Object

Representation ID: 169

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Mick George

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

1. MGL objects to SO1. Whilst the aspiration in SO1 to increase the levels of aggregate recycling and the use of alternatives from secondary and recycled sources appears laudable it is not supported by the conclusions of the Notts LAA (Oct 2018) paragraphs 3.24 & 3.30. This remarks that national estimates suggest that around 80-90% of construction and demolition waste is re-used or recycled (in fact, in 2016 only 4% of mineral wastes in England which comprises ‘typically construction materials such as bricks, stone and road planings that are converted into usable aggregates’ were landfilled). Moreover, the LAA observes that availability of PFA and FBA is likely to disappear by 2025 (paragraph 3.28). The scope for material changes to the substitution of primary minerals needed for development by secondary and recycled sources in these circumstances is very low and the Plan should be realistic about what it can achieve. We therefore question whether increasing the levels of aggregate recycling should be a policy objective given that the potential is already saturated.
2. National policy instructs mpas to “take account of the contribution that substitute or secondary and recycled materials and minerals waste would make to the supply of materials” (NPPF para 204b) and to make “an assessment of all supply options (including marine dredged, secondary and recycled sources)” in their LAAs (NPPF para 207a). However, there is no obligation to increase levels of recycling when all the evidence points to maximum uptake already and it is misleading to make this a major policy objective because it turns attention away from the urgent and pressing need for the extraction of more primary materials. This part of the policy objective should be deleted.
3. The objective to prioritise the improved use or extension of existing sites before considering new locations is also the subject of strong objection. This is misguided and contrary to national practice guidance. In answer to previous representations, the County council has said “National policy has sustainable development at its heart. The ability to use existing plant and infrastructure, and ensure economic mineral reserves are not otherwise sterilised, is seen as the most sustainable approach. This is consistent with national policy.” (Consultation Summary Document page 4).
4. However, NPPF contains no such provision of a policy preference for extensions. In the absence of an explicit statement of national policy it remains to be seen if Planning Practice Guidance is of any help. Under the general heading of “Planning for Minerals” PPG (para 027-010-20140306) advises in answer to the question, “Under what circumstances would it be preferable to focus on extensions to existing sites rather than plan for new sites” that there are cons as well as pros when considering extensions and new sites, and that therefore “The suitability of each proposed site, whether an extension to an existing site or a new site, must be considered on its individual merits.” That being the case, national guidance would appear to exclude the possibility of a policy preference for extensions; else how could an mpa show that it had considered and weighed the relative merits of extensions against new sites? In practice, a common policy bias against new sites results in a serious barrier to entry to the market which has been recognised in reports published by the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission (now replaced by the Competition and Markets Authority).
5. The OFT raised concerns about competition between companies in the Aggregates Sector and its report published in 2011 (OFT 1358) said “Barriers to entry: both the aggregates sector and the cement sector feature high barriers to entry in terms of the difficulty of obtaining planning permission and physical capital requirements. Elements of the planning system for aggregates in particular create substantial barriers to entry by favouring incumbents over new entrants.”
6. The Competition Commission’s final report into the Aggregates and Concrete Sector concluded that because it was easier to get an extension “…this implies that existing producers have an incumbency advantage over new entrants by favouring extensions of existing quarries over developing new sites.” (para 11.4)
7. However, national practice guidance remains clear that each applicant should be allowed to make a case for new working without being hamstrung by a policy bias in favour of extensions. MGL asserts that the claimed advantages of extensions over new sites must be demonstrated before d box if necessary)
Reason for proposed change: text is not consistent with national policy and guidance, is not effective and is not justified.