Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan
Planning for the future of minerals and waste in Kent
The 1st Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent
December 2012
TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC Contents i Abbreviations i
1 Introduction 1
2 Marine Dredged Aggregates 6
3 Importation of Crushed Rock and other aggregates into 14 Kent by Sea and Rail
4 Secondary and Aggregate Recycling in Kent 18
5 Exports, Imports and Consumption of Primary Aggregate 21 5.1 2011 Summary Data of all Aggregate Sales in Kent 24
6 Sub-regional Apportionment for Land-won Construction Aggregates and Comparison with the 10 Year Rolling 25 Average
7 Assessment of Permitted Reserves 31
8 Assessment of Required Provision 33 8.1 Sand and Gravel 33 8.2 Crushed Rock 34
9 Provision for Different Types of Land-won Construction 38 Aggregate 9.1 Sand and Gravel 38 9.2 Crushed Rock 44
10 Future Supply of Aggregates in Kent 45
11 Conclusions 47
12 References 50
Appendix A: SEEAWP letter to KCC (21st November 2012) 51 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Appendix B: Safeguarded Wharves and Rail Importation 54 Facilities
Contents Appendix C: Dredging Licence Areas from which Aggregate 63 is Imported into Kent and Medway
Appendix D: Current Aggregate Quarries in Kent 67 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC i i i Abbreviations Abbreviations
AMR Annual Monitoring Report
AWP Aggregate Working Party
BGS British Geological Survey
CDE Construction, Demolition & Excavation
DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government
EiP Examination in Public
KCC Kent County Council
LAA Local Aggregate Assessment
MASS Managed Aggregate Supply Systems
MDA Marine Dredged Aggregates
MPA Mineral Planning Authority
MPS Minerals Policy Statement
mt Million Tonnes
mtpa Million Tonnes Per Annum
MWLP Minerals and Waste Local Plan
NPPF National Planing Policy Framework
PFA Pulverised Fuel Ash
RAWP Regional Aggregate Working Party
RSS Regional Spatial Strategy
SEEAWP South East England Aggregates Working Party
South East England Regional Aggregates Working Party SEERAWP (name used prior to the revocation of RSSs) ii KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) Abbreviations i TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 1 1
1 Introduction Introduction
1.0.1 This document is a revised, updated version of the Kent County Council (KCC) Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP)(1) evidence base topic report dated May 2011, 'Construction Aggregates Apportionment and Need'(2).
1.0.2 It was updated in May 2012 to reflect the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)(3), which states that, "Mineral Planning Authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by: preparing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment, either individually or jointly by agreement with another or other mineral planning authorities, based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all of the supply options (including marine dredged, secondary and recycled sources)".
Later within the same paragraph in the NPPF, it explains that Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs) should be "making provision for the land-won and other elements of their Local Aggregate Assessment in their mineral plans taking account of the advice of the Aggregate Working Parties and the National Aggregate Co-ordinating Group as appropriate. Such provision should take the form of specific sites, preferred areas and/or areas of search and locational criteria as appropriate".
1.0.3 The draft Kent Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA) report was published for consultation at the same time as the Mineral Sites Plan and Waste Site Plan consultation documents at 'Preferred Options' stage. This consultation ran for 8 weeks between May 28th and July 23rd 2012. Since then, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) have prepared and published new mineral planning guidance on the subject of Managed Aggregate Supply Systems (MASS) which includes guidance on Local Aggregate Assessments(4).
1.0.4 Both the NPPF and the 2012 guidance on MASS require MPAs to take account of the advice of the relevant Aggregate Working Party on LAAs. The May 2012 Draft Kent LAA report was discussed at the October 2012 meeting of the South East England Aggregates Working Party (SEEAWP). The Aggregate Working Party provided its collated comments in relation to the May 2012 Draft LAA in a letter to KCC dated 21st November 2012. The SEEAWP letter is included as Appendix A.
1.0.5 The draft LAA was updated again in December 2012 in order to take into consideration the views of various consultees which were received in response to the May 2012 consultation, as well as the letter received from SEEAWP. In order to align it to the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), it also now includes data from the 2011 aggregate survey. It includes additional information on exports, imports and
1 Previously referred to as the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) 2 KCC (May 2011). Kent Minerals and Waste Development Framework. Minerals Topic Report 1: Construction Aggregate Apportionment and Need 3 DCLG (March 2012). National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 145 4 DCLG (October 2012). Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System 2 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
consumption of aggregates as well as future supply options for aggregates in Kent, as required by the 2012 guidance on MASS. This report is now being published as the first Kent LAA.
1.0.6 The 2012 guidance on the MASS strongly encourages MPAs to include the LAA within any AMRs as part of their responsibility of keeping the demand and supply Introduction of aggregates under regular review. As this first Kent LAA has been prepared 1 separately from the AMR, it is proposed to keep the two documents separate for the first year of its preparation.
1.0.7 This LAA report now contains details of the following:-
An introduction to the report;
Marine dredged aggregate supply;
Imports of crushed rock and other construction aggregates into Kent;
Recycled and secondary aggregates supply in Kent;
Sub-regional apportionment for land-won construction aggregates and a comparison with the rolling average of 10 years sales data for both sand and gravel and crushed rock;
Assessment of permitted reserves;
Assessment of required provision up to the end of 2030;
Provision for different types of land-won construction aggregates;
Future Supply of Aggregates in Kent;
Conclusions; and
References.
1.0.8 Construction aggregates are quantitatively the most significant group of minerals worked in Kent. A number of different types of construction aggregate have traditionally been extracted from quarries in Kent, including flint and sandstone gravels, ragstone and building sand. In addition, Kent has an important role in providing importation facilities for crushed rock and other imported land-won(5) aggregates as well as marine dredged aggregates which are landed at Kent's wharves and imports of crushed rock brought into Kent by rail.
5 Land-won aggregates are sand and gravel, crushed rock and building sand resources which are obtained from quarries TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 3 1 1.0.9 Construction aggregate supply in England has been managed through the Introduction MASS which has been intended to assist planning bodies and MPAs in the timely preparation and revision of their spatial strategies and preparation of strategic plans in a way that addresses effectively the geographical imbalances between the supply of, and demand for, aggregates at national level.
1.0.10 DCLG's role in relation to aggregate supply policy has covered two main areas:
The preparation of Minerals Policy Statements (MPSs) and the associated practice guides setting out both policy and guidance for minerals planning across England(6); and
Determination of National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregate Provision in England. These provide an overall aggregate supply target for England and for each region, including London and are given overleaf in Table 1(7).
6 The suite of MPSs has now been replaced by the NPPF and the associated Technical Guidance to the NPPF (DCLG March 2012) 7 DCLG (June 2009). National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregate Provision in England 2005–2020 4 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Table 1 - National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregate Provision 2005–2020 (figures refer to million tonnes, for the period 2005–2020, i.e. 16 years)
Guidelines Guidelines Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions
Introduction Land-won Land-won Marine
1 Alternative Net Imports Regions Sand and crushed Sand and Materials to England Gravel rock Gravel
South 195 25 121 130 31 East
London 18 0 72 95 12
East of 236 8 14 117 7 England
East 174 500 0 110 0 Midlands
West 165 82 0 100 23 Midlands
South 85 412 12 142 5 West
North 52 154 15 117 55 West
Yorkshire and 78 212 5 133 3 Humber
North 24 99 20 50 0 East
England 1028 1492 259 993 136 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 5 1 1.0.11 DCLG is also committed to the on-going funding of Aggregate Working Introduction Parties (AWPs) which were established to provide technical information on construction aggregate supply and demand at a regional level(8). In the past Regional Aggregate Working Parties (RAWPs) have undertaken annual monitoring of aggregates production, by type and use, and levels of permitted reserves; and every fourth year an expanded survey that includes data on transportation of aggregates, which allow levels of consumption of, and thus, demand for aggregates by region to be assessed. An expanded survey was last completed for 2009 data. Collated aggregate monitoring data for 2011 has been published in the KCC AMR(9). The South East England Aggregates Working Party report, reference SEERAWP 11/06, includes aggregates monitoring data for the South East of England for the 2010 calendar year(10).
1.0.12 Regional guidance and policies for aggregate minerals has been delivered through the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South East. The Government has announced its intention to abolish RSSs through the Localism Act 2011 however, currently RSSs are still a part of the development plan and so their relevance to planning for aggregates is recognised here.
1.0.13 At a local level MASS has been delivered through Minerals Planning Authorities (MPAs). As the MPA for Kent, KCC has needed to establish the level of provision to be made for land-won aggregates through the Minerals and Waste Plan (previously the Core Strategy) and its proposed Mineral Sites Plan.
1.0.14 KCC has been an active member of the AWP for the South East of England. It will continue to participate in the operation of the South East AWP in the future and recognises the importance of its work.
8 The role of the renamed 'Aggregate Working Parties' is identified in paragraph 145 of the NPPF 9 KCC (2012). 8th Annual Minerals and Waste Monitoring Report: 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012 10 SEERAWP 11/06 (October 2011). South East Aggregates Monitoring Report 2010 6 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
2 Marine Dredged Aggregates
2.0.1 Planning Policy Officers from KCC, in conjunction with Medway Council carried out a survey of mineral importation facilities in Kent and Medway in 2010. The results were incorporated into the 2010 Kent and Medway Mineral Imports Study(11). Whilst the 2010 imports study covered the areas of both Kent and Medway, the subject of this LAA is Kent only. Medway Council is making provision for its own aggregate provision within Medway Local Plans. The 2010 imports study built upon and updated an earlier joint Kent and Medway Imports study undertaken in 2006.
2.0.2 The 2010 Kent and Medway Mineral Imports Study summarised the policy context for considering mineral importation facilities in both Kent and Medway and confirmed the importance of safeguarding all of the existing Kent and Medway mineral importation facilities in order to comply with national minerals policy. Marine Dredged Aggregates 2 2.0.3 It identified the importance of Kent and Medway wharves and railheads for the importation of Marine Dredged Aggregates (MDA), crushed rock, other land-won aggregates, recycled and secondary aggregates, as well as other minerals including cement and salt.
2.0.4 There are currently fifteen active aggregate importation wharves in Kent and Medway (three of which are in Medway - Cliffe (Site I), Eurowharf, Frindsbury (Site K) and Isle of Grain (Site M)), and an additional one in Kent which has been granted planning permission but is not operational for aggregates - Wharf 42 (Northfleet) Site P in Table 3)(12). There are four active railheads in Kent. The location of the wharves and railheads in Kent and Medway is shown on Figure 1 opposite and site location plans are given in Appendix B.
11 KCC and Medway Council (March 2011). Kent and Medway Imports Study 12 Old Sun Wharf, Crete Hall Rd, Gravesend was granted planning permission by Gravesham Council in February 2012 for the continued use of the site as a ready mixed concrete batching plant and construction of maritime jetty for import of sand and stone by river. This is a relatively small site and it is not known by the MPA whether the jetty will be constructed to enable the importation of sand and stone by river. It is not currently proposed to include it within the list of safeguarded wharves and railheads in Kent TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 7 2 Figure 1 - Existing Wharves and Rail Aggregate Depots in Kent and Medway aieDegdAggregates Dredged Marine
010205 Kilometres Cliffe Terminal )" $ Isle of GrainSheerness Depot )" )")")" )" $ )" DA ME East Quay, Whistable Harbour GR $ )" Ridham Dock Frindsbury Peninsula )" TH SW )" Ramsgate New Port *#Allington Quarry CA SE TM MA # DO * East Peckham Quarry *#Hothfield Works
AS *#Sevington )" TW Dunkirk Jetty
Botany Marshes Johnsons Wharf SH Robins Wharf Legend Bulk Aggregates Import Wharf * Aggregate Importation Northfleet Cement Wharf * $ Medway Dredged Red Lion Wharf $ Medway Crushed Rock )" *# Primary Aggregate )" )" *# Secondary Aggregrate )" Denton Wharf )" )" )" Crushed Rock DA )" Sea Dredged GR ¯ )" Cement Railway SE * 42 Wharf (Northfleet) Mineral & Waste Authorities outside KCC (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2012
Existing Wharves and Rail Aggregate Depots in Kent and Medway
2.0.5 The 2010 Kent and Medway mineral imports study identified that at the time of the survey that the following types of construction aggregates were being imported into Kent and Medway (by ship, dredger and rail):
Primary aggregates including land-won crushed rock, land-won sand and marine dredged aggregates. Land-won aggregates from elsewhere in the UK are brought into the Kent and Medway wharves and railheads from Glensanda (Scotland), Belfast, Somerset, Devon, Leicestershire and Wales. Land-won sand is also imported into one of the wharves on the North Kent coast from Denmark. Much of the crushed rock imported into Kent is from Norway. Granite is also imported from Calais and Northern Ireland. In the past limestone has been imported into one of the North Kent wharves from Morocco;
Secondary and recycled aggregates including slag (imported into three of the North Kent wharves from locations in France as well as Flushing (the Netherlands), and Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) from Spain and Denmark, and recycled aggregates from Rotterdam (Holland) which is imported into one of the North Kent wharves; and
Marine dredged aggregates imported into the Kent and Medway wharves which are generally derived from dredging grounds in the Eastern English Channel, Thames Estuary, off the Isle of Wight (South Coast region) and Eastern England. The plans in Appendix C show the location of these dredging grounds. 8 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
2.0.6 Marine dredged sand and gravel is a major source of construction aggregates for Kent and some of the material imported into Kent is shipped onwards to other parts of the South East of England, London and East Anglia. The 2010 Kent and Medway Mineral Imports Study identifies that since 1999, wharves in Kent have enabled the county to be the biggest importer of marine dredged sand and gravel in the South East Region (in 9 out of 10 years up to 2008). In addition Medway is now the second biggest importer of marine dredged sand and gravel in the South East. Combined, Kent and Medway were responsible for 57% of all the marine dredged aggregates imported into the South East in 2008. More recent data (up to and including 2010) is given in the SEERAWP South East Aggregates Monitoring Report 2010 (October 2011)(13).
2.0.7 The 2010 mineral import study report remains valid as it gives summary results of the site visits and operator interviews which were conducted in 2010. Since Marine Dredged Aggregates 2010 there have been no known closures or significantly changes in relation to the 2 facilities. It is proposed to update the Kent and Medway 2010 Mineral Imports Study in 2013, to coincide with the publication of the pre-submission edition of the Kent Minerals and Waste Plan (formerly the Core Strategy).
2.0.8 Data for Marine Dredged Aggregate Landings at Kent Wharves between 2002 and 2011 is given below in Table 2. Data for Medway wharves is recorded separately in this survey. The figure for 2011 is considerably higher than that identified by the Crown Estate by about 300,000 tonnes (given in paragraph 2.0.21 below). The figures in Table 2 below are taken from operator responses to the annual aggregate monitoring survey and include marine dredged aggregates transferred from wharves in other regions as well as maintenance dredged materials.
Table 2 - Landings of Marine Dredged Sand and Gravel in Kent Wharves 2000–2011 (thousand tonnes per year)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average
1856 1804 1498 1669 1818 2062 1813 1409 1340 1845 1711.5
2.0.9 Table 3 opposite is taken from the 2010 imports study and shows Marine Dredged Aggregate imports (by sea) into Kent and Medway in 2009. This data was primarily taken from the Crown Estate Licences Summary of Statistics 2009(14). More recent data for 2010 and 2011 has now been published, but this is not so easy to disaggregate into individual wharves. A summary of Kent and Medway marine dredged aggregate import data for 2011 is given in Table 4 (page 10).
13 SEERAWP (October 2011). South East Aggregates Monitoring Report 2010 South East England Aggregates Working Party 14 Crown Estate (2009). Marine Aggregates: The Crown Estate Licences Summary of Statistics 2009 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 9 2 Table 3 - Imports of Marine Dredged Aggregates into Kent and Medway (by aieDegdAggregates Dredged Marine Sea) Using Crown Estate Licences 2009 Statistics (Sites shown in Red are in Medway)
Site Crown Estate Site Operator Tonnes Code Region
Ridham Dock Tarmac E Thames Estuary 148,778
Johnson's Wharf Lafarge F Thames Estuary 231,478
Robin's Wharf AI G *3
Denton Wharf Clubb H Thames Estuary 256,371
Cliffe Brett I Thames Estuary 1,115,606
East Quay, Brett J *3 Whitstable
Eurowharf Hanson K Thames Estuary 286,886 (Frindsbury)
Red Lion Wharf Stema L *3
Isle of Grain AI M *3
Ramsgate New Port Brett N *2 *2
Robins Wharf Brett O Thames Estuary *1
42 Wharf Lafarge P *4 *5 (Northfleet)
East English Dunkirk Jetty, Dover Brett Q 110,931 Channel
Ridham Dock Brett R *3
Northfleet Wharf Lafarge S *3
Sheerness AI T Thames Estuary 13,464
Botany Marshes Cemex U Thames Estuary 661,646*1
Footnotes:
*1 - Botany Marshes and Robins Wharf (Brett) marine dredged aggregate landings are reported as one figure for 'Northfleet' in the Crown Estates 2009 data charts. 10 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
*2 - Brett started to import processed marine dredged aggregates from another wharf in another region into Ramsgate in 2009. Therefore the Ramsgate landings are counted in a different region and do not appear in the Crown Estate data.
*3 - The other wharves listed in this chart, but not showing any marine dredged aggregate tonnage, are importing crushed rock from a variety of locations, secondary and recycled aggregates including slag and PFA, as well as some land-won sand from sites in Europe. Some of the wharves also import other minerals including salt and cement in bulk.
*4 and *5 - 42 Wharf (Northfleet) was granted Planning Permission in 2010 subject to the resolution of legal agreements. The legal agreements are now agreed, but it does not at present import marine dredged aggregates, but continues to be used to import cement. Marine Dredged Aggregates
2 Sites I, K and M are shown in red font as they are situated in Medway.
Wharf 42 (Northfleet) is reported as Bevans Wharf in the 2010 Kent and Medway Minerals Imports study and in the SEEAWP Annual Monitoring Report for 2010.
2.0.10 The Crown Estate Licences Marine Aggregates Summary of Statistics for 2011 has provided the following information for the Kent and Medway wharves.
Table 4 - Imports of Marine Dredged Aggregates into Kent and Medway (by Sea) Using Crown Estate Licences 2011 Statistics (Sites shown in Red are in Medway)
Wharves and Alternative Names Landing Locations Tonnes that this Location Includes
Alpha Wharf, Cliffe, North Sea Cliffe 957,071 Terminal
Denton, Denton BAD, Denton Denton 429,737 Sand
Greenhithe Greenhithe 341,128
Northfleet, Northfleet Brett, Robins Northfleet 905,926 Wharf
Queenborough, Ridham, River Medway and Rochester, Rochester Hanson, 389,867 Swale wharves Sheerness
Dover Dover 99,248
Total 3,122,977 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 11 2 2.0.11 The 2006 import study classified sites as Small (up to 0.1 million tonnes aieDegdAggregates Dredged Marine per annum (mtpa)), Medium (0.1–0.35mtpa), Large (0.35–0.75mtpa) and Major (over 0.75mtpa). The classification was based on capacity of site as developed, not on average throughput. Table 5 below gives the site classification for aggregate wharves(using the same criteria) for both 2006 and 2010 studies.
Table 5 - Comparison of Kent and Medway Aggregate Import Facilities 2006 & 2010 (Sites I, K and M are in Medway and shown in red)
Change Site Size Site Size 2010 between Site Operator Site Code 2006 Survey 2006 and Survey 2010
Allington Rail Hanson A Large Major Increase Sidings
Sevington Rail Brett B Small Medium Increase Depot
Hothfield Works Tarmac C Medium Medium No change
Additional Not East Peckham Clubb D Medium Site recorded (operational)
Ridham Dock Tarmac E Medium Large Increase
Johnson's Lafarge F Medium Large Increase Wharf
Robins Wharf AI G Medium Medium No change Northfleet
Denton Wharf Clubb H Large Major Increase
Cliffe Brett I Major Major No change
East Quay Brett J Medium Medium No change Whitstable
Eurowharf Hanson K Large Major Increase Frindsbury
Red Lion Wharf Stema L Large Major Increase
Isle of Grain AI M Major Major No change
Ramsgate New Brett N Small Small No change Port 12 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Change Site Size Site Size 2010 between Site Operator Site Code 2006 Survey 2006 and Survey 2010
Robins Wharf Brett O Medium Large Increase Northfleet
New aggregate 42 Wharf site (not yet Lafarge P Large (Northfleet) operational for aggregates) Marine Dredged Aggregates
2 Dunkirk Jetty Brett Q Medium Medium No change Dover
Ridham Dock Brett R Medium Medium No change
Sheerness AI T Small New site
Botany Cemex U Large Major Increase Marshes
2.0.12 Several of the site operators reported major expenditure in relation to their site infrastructure since the 2006 survey, including major investment in new processing plant, weighbridges, site offices, conveyor systems and 'value added' facilities at the wharves and railheads including concrete and bagging plants. In addition some of the site operators reported the possibility of increasing capacity at their sites when the economic climate improves by running double shift systems or the possibility of increasing the capacity of their storage areas.
2.0.13 During the site visits in 2010, at nine of the sites, operators reported an increase in productive capacity at their facilities. In addition the railhead at East Peckham was not reported upon in 2006, but is now operational. The Lafarge site at 42 Wharf (Northfleet) which is used for cement importation now has planning permission for aggregate importation and so is included in the table as a new aggregate facility.
2.0.14 The wharves which have the greatest capacity are those reported in the table as 'Major', situated on the deep water part of the North Kent and Medway coast, including Isle of Grain, Cliffe, Eurowharf, Botany Marshes, Denton Wharf and Red Lion Wharf. Botany Marshes, Denton Wharf and Red Lion Wharf are situated in Kent.
2.0.15 It would be both difficult and contravene site operator confidentiality requirements to give an accurate estimate of annual capacity at each site. It is however, realistic to state that the existing handling capacity at the Kent and Medway wharves and railheads is far greater than the operational throughputs in recent years TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 13 2 during the recession. However, estimates of productive capacity for both the marine aieDegdAggregates Dredged Marine dredged aggregate wharves and those importing other aggregates are given in Section 10.
2.0.16 At least two of the wharves have the infrastructure and capability to process marine dredged aggregates and then to reload the processed aggregates into smaller barges or boats for transshipment by water along the Thames into London and South Essex/Thurrock. This type of sustainable transshipment also takes place for crushed rock from at least one of the North Kent wharves. Only one of the active wharves is connected to an operational railhead; that is Cliffe (which is in Medway). However, Lafarge have been granted planning permission for a rail connected aggregate importation facility at Wharf 42, Northfleet, subject to Section 106 legal agreements. Ridham Dock has existing rail facilities which have potential for future use by one of the operators.
Marine Aggregate Resources
2.0.17 The Crown Estate provided details to the Kent Minerals Plan 'Preferred Options' consultation regarding marine aggregate resources in July 2012. The Crown Estate letter and attachments can be viewed on the consultation portal. The web link to the consultation is given below:
Mineral Sites Plan 'Preferred Options' May 2012(15)
2.0.18 The following text is taken from the Crown Estate's comments:
"Over 900 million tonnes of marine sand and gravel (aggregate) has been dredged from offshore seabed over the last 50 years and at least 1,250 million tonnes is available for sustainable supply of construction aggregate over the next 50 years and beyond. Currently marine sand and gravel supply some 20% of the county's demand.
The marine aggregate resource available in the East Coast, Thames Estuary and East English Channel areas and which are used to supply Kent wharves is 994 million tonnes of which 31.25 million tonnes is permitted for extraction per annum. Kent wharves only received some 1.3 million tonnes (4.2% of total permitted per annum) in 2010, but increased in 2011 with 1.55 million tonnes (5%).
There is therefore a long term viable and sustainable supply of marine dredged aggregate both for construction uses and for direct beach nourishment by vessel delivery. The current rate of extraction by all companies to all marine aggregate wharves in the UK and on the European mainland is some 45% of the permitted per annum (amount) thus reinforcing the sustainability and long term viability and requirement of marine aggregate wharves in Kent".
15 http://www.kent.gov.uk/environment_and_planning/planning_in_kent/ minerals_and_waste/mineral_sites_plan/preferred_options.aspx 14 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
3 Importation of Crushed Rock and other aggregates into Kent by Sea and Rail
3.0.1 The SEEAWP report 11/06(16) provides data on the imports of crushed rock by sea in the South East region. That information is tabulated below (Table 6).
Table 6 - Imports of Crushed Rock By Sea 2001–2010 (thousand tonnes per year)
County 200320022001 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
East Sussex 14526145181939317617617637
Hampshire cccc313360360385436328
Isle of Wight ccccN/Accccc
Kent and 297331423159 2561 1980 2098 2780 2067 1344 1602 Medway
West ccccN/A4743223264236 Sussex
Totals 380040503790 3170 2500 2500 3000 2300 1500* 1881
Footnotes to Table 6:
c = confidential, or if identified will release another confidential figure
Medway is included with Kent, otherwise all data would have to be shown as confidential
* = The total figures are rounded tol avoid revealing a confidential figure
Marine dredged sand and gravel is not included in this table
3.0.2 Since 1999, wharves in Kent and Medway have consistently been the most important destinations (by quantity) for crushed rock imported into the South East
Importation of Crushed Rock and other aggregates into Kent by Seaby and Rail sea. The proportion of crushed rock imported into the South East region through
3 Kent and Medway wharves has risen from 79% in 1999 to 89.9% in 2008. However, imports of crushed rock by sea into the region have seen a considerable drop since year 2000 when over 5 million tonnes (mt) was imported into the region (83.6% of which was into Kent and Medway) to 1.8mt in 2010 (88.3% of which was into Kent and Medway).
16 SEEAWP (October 2011). South East Aggregates Monitoring Report 2010 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 15 3 3.0.3 Table 6 shows the importance of Kent and Medway wharves in providing motto fCuhdRc n te grgtsit etb e n Rail and Sea by Kent into aggregates other and Rock Crushed of Importation suitable locations for the landing of crushed rock into the region from abroad. It also shows how West Sussex wharves have diminished in importance for the importation of crushed rock since 2003. It is thought that this is because access for large vessels with deep water requirements is limited off the West Sussex coast and as the vessels that import crushed rock from Norway get larger and larger, so the usefulness of shallow water or restrictive access wharves diminishes. In comparison with that situation, the deep water wharves of North Kent and Medway provide suitable offloading facilities close to the demand for the aggregates.
Table 7 - Sales of Aggregate at Rail Depots 2003–2010 (thousand tonnes per year) with Kent Figure for 2011 Added
County 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20102009 2011
Berks and 2095 2299 1762 1737 1935 1369 10541094 Hants
Bucks, Milton 996 689 790 791 887 729447733 Keynes and Oxfordshire
Surrey and West 594 587 557 557 669 888621657 Sussex
Kent 359 582 575 572 594 446356414581
Totals 4044 4157 3685 3657 4085 3340 30272576
Footnotes to Table 7:
MPAs were grouped in the table to overcome confidentiality issues
90% of the aggregate received at the rail depots is crushed rock
The 10% sand and gravel includes small amounts from within the South East
3.0.4 Whilst the sales of aggregates at rail depots in Kent had been at a fairly steady level of just over half a million tonnes per annum between 2004 and 2008, they have fallen to 414,000 tonnes in 2009 and 356,000 tonnes in 2010, but increased to 446,000 tonnes in 2011. The rail depots in Kent are situated near Ashford and Maidstone, that is away from sources of imported marine dredged aggregates or crushed rock imported by sea. Supplies of aggregates at the Kent railheads are important in reducing the need to transport aggregates by road from alternative supply sources including the North Kent wharves. 16 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
3.0.5 The following chart (Table 8) taken from the 2010 Kent and Medway Mineral Imports study identifies which of the Kent and Medway sites import primary aggregates (other than crushed rock) and secondary and recycled aggregates.
3.0.6 At the time of the survey in 2010, Red Lion Wharf was importing sand from Denmark. Six facilities in Kent were importing secondary and recycled aggregates from a diverse range of European sources including slag (imported into three of the North Kent wharves from a diverse range of sources in France as well as Flushing (the Netherlands) and Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) from Spain and Denmark, and recycled aggregates from Rotterdam (Holland).
Table 8 - Current Importation Sites in Kent and Medway (Medway sites shown in a red font)
Site Name Operator Site Marine Crushed Other Secondary/ Other Code Dredged Rock Land-won Recycled Minerals Aggregates Aggregates
Allington Hanson A ♦
Sevington Rail Brett B ♦ Depot
Hothfield Tarmac C ♦ ♦ Works
East Peckham Clubb D ♦
Ridham Dock Tarmac ♦E ♦
Johnsons Lafarge ♦F Wharf
Robins Wharf AI G ♦ Northfleet
Denton Wharf Clubb ♦H ♦
Cliffe Brett ♦I
East Quay Brett J ♦ ♦ Whitstable Importation of Crushed Rock and other aggregates into Kent by Sea and Rail Eurowharf 3 Hanson ♦K ♦ ♦ Frindsbury
Red Lion Stema L ♦ ♦ ♦ Wharf
Isle of Grain AI M ♦
Ramsgate New Brett ♦N ♦ ♦ Port TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 17 3
Site Name Operator Site Marine Crushed Other Secondary/ Other Rail and Sea by Kent into aggregates other and Rock Crushed of Importation Code Dredged Rock Land-won Recycled Minerals Aggregates Aggregates
Robins Wharf Brett ♦O Northfleet
42 Wharf Lafarge P ♦ (Northfleet)
Dunkirk Jetty Brett ♦Q Dover
Ridham Dock Brett R ♦ ♦
Sheerness AI ♦T ♦ ♦
Botany Cemex ♦U Marshes 18 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
4 Secondary and Aggregate Recycling in Kent
4.0.1 KCC's Core Strategy - Strategy and Policy Directions (May 2011) draft Policy CSM5 states that sufficient, specific sites will be identified to provide the capacity to recycling 1.4mt per year of secondary and recycled aggregates for the duration of the plan period (to the end of 2030).
4.0.2 The target capacity of 1.4mt is a minimum requirement (derived from the relevant South East Plan policy) and the County Council are keen to promote the more sustainable practise of aggregate recycling, as opposed to extracting virgin materials. Draft Policy CSM5 therefore also includes a criteria for assessing any further site proposals, which would be considered in addition to the allocated sites within the final Minerals Plan.
4.0.3 A Revised Waste Needs Assessment(17) for arisings in Kent has been carried out as part of the supporting evidence base for this consultation. The main findings were as follows:
No indication of any growth in arisings of CDE waste in recent years.
Aggregate recycling capacity has decreased to 1.9 million tonnes per year. Secondary and Aggregate Recycling in Kent 4 The new Waste Framework Directive target for CDE waste recovery is lower than the SE Plan target which has been used in the assessment of future capacity. Therefore, the target rate of recycling remains the same (i.e. to increase to 60% by 2020).
By 2020 and through to the end of the plan period, 1,560,000 tonnes per year of aggregate recycling capacity will be required which is lower than the current capacity of existing facilities.
Some existing facilities are temporary and more sites will need to be identified for the development of permanent aggregate recycling facilities to ensure that a minimum of 1,560,000 tonnes per year capacity is still available at the end of the plan period.
4.0.4 However, the above conclusions are based upon the capacity calculated from data returns from industry in the annual Aggregate Monitoring Survey.
4.0.5 The results from recent Kent Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Surveys(18) (which are summarised in the Minerals Topic Report on Secondary and Recycled Aggregates(19)) regarding sales of secondary and recycled aggregates are
17 Jacobs (2012). Revised Needs Assessment Report 18 KCC (December 2011). 7th Annual Minerals and Waste Monitoring Report: 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011 19 KCC (May 2011). Minerals Topic Report 2: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 19 4 shown in Table 9 below, with data for 2011 added. These data sets show the eodr n grgt eyln nKent in Recycling Aggregate and Secondary information gathered from aggregate operators. In the past there have been poor response rates however, in the 2010 survey only one known operator failed to provide a response to the survey.
4.0.6 The Annual Monitoring Survey only collates data in relation to secondary and aggregate recycling at fixed sites. No account is taken of the recycled aggregate produced by mobile crushers on building sites and similar short term developments. The most recent annual monitoring report identifies that Kent has a good spread of secondary and recycling facilities across the county. Figure 2 below (taken from Minerals Topic Report 2: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates) shows this.
Figure 2 - Secondary and Recycled Sites in Kent
4.0.7 The table below collates annual monitoring data for the years when data for secondary and recycled aggregate information for Kent sites was available.
Table 9 - Secondary and Recycled Aggregate Sales in Kent 2003–2011 (tonnes)
2003 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average(20)
475,985 678,521 1,294,636 956,283 548,004 892,576 678,405 789,201
Footnote to Table 9: There is no data available for years 2001, 2002, 2005 or 2006.
20 Average of the 7 years for which data is available. 20 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
4.0.8 An in-house study is currently being conducted to assess the capacity of all aggregate recycling facilities in the county. So far the initial results show a dramatic underestimate of capacity. For example, one site with a recorded annual capacity of 260 tonnes per year is actually capable of producing over 250,000 tonnes per year(21). This study has also found that permanent facilities have a capacity of 1,084,378 tonnes per year. A considerable amount of additional capacity exists in temporary locations situated in quarries, such that the South East Plan target of 1.4 million tonnes per year could be achieved if sufficient material was available for recycling(22).
4.0.9 In order to meet the forecast for the aggregate recycling capacity requirement of 1,560,000 tonnes per year at the end of the plan period, new permanent sites will be identified that can provide a minimum additional capacity of 475,622 tonnes per year.
4.0.10 A total of 14 secondary and recycled aggregate sites were submitted for consideration by the County Council. Allocation of the following sites would provide an additional capacity of 455,000 tonnes per year. The 'Preferred Options' are:
Site 21: Conway Rochester Way, Dartford.
Site 65: Land North of Stevens and Carlotti, Richborough.
Secondary and Aggregate Recycling in Kent Site 72: Unit 14, Canterbury Industrial Estate, Hersden, Near Canterbury. 4 Site 91: Animal Products Site, Faversham.
Site 99: Broomway Ltd, Swanscombe.
4.0.11 Aggregate recycling sites located in industrial estates and in existing mineral operation sites and waste management locations would also be considered appropriate in principle under the emerging policy CSM5. The allocation for aggregate recycling uses on industrial estates would prevent the land from being developed for other industrial uses. Sites proposed in industrial estates will therefore not be allocated.
4.0.12 In addition, substantial reserves of colliery spoil remain at Tilmanstone (west of Deal in Dover District). In the past, colliery spoil has provided raw material for brickmaking at an on site brickworks. Whilst the brickworks have been mothballed and are now closed, there is the possibility that Timanstone colliery spoil could be used for secondary aggregates in the future.
21 This is a temporary permission which will expire before the end of the plan period and does not affect the conclusions of the revised study 22 KCC (May 2011). Minerals Topic Report 2: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 21 5
5 Exports, Imports and Consumption of Primary Aggregate Aggregate Primary of Consumption and Imports Exports,
5.0.1 The 2009 Aggregate Mineral Survey for England and Wales (AM2009)(23) provides an in-depth understanding of regional and national sales, inter-regional flows, transportation, and consumption and permitted reserves of primary aggregates. These in-depth reports have been carried out on four yearly intervals since 1973. Table 10 below, which is derived from the 2009 Aggregate Mineral Survey (AM2009), shows where the primary aggregates which were sold from Kent sources in 2009 were distributed. It provides data for land-won sand and gravel (which includes both soft sand and sharp sand and gravel), land-won crushed rock and marine dredged aggregates imported into Kent wharves.
5.0.2 The AM2009 survey refers to 'sales' of aggregates. The term relates to material leaving a quarry or wharf as measured at the weighbridge. The term, 'sales' is more accurate than 'production' used in some previous surveys (these distribution figures were not collected in the 2010 or the 2011 aggregate monitoring survey and so the 2009 data is the most recent data set for this information).Most of the sand and gravel and crushed rock sold from Kent quarries was used locally within Kent and Medway (81% and 86% respectively). Relatively small amounts were sold in other parts of South East England and elsewhere. Similarly, the majority of the marine dredged aggregates imported into Kent wharves were used in Kent and Medway in 2009 (86%).
Table 10 - Destinations of Primary Aggregates Sold From Kent in 2009
Marine Marine Sand Sand and Crushed Crushed Dredged Dredged and Gravel Rock Rock Aggregates Aggregates Gravel
Thousand Thousand Thousand Destination (%) (%) (%) Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes
Kent and 1442 86 1103 81 760 86 Medway
South 55 3 75 6 26 3 East
Elsewhere 171 10 177 13
Unallocated 8 1 97 11
Total 1668 1362 883
23 DCLG, BGS and Welsh Assembly Government (Second Edition 2011). Collation of the Results of the 2009 Aggregate Mineral Survey for England and Wales (AM2009) 22 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
5.0.3 Unfortunately the data sources in Tables 10 and 11 are not directly comparable as some relate to Kent alone and some relate to Kent and Medway (combined).
Table 11 - Imports, Exports and Consumption of Primary Aggregates in Kent in 2009 (data relates to thousand tonnes). Data for rows (B) to (E) is derived from Table 10 of AM2009 which shows import and consumption of aggregates by sub region
Land-won Marine Crushed All Primary sand and Dredged Rock Aggregates gravel Aggregates
(A) Produced (or landed) in 1362 1668 883(24) 3913 Kent
(B) Exported out of Kent and 259 226 123 608 Medway
(C ) Consumed in Kent and 1103 1442 760 3305 Medway
(D) Imported into Kent and 76 186 340(25) 602 Medway
Exports, Imports and Consumption of Primary Aggregate (E) Total 5 Consumption 1179 1628 1100 3907 in Kent and Medway
5.0.4 Table 10 shows that in 2009 Kent was a relatively small net exporter of land-won sand and gravel and marine dredged aggregates but it imported more crushed rock into its railheads than it exported from the Kent quarries. Table 11 above shows that the total consumption of primary aggregates in 2009 in Kent and Medway combined was comparable with the total produced at Kent quarries (land-won sand and gravel and crushed rock) combined with marine dredged aggregates imported into Kent wharves and all aggregates imported into its railheads.
24 This figure is considered to reflect only crushed rock that is extracted from quarries in Kent and is derived from the AM2009 survey 25 This figure is considered to relate to sales from railheads and NOT those of imported crushed rock into the wharves from Scotland and abroad. Landings of sea-borne crushed rock into Kent and Medway wharves in 2009 were 1,344,000 tonnes, with most of these considered to be imported into Kent TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 23 5 Table 12 - Total Primary Aggregates Sold from Kent Sources in 2009. Data in xot,IprsadCnupino rmr Aggregate Primary of Consumption and Imports Exports, rows 1–3, 5 & 6 are obtained from the South East Aggregates Monitoring Report 2009 prepared by SEEAWP (February 2011)
Thousand 2009 Primary Aggregates Sales Data (%) Tonnes
(1) Imports of Crushed rock by sea for 2009 1,344 into Kent and Medway
(2) Sales of aggregates at Rail Depots for 414 8.2 2009 in Kent
(3) Landings of Marine Dredged Aggregates 1,409 27.9 in Kent
(4) Assumed Imports of Crushed rock into Kent 1,000 19.8 wharves in 2009
(5) Sales of Land-won sand and gravel from 1,362 27.0 Kent Quarries
(6) Sales of Land-won crushed rock from Kent (c ) but estimated 17.1 Quarries(26) at 867
(7) Total Primary Aggregates sold from 6,396 100 Kent Sources in 2009(27)
Footnote to Table 12: It is guesstimated that out of the 1.3mt of crushed rock imported into Kent and Medway wharves in 2009, 1mt was brought into the Kent wharves.
5.0.5 If the additional quantities of sea-borne crushed rock brought into Kent wharves is considered, Kent was a net exporter of aggregates in 2009.
5.0.6 The majority of aggregates imported into Kent and Medway in 2009 were used in Kent and Medway.
26 This figure has been derived from data available and concurs with a note supplied by the Technical Secretary of the AWP to KCC in 2012 which helped to inform the LAA. It differs slightly to that given in table 11 due to the different data sources. The difference between the two data sets is very small (circa 2%) 27 The sum of rows 2–6 above 24 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
5.1 2011 Summary Data of all Aggregate Sales in Kent
5.1.1 Construction Aggregate sales data for 2011 is included in the 8th Annual Monitoring Report and is summarised in Table 13 below.
Table 13 - All Construction Aggregate Sales in Kent in 2011
Type of Aggregate Total Sales in 2011 %
Land-won Sand and Gravel 1,068,496 tonnes
Land-won crushed rock Confidential
Imported Sand and Gravel 128,095 tonnes
Marine Dredged Sand and 1,844,558 tonnes Gravel
Imported Crushed Rock 807,373 tonnes
Rail Depot Sales of Sand and 56,921 tonnes Gravel
Rail Depot Sales of Crushed 389,006 tonnes Rock
Total Rail Depot Sales 445,927 tonnes
Total Sand and Gravel Sales 3.1 million tonnes 55.6
Total Crushed Rock Sales 1.8 million tonnes 32.3 Exports, Imports and Consumption of Primary Aggregate
5 Total Recycled and Secondary 678,405 tonnes 12.2 sales
Total (estimated) 5.578 million tonnes 100
5.1.2 The 2011 data in Table 13 shows a considerable drop in total aggregate sales compared with those in 2009 (reported in Table 12). This reflects the continued low level of construction activity during the year. The drop in land-won sand and gravel sales is offset by an increase in marine dredged aggregate sales. TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 25 erRligAverage Rolling Year 6
6 Sub-regional Apportionment for Land-won Construction 10 the with Comparison and Aggregates Construction Land-won for Apportionment Sub-regional Aggregates and Comparison with the 10 Year Rolling Average
6.0.1 Forecasts for construction aggregate demand at a national and regional level are set out in National and Regional Guidelines for aggregate provision. The most recent guidelines (2009) are for the period 2005–2020, and are provided in Section 1 of this document(28). For the South East these guidelines indicate provision of 12.18 million tonnes of land-won sand and gravel per annum and 1.56 million tonnes of crushed rock per annum in the period 2005–2020. The 2009 guidelines recommend lower levels of provision than the previous set issued in 2003. These regional guidelines have been tested and apportioned at a sub-regional level through the RSS to determine whether the regional guideline can be met at an acceptable environmental cost.
6.0.2 The guideline figures for land-won primary aggregates(29), identified in the National and Regional Guidelines, take into account the alternative sources of construction aggregates available including marine dredged aggregates, recycled and secondary aggregates(30) and imports.
6.0.3 The South East Plan Policy M3 has provided details of sub-regional apportionments for land-won construction aggregates(31). This originally required that Kent and Medway maintain a landbank of at least seven years of planning permissions which is sufficient, throughout the plan period, to provide 2.53 million tonnes of sand and gravel per annum and that Kent maintain a landbank of at least 10 years of planning permissions sufficient to provide 1.2mtpa of crushed rock(32).
6.0.4 At a regional level, building sand (soft sand), flint gravels and sandstone gravels (sharp sand and gravel) have been covered by one sub-regional apportionment.
28 DCLG (2009). National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision 29 Land-won aggregates are those obtained from quarries. Primary aggregates are those aggregates which are obtained from naturally occurring mineral deposits, extracted specifically for use as aggregate and used for the first time (BGS/DCLG (2007). Mineral Planning Factsheet: Construction Aggregates) 30 Recycled aggregates are derived from reprocessed materials previously used in construction. Examples include recycled concrete from construction and demolition waste (C&DW)material and railway ballast. Secondary aggregates are usually by-products of other industrial processes not previously used in construction. Secondary aggregates can be further subdivided into manufactured and natural. Examples of manufactured include pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and metallurgical slags. Natural secondary aggregates include china clay sand and slate aggregate (Ibid.) 31 Government Office for the South East (May 2009). Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 32 There is no crushed rock within the Medway area 26 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
6.0.5 Kent and Oxfordshire are the only MPAs in the South East region required to make provision for land-won crushed rock. In the case of Kent, ragstone extracted from the Hythe Formation is the only source of land-won crushed rock.
6.0.6 A partial review of the RSS (the South East Plan) on aggregate minerals apportionment was well advanced in mid 2010 when Government announced that the RSS was to be abolished. Previous sub regional apportionments had reflected the past pattern of sales (production) of land-won aggregates. The partial review developed options for apportionment reflecting a broader set of criteria (such as past sales, population, new housing provision, the pattern of mineral resources located
Year Rolling Average outside national and international environmental designations) that were considered to be important in deciding the strategic distribution of the provision to be made for land-won construction aggregates. The options were based on the application of different weightings applied to these criteria and provided for separate apportionments for Kent and Medway.
6.0.7 The RSS partial review was the subject of an Examination in Public (EiP) in 2009 and Proposed Changes were published by the Secretary of State in March 2010(33). The EiP Panel recommended that the apportionment figure for the South East of England should be 11.12mtpa for sand and gravel and 1.44mtpa for crushed rock(34). On this basis the Panel concluded that the apportionment to sub-regions should reflect the option that provided a balance between the demand for and the presence of the resource having regard to environmental factors "capable of assessment consistently across the region at a level of detail commensurate with the purpose of a regional spatial strategy"(35). With this approach the sub-regional apportionment for Kent was 1.63mtpa for sand and gravel and 0.78mtpa for crushed rock. Medway's apportionment was separated from that of Kent in the revised policy. The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes accepted these recommendations. In responding to consultation on the Proposed Changes, KCC accepted the revised apportionment acknowledging the significant change in the annual apportionment to Kent in comparison with the South East Plan adopted in 2009.
33 Government Office for the South East (March 2010). The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes: Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East Policy M3 - Primary land-won aggregates and sub-regional apportionment 34 This is lower than the published National and Regional Guidelines but reflects the outcome of a sensitivity test on the guidelines published by DCLG in August 2009, which reduced the forecast requirement for land-won aggregates from the region by 8.6% 35 Government Office for the South East (November 2009). Partial Review of the Regional Spatial
Sub-regional Apportionment for Land-won Construction Aggregates and Comparison with the 10 Strategy for the South East - Aggregates 6 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 27 erRligAverage Rolling Year 6 Table 14 - Primary Aggregates Apportionment: Kent u-einlAprinetfrLn-o osrcinAgeae n oprsnwt h 10 the with Comparison and Aggregates Construction Land-won for Apportionment Sub-regional
South East Plan: Partial South East Plan (2009) Review (2010)
Sand and Gravel 2.53mtpa* 1.63mtpa
Crushed Rock 1.2mtpa 0.78mtpa (Ragstone)
* - includes Medway
6.0.8 KCC has continued to support the revised figures as they are an accurate representation of past sales in the county.
6.0.9 The NPPF now requires MPAs to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by preparing an annual LAA, either individually or jointly by agreement with another or other MPAs, based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options (including marine dredged, secondary and recycled sources).
Land-won Sand and Gravel
6.0.10 Production of land-won sand and gravel in Kent has averaged 1.447mtpa over the last five years for which data is available (see Table 15 overleaf) and 1.603mtpa over the past 10 years. However, sales of land-won sand and gravel in Kent have been decreasing since 2005 with a big drop in sales between 2010 and 2011. Details of existing quarries in Kent are given in Appendix D. 28 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Table 15 - Sales of Land-won Sand and Gravel in Kent 2002–2011
Year Tonnes
2002 1,663,500
2003 1,839,600
2004 1,687,400
2005 1,711,600 Year Rolling Average 2006 1,692,446
2007 1,823,149
2008 1,595,258
2009 1,362,171
2010 1,385,497
2011 1,068,496
Average 2009–2011 (3 years) 1,272,055
Average 2007–2011 (5 years) 1,446,914
Average 2002–2011 (10 years) 1,602,561
6.0.11 The ten year rolling average for land-won sand and gravel is therefore now marginally lower than the revised South East Plan Policy M3 apportionment of 1.63mtpa. The large drop in sales between 2010 and 2011 has had an effect on the 10 year, 5 year and 3 year rolling averages.
6.0.12 The NPPF requires MPAs to consider "other relevant local information as part of the Local Aggregate Assessment, as well as an assessment of all supply options". There is one issue which is pertinent to the consideration of the apportionment figure which is to be used for the calculation of land-won sand and gravel landbank requirements for Kent. At one of the largest sand and gravel sites in Kent, production moved over the county border into the adjacent county during 2011. Therefore the predicted drop in annual returns for the sales of aggregate from Kent for that site are likely to be substantially reduced in 2011 onwards compared with annual returns for the site over the last 10 years. This is also likely to result in a further significant drop in sales from Kent sand and gravel sites in 2012. It is therefore likely that the 10 year rolling average figures for land-won sand and gravel will continue to drop year on year in the future. Sub-regional Apportionment for Land-won Construction Aggregates and Comparison with the 10 6 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 29 erRligAverage Rolling Year 6 Crushed Rock (Ragstone) u-einlAprinetfrLn-o osrcinAgeae n oprsnwt h 10 the with Comparison and Aggregates Construction Land-won for Apportionment Sub-regional
6.0.13 The revised South East Plan Policy M3 apportionment for crushed rock is 0.78mtpa. Table 16 below shows sales of land-won crushed rock (ragstone) from Kent quarries between 1998 and 2011. The table includes data from the years 1998–2000 as all crushed rock data for Kent after 2001 is confidential due to there only being two producing sites. The Technical Secretary of SEEAWP has confirmed in 2012 (by email to KCC) that, "the crushed rock sales for Kent in the AM reports for the SE region have been recorded as confidential over the last 10 years because there have been only one or two quarries operating. However, if the figure for Oxfordshire is subtracted from the published totals, and in the knowledge that sales in the Isle of Wight and West Sussex are very small, I agree that it is reasonable for you to draw the conclusion that sales in Kent have reflected the SE Plan apportionment".
6.0.14 Therefore, the revised SE Plan apportionment figure for crushed rock remains relevant and credible, and will continue to be used in this LAA as a substitute for the rolling 10 year rolling average.
Table 16 - Kent Crushed Rock: Sales 1998–2011
Year Thousand Tonnes
1998 700
1999 700
2000 954
2001 1,240 (figure rounded to preserve confidentiality)
2002–2011 c
Average 2001–2011 c
Footnote to Table 16: c = confidential figure, or figure which cannot be identified without it revealing a confidential figure
6.0.15 Local plans should be drawn up over an appropriate timescale, preferably a 15 year time horizon, take account of longer term requirements, and be kept up to date(36). The plan horizon envisaged for the Kent Minerals and Waste Plans (up to the end of 2030) conforms with this requirement as the anticipated adoption date of the Minerals and Waste Plan (formerly the Core Strategy) is in 2014 and the Mineral Sites Plan is in 2015.
36 DCLG (March 2012). NPPF, paragraph 157 30 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
6.0.16 By multiplying the length of the plan (2013–2030, which is 18 years) by the ten year rolling average for land-won sand and gravel (1.603mtpa) and for crushed rock (0.78mtpa), it is possible to calculate the level of provision for land-won sand and gravel and crushed rock required in the plan. A total provision of 28.85 million tonnes of sand and gravel and 14.0 million tonnes for crushed rock is required. However, these figures need to be reviewed in the light of information regarding existing permitted reserves. Year Rolling Average Sub-regional Apportionment for Land-won Construction Aggregates and Comparison with the 10 6 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 31 7
7 Assessment of Permitted Reserves Reserves Permitted of Assessment
7.0.1 Permitted construction aggregate reserves remaining unworked at the start of the Minerals and Waste Local plan period (2013) will contribute to both the total provision and landbank requirements(37) to be identified through the Minerals and Waste Plans. Permitted reserves of construction aggregates remaining unworked in Kent at the end of 2011 are shown in Table 17 overleaf(38).
7.0.2 The landbank is the sum in tonnes of all permitted reserves with valid planning permission including dormant sites and current non-working sites, but not those defined in the relevant schedules to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the Environment Act 1995 at a specified time. Previous guidance on the calculation of landbanks required the re-consideration of sites which have not been worked for 10 years to assess whether production is likely to begin again. Those dormant and inactive sites, which industry agrees are unlikely to be worked again, should be excluded from the landbank calculation. In the case of Kent sand and gravel sites, none of the sites which benefit from an extant planning permission for extraction of construction aggregates have been excluded from the landbank calculation. Whilst one site has been largely inactive over the last ten years or so, the operator has confirmed that they have full planning permission to extract the mineral reserves and fully intend to work this site so it should not be considered to be dormant or inactive.
7.0.3 There is a discrepancy between the sand and gravel landbank at the end of 2010 and that at the end of 2011(39). It appears that some operators have recalculated their reserves in a few sites and this is the reason for the slight reduction in the landbank figure. This is not an unusual occurrence(40).
37 A landbank is the total quantity of minerals contained within a stock of planning permissions 38 KCC (December 2012). 8th Annual Minerals and Waste Monitoring Report: 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012. The data for construction aggregates is collected on the basis of the calendar year, not the financial year 39 The difference in landbank figure between 2010 and 2011 data is greater than the sum of sales of aggregate in 2011 40 Re-assessment of Reserves - it should be noted that the reserve figures that are used to derive these figures stem from returns made to KCC annually by representatives of each operating company. It has been noted by the Technical Secretary of SEEAWP in response to the Mineral Sites Plan consultation in July 2012 that, a "major re-assessment" of reserves was undertaken in 2008. This reduced the sand and gravel reserves, which had been twice the soft sand reserves, to a more even split. However, the returns for the end of 2009 reverted back to the former pattern before changing again at the end of 2010. The current split between reserves (with the majority of consented reserves being soft sand) was checked at the time of the 2011 survey and it is considered to be correct 32 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Table 17 - Permitted Reserves: Construction Aggregates at the end of 2011
Total Reserves (Million Type of Construction Aggregate Tonnes)
Sharp Sand and Gravel (including sandstone 4.304 gravels)
Soft Sand 14.370
Total Sand and Gravel 18.674
Crushed Rock (Ragstone) > 27.0 Assessment of Permitted Reserves 7 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 33 8
8 Assessment of Required Provision Provision Required of Assessment
8.1 Sand and Gravel
8.1.1 Permitted sand and gravel reserves at the end of 2011 are substantial, at 18.674mt. Draw-down figures equivalent to the rolling ten year average are being used to calculate reserves required during the plan period, even though this figure is considerably higher than sales in recent years. Additional provision would need to be made for 23mt to maintain a seven-year landbank throughout the plan period. The calculations are shown in Table 18 below. They are based on the starting point of 18.674mt of consented sand and gravel at the beginning of 2012.
Table 18 - Landbank Calculations for Land-won Sand and Gravel for the Plan Period
Reserves Reserves at Reserves Required to Draw down Year Start of Year Remaining at Maintain 7 year during year (mt) (mt) end of Year (mt) landbank (mt) (=11.22mt)
2012 18.674 1.603 17.071 0
2013 17.071 1.603 15.468 0
2014 15.468 1.603 13.865 0
2015 13.865 1.603 12.262 0
2016 12.262 1.603 10.659 0.561
2017 10.659 1.603 9.056 2.164
2018 9.056 1.603 7.453 3.767
2019 7.453 1.603 5.850 5.370
2020 5.850 1.603 4.247 6.973
2021 4.247 1.603 2.644 8.576
2022 2.644 1.603 1.041 10.179
2023 1.041 1.603 -0.562 11.782
2024 -0.562 1.603 -2.165 13.385
2025 -2.165 1.603 -3.768 14.988
2026 -3.768 1.603 -5.371 16.591 34 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Reserves Reserves at Reserves Required to Draw down Year Start of Year Remaining at Maintain 7 year during year (mt) (mt) end of Year (mt) landbank (mt) (=11.22mt)
2027 -5.371 1.603 -6.974 18.194
2028 -6.974 1.603 -8.577 19.797
2029 -8.577 1.603 -10.18 21.400
2030 -10.18 1.603 -11.783 23.003
8.1.2 KCC had earlier proposed to plan for an additional 10% of land-won sand and gravel over and above the minimum amount required by the apportionment figure. However, it was explained in the Mineral Sites 'Preferred Options' consultation
Assessment of Required Provision document (May 2012) that it was not possible to identify sufficient deliverable
8 sustainable sites to make provision for the landbank requirement for the whole of the plan period plus an additional 10%. This remains the case. The Mineral Sites plan will make provision for sufficient aggregate for the plan period based upon calculations using the 10 year rolling average sales figure.
8.1.3 Both the Sustainability Appraisal commentary report and the majority of responses from the Core Strategy 'Issues' consultation (September 2010), supported the provision of an additional 10% over and above the required land bank levels, if conditions allowed. However, at the next consultation stage, the Strategy and Policy Directions consultation for the Core Strategy (May 2011), responses on this issue were more balanced with five people supporting the additional 10% and four people objecting to it, with two people only commenting.
8.2 Crushed Rock
8.2.1 Kent would need to plan for 14mt of crushed rock (ragstone) for the 18 year plan period, based upon the assumed 10 year rolling average figure of 0.78mtpa. Existing permitted reserves of crushed rock (ragstone) are considered to be around 30mt (although the operators of the two Kent ragstone quarries have not submitted returns for 2011 and so the calculations used in the May 2012 draft LAA are repeated below. Using the assumed 10 year rolling average sales figure over the period to the end of 2030 as the drawdown rate, existing reserves would provide a landbank of 14mt at the end of the plan period. This is equivalent to a residual landbank of at least 17 years - and would be significantly above the 10 year landbank requirement in national policy (NPPF) even at the end of the plan period. The calculations are shown in Table 19 opposite. TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 35 8 Table 19 - Landbank Calculations for Land-won Crushed Rock (Ragstone) for seseto eurdProvision Required of Assessment the Plan Period
Reserves Required to Reserves at Reserves Draw down Maintain 10 Year Year Start of Year Remaining at during year (mt) Landbank (mt) (mt) End of Year (mt) (=7.8mt)
2011 30 0.78 29.22 0
2012 29.22 0.78 28.44 0
2013 28.44 0.78 27.66 0
2014 27.66 0.78 26.88 0
2015 26.88 0.78 26.1 0
2016 26.1 0.78 25.32 0
2017 25.32 0.78 24.54 0
2018 24.54 0.78 23.76 0
2019 23.76 0.78 22.98 0
2020 22.98 0.78 22.20 0
2021 22.20 0.78 21.42 0
2022 21.42 0.78 20.64 0
2023 20.64 0.78 19.86 0
2024 19.86 0.78 19.08 0
2025 19.08 0.78 18.30 0
2026 18.30 0.78 17.52 0
2027 17.52 0.78 16.74 0
2028 16.74 0.78 15.96 0
2029 15.96 0.78 15.18 0
2030 15.18 0.78 14.4 0 36 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
8.2.2 Whilst the landbank for crushed rock is more than sufficient for the plan period, the reserves are located at only two sites and primarily at one large site (Blaise Farm, West Malling). There is a high proportion of hassock in this reserve which impacts on the overall quality of the mineral. As such it is currently only being worked on a campaign basis to serve contracts which will accept the quality of the ragstone from this reserve. In contrast, the ragstone at Hermitage Quarry is better quality with less hassock within the deposit and after processing is suitable for end uses requiring high grade aggregates including asphalt and concrete.
8.2.3 KCC resolved to grant permission for a major westerly extension to the Hermitage Quarry site, Hermitage Lane, Aylesford, in May 2011. The application proposed to extract 16.2mt of ragstone from the application site which is an area of ancient woodland called 'Oaken Wood', over a period of 23 years, with final restoration being completed in 2037. The application was 'called in' by the Secretary of State and is the subject of a Public Inquiry in late 2012.
8.2.4 In resolving to permit the Oaken Wood proposals, KCC accepted that the Assessment of Required Provision length of the crushed rock landbank was only one issue that should be considered 8 when determining the application. Having regard to real need and real supply, KCC was satisfied that there were other factors in favour of the proposals, namely:-
the proposed reserves at Oaken Wood were comparable in quality to those at Hermitage Quarry and of a significantly higher quality than those at Blaise Farm Quarry such that they that they could more readily be used to supply a wider range of more valuable end uses (where strength and suitability for quality construction aggregate use is required);
it was questionable whether the reserves at Blaise Farm Quarry will continue to be worked such that the site could become inactive and be unable to contribute to real supply (the operator previously decided to mothball the site);
once the remaining reserves at Hermitage Quarry were exhausted, permitted reserves would be dominated by a single outlet such that competition would be stifled;
to date the reserves at Blaise Farm Quarry have not made a significant contribution to crushed rock output in Kent;
the reserves at Oaken Wood could be sterilised if they were not worked through Hermitage Quarry; and
mineral supplies should be sourced indigenously where possible to reduce the need to transport minerals over long distances and minimise carbon emissions. TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 37 8
8.2.5 The NPPF recognises that MPAs should ensure that large landbanks bound Provision Required of Assessment up in very few sites do not stifle competition(41). Given these considerations, notwithstanding the scale of the landbank for crushed rock in Kent, there is a case for policies in the Minerals and Waste Plan which give flexibility to overcome such situations. It is proposed that the Minerals and Waste Plan will contain a policy covering situations where 'exception' sites should be considered favourably for such reasons.
8.2.6 Safeguarding of ragstone resources for the longer term is proposed within the lead policy document, the Minerals and Waste Plan and the Key Proposals Diagrams(42).
8.2.7 Only two site specific proposals for crushed rock came forward in response to the KCC Minerals and Waste Development Framework 'Call for Sites'. Those two sites were the western extension at Hermitage Quarry and the East Kent underground limestone mine proposal. In view of the large land-won crushed rock landbank, there is no need for the East Kent limestone mine to be included in the plans as a site allocation. Instead, the Minerals and Waste Plan policies will give support to resource investigation and prospecting for underground limestone.
8.2.8 The Sustainability Appraisal commentary and the responses to the Core Strategy 'Issues' document agreed that there was a sufficient landbank for crushed rock to meet the requirements of the plan period and beyond (plus an additional 10%). The majority of the responses to this issue in relation to the Core Strategy at Strategy and Policy Directions consultation stage (May 2011) also supported the view that further crushed rock sites do not need to be identified as the landbank is more than sufficient for the plan period and beyond (taking into account an extra 10% for flexibility). Nine responses supported this view, four commented and one objected.
41 DCLG (March 2012). National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph145 42 See KCC (May 2011). Topic Report 4: Mineral Safeguarding 38 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
9 Provision for Different Types of Land-won Construction Aggregate
9.0.1 Up until now Kent Minerals Local Plans have sought to distinguish between crushed rock, mainly flint derived sand and gravels, mainly sandstone derived sand and gravels, and soft (building) sand. Separate provision for each mineral has been made in previous minerals plans. This stance has recognised that the materials have different properties, are of different quality and have traditionally been considered suitable for different end uses. However, working practises are increasingly allowing some interchangeability between the raw materials used for specific end uses. For example, evidence from Kent suggests that ragstone can, under certain circumstances and with suitable levels of investment in processing facilities, be used in the production of high quality concrete and recycled aggregates can be used in concrete manufacture. However, only crushed rock is normally suitable for use in asphalt.
9.0.2 National and Regional Aggregate Guidelines and the revised South East Plan policy M3 have not differentiated between different types of sand and gravel (soft sand/sharp sand and gravel). However, the NPPF requires MPAs to calculate and maintain separate landbanks for any aggregate materials of a specific type or quantity which have a distinct and separate market. Paragraph 28 of the October 2012 Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System states that "where there is a distinct market for a specific type or quality of aggregate such as a high specification rock, asphalting sand, building sand or concreting sand, a separate landbank calculation based on provision to that market may be justified for that material or those materials" (emphasis added).
9.0.3 The following section explains why it is not proposed to make provision for separate landbanks for soft sand and sharp sand and gravel.
9.1 Sand and Gravel
9.1.1 Kent has experienced a decline in annual sales of land-won sand and gravel
Provision for Different Types of Land-won Construction Aggregate over the last 10 years (Figure 3) despite the maintenance of healthy levels of reserves
9 (18.674mt at the end of 2011 – equivalent to a landbank of more than 11 years based on an annual provision of 1.603mt). TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 39 9 Figure 3 - Sales of Land-won Sand and Gravel in Kent rvso o ifrn ye fLn-o osrcinAggregate Construction Land-won of Types Different for Provision 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5
1.4
1.3 1.2 Sand & Gravel (Total)
1.1 Sharp Sand & Gravel Million Tonnes Million 1.0 Soft Sand 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year
9.1.2 A distinction can be drawn between soft sand and sharp sand and gravel. Soft sand, obtained from the Folkestone Formation, is predominantly used in the production of mortar and asphalt. Sand which does not meet the specifications can be used as constructional fill material. Sharp sand and gravel, derived from superficial river terrace and storm beach deposits, is used in the production of concrete and related concrete products. Sharp sand and gravel can also be used as drainage material, constructional base material and for road surfacing.
9.1.3 Sand and gravel from the Lower Medway Valley has historically been used as a construction fill material, due to the low quality of the deposit. However, at one Kent quarry which extracts Lower Medway Valley deposits, the operators blend the indigenous materials with imported crushed rock to enable it to meet the specifications for use in concrete. Lower Medway valley deposits have been included with 'sharp sand and gravel' deposits for data analysis purposes.
9.1.4 Recent sales figures give the best indication of proportionate demand but these are influenced by the respective availability of permitted reserves and the wider pattern of other available resources. Sales of both land-won sharp sand and gravel and land-won soft sand have shown a downward trend since 2003.
9.1.5 Sharp sand and gravel has accounted for 57% of land-won sand and gravel sales in Kent over the last 10 years for which data is available, compared with 43% for soft sand. However, the balance between the two types of sand and gravel has been changing in recent years. In 2011 the ratio of sales for soft sand and sharp sand and gravel was 50:50. 40 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Table 20 - Average Kent Sales: Land-won Sharp Sand and Gravel and Soft Sand 2000–2011
Sand & Sharp Sand Soft Sand Gravel and Gravel % Sharp % Soft Year Total Sand and Sales Sales Sand Sales Gravel (mtpa) (mtpa) (mtpa)
2000 1.945 0.956 49.2 0.989 50.8
2001 1.869 1.028 55.0 0.841 45.0
2002 1.737 0.922 53.1 0.815 46.9
2003 1.931 1.210 62.7 0.721 37.3
2004 1.719 0.940 54.7 0.779 45.3
2005 1.672 1.039 62.2 0.633 37.8
2006 1.692 1.071 63.3 0.621 36.7
2007 1.823 1.142 62.6 0.681 37.4
2008 1.596 0.840 52.6 0.756 47.4
2009 1.362 0.764 56.1 0.598 43.9
2010 1.385 0.764 55.2 0.621 44.8
2011 1.068 0.538 50.4 0.530 49.6
Average Provision for Different Types of Land-won Construction Aggregate (3 years) 1.272 0.689 53.9 0.583 46.1 9 2009–11
Average
(5 years) 1.447 0.810 55.4 0.637 44.6 2007–11
Average (10 years) 1.599(43) 0.923 57.3 0.676 42.7 2002–2011
43 This figure differs slightly from the rolling 10 year average given elsewhere in this report (1.603mtpa) due to the use of rounded data in this table TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 41 9 9.1.6 The use of average sales figures for the last 3 and 5 years provides an rvso o ifrn ye fLn-o osrcinAggregate Construction Land-won of Types Different for Provision indicator of the recent pattern of demand and smoothes the effects of changes in the market over the period. This data suggests that if the sand and gravel landbank is to be split into sharp sand and gravel and soft sand, using the rolling 10 year average sales figures, provision should be weighted towards sharp sand and gravel in a ratio of 57:43.
9.1.7 If separate landbanks were to be provided based on the rolling ten year average sales figures and taking account of the pattern of extant reserves (4.30mt sharp sand and gravel and 14.37mt of soft sand at the end of 2011), the additional reserve requirements would be as follows:
Table 21 - New Sand and Gravel Allocation Requirements if Separate Landbanks are to be Provided on the Basis of the 10 year Rolling Average of Past Sales
Type of Required Required Less Current Required aggregate Provision Provision Provision in Provision for (%) for Plan Existing Consents Plan period (up Period (up (landbank to end 2030) to end of situation at end of (mt) 2030) (mt) 2011) (mt)
Soft sand 43 17.92 14.37 17.92-14.37=3.55
Sharp Sand and 57 23.75 4.30 23.75-4.30=19.45 Gravel
All sand and 100 41.67 18.67 23.0 gravel
9.1.8 Reliance on the past pattern of sales as the basis for future provision to be made for separate sand and gravel landbanks does not reflect the relative pattern of economically workable resources of sharp sand and gravels and soft sand respectively. Nor does it consider the degree to which resources for the future are constrained by important environmental constraints or the availability of alternatives for sharp sand and gravel, including marine dredged aggregates, imports and secondary and recycled materials.
9.1.9 Sales of all land-won sand and gravel in 2011 were 33% below the rolling ten year average and have continued to fall since 2003.
9.1.10 Kent’s sources for high quality flint gravels have been concentrated in areas where flints derived from the chalk have been deposited by river and marine action. These were essentially the three main river valleys of the Darent, Medway and Stour, and the beach deposits along the coast (particularly at Dungeness). As far back as the 1970s planning studies(44) identified the lack of alternatives to the flint gravels as a critical issue. Flint gravel resources in the river valleys were becoming exhausted
44 For the Kent Structure Plan 1975 42 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
and increasing weight has been accorded to nature conservation and water resource constraints in the Dungeness area which in the past has provided an area of extensive working and substantial resources. Flint dominant head gravel resources near Herne Bay, previously identified as plan proposals (Kent Minerals Plan 1993) have proved to be disappointing and have effectively been abandoned by the industry. The sandstone dominant gravels in the Medway Valley upstream of Maidstone became the subject of increasing interest from operators as other deposits became worked out, although their contribution to the production of high quality concreting aggregates has not normally been possible. Only one Medway Valley sandstone gravel quarry remains operational at the time of writing and that site benefits from a railhead which imports crushed rock for blending with the indigenous sandstone gravels to produce aggregates suitable for concrete.
9.1.11 An additional consideration in relation to the provision of separate landbanks is the availability of secondary and recycled aggregates and mineral imports. Recycled aggregates can, in some circumstances, provide a replacement for sharp sands and gravels in concrete. Kent also benefits from many aggregate wharves around its coastline, into which are landed significant quantities of marine-dredged sharp sand and gravels (MDA) which can provide an alternative to land-won sources in meeting market demand for concreting aggregates. Kent is the largest importer of MDA in the South East of England, importing 1.8mt of MDA into its wharves in 2008(45). As a coastal county, Kent fulfils an important role in the importation of minerals including imports of a range of construction aggregates (many of which are from Europe) as well as the importation of sea-dredged marine aggregates.
9.1.12 As such, there is a need to consider the current dominance of sales of land-won sharp sand and gravels in view of the following factors:-
the widespread availability of alternatives to land-won sharp sand and gravel in Kent;
the impact of high level (national/international) environmental constraints upon the remaining potential resource areas, particularly in relation to flint gravels; Provision for Different Types of Land-won Construction Aggregate 9 the lack of deliverable sharp sand and gravel sites promoted to the Kent Minerals Plan to maintain a separate landbank for the two types of material based on past sales data. It has only been possible to allocate five sharp sand and gravel sites as 'Preferred Options'. These have a combined reserve of 6.47mt;
The current imbalance in the landbank of permitted reserves in the County with the landbank being dominated by soft sand reserves; and
The relative abundance of soft sand supplies in Kent, which are scarce in other parts of the South East.
45 Kent Minerals and Waste Development Framework Evidence Base Mineral Topic Report 7: Kent and Medway Imports Study May 2011 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 43 9 9.1.13 Insufficient deliverable sharp sand and gravel sites came forward for rvso o ifrn ye fLn-o osrcinAggregate Construction Land-won of Types Different for Provision consideration as part of the MWLP 'Call for Sites' to deliver enough land-won sharp sand and gravel sites to sustain the ratio of sales of sharp sand and gravel to soft sand experienced over the past 10 years. Only three of the proposed sharp sand and gravel sites were not allocated in the Mineral Sites Plan 'Preferred Options' consultation by the MPA. Another 3 sharp sand and gravel sites were withdrawn by the operator. Details of all of the non-allocated sharp sand and gravel sites are given in Table 22 below.
Table 22 - Sharp Sand and Gravel Sites which were proposed by operators for consideration for the Mineral Sites Plan, which were not allocated
Site Estimates Site Name Reasons for Not Allocating Site No. Reserves (t)
Arnolds Lodge Farm 3 200,000 Withdrawn by the operator West, East Peckham
Woodfall's 4 Farm, 1,500,000 Withdrawn by the operator Yalding
Site lies in the Kent Downs AONB and in the Green Belt. Mineral extraction here is Filston unlikely to meet the 'exceptional 5 Lane, 600,000 circumstances' test required under the Shoreham NPPF regarding development in the AONB. Also, the site is not suitable due to poor highway access from the rural lane network
Withdrawn by the operator as the site was Ham Farm, 25 determined to be uneconomic following the Faversham completion of a test drilling survey
Forms part of the Swale Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar site. Sand and gravel extraction will destroy or damage Hollowshore, the Ramsar features on site and 26 1,150,000 Faversham significantly disturb the bird interest. Inclusion of the site would not meet the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
It is adjacent to the Allen's Bank Quarry Allens Bank area. The Allen's Bank Quarry permission 73 (E) Quarry 300,000 requires the mineral to be taken off site by Extension rail. Apart from some initial permission 44 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Site Estimates Site Name Reasons for Not Allocating Site No. Reserves (t)
implementation works, the site has not been operational. The addition of this small extension would be unlikely to affect the delivery of the main deposit. Quarrying would impact upon known extensive important archaeological remains, particularly those of Roman and medieval origin
9.1.14 It is not proposed to make provision for separate landbanks of sharp sand and gravel and soft sand. Whilst site allocations will include sites for sharp sand and gravel(including sandstone gravels) and soft sand, the ratios for allocation of sites for these materials cannot be related directly to past sales figures.
9.1.15 If the demand for sand and gravel continues during the plan period in accordance with the pattern established in the rolling 10 year average figures, there will be a shortfall of 13mt of land-won sharp sand and gravel over the plan period (an average shortfall of 0.72mtpa). However, it is not considered that this is likely to happen, due to:-
ongoing falls in sales of land-won sand and gravel; and
the changing ratio of sales of soft sand: sharp sand and gravel.
9.1.16 In 2011 sales of all land-won sand and gravel amounted to 1.07mt, which is 33% lower than the ten year rolling average figure which is being used to calculate provision. In the worst case scenario, this potential shortfall in land-won sharp sand and gravel can be addressed through increased imports of marine dredged aggregates
Provision for Different Types of Land-won Construction Aggregate and increased amounts of recycled aggregates utilising existing capacity. 9 9.2 Crushed Rock
9.2.1 It remains the intention of the Council to make provision for a separate landbank for crushed rock (ragstone), in accordance with the requirements in paragraph 145 of the NPPF. TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 45 10 10 Future Supply of Aggregates in Kent uueSpl fAgeae nKent in Aggregates of Supply Future 10.0.1 Kent is one of very few counties in England which supplies a diverse range of sources of aggregates, including land-won sand and gravel, land-won crushed rock, imported marine dredged aggregates, imported crushed rock and other aggregates as well as various recycled and secondary aggregates.
10.0.2 Table 23 overleaf summarises the existing pattern of supply of aggregates in Kent and compares this with the provision during the mid and late plan period. The increase in provision by the middle of the plan period is due to the consented major importation facility at Wharf 42, Northfleet, which is considered to be unlikely to come into production until after 2016. The existing estimated productive capacity and wharves and railheads combined with land-won provision give sufficient flexibility to provide aggregates at a level which is well over and above the supply requirements recorded in recent years.
10.0.3 If Wharf 42 is developed for aggregate use, the capacity will increase considerably during the plan period. It is therefore evident that Kent can ensure that the NPPF requirements for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates for the infrastructure, buildings and goods that the country needs are maintained throughout the plan period. The data in Table 23 shows that there is sufficient capacity at Kent's wharves and aggregate recycling facilities to make up the worst case shortfall in land-won sharp sand and gravel during the plan period. 46 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Table 23 - Comparison of Existing and Future Aggregate Supply Streams
Future (mid to late plan (2021 Source of Aggregates Current (mtpa) until 2030) (mtpa)
Land-won sand and gravel 1.603 1.603 (provision)
Land-won crushed rock 0.78 0.78 (provision)
Recycled Aggregates 1.9 1.56 (capacity)
Marine Dredged Aggregates imported into 2.7 3.7 Kent's wharves (estimated capacity)(46)
Future Supply of Aggregates in Kent Crushed rock and other
10 aggregates imported 2.1 4.1 through Kent's wharves (estimated capacity)
Crushed rock imported through Kent's railheads 1.5 1.5 (estimated capacity)
Total supply capacity 10.58 13.24
46 The capacity of these wharves and those for crushed rock and other aggregates was estimated using the data in Tables 3 and 5 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 47 11 11 Conclusions Conclusions 11.0.1 This report identifies the types of construction aggregates that are imported into Kent and extracted from quarries in Kent. It identifies the diverse range of supply sources of aggregates across the county.
11.0.2 Monitoring data shows sales of land-won sand and gravel have been falling since 2003. They were at an all time low in 2011 at just over 1mt. The ratio between sales of land-won sharp sand and gravel and soft sand is also changing. In 2011 the sales of the two types of construction aggregates was balanced at a 50:50 ratio, whereas the rolling 10 year average sales figure is skewed in favour of sharp sand and gravel (at a ratio of 57% sharp sand and gravel and 43% soft sand).
11.0.3 The rolling 10 year average for combined land-won sand and gravel sales is now 1.603mtpa, which is marginally below the revised South East Plan policy M3 apportionment of 1.63mtpa, whereas sales of all land-won sand and gravel from Kent quarries in 2011 was 1.068mt, some 33% lower than the rolling 10 year average.
11.0.4 The existing landbank for land-won sand and gravel (combined) at the end of 2011 is over 11 years, but it consists of predominantly soft sand deposits (14.37mt of soft sand compared with 4.3mt of sharp sand and gravel).
11.0.5 The traditional areas of gravel workings in the county are being exhausted or reducing their outputs considerably (such as the Stour Valley between Ashford and Canterbury and the Dungeness Peninsula). The importation of marine dredged aggregates into Kent wharves has increased between 2010 and 2011 to help fill the supply gap.
11.0.6 The NPPF requires MPAs to calculate and maintain separate landbanks for any aggregate materials of a specific type or quality which have a distinct and separate market. However, the more recent DCLG Guidance on MASS gives more flexibility on this subject, stating, "Where there is a distinct market for a specific type or quality of aggregate such as high specification rock, asphalting sand, building sand or concreting sand, a separate landbank calculation based on provision to that market may(47) be justified for that material or those materials". A separate landbank will be maintained for crushed rock. The only other aggregate material extracted in Kent which has a 'distinct market for a specific type or quality of aggregate' is soft sand, which cannot be substituted by other types of construction materials in mortar. Whilst soft sand has a separate and distinct market and does not have any substitute materials, Kent has a wealth of soft sand resources available to supply the mortar businesses for the plan period and beyond.
47 Emphasis on the word 'may' has been added 48 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
11.0.7 Basing site allocations for an 18 year plan on ratios derived from past sales does not reflect the availability of land-won resources. Past sales data combined with information on existing reserves indicates that future sand and gravel allocations should be predominantly for sharp sand and gravel, whereas the majority of sites put forward for consideration are soft sand sites.
Conclusions 11.0.8 It is proposed to make provision for sufficient land-won sand and gravel
11 sites in the Mineral Sites Plan based upon the rolling average 10 year sales figure for all sand and gravel. There are insufficient deliverable sharp sand and gravel sites available for inclusion in the Mineral Sites Plan to make provision for a separate landbank for sharp sand and gravel on the basis of the rolling 10 year average sales figure. Instead, a mix of sharp sand and gravel and soft sand sites will be identified to make provision for one landbank for all land-won sand and gravel materials.
11.0.9 The worst case scenario situation in relation to the shortage of land-won sand and gravel sites would be a shortage of 13mt of land-won sand and gravel over the plan period (0.72mtpa of sharp sand and gravel). In view of the ongoing reduction in sand and gravel sales since 2003 combined with the changing ratios between sharp sand and gravel and soft sand, this level of shortage is considered to be very unlikely. In any event, evidence in Table 23 shows that there is more than sufficient current and future capacity at existing marine dredged aggregate wharves and aggregate recycling facilities to continue the supply of alternative supplies of sharp sand and gravel into Kent. Evidence in Section 2 shows that there is a long term and viable marine aggregate resource available for landing at Kent's wharves.
11.0.10 The existing landbank of crushed rock reserves is more than sufficient for the plan period.
11.0.11 Sales of crushed rock and marine dredged aggregates supplied from Kent's wharves and railheads continue to play an important role in the supply of aggregates to Kent's economy.
11.0.12 Data from 2009 surveys show that Kent was a relatively small net exporter of land-won sand and gravel and marine dredged aggregates but it imported more crushed rock into its railheads than it exported from its own quarries. About one million tonnes of crushed rock is considered to have been imported into Kent wharves in 2009 with 1.4mt of marine dredged aggregates landed and processed at Kent's wharves. The total amount of primary aggregates sold from Kent sources in 2009 was 6.4mt.
11.0.13 By 2011 primary aggregate sales from all of Kent's supply sources dropped to 4.9mt with an additional 0.678mt of recorded recycled aggregates sold.
11.0.14 Evidence within this LAA shows that Kent will be able to continue to provide a steady and adequate supply of construction aggregates in order to support sustainable economic growth throughout the plan period. Whilst there may be a shortage of land-won sharp sand and gravel sites during the plan period, suitable sufficient alternative supplies will be available to plug any shortfall from marine TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 49 11 dredged and recycled sources. The ongoing safeguarding of Kent's wharves and railheads as well as ensuring that sufficient sites are available for aggregate recycling Conclusions will provide security of supply for the long term. 50 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
12 References
Cabinet Office (2010). The Coalition: Our Programme for Government
Cook, B.C & Offord, C.J (2009). Partial Review of the Regional Spatial Strategy for
References the South East: Review of Policy M3 Primary Land-won Aggregates and Sub-regional Apportionment – Report of the Panel. The Planning Inspectorate, Bristol 12 DCLG (March 2012). National Planning Policy Framework
DCLG (2006). Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals. TSO, London (now replaced by the NPPF)
DCLG (2006). Planning and Minerals: Practical Guide TSO
DCLG (2009). National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England 2005–2020. DCLG, London
DCLG (October 2012). Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System
GOSE (2009). The South East Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England. TSO, London
GOSE (2010). The South East Plan: The Secretary of State's Proposed Change Policy M3 - Primary Land-won Aggregates and Sub-regional Apportionment
Hicks, L. (April 2011). The Barriers to Underground Mining of Aggregates - An overview. Published as part of the Aggregate Sustainability Research Programme
SEEAWP (October 2011). South East Aggregates Monitoring Report 2010 TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 51 pedxA: Appendix Appendix A: SEEAWP letter to KCC (21st November 2012)
Please see overleaf. EAPlte oKC(1tNvme 2012) November (21st KCC to letter SEEAWP 52 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
SEEAWP South East England Aggregates Working Party
Technical Secretary: C R Waite, 22 Sittingbourne Road, Maidstone, Kent ME14 5LW Tel: 01622 764335 e-mail: [email protected]
Lillian Harrison Planning Manager Minerals & Waste Policy Kent County Council Invicta House, County Hall Maidstone Kent ME14 1XX 21 November 2012
Draft Local Aggregates Assessment for Kent Dear Lillian, SEEAWP thanks you for making the draft of your Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA) available at its October meeting in accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Guidance on the Managed Aggregates Supply System (MASS). SEEAWP welcomed the opportunity to comment. However it was decided that there was not sufficient time for members at the meeting to give a considered response to the draft LAA. Views were asked to be sent to the Secretary in time for a draft SEEAWP response to be circulated to its members before being sent to you. This letter, therefore, is sent after consideration by all SEEAWP letter to KCC (21st November 2012) SEEAWP members. This letter seeks to distil out the key points raised and comprises advice from SEEAWP in fulfilment of the role it is given in paragraph 145 of the NPPF and paragraph 8a) of the Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System . SEEAWP supports: Provision for land-won sand and gravel and crushed rock supply in the draft LAA which is in accord with NPPF paragraph 145 and is consistent with the Proposed Changes to RSS Policy M3 and the apportionments which SEEAWP supported.
Appendix A: Provision proposed for recycled and secondary aggregates which is consistent with the RSS Policy M2. Provision for land-won sand and gravel supply at a level 10% above the 10 year mean to give flexibility in enabling additional reserves and productive capacity to come forward. The identification of additional sand and gravel reserves to provide for sufficient landbanks at the end of the plan period. The intention to make provision for additional rock reserves reflecting quality rather than quantity of existing reserves.
TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 53
A: Appendix The draft LAA provides a comprehensive analysis of current and future provision for aggregates, but was prepared in advance of the Guidance on the MASS. The LAA should be revisited to address the requirements set out in paragraph 10. Provision for land- won aggregates is clear, but demand and supply to be made by other sources is less clear, Particularly with regard to Marine sources and imports. In revisiting recycling and secondary aggregates and other sources besides land-won, undue reliance should not be placed on provision of throughput capacity leading to the same levels of actual EAPlte oKC(1tNvme 2012) November (21st KCC to letter SEEAWP production or supply. The draft LAA does not propose to make separate provision and landbanks for sharp sand and gravel and soft sands. This stems from the difficulty Kent finds in identifying sufficient sites for sharp sands and gravels. As a consequence the LAA does not make sufficient provision for current sales of land-won sharp sand and gravels to be maintained throughout the plan period and looks to alternative sources to make good the difference, particularly through imports of marine aggregates at wharves and crushed rock at rail depots. SEEAWP considers that unless sufficient robust evidence is provided to support the Kent view that further acceptable sharp sand and gravel sites cannot be identified, a separate provision should be made for sharp sand and gravel at a level 10% above the 10 year mean. We thank you again for giving SEEAWP an opportunity to comment on the draft LAA, and hope that this advice will be of assistance. In due course, please let SEEAWP know how far this advice has been taken on board. Yours sincerely,
John Kilford Chairman 54 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Appendix B: Safeguarded Wharves and Rail Importation Facilities
Table 24 - Sites in Kent 2012 (excludes Medway)
Site Name Operator Site Code
Allington Hanson A
Sevington Rail Depot Brett B
Hothfield Works Tarmac C
East Peckham Clubb D
Ridham Dock Brett & Tarmac E
Johnsons Wharf Lafarge F
Robins Wharf, Northfleet Aggregate Industries & Brett G
Denton Wharf Clubb H
East Quay, Whitstable Brett J
Red Lion Wharf Stema L
Ramsgate New Port Brett N Safeguarded Wharves and Rail Importation Facilities 42 Wharf, Northfleet Lafarge O
Dunkirk Jetty, Dover Western Brett P Docks
Sheerness Aggregate Industries Q
Appendix B: Botany Marshes Cemex R TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 55 pedxB: Appendix Figure 4 - Site A: Allington
M e a n H i
g C h
o W
a C MP te o r n
s
t
,
C
P
& Track M
u E d D
B
d
y DA ME L GR O L A C TH N K SW E T ra Gantry ck CA Museum of Kent G Sandling SE Farm Rural Life Willow Well DO TM Lodge Gantry MA Willow Lodge Track TW AS E N A Medway SH L
K C Cottage O Location Pond L Overview 6.4m ¯ d n U Tr ack Park and Sail Car Park a t S
b W u Hotel Malta Cottage ha S rf n l i E a r D Bollards Gantry Stone Facilities Importation Rail and Wharves Safeguarded
M Malta Inn ud a T Lock n owing Path Cottage d Co Const, ED & W Sh ard Bdy in gl ater MLW 0 e an High W M 2 Me Mud and Shingle Legend PH M P 4.6m MLW Sluice Post 40 Riv MH .5 T er M & MLW Level r ed MLW Tide Gauge a way andShingle c CC Mud Crossing k LW Foot Bridge FS min_study_wharfs_raildepot Riverside Landing Stage FB Gantry Track Me MHW C M 20 P an R a High th Path Wa Bollards ter Locks (u Allington Lock 4.7m Medium Tides flow about 4 miles higher m Scheduled Monuments ) Bollards Wharf when the Lock gates are opened Track Bollard Lock 5.1m Bollard House 1 2 RAMSAR
El Sub Sta SPA Lock
k Cottages rac T Bollards T rack SAC 20/20 Conveyor D P A a Industrial Estate t
O h SSSI R
Works Lock Wood E L
T S Allington A Allington AONB TM C Posts 9.0m NNR LIPHOOK WAY
P a Twr th district_customisedK (u m ) El Sub Sta
Ten nis Court ParkwayHouse B El Hopp ers M 8 Sub .0 0 Sta m Chimney Hopp ers Conveyor
T P r Pond a a t c h k The Annexe ( u Chy m )
Hopp ers C Conveyor o n v Ten nis Court e d y n o U r Lock Wood Twr Tan ks Hopp ers MA Shamrock Cottage El Sub Sta
Tan k y Rose Cottage d Chy B
D E d n a
P
L C , El I
t P s n Sub H Pond
o O C Sta
O o
C K Fn
W FB
A MP 40.75 L
Y
I 12.0m
P
H
O O
Tan k K
W
r A o y Y GV C e v Tk n o C 2 Allington Twr Incinerator 20/20 WB Lockwood House
Industrial Estate WB WB 16.6m
9
4
El Sub Sta El Sub Sta The Cottage
P The a th Gatehouse
D ( u A m LB ) O Nimbus Enterprise Park
R 6
E
K St Laurence Lo dge 20.4m
O
T
S
R
E
f V e
D A
L
7 8 22.5m
El Sub Sta D A O R E WB L T S ST LE O NA A RDS RO AD C WB LB
WB ST LA URE N CE AV E NU E El Sub Sta Reliance House
H 18.1m
A
J
El Sub Sta Centre 3000
K 1
1
B
S t o
T
1 S
3 T
B
A L
L
R A N U
C A R
M
B E N
A S C
2
E
o
C t
L 1 A
D
O V
S E
1 0 Orchard Business E N
U 25.8m
Centre E E N
El Allington Open Space P Sub ) ion cat Car P ark uni El Sub Sta Sta mm eco R
l F Te 9 st ( Ma 20/20
GV C Industrial Allington Open Space S
Estate 8 6
1
ck a Tr
MP k 38.5 2 c a
3
5 r
T T E 5 ) 4 r NU 38 .2 f m a V E MP e u c E A D ( k C th 3 E N a UR P A 4 T L E S 30.4m S O Stone L C B E R R A E
U M Tan k Tan k N E 6 S L T IR y O H d N T B E
ED D 1 & R P I C V t, E 6 ns SP Co o C 3 Recreation Ground
6 Recreation
Posts Kilometers 9 Ground s k 1:5000 1 n a ) T
m r 7 u e ( t a ¯ th 8 a W P 1
0 m r Sports Ground o t 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 S C H A R C H CL OS E
L GO O
O
2 C 0
5 K MP 41 C L
(C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010 O 1
2 1 S 2
E 3
2 1
Allington
Figure 5 - Site B: Sevington Rail Depot
D A O R L E IF E R E T S N U M D A B E U M 50.8m N P E 57 V .7 A 5
L 3 L A H Sunnybank
4
5
Ashford 6 K m Trade P
93 Ashdown DA Centre Ashdown ME Cottage GR SW TH T S H ig E na l G a C nt R ry E CA S C E
N 9 TM T SE
MA DO
1 0 AS TW G Location SH Hotel Overview ¯ in a r D The French Orchard Cottage Connection (PH)
dy d B ar W & ED D OA CR R EL IF NE R E A TE C L S HU LD UN RC IE M H HF AD RO G B A D HI Legend
d n U
1 min_study_wharfs_raildepot 2 Maytree Cottages
D ROA EIFEL Scheduled Monuments STER MUN BAD
M P 58 RAMSAR in Dra Bridge Cottage SPA in Dra
n Drai SAC D r a in FB
D n r ai a Dr i n SSSI SL d n Drain U SL
D SL AONB r a i n 52.1m SL NNR Depot
n i a r district_customisedK D
FB
W E B l S ub S t P a a th
(u m AS ) W
A
T
E
R
B
R
O
O
K E
A N 48.2m D V e A f E L N
U
E
N
E
E
R
G
Pond S
'
N
A
M Imber
E
S
E
E
H
D C ra Depot in
Drain
SL
MP 58.25
Pond SL
SL D r a in Drain SL
W 44.9m A T E R B R O O K A V E N D U ra E in
The Dean
Drain
43.2m
Swimming Pool ain Dr Ppg Sta Hogben Farm
W A T E R B R O O Kilometers 1:4000 K
A ¯ V E N 0 0.0250.05 U 0.1 E (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010 Pond Pond
Sevington 56 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Figure 6 - Site C: Hothfield Works
in ra DA D GR ME P TH a th SW (u m ) CA MP 55.5 SE TM MA G DO
Keepers AS Cottage TW Location SH Overview ¯
Legend
addit_railheads_wharves Scheduled Monuments Parsonage Aggregate Wood RAMSAR Terminal SPA Chimney Travelling Conveyor SAC SSSI
D r C a o in n Tanks AONB v e y o Chimney Pond r NNR C o n v e y o district_customisedK Pond r Aggregate Terminal 63.2m Hoppers Grove Wood AS Farm
SLs WB WB
Km P 85
D r a Mast in T ra c k
Sunnybridge Ripple Wood T Farm
r
a
c
k
T r a c k k c a r T SL
Sunnybank
MP 56 Parsonage Farm
P a th Kilometers (u 1:3500 m ¯ ) 0 0.035 0.07 0.14
(C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010 T rac k k c ra T Hothfield Railhead
Figure 7 - Site D: East Peckham Rail Depot Safeguarded Wharves and Rail Importation Facilities r
o
y
e
v
n
o
H C
A
L Gravel Pit
E
1
S
1 T S 4 N R 4 E
E D R E A
T
N G k
E c
1 a 3
D r 1 T
N 43
E
1 9
T 33 53 T
1 1 3 55 LB 8 A Pond P 23 Water Level Crossing DA ME LANE
SMITHERS
2 12.6m 2 GR
Dra
a 2 i
2 n 4 TCB 2 TH FB Track
1 to
10 11 to 22 2 8 SW P ath (u m)
1 3 CA 6 TM El MA C o SE Sub n in v a Smithers e r Sta y D 130 Court o DO GP r FB Gravel Pit
1 2 8 G
n i a r D AS Hale Street TW Medway View
F F Pond 5 Pond . 7 Location 3
P SH M Pump Overview ¯
Sluice Pond 1
1 FB 8
Sewage Works FB 1 to 8 Sewage urt Cates Co Works
1 1 FB 0
r
n i o
a y r Legend e
D v n o Arnold's Lodge Farm C addit_railheads_wharves
D
r
a
i
n
12.9m k D Scheduled Monuments c ra a in r
T Pa th (u f m) e D RAMSAR Appendix B:
Gravel Pit 8 2 Path (um) SPA
P a (u t 8 h
0 m ) Conveyor SAC
P D 13.1m T a r r P a Weigh Bridge f t a a h c i t e n h D k D ( r Conveyor (u u a m m SSSI i ) n ) Hale Place Cottage AONB ) m East Peckham Quarry Rail Depot (u th Pond Stoneham Lock Pa Water (disused) NNR
Sluice Sluice district_customisedK FB
TM Water 7 2 MA Gravel
H
A Pit n i
L a E r
Water D D S
T 9 r
a R
i n E
E
T 7 Gravel Pit
1
1 0 4 2 MP 37.25
F El Pond F Sub Sta
24 P Pond a
t h
( 6
1 y u 2 3 12.7m a m
S w )
W d
O e
D A M 1
3 3 3
E r
30 M e
1 4 v Y i A R 28 DW ME ) m
u 1
0 GP ( 1
h
t 7 a P
95 LB
Rose 1 and Crown (PH) 1 2 1 3 . Pond 4 8 m Pumping
1
2 Station
2 6 SR D r a r i n B
S Towin g Path
14.3m
D r a in
Garage
FB
n i
a
r
D y a
w F
d F e M Branbridges House Branbridges r e v i R Pond Branbridges Wharf 55
57 P ath T Sl Depot (u ra m) ck
y
d
B
D
E Depth Dr
d a a in t Gauge n n S i a a b u r S P l D E C
,
t
Kilometers s 1:5000 13.8m n Works o
C ¯
o 0 0.0350.07 0.14 C (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010 10
East Peckham Quarry Rail Depot TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 57 pedxB: Appendix Figure 8 - Site E: Ridham Dock
Me an H ig h W a ter
Ri dh am W a ll
Drain Navigation Light DA (fixed green) Mud 2.5m ME D GR ra Bo D in u G TH r ld a e i rs n Mud D rain SW S CA M F D Tanks e SE TM ra r in Bollards ry R Tank e MA DO D Depot Dolphin a ra Rid c in ham h Wal D l Tanks Conveyors rain SM Conveyor n L Twr rai D Conveyor AS Hoppers in a TW in r Dra D Tks
Hopper Location Conveyor D B ra Ridham o SH in u ld Marshes e E rs D a ¯ n Overview Elmley Marshes d LG W a rd D r C B ai d n v y a Warehouse r T Elmley Island
s Warehouse d Navigation Light s r C d a D l r l r v (fixed white) a o a a l i Facilities Importation Rail and Wharves Safeguarded r l B n T o M n i B e a a r n
D H Legi end g h
W a t k e c r o Ridham Dock - Brett D T
m h n i a r e T a h t e r r a a D d c i W 2.6m Ridham Dockk - Tarmac R w C S o C L L n W w a e M C a o n Scheduled Monuments v l e e y L o
T r E s RAMSAR SPA Mast
TCB M
e
a
n
SAC H
i
g
h
L Twr W
a
t e SSSI
r
D n i AONB r a a r i n D
r
o y NNR e
v
n
o
C
D rain
L Twrs Metal
R
Fragmentation Plant i d Mud
h
Crane a
m
n W i a
r n a i D a l
r l
D L Twr
WB
Drain
Travelling Crane
R idh L Twr am n F L Twr i le a et r D
h C c o a ldh arb e o E u TL R r Wa ll y C a Dr o l ain nve yor WB C Mud Silos Post Tank
El Sub Sta Balancing Pond
r te a W h WB ig H n a e Coldharbour Marshes ETL M
El Sub Sta
D
r a
i n
n
i
a in r
a D r D Track
n i a r D
n
i s
a g
r in lt D a S Mud
R Drain M Sluice F l id S e h e a C t m ( o D r r l a e r d i MLW t ate h n a W a D ) igh r W H r a n b i ea 4.3m n Kilometers n h M i o g 1:5000 a D i r u D r H y a r r on i W n ¯ n s a a m a e Mud l ing M p 0 0.030.06 0.12 l Slo D r Mud a in (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010 Dr D ain ra in
Ridham Dock
Figure 9 - Site F: Johnsons Wharf
G ME GR DA SW TH CA SE TM R ive MA DO r T ham Lo es ng Rea ch AS TW River Thames Location Long Reach SH Mud Overview ¯
Jetty (disused) Naviga tion Li ght (fixed red) Bollard Bollards Me an Dolphin H Dolphin igh W a t S er Bo lo llard pi s ng M Jetty Hopper Dolphin a s on Naviga tion Li ght ry (disused) (two fixed red) Bollards Legend Long Reach Bollards Tra Hopper ck
Naviga tion Li ght (fixed red) addit_railheads_wharves
Bollard Dolphin Scheduled Monuments 5.5m RAMSAR
Johnson's Wharf SPA
Mooring Mooring
Post Post M
L
Slop W ing m Mooring ason SAC ry Post Water Mean Low Mooring Post Mean Low Water
Mooring L Twr SSSI Mud Post Mooring
y 6.1m Post d
B
d
r
a
Mooring d
W n
Post Mooring U & Post AONB D Dolphin Mud
E
Mooring Post r o NNR y Bollard Mud e v
n o Mooring C FS Post
Mud district_customisedK 28
T ds
rac llar k o 3 B T 2 CEN RES A C SAR 2 Slo pin
g m e 2 a l 3 so
nry g 22 n 33
i Bollard
h 1 7 6 Bollard S
3 3 FROBISHER WAY
DA Mud and Shingle
M Bollard 3
ean H igh 1
Wa ter 0 Shingle 4 0
3 1 Mud and Shingle 4
T 6
Bollard N 8 SM
E Bollards T
Crossways 2
C
N 2 6
7 3 E S
Mast 1
C E
S R
E C Tanks
R
A
C
Tank R A El Sub Sta A PH
4 R S 1 2
4 Hoppers 0 1 A
9 S 5 1 8
72 66 82 80 78 1 84 74 52 Conveyor 50 6.3m 48
5.9m
1
5 o t
5
EET 4
R 3
T 4
S 1 6 9 4
H o t G I 7 H 3 HIGH
2 1 STRE 5 E
7 3 T
7 3 14 13 2
2
1
2 1
9
7 2
3 5
Quadrant Court
5 Court 5 Conveyors Mariners
Works 4 2
5
4 6 7 2 9
Hopper 7
7 1
1 Hopper
9 4
1 1 Q
1 Path U 1 3 0 Depot A Y FIDDL ER S CLOSE El Sub Sta L
A
N
3.0m E 48 El Sub Sta El Sub Sta
D
WB 8 A 1 O 7 Tank R
N
O I E AGLE P S 1 T RO
AD a
1 t A
Superstore h
T LB
1 ( S EVARD 2 u
CROSSWAYS BOUL m ) 9
) (um
1 h
Pat 4 2 Ea 11 gl 1 e Cl iff Y E A A G W L E S CRE D
R EET ST VIEW R T 8 C S N O RO S A
S LE A D S L W R 5
A A D
Y H 6
S 7
B C O
O 8 O UL 9 EV W AR
D 7 t 7 r
u
o K L C 2 Pat A 1 h n W o 1 t S s r ADMIRALS WALK L a A
M R I 0 1 El Sub Sta M 1 5 D
2 1 1 A
1 1
1
1 1 3 1
1
9
2
1 9
1 a 4
3 1 9 1 2 99 3 55 5 1 EA 1 GLES 4 R 2 O
1 3 AD
4 9 1 2 8
4 W 1
3 41 O 2 2 9 8 O 5.3m 27 D 3.6m 5 LA
2 N K
1 D 2 T 3
E 1 D
RLES STRE W L
CHA 0 A A
N
1
Y 3 2 6 1 0 6 5 6 CH 2 AR W LES A
1 STRE 2 ET
1
3 L
Y 2
4 5.9m Posts 4
5 S
D
A 1
0 3 L
O
1 4
8 W A
1 6 O
6 1
R
1 1 I
6 2
W
7 5
6 M
8 4
6
b 8 2 2 E D
D 1
A a 8 2 C RO & Drain SS WAY W S B a O r UL d 3.4m E VAR B 27 d
D 7
y 19 1
TCB 9 LB 2 3
8 9 13 2 9
MP 19.5m 1 4 K TCB L A FB W S ER GL 1 UG
2 SM
1 ED & 6 Ward B dy
6
3
6 2
1 1 8 1:3500 Kilometers 2 2
¯ 8 2
12 10 0 0.035 0.07 0.14 4 MP 19.75 9 8 17 12 5 (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010 11 Greenhithe Station 14
Johnsons Wharf, Greenhithe 58 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Figure 10 - Site G: Robins Wharf
B o T l r la a r v d C e r s a ll n in e g Pier Tanks Tanks Tanks G 4.4m DA ME WB B GR TH Bol o l SW E la T r L d s CA SE TM
B MA DO o l la Dolphin r d s Bollards Navigation Post AS (two fixed red) TW Pier T ra v e Location a ll St in SH b g Su C l r ¯ E a Overview n Bollard e
ta S ub S 3.5m El Navigation Post (two fixed red) Legend Tower Wharf Robins Wharf - Brett Robins Wharf - Aggregate Ind Scheduled Monuments Mud RAMSAR
C o Weighbridge n v SPA e y Tks o r Dolphin SAC Navigation Post (two fixed red) SSSI
Tank Britannia AONB Sand and Gravel B House o l Works la rd NNR s
J5 ta b S Su El
Sand and Gravel
K 8 Pier Navigation Post Works (two fixed red) J1
Weighbridge LO WE R RO Tank AD Mud
4.6m
K 1 Robins Wharf AI S WB's lopin Warehouse g ma Warehouse sonr MHW y Mud
Slo pin g m Navigation Lights aso nr y Dolphin (2 fixed red) Warehouse Warehouse M ean H WB's igh W ater R E M iv l e a e Works S n r u H T b i E g h h l S Warehouse a Depot W S t m Warehouse a a u te e b r s
A7 S M t e L a a A6 O n 5 H A W ig 4 Northfleet Hope h A E rf W R a A3 h at Bollards e A2 R W r O Ro A bi D n Dolphin Depot s C re ek
T
a
Stone n Depot
P 1 k f 6 s Whar 4 M Mud ean H ig h W Sluice W L
at M
er P 4
6
7 MLW Well
6.3m
LB Mud
1 1
1
0
1
2 Tank
1
4
1 5
2 1 0
9 Works
1 8 Sluice 3.7m Well Works
t f e Silos e e l f D f D EL r s a A n b l h Sub i b O W C E R K 4.3m on E Sta ve V yo 1 r 2 O 5.1m
R
8 G 3 a Warehouse t S
b C u on S v e y l yo d r B E D Stand E & P Works
C 5.1m
t, Grove
9
s Robins Wharf o t
n 4 o House TH C E CR
2 o Garage EE 3 C K T Works 7 Football Ground A
U
0
N 3 8 o
t
1 1 Silos T O Stand
N
e R o r 1 Sh O 2 e Warehouse Th A Kilometers
1:3D 000 6 2 ¯ 00.0105.03 0.06
Works (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2S 010 Stand T Football 1 O 9 N
0 E 2 Ground B R ID G E R O A D Robins Wharf
Figure 11 - Site H: Denton Wharf Safeguarded Wharves and Rail Importation Facilities
River Thames GMravEesend Reach DA G TH GR SW CA SE TM MA DO AS TW Location SH Overview ¯
Jetty Jetty Dolphin Bollards Bols Navigatio n Lights (Fixed Red) or C y Dolphin o e Navigation Lights n v v n
e o (two fixed red) y
o or C r ey nv Legend Co Navigation Light (two fixed red) addit_railheads_wharves Scheduled Monuments
River Thames Navigatio n Lights Navigatio n Lights Gravesend Reach (Two Fixed Red) Jetty (Two Fixed Red) Crane W RAMSAR
a Appendix B: Jetty
r River Thames d
B
Bollard d
y Navigatio n Lights Bollard (Two Fixed Red) Navigatio n Lights SPA (Two Fixed Red) Bollard Bollard Gravesend Reach SAC
Jetty
J
e C
o t Bols
t SSSI
n
y
v
e
y
o r Navigation Lights Jetty (two fixed red) AONB
ater Mud igh W Mean H Mud Post NOuNtfalRl Post asonry Mud ing m Ou tfall Slop Slipway
e
n i s Mast Shingle L r district_customisedK de e ul p i Bo P Shingle Denton Wharf Denton Wharf ry Mean Hig on h Water Boulders as um) Slop ing masonry ng m Path ( Slopi Crane E N Jetty A Shingle L Path K R GR A M Slop Wharf ing ma Ship and Lobster sonry (PH) Shingle High Water Mean onry P mas a ing t op h Sl 3.7m Shin gle Boulders 1 Sluice Ou tfall
Scrap Y ard
Tan k
3.0m
6 E N El Sub Sta
A
L
Works K Offices R
Works A M Mast (Teleco mmunication)
FS
Scrap Y ard Warehouse rt s Cou Works Tenni El Sub n S i ta
a
r D Firing Points
Weighbrid ge El S ub Sta
n
i
Works a r
Denton Wharf D El Sub Sta WH A RF R OA D Hopp er
r
o
y Warehouses e v
n
o
C
Drain Tan k
4.0m Conveyors Works Tan ks Depot in a r
n D Mast (Teleco mmunication) i Thames and Medway Canal (disused) a r Drain 4.0m D N ationa l Sea T raining Works WB Cent ET 4.0m re L Works Works FB Drain Depot Depot El Sub Sta 4.0m FB MP 25.25 Tham es an d M ed way C El Sub Sta anal (d isused ) SL 4.0m Sluice
D Mast RO A L K FO MP 25 Stone D NOR r Tan k a Metropolitan Police i n in a r D Weir Pond Specialist Training Centre
Stone 3.7m Drain 4.3m E Sewage Works Waterton Park N A MP 25.5 L
K R SL Th A ame M s a nd Med way Ca AR S nal O PL Denton Marshes (d
H E P isu T 8 sed
Drain ) 4 4.0m
3 Drain El Sub Stas Waterton Park 3.6m
T 1 H Tan k E T ha 9 P mes a O n d M edw P a y C(adinsus L al ed )
A
R
S Playgroun d Tan k
47 MP 25.75 37 41 Drain
Swing bridge WATERTON AVENUE 3.4m 3.4m Sewage Works (disused)
n
i 4 5 6 2 4 6
4 7 a r D
E LC N A L
K Sewage Works R A Cottages
n M i
a
D r r 1 D
a
i
n
2 El Sub Sta
Weighbrid ge Tan k Tan ks 83
59 63 69 73 77 79
Works 3.4m Pip
LE X A NDR A RO AD e L
A ine
1 0 6
9 4
2 8 7 0 0 6 1:5000 ¯ Kilometers
n i
a
r 0 0.T0an ks 350.07 0.14 D Tan ks
D ra Tan ks in
D
r
(C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2a 010
i
n
1 to 8
Denton Wharf TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 59 pedxB: Appendix Figure 12 - Site J: East Quay, Whitstable
W
h
i t
s
t
a
b
l e
S
W t a r t ter e e Wa ow e r an L Me t
Tankerton Bay
r ate w W M Lo Sand and Shingle L an W Me DA GR ME SW G TH Mud and Sand CA The Paddock SE TM Tankerton Bay Tankerton Bay MA DO The Paddock Beacon Tankerton Beach
Groynes Groynes AS TW Location Shingle
U SH n
r d te ngs a r S pri Shingle W ate w igh W o ean H L M n ¯ ea Overview M
menade Pro The Beacon House Kiora Tankerton Slopes Coastal Slope
Coastal Slope Mud and Sand aeure hre n alIprainFacilities Importation Rail and Wharves Safeguarded Legend Coastal Slope PCs
Beacondene
le ng e addit_railheads_wharves i p h o S l 15 16 S l a t Groynes s Beacon a o Outfall C Groynes 14.9m Scheduled Monuments TOWER H ILL Tamarisk 18.9m 11.6m 3 Beacon 8 Beacon El S ub S ta
RAMSAR Sp ind rift
Groyne Outfall Groyne Pavilion Bers ama S
l i SPA p
w PH
6
2 a t
o 9
y 9 Shingle Mean High Water Scimitir Penny Navigation Light House Lodge The Castle
5 SAC Shingle 1 6
2 0
7
B 1 Bowling Green E Beach
Shingle A Tankerton Mews B
C
Lodge 8 E 7
H
Shingle A
W C SSSI A H
4 3 2
6 L W
MH & MLWS K
A
Whitstable Bay 2 1 L osts 2 1 P Po K sts Albion Lodge
Navigation Light 9.4m AONB 13 (fixed green) de Club ena 14 Prom Dolphin Swimming Pool Navigation Light 4
(fixed white and red) 4 ks MHW Tan 7 to 10 Galatea
Works FB 1 NNorthN LodgeR Me H 11 6 an o 1 3 Lo p 12 w t p W s a n e ouse te r Bowling Centre n Ellis H r d o Wyn C n U o C
& TCB t El Sub Sta s Bowling Centre district_customisedK 6 n 5.1m o 1 C y d Bd War
Bowling d 4 r 7.0m a East Quay Whitstable Harbour Alley
l CR LB 1 l Bo 6
o ll
B a 9 r c 6 Telephone
ds Telephone
S 1
1 C O Exchange Exchange
o b l 6 U e m T
H H a
o n L p 3
2
p 1
e C O o
6
r 1
t
s t
o
D 8
5 o
c 1 u
e G
5 odg L 6
b r South
B t 17 5 E
o 8
l 4 l 5 1 C 3
a E a
rd l S
s u 2 L b 1 S O ta
S
N E
a
6 0
O 3 19 4
e b R 0 ag 6 3 TAN
CA ar o 1 T K
G t E
1 a R LB B H 0 T Mud, Sand and Shingle o 3 O
ll WB W N R
ar 1 OA
ds O D
1 16.2m
c O
E 2
3 1 D
D b 4
A 6
M R 1 1 R e A a a P t n W The o O
H B R 4
i E 1 1 A
0 4 g W 4 & 4 ter h O 3 2 D Low Wa W T Barges 1 Mean at 1 er a
s 6 Harbour e r rin a e M Le r Harbour Office D te A Shingle a 1 O TCB c W R C
A
h R g s 2 S Mud, Sand and Shingle i PC E 1 H T W n MH & MLWS Mast L a Club O E e Shingle T R M s
rd DE The O
lla A 4 A
R 1 3 Bo A a 4 er P Oysters D
elt R
Slipway Sh WE a
O Health Centre 4 T 1 3
Bollard 5
6 MP 1 St Vincent's Slipway 14 K The en w
MH & MLWS 7 o od
MP 8 0 Oysters 2 Harbour W DE 10 o o A d la A R nd R P Health s WE TO Centre s rd lla Club 1 Lifeboat Station Bo 1 ter Wa Warehouse h W ig D H 5 a n 1 A Greys r ea 4.5m 1a d M e O C e e B r g Slipway a L R d Mud Sand and Shingle T a y r a t r t R n i o
P 15 F
e C E
a ' 2 s 3
r
FS W Posts k W
9 O
7 a 3
Shingle 7 T
Warehouse l 1 k 2.7m 3
Car Park 3 3 5
3
6
3
3
4
3
2
9 6 2.4m Adult E Education
Pumping Station A C
R 2
ER 7 Centre 2
Whitstable Bay 9
2 T 1
S T E
E 9 T
a E 4.7m 2 A i R a TG 9
l Car Park T S 0
i S E 9 25
n W
8 R 4
4 U 2 g BO 2 S AR c H
h
o
9 o 1 l Ps
Groynes NO
8 R 1 7 T 2 H
a W
1 Garage O 1 8 2.1m
2
6 16 O 1 2
5 DR
5 8 O
8 A
1 2 1 D F 4 er ou 15
at nta
W i 4
n 5
h 3
8 S 8 g 1
2 t
Hi r re 3
W e e 8
n Y rn T t
1 PW
a h o 3
e a C 8 i E 1 M n 2 c t o CE 0
h s ti E A a
Works a R 1 t v R 6
t a r R E 5
ta T 0 C b 1 S E 0 8 T 9
l T 0
le 2 S A u 9 TG b ES
Y W
E 1
4 8 2 0
N L 5
E 1
W 6 6
3 X 0
S 7 6 1 T 1 2.7m Mast RE E 8 ET B a
s 7 n 1
io 8
n s
a 1
6
t r M r 4 C
os ou u s S 3
P b a R 6 e e ar 1 o g 9 G 6
h s H b n O 0 N
T o u r i 1 DI 1
t H a ld a M 3 I
a H i 7 S
Bo u 3 2 W T E 8 a 1 6 B 5 H H
5 t T
Rest 1 1 f E 0 E
l 6 o L 3.0m e 7 on Haven 9 to L S Li L t e I
t M D
E o h R e e 2 s C 4
g r 2 7 T O I
H t Th e G ra in t a c N
t h 3
S o u H T 2 o a h 5
a St ore o PH A 7 7 G
e u 1 C u n e
O 6 6
r e s t l a 9 D
H s y h e 1 d a S
e T 1 P o 1
o V lic
u S 2
i ta e 5
s e t 7
6 io
e w 1 n 6
b
5 1
s 6 e a 6
g 1 e
a 5
t 5 El Sub Sta
t to g 6
o T 6 a 8
h 5 1
C 1 t 0
5
Shingle e e t 6
h 0 7 r T S 3 o
te a 9 4
a 5
l il C 2 a 4
e L 0 9
h o 7 11 s 3 1 3
0 6
S f r 0 2
t 5 7
s 3 e
9 PH t 4 2 m e 5 . P
3 t 21 1
W S
2 9 4 O
T O
2 0 7
h 3 Church D 3
C 2 2 3 o L e u A a r L n W
N e L c N 5 i
o t l ST
r l A 8 O 7
5 f R
e f 2 Groynes e 5 E 2 7 ic h W e ET 3 S s 1 1 e 3.4m 9 A T 1 1 2
s 1 Playground
E E 5 u 6
S E o
o 4
3 6 1
H 3
h R 5
3 5
Shingle e T 9 5 Works
r 0 h 7 2 S s 3
a r
o 5 a 3
e t 4 s A 5 7 W 2 8
h
s 7 E 3 M 0 T e 1 d 1
S l T 5
6 N O s 9 e 6
e l E Eight Bells 9
h b H Slipway T a 1 t E P S R 7 W T 1 0 B 8
D h e RY S
g C 2 c 6 6
E 6 S 7 1 1 a a A R 2 3 1 e t L 9 3 t e L E U . B o Y 4 n e 2.4m m C o s O t u B
S o 3.7m 3
H R 3
6
A 8 8 6 t 2 t L H 8
o en
h 2 1 5
C 6
4
H a 2 4 4 2 2 m 1 n ou LB 1 6
a s 2 7 R
e 4 a 4 a
e 1 6
LE 4 5 3 E c 9
GG 2 3 O 4
ET S 6
8 T 8 El Sub Sta 'S 9 E 0 A L
F rg AN R Post O 3
R EM y E AN Ho le Post V 4 S AL u 2
LEY se 2 O
S t S
t 2 5
ag O 6 Y Post C 4 I l 7
o d 5 9 1
t tag T 1 e D 9 R 2 2 11 6 3 e a E 9 4
C r S 2 e N a 6 o 3.2m t 1
t ta 1 3 r H P 1 R 10 6 g A 3
e 2 t M et 7 2
er 2 O 0
O S S ' 4 7 2
ys 4 T s a
ter A 3 5
7 R Ch C s E 1
ot ta ' y E u D g r 2 E e e T 4.3m ch 2
g l 1 Quay l
n 1 2 S
Sw x 0 6 ale i 3 0 C n e Court u ot ta d c b g e w r B o d a 1 S 6
r Y 2
B 7 t 2 a Ro LB 6 0
y a 1 t r 13 Depot l o e O N 4 2
y a t
s t tiv l f b 8 e e 3 r S e Th 61 t h e
or 7 O D a
e 2 S ld 1 C s H 2
7
all A 9 e L s 1 2 4 1
Schooner 7 2 (a A
a 3 5 t O 6 4.3m
o 6
4 f R
8 1 ) R Works House 5
2 7 S 1 K 1 E 2 S 4
7 ' 3 T
2 L 5 R 2
8 1 A
a R 8 4
A 1
TCB 3 T O H 1
5
O E 0
R t
o 3
4 I A
S 2 7 W
E T 9 6 O B 5
R 9 29 D I 8
D 2 E N
GE M 1
PH P 3
R 6 R 2 O 2 A A 9 7 D Car Park T O PCs E S
1 91 R A
Kilometers 3
W 0 39 1
9 E T D
D 3 0
2 R 8
E N 5
5
1:4000 D 6 S 1 3 L A 1 PH ION L 6 W L A 4 6 Horsebridge NE S 0 1 to E Community Centre T Kingdom 1 R 4 1 S
¯ V A 0 5 T
1 Hall 4
Arts Centre I C H a 51 1 2.4m 3.4m 1 6 M 4 T 8
4
3 O t Harbour 1
R 1 2 o E H 1
t IA 1
o s 3 1 1 A 4
S 1
O 8 p 3 0
1
e 6 T Walk 2
it 5 4 7
h 1 2 R D
W R 3.7m E 8 5 e
4 3 E 2 0 0.03 0.06 0.12 5 S
S 1 T
3.4m
E 8 R 4
5
3 s . B 6 ' 9 s d r e O t e s m t t A W R n Ha e u o 3 H f r P o I a bo 5 A H D M 1 C D l L 5 t
o u 6 3
l r B S
r M 5 E h 0 S s G 4 6 R t c e e r D
e e w 7 T e r A 8 a
(C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2n 010 t 1 s S u
E m 2
a T C h O o k b
o o R 6
t o t t R 4 E ta C 12 s R u E ge D r H S T s N o 4 m t O 2 a D 1 O b V u i M 1 a e c A A u t I P C or D D S ia l S Mud, Sand and Shingle E tre et East Quay, Whistable Harbour
Figure 13 - Site L: Red Lion Wharf
G River Thames DA ME Gravesend Reach GR SW TH CA SE TM MA DO
Bo llards AS Jetty Tra vellin TW g Cr anes
Bol lards Location Boll ards Naviga tion Post SH L Twr Mean Lo w Water (two fixed red)
Boll ¯ ards Overview
B owat er's W harf Me an Low Water
M ean H igh W a ter
Bol lards Legend Tanks Naviga tion Li ght Chy (Two Fixed Red)
Bo Dolphin llards min_study_wharfs_raildepot Lighting Tower Jetty MHW Bo llards Scheduled Monuments M ean Low W Boll ater ards MHW RAMSAR
Bo llards Naviga tion Li ght SPA (Two Fixed Red)
Dolphin
M MP Henley's Jetty L Craine W SAC Naviga tion Li ght MP (Two Fixed Red) Naviga tion MP Light (Two Fixed Red) SSSI
Lighting Tower Shingle AONB MHW Mud and Shingle Bollard Bollard MH Mud and Shingle W Old Sun Wharf
Shing NNR le Outfall R Mud and Shingle Old Sun Wharf iver Tham MHW Mean es Bollard H igh Wa ter Mean H igh Wa ter Henley 's Je tty Mud and Shingle Tank Bollard TH E SHOR E district_customisedK
4.6m BM 5.43m 6.6m LB
The GR Old Sun (PH)
Works
Warehouse
Works
Warehouse
Tanks 4.6m
D A
O
e R n a L r 5.3m L C Works A g H n i l l E CRE e T T v LB E H E AL a L r RO R A T D C
5.2m
Works
El Sub Sta
3.9m OAD A ND R PORTL Tank
5.1m Tks
5.4m 7.6m Lighting Tower
El Sub Sta
CR ET n E o H e i A h L LL T ) RO d H AD e P ( R 3.8m ROSHERVILLE
FB Mill
e
n
a
r
C
g
n i l l
e
v
a
r
T Tank
3.1m
Travelling Crane Bdy Works Ward
6
Travelling Crane
9
5
WB
2 8
F
O
U
R
N
O
T
S
A
H
I
N
7
0
t E o
8 1 R W
V Kilometers A I FB L 1:3500 L L
K
E
5 W 8
t o
6 ¯ 9 8
9
A
Y
El Sub Sta 8 0 0.020.04 0.08 8
Fn (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010 10 to 16 140
Red Lion Wharf 60 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Figure 14 - Site N: Ramsgate New Port
G R A N S T G B E E N R E P A y D R r O I n C A o A s T G a D 'S O m N g 1 L in P A op
W t l 3 S
1 en P r N c 6.1m te
AD t es a 1 r r O u W Sand 33.5m R 43 o C Royal Harbour h 'S al r ig E to C y Westcliff Hall e H IN 1 cy o i
T n R P an
US e P t e
2 s 2 G eg a M E AU R P P E 11 NU T V E St Augustine's S R A S TE 15 H E Abbey T C El Sub Sta
A The Gatehouse B W 1
1 o 2 0 l P ds 8 la P ar C West Cliff Lodge o1 r ll 23 7t d P o
C 1 s B
N 2 y nr MLW
1 P
9 o
1 P White as m o23 g S Cliffs 9t in T 1 p
Slo P A 4 31.2m P N E Foreland Tide Gaug e E NU C 31 A V Court P P O E R E S T LB 2 M H DA
AT C W
B W P e 1 0 ME A s t P P V G P E Bollard
u
N 4 P l P GR U l y P Bols
E
3
1 4 2 5 M Navigatio n Light
e y TH
3 S a a
1 t n (fixed green ) 1 w 3 E M H p d r P 7 te li a e ig w a S W n h P a h SW r ig r a PCs 1 8 d H e H n at Rock n P ' a ig d s 1 Chartam e W e G M h M g w
o a
5 Terrace a
L e t 1 TCB n n a a d P S e n e M M r 1 d L P g Bols e a M n t n LW e o i a 2 e w a d 4 n W m The Downs PCs o W n CA 9 r L P a a w T P o L o U R f w t C O 10 if e L IC St Augustine's l P OR C W r n D t a s a P e RC Church e t TM M e SE W 11 r 12 25.2m P 3 MLW W Bols P L E S 4 D M 1 A El c The Grange MA N r A Sub Sta e Bols DO 2 L 4 P ES a (S t Gregory's College) El AL m P Y i Sub Sta Thanet Court RO n g L Twr
28.1m A Bols l P l e LW Lighthouse 18 y M (fixed red or green light) 19 6.1m P 20 f lif Shelter C 21 st Dolphin s e El Sub Sta 22 W P MLW 6.1m AS B olla P rds P Navigatio n Lamp y We 23 d s Bol B t P L Twr ie (occulting white) d L Twr r r a TW W M Government Acre H Shelter Linkspan Bridge a 25.3m n d M LW MLW L Twr Beacon
U
n d Location SH L Twr Stone B e CGF o en ad u om ld P r e rd 's r d w a d Lift Western Ferry Terminal s n ¯ E ce M Pr in U Overview S
s
r
e B 25.6m d o l u l u d e o r B s
r
L Twr e r N t C e Croquet Lawn C a t a
W
W
h
g w i
o M H S L
n
n a
a
e B e re M a 25.6m F F M k C LI w DE R ACH a UN P RO te RN A P r S T E UR WE BO Sand 25.3m HA R M A L e ROY an Bol H ig h W a te r Sand
Sand
G
r o L Twr Sand y n L Twr L Twr e El Sub Sta Sand G Sand r o Legend y Linkspan Sand M n Western Ferry Terminal H e Bridge W Linkspan Sand Western Ferry Terminal Bridge L Twrs Beacon G
G r Sand o (flashing green) r o y n Berthing Structure y Bollard n e ML W
G e r Bould B min_study_wharfs_raildepot e o o rs llards
y n MH W e Sand Berthing Bol Boulders B Structure ollard Bol Sand Sand Rock MH W Navigatio n Light Boulders (fixed red) G r Boulders Scheduled Monuments Sand o ML y G W Bol n M r o e H L Twr Bollard MLW y s n W C G e F
G
r Paddling Pool o e y n n
y e M Linkspan Bollards o Linkspan Sand e r a L Twr WBs G Bridge Bridge RAMSAR n
H ig L Twr G h S r ater o o w W W l n L i Me a p y n a w t e e a r Sand y Rock L Twr Marker Beacon L Twr SPA
B o u M
M
l e d
e e a
r a n s
n
L
H
o
i w Marker Beacon g
h Marker Beacon Rock W
W
a SAC
t
a
e
t
r er e at r w W n Lo Mea SSSI
Beacon (occulting g reen, wh ite and red ) AONB M LW
M HW
Western Ferry Terminal NNR
Western Ferry Terminal
L Twr
L Twr C L Twr Beacon G F Western Ferry Terminal (flashing red)
W a r d W B L d M y W H M L Twr L Twr f e rs D e ld u o B rs e ld r u te B a o w o B k u a l e d r e B r s
ML W Brea kw ater
MH W Boulders
Beacon MH W Boulders
ML W Me an H ig h W ate r
Mean Low Water Brea kw ater
EER and Co C onst 457 Bdy U .2m F n Har d b our Wall
y Bd st on C ef Co D R & EE
f Clif m B 457.2
1:5000 ¯ Kilometers 00.002.04 0.08 (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010
Ramsgate Harbour
Figure 15 - Site O: Wharf 42, Northfleet Safeguarded Wharves and Rail Importation Facilities
R ob ins C Dolphin re ek
De pot Wh arf Mu d Me a n Hi g h W Sluice W N at ML orthf e r Be l ML W va eet H B n's o l D la r e We ll d s ep ope Mu w d Trav a e ter ll i Riv G B n gCr Je oll a r a tty d s n e erTh DA CC R L W iver ME Mu d E am ER, Bo ro T C o n ha es st & C UAB m o d y Ta n k n v es e y Co C o Wo r ks o r Grav n st Bdy GR We ll Sluice Wo r ks ese TH M ea t n n e Silos L o dR le w f D EL rf W at SW s e e a r b Sub n h ach l b i Con E ROA W Sta K 4.3 m vey or 5.1 m GROVE M a e Warehouse t a n S r H y o i Co e g h b v W CA n n u ve y o a C ter S o l r E a t S TM b SE Wo r ks u 5.1 m S
Gr ov e l Me
Robins W harf E an
9 L o
t o House 4 T w HECR W a EEK ter MA Wo r ks DO G
Dolphin ra
0 ve o3 t
1 Silos B Bol 1 o lla r s d s end Re
ore Sh e Warehouse Th N M av a L W ig a ch (tw tio 4.6 m o n L fix ig e ht d r Co n ve ed y o r ) AS Wo r ks TW
TH E S HO RE
SM
M S B 5.2 m o l la r d s Location Trav Football Ground e ll ing C ran e SH
M
S J etty 4.0 m SM ¯ Lighting Tower Overview Ta n k s 5.3 m TC B
Monument
FS
r FB o Je r tt ey T y HE yo SH nv e O v o RE C B on o
PARK lla
IS C Conveyor r 5 d 4 t o 8 L 3 s L SL A Tr a W v e Northfleet Lower Lighthouse ll in g C (fl ash in g r ed an d wh ite ) ra LTwr MLW n e
M 5.2 m
S
3 Na vi ga t ion Pos t
5 Conveyor
to (tw o fix ed r ed )
4 Na vi ga t ion Pos t 2 8 4t Conv
eyor
o1 (tw o fix ed r ed ) 13 nel Tun W L
H M veLa e an L e iv SL
1 Bo l t la rds
o Chy Chy
2 Ta n k s 3
The r
o Pl ou gh y e J v e (P H) Ta n k Wo r ks tty n
o D T C ra v ell in A ff gCr i l a O n es C ML Playground R W E B Bo lla D W rd s G Legend E A L O Co n L ve Ashfie ld y o r r O o M NR C y S B e o l W E la r l v d
Su b Shingle s Na vi ga t ion Pos t 11 Me A Stas n an L o wW LTwr
L Chy o ate 4 r (tw o fix ed r ed ) C Ha ll 19
o14 1 to Astral TC B Ta n k 5.2 m Bo lla
3 rds College 20 Chaplains Lo dg e Me an
1 H
0 igh addit_railheads_wharves
Ta n k s W House a
a ter 1
0b Chy 2 THE 4 El Sub Sta S HO RE Bo
wate
1 r' a s Wh Post arf Works Mea 5.0 m n L o w W ater Scheduled Monuments Appendix B:
2 Me 5 a
n Hi 17 g
1 h Wa
3 t er
t
o
1
4 12 .2 m 4 3 1 Bo ll a rd s
5 S Ta n k s T Navigation Light HA RAMSAR O Chy N Ta n k s (T wo F ixe d R ed ) ME RTO E B
R
2 4 ID Dolphin G N 9 E
RO R
0 O Huggens 's C olle ge Lighting Tower 4 1 t AD A W o 6 S SL D (a lms house s ) ar M do n a a C
0 3 ou MH W
4 0 rt
9 E SPA 3 B 8 C olla
10 1 rds A L Ta n k P
TC B K
C
I 3 2
2 Ca r
W 3t Pa
Chape l t rk
o
17 .1 m 3 34 7
4 R
19
34 o
3
t A
6 27 o
t
o2
38 W 8
2 Ha ll 15
3 SAC
7 Ha ll LTwr 2
4
2 ROAD
2 1 Y 1 o
t B 6
2 9 N 28 3 1 1
RA
1 r
2 t 2 o
27a 3 1 r G
8 o 1 6 9 o
n y
o3 to y 21
t e o r SSSI v e Kil
o v
27
2 L n 1
9 y n
2 o 2
1 L o 2 e I C ST v C H RE FO n R o El D l n S ' R C E O e il T AD 10 .0 m Sub St a N Ca r Pa rk n K E n M u C 21 .6 m NE 7 T R RET A
26 E
5 L
1
4
H 2
to E 7 1 E S 6 I Li g h ti n g To w e r V I AONB F H o
t H
4 A
2 4 1
9 PO LL
to t
o 1 48 LTwr ta
ST 33
S A R
T
Ho b
0 6 I 4 O O 1 ll
NR y Co LB SL u 2 A
5 S
u to
2 r t l
D o1 1
OA t T 1 he El E Hiv 8
D 24 e Sub St as 5 NNR
MP 2 1. 75 KINGS FB 8 1 t 1 TO
o12 N CO Tan 9 7 k 1 The Hiv e
23 .1 m 6
1 URT
Ho Posts a
5 t
1 4
o2 to l
2 ly 1 1
0 Co 2 Wo r ks S
u 1 3
1
r t 6
o6 r
Cooper's Arms 1 r FB Ta n k
ub
0 1t
5 4 o 2 S
y
15 r
(P H) 3 eyo 2 El 1 v o
6 ve
n y 1 n
e
t o
o 51 v 5 TC B Co
7 C 1 n FB TC B o
1 C
12 7 D
a A 6 E St O N f
l b 1 f b i R
6 4 l FB E u a t
C S 1 LA
Y S Su 6
1 l
24 .2 m R 8 a
E 7 E t
S V O I T b Con H 5 C 4 u ve 1 TC Bs a yor 1 t
S
FA lS
E
7 Shel ter
4 b
1 u 11
12 S 7.1 m S l T A E FB
TIO 1 Kil n Northfleet 3 N R 25 .5 m S OA u St at i on D l bw H e
a IGH 5 n 3 y 1 ST Rayners a 14 .0 m RE 9 Kil n
E 3
T un St 31
1
6 T
o Court
b Kil n t 1 20 u
S to l
E 1
37 32 8
38 C 3 o 5 n Wa re h o u se v 27 .2 m D e 36 4 1 t i yor Cour t o 1 3 s y Wo r ks 9 e
m o Me w s 1
r
to a
7 Pond 1 1 L n
A Conv 7 5 t
l 1
1 WN e
2 d 3
R
Lawn R a Warehouse il Primary School O w D A a A E y Th e R o se D b 29 .3 m O bs 29 Works (P H) R
fle
et Y
9
8 B
W l 2
7
8 N a 8 lk e
A 5.2 m
o37
t R
2 2 Churc h
3
2 G
4 2 2
5 Tunn 3 LB Club
26
40
7 22
RO 21 S EST R
E ET
7
7 3
5 8 7 eyor
v 5.3 m
12
9
6 E
l on 4 S 1 u b Sta s C
30
1 CR
6 30 .5 m ET E
to LB HA
5 6 LL ROA 6 5 9
6 0 D
20 7 0
2 SL 59
372 7 5.2 m
ff 30 .8 m 12
i as 5 t l 5 C PH S 8 b u El Sub Sta S 6 l E D D ROA
RTLAN
1
3 PO 4
9 30 .5 m Shel ter
o t
SL 6 8 Ta n k s Con ve yo
HIG r 5.1 m 1 3 H S TREET
P
a
t 7
h 1 Ta n k s 1
2 Tu n 5
De f 1 Li g h ti n g To w e r 1
1 28 .7 m ne
Ta n k l 23 .8 m TC B
Wa El Su b Sta rd B 27 .1 m d y Ta n k E U N E V A 1 f a IL f 1e
li C C N 1 1 U 1 O 1 C Co nve yor TH 27 .0 m Y ROAD ry SL o n A 1 NB a s Mill M GRA m W in g ES EST lo p Co nvey KENT 21 S o r
W AV Mills E U 11 VI A NE Y C
A
6 1 R el A 29
n MP 2 2 G C
a o
6 5 n
n 1 E ve
1 y
1 o u 3 2 rs T D -
LB R 1 I 1 V CS E GranbyPlace
2
Surgery 9 4 Sh el te r a
3.4 m Nur si ng Home 1 Tk
1 1 2 4
FB 1 5 T 3 unne Ta n k
2
Ta n k l
E
7 b 7 bs Chalk Pit 2 fle 4 3 7 0
e (disused) 6 6
N a
6
t OR 2
1 TH SL 3 K 3
ENT Ca r Pa rk 28 .5 m 1
2 5 AVE 4 3 1 UN a
f 1
f
E E T 5 i 1 l 3 2 PC PH H 2 U
C 5 EH 2 N 33 C
E I l i L f V L f
A 3 H 4 4 U T 2
N N 35
T E L E K PO YA 1 6 T 3 6 S S h V 3 2 5 1 A e 3.0 m E l N E Club te 3 r 7 U 20 16 E Ha ll
PH
0 4
2 9 Wa r Mem l 4 0
6
29 .2 m 2 7 4 1
BANK
P LB 2 7 a a t Ly c h G at e
De h f 7
2 9 StBotolph'sChurch Co
C on s t ,CP & ED Bd S y I
3 Footbridge D 3 PC
E Ta n k s 2
1 Ta n k
5 3.4 m 0
Pond 3
a 4 C O CS FB Ta n k s Chu rch Pat h Wa r Mem l 1
1
to 4 e Ta n k s 1 Th 6 5
is t ers 4 Clo Shel ter
2 29 .1 m SL s Th e V i ca r a ge 4 1 T H C PA TH H U El lif f CHURCH E N UE TC B T Sub St a N L Catholic Church H NORTHFLEET E I Y VE L
A of O ur Lad y L
E A
V T b l E n e N b n NU Tu
s
f
f KE e E
l
e D H
e T nel
t n
U u
4 T
1 O 3 S 28 .8 m yt e ry Pres b 31 .1 m 28 .9 m P 1 Chalk Pit 29 .4 m o nd (disused) 28 .5 m RoshervilleCofE 28 .3 m LONDO N ROAD Pri mary Sch oo l 28 .8 m
28 .7 m
20 1
ay 28 .9 m
17 ai lw Shelt a 17 Cl e r
R i 14 Cheviot f ed f
1to 12 House ntl 10
W
2 Mal vern Hou se S a El Sub Sta 6
rdB is m a PRI
D to
2
1
d 5 y NG 1to 34 1
Ye Ol de 1to9 4 Cleveland Ho use HE DO 1to11
Li g h ti n g To w e r Leather Bottel 1 1 L AD V Me nd ip Li g h ti n g To w e r T (P H) ER E House Herewood
ROAD R 5 O Kilometers AD Lin col n Hse Honeyc ombe De War ren Hse
Lighting Tower FB 3 1:5400 FB Lod ge
5
¯ FB 3 0
T
1
4 4
o t 3 N 1
1 1to 6 Cleveland E A E 1 House U
f HK 17 N f i 2 l 00.070.14 T E LABURNUM GRO VE FB V C 2 A FB OU Jam e s's Co ur t Rosher ville
6 S CE Primary School 2 (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2012 1 28 0 m
42 Wharf (Northfleet) TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 61 pedxB: Appendix Figure 16 - Site P: Dunkirk Jetty, Dover Western Docks
Post Pontoons Post Post Car Park
Post Post M Post Post e an H i M gh L W an P d Post r M L Twr in ea S Bollard L Twr Post c n T e L Marina o R of w O W W N Post a DA L al te D e ME Capstan Twr s r Bollard L Twr S Pi T Tidal Harbour e GR r R E Dolphin Jetty TH Gates E Bollard T Granville Dock SW Bollard Post CA Post Pontoons Navigation Bollard SE TM Light Shingle Capstan (green) Post MA DO Lorry Park s N B d a r v T o a i h l g l l l Post a e a t o io M r Post B n H d H B a s e Navigation Light ac r W T on d an Post s w k AS l Post n l a G o a y o t
n M W TW o ea S P n l s L o p Ferry (V and F) Terminal s o w i n o W L Post g T r a w Post t Post e m r C r a Location s o SH n O Bollards S r h l Pontoons y d e l H s t e a d r r r ¯ Post s b a Overview l o l
u o r B Post S Western Docks t a
t i o L Twr n
N North Pier o rt h Jetty MLW M P H ie W r MLW Navigation Light an (flashing white) d S B M M o L ll W ar
d Facilities Importation Rail and Wharves Safeguarded SM
B Navigation Light L o North Pier T lla Legend Tidal Basin w r MHW r ds E B o L El Sub Sta and lla I Cross Wall Pon rd Z to on MLW s A
B Tidal Basin B E o min_study_wharfs_raildepot u T Posts ld H e P rs r i S Bollard nc T B e R o ul o E d W f er L E B s W olla TCB M Scheduled Monuments T rds M a Mean LW le High L Twr s and M ean Ferry (V and F) Terminal P L ow ie Bo W a Bollard r 4.8m llard ter Outer Harbour L Twr Navigation Light RAMSAR
E (flashing red) r l e t S Lorry Park a u B Navigation Lights W o b MLW Bollard ll Capstan M a S (three fixed green) h L rd g W s t i a Tan k H C S SB PA a h o M n t e l e Tidal Basin a lte la a a Navigation Light m rs rd n y e a s H d r N M a ig B n h o t r B an s th er d Tank n th M o Pi SAC e C e a r n o L B 5.9m o C d o w ll n M a W Posts & r e d a Tank U a s R te Na n r E v r H E i i Western Docks Tank (t g e g w at t SSSI h C o io a a onveyo r fix n nd ed Li W g gh M re t w ea Freight Clearance Bollard en s o n ) L L n ow a W Centre e AONB a South M t er M Pier Bollard L Posts WB Works W
S
T Tanks R DO L Twr T 5.1m Hopper NNR E H M E Tks e E V Clarence Yard L Twr Co an T I n AD v H N U ey ig av C o r h i T s an ( ga El Sub Sta d fix ti C M ed on L ea gr Li Sl district_customisedK A n ee gh op 5.9m R L n) t in PH E e ow g n Navigation Lights m N Weighbridge li W a C e (two fixed red) a s L Twr ip te on E Dunkirk Crossing P r r y P L Hoppers A C E Works M L W y r t South Pier n Bo a ll Bollard ard G s
Wind Sock TCB C Navigation Light on ve (flashing green) yo r Depot SL Lord Warden B olla Beach Street Compound Golden Arrow rds House LORD WARDEN SQUARE House
Tank MP M M ea H n H W igh M Hopper an S d M L Twr ea n L ow M W S a ter B olla rds M H W 6.5m Navigation Light 6.6m M H W W L (fixed green) M
L Twr El Sub Sta Navigation Light (flashing red) L Twr L Twr Bell Box Navigation Light (Signals) Bollards (fixed red)
k L Twr n Inner Harbour a T
B o l la rd L Twr s
L Twr Bollard 5.8m
M e H nad F me a B Pro n L Twr d M
L F gle W B Shin
Admiralty Pier
r Wate High Mean
gle Shin
M e an C H r ig u h r i B a W ate s o nd Low e ll ean ar M M L ds e an in L e o r w T W e at rm er in al M L 1:3000 Kilometers W ¯ 5.8m 00.0105.03 0.06 M e a n (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010 H ig h a n d
Western Docks, Dover
Figure 17 Site Q: Sheerness Docks
DA G GR ME SW TH CA SE TM MA DO
n a st Navigation Light Dolphin ap C AS (fixed red) TW
l o B Location Dolphin SH Overview ¯
l o B
Dolphins
Bollards l o B Dolphins Legend Vehicle and Passenger
l Ferry Terminal o B min_study_wharfs_raildepot EE R & Bol C Dolphins o C o ns Dolphin t B Scheduled Monuments dy
U nd Bol Dolphins RAMSAR
Me rs an Boulde Lo w W ate Mea r SPA n H igh uld ers Wa Bo ter Dolphin rs Bould e SAC
s er d ul SSSI o B Bo uld ers
Bo uld ers AONB
s r e ld u o B NNR
Post
ry maso n Sheerness Hole Slopin g
Navigation Light B
o
(fixed red) u
l
d
e
r
B s
B o o u u l y ld d er e a s r
s
w Bo uld ers d Posts rt e o tr k P n c e a e r C T s M n o ti Garrison Point r ra Vehicle and Passenger e e Pontoon p Fort O Mea v Ferry Terminal Indented L ine N o 1 n Lo i w W ater R Medway Trinity House Pilot Station Garrison Shingle Sand and Shingle Gro Posts Point yn 5.5m es In M de ea nte n H N d L ig o 2 in h e Isle of Sheppey Wa ter
W I Groynes H nd El S en Shingle M Bollards C ub ted us St L i to m a ne s N o L Twr Wa an 2 te d E Bol S rgu xc ig ar ise n d O a ff Dolphin l ice Seal S Gun ta t Wharf Wall io Sheerness Immigration n Shingle Harbour Estate Office MHW Shingle MLW Covered Way Fort In Sa de n nte d Ship Ferry (Vehicular) Terminal d a Lin nd e S IRB No h e L Twr 2 in n Sta g y le e o r n Bol G y o r G FB
lards Travelling Bol B Walkway P o
l P l
a
r L Twr
d S B h s i o 3.4m ng l l le a
M r Bollards d Jetty e s a
n
L P o P
w
W
a
L Twr t B e
r o
l l P a P S r an Crane M d d s a e n a d n Sh
L i ng o GA le w R RISO N W R L Twr OAD B Tide Gauge a Bol t o e
l r 2.7m l
a
Bol r d Lifeboat Station s
ds Bollar 2.4m Bol Bollards Winch Slipway Dolphin P os Bol ts Ship Repair Yard 2.7m Chy Bol Bollards Bol Navigation Light (two Fixed Red) Post Bollards 84 L Twr a L Twr
D Dock A S O L R 2.4m Caisson I P Y Cn W T T Bols A rane E lin g C Y Travel J
R Bollards O Boat Basin A D 84 L Twr 86 Bols N Cn L Twr
o
r
t
B Kilometers h
o Bols G 1:3000 Dock OAD A W R l SE R l THOU R Navigation Light a BOA a I r SO d ¯ l N l (two Fixed Red) s RO 0.0102.0525 0.05 AD Bols s Bollard Po Water sts Mean Low Bols El Sub Sta (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010 Hopper Capstan
Sheerness 62 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Figure 18 Site R: Botany Marshes
B o r o C o
y n
d s t B &
D U
E A
B & d
P y
Me C an Hi , g t h Wa ter s n
o
C
o
C
C C L DAGW ME GR SW TH CA D rain SE TM MA DO
Broadness Salt Marsh AS TW Location SH Overview ¯
M e a n
H i g h
W
a t k e c r a r T Pond Legend
addit_railheads_wharves Scheduled Monuments
ain Dr Broadness Salt Marsh RAMSAR D f r e n ain Drai D SPA
ain Dr Navigation Light (2 fixed red) SAC
Mooring Posts Tr ack SSSI Jetty AONB rain D Pond Navigation Light (2 fixed red) Mooring Posts Depot NNR
eyor Conv district_customisedK DA nveyor Pond co
ETL
con veyer GR Botany Marshes Northfleet
5.1m Hard
Water
n ai Dr
Depot B Pond o l l a Wharf r d Tanks s
E T L
f e D MP
S M Pond
D rain
WB MPs
D r a i n
2.6m
M MP S
E T Track Spoil Heap L
MP
y Spoil Heap d B
D
E
d ) n k a MP
c P a C r , T t Broadness ( s n Y o A C
W o
C R Salt Marsh O
N
A
M
N
E E Mud R
G 5.5m R Swanscombe Marshes iv e r T Outfall h Pond Northfleet Hope a Sewage m n Disposal i a r Works D (disused ) e
n i
a
r D s Botany Marshes
in a r D
s
s d
d e
e
B D n i B C 4.0m
e a
e r g
g D d Sewage d u l u l S Slud ge S Disposal Beds Works n (disused ) i a r D r yo ve on C
Drain
Playing Field 1:5000 Kilometers Bollard
n i
a
r ¯ D Navigation Post Pond Chimney (two fixed red) 0 0.030.06 0.2.1m12 Drain
B o (C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 100019238, 2010 Drain ll a Pond r d s
Botany Marshes, Northfleet Safeguarded Wharves and Rail Importation Facilities Appendix B: TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 63 pedxC: Appendix Appendix C: Dredging Licence Areas from which Aggregate is Imported into Kent and Medway
Figure 19 - East English Channel Region rdigLcneAesfo hc grgt sIpre noKn n Medway and Kent into Imported is Aggregate which from Areas Licence Dredging 64 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Figure 20 - South Coast Region Dredging Licence Areas from which Aggregate is Imported into Kent and Medway Appendix C: TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 65 pedxC: Appendix Figure 21 - East Coast Region rdigLcneAesfo hc grgt sIpre noKn n Medway and Kent into Imported is Aggregate which from Areas Licence Dredging 66 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Figure 22 - Thames Estuary Region Dredging Licence Areas from which Aggregate is Imported into Kent and Medway Appendix C: TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012) KCC 67 pedxD: Appendix Appendix D: Current Aggregate Quarries in Kent
D.1 The most up to date list of aggregate quarries in Kent is given in the SEEAWP 2010 Aggregate Monitoring Report, reference SEEAWP 11/06 (October 2011). The list below is taken from that document:
Table 25 - Active and Inactive Sand and Gravel and Ragstone Quarries in Kent Kent in Quarries Aggregate Current
Sand and Gravel Quarry Operator Material
Borough Green Sand Pits Borough Green Sand Pits Ltd Soft Sand
Charing Quarry Brett Aggregates Ltd Soft Sand
Faversham Quarries Brett Aggregates Ltd Sand and Gravel
Lydd Quarry (Scotney Court Brett Aggregates Ltd Soft Sand Farm)
Milton Manor Quarry Brett Aggregates Ltd Sand and Gravel
Aylesford Quarry CEMEX UK Soft Sand
Denge Quarry CEMEX UK Sand and Gravel
Winterbourne Quarry Ferns Surfacing Ltd Soft Sand
Ightham Sand Pit H & H Celcon Ltd Soft Sand
Wrotham Quarry (Addington Hanson Aggregates Soft Sand Sand Pit)
Darenth and Joyce Green J Clubb Ltd Sand and Gravel Dartford
East Peckham Quarry J Clubb Ltd Sand and Gravel
Nepicar Sand Quarry J Clubb Ltd Soft Sand
Greatness Farm (Sevenoaks Tarmac Ltd Soft Sand Quarry)
Allens Bank, Lydd Brett Aggregates Ltd Sand and Gravel
Conningbrook Quarry, Brett Aggregates Ltd Sand and Gravel Ashford
Deanery Farm, Chartham Brett Aggregates Ltd Sand and Gravel
Highstead Quarry, Chislet Brett Aggregates Ltd Sand and Gravel 68 KCC TRM1: Local Aggregate Assessment for Kent (December 2012)
Sand and Gravel Quarry Operator Material
Shepherd's Farm Quarry, Brett Aggregates Ltd Soft Sand Lenham
Trenley Park Wood Brett Aggregates Ltd Sand and Gravel
Chilston Quarry, Lenham CEMEX UK Soft Sand
Postern Park Quarry nr CEMEX UK Sand and Gravel Tonbridge
Ospringe Brickworks Cremer Whiting Ltd Soft Sand
Hanson (Joyce Green Soft Sand and Joyce Green Quarry Aggregates) sand and gravel
Stone Castle Farm, nr Lafarge Aggregates Sand and Gravel Tonbridge Current Aggregate Quarries in Kent Squerryes Sand Pit, Monier Sand and Gravel Westerham
Ham Hill Sand Pit (Snodland Tarmac Ltd Soft Sand Quarry)
Appendix D: Ragstone Quarry Name Operator
Hermitage Quarry Maidstone Gallagher Aggregates Ragstone
Blaise Farm, West Malling Hanson Aggregates Ragstone