Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

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


List of answers to the specified question
Henry Folkard - British Mountaineering Council Offers potential for a better regulation of minimum quantities; this may well be dependent upon planning policies which may change or on the advent of acceptable alternative and sustainable supply. 18 Aug 2010 14:24
Roger Caisley - Suon Ltd Option 1 would be difficult to pursue in terms of specific allocations although it could be possible in a limited number of locations e.g. Hardwick Hall Quarry, in the case of other potential sources there could be difficulties in establishing the workability/viability of operations and thus of demonstrating that these sites could be brought forward. A more practicable approach would seem to be to establish appropriate safeguarding policies for building and roofing stone and formulate policy criteria for the assessment of applications. 12 Aug 2010 14:06
Helen Fairfax - North East Derbyshire District Council A combination of Options 1 & 2 would appear to provide the most balanced approach. The two options could compliment each other, with the elements of Option 1 ensuring that outputs from specific quarries can be earmarked to meet conservation objectives; whilst elements of Option 2 would provide a more flexible and ‘future proof’ approach, to accommodate the needs for stone of a specific character as the need arises. 11 Aug 2010 11:04
Karen Miller - National Trust It is suggested that a two stage approach is adopted. Firstly, one based on Option 1 where such existing quarries are identified; and secondly a criteria based approach to any other quarries that come forward and where a particular need and case can be justified. 10 Aug 2010 16:10
Alan Morey - Chesterfield Borough Council The best approach would be a mix of Option 1 & Option 2. Option 1 would allow DCC do identify in more detail exactly what types of stone are available at specific quarries and which settlements or development proposals within the county might utilise the stone. This presumably would offer some certainty and consistency to developers and the conservation sector. Option 2 would allow a degree of necessary flexibility in that quarry operators would be able to meet any fluctuations in market demand. 02 Aug 2010 14:29
Miss Plackett - English Heritage - East Midlands Region Our preference is for Option 2, with appropriate criteria, as this is more flexible by not restricting extraction to known quarries. The important building stones should be identified and appropriately safeguarded. Ian Thomas's (National Stone Centre)study in the context of the national Strategic Stone Study makes an important contribution to the understanding of this resource in Derbyshire. 02 Aug 2010 13:59
Stephen Woods - Cemex Option 1, unless there is an overriding need or market demand then an application should be considered against certain criteria to assist determination. 02 Aug 2010 13:32
Andy Tickle - Friends of the Peak District We favour Option 1 but are aware that the evidence base for this is likely to be insufficient at the current time (unless work by the strategic stone study project by English Heritage and DCC is further forward than we are aware?). However we would only favour identifying specific sites that would meet clear need criteria in relation to supplying key local and regional restoration, repair and new build projects commensurate with maintaining an enhancing rural built vernacular. In the absence of Option 1, we would be supportive of a more general, criteria led policy. 30 Jul 2010 11:25
Andrew Threlfall Option 2 seems less onerous and therefore more economical to manage for small scale operations 21 Jun 2010 12:54
Nigel Weedon - Longcliffe Quarries Limited Confidential 14 Jun 2010 16:41
Martin Clayton - Geoplan (representations made on behalf of Marshalls Natural St With the possible exception of some prominent historic buildings, the demand for building stone cannot be set by reference to particular buildings or settlements. This approach is simply too restrictive and doesn't allow the operator to respond to market demand, nor does it take account of any 'new build' requirements. The building stone market is fluid and subject to change depending upon fashion and the requirements of architects, developers, builders and local authorities. Option 2 should allow sufficient flexibility to be built in to reflect this. 26 May 2010 13:25