Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

List Comments

Search for Comments

Enter a comment ID or specify search options to find comments.

Response Type
Order By
in order

14 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Mark North - Mineral Products… 10 Aug 2010

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Part Two: Vision, Objectives, Issues & Options Chapter 7: Major Issues & Options Objective F: Safeguarding minerals the Prior Extraction section

  • Comment ID: /3979457/13
Existing MLP Policy MP17 is inadequate because it merely says that proposals for development which would sterilise minerals will be resisted. That does not constitute an effective means of safeguarding those resources. There should be a presumption against competing development, conveyed by policies in the Development Plan, which will only allow permission to be granted in exceptional circumstances as defined by those policies. The BGS/CLG Guide to Minerals Safeguarding (2007) should be used as
Mark North - Mineral Products… 10 Aug 2010

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Part One: Background Information Chapter 2: Policy Context the Policy Context chapter

  • Comment ID: /3979457/1
Paragraph 2.4 When making provision for new mineral sites the Minerals Core Strategy (MCS) should use the accepted terminology set out in MPS1 Annex 1 Para. 3.6.
Mark North - Mineral Products… 10 Aug 2010

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Part Two: Vision, Objectives, Issues & Options Chapter 7: Major Issues & Options Objective G: Reducing the landbank of permitted reserves of crushed rock in Derbyshire? reducing the landbank of permitted reserves of crushed rock in Derbyshire

  • Comment ID: /3979457/14
As previously mentioned, no justification has been included for why the mineral planning authority consider that the Derbyshire landbank is excessive. The adequacy of the landbank cannot be judged on the basis of a simple calculation. Management of landbanks must be based on considerations of real need and real supply (MPS1 Practice Guide Para. 71). It is not apparent therefore why the authority is obliged to take steps to reduce the landbank. The MPA is not aware that MPS1 requires authorities
Mark North - Mineral Products… 10 Aug 2010

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Part One: Background Information Chapter 2: Policy Context the Policy Context chapter

  • Comment ID: /3979457/2
Paragraph 2.7 Progressive reduction in the amount of minerals extraction from the PDNP may have implications not only in the East Midlands Region but in other regions. An incorrect reference is made to "resources of economic value". To be defined a resource, a mineral deposit must be of economic value. In that respect, the definition of "mineral resource" in Appendix A is also incorrect, as is the reference to a "potential resource" of deep coal in Para. 4.13.
Mark North - Mineral Products… 10 Aug 2010

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Part Two: Vision, Objectives, Issues & Options Chapter 5: A Vision for Minerals Development in Derbyshire the Vision for Minerals Development in Derbyshire

  • Comment ID: /3979457/5
The document should explain why the crushed rock landbank in Derbyshire is considered by the Mineral Planning Authority to be excessive. It will be necessary to do that in the MCS and views that come forward from consultees may help in building a robust and credible evidence base to support this judgment. MPA do not necessarily agree that a large landbank is excessive; a landbank that is too low is a problem but a large landbank is not. The adverse social and environmental effects of mineral ex
Mark North - Mineral Products… 10 Aug 2010

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Part Two: Vision, Objectives, Issues & Options Chapter 7: Major Issues & Options Objective A: Ensuring Sufficient Provision of Minerals How should we address the need for new sand and gravel provision? the Future Apportionment section

  • Comment ID: /3979457/8
Paragraph 7.11 The question of the status that should be given to allocated sites is not answered on the basis of certainty of need. If areas of resources meet the tests set out in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the MPS1 Practice Guide they should be given Specific Site or Preferred Area status.
Mark North - Mineral Products… 10 Aug 2010

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Part Two: Vision, Objectives, Issues & Options Chapter 6: Plan Objectives the Plan Objectives

  • Comment ID: /3979457/6
In a similar vein to the comments on Para.5.1. above, the justification behind draft objectives C. and G. must be included in the MCS. Where mineral extraction in National Parks is not "major" or it is in the public interest it is not contrary to national policy for minerals planning. Inclusion of the words "sufficient supply" in Objective F. is superfluous and confusing. The presumption should be that all mineral resources are safeguarded. Objective K should specifically mention maximising th
Mark North - Mineral Products… 10 Aug 2010

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Part Two: Vision, Objectives, Issues & Options Chapter 7: Major Issues & Options Objective A: Ensuring Sufficient Provision of Minerals How should we address the need for new sand and gravel provision? the Site Allocations section

  • Comment ID: /3979457/9
The matter of extensions to existing sites versus new sites is one for the mineral planning authority to consider on an area-by-area and case-by-case basis. Whilst cumulative impact may be a consideration, it may be outweighed by the increased restoration potential afforded by the assembly of larger land units. The economics of extraction are often best served by allowing extensions and the consequent longer term use of existing plant. What should certainly not be allowed to happen is that resou
Mark North - Mineral Products… 10 Aug 2010

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Part One: Background Information Chapter 3: A General Portrait of Derbyshire the Natural Heritage section

  • Comment ID: /3979457/3
It should be recognised that restored mineral sites constitute one of the most significant biodiversity resources in England.
Mark North - Mineral Products… 10 Aug 2010

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Part Two: Vision, Objectives, Issues & Options Chapter 7: Major Issues & Options Objective C: How do we contribute to a reduction in the supply of aggregates from the Peak District National Park? how we contribute to a reduction in the supply of aggregates from the Peak District National Park

  • Comment ID: /3979457/10
There is no Government policy which stipulates that there should be a progressive reduction in mineral working in National Parks. Paragraph 14 of MPS1 sets out the true policy situation which is that major mineral development proposals in National Parks should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before they are allowed to proceed. A reduction in the supply of minerals from the PDNP should only be an objective if that is proved to be in the public interest.
Next pageLast page