Agenda item

David Wimble (Cabinet Member for Economic Developments and Special Projects), Stephanie Holt-Castle (Director for Growth and Communities) and Sharon Thompson (Head of Planning Applications Group) were in attendance for the item:

 

1. The Cabinet Member presented the following:   

 

a)    Introduced the report and explained that Kent County Council, in its role as the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA), had a statutory responsibility to ensure that an adequate and sustainable supply of minerals was available to meet local and national needs. Members were advised that this responsibility was set out through national planning policy and the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan, which had been adopted in the previous year.

 

b)    The report provided an update on progress in preparing the Kent Minerals Sites Plan and sought Members’ comments on the pre-submission draft before it was considered by the County Council as part of the next stage of the statutory process.

 

c)    Members were advised that the subject matter was technical and complex, as reflected in the detailed report, supporting appendices and background documents. Further presentations had been provided by officers to outline the key considerations arising from the draft plan and to support Members’ understanding of the issues under consideration.

 

d)    The supporting officer discussed the current shortfall in hard rock (Kentish Ragstone) supply, nominated sites and the extension of the hermitage quarry and proposed extraction.

 

e)    The supporting officer highlighted the significant public interest in support and objections to the proposed hard rock allocation as an extension to Hermitage Quarry.   The site was discussed and how allocations would need to satisfy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) criteria. The officer discussed the policy test for ancient woodland and the associated wholly exceptional reasons and suitable compensation strategy, and other mitigation proposed. measures

 

f)      Acknowledged that the Hermitage quarry site was contentious, but the detailed assessment had satisfied the exceptional reasons for the endeavour and that a suitable compensation strategy existed to meet national and local planning policies.

 

g)    Mitigation and compensation measures would encompass woodland replanting, enhanced buffers and ecological enhancements. Additional discussion highlighted the identified 20 million tonne shortfall in ragstone, the protection of a number of UNESCO buildings throughout the United Kingdom and that there had been no identified indigenous alternative available.

 

h)    Sustainability benefits of a local supply and the practical deliverability of extending existing quarry infrastructures. The wider socio-economic values were discussed, and the role Gallagher Aggregates plays to the overall Kent community, in terms of project support, job creation and annual turnover to the local economy (£235 million for 2024-25).

 

i)      Raised the topic of the site continuing to contribute to waste management and recycling in Kent and the development of light aggregates to be used for verging materials and drainage support.

 

j)      Highlighted the compensation strategy, explained that the proposed biodiversity and habitat enhancement measures associated with the mineral working would be delivered through the translocation and management of soils from affected areas of the site.

 

k)    Members were advised that, as quarrying progressed, existing non-native and modified grassland habitats would be restored and replaced with higher-quality native broadleaved woodland and informed that retained areas adjacent to the proposed mineral working would be managed to improve their ecological value. Existing woodland areas would be identified for management and enhancement, either adjacent to Hermitage Quarry or at other suitable locations within Kent, to secure wider biodiversity benefits.

 

l)      The officer explained that woodland compensation had been designed in line with biodiversity net gain principles, with replacement habitats located as close as possible to affected areas. It was noted that no veteran or ancient trees had been identified to date, although this would be confirmed through detailed surveys at the planning application stage. Appropriate compensation would be required if any were found.

 

m)  The proposed strategy would provide approximately 154 hectares of new and enhanced native woodland to offset the loss of 41 hectares of existing woodland, resulting in a 266% increase in native mixed-species woodland overall.

 

n)    The officer advised that, if submitted for independent examination, the plan and supporting evidence would be scrutinised by a Planning Inspector, who would assess competing planning interests and determine which policy considerations should take precedence.

 

o)    Summarised the case for submitting the Minerals Local Plan to the Secretary of State for examination and explained that the Plan had been developed following consideration of environmental, social and economic factors and that, on balance, it was considered sound.

 

2. In summary, Members raised the following matters:

 

a)    Members highlighted the strong opposition to the Hermitage Quarry allocation due to the impact upon the ancient woodland at Oaken Wood.  Many councillors have received large volumes of emails objecting to the proposal. 

 

b)    Acknowledged the protection afforded to ancient woodland and noted that Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS) would be afforded the same level of protection as to other types of ancient woodland.

 

c)    That the proposal would destroy irreplaceable habitat, and impact biodiversity and habitats for protected species and stored carbon and expressed doubt over the effectiveness of soil translocation and restoration measures, particularly for fungi, mycelium and ancient coppice stools.

 

d)    Members questioned whether the policy test in the NPPF and Mineral and Waste Local Plan had been met but did note that the Maidstone Local Plan has policy support for the use of ragstone as a local building material.

 

e)    Raised  concerns that the cumulative impact of the development and planned housing in the area. Several Members felt that more effort should be made to identify alternative hard rock sites.  Suggestions were made that an interim plan relying on imports should be prepared or explored.

 

f)      Members considered that withdrawing support for the allocation would force operators to consider other locations and also suggested that sites close to Hermitage Quarry that are subject to applications for housing redevelopment would be more suitable for quarrying, given their location outside ancient woodland, although Members also noted that this could potentially delay redevelopment of those sites for a considerable number of years

 

g)    Questions were raised about future demand for aggregate and for heritage purposes and whether the need had been sufficiently quantified. It was explained that in order to secure stone for heritage purposes it would be necessary to extract large quantities of minerals to be used as an aggregate.  Given the geology, it had not been possible to create a smaller quarry just for heritage stone.

 

h)    Economic benefits discussed had encompassed local employment, apprenticeships, supply-chain support and wider community investments by Gallagher Aggregates Group.

 

i)      Members acknowledged the importance of the investments at Hermitage Quarry and the impacts of the equipment necessary to successfully quarry the material into usable dimension stone and high-quality aggregate. It was highlighted that additional details and assessments would be required at the planning application stage.

 

j)      Clarification was given on the impact of the removal of the Hermitage site from the plan. Officers responded that if this was to occur the site would not be considered through the plan examination process. In addition, it was highlighted that following the County Council decision, the plan would be published for comments on soundness, and that these would be considered by the Planning Inspector.

 

k)    Members discussed the importance of expert views on complex technical matters and that this level of assessment was an integral part of the examination of a local plan by the Planning Inspectorate. It was recognised that there were competing planning policy issues at play regarding the environmental, economic and social impact of the hard rock allocation that justify additional detailed scrutiny by the Planning Inspectorate at the local plan examination phase.

 

l)      Clarification was sought on the review of previous sites that had last occurred in 2012 (from 118 to 18) and asked if any changes had occurred during the last 14 years. Officers explained that the previous sites had been reviewed by independent consultants and the Hermitage site through the local plan process had been determined to be the most acceptable site.

 

m)  Conversations progressed on the trajectory of the decision and its submission to full Council on the 16^th of July and then onwards towards the Secretary of State. Additional concerns were raised regarding the increase in housing development in the vicinity of the potential site. However, it was re-emphasised that the additional matters raised would be considerations for the Planning Inspector as part of the planning process.

 

n)    Clarified that the permission granted in 2020 required the operator to retain a minimum of 25,000 tonnes of dimension stone on site at all times for heritage purposes. This requirement was described as a safeguard to ensure the continued availability of material for conservation and restoration works. It was again explained that if the County Council removed the site from the draft plan before submission for examination, the site would not go before the Planning Inspector for detailed consideration through the examination process.

 

o)    Advised that the opportunity for the site's allocation to be considered by the Planning Inspector would arise through the examination of the submitted plan. It was therefore indicated that consideration of the site's merits at examination would depend upon its inclusion within the plan submitted by the County Council.

 

p)    Questions were raised regarding the potential benefits to Kent’s economy, including the creation of approximately 140 direct jobs and additional indirect employment opportunities associated with the wider supply chain of around 400 companies. In response, the officer referred to the submitted documentation, which outlined the economic, social and community benefits that had been considered as part of the assessment.

 

q)    Clarification was provided regarding the planning status of the site and the relationship between site allocation within the local plan and the determination of planning applications. It was explained that any party was entitled to submit a planning application at a time of its choosing, irrespective of whether the site had been allocated within the Plan.

 

r)     It was explained that, where an applicant considered a proposal capable of contributing towards the identified need, a planning application could be submitted and would be assessed through the normal development management process.

 

3. A recommendation was proposed and seconded that consideration should be given to the removal of Oaken Woods from the Updated Kents Minerals Plan.

 

Members asked and agreed for the following vote to be recorded:

 

For: 4 (Mrs Hudson, Mr Prater, Mr Brady and Mr Hood)

 

Against: 8 (Mr Defriend, Mr Paul, Mr Waters, Mr Thorp, Mr Sian, Mrs Lawes, Mr Thomas and Mrs Roots)

 

Abstain: 1 (Mr Mallon)

 

 

The recommendation was put to the vote and unsuccessful.

 

 

RESOLVED – That the Cabinet Committee:

 

 1.

 

(i)    Note the progress with updating the Kent Mineral Sites Plan and the role of County Council in approving and publishing for representations on soundness and legal compliance and for submission to Government for independent examination;

 

(ii)   Make comment for the consideration of the Cabinet Member prior to reporting the Pre-Submission Draft of the Kent Mineral Sites Plan 2026 (Appendix A) to County Council; and

 

2. Note a revised timetable for preparation of the Kent Mineral Sites Plan 2026 to be published in an updated Minerals and Waste Local Development Scheme (Appendix B)