West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Executive Summary

Introduction (Section 1)

The County Council is responsible for preparing statutory land-use planning policies and for determining applications for minerals development against those policies. The adopted West Sussex Minerals Local Plan (MLP) sets out a detailed planning policy framework to ensure the supply of minerals to 2006 although the policy framework has a longer timeframe. The West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document (MDPD – the "Plan") will be prepared to replace the adopted MLP. The preparation of the MDPD, which is likely to cover the period to 2018, will enable the policies and proposals in the MLP to be reviewed.

The MDPD will clearly set out the core strategy including a county-wide vision, measurable objectives, and a coherent strategy for minerals planning; generic criteria-based development control policies against which proposals for minerals development will be judged; criteria-based policies which deal with specific types of minerals development; and site-specific allocations to ensure the provision of sufficient minerals.

A sustainability appraisal (SA) of the Plan will be required to inform the preparation of its strategy, policies, and allocations by considering the potential sustainability effects of options. The SA will be an integrated part of the plan-making process and meet the requirements of the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive.

Plan Process (Section 2)

Technical work has been undertaken to compile the evidence base that will underpin the preparation of the MDPD and inform the SA before any decisions are made about the first draft of the Plan (the 'Preferred Option') including its strategy, policies, and site-specific proposals. This consultation paper has been prepared focussing on the key issues to be addressed by the Plan and the reasonable options available to the County Council in considering those issues. Views are welcomed (preferably as answers to the questions) although comments are welcomed on any issue related to the review of the MLP and the preparation of the new plan. Comments must be made by 5.00pm on 23 December 2005.

Following consideration of representations, work will start on the preparation of the first draft of the Plan – the Preferred Option. Following approval by County Council, the Preferred Option will be published for a six-week period of public consultation in June-July 2006. Comments received on the Preferred Option will be considered and taken into account in revising the document before it is submitted to the Government and subject to a six-week consultation period. Comments will be considered by an independent Inspector as part of their public examination of the ‘soundness’ of the document. The Inspector will then produce a binding report which will specify the changes to be made to the Plan. The County Council will be required to amend the draft Plan as recommended by the Inspector before it is formally adopted when it will supersede the adopted MLP.

Context (Section 3)

West Sussex has a diverse geology that is fundamental to the appearance and use of land. It has deposits of minerals such as sand, gravel, sandstone, chalk, clay, and oil

i West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005 which are important natural resources essential in the production of many goods and services. The wide range of minerals obtained by quarrying into these natural deposits is augmented by supplies of marine-dredged and other imported materials currently landed at seaports, and by crushed rock delivered to rail aggregate depots.

National policies for minerals planning in England are set out in Minerals Planning Guidance Notes (MPG) which are being replaced by Mineral Policy Statements (MPS). Minerals has a number of special characteristics: they can only be worked where they naturally occur; working is a temporary use of land; working often has adverse environmental effects; and land should be restored to a beneficial after-use.

The Regional Minerals Strategy (RMS) is being prepared to set out a regional framework up to 2016 for the development of minerals. The RMS is needed to replace a set of old and obsolete targets and policies which were published in 1994 and will replace Chapter 11 of the existing Regional Planning guidance for the South East (RPG9). Proposed Changes to the RMS were published in August 2005.

The adopted West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 aims to meet the need to maintain supplies of minerals whilst ensuring that their extraction can be sustained as long as is necessary and does not harm the environment (Policy ERA6).

Draft Strategy, Vision, Aims, and Objectives (Section 4)

The core strategy will set out the key elements of the minerals planning framework for West Sussex. It will include a spatial vision and strategic objectives; a spatial strategy; core policies; and a monitoring and implementation framework. It is too early at this stage, however, to identify a draft spatial strategy as this will evolve from consideration of the issues and options. It is too early to devise a spatial vision as minerals can be extracted only where they are found and many of the issues and options address these spatial matters. Views are sought on draft aims and objectives.

Policy Topics (Section 5)

The preparation of the new Plan provides the opportunity to review and consolidate the policies in the adopted MLP. Views are sought on the need or otherwise to amend the current policy framework in the MLP. It is envisaged that the Plan will follow a similar structure and format to the draft Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft; views are sought on a provisional list of policy topics.

Key Issues and Options (Section 6)

Strategic issues are addressed including the plan period (Issue A) and the treatment of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposed South Downs National Park (Issue B).

The provision of sand and gravel is considered including production levels (Issue C), meeting future needs (Issue D), maintaining a landbank of sites with planning permissions (Issue E), future levels of production (Issue F), and areas for future working (Issue G). Other minerals are considered including secondary aggregates (Issue H), clay (Issue I), sandstone (Issue J), and chalk (Issue K).

Site selection issues are addressed including the merits of extensions v new sites (Issue L), cumulative impact (Issue N), and site size (Issue O). Policy issues are

ii West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005 considered including safeguarding resources (Issue P), restoration and after-use (Issue Q), rail depots and wharves (Issue R), and processing of extracted minerals (Issue S).

Potential Sand and Gravel Sites (Section 7)

Subject to the need for new sand and gravel sites, the County Council is required to consider all the sites that could reasonably be considered for minerals development. A provisional list of 51 potential sites has been compiled and preliminary consultation undertaken with internal and external consultees (including the relevant parish councils and local community groups). The list of potential sites includes the unimplemented allocations in the MLP, sites that were previously considered during the preparation of the MLP, and new sites that have come forward so far.

The potential sites have been considered against site selection criteria including consideration of the comments received on the potential sites from the consultees. A preliminary assessment has been made of how each site measures up against the broad criteria, categorised as either acceptable; acceptable provided that certain (specified) actions are undertaken; or not acceptable in principle. An overall conclusion has been reached about each site.

A provisional shortlist of 18 sites has been identified at this stage. All current allocations in the MLP have been shortlisted as it is necessary to subject them to more detailed reassessment: they account for eight sites on the shortlist. The ten new sites have been shortlisted as there are no overriding 'in principle' objections at this stage to their inclusion: five of these sites are potential extensions to existing workings which have potentially less impact than new sites.

All the potential sites to the south and east of Chichester (with the exception of the existing allocation at Kingsham) have not been shortlisted due to the need for a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) of the potential impact of mineral working as recommended by the Environment Agency.

The shortlist will be revised, if necessary, by the addition or deletion of sites following consideration of the representations received on this paper. Work will start in early 2006 on the preparation of the Preferred Option draft of the Plan which will include proposed allocations taken from the finalised shortlist, if any are required to meet identified need. No decision has been made at this stage about potential allocations.

More detailed analysis of the shortlisted sites against the criteria will be undertaken to identify those that should go forward as potential allocations. Shortlisted sites that are considered acceptable at this stage, may not be considered acceptable following more detailed assessment.

iii West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

iv West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Contents

Page No. 1 Introduction 1 1.2 New planning system 1 1.3 Minerals Planning 1 1.4 The New Plan 1 1.5 Sustainability Appraisal 2 2 Plan Process 4 2.1 Introduction 4 2.2 Issues and Options 4 2.3 Consultation 4 2.4 Future timetable 5 2.5 Contact details 5 3 Context 6 3.1 Introduction 6 3.2 Minerals in West Sussex 6 3.3 National Context 7 3.4 Regional Context 8 3.5 Local Context 9 4 Draft Strategy, Vision, Aims, and Objectives 10 4.1 Introduction 10 4.2 Core Strategy 10 4.3 Spatial Vision 10 4.4 Aims and Objectives 11 5 Policy Topics 13 5.1 Introduction 13 5.2 Minerals Local Plan 13 5.3 Provisional Policy Topics 15 5 Key Issues and Options 17 6.1 Introduction 17 6.2 Strategic Issues (A-B) 17 6.3 Sand and Gravel (C-G) 18 6.4 Other Minerals (H-K) 24 6.5 Site Selection Issues (L-O) 25 6.6 Policy Issues (P-S) 28 7 Potential Sand and Gravel Sites 33 7.1 Introduction 33 7.2 Potential Sites 33

v West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

7.3 Site Selection Criteria 36 7.4 Resource Information 37 7.5 Provisional Shortlist 38 7.6 Finalising the Shortlist 46

Tables 1 Mineral Local Plan Policies 13 2 Sand and Gravel Production 2001-2004 19 3 Sand and Gravel Provision 2005-2018 20 4 Provisional List of Potential Sand and Gravel Sites 34 5 Site Selection Criteria 36 6 Potential Sand and Gravel Sites – Provisional Conclusions 38 7 Provisional Shortlist of Sand and Gravel Sites 44 Figures 1 West Sussex Minerals and Waste Development Framework 3 2 Geology of West Sussex 6 Appendices A Glossary and Abbreviations 47 B Summary of Preliminary Assessment of Potential Sand and Gravel Sites 51 Maps Key 83 A Woodmancote/Hambrook/Funtington area 84 B Densworth/West Lavant area 85 C East Lavant 86 D Oving/East Chichester area 87 E South Chichester 88 F West Heath Common 89 G Minsted/West Midhurst area 90 H South-East Midhurst area 91 I Duncton area 92 J Horncroft 93 K Pulborough/Wiggonholt area 94 L Chantry Lane (Storrington) 95 M Washington/Rock Common area 96 N Wiston area 97

vi West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

1.0 Introduction

1.1 New Planning System

1.1.1 Under the new planning system, introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the current system of regional planning guidance, and statutory structure and local plans will be replaced by statutory regional spatial strategies (RSS) and local development frameworks (LDF). The regional spatial strategy for the south east (the 'South East Plan'), which will be prepared by the South East England Regional Assembly and approved by the Government, will replace the approved Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) and the adopted West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016.

1.1.2 In West Sussex, although structure plans will no longer be prepared by the County Council it will be responsible for preparing a county-wide LDF for minerals and waste - the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF). LDF covering the other land-use planning issues will be prepared by the district and borough councils to replace their current district-wide local plans.

1.1.3 The MWDF is essentially a portfolio that will contain a suite of local development documents (LDD), which include development plan documents (DPD) and, if required, supplementary planning documents (SPD). The DPD will include a vision, objectives, core strategy, and general and user-specific development control policies and a proposals map. The MWDF will also contain other documents, such as the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (MWDS), the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), and the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). See Figure 1 for a diagrammatic representation of the Framework.

1.2 Minerals Planning

1.2.1 The County Council is the Minerals Planning Authority for the whole of West Sussex which means that it is responsible for preparing statutory land-use planning policies, and for determining applications for minerals development against those policies. The adopted West Sussex Minerals Local Plan (MLP) sets out a detailed planning policy framework to ensure the supply of minerals to 2006 although the policy framework has a longer timeframe.

1.2.2 The West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document (MDPD), which will be part of the statutory 'development plan' upon adoption, will be prepared to replace the adopted MLP. The timetable for preparing the MDPD is set out in the MWDS. For the purposes of this consultation paper, the MDPD may also be referred to as "the Plan".

1.3 The New Plan

1.3.1 The use of minerals found in West Sussex is vital to its economy and character. On the other hand, the winning of some minerals from the land can affect the landscape and its character and amenity of residents. The purpose of the new Plan is to set down policies and proposals that protect our amenities and the character and environment of West Sussex, whilst ensuring there are sufficient supplies of the minerals we need.

1 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

1.3.2 The preparation of the MDPD, which is likely to cover the period to 2018, will enable the policies and proposals in the MLP to be reviewed. As it will be prepared under the new planning system, the MDPD will, as far as possible, be a spatial plan, incorporating economic, social and environmental issues as well as setting out a land-use planning approach to minerals.

1.3.3 The County Council has decided to prepare a single, all-embracing Minerals DPD, as opposed to three or four separate DPD, as it will be easier and less- complicated for the public and others to use one document which deals with the single issue of minerals planning policy. Accordingly, the MDPD will clearly set out:  the core strategy including a county-wide vision, measurable objectives, and a coherent strategy for minerals planning;  generic criteria-based development control policies against which proposals for minerals development will be judged;  criteria-based policies which deal with specific types of minerals development; and  site-specific allocations to ensure the provision of sufficient minerals.

1.3.4 The background to the strategy, policies and site-specific proposals (allocations) will be set out in supporting text and, where appropriate, in separate background documents.

1.4 Sustainability Appraisal

1.4.1 A sustainability appraisal (SA) of the Plan will be required to inform the preparation of its strategy, policies, and allocations. The SA, which should be an integrated part of the plan-making process, will also meet the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive. In accordance with draft Government guidance on SA, the potential sustainability effects of options for the strategy, policies, and allocations will need to be considered.

1.4.2 Consultation on a Scoping Report, which identifies the 'breadth and depth' of the SA, took place with statutory and other consultees this Summer. Comments on the Scoping Report have been considered and the finalised Scoping Report, amended as necessary, is published alongside the Issues and Options Consultation Paper. The Scoping Report is available on the website (www.westsussex.gov.uk/mwdf) – hard copies are available on request.

2 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Figure 1: West Sussex Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Minerals and Waste Development Scheme

Annual Monitoring Report

Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Saved Plans

Statement of Community Involvement

Minerals Local Structure Plan Plan

Local Plan in Development Preparation Documents

Appraisal/Strategic En

Appraisal Development Waste Local Plan Plan Documents

Assessment Assessment

: : Sustainability

vironmental

Minerals

Management Strategies) Management Minerals

Planning Policy Statements, Policy Planning Regional Development Proposals Map Plan Document Covered by Statement of

Community Involvement

Spatial Strategy (Regional Minerals & WasteMinerals&(Regional Strategy Spatial Context: Evidence Base

3 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

2.0 Plan Process

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 Technical work has been undertaken to compile the evidence base that will underpin the preparation of the MDPD and inform the SA before any decisions are made about the first draft of the Plan (the 'Preferred Option') including its strategy, policies, and site-specific proposals. This consultation paper has been prepared focussing on the key issues to be addressed by the Plan and the reasonable options available to the County Council in considering those issues.

2.2 Issues and Options

2.2.1 Preliminary informal consultation regarding the preparation of the MDPD has taken place since Spring 2005 to identify the key issues of concern to the communities most likely to be affected by sand and gravel extraction. This has taken place through the meetings of the Sand and Gravel Resource Area Forums which gather together the parish councils, and resident and community groups on or close to the sand and gravel resource areas. Many of the issues raised in the meetings have concerned detailed matters associated with the development control and enforcement processes. However, the strategic issues raised have been addressed, where appropriate, in this consultation paper.

2.3 Consultation

2.3.1 In order to ensure that the widest range of views can be obtained on the issues and options in this consultation paper, it is available for public comment and has been sent to over 350 statutory and other consultees (as identified on the website - www.westsussex.gov.uk/mwdf). This includes consultation with the South East England Regional Assembly, the local planning authorities within and adjoining the County, and the Highways Agency as required by Regulation 25(2) of the Town and County Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. The finalised SA Scoping Report has been published to accompany the consultation paper and is available on the website – hard copies are available on request.

2.3.2 Views on this consultation paper are welcomed preferably as answers to the questions although comments are welcomed on any issue related to the review of the MLP and the preparation of the new plan. The County Council should receive all comments no later than 5.00pm on 23 December 2005. Where possible, they should be made using the online form via the website. However, comments can also be made in writing and sent either:  by post to Head of Planning Services (Ref: MDPD), West Sussex County Council, The Grange, Tower Street, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1RH; • by email to [email protected]; or • by fax, headed "Head of Planning Services (Ref: MDPD)", to 01243 756862.

2.3.3 Please note that any comments received cannot be treated as confidential. A summary of the comments and the County Council's response will be made

4 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

available for inspection in due course at County Hall, Chichester and on the website.

2.3.4 The County Council is a data controller for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998. Details will be entered into a database and may be used to inform respondents about other services. The details will not be passed on to other organisations. Security safeguards apply to both manual and computerised held data, and only relevant staff/named disclosures can access the information. For further information, please contact the Data Protection Officer on 01243 777955.

2.4 Future Timetable

2.4.1 Following consideration of the representations received on this consultation paper, work will start on the preparation of the first draft of the Plan – the Preferred Option. Technical work will continue to be undertaken to inform the preparation of the Preferred Option which will include a draft strategy, vision, policies, and potential site-specific allocations. Following approval by County Council, the Preferred Option will be published for a six-week period of public consultation in June-July 2006.

2.4.2 Comments received on the Preferred Option will be considered and taken into account in revising the document. The revised Plan will then be published and formally submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination. There will then be a six-week consultation period in which representations can be made about the submitted Plan. The comments will be considered by an independent Inspector as part of their public examination of the ‘soundness’ of the document. The Inspector will then produce a binding report which will specify the changes to be made to the Plan. The County Council will be required, if necessary, to amend the draft Plan as recommended by the Inspector before it is formally adopted when it will supersede the adopted MLP.

2.5 Contact details

2.5.1 If you require any information about this consultation paper or the plan preparation process or would like to discuss any aspects of the MWDF process, please contact Planning Services:  Steve Brown Tel: 01243 777042 Email: [email protected]  Aleks Polanski Tel: 01243 777611 Email: [email protected]

5 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

3.0 Context

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 It is important that the MDPD is prepared with an understanding of the factual situation regarding minerals in West Sussex and an appreciation of the national, regional and local policy context.

3.2 Minerals in West Sussex

3.2.1 West Sussex has a diverse geology that is fundamental to the appearance and use of land (see Figure 1). The chalk hills of the South Downs are a prominent feature in the County. North of the South Downs, the Wealden area consists of a sequence of sands and clays which give rise to wooded sandstone ridges and sandy heathlands divided by belts of agricultural land on the clays and river valleys. South of the Downs, the coastal plain comprises more recent clays, overlain by gravel and brickearth, which support a flat intensely-farmed landscape.

Figure 2: Geology of West Sussex

3.2.2. West Sussex has deposits of minerals such as sand, gravel, sandstone, chalk, clay, and oil which are important natural resources essential in the production of many goods and services. The minerals found in the County also contribute to the variety of local building materials and are, therefore, a vital component in retaining local character in West Sussex.

3.2.3 Sand and some building stone are won from the Folkestone, Hythe and Sandgate Beds. In particular, the Folkestone Beds provide clean sand which varies in size and colour and supplies of both soft sand (e.g. round grains used as building sand for mortars) and sharp sand (e.g. angular grains used for concrete) can be found in the same pits. Brickmaking has been long

6 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

established in the central and north eastern parts of the County and clay is exploited at a number of locations. Wealden stock bricks of a distinctive character continue to be produced and are much in demand. Gravel, of varying quality, and some sharp sand is found to the south of the Downs in the south-east of the County. Coarser, silty gravels lie over the chalk to the north of a line approximating to the route of the A27 and have been exploited in dry workings. Overlying the clay to the south, cleaner, better sorted gravels have been exploited through wet working as evidenced by lakes around the eastern and southern fringes of Chichester. Chalk has been worked in the South Downs for many centuries although only a few pits remain in operation today. Limited amounts of oil and gas have been exploited.

3.2.4 The wide range of minerals obtained by quarrying into these natural deposits is augmented by supplies of marine-dredged and other imported materials currently landed at the ports of Shoreham and Littlehampton, and by crushed rock delivered to rail aggregate depots at Ardingly, Chichester, and Crawley.

3.2.5 Further information about the mineral resources in West Sussex can be found in Chapter 2 of the MLP.

3.3 National Context

3.3.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, the Environment Act 1995 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provide the main basis for the control of mineral development. Minerals are defined in Section 336 of the 1990 Act as including “all substances of a kind ordinarily worked for removal by underground or surface working, except that it does not include peat cut for purposes other than sale”.

3.3.2 National policies for minerals planning in England are set out in Minerals Planning Guidance Notes (MPG) which are being replaced by Mineral Policy Statements (MPS). A draft of MPS1 "Planning and Minerals" and accompanying Good Practice Guidance was published in November 2004 setting out the Government's key policies and principles. When finalised, MPS1 will replace the current guidance in MPG1 "General Considerations and the Development Plan System" (1996). MPS2 "Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England" and initial annexes on dust and noise was published in March 2005 – further annexes to MPS2 will follow. MPS3 will be prepared to cover matters related to site restoration and management.

3.3.3 MPG6 "Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England" (1994) as revised in 2003 by the "National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England 2001-2016" establishes national supply policy and guidelines for the provision of aggregates through the identification of figures for each MPA on the basis of regional requirements. Draft Annexes to MPS1 were published in July 2005, Annex 1 of which deals with the supply of sand and gravel and which, when finalised, replace MPG6.

3.3.4 Planning for the supply of minerals has a number of special characteristics (MPS1, Good Practice Guidance, paragraph 12):

7 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

 minerals can only be worked where they naturally occur, so locational options for the economically viable extraction of minerals may be limited;  working is a temporary use of land, although it often takes place over a long period of time;  working often has adverse environmental effects that can be mitigated but not wholly eliminated;  following working, the land should be restored, to make it suitable for beneficial after-use and to avoid dereliction;  the extraction of minerals has been held by the Courts to be a continuous process of development. There is therefore a requirement for long-term monitoring;  mineral working is essentially a physical process and the application of conditions to mineral permissions is the primary means of environmental control.

3.4 Regional Context

3.4.1 The South East is the most populous English region and subject to significant growth pressures that will require an adequate supply of minerals and minerals-related products. Regional planning policy has to balance the requirements of the regional economy for minerals and manufactured products with the environment and social impact arising from their extraction, processing, and transport.

3.4.2 The Regional Minerals Strategy (RMS) is being prepared to set out a regional framework up to 2016 for the development of minerals such as chalk, clay, sand and gravel; raw materials which are important for both the manufacturing and construction industry. The RMS is needed to replace a set of old and obsolete targets and policies which were published in 1994 and will replace Chapter 11 of the existing Regional Planning guidance for the South East (RPG9).

3.4.3 Included in the draft strategy is:

 guidance on how minerals can be used more efficiently in the construction industry in order to prolong the region’s supply of raw materials.  policies to encourage greater re-use and recycling of materials as construction aggregates. This approach mirrors the philosophy of the draft Regional Waste Management Strategy which advocates the importance of recycling and re-use of waste, including construction and demolition waste.  a new set of targets for the supply of construction aggregates (the apportionment for land-won aggregates), both for the region as a whole and for individual counties or unitary authorities.

3.4.4 The draft RMS was published by the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) in March 2004. The Examination-in-Public (EiP) of the draft RMS was held in Autumn 2004 and the EiP Panel's recommendations were submitted in early 2005. In August 2005, the Government published Proposed Changes to

8 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

the RMS and the Strategy will be finalised following consideration of comments on the suggested changes.

3.5 Local Context

3.5.1 Minerals can only be worked where they occur and their extraction can cause conflict through loss or changes to valued landscapes, habitats, or features of historic or archaeological importance, or due to the impact of public amenity. Much of West Sussex is subject to existing or proposed national designations. Of particular importance for minerals planning are the Sussex Downs and High Weald Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The Sussex Downs designation covers almost the whole of the chalk outcrop, almost half the Folkestone Beds, and part of the gravel resource north of Chichester. The proposed National Park for the South Downs would cover an even larger area. The High Weald designation includes the entire Wadhurst Clay outcrop.

3.5.2 There is a significant relationship between the location and number of scheduled ancient monuments and mineral resources. There is a similar pattern of distribution in relation to nature conservation areas, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and National Nature Reserves (NNR) which are concentrated on the chalk and lower weald areas. Many of these areas are also subject to international designations such as Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Areas for Conservation (SAC). In addition to international and national designations, there are a significant number of areas and features that are subject to regional and more local designations.

3.5.3 The strategic aim of Policy ERA6 of the adopted West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 is to meet the need to maintain supplies of minerals whilst ensuring that their extraction can be sustained as long as is necessary and does not harm the environment. This means protecting existing reserves, ensuring that they are not used too quickly, encouraging the reuse of existing buildings rather than their replacement, and promoting the use of recycled materials to reduce the demand for new mineral extraction. It also means reducing the environmental impact of exploiting such resources. These include direct impacts such as the visual impact on the character of an area and pollution, as well as indirect impacts from transporting the minerals. Lastly it means ensuring that land is restored to an appropriate after-use.

3.5.4 In the countryside, development should be limited to uses which are necessary for the operation to proceed. For example, any buildings provided should not be used for purposes unrelated to mineral extraction. Buildings and plant should be removed on cessation of the extraction operations.

3.5.5 Proposals for further oil or gas workings, to appraise a find, or to develop a field for commercial production, should be considered on their merits. However, permission should not follow automatically from successful exploration.

3.5.6 Further consideration of the key local social, economic and environmental issues and problems to be addressed through the preparation of the MDPD is set out in the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (see paragraph 1.4.2).

9 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

4.0 Draft Strategy, Vision, Aims, and Objectives

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The new Plan must be clear, succinct, and easily understood by all. The strategy and associated policies (see Chapter 5) should be expressed in a way that emphasises the means and timescale by which the Plan's objectives will be met. They should relate to the geography of the County and be founded on its "physical and demographics characteristics, internal and external links, and relationship with neighbouring areas" (PPS12, paragraph 2.1).

4.1.2 The use of minerals found in West Sussex is vital to its economy and character. On the other hand, the winning of some minerals from the land can affect the landscape and its character and the amenity of residents. The purpose of the new Plan is to set down policies and proposals that protect our amenities and the character and environment of West Sussex, whilst ensuring there are sufficient supplies of the minerals we need.

4.1.3 As part of the preliminary work on the new Plan, initial consideration has been given to the core strategy, vision, aims, and objectives of the new Plan.

4.2 Core Strategy

4.2.1 The core strategy will set out the key elements of the minerals planning framework for West Sussex. It will include a spatial vision and strategic objectives; a spatial strategy; core policies; and a monitoring and implementation framework. The core strategy should "take account of the need to contribute appropriately to national, regional and local requirements at acceptable social, environmental and economic costs" (PPS12, paragraph 2.11).

4.2.2 Although the core strategy should contain clear and concise policies for the whole of the County or locations within it, it should not identify individual sites. It should identify general locations and may illustrate the broad strategy in diagrammatic form on a key diagram which could show links and relationships to other strategies and areas. The time horizon of the core strategy should be for at least 10 years from the date of adoption.

4.2.3 The following sections consider the vision, aims, and objectives. It is too early at this stage, however, to identify a draft spatial strategy as this will evolve from consideration of the issues and options, especially decisions made in relation to spatial matters. This includes the treatment of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/Proposed South Downs National Park.

4.3 Spatial Vision

4.3.1 Similar to issues relating to the spatial strategy (see paragraph 4.2.3), it is too early to devise a spatial vision as minerals can be extracted only where they are found and many of the issues and options address these spatial matters. However, and this stage, the following statement forms the basis for a vision that can be amended and supplemented as the spatial matters are resolved:

10 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

We want to safeguard mineral resources and ensure that the need for minerals found in West Sussex is met in ways which protect and enhance public amenity and the special character and environment of the County, looking to the long-term as well as today.

Question 1 What key elements should form part of a spatial strategy for minerals planning in West Sussex?

4.4 Aims and Objectives

4.4.1 Government guidance does not advocate the identification of aims for the Plan although it does advise that the core strategy should include objectives derived from the spatial vision. Views are sought on the following draft aims and objectives:

Draft Aims To conserve and safeguard minerals resources as far as possible To meet identified need for land-won minerals taking account of alternative materials To protect and, where possible, enhance the character and environment of West Sussex To minimise the impact of mineral workings on public safety and amenity To minimise production of mineral waste

Draft Objectives To safeguard mineral resources from unnecessary development To minimise the need for primary aggregates by promoting the efficient use of secondary aggregates and alternative materials To secure supplies of minerals, where needed To protect the countryside from unnecessary development To protect landscape and townscape character To protect the natural and historic environment and resources To protect the amenity of residents, businesses, and visitors To secure safe, sensitive, and environmentally sound work practices To minimise the transportation of minerals To secure high standards of restoration and appropriate after-uses

4.4.2 A preliminary list of objectives was subject to initial consultation with statutory and other consultees through the consultation on the draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (see paragraph 1.4). The Scoping Report addressed the internal consistency of the draft objectives and compatibility with draft sustainability objectives. The list of objectives above has been amended to reflect the need to give protection to the natural and historic environment and resources.

11 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Questions 2 It is necessary to identify aims for the Plan or should they be covered by the spatial vision and strategy? 3 Are the draft objectives appropriate at this stage in the absence of the spatial strategy?

12 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

5.0 Policy Topics

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The preparation of the new Plan will provide the opportunity to review and consolidate the 64 policies in the adopted Minerals Local Plan (MLP) within the context identified in Chapter 3. Government guidance in Planning Policy Statement 12: "Local Development Frameworks" advises that plans should contain a limited suite of development control policies that accord with the core strategy (paragraph 2.28). Such policies should be topic-related and not repeat national planning policy statements.

5.2 Minerals Local Plan

5.2.1 Views are sought on the need or otherwise to amend the current policy framework in the MLP. Table 1 identifies the existing policies in that Plan.

Table 1: Mineral Local Plan Policies No. Policy 1 Sustainable development 2 Safeguarding mineral resources 3 Secondary aggregates - extraction of low-grade minerals (including processing at current sites) 4 Secondary aggregates - recycling operations 5 Secondary aggregates - recycling operations at current or former sites 6 Secondary aggregates – temporary recycling operations 7 Secondary aggregates – recycling operations conditions 8 Secondary aggregates – temporary recycling operations conditions 9 Borrow sites 10 Statutory historic, architectural, natural or scientific sites 11 Archaeological remains – general 12 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 13 Non-statutory (historic, architectural, natural or scientific) sites 14 Best and most versatile agricultural land 15 Water – groundwater levels 16 Water – environment 17 Water – flooding 18 Water – groundwater management schemes 19 Residential and other amenity 20 Reclamation – general 21 Reclamation – opportunities 22 New minerals workings - general 23 New minerals workings – liaison arrangements

13 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

24 New minerals workings – legal agreements 25 Reclamation – enforcement 26 Oil and gas – exploration, appraisal and development 27 Oil and gas – exploration 28 Oil and gas – permission for appraisal and development following exploration 29 Sand and gravel – apportionment 30 Sand and gravel – new gravel sites 31 Sand and gravel – reopening Lavant 32 Sand and gravel – new sand sites 33 Sand and gravel – other sites 34 Sand and gravel – minor extensions at existing sand and gravel sites 35 Other minerals 36 Transport – new facilities for movement by rail and water 37 Railheads – safeguarding existing 38 Railheads – new sites 39 Railheads – improvement of existing 40 Wharfage - safeguarding existing 41 Wharfage – new site 42 Secondary processing plants 43 Planning applications – exploration 44 Planning applications – extraction 45 Planning applications – conditions 46 Planning applications – legal agreements 47 Transport – highways 48 Transport – access 49 Cumulative impact 50 Surveys 51 Working schemes – general 52 Working schemes – details 53 Landscaping 54 Archaeological remains – field evaluation 55 Rights of way 56 Water – quality of surface and groundwater 57 Importation 58 Soil 59 Drainage 60 Noise 61 Dust, smoke, and fumes

14 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

62 Lighting 63 Hours of work 64 Buffer zones

Question 4 With regard to the existing policy framework in the adopted Minerals Local Plan: (a) does it need to be simplified (please specify)? (b) do any of the policies need amending due to a change in circumstances? (c) do any of the policies need amending because they are not working? (d) is there a need for a policy on an issue not covered in the MLP?

5.3 Provisional Policy Topics 5.3.1 It is envisaged that the Plan will follow a similar structure and format to the draft Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft and, accordingly, it will not contain detailed policies. Views are sought on the following provisional list of the policy topics. Need  Need – meeting the identified need for the minerals found in West Sussex. General policies  Character – protecting and, where possible, enhancing the distinctive and diverse character of West Sussex.  Environment – protecting and, where possible, enhancing the environment.  Air, soil and water – minimising potential harm to the quality of air and soil and the water environment and securing appropriate protection measures.  Transport – ensuring that sites can be safely and adequately served by transport links and maximising the use of rail and sea.  Public amenity – ensuring the minimum impact on residents, users of public rights of way, and other sensitive land-uses.  High quality development – ensuring that, as far as possible, development is not visually intrusive and does not adversely affect adjoining land-uses.  Infrastructure – ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is in place to serve the new development.  Restoration – ensuring that sites are restored to a beneficial after-use.  Safeguarding – protecting valuable mineral resources and existing sites from permanent development.  Cumulative impact – ensuring that the cumulative impact of simultaneous and/or successive working is addressed.  Importation – ensuring that the importation of minerals into sites does not become independent.

15 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Use-specific policies  Primary aggregates (sand and gravel) – specific criteria covering the exploration, extraction, and processing of sand and gravel.  Secondary aggregates - specific criteria covering the exploration, production, and processing of secondary aggregates.  Oil and gas - specific criteria covering exploration, appraisal, and production.  Other minerals (clay, chalk, etc) - specific criteria covering the exploration, extraction and processing of such minerals  Railheads - specific criteria covering the movement of minerals by rail  Wharfage - specific criteria covering the movement of marine-dredged minerals and sea-borne imports by sea.  Borrow sites - specific criteria covering the exploration, extraction and processing of minerals from such sites for major construction projects. Site-Specific Allocations  Sites for primary aggregate production (gravel) – allocating new sites to ensure an adequate supply of primary aggregates.  Sites for primary aggregate production (sand) – allocating new sites to ensure an adequate supply of primary aggregates.  Sites for secondary processing (if required) – allocating sites, if needed, for the production of secondary aggregates.  New railheads (if required) - allocating sites, if needed, for the movement of minerals by rail.  New wharfage (if required) - allocating sites, if needed, for the movement of minerals by sea.

5.3.2 With regard to site specific allocations, issues of principle will be addressed in the policies, for example, critical access issues. Where appropriate, greater policy detail will be included in supplementary planning documents, such as, development briefs.

Question 5 With regard to the future policy framework in the new Plan: (a) is there a need for a policy on an issue not covered in the Minerals Local Plan? (b) is the suggested list of policy topics appropriate? (c) is there a need for a policy on another issue?

16 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

6.0 Key Issues and Options

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 In replacing the Minerals Local Plan, the new Plan will continue the protection given to the amenity of residents and the character and environment of West Sussex. This chapter, therefore, focuses on the key issues that need to be addressed and the options available to the County Council in preparing the MDPD. Please note that it does not cover detailed matters that are covered by the planning application process.

6.2 Strategic Issues

Issue A: Plan Period

6.2.1 The adopted Minerals Local Plan, that the MDPD will replace, covers the period to 2006. The Regional Minerals Strategy (RMS) for the South East, which is a mini review of the Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, is being prepared to cover the period to 2016. One option, therefore, is prepare the plan to cover the period 2005 to 2016 in line with the RMS. Government guidance in PPS12 (paragraph 2.14) states that policies and proposals in the core strategy of the Plan should provide certainty for the future with a time horizon of at least 10 years from the date of adoption. This means that another option is to plan to 2018, that is, ten years after the anticipated adoption date of the Plan.

6.2.2 The RMS will establish the new apportionment of the South East regional requirement to West Sussex to 2016, that is, the amount of land-won sand and gravel (see Issue D). However, that apportionment is due to be reviewed in 2007/8, which suggests that it may not be appropriate to look further ahead than 2016 or 2018. Another issue is the proposed South Downs National Park (SDNP - see Issue B) which, if confirmed, would receive its own apportionment in the review of 2007/8. This factor also suggests that although there is a need to look far enough ahead, to provide certainty, it would not be appropriate to make provisions too far into the future. This would also accord with the plan, monitor, manage approach.

Question 6 Is it appropriate for the Plan to cover the period to: (a) 2016? or (b) 2018? or (c) 2021? or (d) another date (please specify)?

Issue B: Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/Proposed South Downs National Park

6.2.3 In 1999, the Countryside Agency started the process of designating a National Park within the general area of the Sussex Downs and East Hampshire AONB. The Designation Order for the SDNP was signed in November 2002. A boundary for the proposed SDNP has been published and is a material

17 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

consideration in all planning decisions. The Public Inquiry, called by the Secretary of State, was held in 2004 with the Inspector’s report expected in Winter 2005. If the Order is confirmed in 2006, a National Park Authority (NPA) could be operational in 2007.

6.2.4 Much of the area that is likely to be included in the proposed SDNP is already designated as AONB, so is already subject to the same level of environmental protection as that of a National Park. If created, the NPA would be a mineral planning authority (MPA) and it would be given a separate apportionment for a SDNP in a review of the sub-regional apportionment in 2007/8. WSCC would remain the MPA for the whole of West Sussex until a NPA is formally created.

6.2.5 Draft Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1) states that national policy is that major development should not take place in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty except in exceptional circumstances (paragraph 8). It identifies four matters to be addressed: the need for the development; meeting the need in some other way e.g. alternative supplies; impact on the environment, landscape, and recreation; and the opportunities presented by extensions for enhancement.

6.2.6 Draft MPS1 (paragraph 41) also states that it is not appropriate to maintain a landbank (see Issue E) in National Parks and AONB, as by their nature the land has to be protected. However, it recognises that existing permitted capacity in production or likely to be used should be taken into account at the regional level in determining policy for aggregates supply.

6.2.7 The AONB and proposed SDNP accommodate all but one of the potential sites that provide building (soft) sand (see Chapter 7). The draft guidance in MPS1 suggests that major new sites should not normally be allowed in those areas. If that were the case, the apportionment may need to be delivered almost solely through the identification of new gravel sites that lie outside the AONB and proposed SDNP. However, if it is appropriate to ensure production of building sand at the same rates as in the past (see Issue C), new sites in the AONB/SDNP may be required (depending upon the level of need).

Questions 7 If new area/sites are required to meet need to the end of the plan period, is it appropriate to exclude area/sites within: (a) the Sussex Downs AONB? (b) the proposed South Downs National Park? 8 If a post-plan landbank is required (see Issue E), is it appropriate to exclude areas/sites within: (a) the Sussex Downs AONB? (b) the proposed South Downs National Park?

6.3 Sand and Gravel

Issue C: Sand and Gravel – Production Levels

6.3.1 The County Council is required to monitor the production of sand and gravel to determine whether the supply of minerals needs to be replenished when

18 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

assessed against the apportionment. Table 2 sets out the production rates for sand and gravel pits over the past four calendar years and the percentage split between sand and gravel. It should be noted that sand pits may produce both soft (building) sand and sharp sand although records show that their occurrence within sand pits is irregular and unpredictable. It should also be noted that small quantities of soft sand might come from gravel pits and vice versa.

Table 2: Sand and Gravel Production 2001-2004 Annual Production (tonnes) Year Sand Pits* % Gravel Pits** % Total 2001 678,900 66 355,700 34 1,034,600 2002 705,200 76 219,400 24 924,600 2003 740,800 81 176,930 19 917,730 2004*** 643,500 82 140,000 18 783,500 Total 2,768,400 76 892,030 24 3,660,430 Annual Average 692,100 --- 223,008 --- 915,108 * Soft (building) sand and sharp sand. ** Predominantly sharp sand and gravel. *** Estimates based on past rates amended, as necessary, by information from site visits

6.3.2 There has been a delay in surveying the operators about production rates in 2004 due to issues relating to commercial confidentiality and the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, figures for 2004 have been produced based on past rates adjusted as necessary based on compliance check site visits by County Council officers.

Question 9 Are the estimates for 2004 of sand and gravel production reasonable given the lack of factual information from the operators for that year? If the answer is NO, please specify what changes are required.

Issue D: Sand and Gravel – Meeting Future Needs

6.3.3 Mineral planning authorities (MPA) should make provision for the local apportionment of the current National and Regional Guidelines for land-won aggregates (sand and gravel). The contribution of imported and marine- dredged aggregates is taken into account at a national level. The adopted Minerals Local Plan 2003 was based on an apportionment figure of 1.4 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) for the period up to 2006 which is much higher than current production rates (see Table 2).

6.3.4 The apportionment is currently being revised through the preparation of the Regional Minerals Strategy (RMS) for the South East by the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA). The draft RMS was published in March 2004 proposing an apportionment for West Sussex of 0.87mtpa. The Examination-in-Public (EiP) of the draft RMS was held in Autumn 2004. The EiP Panel's recommendations were submitted in early 2005 recommending an

19 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

apportionment for West Sussex of 0.91mtpa. In August 2005, the Government published Proposed Changes to the RMS establishing an apportionment of 0.91mtpa for West Sussex as recommended by the EiP Panel. The Proposed Changes are subject to public consultation before the RMS is approved. A review of the regional apportionment will be undertaken by SEERA in 2007/8.

6.3.5 Table 3 sets out the current level of sand and gravel provision based on a plan period of 2005-2018 (see Issue A) and the implications of the draft apportionment in the Proposed Changes to the RMS. It also includes the post- plan landbank calculation (see Issue E).

Table 3: Sand and Gravel Provision 2005-2018 (tonnes) A Permitted Reserve (2005)* 5,178,500 Sites with permissions B Potential Reserve 2005-2018* 7,944,300 Unimplemented allocations C Total Supply 2005-2018 13,122,800 A+B D Total Requirement 2005-2018 11,830,000 0.91mtpa x 13 years E Excess 2005-2018 1,292,800 C-D F Post-Plan Landbank 2018-2025 6,370,000 0.91mtpa x 7 years G Total Requirement 2005-2025 18,200,000 D+F H Shortfall 2005-2025 5,077,200 G-C * Based on estimates for end of 2004

6.3.6 An issue for the MDPD is what assumption should be made about the apportionment for West Sussex given that the RMS has not been approved. For information, it is not considered that current figure of 1.4mtpa is a reasonable option upon which to base the requirement for land-won sand and gravel. In addition, it is not considered appropriate to make an allowance for imported and marine-dredged aggregates as their contribution to meeting need is taken into account at a national level.

Question 10 Is it appropriate to base the requirement for sand and gravel on the draft apportionment for West Sussex (0.91 mtpa) in the Proposed Changes to the Draft Regional Minerals Strategy or some other figure (please specify)?

6.3.7 Guidance in Minerals Planning Guidance 6 (MPG6, paragraph 58) and the draft annexes to draft MPS1 (paragraph 1.3.6), suggest that the apportioned provision should not be regarded as inflexible. It goes on to state that the preparation of the MDPD provides the opportunity to test the practicality and environmental acceptability of delivering the land-won apportionment at the local level. Draft Annex 1 to MPS1 also suggests that "in some cases it may not be possible to identify sufficient resources to meet the apportioned supply over the plan period at acceptable environmental cost" (paragraph 1.3.8). However, it also states that "the Secretary of State will, where appropriate, intervene in … development plans that do not pay due regard to regional guidelines and agreed apportionments within the region" (paragraph 1.3.9).

20 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Question 11 Is it reasonable not to meet the apportionment for West Sussex due to: (a) practical reasons (please specify)? (b) an unacceptable environmental cost (please specify)? (c) any other overriding reasons (please specify)?

Issue E: Sand and Gravel - Landbanks

6.3.8 Maintaining a stock of planning permissions for mineral extraction (the 'landbank') is used to secure and maintain an adequate supply of minerals. Current Government guidance in MPG6, as revised, advises that MPA should make provisions to maintain a seven-year landbank of permitted reserves with valid planning permission (including dormant or currently inactive sites). Excessive provision should be avoided.

6.3.9 The length of the landbank is calculated by dividing the total reserve remaining on sites with planning permission by the annual requirement (based on the apportionment). If the landbank is less than seven years, this is an indication that the extraction of additional aggregates should be permitted. The current landbank for West Sussex is 5.7 years (permitted reserve of 5.18mt divided by an annual proposed requirement of 0.91mt) which suggests that the supply of minerals needs replenishing.

6.3.10 MPG6 (paragraph 64) also advises that MPA should make provisions for a landbank at the end of the plan period. This does not mean, however, that specific sites have to be identified at the time the plan is prepared just that potential sites could come forward at the end of the plan period. Based on a proposed apportionment of 0.91mtpa, this would require the County Council to plan for an additional 6.37mt (7 x 0.91 mtpa).

6.3.11 In July 2005, however, the Government published a consultation paper on Annexes to MPS1, one of which covers the supply of aggregates. It reaffirms that the indicator for determining whether planning permission should be granted is the length of the landbank. However, it also states that MPA "should consider and report on the need to review minerals development documents and policies as part of their annual monitoring report …, and before the remaining provision approaches the minimum landbank. Since this is a rolling process, the issue of maintaining a landbank beyond the end of the plan period should not arise" (paragraph 1.3.15).

6.3.12 The draft guidance suggests, therefore, that the County Council should plan to meet the need for sand and gravel over the plan period but that it should not make provisions for a post-plan landbank (some 6.37mt). If the plan period were assumed to be 2005-2018, this would result in a total requirement for West Sussex of 11.83mt against the current supply of 13.12mt, an excess of 1.29mt. In effect, removing the need for a post-plan landbank means that numerically no new sand and gravel sites are required in addition to the existing allocations in the adopted MLP. However, the County Council is required to review the unimplemented allocations and consider other sites that could reasonably be considered as alternatives.

21 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

6.3.13 A key issue for the MDPD is, therefore, how much weight should be placed on a Government consultation paper at this stage. If it is considered appropriate to maintain a post-plan landbank, is it necessary for that landbank to be for seven years or for some other period? Also, how should the landbank be identified?

Questions 12 Is it appropriate to make provisions for a landbank for sand and gravel at the end of the plan period? Please give reasons for your answer. 13 If answer to Q12 is YES, what is an appropriate period for that landbank: (a) less than 7 years? or (b) 7 years? or (c) more than 7 years? 14 If the answer to Q12 is YES, should this need be met through the identification of: (a) broad areas of search? or (b) specific sites (preferred areas)? or (c) broad areas of search and specific sites?

Issue F: Sand and Gravel – Future Levels of Production

6.3.14 Annex B of MPG6 stated that "sand and gravel provision should remain at similar levels throughout the period covered by the [sub-regional apportionment]" (paragraph B.6). This advice was superseded in 2003 by new guidelines and has not been replaced by equivalent guidance. On the basis of the now-superseded guidance in MPG6, the adopted MLP divided the apportionment for West Sussex between sand and gravel because the two largely occur separately: a proportionate split of 68% sand and 32% gravel was used based on average production rates at sand and gravel pits between 1992 and 2001.

6.3.15 The superseded guidance in MPG6 also advised that local circumstances such as the availability of resources, planning constraints, and present levels and capacity of production should be taken into account when apportioning the figures over time (paragraph B.6). The figures in Table 2 indicate that production rates at sand and gravel pits have varied over the past four years which raises a question about whether it is appropriate to seek to meet the need for sand and gravel at past or current rates. Neither the 2003 guidelines nor the draft annex to draft MPS1 that deals with the supply of aggregates refer to the need to ensure that sand and gravel provision remains at the same level over the plan period or even maintain existing production rates for different minerals.

Questions 15 If new area/sites are required to meet need to end of the plan period, is it appropriate to divide the apportionment between sand and gravel based on past rates of production at sand and gravel pits?

22 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

16 If answer to Q15 is YES, what is the best guide to a proportionate split between sand and gravel: (a) average production rates over the past four years (2001-2004)? or (b) current production rates? or (c) some other calculation (please specify)?

6.3.16 The Inspectors that held the Inquiries into objections to the adopted MLP recommended that a 10% allowance safety margin for gravel pits should be taken into account to allow for safety buffers and other constraints. If the apportionment is divided between sand and gravel pits, it is necessary to include a safety margin given that the intention of the new planning system is that policies and proposals should be kept under review. Therefore, if the production of minerals on permitted sites is lower than originally anticipated, this can be taken into account when the Plan is reviewed and rolled forward.

Questions 17 If answer to Q15 is YES, is a safety margin (allowance) required in determining the need for gravel? 18 If answer to Q15 is YES, what is an appropriate safety margin to use: (a) less than 10%? or (b) 10%? or (c) more than 10%?

Issue G: Sand and Gravel - Areas for Future Working

6.3.17 Draft MPS1 states that plans should indicate how they will facilitate the supply of minerals that can be worked economically and the places where mineral extraction is most likely to take place (paragraph 34). It states that they may take the form of 'preferred areas' or 'areas of search'. Preferred areas are specific sites that contain a known resource and where planning permission is acceptable in principle subject to the usual safeguards. Areas of search are broader areas where knowledge about minerals is less certain but within which permission for specific sites may be granted if a suitable application is made.

6.3.18 The County Council will need to justify the approach taken to site selection although the draft guidance states that it is not generally appropriate to identify only areas of search and that specific sites should be identified to cover at least the first half of the plan period. A key issue, therefore, is the approach taken to facilitating the supply of sand and gravel if new sites are required.

23 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Question 19 If new area/sites are required to meet the need for sand and gravel in the plan period, should this need be met by: (a) identifying specific sites (preferred areas) which may include some/all of the unimplemented allocations in the Minerals Local Plan? or (b) identifying broad areas of search? or (c) identifying specific sites and broad areas of search? or (d) using a criteria-based policy approach (without the identification of sites or areas)?

6.4 Other Minerals

Issue H: Secondary Aggregates

6.4.1 Secondary aggregates are a lower-grade than the primary aggregates (sand, gravel, and crushed rock). They include by-products of other processes, for example, boiler ashes and burned clay, as well as other minerals, such as chalk, that can be used in low specification applications as substitutes for primary aggregates. Increasing the use of secondary aggregates will help to reduce the demand for primary aggregates, thereby, reducing the need for land-won sand and gravel.

6.4.2 Recycled aggregates, such as broken concrete and other construction and demolition waste, may also be used as a substitute for primary aggregates. However, issues relating to recycled aggregates, including the allocation of sites to recycle such materials, are covered by the emerging West Sussex Waste Local Plan (WLP) not the new minerals plan.

6.4.3 Draft MPS1 states that a plan should indicate the types of sites where secondary aggregate production could take place and, where possible, that they should identify sites for secondary processing (paragraph 57). The Proposed Changes to the RMS state that a prime objective is to increase supplies of secondary aggregates (paragraph 11.23). Policy M2 sets a target of increasing the use of secondary (and recycled) materials from 6.6mtpa to at least 7.7 mtpa, i.e. from 29% to 34% of primary aggregate production figures (Policy M2).

6.4.4 The issue for the new Plan, given that the recycling of minerals is dealt with in the WLP, is how the use of secondary aggregates can be encouraged within the context of a land-use plan. One option may be to identify specific sites for secondary processing.

Question 20 Should the need for the secondary aggregates be met through: (a) the identification of specific sites for secondary processing? or (b) a criteria-based policy approach (without the identification of specific sites)?

24 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Issue I: Clay

6.4.5 The Proposed Changes to the RMS state that a permitted reserve for brick and tile manufacture should be maintained to last for at least 25 years based on current production rates (Policy M4). Where appropriate, new capacity should be developed. It also states that for "small-scale manufacture", a long-term landbank of less than 25 years may be appropriate although the Proposed Changes do not clarify what is meant by 'small-scale'.

6.4.6 The existing permitted clay reserve in West Sussex is 16mt and the current production rate is 493,100 tonnes (based on 2003 data). Therefore, the landbank is 32 years (16/0.493) which indicates that there is no need to identify new sites for clay production or to grant planning permission for additional extraction.

Questions 21 Is it appropriate to determine the clay landbank using: (a) average production rates over the past 4 years (2000-2004)? or (b) current production rates? or (c) some other calculation (please specify)? 22 What is the appropriate timescale for the clay landbank: (a) less than 25 years? or (b) 25 years? or (c) more than 25 years?

Issue J: Sandstone

6.4.7 Sandstones are used primarily as fill material although some material is required for the maintenance and restoration of traditional buildings. The existing permitted sandstone reserve in West Sussex is 2.98mt and the current production rate is 37,600 tonnes (based on 2003 data). Therefore, the landbank is 79 years (2.98/0.0376) which indicates that there is no need to identify new sites for sandstone production or to grant planning permission for additional extraction.

Issue K: Chalk

6.4.8 Chalk is used in West Sussex primarily for the production of agricultural lime and as aggregate for bulk fill. The existing permitted chalk reserve in West Sussex is 3.45mt and the current production rate is 35,100 tonnes (based on 2003 data). Therefore, the landbank is 98 years (3.45/0.0351) which indicates that there is no need to identify new sites for chalk production or to grant planning permission for additional extraction.

6.5 Site Selection Issues

Issue L: Extensions v New Sites

6.5.1 Draft MPS1 suggests that in identifying specific sites (preferred areas) for minerals, a search sequence could be used that may focus on extensions

25 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

rather than new workings (paragraph 35). One of the issues that needs to be considered is whether new mineral extraction (if required) should be focused on extensions to existing sites where this is appropriate, rather than on new greenfield development sites. In some cases, new mineral workings may be more sustainable and have less environmental impact than extensions to existing workings.

6.5.2 A question also arises about the definition of extensions, that is, what is an extension? Does there need to be a physical link between an existing site and proposed extension or does an 'extension' relate to the proposed method of working (without physical links), for example, aggregate extracted from the extension is transported to the existing site. There are also issues related to the cumulative impact of continued working in an area (see Issue M).

Question 23 If new sites are required to meet the need for different minerals to the end of the plan period, is it appropriate: (a) to give priority to the extension of existing sites? or (b) to give priority to new sites? or (c) not to give priority and to treat each site on its merits?

Issue M: Cumulative Impact

6.5.3 Minerals Policy Statement 2 (MPS2) provides guidance on the environmental effects of mineral workings. It states that policies and proposals should take account of the "level of existing activity and impacts, the duration and nature of proposals for new or further workings, and the extent of impacts that a particular site, locality, community, environment or wider area of mineral working can reasonably be expected to tolerate over a particular or proposed period" (paragraph 12). Regard should also be had to the "cumulative impact of the simultaneous and/or successive working of a number of sites in a wider area of commercially-viable deposits".

6.5.4 An issue for the MDPD is the need to address the cumulative impact of mineral working on local communities and the environment. This includes the impact of the continued working of one site as well as the on-going working of a number of sites within an area over a long period of time. One option is to identify areas where there should not be any further working on new sites (both extensions and greenfield) during the plan period.

6.5.5 Another approach could be to focus extraction on a 'package' of sites in one area that could be worked in a co-ordinated and phased manner. There would obviously be advantages and disadvantages to concentrating the impact in one area. The alternative would be to select the most appropriate sites regardless of their broad location.

Questions 24 Is it appropriate to identify areas where extraction should not take place during the plan period due to the cumulative impact of simultaneous and/or successive workings in that area? Please give reasons for your answer.

26 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

25 If new sand and gravel sites are required to meet need to the end of the plan period, is it appropriate to: (a) use a 'package' approach based on a group of sites in one area? or (b) not use a 'package' approach and identify the most appropriate sites?

Issue N: Phasing

6.5.6 In order to control the potential impact on local communities and the environment of extraction at new sites, one option is to phase the release of the new sites. A 'plan, monitor, manage' approach to development would mean that local communities had certainty about which new sites would be developed first and, possibly, an indication of when extraction may take place (allowing for different production rates). A question arises about the order in which the site would be phased although this could be based on a sequential approach, for example, giving priority to extensions to existing sites. Another option may also be to phase the development of large sites which would also provide a degree of certainty to local communities.

Question 26 If new sand and gravel sites are required to meet need to the end of the plan period, is it appropriate to: (a) phase the release of sites? (b) phase the release of different parts of large sites?

Issue O: Site Size

6.5.7 One issue related to the impact of mineral workings on local communities is the duration of working at a particular site. MPS2 (paragraph 12) states account should be taken of "... the extent of impacts that a particular site, locality, community, environment or wider area of mineral working can reasonably be expected to tolerate over a particular or proposed period".

6.5.8 An issue, therefore, for the new Plan is whether it is appropriate to limit the size of new sites, if required, in an attempt to reduce the potential longer-term impact of the working of a site on the local community. In effect, the working of a smaller site would have a lesser impact than the continued working of a large site over a long period of time. However, a large number of small sites could potentially have a wider impact that that of a small number of large sites.

6.5.9 There are also commercial issues related to the minimum size of a site, as some sites may be too small to be economically viable. A question is raised, therefore, about site size.

27 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Questions 27 If new sand and gravel sites are required to meet need to the end of the plan period, is it appropriate to identify: (a) a small number of large sites? or (b) a large number of small sites? or (c) the most appropriate sites regardless of size? 28 If it is considered necessary to limit site size, what is the appropriate: (a) minimum size of site? (b) maximum size of site?

6.6 Policy Issues

Issue P: Safeguarding

6.6.1 National policy in draft MPS1 is that mineral consultation areas (MCA) should be defined to protect valuable mineral resources from non-mineral development so that they are available for future extraction (paragraph 7). Prior extraction of minerals should be undertaken where this is economically and environmentally acceptable before any permanent non-mineral development takes place. District councils would need to consult the County Council about any application within a MCA that would be likely to affect the winning and working of minerals.

6.6.2 An issue for the Plan, therefore, is whether MCA should be designated and, if so, how that should be undertaken. It is appropriate to include all the areas of the sand and gravel resources that have not been worked or is it more appropriate to identify smaller areas, for example, those based on potential future sites, possibly only those that have been provisionally shortlisted. Is it necessary to include the Sussex Downs AONB and the proposed SDNP given that the draft guidance in MPS1 suggests that major new sites should not be proposed in the AONB or proposed SDNP.

Questions 29 Is it necessary to delineate Mineral Consultation Areas (MCA) in the Plan to safeguard sand and gravel resources? Please give reasons for your answer. 30 If the answer to Q29 is YES, is it appropriate to delineate Mineral Consultation Areas (MCA) based on: (a) the total extent of the remaining sand and gravel resource excluding the urban areas? or (b) all the potential sand and gravel sites that have come forward at this stage? or (c) only the potential sand and gravel sites that on are on the provisional shortlist? or (d) the total extent of the remaining sand and gravel resource excluding the Sussex Downs AONB and proposed South Downs National Park? or (e) some other approach (please specify)?

28 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

31 Is it necessary to delineate Mineral Consultation Areas (MCA) in the Plan to safeguard other mineral resources, for example, clay, sandstone? Please give reasons for your answer. 32 If the answer to Q31 is YES, what is the appropriate method for delineating the MCA?

Issue Q: Restoration, aftercare, and after-use

6.6.3 Minerals extraction is temporary use of land albeit one that may take place over a long period of time. Mineral sites may be restored to their former use or to a number of other beneficial after-uses. Any restoration must be undertaken to the highest standards and maximise opportunities for environmental and public benefit. In some cases, progressive restoration of a site is possible as extraction is undertaken in different phases.

6.6.4 Materials used for site restoration may include overburden from quarries, soils, mineral waste, and other waste materials. Given the drive towards reusing and recycling waste materials, is it appropriate to continue to look towards landfill as an appropriate means of restoring former sites?

6.6.5 In some cases where there are community benefits and biodiversity gains, it may be appropriate to extend the normal aftercare arrangements for a period in excess of the normal five-year period. This will ensure that more sensitive sites become well established and maintained.

6.6.7 In recent years, the use of restoration guarantee bonds and the establishment of restoration guarantee schemes have become more commonplace as a means of ensuring that the industry does not default on its restoration obligations. Draft guidance in MPS1 states that, in general, plans should not state that bonds or other financial provisions will be required or sought. An issue, therefore, is whether it is appropriate to consider formal bonding policies in the MDPD.

6.6.8 Past mineral workings are now used as an open-air museum dedicated to the industrial heritage or for formal/informal uses such as for walking and fishing, and activities such as sailing. Existing policy in the adopted MLP generally seeks to return mineral workings to an agricultural, forestry or water-based after-use, unless there are overriding reasons not to do so. However, since this policy was put in place there has been a growing realisation that mineral operations can make a substantial contribution through habitat creation to increasing biodiversity (and meeting Biodiversity Action Plan objectives and targets). Such areas are often valued by local communities as places that they can also use for informal recreation and amenity.

6.6.9 An issue for the Plan, therefore, is whether it is appropriate to give priority to different after-uses over other uses. A question also arises about whether it is appropriate to treat sites close to urban areas differently from those in more remote rural locations.

Questions 33 Is it appropriate to consider landfill as an option for restoration? Please give reasons for your answer.

29 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

34 Is it appropriate to ensure that aftercare arrangements are in place for: (a) less than 5 years? or (b) 5 years? or (c) more than 5 years? or (d) no specified period and treat each site on its merits? 35 Is it appropriate to include provisions in the Plan to establish a restoration guarantee scheme and/or to secure restoration guarantee bonds? Please give reasons for your answer. 36 Is it appropriate to prioritise the after-use of worked sites? Please give reasons for your answer. 37 If the answer to Q36 is YES, is it appropriate to give priority to: (a) agriculture? or (b) forestry? or (c) recreation? or (d) nature conservation? or (e) tourism? or (f) community uses? or (g) housing or employment uses? or (h) none of the above and treat each site on its merits? 38 Is it appropriate to give priority to different after-uses for sites close to urban areas compared to those in rural areas? Please give reasons for your answer.

Issue R: Rail Depots and Wharves

6.6.10 Rail depots (railheads) and wharves are necessary for the importation of crushed rock from 'superquarries' and other sites around the country. Draft MPS1 states that safeguarding existing facilities and identifying new sites, and establishing suitable transport links for bulk materials is a good way to promote movement by rail and sea and contributes to sustainable development (paragraph 32). Consideration should be given to combining railheads and wharves with sites for processing and distribution of recycled and alternative minerals.

6.6.11 The Proposed Changes to the Regional Minerals Strategy state the need to safeguard strategic rail depots and wharves to handle imports of minerals or the distribution of raw or processed products (Policy M5). An assessment should be undertaken of the need for rail depots and wharves, to identify those that need to be safeguarded, by using strategic criteria looking at capacity, proximity to markets, value of specialist infrastructure, and adequacy of environmental safeguards. Reference is also made to the need to include policies requiring applications for alternative uses for depots or wharves to demonstrate that "there is no realistic prospect of a transport use continuing or being reintroduced" (paragraph 11.62).

6.6.12 There are three existing railheads in the County at Ardingly, Chichester and Crawley which help to reduce the volumes of aggregates that are moved by road. The adopted MLP identifies two sites at Horsham and Littlehampton for new railheads. There are existing wharves at Littlehampton and Shoreham

30 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Harbours. Landings of marine-dredged sand and gravel in West Sussex were some 747,000 tonnes (based on 2003 data) with imports of 223,000 tonnes of crushed rock. The MLP allocates a site for a new wharf at Littlehampton. The existing and proposed railheads and wharves are currently safeguarded under the MLP.

6.6.13 An issue for the new Plan is the required capacity within the County to transport minerals by rail and sea and the role of the existing depots/wharves and the current allocations. There is also issue relating to the wider economic and social function of Littlehampton and Shoreham Harbours and potential conflicts between maintaining working ports and wider economic regeneration objectives. The future of wharfage at the harbours is, therefore, a matter to be addressed by the County Council working in partnership with the relevant district councils, the Shoreham Port Authority and Littlehampton Harbour Board, the minerals industry, and other relevant organisations.

Questions 39 Is it appropriate to safeguard existing railheads for the handling of minerals at: (a) Ardingly? (b) Chichester? (c) Crawley? 40 Is it necessary to identify new railheads sites for the handling of minerals at: (a) Horsham? (b) Littlehampton? (c) another location (please specify)? 41 Is it appropriate to safeguard existing wharves for the importation of marine- dredged and other aggregates at: (a) Littlehampton Harbour? (b) Shoreham Harbour? 42 Is it necessary to identify new wharf sites for the importation of marine- dredged and other aggregates at: (a) Littlehampton Harbour? (b) Shoreham Harbour? 43 Can wharves outside West Sussex, (e.g. at Portsmouth, Newhaven), serve the County's need for the importation of marine-dredged and imported aggregates?

Issue S: Processing

6.6.14 Extracted minerals are primarily processed by washing, crushing and screening both at the extraction sites, at processing plants, and at rail depots and wharves. Processing at mineral sites is only permitted while extraction continues to take place. If processing does not take place on-site, unprocessed material needs to be transported, usually by road, for processing elsewhere.

31 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

6.6.15 The Proposed Changes to the Regional Minerals Strategy state that existing processing plants that have regional significance should be protected from other development and that consideration should be given to extending safeguarding to other resources that are not allocated in current plans (paragraph 11.61). Draft Policy M5 also requires existing and proposed sites for the processing of aggregates and other minerals to be safeguarded.

6.6.16 There is only one existing aggregate processing and distribution plant in the County at Portfield (Chichester). The site is safeguarded under the adopted Minerals Local Plan and is part of a wider area of previously-developed land that is also allocated in the Revised Deposit Draft of the West Sussex Waste Local Plan for a permanent built waste management facility. Issues for the new Plan are whether it is appropriate to continue safeguarding the Portfield site, which may reduce the need for on-site processing, and the general approach that should be taken to processing minerals. For example, is it necessary to identify sites for new processing plants?

Questions 44 Is it appropriate to safeguard the existing processing plant at Portfield (Chichester)? Please give reasons for your answer. 45 Should the need to process minerals be met through: (a) the identification of specific sites for processing plants? or (b) a criteria-based policy approach (without the identification of specific sites)? or (c) on-site processing? or (d) a combination of the above?

32 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

7.0 Potential Sand and Gravel Sites

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 One of the key tasks for the County Council is to ensure that sufficient minerals come forward to meet identified needs. This may include the allocation of suitable sites where extraction could take place, subject to there being a need for new sand or gravel sites (see Issue D). For information, the guidance in draft MPS1 uses the term 'preferred areas' when referring to specific sites.

7.1.2 The approach to site selection was to identify a preliminary list of potential sites (see Section 7.2) and initial site selection criteria (see Section 7.3). Informal consultation was undertaken with officers, the statutory environmental bodies and service agencies, the minerals industry and landowners, and the Sand and Gravel Resource Area Forum members.

7.1.3 It was emphasised that no decisions had been made at that stage other than to identify the criteria and the preliminary list of potential sites. It was made clear that the purpose in consulting at that early stage was to seek initial views to build up the information base about the potential sites before any decisions could be made about which sites should go forward for further consideration.

7.1.4 The organisations and agencies were asked their initial views about the criteria itself and the principle of extracting sand/gravel from the potential sites. They were asked to indicate whether each site was acceptable in principle; or acceptable provided that certain (specified) actions are undertaken; or not acceptable in principle. If it was the latter, they were asked to give clear reasons why the site should not go forward for further consideration including consideration of the draft criteria. Site specific details were not sought other than where they were relevant to the principle of developing/not developing the site.

7.1.5 The minerals industry and landowners were also to provide information about the resource itself (see Section 7.4) and also asked to identify any other sites that should be considered.

7.1.6 The County Council is required to ensure that its decision-making processes are clear, open, and accountable. Accordingly, the comments received are in the public domain as it is necessary to demonstrate why each site has been or has not been taken forward for further consideration.

7.2 Potential Sites

7.2.1 Subject to there being a need for new sand or gravel sites (see Issue D), a preliminary list of mineral sites that could potentially be considered for development was identified and informal consultation on these sites was undertaken between May and August 2005. Three new sites that were proposed by minerals industry (Buncton Crossways, Ham Farm, and Minsted West) supplemented the list and were also subject to consultation.

33 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

7.2.2 The provisional list of 51 potential sites currently being considered is set out in Table 4 and identified on Maps A-N which indicate the main designations/constraints affecting the potential sites.

Table 4: Provisional List of Potential Sand and Gravel Sites (in map/alphabetical order) Map Site Name Parish A Common Road East Funtington A Common Road West Funtington (adj. Westbourne) A Ell Bridge Westbourne A Funtington East Funtington A Funtington West Funtington (adj. Stoughton) A Racton Park Stoughton/Westbourne (adj. Funtington) A Slades Field* Funtington A Woodmancote* Westbourne B Densworth North Funtington B Densworth South Funtington B Downs Road East Lavant B Downs Road West Lavant (adj. Funtington) B Huntersrace Lane North* Lavant (adj. Funtington) B Huntersrace Lane South Lavant B Lavant West Lavant B Park Lane Lavant (adj, Funtington) B West Stoke Road East* Lavant (adj. Funtington) B West Stoke Road West** Lavant (adj. Funtington) C East Lavant Lavant/Westhampnett D Brick Kiln Farm North Mundham/Oving D Copse Farm Oving (adj. Tangmere) D Madams Green Farm East Oving D Madams Green Farm West Oving D Oving West Oving D Shopwyke North Oving D Shopwyke South Oving D Withies Farm East Oving D Withies Farm West Oving E Kingsham* Hunston (adj. Donnington) E Stoney Meadow North Mundham (adj. Hunston) F West Heath Common* Harting G Minsted East Stedham with Iping (adj. Woolbeding)

34 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Table 4: Provisional List of Potential Sand and Gravel Sites (in map/alphabetical order) Map Site Name Parish G Minsted West Stedham with Iping G Severals East Woolbeding G Severals West Woolbeding H Dunford Rough* Heyshott (adj. Easebourne, West Lavington) H Hawkhurst Farm West Lavington (adj. Cocking, Heyshott) I Burton East Barlavington (adj. Duncton) I Burton West Duncton I Coopers Moor Duncton I Duncton Common Duncton/Petworth I Ridlington Farm Duncton (adj. East Lavington) J Horncroft Bury K Pulborough Coldwaltham (adj. Parham, Pulborough) K Wiggonholt Parham/Storrington and Sullington L Chantry Lane Storrington and Sullington M Lower Chancton Farm Washington/Wiston M Rock Common South Washington M Rock Common West Washington N Buncton Crossways Wiston N Ham Farm Steyning (adj. Wiston)

* Allocated in Minerals Local Plan ** Part-allocated in Minerals Local Plan

7.2.3 The County Council is required to consider all the options, that is, all the sites that could reasonably be considered for mineral extraction. Therefore, the list comprises the unimplemented allocations in the Minerals Local Plan (MLP), sites that were previously considered during the preparation of the MLP, and new sites that have come forward so far. The County Council is required to review existing allocations to assess whether their continued allocation is appropriate or whether there have been any material changes in circumstance which suggest that a site should not be allocated in the new Plan. Please note that other, currently unidentified, potential sites may come forward as the Plan progresses through the various statutory stages.

7.2.4 One of the sites (Kingsham) is an allocation in the MLP and is the subject of a current planning application. Planning applications may also be submitted on other allocations in the MLP, or any other sites, before the MDPD is adopted. Account will need to taken as the Plan progresses of the contribution to the supply of minerals if planning permission is granted for extraction on any new sites. This will have implications for the overall need for sand and gravel and the consequent need for new mineral sites.

35 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Question 46 Are there any sites not included in the provisional list that should be considered as potential allocations in the Plan? If the answer is YES, please provide a map of the site, an assessment of the site's suitability against the criteria in Table 5, and the information identified in paragraph 7.4.1.

7.3 Site Selection Criteria

7.3.1 It is important that the assessment of potential sites is undertaken on a consistent basis and based on the most up-to-date information. This includes identification of the designations that might directly or indirectly relate to each site and the potential constraints to mineral extraction. The internal and external consultees were asked to assess the sites against the criteria in Table 5 - the comments received are summarised in a Technical Appendix which is available on the website and at County Hall.

Table 5: Site Selection Criteria Heading Detailed Matters for Consideration Landscape/visual issues  impact on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty  impact on proposed South Downs National park  landscape and townscape character assessment Nature conservation  Special Protection Areas/Special Areas of Conservation/Ramsar Sites  Sites of Special Scientific Interest  National and Local Nature Reserves  Regionally Important Geological Sites  Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation  protected species  ancient woodland Historic environment  listed buildings  Conservation Areas  Scheduled Ancient Monuments  historic parks and gardens  archaeological parkscapes Water environment  flood risk zones  movement of surface and groundwater  surface and groundwater protection Soil quality  best and most versatile land (Grades 1, 2, and 3a)  pollution prevention Public rights of way  impact on users of PRoW  potential changes to the network

36 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Table 5: Site Selection Criteria Heading Detailed Matters for Consideration Transport  access to the site  modes of transport  lorry routing, etc Services and utilities  water  gas  electricity  telecommunications Public amenity  noise, dust, smell, light, vibration, etc  impact on residents and neighbouring land-uses  impact on wider area (users of the countryside)

7.3.2 The approach taken has been to assess each potential site on its merits against the broad criteria headings in Table 5 taking account of the detailed matters for consideration. No attempt has been made to give greater consideration to one criterion over another although, in practice, certain factors will be accorded greater weight, for example, international and national landscape and nature conservation designations.

Questions 47 If new sites are required, has the most appropriate site selection criteria been selected? If the answer is NO, please specify what changes are required? 48 Is it appropriate to give greater weighting to specific criterion? If the answer is YES, please specify which criterion or criteria should be give the greatest weight?

7.4 Resource Information

7.4.1 In order to enable a full and accurate assessment of the possible contribution of each site to be made, the following information was sought from the minerals industry/landowners:  mineral type;  total reserve (tonnes);  marketable reserve (tonnes);  estimated annual yield (tonnes);  information source (e.g. date and extent of assessment/survey);  suggested working arrangements (including processing);  suggested after-use (including opportunities for progressive restoration);  landowner;  potential operator; and  agent.

37 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

7.5 Provisional Shortlist

7.5.1 The potential sites have been considered against the site selection criteria and different factors within the broad headings. This has included consideration of all the comments received on the potential sites from the consultees (see paragraph 7.3.1 regarding the separate Technical Appendix). Appendix B summarises the County Council's assessment of how each site measures up against the broad criteria, categorised as either acceptable; acceptable provided that certain (specified) actions are undertaken; or not acceptable in principle. Table 6 sets out the overall conclusion that has been reached about each site at this stage.

Table 6: Potential Sand and Gravel Sites - Provisional Conclusions (in map/alphabetical order) Map Site Name Overall Conclusion A Common Road East Acceptable in principle subject to an assessment of impact on water environment. Response awaited from DERA re potential impact on research establishment. Site could be developed with Slades Field to provide access to that site. A Common Road Acceptable in principle subject to an assessment of West impact on water environment and mitigation of impact on public rights of way. Response awaited from DERA re potential impact on research establishment. A Ell Bridge Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. In addition, access required from Racton Park (the development of which is not considered acceptable). A Funtington East Acceptable in principle subject to provision of buffers to woodland, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of any impact on public amenity. A Funtington West Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. Response awaited from DERA re potential impact on research establishment. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the ancient woodland. A Racton Park Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. Response awaited from DERA re potential impact on research establishment. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the ancient woodland.

38 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Table 6: Potential Sand and Gravel Sites - Provisional Conclusions (in map/alphabetical order) Map Site Name Overall Conclusion A Slades Field Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan. Acceptable in principle subject to provision of screening and buffers to woodland, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of any impact on public amenity. Site would need to developed with Common Road East to achieve access from that site. A Woodmancote Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan. Acceptable in principle subject to retention of woodland and provision of buffers, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of impact on public rights of way. B Densworth North Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. In addition, access required from West Stoke Road West site. B Densworth South Not acceptable due to need to achieve access from (remote) West Stoke Road West site. B Downs Road East Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. In addition, access required from Downs Road West (the development of which is not considered acceptable). B Downs Road West Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the ancient woodland. B Huntersrace Lane Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan. North Acceptable in principle subject to provision of screening and buffers to woodland/hedgerows, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of impact on public rights of way. B Huntersrace Lane Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. South If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the woodland in the north-west and south- west corners. B Lavant West Not acceptable due to need to achieve access from Downs Road West site (the development of which is not considered acceptable). B Park Lane Acceptable in principle subject to provision of buffers to woodland/hedgerows/Scheduled Ancient Monument, an assessment of impact on water environment, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, access/transport issues being satisfactorily resolved, and mitigation of any impact on public amenity.

39 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Table 6: Potential Sand and Gravel Sites - Provisional Conclusions (in map/alphabetical order) Map Site Name Overall Conclusion B West Stoke Road Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan. East Acceptable in principle subject to provision of buffers to woodland/hedgerows/Scheduled Ancient Monument, and an assessment of impact on water environment. B West Stoke Road Existing allocation (excluding southern and western West extensions) in Minerals Local Plan. Acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of southern area (extension to existing allocation proposed by operator), provision of buffers to woodland/hedgerows/Scheduled Ancient Monument, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of impact on public rights of way. C East Lavant Potential extension to Valdoe gravel pit. Acceptable in principle subject to reduction of site to include only south-east area and an reassessment of potential impact on landscape/visual amenity. In addition, subject to an assessment of impact on water environment. D Brick Kiln Farm Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of Brick Kiln Nursery, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, and mitigation of impact on public amenity. Potential implications of possible improvements to the A27 Chichester Bypass D Copse Farm Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to mitigation of impact on public amenity. D Madams Green Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Farm East Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. Even if the SFRA is favourable, the site is not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. D Madams Green Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Farm West Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of flood risk zone, provision of screening and buffers to trees/hedgerows, and mitigation of impact on public amenity.

40 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Table 6: Potential Sand and Gravel Sites - Provisional Conclusions (in map/alphabetical order) Map Site Name Overall Conclusion D Oving West Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. Even if the SFRA is favourable, the site is not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. D Shopwyke North Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of flood risk zone, provision of screening and buffers to trees/hedgerows, and mitigation of impact on public amenity. Site would need to developed with Shopwyke South. D Shopwyke South Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of flood risk zone, provision of screening an d buffers to trees/hedgerows, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, and mitigation of impact on public amenity. Site could be developed with Shopwyke North. D Withies Farm East Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to provision of screening and buffers to hedgerows. D Withies Farm West Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of flood risk zone, provision of screening an d buffers to hedgerows, and mitigation of impact on public rights of way. E Kingsham Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan and the subject of a planning application. Acceptable in principle subject to detailed assessment of the potential impacts on the water environment, provision of screening, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, and mitigation of impact on public amenity.

41 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Table 6: Potential Sand and Gravel Sites - Provisional Conclusions (in map/alphabetical order) Map Site Name Overall Conclusion E Stoney Meadow Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to provision of screening and buffers to hedgerows/trees/canal, and mitigation of impact on public amenity. F West Heath Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan as extension Common to West Heath sand pit. Acceptable in principle subject to mitigation of potential landscape and nature conservation impacts, and an assessment of impact on water environment. G Minsted East Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. G Minsted West Potential extension to Minsted sand pit. Acceptable in principle subject to reduction of site to exclude south-west edge, provision of screening and buffers to stream and SNCI, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of impact on public rights of way. G Severals East Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. G Severals West Not acceptable in principle due to landscape and nature conservation impacts. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the ancient woodland. H Dunford Rough Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan as extension to Pendean sand pit. Acceptable in principle subject to mitigation of potential landscape impact, an assessment of impact on water environment, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, and an assessment of landownership and economic issues. Site could be developed only as an extension to existing sand pit. H Hawkhurst Farm Not acceptable due to landscape impact. If the site were to be allocated, it could be developed only as an extension to existing Pendean sand pit. I Burton East Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact and access problems. I Burton West Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact.

42 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Table 6: Potential Sand and Gravel Sites - Provisional Conclusions (in map/alphabetical order) Map Site Name Overall Conclusion I Coopers Moor Acceptable in principle subject to retention of woodland edge and provision of additional screening, provision of buffers to woodland, a detailed assessment of nature conservation impact, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of impact on public amenity. Site could be developed only as an extension to existing Heath End sand pit. I Duncton Common Not acceptable in principle due to landscape and nature conservation impacts. Site could be developed only as an extension to existing Heath End sand pit. I Ridlington Farm Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. Site could be developed only as an extension to existing Heath End sand pit (accessed through Coopers Moor site). J Horncroft Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. K Pulborough Not acceptable in principle due to landscape and nature conservation impacts. An 'appropriate assessment' of the impact on the integrity of the SPA would be required before allocation. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the flood risk zone. K Wiggonholt Not acceptable in principle due to landscape and nature conservation impacts. An 'appropriate assessment' of the impact on the integrity of the SPA would be required before allocation. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the flood risk zone. L Chantry Lane Potential extension to Chantry Lane sand pit. Acceptable in principle subject to detailed assessment of landscape impact, and an assessment of impact on water environment. M Lower Chancton Not acceptable in principle before implementation of Farm proposed (unprogrammed) improvements to the A283. If the improvements are implemented, the site is acceptable in principle subject to a reduction of the site to exclude the western part of the site, the provision of screening and buffers, and an assessment of the impact on the water environment.

43 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Table 6: Potential Sand and Gravel Sites - Provisional Conclusions (in map/alphabetical order) Map Site Name Overall Conclusion M Rock Common Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. South Implementation of proposed (unprogrammed) improvements to the A283 would be required for access to the site and could mitigate landscape objection. M Rock Common Potential extension to Rock Common sand pit. West Acceptable in principle subject to detailed assessment of landscape impact, an assessment of the impact on the water environment, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, and mitigation of impact on public amenity. N Buncton Crossways Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. N Ham Farm Acceptable in principle subject to a reduction of the site to exclude the northern area, provision of screening and buffers to woodland/hedgerows, an assessment of the impact on the water environment, and mitigation of impact on public amenity.

Question 49 Are the conclusions for each potential site (Table 6) correct based on the comments and preliminary assessment in the separate Technical Appendix? If the answer is NO, please specify what changes are required.

7.5.2 In order to progress the Plan, it has been necessary to reduce the 'long' list of potential sites down to a provisional shortlist of 18 sites (see Table 7) that should go forward for further consideration as potential allocations.

Table 7: Provisional Shortlist of Sand and Gravel Sites Map Site Name Comment A Common Road East New site. Site could be developed with Slades Field to provide access to that site. A Common Road West New site. A Funtington East New site. A Slades Field Existing allocation in the Minerals Local Plan. Site would need to developed with Common Road East to achieve access from that site. A Woodmancote Existing allocation in the Minerals Local Plan. B Huntersrace Lane North Existing allocation in the Minerals Local Plan. B Park Lane New site. B West Stoke Road East Existing allocation in the Minerals Local Plan.

44 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Table 7: Provisional Shortlist of Sand and Gravel Sites Map Site Name Comment B West Stoke Road West Existing allocation (excluding southern and western extensions) in the Minerals Local Plan. Site would need to be reduced to exclude southern extension to existing allocation. C East Lavant Potential extension to the Valdoe gravel pit. Site would need to be reduced to include only the south-east area. E Kingsham Existing allocation in the Minerals Local Plan and the subject of a planning application. Site shortlisted although Environment Agency recommend that a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester is required. F West Heath Common Existing allocation in the Minerals Local Plan as an extension to the West Heath sand pit. G Minsted West Potential extension to Minsted sand pit. H Dunford Rough Existing allocation in the Minerals Local Plan as an extension to the Pendean sand pit. I Coopers Moor Potential extension to the Heath End sand pit. L Chantry Lane Potential extension to the Chantry Lane sand pit. M Rock Common West Potential extension to the Rock Common sand pit. N Ham Farm New site.

7.5.3 Sites have been shortlisted where there are no overriding 'in principle' objections at this stage to their inclusion following consideration of the comments by the internal and external consultees. All current allocations in the Minerals Local Plan have been shortlisted as it is necessary to subject them to more detailed reassessment. Extending existing sand and gravel sites potentially has less impact than developing greenfield sites due to the likelihood that there is already a degree of disturbance associated with existing working. Accordingly, comparatively less weight has been attached to the potential impacts of extensions than those of new sites. It is recognised, however, that there will be a need to assess the cumulative impact on local communities and the environment of extending existing sites.

7.5.4 It should be noted that all the potential sites to the south and east of Chichester (Maps D and E) have not been shortlisted due to the need for a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) of the potential impact of mineral working as recommended by the Environment Agency. An exception has been made been made for Kingsham which is an existing allocation and the subject of detailed consideration through the development control process. If concerns related to flood risk, and the impact on the water environment in general, can be satisfactorily resolved following a SFRA (which would need to be funded by the minerals industry/landowners), Table 6 gives an indication of the acceptability of the sites in that area.

45 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Question 50 Is the provisional shortlist appropriate given the conclusions in Table 6? If the answer is NO, please specify what changes are required.

7.5.5 The potential allocation of shortlisted sites is subject, in all cases, to more detailed assessment (see Section 7.6) which may mean that sites that are considered acceptable at this stage, may not be considered acceptable following detailed assessment.

7.6 Finalising the Shortlist

7.6.1 Work will start in early 2006 on the preparation of the Preferred Option draft of the Plan which will include proposed allocations, if required, taken from the finalised shortlist. The shortlist will be revised, if necessary, by the addition or deletion of sites following consideration of the representations received on the Issues and Options Consultation Paper. More detailed analysis of the shortlisted sites against the criteria will be undertaken to identify those that should go forward as potential allocations.

7.6.2 Consideration will also need to be given to such matters as landownership, the interest of the minerals industry in progressing the shortlisted sites, the viability and practicality of working the sites (including transport and processing arrangements), restoration and potential after-uses, and the cumulative impact of working (see Issue M).

7.6.3 Some sites have provisionally been shortlisted without adequate information being provided at this stage about the quality and quantity of the mineral resource. Accordingly, such sites have been shortlisted provided that the required information comes forward as part of the response to the Issues and Options Consultation Paper. If the resource information is not forthcoming at the Issues and Options stage, the County Council will not be able to consider such sites as potential allocations as it would not be a 'sound' approach to progress a site without the necessary technical justification.

7.6.4 In addition to the above, a full assessment of the shortlisted sites and the other sites that have not been taken forward will be undertaken as part of the Sustainability Appraisal of the Plan (see Section 1.4).

46 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Appendix A: Glossary and Abbreviations

Glossary

Annual Monitoring Report (AMR): In December of each year, the Council will produce an Annual Monitoring Report which will set out its progress in achieving set goals over the previous financial year (April-March). The AMR will cover both the production of document identified in the MWDS and the achievement of targets in those documents. Area Action Plans (AAP): Used to provide a planning framework for areas of change and areas of conservation. Core Strategy: will set out the long-term spatial vision for the local planning authority area and the strategic policies and proposals to deliver that vision. It will contain a set of primary policies for delivering the core strategy. Broad locations for development may be set out in a key diagram. Development Plan: Sets out policies and proposals for the development and use of land within the area of the application. In West Sussex, it comprises the adopted structure plan and local plans. Development control decisions must conform to the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Under the new planning system being introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, the development plan will eventually consist of regional spatial strategies and development plan documents contained within a local development framework. Development Plan Documents (DPD): the development plan documents which local planning authorities must prepare include a core strategy; generic development control policies; site specific allocations and policies; and a proposals map (with inset maps, where necessary). May also include area action plans (AAP). DPD may form one document covering a range of policy areas or a number of individual documents. They will be spatial planning documents and subject to independent examination. There will be a right for those making representations seeking change to be heard at an independent examination Generic Development Control Policies: A suite of criteria-based policies which are required to ensure that all development within the area meets the vision and strategy set out in the core strategy. Issues and Options: The first iterative stages of preparing a DPD that considers the key issues to be addressed and the reasonable options available. Involves evidence gathering and engagement with stakeholders including local communities. A consultation paper may be prepared but is not statutorily required. Local Development Documents (LDD): Comprise of development plan documents (DPD); where required, supplementary planning documents (SPD); and the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Local Development Framework (LDF): A portfolio of local development documents (LDD) which will provide the framework for delivering the spatial planning strategy for the area. As County Councils have responsibility only for minerals and waste planning, they are required to prepare a Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF). Local Development Scheme (LDS): Sets out the programme for the preparation of the local development documents (LDD). All plan-making authorities must submit a LDS to the First Secretary of State for approval within six months of the commencement date of the Act regardless of where they are in terms of their current development plan. As County Councils have responsibility only for minerals and waste planning, they are required to prepare a Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (MWDS). The transitional arrangements allow for existing adopted plans to be saved for three years from the date of commencement of the Act and for unadopted plans to be saved for three years post adoption. Local Plan: A detailed district or borough-wide land-use plan (prepared and adopted by a district planning authority) or a county-wide land-use plan for mineral and waste (prepared

47 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005 and adopted by a county planning authority), which is part of the statutory development plan. Consists of a written statement which sets out the planning authority's development control policies and proposals for land use and transport over a period of about 10 years and an Ordnance Survey-based proposals map. Required to conform generally with the Structure Plan. Will be replaced by Development Plan Documents (DPD) under the new planning system. Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF): A portfolio of local development documents (LDD) which will provide the framework for delivering the spatial planning strategy for minerals and waste within the county. Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (MWDS): Sets out the programme by County Councils for the preparation of local development documents (LDD) which cover minerals and waste planning. All plan-making authorities must submit a Local Development Scheme (LDS) to the First Secretary of State for approval within six months of the commencement date of the Act regardless of where they are in terms of their current development plan. As County Councils have responsibility only for minerals and waste planning, they are required to prepare a Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (MWDS). Minerals Development Plan Document (MDPD): Development plan document (DPD) prepared by the County Councils covering the issue of minerals. Minerals Local Plan (MLP): Local plan prepared by the County Councils covering the issue of minerals. Minerals Policy Guidance Notes (MPG): Guidance issued by the Government relating to minerals planning. Minerals Policy Statement (MPS): Within the context of the reform of the planning system under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, the Government is reviewing and reforming all national minerals policy guidance (MPG). Therefore, MPG are being replaced by Minerals Policy Statements (MPS) which will set out national policy which must be followed. Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG): Guidance issued by the Government on planning issues including waste. Minerals Policy Guidance Notes (MPG) cover minerals planning. Planning Policy Statement (PPS): Within the context of the reform of the planning system under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, the Government is reviewing and reforming all national planning policy guidance (PPG). Therefore, PPG are being replaced by Planning Policy Statements (PPS) which will set out national policy which must be followed and which will override local policy for specific topics. Minerals Policy Statements (MPS) will set out national policy on minerals. Preferred Option: The first draft of a DPD setting out the County Council's preferred approach to the strategy, policies and allocations for minerals. Subject to six-weeks public consultation. Comments are considered in preparing the final draft for formal submission. Proposals Map: Illustrates, on an Ordnance Survey base, all the policies and proposals in development plan documents (DPD). It will be revised as new DPD are prepared and it will always reflect the up-to-date planning strategy for the area. For minerals and waste, it will include safeguarding areas, consultation areas and any allocations. Regional Minerals Strategy (RMS): The Regional Minerals Strategy (RMS) is being prepared to set out a regional framework up to 2016 for the development of minerals such as chalk, clay, sand and gravel. The RMS is needed to replace a set of old and obsolete targets and policies which were published in 1994 and will replace Chapter 11 of the existing Regional Planning guidance for the South East (RPG9). The draft RMS was published by the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) in March 2004. The Examination-in-Public (EiP) of the draft RMS was held in Autumn 2004 and the EiP Panel's recommendations were submitted in early 2005. In August 2005, the Government published Proposed Changes to the RMS and the Strategy will be finalised following consideration of comments on the suggested changes. Regional Planning Guidance (RPG): Sets out the Government's policy guidance on different planning issues of regional importance. West Sussex is in the South East Region which is

48 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005 covered by RPG9 (March 2001) which extends to 2016. It sets the housing requirement for each county or former county. Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS): To be prepared by the South East England Regional Assembly (the regional planning body). The regional spatial strategy will set out the policies in relation to the development and use of land in the region. When it is approved by the First Secretary of State it will replace the current Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9). Site Specific Allocations and Policies: Allocations of sites for specific or mixed uses or development will be contained in development plan documents. Policies will identify any specific requirements for individual proposals; Statement of Community Involvement (SCI): Sets out the standards which the plan making authority intend to achieve in relation to involving the community in the preparation, alteration and continuing review of all local development documents (LDD) and dealing with planning applications. It also sets out how the local planning authority intends to achieve those standards. The statement of community involvement will not be a development plan document but will be subject to independent examination. A consultation statement showing how the local planning authority has complied with its statement of community involvement will be required for all local development documents. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): A generic term used internationally to describe environmental assessment as applied to policies, plans and programmes. The European 'SEA Directive' (2001/42/EC) does not in fact use the term strategic environmental assessment; it requires a formal 'environmental assessment' of certain plans and programmes, including those in the field of planning and land-use. Structure Plan: Sets out the County Council’s general strategy, policies and main proposals for land use and transport over a period of about 15 years. Consists of a statutory written statement (the policies) and key diagram together with non-statutory explanatory memorandum. Structure plans will no longer be prepared within the new planning system. Submission: The final draft of a DPD is submitted to the Government for independent examination and available for a six-week consultation period. Comments will be considered by an independent Inspector as part of their public examination of the ‘soundness’ of the document. The Inspector will produce a binding report which may specify changes to be made to the DPD before it is formally adopted. Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD): Where required, they cover a wide range of issues on which the plan-making authority wishes to provide policy guidance to supplement the policies and proposals in development plan documents (DPD). They will not form part of the development plan or be subject to independent examination; Sustainability Appraisal (SA): A formal systematic and iterative assessment of local development documents during their preparation which assesses the extent to which they encompass the aim of working towards ‘sustainable development’ which the Government regards as: social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; effective protection of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; and maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

Abbreviations

AAP: Area Action Plan AMR: Annual Monitoring Report DPD: Development Plan Document LDD: Local Development Document LDF: Local Development Framework

49 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

LDS: Local Development Scheme MDPD: Minerals Development Plan Document MLP: Minerals Local Plan MPG: Minerals Policy Guidance Note MPS: Minerals Policy Statement MWDF: Minerals and Waste Development Framework MWDS: Minerals and Waste Development Scheme PPG: Planning Policy Guidance Note PPS: Planning Policy Statement RMS: Regional Minerals Strategy RPG: Regional Planning Guidance RSS: Regional Spatial Strategy SA: Sustainability Appraisal SCI: Statement of Community Involvement SEA: Strategic Environmental Appraisal SEERA: South East England Regional Assembly SPD: Supplementary Planning Documents

50 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Appendix B: Summary of Preliminary Assessment of Potential Sand and Gravel Sites

NB: Map/Alphabetical order

Map A Common Road East Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 6.2% Grade 3a, 93.8% Grade 3b. Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: Common Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Acceptable in principle subject to an assessment of impact on water environment. Response awaited from DERA re potential impact on research establishment. Site could be developed with Slades Field to provide access to that site.

Map A Common Road West Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 100% Grade 3b Acceptable.

51 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB 254 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Common Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Acceptable in principle subject to an assessment of impact on water environment and mitigation of impact on public rights of way. Response awaited from DERA re potential impact on research establishment.

Map A Ell Bridge Landscape and Visual Designations: Near Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Designations: Close to Site of Nature Conservation Importance and Ancient Woodland Acceptable. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: Contains Flood Risk Zone. Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 100% Grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: B2147/Common Road Acceptable provided that access achieved from Racton Park site. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. In addition, access required from Racton Park (the development of which is not considered acceptable).

Map A Funtington East Landscape and Visual Designations: Adj Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Acceptable provided that there are buffers to woodland. Nature Conservation Designations: Near Ancient Woodland. Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to shaw.

52 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Historic Environment Designations: Near conservation area, Near Archaeological Parkscape and listed building(s) Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 100% Grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: B2176 Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Acceptable in principle subject to provision of buffers to woodland, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of any impact on public amenity

Map A Funtington West Landscape and Visual Designations: Near Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Adj. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Designations: Near Rare Species Inventory, contains Ancient Woodland Near Rare Species Inventory. Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to ancient woodland. Historic Environment Designations: Adj listed building(s), adj conservation area. Adj. Archaeological Parkscape Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 2 (part) Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB 254 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Common Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable.

53 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. Response awaited from DERA re potential impact on research establishment. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the ancient woodland.

Map A Racton Park Landscape and Visual Near Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park (part) Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Near Rare Species Inventory, contains Ancient Woodland. Acceptable provided that Ancient Woodland excluded and there are buffers to woodland. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 9.3% grade 3a, 90.7% grade 3b, Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB 508, PB 509 and PB 254 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: Common Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. Response awaited from DERA re potential impact on research establishment. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the ancient woodland.

Map A Slades Field Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to woodland and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to woodland. Historic Environment Near Archaeological Parkscape. Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable.

54 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Soil Quality Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: Cheesemans Lane Acceptable provided that access achieved from Common Road East site. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan. Acceptable in principle subject to provision of screening and buffers to woodland, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of any impact on public amenity. Site would need to developed with Common Road East to achieve access from that site.

Map A Woodmancote Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedgerows. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable provided that hedgerows and woodland retained. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 16% Grade 2, 84% Grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 249, PF 252 and PB 250 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: Marlpit Lane Acceptable provided that access achieved from Common Road. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan. Acceptable in principle subject to retention of woodland and provision of buffers, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of impact on public rights of way

Map B Densworth North Landscape and Visual Near Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park (part) Not acceptable.

55 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Nature Conservation Adjacent Ancient Woodland. Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to ancient woodland. Historic Environment Adj Scheduled Ancient Monument. Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to the Scheduled Ancient Monument. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 13.4% Grade 3a, 86.6% Grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 268 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: West Stoke Road Acceptable provided that access achieved from West Stoke Road West site. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. In addition, access required from West Stoke Road West site.

Map B Densworth South Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable. Nature Conservation Adjacent Ancient Woodland. Acceptable provided that there is buffer to ancient woodland. Historic Environment Adj Scheduled Ancient Monument, adj Archaeological Parkscape, adj listed building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 59% grade 2, 40.8% grade 3a Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: B2178/Chapel Lane Acceptable provided that access achieved from West Stoke Road West site. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable due to need to achieve access from (remote) West Stoke Road West site.

56 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Map B Downs Road East Landscape and Visual Adj Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Near Rare Species Inventory. Acceptable. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 100% Grade 2 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: Downs Road Acceptable provided that access taken from adjoining site (Downs Road West). Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. In addition, access required from Downs Road West (the development of which is not considered acceptable).

Map B Downs Road West Landscape and Visual Adj Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Contains Ancient Woodland. Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to ancient woodland. Historic Environment Adj Scheduled Ancient Monument, Adj listed building(s). Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to the Scheduled Ancient Monument. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 2 ? Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: Downs Road Acceptable.

57 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the ancient woodland.

Map B Huntersrace Lane North Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to woodland/hedgerows and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedgerows. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 2 (part) Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB 270 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Huntersrace Lane Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan. Acceptable in principle subject to provision of screening and buffers to woodland/hedgerows, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of impact on public rights of way.

Map B Huntersrace Lane South Landscape and Visual Designations: None Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable provided that woodland retained and there are buffers to hedgerows. Historic Environment Adj Scheduled Ancient Monument Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to the Scheduled Ancient Monument. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable.

58 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Soil Quality ALC: 78.4% grade 3a, 21.6% grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: Huntersrace Lane Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the woodland in the north-west and south-west corners.

Map B Lavant West Landscape and Visual Close to Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Within Proposed South Downs National Park Acceptable provided that there are buffers to woodland/hedgerows and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Near Rare Species Inventory, near Biodiversity Action Plan Species Inventory. Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedgerows. Historic Environment Adj Scheduled Ancient Monument, Adj listed building(s), Adj conservation area. Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to the Scheduled Ancient Monument. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 100% Grade 2 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 462/465 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: Oldwick Lane/West Lavant Road Acceptable provided that access achieved from Downs Road West site and there is no prejudice to potential Lavant Bypass. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on school/residents can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable due to need to achieve access from Downs Road West site (the development of which is not considered acceptable).

59 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Map B Park Lane Landscape and Visual Adj proposed South Downs National Park Acceptable provided that there are buffers to woodland and hedgerows. Nature Conservation Contains Rare Species Inventory Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedgerows. Historic Environment Adj Scheduled Ancient Monument. Near listed building(s) and conservation area. Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to the Scheduled Ancient Monument. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 7.2% Grade 2, 5.8% Grade 3a, 87% Grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 461/462 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: Oldwick Lane/Hunters Race Acceptable provided that access achieved from Hunters Race and there is no prejudice to potential Lavant Bypass. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents and school can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Acceptable in principle subject to provision of buffers to woodland/hedgerows/Scheduled Ancient Monument, an assessment of impact on water environment, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, access/transport issues being satisfactorily resolved, and mitigation of any impact on public amenity.

Map B West Stoke Road East Landscape and Visual Nr Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Adj proposed South Downs National Park Acceptable provided that there are buffers to woodland and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Adjacent Ancient Woodland. Acceptable provided that there are buffers to Ancient Woodland. Historic Environment Adj Scheduled Ancient Monument Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to the Scheduled Ancient Monument. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality Acceptable.

60 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: West Stoke Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan. Acceptable in principle subject to provision of buffers to woodland/hedgerows/Scheduled Ancient Monument, and an assessment of impact on water environment.

Map B West Stoke Road West Landscape and Visual Nr Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, adj proposed South Downs National Park Acceptable provided that southern area is excluded and there are buffers to woodland and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Adjacent Ancient Woodland. Acceptable provided that there are buffers to Ancient Woodland and hedgerows. Historic Environment Adj Archaeological Parkscape, Adj listed building(s), Adj Scheduled Ancient Monument. Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to the Scheduled Ancient Monument. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 2 (part) Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB 270 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: West Stoke Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Existing allocation (excluding southern and western extensions) in Minerals Local Plan. Acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of southern area (possible extension to existing allocation), provision of buffers to woodland/hedgerows/Scheduled Ancient Monument, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of impact on public rights of way.

61 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Map C East Lavant Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Contains Rare Species Inventory, Biodiversity Action Plan Species Inventory, adjacent Ancient Woodland. Acceptable. Historic Environment Adj Historic Park and Garden, close to Scheduled Ancient Monument and conservation area. Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 2 (part) Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: New Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Potential extension to Valdoe gravel pit. Acceptable in principle subject to reduction of site to include only south- east area and an reassessment of potential impact on landscape/visual amenity. In addition, subject to an assessment of impact on water environment.

Map D Brick Kiln Farm Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable. Nature Conservation Adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance, contains Rare Species Inventory Acceptable. Historic Environment Near listed building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: Mainly Grade 1 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB 2792 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: A259/Vinnetrow Road Acceptable.

62 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of Brick Kiln Nursery, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, and mitigation of impact on public amenity. Potential implications of possible improvements to the A27 Chichester Bypass.

Map D Copse Farm Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable. Nature Conservation Adjacent Biodiversity Action Plan Species Inventory Acceptable. Historic Environment Adj Listed Building(s), adj Archaeological Parkscape. Acceptable. Water Environment Contains Flood Risk Zone. Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: 53.6% Grade 2, 46.4% Grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: Tangmere Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents and school can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to mitigation of impact on public amenity.

Map D Madams Green Farm East Landscape and Visual Designations: None Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedges. Historic Environment Near conservation area and listed building(s) Acceptable.

63 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Water Environment Contains Flood Risk Zone. Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 1 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 277 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Oving New Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. Even if the SFRA is favourable, the site is not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact.

Map D Madams Green Farm West Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to trees/hedgerows and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedgerows. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Contains Flood Risk Zone. Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 1 (part) Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 277 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Oving New Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of flood risk zone, provision of screening and buffers to trees/hedgerows, and mitigation of impact on public amenity.

64 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Map D Oving West Landscape and Visual Designations: None Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Adjacent Biodiversity Action Plan Species Inventory. Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedgerows. Historic Environment Adj conservation area. Nr listed building(s) Acceptable. Water Environment Adj Flood Risk Zone. Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 1 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 279/1 & PF277 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Tangmere Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents and school can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. Even if the SFRA is favourable, the site is not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact.

Map D Shopwyke North Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedgerows and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedges. Historic Environment Adj listed building(s), Adj Archaeological Parkscape. Acceptable. Water Environment Contains Flood Risk Zone Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: 73.1% Grade 2, 26.9% Grade 3b, (Grade 1?) Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: Tangmere Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable.

65 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of flood risk zone, provision of screening and buffers to trees/hedgerows, and mitigation of impact on public amenity. Site would need to developed with Shopwyke South.

Map D Shopwyke South Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to trees/hedgerows and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedges. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Contains Flood Risk Zone. Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: 73.1% Grade 2, 26.9% Grade 3b (Grade 1 ???) Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 279/1 & PF 277 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Oving New Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of flood risk zone, provision of screening and buffers to trees/hedgerows, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, and mitigation of impact on public amenity. Site could be developed with Shopwyke North.

Map D Withies Farm East Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable provided that there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Contains Rare Species Inventory. Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedges. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable.

66 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Water Environment Contains Flood Risk Zone. Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: Grades 1 and 2 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: A259/Drayton Lane. Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to provision of screening and buffers to hedgerows.

Map D Withies Farm West Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedgerows and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedges. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Contains Flood Risk Zone. Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: Grades 1 and 2 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 277 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: Drayton Lane Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to exclusion of flood risk zone, provision of screening and buffers to hedgerows, and mitigation of impact on public rights of way.

67 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Map E Kingsham Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable provided that there is advance planting. Nature Conservation Adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance, adjacent Rare Species Inventory, adjacent Biodiversity Action Plan Species Inventory Acceptable. Historic Environment Near listed building(s) Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 1 (part) Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 554/1 and 3027 and 190 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: B2145 Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan and the subject of a planning application. Acceptable in principle subject to detailed assessment of the potential impacts on the water environment, provision of screening, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, and mitigation of impact on public amenity.

Map E Stoney Meadow Landscape and Visual Designations: None Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedgerows/trees and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance. Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedges and canal. Historic Environment Near listed building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Not acceptable in advance of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for south and east of Chichester. Soil Quality ALC: 84.1% Grade 3b, 10.8% Grade 4 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable.

68 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Transport Roads: B2166 Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle at this stage without a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for south and east of Chichester. If the SFRA is favourable, the site is acceptable in principle subject to provision of screening and buffers to hedgerows/trees/canal, and mitigation of impact on public amenity.

Map F West Heath Common Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Acceptable provided that there is appropriate mitigation including retention of higher ground in south and east of site. Nature Conservation Site of Nature Conservation Importance, contains Rare Species Inventory Not acceptable without appropriate mitigation. Historic Environment Near Scheduled Ancient Monument. Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 100% grade 3a Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 861 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Durford Mill Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan as extension to West Heath sand pit. Acceptable in principle subject to mitigation of potential landscape and nature conservation impacts, and an assessment of impact on water environment.

Map G Minsted East Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Contains Site of Nature Conservation Importance, near Rare Species Inventory, adjacent Ancient Woodland. Acceptable provided that there are buffers to stream and Site of Nature Conservation Importance.

69 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Historic Environment Near listed building(s) Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 79.0% grade 2, 21.0% grade3a Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 910 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Minsted Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact.

Map G Minsted West Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Proposed South Downs National Park Acceptable provided that site is reduced and there is advance planting. Nature Conservation Near Rare Species Inventory, near Site of Nature Conservation Importance Acceptable provided that there are buffers to stream and Site of Nature Conservation Importance. Historic Environment Near listed building(s), nr Archaeological Parkscape Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB907, PB909/4 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Minsted Road Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Potential extension to Minsted sand pit. Acceptable in principle subject to reduction of site to exclude south-west edge, provision of screening and buffers to stream and SNCI, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of impact on public rights of way.

70 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Map G Severals East Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Near Rare Species Inventory, near Ancient Woodland. Adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance Acceptable provided that there are buffers to Site of Nature Conservation Importance and road verges. Historic Environment Near listed building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 2 (part) Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 3617, PF3618 and PF921 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: Severals Road/A272 Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact.

Map G Severals West Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Contains Site of Nature Conservation Importance, contains Rare Species Inventory, adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance, contains Ancient Woodland. Not acceptable. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 3619 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: Severals Road/A272 Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents can be satisfactorily mitigated.

71 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape and nature conservation impacts. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the ancient woodland.

Map H Dunford Rough Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Proposed South Downs National Park Acceptable provided that there is appropriate mitigation including retention of, and buffers to, woodland and appropriate re-contouring. Nature Conservation Near Site of Special Scientific Interest. Acceptable. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 77.1% grade1, 14.9% grade 2, 8.0% grade 3a, Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB 3545 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: Oaklands Lane Acceptable provided that access achieved from existing Pendean sand pit. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Not acceptable due to landownership and economic problems. Overall Conclusion Existing allocation in Minerals Local Plan as extension to Pendean sand pit. Acceptable in principle subject to mitigation of potential landscape impact, an assessment of impact on water environment, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, and an assessment of landownership and economic issues. Site could be developed only as an extension to existing sand pit.

Map H Hawkhurst Farm Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to woodland. Historic Environment Near listed building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable.

72 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Soil Quality ALC: 59.36% grade 3a, 37.6% grade3b, 3.1% grade 4 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 948 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: Dunford Hollow Acceptable provided that access achieved from existing Pendean sand pit. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. If the site were to be allocated, the site could be developed only as an extension to existing Pendean sand pit.

Map I Burton East Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest, adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance, adjacent Rare Species Inventory, adjacent Local Nature Reserve Acceptable provided that there is buffer to Site of Special Scientific Interest. Historic Environment Within Archaeological Parkscape, Within Historic Park and Garden, Adj Listed Building(s), Adj Scheduled Ancient Monument Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to the Scheduled Ancient Monument. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 66.2% Grade 3a, 33.8% Grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: Burton Park Road Not acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact and access problems.

73 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Map I Burton West Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance. Acceptable. Historic Environment Adj Archaeological Parkscape, Adj Historic Park and Garden, Adj Listed Building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Soil Quality ALC: 61.5% grade 2, 35.5% grade3a, 3.0% grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 723 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: A285 Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact.

Map I Coopers Moor Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park. Acceptable provided that woodland margin retained and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance. Not acceptable. Historic Environment Near Scheduled Ancient Monument. Near listed building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: Duncton Common Road Acceptable provided that access taken from existing Heath End sand pit. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable.

74 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Overall Conclusion Acceptable in principle subject to retention of woodland edge and provision of additional screening, provision of buffers to woodland, a detailed assessment of nature conservation impact, an assessment of impact on water environment, and mitigation of impact on public amenity. Site could be developed only as an extension to existing Heath End sand pit.

Map I Duncton Common Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park. Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest, adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance, contains Site of Nature Conservation Importance, adjacent Ancient Woodland, near Rare Species Inventory Not acceptable. Historic Environment Near Scheduled Ancient Monument, Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB 671, PF 672/2, and PF 3527 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: Duncton Common Road Acceptable provided that access achieved from existing Heath End sand pit. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape and nature conservation impacts. Site could be developed only as an extension to existing Heath End sand pit.

Map I Ridlington Farm Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park. Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Contains Rare Species Inventory, near Site of Special Scientific Interest/Site of Nature Conservation Importance. Acceptable provided that there is a buffer to the stream. Historic Environment Near Scheduled Ancient Monument, Near listed building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable.

75 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Soil Quality ALC: 83.3% Grade 2, 14.1% Grade 3a, 2.6% Grade 4. Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 718, PF 719, and PF 720 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: Duncton Common Road Not acceptable unless access can be achieved in conjunction with Coopers Moor site. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. Site could be developed only as an extension to existing Heath End sand pit (accessed through Coopers Moor site).

Map J Horncroft Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Near Rare Species Inventory Acceptable provided that boundary hedgerows retained and stream is protected. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB 762 Acceptable. Transport Roads: B2138 Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact.

Map K Pulborough Landscape and Visual Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Contains Rare Species Inventory, adjacent LNR, adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest, adjacent RS, adjacent SPA/Ramsar. Not acceptable.

76 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Historic Environment Near conservation area & listed building(s) Acceptable. Water Environment Within Flood Risk Zone. Not acceptable. Soil Quality ALC: 31.1% grade 2, 48.3% grade 3a, 20.6% grade 4, Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: A29 Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape and nature conservation impacts. An 'appropriate assessment' of the impact on the integrity of the SPA would be required before allocation. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the flood risk zone.

Map K Wiggonholt Landscape and Visual Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Contains Biodiversity Action Plan Species Inventory, adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance, adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest, near Rare Species Inventory. Not acceptable. Historic Environment Near conservation area, Near Scheduled Ancient Monument. Acceptable. Water Environment Contains Flood Risk Zone. Not acceptable. Soil Quality ALC: 63.0% grade 2, 15.5% grade 3a, 21.5% grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PB 2633 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: A283 Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable.

77 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape and nature conservation impacts. An 'appropriate assessment' of the impact on the integrity of the SPA would be required before allocation. If the site were to be allocated, it should be amended to exclude the flood risk zone.

Map L Chantry Lane Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest. Acceptable provided that any adverse impact on Site of Special Scientific Interest can be mitigated. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 59.3% Grade 2, 40.7% Grade 4 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: Chantry Lane Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Potential extension to Chantry Lane sand pit. Acceptable in principle subject to detailed assessment of landscape impact, and an assessment of impact on water environment.

Map M Lower Chancton Farm Landscape and Visual Area of Sussex Downs Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Acceptable provided that area is reduced and there are buffers to hedgerows/woodland and there is additional screening. Nature Conservation Adjacent Ancient Woodland Acceptable provided that there are buffers to hedgerows and woodland. Historic Environment Contains listed building(s), Near listed building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 58.8% Grade 2, 5.4% Grade 3a, 31.8% Grade 3b, 4.0% Acceptable.

78 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: A283 Not acceptable before implementation of proposed improvements to the A283. Services and Utilities Acceptable provided that water main diverted. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle before implementation of proposed (unprogrammed) improvements to the A283. If the improvements are implemented, the site is acceptable in principle subject to a reduction of the site to exclude the western part of the site, the provision of screening and buffers, and an assessment of the impact on the water environment.

Map M Rock Common South Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Designations: None Acceptable. Historic Environment Near listed building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 66.7% grade 2, 33.3% grade 3b Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: A283 Not acceptable before implementation of proposed improvements to the A283. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact. Implementation of proposed (unprogrammed) improvements to the A283 would be required for access to the site and could mitigate landscape objection.

Map M Rock Common West Landscape and Visual Adj. Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable.

79 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Nature Conservation Near Rare Species Inventory. Acceptable. Historic Environment Designations: None Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: 100% grade 4 Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 2701 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected and satisfactorily diverted. Transport Roads: The Hollow Acceptable provided that access achieved from existing Rock Common sand pit. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Potential extension to Rock Common sand pit. Acceptable in principle subject to detailed assessment of landscape impact, an assessment of the impact on the water environment, mitigation of impact on public rights of way, and mitigation of impact on public amenity.

Map N Buncton Crossways Landscape and Visual Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Proposed South Downs National Park Not acceptable. Nature Conservation Adjacent Ancient Woodland Acceptable provided that there are buffers to ancient woodland. Historic Environment Contains Archaeological Parkscape, Near listed building(s). Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: None Acceptable. Transport Roads: A283 Acceptable provided that there are improvements to the A283 and there is no prejudice to comprehensive improvements to A283. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable.

80 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Overall Conclusion Not acceptable in principle due to landscape impact.

Map N Ham Farm Landscape and Visual Adj Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Within Proposed South Downs National Park. Acceptable provided that there are buffers to woodland/hedgerows and there is advance planting. Nature Conservation Adjacent Ancient Woodland. Acceptable provided that the northern area is excluded and that there is a buffer to ancient woodland and hedgerows. Historic Environment Near Archaeological Parkscape, Near listed building(s) Acceptable. Water Environment Designations: None Acceptable provided that Flood Risk Assessment and hydrogeological assessment favourable. Soil Quality ALC: Grade 2 (part) Acceptable. Public Rights of Way Footpaths/Bridleways: PF 2599 Acceptable provided that Public Right(s) of Way protected. Transport Roads: A283 Acceptable. Services and Utilities Acceptable. Public Amenity Acceptable provided that impact on residents/businesses can be satisfactorily mitigated. Other Comments Acceptable. Overall Conclusion Acceptable in principle subject to a reduction of the site to exclude the northern area, provision of screening and buffers to woodland/hedgerows, an assessment of the impact on the water environment, and mitigation of impact on public amenity.

81 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Maps A-N: Potential Sand and Gravel Sites

Title Page Map Key 83 A Woodmancote/Hambrook/Funtington area 84 B Densworth/West Lavant area 85 C East Lavant 86 D Oving/East Chichester area 87 E South Chichester 88 F West Heath Common 89 G Minsted/West Midhurst area 90 H South-East Midhurst area 91 I Duncton area 92 J Horncroft 93 K Pulborough/Wiggonholt area 94 L Chantry Lane (Storrington) 95 M Washington/Rock Common area 96 N Wiston area 97

82 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Map Key

Potential Mineral Site

Active Mineral Site

Inactive Mineral Site

!( Listed Buildings Scheduled Ancient Monument Conservation Areas Archaeological Parkscapes Historic Parks and Gardens Rare Species Inventory BAP Species Inventory Ramsar Site / Special Protection Area / Special Area of Conservation Site of Special Scientific Interest National Nature Reserve Site of Nature Conservation Importance

Local Nature Reserve Ancient Woodland

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Proposed National Park Boundary

Grade 1 Agricultural Land Classification Grade 2 Agricultural Land Classification

Flood Risk Zone Public Right of Way

83

West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Racton Park

Ell Funtington West Bridge Funtington East

Common Road West Common Road Woodmancote East

Slades Field

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Gravel Sites: Map A – Woodmancote/ Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Hambrook/Funtington area scale 

85 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Downs Road East

Downs Road West Lavant West

West Stoke Park Lane Densworth Road East North

Huntersrace Densworth Lane North South

West Stoke Road West Huntersrace Lane South

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Gravel Sites: Map B – Densworth/West Lavant area Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

86 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

The Valdoe

East Lavant

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Gravel Sites: Map C – East Lavant Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

87 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Copse Farm

Shopwyke North Oving West

Shopwyke South

Madam Green Farm East

Madam Green Farm West

Withies Farm West

Withies Farm East Drayton South

Brick Kiln Farm

Kingsham (see Map E)

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Gravel Sites: Map D – Oving/East Chichester area Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

88 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Brick Kiln Farm (see Map D)

Kingsham

Stoney Meadow

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Gravel Sites: Map E – South Chichester area Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

89 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

West Heath

West Heath Common

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Sand Sites: Map F – West Heath Common Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

90 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Severals East Minsted Severals West

Minsted East

Minsted West

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Sand Sites: Map G – Minsted/West Midhurst area Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

91 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Pendean

Dunford Rough

Hawkhurst Farm

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Sand Sites: Map H – South-East Midhurst area Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

92 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Duncton Common

Heath End

Coopers Moor Burton West Burton East

Ridlington Farm

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Sand Sites: Map I – Duncton area Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

93 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Horncroft

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Sand Sites: Map J – Horncroft Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

94 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Pulborough

Wiggonholt

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Sand Sites: Map K – Pulborough/Wiggonholt Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. area scale 

95 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Sandgate Park

Chantry Hampers Lane Lane

Chantry Lane Potential Site

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Sand Sites: Map L – Chantry Lane (Storrington) Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

96 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Rock Common

Lower Chancton Rock Common Farm West Rock Common South Buncton Crossways (see Map N)

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Sand Sites: Map M – Washington/Rock Common Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. area scale 

97 West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options November 2005

Lower Chancton Farm (see Map M)

Buncton Ham Farm Crossways

Crown Copyright 2004. West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100018485. Reproduced Potential Sand Sites: Map N – Wiston area Not to from the Ordnance Survey map with the N permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. scale 

98