I am indebted to Janet Aiden of the Wiggonholt Association for the following update on plans for mineral extraction in West Sussex. This is an important subject, from an environmental perspective, as plans could have a major impact on local countryside, with places like Pulborough and bury at risk in particular. It is worth keeping an eye on the situation and being prepared to respond when a consultation comes out:
The draft policies of the Plan were issued
for consultation in May 2014, followed in August by the draft sites which were
being considered by the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) which consists of
West Sussex County Council and the South Downs National Park Authority. This revealed that the MPA was considering
silica sand (a specialised and valuable form of soft sand) within its targeted
figure for soft sand. (The two are often
distinguished as ‘industrial’ and ‘building’ sand.) The Plan also makes provision for ‘sharp’ or
concreting sand, and gravel, in one separate category. There are thus two categories of aggregate:
Soft Sand, and Sharp Sand/Gravel. These categories
are dealt with quite separately in the Plan and an abundance of one type cannot
be used to compensate for a shortage of the other.
A report on the Sites Consultation was
issued by the MPA in the spring of 2015.
The two local silica sites, Wickford Bridge (Pulborough) and Horncroft
(Bury) have not been withdrawn. The next stage has been to filter all sites in
the South Downs National Park through a Sustainability Appraisal. This evaluates specific features of all sites, such as landscape
quality. These two sites are both in the
Park.
The MPA originally expected to publish a
series of updates on the appraisals and it also wrote of consulting local
communities which would be directly affected by proposed sites, such as Pulborough. (All sites affect people to some extent, but
the Wickford Bridge site is adjacent to a high density of housing on the
outskirts of Pulborough, at Mare Hill and in the approaches to Nutbourne and
West Chiltington. The Wiggonholt
Association has twice written to the MPA requesting such a consultation.
The MPA has also undertaken a Soft Sand
Study, which would evaluate the amounts of soft sand in West Sussex and no
doubt identify and distinguish between ‘industrial’ and ‘building’ sand (see
above). The conclusions of this
document are much anticipated as they will determine the amounts which the MPA
must provide for in its Plan. They will
also shed light on other areas of silica sand.
(Silica sand was previously unknown in West Sussex and it has a higher
value than building sand.)
In July, the MPA revealed that it had
decided not to give out any more information to “stakeholders” (those affected
by, or with an interest in, minerals extraction). All must now await the draft Minerals Plan
itself, when special studies (such as the Soft Sand Study), amended policies,
and the short list of sand sites will all be revealed at a blow. At this stage evaluations of each site will
be published and it will be either “in” or “out” of a short list. This is likely to happen at the beginning of
2016, and the information will come in a flood.
There will then be a formal consultation, probably lasting six
weeks. But even if a site is “out” of
the shortlist, the industry – and anyone else with an interest – will have the
opportunity to challenge its exclusion before and during the public hearing on
the Plan (the Examination-in-Public) which will be held by a Government
inspector, probably later next year.
The Wiggonholt Association is considering
what action might be taken to persuade the MPA to release some of its
background papers ahead of the Draft Plan as it believes that publication as a
flood would put non-professional stakeholders at a great disadvantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment