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 EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SAC Special Area of Conserva- HER Historic Environment Record tion HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle SLA Special Landscaped Area HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment SNCI Site of Nature Conserva- tion KCC Kent County Council SPA Special Protection Area KHS Kent Highway Services SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest KWT Kent Wildlife Trust SWS Southern Water Site LDF Local Development Framework TMBC Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council LWS Local Wildlife Site 4 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) 2.0 Introduction 2.1 The Mineral Sites Development Plan Document (Options Stage) 2.5 As well as the online comments the Council also received a num- Commentary Report is the follow up document to the consultation for ber of petitions; the Mineral Sites Development Plan Document. The consultation pe- riod ran from the 31st of May 2011 to the 26th of July, however there Petition Amount of Signatures th was a 2 week extension until the 9 of August. Charing-Sites 201 10,16,62,69,74,77,85,86 and 87 Lenham- Sites 75 and 76 77 2.2 This document collates and summarises the responses for each of the sites to show the main reasons for support , objection or com- Hollowshore and Ham Farm- 616 menting from organisations and members of the public. The aim of Sites 25 and 26 this report is to create a clear and concise document showing the main issues put forward. If people wish to read full responses they Lydd Quarry- Site 73 (ongoing e- 21 may access them through the online consultation portal at; http:// petition) consult.kent.gov.uk/portal. This brought the total number of responses up to 2620. 2.3 Those responses put forward will be recorded as part of the site assessment. Data collection and site visit reports will then be formu- 2.6 The Council has received detailed reports on sites from the resi- lated, taking into consideration the emerging Minerals and Waste dents of Lenham, Badgers Mount and Shoreham Parish Council. Core Strategy policies and changes to national planning policy. The Preferred Options are due to be published and consulted upon in Reports were given to Minerals and Waste Development Framework May 2012. (MWDF) team outside of the consultation but the comments from these internal consultees are considered to be important in informing 2.4 The Mineral Sites ‘options’ consultation received the following the site selection process and so have been summarised for this re responses; port. Total Number of Responses 1705 Objection 1452 Comment 219 Support 34 5 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) 2.7 Sites with the most responses/objections; 2.9 There were some recurring concerns which applied to many of the sites. These comments included; Site Refer- Name ence Number •The suitability of roads 10 Pluckley Road, Charing •Damage to homes, both structurally and in terms of value 62 Newlands Farm, Charing 69 Burleigh Farm, Charing •Sites that are in or near to designated land 74 Charing Quarry •Public safety 75 Boltons Field, Lenham •Impact on biodiversity 76 Chapel Farm, Lenham 77 Burleigh Farm & Tile Lodge, Charing 2.10 Space is restricted in this report. All comments are valued and 5 Filston Lane will be taken into consideration in the site assessment process. Full 25 Ham Farm (Withdrawn) responses can be accessed via the online consultation portal; 26 Hollowshore http://consult.kent.gov.uk. 73 Lydd Quarry 7 Hermitage Quarry Westerly Extension 2.11 The graphs found in this report represent the number of re- 8 Chelsfield Ammunition Depot sponses for each site. The internal responses we received from 12 Newington Industrial Estate heritage, biodiversity and highways are not included in this data. 86 Charing Quarry (waste 2) 2.8 The other mineral sites had responses from within KCC or outside organisations but had fewer or no comments from members of the public. 6 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) 3 Site Proposals 3.3 Sharp Sand and Gravel Sites for Consideration 3.1 The following is a list of all sites submitted for consideration for minerals uses. The list contains their site reference number and the 2 Beltring Green Farm 33 relevant page in this document. 3.2 Soft Sand Sites for Consideration 3 Arnolds Lodge Farm 35 West 4 Woodfalls Farm 37 5 Filston Lane 39 Site Reference Num- Name Page Number ber 17 Moat Farm 41 6 Land Adjacent to Platt 11 Industrial Estate 25 Ham Farm 43 9 Celcon Works 13 26 Hollowshore 45 10 Pluckley Road, Charing 15 49 Land North and South 47 of Hammer Dyke 24 Land North of Addington 17 Lane 71 Stonecastle Farm 49 62 Newlands Farm, Char- 19 ing 73 Lydd Quarry 51 69 Burleigh Farm, Charing 21 3.4 Crushed Rock Sites for Consideration 74 Charing Quarry 23 75 Boltons Field, Lenham 25 7 Hermitage Quarry West- 53 erly Extension 76 Chapel Farm, Lenham 27 78 Richborough Under- 55 77 Burleigh Farm & Tile 29 97 Shrine Farm 31 7 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) 3.5 Silica Sand Sites for Consideration 3.9 Mineral Importation sites for Consideration Site Reference Num- Name Page Number 1 East Peckham Rail De- 73 ber pot 24 Land North of Addington 57 Lane 3.10 Secondary & Recycled Aggregate 62 Newlands Farm, Char- 59 ing 8 Chelsfield Ammunition 75 Depot 3.6 Chalk Sites for Consideration 12 Newington Industrial 77 Estate 16 Beacon Hill Quarry 61 21 FM Conway, Rochester 79 Way 56 Hegdale Quarry 63 45 Dunbrik Depot 81 63 Pinden Quarry 65 52 Weatherlees 83 56 Hegdale Quarry 85 3.7 Brickearth Sites for Consideration 65 Land North of Stevens 87 Carlotti 19 Paradise Farm 67 72 Unit 14 Canterbury In- 89 dustrial Park 92 Land at Bax Farm 69 79 Tilmanstone 91 80 Faversham Quarry 93 3.8 Clay Sites for Consideration 81 Milton Manor Farm 95 86 Charing Quarry 97 60 Norwood Quarry & 71 (waste2) Landfill Extension 91 Animal Products Site 99 8 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) 4.0 Mineral Sites Development Plan Document support 0 Responses regarding the complete Mineral Sites Develop- comment 17 Responses ment Plan Document object 15 0 5 10 15 20 Responses Port of London Authority None of the sites set out in the options consultation document are located in close proximity to the River Thames and therefore the PLA has no comments to make on the individual sites. However, it would appear to be useful in the introductory text to emphasise the point from the Core Strategy concerning the Council's aspi- rations regarding co-location of facilities. Kent Wildlife Trust We welcome the fact that the after use suggested is for biodiversity enhancement in the majority of cases. We understand that not all these sites will come forward in the final document, many of the sites proposed will ei- ther have a direct or indirect impact. Of particular concern is the impact from a number of sites proposed on the Swale SPA and Ramsar sites and surrounding areas likely to be used by the bird populations. Within the documents Local Wildlife Sites are either called County Wildlife Sites or Sites of Nature Conservation Interest. These sites were historically known as SNCIs however when they become recognised within national policy and administrated by the Biodiversity Action Groups rather than the Wildlife Trusts it was agreed that they would be known by one name, Local Wildlife Sites, and should be referenced as such to prevent confusion. Protect Kent We have serious concerns about the loss of prime agricultural land. We would expect to see the impacts mitigated through a phased approach. We wish to see these sites reinstated to agriculture. We have con- cerns about the impacts of all traffic movements on and in the vicinity of the proposed sites. We would ex- pect a full traffic study for each site. As some of the proposed sites cover a large area, if selected we would expect to see control over development through a phased approach. As some of the proposed sites are concentrated within one locality, we would expect to see sequential operation of the sites.