Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

View Response

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

COMPLETE RESPONSE

Response ID #76545. Submitted on 02 Aug 2010 14:59 by Jenna Conway - Tarmac

Vision (a)

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

  • Not 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?

  • 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?

  • 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

In response to the second element of Issue 1 regarding a reduced proportion of Peak Park's displaced provision it is not clear from the Key Issues and Options report where the displaced provision will come from. In terms of meeting existing aggregate markets it is logical given the proximity of the Peak Park that Derbyshire will continue to meet this displaced provision. Derbyshire need to be clear where the long term aggregate supply may come from if it is not to come from Derbyshire itself. There needs to be clear reference to other authorities approach to aggregate production and what measures they are taking in meeting the reduction in provision from the Peak Park.

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?

  • 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

We agree with the approach being recommended to identify specific site allocations up to 2020 but for the longer term where predictions are more difficult to identify areas of search

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
  • 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 feel that given the value, national importance and investment required in securing sites for industrial limestone there is an argument to be made with identifying site specific allocations for future industrial limestone sites. We support the reference within paragraph 7.23 and the support that Derbyshire will provide in ensuring with Nottinghamshire that all options are explored in terms of site specific provision for Whitwell Quarry.

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?

«No response»

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?

«No response»

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

«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?

  • 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

We understand the aspiration for a reduction in supply of aggregate, however it should not be forgotten that there are existing tests in place that need to be met in order to justify the grant of planning permission in a National Park. Policies need to ensure that this is not simply a blanket transfer, and that this can be properly identified and supported in practical terms, taking full account of the transportation and logistical pros and cons. Given the proximity and the similar geology we believe that Derbyshire is best placed to meet the bulk of aggregates supply displaced from the Peak Park. The policy should only apply to bulk aggregates, not industrial minerals or cement

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?

  • 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

We believe it is a sensible conclusion to consider sites for recycled aggregates within the Waste Core Strategy but recommend that there is clear cross reference and text on approach within the Minerals Core Strategy.

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?

The approach recommended in paragraphs 7.73 to 7.79 is in line with Government guidance and is supported.

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?

 

  • Selected
    Yes
  • Not Selected
    No

Issue 16: Sterilisation of Mineral Resources (b)

Please explain why you came to that decision

We agree with a continuation of the approach in existing MLP Policy MP17, this is in line with Government guidance and protects mineral reserves from unnecessary sterilisation.

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. 

The issues faced by Derbyshire with a high permitted reserve of crushed rock are not unique. The approach to seek operators to relinquish reserves tied up in old permissions in favour of new sites that are more favourable in terms of environmental and amenity impacts is appropriate provided it is undertaken with proper appraisal and in a transparent manner.

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.

A strategic approach to restoration within the Trent Valley will be helpful, this could expand upon the current initiatives of landscape and biodiversity management along the Trent Valley, for example On Trent. Lafarge played a lead role in the formation of the Central Rivers initiative in neighbouring Staffordshire, and consider that a similar approach should be adopted. It should be clear that the aim is to coordinate the restoration across all objectives and land uses. If not set out properly, there is a risk that one objective becomes too dominant.

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.

Lafarge have advocated the formalisation of a joint approach for a number of years, and discussions have been held with the authority and other operators in the past. Lafarge has sought to ensure that the design of schemes at Dowlow are capable of being extended into the other sites to ensure a cohesive scheme. Lafarge would fully support the implementation of such a strategy.

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»