Archived decisions
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1The Project Brief considers the work that is necessary to achieve adopted, up-to-date policies for minerals and waste developments. This Project Brief examines the background to the Review of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and the current progress on the Minerals Review. The Project Brief proposes a process for an integrated plan utilising the new procedures for preparing and adopting a Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) that are currently before Parliament. The tasks, consultations, staff and resources necessary to undertake this process are examined. The constraints on the proposed process are also identified. The Project Brief will only cover the period up to the Deposit Stage.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (HPSMWLP) was adopted by the three Councils on 17 December 1998. As the Plan only covered the period up to the end of 2001, it was decided in 1999, that a review of the Plan proceed as quickly as possible. The former Planning and Transportation Committee resolved that the review should be carried jointly by the County Council, Southampton City Council and Portsmouth City Council covering the period up to 2011. It was also resolved that the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review (MWLPR) be carried out as two alterations to the plan - first to the minerals part of the plan and subsequently to the waste sections. The plan would continue to be a single combined minerals and waste local plan. It was expected that the review would largely concentrate on the new site provision required for the roll forward period. The costs of the review were to be divided between the three authorities.
2.2 Work has commenced on the MWLPR. The three authorities decided to take a pro-active approach by deciding to consult stakeholders at an early stage in the MWLPR process. Entec with Alison Millward Associates were appointed to design and facilitate a stakeholder dialogue process. The process started in June 2001 and lasted until the end of last year. Comments received have been examined. Entec are currently producing a final report on the stakeholder dialogue. During this process, a common theme to emerge was the desirability of combining the review of minerals and waste matters.
2.3 It was considered in 1999 that the Minerals Review should examine the need for additional sand and gravel sites, the need for aggregate wharves and rail depots and the need to identify sites for secondary and recycled aggregates supply. This work has been progressed but has not been completed. In particular, there is still an ongoing consultation on the current review of Planning Policy Guidance concerning aggregate provision in England (MPG6) which will ultimately lead to a new sub-regional apportionment of the sand and gravel resources that will need to be provided by the MWLPR. In addition, a mineral resources study of the County has yet to be undertaken. Other work is also outstanding.
2.4 More recently, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was introduced in Parliament in December 2002. This proposes radical changes to the planning system including the preparation of minerals and waste local plans (see Appendix 1), which in future will be called Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks (MWDFs). These will comprise a number of Local Development Documents (LDDs) comprising a `core' strategy, proposals and `area action plans'. All LDDs will be prepared within a Minerals and Waste Development Scheme and published in loose leaf folder format.
3. HAMPSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (HMWDF)
3.1 It is proposed that - pending legislation - a `shadow' Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Scheme be agreed between the three authorities, outlining the LDDs it is proposed to produce for the HMWDF. Subsequently, it is proposed that the HMWDF would be prepared over the forthcoming 17 months based on a review of the MWLP and covering the whole area of Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton. It would be formally called the Hampshire (including Portsmouth and Southampton) Minerals and Waste Development Framework, but for convenience it will be referred to as the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
3.2 There are positive advantages in preparing the review in line with new procedures. Any current plan will have to be converted to the new style after the commencement date of the Act and the proposed legislation will require a redeposit of any first deposit plan prepared under the current format. It is therefore going to be less time consuming to prepare the review in line with the new principles. There could also be benefits in being at the cutting edge of the new approach.
3.3 The Government wishes local planning authorities to examine rigorously their procedures for engaging the community in the preparation of plans and requires that a `Statement of Community Involvement' be prepared. The stakeholder dialogue already undertaken as part of the Minerals Review is a model for this new style of approach. The HMWDF should therefore build on this. A Public Participation Strategy should be devised that includes a stakeholder dialogue on waste issues. This strategy will need to establish an effective relationship with local strategic partnerships and demonstrate that due regard has been taken of community strategies. The strategy will require the preparation of a Waste Issues document for public consultation. It will be necessary to inform the minerals stakeholders of this outcome. There is still the need for dialogue with this group on the final production of mineral policies. A formal Statement of Community Involvement will need to be prepared.
3.4 Planning Policy Guidance (PPG12) requires that local authorities should carry out a full appraisal to ensure that policies and proposals are consistent with sustainable development objectives. In addition to a sustainability appraisal (SA), it is likely that a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) will be required. Directive 2001/42/EC for SEA has to be incorporated into national law by July 2004. It would be sensible to adopt both sets of principles through the whole process of the MWDF. It is likely that this could be a combined process.
3.5 There are many uncertainties associated with the preparation of the HMWDF, not least the likely timing of the introduction of the new procedures. However, an indicative programme is shown below. This timetable indicates that integrated policies for minerals and waste would be adopted in early 2006. As can be seen from Appendix 2 this is the quickest, achievable route to adopted, up-to-date policies for minerals and waste.
Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Timetable
3.6 It is proposed that the HMWDF will be a slim document containing core strategic policies and some spatial policies. In addition, there will be some criteria based policies that will give guidance in how to judge proposals when they are submitted and some Area Action Plans.
3.7 An alternative approach would be to formulate site based policies for all the matters covered in the HMWDF. It is considered that this approach would have major implications for the timetable for the MWDF as it would generate large numbers of objections slowing down the Inquiry programme and probably overburdening the stakeholder dialogue process. It is proposed that some site specific matters will be considered later as further Area Action Plans or supplementary planning guidance (SPG).
3.8 The main tasks involved in preparing the waste element of the HMWDF are:
(i) An analysis of future waste management requirements - This will need to be informed by the Government's Waste Strategy 2000, the recommendations of the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, the emerging regional guidance of the Regional Waste Management Strategy and other policy preferences. This work will need to take into account the proposals arising from the Hampshire Natural Resources Initiative.
(ii) The identification of strategic options - This will need to consider a matrix of various waste forecasts and development requirements.
(iii) An appraisal of preferred strategies - This will have to consider the land use needs of the various waste requirements and the physical, social and environmental constraints.
(iv) The spatial implications of the options - This will need to cover the scale of the planned facilities - the proximity issues.
(v) The plan will also need to cover inert waste, special waste and issues arising from the disposal of electrical goods and abandoned vehicles. A separate examination of waste water and sewage sludge will be needed in the HMWDF.
3.9 There is also outstanding work on mineral issues as indicated above. The implications of the new MPG6 Guidelines and the subsequent regional apportionment will need to be related to the roll forward of the time period of the HMWDF. There is also the need to appraise issues on chalk and clay, oil and gas.
3.10 It will be necessary to review other aspects of the national and regional context. There will be other inputs to the plan arising from a review of the effectiveness of existing structure plan and local plan policies. The relationship with the emerging Community Strategy will also need to be examined.
3.11 The work on SA and SEA is also likely to be time consuming. It may be desirable and certainly good practice that these tasks are actually undertaken independently of those preparing the HMWDF.
3.12 To cover the process as far as the Deposit of the HMWDF, Gantt charts have been prepared and are enclosed. Further project briefs to cover the rest of the process would be prepared as progress is achieved.
3.13 The Planning Bill requires local planning authority to prepare a Statement of Community Involvement covering policies for involving interested parties in matters related to development. The statement will need to cover the preparation and review of the plan. There is currently no guidance as to when the statement has to be produced. However, there will be a full programme of stakeholder dialogue on waste issues and there is a need for a continuation of the Minerals Review stakeholder dialogue to cover the draft policies for inclusion in the HMWDF.
4. STAFFING AND RESOURCES
4.1 The existing MWLP was prepared by the County Council with a core team of five plus significant input from highways, landscape and ecology. Currently, there are three FTEs working on minerals and waste policy - two directly employed on the MWLPR. The remaining FTE is funded under PSA and is largely employed on NRI work - GIS/site studies associated with the End of Life Vehicle/Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (ELV/WEEE) Directives; composting; and Web page development.
4.2 It is estimated that the staffing requirement at the County Council for the MWDF are as follows:
Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Staffing
GROUP |
FTEs |
COMMENT |
Senior Managers |
0.30 |
Principally Head of MWP |
Mineral and Waste Planning |
4.00 |
Includes an additional post and retention, in 03/04, of the FTE financed under PSA |
Transport Policy |
0.40 |
|
Ecology |
0.50 |
|
NRI |
0.50 |
|
L&H |
0.50 |
|
Environment Strategy |
0.30 |
SEA/Sustainability Assessment plus consultants' time |
`Management Resources' |
0.20 |
Publicity and administrative support at critical stages |
4.3 The SA and SEA work could be prepared in a number of ways. First, a separate team within the Strategy Branch of the Environment Department could undertake this work. This would have implications for existing work programmes. Secondly, consultants could be used to undertake the whole process. This would have revenue implications. Thirdly, a combination of the in-house/consultants' approach could be utilised.
4.4 With regard to the budgetary estimates the following is estimated:
Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Finance
FINANCIAL YEAR |
ITEM |
COSTS |
2003/04 |
Waste Stakeholder Dialogue |
£120,000 |
Technical Studies on Waste Topics |
£25,000 | |
SA/SEA |
£20,000 | |
Waste Issues Document - Publish/Advertise/Consult |
£20,000 | |
Total |
£185,000 | |
2004/05 |
Complete Minerals Stakeholder Dialogue |
£7,000 |
Publish Deposit Plan |
£20,000 | |
Advertise/Consult on Deposit Plan |
£20,000 | |
Total |
£47,000 |
5. MANAGEMENT
5.1 The completion of the proposed tasks is dependent on a number of factors which do pose constraints on achieving the process against the indicative timetable. Initial work on the project brief indicated a likely programme at least 4/6 months longer than shown above, but an optimistic view has been taken on the completion of the review of waste issues. The factors that do impose constraints are addressed in Appendix 3.
5.2 In order to facilitate the completion of the HMWDF it is proposed to set up a Steering Group to oversee the progress of the project and recommend resource and procedural adjustments. The Steering Group will include:
Head of Minerals and Waste Planning;
Policy Manager: Minerals and Waste Planning;
Members of the project team (as appropriate);
Representatives of the interested services identified above; and
Representatives from Finance and other support services as required.
5.3 This group will initially deal with the HMWDF preparation until the deposit stage, but will advise on the preparation of a Project Brief up to adoption.
TC/p/HMWDF Project Brief
APPENDIX 1
NEW PROCEDURES UNDER THE PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL
1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill proposes to replace the current system of Regional Planning Guidance, Structure Plans and Local Plans. It proposes a new two-tier system of plans:
(i) regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) prepared by regional planning bodies (regional chambers/assemblies); and
(ii) Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) prepared by district councils. Minerals and Waste Local Plans would be replaced by Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks (MWDFs), but still prepared by county councils.
The Bill will also require local authorities to draw up a Local Development Scheme setting out the documents that will be produced. County Councils will prepare a Minerals and Waste Development Scheme.
2 The content of plans will move from a traditional land-use one to a more spatial approach, including management policies. The Government intends that plans should be shorter and not overburdened by excessively detailed development control policies. MWDFs would contain core policies of a strategic nature, and site specific policies including Action Area Plans. A loose leaf folder-style format is recommended.
3 There will be modifications to the processes by which plans are prepared and examined, and the report of the Inspector will be binding on the local planning authority. The Government will require that the community should be fully and effectively involved in the preparation of development plan documents. A new part of the procedure will include the requirement for the preparation of a Statement of Community Involvement. The Statement will apply to the preparation and revision of the MWDFs, as well as development control functions. The Statement will be subject to independent examination as if it were a development plan document.
4 The Government wishes to move as quickly as possible to the new system. The earliest date for commencement of the new Act is likely to be Spring 2004. Any current development plan would then only be `saved' for three years. Any draft new/revised plan which reaches deposit stage before the commencement of the Act could proceed to adoption and then be `saved' for three years, but the whole plan would have to be re-deposited after the commencement of the Act, to allow for objections to be made on the basis of the new approach. This does not offer any time savings and the Government certainly considers that it is desirable to start thinking now about how to undertake work on the existing plans using the principles of the new system.
APPENDIX 2
ALTERNATIVES TO THE HMWDF
1 The local plan process could continue as planned with a First Deposit Minerals Review in late Spring 2003. If a Second Deposit was achieved in late 2003, it is likely that the Inspector would be appointed before the implementation of the new Planning Bill and the Minerals Review could continue under current procedures, with adoption possibly at the end of 2005 . However, work on the Waste Review would not reach a stage before the commencement of the Planning Bill to avoid new procedures. It would then be extremely difficult to integrate minerals and waste policy, given the different procedures.
2 Another option would be to undertake an integrated MWLPR in line with the current procedures that are about to be replaced. This would entail an unrealistic timetable to achieve an integrated First Deposit by April 2004. Even if this could be achieved, the new procedures require the redeposit of the plan to allow objections to be made under the new approach and there would be delays associated with changing over to the new procedures.
3 Neither of these options appear to offer any advantages over the proposed approach. The first option would not provide an integrated approach and would take more time. The second option involves abortive costs and would be difficult to achieve within the time constraints.
APPENDIX 3
ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING THE TIMETABLE FOR HMWDF PREPARATION
1 The whole proposal for an HMWDF is linked to the proposed new legislation. The Government has indicated that it considers that the new Act will be in place to allow commencement of the new approach by Spring 2004 but this cannot be guaranteed. The proposed legislation is largely an enabling Bill and a lot of the detail of the procedures will follow in regulations and guidance. When published these procedures may include requirements that may affect the proposed approach and timetable being adopted by the County Council.
2 The programme has been predicated on the basis of including core policies within the HMWDF but with minimal work on site specific proposals. This would be limited to that necessary to justify criteria based policies or provide reassurance that minerals and waste targets are likely to be met. If a more detailed appraisal of sites is ultimately found to be necessary, this could delay the programme.
3 Consultations and stakeholder dialogue is a major aspect of the proposed procedure. The outcome of this work may influence the progress of the plan in much the same way as has happened with the stakeholder dialogue on the Minerals Review.
4 As indicated above, staff resources need to be increased to undertake the work required to produce an HMWDF. The programme has been drawn up on the basis that the new member of staff is available from the beginning and any time lapse to appointment will have implications for progress. The project also requires input from other teams and groups in the Environment Department which needs to be achieved and completed on schedule.
5 There are also budgetary implications indicated above and sufficient provision needs to be made to fulfil these tasks.
6 There are a number of important tasks which are dependent on external bodies and therefore it is outside the County Council's control whether these items are achieved in accordance with the indicative timetable.