Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

View Response

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

COMPLETE RESPONSE

Response ID #76543. Submitted on 02 Aug 2010 14:43 by Rachael Bust - Coal Authority

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.

The Coal Authority welcomes and supports the proposed vision for the Minerals Core Strategy, particularly the recognition that the plan will assist in achieving the safeguarding of minerals and high standards of restoration to allow the productive after-use of sites

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

The Coal Authority welcomes and supports the proposed plan objectives for the Minerals Core Strategy, particularly the recognition in Objective F that the plan will help achieve the safeguarding of minerals from unnecessary sterilisation. The Coal Authority also supports Objective K to ensure that site restoration and reclamation is undertaken to a high quality.

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

«No response»

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.

The Coal Authority considers that the best method of identifying future areas for
potential surface coal extraction is through the identification of the overall geological surface coal
resource area, supplemented by a criteria based policy against which to determine applications.
Given the likely change to future demand for coal resources due to the ever-changing energy
market it is difficult to define areas of search at any point in time which will allow the flexibility that
is likely to be needed over the plan period. Therefore the approach being suggested by the Core
Strategy would appear to be the most logical based upon national policy in MPG3

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?

«No response»

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (a)

Should we designate surface mining constraint areas?

  • Not Selected
    Yes
  • 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?

«No response»

Issue 5: Surface Mining Constraint Areas (d)

Or should we follow a different approach?

MPG3 advises that areas where coal working is unlikely to be acceptable should be
indicated in the development plan. This is not necessarily a requirement to illustrate such areas
through a designation or constraint area on a plan. A criterion based policy for coal or for the wider
protection of environmental and cultural assets from mineral extraction can satisfactorily address
the issues. Consequently The Coal Authority considers that the definition of surface mining
constraint areas are no longer justified or necessary as a plan designation and they represent an
inflexible planning tool which will duplicate other environmental and cultural designations and
considerations that are satisfactorily addressed in other policies both at the national and regional
levels already.

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

«No response»

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.
  • 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.

«No response»

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?

  • 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

Given the current existence of new coal technologies in the plan area and the likely
presence of future proposals The Coal Authority considers that a policy should be included to
address this type of development. The suggestion put forward that the criteria could be based
upon those similar to conventional oil and gas would appear to be a sensible starting point.

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?

  • 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

The Coal Authority would support the inclusion of a criterion based policy to address the
potential reworking of spoil tips, including those at former collieries, which can often provide
secondary aggregates, or further coal resources and can also help to address land stability issues,
and bring about substantial landscape improvements for the benefit of local communities.

Issue 15: Defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas (a)

What will be the most appropriate way of defining MSAs?

The Coal Authority supports in principle the safeguarding of economically proven
minerals resources through the LDF process by the use of Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSA) and
Mineral Consultation Areas (MCA) in the two-tier part of the Derby and Derbyshire plan area.
It is for the local circumstances present within Derbyshire to determine what mineral resources
should be safeguarded, The Coal Authority supports the proposal to safeguard all of the surface
coal resource, which is identified in Tables 1 and 2 of the evidence paper as a 'nationally strategic
resource'.
The definition of any MSAs should be undertaken in accordance with the advice set out in the BGS
Guide to Mineral Safeguarding in England. We do not support the proposal to exclude urban and
other built up areas from the MSAs, such areas should be based upon the geological presence of
the mineral resource and this should not be amended purely for practical reasons.
The definition of MSAs should not be confused with how such areas are then implemented through
policy into the development management system. The proposal set out in the evidence paper to
exempt householder development and some other categories of applications from the need to
consider mineral sterilisation issues would be a pragmatic and suitable method through which to
achieve the practical implementation of mineral safeguarding policy in urban areas.
Whilst a presumption in favour of the prior extraction of minerals ahead of development is a
necessary and sound policy requirement this does not negate the need to still show MSAs in the
urban and other built up areas. The identification and delineation of the coal resource through an
MSA and accompanying MCA is necessary to ensure that the whole resource is protected from
unnecessary sterilisation as required by national planning policy in MPS1 and MPG3. The MSA
and MCA would then need to be shown on the district LDF Proposals Map so that it can properly
be considered in both the plan making process with regard to site allocations and the development
management system. If you exclude urban areas from the MSA and MCA as is suggested then
how will developers and the LPAs be aware of the presence of the coal resource such that they
know that prior extraction must be considered? Unfortunately the present text set out in the Core
Strategy and the evidence paper on this topic is muddled and unclear and as such is at serious risk
of being considered unsound without further clarification to ensure that the objectives to safeguard
minerals as far as possible in MPS1 are fully met.

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»