Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Miss Plackett - English Herita…
Date Started: 02 Aug 2010 13:59. Last modified: 02 Aug 2010 13:59
Status Complete
Response ID #76537

Vision (a)

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

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Selected
    No

Vision (b)

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

Surely the primary aim of the plan is to maintain an appropriate supply of minerals
in such a way that minimises its impact on the environment and communities,
while recognising the economic benefits this industry brings to the area. It is
suggested that the first bullet point should be reworded as:
'The plan will have ensured that there is an adequate supply of minerals,
recognising the economic benefits to be gained from mineral extraction in Derby
and Derbyshire, while its impact on the environment and communities will have
been minimised.'
4. As indicated above, the historic legacy of the minerals industry can be part of the
regeneration of an area, providing visitor attractions.

11. There is also a need for proposals to have regard to heritage assets. The
following change is recommended:
'...ensuring that proposals have regard to existing landscape character and the need
to protect wildlife and enhance biodiversity and to conserve heritage assets.'

Objectives (a)

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

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

Objectives (b)

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

«No response»

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?

  • Not Selected
    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).
  • Not Selected
    Option 2: Use an average figure of recent annual production rates to calculate annual apportionment figures from 2020 - 2030.
  • Not Selected
    Other (please specify)

Please type your answer here if you selected 'Other (please specify)' above
«No response»

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?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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

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.

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?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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

«No response»

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?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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.

«No response»

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?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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.

«No response»

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?

In terms of the historic environment, the environmental constraints will need to be identified in the context of the guidance in PPS 5.

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (a)

Should we designate surface mining constraint areas?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (c)

What designations should they cover?

If the concentration of conservation designations is to be adopted as a criterion, the 'significance' of heritage assets (both designated and undesignated, including archaeology of national importance and locally important assets) needs to be considered in line with the guidance in PPS 5. The Areas of Environmental Value referred to above are also relevant, although these do not include more localised pockets of landscape/ biodiversity/historic landscape value.

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (d)

Or should we follow a different approach?

«No response»

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?

 

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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

While it may be desirable to stipulate that building stone from new workings should be the principal product, there are a number of issues that need to be taken into account. It is important that supplies of building and roofing stone are not utilised for other purposes. However, the policy should not be too restrictive, as there is the issue of economic viability; the approach taken with regard to a specific quarry will depend on the quality of the deposit, especially if it is variable, in which case, it might be appropriate to allow lower grade stone (or by-products) to be used for other purposes. This is recognised in Annex 3 of MPS 1, which states that MPAs and LPAs should take account of: 'the fact that in some cases the viability of a small quarry as a source of building or roofing stone may depend on the sale of by-products arising from the extraction and processing of building and roofing stone'. However, we recognise that the working of specific sites would require careful monitoring, especially where the sale of lower grade stone or by-products is permitted.

Issue 7: Strategy for Building Stone (a)

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

  • Not Selected
    Option 1: Identify specific quarries or extensions to existing quarries to provide sources of building and roofing stone for certain buildings or settlements.
  • Selected
    Option 2: Devise a general policy, which allows for the extraction of building stone at sites where particular criteria are met.
  • Not Selected
    A different option (please specify below)

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.

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.

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?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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

«No response»

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)?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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

«No response»

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)

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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

«No response»

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?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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

«No response»

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?

  • Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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

We broadly support the approach set out in a).

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?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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

«No response»

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?

  • Not Selected
    Criteria based policy
  • Not Selected
    Specific sites

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

Please explain why you came to that decision

«No response»

Issue 15: Defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas (a)

What will be the most appropriate way of defining MSAs?

Guidance on safeguarding building and roofing stone is set out in Section 3a) of MPS1 Annex 3. The strategic stone study for Derbyshire should provide the basis for the identification of this resource within the county.

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? 

«No response»

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?

 

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

Issue 16: Sterilisation of Mineral Resources (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision

English Heritage considers that the policy should apply to building and roofing stone, as set out in Section 3a) of MPS1 Annex 3. The strategic stone study for Derbyshire should provide justification for this. There may be an issue regarding the use of the term 'economically workable mineral deposits' for the reasons give above (Issue 6).

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?

  • Not Selected
    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.
  • Not Selected
    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
  • Not Selected
    A different option (please specify below)

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. 

Option 2 clearly relates to Issue 12 and, as implied in paragraph 7.85, would need to be subject to a detailed assessment of the relative environmental and social impacts. However, there is also another consideration. We propose that the supply of aggregates from crushed stone sources should also be linked to the landbank for riverine gravels. Would there be environmental and social benefits in allowing the substitution of crushed stone for part of the sand and gravel apportionment if this resulted in preventing the extraction in sensitive riverine locations in the Trent and Derwent valleys? It is also desirable that the supply of secondary and recycled materials is properly monitored so that its contribution to the overall supply of aggregates is understood.

Issue 18: Restoration Scheme for Trent Valley (a)

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

  • Selected
    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.
  • Not Selected
    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
  • Not Selected
    A different option (please specify below)

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.

We would support a comprehensive long term landscape strategy (Option 1), including consideration of after-uses, based on an understanding of current and historic landscape character; thus, it might include, where appropriate, the restoration of historic landscapes as well as identifying, as proposed in paragraph 7.94, areas that should 'be protected from sand and gravel extraction, as a result of their historic cultural or environmental importance'. This should include consideration of the setting of heritage assets as set out in PPS 5 e.g. Policy HE10; indeed HE10.2 states that 'LPAs should identify opportunities for changes in the setting to enhance or better reveal the significance of a heritage asset. Taking such opportunities should be seen as a public benefit and part of the process of place-shaping'. Further advice on setting is provided in the Practice Guide and forthcoming English Heritage guidance. The strategic scheme would provide the context for detailed restoration and after-use schemes for individual sites.

Issue 19: Restoration Scheme for A515 Corridor (a)

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

  • Selected
    Option 1: Prepare a comprehensive long term landscape strategy for the restoration of limestone quarries along the A515 Corridor.
  • Not Selected
    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.
  • Not Selected
    A different option (please specify below)

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.

Again, we recognise that there would be benefits in developing a strategic scheme that considers the landscape impacts of these workings, as well as nature conservation, geological, amenity and any setting issues

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.

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

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.......

«No response»