Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

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

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Stephen Woods - Cemex It is crucial that the means of calculating aggregate provision be consistent throughout the Framework period. As the apportionment approach has been adopted for the period up to 2020 then this approach should continue to be adopted for the extended period up to 2030. There seems to be little logic behind the suggestion that Derbyshire should seek to reduce its contribution to the shortfall caused by the Peak Park running down its permitted reserves. It seems to be based on an anticipation that other MPAs will step in, but no evidence is provided to support this. Rather than unilaterally assuming that other MPAs will 'take up the baton' post 2020 this issue is one that should be resolved at a RAWP or inter RAWP level. Therefore option 1 would be more appropriate at this time. There is a general presumption to the decrease of mineral operation in the Peak District but this should not lead to the omission of mineral extraction in the Peak District. 02 Aug 2010 13:32
Nigel Weedon - Longcliffe Quarries Limited Confidential 14 Jun 2010 16:41
Mark North - Mineral Products Association Insufficient information has been provided in the consultation document to allow the matter referred to under b) to be properly considered by consultees. This is a matter for the Regional Aggregate Working Party. 10 Aug 2010 14:03
John Bradshaw - Tarmac If such a policy was pursued it would put more emphasis on the need to protect existing crushed rock reserves outside the Peak Park - i.e. in Derbyshire and neighbouring Authorities. 13 Aug 2010 14:46
Jenna Conway - Tarmac In response to the second element of Issue 1 regarding a reduced proportion of Peak Park's displaced provision it is not clear from the Key Issues and Options report where the displaced provision will come from. In terms of meeting existing aggregate markets it is logical given the proximity of the Peak Park that Derbyshire will continue to meet this displaced provision. Derbyshire need to be clear where the long term aggregate supply may come from if it is not to come from Derbyshire itself. There needs to be clear reference to other authorities approach to aggregate production and what measures they are taking in meeting the reduction in provision from the Peak Park. 02 Aug 2010 14:59
Henry Folkard - British Mountaineering Council Future demand will be for reduced quantities. 18 Aug 2010 14:24
Andy Tickle - Friends of the Peak District it seems reasonable that DC/DC should balance its share of the displaced PDNP provision with other surrounding MPAs but this will depend strongly on the permitted reserves and wider resources in those areas and the minerals being looked at. The Regional Plan (2009) policy on reduction of mineral extraction in the PDNP and Lincolnshire Wolds AONB widened the ambition of the policy to all minerals. Therefore the disposition of the differing minerals across the neighbouring MPAs will be crucial to determining what a fair share would be. Given the size of the DC/DC landbank for crushed rock, we would envisage that DC/DC would still continue to play a significant role in meeting the displaced provision 30 Jul 2010 11:25
Miss Plackett - English Heritage - East Midlands Region b) While there would be benefits for the Peak District, the environmental and social
implications for the rest of Derbyshire of transferring any displaced provision needs to
be understood before pursuing this policy.
02 Aug 2010 13:59
Andrew Threlfall yes, Derbyshire should aim take a proportion of the Peak Park's quarrying to ensure coninuity of employment / business in the local area. A national overview is also required rather than solely adjoining areas for scarse minerals / reduction in imports. 21 Jun 2010 12:54