Return to Agenda

Division(s): All

ITEM EX8

EXECUTIVE – 28 OCTOBER 2003

REGIONAL MINERALS STRATEGY – CONSULTATION BY SOUTH EAST ENGLAND REGIONAL ASSEMBLY

Report by Head of Sustainable Development

Introduction

  1. In September 2003 the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) published a draft Regional Minerals Strategy (RMS) for consultation. A copy is in the Members’ Resource Centre. The consultation period ends on 3 November 2003. The strategy will form part of regional guidance to local authorities on how their land use, transport and waste management policies should address regional issues. In particular, it will give guidance to mineral planning authorities (MPAs) on policies for the future supply of minerals. This report provides background to the RMS and makes recommendations on the County Council’s response to the consultation.

    2. Background

  2. The RMS will replace the minerals section of the existing Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) and the Sub-Regional Aggregates Apportionment (the apportionment of the regional supply requirement between counties) that was agreed by the former SERPLAN in 1994. Its production has been held up by the Government’s delay in finalising the new ‘National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, 2001-2016’ (the Aggregate Guidelines), which was only published in June 2003. It covers the period to 2016, in line with RPG9 and the new Aggregates Guidelines.

  3. The RMS encompasses the whole of the area covered by SEERA and covers those minerals that are of regional significance: brick clay, chalk, silica sand, gypsum, fullers earth, and construction aggregates. Of these, only fullers earth and construction aggregates are currently of significance for minerals planning in Oxfordshire. It follows the same general approach as earlier regional strategies produced by SEERA, and relates particularly closely to the Regional Waste Management Strategy which is currently being finalised. The RMS focuses firstly on measures to reduce demand for minerals, secondly on the recycling of previously used materials, and finally on the supply of newly extracted (primary) minerals to meet the residual regional need.

  4. The RMS is of particular significance for Oxfordshire in that it sets out a new sub-regional apportionment of primary aggregates provision from quarries in the South East. This gives figures for each mineral planning authority (MPA) of the level of provision that should be made for the supply of sand and gravel and crushed rock in their development plans.

    5. Overall Strategy Approach

  5. The RMS promotes a ‘natural resource management’ approach to minerals planning, involving the following ‘hierarchy of actions’:

        1. development of sustainable construction practices to reduce growth in demand for minerals;

        2. increased use of recycled materials and mineral wastes as alternatives to primary mineral extraction;

        3. appropriate use of imported materials to supplement local supply;

        4. sufficient planned provision for mineral extraction to meet the Region’s share of national supply;

        5. effective management of mineral extraction and processing within environmental objectives and safeguarding of future supplies.

  6. The RMS stresses that the maintenance of a healthy regional economy will require an adequate supply of minerals to deliver the housing programme and infrastructure projects, but that planning policy has to balance the need for minerals with the environmental impact arising from their extraction, processing and transport. It says MPAs should ensure provision is made for sufficient supplies of other minerals to meet regional and, where appropriate, national needs, but that self sufficiency of supply is unachievable at either regional or local level.

  7. This approach to minerals planning supports the approach taken in the draft Oxfordshire Structure Plan Review.

    8. Policies for Sustainable Construction, Recycling and Re-use

  8. Policy M1 promotes sustainable construction practices through SEERA working with partners to promote good practice, reduce wastage and overcome constraints, with the aim of stabilising annual consumption of primary aggregates by 2016. In particular it says development plans should ensure development projects use construction materials that reduce demand for primary aggregates wherever practicable, and should promote effective environmental management of mineral extraction and restoration and increased movement of minerals by rail and water.

  9. Policy M2 says use of secondary and recycled aggregate materials in the South East should increase to at least 7.4 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) by 2016; and that MPAs should make provision for recycling facilities to enable this target to be met. Policy M3 urges Government action to adopt statutory recycling and recovery targets for construction and demolition waste and to promote more sustainable construction practices and recycling projects.

  10. These policies will help to secure more sustainable construction practices and increase the use of secondary and recycled materials, thereby reducing the need for primary aggregates extraction. However, the target figure for 2016 of 7.4 mtpa seems unambitious and could be increased. I have some more detailed comments on these policies, which are set out in the annex to this report.

    11. Policy for Primary Aggregates

  11. Quantitatively, the most important minerals in the South East (and in Oxfordshire) are construction aggregates. The Government’s new Aggregates Guidelines set out the levels of provision expected to be made from different aggregate sources and includes the following figures for provision over the period 2001-2016. The guideline figures for the South East, with the actual supply figures for 2001 for comparison, are:

    12.  

    Total Guidelines Provision

    2001-2016 (tonnes)

    Annual Provision

    2001-2016 (mtpa)

    Actual Supply 2001 (tonnes)

    2.2

    Land-won sand and gravel

    Land-won crushed rock

    Marine sand and gravel

    Secondary and recycled materials

    Imports to England

    Total

     

    212

    35

    120

    118

    85

    570

     

    13.25

    2.2

    7.5

    7.4

    5.3

    35.6

    13.4

    2.4

    7.2

    6.6

    3.8

    32.4

    These figures do not include an additional 9 million tonnes of crushed rock imported from other regions (mostly by rail). Inter-regional imports and exports of sand and gravel were broadly in balance.

  12. The guidelines figure for land-won sand and gravel is 19.7% less than the previous (1994) guidelines figure for the South East, reflecting a 19% reduction in the national guidelines figure. However, the South East figure for land-won crushed rock is 10% higher than the previous figure, reflecting recent increased supply from this source.

  13. The RMS proposes a regional land-won sand and gravel supply figure of 13.0 mtpa, slightly less than the Government’s guideline figure. The RMS proposes that this be apportioned initially to MPAs on the basis of average production over the period 1995-2001. The regional land-won crushed rock figure is proposed to be apportioned between Kent and Oxfordshire, being the only counties with significant crushed rock resources, again on the basis of past average production. The RMS says the apportionment is to be reviewed following the consultation and in the light of a strategic sustainability appraisal that is currently being undertaken.

  14. Policy M4 says the supply of aggregates in the South East should be from a significant increase in secondary and recycled materials, a reduced contribution from primary land-won resources, and increases in landings of marine sand and gravel and imported crushed rock. It sets out the level of provision for land-won primary aggregates (the apportionment) that should be made by each MPA through their development plans. The proposed apportionment figures for Oxfordshire, with the regional provision figures for comparison, and showing the proportion of regional provision to be met by Oxfordshire compared with the previous (1994) position, are:

    15. Aggregate Type

    Annual Regional Provision (mtpa)

    Proposed Oxfordshire Apportionment (mtpa)

    Proportion of Regional Provision 2003

    Proportion of Regional Provision 1994

    Land-won sand and gravel

    Land-won crushed rock

    13.0

    2.2

    1.96

    1.0

    15%

    46%

    12%

    33%

    Total land-won aggregates

     

    15.2

    2.96

    19%

    14%

  15. In making a response to the proposed new apportionment, the following points should be considered:

        1. the proposed Oxfordshire sand and gravel apportionment is only 2% less than the 1994 apportionment (2.0 mtpa), compared with a regional reduction of 21% and reductions for all other MPAs of between 7% and 97%;

        2. the proposed Oxfordshire crushed rock apportionment is over 50% higher than the level of production around 1994 and as provided for in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996 (0.65 mtpa) (there was no apportionment for crushed rock in 1994);

        3. the proposed total Oxfordshire apportionment is 12% higher than the level of provision made under the 1994 guidelines and apportionment, compared with a regional reduction of 18% and a reduction (in most cases substantial) in provision for all other MPAs;

        4. the proportion of regional provision proposed to be made by Oxfordshire is increased from 14% in 1994 to 19%;

        5. the proposed total Oxfordshire apportionment is 9% higher than the level of production in 2002 of 2.71 million tonnes (1.79 million tonnes sand and gravel, 0.92 million tonnes crushed rock).

  16. There may be a case for an increase in crushed rock provision from Oxfordshire, given the higher guideline figure for the South East and the limited availability of crushed rock resources in the region. As one of only two counties with significant resources, Oxfordshire would inevitably play a role in supplying crushed rock. But Oxfordshire should not at the same time be required to make continued sand and gravel provision at almost the same rate as previously, when resources of this material are widely distributed across the region. I consider the very small decrease in the sand and gravel apportionment for Oxfordshire, which has resulted in a significant overall increase in Oxfordshire’s apportionment, to be illogical and unsustainable.

  17. I consider that a strong objection should be made to the proposed apportionment in Policy M4, particularly to the sand and gravel apportionment, on the following grounds:

        1. the proposed apportionment is based on a backward-looking methodology, relying on past production, and does not consider either the distribution of future demand for aggregates in the South East or the future supply capability of aggregate resource areas;

        2. use of this methodology has produced a 12% increase in the overall apportionment for Oxfordshire, in contrast to a regional reduction of 18% and a reduction in the apportionment for every other MPA, despite the following factors;

        3. Oxfordshire, and in particular its main aggregate resource areas, lies at the periphery of the South East region and is very poorly located in relation both to the major development areas planned in the region under the Government’s Sustainable Communities programme (Thames Gateway, Ashford (Kent) and Milton Keynes) and to London (the main export market for aggregates from the South East);

        4. under the proximity principle, aggregates provision to supply these development areas should be made from resources closer to them than Oxfordshire; the aggregate resources of Oxfordshire are affected to a very substantial extent by environmental and other constraints which will limit the ability of the County to supply aggregates without significant harm being caused, in particular:

          5. (a) the sand and gravel deposits that are not within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty occur mainly within the Valley of the River Thames and its main tributaries, where the water table is generally high and much of the land is liable to flood; and they are also almost all within one or more of the safeguarding zones for the nine safeguarded airfields (8 military and 1 civil) which lie within or affect Oxfordshire;

          (b) a significant proportion of the limestone resource of Oxfordshire lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

        5. a new aggregates apportionment for the Region should not be agreed until a full sustainability appraisal has been carried out, taking into account the expected future distribution of aggregates demand and environmental and other constraints on aggregates supply (including aerodrome safeguarding and the water environment) in a consistent manner across the region.

    Fullers Earth

  18. Of the other minerals covered in the RMS, only fullers earth is of significance in Oxfordshire. However, the RMS says further consideration of this mineral in the strategy is not currently warranted, but that this should be kept under review. Consequently fullers earth is not covered by any policy in the RMS.

    19. Safeguarding

  19. Policy M6 says areas permitted and identified in development plans for working regionally significant minerals and existing and proposed wharves and depots for handling and distributing minerals should be safeguarded against other development. The minerals specified in the policy include aggregates, but not fullers earth.

  20. The inclusion of a safeguarding policy in the RMS will provide a regional policy basis for development plan policies that seek to avoid this sterilisation of mineral resources which might need to be worked in the future. However, this policy should be widened to cover all potentially significant mineral deposits, including fullers earth. I have some more detailed comments on safeguarding and fullers earth, which are set out in the annex to this report.

    21. Financial and Staff Implications

  21. The RMS will set a regional minerals policy framework for the review of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Work on the Local Plan Review has commenced and a programme has been drafted, which should be met from existing resources. The RMS is not expected to impose any additional resource requirements.

    22. Conclusions

  22. On the whole the RMS covers those areas of minerals planning that are appropriate to the regional level and provides a policy framework that will help the development of minerals policy at county level. However, the proposed aggregates apportionment places an unfair and unacceptable burden on Oxfordshire and a strong objection should be raised. There are a number of other issues relevant to Oxfordshire, on which comments should also be made.

    23. RECOMMENDATION

  23. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

          1. agree to the report forming the basis of the County Council’s response to SEERA on the Regional Minerals Strategy Consultation Draft, with particular reference to targets for use of primary aggregates and for secondary and recycled materials, primary aggregates provision (apportionment), fullers earth policy and minerals safeguarding policy;

          2. in particular, raise strong objection to the aggregates apportionment proposed in Policy M4, on the grounds set out in paragraph 17 of the report.

CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable Development

Background Papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Peter Day, Tel: Oxford 815544

25 September 2003

Return to TOP