Return to Agenda

Division(s): N/A

ITEM EX9

EXECUTIVE – 18 MAY 2004

REGIONAL MINERALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Report by Head of Sustainable Development

Introduction

  1. In March 2004 the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) published two sets of Proposed Alterations to Regional Planning Guidance, South East: a Regional Minerals Strategy (RMS); and a Regional Waste Management Strategy (RWMS) for comments to be made to the Secretary of State. Copies are in the Members’ Resource Centre. The period for making comments ends on 24 May 2004. A Public Examination into the proposed alterations by an independent Panel appointed by the Secretary of State is to be held in October. The Secretary of State will take into account all comments made when he decides what changes to make to the proposed alterations following receipt of the Panel’s report.

  2. The final version of these alterations will replace the minerals and waste sections of the current Regional Planning Guidance for the South East – RPG9 (March 2001), covering the period to 2016. In particular, they will give guidance to mineral and waste planning authorities (MPAs/WPAs) on policies for the future supply of minerals and management of waste. The RMS and RWMS are the last in a series of mini reviews of existing Regional Planning Guidance before a full review is carried out for the period to 2026. This report provides information on the revised RMS and RWMS, concentrating on changes from the draft documents, and makes recommendations on the County Council’s response to the Proposed Alterations to Regional Planning Guidance.

    3. Regional Minerals Strategy

    Background

  3. 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 London and South East Regional Planning Conference (SERPLAN) in 1994. It covers the period to 2016, in line with RPG9 and the Government’s new ‘National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, 2001-2016’ (June 2003) (the Aggregates Guidelines).

  4. The RMS encompasses the whole of the area covered by SEERA and covers those minerals that are of regional significance. Of these, only construction aggregates and fullers earth are currently of significance for minerals planning in Oxfordshire. The RMS promotes a ‘natural resource management’ approach to minerals planning and its policies focus on measures to reduce demand for minerals, the recycling of previously used materials, and the supply of newly extracted (primary) minerals to meet the residual regional need. 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. Comments on RMS Consultation Draft

  5. A consultation draft RMS was published by SEERA in September 2003 and was considered by the Executive on 28 October 2003. The County Council’s comments on the draft are set out in Annex A (download as .doc file). The Council strongly objected to the new sub-regional apportionment of primary aggregates in Policy M4 because it placed an unfair and unacceptable burden on Oxfordshire compared with all the other South East MPAs. Many other organisations and individuals in Oxfordshire made similar objections. The County Council’s other significant comments were that the targets for use of secondary and recycled aggregates in Policy M2 were too low and that Policy M6 should be widened to safeguard all potentially significant mineral deposits, including fullers earth.

  6. In response to these comments, SEERA has increased the regional targets for use of secondary and recycled aggregates and has reduced Oxfordshire’s sand and gravel apportionment. It should be noted that there has been some rearrangement and renumbering of polices in the revised RMS.

    7. Policies for Sustainable Construction, Environmental Management and Recycling and Re-use

  7. Policies M1 and M2 (previously M1), which promote sustainable construction practices and good environmental management, and M4 (previously M3 and part M2), which advocates recycling and re-use, are essentially unchanged. These policies were strongly welcomed by the County Council.

  8. The regional target for use of secondary and recycled aggregate materials in Policy M3 (previously M2) has been increased from 7.4 to 8.8 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) by 2016. This is to be welcomed as it is more in line with the Government’s Aggregates Guidelines.

  9. However, Policy M3 has been amended to say the development of recycling facilities in 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. I am concerned that this implies development in green belt would not be exceptional. I consider this should be amended in line with Government policy to say development within green belt may be allowed as an exception where it is consistent with the proximity principle and there are no suitable alternative sites available. Green belt and AONB/national park are quite different types of designation, with different purposes. The inclusion of AONBs/national parks in this policy is unnecessary and clouds the fundamental issue of the need to accommodate recycling plants close to urban areas.

    10. Policy for Primary Aggregates

  10. Policy M5 (previously M4) on the supply of primary aggregates has been amended to reduce the overall regional figure for sand and gravel provision by 0.33 mtpa, from 13.0 to 12.67 mtpa. This reduction has been shared between Surrey (0.11 mtpa) and Oxfordshire (0.22 mtpa). The Oxfordshire apportionment has thereby been reduced from 1.96 to 1.74 mtpa. The sub-regional apportionment for crushed rock has not been changed, and the Oxfordshire figure remains at 1.0 mtpa.

  11. This reduction in the Oxfordshire sand and gravel apportionment is to be welcomed. In making this change, SEERA recognised the validity of our reasons for objecting to the previous figure. In particular, SEERA acknowledged that Oxfordshire is one of only two counties required also to provide crushed rock and that compared with other counties the proposed apportionment for Oxfordshire was very high relative to the amount of new development in the county.

  12. However, I still consider that Oxfordshire has an excessively high apportionment, particularly for sand and gravel, that is illogical and unsustainable and places an unfair burden on this county compared with the other South East MPAs, as indicated by the following points:

        1. the revised Oxfordshire sand and gravel apportionment is still only 13% less than the 1994 apportionment (2.0 mtpa), compared with a regional reduction of 23%, with most other MPAs having much larger reductions;

        2. Oxfordshire still has a crushed rock apportionment that 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 3% higher than the level of provision made under the 1994 guidelines and apportionment, compared with a regional reduction of 20% 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 still increased, from 14% in 1994 to 18%, including an increase from 12% to 14% in the proportion of regional provision of sand and gravel made by Oxfordshire.

  13. I am also concerned that the further reduction in the sand and gravel provision figure for the region, from 13.0 to 12.67 mtpa (compared with the Government’s guideline figure of 13.25 mtpa), which has enabled the reduction in the Oxfordshire apportionment, is based on an unsound assumption about increased supply of recycled aggregates substituting for primary material. I believe it will be difficult for SEERA to justify this reduction at the Public Examination and that the reduction in the Oxfordshire apportionment could thus be at risk.

  14. There may be a case for an increase in crushed rock provision from Oxfordshire, given that the guideline figure for the South East has increased and only Kent and Oxfordshire have significant resources of crushed rock. Oxfordshire would inevitably play a significant role in supplying crushed rock, but should not at the same time be required to increase its share of regional provision of sand and gravel when resources of this material are widely distributed across the region. I consider that our fundamental objection to the way in which the sand and gravel apportionment has been carried out has not been addressed, and therefore that a strong objection should be made to the proposed apportionment in Policy M5, particularly 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 an increase in the overall apportionment for Oxfordshire, in contrast to a regional reduction of 20% and a reduction in the apportionment for every other MPA, despite factors (iii) to (v) below;

        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. the proposed apportionment will have serious adverse environmental and social implications for the residents of Oxfordshire;

        6. 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.

    Policies for Other Minerals, Safeguarding and Implementation

  15. Policy M6 (previously M5) on other minerals is essentially unchanged and still does not cover fullers earth. Only minor changes have been made to Policy M7 (previously M6) on safeguarding of mineral resources, wharves and rail depots. It is still limited to safeguarding resources at existing sites or identified in development plans, and it still does not cover fullers earth. I consider it important that, in line with Government policy, the safeguarding policy is widened to cover all potentially significant mineral deposits, including fullers earth which is a nationally scarce and important mineral, and that the need for regional policy on fullers earth should be kept under review.

  16. A new policy (M8) has been added on implementation, with a commitment to prepare and maintain a plan to implement the RMS. This is to be welcomed.

    17. Regional Waste Management Strategy

    Background

  17. The RWMS will replace the waste section of the existing Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) and the waste planning advice of the former SERPLAN in ‘Revised Waste Planning Advice – A Sustainable Waste Planning Strategy for the South East 1996-2010’ (SERP160, March 1997). It covers the period to 2016, in line with RPG9, but looks ahead to 2026, reflecting the longer timescale of the Government’s ‘Waste Strategy 2000’ (May 2000).

  18. The RWMS encompasses the whole of the area covered by SEERA and covers all main waste streams: construction and demolition; commercial and industrial; municipal; and hazardous wastes. The RWMS sets out how the requirements of the Government’s Waste Strategy and the EU Landfill Directive should be met in the South East. The RWMS takes a resource management approach and is based on a vision for ‘a region in which natural resources are used and managed efficiently so that by 2025: the amount of waste produced will be minimised; the overwhelming majority of materials will be re-used, recycled or have value recovered from them; and the environment will be protected and enhanced for future generations.’

  19. In pursuit of this vision, the RWMS uses the following hierarchy of waste management actions: Prevent; Re-use; Recycle; Recover in other ways; Dispose (mainly to landfill). This reflects the Government’s waste hierarchy and the RWMS is also strongly based on the Government’s key waste management principles of best practicable environmental option, proximity principle and regional self-sufficiency.

    20. Comments on RWMS Consultation Draft

  20. A consultation draft RWMS was published by SEERA in March 2003. It did not raise any major issues for Oxfordshire and therefore was not reported to the Executive. However, a number of detailed comments were agreed by the Executive Member for Sustainable Development. These comments are set out in Annex B (download as .doc file). It should be noted that there has been considerable rearrangement and renumbering of polices in the revised RWMS. References in this report are to policy numbers in the revised version.

    21. Waste Management Strategy Policies

  21. Many changes have been made to the policies in the RWMS, including several that address points raised in our comments. In general, I consider that the revised RWMS presents an improved set of policies that provide a sound basis for waste management planning in the region. However, I have some remaining concerns and a new issue of concern on green belt policy has arisen, and I consider that comments should be made on these matters.

    22. Waste Reduction

  22. Policies on waste reduction have been consolidated into a single, more focussed Policy W1, which now includes targets for reducing the growth of waste. Policy W5 on minimising waste and maximising re-use and recycling through development design and construction has been strengthened. These changes are to be welcomed.

    23. Self-Sufficiency

  23. Policies W3 and W4 require net regional and WPA area self-sufficiency in provision for waste management, plus landfill provision for a declining amount of waste from London. Unlike its predecessor SERP160, the RWMS does not apportion the regional waste management requirement between WPAs, although it does include indicative figures of the new waste management capacity that will be required in each WPA area in Annex 1. This is a useful addition. However, there is a continued lack of guidance on where the landfill provision required for waste from London should be provided within the region. This omission is of concern as without this the requirement is by default likely to continue to fall on those counties like Oxfordshire that currently make this provision.

  24. Policy W3 provides for landfill of unprocessed waste from London only until 2016. I consider that detailed targets should be set for decreasing imports of waste from London over this period.

    25. Recovery and Recycling Targets

  25. Policy W5 has been amended to clarify that the targets are for recovery of waste and diversion from landfill, and to set out the types of waste management processes required. The targets for municipal and commercial and industrial wastes have been reduced in the earlier years (2005/10/15), to make them more realistic and achievable, but the targets for construction and demolition waste have been increased to tie in with Government targets. The overall target for waste recovery and diversion from landfill by 2025 is unchanged at 86%. The changes to this policy are to be welcomed.

  26. The targets for recycling and composting of municipal waste in Policy W6 have been increased in the earlier years, to: 30% by 2005; 40% by 2010; and 50% by 2015; with the later targets of 55% by 2020 and 60% by 2025 being unchanged. I am concerned that the relationship between these targets and the Government’s targets for recycling of household waste is not clear, and that these increased targets may not be achievable. The RWMS should not set recycling targets for municipal waste higher than national targets, but should leave it to individual local authorities to consider whether higher targets would be appropriate for their area as part of their effort to meet the overall recovery/landfill diversion targets.

    27. Provision of Waste Management Facilities

  27. Policies W7, W16 and W17 require development plans to identify sites for waste management facilities and give guidance on locational criteria. I am concerned that these policies are too detailed and prescriptive for a regional strategy and do not provide sufficient flexibility for WPAs to decide for which types and sizes of facilities it is appropriate to identify sites and what locational criteria are appropriate to their area.

  28. The inclusion in Policy W13 on landfill provision of declining regional capacity targets and a requirement for landfill gas collection to be standard practice at non-inert landfill sites is to be welcomed.

  29. I consider that the lack of guidance on the new provision that will be required to deal with hazardous waste remains a serious gap in the RWMS, although the commitment in Policy W15 to the setting up of a hazardous waste task group to prepare such guidance is to be welcomed as a step forward.

  30. Policy W18 has been amended to say the provision of waste management facilities in 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. This raises the same concerns as set out in paragraph 9 above.

    31. Implementation

  31. Policy W20 has been added, giving a commitment to the preparation and maintenance of an implementation plan. This is to be welcomed. However, I consider that the RWMS should clarify and emphasise that certain policies will require implementation through district local plans as well as or instead of through waste local plans, in particular: Policy W2 on development design and construction; Policy W7 on the development of resource parks and other mixed or hybrid facilities; and Policy W 10 on provision of facilities for resource recovery and reprocessing. It should also be emphasised that district planning authorities have an important role to play in safeguarding waste management facilities and sites allocated for waste development.

    32. Financial and Staff Implications

  32. The RMS and RWMS will set a regional minerals and waste policy framework for the review of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Work on the Local Plan Review has commenced and a revised programme is being drafted in the light of impending changes in planning legislation. This work should be met from existing resources, and the RMS and RWMS are not expected to impose additional resource requirements.

    33. Conclusions

  33. On the whole the RMS and RWMS cover those areas of minerals and waste management planning that are appropriate to the regional level and provide a policy framework that will help the development of minerals and waste policy at county level. However, the proposed aggregates apportionment is based on a flawed methodology and places an unfair and unacceptable burden on Oxfordshire and a strong objection should be raised. In addition, both strategies include policies which could undermine policies for protection of the green belt, and objections should be made to these. An objection should also be made to the increased recycling targets for municipal waste, because it is not clear how they relate to national targets and whether they are achievable. There are a number of other issues relevant to Oxfordshire, on which comments should also be made.

    34. RECOMMENDATION

  34. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

          1. agree to the report forming the basis of the County Council’s comments to the Secretary of State on the Proposed Alterations to Regional Planning Guidance, South East – Regional Minerals Strategy and Regional Waste Management Strategy, with particular reference to policies for:

            1. aggregates recycling and other waste management facilities in the green belt;

            2. primary aggregates provision (apportionment);

            3. minerals safeguarding;

            4. landfill provision for waste from London;

            5. targets for recycling and composting of municipal waste; and

            6. development plan provision for and safeguarding of waste sites;

          2. in particular, raise strong objection to the aggregates apportionment proposed in Policy M5, on the grounds set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the report;

          3. authorise the Director for Environment & Economy to seek participation in the Public Examination, in particular in relation to the aggregates apportionment.

 

CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable Development

Background Papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Peter Day, Tel: Oxford 815544

30 April 2004

Return to TOP