Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

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


List of answers to the specified question
Peter Toon - Hanson UK Fully support identification of specific extensions to sites but not areas of search. Govt guidance states that these should be avoided in preference to preferred areas. 28 Sep 2010 11:39
Tom French - Derbyshire County… Provided that the ‘broader areas of search’ suggested for 2020-2030 do not create a presumption in favour that automatically outweighs other interests. 18 Aug 2010 15:00
Mr Bowen - South Derbyshire Di… Members note comments about the future sustainability of sand and gravel extraction in the Trent Valley and the potential need to identify alternative locations (such as the Dove Valley around Foston and Sudbury) for sand and gravel extraction towards the end of the Plan period. That there is concern about the identification of potential future minerals development in the Dove Valley around Scropton and Foston due to the sensitivity of the area. 12 Aug 2010 14:43
Charles Butt - Nature After Mi… Provided that decisions about granting extensions to existing sites are based on potential to deliver priority habitat creation targets for the region. 11 Aug 2010 09:33
Karen Miller - National Trust This approach is partly agreed. As previously identified in the Trust's submissions on the discontinued site allocations DPD, there are significant environmental issues in respect of new sites in the Dove Valley. The approach up to 2020 is entirely appropriate. It is by no means clear that new sites in this location would be preferable to further extensions to existing sites; accordingly greater justification will need to be presented and considered in terms of broader Areas of Search. 10 Aug 2010 16:10
Jenna Conway - Tarmac We agree with the approach being recommended to identify specific site allocations up to 2020 but for the longer term where predictions are more difficult to identify areas of search 02 Aug 2010 14:59
Planning - Cemex Preferred Areas are always superior from the perspective of identifying resources as they minimise the element of uncertainty that accompanies any designation. It is recognised, however, that insufficient suitable sites can be identified for the whole of the Framework period. It is suggested that the MPA identify sufficient Preferred Areas to fulfil its apportionment until 2030. If the MPA is unable to identify sufficient reserves in this way for the full Framework period then any shortfall should be made up with Areas of Search which, to the best of the MPA's knowledge, have the potential to release reserves to eliminate any identified shortfall. 02 Aug 2010 13:32
Tim Claxton - Aggregate Indust… The approach is acceptable provided that the extensions to existing sites are not limited to the Trent Valley sites and that a wider view is taken that encompasses those extension opportunities in the Dove Valley as well. 22 Jul 2010 16:51
Heidi Sargeant - Elvaston Pari… Sites should be selected considering ratio of yield to land take, overburden, transport & restoration. 05 Jul 2010 23:59
Andrew Threlfall Gives increased time to review required volumes for 2020 and to locate suitable alternative sources. 21 Jun 2010 12:54
Nigel Weedon - Longcliffe Quar… Confidential 14 Jun 2010 16:41
Andrew Leivers Postponing allocation would allow for change in requirements. For example, if more materials are recycled in the future, there may be less of a need for aggregates. 14 Jun 2010 13:26
Phil Jones This strategy is simply putting off the day when resources are finally depleted by just a few years. A radical rethink needs to happen not straight line projection from the past. When all the environmentally sensitive areas and new resources have gone what then? Much better to conserve now and look for alternatives such as extraction of sand from sandbanks in the north sea as well as reducing demand. 16 May 2010 23:04