Birch Parish Council   

 

WORKING FOR OUR COMMUNITY 

 

                                     

   
 

BIRCH PIT EXTENSION
 

The Deadline for Comments on the application was extended to 1st June. Although this deadline has now passed, if you still wish to make a comment, please do so. At the very least, this will register you for consultation in the later stages. This development, if it goes ahead, will have a serious effect on the village, so download the form from the link below and make your views known.

NB the site reference for comments is A31

Comment Form

With the strong feelings of Residents opposed to the possible extension of Birch Pit, The Parish Council aided by Borough Councillors Peter Crowe and Kevin Bentley will contest any planning application to extend Birch Pit across the B1022, nearer to Birch Village, as they feel this would have an adverse effect on the environmental climate that we enjoy at this present time
   
  Below is the text of a letter sent by the Parish Clerk to Lesley Stenhouse of Essex County Council regarding the delay in publication of the Initial consultation results
 

 

We note from the web site that the results of the public consultation have been withdrawn for amendment.

 Our concern is that this will mean that the results will not be in the public domain sufficiently long enough before the next consultation stage scheduled for this Autumn  (August?). Is it possible for you to let us know how long these amendments will take to complete and do you intend to extend the cut-off date for the next consultation.

 Your urgent attention to this issues will be most appreciated
   

Below is an account of the first liaison meeting held with Hansons at Birch Pit to discuss issues relating to the operation of the pit. If you have any concerns regarding the current operation please raise them with the Parish Clerk
 

BIRCH PARISH COUNCIL

Notes of the Birch Pit Liaison meeting held on Wednesday 31st May 2006  at Hanson, Birch Pit 2.30pm.

Persons Present: Tony Sullivan, Richard Greaves, & Vincent Doyle-ECC, Bob Smith, Malcolm Keeble, Brian Chapman & Chris Dunne-Hansons, Elaine Bowtle, Doreen Willers & Rob Farmer-Birch Parish Council, Mr & Mrs Rope, Mr& Mrs Harvey, R Evans, Peter Walsh, John Harrison, Howard Ogden-Residents & Michael Kehinde-Environmental Agency

1      Introductions:

This meeting was arranged to set up a liaison committee as the result of adverse remarks made at an earlier meeting in Birch Hall to discuss the possible extension to Birch Pit, which was not apparently understood on the original invitation to attend and therefore there were more people in attendance than were expected.    

2        Appointment of Officers:

Mr Vincent Doyle,Planning Officer for ECC, agreed to Chair the meeting and Mr Rob Farmer, Clerk to Birch Parish Council agreed to take notes for this meeting. 

3        Terms of Reference:

To determine how many meetings a year and who should be in attendance.
It was decided that 2 people from Birch Parish Council, 2 from Layer Marney, 2 from Layer Breton 2 from Residents, Borough & County Councillors ECC Planning & Hansons Representatives.
The meetings will be held every 3 months to discuss all issues about Birch Pit.     

4        Review of the site:

A list of all applications from 1949/2004 were read out and a copy was handed to Rob Farmer

 5        Site Management concerns:

Mr & Mrs Rope had on going concerns about the de-watering and the future use and destination of the stored water on the site. It was apparent that the intention was for this water to be eventually fed into the Roman River and subsequently wasted. Mr Kehinde was able to assure Mr & Mrs Rope that this means of disposal would not be allowed by the Environment Agency. The EA along with Hanson PLC are to conduct a series of Hydrological studies before deciding whether to de-water, no de-watering or partial de watering should be used. These studies should determine whether the drop in the water table may have been caused by the continued lack of rainfall or the existing de-watering system in operation. The feeling is that these studies should also be extended to include the proposed new extension.

Hansons explained that they attempted to reduce the amount of airborne pollution by regularly dampening down roadways and seeding the bunds, testing employees for the effects of pollution.

A list of sites was handed to Rob Farmer  (now available on www.birchpc.org )

6        Local Liaison:

Concerns were raised that not much thought had been given to the landscaping of parts of the Pit that had ceased to be used and could not be advertised as an asset to the surrounding area. Control of dust from the site was also a problem as was demonstrated by several dust laden gusts that passing by the window whilst the meeting was in progress.

7        Minerals Review Up Date:

Residents of Birch expressed their concerns of the closeness, of the proposed extension, to Birch School and The Village of Birch because of the air & light pollution, the increase in traffic and the breach of a number of planning points over a number of years at the existing pit (copy of minutes taken from a conversation with the Environment agency available on Birch web site) for these reasons they believe that the proposed extension should not be considered.

ECC were unable to disclose the criteria list which would ascertain how a preferred site would be decided.

Statement of Community Involvement available on Essex County Council web site

8        Any Other Business:

None raised 

9    Date of next Meeting:

      The next meeting arranged for Monday 18th September 2006 at 10 a.m.

 
 

This is the list of sites operated by Hanson. If you have any knowledge of any of them, or do any research, please share with the Parish Clerk
   
 
 


Here is the Essex County Council timetable for its Minerals Development Documents
   
 
 

Here is an account of a phone call between Guy Spaull, a surveyor from Layer Marney, and Michael Kehinde of The Environment Agency. It reveals that there are serious environmental concerns about the existing extraction operation, let alone any new activities, and suggests that the application to extend the pit shows a lack of concern on the applicant's part for the local environment.

MINUTES FROM TELEPHONE CALL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY

Date 30 May 2006

Call with: Michael Kehinde (01473 706001)
Call arranged by Jane Harvey prior to site visit.

 Kehinde is attending the site from 11am on the 31st May initially to review the ‘water issues’ on the existing excavations.  He was asked to stay on (by the ECC man) to attend the later meeting.

 He was receptive to our concerns and probably took some notes in the call.  He requested that we sent him a copy of the letter we wrote to the ECC so he could advise who in the Environmental Agency (“EA”) should be involved (and we could talk to).  The EA covers water (quality of water returned after mining and ground water – water level), air pollution and noise pollution.  He focuses on water.

 History

As some may know it seems Hanson have been in breach of a number on planning points (from the 1992 consent) over a number of years.  It appears they only got to hear of the problem as a result of farmers in the area of the existing pit raising concerns.  

Hanson have been pumping water from the excavation site into the holding reservoirs.  These reservoirs are no longer able to handle the volume and return water to the aquifers.  Hence these are being depleted resulting in the dropping of the water table!  As from April this year they need a license to continue their pumping and the EA is not happy with their plans.  Hence this meeting.

 Hanson’s plan is to plan is to pump the excess in to the stream that runs through the extension site and into the Roman river.  The EA says the stream cannot handle it and will silt up.

 The EA are asking for a more detailed Environmental Impact Study over the existing site.  This would include bore holes, on-going monitoring and a water feature Survey to enable the EA to be comfortable on the probable impact.

 One solution to this is for Hanson to do Wet dredging rather than Dry.  Hanson understandably not interested in this as more expensive.

Extension

We spoke about the proposed site and the stream running though it … to the Roman Pond  … to the Roman river.  When I suggested that the Roman pond might be an archeological site he immediately said that they are very protective of such sites.  Jane, Is it a registered archeological site?

 I mentioned our view that there should be a detailed hydrological study as part of the evaluation to try to understand what might happen if they proceeded with the extension.  He agreed with this.  Hanson would be asked for this (along with other studies on airborne/noise pollution etc).  He said Hanson should be required to give ‘assurances/guarantees’ to the householders of Birch in regard to potential damage to their structures.  This is the stuff professionals would fight for on Birch’s behalf.

 While he had invited me to send him our concerns so he could identify the right people in the EA for us to talk to he did note that the EA can only give advice to the ECC.  The ECC may not choose to heed it.  He also noted that it would be the ECC that would demand the detailed Environmental Report from Hanson (air, noise, water plus).  The ECC is our target.

 In summary the ECC is well aware the Hanson have not lived up to their promises/obligations and that their ‘assurances’ are not worth a lot.

 
   
  Below follows a report of the public meeting of 8th May, by Geoff Russell Grant. Please not that the deadline for comments is now 1st June

 
 

I attended the meeting on Monday 8th May as a local resident and what follows is what I understood to be the major matters discussed. After a brief AGM, Cllr Kevin Bentley chaired a meeting to discuss the proposed extension of Birch Pit south of the B1022. The meeting was well attended, including people from neighbouring parishes. Mrs Stenhouse (Essex County Council) and Mr Smith (manager of the Pit) made presentations and responded to questions. Mrs Stenhouse said that this was a preliminary consultation as part of a regular revision of the Essex Mineral Plan; Essex was required to plan for the extraction of a minimum tonnage of sand and gravel over a ten-year period (the quantity was not yet known), and the first phase of this process was to identify a range of potential sites. Then sufficient sites from the list would be put forward as ‘preferred’, and after various other stages in the process, planning permission might be sought. Mr Smith said that if the Birch extension was to go ahead, it would not start operating until towards the end of the existing pit’s planned life, towards 2018. Also, the ‘finish dates’ of all pits were only an indication required as part of the planning application, and extensions to the time limit may be sought and obtained. Concern was expressed that only a small group of households near the site had been notified, and it seemed to be accepted that the parish councils should have been notified as part of the consultation procedure. Many questions were raised concerning issues of pollution (dust, noise, lights, site safety etc). The general response was that this was not seen as being likely to occur, and that if it did then ‘mitigating actions’ would be taken, as was the case with the existing works, where it was contended that no complaints had been received. This was directly disputed by residents near the present pit, and the chairman asked that matters related to current or past operations be investigated and reported back. Specific concerns were raised on behalf of Birch Primary School, which would be downwind of the pit. Questions concerning vandalism and safety were also raised, with similar responses and concerns. It was also stated that any impact on nearby property values was not within the scope of the process. Finally, the deadline for comments from members of the public is 18th May (not 8th May).

What are we supposed to do about it? I cannot advise residents, but it seems to me that any feelings you may have are best expressed at this early stage in consultation, so that Mrs Stenhouse is given a clear indication of the views of local people, be they in favour or against; that is the purpose of this process. There is an official form on which to make comments, copies of which are available from or via the Clerk, in Birch Minimarket, or via the internet. As regards any past or ongoing complaints on the existing pit operations, that is a separate matter and for you to decide whether to take matters up with the pit management. It may be sensible to keep a record of any discussions, phone calls or correspondence, and to copy it to the parish clerk so that your council is aware of the nature and extent of any complaints, and of any responses and mitigating action taken.

 
 

Birch Parish Council Contact Information.
 
Telephone 734400  
Postal address 55, Malting Green Road, Layer de la Haye, Essex CO2 0JJ
Electronic mail    
      General Information: birchparishclerk@aol.com
      Webmaster: editor@birchpc.org.uk