KCC didn't approve a quarry, but it did move one step closer

Four days after Kent county councillors voted to keep a proposed extension of Hermitage Quarry into Oaken Wood in the draft Mineral Sites Plan, and advance that plan towards independent examination, the council published something unusual: a fact check of its own decision.

“The key fact is that Full Council did not vote to approve quarrying,” said council leader Linden Kemkaran.

The clarification was not subtle. It said “to repeat” before repeating the point. A little later, it said “again to reiterate” and did so again.

No planning permission had been granted. No quarry extension had been approved. No mineral extraction could begin.

This was all technically correct. It was also a careful answer to a narrow question.

The more useful question is what changed when 37 councillors voted for the Kent Mineral Sites Plan, against 31 who opposed it and four who abstained.

KCC approved a draft plan retaining an extension of Hermitage Quarry into Oaken Wood as Kent’s only proposed site for hard-rock extraction. The allocation policy describes the site as “acceptable in principle for mineral development.”

Hermitage is not a proposed new quarry. It is an enormous existing operation on Hermitage Lane near Aylesford, run by the Kent-based Gallagher Group. Gallagher says the quarry directly supports 140 jobs and business for around 400 Kent companies in its supply chain. It wants space to keep extracting stone once the current reserves run down.

The space it wants is to the south and west, across 96 hectares of meadow and woodland near Barming and Allington.

This is Oaken Wood. Much of it is managed sweet chestnut coppice rather than a collection of visibly ancient trees. But 41 hectares is classed as a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site, meaning the land has remained wooded since at least 1600 even though it has since been felled and replanted.

What survived that process is below and between the trees. Ancient soils, fungi, seedbanks and other ecological features that cannot be recreated by planting a new wood elsewhere.

KCC did not give Gallagher permission to move into that land. It decided to advance a plan saying that, in principle, the company should be able to apply to do so.

If the Mineral Sites Plan passes examination and is adopted, it will form part of the development plan used to determine any future Gallagher application. The company would still need to provide detailed environmental assessments, consult the public and satisfy the allocation’s conditions. KCC would still have to make a separate decision.

But Gallagher would be applying to work land already allocated for mineral extraction by the authority deciding the application. Removing Oaken Wood from the plan would have left the company without that policy support.

The significance of the vote became clear during last week's full council meeting. Green group leader Mark Hood attempted to remove Oaken Wood from the plan. The chair refused the amendment because it had not been submitted in advance, while officers said deleting the allocation would require further work to ensure the plan remained viable.

Members were left to advance the entire document, including Oaken Wood, or reject it. Several opponents said they supported the rest of the plan but could not vote for that allocation.

The meeting’s chair described the vote as a “substantive policy framework decision”. KCC’s subsequent presentation of it as simply allowing an inspector to examine some evidence did not quite capture the choice councillors made.

The plan approved by councillors will first undergo six weeks of consultation. KCC then intends to submit it to the Planning Inspectorate, which will examine whether it is legally compliant and sound.

If the plan survives that process, potentially with modifications, KCC can adopt it. Gallagher would then be able to bring forward an application on land specifically allocated for an extension of its existing quarry.