Here we go again, once more, dear friends, into the breach once more! As most people will have seen from the local press, West Sussex County Council have begun the process to develop a new Minerals Plan. This is under a new and completely different planning process, which includes much more public consultation than previous processes. It is more restrictive in the way that WSCC must accept the government inspector's recommendations from any enquiry.

Without going into too much detail of the bureaucratic process, the Hambrook Residents Association, along with other interested parties, including Parish councils, other Residents Associations and the Minerals Planning Liaison Group, who were instrumental in limiting the number of sites included in the previous plan, have been asked to comment informally on the proposed sites for the new plan. We were asked to comment on whether or not we could agree in principle to gravel extraction from any of the sites shown on the map.

The following is an extract from our letter to WSCC which is the best way to describe our response.
"it is not possible to make an informed comment on the principle of gravel extraction from the sites because insufficient information is available. No information has been supplied on:

Quantity required (apportionment),

Size of reserves within the sites.

Estimated annual yield.

Working arrangements

Similarly, no information is available on environmental impact, including flood protection, noise, dirt, dust, pollution and transport arrangements among others.

It is however, important to comment that the sites now named Ell Bridge, Racton Park, Funtington West and Funtington East, were initially considered in the previous Minerals Local Plan. They were all excluded from the plan, which had an apportionment of 1.4 million tonnes per year, in 1994 for reasons of Policy and Usage.

For these sites to be included in the new plan, it would be the responsibility of WSCC to clearly prove that Policies and other reasons for exclusion have significantly changed for this new plan.

The sites at Woodmancote, Slades Field, Common Road West and Common Road East were initially included in the last plan, but common Road West and Common Road East were removed from the plan when the plan apportionment was reduced. Thus they should be excluded from the new plan.

As neither Woodmancote nor Slades Field has even been subject to Planning Permission to date, then even these sites should be carefully reviewed before they are included in the new plan"


Your Association hopes this explains our position, if you have any comments or would like further information, please contact: