Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Site Allocations


Contact Details:-

Name: Throop Muscliff Strouden Townsend and Holdenhurst Area Forum
Chairman: L Deller
Telephone: 01202 241307

Site Reference: MSAD AS11

Site Name: Parley Court Phase 3, West Parley



Throop, Muscliff, Strouden, Townsend and Holdenhurst Area Forum

We are totally opposed to the use of this site.

At the Forum meeting, held on 2nd October, which was attended by 200 Residents, Councillors from Throop and Muscliff and Strouden Wards and Tobias Ellwood M.P., concern was expressed at the adverse effect this development will have on our Forum area.

This site lies in the flood plain of the River Stour, upstream of Muscliff, Throop and Holdenhurst.

Throop and Holdenhurst are Conservation Areas and Holdenhurst Village also lies in the marked floodplain of the River Stour. The Village was flooded in 1989, after which a partial flood barrier was built, but a recent flood risk assessment has shown the barrier could be overtopped in extreme flood.

The proposed site area was flooded last year (photographs supplied by Councillor Whittaker, Throop and Muscliff Ward are available if required) and any working would require barriers which would reduce the area of natural drainage and increase the flow and volume past Muscliff and Throop and around Holdenhurst, where the river is also affected by tides from Christchurch.

Our Chairman attended an exhibition and was advised that “inert waste” to infill the site would mainly be clay and chalk. To remove porous sand and gravel and replace it with such material would also reduce drainage of the water meadow and will endanger homes in the Forum area.

We object to the destruction of green space, woodland and mature oaks, hedgerows, wildlife and the ecology in this area. This site will be a scene of ugly devastation for many years and can never be restored to its present green infrastructure as the water meadows will be gone forever. Forum Members in Muscliff, overlooking the site will have their view blighted and their peace shattered, destroying their quality of life and the value of their homes. It will ruin the setting and the ambiance of the Stour Valley Way, which is much used by Forum Members, disturb threatened wildlife species such as water vole, otter and bats and remove land which is important for Heathland Mitigation.

We object to the destruction of good quality farm land on this site, when it is becoming increasingly important to reduce the carbon footprint of food by buying locally produced goods.

Parley Lane (A3073) and Parley Cross are over capacity and extremely congested at many times of the day, with long queues in both directions, causing severe inconvenience to any Forum Members who work at the airport, or travel to/from Wimborne and Ferndown and the A338 and farm vehicles accessing land to the north of the Stour. In the absence of a new east/west corridor to the A338, to add up to 150 extra movements a day on this road would exacerbate this already difficult situation.

The Stour Valley has been settled for many hundreds of years and it is probable that there may be ancient sites of archaeological interest and burial sites within the proposed excavation area.


14th April 2009

Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Mineral Site Allocations Document

In response to the objection lodged by Forum, the following e-mail was received on 16th March, 2009:-

Dear Stakeholder

Many thanks for the contribution that you made during the consultation on the above document last year.

This email provides you with an update on the progress of the Minerals Site Allocations Document (MSAD).

During the consultation period, which ran from Friday, 17th October until Friday, 12th December 2008, we received 3537 comments made by 1431 individuals or organisations.

We have now read and logged all the comments made and you should have received an email notification of your ID number and details of how to access your consultation account.

On 17th March 2009 we reported the results of the consultation to Members of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Joint Advisory Committee (** see extract reproduced below).

The report prepared for this committee meeting is available for you to view now by following the link below.

This report contains a useful summary of all the reasons for disagreement/agreement for each site and our initial response to those comments.


Over the next few months we will begin making the difficult decisions on whether the sites contained within the MSAD Discussion Paper should be progressed or discounted.

In order to justify these decisions we will undertake a full assessment of each site's suitability and carry out a further sustainability appraisal.

To enable us to carry out these assessments we will need to gather further information from site promoters and other organisations.

During the recent consultation three further sites were suggested for possible future mineral extraction. Basic details on these sites is contained in the committee report. However, we will be requesting far more detail in order to fully assess the suitability of the sites over the coming months.

Although no decisions have been made on the suitability of the 19 aggregate sites in the consultation document, indications are that some sites are likely to be found unsuitable and therefore there are unlikely to be sufficient quantities of sand and gravel within the remaining sites to meet Government guidelines.

Therefore further work will need to be undertaken in order to identify further possible sites or to be able to demonstrate that the exploitation of additional sites within Dorset would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the environment.

The next period of consultation on the MSAD is expected to be undertaken during autumn 2009. This document will contain the specific sites thought to be most appropriate to meet Dorset's future need for minerals.

If you have received this e-mail your details are on our consultation database and you will be kept informed during the development of the MSAD.

If you are aware of anyone who may be interested in mineral extraction in Dorset who would like to be added to our database please ask them to contact us by e-mail or telephoning the Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team on 01305 228585 / 228571

Best Regards

Emma Macdonald

Senior Planning Officer

(Minerals & Waste Planning Policy)

01305 228585

**Extract from:-

Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals and Waste Policy Joint Advisory Committee

17th March 2009
Outcomes from Consultation on the Minerals Site Allocations Document Discussion Paper

Appendix 1b: Sand and Gravel Sites

Site Name: Parley Court Phase 3
Site Reference: MSAD AS11

Number of disagreeing comments - 61
Number of observations - 6
Number of agreeing comments - 0

Site Description

This site is situated north of Bournemouth and is bordered to the south by the River Stour and the Stour Valley Way.
It is suggested for the extraction of 1.3 million tonnes of sand and gravel over a period of 12 years.
This 71 hectare site is currently in agricultural use.
Restoration is proposed using inert fill, with the majority of land being returned to agriculture.

Summary of main reasons for disagreement for this site

Reason for disagreement

1 Impact on biodiversity

• Including deer, badgers, kingfishers, otters, moths and many more
• Impact of Stour Valley Nature Reserve Moors River SPA
• Impact on Christchurch Harbour SSSI

DCC Response

If this site were to be progressed to the next stage of the plan an ecological assessment would be required together with assessment under the Habitats Regulations of the impact on nearby Natura 2000 sites.

2 Noise

If this development were to be allocated and permitted, planning conditions would restrict noise to acceptable levels and hours of working. Mitigation could include screening bunds and use of appropriate equipment.

3 Dust

Dust concerns can usually be addressed through:

- appropriate design and layout of the site
- the management of the site
- use of appropriate equipment, and
- the adoption of appropriate control and mitigation measures
(which can include separation distances, landscaping, screening and spraying haul roads within the site).

4 Smell

It is considered that there is unlikely to be any smells resulting from mineral extraction or infilling with inert waste. However, pollution prevention is the responsibility of the Environment Agency with whom the Mineral Planning Authority will work closely.

5 Impact on Landscape Character

• Visual eye sore
• Impact from Stour Valley Way path

If this site were to be progressed to the next stage of the plan further work will need to be undertaken on landscape impact. The importance of the Stour Valley Way path is understood and the impact on it will be important factor when considering the suitability of this site.

6 Loss of a strategic green space

• Development should be compatible with the provision of strategic green infrastructure, and should not close off options for use of the land for green spaces i.e. maintenance of an access corridor.
• Inappropriate use of the Green Belt, which should be retained
• Rare quiet, rural area

Government guidance is that mineral extraction need not conflict with the purposes of including land as Green Belts, which is to maintain openness. Mineral working can be acceptable provided that high environmental standards are maintained and that the site is well restored.

7 Impact on nearby Epiphany Primary School

There is unlikely to be any unacceptable impact on local schools from either the lorry traffic or the mineral workings itself.

8 Impact on nearby residential properties

• Quality of life
• Impact on property prices

An indication of the precise working area will be sought from the promoters of each site to be progressed to the next stage of the Plan. This would include buffer zone from nearby houses.
In itself, the impact of proposals on property values is not a land use planning matter. Rather the issue is whether the development would have unacceptable effects on amenities and existing use of land and buildings which should be protected in the public interest.

9 Traffic

• Roads cannot cope with the extra traffic from the development
• Impact on Strategic Road Network in particular the A31 and particularly during the summer months and in the lead up to the Olympics
• Accidents, particularly at access point
• Cumulative impact with airport expansion and possible Ferndown Urban extension
• Afteruses should not be such that the site generates traffic Movements

Concern has been expressed by the Highways Agency at the level of additional congestion on the A31(T) that this development and other long term proposals in the area would generate.
If this site were to be progressed to the next stage of the plan further work will need to be undertaken on traffic impacts.
Any planning application would need to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA) undertaken by the applicant. A TA is likely to include an assessment of any increased risk of accidents and cumulative impact of other developments.

• Land traversed by the line of the potential Castle Lane Relief Road and this should not be jeopardised. Possible impact on this potential route will need investigation.

10 Inert waste

• Volumes are falling as recycling increases therefore extended development life
• Restoration with inert waste may not provide the type of restoration that is compatible with green infrastructure

Concern over the source and sufficiency of inert fill is shared and further information on the source of fill will be sought from the developer. The impact of the use of inert fill material on any provision of green infrastructure needs examination.

11 Concern that this site may become a household landfill site

• Heath impacts of landfill

It is not proposed to infill this site with household waste. It is considered unlikely that there would be any heath impacts resulting from infilling with inert waste. However, pollution prevention is the responsibility of the Environment Agency with whom the Mineral Planning Authority will work closely.

12 Flooding

• The sites lies within the floodplain
• Increased risk of flooding residential areas downstream of the development is of concern if this development destroys the function of the floodplain

If this site were to be progressed to the next stage of the Plan a strategic flood risk assessment would be undertaken. A more detailed Flood Risk Assessment would be required to support any planning application. Although sand and gravel workings are deemed to be ‘water compatible development’ (Annex D2 of PPS25) and generally considered to be appropriate within the floodplain should the actual working area encroach within Zones 2 & 3 under PPS25 there is a requirement to demonstrate application of the Sequential test.
Processing plant and ancillary infrastructure should be sites outside of Zones 2 & 3. Demonstration of the Sequential Test relies in part upon a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. An adequate buffer (around 30 metres) between the working area and the River Stour should be maintained.

13 Water resources

• Non-porous inert fill would reduce water drainage
• Pollution/contamination of the River Stour

There are unlikely to be pollution issues if only clean uncontaminated inert waste were used as fill material. Pollution prevention is the responsibility of the Environment Agency with whom the Mineral Planning Authority will work closely.

14 Bird Strike issues

• From the inert waste
• Attracted to the body of water that the quarry will create

This is a potentially high risk site in terms of birdstrike due to its proximity to Bournemouth Airport. Any extraction at this site would require the most careful consideration and robust safeguards at every stage of working and restoration. Although the aspiration is restoration to farmland, the interim stages may contain water lagoons, there is likely to be temporary ponding and the site may serve as a refuge for birds driven from the airport from which they can quickly return.
There is concern over source and sufficiently of inert fill and further information on the source would be sought from the developer to ensure a satisfactory and timely restoration can be achieved.

15 Loss of agricultural land

It is intended to restore the majority of this site back to agriculture therefore loss will be temporary.

16 Archeologically interest

• Historic landfill

There is a historic landfill located along the south eastern edge of the proposed allocation, advice from the Environment Agency is that this is in association with the Muscliff Purification Works.
If this site is taken forward this landfill should be considered and dealt with appropriately.

17 Impact on Listed Buildings and their setting Impacts on nearby

Listed buildings and their setting will be considered if this site is progressed.

18 Recreation and Amenity Value

• Popular location for river walks
• Loss of this land would put pressure on nearby sensitive heathlands
• Impact on nearby tourist attractions
• Impact on Stour Valley Nature Reserve

The importance of this area for recreation is acknowledged as is its value in attracting visitors away from protected heathland. This will be a very important factor when considering the suitability of this site. Potential impacts on the Stour Valley Nature Reserve will need to be investigated.

19 Site should not be worked concurrently with other sites in the area.
The following statutory bodies/organisations disagree with the development of this site;

• West Parley Residents Association
• Barrack Road Residents Association
• Highways Agency
• Campaign to Protect Rural England
• Holdenhurst Village Action Group
• Christchurch Borough Council
• Throop Muscliff Strouden Townsend and Holdenhurst Area Forum
• Environment Agency
• East Dorset District Council
• Hurn Parish Council
• English Heritage

Summary of main reasons for agreement for this site



Six comments were classified as “observations”. Points raised are adequately covered above. The following statutory bodies/organisations made comments classified as “observations”

• Bournemouth Airport
• Dorset Wildlife Trust
• Natural England
• Royal Society of the Protection of Birds

Petitions/Standard Responses



5th June 2009
Update re: Mineral Site Allocations Document
On 1st June 2009, Forum Chairman Leslie Deller wrote to Trevor Badley, Principal Planning Officer (Minerals & Waste Planning Policy) at Dorset County Council, as follows:-
“Your ref; MSAD/TGB/AS11

Thank you for your letter concerning the above and note that consultation of this matter is now delayed until the Autumn of 2009.

Please can you let me have any details on the 'further advice you have received from the Government Office for the South West regarding progressing the Minerals and Waste Development Framework' which you note in the letter. Any details as to what this advice is and what may be the effect on the current consideration of the above site would be most welcome and if I can access the advice please let me have the details of how I can access it or obtain a copy?”
Mr Badley responded as follows:-
Dear Mr. Deller,

Thank you for your note.

The advice I referred to is not in the form of a specific document that I can point you to, but rather verbal advice that we received from both the Government Office for the South West (GOSW - when a colleague and I went to meet with them in Bristol in May) and corresponding advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) which was given in a presentation at a recent conference jointly hosted by the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Mineral Products Association.

Originally we had been intending to prepare a joint document, covering both the overall strategy for meeting mineral needs in Dorset, and identifying individual sites to meet this need. The advice we received is that rather than one document we should be producing two documents, one covering the strategy for mineral types, and one identifying sites, since the latter is expected to be very contentious.

We are now considering work programming to progress these two documents simultaneously, including a joint consultation - this will not be before the autumn. Part of the work we are doing is developing the list of criteria that we will use to assess all the sites that have been suggested to us, to decide if they should be further considered or considered inappropriate.

If you are interested in mineral planning and plan preparation, you might like to have a look at these two guidance documents issued by Government - the first advises on production of planning documents, the second (actually two documents) covers general mineral planning advice - links below:

Click here
Click here

Hope this is helpful, please get back to me if you need any further info.



Trevor Badley
Principal Planning Officer
(Minerals & Waste Planning Policy)
01305 224675”

Forum continues to monitor this item