Q26 – Do you agree with the assumption that the marine won sand and gravel forms a small but important part of the aggregate supply to Central & Eastern Berkshire? 8/14 agreed – 57%, 5 did not know. Q27 – Do you agree with the assumption that marine won sand and gravel from Hampshire is being transported by road, and via rail from London’s wharves? 7/13 agreed – 54%, 5 did not know. One respondent suggested that it is also transported via Theale and Woking rail depots. Q28 – Do you that the import of marine aggregates to Central & Eastern Berkshire justifies support for safeguarding wharves in supply locations such as Hampshire and London? 9/14 agreed – 64%, 4 did not know. Issue: sand and gravel markets Q29 – Do you agree that the main markets for sand and gravel are within Central & Eastern Berkshire and neighbouring areas of the Thames Valley? 11/15 agreed – 73%. Issue: Extraction locations Q30 – Do you agree that the supply of soft sand to Central & Eastern Berkshire is being sourced from outside the Plan area? 13/15 agreed – 87%, 1 did not know An attempt should be make to quantify the need, and identify the source of supply to ensure steady and adequate provision. Q31 – Are you aware of any reasons for soft sand proposals not coming forward? 3/16 – 19% of respondents were aware why soft sand proposals are not coming forward. 6 did not know. One respondent stated the geological resource is constrained within Central & Eastern Berkshire. Q32 – Are you of any potential soft sand sites? There were no respondents aware of any potential sites. Q33 – Do you agree with the assumption that Central & Eastern Berkshire is likely to be supplying slough with aggregate? 11/16 agreed - %, 4 did not know. One respondent highlighted that outside of the Plan area, like Buckinghamshire and West Berkshire, are supplying Slough too.
Principle vii: should be ‘in locations that are acceptable’ (Minerals Products Association & Cissbury) Principle viii: high emphasis to be placed on this principle. Change the word in order to strengthen the principle (Horton Parish Council). Principle ix: suggestion to remove the word ‘most’, as all should be protected. Include the word ‘unacceptable’ prior to ‘development’ (Quarryplan) Unclear exactly what the spatial strategy is (Surrey County Council). Recommended reference to recycled/secondary aggregates and promotion of such. The protection and enhancement of watercourses and their associated corridors should be also included. (Environment Agency) Recommend reference to protecting/enhancing ecological networks through the landscape, wildlife and adaptation to climate change. Reference should be made to the Colne Valley Regional Park in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (Colne Valley Community Interest Company) The inclusion of a criteria which seeks to minimise road miles (Grundon). The strategy must recognise the role of waste management to achieve sustainable development in line with para 14 of National Planning Policy Framework. The Plan must plan for all levels of the waste hierarchy, and meet ambitions of the Circular Economy (Biffa). Recommendation to include specific points requiring sites to be located in areas of least environmental value, avoid impacts of re-location/re-design, mitigate unavoidable impacts, achieve measureable net gain, Noted – this information will be used to inform the Preferred Options Noted – this information will be used to inform the Preferred Options Noted – this information will be used to inform the Preferred Options Noted – this information will be used to inform the Preferred Options Noted – this information will be used to inform the Preferred Options Specific locations will be set out in Policy and supporting text. Noted, but considered best covered by Objectives. Principles are designed to set out requirements of sustainable development, supported by the Development Management Policy. Specific points relating to Minerals and policy generally covered within the objectives. The Principles are intended to act as the requirements on development, in delivering the objectives.
transportation and emissions (Quarryplan GB Ltd). Timeframe too short to confirm trend due to emission, advice to compare to wider South East (Grundon Waste Management). Heathrow expansion will impact rail depot and ability to handle same amount of aggregate. National Planning Policy Framework guidance stats MPA’s should plan for 7 year landbank (Savills UK on behalf of the Rayner Family Trust) Q20 Yes - unless a rail depot is found (Cemex) Noted. Q21 Possible expansion at Heathrow (Slough Borough Council) Environment Agency Data Interrogator Offers from local operators to provide figures (Environment Agency) Noted. Q22 One respondent suggested the information could be found from quarterly returns for Environment Agency permits (Environment Agency) Noted. Q23 One respondent questioned the word ‘more’, as the area should either be self sufficient or not with no in-between state (Oxfordshire County Council). Noted. Q24 No - not entirely, some material will be transported by road on a back-haulage basis (Quarryplan (GB) Ltd). Noted – this information will be used to update the Minerals: Background Study and inform the Preferred Options. Q25 Central & Eastern Berkshire should seek to find their own rail depot (Cemex) Noted. Q26 The marine won sand and gravel is not a big market for this area (Cemex) Noted. Q27 Also transported via Theale and Woking rail depots (Cemex). Noted – this information will be used to update the Minerals: Background Study and inform the Preferred Options. Q30 It appears that soft sand in Berkshire is currently supplied from outside of the Plan area. As mentioned previously, an attempt should be made to quantify this need, and identify where the supply is coming from, in order to secure the steady and adequate provision of this aggregate for the Plan period. West Berkshire has Noted – this exercise is already being undertaken.
Q74 Highlighted transfer sites do not manage waste, only transfer. This was taken into account in figures (Grundon). The use of waste received as a proxy for waste management capacity should only be an interim position until more accurate data is obtained (Oxfordshire County Council) Transfer tonnes for Non-hazardous, Inert and Hazardous waste are specifically identified in Tables 8, 10 and 12 respectively. Agreed, please also see response to Q.71 above. In addition a number of sources for waste capacity will be explored with reference to different confidence levels. Q75 Waste Data Flow – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (should be included in Environment Agency Waste Data Interrogator) (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead) Greater recognition of smaller facilities in UK for specialist hazardous waste. Some sites are not regulated by Environment Agency so have no precise data. Environment Agency permitted void data (Environment Agency). Radioactive data (Grundon). Lack of up to date data. Suggestion of annual surveys (Biffa) Waste Data Flow will be used to provide accurate arising figures for LACW, as a component within the Household Industrial and Commercial waste stream. Noted, to be considered for the Preferred Options consultation. As above. As per response to Q.71 above. Q78 Support for method. from other Mineral Planning Authority to compare if necessary (Surrey County Council). Differing weight should be applied to different methods depending on their robustness (Biffa). Noted. Noted. Weighting of capacity estimates will be explored as other Waste Planning Authorities have done. Please also refer to Q.74 comment above. Q82 published data “UK Statistics on Waste” (December 2016) and “Digest of Waste and Resource Statistics” (March 2017) (Biffa) Other methodologies will be explored in the Preferred Options consultation. Different growth rates will be applied. Household Municipal
the opportunities for enhancement of watercourses and their associated corridors should be included. It should be made clear that watercourses should not be included in the extraction areas, but instead should have buffer zones free from any activity/operation associated with development/extraction. This should be applied to all watercourses. (Environment Agency) Stage 1 Assessment is to be undertaken using a GIS layer but using Table 1, paragraph 4.17 and Appendix 2 – seem to imply greater knowledge of the sites and more detailed assessment work. These criteria and assessment methodology appear more appropriate to Stage 2. A desk based assessment is unlikely to be able to include such value judgments unless a site visit has been made? (Cemex) In the Site Assessment Methodology Traffic Light screening process there is no mention that sites with strong or the strongest presumption against gravel should NOT be considered or should be flagged Red. We put it to the assessment team that this should be included in the initial screening method i.e. to eliminate or flag sites that have the strongest or strong presumption against gravel extraction. (Resident) The reference to sites with ‘strong or the strongest presumption against gravel extraction’ refers to existing Policy set out in the Berkshire Replacement Minerals Local Plan. These areas were established as there were allocations set out in the Plan which were required to meet mineral demand established at that time. As the Joint Minerals & Waste Plan is being prepared 16 years after the Replacement Plan was updated, mineral demand is being reassessed and all site allocations and options are being and therefore, it is not practicable to rule out sites other than the remaining allocations in the 2001 Plan. Q118 The East Plan deals with the Thames Basin Heaths special protection area. Our concern is this has a chipping away effect on natural habitats, the Green Belt, and an unknown effect on flooding, this type of land can store copious amounts of water. The sites referred to must be protected as such within the Thames basin. (Datchet Parish Council) Noted – the assessments will be reviewed and updated where necessary.