Answers to Derby & Derbyshire Minerals Core Strategy: Key Issues & Options Questionnaire
COMPLETE RESPONSE
Response ID #76493. Submitted on 02 Aug 2010 11:57 by Andrew Barton - Peak District National Park Authority
Do you agree that this covers all the elements that a vision for mineral extraction in Derbyshire should cover?
If not, please specify what you think should be added or removed.
Do you agree that this covers all the elements that the objectives for mineral extraction in Derbyshire should cover?
If not, please specify what you think should be added or removed
What would be the best way of calculating the necessary provision we will need to make for aggregates in the period after 2020?
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?
Please explain how you came to your decision for (b), and if you disagreed, please suggest an alternative approach
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?
Please explain why you came to that decision. If you disagreed, please suggest an alternative approach that we could take
Do you agree that a criteria based policy is the best way of dealing with the issues outlined above?
Please explain why you came to that decision. If you disagreed, please suggest an alterntaive approach that we could take.
Please explain why you came to your decision in (a). If you disagreed, please suggest an alternative approach that we could take.
What are the environmental constraints to the identification of future working areas that should be defined?
Should we designate surface mining constraint areas?
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?
What designations should they cover?
Or should we follow a different approach?
Do you agree that we should include a policy which stipulates that building stone from new workings should be the principal product?
Please explain why you came to that decision. If you disagreed, please suggest an alternative approach
What approach do you think we should take for meeting the need for building stone?
Please explain why you came to that decision. If you chose 'a different option', please explain what that would be.
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?
Please explain why you came to that decision, and if you chose 'no' please suggest an alternative approach that we could take
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)?
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)
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?
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?
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?
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?
Please explain why you came to that decision
What will be the most appropriate way of defining MSAs?
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?
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?
What would be the best way of reducing the landbank for crushed rock in Derbyshire?
What approach should we take to the restoration of mineral workings in the Trent Valley?
What approach should we take to the restoration of mineral workings along the A515 Corridor, Buxton?
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.
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;
•· or anything else
I think the e consultation could be improved by.......