Points arising at the recent public meeting are included in the updated notes below including some current issues which relate to the situation as it appears on 3rd June 2008 at 1pm.
A public meeting was convened on 28th May 2008 to gain more information regarding the questions on the Surrey Minerals Plan.
This primarily relates to the 'Have Your Say' consultation document ( 25 April – 6 June 2008 )
Many comments have been received from local residents based on observations that the document is 'impenetrable' to the lay person. An attempt to present information gleaned as a result of information discussed at the meeting is presented below, but it is essential to note that all contributors to this, without exception, feel that their contribution is rendered marginally unsatisfactory because of the lack of clarity that is felt to have been provided so far.
Any additional comments which would assist in allowing greater clarity on this page would be very welcome as a matter of some considerable urgency ... bearing in mind the deadline date is looming ever closer.
The format of this page is untidy as it is being entered as information arrives. Please note that some contact information has been added lower down on this page.
David Harmer – Portfolio Holder of the Minerals Plan was present and answered questions put by the floor.
Answers to Surrey CC Proposed Amendments to the core strategy:
FORM SECTION 1 Representative Question --- Are there likely to be further delays, which will put the plan back still further, as a result of reviews? ( qualified as 'in particular when the Govt makes its ruling on the possible reduction of the requirement laid upon Surrey – see question 3' ).Further information requested.
FORM SECTION 2. KEY QUESTION
Eashing is the only site in the plan that is there specifically to provide ‘low quality’ sand. As the requirement for low quality sand is to be reduced (probably as a result of reduced Government-specified requirement for Surrey) and as there is an intention to increase the use of recycled materials ( e.g. by recycling waste materials generated by major civil-engineering projects) the need to open a new quarry (Eashing) just for low quality sand cannot be justified (see comment on Q10 below).
FORM SECTION 3. Currently the South East England Regional Assembly is out to consultation on proposals for re-allocation of its land-won aggregates. This could see Surrey’s allocation fall between 37-55%. It is therefore illogical to submit these amendments to the core strategy when it is known that the Govt is going to review the requirement laid upon Surrey, almost certainly downwards. Surely the circulation of this amended document, and the consultation should have been deferred until after the new Government allocations have been announced.
FORM SECTION 4. What is the “Spatial Strategy”? Policy MC1 provides indication of where the main mineral deposits are found in the county, including Eashing Farm. Policy MC1 States mineral development that would adversely affect an AONB ( Area Of Natural Beauty)… or Site of Special Scientific Interest will only be permitted where it has been clearly demonstrated that the development is needed in the public interest and that there is no suitable alternative site. Therefore the ‘need’ must be demonstrated in the public interest and to secure the integrity of the AONB and SSSI. Because the of the proposed re-allocation of apportionment Eashing Farm is included prematurely because the requirement has not been determined.
FORM SECTION 5, 6 and 7. No comments
FORM SECTION 8. KEY QUESTION. This is where the amendments to the core strategy affecting Eashing are raised. The new core strategy includes policy on “…chalk, Fuller’s earth, peat and building stone”. It is this reference to “building stone” that quietly includes Bargate Stone.
a Surrey CC Policy Option document states that a number of Borough/District Councils include specific planning requirements for Bargate stone to be used in certain circumstances. So far nobody has been able to find any Borough stating that requirement. It is stated that they encourage the use of ‘like for like’ and other stone types meet this condition well.
b. Surrey CC says there is only limited demand for Bargate stone and any requirement must be proved.
c. The only Bargate quarry in Surrey, Pitch Hill, has ceased as demand diminished, however it still has planning permitting retention and use of stockpiles which could be reopened to meet the small requirement without the entire process outlined elsewhere being undertaken.
d. Surrey CC policy document says that Bargate Stone should only be quarried as a 'by product' of quarrying for sand, but on the back page of the document it states extraction may be acceptable where it can be justified, however it omits to mention – only as a by-product of sand extraction. This is an important distinction.
FORM SECTION 9. No comment.
FORM SECTION 10. As a result of the requirement to make greater use of recycled materials in lieu of digging up the countryside for low quality sand (SCC Waste Plan 2008 wishes to see a significant increase in the amount of inert waste material that is recycled) therefore it is believed that there should be no requirement to open new quarries (i.e. Eashing).
FORM SECTION 11. The Consultation Document itself and the questions are almost incomprehensible and should have been written in simple terms that ordinary people could understand.
There are several inconsistencies between the plan and some of the Surrey CC policy documents which makes reasoned and balanced comment almost impossible.
There is no direct mention of Eashing Farm within the document and as the proportion of responses received from the earlier consultation document re Eashing Farm was exceptionally high it should surely have been highlighted on the form, accompanying letter and diagram on the back page of the document so that people would understand why they had received it. This would have made the response more meaningful. Several reports of people throwing the documentation aside ( as they did not realise that it applied to this area ) have also been received.
The risk of devastation of the Eashing Farm area continues, and so there is an imperative need to complete the most recent consultation document.
Forms are available at Council Offices and Libraries, and the consultation documents are on Surrey County Council’s website:
where there is a range of further information along with a link to an online response form which may be accessed more directly by the link below.
FYI: there is a timeout on the consultation document on line so we have been advised to complete in another format, for example 'Notepad' / 'Word' or as email content and then copy & paste onto the form.
Alternatively, it is possible to respond in writing to: Surrey Minerals Plan, Freepost SEA 12430, Thornton Heath, Surrey CR7 7XT. You must respond before 6 June.
Background Information
It is believed that the sand is of extremely poor quality, as ( amongst other such factors ) it includes a high proportion of silt, and it is believed that up to 30% of the minerals may have to go back into the
site.
It appears highly unlikely that it could be used as good quality building sand without
much washing and use of additives.
This washing would presumably increase the amount of water transported to the site and increase the risk of polluted water finding its way out of the site especially as affects the Site of Special Scientific Interest which adjoins the site, as discussed elsewhere.
The cost of utilising the sand does not appear to allow it to be economically viable.
The site would have to become an industrial site as there is a likely requirement to create lagoons,
processing facilities and so on.
SCC are pushing forward greater recycling of inert waste within the county,
therefore they have to prove 'need' for the sand.
There is a limited need for stone and research is ongoing at present in order to add more detail to this statement.
Much of the stone will be likely to break up during the extraction process, creating dust and particulate matter. This stone will then need to
be processed allow it to be used, creating more dust and noise at an unspecified location ... or returned to the ground.
SCC state that 'need' has to be proven - therefore we have to ask the
question 'where is the proven market, rather than undertaking this process without prior investigation ... only to find that demand has been overestimated.'
The works to the highways would be very costly, but regardless of the source of the funding, the addition of the increased loading of lorries will be likely to counteract any perceived improvements.
We have been advised that Auxiliary lanes would be required instead of slip
roads.
The Police are already concerned about the quantity of HGVs utilising the
Hurtmore Junction at present and have approached the Highways Agency to request
measures to reduce them utilising this junction.
The HA believe that major road works would be required to bring the
junctions/slip roads up to the current transport standards.
The HA do not want the Hurtmore junctions to be enlarged as it would bring
more vehicles into this busy area and it would not be in keeping
with the rural nature of the area and environmental assessments would need
to be carried out.
The HA said there may be a need for bridge works, however if this were the
case the HA would refuse planning because they would not allow the
A3 to be closed so bridge works could be carried out.
The HA state that they will not enter into compulsory purchases and believe land uptake would be
necessary on both sides of the A3.
The risk of devastation of the Eashing Farm area continues, and so there is an imperative need to complete the most recent consultation document.
Forms are available at Council Offices and Libraries, and the consultation documents are on Surrey County Council’s website:
where there is a range of further information along with a link to an online response form which may be accessed more directly by the link below.
FYI: there is a timeout on the consultation document on line so we have been advised to complete in another format, for example 'Notepad' / 'Word' or as email content and then copy & paste onto the form.
Alternatively, it is possible to respond in writing to: Surrey Minerals Plan, Freepost SEA 12430, Thornton Heath, Surrey CR7 7XT. You must respond before 6 June.
Please make a note to revisit this page when we have had chance to finalise the additional content. Thank you.
Out of date links reported ( e.g. to Waverley Borough Council website ) ... any known out of date links removed. Please report anything that appears to be out of date via our email address. Thank you.
A sincere 'Thank You' to all who offered assistance at the recent Public Meetings on 20th September and on 27th November.
20/09/06 Have updated Rock page to reflect unconfirmed indications that non-explosive methods of rock extraction are possible.
20/09/06 Have now received the next two boreholes datasets re the Northern and Southern extremities of the site...
The borehole samples confirm that there is a likely requirement to remove layers of hard sandstone in order to progress with the excavations of underlying sand. ~~~
20/08/06 Have almost completed 'summarisation' of airflow report ... first airflow CG-graphic added mid main page. Some calculations added to calcs page. 08/07/06 ...With thanks to a meteorologist have updated watercube data to higher figure ( 48m) cube ; Have added 'Surrey Species' pdf download from homepage left column ; We have received the second hydrology report, it confirms the conclusions of the first report, namely that groundwater disturbances are a major issue
We will be publishing the report here as soon as it is web-ready.
~~~ We are starting to compile a detailed calendar in terms of ascertaining how it was possible for such a major development to remain out of the line of public awareness for so long !