Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire

Update February 2011

A Study by Land & Mineral Management Limited for Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council, New Forest National Park Authority and the South Downs National Park.

Front Cover – Aerial shot of the River Itchen wharves – Copyright - Digital Millennium Map Partnership, 2006

CONTENTS

SECTIONS

Executive Summary

1. Introduction and Background

2. Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots - Operations Review of Existing Operations and – Capacities of existing wharf and rail depots in Hampshire

3. Establishing what the Future Need for Wharves and Rail Depots up to 2030

4. Possible Constraints and Issues Related to the continued use or expansion of Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire

5. Meeting Hampshire’s Future Need for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire

6. Proposals for Wharf and Rail Depot Site Safeguarding – including Possible Safeguarding Measures

7. Summary and Recommendations

TABLES

Table 1 Probable Import and Export Facilities in Hampshire c.1990 Table 2 Crown Estate Landings of Marine Dredged Sand and Gravel at Hampshire Ports from 1989/90 (tonnes) Table 3 Hampshire Imports of Land Won Aggregate by Sea or Rail (tonnes) Table 4 Probable Changes to Hampshire Site Operators since 1990 Table 5 Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots ‘Lost’ or ‘Gained’ since 1990 Table 6 Recent Average Annual Aggregate Imports into South Hampshire Wharves (2004- 2009) and Rail Depots (2003-2007) (k.tonnes) Table 7 Potential Maximum Aggregate Imports Capacity at Existing South Hampshire Wharf and Rail Depots Table 8 Adjusted Potential Maximum Aggregate Imports Capacity at Existing South Hampshire Wharf and Rail Depots Table 9 Hampshire Primary Aggregate Sales by Type 1998-2009 (excluding road imports) Table 10 National Statistics for Hard/Crushed Rock Compared to Sand and Gravel (k.tonnes) in England Table 11 Draft Revised Regional Guidelines for Primary Aggregates in the South East 2005- 2020 (m.tonnes) Table 12 Comparison of Population and Total Aggregate Demand Forecasts by Hampshire Area (2006-2030) Table 13 Hampshire Aggregate Import Forecast Scenarios (2011-2030) Table 14 Classification of Hampshire Wharf and Rail Depot Facilities

FIGURES AND PLANS

Figure 1 Site Location Diagram for Wharves and Rail Depots and other sites identified in the Assessment Plan W1 Southampton (Western Docks) Plan W2 Southampton Wharves (River Itchen)

Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Plan W3 Fareham Wharf Plan W4 Tipner Wharf Plan W5 Kendalls Wharf Plan W6 Bedhampton Wharf Plan W7 Marchwood Wharves Plan PW1 Possible New Minerals and Waste Handling Wharf Facilities at Marchwood Military Port and Dibden Bay Plan PW2 Port of Southampton /Southampton Water Plan PW3 Port of Portsmouth / Portsmouth Water Plan R1 Fareham Depot Plan R2 Botley Depot Plan R3 Eastleigh East and West Depots Plan PR1 Possible New Aggregates Rail Depot at Basingstoke Plan PR2 Possible New Aggregates/Recycling Rail Depot Facilities at Micheldever

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 South East Plan (May 2009) - selected new Transport, Waste and Mineral Policies

APPENDIX 2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) - Wharves and Rail Depot Policies

APPENDIX 3 London Plan Implementation Report Policies for Safeguarding Wharves on the River Thames

APPENDIX 4 Recommended potential areas of content for the development of replacement Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depot Policies (policies S13 (Wharves and Depots), S14 (Safeguarding) and DC18 (Wharves and Depots) to replace the quashed Core Strategy policies

REFERENCES

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 2 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This needs assessment has been conducted to support part of the necessary background work required by Hampshire (Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council, New Forest National Park Authority and the South Downs National Park), to support the delivery of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework. It is an update of an assessment completed by Land & Mineral Management in 2009. The assessment will particularly support the development of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan which will update and replace the adopted Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

The main objective of the assessment was to establish the need within the plan period for wharves and rail depots based on the current and future potential of existing and new facilities for the importation and exportation of minerals and waste, including their transportation by non-road means within Hampshire. This included an assessment of:-

 Capacity of existing wharves and rail depots – including associated activities and facilities;  Likely future demand for wharves and rail depots;  Possible constraints to continued use or expansion at these sites;  Potential need to retain existing unused preferred sites and identification of potential new and/or replacement sites.

The research also included the undertaking of operator or site owner questionnaires, site visits, a review of references national policy guidelines and many other publications or documents with direct relevance to this assessment.

The research has been structured in sections dealing with:

 Wharf and Rail Depot Operations Review – which includes understanding existing site capacities and any recent trends in meeting demand;  Establishing Future Needs and Meeting the Needs for Wharves and Rail Depots – by using recognised forecasting sources, recent research and an alternative ‘bottom up’ approach to forecasting and then comparing relevant information obtained on the expansion potential of existing and new sites;  Possible constraints and issues related to the continued use or expansion of wharves and rail depots in Hampshire – constraints and issues such as physical, planning and site specific constraints are considered;  Meeting the need for wharves and rail depots in Hampshire – the development of various scenarios to meeting Hampshire’s needs for wharves and rail depots are made and considered;  Proposals for Wharf and Rail Depot Site Safeguarding including Possible Safeguarding Measures – by identifying and prioritising sites by means such as size or impact or constraint, and then adopting recognised or other possible new safeguarding measures which can then be used for the most important sites..

The assessment was originally completed by Land & Mineral Management Limited. (LMML) in September 2009, when it assessed the need and requirements for wharves and rail depots up to 2026. The only formal response to the first assessment came in a letter from the agents for Associated British Ports (ABP) received in November 2010.

In November 2010, Hampshire commissioned LMML to update the 2009 assessment. The update assesses the need for wharves and rail depots up to 2030, in line with the plan period

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 3 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011) proposed for the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan. Relevant comments received from ABP regarding the 2009 assessment have been taken to account, where appropriate in this update, as well as relevant changes in national policy, guidance and other supporting documentation.

Research for this assessment has identified the following main features and recommendations:-

 The dominant materials handled at Hampshire’s wharves and rail depots are construction aggregates in the form of marine sand and gravels or hard (crushed) rock - although other minerals are imported into Western Docks (Southampton), and wastes are handled at three other wharves;  The combination of Hampshire’s existing wharves and rail depots infrastructure has changed relatively little in overall terms since 1989/90, when peak consumption of construction aggregates occurred in Great Britain;  Additional aggregate capacity levels in excess of the 1989/1990 levels will probably not be required within the plan period up to 2030 – although it may be required by 2050;  The current spare capacity of wharves and rail depots in Hampshire is most likely to be sufficient to meet the needs for the plan period to 2030 - unless existing wharf or rail site capacity is permanently lost from site closures, redevelopment or other reasons;  If significant spare capacity remains at existing aggregate wharf and rail facilities then Hampshire only needs to identify a limited number of new additional aggregate wharf import facilities – and although these new sites are not likely to be needed until the end of the plan period, they will need safeguarding in the meantime;  Recent industry research reports have indicated that it may be possible to see the development of sustainable alternative technology within the plan period to enable new aggregate supply modes (e.g. pipelines) or even a major new aggregate supply source in the South East (i.e. mined aggregates). Should full scale development of either of these potentially viable options commence within the plan period to 2030, then significant expansion of wharves or even new wharves may not be required;  Recent industry research reports have indicated that it may be possible to see the development of sustainable alternative technology within the plan period to enable new aggregate supply modes (e.g. pipelines) or even a major new aggregate supply source in the South East (i.e. mined aggregates). Should full scale development of either of these potentially viable options commence within the plan period to 2030, then significant expansion of wharves or even new wharves may not be required;  Based on the variety of points made above, it is considered appropriate for Hampshire to maintain flexibility of aggregate supply into Hampshire until the end of the current plan period, and therefore it is recommended that: a. 2 potential wharf sites (Marchwood Military Port and Bakers Wharf) are safeguarded immediately; b. 2 potential rail depot sites (Basingstoke and Micheldever) are safeguarded immediately: c. zonal safeguarding be considered for a combined new deep water minerals and waste wharf facility in the Dibden Bay area (as indicated on Plan PW1) to be safeguarded to ensure the an area here could potentially be made available to accommodate such facilities as part of any future stand alone proposal or as part of any major port expansion proposals:

However, the research also identified that even though sufficient capacity to meet aggregate demand exists at existing wharves and rail depots, Hampshire should also consider, monitor and respond where necessary to the following related issues:-

 The geographical spread of the wharf and rail depot facilities: These currently reflect the main market areas as they are all in South Hampshire. Previous shortfalls in supply of aggregate for other Hampshire areas have been and will still need to be

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 4 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

supported by road imports into Hampshire or road transfers from the South Hampshire wharves and rail depots – the future impacts of these continued long trips and double handling of materials should be monitored;  Safeguarding policy wording needs to be reviewed: When considering appropriate safeguarding policies for existing wharves and depots, Hampshire could adapt existing suitable safeguarding policies which are already adopted by other local authorities when considering Hampshire wharf and depots;  Policies for future safeguarding of future wharves and rail depots: These could be split into different categories according to the importance, capability and potential of each site to handle and tranship minerals and waste by non-road means. Such safeguarding could be zonal by nature rather than site specific and include land beyond current site boundaries to maintain and/or enhance existing site handling and range capabilities;  Shortfalls in land won primary aggregate production or recycled and secondary aggregate production: Any significant shortfall in these supply sources would increase demand at existing wharves and rail depots resulting in cumulative impacts of any impacts that may already exist at those sites. Ongoing monitoring of possible cumulative impacts arising from increased demand at existing wharves and rail depots is therefore essential to understand whether previous capacities are no longer a realistic option;  Any replacement of quashed policy S13 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy should make references to how wharves and depots can contribute to the sustainable transport of minerals and waste: Consequently, Hampshire should be looking beyond the scope of this study to promote more sustainable development of a full range of road, rail and water-borne freight facilities in Hampshire, and seek to improve integration between these transport modes, including the major rail interchanges and the centres they serve.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 5 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This chapter introduces the need for an assessment of wharves and rail depots for Hampshire. It also sets out the relevant national and local policy background, the importance of wharves and rail depots as well as relevant areas of research relating to wharves and rail depots in the United Kingdom.

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Hampshire County Council (HCC) in partnership with four other planning authorities (Southampton City Council (SCC), Portsmouth City Council (PCC),New Forest National Park Authority (NFNPA), South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA)), have been progressing with the statutory obligation to prepare a Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF).

1.1.2 The MWDF process is intended to lead to the establishment of robust policies on future minerals and waste development which the joint plan-making planning authorities (collectively referred to herein as “Hampshire”) and other stakeholders such as landowners, developers and transport operators would be duly bound to follow as and when new potential mineral and waste developments come forward.

1.1.3 Originally it was intended that the Hampshire MWDF would consist of four main Development Plan Documents (DPD), the:

 Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy;  Hampshire Minerals Plan  Hampshire Waste Plan; and the  Proposals Map.

1.1.4 Hampshire adopted the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (hereafter referred to as the Core Strategy) in 2007. However, the Core Strategy was subject to a subsequent High Court challenge by Associated British Ports (ABP) which resulted in policies S13, S14 and DC18 (relating to Wharves and Rail Depots as well as Safeguarding) and their associated references being quashed, effectively deleting them from the DPD (see paragraph 1.2.6).

1.1.5 Since the High Court decision further changes to the planning system (see para. 1.2.10 later) have requires changes to the plan making process for all planning authorities. As a result, Hampshire is now in the process of developing a new DPD which will update and review the adopted Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. This will be known as the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (hereafter referred to as the Minerals and Waste Plan). The plan will include spatial policies on the control and location of minerals and waste developments up to 2030 in a single combined document. This is instead of the two previously envisaged separate documents which were originally intended (i.e. Hampshire Waste Plan and Hampshire Minerals Plan) to sit alongside the Core Strategy.

1.1.6 Therefore, the Hampshire MWDF currently includes the following DPDs:

 Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (Adopted): now adopted, but some policy areas have been quashed as noted above);  Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (Emerging): the emerging new DPD which will update and review the adopted Core Strategy and will replace it in the Hampshire MWDF once adopted);  Proposals Map (Emerging): this will be developed and subsequently reviewed through ongoing work on the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 6 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Why is a Needs Assessment required?

1.1.7 A needs assessment of Hampshire’s wharves and rail depots is required to establish the current and future potential of existing and new facilities for the importation and exportation of minerals and waste1 to and from Hampshire in the plan period in order to meet the future needs for and impacts that could result from the continued provision of such facilities. The assessment is also required to meet the provisions of policy M5 of the South East Plan2 where applicable.

1.1.8 It is expected that the findings of such a needs assessment should help to support the development of new policies on wharves and rail depots for the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan. Such new policies could include the transportation of minerals and waste by non-road means within Hampshire, and also on the development of possible safeguarding policies.

1.1.9 Hampshire originally commissioned Land & Mineral Management Ltd (LMML) to carry out a wharves and depots needs assessment (hereafter referred to as the ‘needs assessment’) on its wharves and rail depots in 2009 and the first report was completed in September 2009.

Update to the Needs Assessment

1.1.10 Following the revision of approach to the MWDF, a review and update of the initial 2009 report has taken place. The update reflects the changes to the end date of the plan period (now to 2030 and not 2026). This revised needs assessment will continue to support policy option development for the wharves and rail depots and safeguarding policies for the emerging Minerals and Waste Plan.

1.1.11 LMML and Hampshire only received one response to the 2009 report, submitted by Adams Hendry on behalf of Associated British Ports (ABP) in November 2010. This followed the publication of the ABP Port of Southampton ‘Master Plan’ in March 2010. Relevant comments received from Adams Hendry are taken into account, as appropriate, within this updated needs assessment.

What does the Needs Assessment cover and how was it completed?

1.1.12 The needs assessment takes into account the current national guidance and policy on wharves and rail depots (see section 1.2). The needs assessment will also assist Hampshire in the identification of possible strategic wharf and rail depot sites which need to be safeguarded from inappropriate development through the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan to meet Hampshire’s needs.

1.1.13 The needs assessment covers the following main areas:

 Capacity of existing wharves and rail depots – including associated activities and facilities;  Recent trends on meeting demand;  Likely future need for existing and new wharves and rail depots;  Possible constraints and issues related to the continued use or expansion of existing wharf and rail depot sites;

1 Imports and exports herein relate to those minerals/waste to/from Hampshire only irrespective of origin unless otherwise stated 2 The South East Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East – DCLG May 2009

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 7 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 Potential need to retain existing unused preferred sites and identification of potential new or replacement sites.  Meeting the need for wharves and rail depots in Hampshire  Proposals for Wharf and Rail Depot Site Safeguarding – including Possible Safeguarding Measures

Photo 1: Leamouth and Dibles Wharves (from Spitfire Quay), Southampton

1.1.14 Policy M5 (see paragraph 1.2.2) has a clear emphasis on the safeguarding of important mineral sites and strategic wharves and rail depots. Policy M5 does not specifically mention waste sites or facilities. However, it is generally recognised that Hampshire has a number of wharves and rail depots which handle waste and as those sites are similar in nature to mineral facilities, they could also be used for related mineral activities. Therefore this assessment includes an overview of potential waste facilities located at a number of Hampshire’s existing wharves and rail depot sites.

1.1.15 Consultation with existing wharf and rail depot operator’s, landowners and agents originally took place as part of the initial assessment in 2009. At this point, LMML prepared and distributed questionnaires and undertook a number of site visits wherever possible. Further updates have been obtained from many of the original consultees by HCC to assist LMML with the update of the assessment. LMML and Hampshire are therefore grateful to the following organisations which were able to contribute (if only in part) to the completion of the original questionnaires, site visits and subsequent further consultations to enable the preparation of this revised assessment:

 Aggregate Industries;  Cemex Operations UK Ltd;  Hanson Aggregates;  Kendall Bros (Portsmouth) Ltd;

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 8 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 Lafarge Aggregates;  Tarmac Aggregates;  European Metal Recycling Ltd (EMR);  Network Rail;  Adams Hendry - agents for Associated British Ports (ABP).

1.1.16 In addition to the above, thanks are also extended to other organisations contacted which have possible interests in the assessment such as land based mineral and waste operators, harbour authorities, Somerset County Council and also other consultants conducting related research.

1.2 Policy Background Affecting Wharves and Railheads for the Import and Export of Minerals and Waste in Hampshire

National Policy

1.2.1 In December 2004, the Office of the Deputy Minister (ODPM) published a Panel Report based on the Examination in Public of the new RPG9 – Review of Waste and Minerals. This report contained proposals to amend national waste and mineral policies and to strengthen policy on wharves and rail depots by requiring Mineral Planning Authorities to:-

“…assess needs and to identify sites to be safeguarded in Local Development Frameworks (LDFs)”.

1.2.2 By June 2006, the ODPM published new policies – including a revised policy (Policy M5) for the safeguarding of mineral reserves, wharves and rail depots which Mineral Planning Authorities are obliged to take into account. This policy in relation to wharves and rail depots is set out below:-

“Mineral planning authorities should assess the need for wharf and rail facilities for the handling and distribution of imported minerals and processed materials, and identify strategic sites for safeguarding in their minerals development frameworks. These strategic facilities should be safeguarded from other inappropriate development in local development documents.”

1.2.3 In November 2006, the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) produced the first of several new Minerals Policy Statements (MPS) that are to be introduced in following years as replacement guidance documents to the current Minerals Policy Guidelines. MPS1 (entitled ‘Planning and Minerals’) is important to this assessment in respect of the following National Objective (under paragraph 9):-

“…to promote the sustainable transport of minerals by rail, sea or inland waterways”.

1.2.4 Furthermore, MPS1 expands upon this objective in later paragraphs under the headings of Safeguarding and Bulk Transportation as follows:-

Safeguarding:

 “safeguard existing rail heads, wharfage and associated storage, handling and processing facilities for the bulk transport by rail, sea or inland waterways of minerals, particularly coal and aggregates, including recycled, secondary and marine-dredged materials”;  “identify future sites to accommodate the above facilities and reflect any such allocations in the Local Development Documents (LDDs) of district councils in two-tier planning areas. District councils in these areas should not normally permit other development

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 9 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

proposals near such safeguarded sites where they might constrain future use for these purposes”;  “safeguard existing, planned and potential sites including rail and water-served, for concrete batching, the manufacture of coated materials, other concrete products and the handling, processing and distribution of substitute, recycled and secondary aggregate material. Where appropriate, identify future sites for these uses and reflect any such allocations in the LDDs in two tier planning-areas”.

Bulk Transportation:

 “seek to promote and enable the bulk movement of minerals by rail, sea or inland waterways to reduce the environmental impact of their transportation”;  “promote facilities at ports and rail links that have good communications inland, so that bulk minerals can be landed by sea and distributed from ports, as far as is practicable, by rail or water”;  safeguard and promote rail links to quarries where there is potential to move minerals by rail”.

Local and Regional Policy

1.2.5 Hampshire has been aware for many years of the importance of its established facilities for the import and export of minerals and waste. Hampshire understands it needs to ensure that new planning policies would not conflict or adversely affect such facilities where they are demonstrably needed to meet existing and future requirements - particularly for their own area and also more recently in the regional and national context.

1.2.6 As already indicated, Hampshire adopted its Minerals and Waste Core Strategy in 2007, which contained spatial and development control led polices on wharves and rail depots as well as safeguarding. However, in developing new policies for the adopted Core Strategy, ABP (Southampton) expressed some concerns in relation to the ‘soundness’ of the proposed new policies affecting wharves and rail depots (particularly on possible lack of due regard to deep water facilities potential). After the Core Strategy was adopted, ABP proceeded to challenge the Core Strategy through High Court proceedings. The subsequent adjudication required Hampshire to delete policies S13, S14 and DC18 (relating to Wharves and Rail Depots and safeguarding issues) from the Core Strategy as well as all consequential references. Therefore, Hampshire currently has an adopted Core Strategy except that the main wharves and rail depots policies have been removed. New policies reflecting on wharves and rail depots need to be developed, and this will take place through the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan.

1.2.7 Following the adoption of the Core Strategy, the South East Plan1 (SEP) was approved in May 2009. This set out the long term spatial planning framework for the South East from 2006 to 2026. The SEP provided the spatial context within which LDFs and Local Transport Plans need to be prepared as well as other strategies and programmes that have a bearing on land use activities – including the safeguarding of mineral reserves in addition to safeguarding wharves and rail depots. This required an expansion of Policy M5 as follows:

POLICY M5: SAFEGUARDING OF MINERAL RESERVES, WHARVES AND RAIL DEPOTS

“Mineral planning authorities should assess the need for wharf and rail facilities for the handling and distribution of imported minerals and processed materials, and identify strategic sites for safeguarding in their minerals development frameworks. These strategic

1 The South East Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East – DCLG May 2009

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 10 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

facilities should be safeguarded from other inappropriate development in local development documents.

Existing mineral sites, and proposed sites and ‘areas of search’, should be identified in mineral development documents for the extraction and processing of aggregates, clay, chalk, silica sand and gypsum. These should then be safeguarded in local development documents”.

1.2.8 Supporting text for the policy also set out the requirements for minerals planning authorities to undertake a wharves and depots assessment which should be subject to specific criteria including assessment of capacity, proximity to markets, the value of specialist infrastructure and the adequacy and potential of new environmental safeguards.

1.2.9 As mentioned previously in paragraph 1.1.15, the emphasis of Policy M5 is clearly on safeguarding of important mineral sites rather than waste sites. However, this assessment also includes an overview of potential waste facilities located at a number of Hampshire’s existing wharves and rail depot sites as these are similar in nature to mineral facilities and not specifically mentioned in the original policy.

1.2.10 Since the publication of the 2009 Needs Assessment, it has become clear that that the new coalition government is seeking to revoke the Regional Spatial Strategy. Although initial moves to revoke the RSS were challenged, the new Localism Bill contains provision for the removal of the RSS. However, until this takes place, the RSS still forms part of the development plan and the requirement, under policy M5 of the SEP is still relevant. Regardless of this fact, the need to have a robust evidence base on the issue of need for wharves and rail depots is still strong, to support the development of the emerging Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan.

1.3 Background and Historical Context to Hampshire Minerals and Waste operations

1.3.1 Hampshire has had a long history of mineral and waste operations. Such operations, together with their associated means of transportation, have created significant issues for Hampshire to deal with in terms of production, distribution and consumption within Hampshire boundaries and for the continuation of Hampshire’s contribution towards exports to neighbouring authority areas.

1.3.2 The vast majority of mineral demand and consumption in Hampshire (as evident in the following sections of this report) is principally based on construction material needs in the form of sand and gravel or hard rock aggregate (also referred to as crushed rock in other documents). Such aggregate demand arises from consumer requirements for housing, schools, hospitals, commercial premises, roads and many other related construction and infrastructure projects. Essentially, demand for construction materials will rise or fall depending on the numbers, wealth and mobility requirements of people living and working in Hampshire.

Sand and Gravel

1.3.3 Much of the sand and gravel aggregate consumed in Hampshire had (until the 1980s) been generated from Hampshire land-won extraction sites and then transported by road to consumers. Land-won sand and gravel was then, as it is today, extracted from two types of site:-

 Quarries producing coarse aggregates from river valley and plateaux deposits in South Hampshire, North East Hampshire and the New Forest;

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 11 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 Sand pits producing soft and/or building sands mainly from sites in the east around Bordon (and to a lesser extent from the New Forest and Test Valley).

1.3.4 Hampshire’s latest Annual Monitoring Report1 identifies that land won sand and gravel sales were only 1.053 million tonnes (mt) in 2009 and clearly reflect recessionary impacts. Nevertheless, this represents a significant fall of over 60% from the land won sales in 1998 of 2.704 mt - see full annual sales sequence in Table 9.

1.3.5 Imports of marine dredged sand and gravels to South Hampshire were also much evident before the 1980’s, but the scale of these operations only really took on greater significance from new investments in larger dredgers etc. from the mid 1980’s. Most consumers of this aggregate would have been within Hampshire boundaries partly due to the then inferior major road network (compared with today) and also due to the commercial reality of pricing and competition on what are generally low-value consumer goods.

1.3.6 The majority of marine sands and gravels landed in Hampshire are washed and processed for sale at the wharves. The processed aggregate is subsequently transported by road to consumers in Hampshire and neighbouring areas as there are no means of inland waterway transfers and no realistic opportunity of rail transfers at any wharf. The wharves on the west bank of the River Itchen (see Plan W2) are within 0.5 km of rail facilities but this would involve transhipment by road only, and effectively removes any potential for onward transhipments.

1.3.7 Landings (not sales) of marine sand and gravel have been much more consistent for the same period and these varied within a range of 1.441mt (2005) to 1.715mt (2002). Although landings fell to 1.051 mt in 2009 (almost identical to land won sales), they did exceed land won sales from 2006 to 2008 and are expected to continue to be greater in volume after the recession.

Photo 2: City of Chichester (UMA/Tarmac) dredger discharging at Burnley Wharf, Southampton

1 Hampshire MWDF – Draft Annual Monitoring Report 2009/10

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 12 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Importation of hard and crushed rock

1.3.8 Hampshire is geologically void of surface hard rock deposits for aggregate extraction. Hard rock aggregate requirements in Hampshire have always been met by a combination of road, rail and sea imports in various proportions. Most imports have historically been in the form of limestone by road and rail from the Mendips (in Somerset) due mainly to the proximity of these quarries to Hampshire. Rail imports have been made to three of the four existing rail depots (Eastleigh East, Botley and Fareham – see Figure 1) for many years dating back to the 1970’s. Consultations with operators for this assessment have not identified any other rail depot used for hard rock imports over the last 30 years.

1.3.9 Hard rock aggregate has also been imported in the form of granite from Glensanda (Scotland) mainly by sea directly into Western Docks, Southampton, although these imports ceased in 2006 (see Figure 1). Granite aggregate imports into Hampshire have historically been used for coated roadstone (in higher quality road specifications), some concrete production (probably where viable against sand and gravel usually in major on site production and contracts), and also for rail track ballast applications as limestone generally cannot meet the specifications in this market. Granite could be more universally applied in mass quantities to other end product uses such as tunnel linings at dedicated factories (e.g. at the factory that produced Channel Tunnel linings in Kent). However, the establishment of similar facilities in Hampshire is most unlikely for the time being. Since direct Glensanda imports by sea have ceased into Hampshire, there have been some nominal indirect imports via rail transhipments from existing deep water wharf facilities at the Isle of Grain (Medway, Kent) to Hampshire rail depots.

Photo 3: Bulk Cargo Handling at Western Docks, Southampton

1.3.10 Other Hampshire wharves have also imported hard rock aggregate by sea (mainly granite) on an occasional basis but such imports tend to be small scale by comparison with road and rail imports mainly due to the erratic nature of demand, costs of sea transport,

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 13 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

competition with marine sand and gravel on site and lack of storage space wharfside. In the current recession, aggregate sales remain depressed overall but hard rock volumes are particularly poor in comparison with earlier years. This probably explains why there is little current evidence of hard rock imports by sea other than at Marchwood (East) and Dibles Wharves (Plans W7 and W2 also Figure 1). Several other wharves still have small hard rock stock bays present on site but these are supplied by road.

1.3.11 Mineral imports are stated by ABPs website1 to include aggregate, marble chippings and fertiliser, but gypsum imports are also believed to take place. Mineral imports at Southampton have taken place for many years at a dedicated bulky cargo area at Western Docks. The ABP website had stated that volumes of bulky cargos have soared in recent years (with growth set to continue) and future growth predictions for Western Docks were further clarified when ABP recently published their Port Master Plan (see later in paragraph 3.95). As a result, these areas have been enhanced by ABP through the gradual removal of old buildings since 1990 and more recently with investments in 2 new mobile harbour cranes and expansion into King George V Dry Dock to yield another 2.8 ha. As already indicated it is clear that hard rock aggregate imports by Foster Yeoman (now Aggregate Industries) ceased in 2006 for commercial reasons. From initial inquiries made with the agents for ABP (for Port of Southampton) and PCC (for Port of Portsmouth) it appears that no mineral exports occur at either port. Specific and historical information on other mineral imports and exports has been difficult to assess or obtain.

Photo 4: Tipner Wharf – exemplifies lack of space for large volumes of hard rock imports by sea

1.3.12 Like marine won sand and gravel, hard rock aggregates by sea are also all subsequently transported by road to consumers in Hampshire and neighbouring areas as there are no means of inland waterway transfers and no realistic opportunity of rail transfers at any wharf. Hard rock (granite) imports up to 2006 at Western Docks did involve transhipments

1 ABP Website – www.abports.co.uk

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 14 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

by rail but the re-instatement of these is now most unlikely - even for rail ballast purposes. This is due to a combination of the current market demand and lack of competitiveness for aggregate operations compared to other commodity imports handled at the docks.

1.3.13 Other aggregate such as limestone aggregate have historically been imported into Hampshire by rail for use within a narrower range of applications in comparison with land won and sea dredged sand and gravel in Hampshire. Limestone can be used for the production of coated roadstone (in lower quality road specifications), road base course layers, type 1 fill etc. with only limited application to concrete production as the limestone quarries could not supplement stone supplies with any fine aggregate needed for concrete production. Also, it is most likely that during this period many of the concrete batching plants (and similar concrete block, pipe, paving plants etc.) were mainly in the control of the land won and marine sand and gravel companies.

1.3.14 More recent evidence in hard rock aggregate usage (particularly from limestone quarries which can now recover aggregate fines and sand from quarry waste) suggests that there is a market acceptance and appeal for the wider limestone aggregate range in the production of concrete. This potential wider range of concrete aggregate from the Mendips has already found markets elsewhere in London and the South East, including Hampshire, where Mendip quarry operators do not currently operate marine sand and gravel wharf operations.

Photo 5: Botley Rail Depot

1.3.15 Hard (crushed) rock imports by sea built up to a high of 0.436 mt in 2002 – only to rapidly diminish to virtually no landings by 2007. Hard rock imports by rail were also fairly inconsistent for the same period, being within a range of 0.416 mt (2005) and 0.731 mt (2001) and would have been much less in 2006/07 had the Western Docks operation not closed in 2006.

Importation of aggregate by road

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 15 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

1.3.16 No definitive figures appear to be available for road imports of aggregate into Hampshire. These are believed to be a significant proportion of all imports and are understood to be mainly limestone from Somerset into the western boundary areas of Hampshire, although these are partly offset by backhauls of land won sand and gravel into Somerset. The further penetration of limestone sales by road and rail from Mendip quarry operators could become more prevalent in Hampshire over the plan period as a more viable alternative to opening new crushed rock wharf facilities in Hampshire. This will clearly depend upon further comparisons between the alternative road/rail/sea transportation and transhipment costs.

Imports and exports of waste

1.3.17 Historic and current information on waste imports and exports has also been difficult to obtain. It is evident that scrap metal and refined cullet glass (from used or waste bottles) is processed and then exported around the UK from Southampton at both ports. Scrap metal processing and handling takes place at Western Docks for export, but also at Princes Wharf (operated by EMR) on the River Itchen (see Plan W2). Large quantities of scrap metal are believed to be exported in standard ISO containers (such containers being loaded elsewhere in the UK and delivered mainly by rail to Western Docks). The export of processed cullet glass is assumed to be a ‘recovered waste’ and only derived from the bottle waste imported to the plant on site for processing.

1.3.18 The generation and management of wastes in Hampshire are also very much the result of consumer driven factors similar to the preceding paragraphs, although waste issues are complicated by much legislation and best practice and environmentally safe methods which are needed to deal with and then dispose of the many different wastes arising.

Photo 6: Metal Recycling at Princes Wharf, Southampton

1.3.19 Most waste generated, imported or exported out of Hampshire (excluding scrap metal and cullet glass waste), has historically been collected and transported by road for onward treatment or recycling or for disposal at Hampshire landfill sites. Recent AMR figures for

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 16 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Hampshire demonstrate a continuous reduction in waste deposits in the area by 12.7% from 4.86 mt (2006) to 3.886 mt (2009). However, these figures are not conclusive as they do not necessarily include all figures for exports or imports of waste.

1.3.20 Over the last 10 years or so, a greater proportion of Hampshire’s waste is now being used to generate either heat or power through new energy recovery plants or from Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants each producing electricity for the local and national grid. These facilities are capital intensive and are designed to deal with large volumes of various wastes but only accept road borne deliveries as the facilities are not directly linked to existing wharves or rail depots. Irrespective of this trend in energy recovery plants, Hampshire’s latest AMR figures indicate that it became a net exporter of waste in 2007 (0.539 mt), thereby reversing the 2006 figures where more waste imports occurred (0.620 mt). This was probably due to a combination of reduced imports from neighbouring authorities but also to increased exports into landfills or treatment facilities across the Hampshire border (mainly into Wiltshire). In 2008, AMR figures indicate that Hampshire exported 0.754 mt of waste and imported 0.586 mt in 2008, being a net export of 0.168mt.

1.3.21 It is understood that only scrap metal has historically been transported by sea in significant volumes from and to Hampshire (at Princes Wharf since the 1920’s – see Plan W2). No inland waterways exist in Hampshire to provide an alternative transport mode to meet medium term targets on waste minimisation and impacts. More recently however, a significant cullet glass waste operation has been established at Western Docks (see Plan W1). Furthermore, it is understood that scrap metal is also exported in standard ISO containers from Western Docks to far eastern destinations - although these containers were probably all loaded elsewhere in the UK and transported to Southampton by road and rail.

1.3.22 In a similar study on wharves and railheads carried out by LMML for West Sussex County Council (WSCC) in February 20081 reference was made to a WSCC commissioned report on the feasibility of disposing of waste by rail (2005 - AEA Technology2). This report concluded that although rail haulage was operationally possible at two potential waste treatment sites, the outline financial appraisals carried out clearly showed that internal transhipments of waste was cost prohibitive and not a viable alternative to road transport of waste over short distances. This was principally due to large capital investment being needed to facilitate both the train loading and unloading operations of each potential project. It is understood that Hampshire are carrying out further research on intermodal issues for freight movements in Hampshire, but for now this assessment must assume that internal rail transhipments of Hampshire generated waste are not viable.

1.4 Significance of Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots

1.4.1 The sustainable transportation of minerals and waste is a key issue which underpins the adopted Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and the emerging Minerals and Waste Plan. The SEP encourages the use of sustainable transport for the movement of minerals and waste by water or rail wherever possible. Given the scale of Hampshire’s existing two commercial ports and railway infrastructure, Hampshire’s new policies should be seeking to facilitate increased usage of such sustainable transport potential.

Significance for Minerals:

1.4.2 It is quite apparent from the previous sections that Hampshire is already aware of the importance of its wharf and rail depot facilities for construction aggregates to supplement

1 LMML 2008 - Study of Wharves and Railheads in West Sussex 2 AEA Technology (03.06.05) – “Feasibility of Disposing of Waste by Rail” in West Sussex

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 17 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

land won primary aggregates and also to meet regional and national needs for other minerals. The significance of this arises from a combination of factors which can be summarised as follows:-

 The continued concentrations of urban development (with their associated infrastructure requirements) are along the southern coastline in South Hampshire;  The strategic routing of the primary rail network remains north east to south west orientated from London into the main Hampshire ports (Southampton and Portsmouth);  The possibility that aggregate imports via Southampton have to be considered in a regional and national context (i.e. ‘gateway’ concept under SEP1 Policies T10 to T14);  Aggregate imports through wharves at Southampton, Portsmouth, Bedhampton and Fareham have traditionally provided the main facilities for importing marine aggregate, but most of these are established on small sites with potential conflicts ahead in terms of expansion or even continued use. Marchwood Wharf (East) (see Plan W7) is an important and relatively recent addition to these facilities on a larger site than most with some potential to expand, but other potential new sites may need to be identified:  Existing Hampshire aggregate rail depots are also based on small and narrow site areas of former goods yards or rail sidings probably dating from the Victorian era;  The ongoing depletion of land-won mineral reserves (particularly coarse and concrete quality aggregates) which are not being matched in full by replacement mineral planning permissions in either Hampshire or their neighbouring planning authorities;

Photo 7: Marchwood Wharf (East) – potential expansion land in vacant area

 The likelihood of wharf closures due to local redevelopment proposals and/or the lack of any realistic opportunity within the plan period to 2030 to re-establish local aggregates supplies via the Western Docks due to viability issues;

1 The South East Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East – DCLG May 2009

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 18 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 Potential lack of more suitable alternative wharf and rail depot facilities elsewhere in Hampshire for importing aggregates other than those already identified herein.

1.4.3 To support the development of the Hampshire Minerals Plan, Hampshire produced a number of draft topic papers which have been either of direct or indirect relevance to the 2009 assessment. The content of the topic papers have been updated to support the emerging plan, and are now considered within a new Minerals Study1. In addition, an updated background topic study on wharves and rail depots has also been produced.

Significance for Waste:

1.4.4 The significance of wharves and rail depots for imports and exports of waste to and from Hampshire can be summarised as follows:-

 Scrap metal exports from two current operations in Southampton, both handling significant quantities of scrap metal of various types, much of which is transhipped by sea annually (Princes Wharf imports by road and exports by sea in bulk using general cargo vessels, 70% of total exports, approximately 200,000 tonnes per annum); Western Docks imports pre-loaded containers by rail from West Midlands and South Wales and then transfers to major container ships);  Approximately 80,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of waste bottle glass is currently imported entirely by road into the new Recresco glass recycling facility (established in 2006) at Western Docks (see Plan W1) from local bottle bank collections all over the south of England2. The bottle glass is brought into the docks in 29 tonne lorries from holding bays in Basingstoke, Portsmouth and Winchester and then crushed on site into cullet for export around the UK by sea. The site is understood to have a total capacity of 125,000 tpa;  Marine waste in the form of spent oils and chemicals used by ships berthing at various Southampton Docks are collected by sea vessels and then discharged at the specially adapted waste treatment facilities at Marchwood Wharf (West);  One of the rail depots (Eastleigh Depot West - see Plan R3) is managed by Network Rail’s tenants (Aggregate Industries) to enable it to recover used track ballast and recycle inert concrete waste derived from various projects on the rail network. The track ballast and concrete waste combined (up to 7,000 tonnes per week) is brought on site as and when Network Rail directs, and then crushed or screened (by contractors on behalf of Aggregate Industries for Network Rail) into recycled aggregate mainly for Network Rail’s own use (90% transhipped by rail again) or for sale via Aggregate Industries adjacent depot (remaining 10%).

1.4.5 The SEP3 (SEP Policies W3 and W4 – see Appendix 1) appears to require waste planning authorities and waste management companies to focus on establishing a regional context for dealing with waste. This includes the issue of continuing to deal with large volumes of London’s waste throughout the plan period. It is noted that Hampshire may need to accommodate 0.57 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of London waste imports with effect from 2016) although the adopted Core strategy does not make provision for this. This issue will be re-examined through the Minerals and Waste Plan. Consultation and collaboration with neighbouring waste authorities is therefore essential for Hampshire and other stakeholders to arrive at sustainable regional solutions for waste handling, transfers and movements.

1.4.6 Hampshire already has two large commercial ports with well established rail and water based connections but few waste opportunities have arisen to date to develop internal

1 Minerals in Hampshire – Background Study (2011), Hampshire County Council 2 ABP Website News 12.03.09 – www.abports.co.uk/news20096894.htm 3 The South East Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East – DCLG May 2009

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 19 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

transfers of waste other than those mentioned in 1.4.4 above. However, the results of a thorough consultation and collaboration exercise with neighbouring waste authorities, may lead to new rail and water based waste projects coming forward within the plan period.

Photo 8: Recycling of track ballast and inert waste at Eastleigh (West) Depot

Significance arising from related research on Wharves and Rail Depots in the United Kingdom:

1.4.7 In addition to the topic papers contained in the new Minerals Study, this assessment has reviewed and taken account of other independent research and published reports on UK wharves and rail depots. Most of these are directly associated with UK aggregate imports and their facilities, particularly in the South East. The following reports represent the most significant examples: -

 Survey of Marine Wharves and Rail Depots in the South East Region – Their Capacity for use by the Aggregate Industry (South East England Regional Aggregates Working Party, December 2002): This survey was conducted in 2001/02 in preparation for the impending review of MPG6 and the South East region’s own aggregate needs in the medium to long term. It provided background information on wharves and rail depots on their capacities, expansion issues, constraints etc. many of which are still relevant to Hampshire sites and are highlighted later in this assessment;  Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames - London Plan Implementation Report (LMIR 2005): This report identified a series of wharf safeguarding strategy measures approved by the Mayor of London following extensive consultation carried out with the Port of London Authority and the Thames riparian local planning authorities;  The Role of Imports to United Kingdom (UK) Aggregates Supply (British Geological Survey 2005): This report was clearly aimed at UK aggregate imports as a whole (i.e. aggregates extracted on foreign soil and transhipped to the UK) and was able to demonstrate that the UK was actually a significant net exporter of aggregate in 2004, in that imports (being 3.13 mt - mainly from Norway, Ireland, France, Denmark and Italy) and exports (being 12.3 mt - mainly from marine sand and gravel and crushed rock from

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 20 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Glensanda). UK imports of aggregate were estimated to be only between 1 and 2 % of total UK consumption. On this basis, UK aggregate exports were demonstrably important in terms of trade value. However, the report did include statistics on “inter-UK shipments” and in respect of Hampshire, these included the crushed rock imports into Southampton (mainly Glensanda to Western Docks in large coaster vessels) and china clay (secondary) aggregate into Portsmouth (mainly into Kendalls Wharf from Par in Cornwall using small vessels of less than 1,500 tonnes per load (t/load) – see Plan W5);  Aggregates Monitoring Report 2006 (AM2006) (South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA)): This is the latest Aggregate Monitoring Report for the South East Region. It was prepared from return forms completed by operators which contain their annual sales and production figures on various aggregates including estimates where no forms were completed or provided to the planning authorities which co-ordinated them. The report includes details of existing, mothballed or redundant wharves and rail depots and their respective performances since AM2004;  Kent Aggregate Imports Study – Land & Mineral Management Ltd (LMML 2006): This was a specific aggregate imports report on behalf of Kent County Council (KCC) and Medway Council (MC) in response to emerging RPG9 and national policy guidelines. It focused on the existing aggregate import facilities and also made comparisons with those facilities existing in 1989/90 (when a similar report had been prepared by KCC) and the level of imports at that time which were then at their peak. A review of other reports was carried out and recommendations made for possible new policies and safeguarding measures for existing and possible new sites;  The Strategic Importance of the Marine Aggregate Industry to the UK (British Geological Survey 2007): This report was commissioned by British Marine Aggregate Producers Association (BMAPA). It focuses on the socio-economic issues associated with the production and use of marine aggregates and their contribution to national and regional supply not only to the construction industry, but also to coastal protection. The report was also intended to provide a better understanding of the marine aggregate contribution to the UK in matters leading up to the new Marine Bill and the possible marine spatial planning issues that would come with it;  West Sussex Wharves and Railheads Study – Land & Mineral Management Ltd (LMML 2008): This was a specific report on West Sussex wharves and railheads on behalf of WSCC in response to emerging RPG9 and national policy guidelines. It focused on all types of existing and possible new import and export facilities that handle minerals and waste. It also made comparisons with those aggregate facilities existing in 1989/90 and the level of imports at that time, which were then at their peak. A review of other reports was made and recommendations made for possible new policies and safeguarding measures for existing and possible new sites;  Aggregate Wharves and Rail Depots in South East England – MDS Transmodal Ltd (2009): This was a report on all South East wharves and rail depots prepared on behalf of SEERA in response to RPG9 and national policy guidelines. The aims of this report were to establish capacities (and any constraints to these) on all active or inactive wharves and rail depots, identify current or proposed sites that are safeguarded in Mineral and other Local Plan Documents and recommend strategic sites that warrant safeguarding. It concluded that aggregate wharves were operating at only 40% capacity and rail depots at 50% capacity and that future aggregate supply scenarios would generally be satisfied by existing site capacities.

1.4.8 In addition to the above research documents, a series of projects were awarded under the title ‘Aggregates Strategic Research Programme’ in 2009. These were funded by Defra from the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) through the Minerals Industry Research Organisation (MIRO). The ALSF research programme originally started in 2002 (see more history in section 4.6), but this more recent research has focused on opportunities to investigate various issues and innovations that may help to make further significant long-term improvements for aggregates in a more sustainable way. It is also

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 21 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

intended to provide an enhanced evidence base for the policymakers, industry and others whose decisions will shape the future of aggregates production.

1.4.9 For the purposes of this assessment, aspects of the following recent ALSF reports have been referred to in this report:-

 Aggregate Industry Horizon Scan1: This report provides a horizon scan for aggregates production in 2030 and 2050 in England. The study was completed for those who shape the industry and its interaction with the environment, including the industry itself, policymakers and planners in National and Local Government and the third sector. It used a body of collected evidence and research to examine plausible future scenarios and then extrapolated trends and explored their implications. Conclusions were then made on the key trends and recommendations made for Government and Industry;  Feasibility of Using Pipelines to Transport Aggregates2: This report assessed the feasibility of using pipelines to transport aggregates in England. Transport in the aggregate sector is estimated to cost £1.123bn and generate 897,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually (British Geological Survey 2005). Much of the quarrying activity takes place in areas of outstanding national beauty and, with rail loading facilities at only seven of the major quarries, less than 10% of the volume is transported by rail. The socio- environmental impact of such a large volume of road transport is therefore a major concern and the use of pipelines as an alternative transportation mode was evaluated;  Feasibility of Underground Mining of Aggregates3: This report examined the economic feasibility of underground mining for crushed rock aggregates in the UK, but particularly in the London, South East and East of England regions (the South East area of England). These regions import substantial volumes of crushed rock, primarily from the East Midlands and South West regions, requiring relatively long transport distances to market for this bulk commodity. A key part of the research was to determine whether or not aggregate could be produced and delivered to a local market from an underground aggregates operation at a cost comparable with that for production and transport of the commodity from traditional surface quarries located further afield. In essence this research investigated whether reduced transport costs could compensate for the higher production costs of underground mining so producers can compete with the established East Midlands and South West quarry operators exporting to the South East.

1.4.10 All of the above mentioned reports are referred to at appropriate points in this latest assessment. The reports have collectively served to enhance strategic planners and commercial operator’s views that, in the absence of superior alternative methods, consideration should be given to the development of a suitable wharf and rail depot safeguarding strategy in each planning authority area for selected existing and potential new sites.

1 Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund/MIRO (June 2010) – Development of an Aggregate Industry Horizon Scan for 2030-2050 2 Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund/MIRO (May 2010) - Feasibility Assessment on Pipeline Method of Transport for Aggregates in England 3 Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund/MIRO (May 2010) - Feasibility Assessment on Underground Mining of Aggregates

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 22 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

2. HAMPSHIRE WHARVES AND RAIL DEPOTS – REVIEW OF EXISTING OPERATIONS AND CAPACITIES

This chapter considers the location of Hampshire’s current wharf and rail depot infrastructure and compares this with their previous, current and future usage. Potential future trends for Mineral and Waste Movements at Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots are also identified.

2.1 Geographical Spread of Wharves and Rail Depots

2.1.1 All existing wharves and rail depots are shown on Figure 1 (Site Location Diagram). This diagram also provides an indicative size of each facility by means of categorising according to average import and export volumes – the categories are explained in chapter 3.

2.1.2 The geographical spread of the existing wharf and rail facilities to a large extent reflect Hampshire’s own geography, its main population centres and also the strategic position of the south coast wharves. By the early 1990’s, the current main operators had already determined their preferred transport mode and acquired the necessary sites by which minerals and waste were to be imported into or exported from Hampshire. The operators’ choices were probably influenced by the following two main factors:-

 All wharf locations needed to be accessed via navigable waters on the south coast;  All rail depots have direct or linked access to the main rail network which consists of two main rail routes traversing north east to south west through Hampshire.

2.1.3 These key factors have not significantly changed for most of the wharves and rail depots since 1990 as there appears to have been little interest since 1990 to improving existing wharf or rail local infrastructure to aid the movement of minerals and waste into or through Hampshire. However, there has recently been committed expenditure for the main London to Southampton rail link into Western and Eastern Docks, and when completed (within the next few years) will enable greater train capacity to travel on this route. It remains to be seen whether this modal improvement will assist aggregate imports via the wharves in the immediate future as none of them are rail linked (and have little opportunity of doing so) and also the only aggregate operation in Western Docks was closed in 2006.

2.1.4 From the geographic spread of existing and proposed wharf and rail depot locations shown on Figure 1, it is possible to identify only four distinct groupings for them and these are summarised as follows:-

 North East Hampshire Group - This covers the border areas with Berkshire and including the main towns of Basingstoke, Farnborough and Aldershot. This area is landlocked and no wharves exist. No operational rail depots exist either, but one possible new site is identified at Basingstoke;  Downland Group - This covers the large areas between the North East Hampshire and South Hampshire Groups, including the main towns of Alton, Winchester and Andover. This area is also landlocked and no wharves exist. No operational rail depots exist either, but one possible new site is identified at Micheldever;  South Hampshire (West) Group – This covers the main urban conurbations around the City of Southampton and alongside the Rivers Test and Itchen and Southampton Water. This area includes five existing aggregate wharves, two waste wharves (one scrap metal and one marine waste), two aggregate rail depots and one recycled aggregate waste depot. It is likely that these facilities also supply and support several parts of the Forest area;  South Hampshire (East) Group – This covers the main urban conurbations around Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth, the two main harbours and alongside the Solent.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 23 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

This area includes three existing aggregate wharves and one aggregate rail depot/coated roadstone plant site.

A fifth geographic ‘Group’ area exists in south west Hampshire (known as ‘Forest’ area) but does not have any existing or show potential for proposed wharf or rail facilities.

2.2 Previous Usage of Wharves and Rail Depots

2.2.1 In two previous reports by LMML on wharves and rail depots for KCC (2006)1 and WSCC (2008)2 the respective position of those planning authorities on their wharves and rail depots were compared against what would normally have been the best years of annual throughputs (i.e. during 1989–1990).

2.2.2 These peak years are considered to be very relevant to the throughput capability of aggregate or other mineral importation facilities operating at that time. For the purposes of this assessment a similar comparison of mineral and waste import facilities operating during the same period has been made and is explained herein.

2.2.3 Prior to this assessment, a survey review of Hampshire wharves and their facilities and activities had been conducted in 2006/7 by SCC and the notes from these were presented to LMML. A review of this information, together with other related information provided by HCC, has been of great assistance in forming the necessary evidence base and results of this assessment.

2.2.4 Table 1 below reflects the likely scenario in respect to import and export facilities operating in 1990. They are based on the previous information provided and discussions with existing operators.

Table 1: Probable Import and Export Facilities in Hampshire c.1990

Wharves Rail Depots Operator/use Site Operator Site ABP tenants – various Western Docks, Foster Yeoman – Eastleigh Depot bulky cargos (including Southampton hard rock aggregate East, Eastleigh hard rock aggregates and (Plan W1) – South imports (Plan R3) – South other minerals/waste) Hampshire (West) Hampshire (West) ARC – marine aggregate Burnley Wharf, Foster Yeoman – Botley Depot, imports, processing and Southampton hard rock aggregate Botley (Plan R2) – concrete batching (Plan W2) – South imports and coated South Hampshire Hampshire (West) roadstone (West) RMC - marine aggregate Leamouth Wharf, ARC – hard rock Fareham Depot, imports, processing and Southampton aggregate imports Fareham concrete batching (Plan W2) – South (Plan R1) – South Hampshire (West) Hampshire (East) Powell Duffryn Ltd - Dibles Wharf, aggregate and other Southampton imports (Plan W2) – South Hampshire (West) United Marine Aggregates Bakers Wharf, Ltd – marine aggregate Southampton imports and processing (Plan W2) – South Hampshire (West)

1 LMML 2006 – Kent Aggregate Imports Study 2 LMML 2008 - Study of Wharves and Railheads in West Sussex

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 24 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

European Metal Recycling Princes/Drivers Ltd (EMR) – scrap metal Wharf, recycling and exports Southampton (Plan W2) – South Hampshire (West) J. P. M. Aggregates Ltd – Supermarine marine aggregate imports Wharf, and processing Southampton (Plan W2) – South Hampshire (West) Ennemix – marine Willments aggregate imports, Shipyard, processing and concrete Southampton batching (?) (Plan W2) – South Hampshire (West) Northwood (Fareham) Ltd Upper Quay, – marine aggregate Fareham imports and processing (Plan W3) – South Hampshire (East) Ennemix – marine Tipner Wharf, aggregate imports, Tipner, Portsmouth processing and concrete (Plan W4) – South batching Hampshire (East)

Kendalls Ltd – marine Kendalls Wharf, aggregate imports, Portsmouth processing, bagging and (Plan W5) – South concrete batching Hampshire (East)

United Marine Aggregates Bedhampton Ltd – marine aggregate Wharf, imports, processing and Bedhampton concrete batching (Plan W6) – South Hampshire (East)

2.2.5 An analysis of the sites listed in Table 1 above indicates the following features on wharf and rail depot operations at that time:-

 Twelve wharf facilities were operating and probably handling mainly aggregates with some other minerals and waste. Wharves handling only aggregates are located in Southampton (six wharves), Fareham (one wharf) _, Portsmouth (two wharves) and Bedhampton (one wharf). Joint minerals and waste wharves amounted to one only at Western Docks and waste only wharves also amounted to one only at Princes Wharf;  Three hard rock aggregate rail depot facilities were operating – all in South Hampshire.

2.2.6 In addition to the above mentioned wharves it is quite likely that other minerals and waste may have been imported and exported periodically through Southampton by way of the separate handling arrangements with ABP on the wharves in their control at that time. It has not been possible as part of this study to obtain specific information on this activity for either 1990 or even for more recent years from 2005 -2010.

2.2.7 In terms of establishing volumes of materials handled in 1990 at these wharves and railheads, it has also not been possible to obtain exact figures from industry sources for each site and activity. However, published information has been available from the Crown Estate for over 20 years for all marine-dredged sand and gravel landings at UK and other European ports. This is considered in table 2 which is a summary of marine aggregate landings (i.e. unprocessed dredged sand and gravel) into six ‘areas’ designated within South Hampshire. The areas do not necessarily reflect specific wharves due to operator confidentiality. It is also understood that the figures are approximate and were provided by

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 25 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

the dredging companies. Indeed, the figures presented suggest that some destinations may have been incorrectly reported landings within this period, leading to wide fluctuations in annual tonnages to some of the destinations (e.g. Portsmouth and Langstone seem to switch status of being highest importer). This may be due to a variety of reasons. Furthermore, the figures are based on pre-processed landings to shore and should not be confused with sales from the wharves.

Table 2: Crown Estate Landings of Marine Dredged Sand and Gravel at Hampshire Ports from 1989/90 (tonnes) Year South- Woolston Fareham Ports- Langstone Bedhamp- Annual ampton mouth ton Totals 1989 1,188,686 150,144 53,477 322,371 97,839 361,338 2,173,855 1990 1,026,985 185,174 40,512 161,750 154,325 279,763 1,848,509 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 605,725 60,906 61,248 173,778 205,637 193,186 1,300,480 1998 863,468 59,028 45,866 200,568 139,598 216,705 1,525,233 1999 839,775 89,681 41,355 66,536 276,184 324,446 1,637,977 2000 836,956 63,016 28,600 68,254 311,727 311,414 1,619,967 2001 874,103 78,058 48,992 44,349 402,373 250,411 1,698,286 2002 884,808 86,544 43,398 48,496 362,055 285,702 1,711,003 2003 894,930 98,570 49,334 29,841 356,853 333,368 1,764,899 2004 836,414 97,011 40,963 27,247 325,350 287,559 1,616,548 2005 771,954 83,456 30,712 167,006 155,338 232,003 1,442,474 2006 834,453 89,582 22,593 210,650 164,819 212,768 1,536,871 2007 981,896 80,896 20,209 156,304 235,589 217,301 1,694,202 2008 917,191 33,414 15,649 185,508 127,250 158,169 1,439,189 2009 625,690 10,704 22,268 7,955 254,101 125,682 1,046,400 Port Totals 1997 10,767,363 930,866 471,187 1,386,492 3,316,874 3,148,714 20,021,496 - 2009 Av. 1997 828,259 71,605 36,245 106,653 255,144 242,209 1,541,041 - 2009 Av. 2004- 827,933 65,844 25,399 125,778 210,408 205,580 1,462,614 2009 Note: Figures for years shaded grey not available

2.2.8 It is evident from Table 2 that the Southampton, Woolston, Portsmouth and Bedhampton wharves experienced their greatest landings of marine aggregates during either 1989 or 1990 compared to any year subsequent to 1990. From discussions with the aggregate operators, this period coincided with the greatest national as well as local demand for these materials. Hampshire may also have had major infrastructure projects during this period. A number of wharves also appear to show inconsistencies in their landing figures over the years. This may have been caused by incorrect data entry and/or submissions to the Crown Estate on wharf destinations.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 26 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

2.2.9 Since 1990 marine-dredged aggregate landings into Southampton wharves have not exceeded 1 mtpa - although returns have exceeded 0.8 mtpa in most years from 1998 to 2008. In 2007, landings were almost 1 mt, but have since fallen to 0.63 mt in 2009. Nevertheless, the trend over the five years leading up to 2008 had been upwards until the recession hit all wharves in the later half of 2008.

2.2.10 Most of the other areas appear to have had modest reductions in marine aggregate landings from 1990 to 2008 based on the averages shown. The main exception to this trend is Langstone area, which appears to have seen quite significant increases in its landings by 60-70%. This is based on the recent averages shown in the table. This increased trend is not reflected at the other three nearest areas (Bedhampton, Portsmouth and Fareham), so it is not clear why it occurred, but it may have been linked to incorrect data entry (as in 2.2.9 above) or that on site production capability was increased.

2.2.11 Historic information about imports of other aggregate (i.e. hard rock imports by sea and rail) into the wharves and rail depots is provided in the Aggregate Monitoring Reports for the South East (prepared by SEERAWP)1 and by Hampshire’s 2009 AMR. These are summarised in Table 3 below:-

Table 3: Hampshire Imports of Land Won Aggregate by Sea or Rail (tonnes) Year Aggregate Import Type and Facility Annual Totals Hard Rock sea Imports (mainly Hard Rock rail Imports (mainly by UK and foreign origin granites) limestone) to Eastleigh, Botley sea/rail to all Hampshire ports and Fareham depots 1989 N/A N/A N/A

1998 161 592 753 1999 193 546 739 2000 306 623 929 2001 328 731 1059 2002 436 614 1050 2003 385 565 950 2004 360 521 881 2005 360 416 776 2006 313 454 767 2007 Nil or Nominal 537 537 2008 (Tba) Nil or Nominal 588 588 2009 (Tba) Nil or Nominal 351 351 Tba - To be advised (not yet available) – figures for Dibles Wharf yet to be established

2.2.12 Comparison figures for hard rock imports during the recognised busiest period of aggregate consumption (i.e. 1989/90) have not been available to view for this assessment, but they are not expected to be significantly higher overall than 2001/02 due to the nature of the rail and wharf sites available at that time.

2.2.13 It should be noted here that, during 2006, Foster Yeoman (now part of Aggregate Industries) pulled out of Western Docks and this may partly explain the partial recovery of rail imports later that year and in 2008. Rail imports may have increased again in 2009, but it appears that the current recession has begun to take its toll and this may be reflected in the import figures for 2010. Prior to the recession commencing, the general trend appeared to be downward since 2001for total hard rock import volumes by rail and sea.

1 SEERAWP Aggregate Monitoring Surveys 2006 and 2007

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 27 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

2.2.14 No figures have been obtained for these periods in respect of other minerals imported or for waste imported and exported. However, EMR indicated from a site survey that their operation at Princes Wharf processed approximately 200,000 tonnes of scrap metal (mainly ferrous and some non-ferrous in the form of aluminium, copper and brass) – of which nearly 70% is exported by sea in vessels up to 3,000 tonne cargo capacity. Cullet glass waste exported from Western Docks is currently at approximately 80,000 tpa by sea only.

2.3 Current Usage of Wharves and Rail Depots

2.3.1 As part of this study, existing operators of wharves and railheads were consulted with the view to completing a questionnaire about their activities and level of imports and exports. These included operators from a contact list provided by Hampshire – some of which were not operating in 1990 or in the subsequent few years that followed.

2.3.2 Summary details of the questionnaire responses and site meetings held with participating site operators are outlined in the following sections. However, it was evident from initial enquiries that several site changes had taken place since 1990 due to a number of factors as follows:-

 Changes to site operator control or name (i.e. through either company or existing site acquisition);  Permanent site closures (i.e. sites ‘lost’ and not reopened for various reasons);  Emergence of new sites which have since come forward and are now in operation (i.e. site ‘gained’).

2.3.3 Tables 4 and 5 below identify those changes:-

Table 4: Probable Changes to Hampshire Site Operators since 1990 ‘1990’ Site Operator Current Operator Wharves ARC – marine aggregate Burnley Wharf, Tarmac Aggregates imports, processing and Southampton concrete batching (Plan W2) – South Hampshire (West) Powell Duffryn Ltd - Dibles Wharf, Southampton Dudman Aggregates Ltd aggregate imports (Plan W2) – South Hampshire (West) J. P. Marks – marine Supermarine Wharf, Aggregate Industries Ltd aggregate imports and Southampton processing (Plan W2) – South Hampshire (West) Northwood (Fareham) Ltd – Upper Quay, Fareham Lafarge Aggregates Ltd marine aggregate imports (Plan W3) – South and processing Hampshire (East) Ennemix – marine Tipner Wharf, Tipner, Lafarge Aggregates Ltd aggregate imports, Portsmouth processing and concrete (Plan W4) – South batching Hampshire (East) Rail Depots Foster Yeoman – hard rock Eastleigh Depot East, Aggregate Industries Ltd aggregate imports and Eastleigh recycling (Plan R3) – South Hampshire (West)

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 28 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Foster Yeoman – hard rock Botley Depot, Botley Aggregate Industries Ltd aggregate imports, coated (Plan R2) – South roadstone and recycling Hampshire (West) ARC - hard rock aggregate Fareham Depot, Fareham Hanson Aggregates imports (Plan R1) – South Hampshire (East)

2.3.4 The operator changes from Table 4 indicate a reduction by one in the number of aggregate operators. However, it should also be noted that with the recent takeover of United Marine Aggregates Ltd by Tarmac, another company has been ‘lost’ and that there has been an overall reduction of two aggregate operators rather than the one loss as indicated. The current aggregate operators are made up of the five national majors (Tarmac, Lafarge, Cemex, Hanson and Aggregate Industries) and two independent companies (Dudman and Kendalls).

2.3.5 Apart from the recent new cullet glass recycling operator (Recresco), no other operator and site changes at Western Docks for the import and export of minerals and waste have been noted for the same period in this assessment. Similarly, no information has been obtained on the changes to other waste import and export activities elsewhere.

2.3.6 Table 5 below has been prepared to highlight the facilities which were actually lost or gained during the same period since 1990:-

Table 5: Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots ‘Lost’ or ‘Gained’ since 1990

Wharves ‘Lost’ Wharves ‘Gained’ ABP/Foster Western Docks, Lafarge Aggregates Marchwood Wharf Yeoman – hard Southampton – South Ltd – aggregate (East), Marchwood, rock aggregate Hampshire (West) imports, processing, nr. Hythe (Plan imports only bagging and W7) – South concrete batching Hampshire (West) United Marine Bakers Wharf, Dudman Aggregates Dibles Wharf* Aggregates Ltd Southampton– South Ltd – hard rock and (Plan W2) – South – marine Hampshire (West) processed Hampshire (West) aggregate aggregate imports imports and and concrete processing batching Ennemix – Willments Shipyard, ABP/Recresco - Western Docks, marine Southampton – South cullet glass recycling Southampton (Plan aggregate Hampshire (West) W1) – South imports and Hampshire (West) concrete batching Bagging plant Spitfire Wharf, KD Offshore Marchwood Wharf for nearby Southampton (status of (Southampton) Ltd - (West), Supermarine closure to be confirmed) - marine waste Marchwood, nr. Wharf South Hampshire (West) processing/treatment Hythe (Plan W7) – South Hampshire (West) Railheads ‘Lost’ Railheads ‘Gained’ N/A Network Eastleigh West Rail/Aggregate. (Plan R3) – South Industries Hampshire (West) * Dibles Wharf has been included here as it has significantly changed from its predecessor use - when it was understood to be dedicated to other bulky cargo imports/exports

2.3.7 Table 5 can be summarised as follows:-

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 29 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 Three aggregate wharf operations were ‘lost’ – two were marine aggregate operations, one of which (Willments Wharf) is now most unlikely ever to return to marine aggregate processing, and Western Docks was a hard rock wharf lost only in 2006 (but could possibly recommence again in the future somewhere in the Western Docks). The two marine aggregate operations were lost effectively as a result of a new joint venture (Solent Aggregates Ltd) being formed in c.1992 between existing wharf operators which then concentrated production at Burnley Wharf;  One new marine or crushed rock aggregate operator and site gained at a new location on Dibles Wharf;  One new marine or crushed rock aggregate importer was gained at Marchwood Wharf (East) .This may have replaced a previous operator which once had modest aggregate imports into that site;  One new cullet glass recycling facility and operator at Western Docks;  One new marine waste processing or treatment facility and operator at Marchwood Wharf (West);  One new rail depot was gained handling rail track ballast and other construction waste for aggregate recycling.

2.3.8 The locations of all existing wharves and railheads are shown on Figure 1, and a separate site plan for each existing operation is included in this study (Plans W1-W6 or Plans R1-3).

2.3.9 In respect of aggregate imports and supplies to Hampshire, there appears to be a clear correlation between the groupings identified in paragraph 2.1.4 with the intended customer market areas for those materials (i.e. the main populated areas and ports).

2.4 Review of New Survey Information and Comparisons with Previous Data on Wharves and Rail Depots

Questionnaire Responses:

2.4.1 As referred to in section 1, this assessment required known wharf and rail depot operators to complete a questionnaire about their waste and mineral import and export operations. This was prepared and collected by LMML in the summer of 2009. Operators were also requested to complete additional forms for any wharf and rail depot sites which they had control of and wished to be safeguarded for potential import and export operations.

2.4.2 Before all questionnaire response forms were returned, site visits were arranged to most of the wharves and rail depots to obtain more information and assist in the understanding of activities and facilities used on each site. This was considered necessary in the event that some questionnaires were not returned or fully completed as requested. Site visits were undertaken to the majority of sites featured in this assessment with the exception of Western Docks. A questionnaire was also not received from Associated British Ports in 2009. A further request was made in December 2010 for the return of a completed questionnaire to assist with the update to this assessment, but this was not received.

2.4.3 The information gained from returned questionnaires was reviewed in conjunction with notes taken from site visits and discussions with site managers and owners (together with some site photographs taken for subsequent reference purposes). Some of the tables and information produced herein have also been based on reasonable estimates where questionnaires were not returned.

2.4.4 For confidentiality reasons, some operator’s information is not reproduced here and is not available separately. However, the following sections of this study should provide a

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 30 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

reasonable understanding and background knowledge on the overall size and nature of Hampshire wharf and rail facilities handling minerals and waste.

Current Levels of Throughput at Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots

2.4.5 Tables 2 and 3 in section 2.1 give a good indication of the overall total levels of aggregate imports into Hampshire via the wharves and rail depots during the years indicated – up to 2008 in the case of marine sand and gravel. Historic and current information on volumes for non-aggregate minerals and waste were either not available or of limited value. Current waste volumes handled for cullet glass at Western Docks are at 80,000 tpa (100% exported by sea), whilst scrap metal at Princes Wharf is at 200,000 tpa (70% exported by sea)

2.4.6 Table 6 below provides the breakdown of imported aggregate by sea and rail for the two sub-areas of South Hampshire which serve Southampton and Portsmouth and have been separated purely for the purposes of this assessment, as all the current wharves and rail depots are located in South Hampshire. The figures for marine sand and gravel have been simply derived from the Crown Estate area landings in Table 2. However, the figures for hard rock imports by sea have been estimated to reflect the occasional nature of imports in South Hampshire (East), and a proportional split has been made for the hard rock rail imports. In addition, as one of the rail depots at Eastleigh has been recycling used rail track ballast and concrete waste, these additional figures are rounded slightly to afford some confidentiality. The figures for each sub-area (based on operational sites shown in Figure 1) have also been combined to provide sub-totals where possible.

Table 6: Recent Average Annual Aggregate Imports into South Hampshire Wharves (2004-2009) and Rail Depots (2003-2007) (k.tonnes)

South South Import Type Hampshire Hampshire Sub Totals (West) (East) Marine Dredged Sand and Gravel landings 895 567 1,462 (from table 2) Hard Rock Imports by sea 290 (e) 10 (e) 300(c) Wharf Sub Totals 1,185(e) 577 (e) 1,762 (e) Sand and Gravel rail imports Nil Nil Nil Hard Rock rail imports * and ** 375 (495) 124 499 (619) Rail Sub Totals* 375 (495) 124 499 (619) Totals* 1,560 (1,680) 733 2,261 (2,381)

(‘e’) Estimates - where questionnaire responses were incomplete/not provided (‘c’) Confidential * Hard rock import figures provided by operators have been rounded down slightly and proportionately for convenience to match average of SEERAWP figures for same period ** Figures in brackets include increased element reflecting contribution from recycled rail ballast/concrete

Comparisons of throughputs at Wharves and Rail Depots since c.1989/90

2.4.7 It is clear from the majority of information and other site evidence obtained focuses on construction aggregates imports. Information on other minerals and waste is very limited or not available and therefore comparisons of these throughputs are either difficult or not possible. Further information may be available from sources such as ABP Southampton and Network Rail in due course.

2.4.8 Marine-dredged aggregate imports are specified in Table 2 by areas of delivery – and not by individual wharves – but include figures for 1989/90. Table 3 provides overall figures on

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 31 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

hard rock imports to Hampshire rail depots in recent years, but information on imports around 1989/90 for Hampshire are not available.

2.4.9 It is most likely that total annual hard rock imports by sea and rail into Hampshire in 1989/90 was higher than the average for the last five years in Table 6 above. This was probably in the region of 1 mtpa which was achieved in two successive years in 2001/02. Any additional demand then for hard rock would probably have been supplied by road as capacity (particularly rail capacity) would probably have been more limited at that time.

2.4.10 Comparisons of Table 6 figures with Tables 2 and 3 have revealed the following characteristics:-

 Annual marine sand and gravel imports in the peak production years around 1989/90 were on average 15% more (from nine wharves then operating – all with processing plants) than in recent years (also nine wharves – but only eight with processing plants now operating);  Annual marine sand and gravel imports were 2.17 mt in 1989 (1.85 mt in 1990), then dropped to 1.30 mt in 1997, and then recovered to 1.69 mt in 2007;  Annual marine sand and gravel imports first exceeded land won sales in 2006 (see Table 9) and each year since;  Table 2 shows a jump in marine sand and gravel landings for the Southampton area from 1997 to 1998 by over 0.2 mt – this probably reflects the establishment of the new wharf facilities at Marchwood;  Annual hard rock aggregate imports by rail and sea have never exceeded the volumes of marine sand and gravel imports - at most (and probably only in 2001/2) they achieved 38% of all aggregate imports by rail and sea and 21% of all sales of aggregate (including land won) at that time;  In 2005 hard rock imports by sea nearly equalled those by rail but since the end of 2006 (post cessation of Western Docks imports), the majority of hard rock aggregate imports have been by rail - although increasing volumes of hard rock may now be arriving at Dibles Wharf;  As most trips for delivered aggregate from the wharves would generally be about ten miles from the wharf (LMML estimate from discussions with operators), it is expected that over 80% of these sales are delivered to destinations in the two sub-areas. The majority of the remaining 20% is likely to find markets a few miles into adjoining areas (such as Winchester, Petersfield and Lyndhurst), but some of the major operators do supply their own batching and bagging plants for example at more distant destinations in towns in North Hampshire and across into West Sussex or Wiltshire;  Virtually all aggregate sales from the wharves and rail depots are by road – as only two wharves indicated occasional low volume transhipments of processed marine sand and gravel in the past to other destinations by sea (and not in Hampshire).

2.4.11 It would be reasonable to deduce from the above comparisons that hard rock imports by sea and rail into South Hampshire were at one time (c.2001) beginning to get close to the annual total of marine sand and gravel imports, but since then hard rock imports have diminished to nearly 50% of the 2001-02 totals (although it is not clear if Dibles Wharf imports are included in any of the SEERAWP statistics). This fall in hard rock imports may only be a temporary situation based on recent years shipping and transfer costs into South Hampshire and may have been substituted in part by road imports from Somerset as a more competitive alternative, as these quarries are run by the same companies that operate Hampshire’s rail depots.

Potential Maximum Throughputs for Existing Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots

2.4.12 Aggregate operators at these sites had previously been requested by SCC in 2006/7 for maximum capacities and this question was raised again by the recent questionnaire which

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 32 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

accompanied this assessment. Table 7 below outlines the summary of these responses and includes some estimates on capacities. This should help provide an indication of the theoretical potential capacities of Hampshire’s existing wharves and depots. Table 7 appears to indicate that there is substantial additional capacity available at relative short notice, but the estimates have to be treated with great caution (if not some scepticism) as they are clearly dependent upon theoretical scenarios which may never really be fulfilled due to the many factors affecting delivery of raw materials, processing and storage ability etc. Indeed, some estimates provided were based purely on operator’s plant ratings for various on site processing plant (i.e. usually measured in tonnes/hour) which do not take into account many other operational factors that can affect the site achieving full capacity all the time.

2.4.13 Therefore, with regard to maximum aggregate import capacities it is considered more appropriate to rely on best historic data on aggregate imports and then adjusted to reflect other known changes made to each site which have either subsequently enhanced or reduced site ability to once again achieve previous best outputs. Factors which may affect each site capacity since 1989 would include new sites, site closures, additional onsite facilities (e.g. erection of newer and more efficient aggregate processing, concrete or bagging plants) or demonstrable improvements to import infrastructure or logistics (i.e. larger dredgers or more train pathways etc.

Table 7: Potential* Maximum Aggregate Imports Capacity at Existing South Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots South Hampshire South Hampshire Import Type Sub-Totals (West) (East) Marine Dredged Sand and Gravel 2,270,000 1,120,000 3,390,000 Hard Rock Imports by Sea** 150,000 20,000 170,000 Sub-totals by Sea 2,420,000 1,140,000 3,560,000

Rail imports of hard rock 850,000 500,000 1,350,000 Rail Imports of railtrack ballast and inert waste (for recycling) 200,000 0 200,000 Sub-totals by Rail 1,050,000 500,000 1,550,000

Totals by Sea and Rail 3,470,000 1,640,000 5,110,000 * Estimates only of maximum capacities are provided by either industry/SCC or LMML and assume certain theoretical scenarios relating to ability to reach site maximum capacity all the time. ** Hard Rock imports by sea appear to be taking place only at Dibles Wharf, but some small scale additional capacity is possible at a number of other wharves.

2.4.14 With regard to marine aggregates, it is evident from the Crown Estate statistics alone (in Table 2) that almost all of the existing wharves will have additional capacity at existing sites to improve current throughputs of marine sand and gravel.

2.4.15 Also, it is noted that although marine aggregate wharves in South Hampshire (with processing facilities) are one fewer in number than they were in 1989/90, two new and enhanced wharves have emerged over the last ten years or so which have a combined capacity which more than compensates the capacity of the wharves ‘lost’. These new wharves are:-

 Marchwood Wharf (East) (Lafarge) – an essentially revamped aggregates operation from its predecessor established in 1998 and now a large marine sand and gravel operation currently almost matching the more established operations. However, current operations are based merely on temporary aggregate processing facilities and the oldest

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 33 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

dredger fleet (two vessels registered with Northwood Fareham Ltd – part of Lafarge). New investment is likely on both fronts here within a few years (Lafarge may have new dredgers on order via another dredging company – Westminster Dredging – to support the Hampshire sites and their recent application for a major new bulk aggregate import facility at Northfleet) and these decisions will determine whether existing capacity will increase and by how much;  Dibles Wharf (Dudman) – re-established in c.2005 as an aggregate wharf and now understood to import hard rock by coaster and also marine aggregates by a recently acquired old dredger (formerly Arco Thames). A concrete plant is present on site but no aggregate processing has been observed on site – even though there is sufficient space for it. It is assumed for now that clean and partially processed fine marine aggregate at source (possibly sand only) is delivered to the site. Should a new plant be erected, then this site could become a major destination for both marine sand and gravel and hard rock imports.

Photo 9: ‘Thames’ dredger at Dibles Wharf

2.4.16 A similar status is also applicable for the rail depots, in that additional capacity is clearly evident from historic data. Indeed, the evidence suggests a much greater potential to expand by at least 40% on the 2007 imports. However, one of the rail depot operators indicated some issues about lack of sufficient train pathways to deliver aggregate in periods of greater demand (which can be a problem for expansion at other south east rail depots). It is noted that all four depots are effectively on the same main line. Further evidence of the finite nature of freight train pathways was inferred in the Freight Strategy Consultation Draft for Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH)1 (2008) where it was stated that as passenger services take priority, freight services are effectively scheduled around them. However, future freight services to and from existing rail depots may benefit from current ongoing improvements to the London to Southampton freight line route.

1 Transport for South Hampshire – Freight Strategy Consultation Draft July 2008

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 34 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

2.4.17 Table 8 below has been prepared (by LMML) for this assessment to provide a more conservative view of operators estimates on existing capacity. This takes on board the comments made in the preceding paragraphs on existing infrastructure, transport and operating systems deployed at each site. The downward adjusted capacities to operators estimates were made to reflect what might be possible at the sites should a return to high aggregate demand occur during the plan period (in excess of the highest marine and other aggregate imports reported in 1989):-

Table 8: Adjusted Potential* Maximum Aggregate Imports Capacity at Existing South Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots South Hampshire South Hampshire Import Type Sub-Totals (West) (East) Marine Dredged Sand and Gravel 1,650,000 910,000 2,560,000 Hard Rock Imports by Sea** 125,000 25,000 150,000 Sub-totals by Sea 1,775,000 935,000 2,710,000

Rail imports of hard rock 750,000 350,000 1,100,000 Rail Imports of used railtrack ballast and inert waste (for recycling) 200,000 0 200,000 Sub-totals by Rail 950,000 350,000 1,300,000

Totals by Sea and Rail 2,725,000 1,285,000 4,010,000

* Potential adjusted generally downwards from Table 7 to reflect most likely scenarios based on information obtained/observations from site visits and assumes all aggregate market sectors increase uniformly to enable all capacities to be achieved together - see also Table 12. ** Hard Rock imports by sea appear to be taking place only at Dibles Wharf, but some small scale additional capacity is possible at a number of other wharves.

2.4.18 The adjusted total aggregate import capacity in Table 8 (at 4.01 mtpa) demonstrates significant spare capacity existing at all Hampshire wharves and rail depots combined when compared with recent year’s aggregate sales and marine landings information. Indeed, Table 8 shows that the adjusted total capacity was 71% higher than the five year average wharf and rail figures to 2008 (in Table 6) and that Table 8 is almost 80% higher than the combined sum of the 2007 figures in Tables 2 and 3 (i.e. before the current recession). Such spare capacity at the moment is a positive indicator to Hampshire that its wharves and rail depots are capable of reacting favourably and reasonably quickly to significant increases in demand for aggregate imports in the short term.

2.4.19 As historic information on waste exports from South Hampshire is not available for this assessment, no direct comparisons can be made other than the following general points:-

 Scrap metal wastes appears to be the largest waste export by sea since before and after 1990;  At least 140,000 tonnes of scrap metal is exported by sea in coasters from Princes Wharf annually and probably more than double this quantity exported from Western Docks by container ships and coasters to the far east;  About 80,000 tonnes of refined cullet glass is now processed and exported by sea to UK destinations from a new mill (c.2006) located at Western Docks.

2.4.20 Historic information about other mineral imports and exports has not been researched due to the timescales set and the brief requirements imposed for this assessment. Although

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 35 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

it is almost certain that the only significant volumes of minerals imported and exported will be by sea from the Western Docks, it is understood that cement imports by sea take place into Dibles Wharf (for onsite concrete batching plant) and that existing cement silo storage facilities at Leamouth Wharf are capable of being filled direct from sea deliveries (it is currently being supplied by road for subsequent redistribution).

Photo 10: Leamouth Wharf – cement silo storage facilities on right

2.4.21 It is clear from the preceding paragraphs that there is a significant total surplus import capacity available at Hampshire wharves and rail depots. Furthermore, this surplus capacity is probably available at relative short notice for most of the plan period. This is provided that the facilities are not threatened by the following potential factors:

 permanent closure of existing sites;  gradual diminution of sites caused by over-estimates in the predicted land won supplies;  the gradual diminution of sites caused by over-estimates in the predicted recycling and secondary aggregate supplies.

2.4.22 Therefore, in terms of import capacity, this assessment should be focusing on safeguarding the existing medium to large scale import or production facilities, as smaller sites (less than 100,000 tpa output) are not that significant in a total Hampshire import context. However, smaller wharves may still need safeguarding for use as aggregate transhipment sites (e.g. Bakers Wharf).

2.5 Recent Trends for Mineral and Waste Movements at Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots

2.5.1 As previously stated, it is widely accepted that the UK aggregates markets peaked during 1989/1990 following a sustained period of construction during the mid to late 1980’s. This period of growth was probably also reflected in Hampshire’s aggregate consumption at that

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 36 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

time as the figures for marine sand and gravel landings in 1989 of 2.17 mt (Table 2) clearly show that they have never been exceeded since then. The closest production figures to 1989 occurred in 2002 (at 1.7 mt).

Trends Since 1998

2.5.2 Table 9 below provides a full range of Hampshire’s primary aggregate sales by type or import mode etc for the period from 1998 to 2009:-

Table 9 Hampshire Primary Aggregate Sales by Type 1998 - 2009 (excluding road imports)

12 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Totals Land Won Sand and 2,704 2,559 2,410 2,293 2,193 1,808 1,668 1,584 1,244 1,492 1,269 1,053 22,277 Gravel % of total 54.3 51.8 48.6 45.4 44.2 40.0 40.1 41.7 35.1 39.8 37.8 42.2 sales Marine Sand 1,525 1,638 1,620 1,698 1,715 1,763 1,615 1,441 1,535 1,692 1,439 1,051 18,732 and Gravel* % of total 30.6 33.2 32.7 33.6 34.6 39.0 38.8 37.9 43.3 45.1 42.9 42.1 sales Hard Rock by 161 193 306 328 436 385 360 360 313 30 60 40 2,972 sea** % of total 3.2 3.9 6.2 6.5 8.8 8.5 8.6 9.5 8.8 0.8 1.8 1.6 sales Hard Rock by 592 546 623 731 614 565 521 416 454 537 588 351 6,538 rail % of total 11.9 11.1 12.6 14.5 12.4 12.5 12.5 10.9 12.8 14.3 17.5 14.1 sales Year Totals 4,982 4,936 4,959 5,050 4,958 4,521 4,164 3,801 3,546 3,751 3,356 2,495 50,519 * 'Sales' figures here are not true sales after processing but based on published/known Crown Estate landings ** Figures here assume vast majority of aggregate imports into Western Docks up to end of 2006, and imports thereafter mainly into Dibles Wharf from 2007 onwards Figures highlighted in yellow are LMML estimates.

2.5.3 From Table 9 the following trends and additional comments (from paragraph 2.3.15) can be made:-

Land Won Sand and Gravel:

 Hampshire sales fell continually from 1998 (2.704 mt) to 2006 (1.244 mt), but recovered slightly in 2007. Sales then fell back again to 1.053mt in 2009. The 2009 figure represents a fall in sales of 61.1% since 1998 (Note: if recession impact is excluded then the 2008 figure represents a fall in sales of 53.1% since 1998);  Land won sales first fell behind marine sand and gravel sales in 2006 and in 2007/08, but are almost the same for 2009. Land won sales now only represents approximately 40% of total sales (excluding road imports).

Marine Sand and Gravel:

 These imports are actually based on landings not sales, but on the assumption they are a fair reflection of sales, then (excluding recession hit 2009) they have varied from the lowest figure of 1.441 mt (in 2005) to the highest figure of 1.763 mt (in 2003) over the 12 year period. This does not identify any particular trend other than possibly one of relative sales/production stability;  The figures show that the proportion of marine sales to total sales has increased continually from 30.6% (in 1998) to consistently over 40% from 2006 onwards. This

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 37 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

demonstrates an increasing reliance and importance to be placed on these aggregate imports.

Hard Rock by Sea:

 These imports (granite) were mainly crushed rock granite from Glensanda (Scotland) delivered in bulky vessels at Western Docks;  These imports rose in volume quite steeply between 1998 and 2002, but then levelled out for a few more years before ceasing in 2006;  At their peak, these imports represented 9.5% of sales in 2005;  More recently (possibly since 2005), Dibles Wharf has emerged as another destination for sea imports – mainly granite from Cornwall. Table 9 includes only estimates of these figures for now.

Hard Rock by Rail:

 These imports (limestone) have been fairly consistent into Hampshire within a range from 0.73 mt (in 2001) to 0.42 mt (in 2005). However, the current recession which has impacted imports from 2008 and 2009 may have caused lower output figures compared to 2005, and Table 9 reflects an estimate until actual figures are published;  The best year of sales was in 2001 (0.73 mt), but the best % of total sales was actually achieved in 2008 at 17.5% (0.59 mt) of total aggregate sales.

Photo 11: Fareham Rail Depot – a long narrow site

Recent Years General Trend (2005 to 2007):

 Imports of marine sand and gravel and hard rock (limestone) by rail have increased steadily;  Sales of land won sand and gravel have decreased overall;

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 38 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 Imports of hard rock from Glensanda by sea for rail ballast only have ceased, but a new operator has emerged since 2006 with granite imports by sea from Cornwall for the general construction market.

2.5.4 Table 9 figures appear to demonstrate a strong correlation between the reduction of land won sand and gravel sales and increased landings of marine sand and gravel. This is not surprising due to the fact that the materials are very similar and that most land won production has ceased in the South Hampshire areas.

2.5.5 With regard to hard rock imports these had consisted mainly of two material types in the form of limestone (by rail from Somerset) and granite (from Glensanda directly by sea and occasionally transhipped by rail from the Isle of Grain, Kent). These materials were more likely to compete against each other for a narrower range of aggregate products (e.g. coated roadstone, road bases and some concrete) up to 2006 than they were against land won or marine sands and gravels for a larger market share of the Hampshire aggregate demand. However, the rise in granite sales up to 2005 was more to do with providing regional track ballast requirements via Southampton (which limestone specifications do not meet) and not linked to many sales by road into the local market area.

2.5.6 In the past other hard rock imports by sea have been mainly been from Wales, France and Ireland. However, current imports largely come from Cornwall into Dibles Wharf in Southampton.

Other Aggregate Trends

2.5.7 It is possible to associate a small number of other trends affecting aggregate imports during the last twenty years with the following factors:-

 The three marine sand and gravel wharves lost since 1990 have been more than replaced with the opening of Marchwood in 1998 and the recent re-opening of Dibles Wharf;  The impact of ‘superquarry’ hard rock imports from Glensanda at many London, Kent and Essex wharf locations, do not appear to have had such a significant effect in Hampshire. This is probably partly due to the limited draft and size of aggregate vessels which can berth at virtually all Hampshire wharves except those at Western Docks and also due to the operators already established at these ports;  No ‘new’ railhead operators have been established in recent years;  Burnley and Kendalls Wharves (and possibly other wharves) have replaced their aggregate processing plant facilities in the last ten years;  The largest dredgers cannot access wharves upstream of the Itchen Bridge;  Exports of primary aggregates by rail do not exist now and exports by sea still only occur in small quantities and then very inconsistently (Isle of Wight/Channel Islands);  Dibles Wharf appears to be the only wharf without the benefit of marine aggregate processing facilities. Naturally fine grades of marine aggregate appear to be landed and then combined with hard rock and cement imports to provide a near full range of aggregates for sale or use in the existing concrete plant.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 39 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Photo 12: Kendalls Wharf – modern compact new aggregate processing plant

Comparison with Regional Aggregate Trends

2.5.8 In connection with the above trends it is also worth making comparisons with regional trends. In a recent review for SEERA1 of the basis for national and regional guidelines for aggregates provision 2005-2020 (as applied to South East England), it was highlighted amongst other matters that:-

 South East aggregates sales have been consistently below those set in the 2001-2016 Guidelines published in 2003;  The tonnage of aggregates in planning applications has been below that required to sustain the amount set in the 2003 Guidelines;  Rock imports are declining;  Demand has never been as high as anticipated in the 2003 Guidelines.

It can therefore be seen that Hampshire’s aggregate figures over the last five years or so have been a very similar reflection of the region as a whole.

Trends for Other Minerals and Waste Throughputs

2.5.9 As stated previously, little information is known about other minerals and waste streams. Western Docks appears to be the only wharf facility importing other minerals in the form of gypsum, marble chippings and fertiliser. Scrap metal waste has historically been exported by sea from Princes Wharf. More recently, cullet glass waste has been exported from Western Docks and marine waste imported into Marchwood Wharf (West).

1 South East England Regional Assembly – Review of he Basis for the National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision 2005 – 2020 as Applied to South East England by Green Balance (Jan. 2009)

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 40 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Photo 13: Marchwood Wharf (West) – waste oil treatment facilities/silos (in the background adjacent to Marchwood Wharf bagging plant – in use 2009)

2.5.10 An area at Marchwood Wharf, which was previously used for aggregate processing and bagging, is now being used by Raymond Brown for the processing and storage of wood chip for export outside of the UK for fuel.

2.5.11 Due to the limited number of facilities dealing with non-aggregate minerals and waste, and the lack of historic information, it is not possible to detect any trends for such operations.

2.6 Future Aggregate Trends - During Plan Period to 2030 and Possible Trends in Immediate Post Plan Period - 2030 to 2050

2.6.1 The above analysis of historic information on aggregate volumes in the previous paragraphs has enabled an overview of various trends to date – which have clearly shown direct relationships with various prevailing economic cycles over that period.

2.6.2 The initial Needs Assessment (completed in September 2009) was really only completed at the start of the current recession, which has subsequently taken a full grip on world economies, including the UK. This is evidenced by substantial falls in aggregate volumes due to depressed requirements for UK construction materials overall for the production of concrete, concrete products, asphalt etc , which have all experienced falls in sales during 2009/10 of between 25-40%.

2.6.3 Future trends are almost certain to show similar peaks and troughs associated with forthcoming economic cycles caused by various reasons and will probably more directly related to world events than previously seen.

2.6.4 In the recently completed ALSF Project Report entitled Aggregate Industry Horizon Scan (see previous paragraphs. 1.4.9 to 1.4.11 - hereafter referred to as ALSF Horizon Scan), a

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 41 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

comprehensive study was conducted on impacts of the aggregates sector in our economy. Meeting the potential needs of the ASLF Horizon Scan forecasts are also commented on in paragraph 5.3.10.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 42 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

3. ESTABLISHING FUTURE NEED FOR WHARVES AND RAIL DEPOTS TO 2030

This chapter considers what the likely future need for wharves and rail depots in Hampshire up to 2030 might be, based on aggregate forecasts. The chapter contains possible scenarios. The chapter also establishes factors which may impact future need for wharves and rail depots and seeks to classify existing wharf and rail depot infrastructure.

3.1 Mainstream Forecasting and other factors affecting Future Needs

3.1.1 Sections 1 and 2 provide a good background to the development of Hampshire’s aggregate wharves and rail depots over the last twenty years or so and also on the small number of wharves and rail depots being used for alternative minerals and waste purposes. Establishing future needs for wharves and rail depots is really a process reliant on best estimates where possible of future demand for minerals in Hampshire (and beyond) and also for dealing with Hampshire’s own waste arisings (and some waste from elsewhere in the case of transhipment requirements).

3.1.2 As the evidence and information collected and made available for this assessment has been dominated by aggregates, the process of establishing future needs for other minerals and waste assumes the continued operation of existing and temporarily mothballed wharves and rail depot facilities referred to in Section 2 throughout the plan period to 2030.

3.1.3 The existing situation for aggregate imports by rail and sea appears to be well represented (circa 4 mt adjusted combined capacity from Table 8) and theoretically capable of withstanding a doubling of the 2009 sales from Table 9 should such demand be met across the range of facilities currently operating. However, many of the existing aggregate operations were established more than twenty years ago with associated infrastructure of similar age and are on relatively small sites with limited flexibility to do anything else. This lack of flexibility may be the subject of some concern from a sustainability viewpoint.

3.1.4 In determining what the future needs are for aggregate wharves and rail depots there appear to be several key areas where there is a pre-requisite requirement to obtain the most relevant and accurate background information. These are:-

 Forecasts for Hampshire’s overall aggregate demand to 2030 and breaking this down into sub-areas where possible;  Potential impact of increased or decreased aggregate imports by road;  Potential impacts of exceeding or not achieving recycled and secondary aggregate production targets;  Likelihood of existing wharf and rail depot capacities being achieved consistently together;  Likelihood of existing sites closing independently;  Likelihood and opportunities for new larger and more flexible (multi-functional) sites with deep water berthing opening independently within the plan period;  Likelihood and opportunities for co-ordinated approach by operators, land owners and/ or planners for the most sustainable strategic approach to aggregate imports into Hampshire and beyond.

3.1.5 Therefore, the following paragraphs are intended to develop and provide a range of possible scenarios based on the above which are likely to influence the future needs for aggregate wharf and rail depot facilities in Hampshire during the plan period to 2030.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 43 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Historic Forecasts on Hampshire Demand for Aggregates

3.1.6 Forecasts for aggregate demand have been made and published for several decades now and in a variety of ways by various representative bodies and organisations. However, they have been mainly focused on primary aggregate production in order to better determine the ways in which market demand can be satisfied from land won resources in all areas around the country. The following sections summarise known forecasts of aggregate demand and also set out alternative forecasting methods for Hampshire.

Total Aggregate Forecasts:

3.1.7 The earliest forms of aggregate forecasting have been made almost entirely by a ‘top-down’ approach. National figures are collated then analysed and broken down into regions and sub-regions etc. in order to establish preferred production quantities. This is principally geared towards land won aggregate provisions. In more recent years, the Regional Assemblies have been more pro-active in producing aggregate forecasts with the assistance of mineral planning authorities and industry. However even these forecasts are essentially made from a ‘top-down’ approach. Nevertheless, the following paragraphs represent the most recent aggregate forecasts.

3.1.8 The South East England Regional Assembly’s forecasts (SEERA report 20041) on primary aggregate imports into the south east for the period between 2001 and 2016 were expected to be as follows:-

 Marine Sand and Gravel – 120 mt (annually @ 7.5 mtpa)  Hard Rock (and other non–marine aggregate) – 85 mt (annually @ 5.3 mtpa)

The combined annual forecast of this report therefore amounted to 12.8 mtpa.

3.1.9 However, new forecasts were made in the National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision 2005-2016 and, more recently, in the revised DCLG guidelines for 2005-20202. This latter document includes more recent (2001-2005) national statistics (for England only) from the Annual Minerals Raised Inquiry on crushed rock and land won aggregates (including marine aggregate imports) reproduced in Table 10 below:-

Table 10: National Statistics for Hard/Crushed Rock Sales Compared to Sand and Gravel (k.tonnes) in England Crushed Rock Land Won Sand Total Marine and Gravel 2001 94,630 (60.3%) 62,177 (39.7%) 156,807 12,395 2005 80,345 (57.6%) 58,926 (42.2%) 139,519 11,912 -14.80% -5.20% -11.00% -3.90%

3.1.10 Table 10 demonstrates that actual aggregate sales of all three types fell during the four year period, but the largest fall was in crushed rock sales (which include figures for coastal quarry transhipments by sea). It is believed that the figures for 2008 are likely to be less again for all aggregate types than those in 2005 above.

1 South East England Regional Assembly (report March 2004) - Proposed Alterations to Regional Minerals Strategy 2 DCLG (April 2008) – Draft National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision 2005-2020

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 44 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

3.1.11 The actual 2001-2005 figures from table 10 were then used as the revised base for the latest guidelines for 2005-2020 and the revised south east forecasts for each primary aggregate type are reproduced in Table 11.

Table 11: Revised Regional Guidelines for Primary Aggregates in the South East 2005-2020 (million. tonnes) Guidelines for Land Won Aggregate Production 2005- Assumptions 2020 Land Won Land Won Sand Marine Sand Alternative Net Imports to Crushed and Gravel and Gravel Materials England Rock South East 25 195 121 130 31

3.1.12 From the above figures, the guideline for the South East’s annual production over the sixteen year period for land won sand and gravel is expected to be 12.18 mtpa. SEERA have since proposed a revision to policy M3 of the SEP, reducing the regional apportionment from 13.25 mtpa to 9.01 mtpa. This could potentially reduce Hampshire’s apportionment from 2.63 mtpa (currently in Core Strategy Policy S8 – Sand and Gravel) to 1.62 mtpa.

3.1.13 As already indicated, the review of policy M3 of the South East Plan resulted in Hampshire receiving a revised apportionment of 2.05 mtpa up to 2026. This is a reduction from 2.63 mtpa up to 2020. Following the initial revocation of the RSS in 2010, DCLG confirmed that Mineral Planning Authorities in the South East should work to the revised apportionment unless local testing indicates an alternative figure of supply. Although, following a legal challenge, the RSS has been re-instated as part of the development plan, it is clear that Hampshire’s apportionment is an issue for the Mineral Planning Authority which will be considered through the emerging plan. Any revisions to the apportionment will impact on forecasts for aggregate imports (by sea and rail). In this respect it can be seen from Table 9 that the first year land won sand and gravel sales fell below 1.62 mtpa was in 2005 (1.58 mt) – followed by a substantial fall in 2006 (1.24 mt), partial recovery in 2007 (1.49 mt) and further fall in 2008 (1.27 mt) and 2009 (1.05 mt).

3.1.14 It is also noted that between 2006 – 2009 there was a transition from land won sand and gravel as being the largest aggregate source in Hampshire to it being second highest behind marine sand and gravel. This situation is likely to continue every year from even if land won production rises again to 1.62 mt after the current ‘recession’ years. Indeed, it is possible that marine sand and gravel imports into Hampshire (which are mainly for local consumption in Hampshire) will be greater than 50% of all aggregate sales in Hampshire on a regular basis. This is likely to still be the case even if the revised land won apportionments are accepted and complied with (see Table 13).

Other National Forecasts:

3.1.15 Paragraphs 1.4.9 to 1.4.10 herein refer to the recently completed ALSF Horizon Scan report. The report recognises the importance of the aggregate sector to the national economy but “like any industry, the sector is not without its impacts, and the way we produce and consume aggregates must be looked at within the context of securing a healthy environment in which we and future generations can prosper”.

3.1.17 The Horizon Scan looked at future scenarios and extrapolated trends and explored implications. Figure 5.3 of the scan forecast displays a set of three graphs representing index growth forecasts for Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Construction Output in Great Britain and Total Aggregates. The Horizon Scan identified strong links between these

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 45 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

measures of growth or decline in historic and future economic cycles. Figure 5.3 (total aggregates index) of that report indicates that demand will be about 85% higher in 2030 and 150% higher in 2050 when compared with the recession affected year of 2009 (being the lowest index figure shown since about 1966).

3.1.18 On this basis, the ALSF Horizon Scan national aggregate demand will not reach the aggregate industry previous highest demand (set in 1989) for any year in the plan period up to and including 2030. Indeed, the forecasting suggests that a record national aggregate demand is unlikely to be achieved for much of the period to 2050 (if not all of the period as it will be dependent upon timing of economic cycles).

3.1.19 The ALSF Horizon Scan is probably the latest and most relevant forecasting model or tool in representing national aggregate forecasts to 2030 and beyond. However, in order to focus on the more local needs within Hampshire, the next few paragraphs of the assessment have considered another alternative method to forecasting, which identifies some differences to the national forecasts.

3.2 Alternative Total Aggregate Forecasting Methods

3.2.1 As the preceding paragraphs focused on published aggregate forecasts by way of a ‘top- down’ approach, it was considered appropriate to consider a ‘bottom-up’ alternative forecasting approach to establish whether this method would be more suitable in a local context or that it would at least provide a comparison to a pro-rata of a national forecasting figures.

3.2.2 The ideal ‘bottom-up’ approach would really need the aggregate operator’s full co-operation in providing all the necessary statistics on sales and production for individual sites, including their customer consumption data. Full co-operation on the provision of such information is unlikely to happen anywhere for confidentiality reasons and would be an arduous task to undertake. Furthermore, any such information that could be obtained would need to be treated with some caution in terms of accuracy.

3.2.3 A much simpler alternative method is to directly link national average aggregate consumption per person within the minerals planning authority. The Mineral Products Association (MPA) (formerly the Quarry Products Association) latest full Sustainable Development Report1 figures for 2009 state that total annual aggregate production in Great Britain for 2008 (including land won primary, marine, secondary, recycled and other imports) is 4.3 tonnes per capita (person) (t/person). This is a reduction from 2007 when it was 4.8 t/person. The most recently published MPA Summary Sustainable Development Report indicates a further fall in production rate to 3.3t/person which probably reflects recessionary pressures. Other industry sources (e.g. Lafarge publication2) have indicated a nominal average of 4 t/person in the UK. The MPA also state that 25% of aggregate production in Great Britain in 2007 and 2008 was from recycled and/or secondary sources.

3.2.4 As the MPA latest figures are clearly an average, there are likely to be regional or area variations in Great Britain and probably much more local variations proportionate to population density, reflecting the extent or nature of urban or rural environments. For example, aggregate consumption (LMML estimates) could be as low as 3.0 t/person in densely populated areas but then as much as 6.0 t/person in sparsely populated areas in remote and more rural locations. Such variations are more likely to be the consequence of greater aggregate demand per person in remote and rural areas which generally require more infrastructure (e.g. roads to and from larger dwellings in scattered locations which

1 Quarry Products Association - Sustainable Development Report 2008 2 Lafarge publication “A Guide to Mountsorrel Quarry” c. 2006/7

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 46 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

serves the fewer people prepared to travel greater distances than those living in urban areas). By way of example to this generality, the 2009 MPA report1 refers to the average 2008 European figure of 6.3, where average population density is less than population density in Great Britain, resulting in the greater consumption of aggregate per person in Europe.

3.2.5 In the case of Hampshire, there are probably four main areas indicating a wide variation in population density with a corresponding effect on aggregate consumption (LMML estimates) potentially ranging from 3.5 t/person (in the urban areas of South Hampshire) to 4.75 t/person (in the mainly rural areas of Downland. Table 12 below has been prepared to provide a provisional average aggregate consumption figure of 3.8 t/person for the whole of Hampshire. In due course, more accurate information compiled by or on behalf of Hampshire could be used to review the aggregate demand forecasts:-

Table 12: Comparison of Population and Total Aggregate Demand Forecasts for Hampshire (2006-2030) Population (All Ages) and Forecast % Rise or 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2030 Annual Fall Aggregate Demand Predicted Total 1,687,430 1,724,930 1,763,580 1,799,690 1,836,010 2,017,500** 19.6% Population/Year Predicted Average Annual Aggregate 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 0.0 Demand/person * Total Annual Aggregate 6,412,234 6,554,734 6,701,604 6,838,822 6,976,838 7,666,500 19.6% Demand/Year * Aggregate demand in t/person varies - best estimate here by LMML based on averaging population density and demand forecasts/sub area (from 3.5 to 4.75 t/person across all sub areas of Hampshire). ** As Hampshire projections on population growth only go to 2026, ONS population projections have been used to give a guide to Hampshire’s population in 2030. However, it should be noted that in their use, these projections only take into account past demographic trends and don't take into account the ability of any area to cope with the population projected - nor to any provisions for development with local development plans.

3.2.6 Analysis of Table 12 above sets out some interesting characteristics in that:-

 The ‘all area’ total aggregate demand figures for 2006 (being 6.412 mt) are some 2.86 mt higher than the actual sales of 3.55 mt shown on Table 9 (representing only sales of land won sand and gravel, marine and hard rock by sea and rail). The differences here could be partly explained as follows:-

1. The possibility that some of the Annual Monitoring returns for land won sales from the figures in Table 9 were incorrect; 2. That significant (unrecorded) road imports of limestone from Somerset take place into the Forest Area of Hampshire; 3. That by 2006 annual recycled and secondary aggregate sales from all sources in Hampshire was approximately between 0.8 – 1.0 mt (Note: Hampshire’s draft Topic Paper1 on Aggregate Recycling Facilities indicates the last available recycling statistics were in 2004 with a total of production of 831,000 tonnes. The Topic Paper declares Hampshire’s intention to

2 Hampshire Minerals Plan – Draft Topic Paper on Aggregate Recycling Facilities 2008

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 47 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

achieve 1.7 mt of recycled and secondary aggregate production by 2016) in the Core Strategy. The level of provision will be re-examined through the Minerals and Waste Plan. The evidence base for aggregate recycling will also be updated shortly.

 Population and aggregate demand forecasts increase by 19.6% over the 24 year period to 2030.

3.2.7 Until more accurate information can be produced, LMML believe Table 12 reflects a reasonable representation of aggregate demand per person (demand/person) for Hampshire over the 24 year period from 2030. In due course, and following ongoing collation of actual aggregate statistics, more specific analysis can be made on the assumed forecast demand per person and, where necessary, subsequent amendments incorporated to reflect any changes to Hampshire boundaries, population forecasts, market conditions, alternative aggregates and construction materials.

Aggregate Import Forecast Scenarios:

3.2.8 Having established a reasonable approach to total aggregate demand per person (demand per person) in Table 12, the forecasts can be compared with the relevant land won sand and gravel and recycled aggregate apportionments to enable reasonable assessments to be made on the level of imports needed over the plan period to 2030. Indeed, Table 13 below has been devised to provide three possible scenarios of land won apportionment and a fourth scenario to reflect a theoretical underperformance in landbank targets and future recycling and secondary aggregate production. These scenario headings are summarised as follows:-:-

Scenario 1a: This scenario is based on the previous Hampshire land won sand and gravel apportionment of 2.63 mtpa as set by the SEP. This is the highest land won apportionment scenario. This scenario assumes recycling and secondary aggregate targets of 1.7 mtpa (as set out in the SEP) are met to provide an import requirement range expected to be between 2.37 mtpa (in 2016) to 3.34 mtpa (in 2030).

Scenario 1b: This scenario is based on the proposed changes to the land won sand and gravel apportionment of 2.05 mtpa. This scenario also assumes recycling and secondary aggregate targets of 1.7 mtpa (as set out in the SEP) are met to provide an import requirement range expected to be between 2.95 mtpa (in 2016) to 3.92 mtpa (in 2030).

Scenario 1c: This scenario is based on a possible Hampshire land won sand and gravel apportionment of only 1.70 mtpa in line with the proposed approach for the emerging Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan1. The apportionment is therefore consistently 17% below the apportionment in Scenario 1b. This scenario also assumes recycling and secondary aggregate targets of 1.7 mtpa (as set out in the SEP) are met to provide an import requirement range expected to be between 3.30 mtpa (in 2016) to 4.27 mtpa (in 2030).

Scenario 2: This scenario is based on a possible Hampshire land won sand and gravel apportionment of only 1.70 mtpa in line with the proposed approach for the emerging Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan. It assumes that recycling and secondary aggregate production will not meet projected plan period volumes of 1.7 mtpa (as set out in the SEP) and instead have a

1 Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan Consultation – Have Your Say on the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan – February 2011

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 48 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

range of 0.8-1.2 mtpa. On this basis an import requirement range is expected to be between 4.00 mtpa (in 2016) to 4.77 mtpa (in 2030).

Table 13: Hampshire Aggregate Import Forecast Scenarios (2011-2030)

Forecast Annual Aggregate Demand Scenario and Land 2011 2016 2021 2026 2030 Won/Recycling Apportionments Total Forecast Aggregate Demand in mtpa (from 6.555 6.702 6.839 6.977 7.667 Table 12) Previous Hampshire Land Won Sand and 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 Gravel Apportionment @ 2.63 mtpa Total Recycling/Secondary 1.250 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1a Aggregate Apportionments* (mtpa) Total Hampshire Aggregate Imports 2.675 2.372 2.509 2.647 3.337 Requirement in mtpa (by road, rail and sea)** Imports as a % of Total Forecast Aggregate 40.8 35.4 36.7 37.9 43.5 Demand Total Forecast Aggregate Demand in mtpa (from 6.555 6.702 6.839 6.977 7.667 Table 12) Latest (2010) Hampshire Land Won Sand and 2.050 2.050 2.050 2.050 2.050 Gravel Apportionment @ 2.05 mtpa Total Recycling/Secondary 1.250 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1b Aggregate Apportionments* (mtpa) Total Hampshire Aggregate Imports 3.255 2.952 3.089 3.227 3.917 Requirement in mtpa (by road, rail and sea)** Imports as a % of Total Forecast Aggregate 49.7 44.0 45.2 46.3 51.1 Demand Total Forecast Aggregate Demand in mtpa (from 6.555 6.702 6.839 6.977 7.667 Table 12) Variation to Hampshire Land Won Sand and 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 Gravel Apportionment @ 1.70 mtpa Total Recycling/Secondary 1.250 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1c Aggregate Apportionments* (mtpa) Total Hampshire Aggregate Imports 3.605 3.302 3.439 3.577 4.267 Requirement in mtpa (by road, rail and sea)** Imports as a % of Total Forecast Aggregate 55.0 49.3 50.3 51.3 55.7 Demand

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 49 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Total Forecast Aggregate Demand in mtpa (from 6.555 6.702 6.839 6.977 7.667 Table 12) Variation to Hampshire Land Won Sand and 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 Gravel Apportionment @ 1.70 mtpa Total Recycling/Secondary 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.200 1.200 2 Aggregate Apportionments* (mtpa) Total Hampshire Aggregate Imports 4.055 4.002 3.939 4.077 4.767 Requirement in mtpa (by road, rail and sea) Imports as a % of Total Forecast Aggregate 61.9 59.7 57.6 58.4 62.2 Demand * Recycled/Secondary Aggregate figures from draft Hampshire Topic Paper on Aggregate Recycling Facilities ** Total imports forecasted assume land won and recycling match their respective targets

3.2.9 It is important to note that the recycled and secondary aggregate figures used in Table 13 are based on a projective increase to 2016 to the target contained within policy S9 (Recycled and Secondary Aggregates) of the adopted Core Strategy which states that by 2016 production capacity at a rate of 1.7 mtpa will be provided. This figure was based on the level set in the SEP. As production figures seem to suggest that the 1.7 mtpa target for Hampshire is unrealistic, based on actual demand, the level of capacity will be reconsidered through the emerging Minerals and Waste Plan.

3.2.10 The most common feature of Table 13 is that all four scenarios show a modest overall reduction from 2011 to 2026, followed by an increase of circa 0.70 mtpa to 2030 in the demand for aggregate imports for Hampshire’s own consumption. The jump in forecast for the last 4 years to 2030 reflects the unadjusted ONS population figures referred to in Table 12 – these figures will probably need adjustment by Hampshire in due course. A summary of each Scenario is explained in following paragraphs.

3.2.11 All four scenarios indicate that substantial volumes of aggregate imports will continue to be needed in Hampshire throughout the plan period. Scenarios 1a and 1b are not likely to exceed an import requirement of 4 mtpa, whilst Scenario 1c and 2 are not likely to exceed an import requirement of respectively 4.3 mtpa and 4.8 mtpa. Such high proportions may present complications with Hampshire’s ability to cope with even higher demand scenarios and not being able to meet aggregate demand from the existing wharf and rail depot adjusted capacity of 4.01 mtpa from Table 8. However, it should be noted here that wharf and rail depot capacity shortfalls may only appear in the last 4 years of the plan period to 2030 and as these final year forecasts are only based on ONS population projections for 2026 to 2030 which do not take into account likely development plans. In any case, it is possible that additional demand for aggregate imports in the last 4 years to 2030 could still be met by increased road imports where shortfalls at wharves or rail depots arise.

3.2.12 However, recycled aggregate and land won targets and actual future return statistics have the potential to be significantly different thereby potentially causing underestimates of the aggregate import forecasts in Table 13. Therefore, Hampshire’s position on meeting future import needs can be monitored annually (through the Annual Monitoring Report) to ascertain any ongoing trends in the performance of targets for land won sand gravel extraction, recycled and secondary aggregate production and also to reflect any significant overestimates or underestimates in population forecasts and aggregate consumption per person. If at all possible, a system should be developed during the plan period (in co- operation with industry) to obtain more reliable information on current road imports

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 50 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

and for better methods of providing figures for predicting the levels of road imports and exports of aggregate in and out of Hampshire.

3.3 Factors Affecting Future Needs for Wharves and Rail Depots

3.3.1 Previous sections of this assessment clearly focused on the existing situation regarding aggregate wharves and rail depots and, in particular, the importance of and changing relationships between land won and imported aggregates into Hampshire by reviewing a variety of published data and information produced from recognised sources and further information gained more recently from LMML site visits and the questionnaire responses - where completed by operators. In addition, wharf and rail depot capacities and trends were reviewed as part of the overall analysis for future needs of these facilities.

3.3.2 Also, previous sections of this assessment have shown that the existing facilities which handle aggregates are already well established and operators and site facilities are likely to remain in place for most of the plan period to 2030 (even without Western Docks), unless changes are made by the operators themselves (e.g. revised investment strategy, business sales, takeovers, rationalisation etc.) or are imposed by other reasons beyond the control of the operator (e.g. landlords redevelopment aspirations, planning designations, cessation of port navigation services etc).

3.3.3 Some of these potential changes could involve the temporary or permanent loss of wharves at various stages during the plan period to 2030. For example, the following sites may result in changes within the plan period:

 Tipner Wharf: The site is now mothballed due to recession and local area regeneration pressures. It is not clear if or when this site will import any more aggregates- but could be used temporarily for regeneration construction materials supplies;  Bedhampton Wharf: Bedhampton Wharf may soon be temporarily ceasing the importation of unprocessed marine sand and gravel. It is intended that this site will remain open as an aggregate depot to import aggregate by road (mainly from Burnley Wharf) to support the concrete batching plants and other activities on site for a temporary period (up to 5 years) if planning permission is granted for this change (permission is required to import aggregate into this part of the site).  Itchen Wharves, Southampton: A number of Southampton wharves on the Itchen are located within areas identified or intended for regeneration. Continued use of the sites for marine aggregate processing may now be dependent upon life expectancy of existing plant and vessels that deliver the materials.  Upper Quay Fareham: Continued use of this site for marine aggregate processing may also now be dependent upon life expectancy of existing plant and vessels that deliver the materials. The site could survive in longer term as a transhipment facility.

3.3.4 The potential permanent loss of Tipner and Fareham wharves are not likely to have significant adverse impact on Hampshire’s overall marine aggregate capacity as their loss may be partially offset by increased production from the remaining two existing sites in the South Hampshire (East) Group area (Kendalls and Bedhampton Wharves) but customer trip distances are likely to increase as a consequence. It may be possible in the short term for Tipner Wharf to reopen as part of the redevelopment process in that area as it would clearly be the closest site available for aggregate demand in that project although the viability of the site re-opening is not known at this stage. It may also be the case that sites which are temporality mothballed may not re-open for aggregate import uses due to other economic considerations in the longer term.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 51 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Photo 14: Bedhampton Wharf – located close to West Sussex boundary

3.3.5 Before final analysis of other available information is made to establish future needs, two other important characteristics of the existing and future wharf and rail depot potential needs to be considered, as part of the overall picture and understanding of a strategy to meet future needs. These are explained in more detail in the following paragraphs but essentially relate to:-

 The extent of common sizes of each facility (or ‘classification’) and their supporting infrastructure modes (such as dredger size and age, water depth and navigation, train pathways etc.) and whether small and medium sites will be more susceptible to closure than larger sites;  The possible physical, planning and other constraints on developing existing and future wharves and rail depots or even resurrecting previous sites once used for minerals and waste operations.

3.4 Classification of Hampshire Wharf and Rail Depot Facilities

3.4.1 Each existing wharf and rail depot facility in Hampshire has been classified into various categories according to nature and volume of minerals and waste handled and their potential to reach a reasonable capacity. This is based on the accumulation of sites which is referred to in Table 8. A number of production ranges have been selected for each category. These reflect the existing site area, expansion possibilities on site and likely ability to increase onward transhipment facilities, particularly in the case of aggregates. As rail depot facilities do not achieve the full class ranges of wharf facilities, they have been set different ranges for the medium and large classes than the wharves. The classifications are outlined in Table 14 below and are also identified on Figure 1:-

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 52 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Table 14: Classification of Hampshire Wharf and Rail Depot Facilities

Wharves Railheads Class Range* Class Range* Sites Small Up to 0.1mtpa Fareham (Upper Quay) - South Hampshire (East) Medium 0.1 – 0.35mtpa Tipner, Bedhampton, Kendalls - South Hampshire (East) Supermarine, Dibles, Princes - South Hampshire (West) Large 0.35 – 0.75mtpa Leamouth, Burnley, Marchwood - South Hampshire (West)

Major 0.75mtpa or Not applicable more Small Up to 0.1mtpa Not applicable Medium 0.1 – 0.25mtpa Eastleigh (West) - South Hampshire (West) Large 0.25mtpa or Fareham - South Hampshire more (East) and Botley, Eastleigh (East) - South Hampshire (West) * Figures within these ranges were used as estimates for adjusted capacities in Table 8

3.4.2 Table 14 identifies ‘medium’ as the most common classification of wharf facility, with six wharves in the South Hampshire sub area (three each in South Hampshire ‘East’ and ‘West’ areas). Next most common classification is the ‘large’ classification with three wharves (all in South Hampshire ‘West’ area).

3.4.3 Only one wharf is within the ‘small’ category (Fareham Upper Quay). It is probable that Supermarine Wharf may occasionally fall into this category in some years, depending on operations. Conversely, Kendalls and Bedhampton Wharves may reach the ‘large’ category in some years, again depending on imports.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 53 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Photo 15: Supermarine Wharf – sales linked to concrete batching and bagging plants at nearby Spitfire Quay

3.4.4 There are no ‘major’ wharves and this is probably due to a variety of factors, but mainly to the following factors:-

 Western Docks is not included here as it appears to be unavailable and/or is too costly for large scale aggregate imports *;  No other deepwater navigation or berthing facilities (i.e. > 8 metre depth) are currently available at existing sites for the largest dredgers and coasters;  The largest potential aggregate wharf (Princes – approximately 3.5 ha.) is currently used for scrap metal and related activities.  The largest existing aggregate wharf is only 2.8 ha and offers little scope for additional added value (or fixed outlet) facilities being developed on existing sites to boost throughput; and  Substantial transhipment opportunities by sea and rail cannot directly be made available at existing sites (or even made available remotely through linked sites by road) to boost throughput.

* Western Docks should have potential to be a ‘major’ aggregates wharf site (due to known import records, existing relative deep water and onward rail transhipment facilities). However, recent records indicate no marine aggregate imports and that pre-processed crushed rock aggregate imports were only granite for rail track ballast requirements, which may not have been consumed in Hampshire. Most other bulky cargo operations at Western Docks appear to be based on trade using higher value cargoes. Western Dock owners ABP would prefer to support a new major aggregate imports project at Dibden Bay (see Plan PW1).

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 54 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

3.4.5 Of the four rail depots, three are considered ‘large’ (two in South Hampshire ‘West’ and one in South Hampshire ‘East’) and the other is in the ‘medium’ category (and in South Hampshire ‘West’).

3.4.6 The only ‘medium’ category rail depot at Eastleigh West is controlled by a Network Rail tenant (DBS), who has arrangements in place to bring spent rail ballast and inert construction waste by rail back to the site for crushing and screening by contractors for Aggregate Industries, who then sell most of the recycled materials through their adjacent depot. From the evidence collected to date though, it is unlikely that the materials brought to this site are actually derived from Hampshire and it is more likely that it comes from Network Rail demolition and engineering work and sites located outside of Hampshire.

3.5 Potential New Wharves and Rail Depots

3.5.1 In previous work undertaken by Hampshire on the Hampshire Mineral and Waste Local Plan (before work commenced on the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework) a number of wharves and rail depots sites emerged as possible new or resurrected aggregate import facilities:-

 Wharves: Baltic Wharf, Bakers Wharf, Willments Shipyard and Spitfire Quay (all located on the River Itchen)  Rail Depots: Micheldever and Basingstoke

3.5.2 Neither of these site operators and owners have since come forward with positive proposals, even though planning permissions and operations had already been established in the past at least two of them (Bakers Wharf and Willments Shipyard). Indeed, it is unlikely as already acknowledged that Willments Shipyard will ever return to marine aggregate processing. A further proposal for a marine aggregate wharf at Drivers Wharf in the 1990’s was not implemented as the application was withdrawn and the site now occupied for other uses.

3.5.3 This updated needs assessment includes two new potential areas for the possible locations for new wharf sites. These were not previously considered in the 2009 assessment. It is clear from changing operations in both the ports of Southampton and Portsmouth that new land may become available if commercial and military uses changes within the plan period. For example, in late 2010, the Ministry of Defence announced its intention to sell Marchwood Military Port. Although the details of a potential sale are not known at this stage, it is conceivable that this site could provide the opportunity to locate a new wharf within Southampton Water. Further opportunities for new wharves are described in more detail in the paragraphs below.

New Wharf Potential:

3.5.4 All of these new wharf sites in paragraph 3.5.1 appear (from plan, aerial photos and external site visits) to have limited land availability and several other constraints (some identified in paragraph 3.4.4 above) for the necessary processing, storage, transfer and related activities associated with minerals and/or waste operations to develop as significant facilities and operations.

3.5.5 Of the four wharf sites in paragraph 3.5.1, only Bakers Wharf is likely to have some prospects of re-establishing itself as an aggregate import facility due to its previous history, neighbouring uses and road and sea accessibility. However, Bakers Wharf is relatively small and it is unlikely that a new marine aggregate processing facility would be viable in the current competitive market, recession and general site rationalising operations since 1990. Bakers Wharf could still be used for landing crushed rock and other pre-processed

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 55 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

aggregate should other sites wish to tranship materials by sea but any development or re- establishment of uses at the site would need to be considered through the LDF against the overall need, potential for relocation, redevelopment objectives and other planning issues (such as ecological impacts due to its proximity to designated mudflats).

3.5.6 It is possible that future changes to current uses on commercial or military port land within the Southampton Water could provide suitable land to establish a new aggregates and/or waste wharf. This could occur within the plan period. This may include the potential short term sale of Marchwood Military Port (MMP) by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). MMP is currently a dedicated facility for rapid transfer of military personnel and equipment. Although the details of a possible sale of all or part of this site are not certain, the site could provide an opportunity to locate a new wharf with access to the rail network through existing rail sidings. These sidings could be used for transhipment purposes. The site is considered to have potential for conversion in whole or in part to other wharf related uses. On this basis, the whole site could have ‘major site’ classification potential. The site forms the northern part of the Dibden Bay prospect area on Plan PW1 but could become a stand alone facility without being associated with any future development of Dibden Bay. It is, nevertheless, still dependent upon whether the MoD will identify the site as being surplus to national defence requirements and the conditions of the sale of the site. Other port land in Southampton (in Western and Eastern Docks) may become vacant and the general areas of potential interest are indicated on Plan PW2.

3.5.7 It is also possible that future changes during the plan period to current uses on commercial or military port related land within the Port of Portsmouth could provide suitable land to establish a new aggregates wharf. This will clearly depend on reductions to military and/or commercial ferry operations in Portsmouth. Depending on the size of area yielded, withdrawal of any of these existing activities or facilities during the plan period could enable the establishment of a new aggregate production or transhipment facility. Although no specific locations of potential areas have been identified to date the general area of potential interest is indicated on Plan PW3.

New Rail Depot Potential:

3.5.8 The available land at Basingstoke rail sidings is long and narrow, reflecting the sites original design as a goods yard siding (possibly for coal and other rail goods). Therefore the limited space is probably only suitable for the unloading of processed aggregate and minerals for open storage in limited quantities forming long narrow stockpiles leaving little opportunity for related activities such as a concrete batching plant. The land does appear to be in use currently by Network Rail engineer’s for temporary offices and storage to support ongoing contracts for upgrading the main train lines into Reading and London. Network Rail has also confirmed some recent interest in this site following the departure of temporary offices. It was noted from a site visit to Basingstoke that on the opposite (south) side of siding and main railway lines there is a significant mixed use redevelopment scheme which will overlook the siding areas. Access to this site is reasonable in that it is at the end of an industrial estate road which links into the existing network of town centre roads and should be acceptable for aggregate usage in due course. Basingstoke is reasonably well located and should serve the Hampshire north east market well with hard rock or processed marine aggregates.

3.5.9 Basingstoke is located in the north east of Hampshire and this area may already be accessible to other nearby aggregate rail depots facilities just beyond the Hampshire border. This was identified in a recent report for SEERWARP1. These nearby sites include the 2 rail depots at Theale (Berkshire) and one at Woking (Surrey). Both of these sites are

1 SEERWARP Report entitled “Study of Aggregate Wharves and Rail Depots in South East England” – MDS Transmodal Ltd, Feb. 2009

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 56 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

located within 6 to 10 kilometres of the Hampshire county boundary. Lafarge also have a cement terminal at Theale and a redundant aggregate rail depot at Woking. Both of these sites could be brought into use for aggregate imports from the new wharf proposal at Northfleet if required.

3.5.10 There appears to be a significant area of land (circa 6ha) at Micheldever in comparison with all the other existing depot sites and Basingstoke sidings. This land appears to be based on two significantly split levels in height with the lowest level at the approximately the same height as the siding. The only road access appears to be located at the southern end of the site and then through a short residential road onto a lane, which may give rise to traffic issues and concerns locally if proposed as an aggregate rail depot. However, if an alternative access could be established directly into the higher level ground, then it would be able to provide good road access links very close to an existing junction onto the A303, providing good connections to the A34 and M3. The combined land here could potentially be used for a waste ‘holding’ or recycling facility in addition to aggregate imports (see also paragraph 3.95).

Photo 16: Micheldever Rail Goods Depot

3.5.11 From discussions with Network Rail, it would appear that some minerals and waste opportunity could be supported at Totton Goods Yard and also at the recently constructed Fratton Goods Yard in Portsmouth. Unfortunately, site visits were not able to be arranged in time for this assessment in order to establish the significance of these sites to the overall picture.

3.5.12 In addition to the above mentioned new rail depots, the existing significant rail facilities at Western Docks must still be considered for their potential to re-establish onward transhipment of imported aggregates to the Docks should space and capacity and financial conditions prove favourable in the future.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 57 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

3.6 Potential for Alternative Aggregate Import and Transportation Facilities

3.6.1 Any ‘need’ assessment of future requirements for aggregate import facilities which is based on a review and examination of existing and known facilities (which have been in operation for several decades) would also need to consider the possible impacts of fundamental (and more sustainable) changes to current aggregate import facilities, modes of transport or even sources of supply.

3.6.2 During 2010, the Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) also published two further reports it had commissioned independent consultants to complete on its behalf, being:-

 the feasibility of transporting aggregate by pipeline as an sustainable alternative to road and rail;  the feasibility of underground mining of aggregates in the UK as a sustainable alternative to UK or foreign based quarries.

3.6.3 Both of these ALSF reports are summarised further in paragraphs (1.4.9). However, both reports were considered to be feasible or close to being feasible options for the aggregate sector (and all other stakeholders – i.e. mineral planning authorities) to consider in the medium to long term (see other comments in paragraphs 1.4.9).

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 58 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

4. POSSIBLE CONSTRAINTS AND ISSUES RELATED TO THE CONTINUED USE OR EXPANSION OF WHARVES AND RAIL DEPOTS IN HAMPSHIRE

This chapter considers constraints that may exist to the continued use or expansion of Hampshire’s wharves and rail depots. These include operational constraints, constraints on mineral reserves, the proximity to markets, economic issues and the value of the specialist infrastructure and environmental constraints and sustainability.

4.1 Operational Constraints on Existing Wharves and Rail Depots:

4.1.1 Since the peak years of aggregate production across the UK in the late 1980’s, many new national and local land use planning constraints and other designations have been introduced across the UK. Examples of these include Flood Risk Zones, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Ramsar's and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Interest (SINC). These designations have become as important as the more long standing established constraints such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks.

Photo 17: Dibles Wharf, Southampton – overlooked by high rise flats from one direction and impeded on navigational approaches by river pontoons/moorings

4.1.2 Some of these newly introduced constraints can directly restrict all kinds of proposed and existing development, particularly where they are close to existing Hampshire wharf and rail depot operations. Indeed, existing operators at wharves and rail depots may now find that any new proposal from hereon for site development will be met with planning authority requests to improve or change existing permitted activities not contained in the new proposal in order to safeguard nearby protected areas. Several operators were therefore concerned that their continued viability of existing minerals and waste operations would be

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 59 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

potentially more vulnerable to change in the future. In a 2008 report on Solent Waterfront Strategy prepared for SEEDA1, it was appropriately summed up that:-

“Land use policy and guidance recognises the significance of the coastal zone but the emphasis is on safeguarding its environmental performance rather than on capitalising on coastal assets as an important contributor to the UK’s future growth”.

4.1.3 As such, planning and environmental constraints and designations are also likely to affect investor’s choices in deciding where the next new or previously used site can be established. This is considered in more detail in section 4.6.

4.1.4 As part of the questionnaire survey, mineral operators were asked to provide the most likely factors to influence the success or otherwise of increasing throughputs at their sites discounting competition and market forces. A number of relevant factors were raised and some are considered to be significant constraints on the expansion of sites. Some further constraints were highlighted by operational managers during the site visits of wharves and rail depots. The questionnaire was not aimed at waste operators, but one site visit took place at a waste operation (being Princes Wharf) and EMR Ltd representatives were able to provide more background information.

4.1.5 Individual site specific constraints cannot be reproduced here for confidentiality reasons, but the general nature of most constraints are set out below:-

 Lack of space as the wharf and rail depot is too small for large vessels or trains and/ or too small for the erection of processing plant with high throughput, material storage or related facilities. Therefore, it is likely that Class 2 and 3 wharves have limited or no opportunity of achieving the same level of throughputs needed to become Class 4 sites;  The Itchen Bridge and shallow water or tides elsewhere can prevent larger dredgers (>than 5,000 tonne cargo capacity) from gaining access to all Hampshire wharves;  Inability for operators to acquire more or adjoining land due to landowners current activities or redevelopment aspirations are more lucrative or that the required land is in competitors’ ownership and unlikely to be released;  No long-term security for occupation on-site for leaseholders;  No opportunity for wharves to link into rail network;  Lack of deep water and no opportunity to establish extended wharf and jetty loading facilities into deeper water;  Threat of escalating costs to existing riverbed or harbour silt clearance operations to maintain navigational access to wharves;  Site never likely to work 24 hours a day for planning and other reasons;  Lack of smaller ships, barges, trains, wagons, train pathways;  Proximity of adjoining residential or other sensitive developments;  Convoluted shared access arrangements with other rail and industrial facilities;  Some sites are occasionally subject to City centre congestion and accessibility to and from motorways and dual carriageways unreliable;  Many wharf sites are in close proximity to existing high value nature conservation or landscape interests particularly sites with natural harbour approaches.  The possible regeneration of areas which contain existing wharves as well as further regeneration aspirations.

4.1.6 The possibility of significant expanded capacity being created at new wharves and rail depots sites is now considered more difficult than before as potential new wharf and rail depot sites have been lost or affected by alternative developments in the intervening years.

1 SEEDA report by Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd and Atkins and Marina Projects Ltd – Solent Waterfront Strategy June 2008

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 60 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

4.1.7 It must also be noted here that by 2030 (as stated in a 2008 TfSH Consultation Draft1) the majority of all the Strategic Lorry Network routes in South Hampshire are forecasted to be operating at over 100% design capacity at peak times. Therefore, as all the existing wharves and rail depots are in South Hampshire, many future lorry movements from these sites are likely to experience regular traffic delays and hence affect turn round times for customer deliveries.

4.1.8 In terms of total mineral and waste handling capacity at Hampshire wharves, the most likely factor from the above list which could significantly increase material volumes handled at existing wharves, lies with their ability to carry out onward transhipments. Major obstacles to transhipments of minerals and waste from existing sites have been identified:-

 No prior history: Hampshire may have never previously transhipped minerals and waste in any significant quantities by water between any of the South Hampshire wharves or between any rail depots. Furthermore, transhipments by water beyond Hampshire appears to be relatively small scale (only small quantities of processed aggregates have been exported to the Channel Islands and Isle of Wight);  Aggregates not competitive compared to other commodities at Western Docks, Southampton: Although Southampton has a good rail connection and facilities directly into the docks, and improvements are currently underway, there is little evidence that aggregates will benefit from these in the near future for commercial reasons as aggregates are low value commodities and tend not to be as profitable when compared to other commodities ports can cater for. This was evident when Foster Yeoman pulled out of Western Docks in 2006;  Poor aggregate landing and transhipment potential at Gosport and Portsmouth docks: Suitable wharf facilities for the landing of aggregates at these docks do not appear to have materialised at any time in the past and even if there was now an opportunity, then there are probably no transhipment opportunities by sea and rail. The recent improvements to Fratton Goods Yard are also unlikely to provide any significant opportunity for transhipments as bulk rail freight movements here will be difficult to schedule between deep sea container freight services, which in turn have to be scheduled between the existing priorities given to passenger services. It remains to be seen whether waste transhipments from nearby scrap metal and other waste treatment facilities could take advantage of Fratton Goods Yard;  Existing transhipment facilities in neighbouring regions: Any transhipment facility or opportunity in one County (or Mineral Planning Authority area) is unlikely to be established purely for consumption of aggregates and minerals within its own County boundaries. Therefore, on the basis that they are also intended to serve markets beyond those boundaries, then they are likely to encounter competition from other existing transhipment facilities elsewhere and this then becomes a straightforward commercial consideration for the operators as to whether more investment is needed at their wharves and rail depots. An example of this would be the recent Scottish (Glensanda) granite imports (up to 2006) into Western Docks and onward by rail beyond Hampshire for railtrack ballast usage, which have since found their way into Hampshire for other uses by rail via transhipment from sea imports at the Isle of Grain, Kent. Also, more imports by rail from Kent into Hampshire may now take place in the years ahead following the recent approval (see paragraph 4.3.5 below) of a major new aggregate wharf (sea dredged and crushed rock) at Northfleet, near Gravesend.

4.1.9 From the above analysis, it appears that existing Hampshire wharves will not be able to connect or link into the rail network for onward transhipments of imported aggregate and other minerals and waste in the foreseeable future. However, more onward transhipment of

1 Transport for South Hampshire – Freight Strategy Consultation Draft July 2008

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 61 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

aggregates by sea for export may be possible at sites not already conducting this activity provided at least one of the constraints identified above can be overcome.

4.1.10 In addition to the physical and practicable constraints to existing operations identified, there are two other material factors which have an effect on the expansion at both ports, being:-

 Port and Harbour Authority Rules and Requirements: All shipping and many other water related activities at Southampton and Portsmouth are monitored and controlled by the Port and Harbour Authorities who set their respective guidelines for each port user or occupier to comply with. Separate rules and procedures may have to be followed for individual wharf operations (e.g. limited berthing times) in addition to normal planning and other site regulations. Major expansion may not be possible where such uses may have an adverse impact (e.g. more and larger vessel movements) on other port users and nature conservation sensitivities;  Other Development Pressures: In recent decades there has been more pressure by various landowners, developers and strategic planners to reduce historic socio- economic dependence associated with old port and industrial uses along certain waterfront areas. New mixed use or solely residential development proposals which directly affect existing aggregate wharf sites have emerged and are now being implemented close by (e.g. Tipner Wharf). Indeed, a potential major opportunity for a new aggregates wharf at the former Vosper Thornycroft shipyard site at Woolston may have been lost as the site has now been proposed for a mixed use scheme. Government backed regeneration proposals (e.g. via the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA)) for new and enhanced mixed-use development schemes have previously caused operational wharves to close (e.g. Cory’s Wharf, Rochester). All of these developments occur gradually, but their cumulative effect often brings many more people closer to the waterfronts in terms of residential occupation and water based recreational pursuits (e.g. sailing, motor boating etc.) resulting in direct conflicts with ongoing commercial wharf operations.

Photo 18: Former Vosper Thorneycroft Wharf, Woolston – being redeveloped

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 62 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

4.2 Economic Constraints

4.2.1 The continued operation of Hampshire’s wharves and rail depots will largely depend on the economic viability of each operation which can be affected in many different ways such as:-

 impacts arising from numerous variable costs many of which are already rising above inflationary rates;  impacts arising from the various operating needs of the businesses which run them and the markets they serve. Further changes in ownership with subsequent rationalisation of sites may play a bigger role in the future;  potential introduction of innovative and or sustainable technology for existing and new aggregate supply sources (ref. ALSF reports for pipelines/mining in paragraph 1.4.10)

4.2.2 It is clear that since the initial assessment last year, almost all aggregate production, importation and sales conducted at Hampshire’s wharves and rail depots have been significantly impacted by the current recession. Recovery is likely to take longer than anticipated in 2009.

4.2.3 The temporary mothballing of Bedhampton Wharf is an example of economic impacts arising from the current recession and mineral and wharf operators rationalising their operations. The prolonged deterioration in the sites aggregate sales since 2008 (by nearly 60%) has resulted in Tarmac (owners of UMA) seeking to centralise and focus their marine aggregate and processing operations in Hampshire at Burnley Wharf, whilst seeking to mothball operations at Bedhampton Wharf for 5 years until the market picks up again. As already indicated, planning permission for this change is currently being sought. However, it will remain to be seen whether the site will reopen again and warrant further investment in new marine processing plant once this 5 year period has lapsed.

4.3 Potential Mineral Reserve Sourcing Constraints

4.3.1 The ability for mineral operators to continue sourcing aggregate imports by sea and rail throughout the plan period to 2030 must also be considered in terms of meeting demand forecasts. The following paragraphs therefore provide an overview of mineral reserve constraints from land won and marine import sources.

Land Won Hard Rock by Rail:

4.3.2 The principal sources of land won aggregate transported by rail are from two large rail connected limestone quarries in Somerset (Whatley and Torr Quarries). Information about the likely life of Whatley Quarry could not be obtained for this up-date. In 2006 it was industry’s view that permitted reserves at both Whatley and Torr amounted to 15 years and hence now assumed to be 11 years. However, recent information obtained by Hampshire from Aggregate Industries indicates that, based on current output rates at Torr Quarry, reserves are sufficient to last for at least 16 years from now and this may be increased further if planning permission is granted on an application to deepen Torr Quarry, which will provide an additional 28 years reserve (at current output rate). Aggregate Industries have indicated that if planning application is refused, they would seek to continue rail exports from their other Mendip Quarries where there is currently approximately 10 years worth of permitted reserves.

4.3.3 Also, since 2006 new facilities for reprocessing former limestone waste scalpings and quarry stockpiles have been established at Whatley (and possibly other limestone quarries) to enable these quarries to produce much greater quantities of finer grade aggregates (including sand specifications). The net result for the quarry operators is that they can now

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 63 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

produce a greater range of products than previously, thereby creating more product and less waste and consequentially extending the life expectancy of their quarries. Enquiries made with Somerset County Council have not revealed by how much Whatley and other quarries have increased their mineral reserves this way.

4.3.4 However, based preceding paragraphs, it is assumed for now that the combined rail linked Whatley and Torr Quarries should easily maintain their rail services from the revised existing limestone reserves through to and beyond 2030 based on the demand forecasts made in Table 13.

4.3.5 Irrespective of the dominant rail imports from Somerset based limestone quarry reserves, Hampshire has in recent years seen occasional imports of other aggregate by rail (mainly Glensanda granite) via transhipment facilities at the Isle of Grain, Kent by Aggregate Industries. Aggregate Industries also owns Torr Quarry in Somerset and other rail connected quarries in the East Midlands, so even if Torr Quarry ceases before 2030 alternative land won supplies by rail are potentially available from this same company.

4.3.6 Furthermore, Kent County Council has recently granted planning permission (subject to a Section 106 agreement being completed) to Lafarge Aggregates for a major aggregate imports facility on a former cement works at Northfleet, Kent. This involves the importation of 2 mtpa of crushed rock and 1mtpa of marine sand and gravel aggregate by sea. The proposals include significant aggregate transhipments by rail and sea by taking advantage of the well established wharf and rail facilities which were used for the old cement works. It is assumed for now that the aggregate transhipments would be mostly intended for London and Thames Gateway markets, but it is conceivable that these aggregates could find their way into the Hampshire market by rail and by sea during the plan period at destinations yet to be announced.

Land Won Hard Rock by Sea:

4.3.7 As previously explained in section 1.3, the majority of recent hard rock imports into Hampshire have occurred at Western Docks. These were almost entirely based on granite imports from Glensanda for two reasons as follows:-

 To make up shortfalls in aggregate supply into Hampshire: During the peak aggregate demand period in the late 1980’s, the two rail served Mendip quarries in Somerset were operating at full capacity (approximately 20 mtpa). Foster Yeoman (now part of Aggregate Industries) commenced imports of Glensanda (Scottish) granite into Western Docks (in 1990) using large vessels to supplement general aggregate shortfalls into Hampshire. Later that year planning permission was granted for coated roadstone and concrete batching plants but these were probably never built as market conditions began to deteriorate very quickly shortly after 1990. Indeed, as Mendip quarry production also fell substantially (to approximately 13 mtpa) then capacity was freed up to supply more materials by rail into South Hampshire and sea imports of granite into Western Docks ceased. Nevertheless, arrangements were clearly in place at that time to meet the long term needs of aggregate imports and associated production facilities;  To enable ongoing commitments for rail track ballast supplies to continue: In 1998, Foster Yeoman resumed granite imports from Glensanda through Western Docks but this time specifically for rail track ballast reasons as Mendip limestone was not suitable to meet the required specifications for long term rail track use. Imports here continued in tandem for several years with Foster Yeoman’s principal South East import facilities at the Isle of Grain, Kent. Both sites had rail transhipment facilities, but in 2006 a contractual requirement of the customer (Network Rail) forced Foster Yeoman to supply the ballast only from the Isle of Grain. Therefore, Foster Yeoman had to cease imports into Western Docks as it could not sustain them for the general aggregates market in competition with well established land won and marine aggregate sources.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 64 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

4.3.8 As stated earlier in the assessment, other wharves have occasionally imported hard rock by sea but these have tended to be small scale activities and probably occurred to meet short term demand close to those wharf locations. However, there is now one recent exception to this in that Cornish granite has been imported in increasing quantities into Dibles Wharf since 2005 as the operator (Dudman Aggregates) controls the aggregate source, supply vessels and wharf site facilities. Throughput at this site is likely to increase progressively during the plan period. There may also be potential opportunities for the importation of crushed rock at some existing wharf facilities in the event of changes to current management, storage and practices as well as the potential extension of some sites.

Marine Aggregate Sources:

4.3.9 The Crown Estate own and administer marine aggregate resources off the UK coastline. They are responsible for issuing the necessary exploration permits and subsequent extraction licences (subject to fulfilling statutory procedures – see next paragraph) which enable the dredging and aggregate companies to supply the nearby wharves.

4.3.10 Government control of marine aggregate dredging has historically been exercised through the government view and permission procedure, currently administered by the Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA). With the introduction of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine Dredging) Regulations, applications for the extraction of marine minerals operate under statutory procedures administered by the Marine and Fisheries Agency in England, Northern Ireland Environment Agency in Northern Ireland, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Executive, as appropriate. Each application for a dredging permission will involve the undertaking of an environmental impact assessment and extensive consultation with the fishing industry, relevant government bodies and the general public. There are clearly some similarities with the licensing system to land won mineral extraction procedures, but one important distinction is that marine extraction does not have to comply with any regional or county apportionment system of granting planning permissions. Progress on current Crown Estate licensing activities and the extraction areas can be ascertained from their own website.1

4.3.11 Over the decades since marine aggregate dredging first took place, a total of eight main production licence areas around the UK coastline have been established. Currently, there are three main licensed extraction areas that do and can potentially serve Hampshire wharves being :–

 The ‘South’ area which includes all licences close to and around the coast of the Isle of Wight and off Hampshire’s and part of West Sussex’s coastlines (with extraction areas almost entirely within the 6 mile offshore fishing limit);  The ‘Ower’ area which includes licences off the West Sussex coastline (with extraction areas almost entirely between the 6 mile fishing limit and the 12 mile territorial sea limit);  The ‘East English Channel’ area which is located at a greater distance off the East Sussex coastline (with extraction areas almost entirely between the 12 mile territorial sea limit and the Median Line which is approximately 24 miles offshore along this coastline).

4.3.12 It is understood that Hampshire receives the vast majority of its marine aggregates from the ‘South’ area and only some from the other two areas. Crown Estate own statistics1 (as of 01.09.08) indicate that there is 42.33 mt of good quality permitted reserves (at sand and gravel ratio of 50:50) in the ‘South’ area, but it is understood that this figure also includes reserves from the ‘Ower’ area. In addition, poorer quality reserves of predominantly sand are permitted (being 15.15 mt of < 20% gravel). Reserve life expectancy of the good quality reserves were stated as ten years based on 2008 production rates of 4.23 mtpa with nearly

1 http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/aggregate_reserves_september_2008.pdf

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 65 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

four years available of the poorer quality reserves. A similar picture on life expectancy is also shown for the ‘East English Channel’.

4.3.13 However, the Crown Estate marine aggregate reserves report does state that with the additional licences currently under consideration around the UK, there is at least 25 years in total of proven reserves. Furthermore, from additional enquiries with the Crown Estate agent, it is understood that the three main areas do have significantly more unlicensed marine aggregate resources (i.e. not yet technically proven) which could increase reserve life to 50 years from now at current production rates, but would be subject to the grant of further exploration permits and extraction licences.

4.3.14 Therefore, it is quite clear that the additional reserves and resources (which are not subject to apportionment criteria like their ‘land won’ equivalent) will increase life expectancy of marine aggregate resources from these areas to well beyond the current plan period. For these reasons, the life expectancy of marine aggregates is not considered an issue for the plan period or just beyond 2030.

Land Won Aggregates by Road

4.3.15 This represents the remaining category of imports but, as stated previously, it is most likely to be dominated by limestone road imports from the Mendip quarries into the western area of Hampshire (particularly the Forest sub-area). There is a distinct possibility that limestone imports by road will increase into Hampshire in the future but the extent that this will happen within the plan period to 2030 is really dependent upon several factors including:-

 Overall cost compared with other sources of supply particularly fuel and CO2 impacts;  Ability to develop and continue producing a wide range of acceptable aggregate products from Mendip quarries to meet customer requirements now using land won sand and gravel;  Extent of depletion rate of land won sand and gravel operations in western Hampshire (particularly western Forest areas) and eastern Dorset;  Extent by which marine aggregate sales can penetrate into western Forest areas.

4.3.16 The only other form of primary aggregate imported by road into Hampshire is in the form of land won sand and gravel from operations based in eastern Dorset (into Forest area) and from operations based in Berkshire or Surrey (into north east Hampshire). However, these imports are likely to be of relatively low volume in comparison to total limestone imports by road. The difference is likely to increase as limestone imports by road increase and land won sand and gravel operations in neighbouring planning authorities see site operators continue their current trend of site closures thereby reducing overall land won production.

Other Aggregate Imports by Road

4.3.17 Statistics on other forms of aggregate imports by road are not available or currently produced. It is likely that some small volumes of recycled and secondary aggregate are being imported into Hampshire across the borders with Dorset, Berkshire, Surrey and West Sussex to ensure lorries are carrying loads in each direction, but more research may be required by Hampshire and other mineral planning authorities to verify this. It is assumed for now that net imports of recycled and secondary aggregate by road are nil.

4.4 Proximity to Markets:

4.4.1 It is apparent from the findings of the assessment that all current import facilities are located in South Hampshire where the greatest proportion of the population lives.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 66 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Therefore, the combined set up of existing wharf and rail depot sites, with their close proximity to established markets and significant additional capacities, clearly demonstrate that South Hampshire is already well catered for during most of the plan period. However, the Downland and North East Hampshire areas would probably be better served by additional rail depot facilities, to increase the capability to import aggregate into this part of the county.

4.4.2 Currently, there are no known major infrastructure projects in the Hampshire areas which may trigger high demand (e.g. on a scale equivalent to CTRL/Cross Rail) for aggregates via Hampshire wharves or rail depots within the plan period. However, it is conceivable that a series of small or medium sized infrastructure projects may occur at the same time or in tandem within Hampshire (or in close proximity to it). If so, these could cause demand to return to the last peak period in 2001/2002. However, it is very unlikely that demand will rise to match the 1989 highest peaks of aggregate consumption. However, information on aggregate demand at the time of these small to medium term variables is not available and probably cannot be predicted in terms of timescales or volumes etc.

4.5 Specialist Site Iinfrastructure:

4.5.1 This study assumes that specialist infrastructure for wharves and rail depots includes the required facilities for additional plant, buildings and fixed equipment needed to land, process and distribute the aggregates in addition to transhipment facilities using alternative transport modes other than by road. Policy M5 of the SEP initially set out the requirement to consider this as an issue. From the site visits carried out (to almost all sites) and questionnaires completed by willing operators, it was established as follows:

 Wharves: None of the wharves located in Hampshire currently have any jetty structures to enable deeper water discharging of materials ashore which are occasionally required elsewhere at south east wharf sites. All wharves rely either on self discharge arrangements from medium to large dredgers or wharf based grab cranes (or 360 degree excavators) to unload the smaller dredgers or coasters. All but one of the wharves currently have a marine aggregate processing plant at the wharf and several had established concrete batching or bagging plants. None of the existing wharves had the ability to directly tranship aggregate materials by rail;  Rail Depots: Two of the depots had enclosed underground wagon self discharge facilities already established (Botley and Eastleigh East). The other two depots relied on 360 degree excavators to unload trains. Only Botley had a coated roadstone plant, but it also had some modest aggregate recycling facilities which were linked to supplementing the coated roadstone plant throughputs. Eastleigh West used mobile crushing and screening plant on a campaign basis to produce recycled aggregate but these activities are not regarded as specialist by nature. None of the existing rail depots had the ability to directly tranship aggregate materials by water.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 67 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Photo 19: Eastleigh East Depot – building enclosing underground discharge facilities for rail wagons

4.5.2 In terms of specialist infrastructure, many of the wharves were similar in nature and really only differed by their land area or the size of vessel that could reach or berth at the wharf. Therefore, it is imperative that access by dredgers and other vessels to existing wharves are at least maintained to the current standards by and for the wharf operators and other interested parties, and the relevant existing environmental policies be reviewed accordingly to determine which parties may have such obligations (see also 4.1.7 below). However, with regard to rail depots, two of the four rail depots have established specialist infrastructure in place on site in the form of rail wagon discharge facilities. Therefore, these sites should be recognized for safeguarding in their own right.

4.6 Environmental Constraints and Sustainability (including Carbon Emission issues)

National, European and Local Designations

4.6.1 As stated in 4.6.1, the emergence of relatively new National and European designations (e.g. SSSIs, Ramsar’s, SACs, SPAs etc.) have identified very sensitive areas of nature conservation interest etc. in close proximity to existing wharves and therefore automatically impose planning constraints on those sites even though the wharves were established before most of those designations. Of particular note are the shallow navigational approaches to and from the wharves at Fareham (Upper Quay), Tipner, Kendalls and Bedhampton which have at least three such designations. Some of the wharves are actually directly adjacent to these important designations and the site operator’s dredgers or vessels need to travel through them to get to open sea.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 68 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

.

Photo 20: Bedhampton Wharf – within natural harbour and environmentally sensitive navigational approaches

4.6.2 In most (if not all) cases, wharf operators are not responsible for the navigational approaches to their sites as these are generally the responsibility of the port authority who carry out their own regular monitoring and audit procedures to ensure compliance with the latest legislation (e.g. Habitats Directive). Occasionally, wharf operators are required to dredge silt adjacent to their own wharf to maintain minimum water depths for vessel arrivals (carried out or permitted under historic licence arrangements from the port or other relevant authority) but are not considered to be a threat to protected habitats identified in newly designated areas as they have been doing so for many years on areas previously dredged.

Modal Impacts, Sustainability and Carbon Emissions

4.6.3 In addition to the previous environmental constraints and designations, the wharves and rail depots will all feature various transport modes to bring the mineral or waste materials to the site. Upon arrival, fixed and mobile plant would be used to unload, process and refine these materials before being sold and re-distributed by various transportation modes, but predominantly by road. Each of these stages will have an environmental effect

of some description whether they are from CO2 emissions, visual intrusion, noise, dust, PM10, vibration, lighting etc. Maintaining the status quo might not be the most appropriate way forward. Therefore, it is recommended that relevant existing environmental policies be reviewed by Hampshire in the MWDF process to determine which policies are most effective and where responsibilities lie for future monitoring and subsequent assessment of the most sustainable sites.

4.6.4 As a consequence, even though most of the existing sites have been operating successfully for many years on historic planning permissions, the sustainability of existing site operations and their modes and methods of distribution and transport will from hereon be under scrutiny by planners, port and harbour authorities and various other bodies empowered to maintain standards and afford protection to all areas of environmental and

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 69 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

nature conservation interest. Sustainable development is therefore one of the main issues facing the aggregate and waste industries across the UK and Hampshire is no exception to this. Sustainable aggregate and waste industries are generally regarded as an environmental necessity but they also have much to contribute in terms of efficiency and profitability.

Photo 21: Upper Quay Wharf, Fareham – site operations and HGV exit route in close proximity to housing

4.6.5 Since 2002, the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) has initiated a host of research projects by various consultants that have generated a much better understanding of sustainability within the aggregates industry and the ways in which it can be achieved. As such, there is already a substantial amount of information now available to the industry’s managers and other key stakeholders. The ALSF1 have set out the best projects on their website2, grouping them under four key themes:-

 Theme 1 - Reducing the Environmental Effect;  Theme 2 - Sustainable Provision of Aggregates;  Theme 3 - Creating Environmental Improvements;  Theme 4 – Heritage.

4.6.6 Research projects undertaken in 2010 by ALSF (see paragraph 1.4.10) on future aggregate production scenarios, use of pipeline technology and potential underground sources in the south east have been referred to elsewhere in this report. Also, as many of the other earlier reports are not likely to be directly applicable to wharves and rail depots, it has not been possible to review all of the project papers within the brief given for this assessment. However, one of the more recent reports AEA/C4S under Theme 1 above (by AEA

1 in conjunction with other organisations (such as Mineral Industry Research Organisation, Defra and English Heritage) 2 www.sustainableaggregates.com

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 70 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Technology and the Centre for Sustainability at TRL(C4S)1) does have relevance to reducing the environmental effect of transporting aggregates in that it provides a summary overview of the related research projects to 2008 on this subject. Essentially, the AEA/C4S report summarises previous ALSF funded projects which had focused on four main strands of activity being:-

 Site Specific Advice – mainly funding business advice for aggregate transport operators to improve operational efficiency;  Driver Development Training – funding training of instructors and drivers to develop their skills in the SAFED scheme (Safe And Fuel Efficient Driving);  Rail and Water Freight Grants – grant availability to operators wishing to switch most journeys from road to rail or water based aggregate transport systems;  Research – funding innovative research aimed at reducing the environmental effects of aggregates transport.

4.6.7 The AEA/C4S report also identified gaps in the current knowledge base and then identified priority areas within the ALSF programme which should now be given further attention. A number of key areas emerging for quarries are also applicable to wharves and rail depots. They include:-

 A carbon reduction focus;  Addressing noise and other impacts of road transport on communities;  Good practise for reducing the effect of transport movements;  Strategic planning to reduce the need for transporting aggregate;  Reducing the impacts of transporting marine aggregate.

Indeed, the latest 2008 MPA Sustainable Development Report2 acknowledges that more evidence and information gathering is needed on the effects of aggregates transport on carbon emissions.

4.6.8 However, the AEA/C4S report does refer to various 2006 statistics relevant to this assessment. These are as follows:-

 Approximately 83% of UK primary aggregate is transported by road – 7.1% by rail, 6.9% by marine dredging and 2.9% by ship (imports and UK coastal);  Average aggregate delivery distances are 29 miles by road, 94 miles by rail, 55 miles by barge;  Average aggregate delivery volumes are 19 tonnes by road, 1,628 tonnes by rail and 396 tonnes by barge;  European Commission figures estimate that CO2 emissions from different aggregate transport options are approximately 160g CO2/t/km for road, 41g CO2/t/km for rail and 25g CO2/t/km for water (inland and coastal).

4.6.9 These figures compare with 2008 figures published by the MPA in their last full Sustainable Development Report published in 2009. A more recent summary report has been published for 2010, but only contains a few statistics shown in italics):-

 Approximately 83% of UK primary aggregate is transported by road – 7% by rail, 6.7% by marine dredging and 3.2% by ship (imports and UK coastal). (2010MPA – 9.6% by rail)

1 AEA Technology/C4S (2008) - Reducing the Environmental Effect of Transporting Aggregate, by AEA Technology and the Centre for Sustainability 2 Quarry Products Association - Sustainable Development Report 2008

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 71 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 Average aggregate delivery distances are 38km (23.6 miles) by road, 126km (78.1 miles) by rail, 37km (22.9 miles) by barge;  Average aggregate delivery volumes are 20.9 tonnes by road (and 16.5t for asphalt and 5.5 cubic metres for ready mixed concrete), 1,471 tonnes by rail and 499 tonnes by barge;  Total energy use (excluding delivery) was 6.71kg of CO2/t aggregate – up from 2007 figure of 5.98kg of CO2/t aggregate;  Energy use aggregate type – crushed rock @ 4.32kg of CO2/t, sand and gravel @ 4.28kg of CO2/t, ready mixed concrete @ 0.95kg of CO2/t (production only) and asphalt @ 34.4kg of CO2/t (production only) – only ready mixed concrete showed reductions in CO2 emissions from 2007.

(Note: MPA figures were showing positive improvements in CO2 emissions up to 2007 possibly due to shortening of average distances travelled and average lorry payloads increasing. Most recent MPA figures for 2008/9 appear to show some setbacks in this trend possibly due to impacts of recession).

4.6.10 In addition to the MPA figures, the British Marine Aggregate Producers Association (BMAPA)1 have also produced figures in recent years on carbon emissions for all in marine aggregate extraction, landings and production, but these do not include road transport 2 figures. In their last three Sustainable Development Reports CO2/t emissions were respectively 7.796kg (2006), 7.614kg (2007) and 6.818kg (2008) the latest figure thus showing a significant improvement on previous years. This may be partly explained by comments contained in the latest BMAPA Report reflecting that:-

 Several dredgers had capital investments made to improve their dredging, material discharging and navigation capabilities which in combination has enabled more efficient turnaround operations for extraction and landings of the marine aggregates (in terms of reduced hours dredged per tonne landed);  For most of the early part of the year 2008 marine aggregate landing volumes were very good and efficiencies were maximised. Later on in 2008, volumes began to tail off due to the start of the recession landing figures for 2009/10 are likely to be much lower and further efficiency savings less likely;  One of the older and probably less efficient dredgers was withdrawn from BMAPA.

4.6.11 It is apparent from the above summaries that all the statistics currently presented and available on carbon emissions (for various aspects of the aggregate industry) are somewhat difficult to interpret and relate to, in order to make any in depth analysis of those operations for a relevant application to this assessment. The aggregate industry and their representative organisations are really only at an early stage of their respective committed programmes for establishing more accurate information on carbon emissions to review for themselves and other stakeholders including mineral planning authorities and the general public. A more thorough analysis of carbon emissions from each aggregate extraction, production and transport activity may take another 5 years to be fully developed before decision makers will be better informed of the potential carbon emission impacts arising from new development proposals.

4.6.12 From the above summaries and on the general comments made by other consultants and representative industry organisations, it is generally accepted that the transport of aggregate by rail or water (including coastal) has lower carbon emissions than by road. Indeed transport by water is the most environmentally beneficial of all three modes.

1 BMAPA Sustainable Development Reports 2007/2008

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 72 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

4.6.13 However, transport alone is only part of the overall carbon emission picture in order to get aggregate to the final customer. It is accepted that the overwhelming majority of aggregate customer supplies (whether delivered loose or in a mixture form such as concrete or asphalt) rely on large lorries or HGV’s to make their deliveries. It is therefore most probable that when lorry trips are included in the figures/tonne for aggregate imports by rail and by sea, that the combined carbon emission figures/tonne will exceed the majority of aggregate extraction, production and transport modes of Hampshire’s own land won operations. For now though, exact figures are not available for Hampshire as a whole and not even on a sub area basis.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 73 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

5. MEETING HAMPSHIRE’S NEEDS FOR WHARVES AND RAIL DEPOTS.

This chapter considers issues related to meeting Hampshire’s needs for wharves and rail depots. The chapter includes other possible scenarios (in addition to Section3 herein) which could occur in order to meet changes in demand for wharves and rail depots in Hampshire.

5.1 Other Factors affecting Future Need for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire

5.1.1 Previous sections of this assessment have shown that Hampshire’s existing aggregate wharf and rail facilities are all located in South Hampshire and have an estimated total adjusted capacity of 4.01 mtpa (Table 8). On this evidence (and subject to no future permanent wharf or rail depot closures), Hampshire probably does not need to identify or make provision for additional aggregate import facilities (i.e. new wharves or rail depots) during the plan period as its current total capacity meets all aggregate forecasting scenarios (1a, 1b, 1c and 2) in Table 13. This is with the exception of possibly the last year or so up to 2030 in Scenarios 1c and 2 as these scenarios are based on unadjusted population figures.

5.1.2 The adjusted capacities included in Table 8 are generally below operator’s assessments in order to align them more with the peak year of imports in 1989. This peak year probably coincided with a period when modes of transport by rail and sea were more flexible and less restrictive than today in that demands on the rail network for freight were lower (and then had less conflict with passenger timetables etc.) and that the marine dredger fleet was then larger in number and smaller in size (taking more shorter trips than today). Also there were then a few more wharf sites to land aggregate (Table 5) in Hampshire in 1989 compared to the number of facilities remaining today.

5.1.3 However, due to the continuous increases in demand on rail services and the expected reductions in current dredger numbers and wharf sites during the plan period, further adjustments to Table 8 site capacities may be needed in due course. Therefore, Hampshire may need to develop a system of greater understanding of the cumulative effect and impacts of reaching full capacity (at each site simultaneously) over a sustained period of years to enable Hampshire to make more informative decisions on future wharf and rail depot strategy. Of particular note here are the following issues:-

 As all four rail depots are on the same main rail line, there may not be sufficient freight train pathways to meet all four site capacities simultaneously;  The total dredger fleet appears to continue a trend from the 1980’s in reducing overall fleet numbers and replacement with larger vessels with self discharging capabilities not suited to all Hampshire wharves;  Future investment strategy for dredger replacements by existing operators and/or independently contracted dredgers is likely to be based on even larger dredgers to extract at greater depths and travel greater distances to more distant destinations. Larger dredgers will further reduce the options of existing Hampshire sites they can land marine aggregate;  Hard rock imports by sea were once quite frequent into Western Docks, albeit for one primary purpose of providing rail ballast for onward transhipment by rail. A return to previous levels of aggregate imports (circa 0.4 mtpa or more) for other aggregate end uses could address any shortcomings elsewhere in hard rock imports provision by sea and rail at existing sites.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 74 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

5.2 Potential Future Scenarios to meet Changes in Need

5.2.1 Should further adjustments be necessary to Table 8 capacities during the plan period or further refinements made to Table 13, then this is more likely to result in additional demand for imports. For this reason Hampshire will need to now consider possible further scenarios to meet adjusted demand forecasts and capacity. These are summarised as follows:-

Scenario 3a: Proposals by existing operators (either individually or jointly) to revamp or reconfigure existing sites in order to enhance performance and throughput (for example by up to 50%) with demonstrable improvements on efficiency, environmental impact, sustainability etc. Possibly only two wharf sites and one rail depot have potential to do this before 2030.

Scenario 3b: Proposals by existing operators to enlarge existing sites in order to enhance performance and throughput (for example by up to 100%) to enable new transhipments by sea and recycling options (under new SEP1 objectives in Policies W1, W2, W5, W6, W16 and W17), and also demonstrable improvements on efficiency, environmental impact, sustainability etc. Probably for waste exports at Western Docks, four aggregate wharf sites (Burnley, Leamouth, Kendalls and Marchwood Wharves) and one rail depot can do this based on current land availability and layouts before 2030.

Scenario 3c: Proposals to continue existing processing facilities until they become unviable and are not replaced. Wharf or rail depot sites currently set up with aggregate processing plant are quite likely to need replacement processing facilities by 2030. Such major reinvestment decision making could determine whether operators continue with new and more efficient facilities or possibly consider rationalisation of sites to focus on more efficient facilities elsewhere (relevant to operators with more than one wharf or rail depot).

Scenario 3d: Proposals to reinstate aggregate imports by sea into Western Docks for local consumption and also for transhipment by sea and rail to meet regional and national requirements.

Scenario 3e: Proposals by either existing or new operators for completely new wharf and rail depot facilities (under new SEP1 objectives in Policies T10 – T14, W1 – W7, W9 – W12, W15 – W17 and M1 – M5 inclusive). In respect of major new wharf facilities, the only possible site that has been identified (paragraph 3.5.6) which has existing wharf access and rail infrastructure that could be relatively easily converted into minerals and waste uses is at Marchwood Military Port (see site outline on plan PW1). The adjacent large expanse of mainly undisturbed land known as Dibden Bay (also on Plan PW1) was previously identified for a new deep water aggregate facility as part of a major container port expansion plan by ABP. Although that proposal was refused planning permission, ABP wishes to identify some of this land as having potential for deep water aggregate imports by sea. There may also be other opportunities for the location of a medium to large wharves at other existing commercial and military port land which could become available within the plan period in the Southampton and Portsmouth areas. In respect of new rail depot only facilities, two potential rail depot sites have been previously identified (at Micheldever and Basingstoke), but only one of these sites may be required during the plan period.

5.2.2 In the Scenarios 3a and 3b, greater efficiencies and improved sustainability could mean combining two or more adjoining operators sites, sharing wharf facilities, sharing one large aggregate processing or concrete batching plant (to replace two smaller plants) reducing dependence on small older dredgers and maximising use of more recent larger dredgers etc. Also, by increasing site area available, existing sites could introduce new related

1 The South East Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East – DCLG May 2009

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 75 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

operations such as aggregate recycling to enable on site blending of products, bagging plants etc and develop markets for transhipment by sea.

Other Scenarios based on Alternative Transhipment Facilities or Sources:

5.2.3 Any ‘need’ assessment of future requirements for aggregate import facilities which is based on a review and examination of existing and known facilities (which have been in operation for several decades) would also need to consider the possible impacts of fundamental (and more sustainable) changes to current aggregate import facilities, modes of transport or even sources of supply. Two further scenarios are suggested following research carried out by the ALSF (see also paragraph 1.4.9):-

Scenario 3f: Proposals for aggregate imports from land won sources by pipeline - following recent research on the feasibility of transporting aggregate by pipeline as a sustainable alternative to road and rail.

Scenario 3g: Proposals for aggregate imports from a new south east England underground mine – following recent research on the feasibility of underground mining of aggregates in the UK as a sustainable alternative to UK or foreign based quarries.

Both of these ALSF reports in Scenarios 3f and 3g are summarised further in paragraphs 5.3.6 to 5.3.8 below.

5.3 Review of all Potential Future Scenarios;

5.3.1 Scenario 3a – Revamp and/or Reconfigure Existing Sites:

The potential for revamping or reconfiguring existing sites to improve throughputs and efficiencies etc. would be dependent upon a number of factors. The following sites are considered possible under this scenario:-

Wharves

Dibles Wharf – The site has established large warehouse style buildings covering much of the site and their potential for aggregate related activities is not certain. Indeed it is understood they may still be used for other imports such as cement and other bulky cargos. The remaining open areas are already dedicated to both hard rock and marine aggregate landings for subsequent sale and to service the on site concrete batching plant. However, the optimum site area usage may also be affected by the presence of several old style gantry cranes and an additional dock basin located within the site, which may no longer fulfil any useful aggregate import purpose.

The combination of these existing buildings and facilities and remaining open yard area to work within are likely to impede the establishment of a medium sized (Class 2) marine aggregate processing plant (with associated facilities) and therefore any significant growth in aggregate throughput. However, the removal of non-essential gantry cranes and filling or bridging of the dock basin (and possibly the removal or adaptation of one or part of the existing buildings if necessary) could increase operational areas within the existing site footprint allowing more opportunity and flexibility for the establishment of a marine processing plant by 2030.

Bedhampton Wharf – Until the recent temporary mothballing of the wharf processing plant at this site, the combined operations previously conducted here also appeared to be rather confined. Opportunities to carry out other significant additional activities were limited due to the rather complicated arrangement between freehold and leased areas and the presence

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 76 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

of two concrete batching plants in separate and distinct areas on site which were operated by two separate companies. This site is the only wharf with two operating concrete batching plants, but it also carries out some simple bagging operations on a tiny part of the site. It would seem logical at some stage for the operators to remove one or both of the concrete batching plants to enable one plant to jointly absorb the productive capacity of both, thereby freeing up space for a larger processing plant and associated aggregate storage, allow hard rock imports by sea, establish improved bagging operations and (depending on actual space available) possibly the introduction of aggregate recycling and blending operations. However, there would clearly be commercial, planning and other obstacles to overcome for these proposals to happen but some of these will be possible before 2030.

Rail Depots

Eastleigh East – The site has the potential to establish additional facilities such as a concrete batching plant and enhanced recycling to improve throughput. A previous planning permission for a new concrete plant at this site was granted in 2005 but may have lapsed in early 2010. However, it may be possible to resubmit and obtain planning permission again in the future.

With any of the above options, there would clearly be commercial, planning and other obstacles to overcome for these proposals to come forward.

5.3.2 Scenario 3b – Expansion of Existing Sites:

The potential for expansion at existing sites to improve throughputs and efficiencies etc. would also be dependent upon a number of factors. The following sites are considered to be the only existing operations which have adjacent land potentially available to expand into under this scenario:-

Wharves

Leamouth and Burnley Wharves – these wharves are in close proximity and of similar size. They have similar marine aggregate processing facilities and other related activities on site, and are only separated by a small redundant concrete block making plant that was supplied by one of the adjacent wharves. The Burnley Wharf site area is partly hampered by the presence of Hanson Marine head offices on the road frontage. It is understood that the old block making site has now been vacated.

It is therefore possible that either Leamouth or Burnley Wharves could expand their current sites by absorbing the vacated old block making site at some stage or, alternatively, both operators could set up a joint operation (as joint ventures exist elsewhere around the south coast) with one large new plant to replace the two that exist now, thereby freeing up space for more aggregate storage and to allow other related activities to take place - such as hard rock imports by sea, transhipments of aggregate by sea, aggregate recycling, bagging etc.

The Leamouth and Burnley sites could also provide opportunities for the importation of crushed rock, subject to expansion, and when appropriate. Any combination of these could take place before 2030.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 77 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Photo 22: Burnley Wharf – potential wharf extension into adjoining redundant block making area

Marchwood Wharf (East) - This wharf is relatively long and narrow but already has good wharf frontage for more than one vessel. It is understood that larger vessels (up to 6,000 tonne capacity with self discharge facilities) than those currently in use (dredger of 1,400 tonne capacity with grab crane discharge arrangements), can use this wharf. Previously an area of the site was leased for use as a bagging plant to Tarmac. This use has now ceased and the area has now been leased to Raymond Brown and is currently being used for the importation and storing of woodchip. This is then exported via the wharf for use abroad as bio fuel. This area could once again become available in the future on more permanent terms, and it would then be possible to enhance the throughput at this site at this stage. Throughput could be further enhanced with the additional land should larger vessels or dredgers be used and these combined arrangements would enable more transhipment by sea and recycling opportunities to take place.

The expansion possibilities at Marchwood are likely to be the easiest and quickest to activate out of all three wharf possibilities under Scenario 3b.

Kendalls Wharf – This wharf is not constrained by other activities (such as industrial, commercial or residential) on adjacent land. However, the opportunity to expand the site is dependent upon making use of environmentally sensitive mudflats to extend the wharf operational area thereby allowing more vessels to berth and more aggregate to be landed and processed etc. The extension of Kendalls wharf (for example by at least 0.5 hectares (ha)) would enhance throughput by allowing regular 2,000 tonne capacity dredgers and other vessels to berth and unload here and potentially establish transhipments by sea, more aggregate recycling and additional related facilities. The expansion would require an EIA application as well as a Habitats Regulation Assessment due to the potential significant effects on the nearby mudflats and this application is being prepared for submission to Portsmouth City Council in 2011.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 78 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Photo 23: Kendalls Wharf – potential wharf extension and area Expansion

Rail Depots

Eastleigh West – This site is currently used for aggregate recycling of old rail ballast and other construction waste from the rail companies. The waste material arrives by rail and is then crushed and screened into recycled aggregate and then most of it (circa 90%) is then sent out again by rail for use on rail projects. The site forms about 50% of a larger area used by the rail companies for other bulky goods in open storage, which are mainly rail related goods and storage. It is conceivable that the remainder of this site could become available for aggregate related activities or, in particular, more options for aggregate recycling for Hampshire consumption within the plan period.

With any of the above options, there would clearly be commercial, planning and other obstacles to overcome for these proposals to come forward.

5.3.3 Scenario 3c – Operator Rationalisation of Wharves and Rail Depots:

Any commercial organisation producing similar goods or products from several small to medium sized sites in relative close proximity to each other will always carry out reviews of the collective profitability and viability derived from each site. Commercial organisations would be quite prepared to concentrate production facilities at one site or two key strategic sites where cost savings can be made. This process is often generally referred to as rationalisation and can often occur during any economic cycle or, indeed, from the introduction of new (and more sustainable) technology.

A process of modest rationalisation of the aggregate industry wharves and rail depots has generally been taking place across much of the South East since the heyday of 1989 highest production and landings. Many of these sites have been permanently lost to

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 79 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

alternative developments. In the last two years, the current recession has seen an acceleration of site closures, albeit mainly of a temporary nature until better times return.

Wharves

Tipner Wharf – Hampshire has been advised by Lafarge Aggregates that Tipner Wharf has been mothballed. It is unclear whether this site will open again on a permanent basis in the future. This closure has probably been caused by regeneration pressures on the site, but possibly also due to recessionary pressures also.

Bedhampton Wharf – This wharf is to be mothballed temporarily, subject to planning permission being granted to Tarmac for a 5 year period to enable aggregate imports by road only from its site at Burnley Wharf, Southampton to service their concrete plant at that site. The other concrete plant at this site already has permission to import by road.

Rail Depots

It is understood that no rail depot has been mothballed since the first need assessment was completed last year. The possible permanent loss of Tipner Wharf and temporary loss of Bedhampton Wharf are not considered to be significant in the overall context of capacity in this revised needs assessment as Bedhampton Wharf is the larger of the two wharves and could be returned to full use in due course. Furthermore, both wharves belong to national operators who have other wharves in Hampshire and West Sussex where additional production can compensate small capacity losses.

5.3.4 Scenario 3d – Reinstatement of Aggregate Imports into Western Docks:

As stated previously in this assessment, aggregate imports into Western Docks have occurred on at least two occasions in the last 20 years. Initially, they occurred for reasons of general purpose demand and shortfalls in capacity elsewhere. Subsequently, imports recommenced to meet specific arrangements for rail ballast commitment, mainly for transhipments by rail beyond Hampshire. Both previous arrangements appear to have come to abrupt ends for different reasons. However it appears that in more recent years the cost of operating aggregate facilities at these docks have prevented any return to such imports and other operations appear to be have been more favoured. However, it is conceivable that economics may favour a return to aggregate imports in the future and this could occur at relatively short notice and also with minimal investment as the docks clearly have established bulky cargo operations and rail facilities to take advantage of.

5.3.5 Scenario 3e – New Wharves or Rail Depots:

Generally:

As with other areas in the south east, there have been few opportunities to establish new wharves or rail depots in Hampshire. This has probably been apparent for many years since preparations commenced in the early 1990’s for the Hampshire MWLP. Any new proposal for a wharf or rail depot is usually based on a site with prior planning uses associated with handling bulky cargos other than aggregates. In the last 10 years, two aggregate import planning applications were submitted at wharves handling bulky cargos (Drivers Wharf and Husbands Jetty). Both of these applications were subsequently withdrawn.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 80 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Major Wharf Potential for minerals (i.e. aggregate imports > 0.75 mtpa) and waste

In respect of major wharf facilities which have some potential for major imports/exports of minerals and waste , only two adjacent sites have been identified (paragraph 3.5.6) for this assessment:-

 Marchwood Military Port  Dibden Bay

The MOD has recently announced its intentions to sell the Military Port. Although the details of the sale are not known currently, a major new aggregates and waste wharf facility at Marchwood Military Port has significant commercial attractions. The site already has established wharf and rail transhipment facilities, together with several other related facilities (buildings, stores and storage yards) on adjoining land to support them. The development of a new wharf within the 72 hectare site (see Plan PW1) could provide a significant opportunity, depending on the deliverability of the site following its sale. An aggregate only facility here with related activities may be possible on 8-12 hectares (including wharf and rail sidings), whereas other minerals and waste uses may increase this to 20-25 hectares (which is still only a third of the total area). An assessment of specific site development costs in developing the site for minerals and waste uses (particularly to ensure that large aggregate vessels can reach this site) is probably not possible at this stage as it is unclear when and if the site will become available in whole or part. Even then, an aggregate based development on its own may still be cost prohibitive or dependent upon other existing Hampshire aggregate sites closing to justify aggregate and waste throughputs here.

Nevertheless, as Marchwood Military Port clearly has some potential for the development of new minerals and waste facilities, then if review of its existing military uses permit the land and facilities to be used for commercial operations, it would be prudent to safeguard the whole site for potential minerals and waste uses until other relevant information becomes available to demonstrate otherwise.

Dibden Bay (see Plan PW1) is also identified by ABP as having potential for large scale aggregate imports within their Strategic Land Reserve landholdings set out in the Port of Southampton Master Plan. The Dibden Bay areas form over 320 hectares of mainly undeveloped land, much of which was previously reclaimed by ABP’s predecessors using river dredging. There are no established wharves or rail facilities on the land and much of it has significant planning sensitivity for a variety of reasons. Irrespective of the planning sensitivities, it is likely that there are only two possible sub-scenarios in which Dibden Bay can be developed for large scale aggregate imports being:-

1. A free standing wharf or jetty linked to adjacent land areas: The choice of wharf or jetty and conveyor arrangement would be dependent upon cost and other related factors such as whether the site is to be a combined strategic sea dredged and crushed rock operation with new rail linked facilities. Large scale crushed rock imports would probably need deep water facilities to accommodate the current largest dedicated bulk aggregate vessels (up to 90,000 tonne cargos) which currently carry hard rock into other UK and European destinations. The land take for a new jetty and conveyor arrangement would probably be less than a new wharf but either proposal would need a dedicated new road and rail link making the combined land take for such new aggregate related facilities more than that estimated at Marchwood Military Port (say circa 15-20 hectares) or more when other related uses are included such as cement imports, recycled and secondary aggregates, scrap metals, waste bottle glass and other wastes etc. These combined minerals and waste related activities would need additional mitigation planning measures to reduce impacts of a new development at

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 81 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Dibden Bay, which could make the total development footprint to be circa 25-35 hectares. LMML believe there is no precedent in the UK for the construction of major new wharf and rail link facilities on sensitive undeveloped land for the importation of aggregates alone. The overall development costs of such a major freestanding wharf or jetty would appear to be extremely cost prohibitive for aggregate use only and also very unlikely for a combined minerals and waste facility. If substantial subsidies were available the viability issue could be viewed in a different way depending upon overall planning merits. However, as ABP have not yet promoted any individual area of the site for such a new facility it is not possible to identify an area for site specific safeguarding.

2. Part of the ABP proposed large scale Dibden Bay container port expansion plans: Although the concept of major container port expansion at Dibden Bay has been previously promoted by ABP and refused at appeal in 2004, it could nevertheless still come forward again within the plan period from 2021 as stated in the ABP Port Master Plan. If the port expansion plans have progressed by 2021, then a review should then be made as to the need or otherwise for some of the land to be set aside for minerals and waste uses. Such a review will need to include an update on wharf and rail developments that may have taken place in the intervening period (e.g. possible development of new sites or lost wharf capacity elsewhere). Therefore, in the meantime the principle of a new aggregates wharf connected to rail facilities will therefore need to be safeguarded from all other developments at Dibden Bay. However, without a specific area identified on a plan, any proposed safeguarding can only be achieved by approximate means and therefore only a zone area is identified on Plan PW1. In the event that substantial increased capacity for minerals and waste at Hampshire wharves elsewhere has taken place before the Dibden Bay expansion proposals come forward, then the need for interim zonal safeguarding at Dibden Bay can be reviewed.

Irrespective of which of the above sub-scenarios can be progressed, it would be sensible for Hampshire to seek the inclusion and potential development of other minerals and waste uses in conjunction with any development for major aggregate import facilities at these sites.

Therefore, on the evidence presented to date, there is currently no justification for a stand alone major facility for aggregate imports at Dibden Bay for the majority of the plan period to 2030. A possible need may arise for more wharf capacity in Hampshire to import aggregates during this period if other existing sites prematurely close on a permanent basis, but a stand alone proposal at Dibden Bay is likely to be very sensitive in planning terms and more unlikely to be viable when such extensive new infrastructure is required. A proposal for a minerals and waste wharf at Dibden Bay is probably only possible as an ancillary operation to a major container port expansion proposal and then it should be based on proven need based on proven capacity limitations or shortfalls incurred elsewhere in Hampshire.

Furthermore, as the delivery of the port expansion is uncertain (particularly as timescales for planning application submission and approval are difficult to determine), there are no guarantees that it will occur between 2021 and the end of within the MWDF period to 2030. On this basis, it is also considered inappropriate to attempt specific site safeguarding now of what is effectively an indeterminate area within a larger area of possible port expansion. Without exact boundaries identified at Dibden Bay, it is only proposed to identify a general zone for safeguarding (see Plan PW1).

Other Wharf Potential for minerals (i.e. aggregate imports < 0.75 mtpa) and waste

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 82 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Other commercial or military port land within the Port of Southampton - If existing land (currently used for commercial or military port related uses) or other new land within the Port of Southampton were to become available (e.g. at Western or Eastern Docks) during the plan period for redevelopment, there may be an opportunity to locate a new aggregate wharf with potential for associated waste uses to develop subsequently. However, no deliverable sites were identified in advance of preparing the 2009 assessment and its update meaning that the deliverability and viability of this as an option has not been fully assessed.

Commercial or military port land within the Port of Portsmouth – If land currently used for commercial or military port related uses in the Port of Portsmouth were to become available within the plan period, there may be an opportunity for new aggregate and waste uses to be developed within the plan period. However, no such sites or areas have been identified in advance of preparing the 2009 assessment and its update meaning that the deliverability and viability of this as an option has not been fully assessed at this stage.

Bakers Wharf - this site should still be safeguarded for aggregate imports as it has been used as such in the past. However, the site is now being put to an alternative use due to its size, and may not be used again for the importation of marine aggregate and related processing facilities. Irrespective of this, the site may possibly be used for the landing of processed aggregate materials that were transhipped from processing facilities elsewhere. On this basis, smaller vessels could be landed here on a more regular basis using modest on site facilities needed for landing and storage of the aggregate.

Princes Wharf – this site is currently an active scrap metal import and export facility on a good site but could easily be converted or used in conjunction with aggregate imports subject to need, for example for crushed rock. However, it should be noted that the site is under consideration by SCC for regeneration and redevelopment.

Rail Depots

Two potential sites have been previously identified (Micheldever and Basingstoke) for the location of new rail depot sites. Both of the sites are located in the northern half of Hampshire where there is a demand for aggregate and there is a lack of rail depot facilities. These sites would not be able to generate very large volumes and throughputs in comparison with a new wharf facility. The development of only one of these new rail depot sites is likely within the plan period

Micheldever – this is a potentially large site (circa 6ha) with very long rail frontage and separate sidings. It is made up of two split level areas which will need internal improvements to link them and also a new access to the highway. The lower level area is currently in use for rail related storage requirements. The upper level appears to have no current use and is vacant. By linking both areas a substantial site can be generated for aggregate imports and recycling and possibly a concrete batching plant. Also, due to its size and geographic location, the site may have potential to be used as a ‘holding station’ for waste (similar in concept to the bottle glass depots that serve the Recresco facility at Western Docks), except that transhipment of the waste could be by rail instead of road (in open wagons or containers) direct into the port. This would ease or reduce road congestion in Southampton before final treatment and onward transhipment by sea. Other wastes such as plastics, tyres and electrical components could be considered here.

Basingstoke – this is a long and narrow site (circa 1 ha.) with reasonable access but small area overall. It has a good frontage with the rail siding but the site is only narrow in width and is only likely to allow trains to be unloaded and loaded to one side. The site offers virtually no opportunity and flexibility for other storage and aggregate related activities. The

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 83 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

site is likely to be overlooked by nearby multi-storey developments currently under construction. As the site is a proposed site in the Draft Hampshire Minerals Plan, the site is already safeguarded.

Summary of Scenario 3e:

As the long term future of Marchwood Military Port is currently being reviewed as to whether some or all of the land, wharf and rail facilities can be released for commercial uses, it is considered appropriate to safeguard most of the developed land areas in the meantime for a major aggregates wharf and other minerals and waste uses (see Plan PW1).

A specific site area at Dibden Bay could not justifiably be safeguarded for future potential minerals and waste uses during the plan period to 2030. However, a large area is proposed for safeguarding by zone area (see Plan PW1), to enable a more general form of safeguarding in the meantime until forthcoming events change for the following reasons:-

 subsequent monitoring by Hampshire from hereon identify significant changes to aggregate forecasting and demand before the end of the plan period to 2030;  subsequent monitoring by Hampshire from hereon identify significant changes to the capacity of Hampshire aggregate wharves and other facilities resulting from new developments or closures of existing wharves or rail depots;  planning permission is sought for a major container port expansion which includes minerals and waste facilities.

Hampshire would therefore need to devise a suitable form of safeguarding policy for this arrangement.

The wharves and rail depots identified above (Bakers, Princes, Micheldever, Basingstoke) should be proposed for safeguarding status if not already included as such. As in all the other scenarios herein, there would clearly be commercial, planning and other obstacles to overcome for the new wharf proposals to come forward within the plan period, but the rail depots could be more straightforward prospects due to their simpler infrastructure requirements and unloading arrangements.

It should be recognised that if suitable land becomes available in the Ports of Southampton and Portsmouth, then these sites should be considered for the development of new aggregate and waste related facilities, if this is required to meet demand. However, no specific site boundaries can be identified for safeguarding at this stage.

Other Scenarios with Potential Impacts by the end of the Plan Period:

5.3.6 In addition to the ALSF Horizon Scan referred to previously in this report, two other ALSF projects were funded by MIRO and completed in the last year or so. These reports considered the potential introduction of pipelines to transport aggregate and underground mining (outside of Hampshire, but in south east of England). These are two areas which were not previously considered within the 2009 assessment and therefore now provide 2 new scenarios for consideration.

5.3.7 Scenario 3f – Potential Introduction of Aggregate Transport by Pipeline:

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 84 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

ALSF Report (May 2010) entitled “Are pipelines a feasible method of transporting aggregates in England?”

Mineral and other bulky cargo transportation by pipeline is not a new technology as there are several previous and existing examples worldwide but, in recent years, there has been growing interest in the development of freight pipelines in several applications around the world as they could offer opportunities to significantly reduce both the cost of transportation and the socio-environmental impact of hundreds of thousands of truck movements.

The recent ALSF report researched the feasibility of the concept in terms of technical, economic and socio-environmental viability and looked into other factors such as how extensive and how quickly the concept could be developed.

A hypothetical pipeline of 50km. in length with a potential capacity of 10mt in each direction was chosen to develop the technology solution and to provide the basis for economic and socio-environmental analysis. The base case was assumed to be 1mtpa of aggregate transported in one direction only. All base data for the project were derived from a variety of recognised sources.

The concept is based on capsules, each carrying 5t of aggregate, running on a light railway system in a concrete pipeline of 1.3 metre internal diameter. The proposed capsules incorporated in the exemplar aggregates pipeline would be as simple and rugged in construction as possible to minimise capital and maintenance costs, and be without on- board motive power. The power source would instead be provided by static ‘boosters’ displaced at intervals along the track to impart a controlled amount of kinetic energy to each capsule as it passes. Loading and unloading will be similar to the automated systems used for the current rail distribution operations, but do not necessarily need to be associated with or based on existing rail infrastructure in the same way rail depots are developed.

The project concludes that the development of freight pipelines to transport aggregates in England is technically feasible and would generate significant social and environmental benefits. With the volume, source and market data that was available to the project it was shown that the economic viability is attractive at comparatively low volume flows and with moderately difficult terrain but specific company data is required for true economic assessment of individual pipeline proposals

Potential Application of Aggregate Transport by Pipeline in Hampshire:

In most circumstances, it has been difficult to identify how the use of pipelines could assist Hampshire with the transport of aggregates within its own boundaries based on the existing system of wharves and rail depots, even if the concept was profitable at shorter trips of 30 miles or less. However, there are two possible situations where aggregate transfers into and out of Hampshire by pipeline could be feasible within the plan period. These are:-

 Replacement of most existing road imports of aggregate into South Hampshire from Somerset and;  Transfer and export of aggregate by pipeline from a new wharf (e.g. Dibden Bay) into North Hampshire, Berkshire or into to West London market areas.

Both of the above examples have potentially very attractive objectives for Hampshire (particularly on reductions in aggregate traffic on Hampshire roads and a potential reduction in CO2 emissions) but would need to be researched further with industry support. In the case of a new major aggregate wharf at either MMP or Dibden Bay, a new pipeline serving other south east areas could negate most need for aggregate rail journeys through Southampton.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 85 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

5.3.8 Scenario 3g – Potential Impacts of Underground Mining of Aggregates in the UK

ALSF Report (May 2010) entitled “Underground Mining of Aggregates”

This report examines the economic feasibility of underground mining for crushed rock aggregates in the UK, but particularly in the London, South East and East of England regions (the South East area of England). These regions import substantial volumes of crushed rock, primarily from the East Midlands and South West regions, requiring relatively long transport distances to market for this bulk commodity. A key part of the research was to determine whether or not aggregate could be produced and delivered to a local market from an underground aggregates operation at a cost comparable with that for production and transport of the commodity from traditional surface crushed rock quarries located further afield. Essentially, the research considered whether reduced transport costs could compensate for the higher production costs of underground mining and be more competitive than traditional crushed rock aggregates sources from Leicestershire and Somerset surface quarries exporting to the South East?

Potential Application of Underground Mining of Aggregates to Hampshire:

Several potential sites for a new crushed rock mine in the south east (5 areas – being East Kent, East Sussex, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire) were reviewed. The costs and CO2 emissions associated with mine extraction were comparable (at current values) with most costs associated with the Somerset and Leicestershire rock quarries reviewed as part of the baseline research. In the short to medium term, greater efficiencies in mining may place this extraction method in a far better position than quarrying in terms of operating costs, CO2 emissions and other commercial and environmental benefits.

On this basis, it could be conceivable that some of the existing wharf and rail depot facilities in Hampshire may become less competitive and surplus to requirements by the end of the new plan period to 2030.

5.3.9 Summary of Scenarios 3f and 3g

In addition to potential long term cost savings, the initial ALSF research projects in Scenarios 3f and 3g have identified environmental benefits for the sustainable transport of aggregates and their sourcing in England. It is expected that continuous updates and reviews of these two scenarios (or others that may be promoted) will be undertaken over the next few years to determine whether trends in base costs can be improved to make either of them more attractive from a commercial or environmental perspective.

Therefore, it is recommended that Hampshire should support continuous reviews of new concepts which identify and can deliver further cost savings and environmental benefits, including possible support for government funded incentives (e.g. tax breaks or further grants) which could bring some demonstrable benefits forward and possibly within the plan period.

5.3.10 Potential new wharf capacity from 2030

The above scenarios were all essentially based on factors or events that could realistically take place before the end of the plan period to 2030. It is therefore considered appropriate to take into account some of the potential research that has been made for the subsequent years. For the first 20 years or so beyond the current plan period to 2050, the ALSF Horizon Scan forecasts identified potential rises in overall British aggregate demand to levels which only just exceeded the previous levels of peak consumption in 1989. It is therefore likely that the forecast will also reflect aggregate demand in Hampshire, on which

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 86 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

basis additional wharf facilities and capacity may still not be required for nearly 40 years hence.

Irrespective of this forecast, the current mix of aggregate demand and supply for Hampshire could substantially change after 2030 on matters such as:-

Possible negative changes to aggregate demand and supply mix in Hampshire:  The sale and future development of Marchwood Military Port takes place and does not include a major aggregates wharf and other minerals and waste uses;  Road imports from Somerset reduce to minor volumes due to fuel costs or to conserve resources in Somerset should no further quarry extension permissions be granted after 2030;  Hampshire’s own land based aggregate contribution does not continuously reach targets set;  Hampshire’s own production rate of recycled and secondary aggregates fails to keep up with 2016 expected target on a continuous basis;  Enforced or voluntary closure of existing marine wharf sites by CPO backed regeneration schemes.

Possible positive changes to aggregate demand and supply mix in Hampshire:  Development of Marchwood Military Port takes place for a major aggregates wharf and other minerals and waste uses;  Introduction of superior and sustainable new technology or transport modes (e.g. pipeline transfer technology in Scenario 3f below and/or HGV’s using renewable or low carbon energy);  Development of new UK based and sustainable underground aggregate mines (Scenario 3g below);  Development of new major wharves outside of Hampshire (e.g. Lafarge at Northfleet in Kent).

On the basis that only negative changes to Hampshire aggregate demand and supply mix takes place, there may be a need for a major new aggregates import facility (of circa 1-3 mtpa) to be established at Dibden Bay post 2030. This would still be dependent on many important factors and criteria and evidential support e.g. a concept or design based on sustainable objectives for greater efficiency, low energy consumption, low carbon rating and high environmental standards. These objectives are likely to include the following:-

 Establishment of major transhipment facilities for all types of processed aggregates by sea and (possibly) rail to help reduce vehicle movements and CO2 emissions, thereby assisting the ‘Gateway’ concept for Southampton and possibly include the closing of existing less efficient wharves in Hampshire and neighbouring authorities (probably only possible if the proposal was a joint venture with two or more aggregate companies);  Enclosure of on site aggregate processing and storage thereby minimising other environmental impacts;  Extensive mitigation works on areas around the facilities for effective landscaping and ecological enhancements;  Proposals to incorporate imports and exports of related and other bulky cargos such as cement, secondary aggregates, scrap metals, waste bottle glass and other wastes etc. (note: it may be possible in time to relocate many other bulky cargo operations currently based at Western Docks);  Designated area for a major recycled aggregate operation to complement the primary aggregate imports;  Designated areas for establishment of related aggregate facilities such as concrete, bagging, block making, pipe making and other specialist concrete product plants to take advantage of the new transhipment opportunities.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 87 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

As stated in paragraph 5.3.5, a major new stand alone aggregates wharf at Dibden Bay is likely to be based on the development of multi – functional and transmodal facilities which will need up 25 hectares of land. However, to make these proposals more sustainable, such new wharf and rail facilities should also be expected to be used for other minerals and waste operations. On this basis, an area in excess of 25 ha (possibly 35 hectares) should be safeguarded for such a development post 2030, if the area boundaries can be identified by then. Provision of a demonstrably acceptable major new wharf site could enable a substantial reconfiguration of aggregate, minerals and waste solutions to supply and demand in Hampshire, and would lead to the site having a regional and/or national significance.

To ensure flexibility on the future provision of facilities beyond 2030, a minimum 35 hectare area of land at Dibden Bay should be safeguarded now from other forms of development. The area should be safeguarded for the co-location of major minerals and waste related uses to help achieve latest national and regional guidance on sustainability objectives. It would be inappropriate to attempt specific site safeguarding of a site as the exact boundaries of a potential site are not known at this stage. For now it is considered more appropriate to set out a general zoning approach on areas where no previous history of wharf or mineral handling operations have taken place. Therefore, it is proposed to zone an area at Dibden Bay along most of the river frontage and the existing rail facilities for potential uses in connection with the import and export of minerals and waste (Plan PW1). Should zoning become acceptable, any other development proposals at Dibden Bay would need to consider the impacts they may have on the minerals or waste wharf requirements. The use of this zoning approach is considered a better alternative to specific site safeguarding in this case.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 88 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

6. WHARF AND RAIL DEPOT SAFEGUARDING – INCLUDING POSSIBLE NEW SAFEGUARDING MEASURES

This chapter considers the issue of wharves and rail depot safeguarding and possible new safeguarding measures. These can be used to inform the development of new policies on safeguarding for the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan. The chapter includes detail on existing policies, site safeguarding issues and needs for existing wharves and rail depots, further and future safeguarding of potential new wharves and railhead and potential for integration of transport modes.

6.1 Existing Site Safeguarding Policies on Wharves and Rail Depots

6.1.1 As stated previously in this assessment, Hampshire acknowledges the importance of its existing and potential wharves and rail depots. Indeed, the previous Structure Plan and Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP - 1998) had policies which supported the principle of safeguarding such sites. These included policies 21, 22, 23 and 24 which considered the safeguarding of wharves and rail depots.

6.1.2 Essentially, Policy 21 (see Appendix 2 for full details of policy) states that Hampshire would normally oppose proposals for development which would prevent or prejudice the use of the wharves and rail depots for those purposes. A list of sites are provided in the policy and this includes the potential new site at Micheldever Depot and any other sites granted permission or with established rights for those purposes. No other wharf or rail depot sites were identified in Policy 21.

6.1.3 Policies 22 – 24 (see Appendix 2 for full details of policies) generally support Policy 21 and recognise the need for such facilities but emphasise that new proposals should not override important environmental issues or other sensitive interests.

6.1.4 The former Hampshire Structure Plan (1996) did recognise the potential of major new wharf facilities at Dibden Bay but the subsequent Core Strategy did not. Since initial identification, no planning application has been submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for consideration, but a major planning application for extensive new container port facilities at Dibden Bay (including a deep water aggregate imports facility with new rail link) was submitted and eventually refused permission at appeal in 2004. However, the Structure Plan ceased to have any effect from 27 September 2007 with the exception of 24 'saved' policies and since then all of these saved policies were recently superseded by the new SEP and therefore not applicable.

6.1.5 Hampshire is currently left in the position of having only one specific ‘saved’ safeguarding policy (Policy 21 – see Appendix 2) under the MWLP as well as two further policies (22, 23 and 24) which consider wharves and rail depots, as policy S14 of the Hampshire Core Strategy is quashed. All four policies appear to be aimed at aggregate facilities but could equally be applicable to facilities handling other minerals and waste.

6.1.6 Since the MWLP policies were introduced in 1998, only a handful of planning applications have been made for new or enhancements to existing wharf and rail depot sites. Of particular note are the permissions granted at Marchwood Wharf (East) for a new aggregate processing plant and at Botley Rail Depot for the import of recycled aggregates. A further planning application for a waste recycling facility at Willments Shipyard was not directly linked to using the wharf as all imports and subsequent sales are by road. In addition, apart from the unsuccessful Dibden Bay proposal (refused at appeal in 2004), it is understood that Hampshire has not been approached for any other significant new proposals for the importation, transfer and exportation of minerals or waste via wharves and

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 89 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

rail depots in Hampshire for many years. Indeed, several wharves were granted permission but were never implemented in the 1990’s (see paragraph 3.5.2).

6.1.7 However, a number of other cumulative events have occurred since 1998 which have affected the overall picture of maintaining wharf and rail depot facilities. These are considered in section 2 and include the establishment of two new wharf facilities, the closure of one wharf for aggregate uses, encroachment of 2 sites from other developments such as housing and redevelopment aspirations at 1 wharf and 1 rail depot site.

6.1.8 Based on these changes, there is some indication that the overall effectiveness since 1998 of MWLP policies 21 – 24 for safeguarding may not have been quite as robust with regards to wharves and rail depots as originally intended. This clearly raises some issues on what additional elements should be included in the new policies to be developed and some possible elements are set out below (these include elements which have been considered elsewhere within this report regarding their potential impact on existing sites):-

 New developments on sites within (for example) 300 metres or with potential views of existing or proposed wharves and rail depots should be automatically singled out for additional scrutiny to long term impacts on those facilities. Wharf and rail depot operators should be automatically notified of these developments;  New developments with direct or indirect links to water borne activities on or close to commercial navigational routes also to be singled out for additional scrutiny to long term impacts on wharf facilities;  Stronger links and understanding with ABP and other harbour and port authorities to ensure new water related facilities (not governed by the planning system) are not allowed to develop in ways which inadvertently impact on existing and future wharf safeguarding issues;  Relocation of rail depots as part of major local redevelopment schemes do not inadvertently impact on the ability for existing main rail lines to maintain or enhance rail freight pathways and services to the relocated rail depot or other rail depots elsewhere.

6.1.9 It is therefore apparent that a review of wharf and rail depot safeguarding issues is required to improve the robustness of the policies to be developed.

6.2 Review of Site Safeguarding Issues and Needs for Existing Wharves and Rail Depots

6.2.1 Safeguarding existing wharves and rail depots is important to ensure that Hampshire has the capacity to meet demand for aggregate through marine won importation, as well as other associated waste management activities.

6.2.2 National and regional policy guidelines tend to favour the safeguarding of all existing operating wharves and rail depots and afford protection to other sites which could be used for the importation, transfer and export of minerals and waste. However, as the extent of spare capacity at each individual wharf and rail depot in Hampshire varies considerably based on historic outputs, it could be conceivable that one or two of the smaller wharf facilities were less crucial in productive capacity terms (e.g. not all wharves and rail depots need aggregate processing facilities) to Hampshire’s overall medium to long term objectives for minerals and waste.

6.2.3 Adjoining land may or may not be under the control of the operators, but if this land is vacant or underutilised, Hampshire should consider adopting supplemental policy safeguarding measures to these land areas to ensure the wharves and rail depots are not directly affected by any subsequent uses on these sites. Such policies are often referred to as the formation buffer zones in planning terms (see later in section 4.4.10).

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 90 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

6.3 Further Safeguarding of Potential New Wharves and Rail Depots

6.3.1 A review of the policies contained within the 1998 MWLP indicates that some aspects of MWLP Policy 21 require further clarification through the revision of policies, particularly in the light of subsequent wharf and rail depot site changes. These are summarised as follows:-

 Supermarine Wharf was not identified for safeguarding in the MWLP and is indirectly linked to bagging and concrete manufacturing plants located at Spitfire Quay;  Dibles Wharf has emerged as a new wharf site;  Eastleigh Rail Depot is actually comprised of two separate but linked rail sidings and sites providing different aggregate functions;  Bakers Wharf is now unlikely to return as a marine aggregate processing site due to its small size, but cannot be ruled out completely. However, it could fulfil a revised function in landing hard rock and processed aggregate from smaller vessels which can gain access to the site;  Willments Shipyard apparently cannot now be accessed by dredgers or vessels exceeding 1000 tonne capacity due to the wharf being silted up. Although much smaller vessels (e.g. barges carrying less than 1000 tonnes) could potentially land processed aggregates here, there would be a viability issue and there is no interest to promote the site from the current site owners and/or operators;  Tipner, Upper Quay (Fareham) and Supermarine Wharves represent the three smallest Hampshire wharves by volume of materials handled, areas available for marine aggregate processing and size of dredger or vessels delivering materials. Future investment is most likely to be needed at these sites and/or their supply vessels within the plan period. Should future investment be made at larger sites instead (with larger supply vessels etc.) then this may result in small wharf closures or site operational changes to allow importation and the transhipment of processed aggregates only;  Basingstoke Siding should be included for safeguarding under Scenario 2d above;  Princes Wharf should be included for safeguarding even though it is currently used solely as a scrap metal facility. Safeguarding is intended for possible new sites and as this large site already exhibits good wharf frontage (with existing wharf facilities which allow sea going vessels to collect 2,000 tonne loads of scrap metal), and a reasonable access, it is quite possible this site could become a new aggregates site or a combined aggregates and waste facility. However, it should be noted that the site has been allocated through Southampton City Councils Local Plan for regeneration and redevelopment.

6.3.2 The sales and production figures previously set out in this assessment give an important indication that when such significant spare capacity already exists, the establishment of new wharves or rail depots is unlikely to be required unless for special reasons e.g. rationalisation of other operations or difficulties in replacing or obtaining land-won or recycled and secondary aggregate sources. The difficulty in obtaining alternative sources may have been the situation or reason behind the emergence in recent years of a new operation at Dibles Wharf by an independent operator.

6.3.3 Nevertheless, taking into account factors raised in this assessment three potential new wharf sites and two rail depot sites have been specifically identified for safeguarding. In addition, three general areas have been identified for possible zonal safeguarding until more specific site boundaries can be established. These sites have been set out below:-

Site Specific Safeguarding:

 Marchwood Military Port – this is a potentially large/major site with established deep water wharf and rail connections. The whole site or part of it may become available

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 91 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

within next 5-10 years. Safeguarding is dependent upon new minerals and waste proposals being contained within footprint of existing development areas;  Bakers and Princes Wharves – both sites currently in non-aggregate uses but still having port related activities taking place and could be converted relatively quickly to wider uses such as waste;  Micheldever Rail Depot – a large site (and almost centrally located in Hampshire) already partly in use for bulky transhipments and storage but ideally needs a new access. The site was proposed through the HMWLP;  Basingstoke Rail Sidings – a long narrow site with less potential than Micheldever but has a good access. The siding is a preferred site and is therefore safeguarded on this premise.

Zonal Safeguarding:

 Dibden Bay – no single part of the substantial undeveloped areas south east of Marchwood Military Port are likely to be developed for aggregate imports as an independent use within the plan period. However, a new major aggregate and waste facility at Dibden Bay could once more be promoted as part of a subsequent bigger container port development concept (promoted by ABP in their Port Master Plan) at the appropriate time in the plan period. Such a proposal would probably need at least 12 hectares out of the total area in the general safeguarded zone identified on plan PW1. However, such zonal safeguarding would depend upon no aggregate import facilities being established at Marchwood Military Port in the meantime.  Southampton Port - The commercial land is likely to undergo further changes within the plan period which may release new or existing port land for temporary or permanent aggregate importation uses as well as waste uses.  Portsmouth Port – As above, the commercial and military port land may undergo further changes within the plan period which may release new or existing port land for temporary or permanent aggregate importation uses.

6.3.4 Although Tipner Wharf has been temporarily mothballed, it is acknowledged that there are regeneration aspirations held by PCC for the Tipner area. Therefore, it is recommended that Tipner Wharf should continue to be safeguarded until regeneration of this area is assured and additional capacity to fill the potential void left by the closure of Tipner has been found.

6.4 Future Safeguarding Measures

6.4.1 As stated in the introduction, Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) has been superseded in the SEP in respect of safeguarding issues for wharves and rail depots. Policy M5 states that Minerals Planning Authorities should assess the need for wharf and rail facilities for the handling and distribution of imported minerals and processed materials, and identify strategic sites for safeguarding in their minerals development frameworks. Specific guidance in the new SEP on how a Minerals Planning Authority is to achieve the necessary safeguarding of wharves and rail depots is unfortunately absent from the guidance. Previous RPG9 guidelines did briefly mention that Mineral, Waste and Local Planning Authorities need to co-operate in the process of safeguarding sites.

6.4.2 Quite separate to the mineral policies in the SEP, RPG9 did also require planning authorities to work with other agencies such as Regional Planning bodies, rail and port authorities and the Highways Agency to identify a strategic freight network which supports the overall freight strategy and promotes the efficient and effective use of road, rail, inland waterways and coastal shipping networks. The principles of continuing with these ongoing relationships is essential as, from this work, a criteria-based framework could be developed

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 92 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

which will allow individual authorities to respond to proposals which either promote new sites or affect existing inter-modal interchange facilities on a consistent basis. A recent example of how such a framework would be beneficial to Hampshire is the current upgrading of the main freight rail route into Southampton which, although necessary for future expansion of freight movements to and from Southampton, may have had impacts on aggregate freight traffic elsewhere – thereby potentially affecting existing wharves or rail depots for many years.

6.4.3 On this basis, Hampshire also needs to consider whether issues of safeguarding wharves and rail depots should be included in the development of local transport plan policies. In particular, consideration should be given to how transport policies can help promote rail and water freight operations (including associated facilities) for modal transfer where these would assist in the development of the strategic freight network.

6.4.4 Due to the nature of existing and future wharves, rail depots and related transport links in Hampshire, it should be possible to significantly increase the volumes of various minerals and waste for import and export respectively. Facilities at the two major ports of Southampton and Portsmouth are much better overall than those along much of the south coast between Dorset and Kent. Therefore, Hampshire ports and rail depots should be able to take on a more strategic role as intended in RPG9 in terms of being recognised as onward transhipment (or inter-modal) centres in addition to supplying local markets.

Potential Wharf Safeguarding Measures:

6.4.5 In order to establish initial beneficial measures for safeguarding of wharves and rail depots, Hampshire could consider adapting safeguarding policies already adopted for similar wharves elsewhere. For example, robust policies have been developed for wharves on the River Thames as part of the London Plan Implementation Report (LPIR)1. This report was driven by an identified need to protect all types of ‘London’ wharves (not just aggregate wharves) from irreversible development pressures, as port-related site uses are dependent upon the River Thames being an important artery for freight movements and that port activities are also recognised as being necessary for the continued economic well being of the towns and the communities they serve. An extract of the main policies in this plan concerning the safeguarding of wharves is shown in Appendix 3.

6.4.6 The LPIR policies relate to a number of issues or key factors to help protect their safeguarded wharves. Hampshire could use these factors to assist in the development of its own revised policies for safeguarding wharves in co-operation with other planning authorities which contain such wharf facilities as appropriate. Of particular note is Policy 4C.15 which identifies three main factors as follows:-

1) Redevelopment of a safeguarded wharf should not proceed unless the developer can prove that port-related activities are not viable; 2) Owners and operators of safeguarded wharves which become unviable, should be encouraged to promote permanent alternatives uses which are water-based and not irreversible, or temporary uses which can take advantage of the existing port-related facilities; 3) Development proposals on adjacent land (i.e. ‘buffer zones’) or opposite a safeguarded wharf site should be designed to minimise the potential for conflicts and disturbance, and not compromise the ongoing port-related activities at the safeguarded wharf.

Assessing the Viability of a Safeguarded Wharf:

1 London Plan Implementation Report 2005 – Safeguarding of Wharves on the River Thames

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 93 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

6.4.7 Possible criteria for assessing the viability of wharves are also set out in the LPIR1. A summary of the main criteria applicable to Hampshire is set out below and these could be used during the policy development, if appropriate (see Appendix 3, paragraph 2.26 for full description):-

The redevelopment of safeguarded wharves should only be accepted if the wharf is no longer viable or capable of being made viable for cargo handling uses. Only exceptional circumstances to this general rule will be permitted. The viability of the wharf will be dependant upon:-

 The wharf’s size, shape, orientation, navigational access, rail access, planning history, environmental impact and surrounding land use context;  The geographical location of the wharf, in terms of proximity and connections to existing and potential market areas;  The existing and potential contribution that the wharf can make towards reducing road-based freight movements;  Existing and potential relationships between the wharf and other cargo-handling sites or land uses;  The location and availability of capacity at comparable alternative wharves nearby and the potential loss and impact for onward transhipments to [London] and elsewhere; and  In the case of non-operational sites, the likely timescale within which a viable cargo- handling operation can be attracted to the site, having regard  To the short-term land-use policy, and long-term trade forecasts.

Preferred Redevelopment and Alternative Use Options for Unviable Wharves:

6.4.8 Possible criteria for ensuring that developers of a safeguarded wharf try their best to ensure that redevelopment proposals are not completely irreversible, in order to enable a later opportunity to return to port-related activities, are as follows:-

 For permanent alternative uses of the safeguarded wharf, the preferred redevelopments will incorporate water-based passenger transport, leisure and recreation facilities and water transport support facilities. The last preference will be developments which do not need a waterside location;  For temporary alternative uses of the safeguarded wharf, these should be permitted if the operator and/or owner can ensure that investment in the wharf is maintained and image problems are minimised for the wider area. Temporary uses must maintain the existing cargo-handling infrastructure to a specified standard, be limited by a temporary permission with a specific end date and priority should be given to uses which require a waterside location.

Creation of Wharf Buffer Zones for Wharves and Compulsory Design Features for new nearby developments:

6.4.9 Wharves are increasingly surrounded by different land uses that do not have an industrial or freight handling purpose. Some Hampshire wharves are now located close to residential areas which overlook the sites. The challenge for both the wharf operators and planners is to minimise conflict between the new and old land uses. This must be met through modifications and safeguards built into new and established developments on land in close proximity to the safeguarded wharves. Examples of the measures wharf operators and planners can deploy:-

1 paragraph 4.105 of the LPIR

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 94 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 Wharf operators to use latest available technology and equipment and environmental methods to minimise potential impacts on adjoining commercial and residential developments. Some wharf operations could be located within buildings (e.g. at Dibles Wharf);  Buffer zones adjoining wharf areas could be identified whereby new development within the zone should incorporate designs which take account of the wharf operations to minimise potential conflicts. An example of this could be that new residential proposals should not include designs which display any opening windows facing the wharf;  Planners should ensure that any traffic survey of existing wharves (submitted to support new developments adjacent or close to an existing wharf) are not based on just a few weeks of traffic counts emerging from that wharf, as commercial traffic to and from wharves can vary significantly throughout the year and also year on year. Planners would need to consult wharf operators to establish whether greater historic usage had occurred on access routes to their wharf locations. Such information would provide clearer knowledge of potential impacts by new and existing commercial traffic to and from the wharves or on any new adjacent development proposal.

Potential Safeguarding for Hampshire Mineral and Waste Wharves and Rail Depots:

6.4.10 It is not likely that all the elements from the preceding paragraphs (summarised from the LPIR) will be applicable to Hampshire wharves, but it would be reasonable to include the salient elements such as demonstrable proof on unviable operations (based on criteria such as wharf size, shape, access, location etc.) or proof that proposed new developments on wharves are not irreversible and do not affect other similar nearby wharf operations.

6.4.11 The potential safeguarding of aggregate rail depot sites would need to follow a similar process described in the preceding sections. However, due to the fewer number of rail depots, their smaller size and that their sites are generally less attractive for redevelopment proposals, it is expected that rail depot safeguarding will generally be less sensitive to local communities, businesses and developers than those for wharves. Encroachment is still an issue for rail depots so buffer zones adjoining rail depot areas could also be identified as outlined above in paragraph 4.5.10 for wharves as similar principles apply to both types of developments.

6.5 Potential for Integration of Transport Modes

6.5.1 Irrespective of the indicative comments made above, Hampshire should be considering its position (as London did in the LPIR1) in respect of promoting the sustainable development of a full range of road, rail and water-borne facilities for bulk freight movements within Hampshire (and beyond its boundaries) and seek to improve the integration between these modes, including the major rail interchanges and the centres they serve. This should be considered through the Local Transport Plan as well as the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework. The development of a preferred rail freight operational and transit system for Hampshire based on safeguarded wharves and rail depots could be included in this process with the overall objectives to improve efficiency and reduce environmental impacts (including reduction of lorry trips and CO2 emissions). This would require further research though and involve participation of all stakeholders in the process.

1 London Plan Implementation Report 2005 – Safeguarding of Wharves on the River Thames

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 95 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Background and Purpose of the Report

7.1.1 Hampshire County Council and partnering planning authorities1 (‘Hampshire’) are currently undertaking background evidence collation to support delivery of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (HMWDF). Part of the necessary background work for the framework includes a requirement to assess current and future levels of suitable facilities necessary for the continued importation or exportation of minerals and waste to and from Hampshire over the plan period including an assessment of transhipment facilities.

7.1.2 Hampshire originally instructed Land & Mineral Management Ltd in 2009 to carry out an assessment of wharves and rail depots handling minerals and waste. The main aim of that assessment was to establish their latest features and activity trends, then produce forecasts and develop possible future scenarios to meet those forecasts and eventualities up to 2026. Land & Mineral Management Ltd were also then required to advise Hampshire on what measures could be considered to maintain or improve their current position for safeguarding existing and proposed facilities in order to meet national and regional policy guidelines and for the benefit and prosperity of Hampshire and future generations living and working there. The original assessment was completed in November 2009.

7.1.3 In November 2010, Hampshire instructed Land & Mineral Management Ltd once more to carry out an update of the original assessment to reflect the development of a new DPD to replace the adopted Core Strategy (the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan) as well as other changes in national and regional policy. The update focuses on updating the assessment to reflect changes to the plan period timescales (now up to 2030), incorporating comments received from interested parties on the first assessment, revisions to scenarios, new research publications and subsequent identification of potential new sites.

7.2 The current Hampshire position

7.2.1 The revised assessment updates Hampshire’s current situation in terms of wharf and rail depot sites, material volumes handled, transport modes, planning and environmental constraints etc. and identified trends since c. 1990. Aggregate forecasts have also been updated and are based on latest industry data (where available) for average consumption compared with Hampshire population forecasts and then compared with adjusted site capacities, land won sand and gravel apportionments and aggregate recycling targets to identify and establish import requirements throughout the plan period to 2030.

7.2.2 It is clear from this revised assessment that the dominant materials handled at Hampshire’s wharves continue to be construction aggregates in the form of marine or hard rock aggregates, although other minerals are imported into Western Docks, and wastes are exported by sea from Princes Wharf and Western Docks and imported into Marchwood Wharf (West).

7.2.3 It is also clear from this revised assessment that the combination of Hampshire’s existing wharves and rail depots has changed relatively little in overall terms since 1989/90, during the period of peak consumption for construction aggregates in Great Britain. Many of the

1 Hampshire County Council in partnership with Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council and the New Forest National Park. The South Downs National Park will join the partnership on 1 April 2011.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 96 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

sites that were operational in 1989/90 remain operational in 2011. A few aggregate wharves in Southampton that have been ‘lost’ on the River Itchen and at Western Docks, but two revamped or new medium to large aggregate wharves in Southampton (Marchwood (East) and Dibles) have also emerged in the last 10 years. More recent temporary closures at Tipner and Bedhampton Wharves have also occurred largely as a result of the current recession. The sites could be reinstated in years ahead.

7.2.4 The geographical spread of the wharf and rail depot facilities reflect the main market area of South Hampshire where there is the greatest density of population and the greatest demand for aggregates. This indicates that any previous shortfalls in supply of aggregate for other Hampshire areas probably needed to be supported by road imports into Hampshire or road transfers from the South Hampshire wharves and rail depots.

7.2.5 The assessment has reviewed capacities and trends in aggregates and other minerals and waste through existing wharves and rail depots. The capacity of Hampshire wharves and rail depots handling aggregates has at least been maintained and still exceeds the total consumption levels achieved during the recognised busiest year for construction aggregate sales in 1989.

7.2.6 The assessment uses forecasts to consider potential changes in aggregate demand. Three initial aggregate forecast scenarios (1a, 1b and 1c) were developed from 3 separate levels of Hampshire’s own land won aggregate production and then reviewed to establish any other potential sensitivity which is likely to affect future production at existing wharf and rail depot operations. A further scenario (2) was also developed which considered a lower land won and aggregate recycling target. The forecasts indicate that Hampshire would be able to meet the potential demand assumed by these scenarios.

7.2.7 As most aggregate import facilities are currently operating well below their respective individual maximum capacities (based on the previous best year’s throughputs), there is significant flexibility to deal with any significant temporary increases in demand during the plan period. Hampshire does not need to identify or make provision for additional aggregate import facilities (i.e. new wharves and rail depots) for most of the plan period to 2030. By adopting good safeguarding policies (as identified in section 6), Hampshire should be able to protect most of the existing wharves and depots sites throughout the HMWDF plan period, to ensure that current capacities and capabilities to transport and process minerals and waste through wharves and depots are maintained most of the time.

7.2.8 Although it is clear that the recession is impacting the level of aggregate sales currently, aggregate imports are still likely to play an important and increasing role in total aggregate sales than from land won sources throughout the plan period. On this basis it is also likely that a greater percentage of wharf and rail depot imports will be serving more distant parts of Hampshire and not just South Hampshire (where all current aggregate import facilities are based currently). This will imply a progressive trend to greater and longer aggregate lorry trips to customers (particularly as the dependence on land won sand and gravel sites continues to reduce).

7.2.9 Although it is not predicted that total aggregates shortfalls will occur, this could take place towards the end of the plan period or sooner if a number of the forecast assumptions do not take place as predicted or changes in sites occur. On this basis, Hampshire should identify a modest number of potential new or replacement aggregate sites for that eventuality to ensure some flexibility in meeting greater demand for aggregates. This should be supported by ongoing monitoring of future site openings or closures, site reinvestment and other matters affecting wharf and/or rail depot capacity. This will help to provide more clarity within the plan period as to when such new sites may be needed.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 97 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Therefore, in the first instance, it is recommended that 2 new wharf sites (Marchwood Military Port and Bakers Wharf) and two new rail depots (Micheldever and Basingstoke) are identified as potential aggregate import facilities and be safeguarded accordingly.

7.3 Safeguarding and the development of new policies S13, S14 and DC18

7.3.1 Following the ABP High Court judgement, policies S13, S14 and DC18 and all associated references were deleted (quashed) from the adopted Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. As a result, new replacement policies are required. Development of the replacement policies will be undertaken by Hampshire following this study through the emerging Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan. Suggested areas of policy content include the safeguarding of existing and potential wharf and rail depot sites for minerals and waste as well as recommendations for development management policies for wharves and rail depots. A number of suggested areas to be considered within policy development have been set out in appendix 4.

7.3.2 For sites proposed for safeguarding in this assessment, it is also recommended that any existing safeguarding policy wording applicable to these sites will need to be reviewed by Hampshire. Where appropriate, Hampshire should make reference to other safeguarding approaches adopted by other local authorities when considering wharf and depots (e.g. policies adopted by LPIR).

7.3.3 Based on the many variations of possible future events, policies for future safeguarding of wharves and rail depots could be split into three general categories (derived from Table 14) in terms of: a) major sites capable of large scale aggregate imports, processing, ready mixed concrete and related aggregate and waste recycling facilities etc; b) large size sites needing sufficient area for primary aggregate production (and associated processing) facilities; and c) small to medium size sites that only need to accommodate a full range of pre- processed aggregates (with no processing facilities required).

Therefore, in the second instance, it is recommended that Hampshire should:

 Review current HMWDF safeguarding policy wording through the development of a new safeguarding policy to replace quashed policy S14. This should include proposals to reflect three levels of site specific safeguarding for an existing or potential new site such as:-

‘Level 1’ (major) sites – for primary aggregate imports and processing, waste and transhipment facilities (none existing but potentially a conversion of Marchwood Military Port);

’Level 2’ (large and possibly some medium) sites - sites which should remain as primary aggregate import and processing centres but have no real beneficial transhipment facilities; and

‘Level 3’ (small and possibly some medium) sites – sites that need not continue as production sites but simply become processed aggregate landing sites in the future.

 Assess potential safeguarding measures for all existing wharves and rail depots (along the guidelines suggested in Section 6 of this assessment) subject to greater priority being given to proposed Level 1 and 2 sites than Level 3 sites.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 98 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 Proceed with the development of and consultation on a replacement policy S14 to establish overall views on future safeguarding measures, using the initial measures outlined in Section 6 of this assessment as a basis for new policy development.

In the third instance, it is recommended that within the plan period Hampshire should:

 Should safeguard the following ‘Level 1’, ‘Level 2’ and ‘Level 3’ existing sites as identified in appendix 4, for the unloading, processing, handling and distribution of marine-dredged aggregate, hard rock aggregate and waste by sea or by rail and for the establishment of related activities:

Existing Wharves:  Burnley Wharf (Level 2);  Leamouth Wharf (Level 2);  Marchwood Wharf (East) (Level 2);  Kendalls Wharf (Level 2);  Bedhampton Wharf (Level 2);  Upper Quay, Fareham (Level 3);  Tipner Point Wharf (to assist local redevelopment projects as long as possible until the site itself is needed for redevelopment) (Level 3);  Princes Wharf (Waste);  Marchwood Wharf (West) (Waste)

Proposed Wharves:  Bakers Wharf (Level 3);  Marchwood Military Port (Level1)

Existing Rail Depots:  Eastleigh Depot East (Level 2);  Botley Station Depot (Level 2);  Fareham Station Depot (Level 3);

Proposed Rail Depots:  Basingstoke Sidings (Level 2  Micheldever (Level 1)

7.3.4 A new, replacement safeguarding policy could be based on the suggested content for policies described in section 6 of this assessment. However, Hampshire should obtain views on the approach to safeguarding measures in the specific areas identified herein.

7.3.5 The development of at least one of the two additional rail depot sites at Basingstoke and Micheldever could address any future shortfalls in aggregate supplies to remaining areas north of South Hampshire and should be supported. Otherwise the rest of Hampshire will need to rely on more road imports from outside of the county or longer road trips from existing South Hampshire land won mineral extraction sites.

7.3.6 There may be opportunities for the location of a new wharf through commercial or military port land becoming available within the Ports of Southampton and Portsmouth within the plan period. This may include a proposal at Dibden Bay in the event of planning permission being granted for port expansion developments, other uses at this location or other commercial or military port land which may become available and is suitable within the plan

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 99 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

period. The recent Port of Southampton Masterplan (2010) indicated ABP’s desire to develop the first phase of new container port operations commencing at Dibden Bay from 2021 onwards. However, the information contained in the Masterplan implies that no aggregate importation or processing facilities will be developed at Western or Eastern Docks as these areas are to be dedicated for other purposes, but such facilities could (and should) be developed at Dibden Bay during the plan period. Unfortunately, no specific area at Dibden Bay for a new aggregate facility is identified in the Masterplan in the same way other developments are identified elsewhere in Southampton, nor indeed is it clear whether such aggregate requirements or proposals are intended to occur before or as part of other port expansion aspirations in the Masterplan. Furthermore, the potential benefits of combining minerals and waste operations at the same site are not fully considered. On this basis, it is not possible or indeed practical to consider site specific safeguarding measures for aggregate imports at Dibden Bay in a similar way to paragraph 7.3.3 above within the HMWDF plan period.

7.3.7 However, this assessment has indicated that there may now be a possible need for an additional aggregate facility by the end of the plan period if permanent wharf closures take place or other mitigating circumstances prevail to reduce Hampshire’s wharf capacity in the near future. Therefore, a minimum area of approximately 15 hectares (to reflect all combined mineral, waste and/or transhipment activities) can be generally identified for safeguarding for a combined minerals and waste wharf facility (within a zone identified on plan PW1), in the event that planning permission is granted for port related development or other uses at Dibden Bay. Zonal safeguarding will ensure flexibility in the interim and security in long term capacity for minerals and waste at wharves in Hampshire beyond the plan period.

Therefore, in the fourth instance, it is recommended that a 15 ha area be zoned for potential safeguarding at Dibden Bay for minerals and waste uses in the event that major port expansion proposals are permitted within the plan period.

It is also recommended that a specific new policy is created on the Dibden Bay issue.

7.3.8 Any other sites that may come forward during the plan period and are considered worthy of inclusion in the HMWDF consultation process, should also be considered for safeguarding, on a case by case basis and against current capacity and demand at the time of submission.

7.3.9 When considering applications for new wharf and rail depot sites (including their necessary facilities or for the improvement, modernisation, extension and enhancement of existing wharf or rail depot sites) it is recommended that planning permission should be granted if it can be satisfied that the location is suitable for the development proposed and the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact. This is addressed in recommendations for policy content in Appendix 4.

7.3.10 It should be demonstrated in the event that existing wharf and depot sites are recommended for the development of alternative uses that there is no realistic prospect of a transport use continuing or being reintroduced on the site. This should be supported through the development of new policies on wharves and rail depots and safeguarding in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan.

7.4 Meeting shortfalls in capacity and other scenarios

7.4.1 Shortfalls in land won primary aggregate production or recycled and secondary aggregate production would impact wharves and rail depots through increased demand. Such

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 100 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

increased demand for imports would be greater than that forecasted in Table 13 and are likely to be met only from existing facilities until the site capacities are reached. Monitoring of capacities at existing sites is therefore essential.

Therefore, in the fifth instance, it is recommended that within the Plan Period Hampshire should:  Annually monitor the performance of land won sand and gravel production, aggregate recycling production, population figures and national averages for aggregate production and consumption;  Compare all changes annually to ascertain trends which could result in wharf and rail depot capacities being reached sooner than expected;  Any shortfalls in capacity subsequently identified could bring forward one or more of the options described under Scenarios 3a – 3e in this report.

7.4.2 In the event that existing wharf and rail depots get close to reaching full capacity well within the plan period, then more scenarios were developed (3a - 3e) to review that situation. These scenarios consisted of either revamping or expanding existing sites, possible rationalisation of sites, reinstating aggregate imports at Western Docks or developing new sites.

What factors may impact a change in demand

7.4.3 Useful background information on other mineral imports and waste movements was very difficult to ascertain and establish. This may mean that the assumptions in this report could be subject to change if further information became available.

7.4.4 Although strategic highway infrastructure improvements have already taken place in Hampshire since 1990 (e.g. M27 improvements), access into some wharf and rail depot facilities remains a general cause of local concern if significant expansion to reach full capacity is needed during the plan period.

7.4.5 Even though existing facilities are operating at well below their previous best years throughputs (c.1989), it is likely that all future sales from these facilities will need to be transported almost entirely by road as existing wharves (except Western Docks) have little need or opportunity to tranship significant material quantities for onward journeys by rail or sea. Only two or three wharves have been able to tranship aggregate by sea and then very irregularly. Primary aggregate imports by rail generally do not tranship materials other than by road. On this basis, South Hampshire is unlikely to be a major destination for ‘Superquarry’ aggregate vessels unless they arrive at a new deep water facility such as at Dibden Bay.

7.4.6 The market in Hampshire may also be impacted by the development of infrastructure elsewhere in the South East. It is likely that within the next five years there could be at least five sites on the River Thames with productive capacities of over 1 mtpa (and possibly three wharves in excess of 2 mtpa). All of these will have transhipment capabilities by sea and at least four will be by rail. It is therefore conceivable that processed aggregate imports as transhipments by sea or rail from Thames wharves will begin within the next five years, having a significant impact on the Hampshire market and its sites. Significant transhipments of processed aggregate into Hampshire by sea are likely to be hard rock initially but may well include marine aggregate towards the end of the plan period. If so, then production capacities at South Hampshire wharves may decline and be replaced by sales of pre- processed aggregates.

Opportunities to address shortfalls

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 101 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

7.4.7 A major new aggregate wharf proposal at Marchwood Military Port may easily address any shortfalls in Hampshire aggregate supplies during the plan period in South Hampshire and beyond, but the establishment of a new facility here will be dependent upon a number of criteria to justify investment and planning merit as generally set out in Scenario 3e.

7.4.8 Similarly, any new aggregate wharf proposal on land made vacant within the Ports of Southampton or Portsmouth could address some if not all shortfalls in Hampshire aggregate supplies during the plan period in South Hampshire and beyond. However, the scale and range of facilities that could be established at these sites may not be capable of reaching higher throughputs than at the other existing wharves.

7.4.9 Furthermore, the possible introduction of pipeline transport of aggregate and underground mining of aggregate (as identified in scenarios 3f and 3g) have introduced potential new options for aggregate transport and sourcing respectively that could begin to take greater importance by the end of the plan period for Hampshire. Even if such new concepts do not start by 2030, the viability may become more attractive by then and could influence investment strategy of the major operators with outline proposals coming forward before the end of the plan period.

7.5 Sustainable Transport

7.5.1 The development of a replacement policy on wharves and rail depots within the emerging Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan should make reference to how wharves and depots can contribute to the sustainable transport of minerals and waste. This assessment has identified that Hampshire should probably be looking beyond the scope of this study to promote more sustainable development of a full range of road, rail and water-borne freight facilities in Hampshire (or even new concepts such as in Scenario 3f), and seek to improve integration between these transport modes, including the major rail interchanges and the centres they serve.

7.5.2 The development of a preferred rail freight operational or transit system for Hampshire based on safeguarded wharves and rail depots could be included in this process, together with opportunities sought for possible multi-use sites (i.e. mineral and waste) where single use sites are cost prohibitive. Ultimately, new policies could then be established to support any conclusions made from this process, which could include the use of Compulsory Purchase Order powers by Hampshire to acquire any necessary land needed for new essential infrastructure associated with suitable sites where proven to be required in Hampshire’s interest.

Therefore, in the sixth instance, it is recommended that Hampshire should give further consideration to a more extensive study on the full range of road, rail and water-borne freight facilities in Hampshire (including new transport concepts). The study should be used to seek a greater understanding of existing relationships and likely future trends so that more opportunities for larger and more efficient systems and sites for freight movements can be considered before such opportunities are lost to other forms of development.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 102 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

FIGURES AND PLANS

Figure 1 Hampshire Wharves and Depots Capacities

Plan W1 Southampton (Western Docks)

Plan W2 Southampton Wharves (River Itchen)

Plan W3 Fareham Wharf

Plan W4 Tipner Wharf

Plan W5 Kendalls Wharf

Plan W6 Bedhampton Wharf

Plan W7 Marchwood Wharves

Plan PW1 Possible New Aggregate/Waste Handling Wharf Facilities at Marchwood Military Port and Dibden Bay

Plan PW2 Port of Southampton / Southampton Water

Plan PW3 Port of Portsmouth / Portsmouth Harbour

Plan R1 Fareham Depot

Plan R2 Botley Depot

Plan R3 Eastleigh East and West Depots

Plan PR1 Possible New Aggregates Rail Depot at Basingstoke

Plan PR2 Possible New Aggregates/Recycling Rail Depot Facilities at Micheldever

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 103

Figure 1 Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depots Capacities

Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 105

Plan W1 Southampton (Western Docks)

Plan W2 Southampton Wharves (River Itchen)

Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Plan W3 Fareham Wharf

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 108 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Plan W4 Tipner Wharf

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 109 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Plan W5 Kendalls Wharf

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 110 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Plan W6 Bedhampton Wharf

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 111

Plan W7 Marchwood Wharf

Plan PW1 Possible New Minerals and Waste Handling Wharf Facilities at Marchwood Military Port and Dibden Bay

Plan PW2 Port of Southampton / Southampton Water

Plan PW3 Port of Portsmouth / Portsmouth Water

Plan R1 Fareham Depot

Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Plan R2 Botley Depot

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 117 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Plan R3 Eastleigh East and West Depots

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 118

Plan PR1 Possible New Aggregates Rail Depot at Basingstoke

Plan PR2 Possible New Aggregates/Recycling Rail Depot Facilities at Micheldever

Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 South East Plan (May 2009) - selected new Transport, Waste and Mineral Policies

APPENDIX 2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) - Wharves and Rail Depot Policies

APPENDIX 3 London Plan Implementation Report Policies for Safeguarding Wharves on the River Thames

APPENDIX 4 Recommended potential areas of content for the development of replacement Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depot Policies (policies S13 (Wharves and Depots), S14 (Safeguarding) and DC18 (Wharves and Depots) to replace the quashed Core Strategy policies

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 121 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

APPENDIX 1

South East Plan (May 2009)

Selected New Transport, Waste and Mineral Policies

TRANSPORT POLICIES

POLICY T10: PORTS AND SHORT SEA SHIPPING

Relevant regional strategies, local development documents and local transport plans will include policies and proposals for infrastructure that maintain and enhance the role of the following ports:

i. gateway ports – Southampton, Dover, Portsmouth, Medway (Sheerness), Medway (Thamesport) and Port of London ii. regionally significant ports – Newhaven, Ramsgate and Shoreham.

The major ports should give priority to the preparation of port masterplans as a means of identifying future infrastructure requirements.

Encouragement should be given to investment in infrastructure that supports short sea shipping connections linking the region into the wider European network via these ports.

POLICY T11: RAIL FREIGHT

The railway system should be developed to carry an increasing share of freight movements. Priority should be given in other relevant regional strategies, local development documents, and local transport plans, providing enhanced capacity for the movement of freight by rail on the following corridors:

i. Southampton to West Midlands ii. Dover/Channel Tunnel to and through/around London iii. Great Western Main Line iv. Portsmouth to Southampton/West Midlands.

POLICY T12: FREIGHT AND SITE SAFEGUARDING

Relevant regional strategies, local development documents and local transport plans should include policies and proposals that:

i. safeguard wharves, depots and other sites that are, or could be, critical in developing the capability of the transport system to move freight, particularly by rail or water ii. safeguard and promote sites adjacent to railways, ports and rivers for developments, particularly new intermodal facilities and rail related industry and warehousing, that are likely to maximise freight movement by rail or water iii. encourage development with a high generation of freight and/or commercial movements to be located close to intermodal facilities, rail freight facilities, or ports and wharves.

POLICY T13: INTERMODAL INTERCHANGES

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 122 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

The regional planning body should work jointly with DfT Rail, Network Rail, the Highways Agency, the Freight Transport Association and local authorities to identify broad locations within the region for up to three inter-modal interchange facilities. These facilities should have the potential to deliver modal shift and be well related to:

i. rail and road corridors capable of accommodating the anticipated level of freight movements ii. the proposed markets iii. London.

POLICY T14: TRANSPORT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES

The regionally significant transport investment currently programmed for delivery in the South East is set out in Appendix A: Strategic Transport Investment Priorities. Regional partners, led by the regional planning body, should work together to produce an Implementation Plan to clarify the partnerships, policy links, timing, scale and cost of the interventions necessary to support the spatial strategy within this Plan.

The regional planning and development bodies should work with the Government Office, DfT Rail, Network Rail, the Highways Agency, local authorities, public transport operators, statutory environmental bodies, the business community and other key stakeholders to deliver and keep under review investment proposals of regional or sub-regional significance.

In developing schemes additional to current commitments, priority should be given to stronger demand management measures, including those that make the best use of the existing infrastructure asset, promote sustainable travel and reduce demand by behavioural change.

Development plans should include policies that safeguard delivery of:

i. the specific investment proposals set out in Appendix A ii. other major projects where they are required to support delivery of the regional spatial and transport policy frameworks, or of the Communities Plan growth agenda.

As far as possible, the location, design and construction of all new transport infrastructure projects should enhance the environment and communities affected.

WASTE POLICIES

POLICY W2: SUSTAINABLE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION

Development plan documents will require development design, construction and demolition which minimises waste production and associated impacts through:

i. the re-use of construction and demolition materials; ii. the promotion of layouts and designs that provide adequate space to facilitate storage, re- use, recycling and composting.

In particular, development in the region’s strategic Growth Areas, Growth Points and strategic development areas should demonstrate and employ best practice in design and construction for waste minimisation and recycling.

POLICY W3: REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 123 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Waste authorities and waste management companies should provide management capacity equivalent to the amount of waste arising and requiring management within the region’s boundaries, plus a declining amount of waste from London. Provision of capacity for rapidly increasing recycling, composting and recovery should be made reflecting the targets and requirements set out in this chapter.

Provision for London’s exports (1) will usually be limited to landfill in line with the Landfill Directive targets and, by 2016, new permissions will only provide for residues of waste that have been subject to recycling or other recovery process. Waste planning authorities (WPAs) should provide landfill capacity for the following apportionment of London’s exported waste:

Landfill Provision to be made for London Waste

2006-2015 2016 –2025

Apportionment Million tonnes Apportionment Million tonnes % (2) % Waste Authority Area Berkshire 9.3 1.12 8.6 0.63 Unitaries Buckinghamshire 17.6 2.12 16.2 1.18

East Sussex, 8.8 1.06 8.1 0.59 Brighton and Hove Hampshire, 0 0 7.8 0.57 Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Kent and 13.1 1.58 12.1 0.88 Medway Milton Keynes 10.8 1.30 10 0.73 Oxfordshire 18.7 2.26 17.2 1.26 Surrey 11.5 1.39 10.6 0.77 West Sussex 10.2 1.23 9.4 0.69

SE TOTAL 100 12.1 (1) 100 7.30 (3)

(1) Estimated imports of MSW and C&I from London in 2006 is 1.21 million tonnes (Source: Environment Agency note for Inter Regional Waste Forum, March 2008). (2) From ‘Towards a Methodology for Apportionment of London’s Exported Waste’, Alternative Apportionment Options: Revision for EiP, page 15, option 2f, Jacobs Babtie report, January 2007. For 2006- 2015 these have been amended based on advice from SEERA to reflect the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. (3) Reduced to reflect Policy W5 MSW/C&I diversion targets. Provision for recovery and processing capacity for London’s waste should only be made where there is a proven need, with demonstrable benefits to the region, including improving the viability of recovery and reprocessing activity within the region, and in the nearest appropriate location. A net balance in movements of materials for recovery and reprocessing between the region and London should be in place by 2016.

The regional planning body will continue to work closely with all neighbouring regions to monitor and review waste movements and management requirements.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 124 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

The figures in the above table should be used as a benchmark for the production and testing of development plan documents, but WPAs should use more recent data where this is available in order to assess and plan for capacity. Any major changes to the figures may dictate a need to reconsider the apportionment through a review of the RSS.

POLICY W4: SUB-REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Waste planning authorities (WPAs) will plan for net self-sufficiency through provision for management capacity equivalent to the amount of waste arising and requiring management within their boundaries. A degree of flexibility should be used in applying the sub-regional self-sufficiency concept. Where appropriate and consistently with Policy W3, capacity should also be provided for: i. waste from London; ii. waste from adjoining sub-regions (waste planning authority area within or adjoining the region).

WPAs should collaborate in the preparation of plans, including identifying and making provision for potential flows across the regional and sub-regional boundaries, and identifying possible sites that could be served by sustainable transport modes. Co-operation will be encouraged between county councils and unitary authorities at the sub-regional level, particularly in respect of meeting the needs of the region’s strategic growth areas.

POLICY W5: TARGETS FOR DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL

A substantial increase in recovery of waste and a commensurate reduction in landfill is required in the region. Accordingly, the following targets for diversion from landfill of all waste need to be achieved in the region (Policy W6 targets are a component of these):

Regional Targets for Diversion from Landfill

Year Municipal Solid Commercial Construction All waste Waste (MSW) and Industrial and (C&I) Demolition (CD&E) mt/yr mt/yr mt/yr mt/yr % 2008 2.0 5.2 10.0 17.2 68 2010 2.5 5.8 10.1 18.4 71 2015 3.9 7.4 10.4 21.7 79 2020 4.7 8.7 10.7 24.0 84 2025 5.1 9.4 10.9 25.5 86

Source: Regional Waste Management Capacity: Survey, Methodology and Monitoring, Updated Final Report, 2008 (modelled Scenario 1) Note: Percentage targets for diversion from landfill in the year 2008 have been interpolated.

Waste planning authorities (WPAs) should ensure that policies and proposals are in place to contribute to the delivery of these targets, and waste management companies should take them into account in their commercial decisions. The optimal management solution will vary according to the individual material resource streams and local circumstances and will usually involve one or more of the following processes:

 re-use  recycling  mechanical and/or biological processing (to recover materials and produce compost,  soil conditioner or inert residue)  thermal treatment (to recover energy)

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 125 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 priority will be given to processes higher up this waste hierarchy.

WPAs should continue to provide sufficient landfill capacity to process residues and waste that cannot practicably be recovered.

POLICY W6: RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING

The following targets for recycling and composting should be achieved in the region:

Regional Recycling and Composting Targets

Year Municipal Solid Commercial and Construction and All Waste (MSW) Industrial (C&I) Demolition (C&D) waste mt/yr % mt/yr % mt/yr % mt/yr % 2008 1.6 36 3.9 46 5.8 48 11.3 45 2010 1.9 40 4.5 50 6.1 50 12.9 50 2015 2.6 50 5.5 55 6.1 50 15.0 55 2020 3.1 55 6.4 60 7.3 60 17.1 60 2025 3.6 60 7.3 65 7.3 60 19.1 65

Source: Regional Waste Management Capacity: Survey, Methodology and Monitoring, Updated Final Report, 2008 (modelled Scenario 1) Note: Percentage targets for diversion from landfill in the year 2008 have been interpolated. Waste authorities should adopt policies and proposals to assist delivery of these targets and waste management companies should take them into account in their commercial decisions.

POLICY W7: WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

Waste planning authorities (WPAs) will provide for an appropriate mix of development opportunities to support the waste management facilities required to achieve the targets set out in this strategy. The annual rates of waste to be managed as shown in the table below provide benchmarks for the preparation of development plan documents and annual monitoring.

Average Tonnages to be Managed (thousand tonnes)

Waste Authority Waste Type 2008-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Area Berkshire MSW 441 480 522 563 Unitaries C&I 845 919 999 1061

Buckinghamshire MSW 272 296 322 347

C&I 993 1080 1175 1247

East Sussex, MSW 391 426 463 499 Brighton and Hove C&I 446 485 527 560

Hampshire, MSW 910 990 1077 1160 Portsmouth, Southampton C&I 1785 1942 2113 2242 and New Forest National Park Isle of Wight MSW 97 105 115 123

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 126 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

C&I 147 160 174 185

Kent and MSW 958 1042 1133 1221 Medway C&I 2120 2307 2509 2663

Milton Keynes MSW 123 134 146 157

C&I 27 29 32 34

Oxfordshire MSW 319 347 377 406

C&I 630 685 745 791

Surrey MSW 638 694 755 813

C&I 830 903 982 1042

West Sussex MSW 473 514 559 603

C&I 943 1026 1116 1185

Source: Regional Waste Management Capacity: Survey, Methodology and Monitoring, Updated Final Report, 2008 (modelled Scenario 1) Note: MSW and C&I data used excludes both intra and inter-regional waste movements. In bringing forward and safeguarding sites for waste management facilities, WPAs should consider the type, size and mix of facilities that will be required, taking into account: activities requiring largely open sites, such as aggregate recycling and open windrow composting.

Activities of an industrial nature dealing with largely segregated materials and requiring enclosed premises, such as materials recovery facilities, dis-assembly and re-manufacturing plants, and reprocessing industries activities dealing with mixed materials requiring enclosed industrial premises, such as mechanical-biological treatment, anaerobic digestion and energy from waste facilities hybrid activities requiring sites with buildings and open storage areas, including re-use facilities and enclosed composting systems.

In areas of major new developments consideration should be given to identifying sites for integrated resource recovery facilities and new resource parks accommodating a mix of activities where they meet environmental, technical and operational objectives.

The figures in the above table should be used as a benchmark for the production and testing of development plan documents, but WPAs should use more recent data where this is available in order to assess and plan for capacity. Any major changes to the figures may dictate a need to reconsider the apportionment through a review of the RSS.

POLICY W9: NEW MARKETS

The regional planning body, SEEDA, Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) and other partners will work together to establish regional and local programmes to develop markets for recycled and recovered materials and products.

POLICY W10: REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT FACILITIES

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 127 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

The regional planning body will work with waste authorities, the Environment Agency, SEEDA, industry and WRAP to encourage provision of appropriate new or expanded regional and pan- regional scale recovery and processing facilities, supported by a sub regional network of bulking and sorting facilities. This should include two strategic resource recovery parks located at or with good access to ports.

The material streams requiring regional or pan-regional facilities are:  paper and card  plastics.

Those requiring sub-regional facilities are:  glass  wood  tyres  electrical and electronic equipment  end of life vehicles

POLICY W11: BIOMASS

Waste collection, planning and disposal authorities should encourage the separation of biomass waste, as defined in the Renewables Obligation, and consider its use as a fuel in biomass energy plants where this does not discourage recycling and composting.

POLICY W12: OTHER RECOVERY AND DIVERSION TECHNOLOGIES

The regional planning body, SEEDA, the Environment Agency and the regional partners will promote and encourage the development and demonstration of anaerobic digestion and advanced recovery technologies that will be expected to make a growing contribution towards the delivery of the regional targets for recovery, diversion from landfill, and renewable energy generation over the period of the Plan.

Waste development documents and municipal waste management strategies should only include energy from waste as part of an integrated approach to management. All proposed waste facilities should:

i. operate to the required pollution control standard; ii. include measures to ensure that appropriate materials are recycled, composted and recovered where this has not been carried out elsewhere.

Proposed thermal facilities should, wherever possible, aim to incorporate combined generation and distribution of heat and power.

POLICY W16: WASTE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Waste development documents should identify infrastructure facilities, including sites for waste transfer and bulking facilities, essential for the sustainable transport of waste materials. These sites and facilities should be safeguarded in local development documents. Policies should aim to reduce the transport and associated impacts of waste movement. Use of rail and water-borne transport with appropriate depot and wharf.

POLICY W17: LOCATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

Waste development documents will, in identifying locations for waste management facilities, give priority to safeguarding and expanding suitable sites with an existing waste management use and

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 128 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011) good transport connections. The suitability of existing sites and potential new sites should be assessed on the basis of the following characteristics:

i. good accessibility from existing urban areas or major new or planned development; ii. good transport connections including, where possible, rail or water; iii. compatible land uses, namely;  active mineral working sites;  previous or existing industrial land use;  contaminated or derelict land;  land adjoining sewage treatment works;  redundant farm buildings and their curtilages; iv. be capable of meeting a range of locally based environmental and amenity criteria.

Waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt. Small-scale waste management facilities for local needs should not be precluded from Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks where the development would not compromise the objectives of the designation. Provision should be encouraged wherever possible, particularly for large facilities.

MINERAL POLICIES

POLICY M1: SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION

The regional planning body, the South East England Development Agency, the construction industry, and other stakeholders will work to encourage the development of sustainable construction practices, and to promote good practice, reduce wastage and overcome technical and financial constraints, including identifying sustainable supply routes and seeking to reduce delivery distances. The long-term aspiration is that annual consumption of primary aggregates will not grow from the 2016 level in subsequent years.

Local development documents should promote the use of construction materials that reduce the demand for primary minerals by requiring new projects to include a proportion of recycled and secondary aggregates wherever practicable.

POLICY M2: RECYCLED AND SECONDARY AGGREGATES

The use of secondary aggregates and recycled materials in the South East should increase from 6.6 mtpa (29% of the guidelines for primary aggregate production in the region) to at least 7.7 mtpa (34%) by 2016 so as to reduce the need for primary aggregates extraction.

To enable this target to be met, and where possible exceeded, mineral planning authorities (MPAs) should ensure that their mineral development frameworks enable provision to be made for the following:

Mineral Planning Authority Area Apportionment of recycled and secondary aggregate provision (million tonnes per annum) by 2016 Berkshire Unitaries 0.7 mtpa Buckinghamshire 0.6 mtpa East Sussex, Brighton and Hove 0.5 mtpa Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton 1.7 mtpa and New Forest National Park Isle of Wight 0.1 mtpa Kent and Medway 0.2 mtpa Milton Keynes 0.2 mtpa Oxfordshire 0.9 mtpa

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 129 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

Surrey 0.8 mtpa West Sussex 0.8 mtpa

MPAs should identify sites to contribute to such provision in minerals development frameworks. Local planning authorities should safeguard these sites through their local development frameworks.

Policy W17: Location of Waste Management Facilities applies to all proposals for mineral recycling facilities. Where temporary recycling facilities are to be proposed in the Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Parks, they should be sited at existing minerals or waste sites wherever possible.

Note The reference to mineral development frameworks should be taken to embrace mineral, waste or combined mineral and waste development frameworks.

POLICY M3: PRIMARY AGGREGATES

The supply of construction aggregates in the South East should be met from a significant increase in supplies of secondary and recycled materials, a reduced contribution from primary land-won resources and an increase in imports of marine-dredged aggregates.

Mineral planning authorities should plan to maintain a landbank of at least seven years of planning permissions for land-won sand and gravel which is sufficient, throughout the Plan period, to deliver 13.25 million tonnes (mt) of sand and gravel per annum across the region, based on the following sub-regional apportionment:

Berkshire Unitaries 1.57 mtpa Buckinghamshire 0.99 mtpa East Sussex, Brighton and Hove 0.01 mtpa Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New 2.63 mtpa Forest National Park Isle of Wight 0.05 mtpa Kent and Medway 2.53 mtpa Milton Keynes 0.12 mtpa Oxfordshire 1.82 mtpa Surrey 2.62 mtpa West Sussex 0.91 mtpa and 2.2 million tonnes of crushed rock per annum across the region, based on the following sub- regional apportionment: Kent 1.2mtpa Oxfordshire 1.0mtpa

POLICY M4: OTHER MINERALS

Future provision should be made in local development documents for clay, chalk, silica sand and gypsum as regionally significant minerals of national importance. Where practicable, substitute and recycled waste materials should be used to conserve natural resources, high quality reserves should be safeguarded for appropriate end uses, and new handling facilities developed where this would increase the quantity of minerals and manufactured products being transported by rail or water.

Mineral planning authorities should plan for:

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 130 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 a permitted reserve of clay for brick and tile product manufacture, sufficient to last for at least 25 years at current production rates, should be maintained to supply individual works throughout the Plan period, and new manufacturing capacity developed if this would replace older plants or reduce net imports to the region; for small-scale manufacture, a long-term landbank of a lesser period than 25 years may be appropriate;  a permitted reserve of chalk for cement manufacture, sufficient to last for at least 25 years at current production rates, should be maintained throughout the Plan period in Kent and Medway;  a permitted reserve of silica sand should be maintained throughout the Plan period in Surrey and Kent, equivalent at current production rates, to at least 10 years at existing sites and at least 15 years at new sites;  a permitted reserve of gypsum, sufficient to last at least 20 years at current production rates, should be maintained throughout the Plan period in East Sussex to support the building product and cement industries, and the use of desulphurgpsum imported by rail over the shortest practicable distance should be encouraged.

POLICY M5: SAFEGUARDING OF MINERAL RESERVES, WHARVES AND RAIL DEPOTS

Mineral planning authorities should assess the need for wharf and rail facilities for the handling and distribution of imported minerals and processed materials, and identify strategic sites for safeguarding in their minerals development frameworks. These strategic facilities should be safeguarded from other inappropriate development in local development documents. Existing mineral sites, and proposed sites and ‘areas of search’, should be identified in mineral development documents for the extraction and processing of aggregates, clay, chalk, silica sand and gypsum. These should then be safeguarded in local development documents.

(Policy M5 also relates to the following paragraphs in the SEP)

10.99 Mineral planning authorities should undertake assessments of the need for wharves and depots and, to assist the identification of those sites to be safeguarded, the following strategic criteria should be used: i. capacity to supply imported material to the region ii. proximity to markets iii. value of the specialist infrastructure iv. adequacy of existing or potential environmental safeguards.

10.100 Existing mineral workings and processing plants which have regional significance should also be protected from other development and further consideration given to extending safeguarding arrangements to larger known resources which are not specifically allocated in mineral development documents. All partners must work towards the aim of achieving a modal shift in the transport of minerals. Mineral development documents should include a requirement that any applicants for the development of alternative uses on wharf or depot sites must demonstrate that there is no realistic prospect of a transport use continuing or being reintroduced on the site.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 131 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

APPENDIX 2

Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998)

Wharves and Rail Depot Policies

Policy 21: The Mineral Planning Authorities will seek to safeguard the following sites for use for the landing or unloading, handling and distribution of marine- dredged, sea-borne or rail-borne aggregates and will normally oppose proposals for development which would prevent or prejudice the use of these sites for those purposes:

(i) the following existing aggregates wharves and rail-head aggregates depots:

AGGREGATES WHARVES

Bakers Wharf, Chapel, Southampton

Burnley Wharf, Chapel, Southampton

Leamouth Wharf, Chapel, Southampton

Willments Shipyard, Woolston, Southampton

Marchwood Power Station Wharf

Upper Quay, Fareham

Tipner Point Wharf, Portsmouth

Kendalls Wharf, Langstone Harbour, Portsmouth

Bedhampton Wharf, Havant

RAIL-HEAD AGGREGATES DEPOTS

Chickenhall Lane, Eastleigh

Botley Station

Fareham Station

(ii) the following preferred site for a rail-head aggregates depot, as shown on the proposals map inset map:

Site A - Micheldever Station

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 132 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

(iii) any other sites where permission is granted for the establishment of an aggregates wharf or a rail-head aggregates depot or where such use is established without the need for planning permission.

Policy 22: The Mineral Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for new wharf and rail-head depot facilities for the landing or unloading, handling and distribution of marine-dredged, sea-borne or rail-borne aggregates provided they are satisfied that:

(i) the location is suitable for the development proposed; and

(ii) the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact; and

(iii) in the case of the preferred rail-head aggregates depot site A listed in Policy 21, the development proposals meet the specific criteria for the preferred site as set out in the text accompanying the proposals map inset map.

Policy 23: The Mineral Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for development for the improvement, modernisation, extension and increase in capacity of wharves and rail-head depots for the landing or unloading, handling and distribution of marine-dredged, sea-borne or rail-borne aggregates provided they are satisfied that:

(i) the location is suitable for the development involved; and

(ii) the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact.

Policy 24: The Mineral Planning Authorities will not grant planning permission for development which would result in:

(i) unacceptably increased disturbance, visual intrusion or adverse impact on nature conservation interests at the existing aggregates wharves at:

Willments Shipyard, Woolston, Southampton;

Supermarine, Woolston, Southampton;

Upper Quay, Fareham;

Tipner Point Wharf, Portsmouth;

Kendalls Wharf, Langstone Harbour; and

Bedhampton Wharf, Havant; or

(ii) which would result in increased problems of noise, dust or traffic conflicts at Fareham Station rail-head aggregates depot;

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 133 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

and in considering and determining planning applications relating to these sites they will seek to ameliorate existing environmental and traffic problems.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 134 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

APPENDIX 3

London Plan Implementation Report Policies (2005)

For

Safeguarding Wharves on the River Thames

This document was produced in January 2005. It was then the latest in a series of wharf safeguarding strategy measures to be approved by the Mayor of London following extensive consultation carried out with the Port of London Authority and the riparian local authorities over many years.

Wharf operators and users had been expressing their concerns about the disappearance of working wharves for many years prior to the advice given the London Planning Advisory Committee’s (LPAC) to Government on Strategic Planning Guidance for London in 1994. This advice identified the need to ensure that existing and potential sites for wharves, maintenance facilities and other essential infrastructure were identified and safeguarded. The need to protect aggregate wharf facilities was a very important part of the overall background advice given.

LPAC and the Port of London Authority were charged with compiling a list of the essential minimum number of sites required to ensure continued and expanding use of the River Thames for the transhipment of cargo.

Since 1994, further documents (including the initial safeguarding document in 1997 of 28 wharves in London) have been prepared and a later Regional Planning Guidance (Note 3) have further progressed and enhanced the wharf safeguarding strategy – culminating in this LPIR which is intended to review the existing 28 wharves and consider safeguarding measures for another 45 sites downstream of the Thames Barrier.

The LPIR focuses on the Mayor’s Strategies and new policies contained in the London Plan – which has now superseded the previous relevant parts of Regional Policy and Strategic Planning Guidance for the River Thames. Such new policies (e.g. those contained in Chapter 4C of the London Plan) now enable the Mayor to have direct influence over development proposals affecting the safeguarded wharves – see summary of main policies from the LPIR sections below:-

(2.25) Policy 4C.15 of the London Plan sets out the approach to Safeguarded Wharves on the Blue Ribbon Network: -

'The Mayor will, and boroughs should, protect Safeguarded Wharves for cargo- handling uses, such as inter-port or transhipment movements and freight- related purposes. The Mayor will, and boroughs should, encourage appropriate temporary uses of vacant Safeguarded Wharves. Temporary uses should only be allowed where they do not preclude the wharf being re-used for cargo- handling uses. Development next to or opposite Safeguarded Wharves should be designed to minimise the potential for conflicts of use and disturbance. The redevelopment of Safeguarded Wharves should only be accepted if the wharf is no longer viable or capable of being made viable for cargo-handling'.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 135 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

(2.26) The criteria for assessing the viability of wharves are set out in paragraph 4.105 of the London Plan: -

'The redevelopment of Safeguarded Wharves should only be accepted if the wharf is no longer viable or capable of being made viable for cargo handling uses. The only exceptional circumstance to this would be for a strategic proposal of essential benefit for London, which cannot be planned for or delivered on any other site in Greater London. The viability of a wharf is dependant on:

 the wharf's size, shape, orientation, navigational access, road access, rail access (where possible), planning history, environmental impact and surrounding land use context

 the geographical location of the wharf, in terms of proximity and connections to existing and potential market areas

 the existing and potential contribution that the wharf can make towards reducing road-based freight movements

 existing and potential relationships between the wharf and other cargo- handling sites or land uses

 the location and availability of capacity at comparable alternative wharves, having regard to current and projected Port of London and wharf capacity and market demands

 in the case of non-operational sites, the likely timescale within which a viable cargo-handling operation can be attracted to the site, having regard to the short-term land-use policy, and long-term trade forecasts'.

(2.27) The policy approach to Safeguarded Wharves is further explained by paragraphs 4.106 to 4.108 of the London Plan: -

• 'If a wharf is no longer viable, redevelopment proposals must incorporate water-based passenger transport, leisure and recreation facilities and water transport support facilities first, before non-river-related uses that do not require a riverside location'.

• 'Appropriate temporary uses on vacant Safeguarded Wharves can ensure that investment in the wharf is maintained and image problems are minimised for the wider area. Temporary uses must maintain the existing cargo- handling infrastructure to a specified standard, be limited by a temporary permission with a specific end date and priority should be given to uses which require a waterside location as set out in Policy 4C. 12'.

• 'Wharves are increasingly surrounded by different land uses that do not have an industrial or freight purpose. Many wharves are in the Opportunity Areas identified in Chapter 5. The challenge is to minimise conflict between the new and the old land uses. This must be met through modifications and safeguards built into new and established developments'.

• 'Wharf operators should use the latest available technology, equipment and business practices. New development next to or opposite wharves should

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 136 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

utilise the layout, use and environmental credentials of buildings to design away these potential conflicts. Boroughs should ensure that highway access to wharves for commercial vehicles is maintained when considering proposals for development of neighbouring sites'.

(2.28) The approach taken in the London Plan to assess the viability of an individual wharf is distinct from that used in this report to periodically review the use of safeguarding directions on a pan-London basis. It is only at the pan-London level that the wider context to this review, e.g. national and regional policy and trade forecasts/wharf capacity, can be taken into account. Assessments on an individual wharf as part of the planning application process or UDP/LDD review mechanism will be expected to follow the criteria-based analysis identified at policy 4C.15 and paragraph 4.105 of the London Plan.

(2.29) Other policies in the plan (aside from those for the Blue Ribbon Network) are also relevant to the review of Safeguarded Wharves. The use of water transport for freight is encouraged in Policy 3C.24 of the London Plan: -

'The Mayor will promote the sustainable development of the full range of road, rail and water-borne freight facilities in London and seek to improve integration between the modes and between major rail interchanges and the centres they serve. The development of a London rail freight bypass route is supported. UDP policies should:

 implement the spatial aspects of the freight element of the Mayor's Transport Strategy as developed by the London Sustainable Distribution Partnership

 seek to locate developments that generate high levels of freight movement close to major transport routes

 ensure that suitable sites and facilities are made available to enable the transfer of freight to rail and water through the protection of existing sites and the provision of new sites

 ensure developments include appropriate servicing facilities, off- road wherever practicable

 ensure collection and delivery can take place off the main bus and tram routes'.

(2.30) This approach is further explained by paragraphs 3.216 and 3.217 of the London Plan:-

The Thames provides significant opportunities for sustainable freight access into the heart of the capital. The Thames is particularly suited to the transport of bulk materials, such as waste and aggregates. There is also potential for extending freight operations on the Lee Navigation and Grand Union canals. A collaborative approach is needed across London to focus, in particular, on encouraging new facilities and protecting, through the planning system, essential existing facilities supporting water-borne freight movement'.

The reliable and efficient distribution of goods depends in part upon a vibrant ports industry. London relies on a range of facilities to service its needs, including the Port of London. The Port of London Authority, the UK's biggest

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 137 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

port, is a vital gateway for international trade. Although serving London, much of the port is physically located outside London. A regional ports study was undertaken by the South East and East Anglia Ports Local Authority Croup (SEAPLAG) and further collaborative work is ongoing between the CLA, SEERA and EELCC to examine the regional implications of port expansion and, from a London perspective, ensure that transport implications for London are fully taken into account. Opportunities to support the development of the Thames Gateway region should be maximised. In addition, similar joint work is being undertaken in relation to strategic rail inter-modal facilities'.

(2.31) Policy 4A.5 of the London Plan sets out the spatial policies to support the better use of aggregates: -

‘UDP policies should:

 identify and safeguard aggregate resources suitable for extraction

 adopt the highest environmental standards for aggregates extraction in line with National Minerals Policy Guidance

 support the development of aggregate recycling facilities in appropriate and environmentally acceptable locations, with measures to reduce noise, dust and visual intrusion to a practical minimum

 safeguard wharves with an existing or future potential for aggregates handling and ensure adjacent development is designed accordingly to minimise the potential for conflicts of use and disturbance

 protect existing railhead capacity to handle and process aggregates

 minimise the movement of aggregates by road'.

(2.32) Policy 4C.27 of the London Plan supports green industries along the Thames: -

‘The Mayor will, and boroughs should, generally welcome the use of waterside sites, especially those within Strategic Employment Locations, for green industries, where the majority of materials transhipment is by water'.

Developments which affect the nature/viability of cargo handling at the wharf will therefore only be allowed if there are exceptional circumstances and/or overriding needs which match other Plan objectives (e.g. the loss of Delta Wharf at the Greenwich Peninsular during the consultation process in preparing the LPIR).

The LPIR considers the release of 3 of the previously safeguarded wharves and only 25 of the proposed 45 sites for further safeguarding. Many of these sites are or could be used for aggregate handling and importation facilities

LPIR references to Aggregate Importation Facilities and Future Needs

 LPIR identifies that Greater London wharves in total have a capacity shortfall of 2.2 million tonnes p.a.  The shortfall can be offset by a half if at least 3 vacant sites became operational for aggregate use.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 138 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 The PLA have identified a doubling of cargo for the Thames by 2020 – other cargos usage could then impact on aggregate wharf availability in the future.  Eight of the additional proposed wharves for safeguarding are in Bexley London Borough. Four of these are existing operating aggregate wharves, another is planning/about to commence aggregate wharf operations, two are in other use and one is currently vacant.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 139 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

APPENDIX 4

Policy recommendations for wharves and rail depots and safeguarding policies

Recommendations on potential areas of content for the development of replacement Hampshire Wharves and Rail Depot Policies (policies S13 (Wharves and Depots), S14 (Safeguarding) and DC18 (Wharves and Depots) to replace the quashed Core Strategy policies.

S13 (Wharves and Depots)

 The replacement policy should support the sustainable transport of minerals and waste through the provision of rail depots, siding and wharves, in compliance with the measures set out in the South East Plan.

S14 (Safeguarding of Existing Sites and Potential New Sites)

 It is recommended that development of a replacement policy S14 should include provisions for the safeguarding of potential new major wharves and rail depots sites (other than Dibden Bay which it is recommended should be considered under a separate policy – see below) as and when identified during the plan period for the co-location of major aggregate and waste related uses to help achieve latest national and regional guidance on sustainable objectives for these activities. Total areas to be safeguarded would preferably include a high proportion of new infrastructure (i.e. new access by road and rail), facilities for transhipments by sea and rail and substantial mitigation measures to minimise potential impacts. The following site(s) may have ‘major’ potential (Level 1) for co-location of aggregate/waste uses:-

 Marchwood Military Port  Site A - Micheldever Depot  (Other new sites can be included as appropriate at review stages)

 It is recommended that development of a replacement policy S14 should include safeguarding the following existing medium/large sites (Level 2) for use for the landing or unloading, processing, handling and distribution of marine-dredged aggregate and hard rock aggregate by sea or by rail and for the establishment of related activities at these sites including aggregate recycling, bagging plants, concrete batching plants etc. Hampshire will normally oppose proposals for development which would directly or indirectly prevent or prejudice the use of these sites for those purposes, the following existing aggregates wharves and rail depot sites:

AGGREGATE WHARVES

. Burnley Wharf . Leamouth Wharf . Marchwood Wharf (East) . Kendalls Wharf . Bedhampton Wharf

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 140 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

AGGREGATE RAIL DEPOTS

. Eastleigh Depot East . Botley Station Depot

 It is recommended that development of a replacement policy S14 should include the following preferred sites for an aggregates rail depot, as shown on the proposals map:

. Site A - Micheldever Depot . Site B – Basingstoke Sidings

and any other sites where permission is granted for the establishment of an aggregates wharf or an aggregates rail depot or where such use is established without the need for planning permission.

 It is recommended that development of a replacement policy S14 should include the following small sites (Level 3) for use for the landing or unloading, handling and distribution of marine-dredged aggregate and hard rock aggregate by sea or by rail and for the establishment of related activities at these sites including aggregate recycling, bagging plants, concrete batching plants etc are safeguarded. the following existing aggregates wharves and rail depot sites:

AGGREGATE WHARVES

. Bakers Wharf; . Upper Quay Fareham; . Tipner Wharf (to assist local redevelopment projects as long as possible until the site itself is needed for redevelopment).

AGGREGATE RAIL DEPOTS

. Fareham Depot; . Any other sites where permission is granted for the establishment of a Level 2 aggregates wharf or an aggregates rail depot or where such use is established without the need for planning permission.

 It is recommended that policy S14 should safeguard existing waste handling wharves and rail depots which are equally capable of being used for use for the landing or unloading, processing, handling and distribution of marine-dredged aggregate and hard rock aggregate by sea or by rail and for the establishment of related activities at these sites including aggregate recycling, bagging plants, concrete batching plants etc. The following existing waste handling wharves and rail depot sites:

WASTE HANDLING WHARVES

. Princes Wharf; . Marchwood Wharf (West).

WASTE HANDLING RAIL DEPOTS

. Eastleigh Depot West.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 141 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

 It is recommended that the policy should state that Hampshire will normally oppose proposals for development which would directly or indirectly prevent or prejudice the use of these sites for those purposes:

New Policy on Dibden Bay

 It is recommended that a new separate policy on Dibden Bay is introduced which, in the absence of any specific site area boundaries being defined to date, should ensure the safeguarding of a minimum area within a ‘zone’ set out along the entire Dibden Bay River Test water frontage. This is to ensure some land can be set aside for the potential development of a major new wharf facility (including the co-location where possible of major aggregate and waste related facilities). The size of the area actually needed at Dibden Bay for combined minerals and waste facilities will depend on whether ABP progress and succeed with their revised proposals for container port expansion at Dibden Bay as set out in their recent Port Master Plan.  It is therefore recommended that between 12 and 35 hectares of land within the zone area set out on Plan SW1 is safeguarded as part of the new policy, which will exclude the land forming Marchwood Military Port. The new policy will need to distinguish between the safeguarding needed for stand alone new wharf facilities (at up to 35 hectares) compared to those that may be built as part (say only 12 hectares) of a more general port expansion proposal affecting up to 320 hectares at Dibden Bay. The actual areas for safeguarding here have assumed a high proportion of new infrastructure, facilities for transhipments by sea and rail and substantial mitigation measures to minimise potential impacts. Additional considerations for the development of a stand alone multi-modal minerals and waste facility would include matters such as:

. modern construction including low level designs; . facilities for aggregate imports by sea must allow both hard rock and marine sand and gravel and not exclusively one aggregate type at the expense of another; . high percentage for noisy/dusty activities to be kept under cover or within new buildings; . demonstrable co-operation between new aggregate/waste recycling uses to enable commencement of aggregates sales to contain 5% recycled/secondary aggregate (and cement products) with a target objective of 25% to be achieved by 2030; . extensive advance and ongoing landscape and ecology mitigation measures with medium/long term commitments; . limits imposed on the level or proportion of aggregate/waste movements by road to maintain transhipments by sea and rail. DC18 (Wharves and Depots)

. The replacement DC18 policy should include a development management steer as to when planning permission would be granted for new wharf and / or rail depot sites and their necessary facilities (for improvement, modernisation, extension and enhancement of existing sites). It is recommended that the following development management criteria are included within the replacement policy and should be satisfied if planning permission is to be granted :

 the location is suitable for the development proposed; and  the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact.

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 142 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

REFERENCES

MAIN REFERENCES:

South East England Regional Aggregates Working Party (December 2002) - Survey of Marine Wharves and Rail Depots in the South East Region – Their Capacity for use by the Aggregate Industry

British Geological Survey (2005) - The Role of Imports to UK Aggregates Supply

London Plan Implementation Report 2005 – Safeguarding of Wharves on the River Thames

South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) - Aggregates Monitoring Report 2006 (AM2006)

British Geological Survey (2007) - The Strategic Importance of the Marine Aggregate Industry to the UK

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) - The South East Plan (May 2009) – Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East

Hampshire MWDF – Annual Monitoring Report 2007/08

Land and Mineral Management Ltd (2006) – Kent Aggregate Imports Study

Land and Mineral Management Ltd (2008) - Study of Wharves and Railheads in West Sussex

AEA Technology (03.06.05) – “Feasibility of Disposing of Waste by Rail” in West Sussex

Transport for South Hampshire – Freight Strategy Consultation Draft July 2008

South East England Regional Assembly – Review of the Basis for the National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision 2005 – 2020 as Applied to South East England by Green Balance (Jan. 2009)

South East England Regional Assembly (report March 2004) - Proposed Alterations to Regional Minerals Strategy

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (April 2008) – Draft National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision 2005-2020

Quarry Products Association - Sustainable Development Report 2008

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (1998)

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007) - as adopted

Hampshire Minerals Plan – Draft Topic Paper on Aggregate Recycling Facilities 2008

Draft Hampshire Minerals Plan (HCC) (2008)

South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) - report by Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd and Atkins and Marina Projects Ltd on Solent Waterfront Strategy (June 2008)

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 143 Need Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots (Update February 2011)

AEA Technology/C4S (2008) - Reducing the Environmental Effect of Transporting Aggregate

British Marine Aggregate Producers Association (BMAPA) - Sustainable Development Reports 2007/2008

MDS Transmodal Ltd (Feb. 2009) - Aggregate Wharves and Rail Depots in South East England

The South East Plan (DCLG May 2009) – Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East

Associated British Ports (2010) – Port of Southampton Master Plan 2009 – 2030

Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund/MIRO (May 2010) - Feasibility Assessment on Pipeline Method of Transport for Aggregates in England

Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund/MIRO (May 2010) - Feasibility Assessment on Underground Mining of Aggregates

Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund/MIRO (June 2010) – Development of an Aggregate Industry Horizon Scan for 2030-2050

WEBSITE REFERENCES:

ABP Website– www.abports.co.uk

ABP Website News 12.03.09 – www.abports.co.uk/news20096894.htm

The Crown Estate - www.thecrownestate.co.uk/aggregate_reserves_september_2008.pdf

Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund - www.sustainableaggregates.com

Land & Mineral Management Ltd. 144