Outcomes of Issues and Options Consultation (Regulation 18)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan Single Issue Soft Sand Review – outcomes of Issues and Options Consultation (Regulation 18) January 2020 1 Contents 1. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Aims of engagement ....................................................................................................................... 2 3. Summary of comments and the Authorities responses ................................................................. 2 4. Approach to analysis ....................................................................................................................... 6 Q1a: Which soft sand demand scenario do you think that the Authorities should use? Please provide reasons for your views. .......................................................................................................... 9 Q1b: Do you think that there are any other matters that should be taken into account when determining the need for soft sand? ................................................................................................ 37 Q1c: Do you think that the Authorities should plan for a different amount of soft sand to 2033? Please provide information/evidence to support your view. ........................................................... 57 Q2a: Do you consider that all 'reasonable alternatives' for soft sand supply have been identified or are there other options that we should be considering? ............................................................. 77 Q2b: Do you have any comments on the options that we have identified and the contribution that they could make to meeting need to 2033? ..................................................................................... 83 Q2c: Which option or options should we take forward as part of the preferred strategy to meet the identified shortfall for soft sand? Please give your reasons....................................................... 91 Q3: Do you have any comments on the draft Sustainability Appraisal of the Options ................... 98 Q4: Do you have any comments on the site selection methodology, as set out in the Soft Sand Site Selection Report (4SR)? .................................................................................................................. 104 Q5: Do you have any comments on the nine shortlisted sites identified in the Issues and Options Consultation Document? ................................................................................................................ 131 Buncton Manor Farm ...................................................................................................... 131 Chantry Lane ....................................................................................................................... 133 Coopers Moor ...................................................................................................................... 138 Duncton Common ............................................................................................................. 140 East of West Heath Common ..................................................................................... 144 Ham Farm ............................................................................................................................. 147 Minsted West ...................................................................................................................... 160 Severals East/West ........................................................................................................ 165 Q6: Do you have any comments on the 12 non-shortlisted sites, as identified in Appendix 3 of the Soft Sand Site Selection Report (4SR)? ........................................................................................... 178 Q7: Are there any sites that we should be considering that are not included in the Soft Sand Site Selection Report (4SR)? .................................................................................................................. 184 1 Q8: Do you have any comments on the sustainability appraisal of the potential sites? .............. 186 Q9: Do you have any comments on the proposed site selection strategy and guiding principles? Are there any other factors that should guide the selection of allocated sites? ........................... 191 2 West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan: Single Issue Soft Sand Review Summary of Outcomes 1. Background 1.1 The West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan (JMLP) was adopted by West Sussex County Council and the South Downs National Park Authority (the Authorities) in July 2018. Policy M2 of the JMLP required the Authorities to undertake a single issue Soft Sand Review (SSR). 1.2 This document sets out a summary of comments received on the Soft Sand Review Issues and Options consultation. The consultation, undertaken in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations (2012), took place between Monday 21 January and Monday 18 March 2019. 1.3 The Review was prepared in accordance with national planning practice guidance which expects local planning authorities to consider all representations made on draft plans, and set out how the main issues raised have been taken into account. 1.4 An Issues and Options Consultation document was produced by the Authorities. The consultation document set out the key issues requiring consideration as part of the review, as well as the potential options for soft sand supply. The key issues set out were; Issue 1: Need for Soft Sand Issue 2: Strategy for Soft Sand Supply Issue 3: Potential Sites and Site Selection. 1.5 The Authorities also published a Sustainability Appraisal (SA), a Soft Sand Site Selection Report (4SR), and a Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA). The consultation was undertaken in line with the Authorities Statements of Community Involvement. Copies of all documents were made available on the Authorities’ web sites, as well as in hard copy format at County Council, National Park Authority and District and Borough Council main offices, and all West Sussex libraries. All district, borough and town and parish councils and all other contacts on the Minerals and Waste consultation database received either an email or letter notification about the engagement exercise. 1.6 There were 804 responses to the consultation from a variety of groups. The Authorities are grateful to all those who took the time to respond and for the detailed and considered comments received. 1 2. Aims of engagement 2.1 The aim of this initial engagement exercise was to gather feedback on the Issues and Options for soft sand supply, in order to help the Authorities determine a new strategy for soft sand supply and the changes that will be required to the JMLP. 2.2 Online and hard copy response forms were produced, setting out a total of nine questions covering the three key Issues. 2.3 This report sets out a summary of the comments received, and the response of the Authorities, indicating any updates to the evidence as necessary. These updates, coupled with further technical work have helped the Authorities determine the preferred strategy, which will be set out as a schedule of changes to the adopted JMLP. 2.4 The SSR will be subject to a formal period of consultation to allow representations to be made on their soundness and legal and procedural compliance in accordance with Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012, before submission for independent examination. 3. Summary of comments and the Authorities responses 3.1 The consultation on the Single Issue Soft Sand Review followed the principles set out in both Authorities’ Statements of Community Involvement (SCI). This consultation involved discussion about the proposed site allocations at the relevant County Local Committees (CLCs) as well as discussions with district and borough councils, parish councils, developers, and resident and community groups. The consultation specifically included the following: Approximately 3,000 individuals and organisations were notified about the consultation either by email or letter; hard copy documentation and notices were made available for inspection at council offices and libraries; publication of the consultation on the County Council Minerals and Have Your Say Consultation webpages; 3.2 The consultation on the issues and options for soft sand supply ran for an 8-week period until 18 March 2019 and includes the following documents: Single Issue Soft Sand Review - consultation document (PDF, 5.2MB) Local Aggregate Assessment (PDF, 1.6MB) 2 Soft Sand Sites Selection Report (PDF, 2.3MB) Sustainability Appraisal (PDF, 874KB) 3.3 A total of 804 responses were received during the consultation with the following breakdown: 716 responses submitted by individuals (including parish councillors, local businesses, and from residents/members of the public.) 88 by organisations (including minerals industry, county, district & borough and parish councils, government bodies, community and environmental organisations - see Appendix A). 3.4 The table below shows a more detailed breakdown of the categories of respondent: Category Number % of respondents Resident/Member of the public 715 88.8% Local business 10 1.2% County/minerals planning authority Council 6 0.7% District/Borough Council 6 0.7% Town/Parish Council 16 1.9% Minerals and waste industry 5 0.6% Statutory