Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Object

Representation ID: 99352

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Limited & Manor Farm Rackheath Ltd.

Agent: GP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Paragraph MP11.1 - the quote from National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 210) omits reference to Mineral Consultation Areas:
c) safeguard mineral resources by defining Minerals Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas; and adopt appropriate policies so that known locations of specific mineral resources of local and national importance are not sterilised by non-mineral development where this should be avoided (whilst not creating a presumption that the resources defined will be worked);

There are two issues with the wording/content of the policy MP11.
Firstly, the final paragraph is not in line with NPPF. Stating that the Mineral Planning Authority will object regardless of any other factors is clearly wrong and contrary to policy. NPPF at paragraph 12 states: Local Planning Authorities should not normally permit other development proposals in Mineral Safeguarding Areas if it might constrain potential future use for mineral working."
Nowhere in the NPPF or Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) does it state that MPAs should object to every application that would lead to sterilisation, which is basically what the draft policy is saying.
This also sits contrary to the supporting text at paragraph MP11.11.

Secondly, the link to Appendix 10 in the third paragraph of the policy will cause problems for some developments. Appendix 10 basically reiterates the guidance note referred to above. At least in this case it allows interested parties to comment on its content, unlike the current Plan where neither the policy not the supporting text refers to the Guidance Note on the Mineral Safeguarding Process for Aggregates -Sand & Gravel and Carstone (2014). This note is referred to on the Council website but has no statutory status as it was not subject to any consultation. Therefore it does not form part of the development Plan. It is also noted that the 'link' to the document only takes you to the Core Strategy, so it is not actually available through the main website pages.

In general, the proposed Appendix 10, is too onerous and rigid and does not follow BGS advice, which is cross-referenced in PPG. Of particular concern is paragraph 4.11 in Appendix 10: "The assessment of the onsite mineral resources would require the addition of Particle Size Distribution (PSD) tests of batches of any sand and gravel bearing deposits recovered, although this is often carried out for the FRA. Assessment of the results of Particle Size Distribution testing should refer to material class types in Table 6/1 of the Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works vol 1: Specification for Highway Works Series 600. to identify potential suitability for use in the construction phases."

This is a very onerous requirement, particularly for smaller developments, where an FRA or boreholes may not be needed as part of the site assessment.

In addition, the statement at the end of paragraph 10.5.2 (in the Appendix) that "Assessing the practicality of prior extraction as a standalone operation is to assess a false premise" is neither clear nor helpful.

The imposition of MMP-Ms through condition (requiring PSD testing) would be onerous and very difficult to manage on a large phased development. If a developer is required to produce a plan to cover every phase, including boreholes and having the material tested this will be an extremely onerous task and could prejudice the delivery of non-mineral related development (e.g. housing).