Preferred Area L – Watersplash Farm, Halliford
Environment
Agency
Spelthorne BC
Elmbridge BC
The fourth sentence which reads “Previous filling of former gravel pits in the local area means that there is a risk of groundwater
contamination if mineral extraction is permitted” would be clearer if the word “spreading” were inserted before groundwater
contamination.
In principle the site could be worked but particular efforts would be required to protect local amenity. The site should not be
worked at the same time as preferred areas F and J so as to minimise the impact on the southern half of the borough.
Access: Cumulative impact of HGV traffic should be carefully considered, despite the A244 already having high HGV movement.
Local amenity: Proximity to houses in Gaston Bridge Road would require extensive screening/bunding to protect residents
amenity.
No objection, but will be suitable only if it is accessed solely from the A244/Green Lane roundabout and no HGVs are permitted
from Fordbridge Road to protect residents.
SSAGE / LOSRA & Hydrology: The council’s Strategic Environment Assessment is limited in its appraisal of the hydrogeological impacts of mineral extraction from
River Ash RA
Watersplash Farm. It relies upon consultation with the Environment Agency (EA) from which the Hydrological Assessment (April 2006) has been
prepared. It is obvious from this background report that the EA’s records are limited and not up to date. More worrying though is they make very
little reference to the impact on the river and wetland margins.
We believe the council has overlooked the very real and potentially irreparable damage that mineral workings are likely to have on the river and
its margins.
SSAGE commissioned a hydrological consultant, Aquaterra UK Ltd, to assess the impacts in terms of river flow, groundwater changes, water
abstraction wells and groundwater contamination from old landfill areas around the site. A copy of this report dated June 2006 is attached.
In summary, the report finds:
a. Groundwater: The River Ash is very likely to be in hydraulic connectivity with groundwater in the gravels. Dewatering of the site will result
in a lowering of groundwater level which will potentially reduce the flow in the river.
The vegetation either side of the river, being wetland in nature, is dependant on a high water table. Any reduction in groundwater levels will
impact on this vegetation corridor. This corridor is described in the Spelthorne Borough Council Local Plan (2001), Appendix 2 as “supporting
good wetland vegetation including a County rarity, Water Crowfoot.”
b. Contamination: A reduction in groundwater level will increase the gradient of groundwater glow towards Watersplash Farm. This then has
the potential to draw down contaminants from the landfill areas thereby affecting groundwater quality and the River Ash
c. Abstraction Wells: There are several water abstraction points on and in close vicinity of the site. In particular, Fordbridge Park, located
immediately to the south of Watersplash Farm and on the River Ash, draws its water from a licensed well. Any reduction in water level or the
possibility of water contamination will have a severe impact on residents and local business (Ashmere Fisheries for example).
d. Wet Working: Although this method carries less risk than dewatering excavations can create permeable horizontal pathways allowing water to
freely flow. With a highly sensitive relationship between the hydraulic exchange between gravels and the River Ash wet working could
destabilise groundwater and river flow and thereby impacting on the aquatic corridor. Furthermore, horizontal water migration will increase
206
River Ash RA
the risk of contamination and diverting water from wells.
The analysis concludes that the eastern part of the site could not be dewatered without impacting on river flow and groundwater levels in the
aquatic margins. Similarly, most of the western part of the site should be excluded to avoid impacting on the river. Working the site wet will
not eliminate the risks.
Dr Butt, in his professional opinion, concludes that Watersplash Farm should be excluded from the Plan because of the significant concerns
about the risk of contamination to the aquifer and River Ash and impacts on groundwater levels along the river corridor.
Access: The Transportation Assessment (SCC background paper) was undertaken in 2003 and based on an SCC traffic survey (2002). More recent
SCC surveys show increases in traffic including HGVs in the area. [2004 traffic survey shows an increase of 3.6% between 2002-04 if this trend were
to continue there could be an increase of 7.2% of two-way traffic movements in 2006. It also shows a 10-fold increase in HGVs movements in a 12hour period since the weight restriction on Walton Bridge was lifted. SCC recognises the high levels of traffic movement and heavy congestion at
peak times, yet finds the baseline level (i.e. at current flows) acceptable. Cumulative impacts of additional traffic needs to be considered and we
disagree with the zone selection assessment in taking account only of site access under transportation impact.
Transportation Development Control’s suggestion (letter dated 7 October 2005) that peak time control over HGV movements can be managed by
way of a planning condition is both impractical and we suggest unenforceable. The 2004 traffic survey shows that peak spreading has occurred as
a result of pressures on the highway network during the peak period. Restricting gravel movements to outside AM and PM peak periods, with an
allowance for peak spreading, will severely restrict gravel vehicle movement creating commercial pressures on gravel companies to the point
where they will run the risk of being in breach of the planning condition.
Ecology: It is inequitable that some sites of ecological interest require detailed survey work before being included in the final draft of the Minerals
Plan (notably Knight and Bessborough Reservoirs - site B) whereas others, notably the River Ash which is a designated SNCI, do not.
The Plan is flawed if special treatment is given to one particular site. We have called for the council on countless occasions to conduct detailed
surveys before including sites in the Plan but this has been resisted. We challenge the council to demonstrate that the integrity of the River Ash and
the eight metre wide protected margins on either side of the river can be safeguarded. It is imperative that the buffer zone remains undisturbed so
that its function as a corridor for wildlife can continue. We fail to see how extraction and transfer of gravel and working machinery across this
zone will not cause long term harm and irreparable ecological damage.
Landscape & open space: Green Belt - This site is one of the few open areas remaining between surrounding high density urban development and
the Minerals Plan acknowledges that it is an attractive area of open farmland within the Thames Valley. The Landscape and Visual Assessment 2
(April 2006) recommends substantial screening along 3 boundaries of this site. This would contradict policy MD5 which seeks to protect the
openness of the green belt. SCC has not identified what the very special circumstances might be that would outweigh the harm caused by
compromising the openness of this site.
In the absence of any form of credible impact assessment of this site, its inclusion is inappropriate and negligent. Within the principles of your
guiding objectives, Watersplash should be excluded at this stage on the following grounds: Hydrology and environment – Irreversible ecological
damage and the loss of important biodiversity are likely to result from the likely compromise of the integrity of the River Ash and the major
aquifer below the site. We must have assurances that gravel extraction will not increase the risks of flooding or groundwater contamination. Traffic
– Transportation and access via the over congested A244 which cannot support increased HGV usage will have severe adverse implications for
safety and further impact on the very poor air quality around the site. SCC traffic survey data used to assess these impacts is outdated and
207
LOSRA
therefore invalid. We maintain that cumulative impact of additional traffic needs to be considered. Strategic impact – In this context, the inclusion
of an option representing the lowest overall impact on Surrey is misleading. The issue is the disproportionate focus on Spelthorne within Surrey to
provide minerals. Paradoxically, the role of open landscape and preservation of local heritage to provide relief in an area of high density urban
sprawl is greatest and must be preserved. A relatively small proportion of Surrey’s agricultural land falls into Grade 1 or Grade 2. National policy
on the protection of the productive capacity of the agricultural industry indicates that the ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land – that classed
as Grade 1, Grade 2 or Grade 3 should be safeguarded from development. Further AQMA assessment in SEA is contrary in importance to Air
Quality Report (annex3) in Spelthorne Local Transport Plan (2006). Spelthorne is only RED area in Surrey for AQMA. Air Quality is a major risk
and impact to health and well being of residents - importance in the minerals plan is downgraded.
The inclusion of Watersplash Farm (L) in the Draft Plan has not been properly investigated and fails to account for a number of impacts which will
have far-reaching consequences on this site and the immediate surrounding area. 1. Phasing of Mineral Extraction We welcome the council’s
recognition of the damage that can be caused by having two or more sites in operation in an area at the same time. We further support the council
in not granting planning permission if there is already an existing working in close proximity to the application site. The cumulative effects of
working quarries will have significant adverse effects on the local area. In this respect Policy MA5 — Phasing and Objective 3 “minimum adverse
impacts from mineral development on communities and the environment” does not go far enough. As a strategic planning authority SCC must
take into consideration the impact of other major developments planned or under construction in the area of a proposed minerals working. As far
as this affects Watersplash Farm the cumulative effects from projects, such as the proposed expansion of Chariton Village waste refuse station, the
construction of the new Walton Bridge and housing developments in the area must be taken into account in determining whether a minerals
extraction proposal would be appropriate for this location. Annex ID 7.26 also states “Permission for the extraction of aggregates will be granted
only where the mineral planning authority is satisfied that both the need for mineral and the nature and yield of aggregate for the proposed site
justify’ extraction “. This statement implies the need for mineral and yield of aggregate should outweigh social, environmental and ecological
impacts. The overarching control as to whether a site obtains planning permission must be the environmental impacts and the sustainability of
Implementing a minerals development. The need for minerals and yield should only act as a trigger for a site to be considered for submission of a
planning application. 2. Watersplash Farm (L) 2.1 Strategic Impact SCC has given a commitment to minimising impacts on communities and the
environment, yet seven of the thirteen preferred areas for concreting aggregate (54%) are located in the borough of Spelthorne. Of the estimated
16.46 in tonnes of concreting aggregate deposits the draft Plan identifies Spelthorne as contributing 8.89m tonnes (54%) of this total. In our opinion
this is not sustainable and will lead to a continuing decline in the quality of life in respect of increased traffic congestion and threat to safety, noise,
pollution and flood risk all resulting in a long lasting detrimental effect on the environment. SCC should review the potential sites to reduce the
number identified in Spelthorne. SCC should seek to spread more evenly the preferred sites across the county if it intends meeting Objective 3.
Sustainable development is now a key consideration in planning contexts, and it is especially relevant in this case. The Surrey Structure Plan states
“North Surrey is the most densely developed part of the County.... Spelthorne Borough has amongst the highest average density of population of
districts in the South-East” The “Surrey Structure Plan: Examination in Public” document published in 2003 made further crucial statements about
North Surrey, which includes Spelthorne. It stated: “In North Surrey, we were impressed by the shared concerns that further major development
would increase problems of service and infrastructure provision If this can be accommodated with proper infrastructure and contributes to the
quality of life (e.g. with regard to traffic generation or maintaining open space provision), there is no reason to prevent it as a matter of principle.
However, these are important requirements, which will not easily be satisfied in the North Surrey sub-area. In many parts of the sub-area, it may
not be possible to satisfy them at all Where those requirements cannot be met, then we have no doubt that development should not be allowed.”
208
Spelthorne is hugely under pressure from housing development, traffic congestion generated by the proximity of Heathrow, the M25 and M3, air
pollution and other factors. The focusing of further primary industrial activity in the form of opencast mining operations can only exacerbate a
situation already admitted by SCC to be of questionable sustainability. 2,2 Green Belt The area surrounding Watersplash Farm is characterised by
high density urban development. The site provides an important and welcome break between the communities of Shepperton, Sunbury and Upper
Halliford. The farmland performs a classic green belt function and it is one of a few sites that provide open landscape. The Primary Aggregate
Development Plan Document describes Watersplash Farm as “an attractive area of open farmland in the Thames Valley”. The Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment — Version 2 Part 2 (April2006) states that in the case of Watersplash Farm screening needs to be carried out to the north,
south and west boundaries to the site. Section 7.7 (Mitigation Measures and Overall Impact), (iii) recommends the buffer areas (bunds or tree
planting) should be a minimum 30 metres in width and, (iv), tree belts should be a minimum 15 metres in width, This is in stark contradiction to
Policy MD5: Green Belt which states mineral developments should not be allowed if it compromises openness (unless it can be demonstrated cry
special circumstances outweigh the harm). Screening in the form of dense planting and 30 metre wide bunds will compromise Policy MD5. The
Council has failed to address this policy in its assessment of the site and has not identified what the very special circumstances might be. 2.3
Ecology The plan recognises that the River Ash is designated a Site of Nature Conservation Importance. Although not a statutory designation the
recognition of the river’s conservation importance is significant. It is noted in the ecology section of Site B (Knight and Bessborough Reservoirs)
that further survey work on this site should be undertaken before it is included in a final draft of the plan. We find it inequitable that certain sites
of ecological interest will be the subject of detailed surveys before being finally included in the Plan and others not. The Plan is flawed if special
treatment is given to one particular site. We have called for the council on countless occasions to conduct detailed surveys before including sites in
the Plan but this has been resisted. In the interest of ensuring the Plan is robust and sound we request a survey is undertaken of the River Ash and
the aquatic margins to establish how minerals extraction can be undertaken without affecting the biodiversity and ecology in and around the river.
We challenge the council to demonstrate that the integrity of the River Ash and the eight metre wide protected margins on either side of the river
can be safeguarded. It is imperative that the buffer zone remains undisturbed so that its function as a corridor for wildlife can continue. The points
made in the hydrology report referred to in 2,5 below raise even greater concerns regarding the potential impact on the River Ash than are
addressed by the eight metre protected margins. We fail to see how extraction and transfer of gravel and working machinery across this zone will
not cause long term harm and irreparable ecological damage. 2.5 Hydrology LOSRA has had sight of a professional report commissioned by
SSAGE on the hydrology and hydrogeology of the site. It is clear from this report that there are a number of key issues which would need to be
resolved before working of the site for gravel could be considered. These include: 2.5.1 The site is located close to an old landfill site at Hazelwood
Golf Course. The current shallow hydraulic gradient in the area restricts the rate of transport of pollution from the site. However, if dewatering of
the gravels occurs, a hydraulic gradient will be created and there is a significant risk that contamination will flow to the southeast and the River
Ash. 2.5.2 If dewatering is necessary to facilitate working as a result of the closeness of the water table to the surface, groundwater levels in the
gravels will be reduced. The extent of this depends upon the thickness of the gravels, the saturated thickness of the aquifer and the hydraulic
properties of the gravel formation, as well as the extraction plan. However, calculations using reasonable estimates of each of these parameters
suggest that dewatering within 200m of the river would reduce groundwater levels by approximately 2m after 200 days. Such a drawdown will
induce flow from the River to the gravels and impact on flows on the river. The River Ash is recognised by the Environment Agency as being
among the country’s top 10% of watercourses in terms of macro-invertebrate diversity. The drawdown will impact both on the flow of the river,
therefore prejudicing its integrity as a habitat, and on the on local wetland vegetation. Under one of the scenarios considered dewatering within
500m of the river would impact on groundwater levels along the river corridor. However, restricting working to an area outside this 500m area
would clearly make gravel extraction uneconomic. 2.5.3 There are three abstractions within the area which may be derogated by dewatering. In
209
addition dewatering will impact on levels within the Ashmere Fisheries. 2.5.4 It is our view that, given the significant concerns regarding both the
risk of contamination to the aquifer and River Ash, and the predicted impacts on groundwater levels along the river corridor, Watersplash Farm
should not be considered for inclusion in the Surrey Mineral Plan until a full hydrological survey funded by SCC has addressed the issues noted.
2.6 Transport It is interesting to note that in a letter dated 7 October 2005 from Transportation Development Control to SSAGE that the
transportation assessments of the sites was undertaken in 2003. This was based on a desktop assessment using a Surrey County Council traffic
survey dated 2002. The traffic survey conducted by the county council in 2004 (Local Area All Vehicle 2 Way Traffic Flows — 12 Hour) shows an
increase of 3.6% in the area around Watersplash Farm. If this trend continues, and there is no reason to believe it will not, traffic could well
increase from 109,053 to 116,900 (7,2%) two way traffic movements in 2006. This is not an insignificant increase and challenges the soundness of the
Plan. More worrying though is the county council’s traffic survey (2004) on heavy goods vehicles of 17 tonnes and over. Since the 7.5 tonnes
weight restriction on Walton Bridge was lifted in 1999 the highway network around Watersplash Farm has experienced a 10 fold increase in HGV
movements from 147 to 1,432 in a 12 hour period. The county council seems to take an indifferent view on traffic congestion. On the one hand it
recognises the area suffers from high levels of traffic movement and heavy congestion at peak times, yet finds the baseline level, i.e.: at current
flows, acceptable. The network is working at close to capacity and should not be subjected to further increases in traffic, and in particular HGV
movements. Transportation Development Control’s suggestion (letter dated 7 October 2005) that peak time control over HGV movements can be
managed by way of a planning condition is both impractical and we suggest unenforceable. The 2004 traffic survey shows that peak spreading has
occurred as a result of pressures on the highway network during the peak period. Restricting gravel movements to outside AM and PM peak
periods, with an allowance for peak spreading, will severely restrict gravel vehicle movement creating commercial pressures on gravel companies
to the point where they will run the risk of being in breach of the planning condition. The county council freely admits it cannot closely monitor
the operation of gravel working. We can only conclude that the county council will neither have the commitment nor the resources to rigorously
enforce such a planning condition. The flagrant disregard for any restriction on gravel lorry movement is therefore highly likely.
Haulfryn Group Ltd Fordbridge Park is a community of retired and semi-retired situated just opposite Watersplash Farm in Fordbridge road, comprising some 35
homes. All 35 homes enjoy an aquifer fed water supply, i.e. they are not connected to mains water. The digging of a gravel pit in close proximity to
our borehole would put both the supply and purity of this water supply in peril. Should the plans for gravel extraction go ahead, it is most
probable that water would have to be obtained from a local water company. This would involve a considerable cost. Which would be unfair to
place the burden of these costs on elderly residents. There would also be an annual water rate to pay. Again it would be unfair to pass this annual
charge on to residents. There has been a reduction in property values on the park. One sale has already fallen through due to the threat of this
gravel pit going ahead. Watersplash Farm is in a low lying area already under flood risk. Digging a gravel pit could adversely affect the area and
create a further flood risk.
Batavia Residents
Preferred areas all the reservoirs which will cause less environment damage. It will also deepen the reservoirs. Watersplash farm should be
Group
protected. It is the only countryside left separating Sunbury and Shepperton. All rural development used should be returned to rural environment
and not landfill and housing development.
CPRE
Access: Concerned about the inadequacy of the local road network, particularly if extraction commences whilst the new Walton Bridge is under
construction.
Hydrology: Concern at possibility of increased flooding once the porous gravel is replaced by fill.
Agriculture: Concerned about viability of the farm even though farmed remotely once extraction commences.
Friends of the Earth Too many concentrated into too small an area: H, A, E, I, J, K and L; too many in the north of the county, adding to noise and congestion from
210
lorries transporting the material in this area.
Ashmere Fisheries
I should like to register a strong objection to the possible extraction of sand and gravel from Watersplash and Vicarage Farms PMZ12 and 13. I own
the property on the other side of the Fordbridge road somewhat disparagingly noted as a “restored gravel pit”. This pit has been since 1968 a
flourishing and heavily overbooked membership Trout Fishery .1 also own three other lakes nearer the Thames and trade under the name of
Ashmere Fisheries which I have done since 1964.Many of the rods are local. I have retained a qualified water engineer who tells me that the
method of extracting such gravel is critical to the well being of adjacent lakes- On enquiring you were unable to tell me how the gravel would be
extracted. Not only does the integrity of the River Ash need to be protected (see preliminary planning assessment) but so too does the integrity of
my lakes. I very much hope that as a near neighbour and one whose entire business depends on the level of the water and lack of water and air
pollution that you will have the courtesy to keep me informed at all stages of the planning procedures.
Individual
Having read all your paper work, attended one of your exhibitions, consulted with interested constituents and discussed options with land owners,
I have come to the following conclusions.
1. I accept that gravel is needed and can only be worked where it exists. It follows that it is probably not realistic to call for no new sites.
2. The Watersplash Farm site should be deleted from the preferred sites (at least until the next review becomes necessary). There are adequate
alternative deposits to meet current and projected needs. The site would cause the greatest disruption – both through working the gravel and
transporting it by road.
3. Top priority should be given to additional working at Queen Mary reservoir and working at George VI Reservoir. Both sites have the huge
advantage of the workings not being near houses and not being able to be used for landfill afterwards.
4. Lorry problems at Queen Mary can probably be managed by imposing strict conditions requiring all lorries to exit on to the Staines By-Pass
or Staines Road West the lorry problems can be kept to a minimum – and not to travel into Laleham or Ashford.
5. The use of George VI could be made to yield planning gain by requiring the existing processing plant (which causes much local grief) to be
removed and replaced by a new plant near the M25 (and thus well away from houses). Lorries could be prevented from becoming a problem
for Stanwell Moor by requiring all access and egress from a point of close to the roundabout above the M25 at Junction 14. I understand
that the land owners are willing to undertake landscaping and provide a public footpath along the river across the Moor.
6. The Manor Farm site has (surprisingly generated little public comment. However, if it is to be worked, it is essential that all the gravel is
moved by conveyor to the Queen Mary Reservoir processing plant and not removed via a new lorry access. A condition of it being worked
must be that the gravel form the existing Littleton Lane and Home farm sites be processed at the Queen Mary plant and the Littleton Lane
Plant removed. This would solve serious lorry problems in Laleham and Shepperton.
7. The extension of the Home Farm site should only be worked in conjunction with the existing site and its gravel processed at the Queen May
plant and not at the Littleton Lane site (which is where the existing Home Farm site gravel is processed).
8.
I have received no representations about the Homers Farm site and can see no reason why it should not be worked provided conditions are
imposed to prevent lorries travelling thorough Stanwell Village
Individual
Hydrology: Careful consideration needs to be given to water resources in area - water table, stream in Green Lane.
211
Individual
With ref to objectives 3 and 4. The impact on communities in the Shepperton area over a number of years has been immense. We have had
continuous amounts of noise and exhaust pollution from large numbers of gravel lorries using local roads over a period of years. Also a lot of
damage has been caused to local roads. Check the damage to the road at Shepperton War Memorial also a number of windscreens have been
shattered by spilled gravel in this area. I don’t think you will be able to improve on the situation if extraction takes place at Watersplash Farm L. In
fact it will only get much worse.
Individual
V6 essential infrastructure for Watersplash Farm area, enlargement of roundabout Gaston Bridge Road/Green Lane. Simply getting materials off
the site is insufficient planning (page D64 paragraph Access). Traffic and Transportation (p.D64) recognises high level of HGV traffic on A244.
This should be understood as saturated level. This road continues either to Walton Bridge and those problems, to Littleton and those problems or
to Windmill Road and those problems. Air pollution is already in excess of statutory limits. Re 5: restoration "soil restoration for
agriculture/horticulture" is absurd as quality of soil depends on underlying gravel. P.D66 talks of restoration to existing with "inert fill" - does this
mean long term landfill site? What has happened to the early claim of restoring to higher quality!
Individual
Not applicable. We would remind you that the Watersplash Farm area, Sunbury Shepperton Border, is classed as floodplain. We have lived on
Fordbridge Park mobile home site for the past 28 years. Having seen the River Ash rise and overflow. We feel that to interfere with this river,
which runs through Watersplash Farm, would be irresponsible. We have just registered with the Environment Agency to flood line warnings
direct. Speaks for itself does it not?
Individual
Also major congestion along Green Lane going into Gaston Bridge Road down to Walton Bridge. > All properties on Fordbridge Park enjoy an
aquifer fed water supply. A gravel pit in the immediate vicinity would put both its availability and purity at considerable risk. Who would foot
the cost of connection to the mains and subsequent cost of water rates? > A reduction in property values > Dozens of heavy lorries everyday will
create pollution, road damage, dust and noise. > A detrimental effect on the local natural environment and wildlife > As Watersplash farm is a low
lying area already under flood threat, digging a gravel pit could adversely affect the area and create a further flood risk. > Fine particulate air
particles (fpap) which causes respiratory disease.
Individual
In principle I agree with the objectives in the draft mineral plan. However, if gravel extraction is allowed at Watersplash farm. I fail to see
objectives 3, 4 and can be met. Item 3: the development of Watersplash farm will have a huge detrimental effect on the local community. This area
of Spelthorne has been the subject of major extraction in the past and local communities have suffered the effects of these for many years. It is high
time the residents in movement of heavy lorries. Item 4: Minimizing the effects of transportation of minerals by making sure lorries use the most
suitable roads and minerals are transported safely - what a joke! The roads in Spelthorne are not suitable for the increased loads. Our existing
roads are in a poor state of repair, they are overcrowded, too narrow and the river bridges too weak.
Individual
Hydrology and environmental - irreversible eco damage and loss of important biodiversity are likely to result from likely compromise of River
Ash and major aquifer below site. Am v. concerned with increase of flooding in view of recent years. Transportation and access via already overcongested A244 can cot support increased HGV usage and severely affect safety which is bad enough already. Also it will impact air quality in
local area. The fields are a wonderful relief from so much traffic and increasingly houses becoming flats. So little open landscape left that for such
remaining areas MUST be maintained. Why is there so much emphasis on extracting minerals from Spelthorne - let others do their bit!
Individual
In principle yes - but we are all suffering in Russell Road already with the amount of lorries which damage our properties (vibrations, debris,
noises+ our lives are made a misery and nothing is done about lorries. 1) Speed, 2 driving on pavement as road too narrow, loads uncovered and
212
spill everywhere - number plates covered with dirt so that we cannot report the to the police etc. If Surrey>Spelthorne has to extract a certain
quota of gravel can you explain where GLC gets its gravel? Hyde Park? Green Park? Watersplash Farm is in the middle of a residential area - You
must be joking! How can you envisage such a thing!
Individual
I do not agree with the five objectives - they are merely 'soundbites' which may read well, but in practice would be impossible to meet. My
concerns are for protection of Watersplash Farm (L) to prevent inclusion in this plan. Referencing objective 3, how can loss of such a large area of
unspoilt land in the area possibly be considered as having the least effect on us and the environment? Totally the opposite will be the reality of the
situation were it allowed to happen. Referring objective 4 I wonder if there would be any example that would apply in Surrey where a mineral
company had been encouraged to not use roads for transportation and consequently employed an alternative. If you could provide me with an
example I would be pleased to change my mind on this point. Referencing objective 5: farmland is a treasured part of any landscape and by
default has a worthwhile future use. It cannot be improved or replaced.
Individual
I do not agree fully with the five objectives, because No.3 there is no way that the local community will not be affected, in our particular area,
Watersplash is in a built up area which will cause residents to be effected by an increase in traffic (HGVs) more dust& dirt causing a further
impact on air quality, and we want to keep open the landscape as it is from what I have seen locally already, mineral sites are ugly dirty and do
not benefit local residents at all.
Individual
The A244 carries high levels of HGV traffic, and additional HGV traffic should not be significant except perhaps at the new roundabout junction
with Watersplash Farm." The logic behind this statement is bizarre. You acknowledge that extra traffic will be generated at the new roundabout
junction and then fail to point out that this extra traffic must then add to the already heavy HGV traffic in the immediate local area. What is the
estimate of HGV journeys per day that this sweeping statement is based upon - surely several hundred per day? I would contend that the A244 is
already grid locked in this area for two hours each morning and from 16.30 till 19.00 each evening. Additional HGV gravel lorries will be
outbound and inbound at precisely these times - unless you intend to allow anti - social hours working at the site (ie overnight extraction /
loading / dispatch). The congestion already causes significant levels of pollution, noise and vibration in my property which will only be worsened
by the traffic generated by the workings. I would suggest that a covert survey is undertaken to establish the actual traffic conditions appertaining
to the site (covert as on each occasion the noddy yellow vests and camp chairs appear the HGV drivers disappear from the route as the word goes
out over the CB). I would also wish you to note that raising the weight restriction on Walton Bridge has generated 25% more HGV traffic since it's
inception, and the building of the new larger bridge will only exacerbate the problem of local congestion and the pollution it entails. In addition on
the issue of screening, the present flora is deciduous therefore leafless for much of the year - and providing no screening whatsoever in winter
when light pollution and visual impact will be at its worst. Screening to 40ft is required, and I would suggest Leylandii may take 20 years to get to
that height.
Individual
There are several reasons why this site should be excluded at this stage. There are no decent roads in the area as a whole. The A244, which is the
main road to Walton Bridge, has been changed from a two lane dual carriageway to a single lane dual carriageway near the intended point of
access to the site, and is severely congested at various times during the day. In fact, the dual carriageway becomes single carriageway just as it
approaches the intended site entrance. It is already a major bottleneck, is at break point and any extra traffic would be catastrophic. With the
impending expansion of Charlton tip, and the work on the new Walton Bridge starting in the near future, the traffic scenario in the area is already
nightmarish, without the addition of mineral extraction traffic. The area surrounding Watersplash Farm on every side is heavily residential. There
are many primary and secondary schools in the immediate vicinity with the consequent heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic for an hour or so in
213
the morning and afternoon. Gaston Bridge Road and Green Lane are major routes for schoolchildren and their parents. Additional traffic and air
pollution would be dangerous for several safety and health reasons. The River Ash runs right through this site, again making the choice of
Watersplash Farm totally inappropriate both from a hydrology and environmental perspective.
Individual
Heavy traffic from the site will create pollution, road damage, dust and noise. Activity will impact not only the immediate area but also worsen
existing traffic congestion in the Sunbury, Halliford, Walton Bridge and Shepperton areas. Activity on the sites will create potential health risks,
possible water contamination and further risk to areas already under flood threat. One of the few remaining areas of open land in the area would
be lost as the area becomes a desolate industrial landscape in the form of 'open cast mining'. Mining would cause irreparable environmental and
ecological damage with the certain destruction of all plant and river life on Watersplash. Extraction and infill will take decades and the scars left
behind will take many years to heal. There has been a failure to assess the cumulative effects from all sources of gravel mining. More than 40% of
the open land in the Borough of Spelthorne has been, or is, subject to gravel extraction. This is not sustainable and must not be allowed to
continue.
Individual
As can be seen by your own proposals there are many problems with this site. However, it seems that you plan to ignore all of these merely to
provide an easy source of aggregate for the new Walton Bridge construction. This is unacceptable. Just because something is easy does not make it
right. There are more suitable places to obtain these "minerals" as you are well aware and I would suggest that you consider all of the factors in
making your decision, not just how near it is to a major piece of construction.
Individual
No mention has been made of any other method of the removal of materials except than that of Large Goods Vehicles / road. The site is yards
from the River Thames and not much further from the Shepperton to Waterloo railway line. River barges could be filled by an overland belt
conveyor system directly from the site to the riverbank. Rail wagons could be brought to the point of extraction and taken to the end user. Either
method would lessen the impact on the environment that multiple road movements.
Individual
I believe Watersplash Farm should be excluded: TRAFFIC - the road is overloaded already. There are heavy vehicles seven days a week - I counted
10 HGVs a few Sundays ago at 8am within a few minutes of each other and that was a Sunday! The proposed number of lorry movements will
make a poor situation considerably worse. The noise, visual intrusion and air pollution will be unacceptable and I would be very concerned about
road safety especially given the number of local schools. The proposed roundabout access for such a proposed number of lorry movements looks
very difficult. Whilst I appreciate the roundabout can be made larger the roads cannot. I also understand the traffic data may have preceded the
dual carriageway conversion to a single carriageway. Congestion is already bad especially in the rush hour and always if there any incidents on
the M25. ENVIRONMENT - I would be very concerned about the potential risk of flooding in an area that is already above average risk. I am
concerned about the potential impact on the River Ash, especially from contamination. I am also concerned about the impact on the conservation
area from noise, dirt and the inevitable pollution caused. The loss of attractive farmland in a generally built up and urban area would be a great
shame. I would also strongly object to the site being worked down to Halliford Road as this would inevitably spoil an area with a unique character
given its proximity to London, Heathrow and the other adjacent built up areas.
Individual
There is at least one riding establishment in the area and horse riders use the roads to get to recreation areas. More heavy lorry movements would
increase the hazards horse riders already face in the area.
Individual
This site is unsuitable for working owing to the proximity of residential properties. I see nothing in your plan about the difficulty of householders
in insuring their properties in the event of this site being worked. There is no mention of compensation which would need to be paid in the event
of subsidence caused by changes in ground water levels. The road system is already at gridlock twice a day as traffic tries to get to the bridge over
214
the river Thames at Walton. Any additional traffic would make the situation much worse. Since Ashford Hospital no longer has an Accident and
Emergency department, Gaston Bridge Road is in constant use by ambulances on their way to St. Peter's Hospital at Chertsey. The River Ash at
Gaston Bridge has been the home of Water Voles. Gravel working could have a disastrous impact on this rare species.
Individual
Shepperton has suffered enough over the years with heavy lorries up and down Russell Road while excavating has been carried out. Walton
Bridge is congested with traffic and should not be overloaded anymore. The pavements are non-existent or too narrow which is a hazard to
walkers.
Individual
I don't know enough about the other location to present an objective overview BUT 1. The autumn 2000 floods in Shepperton highlighted my
concerns about any development which will further affect the water table of the area and the lag time for peak discharge. 2. The farm represents an
important habitat. A good range of birds (including a Barn Owl) are supported in this area. 3. Traffic on the A244 is already a major headache.
Individual
Watersplash Farm is a beautiful agricultural area in green belt land surrounded to the west and north by residential areas. Many of these residents
are retired or elderly they would be sentenced to a lifetime of more noise, dust and pollution as many will not live long enough to see the hopeful
restoration to agricultural use. It is high time the Shepperton area is given a respite from sand and gravel mining.
Individual
The Watersplash farm site is surrounded by highly congested urban development, with already overburdened transport infrastructure. I live on
the Marshall's roundabout on the A244 and experience anything up to four hours gridlock traffic per day attempting to cross Walton Bridge. That
bridge is being widened, however it has been clearly stated that approach roads/ routes will not be upgraded (which I wholeheartedly support).
Thus, the added congestion of may mineral lorries will cause unacceptable pollution, congestion to local residents. In addition as I look out onto
the site, I am concerned with dust, noise and light pollution and the possibility of my property value falling significantly. Understand minerals are
required, however fail to see why they are proposed to be extracted on green belt land, in a flood plain and in an area surrounded but urban
residential development. Extracting minerals from Watersplash is nothing short of vandalism.
Individual
I cannot think of a more dangerous site for gravel pits there on Watersplash farm, it is on extremely narrow road with double white lines on the
blind corners approaching in traffic is always heavy from Sunbury and Hampton Centre and the roundabouts at the end of the road approaching
Water Bridge and Shepperton village is always congested. Lorries would make this area impossible for the heavy regular traffic and cause many
accidents.
Individual
Whilst gravel extractions near to housing or the community natural assets is an evil we seem to have to live with, I am of course interested in areas
close to my home in the first instance. Six sites are apparently earmarked in Spelthorne, one of which - Watersplash Farm I have already
commented on in detail. I would not like this site to be marked, but if it is chosen I would prefer its priority to be postponed in favour to say the
two reservoir sites where housing and community impact would be less harmful to the local environment.
Individual
Page D64-66 sets out the problems. How can we ensure they are not ignored?
Individual
Traffic - this site is on the A244 where it crosses the river. It is already overburdened with traffic, both cars and HGVs - the addition of gravel
lorries and infill tippers at the junction with Green Lane will cause totally unacceptable levels of congestion and are SCC planning to rebuild
Walton Bridge at the same time? Also who is to pay for the increase in road surface damage - the residents? Pollution -we already have a problem
with air pollution because of our proximity to Heathrow - the addition of dust from gravel workings close to housing estates will lower air quality
to dangerous levels. Flooding - we all know of the increased danger of flooding due to climate change. If these workings are allowed there will
only be two narrow spits of land (Penny/Felix Lane and the causeway which Fordbridge Road will become) between the river and upper
215
Halliford - Shepperton on Thames by all means but Shepperton under Thames must not be allowed to happen.
Individual
Traffic impact on the A244. This road is already too busy with more than 100% capacity. The impact on surrounding roads particularly Walton
bridge and Staines Road West will be quite dreadful. The traffic is now almost stationary from 7.45am to 9.30am and 4-7pm on the approaches to
Marshall’s Roundabout and the A244. The Littleton and Queen Mary reservoir sites are almost adjoining. What research has been done on the
wider drainage aspects of so much gravel removal in this area of the Thames?
Individual
Having attended the Exhibition at the Riverside Arts centre and spoken to one of the SCC representatives, I would still like to register concern
about the already high levels of traffic in the Gaston Bridge Road and the addition of yet more vehicles if this site is to be developed. The
representatives said that it was not expected that there would be an increase as other sites would be running down at the time this site would be
operating. However this would surely depend on where the other sites were located and whether they would be using the same stretches of road.
Where would the gravel from Watersplash Farm be taken to? Traffic trying to cross the Thames at Walton Bridge is gridlocked at times - back to
Gaston Bridge!
Individual
I am writing to object to inclusion of the above in the plan as a preferred area, on the grounds of the effort on traffic. Reference in the plan to
existing "high levels" of HGV traffic" does not recognise that the term "HGV" includes a range of vehicle weights/sizes. The majority of HGVs in
the immediate area fall towards the lower end of the range. The addition of a number of much heavier lorries would significantly impact the
quality of life of residents
Individual
In the details of the Surrey Minerals Plan for Watersplash Farm Halliford it is stated that ‘the A244 carries high levels of HGV traffic, and
additional HGV traffic should not be significant’. This seems to us to be anomalous. If traffic is already heavy, even small (which we doubt
anyway) amounts of extra traffic would have a disproportionately impact. This, coupled the building of the new Walton Bridge, would cause
chaos for most of the day in the whole area. As it is, twice a day - morning and evening - there are already large traffic jams in the area. Problems
on the M3 have sometimes resulted in the whole area, including Sunbury and Shepperton, becoming completely gridlocked.
Individual
I live a few hundred yards from the proposed exit/entry that mini roundabout on Gaston bridge road is already frequently busy and more lorries
would increase congestion, pollution, accident risk, noise. What environmental impact assessment has been carried out and what were its
conclusions? I am concerned about the possibility of loss of prime agricultural land, the effect on the footpath (not shown on your map), the noise
and dirt associated with extraction, transport, infilling, the local water table, possible contamination of adjacent waters. The river running by
Watersplash farm and the Thames and the swan sanctuary across Fordbridge road.
Individual
Watersplash farm is unsuitable. Heavy traffic will create pollution, road damage, dust and noise and worsen existing congestion in Sunbury,
Halliford, Walton Bridge and Shepperton. Potential health risks, risk of water contamination. Area is already under threat of flooding. The farm is
one of the few remaining areas of open land in this area. Mining would cause irreparable environmental and ecological damage and destroy all
plant and wildlife on Watersplash. More than 40% of all sources of open land in Spelthorne is or has been the subject of gravel extraction. What
about the cumulative effects?
Individual
You lightly comment that additional HGV traffic on the A244 should not be significant. I can only assume that you have not carried out any traffic
census/long-term traffic census. Apart from traffic congestion during morning /evening rush hours, there is regular traffic during the middle of
the day. Numerous choke points suggest themselves whichever direction gravel lorries take. Flooding and pollution of the river Ash/ground
water seems likely to be a potential problem and would affect adjacent residential properties. Methane gas is a hazard on the nearby golf course
216
following landfill. Do you have a solution for this on the Watersplash farm site? The existing site is grade 1 agricultural land and I am bemused as
to how you think that you can restore it to existing levels. If this area is zoned as green belt why is it to be used for gravel extraction? You
comment that proposals should also identify enhancements to the river Ash corridor! Does this mean that you have not yet planned for these?
Whatever is a holistic approach?
Individual
I believe the HGV traffic resulting from the gravel extraction and subsequent landfill operations will result in traffic chaos in the area. The A244
will be blocked for all those trying to cross over Walton bridge and I predict that Shepperton High Street will be jammed up by those seeking an
alternative route. This congestion will be cause increased pollution noise and make the roads less safe to use. There are so few areas of open
farmland left to allow this to go ahead at Watersplash farm (L) would traffic. This comes at a time that we are being told to reduce the number of
miles that our food travels to local stores. I do not know of many of the locations listed, but surely Queen Mary Reservoir would be a better
contender? It already has an embankment, has better road access and would finish up with a bigger capacity after excavation.
Individual
I live opposite Watersplash Farm and excavation will disturb our aquifer water supply and our water will be contaminated. Will Surrey Council
put us on the main water system and pay NO THEY WILL NOT. How long will we be without water. No drinking, washing and water for
flushing loos.
Individual
Item 5: restoring the land - if Spelthorne's previous attempts at land restoration are repeated, then the high quality agriculture land at Watersplash
farm will be replaced with yet another area of useless waste land.
Individual
Watersplash borders high density residential areas. If chosen it would be contrary to objective 3. In my experience companies to 'work hard to
keep impacts to a minimum" Has been proven not too work, just check the number of enforcement orders councils have had to issue at a cost to
the tax payer. Any objectives
Individual
In the absence of any form of credible impact assessment of this site, its inclusion is inappropriate and negligent. Within the principles of your
guiding objectives, Watersplash should be excluded at this stage on the following grounds: Hydrology and environment — Irreversible ecological
damage and the loss of important biodiversity ale likely to result from the likely compromise of the integrity of the River Ash and the major
aquifer below the site. We must have assurances that gravel extraction will not increase the risks of flooding or groundwater contamination.
Traffic — Transportation and access via the over congested A244 which cannot support increased HGV usage will have severe adverse
implications for safety and further impact on the very poor air quality around the site. 5CC traffic survey data used to assess these impacts is
outdated and therefore invalid. Strategic impact — In this context, the inclusion of an option representing the lowest overall impact on Surrey is
misleading. The issue is the disproportionate focus on Spelthorne within Surrey to provide minerals. Paradoxically, the role of open landscape and
preservation of local heritage to provide relief in an area of high density urban sprawl is greatest and must be preserved. Following the approval
of the draft minerals plan on 14th March, where we were very disappointed to find that Watersplash Farm was still included, we would like to
make the following observations as local residents who live in this rare rural area of Spelthorne Borough and who will be severely affected if
gravel extraction takes place. Firstly, this a unique area that is a welcome haven from other parts of Sunbury and Shepperton, which have over the
past 25 years, becomes hugely noisy and overpopulated with traffic and housing. It is a breath of 'fresh air' that greets us in the morning, which we
are lucky to have, compared to those residents living on the stretches of road leading to Walton Bridge and Sunbury Cross where pollution and
congestion are rife. Recently we have had the pleasure of welcoming the swan sanctuary to its new home by the Thames, just a stones throw away
from the proposed gravel extraction site. Surely when the council passed planning for this, it didn't expect the wildlife attracted to this site to be
choking and dying the next minute from intensive extraction dust and vehicle pollution fumes from the HGV lorries. This wildlife will also be
217
using the waterways of the surrounding area, including the valuable wildlife and plant life on Watersplash Farm, which runs through the heart of
the proposed extraction area. The government are actively trying to encourage people out of their cars and off the school runs. This area is densely
populated with schools, accommodating children of all ages, who walk and cycle to school everyday, using what are highly dangerous roads
already. Sadly, it is a fact that just recently one such school boy was knocked off his bicycle and killed, using a section of what will be one of the
main access roads for the gravel trucks. The small villages around the proposed gravel extraction area have for years suffered the affects of
previous and currently existing gravel extraction sites. Indeed, Spelthorne as a whole seems to be a 'dumping ground' for such works when there
is the whole county of Surrey to choose from. With much more suitable sites that cause low impact on residential areas and have the road
infrastructure to support intense mining and traffic associated. New accesses can be created to link to major road networks in these areas over land
which is residentially uninhabited. As local residents, we do not feel that there are any justifiable circumstances that warrant Watersplash Farm
being included on the list of proposed sites any further. Spelthorne borough as a whole should not have to accommodate any more gravel mining,
but should be concentrating on 'winding up' existing sites and repairing the damage caused over previous decades of extraction.
Individual
I think it wrong to extract gravel from Watersplash Farm because the area forms part of (or is close to) the Thames flood plain. We need the gravel
left in tact here to ABSORB the water. Removing it at a time when the future weather patterns forecast are for a massive increase in flooding is
extremely unwise. Extend Home farm quarry instead.
Individual
Just recently the environmental health officer admitted (via the local papers) that pollution levels around Sunbury Cross were "well above those
deemed acceptable by the world health organisation" this green area is our only 'green lung' between us and the M3. Pollution levels would
obviously rise with gravel extraction so near housing and our many schools in the area. Childhood asthma directly due to air pollution is
increasing in numbers every year. We should not be adding to this with so many schools and houses nearby. This part of Sunbury is made up of
many narrow roads, not at all suitable for large lorries. You wait for buses approaching as you cannot pass on many roads. We cannot sustain, or
the roads cannot, heavy traffic as there will be damage and congestion. Your representatives could give no reassurance about the change in the
level of the water table and potential flooding. Spelthorne has already lost 40% open land to gravel extraction.
Individual
My mother has distinct memories of Watersplash from being used for gravel extraction in the late 1950 s - she remembers the gravel lorries going
by, and was glad when they stopped! So our question is: are you aware of this, and would this previous use affect the suitability of Watersplash
Farm for extraction in the future?
Individual
Hazelwood golf links are situated directly over an old gravel pit that I knew in my youth. This was filled with un-controlled material, some of
which would have been very toxic. Disturbance of the Watersplash site can only result in the contamination of both the River Ash and Thames. I
am therefore against any extraction from this site.
Individual
Concerned about all but mostly about Watersplash Farm. Surrounded on some sides by houses - so near to already congested Walton bridge.
Appalling that it should even be considered. The north east were allowed to vote if they wanted a regional assembly. To John Prescott's
humiliation they gave a resounding no. Why do we have an unelected south-east England regional assembly? This is already a flood area.
Individual
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed gravel extraction sites in the borough of Spelthorne. Our small village is already plagued by
gravel lorries which thunder up and down from 6.30 in the morning every weekday. On Russell Road we are already literally 'shaken awake' at
0630 as the convoy of around 10 lorries goes by, usually at speed bouncing over the road bumps and the mini roundabout outside our house.
Older, listed properties in the street have suffered structural damage due to the vibration caused by the lorries. Despite our protests, these issues
seem to bear little impact on SCC who seem not to care. I'm not surprised when the decisions effecting our future are being made in Thornton
218
Heath. I cannot think how more gravel pits can possibly improve or contribute to our local environment or benefit the local area financially.
Unless Surrey Council are benefiting from a large 'back-hander' from the companies involved of course. I would rather the farm land at the
proposed sites be built on than suffer from more and more heavy lorries causing nothing but misery to our local area. We already have a big
contribution in Spelthorne to gravel extraction - enough is enough. Have you no concern for what the local people think? Please stop any further
sites being approved.
Individual
I live on Fordbridge Caravan Park and our water is supplied by our own well. What guarantees can you give that our water supply will not be
contaminated or interfered with? Any risk of either must curtail any proposals for aggregate extraction form Watersplash Farm.
Individual
PMZ12 para. 12.4 describes the area to the west of Watersplash Farm as “housing and mixed industrial uses”. This is misleading as the area
immediately adjoining the western boundary is entirely residential, the very small industrial part being some distance beyond. So gravel
extraction should not be permitted at Watersplash Farm, but if it really must take place there, to avoid noise nuisance: - Any processing activity
must take place on the eastern side of the site. - Extraction should start on the west side and progress quickly eastward, to avoid prolonged
nuisance to residents on the west side. - A strict time limit must be imposed on extraction/processing across Watersplash — say five years.
Additionally, HGV traffic to be restricted to weekdays, and only between 09.30 and 15.00, to avoid further congestion on the already very busy
A244.
Individual
I live in Halliford Road directly to the North East of the farm and directly opposite Vicarage Farm and would like to express my objection to this
area being used for mineral extraction for the following reasons. 1. It should be emphasised that Watersplash Farm is Grade 1 agricultural land
currently used for market gardening and is a valuable component of the landscape and economy, emphasising the rural heritage of the area. I find
it hard to comprehend how this area could be restored to a similar, if not better standard of agricultural land after the extraction of 1,900,000
million of minerals. 2. Planning permission on my land has been refused because it is ‘Green Belt’ and yet it seems it is only Green Belt for the
protection of mineral deposits. Any extraction will probably be followed by landfill by waste material. As the area is all gravel underneath I am
concerned about the leakage of gas and pollution into the old Victorian houses that adjoin the site most of which are constructed on bare earth,
gravel etc with no protective membranes. Any alteration to the substructure of the surrounding area could lead to damage to older properties etc.
3. The report suggests that because of the anticipated amount of HGVs a new Entrance/exit will be created onto the Green Lane roundabout on
the A244. This route and surrounding routes are already operating at over 100% over capacity. The prospect of approximately an extra 60 HGVs
an hour carrying mineral deposits on this road alone is terrifying. This will only add to existing resident’s distress as well as add to congestion, an
increase in the threat of safety to both car users and pedestrians as well as increase pollution, damage the roads and add more in dust and noise. 4.
I have been informed that the mineral extraction on this site is for local area use only and will be transported to local brick making plants. I would
have thought that there has been enough housing development in this area without adding more in what is supposed to be a Green Belt area. It
should be noted that this site has been recognised at previous public inquiries as fulfilling a classic Green Belt function. Separating the built-up
areas and providing a ‘green lung’. Introducing a primary industrial activity into this context is clearly most inappropriate and would prejudice
the effectiveness of the Green Belt on this site and development on other sites. 5 Apart from the already above mentioned route A244 is the
Council aware that Fordbridge Road on the south side has a weight restriction (lorries are supposedly banned from this route); that Russell Road
leading along the river to Shepperton and Chertsey is very narrow (when a lorry uses this road oncoming traffic invariably has to stop and go up
on the pavement in order to allow the lorry to pass) and that Walton Bridge Road leading from Marshall’s roundabout is already a listed accident
black spot with the long awaited Walton Bridge coming under major reconstruction. — It has to be obvious that the immediate roads surrounding
219
Watersplash Farm can possibly sustain added vehicles never mind HGVs. 6 A Swan sanctuary that has just moved opposite Watersplash Farm on
the Fordbridge Road will hardly be called a ‘sanctuary’ with extraction in operation causing huge environmental damage and increased distress to
the birds and other natural fauna and flora. 7 The River Ash, a designated SNCI, crosses Watersplash Farm along with a public footpath. Should
the channel be diverted there is a risk of contamination and the loss of both amenities. This site is on the River Thames floodplain and the proposal
of extraction will create substantial further flood risk to the area. 8 The whole area is liable to flooding according to the Environment Agency and I
am very concerned that any disturbance in extraction will only exacerbate this risk. 9 The potential total of tonnage of gravel from this site is
minimal in comparison with other possible PMZ sites under consideration for mineral extraction. I understand that the use of this site for mineral
extraction is contrary to Spelthorne Borough planning policy and in total conflict to the predominant and surrounding residential land use. 10 It
would appear that Spelthorne continually fulfils Surrey’s requirements to provide sand and gravel whilst there are more appropriate (better
access) and considerably greater tonnage elsewhere in the county. I hope you understand my concerns and appreciate the devastating effect this
proposal will have on the local community’s lives. Although Vicarage Farm in Halliford Road has been removed off the list of proposed extraction
sites, I have been informed that this is only temporary. If Watersplash Farm should go ahead as a mineral extraction site this would just be a ‘back
door’ into Vicarage Farm at a later date. This would be an intolerable situation for my family and neighbours who would be sandwiched between
two gravel pits. Also with the added threat of an incinerator being introduced at Charlton Lane Waste site the prospect of even more HGVs
entering the area from all over Greater London is just inconceivable. The roads/routes just cannot sustain such proposed plans and I find it hard
to understand that Surrey County Council has not done enough research to validate this reality and major concern. I ask that you act
appropriately and exclude Watersplash Farm from the list of preferred extraction sites. Please keep me informed of any further information and
developments.
Individual
Problems associated with gravel extraction go far beyond the extraction itself. Flooding: • Watersplash Farm and the local area are in a low lying
and a No 1 priority flood risk area, with The Thames on one side, the River Ash on another and digging a gravel pit on the other side could
adversely affect water levels in the area and create a further flood risk. • The Fordbridge Park, opposite, enjoys an aquifer fed water supply. A
gravel pit in the immediate vicinity would put this at serious risk of pollution and in the extreme, drying up. Who would foot the bill to connect
The Park to a mains supply and subsequent cost of water rates being applied? Pressure on local roads: • Wear and tear — holes in roads and
sunken drains made by heavy movement of extraction vehicles. • Putting an intolerable strain on already extreme traffic congestion, possibly as
many as 300 ‘dumpers’ using the entrance and exit to Watersplash Farm and adjoining lanes. • Excess speed with speed limits being totally
ignored and determination to hog most of these narrow country lanes, causing danger to other road users. • Although it has been mentioned that
the extraction is expected to continue for about eight years, there is no guarantee that this will stop if there is still more gravel left to extract.
Impact on the environment: • Pollution from the mineral extraction and dozens of heavy lorries creating excess dust. • Fine particulate air
particles affecting the respiratory health of people. • Adding excess noise in a quiet county environment. • Detriment to the local natural
environment and wildlife, especially the Swan Sanctuary opposite the Farm • The value of properties has already been seriously affected and
people who are trying to sell their properties are being put in an impossible situation. Issue of subsequent infilling • It has also been said that the
refill will be inert (not waste) and restored to agricultural use. Is this a fact? • The SCC plans make no reference to timescale. • Do we have a
guaranteed implementation to ensure no other waste will be allowed, for example ‘fly tipping’. All residents, without exception, feel that Central
Government has completely ignored our human rights, and will have their way no matter what.
Individual
Watersplash Farm is particularly suitable for removal of material by waste. A conveyor belt over Fordbridge Road could be used to load the spoil
into craft moored in the take formed by worked-out gravel workings on the south side of it which is connected to the Thames. There are several
220
plants that could receive suppliers of water born aggregate adjacent or close to the waterway. The same consideration, i.e.. closeness to possible
rail or water loading points could well apply to other preferred areas.
Individual
My concern is that further working of gravels in Spelthorne, and backfilling with inert material of lower permeability will have a detrimental
effect on ground water flows. Thames Valley gravels are known to be free-draining, and as such there will be considerable underground flow
down river corridors, in this case both the Thames and the Colne. Any proposal to work new areas should be considered with regard to the
cumulative effect of existing backfilled workings or reservoirs. The clay core of reservoir embankments is likely to have been taken through the
gravels to the underlying London Clay. If the gravels are to be extracted, serious consideration must be given to leaving corridors of unworked
gravel through the backfilled pits, or to leaving pits as lakes. Much of the surface water drainage in Spelthorne is to soakaways. If the winter
groundwater levels are artificially raised, the ability of the soakaways to accept surface water run-off during periods of heavy rain will be
compromised, leading to local flooding. I understand from the Surrey County Council’s staff at the Riverside Arts Centre local exhibition that they
have approached the Environment Agency for their opinion of the effect of current proposals on groundwater. This must be considered an
important element of the Environmental impact of the proposals. The Environment Agency allegedly replied that they do not have the resources
to undertake such a study. The Minerals Plan must not be progressed without a considered response from the Environment Agency on the
cumulative effect on ground water.
Individual
I refer to the draft Surrey Minerals Plan and confess to finding it extremely difficult to locate the detail of this plan on your website. There appears
to be a lot of arguments relating to the requirement from the government for extraction of minerals from Surrey but little easy access regarding
from where you propose to meet those obligations. My particular interest is in the complete inappropriateness of Watersplash Farm as a source of
minerals to meet these obligations. It should be emphasised that Watersplash Farm is Grade 1 agricultural land currently used for market
gardening. It is a valuable component of the landscape and economy, emphasising the rural heritage of the area. I find it hard to comprehend how
this zone could be restored to a similar, if not better, standard of agricultural land after the extraction of 1,900,000 tonnes of minerals. Additional
traffic in the form of heavy lorries will create traffic congestion, a threat to safety, pollution, road damage, dust and noise. How are the roads,
which are not designed to cope with even one HGV supposed to cope? Imagine what will happen if there are 10's or even 100's per day? The
report does not make mention that the area has the highest density of schools anywhere in Surrey. The increased traffic levels from HGVs present
a considerable health and safety risk to large numbers of local children. Houses on Gaston Bridge Road, Shepperton face directly onto what the
County Council considers is the best access point to Watersplash Farm. This will create intolerable conditions for those living close by. Mineral
extraction will have a devastating effect on the character and nature of the local environment. All flora and fauna will be destroyed. The quality of
life for hundreds of local residents surrounding Watersplash Farm will be severely impacted by noise, pollution, continual traffic and dust. The
River Ash, a designated SNCI, crosses Water splash Farm along with a public footpath. Should the channel be diverted, there is a risk of
contamination and the loss of both amenities. It falls within a major aquifer, the strong possibilities of contamination and flooding should be
noted. The site is located on the River Thames floodplain; as I am and mineral extraction will create substantial further flood risk to these areas,
which could threaten my home. I also note that of the potential sites identified proportionate number of these are in Spelthorne. Continually fulfils
Surrey’s requirements to provide more appropriate locations with considerably greater by Surrey MDF, a more than It would appear that
Spelthorne sand and gravel whilst there are tonnage elsewhere in the county. I hope you understand our concerns and appreciate the devastating
effect these proposals will have on our lives and our highly valued environment. We ask you to act appropriately and exclude Watersplash Farm
from inclusion in the Surrey Minerals Development Framework.
221
Comments
•
See section 2 and 3 of this report for answers to some of the commonly asked questions
•
All comments are noted and will be considered further in the production of the submission draft minerals plan.
222
Preferred Area M – Monkton Lane, Farnham
Waverley BC
Bell Cornwell
Partnership
Bell Cornwell
Partnership
General: Object to inclusion as preferred area.
Local amenity: Site is close to housing. Contrary to MC7 of the Minerals Plan.
Ecology: There would be considerable disturbance to the Weybourne LNR (designated for water voles amongst other species), which lies adjacent
to site on the west side. Reserve was established and funded by the BC.
Landscape & open space: Site would have an adverse impact on an adjacent to a recreation ground where it is likely that children play. Located on
western side of the Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap close to built up area of Farnham, a sensitive location and visible from Heath End. (NB SE
Plan on strategic gaps which has considerable weight as has been submitted to the SoS.) This gap is intended to prevent coalescence of the urban
areas by protecting the open areas of landscape.
Welcome identification of the land at Monkton Lane as a preferred option for extraction of concreting aggregate. Object to exclusion of land to
north of the identified site, (to the rear of the properties in Wentworth Close and Lower Weybourne Lane). Failure to extract the aggregates in this
location in conjunction with the larger Monkton Lane site will sterilise a valuable natural resource, particularly after restoration of the identified
site is carried out. Such a scenario is not a sustainable option. Exclusion of northern part of available site has placed too much emphasis on the
short-term impacts on the adjacent residential properties, rather than the long-term strategic need for the minerals. As is acknowledged elsewhere
in the Preferred Options consultation, short-term impacts during extraction can be successfully mitigated by imposing appropriate conditions on
any permission granted for extraction and subsequent restoration. Vehicular access to the highway network for northern part of the site can be
achieved to Lower Weybourne Lane, via Green Lane, rather than via Monkton Lane.
General: Act on behalf of client who has a long-term controlling position over the southern portion of the land at Monkton Lane (see attached
plan). SCC and the County Council's Executive was made aware that there is the desire for a sports and leisure development to be brought
forward on the same land and that the client is in the middle of a development control forum process with Waverley BC and many local
stakeholders. SCC have not taken these points into consideration and deleted the site from the Plan. Therefore officially object to the inclusion of
the land within site M. We understand that Waverley BC will also be objecting to its inclusion. Do not accept that mineral can first be extracted and
then the site used for the sport and leisure development. It would alter ground conditions, cause uncertainty for a major investment in the area and
delay start of the project. Identification of the site will frustrate the implementation of an equally important scheme for the area to meet growing
leisure and health needs of Farnham on the one site, which sequentially has been agreed is appropriate. Multi-sports proposal to include relocation
of Farnham RFC is a priority community objective of the Council. The single location for a number of sports will contribute to sustainable planning
and transport measures in the area and create a 'Significant Area of Sport', will assist in creation of alternative leisure facilities and walking areas
and help to relieve pressure on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Retaining this unproven site will be unsound taking account of advice in MPG6: (1).
Note that site area has been reduced to minimise impact on local residents. There have not been any on-site investigations, the Geology does not
suggest presence of workable deposit. Site is too small to have infrastructure laid on to work it independently, and would be further reduced by
need for more bunding. Question need for site in terms of SE regional requirement and the small yield that SCC have projected (2). Client will not
bring forward site within Plan period and would not allow access across this land to the area to the north of Monkton Lane. SCC asked to give
serious consideration to the removal of this site from the Plan. It has identified sufficient deposits elsewhere in the County to meet Regional need
and the Borough already contributes significantly to the industry through sand deposits with the resultant environmental effects.
223
Local Committee
(Waverley)
Farnham TC
As you know the Local Committee (Waverley) discussed this matter at it’s meeting on 21 April and I am writing to formally submit members’
observations and concerns. Three sites were discussed: Monkton Land and Runfold South in Farnham and Eashing Farm in Shackleford which is
immediately adjacent to the border of Waverley. There were concerns about the position of the Monkton Lane site in relation to the “strategic gap”
between Farnham and Aldershot. Although it was recognised that the site would be restored at the end of the extraction period it was nevertheless
felt that the integrity of the gap should be maintained in the intervening period. Members were equally resistant to further extension of the
Runfold South operation, noting that extraction was moving closer to residential areas and would be likely therefore to have a detrimental effect
on residents’ quality of life. The opportunity to extract Bargate Stone as well as soft sand from the new site at Eashing Farm was noted and
members were reassured by the officer present that this factor had not figured disproportionately in the assessment of this site. However, there
was a concern about the possible use of the surrounding lanes for access to the site by large goods vehicles in the event of any temporary closure of
the A3. • Members made some general points, requesting that sites should be well run and that subsequent restoration should be appropriate and
sensitive. I would be grateful if this submission could be included in the consultation as the Local Committee’s formal response.
Local amenity: Farnham Town Council reminds SCC that it is essential that an adequate standard for buffer zones of 250m is adopted in Surrey
without further delay. Inspector’s report into the Lancashire County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan Policy, when referring to Buffer
Zones, in paragraph 4.31 stated that “Most objectors accept that minerals and waste developments can have significant impact on nearby buildings
and people, and many support the principle of Buffer Zones. It is a readily understood concept which is used for other forms of development (e.g.
construction on intensive livestock rearing and landfill sites) and provides a degree of certainty for developers and residents alike.). Peel’s
definition of “the distance needed between a proposed development and sensitive land-uses necessary to make the proposed development
acceptable in environmental terms” is helpful. Such a Buffer Zone can help to minimise any environmental problems such as impact from noise,
dust, blasting and other operations, as well as visual intrusion. Although in some cases Buffer Zones may sterilise mineral resources or waste
disposal activity, they can play an important part in balancing the need for the development against its environmental consequences in terms of
sustainable development”. Paragraph 10 of an earlier Background Paper on Buffer Zones prepared by SCC as part of the current Surrey Mineral
Development Framework 2004 – 2016 states “Given the tacit support in current Government guidance and greater emphasis it would be perfectly
reasonable for the County Council to adopt a buffer zone approach within its policy framework. This would seek to limit not only mineral
development but also other forms of development too. The Reigate Road appeal, where there was no technical objection to working was proposed
in very close proximity to sensitive land uses is an example where such a policy could be helpful, if properly justified.” SCC should apply the
principle of buffer zones in accordance with paragraph 24 of Minerals Planning Statement 2: Controlling and mitigating the environmental effects
of minerals working – Revised Consultation Paper – OPDM February 2003 which states: ‘In some circumstances, especially where working will
have an extended life, new or extended permissions for mineral extraction close to residential property may not provide adequate protection to
nearby residents despite requirements for landscaping works such as bunds, screening and planting, In such cases MPAs should consider the need
for adequate separation distances. MPAs should require a distance that is effective and reasonable, taking into account the nature of the mineral
extraction activity (including its duration), the need to avoid sterilisation of mineral resources, location and topography, the various environmental
effects likely to arise and various amelioration measures that can be applied.”
Ecology: Farnham Town Council notes that Paragraph 75.1 of an earlier SCC consultation report states “There is a proposed LNR (i.e. Local Nature
Reserve) adjacent to the west of the PMZ.” FTC strongly believes that a decision to include Site M Monkton Lane as a Preferred Area for minerals
extraction at this stage would prejudice the designation of the proposed Local Nature Reserve and contradict one of the stated key spatial and land
use priorities identified in Paragraph 1.45 of the June 2004 Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft December 2002, namely “to conserve and manage
224
Weybourne
Community
Association
Network Rail
Blackwater Valley
Countryside
Partnership
the character of the Blackwater Valley River Corridor and promote its value as a resource for wildlife, recreation and outdoor pursuits.”
Landscape & open space: Inclusion of Site M Monkton Lane as a Preferred Area for minerals working is wholly inappropriate in view of the
pivotal importance of the site in maintaining the integrity of the Strategic Gap between Farnham and Aldershot. SCC is reminded that Farnham
Town Council (FTC) reiterated the importance of protecting the above Strategic Gap consistently throughout the Surrey Structure Plan review
process. FTC strongly believes that this site should be EXCLUDED as a preferred area for minerals extraction at this stage; such a decision would
be consistent with one of the stated key spatial and land use priorities identified in Paragraph 1.45 of the June 2004 Surrey Structure Plan Deposit
Draft December 2002, namely to “safeguard the character and sense of place of Farnham.”
1. This site is sandwiched between two busy communities who will be much affected by noise and dust etc. Local people were astonished to find
out that the quarry will be in operation for up to 15 years! This is too long for such close by communities to put up with such problems. The close
proximity of the quarry may affect house prices. 2. The site is very close to 5 schools and adjoins a park with children’s play area, giving rise to
concerns for children’s health and safety. 3. Each of the two communities have one major and busy through road (Weybourne, B3007 and Badshot
Lea, B3208) and these are bound to be seriously affected by the number of lorries and other traffic accessing the quarry. 4. Although not of
particular beauty, local people enjoy having green fields close at hand and most importantly they enable both villages to have a strong sense of
identity. 5. Our local adjoining nature reserve is officially accepted as such, not just “proposed” as stated in the Draft Proposal. The quarry will
drain water from this “wetland” nature reserve, causing damage. The area to be quarried is also prone to flooding and will have to be drained.
Because of the above points the Management Committee of the Weybourne Community Association wish to oppose the proposal to open a quarry
at Monkton Lane.
Access: Please consult Network Rail on any planning applications for these and any other sites adjacent to railway property.
Monkton Lane is the only area that falls within the Blackwater Valley Strategy Area. Currently the area does not have high value for landscape,
wildlife or public access. Aggregate extraction provides the opportunity for restoration that will greatly increase the value of one or more of these
objectives that we have for the Blackwater Valley. I therefore support area M Monkton Lane being identified as a preferred area so long as any
agreed restoration proposal can improve the sites long term value for landscape, wildlife or public access. Comments on restoration proposals The
suggested restoration proposals should refer to the Blackwater Valley Countryside Strategy’ not the Blackwater Valley Countryside Management
Service Plan as the title of our organisation has changed. The paragraph on infill is unclear whether the site should be infilled to existing ground
levels, or if this is just an option to be considered. One of the restoration options is for water based nature conservation which could not be
achieved with existing ground levels. In my opinion requiring restoration to existing ground levels is unnecessary and too restrictive, future
ground levels should be determined based on maximizing the potential for the after uses once this has been decided. The potential options give a
wide range of possible after uses. My comments on these are as follows: i) Sporting provision. To meet the Blackwater Valley objectives this would
need to be mainly outdoor sports. ii) Water based nature conservation. Linked to adjacent proposed LNR. If infill is not to be used this would be a
preferred option. It should include public access as an aim. iii) Infill, creation of hedgerows and use for horse grazing. My least favoured option as
it does not greatly improve landscape, access or wildlife and indeed could lead to problems due to overstocking if not correctly managed in the
long term. iv) Infill and woodland plant. Linked to proposed LNR As the proposed LNR is a wet grassland site it will not be benefited by linking
to woodland. Infill would be best used to create extended wet grassland or other open wetland habitats. Woodland, especially wet woodland
could be incorporated into this, as could open water but it would be better to state the intention of creating BAP target habitats. v) Public open
space The site may be large enough to be used as mitigation site in relation to the local SPA. It will be important that the Valley’s landscape and
wildlife aims are respected during the restoration.
225
Individual
Individual
Individual
Individual
Individual
Individual
The Strategic Open Gap is of vital importance and separates the town of Farnham from the rest of the Blackwater Valley conurbation. In the
original consultation the area in question was much smaller and did not enclose Green Lane. There has been strong opposition to the huge tennis
centres proposed, even greater than to the quarry workings. If this is to progress as a prospective minerals site then access should be from Badshot
Lea road, with major road improvements at the junction. The site should be smaller and Green Lane protected. No workings should be closer than
250metres to residential properties, as included in the Town Council submission. There should be no infill but the site restored to a nature area as
is being done at Farnham Quarry by Hanson. There should be close working with the Blackwater Valley Countryside Partnership on proposed
restoration of the site. The aggregates should not be worked on site but taken away to other workings as it is too close to residential properties.
This site should have remained a reserve site as in the original documentation.
General: Constituents questioned why when 80% of the original preferred list was deleted what special qualities kept Monkton Lane on the list.
I do not agree with the proposed plans for a gravel pit in Monkton Lane. This site lies in Countryside beyond the Green belt and the Farnham /
Aldershot Strategic Gap both of which are in place to protect the openness of this area as covered by Waverley Borough Councils’ planning
policies C2 and C4. What impact would this gravel pit have on the Local Nature Reserve that is protected as a Wetland reserve? A stream runs
from this reserve across the middle of the pit and down the side of the boundary with Century Farm, this stream will become extinct along with
the plants, fish and animals (including water voles) that live in the stream and on its banks. This area is also home to deer, badgers, pheasants, bats
etc. These animals will be lost once the pit is operational. What will be done to prevent this happening? We would lose two footpaths that run
between the villages of Badshot Lea and Weybourne, one of which is used constantly by children going to and from schools, I can not see any
useful way for these footpaths to be re-directed. The pit is in close proximity to two secondary schools (All Hallows and Heath End) and two
primary schools (William Cobbett and Badshot Lea) and one nursery in Weybourne village hall. There is a cycle route along Green Lane, how will
cyclist’s safety be insured when heavy vehicles from the pit will be traversing between the split sites across Green Lane? I am concerned by the
proximity of the boundary of the pit to Wentworth Close children’s play area and properties, the Local Nature reserve and properties in Green
Lane (8.5 metres from Century Farm house). What health and safety measures would be put in place to protect them from the effects of dust and
noise? What precautions would be put in place to protect the Local Nature Reserve and surrounding properties from dewatering, as this pit is
located in a major aquifer, what assurances would local people have with regards to subsidence on their properties?
General: Impact on children and young people: 5 schools in the two villages. Pupils would inhale dust at break times. 1,500 children in local
schools could already be affected with asthma and the number is growing at an alarming rate. Noise from machinery would detract from
children's leisure pursuits. A play area at end of residential Wentworth Close would be directly on the boundary. Several boys’ football teams play
on the pitches across road from proposed site and Weybourne recreation ground is on the boundary. Playgroup meets at the village hall only few
yards from proposed site. Children would be forced to travel between home and school in a polluted atmosphere. Problem of stopping children
straying into quarry.
Concern about risks to children from HGVs and proposed road improvements that would cause difficulties in getting to schools and affect
character. No details of the impact it would have on volume of traffic. Green Lane would become a thoroughfare.
General: Unsuitable location for extraction: high concentration of schools, houses and very busy roads, impact on wildlife; intolerable impact of
noise and dust and on health of children and elderly, impact on condition and value of homes. Do not want mineral extraction or a rugby club.
Pay taxes every month and want to be left in peace to enjoy home and local environment.
General: Adjacent to site are: children's playground and built and open sports facilities; 5 schools in area; nursery school in Weybourne Village
Hall. There will be a slump in property values; increased heavy traffic (existing schools, supermarket and small industrial site); pollution, noise,
226
Individual
Individual
Individual
Individual
dust and health risks; water table may be affected; constant use of footpaths between Weybourne and Badshot Lea; walking and cycling along
Green Lane and Crown lane; village is already densely populated and should not suffer further blight; leave the only remaining green area and
associated wildlife.
Local amenity: Plan refers specifically to visual impact on the houses to the North and North West of the site. The omission of houses to the East
shows a lack of credibility in the report. The smaller site, to the East of Green Lane, is in direct view of the houses to the West of Badshot Park.
This view is across an extensive width of open ground and only 160 yards away. The view from these properties is of the entire site. If the
intention was to screen the quarry from the view of nearby residents, then substantial planting of trees and bushes would be required alongside
the railway line, and by our estimates more than 10 years given to their growth to achieve any chance of a suitable result (which is not guaranteed).
The true impact of visual pollution needs to be inserted in the Plans, along with a realistic attempt to ascertain the necessary level of planting to
achieve effective visual screening. Man-made structures would not be acceptable.
Local amenity: The Monkton Lane site joins a corridor of “green” between conurbations and is used by military aircraft as a low level air corridor mostly to allow traffic to transit to/from RAF Odiham. Badshot Lea lies beneath runways 09 approaches to, and 27 departures from, Heathrow
airport. Air traffic arriving and departing from Farnborough aerodrome flies over Badshot Lea, and the engine noise from the aerodrome can often
be heard. A railway line runs North to South through the proposed quarry site and only 150 yards from Badshot Park. Noise carries across this
open land from Farnham Park (when an event is occurring), from Monkton Lane sports fields and also the school to the West of the site(s). When
the railway line is undergoing maintenance at night, the voices of the workmen carry through our open windows. We have frequent birdsong, and
also hear the foxes screaming in the early hours. None of these noises (by themselves) is particularly annoying; after all we chose to live here.
However, the noise expected from a working quarry would be totally unexpected, and definitely unwanted. There is total exposure across the
open land, and there is no evidence in the Plans to suggest that any solution could be found to restrict this noise below the current threshold. The
accumulation of quarry noise with aircraft and rail noise would be an exponential rise in annoyance. Before selecting any site for quarrying, the
Council should conduct a proper impact assessment on the effect the expected noise would have on the local community. The prevailing winds
blow directly across Hampshire and Surrey farmland, through Farnham Park then funnelled through the proposed quarry site and are unhindered
until they hit the houses lining the West of Badshot Park. These winds collect the fine Surrey Sand a good deal of which is deposited on our
houses, conservatories, gardens, plants, cars etc.
We chose to live here, and we adjust to this frequent dust invasion. However, the quarry workings would throw up substantial quantities of dust,
many times greater than the current natural levels. When the prevailing winds collect this on their journey through the gap life outdoors for many
in Badshot Park could be unbearable; certainly we would not be able to open windows and doors on hot spring and summer days. The
accumulation of dust thrown up by the quarry workings would be an exponential rise in annoyance, and could affect the health of local residents.
Before selecting any site for quarrying, the Council should conduct a proper impact assessment on the effect the expected dust production would
have on the local community. Already subject to the odours arising from the sewerage works on Monkton Lane; we also have the sweet smells of
country animals wafting in across the fields. We may expect a quarry to unleash several gases which may be unpleasant, and possible harmful to
the health of local residents - we do not know. However, before selecting any site for quarrying, the Council should conduct a proper impact
assessment on the effect the release of any gasses might have on the local community.
Ecology: No consideration given to nearby Local Nature Reserve which is visited by many people including school children. Water voles, herons
and bats have been seen locally.
Ecology: Under the description of the ecology, contained in the draft plans, it must be made clear the exact status of the Monkton Lane site(s). The
227
Individual
Individual
Individual
Individual
Individual
site(s) currently forms the narrowest part of a corridor of natural wildlife habitats joining West Farnham farmland and the North Downs (N and S
of the Hog’s Back). Development of the land would separate these two areas. Furthermore, a quarry would totally destroy any wildlife habitats
within this choke-point. That this habitat is necessary is undeniable if one considers the wildlife that uses it: deer being the largest, foxes, sparrow
hawks, a peregrine falcon, cuckoos, partridges, pheasants, numerous tits and finches, to name but a few (we are not wildlife experts). If this habitat
is altered appreciably, or destroyed, migration for some animals will be restricted to only West of Hale, or East of Badshot Lea. Some of these
creatures will have to “move” permanently therefore impacting on other eco-systems, which may not be able to support them. A full impact
assessment on the ecology and wildlife will need to be conducted before Monkton Lane site(s) are included in any Minerals Plans.
Landscape & open space: Site is part of strategic gap - Farnham, Weybourne and Badshot Lea.
Landscape & open space: Local people are proud of this green area and have do not want to see it desecrated. Constituents questioned why the
Strategic Gap designation becomes so unimportant when a quarry is proposed.
Landscape & open space: Previous planning permission for various developments within the strategic gap between Badshot Lea and Weybourne
have been denied. We are led to believe that these denials were due to the need to protect the strategic gap and the associated benefits it brings to
residents and wildlife, and also the preservation of so-called regional character. If true, these arguments still remain, and any exploitation of the
gap to meet government targets would be a betrayal. We have voted for councillors, and our MP, who supported the need to protect and maintain
the strategic gap. These councillors and our MP should take the necessary action to fulfil their promises to the electorate.
Utilities: Do not underestimate danger of nearby electricity pylon.
The development of Monkton Lane, between Weybourne and Badshot Lea will have a significant and adverse impact on the quality of life of local
people:- 1. Increased heavy goods vehicle movements - development and re-instatement 2. Visually obtrusive 3. Conflict with vehicle and
pedestrian movements to/from 4 local schools 4. Reduction in value of property prices. 5. Impact upon health of residents - dust, noise and impact
upon environment - loss of green area, diverse wildlife.
Individual
O3.2 The proposed site for Monkton Lane extends too close north to Wentworth Close residential properties. The following points outline
reasoning: 1. Noise disruption to what at present is a very quiet neighbourhood and one of the major attractions when we decided to move to
Wentworth Close. We live in a Village and a gravel pit will have a negative impact on the character and quality of the village and a detrimental
effect on the lives and environment for us and our children. 2. Health and Safety Dust Hazard - a concern to Asthma sufferers in the area and
especially to parent's like ourselves with young children 3. Wentworth Close Child population play area directly borders North corner boundary the children currently have an environmentally safe area in play in, and this will no longer be the case 4. Children's Football leagues play in fields
bordering West and South of Monkton lane of proposed site - again a health concern 5. Risk of flooding and subsidence - our Homebuyer's Survey
states that our property is already in an area with a history of subsidence problems - please don't hinder further! 6. House devaluation - proposed
development would appear on future surveys and bound to deter potential buyers 7. There is a Nature reserve next to the proposed area so would
surely pose a threat to our wildlife and it does have protected species. 8. Local children currently use the footpaths between the villages of
Weybourne and Badshot Lea as a route to/from the local schools - hence another health concern there are 3 schools close by and a children's
nursery held in the Weybourne Village Hall. 9. We already experience a heavy volume of traffic in the area. We would be concerned about the
safety of our children - danger of heavy lorries. Plus there is already congestion at the roundabout when leaving Water Lane (Sainsburys) to join
the A31/towards Farnham Town Centre.
Individual
I am sending this e-mail to you, as last night I learnt your proposed plans for a gravel pit in Monkton Lane! I am appalled at the idea and totally
228
disgusted. I moved to Badshot Lea, less than two years ago now, and I really love living here, my 5 year old daughter attends the local village
school. I am horrified to discover your intentions and even more concerned with the fact that I was totally unaware of the situation! The
communication has been appalling. Please find below my concerns and the issues this plan will bring to all the people and families that live in the
area and how it will affect all of our lives. 5 schools within the proposed area!! This will cause serious health problems, Asthma being a main
concern. I have worked so hard to buy my house in Badshot Lea and I am a single mother with a career. I am extremely concerned as this would
cause the house prices to drop! Who in their right mind would want to buy my property! Are you going to compensate me? Noise/dust and traffic
would be horrific. I often take my dog for a walk around Green Lane and at the back of Cannon's, I take it you are aware of the Nature Reserve! I
am not happy for one for the Nature Reserve to be destroyed. Weybourne Village Hall, are you aware that this is a Nursery School, not only will it
harm the babies put could potentially close it down. Do you have a family? If so would you be happy for this to happen on your doorstep. Traffic,
big heavy lorries- would cause danger (5 schools in the area) traffic jams, the roads are not big enough to take these vehicles. There is a very
serious risk of subsidence to our properties in the surrounding area. This can not happen there are too many risks attached and too many lives will
be ruined
Individual
I am writing to express my opposition to and disappointment at the proposal by Surrey CC to site a Gravel Pit in Weybourne. Although I no
longer live in Weybourne I previously did so for 28 years and my parents and sister still live there and I still play cricket in the Recreation Area on
a Wednesday. Primarily I cannot understand why a site that will generate an inordinate amount of dust and noise is being sited within 50 yards of
residential property, a popular children play area and a highly used public recreation area. Not to mention the high usage of the public rights of
way that cross the proposed area by residents of Badshot Lea and Weybourne, many of them school children. Need I mention the high voltage
power lines? I am concerned that the damage to the local residents quality of life will be quite severe. Noise and dust levels will undoubtedly be
very high and will intrude on people’s basic right to relax in their homes and gardens. Property and vehicles will be permanently covered in dust
and this dust may lead to breathing problems. Additionally this pit will wreck the pleasant meadow views and walks that all the residents of
Badshot Lea and Weybourne currently have available within a short walk. The children play area and the football pitch directly adjoins the gravel
pit and they will presumably bear the brunt of the noise and dust. As they are currently heavily used all year round the majority of people affected
by this will be children. I can only assume then that they will cease to use these areas and a popular amenity area will be lost to the community. I
for one would not wish to play cricket in an area thick with dust. The road infrastructure in and around Weybourne is already very busy, it deals
with a large amount of traffic travelling to and from Farnham. This is especially heavy during the school periods with a large amount of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Large gravel lorries will only exacerbate this further. Finally I would urge both yourself and Surrey CC to extend the
official consultation period so that more residents and concerned parties have the opportunity to state their views. My family and I only became
fully aware of the Gravel Pit plan as a result of last weeks meeting and I feel that I could present many more reasons why SCC should reconsider
using this area with only a little more time.
Individual
Based on my understanding of the plan I offer the follow observations and raise a number of questions. I have grouped these under a number of
headings for simplicity. Process and Planning Although you and your department are not responsible, you will I am sure have become aware of
the ongoing sequence of planning applications that have been proposed for this area. From the outside this appears to be an going attempt to
‘find’ something to fill the space rather than some part of a strategic plan. Add to this the fact that the line of fields on the other side of the railway
is part of a strategic gap under the local strategic plan, then you can probably understand the feeling that the efforts to develop Monkton Lane
represent an attempt to undermine the status of this ‘gap’ prior to its review date of 2012. In terms of the process you have followed, I am
concerned on two counts. Firstly that publicity and engagement with the local population has been at best low key. For example a copy of the plan
229
showing the area impacted only began to circulate about one week ago – leaving little opportunity to meet your timelines for comment. Secondly,
the previous planning applications have or would have been referred to the planning ombudsman. This does not appear to be happening with this
application, despite the fact that its impact on the area will be much wider. Traffic Naturally we are all concerned about environmental pollution,
in this case both in terms of increased heavy vehicle traffic and noise levels. However, given your plan I have specific concerns with respect you
plans for road usage. Assuming that the entrance to any site would be on Monkton Lane then I make the following observations: 1. The playing
fields on Monkton Lane already bring significant levels of traffic parked along it during times when they are in use. At these times passage of cars
along this stretch of road is difficult. The addition of heavy vehicles turning into and off of Monkton Lane to the site would cause significant
problems at such time. In addition the playing fields are used by many junior teams leading to high levels of children along this road at such time.
I believe this poses a safety risk. 2. The exit of Monkton Lane on to Weybourne Road would bring traffic on to a road containing 3 schools, with
significant numbers walking to and from them at peak times (as well as the increased volume of traffic with parents delivering and collecting their
children). As a minimum I would assume that any site traffic would be band from turning right out of Monkton Lane along the Weybourne Road
toward these schools on safety and health grounds. This would force traffic to the six bells roundabout. This area already suffers from high levels
of congestion (particularly up the A325 toward Farnborough). Plans for using this route for additional heavy traffic would cause a significant
increase in this problem. I do not believe that the current road system, particularly on the A325 could safely deal with such an increase. I draw
your attention specifically to the narrowness of the road and the Hale traffic lights and the existing levels of backed up traffic at the traffic lights
where the a325 meets Alma Lane. (Turning towards the A31 / Sheppard and Flock roundabout is dealt with under a separate point.) 3. The exit of
Monkton Lane onto the B3208 (Water Lane) would bring traffic on to a narrow road with a junior school in one direction and Sainsburys in the
other. As discussed at point 2, bring traffic towards Aldershot would lead it to pass the school (as well as very narrow roads with significant levels
of parking). On safety and health grounds I cannot believe this is an acceptable option. Turning toward the A32 and Sheppard and Flock
roundabout leads to one of the busiest areas of the road system locally. Traffic into and out of Sainsburys is already heavy and consistent through
out the day, particularly in mornings and evenings when traffic from the industrial estate adds to the volume using the small roundabout. The
Sheppard and Flock is already a major traffic hold up with a back log to get onto it, leading to congestion back up the A325. Additionally, despite
much recent work to improve the flow around the roundabout by changing the lane layout, the shear volume of traffic negotiating the various exit
already presents a significant accident opportunity. (I assume that all plans to increase the volume of heavy traffic on in this area is discussed with
the local Police.) Environment I leave aside my general view on the need to impact this area and pose three questions: 1. I assume that a full
environmental impact assessment will be undertaken as part of the planning process and that the results of this will be published prior to any final
decision to proceed. 2. I assume a proper archaeological assessment will be undertaken under PPG16. As the map clearly shows the site is within
one mile of the site of the only long barrow known in Surrey. Additionally the gravel plains in this area as a whole have proved rich in
archaeological materials. I would also expect such an evaluation to be published prior to any decision to proceed. 3. In your plan, you talk of
returning the area to grassland after completion of the mining work. However as we have seen with other local mining works the availability of a
large hole presents local planners with a prime opportunity to have a land fill site prior to returning the area to grass. What guarantees exist that
this will not happen? Similarly the completion of any such project is many years in the future. I see no way that you can guarantee that local
planners will change the future usage of the site, for example to designate it for development. I look forward to your response to the points raised
in the letter. I can only hope that in moving forward with this decision that all ideas/plans will be made public and open to debate with the local
community and local council.
Individual
Further to my telephone conversation with you of Tuesday 6th June 2006 I would like to confirm that both my family and I, strongly object to the
230
proposed plan to site a Gravel pit in Monkton Lane. The negative impact to the environment and detrimental effects to the existing infrastructure
would be catastrophic. This is highlighted by the existing sand pits in nearby Runfold. The value and quality to properties and land contaminated
by silt and dust has resulted in trees, vegetation and wildlife being destroyed The following list identifies just a few of our overall concerns and
objections: • Firstly the lack of information to the locals and public regarding the plan! We were only informed of the situation two days ago so
were unable to attend the meeting held on 2nd of June, This was also very badly advertised. Many of the people that we have spoken to in the last
few days were also unaware of the plans. • The area is surrounded by numerous daily pursuits both work and leisure related, housing, schools,
playgroups, allotments, sports fields etc. The Gravel pit would completely devastate the area for many years as is again clearly demonstrated by
the Sand pit in the nearby Runfold location. You need only look at the area around the Sands to see what will happen. • The whole area is covered
in dust, the roads are in a dreadful state and the house prices have dropped dramatically. • A duty of care to the community needs to be upheld!
To enhance and improve healthy living for the present and future generations • Safety – Many children/adults and/elderly walk through and
around the area to school/work, the extra traffic would cause lots of problems. • Traffic- I live on the corner of Upper Weybourne Lane and the
traffic has certainly increased over the last few years as people use the road as a shortcut and to avoid the main Farnborough Road. The last thing
the area needs is a more heavy-duty lorries thundering down the road. • The area concerned is a nature reserve and like many homeowners and
public alike living here, we walk and ride through it with the children, where are people expected to go? There are very few untouched areas of
countryside left in the surrounding locality. • Please do not interfere or disrupt the tranquil and rural setting and cause untold damage to the
community and properties alike and subsequently destroy my families, friend and neighbours lives for our future years.
Individual
I oppose the zoning for mineral extraction from the land accessed via Monkton Lane, Farnham, Surrey. I live 225m from the area under
consideration for zoning as mineral extraction. The area is already burdened by extraction works and associated landfill at St. Georges Road,
Badshot Lea and Runfold. These take tens of years to be reinstated and in the interim the land and surroundings are an eyesore. The timescale for
such works from start to finish will exceed the lifespan of the average occupancy of residents in the area, thereby making the prospect of the
completed landscaping, or whatever carrot, irrelevant. So in the vision of the residents of Weybourne and Badshot Lea the zoning of the land for
mineral extraction is in effect blighting the area permanently. Due to the normal mobility of people the devaluation of property / associated non
increase in value will have a material affect. Badshot Lea and Runfold have enough experience of the problems associated with mineral extraction
and I speak for 8 immediate neighbours who concur with my views and oppose the zoning of the land at Monkton Lane for mineral extraction.
Please see below a detailed synopsis of the expected problems / concerns. There is a children play area adjoining the proposed site. There is a
recreation ground adjoining the proposed site with football & cricket pitches and a tennis court. There are 5 schools very close by, 2 just over the
road with more sports fields. There is a children nursery in Weybourne Village Hall, close by. There is a nature reserve adjoining the proposed
area - a gravel pit would disturb the existing wildlife habitat. There is a serious risk of subsidence to property within the area. There is the
potential for subsidence to the railway embankment running adjacent and parallel to the proposed extraction site. The area is prone to flooding
and disruption of the water table could cause problems locally. Houses, particularly those in Wentworth Close, Green Lane and Crown Lane area
in very close proximity and will be particularly adversely affected by mineral extraction works. Electricity pylons and low cables run immediately
over the proposed site and an electricity sub station is situation next door to the proposed site in Green Lane. A much used footpath between the
villages of Weybourne and Badshot Lea which is constantly used by children going to and from school would be lost. Traffic - heavy lorries would cause additional danger particularly to our school children. Roads would have to be widened and strengthened to accommodate these
extra lorries. The dust and noise resulting from this gravel pit would affect the wellbeing of the whole community. It is all too easy to zone the
area for mineral extraction without considering the human cost of that decision. The well being of the diverse socio economic population which
231
will be affected by mineral extraction should be given precedence over the industrial gain in a residential area.
Individual
I wish to register my OBJECTION to the proposed sand and gravel extraction in Monkton Lane Farnham for the following main reasons. 1. The
Aldershot/Farnham Strategic Gap has, over the years, been protected by successive local authorities and the major reason for rejecting countless
applications over recent during that time. This would be a major breach of that policy and is not justified when so many others have been rejected.
2. The local road network around Monkton Lane is not robust enough to cope with such an increase in large removal vehicles. 3. Monkton Road is
a well-used local road by children from 7 to 16 years of age to access their local school of which there are five (5) within a few hundred yards. It
also houses a Junior football club that is well used and when matches are played the entire length of Monkton lane has cars parked along it. 4.
Monkton Lane is a well used rabbit run by hundreds of cars daily accessing the Sainsburys supermarket. 5. The Weybourne Road towards
Badshot Lea has a small restrictive bridge between the cemetery and the Garden Centre not suitable for large vehicles. 6. Both Wm Cobbett School
and Badshot Lea Infant school have special needs units attached to them for children with severe and complex needs, many of them have
respiratory/asthmatic conditions. The quality of the local air will suffer to the detriment of these children. I am sure there will be other such
objections and this development must not be allowed to go through. I OBJECT in the strongest possible terms.
Individual
I have recently returned from holiday to read about the proposed plans to Monkton Lane. I live in Glorney Mead in Badshot Lea and my husband
and I are increasingly worried about what is being proposed. I have read through as much information as I can with regards to the plans, which
has not been easy as the information is not readily available. We already have several gravel/land fill sites around the area which cause problems
with lorries etc. How can it even be considered to desecrate the small amounts of green fields that we have left in this area. My children will be
completely at risk by the amount of traffic that this will cause, not to mention the pollution and risk of ill health. So much for taking the children
on cycle rides or afternoon walks to pick berries from Green Lane! Has any body really considered how this will affect our community?
Individual
We have very recently received information regarding the proposed gravel pits in the Monkton Lane area of Weybourne. As life-long residents of
this area, we wish to protest most strongly to this proposed plan. We moved to Glorney Mead from Heath End just over 11 years ago, mainly
because of the rural aspect of the area (the open fields, quiet country lanes and a very pleasing lack of houses). Our children both went to the local
schools which are excellent and we particularly liked the quiet nature of the location, whilst being within easy distance of Farnham, Guildford and
the M3. Over the years we have seen this peace and quiet gradually being eroded - firstly by the enlargement of the Electricity Sub Station in
Green Lane, secondly by the increased amount of aircraft flying to and from RAF Odiham and also the increased air traffic from the greatly
enlarged Farnborough "Airport", (as far as we are concerned this is not too much of an issue as we knew the air station and RAE were already
located near us and purchased the property with this in mind), and thirdly by the increase in the overall number of cars in this area (most of which
speed down Lower Weybourne Lane and along Weybourne Lane (past the schools, paying very little attention to the 30 mph limit!). We seem to
recall several years ago a young family were prohibited from selling Christmas trees and potted plants from their home in Monkton Lane because
they were told that area was part of the Blackwater Strategic Gap and was a "Green Belt" area. and no trading was therefore allowed - or words to
that effect. This somehow seems rather insignificant compared to the amount of disruption, pollution and inconvenience two gravel pits would
cause. Two gravel pits located here would have a very serious effect of people's health in this area, particularly as there are a large number of
children in the Badshot Park area. The quality of the air in the whole area would be seriously affected, something which we feel would be of
serious concern to the local councillors in view of the number of young children who come to school in this area - Badshot Lea Infants, Weybourne
Infants, William Cobbett Junior, All Hallows and Heath End Secondary to say nothing of the young lungs in the Weybourne Village playgroup
and those at The Kiln playgroup. The increased volume of traffic would add to the air pollution as well as causing an extra road hazard to all those
232
children who use this area daily to and from their schools. The gravel workings would give rise to serious risk of subsidence to properties in this
area and could cause flooding and disruption of the water table. Gravel pits would completely destroy the wildlife which abounds in the Green
Lane area and would no doubt radically affect the flora and fauna in the Weybourne Nature Reserve. Please ensure our views are made known
and that this is not just filed away for another day. We are strongly opposed to this horrific proposal and await your comments in due course.
Individual
I am writing with regard to the above proposed site. I am protesting in the strongest terms against a gravel pit here. Would you please take the
following issues into account when making your decision. 1. There are 5 schools in the area, 2 of them comprehensive schools, so we have many
hundreds of school children in the area on a daily basis. The resultant polluted atmosphere caused by a gravel pit would be a serious health
hazard. 2. We have a children's nursery in Weybourne Village Hall. 3. There is a children's play area right on the boundary of the proposed site. 4.
There is a recreation ground running alongside the proposed site where children play and practice football regularly. Cricket is played here
during the summer. There is also a tennis court. 5. The roads surrounding this area would have to be widened to accommodate the heavy lorries.
The resultant traffic would be a serious danger to children going to and from school. 6. There is a footpath running along the boundary of the
proposed site that is regularly used by children going to and from school. Children are naturally curious - another danger to our children. 7. There
is a nature reserve right on the boundary of the proposed site - a gravel pit would have a devastating effect on this and the wildlife habitat. 8. The
area is prone to flooding - disruption of the water table could cause serious problems. 9. Those of us living in close proximity to the proposed site and it is practically at the bottom of my garden - are naturally worried about such issues as subsidence and tumbling property prices. We have all
worked hard to buy our homes and this could have a devastating effect on our lives. Also on our health. Would Surrey CC be prepared to offer
compensation in the event of subsidence? These are just some of the issues that concern me. If you could find the time to make a site visit, perhaps
you will be able to understand our extreme concern. I would ask that this site is permanently removed from the list.
Individual
We write to express deep concern over the recently revealed proposal for mineral extraction at the above site. The scale of the operation is far in
excess of sensible limits for such a densely populated area where all access is by means of either busy main roads or narrow, well used lanes.
Indeed the area is already suffering from mineral extraction at other local sites and so we are only too aware of the dreadful impact that another
vast site would cause. It is clear that you have either not considered or chosen to ignore many factors when proposing this site. Only a few
moments thought give rise to the following issues: The pollution (noise, fumes, dust and fine particle chemicals) caused through heavy plant at
work and in transport is a serious health risk to the local residents. This is diametrically opposed to the government’s drive for a healthier
population. The prevailing winds will drive this pollution directly over Weybourne and Badshot Lea before moving on into Aldershot. This affects
a significantly large number of people. There are 5 popular schools and a well-attended nursery within close proximity of the proposed site. Many
children and their parents would either have to walk past the site with the inherent risks or take a far longer route to their destination. Why
should they be put at risk or inconvenienced? Who will accept the responsibility for accidents? The planners? A recreation ground adjoins the
proposed site. This area is very popular with a wide range of residents, including many children. How long will it take for one to have an accident
whilst exploring the extraction site? Again will the planners accept responsibility? We wonder where, and how, you would divert the
underground rivers that pass through this area. The site is prone to flooding as it is and the water would have to go somewhere. The most likely
place is on nearby residential land with all the resultant problems. A footpath runs through the proposed site at present. Looking at the plans there
is no way that this can be remotely re-routed. This impinges on historical rights of access. The nature reserve that adjoins the proposed site would
suffer intolerably. What is the point in establishing such areas if they can be thoughtlessly destroyed without compunction? We do not believe that
the person responsible for proposing this site has any clue as to the ramifications of their proposal. It appears unlikely that they even visited the
locale to establish the feasibility, as it would not have taken long to conclude that the problems caused will far outweigh any material advantages.
233