DOCSLIB.ORG

Kent Minerals and Waste Sites Dpds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kent Minerals and Waste Sites Dpds Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs Interim Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report May 2012 Prepared for: Kent County Council UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs REVISION SCHEDULE Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 1 May 2012 Interim SA Report Mark Fessey Steve Smith Steve Smith Senior Associate Associate Consultant Chris Eves Graduate Consultant URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Kent County Council (“The Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report. The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between January and March 2012 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances. URS disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to URS’ attention after the date of the Report. Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward- looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. URS specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report. Copyright © This Report is the copyright of URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. URS 6 - 8 Greencoat Place London SW1P 1PL Tel 020 7798 5000 Fax 020 7798 5001 www.urscorp.com INTERIM SA REPORT May 2012 Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1 2 WHAT IS THE PLAN SEEKING TO ACHIEVE? ..........................................................................4 3 WHAT’S THE SUSTAINABILITY ‘CONTEXT’? ...........................................................................5 4 WHAT’S THE SITUATION NOW? ..............................................................................................19 5 WHAT WOULD THE SITUATION BE WITHOUT THE PLAN?..................................................23 6 WHAT ARE THE KEY ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE A FOCUS OF THE APPRAISAL? ..........25 7 HOW HAS THE PLAN DEVELOPED UP TO THIS POINT?......................................................29 8 HOW HAS THE APPRAISAL AT THIS CURRENT STAGE BEEN UNDERTAKEN?...............31 9 WHAT ARE THE APPRAISAL FINDINGS / RECOMMENDATIONS AT THS STAGE?...........35 10 HOW CAN WE BEST MONITOR THE PLAN’S IMPACTS? ......................................................48 INTERIM SA REPORT May 2012 Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background URS is commissioned to undertake the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) in support of Kent County Council’s emerging Minerals and Waste Management Sites Development Plan Documents (DPDs). SA is a mechanism for considering the impacts of a draft plan approach, and alternatives to that approach, in terms of key sustainability issues, with a view to avoiding and mitigating adverse impacts and maximising the positives. 1.2 SA explained ‘SA Report focused’ SA is undertaken in-line with the procedures prescribed by the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive1. A key requirement of the Directive is that a report (which we call the ‘SA Report’) is published alongside the draft plan that ‘identifies, describes and evaluates’ the ‘likely significant environmental effects of implementing the plan or programme, and reasonable alternatives’. Annex 1 of the Directive prescribes the information that must be contained within the SA Report. Providing this information involves answering a logical sequence of nine ‘appraisal questions’. The questions that must be answered within the report are shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1: Questions that must be answered (sequentially) within the SA Report APPRAISAL QUESTION CORRESPONDING REQUIREMENT OF THE SEA DIRECTIVE (The report must include…) 1) What is the plan seeking “an outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan or programme and to achieve? relationship with other relevant plans and programmes” (Annex I(a)) 2) What’s the sustainability “an outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan or programme and relationship context? with other relevant plans and programmes” (Annex I(a)) “the environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation” (Annex I(e)) 3) What’s the situation now? “the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan or programme” (Annex I(b)) “the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected” (Annex I(c)) 4) What would the situation “the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution be without the plan? thereof without implementation of the plan or programme” (Annex I(b)) 5) What are the key issues “any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan or that should be a particular programme including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular focus of the appraisal? environmental importance, such as areas designated pursuant to Directives 79/409/EEC [Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive] and 92/43/EEC” (Annex I(d)) (Note impacts on European sites will be specifically addressed through Habitats Regulations Assessment) 1 Directive 2001/42/EC INTERIM SA REPORT May 2012 1 Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs APPRAISAL QUESTION CORRESPONDING REQUIREMENT OF THE SEA DIRECTIVE (The report must include…) 6) How has the plan “an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a developed up to this point description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as (including the influence of technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required SA)? information” (Annex I(h)) “the environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation” (Annex I(e)) 7) How has the appraisal at “an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description of this current stage been how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as technical undertaken? deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required information” (Annex I(h)) 8) What are the appraisal “the likely significant effects (1) on the environment, including on issues such as findings / recommendations biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, at this current stage? material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors” (Annex I(f)) “the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme” (Annex I(g)) 9) How might we monitor the “a description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring…” (Annex I(i)) plan’s impacts? Iterative Given that the SA Report (published for consultation alongside the final draft version of the plan) must answer the question ‘How has the plan developed up to this point (including the influence of SA)’, it is understood that the plan must be developed alongside SA in an iterative fashion. An iterative approach to plan-making / SA is being followed as part of preparing the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs, as described below. INTERIM SA REPORT May 2012 2 Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs Figure 7-1: The iterative plan-making / SA process 1. A ‘Call for Sites’ asked operators and landowners to suggest suitable sites for minerals and waste development and providing supporting evidence. Other evidence-gathering work was also undertaken by the Council at this stage. Also at the outset of plan-making, a report was published for consultation (and subsequently finalised) answering the first six SA ‘appraisal questions’ (only). Answering these
Load more

Recommended publications
  • May 2011) Kent Minerals and Waste Development Framework
    Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Kent Minerals And Waste Development Framework Mineral Sites Development Plan Document Options Consultation (May 2011) Commentary Report (November 2011) 1 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Produced by : Planning and Environment Environment and Enterprise Kent County Council Invicta House Tel: 01622 221610 County Hall Email: [email protected] Maidstone Web: www.kent.gov.uk/mwdf Kent ME14 1XX 2 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Contents Page 1 Abbreviations 4 2 Introduction 5 3 Site Proposals 7 4 Responses for Mineral Sites DPD 9 5 Soft Sand Sites for Consideration 11 6 Sharp Sand and Gravel Sites for Consideration 33 7 Crushed Rock Sites for Consideration 53 8 Silica Sand Sites for Consideration 57 9 Chalk Sites for Consideration 61 10 Brickearth Sites for Consideration 67 11 Clay Sites for Consideration 71 12 Mineral Import Sites for Consideration 73 13 Secondary & Recycled Aggregates Sites for Consideration 75 14 Glossary 101 3 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Abbreviations AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty MGB Metropolitan Green Belt AQMA Air Quality Management Area MOD Ministry of Defence BAP Biodiversity Action Plan NNR National Nature Reserve BOA Biodiversity Opportunity Area PINS Planning Inspectorate CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England PPS Planning Policy Statement DPD Development Plan Documents PROW Public Right of Way SA Sustainability Appraisal
    [Show full text]
  • Boughton and Dunkirk Neighbourhood Plan Strategic
    Boughton and Dunkirk Neighbourhood Plan Strategic Environmental Assessment & Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report May 2021 Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of Report ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Legislative Background ............................................................................................................................. 1 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ................................................................................................. 1 Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) ......................................................................................................... 2 3. Swale Local Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 2 4. Boughton and Dunkirk Neighbourhood Plan Proposed Submission Version ......................................... 3 5. Environmental Assets in Proximity to the Neighbourhood Plan Area .................................................... 3 6. SEA Assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Assessment ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report
    EB 08.20 Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report Elham Park Wood Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 1 Contents 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 2. Components of GI 3. Functions and benefits of GI 4. GI policy context 5. The GI resource in Shepway 6. Biodiversity GI in Shepway 7. Linear Feature GI 8. Civic Amenity GI 9. Key issues and opportunities in relation to strategic development sites Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 2 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 1.1 A number of definitions of Green Infrastructure (GI) are in use including:- PPS12 – “…a network of multi-functional green space, both new and existing, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities.” 1.2 South East Plan/South East GI Partnership – “For the purposes of spatial planning the term green infrastructure (GI) relates to the active planning and management of sub-regional networks of multi-functional open space. These networks should be managed and designed to support biodiversity and wider quality of life, particularly in areas undergoing large scale change.“ 1.3 Natural England – “Green Infrastructure (GI) is a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality green spaces and other environmental features. It should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Green Infrastructure includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, allotments and private gardens.” 1.4 The common features of these definitions are that GI:- • involves natural and managed green areas in urban and rural settings • is about the strategic connection of open green areas • should provide multiple benefits for people 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Assessment of Kent 2004
    CHILHAM: STOUR VALLEY Location map: CHILHAMCHARACTER AREA DESCRIPTION North of Bilting, the Stour Valley becomes increasingly enclosed. The rolling sides of the valley support large arable fields in the east, while sweeps of parkland belonging to Godmersham Park and Chilham Castle cover most of the western slopes. On either side of the valley, dense woodland dominate the skyline and a number of substantial shaws and plantations on the lower slopes reflect the importance of game cover in this area. On the valley bottom, the river is picked out in places by waterside alders and occasional willows. The railway line is obscured for much of its length by trees. STOUR VALLEY Chilham lies within the larger character area of the Stour Valley within the Kent Downs AONB. The Great Stour is the most easterly of the three rivers cutting through the Downs. Like the Darent and the Medway, it too provided an early access route into the heart of Kent and formed an ancient focus for settlement. Today the Stour Valley is highly valued for the quality of its landscape, especially by the considerable numbers of walkers who follow the Stour Valley Walk or the North Downs Way National Trail. Despite its proximity to both Canterbury and Ashford, the Stour Valley retains a strong rural identity. Enclosed by steep scarps on both sides, with dense woodlands on the upper slopes, the valley is dominated by intensively farmed arable fields interspersed by broad sweeps of mature parkland. Unusually, there are no electricity pylons cluttering the views across the valley. North of Bilting, the river flows through a narrow, pastoral floodplain, dotted with trees such as willow and alder and drained by small ditches.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Sites Booklet
    Discover Discover WILD SITESon your doorstep A visitor’s guide to wildlife sites in the Stour Valley WILD SITES on your doorstep on your About WILD SITES The Kentish Stour Explore the on your doorstep Countryside Partnership WILD SITES This booklet is designed to help you The Kentish Stour Countryside Partnership Get out there! explore and enjoy the fantastic (KSCP) organised the Wild Sites project. There are so many landscapes and special wildlife of the amazing places to The KSCP works to conserve, enhance and promote the enjoy nature and the outdoors in Stour Valley. countryside and urban green space of the Stour Valley. the Stour Valley! The Wild Sites are We work closely with landowners and communities to spread all over the KSCP Partnership To get the best out of your visit, go to our conserve and protect the landscapes, habitats and area (see map). They are very varied, website: www.wildsites.org and click wildlife of our Partnership area. We conserve and ranging in size from a few acres to ‘Explore Sites’ for full details of the sites. enhance all sorts of habitats, including the River Stour hundreds of hectares, from local and other watercourses, woodlands and wildlife rich parks to internationally important Much of the content in this guide book has been grasslands; we also create habitats for wildlife in urban nature reserves, owned and managed produced by participants in the Wild Sites on Your areas. Where we can, we develop opportunities for good by a range of bodies (see back cover). Doorstep project. Hundreds of people took part in access to the countryside and informal recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • Maidstone Risk Profile
    Review of Emergency Response Provision: Maidstone Cluster Risk Profile RERP - Maidstone Cluster Risk Profile Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 Description of Cluster ............................................................................................................ 4 Cluster Demographics and Population Risk Factors.............................................................. 5 Deprivation ............................................................................................................................ 7 Overall Cluster Risk .............................................................................................................. 8 Dwellings ........................................................................................................................... 8 Special Service .................................................................................................................. 9 Geodemographic Segmentation .......................................................................................... 10 Cluster Geodemographic Segmentation .......................................................................... 11 Building Usage as a Risk Identifier ...................................................................................... 13 Other Building Risk ............................................................................................................. 14 Sleeping Accommodation
    [Show full text]
  • Shepway Green Infrastructure Report 2011
    Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report Elham Park Wood Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 1 Contents 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 2. Components of GI 3. Functions and benefits of GI 4. GI policy context 5. The GI resource in Shepway 6. Biodiversity GI in Shepway 7. Linear Feature GI 8. Civic Amenity GI 9. Key issues and opportunities in relation to strategic development sites Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 2 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 1.1 A number of definitions of Green Infrastructure (GI) are in use including:- PPS12 – “…a network of multi-functional green space, both new and existing, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities.” 1.2 South East Plan/South East GI Partnership – “For the purposes of spatial planning the term green infrastructure (GI) relates to the active planning and management of sub-regional networks of multi-functional open space. These networks should be managed and designed to support biodiversity and wider quality of life, particularly in areas undergoing large scale change.“ 1.3 Natural England – “Green Infrastructure (GI) is a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality green spaces and other environmental features. It should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Green Infrastructure includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, allotments and private gardens.” 1.4 The common features of these definitions are that GI:- • involves natural and managed green areas in urban and rural settings • is about the strategic connection of open green areas • should provide multiple benefits for people 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report - Appendices
    LOWER THAMES CROSSING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCOPING REPORT - APPENDICES Appendix A – Biodiversity Table of Consultation Contact Organisation Relevance Date of Topic of communication to project correspondence June 2013 Written feedback on basic options for a new Lower Thames Crossing. November 2014 Letter issued to request to provide technical information to inform route options development work, response received. January 2015 Workshop 1: To present to statutory environmental bodies (SEBs) on emerging thinking regarding route options and draft approach to environmental appraisal. Note to inform on the HRA March 2015 Workshop 2: Presentation of Designated long list of route options and sites (SPA, Natural update on progress regarding SAC, England development of environmental Ramsar and appraisal, details of crossing SSSI) options and request for formal feedback on environmental appraisal findings. April 2015 Email feedback on environmental appraisal approach requested by LTC at Environment Workshop 2. June 2015 Workshop 3: To obtain feedback on the draft shortlist and rejected options; the detailed assessment of the shortlist; proposed methodology and survey work; update on the crossing types. July 2015 Telephone conference to discuss approach to bird survey methodology required ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT – SCOPING REPORT HE540039-CJV-GEN-GEN-REP-ENV-00001 DATE PUBLISHED - 09/10/2017 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED – COPYRIGHT © - 2017 – HIGHWAYS ENGLAND COMPANY LIMITED – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED LOWER THAMES CROSSING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCOPING REPORT - APPENDICES Organisation Relevance Date of Topic of communication to project correspondence to support DCO application and to inform options appraisal Email feedback on draft short list of options; survey and appraisal approach; design and opportunities requested at Workshop 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Rare Plant Register Draft Species Accounts Part D
    1 Kent Rare Plant Register Draft species accounts Part D Compiled by Geoffrey Kitchener and the Kent Botanical Recording Group Issue date: February 2018 2 Kent rare plant register This section of the register covers: Dactylorhiza incarnata Dactylorhiza maculata Daucus carota subsp. gummifer Descurainia sophia Dianthus armeria Dianthus deltoides Dipsacus pilosus Drosera rotundifolia Dryopteris aemula It is issued in draft, pending further development. Records, photographs and information regarding the Kentish occurrences of these plants will be welcome. The register accounts give priority to data from 2010 onwards, but some historic data are also included (however, in the data tables, generally no specific sites without post-1970 records) so as to indicate trends and where the plant may yet be discovered or rediscovered See the Kent webpage of the BSBI website at http://www.bsbi.org.uk/kent.html for: the full Kent rare plant register list the introduction to the register a list of ‘probably extinct’ Kent plants. Abbreviations used in the text: Recorders’ initials: JA Jan Armishaw RC Ray Clarke JBe Jim Bevan RF Rosemary FitzGerald AB Alan Blackman JBel J. Belsey RMB Rodney Burton BD Mrs B. Dodds JB John Badmin RR Rosemary Roberts BH Betsy Hewson JP Joyce Pitt SH Sam Hartley BW Brian Woodhams JRP John Palmer SB Sue Buckingham CC Chris Cook JT John Taplin SK Sarah Kitchener CR Chris Rose JW Jo Weightman SM S. Steve McArragher DJ David Johnson LH Lorna Holland SW Steve Weeks DM Daphne Mills LR Lliam Rooney PW Philip Wilson DS David Steere MGa Megan Gasson WHG W.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Botany 2016 Continues the Series of Annual Reports of Botanical Developments in Kent
    0 KKeenntt BBoottaannyy 22001166 1 Kent Botany 2016 Contents Page Introduction 1 Plant records: selection criteria and recorders 2 Plant records for East Kent (vice county 15) 4 Plant records for West Kent (vice county 16) 15 References 29 Compiled by Geoffrey Kitchener (February 2017, web version 1) Front cover: gametophytes of Trichomanes speciosum (Killarney Fern) at Hungershall Rocks. Photo 20 March 2016 © Stephen Lemon. Introduction Kent Botany 2016 continues the series of annual reports of botanical developments in Kent. It is issued primarily as a web version, maintained on the Kent page of the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) website, http://www.bsbi.org.uk/ and this should be regarded as the definitive version. The web version is more extensively illustrated than the hard copy version issued in the Kent Field Club Bulletin, but the text in both cases is substantially similar. Highlights Highlights for 2016 included the following. Carex x prolixa, a very rare hybrid between two rare plant register sedge species, was found at Preston Marshes. Lotus angustissimus (Slender Bird's-foot-trefoil), feared extinct in Kent, has been sighted in quantity. Trichomanes speciosum (Killarney Fern), in its gametophyte form, was discovered, new to Kent, in several Wealden sandrock outcrops. Eight taxa new to East Kent (vice county 15) and a similar number new to West Kent (vice county 16) were recorded. Recording in Kent, 2016 Recording priorities were re-set at the Kent Botanical Recording Group (KBRG) AGM on 2 April. The existing target of good county recording coverage for the period 2010-19 inclusive would be maintained (the period is a BSBI ‘date class’ which would enable comparison with other date classes, to identify trends in plant distribution).
    [Show full text]
  • Canterbury Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal
    Canterbury Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal DRAFT August 2012 Copyright Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited. All rights reserved. This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • English Nature Research Report
    Natural Area: 41. North Downs Geological Significance: Considerable /I (provisional) General geological character: The North Downs Natural Area is dominated by Cretaceous Chalk. This very pure limestone was deposited on a tropical sea floor between 97 and 65 Ma and is composed of the skeletons of very small marine shells. Although the chalk was originally deposited as a horizontal layer or sheet of relatively uniform thickness, it has been folded by subsequent tectonic movements during the Alpine orogeny (beginning around 50 million years ago). This has buckled the horizontal sheets into the now distinctive North Downs hills. Other Crctaceous sedirnents include the marine clays of the Lower Greensand and Gault Clay (1 I2 to 97 Ma) which fringe the southern edge of the Downs. The Downs arc dissectcd in many places by networks of dry valleys, cut when the periglacial climates of the Quaternary (the last 2 million years) allowed the Downs to carry surface streams. Some of these dry valleys contain ephemeral streams which are the product of seasonal fluctuations in the levels of the chalk aquifer. The summits of the South Ilowns often display pure chalk in places where the weathering mantle of clay-with- flints IS absent although natural exposures are rare. The footslope of the Downs is masked by periglacial solifluction deposits, known as Coombe Rock. These deposits were washed down the hill slopes of the Downs during periods of surface weathering as a result of the intense periglacial climates during this time. Exposures of the Cretaceous rocks are rare except where they form the coastal cliffs in the east of the area.
    [Show full text]