Policy MP1: Provision for minerals extraction – STRATEGIC POLICY

Object

Representation ID: 99083

Received: 06/10/2022

Respondent: McLeod Aggregates Limited

Agent: Stephen M Daw Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is requested that an additional circumstance is bulleted when planning permission can occur on a non-allocated site. Due to a shortage of available fresh water for use in the processing of mineral and a shortage of space for the disposal of processed silts, there is an imminent requirement to extract minerals on an extension to the Plant Site at Bittering Quarry. The extraction would enable the formation of new fresh water and silt lagoons to be restored to a mixture of open water, scrub and wet woodland (see Location Plan).

Comment

Representation ID: 99216

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Breedon Trading Limited

Neither the policy itself or its pre-amble actually identify which sites have been selected to fulfil the 12.597 mt. It would be helpful for readers of the document for the sites identified to be listed in the policy itself or the pre-amble, or a reference made to where the schedule of identified sites lies within the wider document.

Object

Representation ID: 99288

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Breedon Trading Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Company wishes to object to the inclusion of the following phrase within the policy: -
“…Mineral extraction for sand and gravel outside of allocated sites will be resisted by the Mineral Planning Authority unless the applicant can demonstrate:
a) There is an overriding justification and/or overriding benefit for the proposed extraction…”
In the Company’s view this does not sit at ease with the following quote from paragraph 5.3 of the Plan
“…Norfolk County Council will take a positive approach to minerals development and waste management development that reflects the presumption in favour of
sustainable development…”
To be consistent Policy MP1 should reflect the statement made by paragraph 5.3, i.e., that the Council will take a positive approach to minerals development that reflects the principles of sustainable development.

Object

Representation ID: 99295

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Mineral Products Association

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Changes are required to make it clear that the landbanks levels have to be maintained so they are in place at the end of the plan period to make the policy accord with national policy and be effective. In respect of silica sand changes are needed to make the policy accord with NPPF. As currently drafted the policy is unsound as it is not compliant with National Policy.
In respect of silica sand 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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
We are advised that the average 10-year sales (2012 to 2021) for our member Sibelco 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.
Taking into consideration permitted silica sand reserves (3,232,000 tonnes) this indicates a shortfall of 11,303,864 million tonnes.
Soundness test: not compliant with national policy

Support

Representation ID: 99309

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Gravel

Agent: David L Walker Ltd

As regards to the Mineral policies the contents of paragraphs MP1-MP10 inclusive are supported in full, although at the outset when considering the sand and gravel landbank, Norfolk Gravel would question why when considering the sand and gravel landbank ten year sales doesn’t include 2021, when the returns and data should be readily available at this time of the year?
No comments are offered on the remainder of the “strategic landbank” type policies for the other minerals.

Object

Representation ID: 99351

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Longwater Gravel Co. Ltd.

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are making representations to the above consultation on behalf of our client, Longwater Gravel Company Ltd. (‘Longwater’). Longwater is a mineral operator with sand and gravel quarries and minerals and waste processing plants with the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) area. These representations are being submitted to ensure adequate flexibility is provided within the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan policies concerning the provision of aggregate supply.

On a procedural point, the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan has, as part of this consultation, been further extended by a 2 year period. Firstly, to take account of delay in Plan preparation as a result of the pandemic but also to ensure the Plan covers a 15 year period to comply with national guidance. Notwithstanding opportunities for review of the Plan (as a minimum every 5 years) to ensure that policies are effective and remain relevant and up to date, Longwater considers that this extension of time should have been subject to consultation earlier than Publication stage where the Plan is effectively considered sound. Industry were asked back in 2017 to propose sites for consideration within the emerging Plan as site specific allocations based on an end date of 2036. The two-year delay in adopting the emerging plan along with the change in end date will leave a supply gap at the end of the Plan period which industry have not been asked to comment on or the offered opportunity to promote additional sites that could be considered suitable for allocation.

As a result of the above, Longwater is seeking amendments to the general aggregate supply policy to ensure there is sufficient flexibility to enable suitable sites to come forward subject to certain policy criteria.

Minerals Specific Policies

The NPPF sets out different requirements for maintaining supply depending on the type of minerals and their end uses. For aggregate minerals which are used in building and construction, supply is maintained country-wide through the managed aggregate supply system (MASS) and through the maintenance of landbanks of permitted reserves.

Minerals can only be extracted where they naturally occur and, therefore, any strategy for planning the location of mineral development is constrained by the geographical distribution of mineral resources within the Plan area. In broad strategic terms, as depicted on the Key Diagram, this means that sand and gravel will largely be extracted in the central, northern and eastern parts of the Plan area, Carstone in the western parts and silica sand in the central / western parts of the plan area.

The strategic locational strategy is further influenced by the different requirements for maintaining supply depending on the type of minerals and their end uses. As set out above, aggregate supply is maintained through the managed aggregates supply system (MASS). Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs) are required to make provision in their local plans to ensure the supply of aggregates over the Plan period i.e. to 2038. Such provision should take the form of specific sites, preferred areas and/or areas of search and locational criteria as appropriate.

Paragraph 213 (f) of the NPPF requires MPAs to maintain a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for crushed rock, whilst ensuring that the capacity of operations to supply a wide range of materials are not compromised. The footnote to part f) states that ‘longer periods may be appropriate to take account of the need to supply a range of types of aggregates, locations of permitted reserves relative to markets, and productive capacity of permitted sites’.

As set out in Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), an adequate or excess landbank is not a reason for withholding planning permission unless there are other planning objections which are not outweighed by planning benefits. Valid reasons for bringing forward an application of minerals development in an area where there exists an adequate landbank include:
• significant future increases in demand that can be forecast with reasonable certainty;
• the location of the consented reserve is inappropriately located relative to the main market areas;
• the nature, type and qualities of the aggregate such as its suitability for a particular use within a distinct and separate market; or
• known constraints on the availability of consented reserves that might limit output over the plan period.

Policy MP1: Provision for minerals extraction
As identified above, there is concern that sites (including proposed allocations) will be worked out towards the end of the Plan period. The current policy wording seeks to ‘resist’ applications for development outside of those specifically allocated. That approach could result in sustainable extensions, appropriately located resource and application seeking to ensure continuity in production/of certain types of resource being contrary to policy. This approach does not provide a positive framework for new applications coming forward and provides uncertainty to operators in submitting Planning Applications that would be contrary to the adopted Plan.

Policy MP1 identifies a need for at least 12.597 mt of sand and gravel to be allocated over the emerging Plan period (shortfall in the forecast need minus permitted reserve). 16 sites have been allocated, including sites MIN 51, MIN 13 and MIN 08 at Beetley and MIN 64 at Horstead. Planning permission has been granted for MIN 64 (FUL/2020/0045) and the permission has been implemented. Condition 2 of that permission allows for mineral working for 15 years from commencement of the development. This will result in the exhaustion of reserves at Horstead within the Plan period.

The emerging Plan identifies a resource of 1,830,000 tonnes of sand and gravel collectively within the Beetley site allocations, and a resource of 1,480,000 tonnes available during the Plan period (up to 2038).
In both cases (Beetley and Horstead) it is assumed that the sites will operate in accordance with current demand and makes no assessment/forecast of need for upturns in production/supply.

Our client has submitted a planning application (FUL/2022/0021) to work sites MIN 51, MIN 13 and
MIN 08 which, cumulatively, provide ca. 1,550,000 tonnes of mineral, ca. 300,000 tonnes below the estimated total resource. There is a possibility that the overall tonnage may be reduced further as a result of statutory consultation and minor amendments to the working scheme. There is an unidentified shortfall between estimated mineral resources and permitted mineral reserve within sites MIN 51, MIN 13 and MIN 08. This is likely to occur within other sites allocated under policy MP1. In addition, sites that obtain planning permission may be exhausted before the end of the Plan period. As is the case with the current adopted Plan, there is the prospect at sites may not come forward as applications and that poses a threat to overall supply within the Plan. Therefore, it is important to ensure that adequate flexibility is built into the strategic policies for minerals provision over the Plan period.

These amendments [see suggested policy amendments] are considered to provide greater flexibility which is necessary to safeguard the provision of sand and gravel within Norfolk over the emerging plan period due to potential shortfalls/discrepancies in estimated figures. Furthermore, these amendments support potential extensions to existing sites that might be brought forward over the plan period. Extensions to existing sites are considered to be, on balance, often more economically and environmentally sustainable due to the following factors:
• existing plant and infrastructure is in place which reduces start-up costs;
• existing jobs are retained;
• opportunity for a strategic approach to restoration; and
• continuation of existing operations which limits any cumulative impacts.

Object

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 99481

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: The Lyndon Pallett Group Ltd

Agent: PDE Consulting Limited

Timescales
In examining the sites put forward for allocation within the MWLP we have taken note of the anticipated lifespan of the sites which have been proposed for allocation (as described above). Having taken into consideration the proposed start dates and anticipated lifespan of the developments it is notable that there will be a slight reduction in mineral production towards the middle of the plan period. This is because virtually all of the proposed allocations are planned to commence towards the start of the plan period (2022-2025). This means that as the shorter life developments end, overall mineral production will decline as only one site (MIN 208) is planned to commence later within the plan period.

If the Feltwell extensions were to be allocated within the MWLP this would help to bridge a gap within the centre of the plan period following the cessation of extraction from the shorter-lived sites prior to the commencement of further extraction later within the plan period. The proposed extensions to Feltwell would represent a mid-range in terms of lifespan, operating for approximately 11 years from a start date of 2024 when mineral extraction would cease within the existing quarry.

Mineral Production Shortfall

With regard to mineral production, the MWLP makes provision for 1,506,000tpa of sand and gravel production over the plan period. This demand figure is based upon sales during the period 2011 to 2020 plus an allowance of 10% in order to account for increased mineral demand during the three year period between 2018 and 2020. It is, however, recognised within the industry as a whole, that there is an ongoing decline in permitted aggregate reserves nationally.

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) recently published a report titled Aggregates Demand and Supply in Great Britain: Scenarios for 2035.
Within the report the MPA note that the decline in permitted reserves for primary aggregates urgently needs to be addressed within the next 15 years.
Demand projections suggest that, by 2035, some 277 to 323 million tonnes of aggregates will need to be supplied each year. This means that between 3.8 and 4.1 billion tonnes of aggregates will be required between 2022 and 2035, compared with a total of 3.2 billion tonnes of aggregates supplied in the previous period, between 2008 and 2021.

In Britain as a whole for the past decade, for every 100 tonnes of sand and gravel produced from permitted reserves, only 63 tonnes have been replaced through new planning permissions.

Whilst there is an element of uncertainty within the MPA forecasts due to future changes in economic
output and changes in industry practices which may impact the demand for aggregate, it is still predicted that aggregate demand will increase over the next 15 years. This is based on the general resilience of the construction industry to recent economic uncertainty and government investment in upcoming infrastructure projects.