Home moretons Answers
 
 
 
 
 
 
Surrey Minerals Plan – ‘Model answers’
Prof Moreton Moore’s draft submission on the Mineral’s Plan
 
 
1)   Core Strategy DPD
 
 
B1. Paragraph 3.45 and Policy MC3 [Spatial strategy – Mineral development in the Green Belt]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Probably yes.
Sound? = No – Not effective.
B3. Paragraph 3.45 states: ‘mineral extraction need not be inappropriate to Green Belts as it is a temporary operation…’ Without definite legally/financially enforceable end-dates, ‘temporary’ is meaningless. Policy MC3 needs to be strengthened by adding ‘…on an enforceable timescale agreed before permission is granted’. Otherwise mineral sites can go on unrestored, albeit with reduced weekly activity, for 25 or 50 years!
B4. The whole first sentence would then read: ‘Mineral extraction in the Green Belt will only be permitted where the highest environmental standards of operation can be maintained and the land restored to beneficial after-uses consistent with Green Belt objectives, on an enforceable timescale agreed before permission is granted.’ [The second part of MC3 can stand unchanged.]
B5. Yes – I wish to argue our case in the light of any response from SCC and any changing circumstances.
 
*******************************
 
B1. Policy MC4 [Efficient uses of mineral resources]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Probably not.
            Sound? = No – Not consistent with national policy.
B3. The wording suggests that a ‘borrow pit’ will be permitted on passing only the two criteria listed: (i) and (ii). Surely permission would also have to depend upon environmental and other conditions (e.g. Green Belt constraints) being met, as well as satisfying all the points listed in MC14 [Reducing the adverse impacts of mineral development].
B4. I suggest adding (iii): the proposal satisfies all other relevant policies in the Minerals Plan.
B5. Yes – I would welcome the opportunity to engage in dialogue on this matter.
 
 
 
 
 
*******************************
B1. Policy MC5 [Aggregates recycling]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Maybe.
            Sound? = No – Not justified.
B3. It is unwise to include definite figures which may be unachievable. One could say that the targets are 0.8 and 0.9 million tons per annum. Otherwise, in order to fulfil the Policy, new aggregate recycling facilities might be required in places where they are unwanted.
B4. Suggest replacing ‘…at a rate of at least 0.8 mtpa’ by ‘…at a target rate of 0.8 mtpa’. And similarly, replace ‘…at a rate of at least 0.9 mtpa’ by ‘…at a target rate of 0.9 mtpa’.
B5. No need to speak, if agreed.
 
*******************************
 
 
B1. Policy MC7 [Aggregate minerals supply]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Probably yes
            Sound? = No – Not effective
B3. The identification of only just a sufficient number of ‘preferred areas’ in the Primary Aggregates DPD to meet even the revised guidelines for mineral extraction, gives the impression that all these ‘preferred areas’ will be worked. Some of these areas however will not come forward because they will fail the environmental and other tests. The Primary Aggregates DPD is thus flawed. Although SCC may make its best efforts to satisfy the regional apportionment, it might not be in a position to achieve the figure. The shortfall could perhaps be made up from a greater production of marine dredged aggregates, thus preserving several much-loved parts of Surrey’s landscape.
B4. Regarding the wording of MC7 (and noting paragraph 9.6), I suggest replacing ‘are sufficient to enable’ by ‘will facilitate’. The whole sentence would then read ‘Preferred areas will be identified in the Primary Aggregates DPD for soft sand and concreting aggregates which, with identified reserves, will facilitate the production of around 24 million tonnes of aggregates between 2009 and 2026 as a contribution towards the sub-regional apportionment for Surrey’. (Paragraph 9.6 states: ‘The minerals plan therefore does not provide absolute certainty regarding the location of future minerals development in Surrey but sets a strategic lead within which the planning applications process operates’.)
B5. Yes – I’m happy to speak to this as well. I’m not sure if the figure of 24 million tonnes is correct.
 
*******************************
 
B1. Policy MC14 [Reducing the adverse impacts of mineral development]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Yes.
            Sound? = Yes.
B3. This is the best policy in the whole Minerals Plan and has our strong support.
B4. No change.
B5. No need to speak.
 
*******************************
 
B1. Policy MC15 [Transport of minerals]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Yes.
            Sound? = No – Not effective.
B3. We agree with all of MC14 as it stands; but the opportunity to include reference to relevant, current and ongoing transport issues should not be missed. I have in mind the present Airtrack discussions and the projected impact upon level-crossing down-times.
B4. I suggest adding (iv): all relevant current and ongoing changes to transport infrastructure have been adequately considered.
B5. No desire to speak, if agreed.
 
*******************************
 
B1. Policy MC17 [Restoring mineral workings]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Yes.
            Sound? = No – Not effective.
B3. Following on from our comments on MC3, we wish to see restoration of mineral workings completed on time, not merely ‘at the earliest opportunity’ (whatever that might mean).
B4. I suggest adding the words ‘and when’ so that the last sentence now reads: ‘The applicant will be expected to agree a scheme with the mineral planning authority detailing how and when the land will be restored and managed before, during and after working’.
B5. If agreed, then there’s no need for me to speak.
 
*******************************
B1. Paragraph 9.26 [Monitoring].
 
B2.Legally compliant = Yes.
            Sound? = Yes.
B3. We welcome the statement: ‘The minerals planning authority is required to monitor any significant environmental effects of implementing the minerals plan, to identify any adverse effects and appropriate remedial action’. From this we assume that if SCC gave permission to an applicant and the mineral working consequently caused flooding/subsidence to nearby residential properties, or the dust generated caused asthma to schoolchildren, remedial action would be taken, including the possibility of closing the mineral working.
B4. No change needed.
B5. No desire to speak, if agreed.
 
 
 
 
 
2)   Primary Aggregates DPD
 
 
B1. Paragraphs 2.4 and 2.8 [Marine dredged aggregates]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Yes.
            Sound? = Yes.
B3. We greatly welcome the statement (in 2.8) that marine dredged aggregates ‘could become a more important source of primary aggregates for Surrey in the future’. We also note (from 2.4) that 5.9 million tonnes of marine dredged sand and gravel were imported into the region in 2005. It is interesting to compare this one-year figure with the (revised) annual expectation of 1.32 million tonnes per annum for Surrey. The latter figure is only 18% of the total and could become less in the future.
B4. No change.
B5. No need to speak.
 
*******************************
 
B1. Paragraph 3.4 [Vision & objectives]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Yes.
Sound? = Yes.
B3. We note paragraph 3.4 and emphasize its last sentence: ‘In Surrey, resources of sand and gravel available for the future have been significantly reduced by the scale of previous working. The preferred areas that have been identified for aggregate extraction will contribute to production in the period to 2026. However, production cannot be sustained indefinitely at current levels of apportionment without unacceptable impact on social and/or environmental considerations’.
B4. No change.
B5. No need to speak.
 
*******************************
 
B1. Paragraph 5.9 [Regional guidance on primary aggregates]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Yes.
            Sound? = No – Not effective.
B3. Quoting paragraph 5.9: ‘National and regional guidance acknowledges that the guideline apportionment is subject to review through the development plan process. In preparing the minerals plan, there is an opportunity to determine whether or not the regional guidelines can be met at acceptable environmental cost’. I contend that the answer is negative, but what is SCC’s answer?
B4. Maybe a new paragraph (5.10) should be added saying that the regional guidelines cannot actually be met.
B5. Yes – I’m willing to speak and would suggest alternatives.
 
*******************************
 
B1. Paragraph 6.9 [Potential future sources of primary aggregates]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Yes, maybe.
            Sound? = No – Not justified.
B3. We strongly object to the statement that preferred area E (Whitehall Farm, Egham) ‘will continue to be worked beyond 2026…’ Work has not yet started and most probably will not start, as it has not been demonstrated that all the environmental and social constraints can be adequately satisfied
B4. We suggest deleting this offending sentence. If the second half of the sentence is really necessary, then it should be prefaced by ‘If preferred areas E and P are given consent, then they may continue to be worked…’.
B5. No need to speak, if agreed.
 
*******************************
B1. Paragraph 6.10 and Policy MA1 [Aggregate requirements]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = Probably yes.
            Sound? = No – Not justified.
B3. We query the inclusion of Milton Park Farm, Whitehall Farm and Land North of Thorpe as preferred areas (D, E and I) in Table 1. There are so many environmental and social constraints on these three sites (including those listed in Policy MC14), that they should be deleted from the list of preferred areas.
B4. Delete, as above.
B5. Yes, willing to speak, with reasons.
 
*******************************
 
B1. Paragraph 7.8 and Policy MA2 [Preferred areas for concreting aggregate]
 
B2. Legally compliant? = No.
            Sound? = No – Not justified.
B3. We note the statement (in 7.8) that: ‘Identification of a preferred area does not mean that permission will automatically be granted for aggregate extraction because proposals will also be tested under the relevant development plan policies. In addition, conditions will be imposed on planning permissions to protect features of importance and restrict operations in order to address impacts on local communities and the environment. Detailed matters relating to the operation of sites will be considered and addressed at the time a planning application is made.’ The wording of Policy MA2 is therefore the more extraordinary, as it gives the contrary impression.
B4. The wording therefore needs to be changed from ‘Provision for the extraction of concreting aggregate will be met from land within the following preferred areas’ to ‘After demonstrating compliance with all relevant minerals policies, provision for the extraction of concreting aggregate may be met from land within the following preferred areas’. We also request deleting preferred areas D, E and I.
B5. No desire to speak, if agreed; but otherwise willing to speak, with reasons.
 
*******************************
 
 
 
Joomla implementation and website services by Team Discovery Ltd