Contact: Tony Cook, ext 6730 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That the South East England Regional Assembly be informed of the County Council's views on the draft Regional Minerals Strategy, that:

(a) the draft Strategy's approach to natural resource management is welcomed;

(b) the aggregates sub-regional apportionment to the New Forest National Park will not be met in full and a revised policy should be included which recognises that this provision will not be fulfilled after 2006. The remaining shortfall should be met from windfall provision in the national park, additional marine dredged sand and gravel, and, increased use of recycled aggregates;

(c) the apportionment to counties on the basis of past production patterns is not considered to be a sustainable approach, as it has no regard to future patterns of demand, differential levels of use of secondary aggregates nor on environmental impacts. The ability to meet the aggregates sub-regional apportionment for the Rest of Hampshire will only be known after a full appraisal of potential provision as part of the work on the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework, including sustainability and environmental assessments, but there are potentially significant constraints arising from airport safeguarding and flood risk;

(d) the County Council requests the opportunity to comment on the results of the Regional Assembly's sustainability appraisal and any changes to the aggregates sub-regional apportionment before it is submitted to Government; and

(e) the detailed comments on the draft Regional Minerals Strategy made in section 9 of the report form the basis of the questionnaire response from the County Council.

(ii) That Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council, New Forest Committee, the South East England Development Agency, the South West Regional Assembly, Dorset County Council and Wiltshire County Council be informed of the County Council's response.

2. Reason

2.1 The Regional Assembly is seeking views on a draft Regional Minerals Strategy as part of the review of Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9). The County Council should submit views in order that revisions to the draft Strategy can be considered by the Regional Assembly prior to the submission to the Government in early 2004.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to offer any comments to the Regional Assembly.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

7. Background

7.1 Government planning policy guidance on the supply of aggregates is contained in Minerals Policy Guidance (MPG) Note 6 `Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England' (April 1994). This gives guidance at national and regional level on the quantities of aggregates expected to be needed from different sources (land-won, marine-dredged, recycled/ secondary and imported). However it has been considered for some time that the assumptions about demand were much higher than recent production levels suggest. In December 1994 SERPLAN agreed an apportionment for the then South East Region, which set a level of provision of 2.7 million tonnes per annum of land-won sand and gravel for Hampshire.

7.2 In June 2003 the Government published new guidelines for the provision of aggregates. Nationally this indicates a 19% reduction in land won supply compared to the 1994 figures, a 33% reduction in marine sand and gravel supply, a 48% decrease in net imports to England and a 63% increase in the use of alternative materials.

7.3 In a similar way to MPG 6, the Government guidelines provide regional figures for aggregates provision. For the South East, the decrease in land won sand and gravel supply is proposed to fall by 19.7%. Crushed rock and landings of marine dredged sand and gravel supplies would actually increase as would the proportion of recycled and secondary aggregates.

7.4 The new guidelines indicate that regional planning bodies should apportion the proposed regional provision to mineral planning authority areas, taking into account the advice of the Regional Aggregate Working Parties and the likely environmental impacts of the implied extraction. This exercise is expected to be completed within 6 months of the publication of the new guidelines. This has led the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) to publish the draft Regional Minerals Strategy with the additional intention of replacing the relevant section of existing Regional Planning Guidance for the South East RPG9.

8. The Regional Minerals Strategy - Consultation Draft

8.1 In September 2003 the Regional Assembly published the consultation draft of the Regional Minerals Strategy. Appendix 1 contains a copy of the proposed policies.

8.2 RPG 9 indicates that an early review should be undertaken of certain policies, including minerals and waste. The Regional Waste Management Strategy Consultation Draft was published in March 2003 and the County Council's Cabinet agreed a response on 23 June 2003. The Regional Minerals Strategy completes the set of reviews. The Strategy covers the period up to 2016.

8.3 The Strategy includes measures to reduce demand for primary aggregates, enhance the use of secondary aggregates and recycled materials, make provision for regionally significant minerals including clay for brick and tile manufacture, and, safeguard mineral reserves, wharves and depots.

8.4 In terms of primary aggregates, the new national guidelines equate to a regional supply in the South East of 13.25 million tonnes per annum of land won sand and gravel and 2.2 million tonnes per annum of crushed rock. The Regional Assembly has noted current production levels and measures promoting recycling and reuse such that the Assembly is proposing a regional target below the new guidelines at 13.0 million tonnes per annum

8.5 The Regional Assembly proposals to apportion this regional supply figure between mineral planning authorities is based on average sales over the period 1995 to 2001 discounting the highest and lowest years' production. This results in a Hampshire/Portsmouth/Southampton requirement for 2.52 million tonnes per annum, a reduction of 6.7%. This approach has been modified to take account of the impact of the likely designation of the New Forest as a national park. Consequently Hampshire's apportionment has been subdivided with the New Forest National Park's requirement being 0.72 million tonnes per annum and the Rest of Hampshire being 1.80 million tonnes per annum for land won sand and gravel.

8.6 The Regional Assembly indicates that it will review the proposed apportionment in the light of the consultation response and the results of a regional sustainability appraisal that is currently under way. The Assembly considers that the 1994 guidelines are out of date leading to an excess of permissions, and minerals plans being shelved. The Assembly feels it is important to settle the revised apportionment as soon as practicable to overcome these problems.

9. Comments of the Director of Environment

9.1 The Regional Minerals Strategy is of importance to Hampshire because it sets the context for minerals work. Specifically, it identifies the apportionment of aggregates supply that needs to be met in the Review of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan, which will now be included in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework.

Sustainable Construction and Environmental Management

9.2 Policy M1 of the draft Strategy, which encourages a sustainable approach to construction, is to be welcomed and is in line with the natural resource management measures which the County Council and other authorities are proposing as part of the Material Resources Strategy. The policy could be strengthened by further details on implementation and specific requirements for major development schemes.

9.3 The policy should also indicate that the principles of sustainable development should be a guide for minerals provision.

Recycling and Re-Use

9.4 Policy M2 of the Strategy aims to increase the use of secondary aggregates and recycled materials from 5.3 million tonnes per annum (23%) to at least 7.4 million tonnes per annum (33%) by 2016, and encourages planning authorities to make an adequate provision of recycling facilities. This assumes that the Region will only meet the average annual target by 2016. Given the extent of the time horizon this may be an undemanding target and additional provision in earlier years could make an important contribution to supplies (see paragraph 9.23 below). It would be appropriate to have phased increases up to 2016 to help monitor progress. It would also be appropriate for the South East's contribution of likely supplies of alternative materials for aggregates to be apportioned between the mineral planning authorities to promote local recycling. In addition, more guidance is needed on identifying suitable sites for facilities. A wider approach is necessary to encourage recycling within building sites.

Primary Aggregates

9.5 The most controversial aspect of the Regional Minerals Strategy for Hampshire is the overall regional aggregates target and its sub-regional apportionment between the mineral planning authorities.

9.6 The basis for selecting at Regional level to allocate only 13 million tonnes per annum of land won sand and gravel may be challenged at some point. A more rigorous analysis of the situation should be included within the Strategy. The 4 million tonnes under- provision over the plan period may have consequences that would need to be examined.

9.7 The new Government guidelines for aggregates suggests that it might be appropriate to carry out an initial sub-regional apportionment on the basis of recent production but to then examine possible alternatives before deciding on a preferred option. Assigning the regional reduction of 19.7% equally to each mineral planning authority was rejected by South East England Regional Aggregates Working Party in favour of continuing recent patterns of production as outlined in paragraph 8.5 above.

9.8 One consequence of this approach is to perpetuate high proportions in areas where sales of aggregates have remained strong compared to other areas. The two counties particularly caught in this situation are Oxfordshire and Hampshire. The reason for this is not fully understood although it may be related to the availability of relatively unconstrained and workable resources, or, that these counties are serving particularly sustained growth in adjoining regions in addition to local supply.

9.9 The only two counties (Surrey and Kent/Medway) with higher aggregates requirements under the existing apportionment each have their allocations reduced by around 25% (see Appendix 2). Hampshire's reduction is 6.7%. It would be hard to present a case that the requirements of these counties is so different from Hampshire to merit such variation in reduction. In addition, reserves in Kent were three times larger than Hampshire as at 2002 showing that the apportionment exercise is not related to current ability to serve markets. A further consequence of the new apportionments is that Hampshire will continue to have the shortest landbank supply in terms of years in the whole region while for two counties the recalculations mean that they will have a landbank in excess of seven years rather than an underprovision.

9.10 It would be appropriate to utilise a more subtle approach to sub-regional apportionment. Unfortunately it has not been possible to get agreement to any different methodology and a simplistic exercise was chosen, partly driven by the Government's desire to get agreement on apportionment within six months.

9.11 It is worth noting that sales of aggregates in Hampshire has only exceeded the proposed total allocation for the county twice in the previous eight years, the last being 1999.

9.12 The approach to sub-regional apportionment also does not take any account of future development trends. The geography of demand for aggregates in the Region over the period to 2016 is likely to be different to the historical pattern. A greater emphasis is likely to be needed in locations serving the Government's Sustainable Communities Plan. A relatively higher allocation for Hampshire is not well located to serve development in Ashford or Milton Keynes.

9.13 The approach to sub-regional apportionment also makes no allowance for the differential use of recycled and secondary aggregates within the South East. If the Region's assumption for the contribution of this form of aggregates were apportioned among the mineral planning authorities, Hampshire might then be able to take advantage of above average use of recycled and secondary aggregates achieved through a resource management approach (see paragraph 9.23).

9.14 The new Government guidelines state that the likely environmental impacts of any additional extraction should be assessed in relation to the ability of the aggregates producing areas concerned to absorb such impacts, especially impacts on areas of international and national landscape or conservation designations, and the impacts on the populations affected. SEERA has chosen to undertake a strategic sustainability appraisal at the same time as the consultation on the draft Regional Minerals Strategy. Paragraph 4.17 of the Strategy states that the apportionment will be reviewed in the light of the conclusions of the sustainability appraisal which will use the template provided by the Sustainability Development Framework. It is not therefore possible for the County Council to comment on the sustainability appraisal or how it might influence the apportionment before forwarding views to the Regional Assembly. The County Council should seek assurances from SEERA that the mineral planning authorities will have the opportunity to comment on the results of the sustainability appraisal and any changes to the apportionment before the Strategy is submitted to Government. This could be undertaken quickly so as not to unduly delay the process.

9.15 Paragraph 4.17 of the Strategy also states that the apportionment has been modified to take into account the potential impact of the designation of the New Forest as a national park. This has resulted in an allocation to the New Forest National Park reflecting the same technical exercise referred to in paragraph 8.5 above.

9.16 The New Forest National Park allocation has not been modified to reflect that past production includes sites that are outside the New Forest Heritage Area but are now within the proposed boundary of the national park. Current production sites could be exhausted by 2006. Any applications for new production sites would have to satisfy the criteria identified in MPG 6 for development in national parks. An assessment would have to be made of the need for the development in terms of national considerations, the scope of meeting the need in any alternative ways and any detrimental effects on the environment and landscape. This may prove very difficult to satisfy with new sites although the maintenance of a landbank is a factor in determining the need for the development.

9.17 The main impact of the introduction of the proposed national park on gravel extraction will be in the Avon Valley. This area contains the richest, most important sand and gravel resources in Hampshire. It currently comprises about a quarter of Hampshire's sand and gravel reserves. The extent of the Avon Valley that has been worked or permitted for sand and gravel extraction comprises only about 20% of the total resource. The potential loss of supply is therefore of dramatic proportions.

9.18 The New Forest Committee considered the Regional Minerals Strategy on 7 October 2003 and resolved that the Committee:

(i) expresses concern that there is no `exceptional' justification for the inclusion of land-won sand and gravel apportionment for the New Forest, within the draft Strategy;

(ii) considers that the apportionments for the New Forest store up problems for the future, given that much of this apportionment would be unlikely to satisfy the assessment of need in terms of national considerations at the planning application stage, and therefore the sand and gravel would not be forthcoming; and

(iii) recommends that the apportionment for the New Forest be withdrawn, or at least substantially reduced to reflect predicted output from existing permissions.

9.19 The position on the boundary of the New Forest National Park in relation to mineral resource areas will only become clear with the decision on the National Park which is likely to be sometime in 2004. This has implications as to which sites are within the National Park allocation and which are within the Rest of Hampshire.

9.20 There is one example in current regional guidance that special consideration should be given to mineral production in National Parks. RPG 12 Regional Planning Guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber includes a policy that mineral planning authorities should seek a progressive reduction in the proportion and amount of aggregate production from National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This approach could be included in the Regional Minerals Strategy for the South East.

9.21 Under current circumstances, the County Council should advise SEERA that it is considered extremely unlikely that the New Forest National Park's apportionment could be met. This could have implications for new sources of aggregate supply in the Rest of Hampshire and elsewhere in the Region. Loss of supply capacity in South West Hampshire would also have implications for the South West Region in view of the Avon Valley being an important supplier of sharp sand and gravel to Dorset and Wiltshire.

9.22 The new Government guidelines require regional planning bodies to apportion taking into account the likely environmental impacts of the implied extraction. The County Council should recommend to SEERA that the apportionment to the New Forest National Park is likely only to be achieved for the first five years. It would not be appropriate to automatically require that the Rest of Hampshire make good the shortfall in land won resources arising from the implementation of a national policy which would now relate to the Avon Valley.

9.23 The shortfall over the remaining ten years could be met by any new production which may be granted in the National Park which could then be considered as a windfall contribution, further marine dredged sand and gravel being landed at Hampshire ports and the achievement of an even higher proportion of recycled and secondary aggregates being used due to the introduction of natural resource management through the Material Resources Strategy. This approach would require a "plan, monitor and manage approach" to ensure that adequate supplies were provided.

9.24 Under the draft Regional Minerals Strategy, the level of provision to be found in the Rest of Hampshire would amount to 29 million tonnes over the sixteen years period. Permitted reserves over the whole of Hampshire only amounted to 14 million tonnes at the end of 2001, so there will be an significant task to identify suitable sites to meet this shortfall.

9.25 Two other major potential constraints could affect the ability to meet the aggregates apportionment - the safeguarding of airports and hydrological implications.

9.26 The safeguarding of airports is covered by ODPM Circular 1/2003 which now requires each airport /airfield to consider safety issues. Birdstrikes are one of the major controllable hazards to aviation and the aim is to guard against new or increased hazards arising from development. Mineral extraction locations can create bird hazards as the sites can involve the creation of wetland or be used for waste treatment. Consultation areas involving a 13 kilometre buffer zone has been prepared for each airport and this covers more than half of the county. If a strong line is taken against new mineral extraction within the buffer zones, this would severely limit the scope for meeting the apportionment. Mineral planning authorities in the South East are giving further consideration to this issue.

9.27 Future gravel extraction may take place in high water table areas or affect groundwater such that there is a risk of increased flooding. The Environment Agency's attitude to further mineral extraction will be important in achieving the sub-regional apportionment.

9.28 The apportionment proposed by SEERA will ultimately be the subject of a Public Examination in the summer of 2004. The ability of the county to meet Hampshire's apportionment would require detailed site analysis and environmental appraisal. This will have to be undertaken as part of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework and the outcome of this work would not be available in time for the Public Examination on the Regional Minerals Strategy.

9.29 The full appraisal of sites and their environmental impact through the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework will provide the basis for a better informed view. There may therefore be a requirement for a review of the Strategy quite soon after it has been completed in order to reflect a credible apportionment to Hampshire.

Other Minerals

9.30 Policy M5 in the draft Strategy proposes that mineral planning authorities should make provision for a permitted reserve of clay for brick and tile manufacture sufficient for 25 years at current production rates. MPG 1 currently only identifies that longer term reserves may be required depending on the mineral. New guidance on brick clay may be available in 2004. Consequently it may be appropriate at the moment for the policy to simply recommend that a long term landbank of planning permissions and allocations for clay for brick manufacture is provided in development plans.

Safeguarding of Mineral Reserves, Wharves and Depots

9.31 The proposed policy M6 on safeguarding of mineral reserves, wharves and depots is acceptable in principle but the safeguarding of future supplies is directed solely at proposed sites and `areas of search' identified in development plans. There is a need to safeguard any remaining workable resource provided that there is not an overriding need for the proposed

development. A more rigorous safeguarding policy is required. The policy also needs to clarify that the safeguarding of proposed facilities does not include proposals which are not allocated in development plans.

Implementation and Monitoring

9.32 The Section on Implementation and Monitoring in the draft Strategy does not cover the use of aggregates and also does not monitor the actual provision of extraction sites. Given the concerns of the County Council on achieving the policies contained in the draft Strategy, more extensive monitoring measures are required.

Conclusions

9.33 The draft Strategy raises many issues in relation to minerals, in particular, the effect of potential constraints to meeting the proposed apportionment for sand and gravel reserves and whether a target based on past production rates is the most sustainable approach. The exceptional circumstances which are likely to lead to a shortfall of new provision in sand and gravel production in the Avon Valley are such that it is not felt that the New Forest National Park's apportionment can be met. The identified shortfall in supply could be offset by any windfall sites in the national park, increased use of recycled aggregates and a greater reliance on marine dredged sand and gravel.

8393/TC

APPENDIX 1

DRAFT REGIONAL MINERALS STRATEGY

PROPOSED POLICIES

i

Proposed Policies

POLICY M1 - SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Regional Assembly will encourage the development of sustainable construction practices and will work with the construction industry, SEEDA and other stakeholders to promote good practice, reduce wastage and overcome technical and financial constraints, including identifying sustainable supply routes and seeking to reduce delivery distances. The intention is that by 2016 annual consumption of primary aggregates will have stabilised.

Development plans should ensure that development projects use construction materials that reduce the demand for primary aggregates wherever practicable.

Development plans should include policies to achieve effective environmental management of mineral extraction and high quality after-use and aftercare.

Development plans should promote a modal shift to increase the proportion of minerals and derived manufactured products transported into and within the region by rail and/or water.

POLICY M2 - RECYCLING AND RE-USE

The use of secondary aggregates and recycled materials in the South East should increase from 5.3mtpa (23%) to at least 7.4mtpa (33%) by 2016, so as to reduce the need for primary aggregates extraction. Planning authorities should make positive provision for an adequate number of suitably located minerals recycling facilities to enable this target to be met.

The Government is urged to work with the Regional Assembly and all other interested parties to improve the quality and availability of data on secondary aggregates and recycled materials to ensure that the contribution from this source can be effectively monitored.

POLICY M3 - RECYCLING AND RE-USE

The Assembly advocates to Government the urgent need to adopt long-term statutory recycling and recovery targets for construction and demolition waste and the focused use of the Aggregates Levy receipts to encourage and support sustainable construction practices and recycling projects.

POLICY M4 - PRIMARY AGGREGATES

The supply of construction aggregates in the South East should be met from a significant increase in supplies of secondary and recycled materials, a reduced contribution from primary land-won resources, and an increase in imports of marine-dredged aggregates and crushed rock from elsewhere.

Mineral planning authorities should make provision to maintain a landbank of planning permissions for primary aggregates which is sufficient, throughout the Mineral Plan period, to deliver 13.0 million tonnes (mt) of sand and gravel per annum across the region, based on the following sub-regional apportionment:

and 2.2 million tonnes of crushed rock per annum across the region, based on the following sub-regional apportionment:

POLICY M5 - OTHER MINERALS

Future provision should be made in development plans for clay, chalk, silica sand and gypsum as regionally significant minerals of national importance. Where practicable, substitute and recycled waste materials should be used to conserve natural resources, and new handling facilities developed where this would increase the quantity of minerals and manufactured products being transported by rail or water.

Mineral planning authorities should make the following provision:

i. A permitted reserve of clay for brick and tile product manufacture sufficient to last for 25 years at current production rates should be maintained to supply individual works, and new manufacturing capacity developed if this would replace older plants or reduce net imports to the region;

ii. A permitted reserve of chalk for cement manufacture sufficient to last for 25 years at current production rates should be maintained in Kent;

iii. A permitted reserve of silica sand should be maintained, equivalent at current production rates to ten years at existing sites and 15 years at new sites and, where possible, high quality reserves safeguarded for appropriate end-uses;

iv. A permitted reserve of gypsum sufficient to last 20 years at current production rates should be maintained in East Sussex to support the building product and cement industries, and the use of desulpurgypsum imported by rail over the shortest practicable distance should be encouraged.

POLICY M6 - SAFEGUARDING OF MINERAL RESERVES, WHARVES

AND DEPOTS

Existing sites, and proposed sites and `areas of search' identified in development plans for the extraction and processing of aggregates, clay, chalk, silica sand and gypsum, should be safeguarded against other inappropriate development. Existing and proposed wharves and depots for the handling and distribution of imported minerals and processed materials should also be safeguarded.

APPENDIX 2

DRAFT REGIONAL MINERALS STRATEGY

SUB REGIONAL APPORTIONMENT IN COMPARISON WITH MRG 6 FIGURES

Annex 1

Land-won Sand and Gravel Apportionment For Revised Aggregate Guidelines 2001-2016

For South East England (Million Tonnes Per Annum)

(including comparison with MPG6 figures, and total sales 2001-2016)

* the apportionment is based on average sales over the last seven years (1995-2001), with the highest and lowest sales years omitted from the calculation, and an adjustment in recognition of special circumstances that have applied in Buckinghamshire.

Footnotes:

· The establishment of a New Forest and a South Downs National Park would create two new mineral planning authorities. A re-apportionment would be needed.

· In Hampshire, permitted reserves in the New Forest are likely to be exhausted by 2006. An appropriate subdivision of the Hampshire apportionment would be for a New Forest National Park to supply 0.72mtpa from a total of 2.52mtpa.

· The proposed designation of a South Downs National Park is not as well advanced as that for the New Forest. However, if a National Park designation is confirmed, the same principle would apply ie part of the Hampshire, East Sussex and West Sussex apportionment should be re-assigned to a South Downs National Park.