Agenda item

The Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee is asked to:

 

(i)    consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member responsible for the Minerals and Waste Local Plan on the proposed:

 

(a)  Pre-submission Draft of the Kent Mineral Sites Plan;

 

 

(b)  Pre- submission Draft of the Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan; and,

 

(c)   the updated Local Development Scheme (revised timetable) to reflect changes to the programme and timetable concerning preparation of the Local Plan work.

 

(ii)   note that the decision to approve the Pre-submission Drafts Plans for submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination is a matter for County Council;

 

(iii)  request the County Council to:

 

(c) Approve and publish the Pre-Submission Drafts of the Kent Mineral Sites Plan and the Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan for a statutory period of representation and to submit the Draft Plans to the Secretary of State for independent examination; and

 

(d) delegate powers to the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport to approve any non-material changes to the Mineral Sites Plan and Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan in consultation with the Deputy Leader prior to their publication and during their examination.

 

Sharon Thompson (Head of Planning Applications Group) was in attendance for this item.

 

 

1.    Mr H Rayner proposed, seconded by Mr P Messenger that Mr S Holden was nominated as the Chairman for the Minerals and Waste Local Plan item.

 

2.    Mr M Balfour and Mr M Payne left the meeting and took no part in the discussion of this item.

 

3.    Before the commencement of the discussion, Ms Thompson informed Members that they should have received a copy of the following representations:

 

·         Representation from the Ryarsh Protection Group in respect of the M8 West Malling site

·         Representation from the Whetsted Residents in respect of the M10 and M13 sites at Stonecastle Farm

·         Representation from the Brett Group, the promoter of the M2 Lydd Quarry Site; and

·         Representation from Borough Green Sandpits, the promoter of the M8 West Malling Site in the form of a legal opinion dated 27 November 2018 from Landmark Chambers

 

4.    Ms Thompson proceeded to the report which provided an update on the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan work following the Council’s adoption of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan (KMWLP) 2013-20 in 2016. The KMWLP committed Kent County Council to prepare a Minerals and Waste Sites Plan to meet the needs that had been identified in the adopted Plan. The report proposed two pre-submission draft local plans, (as set out in appendix 1 and appendix 3 of the papers) one for the Kent Minerals Sites Plan, used to identify sites considered as suitable in principle for the allocation of minerals development; and the other was the Pre-submission Draft of the Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan which addressed the changes proposed to the waste strategy and the safeguarding policies. The report also included an updated Local Development Scheme to reflect the changes to the programme and timetable concerning the Early Partial Review and preparation of the Minerals Sites Plan.

 

5.    Ms Thompson acknowledged the late representations and in response provided the following information:

 

(a)  The Ryarsh Protection Group (RPG) – the RPG report circulated had previously been sent to officers and had been taken into consideration in the detailed technical assessment work. A copy was included in Appendix 2 of the papers.  She also drew attention to a petition that the local MP had submitted to the House of Commons.  It has 3615 signatures urging the County Council not to allocate the site for quarrying.  It was noted that the site was not allocated in the Pre-submission Draft Minerals Sites Plan due to conflict with green belt policy.

 

(b)  M10 Moat Farm and M13 Extension to Stonecastle Quarry – the concerns raised by local residents were valid planning considerations that had been incorporated in the Detailed Technical Assessment work. There was however, no overriding grounds to conclude that the sites were unsuitable for allocation in the Pre-submission Draft Minerals Sites Plan, subject to meeting development management criteria at the planning applications stage.  The Draft Minerals Sites Plan (Appendix 1) identifies the relevant criteria.

 

(c)  The Brett Group, promoter of the M2 Lydd Quarry Site – the site was not allocated in the Pre-submission Draft Minerals Sites Plan as a result of likely unacceptable impacts upon the surrounding Special Protection Areas (SPA), the Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Ramsar Site and the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Ms Thompson advised that the site has attracted an objection from Natural England, the Government’s advisor on these matters.  In addition, she drew attention to the impact on the historical setting of Lydd and in respect of parcel 23 (Allens Bank), the unacceptable impacts upon archaeological interests.

 

(d)  Borough Green Sandpits, promoter of the M8 West Malling Site in the form of a legal opinion - Ms Thompson informed the Committee that legal advice had been received from the promoter of the West Malling site (Ryarsh) late on the 27 November 2018  that advised that in the promoter’s view the interpretation of Green Belt policy which had led to the site not being allocated in the Pre-Submission Draft of the Mineral Sites Plan was flawed and should be reconsidered before the allocation process progresses.  Not to do so would in its view render the Sites Plan unsound.  In light of this the promoter suggested that the County Council removed the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan item from the agenda in order to carry out further investigation. As a result of the late submission, Ms Thompson in consultation with Legal and Democratic Services, circulated a revised version of the recommendation which referenced the additional representations.

 

(e)  Ms Thompson advised the Committee that the Ryarsh site was for the purposes of Green Belt policy ‘inappropriate development’.  Such development can only be allocated where there are very special circumstances necessary to justify the inappropriate development within the Green Belt.  In this instance there were no overriding special circumstances that justified allocation of the site. Kent County Council had identified an alternative site (Chapel Farm, Lenham) that could meet the soft sand requirements and was acceptable in principle for mineral development. Ms Thompson informed Members that legal advice had been sought in respect of the promoter’s opinion and would be presented to the Cabinet in advance of its consideration of the Mineral Sites Plan on 3 December 2018 and County Council on 13 December 2018.  The latter is responsible for approving the Draft Plans to a statutory period for representation and submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

 

6.    In response to questions, Ms Thompson commented as follows:

 

(a)  Members sought clarification regarding the approach taken in the green belt assessment of the West Malling site. Ms Thompson advised that the National Planning Policy Framework set out the Government’s policy on Green Belt and that mineral extraction was not inappropriate development, providing it did not conflict with the purpose of the green belt or impact upon openness. Officers had considered all components of the proposed development – extraction, backfilling with inert waste and the ancillary activities normally associated with mineral development against green belt policy.  The approach followed advice from the Local Plan Inspector who considered the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan in 2015 and that the mineral extraction considerations related to the taking of the material from the ground. The work concluded that elements of the West Malling site were inappropriate.  In her view, if the assessment had included the extraction and the ancillary activities together, then the outcome of the decision on the green belt would have still drawn the same conclusion in that the extraction, along with the ancillary activities would have impacted upon openness.

 

(b)  Mrs S Hamilton (Member for Tunbridge Wells Rural) attended the meeting and raised the following points in relation to the Moat Farm and Stonecastle Farm Quarry sites:

 

·         Asked that the public received a greater understanding of the process used to identify preferred options for allocation in a pre-submission draft minerals sites plan;

·         Welcomed the fact that local residents of Tunbridge Wells Rural would still be able to make representation on the Plan prior to submission of the Plan for independent examination by the Planning Inspectorate.

·         Asked that the Committee note the representation and comments from the residents in respect of Moat Farm and Stonecastle Quarry

·         Asked that consideration be given to the emerging Tunbridge Wells Local Plan  and drew attention to current developments regarding traffic flow and large vehicles on rural roads

·         Asked that consideration be given to the proposed entrance that would be situated on the A228 and the impact on traffic congestion and accumulative impact on the local community

·         Asked that consideration be given to pollutants and emphasised the need to preserve biodiversity and reduce flood risk.

 

(c)  Mrs S Hohler (Member for Malling North) attended the meeting and raised the following in relation to the West Malling Site and the soft sand considerations:

 

·      Agreed that the assessment process of the site was thorough;

·      Agreed that the evidence gathered in the assessment process justified the decision not to allocate the site i.e. level of bunding required to mitigate the inevitable noise pollution, the impact of traffic congestion on the A20 and deterioration on the country roads, the level of dust produced through the extraction process;

·      Ryarsh already had two sandpit sites and should not have to accommodate a third;

·      Commended the Ryarsh Protection Group who brought their community together; and

·      Thanked Mrs Thompson and all Officers involved for their extensive and transparent work

 

(d)  Mr Hills (Member for Romney Marsh) drew attention to the quality and depth of the Local Plan work and welcomed the opportunity for all parties to have an opportunity to give their views at the Local Plan Inquiry. In relation to the Lydd Site, he drew attention to the impacts from climate change which he considered a ‘game changer’ in this location.  He also drew attention to sea level rises, potential saline incursion, flood risk, impact upon local residents and that the potential traffic movements would be devasting to the Marsh, He recognised the impact upon local jobs.  In his view, there is an alternative to take shingle from the sea. 

 

(e)  Mr Whybrow (a member of the Informal Member Group for the Plan work) welcomed the decision not to proceed with the Dartford cases, given access and open space considerations.  Mr Ozog supported this view and advised that the existing Joyce Green Farm Site, Dartford had not been worked for many years.

 

(f)   Assurance was sought that opportunities to use the river for the Moat Farm and Stonecastle Farm sites should be explored.

 

(g)  Clarity was sought regarding the difference between soft sand and silica sand and why silica sand had not been referenced within the proposed Mineral Sites Plan. Ms Thompson informed the Committee that Silica sand was not referenced, as the adopted Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan clearly set out the planning considerations required for submitting an application for silica sand.  Unlike soft and sharp sand, the policy did not require the allocation of sites in a Sites Plan. Ms Thompson assured Members that there were no proposals to change the silica sand application criteria as part of the sites plan work.

 

(h)  In response to concerns regarding the extension of the existing Stonecastle Farm Quarry and its capacity as a minerals site within green belt policy, Ms Thompson advised that mineral from the Stonecastle Farm extension site would be processed through an existing plant which benefited from an existing planning permission already tested against green belt policy. Ms Thompson assured the Committee that the site had been promoted both directly and in the case of the Moat Farm with support from an international mineral company which supported the view that the mineral was a viable deposit.

 

(i)    Ms Thompson assured the Committee that the nine sites that were subject to the Detailed Technical Assessment, along with the other sites submitted in response to the ‘call for sites’ in 2106 did not have a Kent County Council land ownership interest.

 

(j)    Concern was raised that in the case of the Dartford sites, the map base used to identify potentially affected residents as part of the earlier public consultation was not up to date.  In response, Ms Thompson accepted that the Ordnance Survey map base initially used did not include recently constructed new homes. However, she assured Members that as soon as the issue was identified, immediate action was taken to rectify the matter and an extension of the consultation period was given to the community affected. She assured Members that the views of the Dartford local residents were reflected within the Minerals and Waste Local Plan work before the Committee. 

 

(k)  Members paid tribute to the officers for their work and commended the local communities for their commitment in ensuring their voices were heard.

 

7.    Mr Holden advised the Committee that a revised recommendation had been circulated to the Committee which reflected the late representations referred to above. He advised that the Council’s legal advice in response to the matter raised by the promoter of the West Malling site (M8) would be considered by Cabinet on 3 December 2018.  The intention then was for the Local Plan work to be reported to County Council on 13 December 2018 for consideration and approval to publish the Pre-Submission Drafts Plans for a further period of public consultation and to submit the Draft Plans to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

 

8.    RESOLVED that the committee:

 

1.    Noted the additional representations from

 

(a)  Brett Group, the promoter of the M2 Lydd Quarry Site;

 

(b)  Local resident on behalf of Whetsted Residents in respect of the M10 and M13 sites at Stonecastle Farm;

 

(c)  Ryarsh Protection Group in respect of M8 West Malling Site; and

 

(d)  Borough Green Sandpits, the promoter of the M8 West Malling Site in the form of legal opinion dated 27^th November 2018 from Landmark Chambers

and that the County Council is seeking legal advice in respect of the legal opinion referred to in (1)(d) above to inform the consideration of the Pre-submission Draft of the Minerals Sites Plan in advance of the report being considered by Cabinet.

 

2.    consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member responsible for the Minerals and Waste Local Plan on the proposed:

 

(a)  Pre-submission Draft of the Kent Mineral Sites Plan;

 

(b) Pre- submission Draft of the Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan; and,

 

(c) the updated Local Development Scheme (revised timetable) to reflect changes to the programme and timetable concerning preparation of the Local Plan work.

 

3.    note that the decision to approve the Pre-submission Drafts Plans for submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination is a matter for County Council; and

 

4.    request the County Council to:

 

(a)  Approve and publish the Pre-Submission Drafts of the Kent Mineral Sites Plan and the Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan for a statutory period of representation and to submit the Draft Plans to the Secretary of State for independent examination; and,

 

(b)  delegate powers to the Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport to approve any non-material changes to the Mineral Sites Plan and Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan in consultation with the Deputy Leader prior to their publication and during their examination.