Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Questionnaire

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Miss Plackett - English Herita… Guidance on safeguarding building and roofing stone is set out in Section 3a) of MPS1 Annex 3. The strategic stone study for Derbyshire should provide the basis for the identification of this resource within the county. 02 Aug 2010 13:59
Peter Toon - Hanson UK All proven resources should be safeguarded. The approach set out in MPS1 is supported. 28 Sep 2010 11:39
Alan Morey - Chesterfield Boro… Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSA) are usually identified via surveys carried out by the British Geological society and based on their recommendations (see A Guide to Mineral Safeguarding, BGS, 2007). The current Minerals Local Plan identifies Minerals Consultation Areas (presumably based on MSAs) which only includes areas for potential Limestone and Sand & Gravel extraction of national importance. Given the lack of areas within the borough that contain mineral resources of national importance, it seems unlikely that any areas within Chesterfield Borough will be identified as MSAs. However, if they were to be identified within the borough then this should be undertaken in full consultation with the council and local communities. 02 Aug 2010 14:29
Andrew Barton - Peak District… The PDNPA supports in principle the safeguarding of economically proven minerals resources through the LDF process by the use of Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSA) and Mineral Consultation Areas (MCA) in the two-tier part of the Derby and Derbyshire plan area.

It is for the local circumstances present within Derbyshire to determine what mineral resources should be safeguarded, the PDNPA has no particular view to express on which minerals should be safeguarded, however the definition of any MSAs should be undertaken in accordance with the advice set out in the BGS Guide to Mineral Safeguarding in England to ensure consistency in the methodology and approach between all MPAs.

In relation to cross-boundary issues the emerging Peak District Core Strategy is looking to only safeguard certain defined mineral resources, namely: limestone (of 98% calcium carbonate); fluorspar (two proven deposits in Milldam and Watersaw Mines); and sites/areas of local building and roofing stone for heritage/conservation purposes (once we have the necessary evidence base produced). Whilst the PDNPA recognise that there are other mineral resources on our shared boundary with Derbyshire (coal, limestone and building stone) which the Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy is likely to look to safeguard, the PDNPA has previously considered whether to safeguard these mineral resources, but has concluded not to do so. This is for reasoning explained in the Peak District emerging Core Strategy and follows the lead set in the other National Park Core Strategies that have been adopted, where in general no minerals have been safeguarded at all but have still been deemed sound at public examination.

The PDNPA acknowledges that Derbyshire intend to safeguard Carboniferous Limestone; Permian Limestone; alluvial sand and gravel; Sherwood Sandstone and surface coal. Of these minerals there are cross boundary commonalities between Derbyshire and the National Park in relation to surface coal and Carboniferous Limestone. The PDNPA will not be safeguarding all of the Carboniferous Limestone as Derbyshire proposes but only the extensive part of it which is of 98% calcium carbonate in purity. On the western Park boundary around Buxton, the majority (about 90%) of the cross-boundary limestone resource is the very high purity limestone (98% calcium carbonate), so there is likely to be a strong degree of co-ordination here between our two MSAs. On the eastern Park boundary around half of the cross-boundary limestone is the very high purity resource, so again there will be some degree of co-ordination between our MSAs. The PDNPA does not propose to safeguard surface coal, so there will be no cross-boundary co-ordination with regard to this resource; however the coal resource in the Peak District only represents the very periphery of this resource that is not considered viable for surface extraction in the future, consequently no practical issues are likely to arise from a difference in approach.
02 Aug 2010 11:57
Claire Brown Agree with the existing policy. 13 Sep 2010 11:02
Helen Fairfax - North East Der… The associated mapping must be sufficiently detailed so that they can be incorporated into districts’ LDF Proposals maps. 11 Aug 2010 11:04
Jenna Conway - Tarmac The approach recommended in paragraphs 7.73 to 7.79 is in line with Government guidance and is supported. 02 Aug 2010 14:59
John Bradshaw - Tarmac Mineral Safeguarding Areas should be defined above and around all mineral resources. The majority of those resources can be determined using best available geological information. 13 Aug 2010 14:46
Nigel Weedon - Longcliffe Quar… Confidential 14 Jun 2010 16:41
Planning - Cemex Safeguarding zones should include mineral resource areas that could be worked (exclude existing urban areas, industrial and major road systems). Advice should be sought from BGS. The process should be kept simple with clear criteria and enable detailed assessment to be undertaken at the planning application stage. The support of District/ Borough & Unitary authorities within the county is essential. 02 Aug 2010 13:32
Next pageLast page