Minerals Core Strategy
Technical Paper MCS-G
Mineral Resources and Safeguarding
Version I – January 2008
Contact Details for
Gloucestershire County Council
Minerals & Waste Planning Policy:
Tel: 01452 425704
m-wplans@gloucestershire.gov.uk
www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste
Council Direct: Tel: 01452 505345
2
Contents
Section 1 Introduction
Section 2 Policy Context
Section 3 Mineral Resources in Gloucestershire
Section 4 Delivering Minerals Safeguarding for
Gloucestershire
Glossary
Appendix A key sources of information and data
3 3. The first part of the report sets out the Section 1 current national, regional and local policy for safeguarding minerals and in particular Introduction references the final, version of Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1) and the submission draft of the South West RSS. It also acknowledges the guidance offered by the British Geological Survey (BGS) on implementing mineral safeguarding through the planning system.
4. The second part of this report provides a detailed review of the local geology and recorded mineral resources present in the county.
5. The third and final part of the report summarises the key issues for mineral
safeguarding in Gloucestershire and 1. It is vitally important that the plans and headlines future actions and proposals set out in the Minerals Core recommendations for successfully Strategy are founded on a robust and developing a mineral safeguarding strategy credible evidence base. Demonstrating how into the emerging MCS. the evidence for the MCS was carefully considered and acted upon will be a key ‘test of soundness’ at the independent examination into the Core Strategy1.
2. Consequently this report acts as part of the evidence base for the emerging MCS and in particular the strategy for safeguarding mineral resources in Gloucestershire. Its key focus is on introducing the county’s mineral resources that lead to the delineating Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) and Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) in the future.
1 Test vii of the ‘Test of Soundness’ set out in PPS12, states that strategies, policies and allocations must represent the most appropriate in all circumstances, having regard to the relevant alternatives and they are founded on a robust and credible evidence base.
4 9. In this context a policy mechanism is Section 2 required to safeguard mineral resources from potential sterilisation. Furthermore, a The Context complementary and workable strategy is needed for those circumstances where prior mineral extraction before surface development could also be considered.
10. Safeguarding and prior extraction of mineral resources is addressed within mineral national policy. It is also translated through Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) for implementation within Local Development Framework (LDFs).
National Policy 6. Mineral resources are essential to the achievements of sustainable development. 11. National policy for minerals is set out in They are necessary in construction, Minerals Policy Statement (MPS) 1. It industry, healthcare and energy production. provides a specific Government objective However, they are finite in terms of their for mineral safeguarding: - quality, quantity and availability. To safeguard mineral resources as far as possible; 7. Mineral resources can only be worked where they occur. This means they are 12. In order to achieve this objective, MPS1 subject to technical, environmental and also includes a series of national policies to other surface constraints, which may make be carried forward by LPAs within their them unworkable in the foreseeable future. LDDs. However, whilst many constraints are
irreversible or necessary, there are 13. It states that Mineral Safeguarding Areas constraints, which could be avoided. These (MSAs) should be defined in LDDs, in order may include surface development such as that proven resources are not needlessly housing, retail, commerce, or associated sterilised by non-mineral development. infrastructure projects that could feasibly be However, it is stressed that this approach accommodated elsewhere. should not represent a presumption in
favour of mineral extraction at a later date. 8. Consequently, where proven and viable
mineral resources are identified a sound 14. Where opportunities exist, MPS1 also policy framework is needed to ensure these encourages the practicable, prior extraction resources are not lost to competing and / or incompatible surface development.
5 of minerals within MSAs before non-mineral 20. For MCAs, it may prove beneficial to development takes place. designate all, part of, or marginally more than the original MSA of the respective 15. In two-tier planning areas, where County mineral resource. The function of MCAs is Councils act as the MPA and District as a consultation tool between Districts and Councils are the LPA, policies and Counties. This consultation requirement proposals for safeguarding mineral falls on both minerals and non-mineral resources should be included in the MDD related planning proposals within MSA and prepared by the County. However, LDDs MCA designations. prepared by Districts should also clearly include the extent of the MSAs delineated in their area. Regional Policy
16. Two-tier planning areas also provide an 21. The submission draft RSS includes a opportunity for County Council’s to define regional supply policy for aggregates and Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs). These other minerals (Policy RE10). It states that areas should also be set out in the LDDs MPAs and LPAs should identify and prepared by Districts Councils. collaborate in the safeguarding of mineral
resources of economic importance from 17. The purpose of MCAs is to ensure early and sterilisation by other forms of development. appropriate consultation between Districts
and Counties in respect of non-mineral
development designated within MCAs. Where planning applications are made, the Local Policy respective District should consult with the County prior to determination. 22. The Adopted Gloucestershire Structure Plan 2nd Review and Minerals Local Plan (MLP) 18. The good practice guide to MPS1 sets out (1997-2006) provide the local policy for the detailed mechanism for using MSAs and mineral safeguarding in Gloucestershire. MCAs to safeguard mineral resources. nd 23. Policy M.6 of the Structure Plan 2 Review, 19. It advises that mineral resources, which are, sought to safeguard potentially workable or may become economically important in mineral resources across the county and the foreseeable future, should be promote prior extraction. Minerals Local considered for an MSA. However, these Plan policies SE3 and SE4 highlighted the areas should be delineated based on the potential of an MPA objection to planning best available geological data and mineral proposals within, or adjacent to, areas with resources information, including that underlying resources and criteria for provided by the British Geological Survey or considering the prior extraction of minerals. made available by the mineral industry. Nevertheless, these areas may need to be 24. The Minerals Local Plan also identified a refined in discussion with industry and other Mineral Consultation Area (MCA) covering stakeholders. the Gloucestershire section of the Upper
6 Thames Valley area. Provision for this area 27. However, in practice MPS1 supersedes any was set out under paragraph 7 (3)(c) of of these current or former development plan schedule 1 of the Town & Country Planning policies, which are therefore issues for Act (1990). The MCA laid down a consideration and review through the MCS requirement for Cotswold District Council process. (which covers the administrative area of Gloucestershire section of the Upper Thames Valley), to consult with the County Council on applications within the MCA. Other Spatial Considerations and Information 25. The MCA was originally delineated in 1981. Its purpose was to promote the safeguarding of sand and gravel resources Emerging MCS – Issues & Options in the area through the planning system. Consultation The delineation of the MCA was based on information from the Institute of Geological 28. The Issues & Options consultation provided Sciences (IGS), which is now known as the stakeholders their first opportunity to debate British Geological Society (BGS). the future of mineral safeguarding in Gloucestershire. The consultation presented 2 26. Under recent transitional arrangements , stakeholders with three key options – Policy M.6 of the Structure Plan 2nd Review, has become the only local mineral The continuation of the existing local safeguarding policy within the development plan policies for safeguarding; plan. This means it is a ‘saved’ policy that will remain in force until formally replaced by The expansion of resource the RSS and / or by specific local policies safeguarding, including additional MCA within the Minerals and Waste Development areas; and Framework (MWDF). The Minerals Local Plan policies – SE3 and SE4 have ‘lapsed’ The removal of the existing MCA in and no longer form part of the development Gloucestershire as a tool for resource plan. These policies are now seen as safeguarding. material considerations for use on a case- by-case basis with future development 29. In summary stakeholders favour a proposals. continuation of the safeguarding policy used in the adopted Minerals Local Plan. However, notable support was also given for expanding the coverage of MCAs to 2 Transitional arrangements are in place to help manage the other resource areas in Gloucestershire. change to the planning system. They involve the approval from the Secretary of state (SoS) to retain or ‘save’ existing adopted local planning policies until they are formally replaced by new style development plan documents. No local policies can be saved without SoS approval after Sept 2008 (three years from the new planning act) or after three years from the date of their original adoption within a particular local plan.
7 Emerging MCS – Initial Sustainability 35. The conclusion to the AA advised that the: - Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment ‘continuation of mineral safeguarding, including existing MCA coverage’, would 30. The initial Sustainability Appraisal (SA) unlikely result in significant effects on the 10 interrogated the mineral safeguarding European sites. However, uncertainty was options presented within the Issues & highlighted with those sites located within or Options consultation. near to the existing MCA. It was considered that safeguarding in this instance could 31. The most sustainable option, resulting from pose either a lesser or greater likelihood of the SA process, was the: - ‘expansion of significant effects on the European sites, safeguarding including the addition of new depending upon the type of development, MCA areas’. This approach was considered which may or may not come forward instead to be broadly positive, particularly in terms of mineral working. of ensuring the sufficient availability of minerals to meet the needs of society. 36. In terms of expanding mineral safeguarding However, the positive scoring was tempered through new MCAs, the degree of by a degree of uncertainty over the possible uncertainty for European sites increased. impacts of preventing other forms of This was again due to the unknown impacts development as a consequence of resource of preventing or enabling other forms of safeguarding. development as a consequence of mineral safeguarding by MCAs. 32. The least sustainable option was the: - ‘complete removal of the county’s existing 37. The removal of the existing MCA was also MCA’. Particular attention was paid to the considered through the AA process. This uncertainty this may cause in terms of the option demonstrated the least degree of availability of mineral resources to meet uncertainty on European Sites (although not future needs of society. necessarily the least impact), as the consideration of mineral safeguarding, 33. An Appropriate Assessment (AA) of potential extraction and other forms of protected European sites was also carried development would be greatly diminished. out at with the Issues & Options consultation. British Geological Survey (BGS) – 34. The purpose of AA is to screen for potential Mineral Resource Information in impact upon protected designations in and Support of National, Regional and around the county so as to ensure that their future protection is integrated into the Local Planning planning process at the local level. A total of 10 European sites have been recorded for 38. In 2003 the former Office of the Deputy Gloucestershire. These include – Special Prime Minister (ODPM) commissioned BGS Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special to prepare a series of geological reports and Protection Areas (SPAs). accompanying maps to identify the
8 occurrence of key mineral resources across are deemed to be of economic important to the regions of the England. Britain.
39. The purpose of the reports is to assist 43. The factsheets are referred to within the interested parties involved in the BGS publication – ‘A Guide to Minerals preparation and review of development Safeguarding in England’, as potential data plans, both in relation to the extraction of source for assessing the economic minerals and the protection of mineral importance of mineral resources in the resources from sterilisation. As previously foreseeable future within an MPA area. The advised in this report under paragraph 19, factsheets are also linked to the advice the information provided within each given in the practice guide to MPS1, which geological report, should form part of the has already been highlighted in paragraph baseline data and evidence base for 19, and is concerned with defining MSAs emerging policy work for the MCS. using the ‘best available’ information on mineral resources as published or available 40. A report and resource map was been from BGS. completed for Gloucestershire in 2006. The MPA assisted BGS in their production. ODPM Commissioned Report – Planning for the Supply of Natural British Geological Survey (BGS) – A Building and Roofing Stone in England Guide to Mineral Safeguarding in and Wales England 44. In 2004 ODPM (now part of DCLG) 41. BGS has published a ‘Guide to Minerals published a report on natural building and Safeguarding in England’ to assist with the roofing stone in England and Wales. Its implementation of national policy set out in contents were focused upon planning MPS1 and its associated practice guide. issues affecting the future supply and The guide was completed in October 2007 demand of building stone resources. The and is specifically focused upon the report also provided background information practical application of MSAs. This includes on the state of different building stone defining and delineation of mineral resources and remaining reserves. This safeguarding designations by MPAs with information will form part of the evidence the assistance of key mineral stakeholders. base in assessing the value of Gloucestershire’s building stone resources (see section 3) for mineral safeguarding British Geological Survey (BGS) – purposes. Mineral Planning Factsheets
42. A series of mineral factsheets have been provided by BGS that set out baseline information on the supply of minerals that
9 understand the distribution of its resources, Section 3 a number of zones or areas of similar geology have been identified. These zones Minerals Resources of are considered by the MPA, as Strategic Mineral Resource Areas (SMRAs) and there Gloucestershire are four covering the county -