MP1: Aggregate Provision

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Support

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 16

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Armstrong

Representation Summary:

Positively Prepared: We consider the assessments for future aggregate demand are more realistic than those in previous plans, taking more account of the consistently lower demand in recent years.

Full text:

Positively Prepared: We consider the assessments for future aggregate demand are more realistic than those in previous plans, taking more account of the consistently lower demand in recent years.

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 58

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Rushcliffe Borough Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Policy MP1 part 1 states that 32.30 million tonnes of Sand and Gravel will be provided over the plan period to meet identified levels of demand. This amount is based solely on the Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA) published in October 2017 which is itself based on December 2016 data.
In May 2019, Nottinghamshire County Council published an updated LAA (based on 2017 sales data) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) believes this data should underpin policy MP1. Using the most recent LAA complies with paragraph 31 of the NPPF, which states that:
“The preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence. This should be adequate and proportionate, focused tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned, and take into account relevant market signals.”
Paragraph 207 parts a) and c) of the NPPF provides specific guidance on minerals planning. These require an annual assessment informs the selection of sites within plan, based on a rolling average 10 years’ sales data. Given that an annual assessment is required and by implication the most up-to-date data used, RBC believes this most recent LAA should inform the provision of minerals to meet demand.
The 2019 LAA identifies demand for 29.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel (based on average 10 years sales of 1.53 million tonnes x 19 (years)), 3.1 million tonnes less than that proposed in the plan.
If the required provision is based solely on demand calculated within the LAA, in accordance with the NPPF, this should be based on the most up-to-date evidence of demand within the most recent LAA. Whilst the minerals planning authority can use other evidence to justify a different target (for example predicted market conditions and future developments), it must be justified.
Policy MP1 part 2 states that the County Council will maintain a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel. This complies with the NPPF and is supported by RBC. It should be noted that the most recent LAA (2019) identifies a landbank of permitted reserves of 17.89 million tonnes and this equates to 11.69 years (17.89/1.53). This also excludes the permission at Langford Quarry which was granted in 2018 for 3.6 million tonnes. If this is included it would increase the landbank to 14 years (21.49/1.53). This is double the required landbank required within the NPPF and provides flexibility when identifying suitable minerals reserves
The failure to use the most recent LAA data means the plan is not based on proportionate evidence and therefore is not justified. It is also inconsistent with the NPPF, which promotes the use of annual assessments to inform the plan. The use of an out of date LAA challenges this approach.

Full text:

See attached documents

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 89

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

NWT do not consider this policy to be sound because of the inherent contradiction between the Plan-led approach whilst simultaneously making specific provision for development on non-allocated sites within Policy MP1. If the plan-making process has been robust and based on good data, then there should be no need for development on non-allocated sites. A robust plan review progress at fixed intervals may identify the need to bring new sites forward for further allocations in a proper manner, where the need has changed, in which case they can be compared to other potential sites in a rigorous way. It is not a rigorous process for a single operator’s proposal to be brought forward at a particular point in time, and therefore not be subject to a proper comparative test against others prospective sites, including an SA.

By undermining the plan-led approach, it is possible that this policy could inadvertently breach the requirements of the NPPF and so may not be legally compliant.

Full text:

See attachments

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 121

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Mr J Potter

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The plan's (MP1) undertow throughout would be provision-linked to LPAs' negative urbanizing vision

Full text:

Unsound and unjustified publication minerals local plan; objections letter on policy MP2 proposal MP2p at Mill Hill Barton-in-Fabis. Objections: This representor's 2018, Issues and Options consultation comment, is to be reappraised an objection. • My (&) numerous - what are now MP2p-related - objections written in on the politically withdrawn minerals local plan, and on what is now a MP2p-related planning application, are essentially relevant
concerning this consultation process; including my letter at 2018's Draft plan.
• The planning and environmental mal-cumulative - noting DM8 5.97. - everything else that's been foisted at the adjacent, rural parish - and out towards Lockington; where's the geographical spread in that. • Is it not somewhat volte-face - when the County Council tends to policy prefer site extensions - that Shelfo rd 's currently considered too sizeable.

A description to a local planning authority (LPA) is under way
re where 'would not want to see what looks very damaging 'fracking'. The plan's (MP1) undertow throughout would be provision-linked to LPAs'
negative urbanizing vision. • It is unsound and unjustified LPA &/or ' highways'
(their): hard-surfacing too much, works degrading land, excessive demolition re buildings; so even down to MP5 recycling at Bunny,
with regard to my local environment, the publication version is: failing, environmental-degradation complicit, encroaching, in a number of matters wasteful, environmentally unsound.
• Mis-presenting representation(s) 'observed; and the County Council lack of involvement with, concerning the Clifton area committee(s).

Regarding the above, for the Examination Hearing Sessions, it is necessary I request participation.

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 151

Received: 08/10/2019

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Lincolnshire County Council's Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team objects to policy MP1 on the basis that the policy is not sound in its current form, because it does not make sufficient provision for sand and gravel extraction within Nottinghamshire over the plan period.

Policy MP1 has not been positively prepared: The provision is based on a Local Aggregate Assessment which has failed to objectively assess the needs of the County. This is because the proposed provision rate of 1.7mt per annum for sand and gravel is based on depressed average sales figures which do not take into account Nottinghamshire's increased reliance on imports of sand and gravel from Lincolnshire to meet demand. Our concerns in this regard have been well documented in our representations to earlier drafts of the emerging Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan and on-going correspondence with Nottinghamshire County Council.

Policy MP1 is not justified: There is no reasonable justification in the publication draft or the supporting Local Aggregate Assessment as to why Nottinghamshire County Council need to continue to rely on significant imports of sand and gravel from Lincolnshire, rather than making appropriate provision for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates from its own substantial indigenous resources. In this respect is should be pointed out that historically Nottinghamshire was the most important producer of sand and gravel in the East Midlands, and was only overtaken by Lincolnshire due to the aftermath of the recession when some mineral operators temporarily rationalised their operations close to the county boundary. The extent of the available sand and gravel resource in Nottinghamshire was demonstrated by the significantly greater number of sites originally proposed for allocation in the withdrawn submission draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan (Feb/March 2016).

Policy MP1 is not effective: In not addressing the above cross-boundary issues, the proposed sand and gravel provision is insufficient to meet demand in the County without substantial imports from Lincolnshire. This is masked by the current practice adopted in the Local Aggregate Assessment of basing the landbank on the "10-year average sales" approach which inflates the landbank calculations This is deceptive in that it gives the impression that there are no supply issues in Nottinghamshire.

Policy MP1 is not consistent with national policy. In not addressing the above issues, the proposed sand and gravel provision rate is contrary to the NPPF as it fails to have due regard to this "other relevant local information".

Full text:

MP1
Lincolnshire County Council's Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team objects to policy MP1 on the
basis that the policy is not sound in its current form, because it does not make sufficient
provision for sand and gravel extraction within Nottinghamshire over the plan period.

Policy MP1 has not been positively prepared: The provision is based on a Local Aggregate Assessment
which has failed to objectively assess the needs of the County. This is because the proposed provision rate of 1.7mt per annum for sand and gravel is based on depressed average sales figures which do not take into account Nottinghamshire's increased reliance on imports of sand and gravel from Lincolnshire to meet demand. Our concerns in this regard have been well documented in our representations to earlier drafts of the emerging Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan and on-going
correspondence with Nottinghamshire County Council.

Policy MP1 is not justified: There is no reasonable justification in the publication draft or the supporting Local Aggregate Assessment as to why Nottinghamshire County Council need to continue to rely on significant imports of sand and gravel from Lincolnshire, rather than making appropriate provision for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates from its own substantial indigenous
resources. In this respect is should be pointed out that historically Nottinghamshire was the most important producer of sand and gravel in the East Midlands, and was only overtaken by Lincolnshire due to the aftermath of the recession when some mineral operators temporarily rationalised their operations close to the county boundary. The extent of the available sand and gravel resource in Nottinghamshire was demonstrated by the significantly greater number of sites originally proposed for allocation in the withdrawn submission draft Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan (Feb/March 2016).

Policy MP1 is not effective: In not addressing the above cross-boundary issues, the proposed sand and gravel provision is insufficient to meet demand in the County without substantial imports from Lincolnshire. This is masked by the current practice adopted in the Local Aggregate Assessment of basing the landbank on the "10-year average sales" approach which inflates the landbank calculations This is deceptive in that it gives the impression that there are no supply issues in Nottinghamshire.

Policy MP1 is not consistent with national policy. In not addressing the above issues, the proposed sand and gravel provision rate is contrary to the NPPF as it fails to have due regard to this "other relevant local
information".

It is recommended that an appropriate uplift is applied to the proposed sand and gravel provision rate in order to account for the demand that is currently driving imports from Lincolnshire.

Furthermore, given Nottinghamshire's importance as a sand and gravel producer, the level of provision should be based on the assumption that sales in Nottinghamshire will return to a similar proportion of total sales in the East Midlands achieved prior to the recession.

Representatives of Lincolnshire County Council's Planning Policy Team would like the opportunity to participate in the hearing sessions in order to discuss our concerns.

MP2

In conjunction with our comments in relation to Policy MP1, Lincolnshire County Council's Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team objects to Policy MP2 because it does not make sufficient provision for sand and gravel extraction in Nottinghamshire over the Plan Period.

The number of sites allocated is based on a deflated provision rate as argued in relation to Policy MP1. As a consequence, we consider that the productive capacity of the proposed allocations does not provide sufficient flexibility to respond to increases in demand. Furthermore, when referring to the delivery schedule in Appendix 1 of the publication draft, it appears the majority of the proposed allocations could be worked out prior to the end of the plan period, which would further constrain productive capacity.

Allocating additional sites for sand and gravel extraction based on an increased provision rate would ensure a greater productive capacity for the duration of the plan period and allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate changes in demand, whilst in turn reducing the reliance on imports from Lincolnshire, for which there is no apparent justification, and ensuring Nottinghamshire remains an important provider of Sand and Gravel in the East Midlands.

Representatives of Lincolnshire County Council's Planning Policy Team would like the opportunity to participate in the hearing sessions in order to discuss our concerns.

Support

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 155

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Newark & Sherwood District Council

Representation Summary:

The Council is supportive of the strategic approach that the County Council has set out in the Plan in particular the approach to calculating minerals provision.

Full text:

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan – Publication Version
The District Council considered the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan at the Economic Development Committee on the 11th October 2019 and agreed the response contained within this letter.
The District Council welcomes the publication of the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan which provides a long term sustainable plan to deliver the necessary minerals to support new development in the County.
The Council is supportive of the strategic approach that the County Council has set out in the Plan in particular the approach to calculating minerals provision. The Council is also supportive of the Biodiversity – Led approach to restoration of minerals workings and the policies ensuring that minerals extraction addresses the impact of climate change and protects residents from unnecessary traffic movements.
The Council is supportive of the approach which allows for the expansion of existing sand and gravel quarries in the District rather than the development of new ones, this is a more sustainable approach and means that existing strategies for mitigating the impact of the minerals workings can be maintained. The Council is also supportive of this approach in relation to the expansion of gypsum workings to the south of Newark.

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 167

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Minerals Products Association

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The publication version on the Mineral Plan has failed to properly forecast future aggregate demand as required by National Policy and is therefore UNSOUND. The reason for this is set out below.
The Minerals Local Plan has been produced using evidence contained within the published Local Aggregate Assessment published in October 2017 using the data period up to 31/12/2016. The MPA as members of the East Midlands Aggregate Working Party commented on the LAA. These comments were referenced in the MPA response to draft Plan consultation in July 2018 and for completeness and context are repeated below:
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.
Several things have distorted the traditional relationship between development in Nottinghamshire and sand and gravel supplies. In your Issues and Options draft, 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 to curtail future supply from the county, which still is the most important source of high-quality sand and gravel in the region.
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 under provision of mineral contrary to national policy.
The MPA 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 the Draft MWLP.
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. Furthermore, there appears to have been no consideration to other infrastructure project that may impact the County.
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.
In addition, the policy needs to make clear that landbanks should be maintained for at least 7 years for sand and gravel, at least 7 years for Sherwood Sandstone and at least 10 years for crushed rock. Furthermore, it should be made clear that these land banks should be maintained at the end of the plan period.
It was clearly identified from the above that there was a shortfall in provision of sand and gravel. This appears not to have been accepted or addressed in the publication draft on the mineral plan or for that matter in the current draft LAA for Nottinghamshire. Below is an analysis of the current draft LAA and the publication draft of the mineral plan which shows that the situation has not changed in respect of the under provision of mineral resources by Notts:
The Publication version of the Mineral Local Plan, subject of this consultation response uses the 10-year average from 2016 for determining Local Plan provision which is 1.7 Mtpa for sand and gravel and 0.37Mtpa for Sherwood Sandstone. The current draft LAA proposes to retain exclusively the use of the 10-year average to assess demand for sand and gravel which is 1.46 Mtpa .
As with previous LAAs the LAA contains no forecast of aggregate demand as required by National Policy.
The LAA remarks (table 5) that exports have increased to Northamptonshire from 0 to 406 kt, and to South Yorkshire from 145kt to 386kt.Furthemore the draft LAA reports (table 6) that imports have grown from Lincolnshire (361kt) and Staffordshire (155kt).
Comparing AM2009 with AM2104 imports of sand and gravel to Nottinghamshire has increased from 327ktpa to 583ktpa (a rise of 78%).
It appears that the sum of Nottinghamshire’s sand and gravel used within the county has fallen from 750kt to 126kt (a drop of 84%). However, the LAA claims that unknown destinations should be added to this sum which reduces the difference but still indicates a fall of 23% between 2009 and 2014/18.
The LAA notes that population is forecast to increase by 9.6% during the plan period and, the house building programme is planned (i.e. Local Plan commitments) to increase from current 4695 units to 8025 units by 2020/1 and falling again to 3031 units by 2027/8 (not the whole plan period). This is an average of 5264 units per year (table 12).
Figure 4 shows that house building rates have risen by 71% since 2013/4 (fig 4). The draft LAA says that housebuilding is only a part of the aggregate’s market and that sand and gravel is used for other uses. However, if this is accepted it follows that a combination of a
a. 71% increase in housebuilding activity since 2013, plus
b. associated infrastructure/community/commercial/industrial development, plus
c. the major infrastructure project of the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange,
would have raised sand and gravel demand by a conservative 25%. However, figure 1 shows that the sand and gravel sales have flatlined.
Increased aggregates demand but not supplied from Notts sources can be gauged by the steep increase in imports to the county from Lincolnshire (historically not a significant exporter to Nottinghamshire) and from Staffordshire.
Support for higher aggregates demand is the draft LAA’s observation that quantities of construction and demolition waste have grown by an estimated 11% since 2011 indicating higher levels of construction (para 3.31).
Support for higher aggregates demand also comes from the observation of the LAA that in the East Midlands sand and gravel sales rose from 5.5 Mtpa in 2009 to 6.96 Mtpa in 2016 falling slightly to 6.79 Mtpa in 2017 (para 5.8). This represents a regional growth in sand and gravel demand of 23%-26%. Only in Nottinghamshire have sand and gravel sales apparently flatlined.
The evidence is clear that the sand and gravel sales in Nottinghamshire have been constrained. The draft LAA says this is because of the recession and the replacement of worked out quarries has remained low. This puts Nottinghamshire in a special position which means that sales do not fairly represent the demand for sand and gravel in the county. In this respect, it is like Oxfordshire which was recognised at Examination to have had suppressed sales because of commercial decisions during the recession to mothball sites. In Nottinghamshire’s case, similar commercial decisions and an unreadiness to be able to replace sites, partly as a result of having no mineral plan in place, is judged to have been the cause for low sales and make up of demand principally from imports. In short, this is an anomalous situation which should be recognised in the mineral plan and draft LAA and accounted for in planned provision.
There are two possible approaches to calculating forecast demand from data which counters the effects of the recession on the 10-year average and plans for future growth.
d. The last year house build rates were close to the planned average (5264 units) was in 2005 (4842 units) when sand and gravel sales were 3.08Mt. Allowing for higher planned rates of housing suggests sand and gravel provision should be at least 3.10Mtpa.
Using the approach adopted in Oxon of calculating the % share of sand and gravel production before the recession and applying it to current conditions, gives the following result
i. In the five-year period prior to the recession (2004-2008) Notts sand and gravel sales as a proportion of all England averaged 6.53%. In 2016 the proportion was 3.85%.
ii. If this is converted into a figure for the county linked to the current level of sales in England which in 2016 was 41.26 Million tonnes, then applying a pre-recession proportion of 6.53% gives a demand for Notts of 2.694 Million tonnes.
iii. Once an allowance for soft sand has been deducted, the like-for-like sand and gravel demand figure is about 2.32 Mtpa.
iv. Although this is lower than the first method, this is because all the Oxfordshire method does is restore the county to conditions as they were before the distorting effects of the recession; it does not explicitly take account of future growth and demand created by major infrastructure. It is emphasised that this is minimum which does not take account of the significant growth over and above historic levels of demand which is planned for. On a precautionary approach the provision should be at the higher estimate namely 3.1Mt per annum.
The limited use of the 10-year average and not considering other factors, as outlined above, and as required by NPPF means that Nottinghamshire will continue to see downward spiral of sales that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The mineral plan and draft LAA has failed to forecast properly for future aggregate.
As can be seen from above as drafted this mineral plan is set to fail in respect of providing a steady and adequate supply of aggregates as required by national policy and is therefore unsound.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 177

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Mick George

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Policy MP1: Aggregate Provision
1. MGL considers that the Local Plan severely under-provides for sand and gravel. The LAA proposes to retain use of the 10 year average to assess demand for S&G.
2. MGL notes the following facts drawn from the latest Nottinghamshire LAA (2018) supplemented by other sources.
• The MLP uses the 10 year average from 2016 for determining Local Plan provision.
• This is 1.7 Million tonnes per year (Mtpa) for sand & gravel and 0.37Mtpa for Sherwood sandstone.
• The LAA contains no forecast of aggregate demand.
• The LAA reports (table 5) that exports have increased to Northants from 0 to 406 thousand tonnes (kt), and to South Yorks from 145kt to 386kt.
• The LAA reports (table 6) that imports have grown from Lincolnshire (361kt) and Staffordshire (155kt).
3. Comparing AM2009 with AM2014 imports of sand & gravel to Notts increased from 327ktpa to 583ktpa (a rise of 78%).
4. It appears that the sum of Nott’s sand & gravel used within the county has fallen from 750kt to 126kt between 2009 and 2014 (a drop of 84%). However, the LAA claims that unknown destinations should be added to this sum which reduces the difference but still indicates a fall of 23% between 2009 and 2014/18.
5. When looking at future demand the LAA notes that
a. Population is forecast to increase by 9.6% during the plan period.
b. The house building programme is planned (i.e. Local Plan commitments) to increase from current 4695 units to 8025 units by 2020/1 falling to 3031 units by 2027/8 (not the whole plan period). This is an average of 5264 units per year. (table 12)
c. House building rates have risen by 71% since 2013/4 (fig 4).
6. The LAA says that housebuilding is only a part of the aggregates market and that sand & gravel is used for other uses. However, if this is accepted it follows that a combination of a
a. 71% increase in housebuilding activity since 2013, plus
b. associated infrastructure/community/commercial/industrial development, plus
c. the major infrastructure project of the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange,
would have raised sand & gravel demand by a conservative 25%. However, figure 1 shows that the sand &gravel sales have flatlined.
7. In addition, the LAA quotes with approval the MPA estimate of the use of 50 tonnes of aggregates for each new house. This figure is derived from a BGS document “The need for indigenous aggregates production in England” (Open Report ORJ08/026) Case Study 2: New Homes. This shows that in addition to the 60 tonnes of aggregates used in a typical new house, as much as 400 tonnes extra is need for associated infrastructure and roads. Not all of this will be sand and gravel, but a large proportion will be, as any visit to a local building site will verify.
8. Increased aggregates demand but not supplied from Notts sources can be gauged by the steep increase in imports to the county from Lincolnshire (historically not a significant exporter to Notts) and from Staffordshire.
9. Support for higher aggregates demand is the LAA’s observation that quantities of CD waste have grown by an estimated 11% since 2011 indicating higher levels of construction (para 3.31).
10. Support for higher aggregates demand also comes from the observation in the LAA that in the East Midlands sand & gravel sales rose from 5.5 Mtpa in 2009 to 6.96 Mtpa in 2016 falling slightly to 6.79 Mtpa in 2017 (para 5.8). This represents a regional growth in sand & gravel demand of 23%-26%. Only in Notts and Northants have sand & gravel sales flatlined.
11. The evidence is clear that the sand & gravel sales in Notts have been constrained. The LAA says this is because of the recession and the replacement of worked out quarries has remained low. This puts Notts in a special position which means that sales do not fairly represent the demand for sand & gravel in the county. In this respect, it is like Oxfordshire which was recognised at Examination to have had suppressed sales because of commercial decisions during the recession to mothball sites. In Nottinghamshire’s case, similar commercial decisions and an unreadiness to be able to replace sites is judged to have been the cause for low sales and make up of demand principally from imports. In short, this is an anomalous situation which should be recognised in the LAA and accounted for in planned provision.
12. There are essentially three approaches to calculating forecast demand from data which counters the effects of the recession on the 10 year average and plans for future growth.
a. The last year house build rates were close to the planned average (5264 units) was in 2005 (4842 units) when sand & gravel sales were 3.08Mt. Allowing for higher planned rates of housing suggests sand & gravel provision should be at least 3.10Mtpa.
b. Using the approach adopted in Oxfordshire of calculating the % share of sand & gravel production before the recession and applying it to current conditions, gives the following result.
i. In the five year period prior to the recession (2004-2008) Notts sand & gravel sales (as a proportion of all England averaged 6.53%. In 2016 the proportion was 3.85%.
ii. If this is converted into a figure for the county linked to the current level of sales in England which in 2016 was 41.26 Million tonnes, then applying a pre-recession proportion of 6.53% gives a demand for Notts of 2.694 Million tonnes.
iii. Once an allowance for soft sand has been deducted, the like-for-like sand and gravel demand figure is about 2.32 Mtpa.
iv. Although this is lower than the first method, this is because all the Oxfordshire method does is restore the county to conditions as they were before the distorting effects of the recession; it does not explicitly take account of future growth.
c. Using a statistical approach, sand and gravel and soft sand sales and housing completions between 2007 and 2016 gives a Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) of +0.700642 which is a statistically significant linear relationship at the 95% confidence level, and which has an equally strong basis as a causative effect. Applying the expected annual average planned housing completion rate for the county over the plan period of 5264 dwellings to that PCC using the forecast function in Excel gives a return sand and gravel/soft sand forecast of 3.03 Mt pa. Deducting a figure of 0.40 Mtpa for soft sand leaves a sand and gravel provision figure of 2.63 Mtpa.
13. It is considered that the minimum level of provision should be to put the county back to where it was before the distorting effects of the recession were felt. This would involve allocating sites to produce 2.32 Mtpa over 19 years or 44.08Mt. Deducting current reserves of 28.5 Mt leaves a provision shortfall of 15.58Mt. The MLP allocates 11.8 Mt so there is a provision gap of at least 3.78 Mt.
14. It is emphasised that this is minimum which does not take account of the significant growth over and above historic levels of demand which is planned for. In all likelihood sand & gravel demand will be nearer to the 2.63 Mt expected by statistical calculation if the planned levels of growth are to be provided for.
15. The MLP delivery schedule (page 136) shows a serious shortfall in provision by year. The schedule presents two sets of figures. First, is the indicative outputs supplied by operators in the call-for-sites exercise. The second is the theoretical output supplied in planning applications if presented. The two figures represent the operators’ current intentions and the sales the site can achieve.
16. Analysing the schedule compared to the MLP provision figure shows that at no time will the sites reach the Local Plan annual provision level in terms of capacity using the first set of figures (see attached schedule and chart). Using the second set provision comes above Local Plan annual provision levels for 8 years from 2020 to 2027. Comparing with the alternative provision level suggested by MGL and set out in this analysis shows that the level of provision is entirely inadequate in terms of productive capacity using either set of figures.
17. The reason for this is that if only the total quantum of shortfall is used to allocate sites then no attention is paid to that part of the allocation that will not be worked in the Plan period. In other words, the allocations should be increased even if no alteration is made to the provision level, in order to preserve capacity to produce at the average provision level.
18. A further point is that the numbers of sites operating towards the end of the Plan period (falling to just five in total) cannot maintain the average level of production, so that more sites need to be provided for the end of the Plan period.
19. Therefore, using the LAA’s own data it is clear there is an underestimation of sand & gravel demand of between 0.62Mtpa and 0.93 Mtpa.
20. Using the Draft MLP delivery schedule shows there is a gross under allocation of sites which will not reach a demand level for sand & gravel using the LAA’s own data for a large part of the Plan period. The shortfall is even greater if a higher sand & gravel demand figure is used.
21. Reliance on a bare 10 year average past sales as a forecast of future demand is clearly not appropriate given the evidence that conditions over the last 10 years have been anomalous. By basing future provision on such a figure the Council risks building in a permanent loss of capacity at a time of increased market demand, and expectations by communities for new houses and more jobs. If Nottinghamshire underprovides for its own needs, it will put strain on other areas to make up the shortfall.
Possible Objections
22. There is a statement in the LAA that implies that one cannot use housing completions to forecast sand and gravel demand because it is only part of the overall demand and sand and gravel gets used for other construction projects. However, this is a red herring for two reasons. One, if there exists a statistically significant linear relationship between two variables which are causatively linked then knowing one variable leads to the prediction of the other variable. This is why statistically significant relationships are researched in all walks of life – to be able to make predictions. Therefore, it is irrelevant that sand and gravel is used for other things. The statistical relationship is all that is necessary to predict future sand and gravel demand knowing future housing completion rates. Two, construction of housing goes hand in hand with other types of development requiring sand and gravel such as commercial, retail, industrial and infrastructure, which are all related to population and economic growth. The driving force of sand and gravel demand is not housing per se but the underlying economic and population growth. Therefore, if it can be shown to be statistically significant then the relationship between sand and gravel and housing completions can be used as a proxy for all types of development.
The Oxfordshire Situation Explained
23. The situation in Nottinghamshire is similar to that pertaining in Oxfordshire. Here, the onset of the recession led to the major operators mothballing sites and delaying implementation of planning permissions, just as in Nottinghamshire and transferring production to other sites outside of the county. These commercial decisions in Oxfordshire reduced the 10 year rolling average below what it would have been had these commercial decisions not been taken. Oxfordshire took the view that it would be prudent to assume that this would only be a temporary market distortion and that as growth returned production would recommence at the affected sites. As such, the 10 year average would underestimate the true level of future demand.
24. Quantification of the effect was approached by considering how the county’s sales had reduced compared to the whole of England during the baseline period. Given that the county and the country were subject to the same recession, it was reasonable to conclude that any differences between the percentages during the period reflected specific local factors.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 219

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Cemex UK operations

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Policy MP1
This policy has been based on evidence from the 2017 LAA, which relied on data to the end of 2016. It is not considered that teh LAA, and this policy, make enough provision for sand and gravel going forward. The LAA notes that the 10 year average sales figure for sand and gravel continues to fall as a greater period of recession data is taken into account and that sales have remained flat. Planning Practice is clear that LAAs should forecast the demand for aggregates based on the 10-year rolling sales data and other relevant local information. While the LAA discusses future growth, this is not reflected in the future provision. The planned house building rates are similar to the completions seen in 2005 and the extraction rate in that year was over 3mt, which is almost double the 10-year rolling avergae of 1.7mt, and this does not take into account other infrastructure projects. The LAA also notes that the replacement of worked out quarries has remained low, but it takes time for the industry to find new sites and put forward for inclusion in the plan have not been taken forward. This is a significant under provision therefore and it is considered that the requirement for sand and gravel should be significantly higher. 3mt per annum, would equate to a requirement for 57mt over the plan period of 19 years, and not 32.3mt.

Full text:

Policy MP1
This policy has been based on evidence from the 2017 LAA, which relied on data to the end of 2016. It is not considered that teh LAA, and this policy, make enough provision for sand and gravel going forward. The LAA notes that the 10 year average sales figure for sand and gravel continues to fall as a greater period of recession data is taken into account and that sales have remained flat. Planning Practice is clear that LAAs should forecast the demand for aggregates based on the 10-year rolling sales data and other relevant local information. While the LAA discusses future growth, this is not reflected in the future provision. The planned house building rates are similar to the completions seen in 2005 and the extraction rate in that year was over 3mt, which is almost double the 10-year rolling avergae of 1.7mt, and this does not take into account other infrastructure projects. The LAA also notes that the replacement of worked out quarries has remained low, but it takes time for the industry to find new sites and put forward for inclusion in the plan have not been taken forward. This is a significant under provision therefore and it is considered that the requirement for sand and gravel should be significantly higher. 3mt per annum, would equate to a requirement for 57mt over the plan period of 19 years, and not 32.3mt.
Policy MP2
Previous responses have been made by CEMEX to this policy which have not been taken into account in this Publication Draft. A reserve assessment fro Cromwell has resulted in 0.76mt less at Cromwell and so the figures in Policy MP" are incorrect and there are not 17.5mt of permitted reserves, there are 0.76mt less than that. The policy does not allow for sufficient flexibility, as the reserve figures are estimates and further assessment work often means a reduction in volumes. There is not enough flexibility in the plan to allow for the uncertainties of geological investigation nor the mitigation consequences of Environmnetal Impact Assessment that can often mean that some reserves cannot be worked for other reasons. CEMEXs site at Cromwell North, for which an application has been submitted, should be included.
Changes
Increase forecast demand to 57 million tonnes
Amend reserves at Cromwell to 1.36mt
Add Cromwell North quarry 1.8mt

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 231

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Brett Aggregates Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Sand and gravel provision over the over the plan period needs to be reassessed to meet future demand.
See attachments for further detail

Full text:

See attachments

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 262

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Tarmac

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Policy MP1 is not considered positively prepared and is therefore unsound.
Comments regarding the analysis of predicted aggregate demand have been presented within the section regarding the Local Aggregate Assessment above.
The 10 years average sales figures are not the most appropriate methodology for forecasting
aggregate demand. 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. 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). Considering this, the other relevant local
information is particularly important in forecasting future demand in the County.
Considering the above the Mineral Planning Authority is underproviding sufficient sand and
gravel resource over the Plan period. 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.
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 has been prepared as Appendix 1 to the Draft Plan. Tarmac have
enclosed an edited version (Appendix 1a) which shows the available production capacity
from existing sites and proposed allocations as proposed within the Plan against the
identified annual requirement for sand and gravel. The sites proposed for sand and gravel
extraction including allocations are insufficient to even meet that depressed annual
requirement. An edited version is also enclosed at Appendix 1b which shows how additional
allocations could assist in meeting the identified shortfall.
Although the perceived 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.
The Plan should not focus or specify a definitive/maximum amount of mineral provision. The
sales data is an indication of current 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. Policy M1 should be updated to provide a more realistic sand and
gravel provision figure which is reflective of economic growth at pre-recession levels. As a
minimum the policy should be clear that the provision of sand and gravel, Sherwood
Sandstone and Crushed Rock are minimum requirements.
Part 2 of the Policy or as a minimum the justification section should advocate the need for
the Plan to be flexible and the ability to respond quickly and positively to upturns in demand.

Section 3 of the policy does not make any allowance for the benefit of sustainable extensions to existing operations in securing continued delivery of mineral as advocated by the Strategic Policy SP2.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments: