News

Hearing to resume on unpopular mineral mining plan

By Laura Nightingale
March 08, 2013

A BLUEPRINT setting out how Hampshire’s sand and gravel mining would be managed in the future is a step closer towards being adopted.

Since 2007, the draft Minerals and Waste Plan has attracted objections from across the county, especially those from Eversley as sites in that parish were identified in the document.

A public hearing was held last year on the original plan followed by a public consultation on the recommended changes.

Next week the independent planning inspector Andrew Freeman will resume a public hearing in Winchester on Tuesday and Wednesday.

An adequate and steady supply of sand and gravel extracted from Eversley Common Quarry and Eversley Quarry are still identified in the plan.

Bramshill Quarry extension near Yateley Heath Wood is also identified as a potential site in the plan, subject to planning permission.

The Yateley Society would like to see the Bramshill Quarry extension site removed from the list. A spokesman from the society said: “This site is not only part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, covered by the EU Birds Directive and part of Yateley Common, but it is also an archaeological heritage asset as bronze age flint workings and burial site has been discovered in this area.

“The site has recently been leased to Hampshire and Isle of Wight Trust for 10 years with the intention to returning the habitat to open heathland.

“This is completely contrary to creating any quarry workings.”

Any site used for gravel extraction, would not be accessible to members of the public. This means, the proposed part of Yateley Common, which is used regularly by walkers and cyclists, would be out of bounds.

Councillor Mel Kendal, deputy leader and executive member for environment and transport at the county council, said: “The Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan will play a fundamental role in protecting Hampshire’s environment and communities over the next 20 years.

“It will ensure that the local economy is supported by enabling an adequate supply of minerals and sustainably managing Hampshire’s waste.

“Comments received on the proposed changes to the draft plan were submitted to the independent planning inspector for his consideration and he has concluded that the public hearing should resume, and identified the areas he wishes to be covered.”

Next week’s hearing is in public and anyone can attend and observe the proceedings, but only those invited by the planning inspector may participate.

If the inspector decides that he has collected all the necessary evidence, he will close the hearing and finalise his report, which will confirm whether he considers the plan to be a sound document and suitable for the Hampshire authorities to adopt as planning policy.

If this is the case it will replace the current policy, the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, and all future planning applications for minerals and waste development will be assessed and determined on the basis of the policies in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan.

This includes measures to manage and mitigate the impact of development on local communities and the surrounding environment.

Hampshire’s draft plan has been jointly prepared by the five minerals and waste planning authorities in the county, as part of their statutory responsibility for minerals and waste planning.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (1)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 1 of 1

Interesting to note that there is no mention of Purple Haze in this article. Is that because no Hampshire resident is affected by it, although it is on the Hampshire side of the Dorset/Hants border, only Dorset residents are affected. So, why should you give a hoot about that?

It's only adding to the decimation of our countryside and recreational areas, after all. Why care, eh? It's only destroying the habitats of several species of wildlife? Why care, eh?

THIS IS OUR COUNTRY and we are all just made to accept that which is thrown at us by our elected representatives and their staff. All of whom have their wages paid by US.

Public objection has no merit or meaning to these people, I'm afraid. At the end of the day, regardless of which party is in "power", the civil servants within will always be the ones who make the decisions.