Contact: Trevor Badley, ext 5795 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 final draft Regional Minerals Strategy, that:

(a) Hampshire objects that the regional reduction in the apportionment has not been allocated more equitably and sustainably throughout the region, as set out in paragraphs 9.2 to 9.5;

(b) Hampshire objects that no policy revision has been made to take into account that the proposed New Forest National Park apportionment will not be met after 2006;
and

(c) the strategic sustainability appraisal that was carried out is flawed, in that it does not take into account the impact of the proposed New Forest National Park and does not consider alternatives for apportionment of the regional target; the appraisal should be carried out again, with opportunities for input from Mineral Planning Authorities.

(ii) Hampshire should maintain its objection to the aspects of the Regional Minerals Strategy noted above, and should seek representation at the Inquiry later this year if these comments are not taken into account.

(iii) That Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council, the 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 This decision supports Aim 2 of the Corporate Strategy (Stewardship of the Environment) by seeking to reduce the amount of virgin land-won mineral resources to be identified for extraction in Hampshire, minimise the amount of waste created and increase the amount of recycled aggregate produced and used.

2.2 The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) is seeking views on the final draft Regional Minerals Strategy, part of the review of Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9). The County Council should submit its views in order that these can be considered by SEERA prior to the Public Examination of the Regional Minerals Strategy in late summer of this year.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to offer comments to SEERA.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member 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

Approved by: Date:

Councillor J K Glen

7. Introduction

7.1 In March 2004 SEERA published a final draft of the Regional Minerals Strategy and submitted it to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has appointed a Panel to advise him. Views on the proposed alterations are invited by 24 May 2004. The Panel will identify the key matters to be considered at, and the participants to be invited to, a public examination to be held in Reading commencing on 4 October 2004. After the Public Examination, the Panel will produce a report in December 2004. The Deputy Prime Minister will consider the Panel Report and publish for consultation the changes that Government is minded to make to the proposed alterations. Following that period of consultation, the Secretary of State will issue the final version of the Regional Minerals Strategy.

7.2 Minerals Policy Guidance (MPG) Note 6 'Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England' (April 1994) sets out national planning policy guidance on the supply of aggregates. 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). Under this guidance Hampshire is required to provide for the extraction of 2.7 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of land-won sand and gravel. It has been considered for some time that the assumptions about demand were much higher than recent production levels suggest.

7.3 In June 2003 the Government published new guidelines for the provision of aggregates. Nationally this indicated 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. The Government guidelines also provided 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. In September 2003 SEERA published a consultation draft Regional Minerals Strategy intended to replace the relevant section of existing Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9).

7.5 A report on the draft Strategy was taken to the Executive Member for Environment on 11 November 2003, the County Council subsequently returned comments to SEERA. These included:

(i) welcoming the draft Strategy's approach to natural resource management;

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

(iii) 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; and

(iv) requesting that the County Council has 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.

8. The Regional Minerals Strategy - Final Draft

8.1 As with the consultation draft, the final draft Strategy covers the period up to 2016. It 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 safeguards mineral reserves, wharves and depots. The overall strategy and vision remain unchanged, and an implementation plan has been added. Appendix 1 of this report contains a copy of the revised policies.

8.2 SEERA is now proposing a regional supply figure of 12.67 mtpa and, despite the County Council's earlier comments, is still seeking to apportion this regional supply figure between mineral planning authorities based on average sales over the period 1995 to 2001, discounting the highest and lowest years' production.

8.3 This results in a Hampshire/Portsmouth/Southampton requirement for 2.52 mtpa, a reduction of just 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 proposed New Forest National Park's requirement being 0.72 mtpa and the Rest of Hampshire being 1.80 mtpa for land-won sand and gravel.

8.4The County Council's earlier comments on the proposals of the consultation draft with potentially greatest impact on Hampshire are not reflected in the final draft. Firstly, there is no policy revision recognising that the proposed New Forest National Park apportionment will not be met after 2006, and that the shortfall will have to be met through other means. Secondly, there has been no change to the proposed approach for deriving the apportionment, namely on the basis of past production.

8.5 Three major changes were made, relating to recycling targets, apportionment and implementation. Firstly, on the basis that the first draft Strategy had understated the volume of material being recycled for aggregates in the region, Policy M2 of the first draft (M3 of the final draft) was amended to maintain the original scale of change in aggregate recycling, but from a higher base. So, while the first draft sought an increase in material recycled from 5.3 mtpa (23% of the guideline figure for aggregate production in the region) to at least 7.4 mtpa (33%), the final draft seeks an increase from 6.6 mtpa (29%) to at least 8.8 mtpa (39%).

8.6 The policy also refers to the importance of making provision for the siting of recycling facilities in open countryside, including Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, green belt and national parks. This is supportive of the approach of the Hampshire Material Resources Strategy (MRS) which seeks to increase levels of recycling partially through increasing the availability and location of recycling facilities for all materials, including aggregates.

8.7 Secondly, SEERA has applied a `dampener' to offset some of the anomalies that resulted from the technical calculations which were used to come up with the proposed apportionment. Surrey and Oxfordshire have both benefited from the application of this `dampener', which is described in more detail in paragraphs 9.11 and 9.12.

8.8 Thirdly, a new policy (M8) has been added to the final draft relating to the need for an Implementation Plan. The Plan is included, broken down into seven themes, with identified actions within each theme.

8.9 Finally, SEERA has undertaken a strategic sustainability appraisal of the draft Strategy, the outcome of which did not suggest any significant changes were required. No opportunity was given to comment on this appraisal.

9. Comments by the Director of Environment

9.1 The Regional Minerals Strategy is of importance to Hampshire since it sets the context for minerals planning. It identifies the apportionment of aggregates supply that will need to be met through the Minerals and Waste Development Framework. It is regrettable that Hampshire's comments regarding the apportionment figure are not reflected in the final draft of the Strategy.

Primary Aggregates

9.2 As with the first draft of the Strategy, the most controversial aspect of the Regional Minerals Strategy for Hampshire is the overall regional aggregates target and its sub-regional apportionment between mineral planning authorities. National guidance states that the regional supply of land-won sand and gravel should be 13.25 mtpa. The Strategy sets the regional figure at 12.67 mtpa. This may be challenged at some point, and a more rigorous analysis of how this figure was derived should be included within the Strategy.

9.3 In its advice to SEERA on determining the sub-regional apportionment, the South East England Regional Aggregates Working Party (SEERAWP) rejected the approach of assigning the regional reduction of 19.7% equally to each Mineral Planning Authority in favour of continuing recent patterns of production as outlined in paragraph 8.2. This has led to counties such as Hampshire, where sales of aggregates have remained strong, retaining a high apportionment figure.

9.4 Hampshire's comments on the first draft Strategy noted that 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. This view was based on the following arguments:

(i) The only two counties (Surrey and Kent/Medway) with higher aggregates requirements under the existing apportionment each has its allocations reduced by around 25%. Hampshire's reduction is 6.7%. It would be hard to present a case that the requirements of these counties are so different from Hampshire to merit such variation in reduction.

(ii) Hampshire will continue to have the shortest landbank supply in terms of years in the whole region. For two counties the recalculations mean that they will have a landbank in excess of seven years rather than an under provision.

(iii) Sales of aggregates in Hampshire have only exceeded the proposed total allocation for the county twice in the previous eight years, the last being 1999.

(iv) The approach to sub-regional apportionment 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.

(v) 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 16-years period. Permitted reserves over the whole of Hampshire only amounted to 13.7 million tonnes at the beginning of 2003, so there will be a significant task to identify suitable sites to meet this shortfall.

(vi) The safeguarding of airports is covered by ODPM Circular 1/2003 which now requires each airport/airfield to consider safety issues. Bird strikes 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 have 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.

(vii) 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.

9.5 Despite these arguments, the final draft Strategy has not amended the approach to determining the sub-regional apportionment, instead noting that a further review of the apportionment will be undertaken in approximately four years time, based on more detailed appraisals. This commitment is set out in the supporting text, but has not been included in Policy M5 of the Strategy. The report to SEERA's Planning Committee on 17 December 2003 noted that specific provision had already been made in the final draft Strategy to review the apportionment in the Hampshire/New Forest area when the proposed national park is designated and in operation.

9.6 However, such a delay is considered to be too long to wait before beginning a review. Given the timescale required in planning for new aggregate provision, a review of the apportionment should begin now. Hampshire should maintain an objection to this sub-regional apportionment, and if SEERA does not take these comments into account Hampshire should seek to be represented at the Inquiry later this year.

9.7 One of the appraisal objectives within SEERA's sustainability appraisal is protection of the countryside. As part of the assessment of this objective, Map 4 of RPG9 was used as a data source for baseline data. This map shows landscape and environmental designations within the South East, but does not include the proposed New Forest National Park or the proposed South Downs National Park. This means that the sustainability appraisal has not taken into account the proposed New Forest National Park and is therefore flawed. The exercise should be repeated, taking into account the impact of the proposed national parks and giving Mineral Planning Authorities an opportunity to comment during the process this time.

9.8 The sustainability appraisal focuses on the policies set out in the consultation draft Strategy of September 2003. No real consideration of alternative approaches to deriving the apportionment, such as possibly assigning the regional reduction of 19.7% equally to each mineral planning authority, is presented. The appraisal should not be so narrowly focused on just the proposed policies, and not take into account the process through which these policies were derived. Patterns of regional or national demand and past sales levels in relation to the proposed apportionment should be considered in greater detail. The sustainability appraisal should make clear why the proposed apportionment method was selected, and should consider alternative approaches.

9.9 It is vital that this issue of the impact of the proposed New Forest National Park is fully taken into account by SEERA. In earlier comments on the consultation draft Strategy, Hampshire County Council noted that the sub-regional apportionment to the proposed New Forest National Park will not be met after 2006, and the remaining shortfall should be met from windfall provision in the proposed national park, additional marine dredged sand and gravel and increased use of recycled aggregates. A policy revision to implement this approach was requested on the basis that:

(i) The proposed 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.

(ii) Any applications for new production sites within the proposed New Forest National Park would have to satisfy the criteria identified in MPG6 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.

(iii) The new Government guidelines require regional planning bodies to apportion taking into account the likely environmental impacts of the implied extraction. Since the apportionment to the proposed 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.

9.10 The final draft Strategy does not include a policy revision to reflect Hampshire's views on the proposed New Forest National Park apportionment. This will have an impact on whether Hampshire is able to meet its apportionment figure, and Hampshire should maintain its objection regarding this issue.

9.11The 17 December 2003 report to SEERA's Regional Planning Committee, which accompanied the final draft Regional Minerals Strategy, referred to the use of a `dampener' effect. The `dampener' referred to was achieved through the fact that the Government target of 118 million tonnes of aggregate to be recycled in the south-east might be exceeded by 5 million tonnes. A decision was taken by SEERA to use this amount to offset the requirement for land-won sand and gravel, and to apply it to the Oxfordshire and Surrey allocations.

9.12 Oxfordshire and Surrey were selected on the basis that these counties produced the highest amount of mineral in relation to their housing targets. No recognition is given to the impact of the proposed national parks on Hampshire's ability to meet the proposed sub-regional apportionment figure, or to Hampshire's case for a reduction in its apportionment figure in light of the environmental constraints faced.

10. Conclusions

10.1 Hampshire raised a series of objections to the first draft Strategy, noting primarily that the method of determining the aggregates sub-regional apportionment was not sustainable and did not take account of the designation of the proposed New Forest National Park. As a result, it would be unlikely that Hampshire could meet the proposed New Forest National Park apportionment after 2006, and this would put additional pressure on the Rest of Hampshire.

10.2 The final draft Strategy has been published, and none of Hampshire's requested changes have been made. Furthermore, a fundamental flaw has been identified in the sustainability appraisal that was carried out. The proposed New Forest National Park area was not included in the assessment, and therefore its impact was not properly taken into account. The sustainability appraisal does not make it clear why the proposed apportionment method was adopted, nor does it consider other options for meeting the apportionment. These options would include increasing the level of recycled aggregate production; importing more marine dredged material and reallocating the shortfall caused by the policy constraints on mineral production in the New Forest to other counties.

10.3 In the light of the strength of argument to support Hampshire's position, an objection to the final draft Regional Minerals Strategy should be made. Unless Hampshire's views are accepted, a position at the Inquiry later this year should be sought.

8750/TB

APPENDIX 1

FINAL DRAFT REGIONAL MINERALS STRATEGY

PROPOSED POLICIES

Policy M1 - Sustainable Construction

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 encourage development projects to use construction materials that reduce the demand for primary minerals wherever practicable.

Policy M2 - Environmental Management

Development plans should include policies to achieve effective management of mineral extraction, wharves and rail depots, 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 M3 - Recycling and Re-use

The use of secondary aggregates and recycled materials in the South East should increase from 6.6 mtpa (29% of the guidelines for primary aggregate production in the region) to at least 8.8 mtpa (39%) 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 and development in the open countryside, including green belt and, in exceptional circumstances, AONBs and national parks, should not be precluded where this is consistent with the proximity principle.

Policy M4 - Advocacy for 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.

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 M5 - 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. Mineral Planning Authorities should plan to maintain a landbank of at least seven years of planning permissions for land-won sand and gravel which is sufficient, throughout the Mineral Plan period, to deliver 12.67 million tonnes of sand and gravel per annum across the region, based on the following sub-regional apportionment:

Mineral Planning Proposed Apportionment

Authorities Figure

Berkshire Unitaries 1.50 mtpa

Buckinghamshire 0.94 mtpa

East Sussex 0.01 mtpa

Hampshire ) 1.80 mtpa

New Forest National Park ) 0.72 mtpa

Isle of Wight 0.05 mtpa

Kent 2.42 mtpa

Milton Keynes 0.11 mtpa

Oxfordshire 1.74 mtpa

Surrey 2.51 mtpa

West Sussex 0.87 mtpa

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

Kent 1.2 mtpa

Oxfordshire 1.0 mtpa.

Policy M6 - 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 plan for:

(i) A permitted reserve of clay for brick and tile product manufacture sufficient to last for at least 25 years at current production rates should be maintained to supply individual works throughout the plan period, and new manufacturing capacity developed if this would replace older plants or reduce net imports to the region; for small-scale manufacture, a long-term landbank of a lesser period than 25 years may be appropriate.

(ii) A permitted reserve of chalk for cement manufacture sufficient to last for at least 25 years at current production rates should be maintained throughout the plan period in Kent.

(iii) A permitted reserve of silica sand should be maintained throughout the plan period, equivalent at current production rates to at least 10 years at existing sites and at least 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 at least 20 years at current production rates should be maintained throughout the plan period in East Sussex to support the building product and cement industries, and the use of desulphurgypsum imported by rail over the shortest practicable distance should be encouraged.

Policy M7 - Safeguarding of Mineral Reserves, Wharves and Rail 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 rail depots identified in development plans for the handling and distribution of imported minerals and processed materials should also be safeguarded.

Policy M8 - Implementation

An implementation plan will be prepared and maintained, setting out the principal roles and actions required of authorities, agencies and companies in assisting implementation of this Strategy and policies.

APPENDIX 2

FINAL DRAFT REGIONAL MINERALS STRATEGY

SUB REGIONAL APPORTIONMENT IN COMPARISON WITH MPG 6 FIGURES

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:

1. 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.

2. 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 proposed New Forest National Park to supply 0.72 mtpa from a total of 2.52 mtpa.

3. 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.