Object
Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication
Representation ID: 99470
Received: 19/12/2022
Respondent: Sibelco UK Limited
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
1. Policy MP1 is not legally compliant or sound.
2. Paragraph 214 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states:
“Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by:…
c. maintaining a stock of permitted reserves to support the level of actual and proposed investment required for new or existing plant, and the maintenance and improvement of existing plant and equipment74.”
3. Footnote 74 states:
“These reserves should be at least 10 years for individual silica sand sites; at least 15 years for cement primary (chalk and limestone) and secondary (clay and shale) materials to maintain an existing plant, and for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required; and at least 25 years for brick clay, and for cement primary and secondary materials to support a new kiln.”
4. National policy is clear that Mineral Planning Authorities are required to plan for a steady and adequate supply of silica sand, it is therefore wholly inappropriate for Policy MP1 to state that a landbank of at least 10 years shall be maintained “where practical”. It is notable that where significant new capital is required a landbank of at least 15 years is required rather than just 10 years. This means that the policy as drafted is not prepared positively and is not consistent with national policy.
5. It follows that the calculation of forecasted need is not consistent with national policy. Whilst there is no guidance on how this should be calculated for the purposes of plan making, Paragraph: 090 Reference ID: 27-090-20140306 of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides guidance for how this should be calculated at the point of planning application submission:
“The required stock of permitted reserves for each silica sand site should be based on the average of the previous 10 years sales. The calculations should have regard to the quality of sand and the use to which the material is put.”
6. No reference is made to the permitted throughput of a processing site. Indeed the ‘throughput’ of a particular site does not determine the sales made from the site. National policy makes the clear distinction that sales should be used to determine the level of permitted reserves required as the processing of raw mineral results in waste unsuitable for sale.
7. The average 10 year sales (2012 to 2021) for the King’s Lynn Quarry complex is 807,548 tonnes per annum. Therefore, the forecasted need over the Plan period is at least 14,535,864 tonnes.
8. Taking into consideration permitted silica sand reserves (3,232,000 tonnes) this indicates a shortfall of 11,303,864 million tonnes.
We suggest Policy MP1 should be reworded as follows:
Proposed Changes
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete:10.34] [insert: '11.30' million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period. The landbank for silica sand will be maintained at a level of at least 10 years’ supply [insert: 'or at least 15 years’ supply where significant new capital is required'] [delete: where practicable]. Planning applications for silica sand extraction located outside of allocated sites, which would address the shortfall in permitted reserves, will be determined on their own merits in accordance with the policies in this Local Plan, including the requirements contained within Policy [insert: 'MP2 and'] MPSS1.”