Q9 Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

Issues and Options Paper

Section 2 - Setting the overall Context for the Plan

Q1 - Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?

Yes. It is considered that the cross boundary relationship with neighbouring authorities should be identified taking into account:

1. cross boundary mineral supply from Nottinghamshire - eg to South Yorkshire, and Leicestershire in light of their identified lack of available sand and gravel resources and production capacity to meet demand over the Plan period

2. The lack of available crushed rock/limestone resource within the County and therefore the heavy reliance on import from adjoining Authority areas
3. The availability of infrastructure links - particularly good road network and therefore links to market in assisting to secure mineral supply
4. The overlap of housing, business, infrastructure and employment links with Derbyshire and Leicestershire are identified but there is currently no reference to an overlap of mineral supply issues
5. The relationship with other mineral authorities and duty to cooperate in Plan preparation should be referenced
6. The anticipated development needs for housing, employment and infrastructure provision (including HS2)

Q2 Do you agree with the Draft Vision? Are there other things that we should include?

In general terms we would support the Draft Vision. However, it is considered there are two important issues missing. Firstly, as well as the identification of sites/resources to maintain landbanks and support the objectively assessed development needs/demand, the Plan should ensure that there is sufficient operational capacity to maintain the demand in accordance with paragraph 145 of the NPPF which states, 'Mineral Planning Authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by making provision for the maintenance of landbank.... whilst ensuring that the capacity of operations to supply a wide range of materials is not compromised'. This should include the assessed needs of adjacent Authority areas which may place added pressure on Nottinghamshire resources. Secondly, as well as safeguarding mineral resource, in accordance with the NPPF the Plan should safeguard mineral associated infrastructure.

Q3 Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

Key Strategic Issue 1 and a locational strategy to securing mineral supply is supported. This approach maintains the spread of operations across the County and maintains a security in supply to the specific markets that these serve.

The principle of Key Strategic Issue 2 is supported. However, as referred above, the Plan should identify the anticipated demand from adjoining Authority areas.

We do not agree with Strategic Issue 4 and a 'Biodiversity led restoration' approach to all mineral operations. This is not always appropriate when balancing the needs of

the landowner and long term economic value of land post restoration. Biodiversity improvements should be sought 'where possible'. The Council's vision should adopt a more balanced stance in respect of the restoration of mineral sites taking account of the three elements of sustainability set out in the NPPF (e.g. economic, social and environmental). Tarmac do however support the vision for creating landscape-scale biodiversity resources as part of stakeholder co-ordinated initiatives (ie The RSPB Bigger Better Vision for the Trent Valley area north of Newark). This should be referred to in the strategy.

Strategic Issue 4 should also consider the opportunities which mineral extraction creates for the deposit of inert infill as part of delivering agricultural restoration in helping to meet the need for inert waste disposal in Nottinghamshire.

Minerals Provision

Q4 Do you think the average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives you feel are realistic and deliverable and the evidence to support this approach.

No it is not considered that the 10 years average sales figures are the most suitable methodology for forecasting aggregate demand. National Policy states, forecasts of demand should be based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data, other relevant information and through assessment of all other supply options. The 10 years average sales are heavily influenced by the impact of the recession. In addition, the movement of production at Finningley outside the County boundary has effectively skewed the perceived sales/demand. This is particularly apparent given the picture across the East Midlands which in all other cases have seen increases in sales figures. Whilst, recycled and secondary aggregate has a role to play in meeting demand in some circumstances it cannot be relied upon for ensuring continuity in supply. In addition given the location of the County it is unlikely that demand can be met from other sources (for example marine). In light of this, the other relevant local information is particularly important in forecasting future demand in the County. We support the MPA in their previous approach which reviewed sales data pre and post- recession to give a greater appreciation of likely anticipated demand in recession and a period of economic growth.

As we have referred to above, the operational capacity of permitted operations within the County needs consideration to ensure that anticipated demand is met. A

decline in sales is not necessarily an indication of a decline in demand. Production moving outside of the County will impact upon perceived sales figures as well as sites/resource not being replaced when exhausted.

A Delivery schedule (as per previous MLP drafts) would be helpful in ensuring that sites are allocated to cover the whole Plan period. Although the landbank is sufficient at the start of the Plan period, sites will become exhausted during the Plan period and provision should be made for replacements. Tarmac have produced their own delivery schedule (enclosed with this submission) to illustrate the timescales for known reserves becoming available during the Plan period.

The Issues and Options paper states, the decline in Nottinghamshire sales of sand and gravel is a result of the, 'minerals industry focusing on existing quarries outside the County and the lack of investment in new greenfield quarries in Nottinghamshire even though adequate sand and gravel resources remain'. This statement is not substantiated or evidenced. The 9 years of public consultation (between 2008 and 2017) eventually leading to the withdrawn Nottinghamshire Draft Plan has not created a positive or stable platform for industry investment. There are numerous existing operations with logical and feasible extensions, a number of which have previously been promoted to the previous Mineral Local Plan process as well as new greenfield reserves which have been subject to Scoping Requests with the Mineral Planning Authority. Notwithstanding this, significant investment (both financial and time) is required in pre-planning processes in obtaining baseline environmental assessment work to support a planning application. The Mineral industry is only recently seeing increases in sales post-recession which provides the security/assurance in making significant financial investment to existing and new operations. In addition, it is the market factors that dictate where operations would be best placed to serve the local needs.

The Plan should not focus or specify a definitive/maximum amount of mineral provision. The sales data is an indication of demand and should not be perceived as a maximum requirement. The Plan needs to provide flexibility to support additional sites/resources coming forward during the Plan period to meet demand/operational requirements to serve existing/future markets.

Q5 Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 year sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?

As above, the use of 10 years average does not accurately represent the 'local circumstance'. A decline in sales is not necessarily an indication of decline in demand. Whilst it is one consideration, the fact that the sales/supply picture within Nottinghamshire is so different from the rest of the East Midlands and the national picture indicates that the sales data alone is not a true reflection of current circumstances.

Strategic Approach to New Mineral Development

Q6 Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries?

There needs to be allowance in the Plan for both extensions and new greenfield sites. The NPPF removed previous planning policy preference for extensions to existing operations. As a result, emerging policy should not give preference to extensions in order to be compliant with national policy. However, as we have previously stated, the Plan should provide flexibility and policy should be supportive in securing extensions to existing operations, this ensures a continuation in supply without sterilising mineral reserves. However, operational capacity constraints still apply (imposed by plant capacity or planning conditions which limit tonnages/production) which can limit the amount of resource available to meet demand and therefore there may be a requirement for green field sites in addition to extensions. It is considered that a more sustainable strategy would be a locational strategy which shows allocations and preferred areas of working for new sites in each of the three main areas for sand and gravel working (Trent Valley, north of Newark and the Idle Valley) to ensure there are sufficient operations in place to meet demand, particularly relevant where there is evidence of sand and gravel resource, reserve and production capacity decline in adjoining authority areas.

Sand and gravel provision

Q8. How important is it to maintain a geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries across the County (i.e idle Valley, near Newark and near Nottingham) to minimise the distance minerals are transported to market.

It is considered that a geographical spread of sand and gravel operations is a sustainable strategy and Tarmac support this approach. These areas have historical supply markets/area demand which has not changed - i.e major growth areas which will still be providing housing, employment, infrastructure etc remain. In addition, a

number of operations spread within a locality will also ensure the continuity/maintenance of supply in the event of operational constraint or in the event of a site having to shut down/cease operating.

It is not clear why specific reference is made to the Planning Application at Barton in Fabis and the contribution this could make to future mineral supply? Current undetermined Applications at Langford and Bestwood are not referred to in the same context. It is considered that the Plan should provide factual information only at this stage, and the reference to Barton in Fabis specifically appears to give it a favourable status which is not appropriate in this context.

Plan 3 isn't very informative. It would benefit from major trunk roads being identified, major towns/growth areas labelling, and the Idle Valley showing.

Q9. Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

The Locational strategy should be heavily influenced/focussed on known markets and by access to market and ease of access to the local highway network to transport mineral within and where necessary outside of the County.

Q10. Is it economical to transport mineral by river barge and if so should proposed quarries with the potential for moving sand and gravel by river barge be prioritised over other proposals.

The difference between long distance barging to market and short distance/shuttle barging to processing plant requires a distinction.

Long Distance Barging to Market

It has not in recent years been economical to transport mineral by barge. The costs of loading / unloading and transportation are often significantly greater than conventional distribution to market by road, and is significantly less flexible to meet market demand. It is unlikely that sand and gravel operations will be developed based on barge transportation alone.

River barge transportation of sand and gravel from Besthorpe Quarry ceased in August 2013 as supply to the West Yorkshire market from North Yorkshire (including rail fed crushed rock) became more economic. The position may change in the medium to long term as supply scenarios change over time. Tarmac have therefore

retained the over wharf facility at Besthorpe in a mothballed state rather than removing the wharf facility altogether.

Short distance shuttle barging (to processing plant)

The costs of loading and unloading and provision of handling/ processing facilities significantly add to operating costs and shuttle barging over short distances are unlikely to be economic against traditional land based operations.

There may be opportunities for a shuttle barge transportation system to be adopted for working some sand and gravel resources where inadequate road access exists. Such a system may enable otherwise constrained mineral resources to be worked, but the viability does depend heavily on suitable mineral handling and processing facilities being available at the receiving end (particularly facilities for mineral processing , washing and silt disposal).

Sherwood Sandstone

Q11. Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

The LAA recognises the high level of export to markets outside the County due to limited resources elsewhere. As per comments on sand and gravel, there is a need where resource exists to maintain production and operating capacity to meet demand. The Plan should identify appropriate extensions to existing operations or new sites to meet this demand. Identified demand based on sales is a minimum requirement of the Plan and it is considered there needs to be flexibility built into the Plan to allow sites to come forward. The plan should address anticipated demand from outside of the County.

The Plan should recognise the unique properties of the sand as well as markets. Colour variances as well as properties of the sand are also important factors and therefore additional reserves (as allocations or new sites) should not solely be based upon estimated demand based on sales figures.

Crushed Rock

The Plan should update the current position on Nether Langwith as Tarmac has obtained planning permission to extend the timescales for working and restoration.


It is likely that there is a wider demand for crushed rock within the County than that met by Nether Langwith. Crushed rock requirements are likely to be met from imports to meet the demand within the south of the County to minimise the distance crushed rock will need to travel.

Alternative Aggregates

Q14. Are you aware of any issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered through the minerals Local Plan review?

Support for the MPA in seeking the use of alternative aggregates and the appreciation that there are limits on how far alternatives can substitute primary aggregate. It is considered whilst support for alternative aggregate should be encouraged in the Plan, the contribution should be viewed as a 'bonus' over and above the required amount of primary aggregate. This is reflective of the NPPF (para
143) which states that local Plans should take account of the, 'contribution that substitute or secondary and recycled materials and minerals waste can make'. The reference made by the MPA to the reduction in ash materials from coal fired power stations is also likely to increase the demand for primary aggregate over the Plan period to address this specific resource shortfall. The approach to recycled aggregates reflects the Mineral Products Association Long Tern Aggregates Demand and Supply Scenarios Paper which indicates that the potential for recycling has reached an optimum level (approximately 28-30% volume).

Industrial Dolomite Provision

Q20. Are you aware if any issues regarding the provision of industrial dolomite that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

Reserves of industrial dolomite are of international importance. Whilst additional resource areas do not need to be identified as an allocation, the resource within Nottinghamshire should be identified within the Plan and recognised as a proven resource to be safeguarded.

Development Management Policies

Q25. Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?


Yes agree that it covers all areas.


Minerals Safeguarding and Consultation Areas

Q26 Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

It is considered that the Minerals Plan should define more specific Mineral Consultation Areas. The proposed approach to define consultation areas on the same scale as safeguarding areas could mean that large amounts of development will be caught within an MSA/MCA which would be onerous on developers having to potentially submit minerals assessments and the MPA in assessing the potential for impact of development on mineral resource/mineral associated infrastructure. This is contrary to the objectives of the NPPF paragraph 143. A criteria based approach to MCA's would be a more appropriate strategy. In addition Plan 7 would benefit from clearer distinction between areas of safeguarding. It is not clear where the alluvial sand and gravel is located.

As well as safeguarding mineral associated infrastructure, rail heads should be expanded to include rail heads at coal fired power stations. A wharf facility at Colwick is specifically referenced for safeguarding. Tarmac have existing wharf facilities which should also be referenced if this is the approach to be adopted by the MPA.

The importance of Local Plan's (District and Borough Council) in understanding and appreciating the role of safeguarding and defining areas/sites within Local Development Plan Documents should be explained within the Mineral Plan. The Planning system is a tiered system with the policies contained within the Mineral Plan and Local plan pertinent to the consideration of Planning Applications at County and District level. The MPA has an important role in ensuring mineral safeguarding is not perceived as just a County function but guiding and supporting Local Authorities to appreciate they also have a role to play in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance.

Question 1: Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?
1. We believe this is a succinct and useful introduction to the county. However, we would like you to say more about planned and expected development that might have implications for the future demand and supply of minerals, such as planned rates of housing growth, employment growth and the implications of HS2. For example, we know that HS2a (western corridor) will require the supply of 3 Million tonnes of concrete along its length. We do not at present know the demand for the planned eastern branch (HS2b) but we think you should mention the huge potential for increases in demand even if not all of this comes from Nottinghamshire, since it is likely to distort supply patterns for many miles around when under construction.


Question 2: Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?
1. You should change the term 'mineral reserves' in the paragraph on safeguarding to 'mineral resources' in line with BGS guidance and national policy.

2. You should also include mineral infrastructure in the safeguarding regime in accordance with national policy.

3. We believe the vision should be stronger about meeting the growth needs of the community;
i.e. providing a steady and adequate supply of minerals to meet objectively assessed development needs, and then say you will also make an appropriate contribution to wider local and national needs.

Question 3: Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?
1. We broadly agree with the key strategic issues as proposed.



Question 4: Do you think the average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives you feel are realistic and deliverable and the evidence to support this approach.
Question 5: Do you think the same methodology (most recent average 10 year sales) should be used for each aggregate or is there merit in using different methodologies for different aggregates?

1. National policy says that forecasts of demand should be based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options. National practice guidance says that forecasts must not be based solely on the 10 year rolling average. It is essential, especially now that we have come out of the recession, for the County Council to use this other relevant information. We are aware that the Council's change of approach is politically motivated, but it is not sound, and it is not best practice.

2. A number of things have distorted the traditional relationship between development in Nottinghamshire and sand and gravel supplies. You allude to the effects of the recession and to short term commercial decisions made by producers, which has resulted in large export volumes to Doncaster and large import volumes from Lincolnshire, and to quarries being mothballed as producers adapted to vastly difficult market conditions. This does not represent a long term sustainable supply pattern and should not be used as a straightjacket for future supply from the county, which still is the most important source of high quality sand and gravel in the region.

3. Companies have only recently had the capacity to recapitalise mothballed sites, and to look for replacements for others which had become exhausted, which takes a long time to come to fruition, and is not yet reflected in the sales figures. There is already strong evidence of industry interest in the county returning to the county, indicated by the numbers of new sites proposed for the last Local Plan process. It would be a profound mistake for the County Council to fossilise the current abnormal conditions which if not corrected will undoubtedly

lead to future underprovision of mineral contrary to the declared intentions of your draft vision and objectives, not to say national policy.

4. We commented on the failure to consider other relevant information as required by NPPF in our comment to the draft LAA in August 2017, which does not seem to have been heeded in this consultation document.


5. The LAA is indicating an annual housing completion rate of 4,574. As a reality check, we can compare the forecast with the last time 4,574 dwellings were completed which was in 2005 when 4,842 dwellings were completed. The extraction rate of sand and gravel in that year was 3.08 Mt. This would seem to suggest that the LAA 10 year rolling average of only
1.7 Mtpa is inadequate. This does not consider any of the infrastructure projects indicated in our response to question 1.
6. On this basis, the MPA considers that the County Council should plan for future sand and gravel demand of 3.0Mtpa for the plan period. By reference to your Table 2 this means that over the plan period (19 years) the requirement for sand and gravel will be 57 Mt. Deducting existing permitted reserves results in a shortfall to be proved by the Local Plan of 39.5 Mt. This means finding an additional 21.7 Mt than you have assumed.




Question 6: Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritised over new greenfield quarries?
Question 7: Should different approaches (new sites/extensions to existing permitted quarries) be adopted for individual mineral types?

1. National policy makes no reference to a preference of extensions over new sites. National practice guidance recognises the advantages and disadvantages of extensions over new sites, but stresses that each case must be decided on its merits. For these reasons we do not consider that there should be a policy preference of one type of proposal over the other, and whilst a majority of proposals will be extensions, our members are confident that they can successfully argue the merits of their sites whatever category they fall into. So we consider that the Local Plan should be neutral over the issue as the best reflection of national policy and guidance.

Question 8: How important is it to maintain a geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries across the County (i.e. Idle Valley, near Newark and near Nottingham) to minimise the distance minerals are transported to markets?
Question 9: Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others? Question 10: Is it economical to transport mineral by river barge and if so should proposed quarries with the potential for moving sand and gravel by river barge be prioritised over other proposals?

1. We consider that if resources allow, it is important to maintain a spread of workings in the areas mentioned. However, we are aware that future working in the Idle valley will be limited as resources decline. Clearly, the nearer one can get to market the more sustainable the aggregate resource is, so locating nearer to Nottingham also has SD advantages. The Newark area possesses the best resources for the future as they are more abundant and suffer from fewer strategic constraints. However, there are accessibility issues that may need to be overcome and it would greatly assist the industry in its future planning and investment decisions, to know what the views of the mpa are on this.

2. On this basis, we do not consider that one area should be prioritised over another.

3. We leave any economics of barge transport for our members to comment on individually. These facilities are very expensive to install and run, only apply to sites with easy access to the riverside, and require substantial investment at the receiving end as for rail depots. Our view is that whilst there are clear advantages to this form of transport, it should not from the basis of any judgment on the acceptability of proposals in isolation. Road transport of mineral will continue to predominate for the foreseeable future.




Question: 11 Are you aware of any other issues relating to Sherwood Sandstone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. We have already answered this in relation to questions 4 & 5 above.


Q12 Is there evidence to suggest that additional crushed rock reserves are required to meet demand in Nottinghamshire over the Plan period? If so please provide this evidence.

Q13 Are you aware of any other issues relating to crushed rock provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. Demand for crushed rock is increasing and has returned to pre-recession levels across the country. We cannot comment on the reason why the site mentioned is not operational, neither do we have any evidence that more rock is required. However, no doubt following your call for sites, evidence may come to light of further need, and it would be up to any promoters of other sites to justify that.

Question 14: Are you aware of any issues relating to alternative aggregates that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. The role of recycling has in the industry's view reached a level where supplies will rise and fall with the level of construction activity. In its paper on Long-Term Aggregates Demand & Supply Scenarios 2016-30, the Mineral Products Association (MPA) said "All supply scenarios described in this paper assume that recycled and secondary aggregates supplies grow in line with construction trends, not faster. The view is that the potential for recycling has already reached a high level, and that if further improvements are possible, these are expected to remain incremental in volume terms."

Question: 19 Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of Silica Sand that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. We agree that a criteria based approach to policy is the best solution for this important industrial mineral given it is national policy that a stock of permitted reserves of at least 10 years is required to support the level of actual and proposed investment. However, if further sites are promoted in the call for sites we would expect the County Council to take a sympathetic approach to need assuming environmental impact was acceptable.


Question 20: Are you aware of any issues regarding the provision of industrial dolomite that should be considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. Clearly, the importance of this industrial mineral is recognised by the County Council and we have nothing further to add to the approach we have advocated for silica sand, except to say that since dolomite is a refractory product, it makes sense to treat it in similar terms to

cement and allow for a minimum stock of permitted reserves of at least 15 years to reflect the higher levels of investment involved.

Question 21: Is there evidence to suggest that additional building stone reserves are required to meet demand in Nottinghamshire over the plan period? If so please provide this evidence.
Question 22: Are you aware of any other issues relating to building stone provision that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. We agree that a criteria based approach to this mineral is justified because of its special qualities. In general, production of dimension stone is rising in the UK, not only for the repair of historic buildings and structures, but also for new-build projects. Although the industry has traditionally been small scale there are an increasing number of larger producers (most of whom are now MPA members) and we consider that restricting sites to being small, or for a local market or for only repair work, is not justified. NPPF policy does not restrict the development of dimension stone production; the description of the industry as small scale is meant to reflect its historic role and impact, but not its future development, for which the MPA considers there should be no policy restriction. The industry believes individual proposal should be treated on their merits in accordance with national policy and guidance.

Question 25: Do you agree with the proposed development management policy areas? Are there any others that should be covered?

1. We agree that the list of management policy areas is comprehensive, and we would ask that in formulating local policies, you do not merely repeat national policy, and that if you cannot improve upon the national approach then the Local Plan should defer to the wording of NPPF.

Question 26: Are you aware of any issues relating to minerals safeguarding that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan review?

1. The summary of issues for mineral and infrastructure safeguarding is comprehensive and we would encourage you to closely follow the advice of the BGS in this matter, not only in respect of prior extraction, but also in respect of the equally important and often ignored, issue of sterilisation by proximity.

Hi Steve
Further to the consultation on the minerals local plan issues and options, Doncaster would like to confirm we will continue to work with Nottinghamshire and other relevant authorities with regard to Duty to Cooperate. The joint position statement recognises that Nottinghamshire is a net exporter of sand and gravel and contributes (in the short term) toward supplying aggregate mineral to meet the development requirements identified in the Doncaster and Rotherham Local Plans. This joint position statement is a result of previous engagement in 2013 between Doncaster and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Councils, Nottinghamshire County Council, Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council.

Doncaster is not proposing to answer all the questions within the issues and options, just the ones relevant to sand and gravel and the joint position statement.
Q2 - Doncaster council agrees with the draft vision

Q8 - Doncaster council believes it is very important to maintain a geological spread of minerals to minimise transportation distances and provide steady and adequate supply of resources to the South Yorkshire market.

Q9 - It is not for Doncaster council to determine which areas should be prioritised, but it is noted that the Issues and Options consultation estimates a shortfall in sand and gravel provision over the proposed plan period of some 17.8 million tonnes. This will of course need to be addressed if possible. It is also noted that the resources that serve the South Yorkshire Market are currently extracted in and around the Idle Valley to the south of Doncaster and should be given some consideration when developing the new Local Plan.

Doncaster council currently has no further comments to make at this stage; however as the plan progresses, we welcome the opportunity for further engagement and discussion to consider any cross boundary implications and to consider the need to update the joint minerals position statement.
I look forward to meeting you on the 1s February to discuss the joint position statement. Kind Regards
Helen

2. Question 1. Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the area?

2.1. Nottinghamshire has a varied population distribution and it would be helpful to show on Plan 1 the relative sizes of the principal towns and Nottingham City in terms of population size. This would be helpful in understanding where demand for aggregate is likely to arise.

2.2. It would also be useful to show where the boundaries of adjoining Mineral Planning Authorities intersect with the boundary for Nottinghamshire. This information would be helpful in understanding the spatial inter-relationship with the neighboring counties as there is significant interaction between them in respect of mineral production and demand, see later comments.


3. QUESTION 2. Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?

3.1. Generally BAL agrees that the draft vision is appropriate. In particular the need to ensure that mineral development is concentrated in locations that offer the greatest level of accessibility to major markets and growth areas.


4. QUESTION 3. Are the above strategic issues appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

4.1. Generally BAL agrees with the strategic issues, in particular securing a spatial pattern of mineral development that efficiently delivers resources to markets within and outside Nottinghamshire.


5. QUESTION 4. Do you think the average 10 year sales figure is the most suitable methodology for forecasting future aggregate demand in Nottinghamshire? If not please identify any alternatives you feel are realistic and deliverable and the evidence base to support this approach.

5.1. National Policy in relation to planning for future aggregate demand is to be found in NPPF. For an MLP to be found sound1 it is necessary for it to be
* Positively prepared
* Justified
* Effective
* Consistent with national policy


1 NPPF para 182.


5.2. The assessment of need on which the County are currently embarking is an essential component of this process as follows. For the plan to be positively prepared it must look forward on the basis that proposed development as set out in other plans and proposals will come forward and that need must be met through adequate allocation of resources in the MLP. This requirement must also be met for the MLP to be justified and effective.

5.3. The requirement for the MLP to be consistent with national policy in relation to assessing need and in particular the calculation of an adequate landbank requirement for an MLP can be found in the NPPF as follows2

* Preparing an annual Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA) based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information.
* Ensuring that large landbanks bound up in a very few sites do not stifle competition.

5.4. It is clear from the NPPF that the 10 year rolling average should be a starting point and that other local factors should be taken into account. The NPPF does not detail what local factors should be taken into account but National Planning Practice Guidance gives further advice. The guidance is that relevant local information used should be that which seeks to look ahead rather than just relying on past sales. The guidance goes onto advise that such information may include levels of planned construction and house building in the local area but also " throughout the country" 3

5.5. The Planning Officers Society in conjunction with the Mineral Products Association have also produced useful practical guidance in assessing need and in particular what sort of local information should be used in considering the adequacy of the 10 year rolling average. These include4:-

* Geological resources being exhausted
* Trends and forecasts of population change including information in Local Plans on housebuilding.
* Validated data on aggregate use in construction provided by the MPA.
* Planned major infrastructure projects including those within the County and 30 miles beyond as detailed in the National Infrastructure Plan 2016- 2020. Also those projects included in Local Economic Partnerships Growth Deals and Strategic Economic Plans together with construction projects identified in District and Unitary Authority's infrastructure Development Plans. Planned highway improvement and maintenance works should also be considered.
* Local Regional and national economic forecasts from various sources.
* Information from the minerals industry on the availability of marine materials.
* Major new sources of recycled or secondary material becoming available.

2 NPPF para 145
3 Planning Practice Guidance Para 064
4 Practice Guidance on The Production and Use of LAAs May 2017 (POS/MPA Guidance)para 3.8


* New environmental constraints being identified in aggregate producing areas or in proximity to them.

5.6. In looking at the appropriateness of the rolling 10 year average as the basis for calculating future demand it is essential that the veracity of the information is examined forensically. In particular are there any factors which have influenced the data such that it does not truly reflect the production of aggregate in the County to the extent that it cannot be relied upon to predict future need. In terms of the basis of a future MLP will it result in a plan which is not justified or effective in terms of whether the plan is sound.

5.7. Geological resources being exhausted and the issue of Finningly Quarry. Finningley Quarry is situated on the northern border of Nottinghamshire where is abuts Doncaster. It should be noted that the latest Nottinghamshire LAA (Oct 2017) advises that the annual production figures for the County have been affected by production at Finningley moving across the border into some of the years covered by the latest 10 years of production5. If this situation were to continue to operate in the future, that is production moving in and out of the County then its inclusion in the 10 year rolling average would be a sound basis for predicting future need. However, the Notts LAA advises6 that the reserves in both Doncaster and Rotherham (also referred to as South Yorkshire) are extremely limited and future supplies will be coming from Nottinghamshire, in particular the quarry at Sturton le Steeple which has permitted reserves.

5.8. This being the case it is necessary to look at the impact Finningley Quarry moving across the border has had on the last 10 years production in Nottinghamshire. This can be done by looking at the Doncaster and Rotherham LAA. Whilst individual quarry production is confidential the explanation below Table 1 makes it clear that production decreased in 2010 from 0.5MT to 0.16MT probably due to production at Finningley moving across the border into Nottinghamshire. Looking at Table 1 production from 2006 to 2015 was either 0.4/5MT or 0.14/5/6MT which indicates that at the higher levels production at Finningley was in Doncaster and at the lower levels it was in Nottinghamshire. Consequently from Table 1 we can deduce which years there would have been a shortfall in the Finningley contribution to the Nottinghamshire landbank and we can calculate the annual difference this will make by averaging the higher and lower figures and subtracting the lower from the higher. The difference is calculated as 0.3MT (0.45MT less 0.15MT).


5.9. The Nottinghamshire 10 year rolling average for sand and gravel is based on the years 2007 to 2016 whilst the Rotherham and Doncaster LAA is based on 2006 to 2015. However the Notts LAA does advise that in 2016 production in Finningley was across the border in Doncaster. This means it is possible to estimate the amount of the shortfall in the Nottinghamshire 2007 to 2016 production figures attributable to production at Finningley being in Doncaster. The calculation is based on table 1:




5 Notts LAA Oct 2017 para 3.1.
6 Notts LAA Oct 2017 para 5.11



Table 1

Year 2007 2008 2009 2015 2016 TOTAL
MT 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.5

5.10. The 10 year rolling average if being used to predict future requirement in Nottinghamshire should now be calculated using a 10 year which includes the Finningley missing years as detailed above. That requires an addition 1.5MT to be added to the 17.04MT and results in an average annual sales of 1.85MT compared with the County's calculation of 17.04MT. The contribution of Finningley Quarry to the landbank is clearly a significant local factor which should be taken into account in using the 10 year rolling average as the basis for predicting future need.

5.11. Population Change and house building. The second local factor which needs to be taken into account in reviewing the 10 year rolling average is house building rates in the County and what is now planned. Whilst the County's latest LAA (October 2017) sets out the planned house building rates for the individual planning authorities in the County. It is imported to note that these are not maximum rates but are those which have been rigorously tested through the Local Plan processes including Strategic Housing Market Assessments and in some cases full Independent Examination procedures. It is also important to note that the Local Plans on which these house building rates are based were using pre 2014 Office of National Statistic (ONS) data. The 2014 when applied to the districts in Nottinghamshire will invariably lead to an increase in requirement. Consequently the house building rates in the LAA should be considered as a minimum on which aggregate requirement should be based.

5.12. At Appendix 1 is Table 2 which shows the house building rates for the local planning authority areas in Nottinghamshire over the 10 year period covering that being used by the County for the 10 year rolling average. The information contained within Table 2 has been taken from the Annual Monitoring Reports and other documents produced by the LPAs. The extracts from these documents can also be found at Appendix 1.

5.13. From Table 2 it can be seen that the average annual house building rate per LPA area over the past 10 years has been 351 units per annum. This figure is directly comparable with the average annual sand and gravel production rates calculated from the past 10 years production. Table 2 uses the future house building rates deduced by the County in October 2017 LAA7 to show that the average future rate will be 571 dwellings per annum. This is an increase of 220 dwellings per annum and represents a 63% increase. It is essential that this increase is taken as the minimum as it is based on solid evidence, it is not stated as a maximum so may be exceeded and is likely to be an underestimate based on the 2014 ONS data and the latest government advice that house building must increase. The population of Nottinghamshire including the County is expected to grow from 1.13 million in 2016 to 1.25 million in 2036. This growth will require at least the planned housebuilding detailed on Table 2 which is based on the lower pre ONS 2014 estimates and it

7 Para 5.9 Table 8


should be noted that as house building picks up following the recession the annual average rate per authority has already reached 468 dwellings per annum (2015/6) which is 81% of the planned annual requirement..

5.14. Validated data on aggregate use in construction provided by the MPA. The October 2017 LAA references the use of aggregates in house buildings as being 20% of total production. Although it should be noted that at the recent examination into the Oxfordshire MLP 35% was used. It should be noted that house building requires significant support construction such as local roads, schools, village halls etc.

5.15. Planned major infrastructure projects. The October 2017 LAA notes that no further major infrastructure projects have been identified since the production of the previous LAA (January 2017). However that LAA was based on significantly higher rolling 10 year average taking into account partly pre recession construction levels and, therefore, capturing higher level of construction. With the move to the most recent 10 year rolling average this is no longer the case and the LAA needs to recognize that planned infrastructure for the future is significantly higher than accounted for by the 10 year rolling average which now almost solely covering a recession period. An adjustment needs to be made.

5.16. Infrastructure identified in the National Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2016 to 2021 for the Nottinghamshire area are:-

* Midland Main Line. Further electrification to Nottingham.
* East Coast Mainline. Station, signaling and track works to facilitate longer new Super Express Trains.
* HS2.

It should be noted that the time period for this infrastructure plan is just 5 years and represents only 16% of the MLP plan period. Also included in the plan is reference to the Midlands Engine and the proposal for carrying out feasibility studies in respect of upgrades to the M1 and Smart motorway improvements together with improvements to the A46 Newark bypass and its intersection with the A1.

5.17. The Local Enterprise Partnership D2N2 (covering Nottingham and Derby and parts of both counties) has produced a programme which includes a target to create 50,000 jobs and to build 77,000 dwellings. The dwellings are included in Local Plan but D2N2 are intending to ensure that infrastructure delivery does not frustrate the building of the dwellings.

5.18. East Midlands airport which lies alongside the HS2 route is planning to increase from 4.3 to 10 million passengers and 300,000 to 700,000t of freight by 2040. The majority of this development will occur in the MLP plan period. A major freight terminal is also planned for the M1 J23a/24. Whilst this is in Leicestershire it lies within the 30 mile zone beyond the County boundary which the POS/MPA advice considers should be included in any future assessment for aggregate provision.



5.19. Local regional and national economic forecast. The latest MPA forecasts (February 2019) suggest that aggregate demand will have increased by 19% by 2019 compared to 2015. Infrastructure growth is expected to be 56% from 2015 to 2019. In the longer term replenishment rates for sand and gravel show that for every 100 tonnes of material used planning permissions for replacement accounts for only 56 tonnes indicating that in the future shortages of supply may become apparent.

5.20. Availability of marine materials. Nottinghamshire is a landlocked county and some distance from any marine sourced aggregate landing facility. Consequently the material is not normally used in the County.

5.21. Major new sources of recycled or secondary material. For Nottinghamshire inert waste processing (considered suitable for recycled aggregate production) has now recovered to pre recession rates. However, whilst power station ash is capable of being substituted for primary aggregates the coal fired power stations are all planned to be closed by 2025. There are 3 coal fired power stations in the County. It would, therefore, be unwise to rely on any further increase in recycled output.

5.22. New environmental constraints. No new environmental constraints which could restrict aggregate extraction in the County have been identified. Locally the ban on extraction in the Peak District National Park has been accounted for by Derbyshire planning to increase production in the rest of the County by an amount equivalent to that to be lost through lack of production in the National Park.

5.23. It is apparent from the above information that there are a number of factors pointing to the need to modify the rolling 10 year average if a robust prediction of future need is to be made. The evidence is that the figure will need to be increased on the basis that during the MLP period more aggregate will have to be exported to South Yorkshire, a greater number of dwellings will be built, more jobe created and more infrastructure built. Of these elements it has been possible to quantify numerically only the impact of the increase in future exports to South Yorkshire and house building rates. House building is considered to represent the use of only 20 to 35% of the total supply of aggregate however house building is a key component in providing dwellings for new employees who will occupy newly constructed factories and commercial premises. House building also drives infrastructure provision including roads, such as those around Newark, schools, hospitals etc. lt is, therefore proposed that the house building rates of the past 10 years be compared with aggregate use of the same period and then used to predict future aggregate requirement.

5.24. Taking the 1.85MTPA 10 year rolling average modified to take account of the Finningley Quarry production changes is comparable with an 10 year rolling average house building rate of per local authority (including Nottingham City) of 351 dwellings per annum. The future house building rate is 572 dwellings per annum. This is an increase of 63% and requires a similar increase in aggregate production going forward. This requires that the 10 year rolling average be modified to 3.02MT.


5.25. In order to understand the veracity of this calculation it is useful to look at the 10 year production rates of the counties making up the East Midlands AWP area. Table 3 at Appendix 2 shows figures taken from the LAAs for these counties. The East Midlands in 2016 had reached 70% of its pre recession production rate. Three counties were at around pre recession levels with two counties actually producing more. Lincolnshire is now producing 64 % of its pre recession level but Nottinghamshire is only at 40%. It is clear that lack of production in Nottinghamshire is holding back the East Midlands is reaching pre recession production levels. This assessment supports the need to increase the proposed landbank above that which would result from using the rolling 10 year landbank as the basis for future need prediction.


6. Question 6. Do you think extensions to existing permitted quarries should be prioritized over new greenfield quarries?

Question 8. How important is it to maintain a geographical spread of sand and gravel quarries across the Count (i.e.Idle Valley, near Newark and near Nottingham) to minimize the distance minerals are transported to market?

Question 9 Would it be more appropriate to prioritise specific areas above others?

6.1. These questions are inter related and the assessment below sets out gives the response which relates to all three questions.

6.2. It is necessary to maintain a geographical spread of quarries and permitted reserves across the County for two reasons. Firstly is the cost of transporting bulky materials relative to value that in respect of aggregates is low. This means that an appropriate geographic spread is important to ensure that the economy works effectively and additional costs are not unnecessarily incurred. It is also the case that for this reason proposed aggregate reserves should be matched geographically to where those reserves will be used. Secondly is the issue of environmental damage caused by HGV movements associated with aggregate transport.

6.3. Table 5 shows the current distribution of permitted reserves compared with spatial requirement for future house building. This is based on the information contained within the October 2017 LAA in respect of permitted reserves and Table 4 at Appendix 3 of this document.


Table 5, Comparison of permitted reserves with future house building requirement.
District S and G
(See Above) Housing requirement per
annum (see Table 2)
Newark area Newark and Sherwood 40% 16%
South Notts Nottingham City Gedling
Broxtowe Rushcliffe 0/12%* 56%
North Notts Bassetlaw Mansfield
Ashfield 28% 18%
* Currently no reserves but East Leake planning application now with a resolution to grant subject to a S.106 Agreement to be completed.

The current distribution is not sustainable in terms of transportation of aggregate and the consequences for air quality and climate change, . If extensions to quarries were to be preferred compared to opening up new sites this unsustainable distribution will continue. This is not in accordance with the NPPF guidance in respect of sustainable development.

6.4. The air quality and climate consequences have been assessed with respect to HGV movements associated with the proposed Shelford Quarry and those at Newark in the attached (Appendix 4) RPS document. This gives an indication of the problems associated with having a poor geographical distribution of mineral resources in the County.


7. Question 10. Is it economical to transport mineral by river barge and if so should proposed quarries with potential for moving sand and gravel by river barge be prioritized over others?

7.1. The River Trent has the potential to reduce transport emissions and have a positive effect on climate change. At Appendix 4 is a report which looked at the potential for air quality benefits of using the river to transport aggregate from the proposed quarry at Shelford to Colwick wharf. Air quality benefits and positive impacts on climate change are set out in the document. This clearly illustrates whilst all opportunities should be taken to allow transport of minerals on the river.

7.2. In respect of the economic consideration these will vary according to local conditions on the Trent and also economic opportunities as they arise. When considering the length of time covered by the plan period the location of a reserve which has access to the river and where proposals demonstrate that barge transport is physically capable of being undertaken without undue environmental disturbance then these sites should be given priority.

7.3. In respect of the proposals at Shelford BAL are proposing to produce concrete at the Colwick Industrial Estate and that aggregate will be transported there by barge. There is a significant positive difference in the transport rates in favour of barges. The actual details are commercially sensitive however, BAL have experience of


barging aggregate on the river Thames and are confident in the commercial opportunities in respect of Shelford and operations at Colwick..

7.4. It should be note as well as transport savings there will be added value from producing concrete at Colwick and the access to the valuable Nottingham city market from the industrial esta