Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Statement of Representations

Somerset Building Stones Paper – Issues consultation for the Minerals Core Strategy

Statement of compliance with Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) () Regulations 2004

October 2010

Contents

1. Role of the Statement of Representations 2. Building Stones Paper – Issues consultation for the Minerals Core Strategy: a brief overview 3. The questions posed 4. Representations 5. Consultation Responses 6. Feedback on the consultation 7. Other Issues 8. Key Issues 9. Concluding remarks Appendix A – Consultees

1. Role of the Statement of Representations

When a development plan document (DPD) is submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination, the DPD must be accompanied by documents such as the ‘Statement of Representations’ that demonstrate how the authority has complied with relevant requirements contained in the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.

The purpose of the Statement of Representations is to set out:  Which bodies and persons were invited to make representations on the document.  How those bodies and persons were invited to make representations.  A summary of the main issues made in the representations received.  How the representations have been taken into account.

This submission stage of the Somerset Building Stones Paper – Issues consultation for the Minerals Core Strategy is known as a Regulation 30 document, because it is carried out in accordance with Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.

2. Somerset Building Stones Paper – Issues consultation for the Minerals Core Strategy: a brief overview

From 2nd August 2010 to 24 th September 2010, undertook consultation relating to the supply of building stones in Somerset in order to identify key issues to be considered whilst creating planning policy for building stones in the future. This exercise was the beginning of the consultation process for the development of the Somerset Minerals Core Strategy (MCS), which will replace the MLP.

The consultation was distributed to 330 specific internal and external consultees (see Appendix A) and made publicly available via the Somerset County Council website.

The following subject headings were used in the consultation paper:

• Introduction • Policy background and framework • Valuing the built heritage • Resource and source • Quarrying of building stones

Within this structure, a total of 18 specific questions were posed, seeking to gather opinions on the above topics. The questions are detailed in the next section. Consultees were also encouraged to provide additional comments and questions.

3. The questions posed

QUESTION 1. Should there be a mechanism in place to help match policies and decisions relating to the provision of local building stone (e.g. within the MCS) with policies relating to the demand for local building stone (e.g. local district Conservation Areas, new housing allocations)? QUESTION 2. Is the importance and use of local building stone as part of Somerset’s built heritage and local character recognised and/or promoted enough? QUESTION 3. How much local building stone (if any) are you or your organisation likely to need over the next 15 years? Is this mainly for restoration, conservation, ornamental, decorative or new build works? QUESTION 4. Is the need for building stone for conservation / restoration work similar to that for new buildings, or is the importance / demand of one greater than the other? QUESTION 5. How can the Minerals Planning Authority facilitate the recycling of local building stone for use by the industry? QUESTION 6. Where the use of natural stone is impractical (for example, for economic or non-availability reasons), does reconstituted or cast stone offer an alternative material for heritage and aesthetic (e.g. matching) purposes? Should the MCS provide guidance on the use of such reconstituted stone? QUESTION 7. Should imported stone be used in preference to local Somerset or UK sourced stone where suitable stone is available and economically viable to use? QUESTION 8. Should there be a ‘hierarchy’ or ‘order of preference’ for the sourcing and use of building stone? For example, reclamation of used local stone, then use of fresh quarried local stone, then use of UK sourced stone, then use of imported stone, then use of reconstituted stone? QUESTION 9. Are there any benefits or preferences in maintaining on-site stone dressing and cutting facilities (e.g. at the quarry source) or should these be operated off-site? QUESTION 10. Should there be a ‘hierarchy’ or ‘order of preference’ relating to the quarrying of fresh building stone where geological resources are available? For example, the lateral extension or deepening of existing quarries, the re-opening of former quarries of the opening of new quarries? QUESTION 11. Are there any benefits in the re-opening of former quarries instead of creating new quarries? QUESTION 12. Should preference be given to the use of more, smaller quarries as a source of local building stone, or fewer larger quarries supplying the county’s needs where possible? QUESTION 13. Under what circumstances (if any), should the opening of quarries for small scale extraction of local, specialist building stone types (e.g. 1000 – 2500 tonnes per annum) be considered? QUESTION 14. What potential impacts of quarrying mentioned above are particularly relevant or concerning for Somerset, and are there other issues not mentioned? QUESTION 15. How important is the carbon footprint of quarrying, working and transporting local building stone? How can it be mitigated? QUESTION 16. What are the opportunities and priorities for the future restoration and after-use of completed building stone quarries? QUESTION 17. Should areas of proven local building stone sources be safeguarded for future extraction, and if so, how? QUESTION 18. If developments threaten to sterilise proven valuable resources of building stone, should these be extracted and stored prior to the development commencing?

4. Representations

A total of 37 representations were received from a broad range of consultees, including parish councils, quarry operators, stonemasons, geologists, conservation organisations and internal partners. All representations have provided valuable comments.

Some respondents commented on all 18 questions with the majority commenting on 12 or more questions, whilst others commented on only one or two questions. Fifteen questions received over 20 responses and all questions received 14 or more responses.

Apart from demonstrating that the County Council has complied with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 the intention of this Regulation 30 statement is to summarise the representations received in order to assist the development of mineral planning policy for the future extraction of building stones in Somerset.

While this Regulation 30 statement does not include all of the comments and information from every representation received, some comments are included in the following pages. Detailed comments from specified consultees are presented in text boxes.

5. Key Issues

Within each subject heading a number of key issues were identified which formed the basis of the questions posed in the consultation paper.

The key issues under the various headings were as follows:

Policy background and framework • Minerals Local Plan – current strategy for building stones • Local Plan policies for building stones • Minerals Core Strategy

Valuing the built heritage • Somerset’s building stones • Conservation Areas

Resource and source • Supply of building stone • Demand for building stone • Reclamation of used stone • Use of reconstituted stone • Use of imported stone • Dressing of stone

Quarrying of building stones • Re-opening of former quarries and new quarries • Scale of extraction • Impacts of quarrying • Restoration and afteruse • Mineral Safeguarding Areas

5.1 Policy background and framework

Question 1 Should there be a mechanism in place to help match policies and decisions relating to the provision of local building stone (e.g. within the MCS) with policies relating to the demand for local building stone (e.g. local district Conservation Areas, new housing allocations)?

A total of 26 responses were received in relation to Question 1. The overwhelming number of responses were in favour of a link between policies in the MCS and local development plans. A number of concerns were raised however that certain building stones served a much larger area than would be considered as ‘local’ and therefore policies restricting stone use to the local area would be problematical.

• [R51] ‘Ham Hill stone has been used in the construction of historic buildings from Cornwall in the west to Kent in the east, and from Hampshire in the south to Cambridgeshire in the north.’ • [R53] ‘Yes, it is very important to match supply and demand.’ • [R60] ‘Should the policy also reflect on the demand for some Somerset stones outside the County.’

[R15.2] ‘There should definitely be a mechanism to match the provision of building stone to the demand. There is clearly a demand for a range of local building stones within the County, this is not currently matched to supply as many local stones are simply not available as fresh quarried material.’

[R61] ‘There should be some mechanism to help ensure that, where development is proposed and policies would expect that local stone would be required, the supply of stone would as far as possible be available.’

5.2 Valuing the built heritage

Question 2 Is the importance and use of local building stone as part of Somerset’s built heritage and local character recognised and/or promoted enough?

Twenty-seven responses were received to Question 2, the majority of comments said that the importance and use of local stone was not recognised enough. It was generally felt that more emphasis should be placed on translating the importance of using local stone into actual strategy.

• [R15.2] ‘If there is a relaxation in planning control on building in villages new supplies of stone are likely to be needed or buildings will be constructed with inappropriate materials.’ • [R65] ‘The local heritage in any district is closely linked to the local building materials and it’s use should be recognised and promoted as much as possible.’

[R22.1] ‘We would suggest that whilst there might be recognition in relation to formally identified heritage there could be more promotion in relation to local character.’

[R63] ‘Building stone is by definition one of the things that creates and defines local distinctiveness.’

5.3 Resource and source

Question 3 How much local building stone (if any) are you or your organisation likely to need over the next 15 years? Is this mainly for restoration, conservation, ornamental, decorative or new build works?

Question 3 received a total of fourteen responses, the lowest number of any question, possibly because it was targeted at users of building stone in an attempt to establish if the future demand for building stone was understood.

• [R46] ‘Probably for facing new buildings rather than restoration work.’ • [R15.2] ‘Promoting the restoration of traditional farm buildings and dry stone walls.’

[R52] ‘Possibly a few extensions and one or two new builds.’

[R64] ‘The use is mainly for restoration, conservation and ornamental/decorative purposes. For new-builds (ie extensions) we might undertake one or two a year.’

Question 4 Is the need for building stone for conservation / restoration work similar to that for new buildings, or is the importance / demand of one greater than the other?

This question generated 18 responses. A number of quarry operators said that it was not possible to extract stone for one particular application and that stone suitable for restoration work occurred along with stone that was used for new build. Maximising sales of stone was important to ensure profitability of quarry sites.

There was no clear view that the demand or importance was greater for conservation or for new build.

• [R54] ‘The demand for new build in Paulton is greater than that for conservation.’ • [R59] ‘Building stone is required for all purposes and supply should not be restricted to any one type of development or another. Every quarry operator and supplier of stone needs the widest possible customer base to survive in a difficult market.’

[R51] ‘The supply of stone for conservation/restoration without the ability to supply for new build is not a financially viable proposition for many quarries and in the case of Ham Hill Quarry (South), would be meaningless, since the upper beds (only suitable for new build) need to be extracted before the lower beds (suitable for conservation/restoration) can be accessed.’

[R60] ‘Adequate supplies of appropriate stone are essential in repair and maintenance of historic buildings and structures but are also important for new building using traditional local materials.’

[R9.3] ‘New build can sometimes use stone that would not be suitable for heritage related work, therefore adding to a quarry’s economic viability.’

Question 5 How can the Minerals Planning Authority facilitate the recycling of local building stone for use by the industry?

This question also prompted 18 responses which were evenly balanced between those in favour of policy support for recycling and those that said it was not an issue for the MPA. A number of concerns were raised about the theft of natural stone materials.

 [R51] ‘Ham Hill Stone is recycled at Ham Hill Quarry (South) wherever possible. Stone is purchased from demolished buildings for recycling. Off- cuts from saws are stored for use on other less demanding projects.’  [R60] ‘The MPA might consider keeping a register of reputable companies undertaking the recycling of stone but considerable caution is needed because of the danger that some demolition might be undertaken in order to secure supplies of valuable stone.’

[R22.1] ‘The re-use of stone has obvious benefits and could reduce the transport impacts of importing stone.’

[R64] ‘In an ideal world it would be by having a facility where recycled stone could be stored and sourced to match the original stone needed in conservation projects.’

Question 6 Where the use of natural stone is impractical (for example, for economic or non-availability reasons), does reconstituted or cast stone offer an alternative material for heritage and aesthetic (e.g. matching) purposes? Should the MCS provide guidance on the use of such reconstituted stone?

Twenty-six responses were received and a variety of comments were provided. A strong theme within the responses was the need for a greater availability of natural stone supplies rather than a use of reconstituted stone.

• [R15.2] ‘What is needed is a supply of stone not a relaxation of standards to allow the use of aesthetically inferior materials’. • [R54] ‘Whenever work is undertaken in a conservation area, or to a listed building economic factors should be discounted as an excuse to use reconstituted stone.’ • [R67] ‘It is important that the planning authority encourages the availability of local building materials from local quarries.’

[R62] ‘It is important that the planning authority encourages the availability of local building materials from local quarries. Examples can be seen all over the country where sources of natural stone have, in the past, dried up and extensions, garages, repairs etc have been carried out in Bradstone or brick. The permanent hotchpotch that has resulted does no credit to the planning system whatsoever.’

[R9.3] ‘We would not advocate the use of such materials in the context of heritage assets.’

Question 7 Should imported stone be used in preference to local Somerset or UK sourced stone where suitable stone is available and economically viable to use?

A total of 29 responses were received to this question, the second highest number of comments received for any question. All the responses were very much against the use of imported stone and there was a clear preference for the use of Somerset stone wherever possible. A number of responses raised the issue of compatibility of imported stone due to differences in durability and weathering.

• [R51] ‘The use of locally sourced stone has not only less impact on the environment, but also contributes to local employment and industry, and retains and promotes the important cultural resource of stonemasonry.’ • [R25] ‘Using locally sourced or UK stone would appear to be more sustainable in terms of carbon footprint.’ • [R54] ‘The preference must always be local Somerset stone.’ • [R34] ‘No, except for cases of extreme need.’

[R57] ‘Imported stone should not be used, however, it should be made easier to gain permission from planners to extract local stones.’

[R60] ‘Suitable matching stone to that in existing structures (ie stone from the original source) should be used in preference, wherever practicable, because of compatible properties and appearances.’

Question 8 Should there be a ‘hierarchy’ or ‘order of preference’ for the sourcing and use of building stone? For example, reclamation of used local stone, then use of fresh quarried local stone, then use of UK sourced stone, then use of imported stone, then use of reconstituted stone?

The twenty-seven responses to Question 8 were generally in favour of some form of hierarchy for the sourcing and use of building stone similar to that proposed. A number of responses, however, suggested that materials were purchased for a variety of reasons rather than simply being from local supplies.

• [R46] ‘Choice should be based on carbon footprint.’ • [R51] ‘The most important characteristic of stone used in the built environment is that it should be indigenous to the area, matching and complimenting existing stone buildings.’ • [R36.2] ‘Yes. Preferably in the following order – reclaimed local stone, reconstituted local stone (for new build), UK sourced stone and finally imported stone.

[R59] ‘No. Customers purchase stone for many different reasons including colour, texture, weathering quality, size, etc and not simply based upon local availability.’

[R9.3] ‘We would support this approach with the caveat that reuse of materials can lead to stealing materials or illegal demolition.’

Question 9 Are there any benefits or preferences in maintaining on-site stone dressing and cutting facilities (e.g. at the quarry source) or should these be operated off-site?

Twenty-six representations were received for this question. The majority of responses were clear that there were potential benefits to processing on site including reduction of transport. Several respondents suggested a central cutting yard with satellite quarry operations while others recommended a site by site approach.

• [R25] ‘We feel that the stone dressing and cutting should be at the quarry source to contain operations within the same location (to reduce transport impacts and carbon footprint).’ • [R58] ‘Yes there are benefits in maintaining on site stone dressing and cutting facilities, at the building stone quarry, since the noise and other impacts of carrying out the dressing and cutting would be likely to be similar to those of extracting the stone itself. ‘ • [R60] ‘In the case of clusters of small quarries the best economic model may be a central processing plant serving all of them.’

[R48] ‘By working stone at the quarry the cost of transport can be kept to a minimum. This assumes that the demand will be enough to justify setting up processing equipment at the quarry. The advantage of establishing a workforce familiar with the peculiarities of a particular material should not be overlooked.’

[R63] ‘On site dressing would mean that only material that is used is transported and energy is not wasted. This is of course why the traditional practice of masonry work completed at the quarry was developed.’

5.4 Quarrying of Building Stones

Question 10 Should there be a ‘hierarchy’ or ‘order of preference’ relating to the quarrying of fresh building stone where geological resources are available? For example, the lateral extension or deepening of existing quarries, the re- opening of former quarries of the opening of new quarries?

The 28 responses to this question were fairly evenly divided between the hierarchy suggested, favouring lateral extensions, and a case by case assessment of individual sites in order to determine the level of environmental impact.

• [R56.1] ‘I think it would be best to work with what is open already, then look at re-opening existing quarries before excavating new ones.’ • [R36.2] ‘Each site should be taken on its individual merits or demerits.’ • [R67] ‘No. Each quarry should be considered on a case by case basis as the ability to either deepen or laterally extend will depend on the nature of the resource and the environmental constraints.’

[R58] ‘I do not see a need for such a hierarchy. I feel it would be more important to assess the impacts of the various alternatives against development management policies and see which is the most acceptable.’

[R60] ‘It makes sense in economic and sustainability terms to make full use of existing quarries and to extend these where geological conditions and environmental considerations are suitable.’

Question 11 Are there any benefits in the re-opening of former quarries instead of creating new quarries?

Twenty-six responses were received to this question and provided mixed views whether the reopening of quarries would be preferable or at least should be considered before new sites were to be opened. It was also pointed out that reopening of sites could not be relied on exclusively as sites would eventually become exhausted at some point in the future. Environmental impacts from any proposals were important factors.

• [R15.2] ‘They are likely to provide an exact match of stone and are likely to have reasonable access. Opening should only be supported however where environmental impact is likely to be lower than opening a new quarry.’ • [R54] ‘The overall impact would not be as great as opening up a new quarry, therefore this is an acceptable option.’ • [R62] ‘New quarries will be required where a stone is no longer available in existing quarries’.

[R15.2] ‘Reopening should only be supported however where environmental impact is likely to be lower than opening a new quarry.’

[R66] ‘I think this would be perceived as less intrusive and disruptive than opening a new quarry.’

[R36.1] ‘We are aware that some former quarries may have become valuable wildlife habitats, however we consider that the benefit of being able to supply the correct vernacular material for building and the importance of this in ensuring that landscape character is not lost, outweighs the temporary loss of habitat.’

Question 12 Should preference be given to the use of more, smaller quarries as a source of local building stone, or fewer larger quarries supplying the county’s needs where possible?

This question received the largest number of responses, 30 in total. The large majority of responses preferred the option of more, smaller quarries to supply the County’s needs.

• [R50] ‘Small is often adequate for needs in conservation requirements.’ • [R18.2] ‘More, smaller quarries is much more likely to provide the subtle variety of stone types which the report shows presently exist and that variety needs to be preserved.’ • [R15.2] ‘It would seem that if we are to provide the best coverage of stone types a number of smaller quarries will be required alongside the larger ones’ • [R63] ‘Smaller local quarries would help preserve the local distinctiveness and help to promote a small business economy.’

[R55] ‘More, smaller as more likely to supply specific needs. More flexible, less concentrated disturbance, more local distinctiveness.’

[R34] ‘Generally smaller, local quarries to cut down transport.’

Question 13 Under what circumstances (if any), should the opening of quarries for small scale extraction of local, specialist building stone types (e.g. 1000 – 2500 tonnes per annum) be considered?

A total of 24 responses were received on this question with the majority of views being that local demand or a demand that could not be met from elsewhere would be sufficient justification for the opening of new quarries.

• [R47] ‘Sufficient demand and suitable location.’ • [R53] ‘Where a locally arising need develops.’ • [R59] ‘The widest possible range of stones should be made available. Small quarries are generally sustainable and have few environmental impacts. Therefore the development of small quarries to produce small quantities of specialist materials for traditional purposes should be encouraged and supported.’

[R64] ‘In order to match existing stone types.’

[R36.1] ‘In order to ensure landscape character is not lost or further eroded, CPRE Somerset supports the need to provide building stone for new building work as well as conservation work. Some parts of the County have a ready supply of vernacular building material, whereas in other areas, particularly in West Somerset and Dean, there would appear to be few or no quarries supplying local building stone.’

[R9.3] ‘Ideally we need supplies of all stone types used historically, especially those that have conservation issues. Where none of a particular type is available within the region consideration should be given to opening new quarries.’

Question 14 What potential impacts of quarrying mentioned above are particularly relevant or concerning for Somerset, and are there other issues not mentioned?

This question on potential impacts received a large and varied reply from a total of 21 respondents. Several responses listed a single impact that was relevant to their area of interest whereas a number of impacts were listed in many of the responses. The positive benefits of using traditional building materials was also mentioned.

Traffic was identified as being relevant more than any other impact.

• [R55] ‘Balance of controlled small scale and short duration quarrying for local stone against disturbance.’ • [R56.2] ‘Locally the HGVs using unsuitable roads are a major issue.’ • [R63] ‘Increase in road traffic.’

[R15.2] ‘All the impacts are relevant but may not be great in many circumstances. There is however another impact arising from the failure to supply. This is the deterioration of important existing buildings and the construction of inappropriate buildings in our towns and villages.’

[R60] ‘The potential impacts of operations are fairly stated in the consultation document. While all sites should be designed and managed to minimise adverse environmental and other impacts it should be recognised that small sites may have fewer impacts than large ones. Policies and planning conditions should be proportionate to the potential impacts of the proposed operations.’

Question 15 How important is the carbon footprint of quarrying, working and transporting local building stone? How can it be mitigated?

Twenty-five responses were received to this question. The vast majority suggested that the carbon footprint linked with transportation was the most important issue. Consequently stone supplied from local quarries was preferable.

• [R18.2] ‘It may be best to try to avoid the most obvious high carbon practices such as importing stone from abroad.’ • [R52] ‘Important but not overriding factor given rarity of stone.’ • [R54] ‘The more local the stone and use, the lower the carbon footprint.’ • [R36.2] ‘The transportation of building stone must be the major problem here. The quarrying of this stone is considerably less than that in aggregate quarries. The shorter the materials travel the better.’

[R51] ‘All contributions to the carbon footprint should be minimised. Local quarrying for stone supplied to the local area will of necessity result in a lower carbon footprint than the importation of stone from other areas’

[R25] ‘Minimising the carbon footprint of quarrying , working and transporting local building stone should be a key priority in terms of addressing the challenges of climate change.’

Question 16 What are the opportunities and priorities for the future restoration and after- use of completed building stone quarries?

The 22 responses received provided a wide variety of suggestions for restoration and afteruse although uses should be appropriate to the local area. Potential uses included agriculture, forestry, amenity, nature conservation, geodiversity, water resources, public access, housing, industry and retail. Several responses were against any built development or intensification of use.

• [R18.2] ‘Progressive restoration is generally desirable. Final landform achievable is likely to be a major factor re after-use and in some cases some stone extraction may have to be forfeited to achieve a final landform that is safe, appropriate to location and therefore a variety of after-use.’ • [R59] ‘Restoration options and priorities will be site specific. If an economic return is not available there is a danger that the land will be inadequately managed and the afteruse will fail.’ • [R36.2] ‘Agriculture, nature conservation or forestry depending on the size and configuration of each specific site. Not any form of industry or built development.’

[R15.2] ‘This is to some extent dependant on location but there are a range of afteruses including housing, light industrial, retail, restoration to agriculture/forestry, restoration to nature conservation.’

[R60] ‘Completed building stone quarries can make significant contributions to biodiversity and geodiversity.’

Question 17 Should areas of proven local building stone sources be safeguarded for future extraction, and if so, how?

Twenty-two responses were received on the safeguarding question. The vast majority of responses were in agreement that proven building stone sources should be safeguarded.

• [R54] ‘I am of the opinion that it is most important that what is after all a very valuable commodity should be safeguarded; all such areas should be identified and protected by planning conditions enforced by law.’ • [R9.3] ‘Ideally yes. Selected resources should be safeguarded from other forms of development if at all possible through the LDF process.’ • [R17.2] ‘Yes, it should be a consideration when determining applications for uses which would sterilise the stone resource.’

[R60] ‘Yes, selected key resources should be safeguarded from other forms of development that may prevent their future extraction.’

[R61] ‘Certainly, they should be protected from development that would or could prevent future exploitation.’

Question 18 If developments threaten to sterilise proven valuable resources of building stone, should these be extracted and stored prior to the development commencing?

There were 22 replies to this question. Responses were mixed with some agreeing that stone should be extracted and stored whilst others suggested the development that would sterilise the building stone should not be allowed to proceed. Other responses identified potential issues with the storage of building stone including deterioration.

• [R18.2] ‘Possibly. These reserves would need to be in very scarce supply to justify this approach.’ • [R59] ‘No, the development should not go ahead.’ • [R9.3] ‘Again this should be achieved if at all possible.’

[R15.2] ‘Again the answer is yes provided this can be done without deterioration of the stone. Some formal arrangement may be needed to provide such storage but in some circumstances existing working, dormant or disused quarries could be used.’

[R63] ‘It would be better to stop the development, otherwise make it a condition that the developer removes and stores at their expense the reserves of building stone.’

[R34] ‘Yes. The stone has been destroyed. It should be extracted and stored.’

6. Other Issues

A number of responses mentioned the costs, time and uncertainties associated with the current planning system as reasons why planning applications were not forthcoming for building stone extraction.

[R59] ‘The County Council should recognise the importance of Somerset’s stone by relaxing the planning process. The process is comparable with the application process for major aggregate quarries and is not necessary.’

[R67] ‘The planning process for small stone quarries is unnecessarily complex, time consuming and expensive and most are operated by relatively small businesses.’

7. Feedback on the consultation

The format of the consultation paper received a number of positive comments. Written comments included the following:

• [R49] ‘It is a well set out and easy to read document.’ • [R22.1] ‘Thank you for a well written paper.’ • [R58] ‘The information on Somerset’s building stones is very interesting and informative.’ • [R65] ‘The paper is very comprehensive and I found it very interesting, I hope a good conclusion for the natural stone industry comes out of it.’

8. Key Issues

8.1 Policy background and framework Links with local development plans It was clear that a link between policies in the MCS and local development plans was welcomed by respondents. No proposals were put forward about the form of policy link but it is clear that MCS policies should provide a favourable background for building stone development particularly where there was a local requirement for building stones.

8.2 Valuing the built heritage Building stone as part of Somerset’s heritage and character It was generally thought that the importance of local building stone was not recognised or promoted enough and that it was important to do so in order to ensure that the character of Somerset’s built heritage was not diminished.

8.3 Resource and source Demand for building stone The likely long term requirement for building stone was clearly difficult to determine in any precise manner and similarly it was difficult to differentiate or forecast between demand for conservation work and for new build.

Conservation or new build Whilst there is an ongoing demand for building stone materials the requirement for both conservation work and for new build is made up of a multitude of relatively small scale projects. There are very few projects with large volumes or of a long duration which would create a substantial long term demand for building stone.

Reclamation of building stone The principle of recycling of building stones was supported but there were clear concerns how this could effectively be achieved in the MCS. It was perhaps a matter more for local development plans if there were to be any policy framework.

Use of reconstituted stone The use of reconstituted stone was not favoured by the majority of respondents either for conservation work or for new build. Local stone supplies were to be preferred in order to maintain local character.

Use of imported stone There were strong views that the use of local stone was preferred to the use of imported stone in order to minimise transport and to maintain local character.

Sourcing building stone Similarly there was general support for an order of preference for sourcing building stones with the use of reclaimed local stone or freshly quarried local stone being preferred to imports or reconstituted stone.

Dressing of stone Most respondents preferred the on-site treatment of stone primarily in order to minimise transport.

8.4 Quarrying of building stones Future quarrying There were mixed responses about an order of preference for further quarrying with no overriding view concerning extensions, reopening old quarries or opening new quarries. The environmental impacts of proposals were important factors to be considered.

Reopening old sites Similarly there was no clear preference for reopening of old quarry sites and environmental impacts were important factors that needed to be understood. The benefit of opening old sites was the potential to match the characteristics of previously quarried stone.

Scale of extraction There was a very clear preference for more, smaller quarries to meet the needs for building stones rather than fewer, larger sites.

Reasons for opening new quarries The main requirement for opening new, small scale quarries was primarily to supply local demand.

Impacts of quarrying Traffic was considered one of the more important potential issues although a wide variety of impacts were identified in the various responses. Transport was also linked to the size of the carbon footprint from operations. Local supplies of stone were seen as effective in minimising transport impacts and the carbon footprint.

Carbon footprint A wide range of suggestions were received regarding restoration and afteruse of sites including agriculture, forestry, amenity, nature conservation, geodiversity, water resources, public access, housing, industry and retail.

Safeguarding and sterilisation The safeguarding of proven building stone resources was regarded as being important by the majority of respondents. However there was less consensus amongst respondents about the merits or practicalities of prior extraction of building stone if resources were likely to be sterilised by other developments.

9. Concluding remarks In conclusion, the Somerset Building Stones Paper received 35 representations from a wide variety of consultees. Responses to the questions asked were sometimes varied perhaps reflecting the range of consultees although there was a strong level of consensus on a number of the issues.

Appendix A – Consultees Specific Consultation Bodies Building Stone Industry Government Office for the South West Capton Quarry Natural England Downslade Quarry Environment Agency Tout Quarry English Heritage South West Region Lakeview Quarry South West Regional Development Ashen Cross Quarry Agency Wessex Water Ham Hill (South) Water Ham Hill (North) South West Water Doulting (Chelynch) Quarry West Cranmore Quarry General Consultation Bodies Grove Farm Quarry CPRE Stalbridge Quarries Ltd The RSPB (SW) Hadspen Quarry Someset Wildlife Trust Wells Cathedral Stonemasons Ltd Forestry Commission (SW) Ham & Doulting Stone Co. Ltd Mendip Environment Forum Harvey Stone Quarry and Stonemasons Country Land and Business Association Luke Grafton Stonemason Ltd (CLA) Crown Estate Office Glynwoods & Plint Frieght Transport Association Glynwoods & Plint Friends of the Earth (SW) Stone Masons Somer Valley Friends of the Earth Yenstone Walling & Paving MIRO Somerset Stone Craft National Farmers Union James Wheeler Stonemasons Minerals Products Association Wolfstone Ltd BGS Westone Masonry Ltd CLG The Stoneman Campaign to Protect Rural England Peter Hayman Stone Mason Chamber of Commerce Country Matters Somerset Drainage Board Consortium (Indep.) Stone Masons Somerset Association of Local Councils Tom Clark Stone Carver Bristol University Drivestyle Asham & East Mendip Group Stonemasons Stone Federation Great Britain Consultants National Stone Centre Clarkewillmott National Trust (Wessex Region) Cooper & Tanner Geoconservation Commission Atkins Ltd Royal Institute British Architects - Somerset Branch Land & Mineral Management Ltd Landscape Institute (SW branch) Peter Brett Associates Somerset Geology Group S L R Consultancy Ltd Combe Sydenham Estate Capita Symonds Local Geologists Land Use Consultants English Stone Forum Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Institue of Historic Building Conservation Jonathan Rhind Architects Ltd Lydford-on-Fosse Parish Council Martock Parish Council Councils (District, Adjacent/SW Milborne Port Parish Council County’s and Districts) Council Montacute Parish Council District Council Muchelney Parish Council Taunton Deane Borough Council Norton Sub Hamdon Parish Council West Somerset Council Nynehead Parish Council Devon County Council Odcombe Parish Council Dorset County Council Pilton Parish Council Bath & North East Somerset Pitcombe Parish Council East Devon District Council Pitney Parish Council Mid Devon District Council Sampford Brett Parish Council West Dorset District Council Town Council Bristol City Council Shepton Montague Parish Council Plymouth City Council Somerton Town Council Poole Borough Council Stoke St Michael Parish Council Swindon Borough Council Stoke Sub Hamdon Parish Council Cornwall County Council Tintinhull Parish Council Gloucestershire County Council Wellington Town Council South Gloucestershire Council Wellington Without Parish Council West Buckland Parish Council Parish Councils West Camel Parish Council Abbas and Templecombe Parish Council Williton Parish Council Ash Parish Council Yeovilton Parish Council Ashwick Parish Council Babcary Parish Council Adjacent Parish Councils Barton St. David Parish Council Cameley Parish Council Bradford -on-Tone Parish Council Compton Martin Parish Council Butleigh Parish Council East Harptree Parish Council Town Council Farrington Gurney Parish Council Charlton Horethorne Parish Council Hinton Blewett Parish Council Charlton Mackrell Parish Council Hinton Charterhouse Parish Council Chiselborough Parish Council Norton Town Council Compton Dundon Parish Council Paulton Parish Council Cranmore Parish Council Shoscombe Parish Council Doulting Parish Council Ubley Parish Council Evercreech Parish Council Wellow Parish Council Henstridge Parish Council West Harptree Parish Council High Ham Parish Council Oakford Parish Huish Episcopi Parish Council Morebath Parish Ilchester Parish Council Bampton Parish Keinton Mandeville Parish Council Holcombe Rogus Parish Kingsdon Parish Council Culmstock Parish Kingweston Parish Council Hemyock Parish Long Load Parish Council Clayhidon Parish Long Sutton Parish Council Upottery Parish Adjacent Parish Councils Continued Yarcombe Parish Bradford Abbas Parish Council Broadwindsor Parish Council Clifton Maybank Parish Council Goathill Parish Council Halstock Parish Council Lyme Regis Parish Council Marshwood Parish Council Melbury Abbas Parish Council Melbury Osmond Parish Council Mosterton Parish Council Oborne Parish Council Over Compton Parish Council Poyntington Parish Council Purse Caundle Parish Council Ryme Intrinseca Parish Council Sandford Orcas Parish Council Seaborough Parish Council South Perrott Parish Council Thorncombe Parish Council Wootton Fitzpaine Parish Council Maiden Bradley with Yarnfield Parish Council Chapmanslade Parish Council Corsley Parish Council Dilton Marsh Parish Council Horningsham Parish Council Southwick Parish Council Wingfield Parish Council Weston Super Mare Parish Council Bleedon Parish Council Loxston Parish Council Winscombe Parish Council Churchill Parish Council Burrington Parish Council Blagdon Parish Council Butcombe Parish Council

Councillors Sedgemoor District Councillors Mendip District Councillors SCC Councillors

Internal Colleagues