Initial Site Options Report for the Aggregate Minerals Site Allocations DPD: Questions raised by High Penn, Mile Elm, Derry Hill & Studley, Heddington, Stockley & Broads Green Action Groups High Penn Group Question 1. How does the council think Calne's fragile economy would be affected by having three quarries situated so close to the main gateway to the town? C1 and C2 will both be highly visible from the A3102 and Oxford Road, and the noise, dust, vibration and HGV traffic will have a detrimental effect not only on the new housing in that area but also on the businesses in the industrial estate. Surely there can be no doubt that siting these quarries so close to existing residential and business areas, as well as areas with great potential for new development, would put off newcomers to the town and have a detrimental effect on the town's economy. Calne has had more than it's fair share of problems in the past and needs every encouragement to grow - please don't let these plans set it back. Response The councils are committed to protecting the interests of those living and working in proximity to quarries. The evidence gathered through this consultation will enable us to arrive at an informed decision as to whether a site should be carried forward or dropped. A site will not be carried forward if the potential impact to those living and working in proximity to the site is likely to be unacceptable. Concern about the impact of further quarrying on the local economy is a good point. We will take this into consideration when undertaking further assessments of the proposed potential site options. Question 2. Could the council please be absolutely clear about the 'restoration options' for these sites? If they are to be restored to agricultural land after the sand has been excavated, how else might that be done other than by landfill - and surely a busy town the size of Calne is not an appropriate location for landfill sites? Response In January 2010, the councils consulted on a consolidated list of potential waste sites and indicative waste uses. The location of these potential sites conforms to the policy framework set out in the adopted Waste Core Strategy DPD (policies WCS2 and WCS3) and seeks to provide a flexible framework of facilities to meet forecast demand. No sites in the Calne area are being considered for landfill. As part of this consultation on potential quarries, stakeholders are being asked about what the future restoration and afteruse of sites should be. If it is demonstrated that suitable inert material such as soils, sub-soils and rubble from construction sites are not available, then other options for restoration such as creation of water bodies will have to be considered. If no restoration options are feasible or acceptable then the relevant sites will not be considered deliverable and will be dropped from further consideration. To view the Waste Site Allocations informal consultation document and the comments submitted during the consultation period please visit the Wiltshire Council webpage at: http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/environmentandplanning/planninganddevelopment/planni ngpolicy/mineralsandwastepolicy/wastesiteallocations.htm Question 3. Site C2 is next to a 25-acre site which was recently leased to Wiltshire Wildlife Trust and where 10,000 trees were planted this Spring to provide a valuable amenity space for residents in the North Side of Calne. What effect does the council think that opening a quarry, and in all probability subsequently a landfill site, next to this open space will have on the amenity value of this land to the people who live in Calne? Response This is a good point and something that is raised in the consultation document as needing further consideration. The purpose of this consultation is two-fold. Firstly we are asking communities to tell us whether we have correctly identified the key issues associated with developing any of the sites and secondly, if we have missed any potential issues, we ask that you let us know what those issues are. We will then use the information provided by local communities to inform the scope of further detailed assessments. This key issue will be assessed over the coming months with input from key stakeholders such as the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, and Natural England. Mile Elm Sand Stoppers Q uestion 1: We believe 2 policies have been violated by the inclusion of areas C6 and C7 in the Initial Site Options Report. Firstly, Wiltshire County Council Minerals Core Strategy DPD of June 2009 specifically identifies 5 Mineral Resource Zones for Wiltshire. These are the only areas that should be considered for mineral extraction. 95% of Area C6 is outside the Calne area MRZ and Area C7 is completely outside. Had this DPD been implemented as it should, C6 and C7 would not be included in the Report. Secondly, preparation of the current Options Report was preceded in March of this year by a Site Allocations Evidence Report. This laid down the criteria used for inclusion or exclusion of potential sites prior to the Site Options Report being published. 6 levels of ‘sieving’ were performed to remove unsuitable sites. Clause 2.8 of the document defines the exclusionary constraints to apply at ‘Sieve 2’. These include: - Proximity to residential areas - Proximity to schools and associated land/playing fields - Proximity to hospitals, rural businesses and so on… Had this sieve been correctly applied, C6 would have been excluded by virtue of directly bordering the playing fields of John Bentley School and arguably by virtue of proximity to Rookery Park, The Knowle, Mile Elm and indeed much of South Calne. Could Wiltshire County Council please review these policy discrepancies and advise how they can be expediently rectified? Immediate removal of Areas C6 and C7 from the process would seem to be the only legitimate resolution. Response The desktop sieving exercise identified an initial list of sites for consultation. Although some areas of land were excluded through the desktop exercise, where landowners specifically asked us to consider their entire landholding we felt duly obliged at this early stage to do so, in order to present a transparent account of the process. This consultation is simply presenting the areas of land put forward for consideration and identifying the issues that will require further assessment in order to determine a ‘preferred list’ of sites. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that we fully understand the local context for each of the proposed site options before further detailed assessments are undertaken. This will help inform which sites should be taken forward and which should be dropped. All the criteria used in the sieves will be reapplied to the sites. However, this time we will use the information provided by local communities to inform the more robust detailed assessments to be undertaken by experts in the relevant fields. It is possible that these areas will eventually be dropped but it is important to have sound evidence based reasons behind these decisions to avoid challenge later in the process. No policies have been ‘violated’ because no decisions on the suitability of the sites have been made. Q uestion 2: Areas C6 and C7 are not serviced by any local, strategic or primary lorry routes. Indeed the nearest local lorry route is more than 1Km away from either area and there appears to be no obvious alternative route for a dedicated haul road other than through the centre of the Bowood estate. Since these 2 areas have an estimated yield of 3.4M tonnes, it means that local roads (and indeed the centre of Calne), will have to cope with one 20 tonne truck every 4 minutes for every working hour of every working day for 12 years! The centre of Calne is already a traffic bottleneck and suffers from all the associated air and noise pollution. What transport strategies could possibly avoid the centre of Calne, maintain the integrity of our local country roads and make this traffic volume viable? Might such a strategy invoke compulsory purchase of land to create dedicated routes onto the HGV or primary route network? Response Assessments of the likely impacts associated with transport of minerals and restoration will be undertaken for each of the sites, including assessment of possible routes for minerals traffic. The concerns raised by local communities will be used to inform the scope of these assessments. The Council would not compulsory purchase land for the purpose of providing a suitable route for quarry traffic. If, after the assessments have been undertaken, access to and routes from the quarries are considered unacceptable, then those sites will be dropped from further consideration. Question 3: At 86 hectares (or 212 acres), Area C6 at Mile Elm is by some margin, the largest single area identified in the Calne zone. Yet with an average yield of just 38000 tonnes per hectare, it is between two and three times less productive than the majority of identified areas. It would result in a huge scar on the landscape right in the shadow of the North Wessex Downs AONB. Not only will it be directly overlooked by the AONB but an excavation of this magnitude will be visible from space! With an average seam depth of only 1.9m this would be strip mining of the very worst kind and for very limited gain. How could Wiltshire County Council possibly justify the rape of 212 acres of prime agricultural land and, other than landfill, what possible reinstatement could fill such an enormous hole? Response At this stage the Council is not supporting or promoting any of the sites in the consultation document.