Present:

Simon Elson Minerals and Waste Team SCC

Hilary Herbert Minerals and Waste Team SCC

David Lamb Minerals and Waste Team SCC

David Batey CAMEL

David Evans CAMEL

Bert Smith CAMEL

Susan Snook CAMEL

Nick Snook CAMEL

Paul Tanner CAMEL

Nick Hayward RPS

Frances Russell RPS

Group met at Heath Cottage and walked PMZ60, proceeded to Reigate Heath Windmill to see the greater view of the Zone, set within the context of the Surrey Hills, and returned to Heath Cottage.

Group then comprehensively toured PMZ55 by car, taking in all views of the zone, from Brockham and Betchworth. Parked at bottom of the Common Field, walked through churchyard and up The Street and back down the footpath within the Zone.

Repaired to The Old Vicarage, Old Reigate Road for meeting.

DL: The Landscape appraisal of mineral sites advised against those within AONBs owing to the nature of that designation. The landscape study had been completed by CBA and it was not planned to go into any greater detail. Those sites studied by CBA, in addition to the 26 ‘included’ at present, are to be seen as reserve sites. This contradicted what was stated later in the meeting when DL commented that there were no reserve sites at present. The additional handful of sites studied by CBA included 57,58 and 59. DL said additional sites had been selected on grounds of environmental sensitivity. HH stated (see below for detail) that since Ashcombe, the SCC aggregate requirement had risen with the effect that 6/26 sites may not now be knocked out at the next stage (as had been suggested at Ashcombe).

HH: context of all guidelines within SCC Plan 2004 are relevant to the current sites, they should not be viewed individually. DL: there are many policies and these need to be weighed up together. HH added that the Zones needed to be in compliance with these policies.

The Surrey Structure Plan existed for three further years when regional (South East England Regional Assembly, SEERA) would supercede. However, HH noted that the SCC policies were in greater detail to the regional ones. HH commented further that while SCC had lost the Structure Plan role, it had maintained minerals and waste.

SCC made presentations to SEERA in October on mineral and waste policies and this had been published at the beginning of January. This report had gone to the Government who will consult in March with recommendations. It was noted that the Panel report put the needs of the construction industry above environmental concerns.

RPS had received pack from SCC re compliance for sites.

So far SCC had received 1,000 letters of objection. There had, however, been some 50 duplicates (ie 950 ex duplicates). Of these 1,000 letters, 80 had been from statutory bodies or interest groups, the rest from individuals.

The nature of objections: for PMZ60 traffic, effect on Heath, hydrology, landscape and recreation. For PMZ55 the impact on village from loss of common field and traffic. DL had noted importance of footpath during the morning’s tour, but stated that this footpath would not be lost if quarry went ahead.

The objections are available to public view (DL), but they were being analysed presently. HH stated that this analysis would take some time; the delay in the objection deadline had pushed this analysis back.

NS asked for further, more detailed, information on the areas within the PMZs which are of interest, quoting DL’s standard letter of response to objections in which this information is offered.

At Ashcombe we had been invited to correct the Framework document. PT asked for comment on which corrections had been accepted. DL noted ‘quite a lot’ of factual corrections, as well as subjective assertions, in the document as a whole, which will be taken into account. PT commented that these errors undermined the confidence of local villagers and that if this Framework PMZ assessment were to be the foundation for decisions, these errors would necessarily undermine confidence. HH responded that we were at a verification stage presently.

Nutfield is the other area in Surrey of greatest objection. These objections were largely traffic and hydrology. Alton Road in Spelthorn, NW Surrey, is also objecting strongly. Despite the fact that Spelthorne relates to gravel extraction, they are effectively in competition with us as SCC’s targets were for overall aggregate; sand and gravel are not separately apportioned.

HH commented that as SCC had received objection to this Framework it was bound to go to enquiry. DL added that the Government assume that more consultation initially will give rise to fewer objections.

HH: The minerals and waste development scheme had just been submitted to Government. The date for an inspector for enquiry may be some way off, however, the Government had given housing and waste priority. This, coupled with the new system has put pressure on the inspectorate. SCC had been charged with the task of being ready by 2007, therefore all enquiries should be completed by 2006. However, if housing and waste was to be prioritised over minerals (against SCC wishes as minerals work is currently underway) then the enquiry may be delayed.

• The current, first stage of is informal information gathering and correction of data.
• Formal consultation in October (6 wks max – govt stipulation) of draft plan identifying preferred sites (twin-tracking it with waste plan)
• Further formal consultation stage of 6 weeks when revised document is submitted (2006) to Government office. Further presentations at that stage would go to public enquiry.
• Public enquiry

Government’s target to SCC is three years to form process, but there is no limit to the public enquiry timing if there should be a clash of interests with housing and waste (Sept 2007 current deadline).

HH: Corrections to original PMZ report would be published on SCC website in October. From analysis of letters categories of objection to be identified which SCC will respond to. HH would endeavour to be as open as possible with information in this regard.

NH asked whether, at the end of February, SCC would take the corrected report to an appropriate committee prior to selecting PMZ options. The response was negative. The key decision maker was the Environment Portfolio holder (David Davis, note election in May). The Task Group: Environment & Economy Select Committee, Executive Committee will meet at the end of September for formal decision on PMZs. The draft preferred options plan will go to public consultation in October. The minerals and task was group not open to the public but we could be given member names so that CAMEL can lobby. There is an allowance within Freedom of Information for members to have private time to review documents prior to public views.

CAMEL had commented on lack of confidence locally in the selection process. SE: gave the example that the Framework document was not in fact incorrect in stating that PMZ55 was 300m from the village, as the professional norm was to take the mid-point from the site. PT corrected this assertion; even taking the mid-point protocol, the statement was incorrect. NS added that the cross reference within the PMZ60 section was unnecessary, relating to a few short lines of text which makes the document difficult to access.

Betchworth Quarry had conditions imposed within the planning approval, but these had not been effectively policed. HH stated that there were enforcement officers with this task. DE cited the December 2004 closure condition which had not been enforced at Betchworth. The Reigate Road Quarry (Franks) was also mined at variance to planning conditions, notably the face was being undercut which was potentially unsafe, but nothing had been done to correct the practice. These omissions undermined public confidence. Why one rule for contractor and another for public? HH took note and will look into this and ask enforcement officer to investigate these examples.

SE: Agreed that these assertions were correct. There had been a meeting at Betchworth Quarry at the end of 2004 to establish final cessation of works. These sites were inspected regularly and the Betchworth meeting had addressed that particular issue. The Betchworth situation was difficult, however. DE asked whether there had been a private deal, HH responded that there hadn’t been. DE retorted that if there had been no planning application for variance to conditions stipulated previously, yet these activities were continuing with SCC’s agreement but without Planning Approval with its inherent public accountability, this constituted a private deal which leads to lack of public confidence in the process.

DE: Where documents were incorrect, publishers should take responsibility and correct them so that readers new to the issue would have a correct understanding. DE gave the example that a judge at a Public Enquiry would absorb the facts contained within the first document he read. If this happened to be incorrect, it would be difficult to shift perceptions once the correct information had been furnished.

DE requested that the initial document be withdrawn and a corrected document put in place. HH simply stated that our comments would go forward to draft plan stage.

DE appreciated that while sand is clearly needed, it should be extracted from non-sensitive sites.

In answer to this, DL outlined process so far. Revised national and regional guidelines for aggregate provision had been issued in June 2003 – an estimate of the demand from the construction industry based on treasury models. This had been broken down by region for aggregates, including marine sourced and recycled or secondary aggregates. These figures had then been given to regional assemblies and apportioned to counties. Figures had been calculated as per govt guidance in relation to recent aggregate production trends, averaged 7 years taking out highest and lowest levels of production. Surrey had been allocated 2.62m tonnes. SCC made representations that Surrey was constrained environmentally and our allocation had been reduced to 2.5m tonnes. This shortfall had not been reallocated to another county and was subsequently reinstated. (Bucks and Oxon also had reductions). SCC pushed longer-term sustainability issues – ie lack of sand in 20 yrs time.

South East England Aggregate Working Party (group of county councils) had commissioned a study taking environmental capacity into account. Hope for a significant production reduction following this report. Unfortunately, this may take a year or two and would not, therefore, be ready in time for March.

PT asked how much of this process was driven by landfill requirement. HH commented that it was not landfill sites SCC was looking for, but space for treatment plants (which are inappropriate in green belt). SE (who is involved in restoration) noted that 10-15 yrs ago landfill was important (‘void space’). Now landfill is last resort in terms of waste. DL: despite increase of hardcore recycling on building sites, there was still 50% left for inert fill. Landfill was subject to tax and so much ‘inert’ is being diverted to alternative sites. SE, replying to DB’s question, said that if 55 couldn’t be restored the inability to restore would be a suitable reason for the Zone to be rejected. CAMEL ‘should adopt the stance that we are living in a no fill world’. Licencing agencies were getting stricter re content of material used for filling. However, HH added that restoration means putting it back to an ‘acceptable afteruse’.

PT: Tree planting and bunds would have significant visual impact and would not constitute restoration. DE suggested that restoration meant alteration in real terms. Since extraction at Tapwood the water table had dropped and, indeed, the River Mole no longer flooded at Betchworth bridge. This may seem improvement, but the ecology of the whole area had altered. We were not against change, but don’t want definitive alteration. Quarries were considered temporary in guidelines, but the restoration to water rendered them a permanent alteration to the landscape. SCC didn’t dispute that lakes don’t constitute temporary fixture.

DL asked, for PMZs 60 and 55, if mineral extraction did have to go ahead, what would CAMEL’s chosen restoration be, landfill or water. CAMEL’s response was to have both sites returned to their current states.

HH agreed that Local Authorities had a duty to minimise impact and that small stand-offs did not protect the residents.

• CBA (being extended to more sites)
• In-house noise engineers
• Environment Agency report (under consultation arrangement)
• Geology
• In-house traffic study.

DL: SCC not intending to commission any detailed reports, that would be for the operator to do. Hydrology was an issue at Shagbrook and the Environment Agency would pursue this. HH had asked Environment Agency to supply information on hydrology across the county (EA had requested further hydrology study on 23 out of the 26 sites), however, they refused as short on funding/manpower. EA had raised particular concerns about Shagbrook which SCC will pursue, notably contanimation of aquifer and drying out of Heath. NH asked whether the SCC would commission another body to do the work; no they would not. Furthermore, SCC would not preclude sites in absence of research. SE EA assesses applications and gives response. Question as to whether landowner or contractor should pay for this rather than public purse. Some operators were carrying out this research now, SE stated, but that this was not currently the case with PMZ60.

PT asked for bore hole information on PMZ55. Mineral reserves had been established, but SE doesn’t know by whom. PT demonstrated how a geological survey matched Frank’s assessment of sand on their plan. Concern that Franks are willing to show their sand plan but not the bore hole reports. Were the bore holes mentioned in the PMZ report from Frank’s information and if so, could PT have a copy? SCC to revert to operators asking for further detail on geology. SCC would make it available to public, however, they had not yet received a formal submission from Franks. How much Franks disclosed was up to them. SCC would respond shortly on whether they could verify our bore hole information with their own.

DB noted that as PMZ 55 was so small, when taking margins into effect, the removal of the zone wouldn’t impact on SCCs total sand reserve, so why not leave it out.

SCC was waiting for a formal reply from Dungate Estates on their level of interest. Adrian Saunders had told SE that he personally was not interested, but his view was flexible. It was likely that they would want to pursue this opportunity. Hanson had made varying representations, but Dungate Estates may prefer another operator. Silica sand at PMZ60 was not good quality (although this can be improved in processing), so the soft sand reserve was what was of interest, but it was likely that any operator would want both. SE had stated to Dungate Estates and Hanson that they should undertake their own hydrological studies to be made available to SCC. SCC had no influence over the choice of researchers but there was an assumed level of trust - any report would be scrutinised. Dungate Estates had commented to SE that they were not interested in landfill.

HH stated that she will refer back to noise engineers with points that had been raised regarding both sites.

BS asked what consultation had taken place with the water company in light of previous contanimation which had resulted in sleeving of bore hole. BS considered that this was another matter relating to public trust. No meaningful response ensued.

FR wondered how the Plan could be properly founded if there was no proper research, for example, on the effect of hydrology on Reigate Heath? DL responded that the PMZ report was a preliminary SEA report and that it was not the purpose of SEA to answer every question.

SCC would accept any comment from CAMEL after 28^th February.

Consolidated document from CAMEL of all points of objection for both sites would be welcomed by SCC.

SCS