Wiltshire and Swindon Aggregate Minerals Site Allocations Development Plan Document
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Wiltshire and Swindon Aggregate Minerals Site Allocations Plan Detailed schedule of all representations made during the formal consultation stage Comment ID: 95 Mr and Mrs Mark Freeman Land & Mineral Management Person ID: 393298 545732 Is the DPD legally compliant? Yes Ms Binnie Limited Consultant Is the DPD sound? No Comment Executive Summary 1 Oral participation? Yes point Reasons for not legally compliant What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD legally compliant? Reasons for not Wiltshire Council called for sites in 2004 and 2006. 62 were proposed but 55 were later dropped from consideration because they were considered to sound have overriding environmental constraints or were believed to be unsuitable for inclusion in the development plan. It is of great concern that Wiltshire is not seeking sufficient sites to fulfil its provision obligations when suitable sites are known to be available. At the same time, Wiltshire proposes to reduce its apportionment / provision because it believes there is insufficient mineral available. This is an abrogation of responsibility. There is a continuing demand for building materials as the Melksham area continues to develop and the Council must ensure an allocation of an adequate supply rather than relying on minerals imported from other counties. What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD sound? Other comments Reasons for oral To ensure full discussion of issues. participation Summary Concern that Wiltshire not seeking sufficient sites to fulfil its provision obligations when suitable sites are available. Abrogation of responsibility. Council must ensure adequate supply – demand for building materials in Melksham area. Comment ID: 111 Mr John Salmon Person ID: 637185 Is the DPD legally compliant? Is the DPD sound? Comment Executive Summary 1 Oral participation? point Reasons for not legally compliant What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD legally compliant? Reasons for not sound What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD sound? Other comments Wiltshire Council called for sites in 2004 and 2006. 62 were proposed but 55 were later dropped from consideration because they were considered to have overriding environmental constraints or were believed to be unsuitable for inclusion in the development plan. It is of great concern within the minerals industry that Wiltshire is not seeking sufficient sites to fulfil its provision obligations when suitable sites are known to be available. It is believed that sites may have been turned down based on information which is 6 or 8 years out of date. Others are known to have been dropped on scant information without full landowner or operator consultation. At the same time that Wiltshire has dropped 90% of the proposed sites, the County proposes to reduce its apportionment / provision because it believes there is insufficient mineral available to sustain it. This is an abrogation of responsibility. There is a continuing demand for building materials as Wiltshire, particularly the urban areas and north Wiltshire towns, continues to develop and the country is commencing its long haul out of recession. Wiltshire Council must not allow planning to be a bar to enterprise or economic recovery. It must ensure an allocation of an adequate supply of aggregates for use within the County’s boundaries rather than relying on minerals imported from other counties. Reasons for oral participation Summary Concern within minerals industry that Wiltshire is not seeking sufficient sites to fulfil its provision obligations when suitable sites are known to be available. Believed that sites may have been turned down based on out of date information and others dropped without full landowner/operator consultation. Reduction in apportionment is an abrogation of responsibility. Need to ensure adequate supply of aggregates for use within County. 18 Mrs Jane Bowker-Praed Person ID: 473261 Is the DPD legally compliant? Comment ID: Is the DPD sound? Comment 1. Introduction 2 Oral participation? point Reasons for not legally compliant What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD legally compliant? Reasons for not sound What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD sound? Other comments I live in Norley Lane, Studley, Calne right next to the proposed C12 site. I wrote a letter when the original consultation came out, but was then relieved to hear that Lord Lansdowne had withdrawn permission for three of the proposed sites. I am hoping that this is still the case. I live in an old stone property, number 114, and any gravel extraction in the next field could have a detrimental effect on foundations etc.The field is not level, but has a slope away from the properties so there is a possibility of ground slipping. The noise and dust pollution would be intolerable and the loss of agricultural land where deer and pheasants roam, plus the fact of our narrow lane having to be widened to allow access for the many lorries would be very inconvenient. The value of the property would drop and no doubt would be hard to sell if the occasion arose. How many people would be happy living right next door to a gravel extraction/waste site? Not many. if any. I await any reply. Reasons for oral participation Summary Objection to C12 site (previously withdrawn). Comment ID: 28 Christopher Evans Defence Infrastructure Organisation Person ID: 545685 Is the DPD legally compliant? Assistant Safeguarding Officer Is the DPD sound? Comment 1. Introduction 2 Oral participation? point Reasons for not legally compliant What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD legally compliant? Reasons for not sound What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD sound? Other comments The MOD is very concerned about the potential cumulative effect of the development of sites identified in the vicinity of RAF Fairford on aviation safety. Provision needs to be made to ensure that restoration and aftercare management of sites located in the birdstrike safeguarding zone are designed to ensure that birdstrike risk is not increased either as a result of the restoration of an individual site or as a consequence of increasing the bird attractants in an area in conjunction with other existing restoration sites and habit features in the area. The need to take account of the cumulative effect of permitting a new mineral site in proximity to another submitted site or an existing mineral site to increase birdstrike risk is identifed in Circular 01/03: Safeguarding Aerodromes, technical Sites and Military Explosive Storage Areas at Annex 2 – Aerodrome Safeguarding Maps: “Birdstrike Hazard. This states: “A local planning authority will need to consider not only the individual potential bird attractant features of a proposed development but also whether the development, when combined with existing land features, will make the safeguarded area, or parts of it, more attractive to birds or create a hazard such as bird flightlines across aircraft flightpaths”. Taking into account the coexistence of significant regional sand and gravel and a key military aerodrome of strategic importance to UK defence, the MOD considers it important that a restoration led approach is taken in identifying future mineral extraction sites for inclusion in the Minerals Development Plan Document. The MOD is willing to work with the council and developers to identify the most suitable address for each individual site. Reasons for oral participation Summary MOD concerned by potential cumulative effect of the development of sites identified in the vicinity of RAF Fairford on aviation safety. Provision needs to be made to ensure that restoration and aftercare management of sites located in the birdstrike safeguarding zone are designed to ensure that birdstrike risk is not increased either as a result of the restoration of an individual site or as a consequence of increasing the bird attractants in an area in conjunction with other existing restoration sites and habit features in the area. Taking into account the coexistence of significant regional sand and gravel and a key military aerodrome of strategic importance to UK defence, the MOD considers it important that a restoration led approach is taken in identifying future mineral extraction sites for inclusion in the Minerals DPD. The MOD is willing to work with the council and developers to identify the most suitable address for each individual site. Comment ID: 33 Mr Malcolm Watt Cotswolds Conservation Board Person ID: 198565 Is the DPD legally compliant? Yes Planning Officer Is the DPD sound? Yes Comment 1. Introduction 2 Oral participation? point Reasons for not legally compliant What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD legally compliant? Reasons for not sound What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD sound? Other comments Reasons for oral participation Summary DPD considered to be legally compliant and sound. No further comments. Comment ID: 35 Cllr Tim Ball Bath and North East Somerset Person ID: 633447 Is the DPD legally compliant? Council Cabinet Member for Homes and Is the DPD sound? Planning Comment 1. Introduction 2 Oral participation? point Reasons for not legally compliant What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD legally compliant? Reasons for not sound What change(s) are necessary to make the DPD sound? Other comments On behalf of Bath & North East Somerset Council I would like to express support for the Aggregate Minerals Site Allocations DPD. The document includes a thorough assessment of each site proposed and also discusses the potential for cumulative effects within and adjoining the Plan area. Owing to the location of the Cricklade sites these cumulative effects exclusively relate to Gloucestershire and in the cases of the other two, either no cumulative are identified or they are very local to the site and can be mitigated. On the basis of the information set out in consultation document it appears that the allocation of these sites for sand and gravel extraction is unlikely to have any adverse impact on Bath & North East Somerset.