Our objection to the Surrey Minerals Plan

Oxted & Limpsfield Residents Group
Addendum to Consultation Response
Surrey Minerals Plan

1 Introduction

1.1 The representations contained in this document are submitted in addendum to those submitted by the Oxted & Limpsfield Residents Group (OLRG) to Surrey County Council (SCC) on 17 December 2009 in relation to the consultation for the following Surrey Minerals Plan (SMP) documents that were published on 6 November 2009;
(i) SMP Core Strategy DPD;
(ii) SMP Primary Aggregates DPD;
(iii) SMP Aggregates Recycling Joint DPD;
(iv) SMP Minerals Site Restoration SPD

1.2 For the avoidance of doubt, given the inter-relationship between these documents, many of the consultation representations provided in this addendum relate to more than one of the above documents, and so should be considered for each accordingly, whether or not the representations have been allocated under the heading of a particular document. Also, the representations in this document are an addendum to OLRG's previous submissions made under Parts B & C of the Publication Stage Representation Form.

2 SMP - Core Strategy DPD November 2009 (CS)

Legally Compliant: No Sound: No
Not justified, effective or consistent with national policy
Participate in oral part of the examination: Yes

2.1 The CS correctly identifies a major impact associated with minerals related development, that being the effects of transporting the minerals excavated and aggregates recycled. However, these effects are not just limited to issues such as noise, air pollution and congestion associated with heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). They also include impacts on the capacity, suitability and safety of the highway network, particularly the use of local roads by HGVs. Whilst it is appreciated that a balance has to be struck between planning the extraction of minerals towards the targets set out in the South East Plan and the environmental impacts of doing so, the policy and explanatory text set out in the CS pays insufficient regard to transport impacts and the background assessments down play the significance of transport related effects. For these reasons and those set out below the OLRG considers the CS to be unsound. It is not justified and has not been based on robust or sufficient evidence, indeed many vital assessments have not been carried out at all, or have not been carried out properly.

2.2 OLRG also considers the CS is not legally or policy compliant on the basis that national, regional and local policies seek to improve the sustainability and efficiency of transport networks, with regard to protecting the environment and local communities. Various policies in PPG2, and the development plan policies within Surrey safeguard against potentially harmful development in the green belt. The CS and related documents fail to justify this type of development. Therefore, it is quite clear that the introduction of minerals policies such as those set out in the CS and other SMP documents do not comply or conform to these policies. Indeed, by failing to properly assess the impacts of the policies on local road networks and communities SCC has ignored the above policies in order to achieve its aim of increasing minerals production. OLRG also considers that SCC has not consulted properly in respect of the CS and other SMP documents. In view of this, OLRG considers the CS and other SMP documents are not legally compliant nor are they sound. The basis for this conclusion is set out below.

Consultation

2.3 The Government's Code of Practice on Consultation published July 2008 sets out 7 criteria to be followed in order to ensure effective consultation. They are as follows:
(i) When to consult ' at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome;
(ii) Duration of consultation ' at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible;
(iii) Clarity of scope and impact ' a clear consultation process;
(iv) Accessibility of consultation exercise;
(v) The burden of consultation ' to be kept to a minimum;
(vi) Responsiveness of consultation exercises ' provision of clear feedback;
(vii) Capacity to consult.

2.4 Additionally, Surrey Compact which sets out its Communication, Consultation and Engagement Code, to benchmark good practice for groups and organisations supporting it (including SCC), requires a minimum consultation period of 12 weeks. The Code also provides that organisation will allow enough time for gathering, analysing and feeding back responses to participants before a final decision is made.

2.5 While it is recognised that SCC's Statement of Community Involvement contradicts the 12 week consultation requirement set out in the Code, it does not address the impact a reduced 6 week consultation period has on the ability for stakeholders to gather and analyse the necessary documents to enable submission of a considered response.

2.6 OLRG considers that the consultation carried out by SCC in respect of the CS and other SMP documents has failed to satisfy the above criteria. The sheer volume of policy documentation published simultaneously, together with its background assessments and reports, to be considered by members of the public within a 6-week window has rendered the consultation process ineffective and potentially prejudicial. Members of the public have had no alternative but to engage professional consultants to assist them in understanding the effect and inter-relationship between the vast array of documents published. It is accepted that the legislation and guidance governing the production of DPDs sets a guideline of 6 weeks consultation. However, when a planning authority chooses to publish more than one DPD at once it would be reasonable to allow for a much longer period of time for consultation responses to be received and to host workshops to explain the impacts of the policies proposed. This has not happened. It is also clear that representations submitted by the local community to previous consultation carried out by SCC in relation to development in its area have not been accommodated into this consultation exercise.

Background Documents ' Transport Assessments

2.7 Throughout the purported assessments of transport impacts carried out by SCC in support of the CS and other SMP documents, not once has a full assessment been carried out of any part of the highway network in Surrey. Whilst some of the various assessments have identified the types of effects traffic associated with minerals development might have on the local highway network, SCC has not sought to quantify them, or determine whether it can support the new minerals development identified at the preferred sites.

2.8 The Guidance on Transport Assessment jointly produced by the Departments of Transport and Communities and Local Government (March 2007) identifies how the plan making process can inform and be informed by transport assessments, recognising that the evidence underpinning LDF documents must be robust and credible in order for LDF plan to be sound. Paragraph 5.1 states "Development plans will only be credible, authoritative and deliverable if transport considerations are fully factored into their development from the outset."

2.9 Contrary to Government guidance, SCC has also failed to make full use of existing information that is relevant and which provides a substantial source of information (refer to information contained in PA DPD addendum).

The SMP Transportation Assessment (Background Report) April 2006

2.10 The SMP Transportation Assessment (Background Report) published in April 2006 and updated in November 2009 states that it contains highways assessments of the Potential Mineral Zones (PMZs) considered for inclusion in the SMP preferred option. The preferred sites set out in the CS have evolved from the PMZs. This document says that it also includes information on potential highways issues. Yet, the only highways related issue this report attempts (inadequately) to assess is the quality of access/egress each site has. No other transport issue has been assessed nor does the report attempt to do so. It also fails to consider the impact of such access/egress on neighbouring properties and vice versa, or on the roads from which such access is taken. Taking preferred area Q (or PMZs 26 & 27) as an example, there is no adequate consideration of the existing capacity (or lack of it) on Barrow Green Road, the unsuitability of that road to carry HGVs associated with the existing and proposed sandpit, or the risk posed to other road users such as those from the adjacent riding stables. As a summary of access/egress arrangements at the various sites this report may have some use, but as a transport assessment it is wholly inadequate and does not comply with PPS12 requirements concerning the integration between transport and spatial planning at a local level.

The SMP Strategic Transport Assessment (Background Report) November 2009

2.11 The SMP Strategic Transport Assessment (Background Report) published in November 2009 is a better attempt to identify the transport issues associated with minerals related development, but again offers no meaningful assessment of them. Notwithstanding the explanation at paragraph 1.4, this report also down plays the forecasted HGV movements by effectively cutting them in half. To understand the likely numbers of HGV movements anticipated the figures have to be doubled. This means that under the three forecasting methods the projected HGV movements associated with primary aggregates are 52,720 per annum (at least 145 per day), 135,800 per annum (at least 372 per day) and 140,000 per annum (at least 383 per day). No attempt is made to quantify the HGV movements associated with other minerals development. Secondary/recycled aggregates HGV movements are forecast to be 180,000 per annum (at least 493 per day). Yet despite these high forecasts the report fails to allocate these HGV movements geographically or to specific road networks. Nor does the report allocate the forecasted figures to the PMZs or preferred sites given in the CS. Consequently, there is no assessment of the capacity or suitability of the roads that would serve the preferred sites, and consultees are unable to understand how these projected HGV movements will affect them.

2.12 There is also no cumulative assessment of the HGV traffic associated with the development proposed at the preferred sites against that generated by existing sites such as oil and non-aggregates, e.g. chalk. In Oxted there are three relevant sites: preferred area Q, Palmers Wood Oilfield; and the Chalkpit Quarry. Minerals and waste related HGV traffic associated with these sites already place undue pressures on the local road network, yet these are not mentioned in the report. The report concludes that there will be a significant increase in HGV traffic associated with the proposals set out in the CS but tries to present this as acceptable against a falling trend of minerals production (and therefore HGV movements) since 1993. This pays no regard to the fact that, notwithstanding the falling trend, the local road networks around Surrey cannot cope with the existing quantum of HGV movements. Finally the report appears to suggest in paragraph 7.16 that the impacts of the HGV movements associated with minerals development are acceptable because they are likely to be confined to the local road network. This suggests that the underlying theme of the assessment was that so long as the strategic network is unharmed the impacts are acceptable. In short, this document is not a "strategic transport assessment", rather it is an attempt at a traffic forecast for HGV movements associated with minerals development, which fails to identify the preferred sites or the routes such traffic would use. In the absence of an assessment of the cumulative effect of multiple potential developments, the effects of different combinations of developments, including the preferred sites, on the highway network have not been fully reported or understood.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainability Assessment (SA) November 2009

2.13 SCC's assessment of transport impacts does not improve in the SEA & SA dated November 2009. The introductory text makes it clear that the assessment is based on a presumption of minerals development and the significance of environmental effects are then down played in order to facilitate this. From the outset, the assessment of sensitivity to minerals related development is flawed by the use of an undefined category of "moderate significance", which does not feature in Table 1.1 ' the overwhelming complexity of the assessment criteria would appear to have confused those carrying out the assessment. At Table 1.4 the allocation of the minimum points for scale of risk to local impacts, incorrectly sets up the remainder of the assessment to reduce the significance of impacts on the local community.

2.14 In Chapter 2, no assessment is made of the alternatives to the preferred sites or PMZs. Under each primary aggregate site selection option it is not clear how the sites listed have been identified to represent the least possible risk of adverse impact for the type of impact under consideration. It seems the reader is expected to take the author's word for it in this regard. Given that preferred area Q (PMZ 26) only appears in 3 of the 7 options, i.e. only 3 times is it identified as a site of least possible risk, it also is not clear how or why it has been deemed suitable to be a preferred site.

2.15 In Chapter 14, where transport impacts are purported to be assessed, immediately the transport network and traffic levels are concluded to demonstrate moderate sensitivity to the activities of the minerals industry. Given that none of the background reports have assessed the baseline transport or traffic levels, e.g. quantum, capacity, suitability, safety, etc, (see above) it is impossible to comprehend how this assessment of receptor sensitivity has been arrived at. Indeed, anyone who has knowledge of the local highway network in Surrey will testify that, given the severe inadequacies of it, the sensitivity level should be high.

2.16 Chapter 14 then goes on to attempt to assess the effects of the various policies set out in the CS and other SMP documents. It conveniently concludes that whilst they will create strategically significant effects of at least medium level, all of the main risks will be reduced to a minimal level owing to the controls that can be imposed on minerals development sites and the further assessments that should be carried out at the planning application stage. However, bearing in mind that SCC has, to date, failed to impose or enforce adequate controls on existing minerals and waste related sites (certainly in the east of the county), resulting in significant adverse transport impacts, this basis of assessment is flawed. It also fails to acknowledge the cumulative effects of those sites, which fall beneath the threshold for environmental impact assessments, but which nonetheless are likely to have significant effects on the local highways networks.

2.17 Chapter 14 assumes that controls will adequately mitigate the effects of minerals development on the preferred sites, but what if those controls would serve to render the proposed development unviable/unfeasible? Given the presumption of development and the high targets the SMP seeks to achieve in terms of minerals extractions, presumably the controls would be relaxed to allow the development to proceed. In which case, the mitigation measures will have failed and the local community would be forced to endure the medium level, strategically significant effects reported. The working assumption that the policies in the CS and related documents are fit for purpose and so adequately self-mitigate is ill founded (see further below).

2.18 In addition to these points, many of those above in relation to the background transport assessments relate to the SEA and SA. No proper assessment of baseline conditions has been carried out. SCC has delegated responsibility for this to the planning applicants, whose consultants will undoubtedly demonstrate the adequacy of the preferred sites in environmental impact terms, with dire consequences for the local community. Again, there is no cumulative assessment of effects caused by existing and proposed minerals development at the same and/or different sites on the local highway network. To use preferred area Q as an example again, if its future development follows the path set out in the CS and other SMP documents, it will end up with consent for sand extraction (in two different areas), waste landfill, aggregates recycling facilities and half of the Palmers Wood Oilfield. The effects of all of these competing uses have not been assessed anywhere in the SEA and SA or their background documents.
Transport & Planning Policies

2.19 The policies set out in the CS and related documents fail to comply with other adopted planning and transport policies.

National Policy

2.19.1 The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030 sets out the Government's objectives for achieving an efficient transportation system in the UK, but makes it clear that in doing so impacts on safety, congestion, the environment and other transport users must be minimised. PPS1 contains the national policy for achieving sustainable development and requires issues such as accessibility and sustainable transport needs to be taken into account when preparing development plans. PPG13 ' Transport requires local authorities to promote more sustainable transport choices for people and moving freight. Priority should be given to people over ease of traffic movement and more road space should be provided to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users. Community safety and road safety should be taken into account when implementing planning policies. MPS1 ' Planning & Minerals states that local authorities should promote the sustainable transport of minerals. In doing so, they should also reduce the impacts of transporting minerals by road. In terms of environmental protection, they should encourage mineral site transport plans in consultation with the local community, dealing with matters including routing, off-site parking and considerate driving and complaints procedures.

2.19.2 PPS12 requires that the provision of infrastructure is considered earlier in the plan making process to enable for effective delivery of development and to ensure that infrastructure is in the right place at the right time. However, under the SMP, assessment of the impact on the transport network that development of the preferred sites will cause has been deferred to the application stage thereby depriving SCC of the information necessary to carrying out this task.

2.19.3 The CS should be supported by evidence of what physical infrastructure is needed to enable the development proposed. The evidence relied upon should also influence any infrastructure strategies and investment plans of the local authority and other organisations. PPS12 states "infrastructure planning for the core strategy should also include the specific infrastructure requirements of any strategic sites which are allocated in it". Failure to do so goes against the principles set out in PPS12 and other Government guidance.

Regional Policy

2.19.4 The South East Plan requires transport links to be improved for all. Specific objectives include: a re-balancing of the transport system in favour of sustainable modes; reduce the number of road casualties; minimise the negative impacts of transport and enhance communities through interventions; and improve overall level of accessibility. The South East Regional Economic Strategy requires reduction in road congestion and pollution levels by improving transport choice.

Local Policy

2.19.5 Surrey's Second Local Transport Plan contains a number of policies aimed at: reducing overall traffic growth and congestion; improving road safety and security; enhancing the environment and quality of life; improving air quality; improving the management of the transport network. The Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2009 also requires transport measures to reinforce the rural character of the area and provide safe and convenient access for people who live or work in, or visit the Surrey Hills.

Need CS Objectives

2.20 Paragraph 2.2 of the CS states that one of the ways of achieving the vision of exploiting mineral resources "to meet the needs of the economy.." is by "providing for future mineral working adequate to meet national and regional requirements where resources are available to do this without significant adverse impacts on the environment or local community". However, the South East Plan at paragraph 7.74 says that "mineral planning authorities should ensure that provision is made for sufficient supplies of aggregates, clay, chalk, silica, sand and gypsum to be extracted and processed to meet regional and where appropriate, national needs". The vision in the CS appears to prioritise national needs above regional needs and indeed goes beyond what is expected in regional policy.

2.21 Throughout the CS there are references to local, regional and national needs although the chapter on transportation within the CS refers mostly to local need only. The CS lacks clarity on the criteria to be considered when assessing need; is it local, regional or national need that must be established? For example, Objective 3: meet the need for minerals by "seeking to ensure that sufficient land is identified to enable the regional requirement for aggregates to be met and to provide appropriate land-banks for silica and sand clay."

Implementation and Monitoring

2.22 The MPS1 at paragraph 17 states that to secure environmental protection, local planning authorities should state the criteria to be used in assessing the mineral proposals and in formulating planning conditions, to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment or human health. While the CS does state what is expected to be included in planning applications, it remains silent on the actual criteria to be used in assessing the mineral proposals.

Objections to CS policies

2.23 The OLRG objects to and considers unsound the policies set out in the CS on the following basis:

Policy MC1

2.23.1 By reference to the Primary Aggregates DPD this policy includes the Oxted Sandpit Extension (Preferred Area Q). Oxted Sandpit lies in the Metropolitan Green Belt; in an Area of Great Landscape Value; 250-500m south of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and 500-800m south of the Woldingham & Oxted Downs Site of Special Scientific Interest. The compounds are separated from the AONB and SSSI by the M25. The Oxted Sandpit lies about 250m south of the Robin's Grove Wood & Rye Wood Site of Nature Conservation Importance.

2.23.2 The need for this site has not been established, nor (in the absence of a proper transport analysis having been undertaken) has it been evidentially established that the PPS2 requirement to ensure that high environmental standards will be maintained. As such this policy conflicts with other national and development plan policies, which seek to protect the green belt and inappropriate development in this rural setting. The harm to the protected landscape and local transport network presented by minerals development is not justified in this location.

Policy MC2

2.23.3 Special protection should also extend to Areas of Great Landscape Value.

2.23.4 We understand from Surrey CPRE that SCC is currently treating the AGLV as being of the same status as the AONB and the Leader of SCC, Andrew Povey, has confirmed this. This means there is a higher threshold to meet before development can take place. We believe this arises from the results of an assessment consultants Chris Burnett and Associates undertook of the AGLV a few years ago to determine if it was of equal character to the AONB. The report concluded that there are large areas both to the north and south of the M25, which are of equal merit. While the boundary issue is sorted out - likely to take years apparently - the new policy is operating.

2.23.5 Surrey CPRE's recent submission to the Reigate & Banstead Core Strategy examination (going on now) states:
"A meeting has been held with Natural England, to discuss when the boundary review of the AONB could take place. The Vice -President of CPRE Surrey is on the Board of Surrey Hills AONB and attended the meeting. Although Natural England indicated that resources are short and a number of areas have requested similar reviews, the outcome was more positive than had been anticipated. (We understand that the press release (CDE62) was actually issued before the meeting took place and the meeting was far more positive). We are currently awaiting the notes of that meeting but letters from the Chairman of Surrey Hills AONB Board and Surrey County Council (attached) indicate that both authorities are treating the AGLV as AONB until the boundary issue has been resolved. It is my understanding of the meeting that Natural England was sympathetic to the request for a review and will be working on a programme, taking into account other priorities and availability of resources".

Policy MC3

2.23.6 This policy does not comply with PPG2. In the absence of a proper transport analysis having been undertaken it is inappropriate to consider or indeed allocate sites under an assumption that such sites may achieve the highest environmental standards. To make this policy sound it should be broadened to require all minerals development in the green belt to meet the test set out in PPG2.

Policy MC7

2.23.7 By reference to the Primary Aggregates DPD this policy includes the Oxted Sandpit Extension (Preferred Area Q). Oxted Sandpit lies: in the Metropolitan Green Belt; in an Area of Great Landscape Value; 250-500m south of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and 500-800m south of the Woldingham & Oxted Downs Site of Special Scientific Interest. The compounds are separated from the AONB and SSSI by the M25. The Oxted Sandpit lies about 250m south of the Robin's Grove Wood & Rye Wood Site of Nature Conservation Importance.

2.23.8 The need for this site has not been established, nor has it been established that this site can meet the highest environmental standards of operation to justify mineral extraction here. As such this policy conflicts with other national and development plan policies, which seek to protect the green belt and inappropriate development in this rural setting. The harm to the protected landscape and local transport network presented by minerals development is not justified in this location.

Policy MC8

2.23.9 Is it national or regional need that must be met? Policy MC7 refers to sub-regional need only, not national need. This policy needs to be clarified.

Policy MC11

2.23.10 This policy is unsound because it fails to take account of impact on the environment. To make it sound, it should require proposals to comply with tests minimising adverse impacts on the environment.

Policy MC12

2.23.11 This policy is unsound because it fails to take account of need for the mineral resource concerned or how this justifies impacts on the environment. To make it sound, it should require proposals to comply with tests setting out how the need for oil and gas development, in the proposed location, should be established, and how such need justifies any adverse impact on the environment.

Policy MC14

2.23.12 This policy is unsound. To make it sound it should be amended to include a test for establishing the need for the development.

Policy MC15

2.23.13 This policy is unsound because SCC has effectively delegated responsibility for assessing the impact of minerals proposals to the planning applicant. It is irresponsible of SCC to identify preferred sites for minerals development without having properly assessed the transport impacts. By identifying the preferred sites a presumption in favour of minerals development is created for each location, which is not justified by the evidence SCC has or the inadequate assessments that have been carried out.

2.23.14 Also, whilst SCC has correctly identified some of the transport issues related to minerals development and some of the controls that can be implemented to mitigate the impacts of such development on transport networks, these controls have not been adequately transposed into Policy MC15 and as drafted this policy does not comply with Mineral Policy Statement 1: "state the criteria to be used in assessing mineral proposals and in formulating planning conditions, to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment or human health." It is therefore unsound. Policy MC15 should be amended to include the following additional requirements:
'Applicants will be expected to have:
(i) addressed alternatives to road-based methods of transport, especially where these can use existing rail sidings;
(ii) investigated alternative means of site access/egress, where road-based methods of transport cannot be avoided;
(iii) investigated the capacity, safety and suitability of roads within the vicinity of the proposed development in terms of accommodating traffic associated with it;
(iv) investigated management techniques to reduce the number of vehicles accessing and egressing the proposed development, and improving the safety and standard of roads within the vicinity of the proposed development;
(v) assessed the cumulative effects of the proposed development and other existing and proposed development on, and within the vicinity of, the proposed development site, with particular regard to adverse effects on transport and the local road network.'
'Applicants will be expected to establish community forums, to engage the community in reviews of the mitigation measures employed in respect of the proposed development and to implement such additional reasonable mitigation measures as may be identified pursuant to such review'.
'Where appropriate, planning conditions and/or planning obligations will be imposed, at the applicant's cost, to control:
(i) the location, means and quality of access/egress to the development site;
(ii) the timing and number of vehicles accessing and egressing the development site;
(iii) the implementation of management techniques to reduce the number of vehicles accessing and egressing the proposed development;
(iv) the appropriate routing of vehicles associated with the development site, so as to ensure the safety and efficiency of local roads;
(v) the implementation of other suitable mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the development on the local community, including improving the safety and standard of roads within the vicinity of the proposed development.'

3 SMP ' Primary Aggregates DPD November 2009 (PA DPD)

Legally Compliant: No Sound: No
Not justified, effective or consistent with national policy
Participate in oral part of the examination: Yes

3.1 The OLRG objects to the policies set out in the PA DPD, in particular Policy MA3, and considers them unsound for similar reasons to those set out in respect of the CS. It is entirely unclear from the background documentation how the original PMZs were filtered to produce the 13 preferred sites identified in the PA DPD. Also, such filtering process appears to have been conducted outside of the LDF/LDS process contrary to PPS12, with limited consultation.

Objection to Preferred Area Q: Oxted Sandpit Extension, Oxted

3.2 Oxted Sandpit lies: in the Metropolitan Green Belt; in an Area of Great Landscape Value; 250-500m south of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and 500-800m south of the Woldingham & Oxted Downs Site of Special Scientific Interest. The compounds are separated from the AONB and SSSI by the M25. The Oxted Sandpit lies about 250m south of the Robin's Grove Wood & Rye Wood Site of Nature Conservation Importance.

3.3 It is not clear how or why Preferred Area Q (Oxted Sandpit) has been identified in the background assessments as a site of least possible risk or deemed suitable to be a preferred site given that it only appeared in 3 of the 7 risk assessment options considered by SCC. No adequate assessment of the impacts on the environment and local communities appears to have been conducted in respect of each individual site. This responsibility has been inappropriately delegated to the planning application stage of the development process.

3.4 SCC's failure to properly assess Oxted Sandpit in terms of impacts on the local road network is not acceptable. SCC is aware of the various consented uses at or adjacent to this site (sand extraction, landfill and oil recovery) and also those at the nearby Chalkpit Quarry, at the north end of Chalkpit Lane. It is also aware of the existing uncontrolled cumulative effects of these sites on the local road network.

3.5 During the course of 2007 and 2008, SCC held meetings with the local community to discuss the adverse effects HGVs associated with the two quarries have on the safety and efficiency of the local road network, in particular Chalkpit Lane, Barrow Green Road, Church Lane and East Hill Road. These meetings were held in response to two petitions of 425 and 1200 local people respectively that were submitted to SCC calling for controls to be imposed on quarry related traffic.

3.6 Subsequently, SCC commissioned independent transport consultants, TPS, to investigate and report on possible solutions to the problems associated with HGV movements in and around Oxted. In August 2008, TPS published their report and this was presented to a meeting of SCC's Tandridge Local Committee on 5 September 2008. That report identified various adverse impacts associated with the quantum and routing of HGV traffic accessing and egressing the two quarries. It also identified 18 possible solutions to these problems and a preferred solution, which included improvements to the local road network and the re-routing of HGV traffic, to mitigate its impact on the local road network. TPS's preferred option was adopted by SCC, but subject to the damning caveat that the financial resources to implement it were unlikely to come forward for several years.

3.7 SCC also wrote to the Environment Agency (EA) in November 2008 to highlight issues associated with minerals and waste traffic related to the Oxted Sandpit and Chalkpit Quarry in the context of an application for an inert landfill licence at the Oxted Sandpit. SCC will also be aware that its former Leader, Cllr Nick Skellett, wrote to the EA in March 2008 to complain of the 'unacceptable' impacts of HGV traffic associated with the two quarries on the local road network. He said, 'It must be possible to look at the overall position, as theoretically there could be as many as 300 HGV movements in Barrow Green Road per day, which is unacceptable. As the local Councillor, I have received many representations from residents who are rightly very concerned that granting a further application, that will result in the operation of two sites simultaneously, will cause a gross intrusion to their lives'. In addition, to this traffic SCC will also be aware that the proposed widening of the M25 near Oxted will create additional HGV traffic in the area.

3.8 SCC will also be aware that Tandridge District Council (TDC) objects to the inclusion of Oxted Sandpit in the PA DPD (and AR DPD (see below)). In summary, TDC objects on the following grounds:

3.8.1 Conflict with policies in its Core Strategy;

3.8.2 Barrow Green Road is not wide enough along any of its length for HGVs;

3.8.3 TDC is not proposing any further HGV movements on any part of Barrow Green Road ' they are objecting in principle to sand extraction at the extension to the Oxted Sandpit primarily for this reason;

3.8.4 If the extension to the Oxted Sandpit were to happen then restoration works would need to be the subject of a legally binding Method Statement in relation to the routing of HGV traffic. Barrow Green Road is not suitable for such a route in TDC's opinion;

3.8.5 TDC's objects similarly to the aggregates recycling proposal at the Oxted Sandpit site.

3.9 SCC will also be aware that the local MP, Peter Ainsworth, has also objected to the CS and other SMP documents, and the inclusion of Oxted Sandpit in the PA DPD.

3.10 Therefore, SCC is aware of the cumulative effects on transport and the local community caused by the permitted operations at the Oxted Sandpit, Chalkpit Quarry and the M25. Its representatives have also sought to persuade other regulatory bodies to appreciate the scale of these effects when considering further consents and to not grant them. Notwithstanding this, SCC now proposes to introduce minerals related policies that will establish a presumption in favour of additional development at the Oxted Sandpit, which it knows will lead to significant adverse impacts on the local road network and community. Having investigated these effects in the past it is incomprehensible that SCC would choose not to properly assess them as part of its minerals plan development process, and choose a course of action that would make the baseline conditions worse. This is unreasonable and may render the SMP susceptible to legal challenge if it remains as drafted.

3.11 Further to the above, it is also not clear whether the estimated resource available for the period 2010-2026 in Table 2 of the PA DPD of 0.21 million tonnes, relates to just the extension to the Oxted Sandpit or the balance of the site currently subject to planning permission for minerals extraction. In any event the quantum of minerals available at this site is relatively small. The contribution this site would make towards the targets set out in the PA DPD would not justify the associated impacts on the local transport network or the protected landscape around the site. Indeed, the extant planning permission for Oxted Sandpit requires its restoration by May 2012. The postponement of the restoration of this site and loss of additional woodland is an unacceptable harm in an area of green belt and an Area of Great Landscape Value. Consequently, Preferred Area Q (Oxted Sandpit) should be deleted from the PA DPD.

3.12 PPS12 requires that development plan documents satisfy legal requirements and are sound. In particular they must be subject to a sustainability appraisal, founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and must be the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. The PA DPD fails to meet these tests.

Evidence Base

3.13 The analysis undertaken in assessing Oxted Sandpit Extension as a preferred area (referenced Preferred Area Q) in the DPD is flawed and there is insufficient evidence to support inclusion of this site as a preferred area.

3.14 The Oxted Sandpit Extension was originally included as a potential mineral zone as far back as 2004 when it was originally included as one of the 106 sites (referred to as Site 26) in the 2004 report on the Assessment of Potential Mineral Zones for Extraction of Sand and Gravel in Surrey (the 2004 PMZ Report). The assessment methodology applied at that time included an assessment of the potential sites against transport assessment criteria, as well as other criteria. These criteria were based on site access (provision to a satisfactory standard, environmental impact of access works); approach roads (nature and classification, environmental impact of development related traffic); access to motorway/primary route networks and accessibility to other modes (railway lines, navigable waterways). The transportation site assessment relating to this site concluded:
"The site is located to the north west of the Oxted Sandpit and adjacent to Tandridge Hill Lane. There is no possibility of direct access to this site and Tandridge Hill Lane is totally unsuitable for access by HGVs due to the single-track nature of the road. The only possibility for access to this site is from Oxted Sandpit. The existing access to Oxted Sandpit from Barrow Green Road, the C74, is suitable for use. There are no properties adjacent to the site access, so minimal impact. The construction of a roundabout at the junction of Barrow Hill Road with Godstone Road, the A25, and Tandridge Hill Lanehas improved highway safety at this point"

3.15 The transport assessment did not take into account any of the environmental impacts of development related traffic, either in isolation or cumulatively with other preferred areas in the locality identified. Indeed there was scant reference, if any, to the information and resources used to justify the conclusions reached. The Draft Primary Aggregates Land Assessment Report published in April 2006 to support the Surrey Mineral Plan used the 2004 PMZ Report as evidential justification to underpin it. However, the SEA and SA of Proposed Minerals Development Framework for Surrey Part Six - assessment of the Site Options for the new Minerals Development Framework for Surrey; March 2006 ' draft, noted that the information set out in the April 2006 PMZ Report may not have reflected conditions as of February 2006 on the ground at any of the identified sites, due to changes in circumstances since the original survey work was undertaken in 2003 and 2004.

3.16 For these reasons, and those set out above (in the section relating to the CS) OLRG believes there is insufficient evidence to justify inclusion of Oxted Sandpit Extension as a preferred site in the PA DPD. This is particularly the case in light of PPS12 requirements for DPDs to be founded on robust and credible evidence base.

PPS12/Sustainability Appraisal

3.17 The process of assessment of the preferred areas is contained in paragraph 7.3 to 7.5 of the DPD. Paragraph 7.4 states "In selecting preferred areas for inclusion in the plan, assessment of the PMZs was undertaken to weigh up the choices and alternatives. This is recorded in the Primary Aggregates Land Assessment Report."

3.18 The methodology undertaken in reducing the original 106 potential preferred areas was outlined and assessed in the April 2006 PMZ Report. However, the filtration system applied to select the sites subsequently consulted upon should have been consulted upon as part of the DPD consultation process, not as an external independent document.

3.19 OLRG believes the requirements of PPS12 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 were not met. What should have been regarded as proper consultation at the preferred options stage to determine how the preferred areas would be assessed was instead carried out as part of the development of the Primary Aggregates Land Assessment Report (2006).
Transport issues/mitigation measures

3.20 Paragraph 7.8 states:
"Identification of a preferred area does not mean that permission will automatically be granted because proposals will also be tested under the relevant development plan policies. In addition, conditions will be imposed on planning permission 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 the sites will be considered and addressed at the time a planning application is made."

3.21 Although it is not a foregone conclusion that planning consent will be granted for Oxted Sandpit Extension, the fact that it will be an allocated site if the plan is adopted will carry significant weight. Nevertheless, the PA DPD fails to accommodate sufficient flexibility in the event this and other sites are not granted the requisite planning consents to fulfill the regional allocation of supply contained in policy M3. The PA DPD therefore falls short of the PPS12 requirement for flexibility.

3.22 One of the main environment impacts of allocating the Oxted Sandpit Extension as a preferred area is the inability of the local road network to cope with the increased level of HGVs on the local highway network. The 2004 PMZ Report concluded that there is no possibility of direct access to this site as Tandridge Hill Lane is totally unsuitable for access by HGVs due to the single-track nature of the road. The only possibility for access would therefore be through the existing Oxted Sandpit site to Barrow Green Road. However, in view of the environmental harm caused by the increased level of HGV movement and in line with policies set out in the draft CS, it is not unreasonable to conclude that developer contributions would be sought for highway improvement works which would allow access to the Oxted Sandpit Extension directly from Tandridge Hill Lane. However, the PA DPD lacks any reference at all to the potential for developer contributions to mitigate identified harm either under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or by application of the Community Infrastructure Levy and yet it does mention the use of conditions. This presupposes that mitigation measures will be limited only by use of conditions and not by improvements to the local highway network.

3.23 Policy MA3 of the PA DPD does not satisfy the relevant objective 05.1 (ensuring the potential impacts from transportation are considered when identifying preferred areas) by a key outcome of the grant of planning permission (summary table on page 18).

3.24 This PA DPD will form part of the development plan policy against which any planning application will be assessed. The allocation of the Oxted Sandpit Extension as a preferred site will carry significant weight which should not be underestimated. It is wholly inaccurate to omit transport from the Oxted Sandpit Extension key development requirements (Appendix 1). Access to the site from Barrow Green Road will have transportation impacts. It is contradictory for this DPD not to include a transport assessment as one of the key development requirements when policy MC15 of the CS states applications for mineral development should include a transport assessment.

Preferred Area Q ' Key Development Requirements

3.25 Without prejudice to OLRG's position that Preferred Area Q (Oxted Sandpit) should be deleted from the PA DPD, if it is included in adopted policy then the key development requirements for this site should be amended to include the following:
'Access: justification for access to the site from Barrow Green Road, having regard to alternative means of access to/from the strategic highway network;
Local amenity: assess and identify mitigation for potential environmental impacts of noise, dust and visual impact, on the local environment and community, in particular the green belt, Area of Great Landscape Value, and residents of the Oxted and Limpsfield areas;
Restoration: restore in a timely manner and to a condition consistent with restoration of the wider area;
Transport: investigate and assess the capacity, safety and suitability of roads within the vicinity of the site for HGV traffic, in particular Barrow Green Road, Church Lane, East Hill Road and Chalkpit Lane; identify and implement measures to mitigate the impacts of the development on the local highway network, in particular the quantum, timing and routing of HGVs, and provide improvements to it so as to ensure the safety and efficiency of transport by road for the local community".

4 SMP - Aggregates Recycling DPD November 2009 (AR DPD)

Legally Compliant: No Sound: No
Not justified, effective or consistent with national policy
Participate in oral part of the examination: Yes

4.1 The OLRG objects to the policies set out in the AR DPD, in particular Policy AR2, and considers them unsound for similar reasons to those set out in respect of the CS and PA DPD. It is entirely unclear from the background documentation how or why Oxted Sandpit is identified in the AR DPD for aggregates recycling facilities. The need for this site to provide for an aggregates recycling facility has not been proven. However, what does appear to be clear is that the allocation of this site for aggregates recycling facilities is based upon two ill-founded assumptions: (i) that the site, or part of it, will continue the extraction of minerals and so lends itself to aggregates recycling; and (ii) that due to a reduction of the quantity of inert waste available for restoration, the site is unlikely to be restored without intervention.

4.2 First, unless fresh planning permission is granted, the existing consent for the Oxted Sandpit will expire in May 2011 and restoration must be carried out by May 2012. Second, SCC will be aware that in summer 2009, the operators of the Oxted Sandpit applied to the EA for a permit to deposit inert waste at this location, which has yet to be granted. Both these facts demonstrate that left unaltered, the consents relevant to the Oxted Quarry should facilitate the early restoration of Oxted Sandpit. Therefore, identifying that site for additional mineral extraction and an aggregates recycling facility, provides for an inappropriate and unjustified postponement of ending the adverse impacts on the local environment. In short, Oxted Sandpit should not be subject to further development other than to provide for the early restoration of this area of green belt and Area of Great Landscape Value.

4.3 For the avoidance of doubt all of the representations made above in relation to the PA DPD apply equally to the AR DPD. The cumulative effects of separate consents for sand extraction, waste landfill, oil recovery and an aggregates recycling facility at Oxted Sandpit have not been properly assessed, nor have they been assessed together with the similar consents relating to the Chalkpit Quarry.

4.4 Policy AR2 fails to indicate for how long 'temporary' planning permission may be granted, nor does it set out the tests for establishing need for an aggregates facility at the sites identified. Without prejudice to OLRG's submissions above, if this policy were to be adopted, these tests should be made clear and an indication of the likely duration of the planning permission should be given. Without this it is not possible to properly assess the likely environmental effects arising from the proposed policy and/or development.

4.5 Furthermore, if Policy AR2 were adopted it should be amended in accordance with those amendments set out above in relation to Policy MC15 in the CS and the key development requirements for Oxted Sandpit in the PA DPD. That way, appropriate controls could be placed on aggregate recycling facilities in order to mitigate their impacts on the local environment and community.

5 SMP ' Minerals Site Restoration SPD November 2009 (SPD)

Legally Compliant: Yes Sound: Yes, subject to amendments
Participate in oral part of the examination: Yes

5.1 OLRG is generally supportive of this SPD because it should facilitate the appropriate restoration of existing and proposed mineral extraction sites. However, it should be amended in accordance with those amendments set out above in relation to Policy MC15 in the CS and the key development requirements for Oxted Sandpit in the PA DPD. That way, appropriate controls could be accommodated in restoration schemes in order to mitigate their impacts on the local environment and community.