Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

Summary of Responses

Vision (a)

Do you agree that this covers all the elements that a vision for mineral extraction in Derbyshire should cover?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Vision (b)

If not, please specify what you think should be added or removed.

This question has been answered 11 times.

View responses

Objectives (a)

Do you agree that this covers all the elements that the objectives for mineral extraction in Derbyshire should cover?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Objectives (b)

If not, please specify what you think should be added or removed

This question has been answered 11 times.

View responses

Issue 1: Calculating the Provision for Aggregates Beyond 2020 (a)

What would be the best way of calculating the necessary provision we will need to make for aggregates in the period after 2020?

Option Results Count
Option 1: Make an estimate of provision beyond 2020 based on a straight line projection of the current agreed apportionments (i.e. the annual apportionments for crushed rock and sand & gravel remain the same for the years from 2020 - 2030 as they are from 2005 - 2020).
Option 2: Use an average figure of recent annual production rates to calculate annual apportionment figures from 2020 - 2030.
Other (please specify)

View responses

Issue 1: Calculating the Provision for Aggregates Beyond 2020 (b)

Do you agree (for both options 1 & 2) that we should also allow for a reduced proportion of the Peak Park's displaced provision of crushed rock on the assumption that, after 2020, other authorities will take an element of this displaced provision?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 1: Calculating the Provision for Aggregates Beyond 2020 (c)

Please explain how you came to your decision for (b), and if you disagreed, please suggest an alternative approach

This question has been answered 9 times.

View responses

Issue 2: Identification of Sites for Sand & Gravel (a)

Taking all these considerations into account, one approach to meeting the necessary provision targets would be:

For the period up to 2020 - allocate specific extensions to existing sites rather than allocating new sites

For the period 2020-2030 - allocate broader Areas of Search

 

Do you agree with this approach?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 2: Identification of Sites for Sand & Gravel (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision. If you disagreed, please suggest an alternative approach that we could take

This question has been answered 13 times.

View responses

Issue 3: Criteria Based Policy for Industrial Limestone (a)

Do you agree that a criteria based policy is the best way of dealing with the issues outlined above?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 3: Criteria Based Policy for Industrial Limestone (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision. If you disagreed, please suggest an alterntaive approach that we could take.

This question has been answered 8 times.

View responses

Issue 4: Identifying Future Working Areas for Coal Extraction (a)

Do you agree that a criteria based policy is the best way of dealing with the issues outlined above?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 4: Identifying Future Working Areas for Coal Extraction (b)

Please explain why you came to your decision in (a). If you disagreed, please suggest an alternative approach that we could take.

This question has been answered 11 times.

View responses

Issue 4: Identifying Future Working Areas for Coal Extraction (c)

What are the environmental constraints to the identification of future working areas that should be defined?

This question has been answered 7 times.

View responses

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (a)

Should we designate surface mining constraint areas?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (b)

If so, should we follow the approach taken in the Minerals Local Plan, of identifying areas with a sufficient concentration of conservation designations to justify special protection?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (c)

What designations should they cover?

This question has been answered 7 times.

View responses

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (d)

Or should we follow a different approach?

This question has been answered 5 times.

View responses

Issue 6: Proper and Efficient Use of Building Stone (a)

Do you agree that we should include a policy which stipulates that building stone from new workings should be the principal product?

 

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 6: Proper and Efficient Use of Building Stone (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision. If you disagreed, please suggest an alternative approach

This question has been answered 11 times.

View responses

Issue 7: Strategy for Building Stone (a)

What approach do you think we should take for meeting the need for building stone?

Option Results Count
Option 1: Identify specific quarries or extensions to existing quarries to provide sources of building and roofing stone for certain buildings or settlements.
Option 2: Devise a general policy, which allows for the extraction of building stone at sites where particular criteria are met.
A different option (please specify below)

View responses

Issue 7: Strategy for Building Stone (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision. If you chose 'a different option', please explain what that would be.

This question has been answered 11 times.

View responses

Issue 8: Managing How We Make Provision for Clay (a)

Do you agree that we should include a policy for the development of clay working which sets out criteria similar to those in the existing Minerals Local Plan policy?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 8: Managing How We Make Provision for Clay (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision, and if you chose 'no' please suggest an alternative approach that we could take

This question has been answered 3 times.

View responses

Issue 9: Managing How We Make Provision for Vein Minerals (a)

Do you agree that we should include a policy for the development of vein working which sets out criteria similar to those in the existing Minerals Local Plan policy (MP33)?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 9: Managing How We Make Provision for Vein Minerals (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision, and if you chose 'no' please suggest an alternative approach that we could take

This question has been answered 8 times.

View responses

Issue 10: Managing How We Make Provision for Conventional Oil & Gas (a)

Do you agree that we should include a policy for conventional oil and gas development which sets out criteria similar to those in the existing Minerals Local Plan (Policies MP13 & MP35)

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 10: Managing How We Make Provision for Conventional Oil & Gas (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision, and if you chose 'no' please suggest an alternative approach that we could take

This question has been answered 4 times.

View responses

Issue 11: Managing How We Make Provision for New Coal Technologies (a)

Do you agree that we should include a policy for new coal exploitation technologies which sets out criteria similar to those for conventional oil and gas developments; as in the existing Minerals Local Plan policy MP35?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 11: Managing How We Make Provision for New Coal Technologies (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision, and if you chose 'no' please suggest an alternative approach that we could take

This question has been answered 6 times.

View responses

Issue 12: Consequences of Reducing Aggregate Extraction in Peak Park (a)

Do you agree that Derbyshire should continue to contribute to the aim of reducing aggregates from the National Park through agreed increases in our apportionment, based on the markets that Derbyshire is best placed to supply sustainably?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 12: Consequences of Reducing Aggregate Extraction in Peak Park (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision, and if you chose 'no' please suggest an alternative approach that we could take

This question has been answered 8 times.

View responses

Issue 13: Safeguarding Sites for Recycled Aggregates (a)

Do you agree that the most appropriate place to consider the safeguarding of individual sites suitable for the recycling, reprocessing and transfer of materials including construction and demolition wastes is the Waste Core Strategy?

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 13: Safeguarding Sites for Recycled Aggregates (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision, and if you chose 'no' please suggest an alternative approach that we could take

This question has been answered 11 times.

View responses

Issue 14: Reworking Spoil Tips for Secondary Aggregates (a)

Should we have a criteria-based policy relating to reworking of spoil tips for secondary aggregates or seek to identify specific sites where these products can be worked?

Option Results Count
Criteria based policy
Specific sites

View responses

Issue 14: Reworking Spoil Tips for Secondary Aggregates (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision

This question has been answered 10 times.

View responses

Issue 15: Defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas (a)

What will be the most appropriate way of defining MSAs?

This question has been answered 12 times.

View responses

Issue 15: Defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas (b)

It is likely to be inappropriate and unworkable to define all resources, so what criteria do you think we should use to ensure that sufficient minerals are safeguarded for the future? 

This question has been answered 5 times.

View responses

Issue 16: Sterilisation of Mineral Resources (a)

Existing MLP Policy MP17 states proposals for development which would sterilise the future working of economically workable mineral deposits will be resisted, except where there is an overriding need for the development and prior extraction cannot be undertaken.  Where the development is considered essential and proven mineral deposits would be sterilised, permission will be granted provided it would not lead to adverse environmental impacts.

 

Do you agree that we should continue this approach in the Minerals Core Strategy?

 

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

Issue 16: Sterilisation of Mineral Resources (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision

This question has been answered 10 times.

View responses

Issue 17: Reducing the Landbank of Crushed Rock in Derbyshire (a)

What would be the best way of reducing the landbank for crushed rock in Derbyshire?

Option Results Count
Option 1: Grant limited new permissions for aggregate crushed rock if operators agree to relinquish reserves of a greater amount in Derbyshire as a condition of the permission.
Option 2: Grant limited new permissions for aggregate crushed rock if operators agree to relinquish reserves of a greater amount in Derbyshire or the Peak District National Park as a condition of the permission
A different option (please specify below)

View responses

Issue 17: Reducing the Landbank of Crushed Rock in Derbyshire (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision. If you chose 'a different option', please explain what that would be. 

This question has been answered 11 times.

View responses

Issue 18: Restoration Scheme for Trent Valley (a)

What approach should we take to the restoration of mineral workings in the Trent Valley?

Option Results Count
Option 1: Prepare a comprehensive long term landscape strategy for the restoration of sand and gravel workings in the Trent Valley, accepting that this may guide the allocation of new sites.
Option 2: Continue to apply a criterion based approach to the restoration of sand and gravel workings, based on local circumstances, devising restoration schemes for quarries as they arise, guided by local circumstances only
A different option (please specify below)

View responses

Issue 18: Restoration Scheme for Trent Valley (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision. If you chose 'a different option', please explain what that would be.

This question has been answered 14 times.

View responses

Issue 19: Restoration Scheme for A515 Corridor (a)

What approach should we take to the restoration of mineral workings along the A515 Corridor, Buxton?

Option Results Count
Option 1: Prepare a comprehensive long term landscape strategy for the restoration of limestone quarries along the A515 Corridor.
Option 2: Continue to apply a criteria based approach to the restoration of these quarries, based on local circumstances, devising restoration schemes for quarries as they arise, guided by circumstances specific to the particular quarry only.
A different option (please specify below)

View responses

Issue 19: Restoration Scheme for A515 Corridor (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision. If you chose 'a different option', please explain what that would be.

This question has been answered 12 times.

View responses

Issue 20: Site Suggestions

Would you like to propose a site for possible inclusion within the Minerals Core Strategy?

If you tick yes we will contact you to discuss the necessary next steps.

Option Results Count
Yes
No

View responses

21

This is the first time we have used a totally electronic consultation document and questionnaire. Your ideas will help us, improve the way we seek people's views in this way, in the future.

Please could you tell us in the box below, if there is anything you think we ought to change in the way such consultation documents are designed?

For instance;

  • how we have asked you to register;
  • the length of the paper and ; ways we could make it look less complicated;
  •  the ways we have split it into sections and whether this has helped you find your way around the document ;
  •  the way we have put the questions in the text;
  • the way we ask the questions

•·         or anything else

I think the e consultation could be improved by.......

This question has been answered 3 times.

View responses