Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

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


List of answers to the specified question
Andrew Threlfall Important to maintain local economy and a wide range of jobs for local people and business. 21 Jun 2010 12:54
Miss Plackett - English Herita… We broadly support the approach set out in a). 02 Aug 2010 13:59
Andrew Barton - Peak District… The PDNPA obviously supports the principle that the amount and proportion of aggregates supplied from the National Park should reduce as this is in accord with the requirements of Policy 37 of the East Midlands Regional Plan. The East Midlands Regional Aggregates Working Party has taken on board the thrust of the principle in its revised apportionment for 2005 to 2020, however the methodology utilised continues to penalise the National Park for historically over-providing against its apportionment figure and reward other MPAs including Derbyshire for historically under-providing against their apportionment figures. Therefore the 'readjustment' from the Peak District into Derbyshire for the 2005 to 2020 period is largely an academic exercise, and as highlighted earlier whilst the overall total for the Peak District has reduced from 66.9 million tonnes in the last apportionment period down to 65.0 million tonnes now, because the regional total has also reduced the percentage of regional proportion has actually increased from 12.8% in the last apportionment period to 13.0% now for the Peak District.

As highlighted earlier this increase in proportion is considered to be contrary to regional policy and as such the PDNPA considers that a further reduction in the Peak District apportionment is actually required with a further consequential adjustment to other MPAs in the region including Derbyshire.

Derbyshire as a neighbouring MPA has had its figure theoretically increased to compensate for the reduction in the Peak District figure. However when the figures are examined, in fact the latest 2005 to 2020 apportionment figures has actually seen the Derbyshire amount reduced from 153.8 million tonnes to 139.9 million tonnes and the proportion of the regional total reduced from 29.4% to 28% for Derbyshire. Therefore whilst an adjustment has been made from the baseline figures for the 2005 to 2020 apportionment, because Derbyshire had only met some 77% of its previous apportionment figure from 2001 to 2007 it has still effectively been rewarded for this under-provision in the revised apportionment figures.

Consequently whilst the PDNPA welcomes the adjustment made to increase the Derbyshire figure and reduction in the Peak District figure, we do not consider that the adjustment is sufficient, nor has it really achieved the policy objective of Policy 37 of the East Midlands Regional Plan either in spirit or in real terms. Therefore the PDNPA had intended to challenge the revised apportionment figure in the Partial Review of the Regional Strategy when it was published for consultation in due course. However as this is now likely to be abandoned following the change of Government, the PDNPA now intends to test the reasonableness of the apportionment figure through the forthcoming public examination for the Peak District Core Strategy in line with the questions that the Planning Inspectorate set out for assessing the soundness of minerals policies.

As indicated above under issue 1 there is at present no mechanism for inter-regional trading of aggregates apportionment, nor does the PDNPA consider that there is likely to be any realistic potential for such trading with the abolition of regional governance mechanisms. The regional aggregates apportionment exercise is currently predicated on the basis that any shortfall within any region must be made up within that same region, this is likely to continue as practice in the future as well. Despite the PDNPA raising this issue in response to consultation on the West Midlands Regional Plan and the LDFs of neighbouring MPAs, there has not yet been any success in persuading the neighbouring regions or authorities to increase their apportionment figures to take account of the policy requirement to reduce the Peak District apportionment figure. The premise on which Derbyshire has only agreed to take some 77% of the amount ceasing from the five quarries in the National Park over the next few years, i.e. for market and sustainability reasons remains untested and is considered by the PDNPA to potentially be at odds with current national planning policy set out in MPS1 as it is reliant upon a foundation of inter-regional trading.
02 Aug 2010 11:57
Jenna Conway - Tarmac We understand the aspiration for a reduction in supply of aggregate, however it should not be forgotten that there are existing tests in place that need to be met in order to justify the grant of planning permission in a National Park. Policies need to ensure that this is not simply a blanket transfer, and that this can be properly identified and supported in practical terms, taking full account of the transportation and logistical pros and cons. Given the proximity and the similar geology we believe that Derbyshire is best placed to meet the bulk of aggregates supply displaced from the Peak Park. The policy should only apply to bulk aggregates, not industrial minerals or cement 02 Aug 2010 14:59
Nigel Weedon - Longcliffe Quar… Confidential 14 Jun 2010 16:41
Phil Jones Although Yorkshire and humberside should be encouraged to look to their own resources. 16 May 2010 23:04
Planning - Cemex Derbyshire should continue to compensate for the reduced contribution to aggregate demand from the Peak Park. How this issue is accommodated post 2020 should be a matter for resolution via the RAWP. Simply Derbyshire to determine unilaterally that it is unsustainable for it to continue in this role after 2020 cannot be acceptable as this is not the correct test - it may be that continued supply from Derbyshire is the most sustainable option when viewed in the context of all other options. The Issues & Options paper does not contain sufficient evidence to arrive at a robust view as to Derbyshire continuing role in compensating for the reduced contribution of the Park. As acknowledged by the Issues and Options paper itself a debate on this issue is largely academic given the size of the aggregate landbank and the MPA's inability to regulate where this material is sold geographically. 02 Aug 2010 13:32
Tom French - Derbyshire County… Provided sensitive sites in Derbyshire are also avoided. Additional analysis of the distribution of statutorily designated sites (see above) appears to lend weight to this approach 18 Aug 2010 15:00