Example Site Assessment Sheet

Document Sample
Example Site Assessment Sheet Powered By Docstoc
					Example Site Assessment Sheet

(For each criterion a site will have been scored between ++ and – depending on whether
its effect is positive, neutral or negative as indicated in the comments column. The
assessment sheets have been available since October 2001)

AFS NO            LOCATION                                                           GRID REF                DISTRICT




a - Information available for this site? (Y / N / P[artial])                   b - Constraint affects site? (Y / N / P)

                                            a b     +/-   Comments
LANDSCAPE                                           ++    Minerals extraction acceptable
        LCA Area X                                  +     Maybe possible to mitigate against adverse effects
        LCA Area Y                                  +-    Generally favourable to extraction but issues of concern i.e. historic
                                                    -     interest
                                                    --    Extraction generally incompatible but small scale extraction maybe
                                                          acceptable
                                                          Minerals extraction unacceptable

ECOLOGY                                             ++    None affected - Minerals extraction acceptable
Co Wildlife Sites                                   +     Site or number of sites within 250 buffer around the AFS
                                                    +-    Small site in the AFS
                                                    -     Large site in the AFS or a number of sites in the AFS
                                                    --    Minerals extraction unacceptable/large no. of sites affect large
                                                          proportion of AFS
Ecosites                                            ++    None affected - Minerals extraction acceptable
                                                    +     Site or number of sites within 250 buffer around the AFS
                                                    +-    Small site in the AFS
                                                    -     Large site in the AFS or a number of sites in the AFS
                                                    --    Minerals extraction unacceptable
Ancient Woodland                                    ++    None affected - Minerals extraction acceptable
                                                    +     Site or number of sites within 250 buffer around the AFS
                                                    +-    Small site in the AFS
                                                    -     Large site in the AFS or a number of sites in the AFS
                                                    --    Minerals extraction unacceptable
TPOs                                                ++    None affected - Minerals extraction acceptable
                                                    +     Site or number of sites within 250 buffer around the AFS
                                                    +-    Small site in the AFS/large site abuts AFS
                                                    -     Large site in the AFS or a number of sites in the AFS
                                                    --    Minerals extraction unacceptable
RIGGS                                               ++    None affected - Minerals extraction acceptable
                                                    +     Site or number of sites within 250 buffer around the AFS
                                                    +-    Small site in the AFS/large site abuts AFS
                                                    -     Large site in the AFS or a number of sites in the AFS
                                                    --    Minerals extraction unacceptable
Other i.e.Nature Reserves,                          ++    None affected - Minerals extraction acceptable
                                                    +     Site or number of sites within 250 buffer around the AFS
                                                    +-    Small site in the AFS
                                                    -     Large site in the AFS or a number of sites in the AFS
                                                    --    Minerals extraction unacceptable/large no. of sites affect large
                                                          proportion of AFS
Other i.e. Watling Chase                            ++    AFS within WCCF area therefore potential to improve and restore to
Community Forest                                    +     woodland
                                                    +-    AFS within WCCF area potential to restore to woodland
                                                    -     WCCF within 250m buffer around the AFS potential to restore to
                                                    --    woodland
                                                          Impact on WCCF woodland in the buffer, but potential to restore
                                                          Impact on a large area of established WCCF woodland




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC             -1-
                                            a b         +/-   Comments
Overall                                             ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-        Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

CULTURAL HERITAGE                                   ++        Nothing affected – Minerals extraction acceptable
SMR sites / Areas of High                           +         Small SMR site and archaeological report indicates not likely to be a
Archaeology Significance                            +-        constraint
                                                              Large number of SMR sites in AFS but archaeological report is favours
                                                    -         extraction or indicates a possible constraint
                                                              Large SMR site in the AFS or a number of sites in the AFS maybe a
                                                    --        constraint / survey needed as likely impact
                                                              Archaeological report indicates extraction unacceptable - serious
                                                              constraint
Battlefields                                        ++        None affected – Minerals extraction acceptable
                                                    +         Site or number of sites within 250 buffer around the AFS
                                                    +-        Small site in the AFS
                                                    -         Large site in the AFS or a number of sites in the AFS
                                                    --        Minerals extraction unacceptable
Listed Buildings                                    ++        None affected – Minerals extraction acceptable
                                                    +         LB or number of LBs within 250 buffer around the AFS
                                                    +-        Small no. of LBs in the AFS grouped together or large number of LBs in
                                                    -         the buffer
                                                    --        Small number of LBs dispersed in the AFS or a large number of LBs in
                                                              the AFS
                                                              Large number of LBs dispersed through AFS - Minerals extraction
                                                              unacceptable
Sensitive settings CA/LB                            ++        None affected – Minerals extraction acceptable
                                                    +         Sensitive setting within 500m
                                                    +-        Sensitive setting adjacent to AFS in buffer - possible to mitigate
                                                    -         Sensitive setting adjacent to AFS in buffer – not possible to mitigate
                                                    --        Sensitive setting within AFS – Minerals extraction unacceptable
Designated Historic Parks                           ++        None affected - Minerals extraction acceptable
and Gardens and                                     +         HPG within 1 km possible to mitigate
Emerging Historic Parks                             +-        No. of HPG within 500m of the AFS
and Gardens                                         -         Emerging HPG within AFS – HCC listed within AFS - HPG in buffer
                                                    --        affected may be possible to mitigate
                                                              Large HPG in AFS – extraction unacceptable
Other / Overall                                     ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-        Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

WATER/HYDROLOGY                                     ++        Extraction would not affect ground water
Groundwater Protection                              +         Extraction would have limited impact on ground water
Zones                                               +-        Total Catchment Zone – mainly TCZ and part SPZ 2
                                                    -         Mainly Source Protection Zone 2 – Extraction would have an adverse
                                                    --        impact
                                                              Lies in Source Protection Zone 1- Extraction likely to be unacceptable
Aquifers/Ground water                               ++        AFS not in close proximity to an aquifer
Vulnerability Zones                                 +         AFS in close proximity to a major / minor aquifer
The EA has not indicated the                        +-        AFS lies partly on a minor aquifer
significance of ground water                        -         AFS lies on a minor Aquifer
vulnerability zones for minerals                    --        If the AFS lies on a major Aquifer, extraction would have a detrimental
workings and have therefore not                               impact
be scored
River quality                                       ++        No river affected
                                                    +         Tributaries flow in buffer/adjacent to site may be possible to mitigate
                                                    +-        impact
                                                    -         River of high quality flows adjacent to site or tributaries flow through the
                                                    --        site
                                                              River quality d/e flows through site
                                                              River quality a/b/c flows through the site




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC                 -2-
                                            a b     +/-   Comments
Supply/Abstraction points                           ++    None present within the site
                                                    +     1-2 points used for agriculture
                                                    +-    3-5 points used for agriculture – 1-2 points used for public water supply
                                                    -     Large number of extraction points for agriculture / private use
                                                    --    Large number of extraction points for public water supply
Liability to flood                                  ++    No river in close proximity
                                                    +     Area adjacent to AFS liable to flood
                                                    +-    Flood area within AFS
                                                    -     Large part of the AFS in flood area
                                                    --    Flood plain affects whole of the AFS
Other / Overall                                     ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-    Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

AGRICULTURE                                         ++    AFS not in ALG I / II
Grade 1 & 2 land                                    +     Part of AFS falls into ALG I / II
                                                    +-    AFS falls wholly within ALG I/ II – possibility to restore/reclaim
                                                    -     AFS falls within ALG I / II possible to restore part of site
                                                    --    AFS falls within ALG I / II – not possible to restore
Environmentally Sensitive                           ++    Not affected
Areas                                               +     Part of AFS falls within ESA
ie HBA designated in BAP                            +-    AFS lies entirely within Area of high biodiversity
                                                    -     AFS falls partly within site specifically identified as ESA
                                                    --    AFS falls wholly within site specifically identified as ESA
Other / Overall                                     ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-    Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

HIGHWAY/TRANSPTN                                    ++    No issues raised by HA – Acceptable
Road adequacy                                       +     Minor issues with site but generally acceptable
                                                    +-    Some improvements required / impact on residential area to be
                                                    -     addressed
                                                    --    Major improvements required
                                                          Unacceptable AFS in highways terms
Programmed                                          ++    Improvements programmed in area & improvements likely to be
improvements                                        +     required at site
                                                    +-    No issues raised by HA / no improvements likely to be required
                                                    -     Improvements likely to be required
                                                    --    Improvements needed but none planned
                                                          Unacceptable AFS in highways terms
Accident/Congestion                                 ++    None/Very Good
                                                    +     Low/Good
                                                    +-    Fair – low number of hazardous points/congestion points
                                                    -     High/Bad
                                                    --    Very High/Very Bad
Existing haul route?                                ++    Yes – currently used
                                                    +     Yes – could possible be used / adapted
                                                    +-    No – but no problems perceived with haul route at the site
                                                    -     Yes/No – problems anticipated with proposed route
                                                    --    Yes/No – unacceptable AFS in highways terms
Access to rail (+ future)                           ++    Rail depot in close proximity
                                                    +     Rail line in close proximity – with good access
                                                    +-    Rail line in close proximity but no clear access / depot some distance
                                                    -     from AFS
                                                    --    Need to travel through a settlement to get rail line / depot
                                                          No rail track near AFS
Access to nav waterway                              ++    Navigable waterway and wharf in close proximity
                                                    +     Navigable waterway in close proximity – with good access
                                                    +-    Navigable waterway in close proximity but no clear access / wharf some
                                                    -     distance
                                                    --    Need to travel through settlement to get to navigable waterway / wharf
                                                          No Navigable waterway near AFS



C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC             -3-
                                            a b     +/-   Comments
Other / Overall                                     ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-    Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

POLLUTION                                           ++    No AQMA designations – air pollution not an issue
AQMA/Air pollution                                  +     No AQMA designations but air pollution could be an issue
                                                    +-    AQMA likely to be designated
                                                    -     AQMA designated in close proximity to AFS
                                                    --    AFS falls into area with AQFA
Sensitive Industries                                ++    None in the area
                                                    +     Present beyond the buffer may need to mitigate
                                                    +-    Located in the buffer - potential to mitigate
                                                    -     Located in the buffer - likely issues / located in AFS potential to mitigate
                                                    --    Located in the AFS - No potential to mitigate
Noise sensitivity                                   ++    None in the area
                                                    +     Noise sensitivity issue in the buffer may need to mitigate
                                                    +-    Noise sensitivity issue in the buffer – potential to mitigate
                                                    -     Noise sensitivity issue in the buffer - likely issues / In AFS potential to
                                                    --    mitigate
                                                          Noise sensitivity issue in the AFS - No potential to mitigate
IPC / IPPC consents                                 ++    AFS not affected by IPC / IPPC consents
                                                    +     IPC / IPPC consents located in buffer – not likely to be an issue
                                                    +-    IPC / IPPC consents located in buffer may be an issue
                                                    -     Number of IPC / IPPC consents within the AFS
                                                    --    Large number of IPC / IPPC consents within the AFS
Hazardous sites                                     ++    None in the area
                                                    +     Present beyond the buffer may need to mitigate
                                                    +-    Located in the buffer - potential to mitigate
                                                    -     Located in the buffer - likely issues / located in AFS potential to mitigate
                                                    --    Located in the AFS - No potential to mitigate
Tranquil Areas                                      ++    AFS not in a tranquil area
                                                    +     AFS in close proximity to a tranquil area
                                                    +-    AFS adjacent to or may be in a tranquil area
                                                    -     AFS is a small site within a tranquil area – development could prejudice
                                                    --    its status
                                                          AFS is a large site within a tranquil area – development could prejudice
                                                          its status
Brownfield/contaminated                             ++    AFS is on brownfield
land                                                +     AFS is partially on brownfield land
                                                    +-    AFS not located on brownfield land or contaminated land
                                                    -     AFS is partially on contaminated land which would affect extraction
                                                    --    AFS located in contaminated land area which would affect extraction
Landfill sites                                      ++    AFS is not located in an area with a landfill site
                                                    +     Landfill site in close proximity to AFS – possible to mitigate
                                                    +-    Landfill site in buffer
                                                    -     Landfill site in part of the AFS – part of site therefore unsuitable for
                                                    --    extraction
                                                          Landfill covers the site – not possible to extract
Other / Overall                                     ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-    Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

NEAR/SENSITIVE USES                                 ++    No settlements in close proximity
Settlements                                         +     Small settlements / hamlets between 100m and 500m but not abutting
                                                    +-    buffer
                                                    -     Small part of settlements abuts 100m buffer
                                                    --    Large part of settlement abuts 100m buffer
                                                          Settlement surrounded by AFS
Individual dwellings                                ++    No individual dwellings in close proximity
                                                    +     Small no. of individual dwellings in buffer
                                                    +-    Large number of Individual dwellings abut AFS dispersed around
                                                    -     perimeter
                                                    --    Large number of Individual dwellings in AFS in close proximity
                                                          Large number of Individual dwellings dispersed through site

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC             -4-
                                            a b     +/-   Comments
Schools                                             ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Nearest school few km away
                                                    +-    School within 1km
                                                    -     Number of Schools within AFS buffer
                                                    --    School within the AFS
Hospitals                                           ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Nearest hospital few km away
                                                    +-    Hospital within 1km
                                                    -     Number of hospitals within AFS
                                                    --    Hospital within the AFS
Prisons                                             ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Nearest school few km away
                                                    +-    Prison within buffer
                                                    -     Number of Prisons within AFS
                                                    --    Prison within the AFS
Metropolitan Green Belt                             ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     AFS partly within MGB
                                                    +-    AFS wholly located within MGB
                                                    -
                                                    --
Other / Overall                                     ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-    Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

ECON/DEVT ISSUES                                    ++    AFS falls within a designated ERA
Economic Regeneration                               +     AFS falls within a potential ERA / Area in need of regeneration
Area                                                +-    Area not in need of regeneration
                                                    -
                                                    --
Unemployment                                        ++    High unemployment and skills required available
                                                    +     High unemployment
                                                    +-    Low unemployment but close to a number of large urban area
                                                    -     Low unemployment but close to a small urban area
                                                    --    Low unemployment and no other sources in close proximity
Permitted major                                     ++    AFS in area where development is permitted and mineral to be
development                                         +     extracted
                                                    +-    Development permitted in close proximity to AFS but adverse impact
                                                          unlikely
                                                    -     Development permitted on AFS and maybe potential to extract /
                                                    --    development in close proximity may have an impact / No development
                                                          in close proximity
                                                          Development permitted in close proximity to AFS and may have
                                                          adverse impact
                                                          Development permitted on site but mineral not to be extracted
Local Plan allocations                              ++    AFS on a local plan allocation and minerals to be extracted first
                                                    +     Local plan allocation in close proximity to site potential to use
                                                    +-    aggregates
                                                    -     No local plan allocation in close proximity
                                                    --    Local plan site in AFS buffer - may need mitigation
                                                          AFS on local plan site but mineral not to be extracted – sterilisation
                                                          would occur
Other / Overall                                     ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-    Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

RECREATION                                          ++    None in close proximity
Public RoW                                          +     One PROW affected adjacent / in the AFS
                                                    +-    Small number of RROWs affected – potential to divert
                                                    -     Large number of PROWs affected potential to divert / RUPP or BOAT
                                                    --    affected
                                                          Large no. of PROWs affected no potential to divert / PROW of particular
                                                          significance



C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC            -5-
                                            a b     +/-   Comments
Recreation/Cycle routes                             ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Local cycle route adjacent to AFS
                                                    +-    Proposed cycle route through AFS / NCN at edge of AFS
                                                    -     Local cycle route affect in the AFS / Proposed NCN through AFS
                                                    --    National Cycle Network route affected in the AFS
Regional Parks                                      ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Regional park not in close proximity but possible impact
                                                    +-    AFS adjacent to Regional park likely to have impact
                                                    -     AFS in a Regional park maybe possible to mitigate
                                                    --    AFS in a Regional park likely to have adverse impact
Country Parks                                       ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Country park in close proximity but possible impact
                                                    +-    AFS adjacent to Country park likely to have impact
                                                    -     AFS in a Country park maybe possible to mitigate
                                                    --    AFS in a Country park likely to have adverse impact
Tourist Sites                                       ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Tourist site in close proximity but possible impact
                                                    +-    AFS adjacent to tourist site likely to have impact
                                                    -     AFS on a tourist site maybe possible to mitigate
                                                    --    AFS on a tourist site likely to have adverse impact
Playing Fields                                      ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Located beyond buffer possible to mitigate any effects
                                                    +-    Located in buffer would need to mitigate
                                                    -     Located in buffer / AFS and would be an adverse impact - possible to
                                                    --    mitigate
                                                          Playing fields in AFS would be adversely affected
Public Open Space                                   ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Located beyond buffer possible to mitigate any effects
                                                    +-    Located in buffer would need to mitigate
                                                    -     Located in buffer / AFS and would be an adverse impact - possible to
                                                    --    mitigate
                                                          Public open space in AFS would be adversely affected
Recreational Grounds                                ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Located beyond buffer possible to mitigate any effects
                                                    +-    Located in buffer would need to mitigate
                                                    -     Located in buffer / AFS and would be an adverse impact - possible to
                                                    --    mitigate
                                                          Recreational grounds in AFS would be adversely affected
Informal recreation sites                           ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Located beyond buffer possible to mitigate any effects
                                                    +-    Located in buffer would need to mitigate
                                                    -     Located in buffer / AFS and would be an adverse impact - possible to
                                                    --    mitigate Informal recreation sites in AFS would be adversely affected
Other / Overall                                     ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-    Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

OWNERSHIP etc                                       ++    None in close proximity
Common land/Village                                 +     Falls within buffer but not adjacent to AFS
Green                                               +-    Lies within the buffer adjacent to AFS
                                                    -     Lies at the edge but within the AFS may be possible to mitigate
                                                    --    Lies centrally in the site
MoD                                                 ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Falls within buffer but not adjacent to AFS
                                                    +-    Lies within the buffer adjacent to AFS
                                                    -     Lies at the edge but within the AFS may be possible to mitigate
                                                    --    Lies centrally in the site
Crown                                               ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Falls within buffer but not adjacent to AFS
                                                    +-    Lies within the buffer adjacent to AFS
                                                    -     Lies at the edge but within the AFS may be possible to mitigate
                                                    --    Lies centrally in the site




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC            -6-
                                            a b     +/-   Comments
Forestry                                            ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Falls within buffer but not adjacent to AFS
                                                    +-    Lies within the buffer adjacent to AFS
                                                    -     Lies at the edge but within the AFS may be possible to mitigate
                                                    --    Lies centrally in the site
Other / Overall                                     ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-    Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

MINERAL ISSUES                                      ++    Plant in close proximity to the AFS / mobile plant in close proximity
Processing plant                                    +     good access
                                                    +-    5-10km in distance to plant but good access
                                                    -     Plant in close proximity under 5km to AFS but difficult access
                                                    --    Plant likely to be removed from nearby site shortly
                                                          None in close proximity – Plant removed from nearby site and now in
                                                          restoration
Rail depot                                          ++    Depot within 1-5km with good access
                                                    +     5-10km to depot but good access
                                                    +-    Depot within 1-5km but difficult access
                                                    -     5-10km to depot but difficult access
                                                    --    None in close proximity
Other / Overall                                     ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-    Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --

OTHER SERVICES                                      ++    None in close proximity
Overhead Power lines                                +     OHP within 100m of the site
                                                    +-    OHP cross the AFS
                                                    -
                                                    --
Gas                                                 ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Gas pipes within 100m of the site
                                                    +-    Pipes cross the AFS
                                                    -
                                                    --
Electricity                                         ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Electricity cables/pylons within 100m of the site
                                                    +-    Cables/pylons cross the site
                                                    -
                                                    --
Sewerage                                            ++    None in close proximity
                                                    +     Sewerage pipes within 100m of site
                                                    +-    Pipes cross the site
                                                    -
                                                    --
Other i.e. British Pipeline                         ++    None in close proximity
Agency                                              +     Pipes within 100m of site
                                                    +-    Pipes cross the site
                                                    -
                                                    --
Overall                                             ++
                                                    +
                                                    +-    Dependent on overall score
                                                    -
                                                    --




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC             -7-
OVERALL

Overall Score          ++
Overall Score          +
Overall Score          -
Overall Score          -
                                                    Major constraints should not be used for Mineral Extraction
Overall Score          --




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC      -8-
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 4           SW OF SAWBRIDGEWORTH



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Located away from other current workings, though close to Hollingson Meads
In rural location, but with farm in centre of site, and about 300m from High Wych village
Access along Redricks Lane (C161) has been used for mineral traffic in the past, and has
    good access to A414. However, use of this road by mineral traffic not now favoured by
    Highways.
Approximately two-thirds of the site is shown as being higher-grade farmland.
Industry suggest that the site is uneconomic or is subject to "real constraints"
No major biodiversity issues within the site
Can be restored to lower level
Landscape comments: SE area more suitable for extraction


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Site is the most easterly of the 21 AFSs/ISs


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Area: 95ha. At a notional 50,000t/ha, total yield = 4.75mt. At a notional 500,000tpa
    production, reserves would last around 10 years.
If higher-grade farmland is excluded, yield = 1.9mt and extraction would take around 4 years.
Potential for continuation of extraction through Hollingson Meads, but it is not known
    whether site is in control of any mineral company, or more particularly, of the mineral
    company that operates Hollingson Meads.


D           RESTORATION

Could be restored to low level.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Potential to impact nearby river - but not identified as a watercourse
    under particular threat.
English Nature: Concern over impact on County Wildlife Site to SW - care needed in
mitigation.



C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC     -9-
F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION                           No issue arises

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS
                        Close to Hollingson Meads, but simultaneous operations at the two
                sites can be avoided. No significant cumulative impact issues arise.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                   Site is of ’average’ size compared to the
                  AFSs/ISs as a whole. It’s identification as a Preferred Area would aid the
                  objective of securing a wide geographical spread of sites.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                               No - site can be restored at lower level.

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                        No critical constraints under this heading, though two-thirds of site is
                 higher grade farmland. In landscape terms, the SE portion of the site (i.e. SE
                 of C161) is more acceptable for extraction, but the NW area is not ruled out
                 given careful attention at the application stage.

      f     ACCESS      Use of local roads not favoured by Highways. Otherwise, good link to
                 the A414 makes this a sustainable location in highway terms.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES At its closest, site is 300m from
                 High Wych village, and 350m from school.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo issues that could not be addressed through
                appropriate mitigation.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Apart from the issue of access to local roads, this site gives rise to no major concerns. Even if
the area of higher-grade farmland is excluded, there remains well in excess of 1mt potentially
available, on either side of the C161. In landscape terms, the area SE of the C161 is regarded
as more suitable for extraction than the area to the north-west, but the NW section is not ruled
out on principle. Site has the advantage of aiding a wide spread of sites; against that, it is in a
rural area where no extraction currently takes place. The major drawback is the fact that
Highways do not favour the use of the C161 to provide access to the site, and no alternative
access is available to the site.

Conclusion: Site should be regarded as among the least acceptable of those under
            consideration, because of the difficulty of finding an acceptable access.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC      - 10 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 7           NORTH OF STANSTEAD ABBOTTS



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Concern over proximity of S/SW of site to houses in Cappell Lane, but the natural shape of
   the land would allow extraction on the plateau area without harm to these houses.
County Wildlife Site immediately NW of site must be safeguarded, and there area some areas
   of ecological interest within the site.
Approximately half the site is higher grade farmland.
No current workings nearby.
Industry suggest site is uneconomic or is subject to ’real constraints’.
Can be restored to lower level.
Access a problem: Highways do not favour minerals traffic passing through Ware or
   Stanstead Abbotts.
Landscape comments: With careful mitigation, extraction might be accommodated without
   permanent damage to the landscape.


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Area closest to houses could be excluded from the site without harming the integrity of the
remainder.
Landowner is known to be willing to allow land to be used for extraction.


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Area: 120ha. At a notional 50,000t/ha, total yield = 6mt. At a notional 500,000tpa
    production, reserves would last around 12 years.
If higher-grade farmland and other constrained areas within site are excluded, yield = 2.25mt
    and extraction would take around 4-5 years. Exclusion of additional areas close to houses
    in Cappell Lane would reduce the available area by around 5-8ha, still leaving around
    2mt available for extraction.
Site would require a new plant. Extraction has taken place at nearby Amwell Quarry in the
    past, but this is not available to serve this site.


D           RESTORATION

Low level restoration could be acceptable - opportunity for extensive woodland planting
   and/or general enhancement of site’s nature conservation interest.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC     - 11 -
E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Moderate to significant threat to water-dependant nature conservation
   sites and watercourses. Site should ideally be worked wet.
English Nature: Above average potential for restoration in a manner beneficial to nature
   conservation, having regard to the proximity of Amwell Quarry SSSI (part of Lea Valley
   SPA and Ramsar site) and to several County Wildlife Site woodlands.


F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION                           No issue arises

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS
                        Amwell Quarry restored to water/wetlands, whereas this site would be
                restored dry. No significant cumulative impact issues arise in landscape terms.
                However, if both Sites 7 and 8 were selected, this would give rise to
                cumulative traffic impacts in Ware.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                   Site is of ’average’ size compared to the
                  AFSs/ISs as a whole. Selection of this site, with or without Site 8, would
                  establish a new area of mineral extraction on the plateau east of Ware.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                               No - site can be restored at lower level.

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                         No critical constraints under this heading, but half the site is higher
                 grade farmland. There is considerable wildlife interest close to the site, but
                 only limited wildlife interest within the site itself.

      f     ACCESS      Highways do not favour routeing through either Ware or Stanstead
                 Abbotts. No acceptable alternative routeing has been identified.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Need to safeguard the amenities
                 of houses on Cappell Lane (100m from site boundary) and on Hunsdon Road
                 (B180). Care needed to protect the wildlife value of various locations adjacent
                 to site.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo overriding issue. Environment Agency
                regard this is as one of the 4 sites where extraction poses a moderate to
                significant threat to water-dependant nature conservation sites and
                watercourses, but indicate that these concerns could be met by appropriate
                mitigation.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The steeply-sloping area adjacent to Cappell Lane should be excluded because of the
unacceptable impact of working on adjacent houses. Otherwise site could be worked
relatively unobtrusively, and restoration could be beneficial to nature conservation interests.
However, Highways do not favour traffic being routed through either Ware or Stanstead
Abbotts, and no alternative access is available to the site.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC      - 12 -
Conclusion: Notwithstanding the potential for beneficial restoration and the ability to
            restrict the site area to keep working unobtrusive, the site should be
            regarded as among the least acceptable of those under consideration,
            because of the difficulty above all of finding an acceptable access. In
            addition, the sloping land to the NE of Cappell Lane is subject to strong
            objections on residential amenity grounds, although this consideration
            would not rule out the whole site.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 13 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 8           EAST OF WARE



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Western boundary of site is drawn 100m from properties on the eastern edge of Ware, but
    any necessary mitigation measures could be incorporated without harm to the integrity of
    the site as a whole.
Site is visible from the B1004 (Widbury Hill), but working could be ’compartmentalised’ by
    taking advantage of existing vegetation.
No current workings nearby.
Virtually all of the site is higher-grade farmland.
Industry suggest site is uneconomic and subject to significant levels of constraint.
Various landscape features within site would require protection.
No major biodiversity issues within the site, but nearby County Wildlife Sites must be
    safeguarded.


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Proximity of western boundary to major settlement.


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Area: 77ha. At a notional 50,000t/ha, total yield = 3.85mt. At a notional 500,000tpa
    production, reserves would last around 7.5-8 years.
If higher-grade farmland within the site is excluded, the remaining area would be too small to
    merit further consideration.
Site would require a new plant. Extraction has taken place at nearby Amwell Quarry in the
    past, but this is not available to serve this site.


D           RESTORATION

Low level restoration could be acceptable, to arable farmland with additional woodland
cover, or to grassland.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Hertfordshire Wildlife Trust: Notes the presence of wildlife sites within the site boundaries.
   (This is queried as there are no designated wildlife sites within the boundary of AFS8)
Environment Agency: Moderate to significant threat to water-dependant nature conservation
   sites and watercourses. Site should ideally be worked wet.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC     - 14 -
English Nature: Note that restoration may offer the potential for providing a buffer to the
   (off-site) County Wildlife Site at Wood Lane, and to extend interest by creating a new
   green lane around the other boundaries of the site.


F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION                           No issue arises

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS
                        Amwell Quarry restored to water/wetlands, whereas this site would be
                restored dry. No significant cumulative impact issues arise in landscape terms.
                However, if both Sites 7 and 8 were selected, this would give rise to
                cumulative traffic impacts in Ware.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                   Site is of ’average’ size compared to the
                  AFSs/ISs as a whole. Selection of this site, with or without Site 7, would
                  establish a new area of mineral extraction on the plateau east of Ware.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                                         No - site can be restored at lower level.

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                          No critical constraints under this heading, but virtually the whole of the
                 site is higher grade farmland. There is wildlife interest close to the site, but
                 only limited wildlife interest within the site itself.

      f     ACCESS      Highways do not favour routeing through either Ware or Stanstead
                 Abbotts. No acceptable alternative routeing has been identified.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Need to safeguard the amenities
                 of houses in Ware to the west of site, and other scattered properties within and
                 adjacent to site. Care needed to protect the wildlife value of various locations
                 near site.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo overriding issue. Environment Agency
                regard this is as one of the 4 sites where extraction poses a moderate to
                significant threat to water-dependant nature conservation sites and
                watercourses, but indicate that these concerns could be met by appropriate
                mitigation.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

With appropriate protection for the houses to the west and individual properties within and
adjacent to the site, it could be an acceptable location for extraction. Restoration could be
beneficial to nature conservation interests. However, Highways do not favour traffic being
routed through Ware, and there is no realistic alternative access available to the site.

Conclusion: Notwithstanding the potential for beneficial restoration and limited
            impacts on important interests, the site should be regarded as among the
            least acceptable of those under consideration, because of the difficulty of
            finding an acceptable access.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC             - 15 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 10               EAST OF HIGH CROSS



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Site is in rural area, distant from other mineral workings and from major built-up areas
    (though close to the village of High Cross).
Areas closest to High Cross could be excluded without harming the integrity of the site as a
    whole.
Almost the entire site is higher grade farmland.
Ancient woodland central within the site, and other County Wildlife Site astride the site’s
    northern boundary.
Site is bisected by the line of the new A10 by-pass.
Site would be visible from the new A10, though not from the present A10. Also visible from
    Barwick Lane to the north.
Access to the new A10 unacceptable. The only potential access would be to the old A10 or to
    Barwick Lane. This would cause mineral traffic to be routed southwards through High
    Cross and Thundridge, or northwards through Colliers End. This would reduce the benefit
    of the by-passing of these villages which will result from the construction of the new
    A10.
Industry consider the site to have "serious prospects"


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Earlier suggestions were that the site could act as a borrow pit for construction of the new
   A10, but this is not now a possibility, as an alternative site has already been permitted for
   this purpose. Moreover, construction of the by-pass should be well under way if not
   completed before the MLP is adopted.
Landowner is known to be willing to allow land to be used for extraction.


C           YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Area: 111ha. At a notional 50,000t/ha, total yield = 5.5mt. At a notional 500,000tpa
    production, reserves would last around 11 years. This yield would reduce to around
    3.65mt (= 7.5-8 years) if the County Wildlife Sites are excluded.
If higher-grade farmland within the site is excluded, the remaining area would be too small to
    merit further consideration.
Site would require a new plant. There appears to be little or no opportunity for continued
    extraction beyond the site boundaries as currently shown. This would therefore be a
    ’standalone’ operation.
See Section A above on access. Material from part of the site would have to cross the line of
    the new A10 to reach an access either on Barwick Lane or on the present A10.


C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 16 -
D           RESTORATION

Not specifically stated whether low level restoration could be achieved. But if it were, this
   would leave the woodland areas as higher-level ’islands’ within the site, and could leave
   the new A10 as a ’causeway’ through it. Restoration could enable beneficial extension of
   existing woodland areas (though this would be at the expense of higher-grade farmland).


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Extraction from this site has potential to impact the nearby R. Rib.
   This is one of three sites where particular concern is expressed on this issue, because the
   site is adjacent to a low flow river which requires extra protection.


F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION                           No issue arises.

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS                               No
                issue arises

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION             Site is of ’average’ size compared to the AFSs/ISs as a
                  whole. Selection of this site would aid the objective of securing a wide
                  geographical spread of sites.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL           Assume that none is needed, unless required to ensure a
                 satisfactory landform (i.e. to blend the contours of the restored site with those
                 of the new road and the existing woodland areas within the site).

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                        Need to avoid extraction from, or harm to, the county wildlife sites
                 within and adjacent to the site. Virtually the whole of the site is higher-grade
                 farmland.

      f     ACCESS       Concerns arise from (a) the need for heavy traffic from the site to pass
                 through by-passed villages, thus reducing the benefit of the new by-pass, and
                 (b) the need for minerals to cross the new A10 to reach the site access
                 (wherever that may be located).

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Site boundaries are drawn 100m
                 from properties in High Cross. Additional mitigation measures may be needed
                 to ensure adequate protection to amenities of these properties, but this could
                 be done without harm to integrity of the site as a whole.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo overriding issue, but particular care would be
                needed in view of Environment Agency concern over impact on nearby low-
                flow river.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC              - 17 -
G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The presence of the County Wildlife Site centrally located within the site, and of the line of
the new A10 running north-south through the site, could make this a difficult site to work
acceptably. It may also be difficult to secure an acceptable post-restoration landform without
the importation of some filling materials.

A more immediate problem concerns access, and the environmental impact of routeing traffic
for several years through villages that are about to be by-passed by construction of the new
A10. There may also be difficulties in removing material from the site across the new A10,
and of importing any necessary filling material to the parts of the site that lie on the ’far’ side
of the A10 from the site access. If access from the site were possible to the new A10 these
issues could be overcome, but Highways have indicated that no such access would be
possible.

Conclusion: Site should be regarded as among the least acceptable of those under
            consideration, because of the difficulty of finding an acceptable access and
            because of the unacceptable environmental implications of the necessary
            routeing of mineral traffic through villages that are being by-passed by
            construction of the new A10.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 18 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 11               NORTH OF HERTFORD



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Extraction could be an extension to the existing Rickneys operation, using an established
    inconspicuous plant which has good access to the main road network, with an established
    haul route in place.
Very large site - it would be possible to identify only part of it if necessary or appropriate.
    Alternatively, it would be possible for two separate workings to operate within the site -
    one operating through the existing Rickneys plant, the other through a new plant with
    access to the A602.
Village of Chapmore End lies within the AFS boundary - measures would be needed to
    safeguard the village’s amenities.
Ancient woodland areas within and adjacent to site will require safeguarding.
Possible areas of archaeological interest within site will need to be investigated at application
    stage.
Conflicting attitudes regarding filling/restoration. On landscape grounds, the advice is that
    the site should not be restored to lower levels; generally, the landscape is regarded as very
    sensitive and in need of extreme care. However, Environment Agency and Water
    Company have indicated that they would only accept low level restoration because of the
    sensitivity of the Wadesmill Road pumping station.
Landscape comments: Any extraction should be kept within the centre of the plateau rather
    than on the edges.
There is no higher-grade farmland within the site1.
In the past, extraction from the northern part of the site has been less favoured because of
    impacts on landscape.
Industry regards the site as having "serious prospects".


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Known mineral company interest.


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Total site area is 404ha, with an estimated yield (based on figures supplied with previous
   applications) of 12-13mt. At 750,000tpa production (capacity of current Rickney’s plant),
   these reserves would last around 16-17 years.
The presence of the existing plant allows at least part of the site to be worked as an extension
   to the current Rickney’s operation.

1
 This is based on the generic information from DEFRA. The 1995 application indicted that, within the
application area 0.7% was Grade 2 and 18.3% of the land was Grade 3a.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 19 -
D           RESTORATION

Would have to be at lower level, to accommodate the requirements of the Environment
  Agency/Water Company. Site could be restored to grassland, but absence of higher-grade
  farmland would allow restoration to non-agricultural uses (woodland etc) where
  appropriate for landscape or other reasons.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Extraction from this site has potential to impact nearby rivers. This is
   one of three sites where particular concern is expressed on this issue, because the site is
   adjacent to a low flow river which requires extra protection. Site includes some areas
   within Groundwater Protection Zones where the Agency would object to landfilling.
F      PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION       Mineral could be sterilised in short term if not worked through
                 existing Rickneys plant. However, the scale of the resources available in the
                 site would allow it to be worked as a freestanding operation at some future
                 date.

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS                             Site
                has potential to accommodate two separate workings (Rickneys extension in
                south and a separate operation in north), though care would be needed to avoid
                simultaneous working in the area north and south of Chapmore End. However,
                limiting activity to a single operation would avoid the risk of cumulative
                impacts arising, and would avoid a concentration of extraction activities in just
                this one part of the county.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION           This is one of the largest of the sites currently under
                  consideration. There are established workings adjacent to the southern part of
                  the AFS. The southern part of the site is close to Hertford, in an area with a
                  history of mineral working.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                   Probably not appropriate, to meet the
                 requirements of the Environment Agency and Water Company. However, to
                 meet landscape objectives there may be a case for allowing some selective
                 landfilling if this can be accommodated without harm to the EA/Water
                 Company’s interests.

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                        Site has no critical characteristics under this heading. It contains no
                 higher-grade farmland, but individual areas of ancient woodland within and
                 adjacent to site will require safeguarding.

      f     ACCESS     There is good access from the existing Rickneys site on to B158
                 (Wadesmill Road).

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES This is a large site, which
                 inevitably contains or adjoins some sensitive features, including the village of

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 20 -
                        Chapmore End, various scattered development, and areas of ecological or
                        landscape importance. It should be possible to design a pattern of extraction
                        and mitigation that would avoid unacceptable impacts on such features.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo overriding issue, but particular care would be
                needed in view of Environment Agency concern over impact on nearby low-
                flow rivers, and to protect the ancient woodland from any adverse effects
                resulting from the lowering of the water table.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

This is a very large site. Overall no overriding concerns have been identified which should
preclude it from serious consideration for inclusion in the new Minerals Local Plan.

However, if it were all identified for extraction now, then either it would contain more
reserves than could be worked during the Plan period (if all the material were to be processed
at a single plant); or it would be necessary to contemplate two separate operations taking
place within the site simultaneously, which would conflict with the Panel’s wish to see a wide
geographical spread of sites, and could give rise to unacceptable cumulative impacts in terms
of traffic generation, impact on Chapmore End, and general disturbance in the area north of
Hertford.

Taking account of the following factors -
     • the wish for working of the site to be through the existing plant only
     • the fact that the existing plant is located towards the south of the AFS
     • the desire, for landscape reasons, to restrict extraction to the central plateau area,
it is considered that separate conclusions should be drawn for different parts of the site.

Conclusion:

1           The southern area bounded by Sacombe Road, the road through Stoneyhills and
            Dimmings, the bridleway running west of Chapmore End, then field boundaries
            to the south of Chapmore End and north of Rickneys Cottages, and Wadesmill
            Road (B158) should be regarded as one of the most acceptable of the areas now
            under consideration. This area has an estimated yield of 5-6mt.
2           The remainder of the site (excluding areas west of Sacombe Road) should be
            regarded as having possible longer-term potential, but is not considered suitable
            for inclusion in the present Reviewed Local Plan. This area has an estimated yield
            of 7.2mt.
3           The area west of Sacombe Road and south of Church Lane (Stapleford) should
            be regarded as among the least acceptable of the areas now under consideration.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 21 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 12               PANSHANGER/BRAMFIELD PARK



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

(i) Panshanger section

Proximity of northern and south-western sections of site to densely built-up areas of Welwyn
    Garden City
Northern part of site includes Panshanger Aerodrome buildings and runway
Site has good access to the C51 and thence to the A414
No higher-grade farmland within site
Southern part of site has archaeological potential
Northern and southern parts of site are separated by County Wildlife Site, and there is another
    in extreme SW.
Northern part of site is divided centrally by Warrengate Farm and Bericot Green

(ii) Bramfield Park section

In rural area.
No higher-grade farmland within site
Access possible to B1000.
West side of site is close to Tewin.
In landscape terms, the eastern part of the site (east of the bridlepath/cycleway approx 250m
    from site boundary) is more suitable for extraction than the western part, but extraction
    here would still be widely visible.
Contains a number of areas of archaeological potential
Bramfield Park Wood (County Wildlife Site) adjoins northern boundary, and other CWSs
    within or adjacent to southern boundary.

(iii)General

Industry regards the site as having "serious prospects"


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

(i) Panshanger section

Northern part is in non-agricultural use (airfield)




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 22 -
C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

(i) Panshanger section

Total site area around 200ha. At a notional 50,000t/ha, total yield = 10mt. If constrained areas
    within the site (including County Wildlife Sites and buffers to address-points within and
    adjacent to site) are excluded, area reduces to around 130ha, with a total yield of around
    6.4mt. At a notional 500,000tpa production, these reserves would last around 12-13 years.
Site would require a new plant if it is to be worked in the Plan period, although it could be
    worked through the existing plant at Panshanger (to the east) if its release were delayed
    until the present Panshanger operation is complete.
Preferred location for plant would be close to C51, from where there is good access to the
    primary road network.

(ii) Bramfield Park section

Total site area around 280ha. At a notional 50,000t/ha, total yield = 14mt. At a notional
    500,000tpa production, these reserves would last around 28 years.
Site would require a new plant if it is to be worked in the Plan period, although it could be
    worked through the existing plant at Panshanger (to the east) if its release were delayed
    until the present Panshanger operation is complete. If worked during the plan period, it
    could be worked through the new plant referred to above adjacent to the C51.


D           RESTORATION

(i) Panshanger section

Could be restored to low level, but should not form wetlands. There is potential for
   restoration to enhance nature conservation interests.

(ii) Bramfield Park section

Restoration should be back to current levels. Again, there is potential for restoration to
   benefit nature conservation.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

General

Environment Agency: Moderate to significant threat to water-dependant nature conservation
   sites and watercourses. Site should ideally be worked wet.
English Nature: Concern over potential impact on Tewinbury SSSI, the R Mimram and
   Bramfield Woods. There should be no increased silt loading of the Mimram. There is
   very high potential for restoration in a manner beneficial to nature conservation.


F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION       The Panshanger area closest to houses in the NE of Welwyn
                 Garden City is indicated in the Welwyn/Hatfield Local Plan as having possible

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 23 -
                        longer-term development potential. To ensure that the minerals here are not
                        sterilised by any such development, the options are either to identify this area
                        now in the MLP, before sterilisation becomes an issue; or to consider
                        extraction at the time of any future development, in accordance with more
                        general policies which might favour the extraction of minerals prior to
                        development where possible. (A third alternative would be to rule out
                        extraction from this land altogether, although such policies are not favoured in
                        Minerals Local Plans.) At Bramfield Park, no issues arise under this heading.

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS
                        There is a large existing working at Panshanger to the east, but the
                access to this site is not near the suggested access point to AFS12. Workings
                could be phased to ensure that working does not take place simultaneously on
                either side of the C51.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION            Individually, the Panshanger and Bramfield Park areas
                  are larger than the average size of the AFSs and ISs now under consideration.
                  The Panshanger site adjoins an existing working area (to the east), while the
                  Bramfield Park site would extend extraction away from the main built-up parts
                  of the county. Selection of the latter as a Preferred Area would help to avoid
                  the concentration of sites in established mineral working areas.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL           Not needed at Panshanger, but needed at Bramfield
                 Park to allow land to be restored to its current levels.

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                          Neither site contains any higher-grade farmland. The Bramfield Park
                 site lies in a Landscape Conservation Area.

      f     ACCESS     Satisfactory access can be provided to the C51/A414 (Panshanger), or
                 B1000 (Bramfield Park)

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Extraction at Panshanger
                 (especially the northern part of the site) would be close to, and visible from,
                 high-density residential development in Welwyn Garden City, as well as
                 adjoining individual properties within the site. This part of the site is currently
                 in use as an airfield. The western side of the Bramfield Park site adjoins the
                 linear village of Tewin; other parts of this site include, or lie adjacent to,
                 designated County Wildlife Sites.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo overriding issue. Environment Agency
                regard this is as one of the 4 sites where extraction poses a moderate to
                significant threat to water-dependant nature conservation sites and
                watercourses, but indicate that these concerns could be met by appropriate
                mitigation.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 24 -
G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

(i)         Panshanger - northern section

The main concern here is the potential impact of extraction on the adjacent dwellings in NE
Welwyn Garden City. This part of the site is also fragmented by centrally-located farms and
other buildings, and extraction here would conflict with the established airfield use.
Sterilisation concerns could be dealt with (if appropriate) under a policy which allows for
extraction prior to development, without the need for the prior designation of the site as a
Preferred Area. There is no prima facie reason why the concerns identified in this area could
not be mitigated satisfactorily*, and in other respects the site has certain merits: it has good
access, a processing plant could be located well away from houses, and there would be no
loss of higher-grade farmland or of other important environmental features.

Conclusion: Because of the concerns about the impact of extraction on the houses on
            the present edge of Welwyn Garden City, and the impact on the
            established airfield use, this part of the site is not considered to be a front-
            line candidate for identification as a Preferred Area. However, it should
            not be ruled out altogether at this stage.

(ii)        Panshanger - southern section

Although at one point along its western boundary this site also lies adjacent to residential
development, the number of properties involved is not as great as in the case of the northern
section of the site. Again, no reason is seen why the impacts on these dwellings could not be
satisfactorily mitigated*. The County Wildlife Sites should be excluded from further
consideration. Otherwise, this area is considered to be subject to no issues that would rule it
out as a potential Preferred Area.

Conclusion: This part of the site, with the exclusion of the County Wildlife Sites,
            should be regarded as one of the most acceptable of the sites now under
            consideration.




_____________________
* In considering this point, it should be noted that the boundary of the AFS has already been
drawn to provide a 100-metre buffer between the AFS and the rear boundaries of the
properties concerned. Increased ’stand-offs’, and/or screen planting or other screening
measures, can be provided if necessary, to reduce the impacts of extraction on houses. The
exact width of the required buffer zone, and the details of other mitigation measures that are
appropriate in any particular case, are decided at the development control stage rather than at
the time of drawing up the Local Plan.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 25 -
(iii)       Bramfield Park

The area west of the footpath/cycleway referred to above is not favoured, above all because
of the sensitivity of the landscape in this location. This is also the part of the site closest to
Tewin village. The part of the site to the east is an attractive rural area where there is
potential for mineral extraction. Only a very small number of houses would be directly
affected by extraction from this eastern area, other than in the extreme north-east towards
Bramfield village. However, extraction would create an intrusion into an undisturbed rural
area where it would be widely visible

Conclusion: The area west of the footpath/cycleway (lying just to the west of National
            Grid easting 28) is not favoured for selection as a Preferred Area, but
            there is no overriding reason for rejecting it and it should not therefore be
            regarded as among the ’least acceptable’ sites for extraction. The eastern
            part of this area is also not favoured, but because extraction here would
            have a lesser impact on sensitive uses (in particular on houses), it is
            considered more suitable for extraction, if needed, than the western area.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 26 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 13               SOUTH-WEST OF WELWYN GARDEN
CITY



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Large, open site
Over two-thirds is higher grade farmland
No significant biodiversity or landscape considerations
Areas of archaeological potential in north and south-east
Potential for landscape improvement through restoration
Industry consider site to be economically viable and a ’serious prospect’
One mineral operator seeks a minor westward extension as far as Symondshyde Farm
Adjacent to urban areas to east and south, stretching into more rural areas to north and west
No current workings nearby.


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

SW side of site is adjacent to the NE of AFS15 (BAe Hatfield)
No ’designated areas’ (County Wildlife Sites, etc) within site, and only a few scattered houses


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Total site area around 390ha. At a notional 50,000t/ha, total yield = around 19mt. If
    constrained areas within the site (chiefly buffer zones to houses) are excluded, yield
    would fall to around 17mt. At a notional 500,000tpa production, reserves would last over
    30 years.
If higher-grade farmland is also excluded, potential yield would fall to perhaps 5mt.
Site would be a new operation, requiring a new plant site. Access should be to the east (on to
    Brocket Road B653)


D           RESTORATION

No indications that low-level restoration would be ruled out.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Potential to impact nearby river. In this case, the R Lea is at some
   distance from the site - over 300m at its closest point, and separated from it by various
   roads including the A1M.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 27 -
F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION                           No issue arises

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS                            Site
                is in an area with no established mineral workings (though Sutton’s Farm and
                restored areas of Hatfield Quarry lie a little way to the SW). Proximity of
                AFS15 indicates possible cumulative impacts if these two sites were both
                selected as Preferred Areas, and worked simultaneously.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                  Large site in an area with some history of past
                  working, and adjacent to Preferred Area in current MLP (BAe). Site
                  approaches Welwyn and Hatfield, but is separated from them by the ’natural
                  boundary’ of the A1M.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                               No - site could be restored at lower level.

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                        No designations within site, though a large proportion of site is higher
                 grade farmland.

      f     ACCESS      Access to A653 would be satisfactory in highway terms, but would
                 involve mineral traffic passing a row of houses on that road en route to the
                 primary network. Access to the ’Jack Oldings’ roundabout, with access off A1,
                 was explored as part of the previous MLP inquiry, and may be possible.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Houses on Brocket Road to east,
                 and at Hatfield Garden Village to south east, would require safeguarding. Both
                 are within 100m of site boundary (note that suite boundary has been
                 deliberately drawn to provide a 100m buffer to these properties; additional
                 measures could also be taken at the application stage to protect them further if
                 required).

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo particular concerns.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Subject to the access being judged acceptable in environmental terms, and to adequate
protection being provided for houses within the site and adjacent to its boundaries, extraction
from this area would be acceptable. The minor extension of the site to Symondshyde Farm,
requested by a mineral operator, is also judged acceptable: it would not bring additional
constrained areas into the site, and would secure a boundary for the site that follows features
that can be seen on the ground (lane and footpath).

However, selection of this site as well as AFS15 would introduce concerns about cumulative
impact on the wider area, and could result in a significant concentration of new working in
this one part of the county. For reasons set out in the summary for AFS15, it is considered
that there are merits in encouraging the earlier release of AFS15, leaving AFS 13 as a
potential longer-term site.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC      - 28 -
Conclusion: Site is one of the most acceptable of the sites under consideration. The
            decision on whether it should be identified as a Preferred Area in the
            MLP Review should take account of the decision reached on the adjacent
            site AFS15.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 29 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 15               BAe, HATFIELD



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Site is adjacent to the Development Land at the former BAe site.
There is some overlap in the east of the AFS between AFS15 and the ’Future Development
    Land’. The area where these two ’designations’ overlap should be excluded from the AFS.
    The following discussion of the site, including site areas etc, assumes that the area in
    question does not form part of AFS15
About half of the site is indicated as higher grade farmland, but it is thought that in practice it
    is probably of lower quality.
Site lies in Watling Chase Community Forest, and has potential for restoration to include
    extensive new woodland.
County Wildlife Site (Home Covert/Round Wood) in north-centre of site
Potential to minimise disturbance arising from extraction by synchronising it with
    construction operations on the ’Future Development Land’
Industry consider site to be economically viable and a ’serious prospect’


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Site is identified as a Preferred Area in current MLP.
No ’low’ scores in any part of the detailed sustainability assessment
Scope for restoration to enhance objectives of Watling Chase Community Forest


C           YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Area (excluding the part of the site in the ’Future Development Land’ is approximately 175ha.
     Information provided since the previous MLP inquiry indicates a likely yield of 12-15mt.
     At a notional 500,000tpa production, these reserves would last 25-30 years.
If the area shown as higher-grade farmland is excluded, area and yield fall by approximately
     half.
New plant would be required, with access to A1057 (St Albans Road) to south-east.


D           RESTORATION

Can include extensive woodland.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES



C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 30 -
Environment Agency: Potential to impact nearby rivers. It is not clear which rivers they are
   referring to - there are no rivers within or close to the site


F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION          This was one of the issues that led to selection of this site as a
                 Preferred Area in current MLP. However, the arguments are not as strong as
                 they were at that time, as much of the development of the ’Future
                 Development Land’ is now progressing, and so the opportunity to co-ordinate
                 mineral extraction with that development has, in part, passed. However, there
                 is still merit in working this site sooner rather than later, to minimise the
                 overall period of disturbance resulting from the redevelopment of the BAe
                 site.

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS
                        Possible concern over cumulative impact with activities at AFS13 (qv),
                but sites are sufficiently large to allow working areas to be well separated.
                However, selection of these two sites together could be considered as
                excessive concentration of new operations in one small part of the county.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                   Site is of average size compared to the AFSs/ISs
                  as a whole. Adjacent to an area of past and existing workings (Hatfield
                  Quarry)

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                              None

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                        One County Wildlife Site would need to be protected. There are some
                 doubts about whether any part of the site is higher grade farmland - the
                 previous MLP inquiry suggested that the site is Grade 3B at best.

      f     ACCESS                  Satisfactory access can be provided, close to the primary network

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Adjoins university and
                 commercial uses on the ’Future Development Land’. Small residential area to
                 south (Ellenbrook).

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo significant concerns.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

No significant drawbacks have been identified, subject to the necessary exclusion of the part
of the AFS that overlaps the ’Future Development Land’. The sterilisation arguments that
encouraged its current designation as a Preferred Area are not as strong as formerly, but the
site still emerges in its own right as a strong candidate for Preferred Area status in the new
Plan. Working both this area and AFS13 during the Plan period would represent a significant
concentration of activity in one part of the county; if the choice is between one or the other, it
would be preferable to work AFS15 first in order to minimise the period of disturbance at the
former airfield site; AFS15 also has a less sensitive access than AFS13, and restoration at


C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC     - 31 -
AFS15 can be used to achieve the objectives of the Community Forest (AFS13 is not within
the Community Forest area).

Conclusion: Site is one of the most acceptable of the sites under consideration.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 32 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 16               HIGHFIELD / HILL END



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Site surrounds Tyttenhanger Village - risk of isolating the village
Site includes a number of small County Wildlife Sites
Could be worked through existing plant at Tyttenhanger Quarry, though this would mean
    material having to cross the A414
Access improvements would be required
There is a small area of higher grade farmland on the south-east of site
Site is contained within strong ’natural’ boundaries formed by the A414, the A1081 and
    Colney Heath Lane
Industry suggest that the site is subject to ’real constraints’


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Tyttenhanger village is central within site. Boundary of AFS has been drawn to exclude the
   village and a 100-metre buffer around it.


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Total area 191ha. At a notional 50,000t/ha, the total yield would be 9.5mt, which at a notional
   production rate of 500,000tpa means that the reserve could last up to 20 years. Some
   reductions to these figures would be required to reflect minor constrained areas within the
   site.
Material could be processed at Tyttenhanger Quarry. However, this Quarry already has
   sufficient permitted reserves to last through the Plan period. Hence this site could not
   contribute to provision during the Plan period unless a new plant were provided.
Access could be taken to Colney Heath Lane to the east, subject to highway improvements;
   or to the Highfield park/Nightingale Lane roundabout to the west. Direct access to the
   A414 would not be permitted.


D           RESTORATION

Site is in area of Watling Chase Community Forest. Restoration affords opportunity for
    general landscape enhancement, with woodland planting.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Countryside Agency: Opportunities for landscape enhancement and recreation.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 33 -
Environment Agency: Potential to impact nearby river (Colne).
English Nature: There are County Wildlife Sites in the excluded area around Tyttenhanger,
   which are important for great crested newts. It is likely that the newts are dependent upon
   areas within the AFS for part of their terrestrial habitat.


F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION                           No issue arises

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS
                       Potential for adverse impacts of operations to both east and west of
                Tyttenhanger village. Additionally, site could only be worked in Plan period if
                a new plant were provided, which would mean two plants operating close to
                each other: possible over-concentration of operations, particularly given the
                wish for a wide geographical spread of sites.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                    Site is a little larger than the average size of
                  AFSs and ISs. It lies adjacent to an established mineral working area (i.e. the
                  area centred on Tyttenhanger Quarry), but is separated from that area by the
                  strong visual and physical barrier of the A414.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                                         None

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                        County Wildlife Sites within and close to site would require
                 safeguarding, as would the interests of protected species (great crested newts).
                 Small area of higher grade farmland in south-east of site.

      f     ACCESS     Satisfactory access can be provided close to the primary network, but
                 some highway improvements would be necessary.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Site lies close to SE edge of St
                 Albans, and in particular to the recently redeveloped area of the former Cell
                 Barnes hospital. The westward access would take minerals traffic along the
                 ’perimeter road’ adjacent to this new development.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo significant issues


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Material from this site could not contribute to provision during the Plan period unless it were
processed at a new plant within the AFS. The choices are therefore either to leave the site for
consideration in a future review, or to allow a separate plant to be constructed within the site
to enable it to be worked during the Plan period.

This second option would give rise to cumulative impact concerns, both in terms of the direct
impact on Tyttenhanger village and the wider consequences of having two plant sites close
together (i.e. one here and one at Tyttenhanger Quarry).



C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC             - 34 -
The site boundaries have been drawn to exclude the village of Tyttenhanger, but nevertheless
extraction here would affect a large number of people (at Tyttenhanger, at the redeveloped
Cell Barnes site, and along A1081 and Colney Heath Lane adjacent to the western and
eastern site boundaries respectively) to a limited extent.

Selection of this site would extend working across the A414 towards St Albans. Existing
workings in this area, and other sites under consideration in the present exercise, are all on
the south side of the A414.

Conclusion: This site is subject to a number of concerns regarding in particular its
            location in relation to residential areas and to existing areas of mineral
            working, and the impacts of the new plant that would be required if the
            site is to contribute to provision in the Plan period. Together, these
            features mean that the site is not favoured for selection as a Preferred
            Area. However, there is no single overriding reason for rejecting it, and it
            should not therefore be regarded as among the ’least acceptable’ sites for
            extraction.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 35 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 17               NORTH EAST OF LONDON COLNEY



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

County Wildlife Site in centre-south of site, adjoining an area of archeological potential
Northern tip is higher grade farmland
Roadside trees limit visual impact from A414
Could be worked through existing plant at Tyttenhanger Quarry
In area of existing workings
Industry suggest that the site is subject to ’real constraints’


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Lies between past workings and AFS16.


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Total area 76ha. Area remaining after removal of major constrained areas (County Wildlife
   Site, playing field, buffers to properties on edge of site) 53ha. At a notional yield of
   50,000t/ha, this represents a reserve of 2.6mt, which at a notional production rate of
   500,000tpa would take around 5 years to extract.
Material could be processed at Tyttenhanger Quarry. However, this Quarry already has
   sufficient permitted reserves to last through the Plan period. Hence this site could not
   contribute to provision during the Plan period unless a new plant were provided.
Access to any new plant within the site could be taken from A1081 (left-in, left-out)


D           RESTORATION

Site is in area of Watling Chase Community Forest. Restoration affords opportunity for
    incorporation of substantial blocks of woodland planting.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Potential to impact nearby river (Colne)
English Nature: County Wildlife Site within site is extremely rich in wildlife.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 36 -
F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION                           No issue arises

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS                        Site
                could only be worked in Plan period if a new plant were provided, which
                would mean two plants operating close to each other: possible over-
                concentration of operations, particularly given the wish for a wide
                geographical spread of sites.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                   Average size compared with other AFSs and
                  ISs. In an established working area.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                                         None

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                        County Wildlife Sites within site would require safeguarding. Area of
                 higher grade farmland in north-east of site.

      f     ACCESS                  Satisfactory access can be provided close to the primary network.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES A small number of houses
                 adjacent to NE and western boundary. Houses in London Colney are separated
                 from site by B1081. Small playing field within site.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo significant issues


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The site is not subject to major concerns in its own right. However, material from the site
could not contribute to provision during the Plan period unless it were processed at a new
plant within the AFS. The choices are therefore either to leave the site for consideration in a
future review, or to allow a separate plant to be constructed within the site to enable it to be
worked during the Plan period.

This second option would give rise to cumulative impact concerns, and could be seen as
encouraging undue concentration of mineral working in this locality.

If it is considered that an additional site or sites is acceptable in this area, even with a new
plant, this site is considered preferable to AFS16 because it is closer to existing working
areas; it does not involve crossing the ’natural barrier’ of the A414 towards St Albans;
satisfactory access is available without highway improvements; and it would affect fewer
houses within or adjacent to the site.

Conclusion: On its own merits, this site is not subject to any major concerns which
            would suggest that it is unsuitable for designation as a Preferred Area.
            However, cumulative impact issues would arise if the site is to contribute
            to provision during the Plan period. The site is therefore not regarded as
            one of the most suitable sites for selection as a Preferred Area, but it
            would be an acceptable site if the concerns over cumulative impact issues
            are not regarded as decisive.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC             - 37 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 18               COURSERS ROAD



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Open site - opportunity with advance works and restoration proposals to create a new or
   reconstructed landscape with substantial areas of woodland, thus furthering Community
   Forest objectives.
Approximately 75% is higher grade farmland.
Extraction can be accommodated without detriment to landscape character.
Can use existing/permitted access to south side of Coursers Road.
Can be worked through existing Tyttenhanger plant.
Eastern boundary of site adjoins County Wildlife Site, but no identified ecological interest
   within the site.
Industry consider the site to be a ’serious prospect’.


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Site is in two parts, separated by an area with a recent permission for extraction.


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Total site area 99ha; the two parcels are of roughly equal size. At a national 50,000t/ha,
   combined yield of the sites (excluding the area immediately around Coursers farm in the
   eastern parcel) would be around 4.5mt. At a notional production rate of 500,000tpa, this
   reserve would take around 9 years to extract.
Material could be processed at Tyttenhanger Quarry. However, this Quarry already has
   sufficient permitted reserves to last through the Plan period. Hence this site could not
   contribute to provision during the Plan period unless a new plant were provided, or unless
   the phasing of all workings on the south side of Coursers Road (including the recently-
   permitted area) were revised in a way which would enable these sites to come on stream
   (in whole or in part) during the Plan period. Even then, there would be no net increase in
   the amount of material that could be provided during the Plan period from sites on the
   south side of Coursers Road.
Given the site’s proximity to the Tyttenhanger plant, and the fact that the land between the
   two parts of AFS18 is to be worked through Tyttenhanger, no merit is seen in working the
   AFS through a separate, new plant.
Access from the site to Tyttenhanger plant site would be as for the adjacent site already
   permitted.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 38 -
D           RESTORATION

Countryside Agency advocate restoration to agriculture. English Nature suggest that there is
   an opportunity for heathland restoration. Landscape and Community Forest objectives
   suggest the incorporation of new woodland within the restoration proposals.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Countryside Agency: This is visible agricultural land - it will need plant screening and
   quality restoration to agricultural land.
Environment Agency: Potential to impact the nearby river (Colne).
English Nature: Site may offer potential for heathland restoration.


F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION         No issue arises. If site is not identified in present Plan, it would
                 still be potentially available for consideration in future Plan reviews.

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS                           Site
                forms a logical extension of permitted workings; there may be a case for
                rephasing working at the permitted site to allow a more orderly pattern of
                working across all the area south of Coursers Road. Simultaneous working
                with the permitted site not acceptable.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                   Between them, the two parcels make up a site
                  which is of average size compared with the AFSs and ISs as a whole. In an
                  established mineral working area, adjacent to permitted extraction site.
                  Individually, each of the two parcels is big enough to be worth extracting
                  (especially in conjunction with the adjacent permitted area).

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                              None

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                         No significant landscape issues, or other environmental designations
                 within the site. Most of site is higher grade farmland: if restoration to
                 agriculture is required, this may limit the scope for the more varied forms of
                 restoration suggested by consultees.

      f     ACCESS                  Satisfactory access available direct to Tyttenhanger Quarry site.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Apart from Coursers Farm itself
                 (in the northern part of the eastern parcel), there are no properties or other
                 sensitive uses within or adjacent to the site.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo significant issues.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC     - 39 -
G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Site is similar in character, and in agricultural quality, to the permitted site which separates
the two parcels of AFS18. The permitted site having been judged acceptable for working, the
same conclusion would be appropriate for the AFS. Restoration would need care, to reconcile
as far as possible the conflicting aspirations of those wishing for restoration to agriculture, to
heathland, and to woodland.

The main concern is that the AFS could not be worked in the Plan period unless the phasing
of the permitted site were adjusted; even then, the net additional contribution to provision
resulting from adding this site to the Plan would be minimal. However, there may be merit in
including the site in the Plan to enable consideration to be given to securing the most orderly
pattern of working on the south side of Coursers Road.

Conclusion: Site gives rise to few concerns, and appears to be a suitable site for the
            longer term even if it cannot be worked during the Plan period. On
            balance, it is considered that there is merit in including the site in the Plan
            to provide the opportunity for securing the most orderly pattern of
            working in this locality, even if the resultant net contribution to resources
            during the Plan period would be minimal. Because of its proximity to
            existing and permitted workings, and the relatively low level of concerns
            which would arise from extraction here, AFS18 is considered preferable
            to AFS17 and AFS16 if an additional site is to be identified in this general
            locality.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 40 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 19               SOUTH OF NAPSBURY HOSPITAL



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

South-east corner of site is in floodplain (R. Colne), and remainder of southern boundary
    adjoins floodplain.
South-west section is an important County Wildlife Site (cornflower).
Land north of the cornflower meadow has archaeological potential.
Northern section of site is historic park/garden
Site adjoins redevelopment area (former Napsbury Hospital site) to north. Virtually all of
    AFS19 (excluding the cornflower meadow) is within 200-300m of the redevelopment
    area. Need for co-ordination of extraction with timing of redevelopment is noted in para
    5.12.10 of the present MLP.
No higher-grade farmland within the site.
Industry consider the site to be a ’serious prospect’


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Site is a Preferred Area in the current MLP.
.

C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Total site area is 73ha, of which just over 20ha is either in floodplain or County Wildlife Site.
    Resultant area of around 50ha would produce 2.5mt (at a notional yield of 50,000t/ha); at
    a notional rate of 500,000tpa, extraction would take 5 years. Other constraints
    (archaeology, historic park etc) may reduce workable area of site further.
Access is available under railway to former Radlett plant site, but this plant has been
    removed; its reinstatement would not be favoured. There is no other nearby plant where
    material from this site could be processed. Hence a new plant would be needed if this -
    relatively small - site were to be retained in the MLP. Vehicle access would have to be to
    Shenley Lane in SE corner of site (through the floodplain area) or via restored land at
    Radlett Airfield provided the existing access is retained.
A limited opportunity remains to link the timing of extraction with the timing of
    redevelopment of Napsbury Hospital site, as envisaged in the current MLP, but extraction
    would have to take place early in Plan period if this objective is to be achieved.


D           RESTORATION

Site is in Watling Chase Community Forest: opportunity for mixed woodland planting and
    creation of enhanced wetland habitats adjacent to the Colne.


C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 41 -
E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Wildlife Trust: Stress the importance of the cornflower meadow: crucial that this County
   Wildlife Site be protected from such a proposal.
Environment Agency: Potential to impact on R Colne.
English Nature: The County Wildlife Site supports a significant proportion of the UK
   population of cornflowers. Any permission must secure the longterm future of the species
   within the area.


F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a STERILISATION           Site could be de facto sterilised unless mineral extraction takes
      place before the occupation of the new housing area to the north or via restored land at
      Radlett Airfield before removal of the existing access.
.
      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS                             In
                an area between London Colney and Park Street with a considerable history of
                mineral working, though this is apparently now coming to an end.
                Identification of this site in the MLP would perpetuate disturbance in the area
                for a little longer.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                    Site (excluding the County Wildlife Site and
                  floodplain area) is smaller than the average for the AFSs/ISs, and could be
                  reduced further in size by the need to avoid constrained areas.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                            None identified.

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                        Various designations etc affect site, notably the County Wildlife Site
                 designation in south-west.

      f     ACCESS     Satisfactory access can be provided, with ready routeing to primary
                 network.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Adjacent to future housing area,
                 as well as to important wildlife site and to floodplain.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESFloodplain area in south-east should not be
                identified for extraction.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

A wide range of constraints affect different parts of the site. The County Wildlife Site should
be excluded from any site that may be included in the MLP, and extraction should not be
sanctioned in the floodplain area. There may be a need to avoid extraction on the historic
parkland, and additional buffers may be needed to the future development to the north
(depending on the exact nature and location of this development). The site remaining after all
such constrained areas have been taken into account may be little more than 30ha in extent,
and nearly half of that is identified as having archaeological potential.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 42 -
Against these factors is the desirability of securing extraction if possible before the site is
effectively sterilised by the occupation of the redeveloped land to the north. This was the
prime consideration in the designation of this site as a Preferred Area in the present MLP.

Conclusion: Notwithstanding the current designation of the site as a Preferred Area,
            the wide variety of important constraints affecting different parts of the
            site leads to the conclusion that this is not a front-line candidate to retain
            that status in the new Plan. There remains the potential for extraction to
            take place before the completion of the redevelopment of the former
            hospital site, and this is marginally considered to tip the balance in favour
            of keeping this as a ’second choice’ site in the present exercise, rather than
            giving it a lower priority.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 43 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 21               BUCKS HILL



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Located away from current workings, in a rural location with no previous history of mineral
   extraction.
Concern that anything but the smallest scale of extraction would breach established landscape
   pattern (though this could be replaced through restoration).
A number of residential properties are either within or adjacent to the site.
New plant would be required to process material from this site.
No acceptable access for mineral traffic can be identified.
SW tip of site severs a small County Wildlife Site.
Industry consider the site to be subject to ’real constraints’
No higher grade farmland within site


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

The site is by some way the most westerly of those now under consideration
There are known to be landowner objections to working a significant proportion of the site.
Landscape is more rolling than for any of the other AFSs/ISs


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

The total area of the AFS is 70ha, which at a notional 50,000t/ha equates to a potential yield
   of 3.5mt. In practice, the application of constraints within the site (including the exclusion
   of 37ha which is in the control of ’unwilling landowners’) would reduce the potentially
   workable area to something under 30ha, with a notional yield of 1.5mt. At a notional
   production rate of 500,000tpa, these reserves would last around 3 years.
No suitable access has been identified.


D           RESTORATION

Restoration should secure current landscape pattern.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Wildlife Trust: Site contains a potential wildlife site at Gyfres Farm.
Environment Agency: Extraction presents significant threat to water-dependent nature
   conservation sites and watercourses.
English Nature: Note that SW tip of site severs Wildlife Heritage Site.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 44 -
F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION                           No issue arises.

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS
                     Isolated site - no issues under this heading.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION            Small site in an isolated location - even smaller when
                  areas in control of unwilling landowners are excluded.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                                       Unclear

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                       No major designations affecting site (though County Wildilfe Site in
                 SW would require safeguarding), but site is in pleasant, rolling, semi-rural
                 area.

      f     ACCESS       No suitable access/haul route has been identified, and site is remote
                 from primary network. Highways’ views on this issue have been clarified since
                 the earlier sieving exercises. Earlier comments did not close down all possible
                 access options, though they recognised that access to the site was not good.
                 Highways have since confirmed that they now consider this site unacceptable
                 as a mineral extraction site.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Close to a small number of
                 properties in Bucks Hill, some of them within the AFS itself.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESCare needed to ensure safeguarding of
                watercourses and water-dependent species.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The site is subject to a number of major concerns, above all (though not only) in terms of the
improbability of finding an acceptable access, and the impact of extraction on properties
within the area. The fact that a high proportion of the site is in the control of ’unwilling
landowners’ reduces the potential workable area to such an extent that there must be doubt
whether extraction in this location, distant from main markets and from the primary road
network, would be regarded as viable by a mineral operator.

Conclusion: The lack of a suitable access/haul route renders this site among the least
            acceptable of those now under consideration. A variety of other concerns
            reinforce the conclusion that this is not a site that should be considered
            further in the present exercise.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC              - 45 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 23               SOUTH OF WELWYN / EAST OF
HATFIELD



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Site is divided into two sections by the valley of the R Lea (excluded at earlier sieves on
    landscape grounds)
Large, rural site - very visible from A414 to the north, though the bulk of the site would only
    be seen by fast-moving traffic, and then at some distance. Site is screened to a degree
    from Essendon to the south. NE sector is visible from Letty Green.
Two centrally-placed County Wildlife Sites in southern section.
Approximately two-thirds of southern section is higher-grade farmland. No higher grade land
    in northern section.
Landscape comments: Extraction could be accommodated in northern section, though need
    to ensure no impact on water table and Holwell Park spring system. Some possibility of
    extraction in southern section subject to careful mitigation; future consents should be
    limited to secondary valleys to reduce visual impact. Large-scale extraction near Letty
    Green not acceptable.
Industry consider the site to be subject to ’real constraints’
There is a cluster of properties along Holwell Lane (B1455) towards the east side of the
    southern section of site, and scattered properties further north in the northern section. The
    villages of Essendon (to south) and Letty Green (to north-east) adjoin the site boundaries
    (buffer zones of 100m have been drawn to separate the AFS from these villages).
Easternmost part of southern section is part of a golf course.


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Site boundary adjoins A414 for 2km.


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Total site area around 350ha, of which around 275ha is not subject to major constraints (the
   balance being primarily the County Wildlife Site and buffer zones to properties within
   and adjacent to the site). At a notional 50,000t/ha, this would represent a yield of 13.7mt;
   at a notional production rate of 500,000tpa, this would take over 25 years to extract.
   These figures would reduce if extraction in the southern section of the site is limited in
   the fashion suggested in the landscape comments (above).
A new plant would be required. Highways’ preferred location for access is on to Holwell
   Lane towards its junction with the A414, which means that the plant should be located
   centrally in the northern section of the site. Material from the southern section would
   have to cross the R Lea to reach this plant site. There are houses and a caravan park
   adjacent to the section of Holwell Lane which crosses the northern section.

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 46 -
D           RESTORATION

Low level dry restoration in bulk of northern section, for arable, pasture or woodland.
Low level restoration not appropriate near Letty Green.
Southern section should be restored to either arable or woodland, with a valley landform
    profile.
Site is in area of Watling Chase Community Forest. Woodland planting would foster the aims
    of the forest.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Potential to impact on River Lea.
English Nature: Note the presence of County Wildlife Sites in southern section; site abuts a
   third along its extreme northernmost boundary.

F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION                           No issues arise

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS                                   No
                issues arise - site is not close to past or current workings.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION             Northern section is the size of an ’average’ AFS/IS;
                  southern section is larger than average. In rural area, though character of the
                  northern section in particular is affected by the presence of fast-flowing traffic
                  along A414, which forms the site boundary for some 2km.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                                         In parts of the site only.

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                        Various environmental interests would have to be taken into account
                 (County Wildlife Sites, landscape concerns), and much of southern section is
                 higher-grade farmland.

      f     ACCESS      To Holwell Lane, but this may have to be close to residential
                 properties.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Relatively few residential
                 properties affected for such a large site, but presence of properties adjacent to
                 Holwell Lane may hinder provision of a suitable access and plant site. If
                 extraction takes place close to Letty Green, the internal route to the processing
                 plant would have to be designed to minimise impacts on Holwell Court.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo significant issues.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC             - 47 -
G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Northern section

(a)     Area between Letty Green and Holwell Court Farm: The impact of extraction on the
village, the sensitivity of the landscape, and the probable need to perpetuate disturbance by
some filling as part of restoration, combine to make this an unsuitable area for identification
as a Preferred Area.

(b)     Area west of Holwell Court Farm: the site runs close to the busy A414, and is very
open to view from passing traffic. This is a narrow ’finger’ of land, and the area for extraction
would reduce significantly if screen bunds were required alongside the road; in addition, a
buffer zone will be required in the south of this section, adjacent to the R Lea. It may be
difficult to screen the processing plant in this very open landscape.

Southern section

A large site, visible from distance from traffic on the A414 but screened from the villages to
the south. Easternmost section is in golf course use, which renders it unsuitable for
identification as a Preferred Area. With this area removed, Essendon Hill (B158) forms a
logical eastern boundary to the site. Remainder gives rise to no outstanding concerns, but
equally it has no strong merits which would support its inclusion as a ’first-choice’ candidate
in the present exercise. It may be necessary for extraction to be restricted to relatively small
parts of this section of the site, for landscape reasons.

Conclusion: The area between Letty Green and Holwell Court Farm in the northern
            section, and the area east of Essendon Hill in the southern section, should
            be regarded as among the last acceptable of the areas under
            consideration.

                        The remainder of the AFS is not considered to be a prime candidate for
                        selection as a Preferred Area, but it is not subject to major concerns
                        (other than localised constraints), and is therefore regarded as a ’second
                        choice’ site. The southern section gives rise to fewer concerns than the
                        northern section, but the latter is the preferred location for the site access
                        and hence for processing plant.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 48 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 26               WARE PARK



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Site is of potential archaeological interest: originally believed to be strong enough to rule out
    the whole site at this stage, but later revised to be a ’non-overriding’ objection
Site would need filling in restoration
Parts of site (in SW and SE corners) are within 100m of dwellings
Well screened site, and at some distance from public viewpoints
Close to existing quarries (Rickney’s, Westmill and Ware Quarry), but in the control of a
    different operator from Rickney’s and Westmill, and Ware Quarry is worked out with no
    processing capability)
No wildlife or other designations within the site, but it adjoins historic park (Ware Park)


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Originally suggested as an ’Industry Site’, but it was subsequently judged to meet the viability
   criteria used in the identification of the AFSs. It is therefore numbered as an AFS.


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Total site area 12ha; about 9ha if areas within 100m of houses are excluded. At a notional
   50,000t/ha, this area would yield 450,000t; at a nominal production rate of 500,000tpa,
   this material could be extracted within a year. In practice, the yield may be higher, as the
   figure of 50,000t/ha is thought to be on the low side for this site.


D           RESTORATION

Could be to variable levels, but not low level. Waterbodies would not be appropriate for this
   location.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Extraction is likely to have no significant impact upon the water
   environment.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 49 -
F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION        Site on its own would not justify a separate plant - it would
                 need to be worked through an existing plant. Because there is no existing plant
                 available to process material from this site, it may be regarded as, in effect,
                 already sterilised.

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS                               If
                plant were available to process this material, it would be an extension to an
                existing working. In the absence of suitable plant, it is seen as perpetuating
                extraction in an area where working has now ceased. It is geographically close
                to Rickney’s Quarry, but is visually separate from it.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                            Small site, in an area of former mineral
                  workings

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                            Low level restoration not favoured, so some
                 filling would be required.

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                         No significant concerns, subject to the assessment at application stage
                 of the archaeological importance of the site.

      f     ACCESS     Acceptable if worked through one of the existing (former) quarry sites
                 (Westmill or Ware Quarry), with access to A602.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES One property (Rushwood) in SW
                 corner of site, and Ware Park Farm adjoins SW corner. Also one property
                 adjacent to SE corner.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo significant concerns.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

If processing plant were available, this would be an acceptable extension to Westmill or Ware
Quarry. The possible archaeological constraint is an issue for resolution at the application
stage rather than being decisive in the present exercise. However, there is no suitably located
plant available.

Conclusion: In the absence of a suitable location for processing material from this
            small site, it should be considered as one of the least acceptable of the sites
            now under consideration.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 50 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         AFS 27              HOWE GREEN
                                    IS 2            FARM FIELDS
                                    IS 3            BROAD GREEN
                                    IS 4            BUNKERS SOUTH


A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

These sites have all been suggested as potential extensions to Water Hall Quarry. All are
    within about 800m of the present plant site, though all are on the opposite (south) side of
    the B158.
Individually the sites are all small, and unlikely to be viable for extraction on their own.
Approximately one-third of AFS27 is higher-grade farmland.
Most of IS2 is in the floodplain of the R. Lea
AFS27 adjoins the hamlet of Howe Green, and IS3 adjoins small housing area at Broadgreen
    Wood.
None of the sites contains any designated ecological sites.
Landscape comments: AFS27 and IS3: It should be possible to accommodate extraction
    without permanent damage to landscape character; IS4: There would be some difficulty
    in accommodating extraction without permanent impact on the landscape; IS2:
    Extraction cannot be accommodated without permanent damage to the landscape.


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

AFS27 was originally suggested as an ’Industry Site’, but it was subsequently judged to meet
   the viability criteria used in the identification of the AFSs. It is therefore numbered as an
   AFS.
A planning application for extraction from IS2 has recently been refused by HCC.


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

AFS27 - 24ha, est yield 1mt; IS2 - 24ha, est yield 1.2mt; IS3 - 18.1ha, est yield 0.75mt; IS4
   - 21ha, est yield 1.7mt. The combined yield of the four sites is therefore estimated at
   around 4.7mt; excluding IS2 (Already judged unacceptable in recent planning
   application), the combined yield is around 3.5mt. At a notional 500,000tpa production
   rate, these reserves would last 7 years if the sites are worked in sequence.
Processing could take place at the existing Water Hall quarry, though there is a case for
   relocating the plant site to the south of the B158 to allow restoration of the land to the
   north to be completed. AFS 27 would involve tracking over restored land at Pollards
   Quarry.
Access would be via B158 as at present. To ensure no increase in the levels of use of this
   road by minerals traffic, the working of the sites should be phased so that the sites are
   worked in sequence rather than any two of them being worked simultaneously.


C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC    - 51 -
D           RESTORATION

AFS27 - Scope for deciduous woodland in west of site; IS2 - Wetland and grazing meadow;
  opportunity for restoration beneficial to nature conservation; IS3 and IS4 - Arable and
  woodland.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Potential to impact R Lea.
English Nature: IS2 has relatively high potential for restoration in a manner beneficial to
   nature conservation.


F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION        Sites would be sterilised if not worked as part of the Water Hall
                 operation. The relatively poor road access means that the sites would be
                 unsuitable for separate working at some future date.

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS                           In
                environmental and highway terms, it would be inappropriate for the sites to be
                worked simultaneously. Sequential working would prolong disturbance in the
                area, but would not increase its intensity or give rise to new cumulative
                impacts.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION            Individually the sites area small; even together they are
                  smaller than the ’average’ AFSs. In an established working area.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                              None indicated

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                       Some higher grade farmland in AFS27, and some non-designated
                 woodland in IS3.

      f     ACCESS                  Adequate access available, as at present for Water Hall Quarry.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Small settlements adjacent to
                 AFS27 and IS3 would require safeguarding.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESIS2 in flood plain. No significant issues at other
                sites.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

IS2 is considered unsuitable because of its location in the floodplain of the R Lea. With care
over landscape treatment and the protection of the amenities of nearby small settlements, the
remainder are considered to be suitable sites for extraction as extensions to the Water Hall
operation. If they are not worked in this way, they would in effect be sterilised. Access along
the B158 is not ideal, but is acceptable for the present operation and for continued sequential

C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC     - 52 -
working of these sites. There is an opportunity to relocate the present plant site to the south
side of the B158, thus enabling the completion of restoration north of the road - though care
would be needed to ensure that restoration of the land to the north and extraction of land to
the south did not lead to an unacceptable increase of traffic along the B158.

Conclusion: IS2 should be regarded as among the least acceptable of the sites under
            consideration. The opportunity to work AFS27, IS3 and IS4 in sequence
            as extensions to the present Water Hall operation, and the absence of
            major concerns relating to these sites, makes them among the most
            suitable sites for consideration as Preferred Areas in the present exercise.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC   - 53 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         IS6             SLEAPSHYDE



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

All of the site, apart from a small area in the south-west, is higher grade farmland.
The eastern third of the site is a Local Nature Reserve, and includes a County Wildlife Site.
No suitable plant available nearby for processing material from this site, but site is small to
    justify a separate plant. May be possible to take material northwards for processing at
    BAe site (AFS15)
Close to settlement of Sleapshyde. Access would have to be to Smallford Lane to west of
    site; mineral traffic leaving the site would either have to pass houses in Sleapshyde (if
    travelling towards the A414), or pass through Smallford (if travelling north to the A1057
    and AFS15).


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

A small ’standalone’ site, with little or no scope for future expansion.
Site includes a designated Local Nature Reserve.


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Total site area 27ha, with an estimated yield of 1.3mt. At a notional production rate of
   500,000tpa, extraction would take up to 3 years.
No suitable plant available in locality (see above).
Favoured access would be to A414 via Smallford Lane


D           RESTORATION

Site is in Watling Chase Community Forest - opportunity for increased woodland cover.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Potential to impact nearby river




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC    - 54 -
F           PANEL CRITERIA

      a     STERILISATION                           No issue arises

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS                           Site
                is some 600m from AFS15, but preferred haul routes from these two sites
                would not coincide. Impacts from this site would be largely localised (effects
                on Sleapshyde itself, etc).

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                              Small site, not close to established mineral working
                  areas.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                                         None indicated

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                        County Wildlife Site and Local Nature reserve would require
                 safeguarding. Most of site is higher grade farmland.

      f     ACCESS      Site is close to primary network, and satisfactory access can be
                 provided (in highway terms). However, access would have to pass settlement
                 of Sleapshyde or (if traffic were routed northwards) would pass through
                 Smallford.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES                                    Site is adjacent to settlement of
                 Sleapshyde

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNo significant issues


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

This is a small site which would appear to be a stand-alone operation requiring its own
processing plant. There may theoretically be potential for transporting material elsewhere for
processing, but this would involve mineral traffic passing through Smallford. Sleapshyde
itself would experience disturbance both from the extraction operation itself, and from
mineral traffic. Local Nature Reserve and County Wildlife Site in eastern part of site should
be safeguarded. There is no single compelling objection to the identification of this site as a
Preferred Area, but the combination of concerns to which extraction here would give rise
means that it is not one of the more favoured sites.

Conclusion: Site should not be favoured for inclusion in the Plan as a Preferred Area.
            It is a marginal decision whether it should be regarded as a ’second
            choice’ site; on balance, the problems relating to processing and the
            impact of extraction and/or traffic on nearby settlements are considered
            to justify excluding it from this category.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC             - 55 -
HERTFORDSHIRE MINERALS LOCAL PLAN - COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF SITES

FINAL SITE SUMMARY


SITE NUMBER                         IS9             SALISBURY HALL



A           GENERAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Small site, all of which is higher grade farmland
Open site, visible from M25
Adjoins Salisbury Hall, a moated listed building
Possible archaeological interest
In general area of the Tyttenhanger sites (AFS16-18), but on opposite side of M25 from these
    sites and from Tyttenhanger Quarry.


B           ANY SPECIFIC DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Adjacent to aircraft museum (a national recreation resource), and to university sports ground


C           AREA, YIELD, PLANT, ACCESS, EXTENSION AND TIMING ISSUES

Area 14ha; estimated yield 1.2mt. At a notional 500,000tpa, this reserve could be worked in 3
   years.
Material could be processed at Tyttenhanger Quarry. However, this Quarry already has
   sufficient permitted reserves to last through the Plan period. Hence this site could not
   contribute to provision during the Plan period unless a new plant were provided; but site
   is very small to justify a separate new plant.
Access would be to B556 to the north, with all traffic routed to or from the NW towards
   A1081 and M25 junction. Possible scope for transporting material by conveyor under the
   motorway towards the Coursers Road sites (AFS18).


D           RESTORATION

In landscape terms, preferred form of restoration would be to woodland, parkland and small
    water bodies. However, this could conflict with the higher agricultural grading of the
    land.


E           RESPONSES OF SPECIALIST CONSULTEES

Environment Agency: Likely to have no significant impact on the water environment.


F           PANEL CRITERIA


C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC     - 56 -
      a     STERILISATION                           No issue arises

      b     CUMULATIVE IMPACT/RELATION TO EXISTING/PAST WORKINGS
                        Possible extension to the operations at Tyttenhanger Quarry. However,
                site could only be worked in Plan period if a new plant were provided, which
                would mean two plants operating close to each other: possible over-
                concentration of operations, particularly given the wish for a wide
                geographical spread of sites.

      c     SIZE AND LOCATION                                         Small site, close to an area of existing workings.

      d     NEED FOR LANDFILL                                         None indicated

      e     AGRICULTURE, LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE
                       Site is higher grade farmland. No other designations, but site adjoins
                 moated listed building.

      f     ACCESS      Satisfactory access can be provided close to primary network.
                 Alternative of conveying material under the motorway.

      g     RELATIONSHIP TO SENSITIVE LAND USES Adjacent to listed building,
                 aircraft museum and university sports ground, but not near settlements.
                 Proximity of M25 means that there is already a degree of disturbance in this
                 area.

      h     WATER AND FLOODING ISSUESNeed to safeguard the moat at Salisbury Hall,
                but no wider issues arise.


G           OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The site is not subject to major concerns in its own right, although various detailed issues
would have to be addressed at the planning application stage. However, material from the site
could not contribute to provision during the Plan period unless it were processed at a new
plant within the site which, given the site’s small size, is not a realistic proposition. The site
may be suitable as a longer-term extension to operations at Tyttenhanger Quarry, but other
things being equal it is considered that AFS17 and 18, which are closer to the plant site and
which do not involve moving extraction into the area on the ’far’ side of the M25, should be
given priority in this regard.

Conclusion: On its own merits, this site is not subject to any major concerns which
            would suggest that it is unsuitable for designation as a Preferred Area.
            However, in the absence of a suitable location for processing the material
            from this site within the Plan period, its designation in the present review
            is not favoured.




C:\INetPub\WWWRoot\INCpaper\Reports\120\495\1.DOC             - 57 -