Gravel plans in the spotlight (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Council scheme set for public hearing
9:00am Saturday 9th March 2013 in News
By Emma Streatfield, Senior Reporter
Gravel extraction in a different part of the country.
CONTROVERSIAL county council plans for gravel extraction could move a step closer next week.
A public hearing into Hampshire County Council’s Minerals and Waste Plan before a planning inspector will resume next Wednesday and Thursday.
This follows a planning inquiry begun in June last year into the ‘soundness’ of the plan, which identifies where quarrying and landfill sites could be developed or extended across Hampshire.
If judged sound, the plan will become the framework by which future planning applications are judged.
Sites for new gravel and sand pits have been earmarked in Hamble, Hythe, Ringwood Forest, Long-parish, near Stockbridge, and Christchurch, despite thousands of letters of protests.
Local residents and businesses have raised concerns about the loss of green space, impact on wildlife, damage to environmentally-sensitive areas, increased HGV traffic, noise and dust.
Following the June hearing, the inspector published recommendations, in which no major sites were ruled out and proposals were mainly for minor changes.
The public had the chance to comment on these changes until mid-December.
Following this, the inspector has decided to resume the hearing, at the county council offices in Winchester, which will focus on these responses.
Though the hearing is public, only those invited by the inspector may take part.
If the inspector decides that he has collected all the necessary evidence from this, he will close the hearing and finalise his report which will confirm whether he considers the plan to be a sound document.
To be considered sound it must be based on solid, clear evidence, have complied with statutory processes, gone through thorough consultation, be consistent with national policy and meet Hampshire’s mineral and waste development needs.
If judged suitable, the Hampshire local authorities will then adopt it as planning policy, replacing the current minerals and waste core strategy.
This means that all future planning applications for minerals and waste development will be assessed and determined on the basis of the plan’s policies.
Cllr Mel Kendal, the council’s Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Environment and Transport, said the plan would “ensure that the local economy is supported by enabling an adequate supply of minerals and sustainably managing Hampshire’s waste”.
Comments(5)
Bagamn
says...
11:56am Sat 9 Mar 13
Sovietobserver
says...
2:26pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Bagamn wrote:The proposed extraction site near Christchurch is at Roeshot Hill. The site is just north of the railway line in an area which is just inside the Bransgore parish boundary.Only part of the access route will be in Dorset. Although Bransgore has a postal address of Christchurch, Dorset ,(being the nearest post-town), the parish falls politically under the New Forest District Council's area so is technically within Hampshire.
One slight oversight in the list is that Christchurch is in Dorset and does not come under Hampshire. Someone is not doing their homework.
Bagamn
says...
3:03pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Sovietobserver wrote:Thaanks for putting me right. I haven't been sure of the boundaries around there since Maggie moved them.
Bagamn wrote:The proposed extraction site near Christchurch is at Roeshot Hill. The site is just north of the railway line in an area which is just inside the Bransgore parish boundary.Only part of the access route will be in Dorset. Although Bransgore has a postal address of Christchurch, Dorset ,(being the nearest post-town), the parish falls politically under the New Forest District Council's area so is technically within Hampshire.
One slight oversight in the list is that Christchurch is in Dorset and does not come under Hampshire. Someone is not doing their homework.
southy
says...
11:39am Sun 10 Mar 13
huckit P wrote:I would be more concern with the ground water table as removing gravel and sand will lower the water table,it also helps a great deal in stopping flooding as the water is able to move more freely in gravel and sand
And how many people taking part in the hearing actually live near any of the sites and have personal knowledge of how the locality will be affected? Their decision will adversely affect thousands of people whose lives will be blighted for years to come. (No, I don't live near any of the sites so cannot be accused of being a NIMBY.)
huckit P says...
10:38am Sat 9 Mar 13