Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Andy Tickle - Friends of the P…
Date Started: 30 Jul 2010 11:25. Last modified: 30 Jul 2010 11:25
Status Complete
Response ID #76386

Vision (a)

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

  • Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

Vision (b)

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

«No response»

Objectives (a)

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

  • 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).
  • 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?

  • 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

it seems reasonable that DC/DC should balance its share of the displaced PDNP provision with other surrounding MPAs but this will depend strongly on the permitted reserves and wider resources in those areas and the minerals being looked at. The Regional Plan (2009) policy on reduction of mineral extraction in the PDNP and Lincolnshire Wolds AONB widened the ambition of the policy to all minerals. Therefore the disposition of the differing minerals across the neighbouring MPAs will be crucial to determining what a fair share would be. Given the size of the DC/DC landbank for crushed rock, we would envisage that DC/DC would still continue to play a significant role in meeting the displaced provision

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?

  • 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.

we agree that a criteria based policy is most appropriate where the overall presumption is against further permissions save in exceptional circumstances where a supportable case is made for a particular sub-type/sub-use of mineral that meets appropriate local, regional or national needs. To ensure that the permission continues to supply such specialist needs alone, legal agreements on end use should accompany any such approval.

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?

  • 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.

we are concerned that there appears to be an overall acceptance of a potential increase in demand for coal and believe this does not sit well with para. 9 of the Vision for Minerals Development (p.28) nor Objective I of the plan. The use of high carbon fuels such as coal must be constrained if we are to meet demanding national and international targets to help mitigate the impacts of climate change. We think this is a cross-cutting issue that must be addressed by this plan and its policies. In our view, this adds a further - and more stringent - presumption against coal extraction, in addition to that currently extant in national guidance (MPG3). In relation to question a) a criteria based policy is probably the best way forward but should be amended to state a presumption against on climate change grounds

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?

these should principally relate to amenity (especially proximity to settlement), nature conservation and heritage designations, tranquillity maps and local landscape (character) sensitivities plus key recreational areas. Flood constraints would also be important.

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?

  • Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (c)

What designations should they cover?

re b) and c), if areas were to be identified, the above (see Issue 4 c) answer) constraints would be included. However, we would expect there to be further consultation on the suite of designations that may be included in mapping constraints.

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (d)

Or should we follow a different approach?

we have balanced views on this issue. Whereas constraint mapping, if implemented appropriately, may be useful in steering minerals development to the least constrained location, the general presumption against coal extraction (usually open cast) that we suggest above would mean that any such development would be exceptional. In this case, such an approach may be a waste of resources.

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?

 

  • 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

agree and this should be supported by end use legal agreement. It is inappropriate to permit extraction on the basis of a rationale focused on the need for a key high-end mineral and then let the target mineral be used to produce a ubiquitous product, such as low grade aggregate, which could have been supplied from an extant permitted reserve. This is tantamount to gaining a planning permission for pub, then turning it into another use without the need for a varied permission.

Issue 7: Strategy for Building Stone (a)

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

  • Selected
    Option 1: Identify specific quarries or extensions to existing quarries to provide sources of building and roofing stone for certain buildings or settlements.
  • Not 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.

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.

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

We have no over-riding objection to including a policy similar to MP33 on vein minerals. If a realisable reserve of vein minerals were to be found that met those criteria, it could also assist in reducing the impact of similar activities in the PDNP.

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 strong comment save that these are also fossil fuels and policy for such minerals should be reconsidered in the light of their climate change impact.

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?

  • Not 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

«No response»

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?

«No response»

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

«No response»

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. 

«No response»

Issue 18: Restoration Scheme for Trent Valley (a)

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

  • Not 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.

«No response»

Issue 19: Restoration Scheme for A515 Corridor (a)

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

  • Not 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.

«No response»

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»