The Landscape Partnership was commissioned by Pentland Properties Ltd to undertake an Ecological Appraisal comprising a desk study, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) survey of ponds, together with an assessment of impacts and subsequently, a number of protected species surveys including Great Crested Newts, Reptiles, an assessment of the potential of site features to support bats, and an assessment of the impacts of the proposed works to form the A2 4th Arm Coastbound Slip Road, Wincheap, Canterbury. The objectives of the ecological appraisal were to identify the habitats and species present or potentially present and evaluate their importance, assess the impact of the development proposal and describe any measures necessary to avoid impacts, reduce impacts or compensate for impacts so that there is no net harm to ecological features. The survey involved classifying and recording habitat types and features of ecological interest, undertaking detailed survey for the following protected species great crested newts, reptiles and identified the potential for protected species to be present by assessing habitat suitability for those species. The survey was undertaken by appropriately qualified and experienced personnel. The site comprises patches of dense, continuous scrub across the tall ruderal vegetation located within the attenuation basin, species poor semi-improved grassland with broad-leaved woodland planting along the A2 road verge and areas of landscape planting of shrubs and trees within the Park and Ride car park. Collectively the habitats within the proposed development site are assessed as being of overall value of Lower at the Parish scale. The proposed development is the construction of new coastbound slip road off the A2 at Wincheap, with associated reconfiguration of both Ten Perch Road and the Ten Perch Road / A28 junction, modified footpath / cycle route, works to existing surface water drainage, lighting and landscaping. It is understood that Ten Perch Road currently is not fitted with oil interceptors in its drainage system; oil interceptors will be fitted as part of the development to limit the potential for pollution to reach the River Stour. The development would utilise some of the existing Park and Ride car park to accommodate the new slip road and associated works. The impact of the proposed development upon site of European and National importance is considered to be Neutral. The impact of the proposed development upon veteran trees, rare, scarce or priority plants & invertebrates, amphibians including great crested newts, wintering birds, mammals including dormice, water vole, otter, badger and bats is considered to be Neutral. Reptiles were recorded on site at low numbers and the value of the site for reptile is therefore considered to be Lower at the Parish Scale. In the absence of mitigation, the impact of the development is assessed as Minor-Adverse. Mitigation has been proposed to reduce the impact of the development to Neutral. In the absence of mitigation, the proposed development would give rise to the desilting and removal of tall ruderal vegetation from the attenuation basin which forms part of the Great Stour Local Wildlife Site, a temporal minor impact on the habitat, affecting under 1% of the overall area of the local wildlife site. In addition the development would result in the loss of scrub and broadleaved woodland plantation, which in combination would give rise to a Minor Adverse impact upon habitat and species namely breeding birds which these habitats support. Mitigation has been proposed, including improvement to the attenuation basin for wildlife following the works and compensation planting of native mixed broadleaved trees and shrubs within the landscaping scheme for the development. This mitigation would reduce the impacts of the development proposals upon the habitats and species present, to give rise to an overall Neutral impact. No further surveys are recommended. A number of ecological enhancements have been proposed, which would improve the quality of the site for native flora and fauna, including improved management of the attenuation basin following the works and strengthening native planting around the Park and Ride complex. Delivery of these enhancements would lead to an overall Neutral-Minor Beneficial impact. Ecological Appraisal A2 4th Arm Coastbound Slip Road, Wincheap, Canterbury 1 Introduction 1.1 Commission 1.1.1 The Landscape Partnership was commissioned by Pentland Properties Ltd to carry out a Ecological Appraisal, comprising a desk study, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) survey of ponds, together with an assessment of impacts and subsequently, a number of protected species surveys including Great Crested Newts, Reptiles, an assessment of the potential of site features to support bats, and an assessment of the impacts. 1.2 Legislation and policy background 1.2.1 There is a range of protection given to sites and species. Sites may be designated for local, national, European or global importance for nature conservation. Species may be protected by European-scale legislation or varying levels of national regulation. 1.2.2 The Local Planning Authority has a policy to protect features of nature conservation value within its Local Plan. Other regulators have policies relating to the consents issued by
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Boughton and Dunkirk Neighbourhood Plan Strategic
    Boughton and Dunkirk Neighbourhood Plan Strategic Environmental Assessment & Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report May 2021 Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of Report ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Legislative Background ............................................................................................................................. 1 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ................................................................................................. 1 Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) ......................................................................................................... 2 3. Swale Local Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 2 4. Boughton and Dunkirk Neighbourhood Plan Proposed Submission Version ......................................... 3 5. Environmental Assets in Proximity to the Neighbourhood Plan Area .................................................... 3 6. SEA Assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Assessment ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report
    EB 08.20 Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report Elham Park Wood Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 1 Contents 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 2. Components of GI 3. Functions and benefits of GI 4. GI policy context 5. The GI resource in Shepway 6. Biodiversity GI in Shepway 7. Linear Feature GI 8. Civic Amenity GI 9. Key issues and opportunities in relation to strategic development sites Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 2 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 1.1 A number of definitions of Green Infrastructure (GI) are in use including:- PPS12 – “…a network of multi-functional green space, both new and existing, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities.” 1.2 South East Plan/South East GI Partnership – “For the purposes of spatial planning the term green infrastructure (GI) relates to the active planning and management of sub-regional networks of multi-functional open space. These networks should be managed and designed to support biodiversity and wider quality of life, particularly in areas undergoing large scale change.“ 1.3 Natural England – “Green Infrastructure (GI) is a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality green spaces and other environmental features. It should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Green Infrastructure includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, allotments and private gardens.” 1.4 The common features of these definitions are that GI:- • involves natural and managed green areas in urban and rural settings • is about the strategic connection of open green areas • should provide multiple benefits for people 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Sites Booklet
    Discover Discover WILD SITESon your doorstep A visitor’s guide to wildlife sites in the Stour Valley WILD SITES on your doorstep on your About WILD SITES The Kentish Stour Explore the on your doorstep Countryside Partnership WILD SITES This booklet is designed to help you The Kentish Stour Countryside Partnership Get out there! explore and enjoy the fantastic (KSCP) organised the Wild Sites project. There are so many landscapes and special wildlife of the amazing places to The KSCP works to conserve, enhance and promote the enjoy nature and the outdoors in Stour Valley. countryside and urban green space of the Stour Valley. the Stour Valley! The Wild Sites are We work closely with landowners and communities to spread all over the KSCP Partnership To get the best out of your visit, go to our conserve and protect the landscapes, habitats and area (see map). They are very varied, website: www.wildsites.org and click wildlife of our Partnership area. We conserve and ranging in size from a few acres to ‘Explore Sites’ for full details of the sites. enhance all sorts of habitats, including the River Stour hundreds of hectares, from local and other watercourses, woodlands and wildlife rich parks to internationally important Much of the content in this guide book has been grasslands; we also create habitats for wildlife in urban nature reserves, owned and managed produced by participants in the Wild Sites on Your areas. Where we can, we develop opportunities for good by a range of bodies (see back cover). Doorstep project. Hundreds of people took part in access to the countryside and informal recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Minerals and Waste Sites Dpds
    Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs Interim Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report May 2012 Prepared for: Kent County Council UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs REVISION SCHEDULE Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 1 May 2012 Interim SA Report Mark Fessey Steve Smith Steve Smith Senior Associate Associate Consultant Chris Eves Graduate Consultant URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Kent County Council (“The Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report. The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between January and March 2012 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances. URS disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to URS’ attention after the date of the Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Shepway Green Infrastructure Report 2011
    Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report Elham Park Wood Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 1 Contents 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 2. Components of GI 3. Functions and benefits of GI 4. GI policy context 5. The GI resource in Shepway 6. Biodiversity GI in Shepway 7. Linear Feature GI 8. Civic Amenity GI 9. Key issues and opportunities in relation to strategic development sites Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 2 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 1.1 A number of definitions of Green Infrastructure (GI) are in use including:- PPS12 – “…a network of multi-functional green space, both new and existing, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities.” 1.2 South East Plan/South East GI Partnership – “For the purposes of spatial planning the term green infrastructure (GI) relates to the active planning and management of sub-regional networks of multi-functional open space. These networks should be managed and designed to support biodiversity and wider quality of life, particularly in areas undergoing large scale change.“ 1.3 Natural England – “Green Infrastructure (GI) is a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality green spaces and other environmental features. It should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Green Infrastructure includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, allotments and private gardens.” 1.4 The common features of these definitions are that GI:- • involves natural and managed green areas in urban and rural settings • is about the strategic connection of open green areas • should provide multiple benefits for people 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Canterbury Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal
    Canterbury Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal DRAFT August 2012 Copyright Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited. All rights reserved. This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent & SE London Branch Annual Butterfly Report 2019
    KENT AND SOUTH EAST LONDON BRANCH ANNUAL BUTTERFLY REPORT 2019 Introduction 2019 Map of all This report would not have been possible without all the hard work done by John 2019 butterfly sightings Bangay, who has converted all the sightings recorded on iRecord, Transect Walker and the Garden Butterfly and Big Butterfly Count schemes and put them into a form that I can study and pick out highlights. Records that have been sent directly to me by email or on paper recording forms have also been entered onto the Branch database and sent to the Co-ordinator of the National Recording Scheme. We received an amazing In this distribution map, the size of the dot indicates the number of records from number of records in 2019, almost 62,000. These were submitted by 2,657 different that 2 kilometre square. recorders, so I hope you will understand that I don’t have space to list you all at the end of the report – Butterfly Conservation is very grateful to you for your efforts. The records will be used to update the national distribution maps so that changes in butterfly populations can be monitored. You will notice that I have changed the order of the species in the report. This is to tie in with the latest taxonomic ideas. We are privileged to have a world authority in butterfly taxonomy, Dick Vane-Wright, as our new president, so I have been fortunate to be able to consult him on this subject. It is pleasing that several species, including Adonis and Small Blues, Marbled White, Wall and Purple Emperor were found at some new sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Maps for Individual Host Species and Lists of Designated Sites at Risk
    APPENDIX 2: RISK MAPS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOST SPECIES AND LISTS OF DESIGNATED SITES AT RISK. Figure 1 Risk posed to V. myrtillus under the three different risk scenarios. .......................... 2 Figure 2 Risk posed to V. vitis-idaea under the three different risk scenarios. ....................... 3 Figure 3. Risk posed to C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. .......................... 4 Figure 4 Risk posed to SSSIs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, A. uva-ursi and C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. ............................................................. 5 Figure 5 Risk posed to SSSIs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea and A. uva-ursi under the three different risk scenarios. ..................................................................................... 6 Figure 6 Risk posed to SPAs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, A. uva-ursi and C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. ............................................................. 7 Figure 7 Risk posed to SPAs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea and A. uva-ursi under the three different risk scenarios. ........................................................................................... 8 Figure 8 Risk posed to SACs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, A. uva-ursi and C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. ............................................................. 9 Figure 9 Risk posed to SACs for species, V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea and A. uva-ursi under the three different risk scenarios. ................................................................................... 10 Table 1 Lists of all SPAs selected out as potentially suitable, with details of the total suitable area and their inclusion in each of the risk scenarios. ................................................... 11 Table 2 Lists of all SACs selected out as potentially suitable, with details of the total suitable area and their inclusion in each of the risk scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministry of Defence
    Ministry of Defence SSSI unit condition (ha) UNFAVOURABLE UNFAVOURABLE NO UNFAVOURABLE Percent SSSI held by SSSI name Whole SSSI area (ha) FAVOURABLE PART DESTROYED DESTROYED MoD area RECOVERING CHANGE DECLINING MoD ALKHAM, LYDDEN AND SWINGFIELD WOODS 228.33 99.1 7.5 106.6 46.69% APPLEBY FELLS 10,693.02 453.7 4,532.2 4,985.8 46.63% ASH TO BROOKWOOD HEATHS 1,576.12 482.4 830.8 94.4 1,407.6 89.31% ASHDOWN FOREST 3,209.28 92.0 201.1 293.1 9.13% BARNHAMCROSS COMMON 69.08 0.1 0.1 0.16% BARROW BURN MEADOWS 5.18 2.9 2.3 5.2 100.00% BARROW MEADOW 5.67 5.6 5.6 99.29% BASINGSTOKE CANAL 101.15 5.3 8.6 19.1 0.2 33.1 32.76% BENFLEET AND SOUTHEND MARSHES 2,373.69 98.6 98.6 4.15% BILLSMOOR PARK AND GRASSLEES WOOD 112.58 4.3 0.3 4.6 4.09% BIRKLANDS AND BILHAUGH 505.73 206.1 1.5 207.6 41.05% BIRKLANDS WEST AND OLLERTON CORNER 414.64 61.7 6.6 68.2 16.46% BLANDFORD CAMP 28.69 3.6 25.1 28.7 99.97% BOURLEY AND LONG VALLEY 823.90 7.1 783.1 32.1 822.3 99.80% BOWES MOOR 4,489.89 0.3 0.3 0.01% BOWNESS COMMON 803.29 26.5 26.5 3.30% BOX MINE 58.74 0.2 0.2 0.39% BRADENHAM WOODS, PARK WOOD & THE COPPICE 134.93 0.0 0.0 0.01% BRAMSHOTT AND LUDSHOTT COMMONS 371.14 0.3 102.2 102.5 27.61% BRATTON DOWNS 400.08 119.1 44.7 0.2 0.0 164.1 41.01% BRAUNTON BURROWS 1,339.74 1.2 589.8 9.0 600.0 44.78% BRECKLAND FARMLAND 13,392.58 1,552.4 1,552.4 11.59% BRECKLAND FOREST 18,126.08 462.5 462.5 2.55% BRIDGHAM & BRETTENHAM HEATHS 441.70 200.9 200.9 45.48% BROADMOOR TO BAGSHOT WOODS AND HEATHS 1,696.33 81.2 495.7 576.9 34.01% BROWNDOWN 66.47 61.4 61.4 92.36% BROXHEAD AND KINGSLEY COMMONS
    [Show full text]
  • Go Birding Index
    Sennen-Land’s End, Aug 03 Killington Lake, May 2017 Padley Gorge SSSI, Apr 2002 GO BIRDING INDEX Siblyback Reservoir, Jul 05 King Edward I Monument, March 2021 Stanage Edge, April 2010 South West Cornwall, Aug 00 Kirkland to Cross Fell, Aug 2006 Staunton Harold Reservoir, To October 2021... Inkpen & Walbury Hills, Nov 00 CHANNEL ISLANDS St Agnes, Isles of Scilly, Oct 01, Levens Park, June 2014 Sept 2005, Oct 14 & April 2021 Longis Reserve, Sept 2020 Alderney, Jun 00, June 2014 September 2016 Lekking Blackcock Apr 06 Swarkestone Lake, December 2009 Bird Watching has covered thousands of Moor Green Lakes, July 2007 Crabbe, Jersey, March 2017 St Genny’s, December 2011 Longtown Ponds & River Esk, Feb 02 Upper Derwent Valley, Summer 2010 sites in our Go Birding section. Queen Mother Reservoir, Dec 04 Grouville Bay – pg54/55, Mar 03 St. Mary’s, Isles of Scilly, Oct 00 Longtown, December 2010 Willington Gravel Pits, Aug 2003 & Theale area Gravel Pits, Sep 00 Jersey, Aug 14 Stithians Reservoir, Dec 01 Lower Gelt, Sept 14 November 2013, Feb 2021 Most of them are listed below, so have a Thurle Down, Oct 03 Les Landes & Plémont Cliff paths, Jun 04 Swanpool & Falmouth, Mar 05 Loweswater, July 2013 Wyver Lane Pool, May 2010 good old scroll. Windsor Great park, February 2017 Les Mielles NR, Jersey, Aug 02 Tehidy Country Park, Jan 04 Martindale, Oct 2012 Wraysbury Gravel Pits, Jan 02 Tintagel, Jun 00 Maryport Harbour, Oct 2010 DEVON For subscription or back issue queries, CHESHIRE Torpoint, Nov 05 Mawbray, June 2013 Aveton Gifford, Sept 2007, January
    [Show full text]
  • Core Strategy Strategy and Policy Directions Consultation
    Kent Minerals and Waste Development Framework Planning for the future of minerals and waste in Kent Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Strategy and Policy Directions Consultation May 2011 This document is available in alternative formats and can be explained in a range of languages. Please call 01622 221609 or email [email protected] for details. Core Strategy - Strategy & Policy Directions Consultation Kent County Council Contents Abbreviations i 1 Introduction 1 2 Minerals and Waste Development in Kent - A Spatial 4 Portrait 2.1 Introduction 4 2.2 Kent’s Environmental and Landscape Assets 6 2.3 What are the Significant Economic Minerals in Kent? 10 2.4 Where are Minerals Extracted in Kent 11 2.5 Kent's Waste Infrastructure 14 3 The Spatial Vision 18 3.1 Introduction 18 3.2 Draft Spatial Vision for Minerals and Waste in Kent 18 4 Strategic Objectives for the Minerals and Waste Core 20 Strategy 5 Kent's Options for Minerals 22 5.1 Strategic Sites 25 5.2 Land Won Minerals 27 5.3 Crushed Rock (Ragstone and/or Underground Limestone) 29 5.4 Sand and Gravel Landbank 30 5.5 Brickearth and Clay 31 5.6 Mineral Importation Facilities (Wharves and Railheads) 32 5.7 Safeguarding of Wharves, Railheads & Other Mineral Infrastructure 33 5.8 Safeguarding Land-Won Minerals 35 5.9 Silica Sand 36 5.10 Preference for Extensions to Existing Sites versus New Sites 36 Kent County Council Core Strategy - Strategy & Policy Directions Consultation 6 Kent's Options for Managing Waste 38 6.1 Strategic Waste Sites 40 6.2 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 41 Contents 6.3
    [Show full text]