Archived decisions

C

ontents

Page

1. Background Information 2

2. Strategy and Objectives 5

3. Key Issues for Consultation 7

4. Next Steps 11

B

ackground Information

Stakeholder Dialogue Process

As part of the review of the current Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan a facilitated stakeholder dialogue process has been used to get stakeholders more actively involved in the plan preparation process. Stakeholders have been drawn from a wide range of groups, organisations and individuals with an interest in the overall issue of minerals in Hampshire. Stakeholder groups, under the guidance of independent professional facilitators, have met five times to discuss a wide range of topics and issues. The outcomes of these meetings have contributed to the production of this Issues Paper. Two more meetings are scheduled before September 2002, and the final outcomes of the overall stakeholder process will contribute to the production of the First Deposit Draft Plan later this year.

The stakeholder dialogue process is intended to contribute to and enhance the review. It will not in any way replace the statutory consultation process, which formally begins with the publication of this Issues Paper.

Government Policy and Statutory Context

Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council are the Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities (MPAs) for their administrative areas. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires MPAs to prepare Minerals and Waste Local Plans (either separately or combined) for their areas. These plans (together with the Structure Plan and the District, Borough or City Local Plan) form the Development Plan for the area.

The current Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan was prepared jointly by Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton, and was adopted in December 1998. It covered the period only to the end of 2001 but it will remain in force until it is reviewed. The Plan covers the area of Hampshire and the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton and provides the detailed land use policy framework for planning decisions to be made on the extraction of all minerals and for the management and disposal of waste.

Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton have decided to carry out a joint review of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan in two stages, starting with the Minerals part. A review of the Waste part will follow later. The review will take the form of a series of Alterations to the current Plan, rather than a complete rewrite.

As part of the plan review process the three MPAs need to be sure that they are addressing relevant and current issues relating to minerals in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton. These `key issues' are presented in this document, and your views and comments on these issues are invited.

Government Guidance on Aggregates

MPG6 (April 1994) is the primary source of Government advice and guidance on the supply of material at the best balance of social, environmental and economic cost. However, it is recognised that this guidance is based on forecasts of demand that were too high, and the guidance is out-of-date. MPG6 is currently under review but, until new guidance is published, the current version of MPG6 remains in force.

Minerals in Hampshire

Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton are currently required by Government guidance to provide for the production of 2.7 million tonnes (mt) of sand and gravel a year up to 2006 (the apportionment). The current Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan makes this level of provision.

Sales of land-won sand and gravel from Hampshire, from 1991 to 2000, are shown in Table 1 below. Between 1991 to 2000 the average annual production of sand and gravel was 2.6 mt a year. Sales in seven of the past ten years have been below the 2.7 mt a year apportionment level provided for in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. As these figures show, demand for aggregates has been lower than was predicted by Government forecasts.

Table 1 - Hampshire Sand and Gravel Sales 1991 to 2000 (thousand tonnes)

Source: Hampshire County Council Aggregates Monitoring 1991-2000.

Landbanks

A landbank is a stock of planning permissions for extraction of sand and gravel which provide for the continued extraction of sand and gravel over a given period. The current Plan makes provision for a seven year `landbank' of sand and gravel to be available at the end of 2001, effectively providing for the period to the end of 2008. At the end of 2000 there were approximately 17 mt of sand and gravel with permission for extraction, consisting of 5 mt of soft sand and 12 mt of sharp sand and gravel.

The current Plan subdivides the sand and gravel apportionment of 2.7 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) into individual annual supply requirement figures for soft sand and sharp sand and gravel - for soft sand this figure is 0.57 mtpa up to 2001 and 0.68 mtpa thereafter; for sharp sand and gravel the rate is 2.13 mtpa up to 2001 and 2.02 mtpa thereafter. Applying these rates to the existing sand and gravel reserve gives a landbank of 7.3 years for soft sand and 6.0 years for sharp sand and gravel, with an overall landbank figure of 6.31 years (ie at the end of 2000 there was enough sand and gravel with permission for extraction to last for just over six years at the rate of extraction of 2.7 mt per annum).

Table 2 - Hampshire Sand and Gravel - Landbank 31.12.2000 (thousand tonnes)

¹ Annual supply requirement for 2001

² Annual supply requirement for 2002 onwards

When the Minerals and Waste Local Plan was adopted in December 1998 there was a shortfall of 2.02 million tonnes in the amount of sand and gravel provided for in the preferred areas identified in the Plan for the period to 2008.

However, if the permitted reserves at the end of 2000 and the amount of sand and gravel provided for in the current Plan are compared with the supply requirement, there is no longer a shortfall in provision for sharp sand and gravel, although there is still a small under-provision for soft sand. This is the result of the lower demand for aggregate referred to earlier leading to less aggregate being extracted than was provided for in the Plan.

S

trategy and Aims

A Minerals Strategy for Hampshire

The Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) (page 7) refers to the need to ensure that `the fabric of Hampshire remains sound for future generations'. To achieve this the concept of sustainable development must form the strategic basis of the review process and the First Alteration Plan that will be produced at the end of it.

A widely-used international definition of sustainable development is `development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'. In A Better Quality Of Life - A Strategy For Sustainable Development For The United Kingdom (May 1999, Cm 4345) Government sets out four objectives which must be met simultaneously:

· social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;

· effective protection of the environment;

· prudent use of natural resources; and

· maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

Hampshire has an important role to play in meeting regional and local needs for minerals. However, the scale and nature of mineral developments can have negative impacts on people and the environment. Yet, if there is no provision for the extraction and processing of aggregate minerals, the economic growth and general quality of life of Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton and their residents will be affected.

To address this basic conflict, the review process and the First Alteration Plan that will result from it both need to strike the correct balance between providing for minerals development and protecting the environment.

To achieve this the following aim for minerals planning and production in Hampshire is suggested:

"To conserve and where possible enhance the environment and quality of life of residents of Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton whilst making an appropriate contribution to the local, regional and (where necessary) national need for minerals".

Minerals Strategy Aim - Consultation Questions

· Is this an appropriate minerals strategy aim for Hampshire?

· Are any changes needed?

Objectives to support the Strategy

A series of objectives to implement this strategy are suggested below:

· Provide for an adequate and continuing supply of minerals to meet needs.

· Maximise the use of recycled and secondary aggregate materials.

· Minimise the extraction of local land-won aggregates.

· Optimise the use of primary aggregates from appropriate alternative sources.

· Transport minerals in a sustainable manner.

· Protect local amenity through minimising the impacts of mineral extraction and processing, and recycling, on local communities and residential areas.

· Minimise the impact of mineral working and recycling on the landscape and natural environment of Hampshire.

· Avoid the sterilisation (eg through being developed for some other use) of unworked mineral areas.

· Secure long-term benefits for the natural environment from mineral extraction and processing.

· Safeguard and enhance the natural and built environment.

· Restore worked-out mineral sites in an appropriate and effective manner.

· Ensure mineral extraction contributes to and is compatible with the overall planning strategy for the area.

Supporting Objectives - Consultation Questions

· Are these the right objectives for mineral planning in Hampshire?

· What other objectives might increase and improve sustainability in the extraction and handling of minerals?

The strategy aim and supporting objectives will set the framework for the Plan review process. The following key issues have been identified and need to be addressed as part of the review.

K

ey Issues

Key Issue 1: Sustainability

Background

Government guidance (MPG 1, June 1996) sets out a series of objectives relating to sustainability which are required to be taken into account in mineral planning and extraction.

· to conserve minerals as far as possible, whilst ensuring an adequate supply to meet needs;

· to minimise production of waste and to encourage efficient use of materials, including appropriate use of high quality materials, and recycling of wastes;

· to prevent the unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resources;

· to ensure that the environmental impacts caused by mineral operations and the transport of minerals are kept, as far as possible, to an acceptable minimum;

· to protect areas of designated landscape or nature conservation value from development, other than in exceptional circumstances and where it has been demonstrated that development is in the public interest;

· to encourage sensitive working, restoration and after-care practices so as to preserve or enhance the overall quality of the environment.

There is also a requirement that MPAs should include policies in their development plans that encourage the use of secondary¹ and recycled waste materials instead of primary aggregates where this is environmentally and economically acceptable; also, plans should recognise that provision for the siting of long-term or semi-permanent recycling plants may be needed.

Consultation Questions

· Are there any other sustainability related objectives or issues that should be taken into account during the review?

· Do you wish to make any specific comments regarding these objectives above, or any others?

· How can increased use of recycled or secondary aggregates be achieved?

· Should specific sites for recycled or secondary aggregates be identified? If so, what criteria should be used to identify these sites?

Key Issue 2: Need for Aggregates

Background

The most significant minerals in Hampshire are aggregate minerals, particularly sand and gravel. The other minerals present and worked in Hampshire are chalk (for agricultural and aggregate uses); clay (for brick and tile making and engineering of landfill sites); and oil and gas.

Consultation Questions

· In the absence of new Government guidance on the supply of aggregates, on what basis should the MPAs determine the level of aggregate supply needed over the plan period?

· On what basis should this level of supply be subdivided between different sources: local land-won sand and gravel; marine-dredged sand and gravel; rail imports from other countries; imports by sea?

· How might need for other minerals such as clay and chalk be determined?

Key Issue 3: Local Aggregate Supply

Background

To allow for the extraction of aggregate minerals, Government guidance (MPG6, April 1994) says that MPAs should identify specific sites, preferred areas, areas of search or a combination. 'Specific sites' are precisely defined and thoroughly investigated sites where permission is very likely to be granted. `Preferred areas' are defined areas within which permission is likely to be granted subject to certain criteria being met. 'Areas of search' are broad resource areas containing workable sand and gravel resources within which planning permission may be granted but which have not necessarily been investigated in detail to identify all the planning and other constraints that might apply to every part of the area. If an area of search is defined, a series of criteria to assess proposals within the area should be produced.

Consultation Questions

· How much land-won aggregate should be provided for?

· Which approach is most appropriate for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton - specific sites, preferred areas or areas of search?

· Might a combination of these different approaches be more appropriate?

· What criteria should be applied in assessing proposals coming forward within an area of search?

Key Issue 4: Other Minerals - Chalk and Clay

Background

The current Plan identifies preferred areas for future clay extraction at both of Hampshire's existing brick and tile works; but it relies on a single general policy each for the extraction of chalk and of clay for lining and capping landfill sites. The need for these materials is not currently known.

Consultation Questions

· Should additional provision for these minerals be made?

· On what basis should such provision be made - sites, preferred areas, areas of search?

· Should the current policies for chalk and clay be altered?

Key Issue 5: Location of Future Extraction Sites

Background

Minerals can only be worked where they are found. However, as more and more minerals sites are worked, the remaining mineral deposits are increasingly found on land subject to varying degrees of local, national and international constraints. The Plan review process must balance the need to provide for the supply of aggregates and other minerals with the impacts that the extraction of these minerals would have on the natural environment and on people, both individual residences and whole communities.

Consultation Questions

· What methodology should be applied in the site selection process? What criteria should be selected and applied?

· Should future working be concentrated at a small number of large sites, or a larger number of smaller sites?

· Should the aim be to concentrate extraction in a few parts of the county, or should it be spread more evenly?

· Should the aim be as far as possible to exhaust mineral resources in areas of the county where mineral working already takes place, or should attention be directed to areas with mineral deposits but little or no mineral working at present?

· Should preference be given to sites that could be worked as extensions to existing mineral sites?

· Should the selection of sites for the new Plan be influenced in any way or to any extent by the potential which particular locations might have for restoration involving the disposal of waste?

Key Issue 6: Securing Long-term Benefits from Mineral Extraction and Working - Site Restoration as an Influence on Site Selection

Background

MPAs need to consider how best to minimise the short-term impacts of mineral extraction and how to maximise the benefits, particularly the longer-term benefits. One approach to selecting sites is to identify those sites subject to the least significant constraints, to work these sites and then to restore them. An alternative approach would be to first identify the potential benefits to be realised following site restoration (eg improvement of landscape quality or biodiversity; recreational benefits; water storage) and then to determine the most suitable locations to which these longer-term benefits could be directed. In certain locations this approach might enable the working of mineral deposits which would otherwise be `sterilised' by environmental designations or other constraints. The areas in which this approach might be used would have to be very carefully selected.

Consultation Questions

· What should be the aims for restoration of future mineral workings?

· Would this approach of `restoration-led' site selection be appropriate to Hampshire?

· In which areas of the county might it be most usefully applied? On what basis should such areas be selected?

Key Issue 7: Importation of Aggregates - Wharves and Rail Depots

Background

In addition to local land-won, other sources of aggregate are marine dredged sand and gravel, landed at aggregate wharves; and imported crushed rock, from other parts of the country or the world, landed at aggregate wharves or imported by rail to aggregate rail depots. The current Plan safeguards aggregate wharves and rail depots. The use of marine dredged aggregate avoids some of the impacts of aggregate extraction on the land, but impacts on the marine environment must be considered. The use of imported aggregates impacts on the locations where the material is produced. Aggregate wharves and depots are usually in or near urban areas and will have an impact on their surroundings.

Consultation Questions

· On what basis should the balance of supply between local land-won and imported aggregates be determined?

· What weight should be given to the environmental and other impacts of mineral extraction in other parts of the UK and the world, and in the marine environment?

· Should aggregate wharves and depots continue to be safeguarded?

· If the safeguarding of a site is to be removed, what justification should be required for this?

· Should sites for new aggregate wharves and/or rail depots be identified? What criteria should be applied to identification of new sites?

Key Issue 8: Length of First Alteration Plan Period

Background

Government guidance is that minerals and waste local plans should cover a period of at least 10 years. The current review process will produce the First Alteration to the current local Plan. Ten years from the expiry of the current Plan would bring the end of the next Plan period to 2011. However, in view of the length of time that the review will take, there may be benefits in extending the end-date back to, say, 2016 or even 2020. However, forecasting is difficult enough in the short-term, and the further into the future a Plan period goes, the more difficult it becomes to get the level of provision required right for the later years.

Consultation Questions

· On what basis should the end date for the First Alteration Plan period be determined?

· Should it be 2011 or 2016? Or some other date?

N

ext Steps

When the comments from the consultation on this Issues Paper have been received and considered, a first draft version of the minerals part of the Review Plan will be prepared and published (`put on deposit') for comments. This is expected to be in November 2002. After comments or objections on this `First Deposit' Review Plan have been received and considered, a revised version of the Plan will again be put on deposit (the `Second Deposit' Review Plan).

After further comments and objections have been received, it is likely that a public inquiry led by a Planning Inspector will be held to consider objections to the Plan. On receipt of the Inspector's Report, the MPAs will consider the recommendations of the Inspector, and will then move to adoption of the Plan.

This whole process is expected to take in the region of three years, and the finished First Alteration of the Plan is tentatively scheduled to be adopted in summer 2005.

Give Us Your Views

Please give us your views, together with the reasons for them, on the issues and questions raised in this Issues Paper. Please feel free to add any relevant comments if the questions asked do not adequately cover your ideas or concerns.

Your views will be made available to members of Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton, and to the public generally.

Please send us your views by ...

etc.