30 June 2009
Nottinghamshire County Council
Communities Department
Trent Bridge House
Fox Road
West Bridgford
Nottingham
NG2 6BJ
Dear Mr Allum
Nottinghamshire County Council Minerals Development Framework
Thank you for consulting the MPA (Mineral Products Association) in respect of the Nottinghamshire Minerals Safeguarding Draft Background Paper.
The Mineral Products Association is the principal trade association representing the quarrying industry in Great Britain. Our members represent 100% of GB cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production and 95% of GB asphalt and ready-mixed concrete production. They are also responsible for producing important industrial materials such as silica sand, agricultural and industrial lime and mortar.
Having reviewed the document we have the following comments to make.
General
It should be noted that revised BGS guidance on mineral safeguarding will be published in a few months time. The MPA are interested in how Nottinghamshire County Council will adapt to any changes made to the current guidance, which is referred to regularly in this Draft Minerals Safeguarding Background Paper
Minerals Safeguarding Areas are a formal designation and should be referred to in this way, not minerals safeguarding areas as written at several points throughout this document.
Page 5 – Why safeguard minerals?
The first sentence of the third paragraph should be reworded “….neither do they necessarily preclude all other forms of development” to provide clarity.
The final sentence of the third paragraph is not accurate; MSAs must capture every viable resource.
Page 12 – Paragraph 2.2
Nottinghamshire County Council should notethat there is no absolute presumption against mineral working in designated areas. Resources should be safeguardedin designated areas if they could be required in the foreseeable future.
Page 13 – Paragraph 2.8
Paragraph 2.8 should be amended for clarification. There seems to be confusion between buffer zones for Mineral Safeguarding Areas and buffer zones in relation to a mineral site allocation or minerals related planning application. The two are different and have different aims.
Page 21 – Paragraph 3.3
As mentioned in paragraph 3.3, if Planning Authorities are faced with widespread resources they must make a judgement about what might be required in the foreseeable future and safeguard those resources.
Page 21/22 – Paragraph 3.4
The situation described in paragraph 3.4 assumes that a decision has been made about the relative need for the mineral against the need for the competing development at the LDF/MDF stage, which is not the case. This occurs at the application stage.
Page 22 – Paragraph 3.5
See comments above. The concept of mineral safeguarding is built on a precautionary approach to the conservation of irreplaceable resources. If a mineral resource is, or may become of economic importance within the foreseeable future it should be safeguarded, nothing has to be certain.
Page 23 – Paragraph 3.9
The MPA do not agree with paragraph 3.9, it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate and the Planning Authorities must exercise judgement.
Page 24 – Paragraph 3.10
Nottinghamshire County Council should note that prior extraction is not about making propositions attractive to developers it is about ensuring irreplaceable resources are not sterilised.
Page 26 – Paragraph 3.13
In relation to paragraph 3.13, the objective of temporary development should be to ensure land is returned to a state so the mineral can still be worked.
Page 26 – Paragraph 3.15
The final bullet point is of concern to the MPA in light of comments made above. Would bullet point five mean that development which is in accordance within adopted District Development Plan allocations will be exempted, even if that development will sterilise a proven mineral resource or represent a risk to future minerals extraction. This would be unacceptable.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Bromley
Planning Officer