URBAN VISION PARTNERSHIP LTD
West Midlands Aggregate Working Party
Annual Monitoring Report 2016, incorporating data from January – December 2016
Revised version – January 2018
For further information on this document and the West Midlands Aggregates Working Party, please contact:
Chairman Adrian Cooper Team Leader, Environment & Economic Policy Shropshire Council The Shirehall Abbey Foregate Shrewsbury SY2 6ND Tel: 01743 252568 [email protected]
Secretary Carolyn Williams Group Leader: Minerals & Waste Planning Unit Urban Vision Partnership Ltd Civic Centre Chorley Road Swinton Salford M27 5AS Tel: 0161 604 7746 [email protected]
The statistics and statements contained in this report are based on information from a large number of third party sources and are compiled to an appropriate level of accuracy and verification. Readers should use corroborative data before making major decisions based on this information. Published by Urban Vision Partnership Ltd on behalf of the West Midlands Aggregates Working Party. This publication is also available electronically free of charge on www.communities.gov.uk
2 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Executive Summary
The West Midlands Aggregate Working Party (AWP) is one of nine similar working parties throughout England and Wales established in the 1970's. The membership of the West Midlands AWP is detailed in Appendix 1. This Annual Monitoring (AM) report provides sales and reserve data for the calendar year 2016. The report provides data for each of the sub-regions in the West Midlands:
• Herefordshire
• Worcestershire
• Shropshire
• Staffordshire
• West Midlands Conurbation
. Birmingham
. Dudley
. Sandwell
. Walsall
. Wolverhampton
. Coventry
. Solihull
. Stoke-on-Trent
. Telford & Wrekin
It is not a policy-making body, but is charged with data collection to facilitate planning by Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs), national government agencies and the industry, and to inform the general reader.
3
Crushed Rock • Total Crushed Rock Sales of 3.92 mt up 14% on 2015 figures. (3.37mt) • Total Crushed Rock Reserves of 316.58 mt, up almost 4% on 2015 figures. (304.32mt) • The Crushed Rock Landbank (based upon 10 years average sales) is 93.94 years, compared to 89.37 years at the end of 2015
Land-won Sand and Gravel • Total Land-won Sand and Gravel Sales of 7.11 mt, down 2% on 2015 figures (7.04mt) • Total Land-won Sand and Gravel Reserves of 94.51 mt, up 3.7% on 2015 figures (90.95mt) • The Land-won Sand and Gravel Landbank (based upon 10 years average sales) is 13.74 years, compared to 12.69 years at the end of 2015
Total aggregate sales, reserves and landbank
During the 2016 monitoring period total aggregate sales increased from 10.41mt in 2015 to 11.03 mt in 2016. This is the third highest sales figure in the past 10 years, however sales are still below pre-recession levels. There has been a gradual increase since 2011 with a marked increase in sand and gravel sales in 2015 to 7.04mt (13% up on 2014 figures), increasing slightly again this year to 7.11 mt. Total aggregate reserves decreased from 395.27 mt as at 31 December 2015 to 410.88 mt in 2016.
Aggregate crushed rock sales, reserves and landbank
Sales of crushed rock aggregate increased from 3.37mt in 2015 to 3.92mt in 2016, this is the highest recorded level since 2007. Total reserves of crushed rock aggregate increased from 304.32mt in 2015 to 316.58mt at 31 December 2016.
The crushed rock landbank for the West Midlands as at 31 December 2016 was 93.94 years, in excess of the “at least” 10 year requirement of the NPPF.
Aggregate sand and gravel sales, reserves and landbank
Sales of land-won aggregate sand and gravel have increased slightly from 7.04mt in 2015 to 7.11 mt in 2016.
Reserves of land-won aggregate sand and gravel were 94.51mt as at 31 December 2016, up slightly from 90.95mt in 2015. This figure does not include sand sold for non-aggregate purposes. The sand and gravel landbank for the West Midlands as at 31 December 2016 was 13.74 years (based on 10yrs sales).
4 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 1. INTRODUCTION...... 6 BACKGROUND ...... 6 PLANNING POLICY ...... 7 REPORT SCOPE ...... 8 2. DEVELOPMENT PLANS ...... 10 3. PRIMARY AGGREGATES ...... 12 TOTAL AGGREGATE SALES, RESERVES AND LANDBANK ...... 12 AGGREGATE CRUSHED ROCK SALES, RESERVES AND LANDBANK ...... 12 AGGREGATE SAND AND GRAVEL SALES, RESERVES AND LANDBANK ...... 13 OVERVIEW ...... 20 HEREFORDSHIRE ...... 20 SHROPSHIRE ...... 21 WORCESTERSHIRE ...... 22 STAFFORDSHIRE ...... 23 WARWICKSHIRE ...... 24 WEST MIDLANDS METROPOLITAN AREA (WMMA) ...... 25 4. SECONDARY AND RECYCLED AGGREGATES ...... 26 SHROPSHIRE (AND TELFORD) ...... 29 WORCESTERSHIRE ...... 33 HEREFORDSHIRE ...... 34 STAFFORDSHIRE ...... 34 WEST MIDLANDS CONURBATION ...... 34 5. TRANSPORT ...... 43 APPENDIX 1: AWP MEMBERSHIP ...... 45 APPENDIX 2: AWP MEETING MINUTES ...... 47 APPENDIX 3: GLOSSARY ...... 63 APPENDIX 4: ACRONYMS ...... 64 APPENDIX 5: ACTIVE, INACTIVE AND DORMANT AGGREGATE MINERAL WORKINGS 2015 ...... 65 APPENDIX 6: MONITORING OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ...... 70 APPENDIX 7: THE WEST MIDLANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS ...... 72
5
1. Introduction
1.1. This West Midlands 2016 Annual Monitoring Report (AM2016) has been prepared from returns made by the operators of quarries in the West Midlands in response to a party wide survey and provides sales and reserve data for the calendar year 1st January – 31st December 2016.
Background
1.2. The Aggregates Working Parties1 (AWPs) were established in the 1970s to collect and monitor data on aggregates provision as an aid to minerals planning. AWPs are joint local government-central government-industry bodies that monitor the supply of, demand for, and reserves of, all aggregates including both primary aggregate and alternative sources in local authority areas. They also consider the implications of supply to, and from, these areas. They are not policy-making bodies, but provide information to facilitate the work of Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs), national government agencies and the minerals industry. They also feed regional views to the Government through the national forum, the National Coordinating Group (NCG).
1.3. The core functions of the AWP, as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance, are to:
• consider, scrutinise and provide advice on the Local Aggregate Assessments of each mineral planning authority within the West Midlands area;
• provide an assessment of the position of overall demand and supply for the Aggregate Working Party area; and
• obtain, collect and report on data on minerals activity within the West Midlands area.
1.4. The AWPs operate under contracts between the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Chairs of the AWPs, and receive funding from the Department to prepare papers, reports, and data collations as recommended by the NCG.
1.5. The membership of West Midlands Aggregates Working Party (WMAWP) comprises officers of each of the MPAs, representatives of three industry trade associations the Mineral Products Association (MPA), the British Aggregates Association (BAA) and the Federation of
1 Previously known as Regional Aggregate Working Parties but has now changed to reflect national guidelines. 6 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Demolition Contractors, and officers of the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG). It comprises the following sub-regions:
• Herefordshire
• Worcestershire
• Shropshire
• Staffordshire
• Warwickshire
• West Midlands Conurbation
1.6. WMAWP is chaired by a Chief Planning Officer or Director from one of the MPAs. The 2016 Chairman was Adrian Cooper, Team Leader of Environment & Economic Policy at Shropshire Council. The AWP is also serviced by a Technical Secretary, who for 2016 was Carolyn Williams of Urban Vision. The membership of the West Midlands AWP for 2016 is set out in Appendix 1 and minutes of the most recent AWP meeting are presented at Appendix 2.
Planning Policy
1.7. There are several policies that the AWP complies and takes guidance from.
The National Planning Policy Framework
1.8. The NPPF requires MPAs to make provision for a steady and adequate supply of minerals; to define mineral safeguarding areas; to safeguard wharves, rail heads and certain aggregate processing facilities and plant.
1.9. The NPPF requires MPAs to participate in an Aggregates Working Party (AWP); to prepare an annual Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA); to make provision for the land won or other elements of their LAA in their mineral plans, taking account of the advice of the AWP and the National Aggregate Coordinating Group (NCG) as appropriate.
Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System (MASS)
1.10. AWPs are to produce an annual report on minerals activity in their area, provide technical advice to MPAs on the adequacy of a LAA, and provide an assessment on the position of
7
overall demand and supply in its area, including whether, in its view, the area is making a full contribution towards meeting both national and local needs.
National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision 2009
1.11. The most recent National and Sub National Guidelines are the National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England 2005-2020 published on 29 June 2009. The levels of provision set out in the Guidelines are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, 2005 –2020 (Mt) Guidelines for land-won Assumptions production in Region Land–won Land-won Marine Alternative Net New Regions Mt. Sand & Crushed Sand & Materials Imports to Gravel Rock Gravel (a) England South East England 195 25 121 130 31
London 18 0 72 95 12
East of England 236 8 14 117 7
East Midlands 174 500 0 110 0
West Midlands 165 82 0 100 23
South West 85 412 12 142 5
North West 52 154 15 117 55
Yorkshire & the Humber 78 212 5 133 3
North East 24 99 20 50 0
ENGLAND 1,028 1,492 259 993 136
Report Scope
1.12. As with previous AM surveys, this AM2016 report is primarily a monitor at the West Midlands wide scale. Data on primary aggregates sales from land-won sand and gravel sites, wharves and rail depots for 2016 has been provided by operators via the AWP technical secretary who collated the individual site returns. An inventory of quarries, wharves and rail depots is provided in Appendix 4.
8 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
1.13. Other information on secondary and recycled aggregates and events of interest is also provided along with information on planning decisions and progress on Development Plan Documents. In order to provide an indication of trends, this Annual Report compares data for 2016 with data for earlier years.
1.14. The planning context for this report is the National Planning Policy Framework2 (NPPF) at the national level and local plans as the overall strategic plan for the area.
2 National Planning Policy Framework, DCLG March 2012 9
2. Development Plans
2.1. All of the MPAs in the West Midlands have adopted plans (or saved policies) related to minerals planning as set out in Table 2.
Table 2: Development Plans during 2016
Authority/County
Shropshire Adopted Core Strategy (2011) and Site Allocations and Management of Development Plan (2015). Local Plan Review commenced with Issues &
Strategic Options consultation in January 2017. Updated Local Development Scheme published July 2017: http://shropshire.gov.uk/planning-policy/local- plan/local-plan-partial-review-2016-2036/
Reviewing plan based on housing figures only and a Green Belt review. Will replace existing documents with one Local Plan. Do not envisage allocating minerals sites at present due to large reserves.
Worcestershire The Third Stage Consultation, on a full draft of the Minerals Local Plan, commenced in December 2016 and ran until March 2017. Local Development
Scheme updated in July 2017 to include a further call for sites and additional consultation prior to "soundness" consultation.
Undertaking a 4th Call for Sites and there will be a full consultation in August 2018 with pre-submission programmed for Spring 2019 and adoption in 2020.
Herefordshire Core Strategy adopted in 2015, followed in 2016 by the procurement of Hendeca Ltd to undertake the preparation of the Minerals & Waste Local Plan (MWLP). Spring 2016; BGS undertook minerals surveying in areas of the county with incomplete data and the first Call for Sites was carried out.
Issues and options has been produced. A draft plan is programmed for spring 2018 with adoption programmed for 2019. Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire (2015 – 2030) was adopted February Staffordshire 2017, now looking at review of the waste plan which was adopted in 2012.
Warwickshire Due to a large increase in permitted reserves, Cabinet resolved to go back to publication stage with fewer sites allocated (6.5Mt instead of 8Mt).
The 4 Black Country Authorities (Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Black Country Wolverhampton) adopted their joint Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) in Authorities February 2011 and this document identifies various mineral sites and sets out detailed minerals policies. The Borough Development Strategy was formally adopted by Dudley Council on 27th February 2017 and is subject to a (six week) period of legal challenge which will end on 13th April 2017. Consultation on Walsall Site Allocations Document (SAD) was submitted to the Secretary of
10 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Authority/County State on 7th June 2017 for examination by the Planning Inspectorate. Review of joint BCCS started in 2016 – consultation on Issues & Option took place in 2017 and a revised BCCS is expected to be adopted by the end of 2021.
Birmingham Adopted January 2017. The plan includes policies on waste and minerals. Development Chapter 8 and paragraphs 3.14 – 3.14D of the UDP 2005 remains extant until Plan adoption of the Development Management document policies. It is envisaged that the new DPD which includes Development Control policies will be adopted in 2018.
The Telford & Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031 was submitted on 30 June 2016 to the Telford and Planning Inspectorate for independent examination. This version of the plan was Wrekin prepared taking into account the results of the previous consultation on the draft document undertaken between 1 February 2016 and 15 March 2016. Consultation on Proposed Main Modifications which commenced 31 July closed on 22 September 2017.
Following a period of public examination and consultation on proposed modifications, the Inspector has now published her reports covering the Local Plan and City Centre Area Action Plan. These reports were formally received by the Council in October and November 2017 respectively. It is expected that a report recommending the adoption of both Plans will be presented to meetings of the Council's Cabinet and Full Council on 28 Coventry November and 5 December respectively.
Current Local Plan adopted 2013, containing minerals and waste policies. Local Plan Review commenced July 2015, consultation on Draft Local Plan commenced December 2016 to February 2017. Preferred Option consultation Solihull complete and currently working through responses.
The council is in the early stages of preparing a new Joint Local Plan with Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council. A Strategic Options consultation was undertaken from 17th July to 22nd August 2017. It is anticipated that Preferred Stoke-on-Trent Options will be consulted on, early in 2018.
11
3. Primary Aggregates
3.1. Basic surveys of the sales (generally equating to production) and permitted reserves, were carried out by MPAs for the calendar year 2016. In line with previous practice in the region, data was sub-divided into crushed rock and sand/gravel. No further categorisation into different end uses or rock types was attempted (or indeed, nor was it possible in many cases, within confidentiality guidelines) and almost no data for non-aggregate uses was made available for collation. Even at this very broad level, preparation of data encountered major confidentiality grouping issues. These will need to be addressed if future planning of provision is to continue to be meaningful.
3.2. Tables 3-5 provide an provide an overview of sales, reserve and landbank figures for aggregate land-won crushed rock and sand and gravel across the West Midlands region covering the period 1 January to 31 December 2016.
Total aggregate sales, reserves and landbank
3.3. During the 2016 monitoring period total aggregate sales increased from 10.41mt in 2015 to 11.03 mt in 2016. This is the third highest sales figure in the past 10 years, however sales are still below pre-recession levels. There has been a gradual increase since 2011 with a marked increase in sand and gravel sales in 2015 to 7.04mt (13% up on 2014 figures), increasing slightly again this year to 7.11mt. Total aggregate reserves increased from 395.27 mt as at 31 December 2015 to 410.88 in 2016.
Aggregate crushed rock sales, reserves and landbank
3.4. Sales of crushed rock aggregate increased from 3.37mt in 2015 to 3.92mt in 2016, this is the highest recorded level since 2007. Total reserves of crushed rock aggregate increased from 304.32mt in 2015 to 316.58mt at 31 December 2016.
3.5. The crushed rock landbank for the West Midlands as at 31 December 2016 was 93.94 years, in excess of the “at least” 10 year requirement of the NPPF. Landbanks for the sub-regions are detailed in the Table 4.
12 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Aggregate sand and gravel sales, reserves and landbank
3.6. Sales of land-won aggregate sand and gravel have decreased slightly from 7.04mt in 2015 to 7.11mt in 2016.
3.7. Reserves of land-won aggregate sand and gravel were 94.51 as at 31 December 2016, up slightly from 90.95mt in 2015. This figure does not include sand sold for non-aggregate purposes. The sand and gravel landbank for the West Midlands as at 31 December 2016 was 13.74 years (based on 10yrs sales).
13
Table 3: Sales for aggregate purposes (2007 – 2016) (million tonnes)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Average Monitoring 2016 10 year 10 year
Period sales sales
Crushed Rock Sales Shropshire 2.33 2.29 1.8 2.0 1.65 2.41 2.88 3.13 2.76 2.688 23.85 2.39 (and Telford)
Worcestershire
Herefordshire 1.76 1.15 1.2 0.8 0.81 0.71 0.82 0.66 0.61 1.23 9.75 0.98 Staffordshire
Warwickshire
West Midlands 3 ------Conurbation
TOTAL CRUSHED 4.09 3.44 3.0 2.8 2.46 3.12 3.70 3.79 3.37 3.92 33.6 3.37 ROCK SALES Sand and Gravel Sales
Herefordshire 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.13 1.25 0.13 0.62 0.66 Worcestershire 0.81 0.76 0.52 0.62 0.63 0.52 0.54 0.39 5.99 0.60
Shropshire 0.78 0.71 0.67 0.69 0.65 0.64 0.66 0.63 0.73 0.74 6.69 0.668
3 Includes Birmingham, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Solihull and Stoke-on-Trent West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Average Monitoring 2016 10 year 10 year
Period sales sales
Staffordshire 6.44 5.34 3.72 3.76 3.82 3.70 4.091 4.18 4.824 4.94 44.81 4.48
0.33 Warwickshire 1.19 0.85 0.75 0.33 0.42 0.4 0.21 0.28 0.32 5.08 0.51
West Midlands 0.58 0.61 0.5 0.38 0.45 0.40 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.53 4.89 0.49 Conurbation
TOTAL SAND & GRAVEL 10.02 8.33 6.20 5.95 5.99 5.82 6.11 6.21 7.04 7.11 68.78 6.88 SALES
4 Estimates provided for three sites due to non-return of surveys 15
Table 4: Reserves for aggregates (2016) (million tonnes)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Monitoring 2016
Period
Crushed Rock Reserves Shropshire 93.17 116.00 116.00 114.00 104.50 124.81 113.85 109.55 104.05 114.44 (and Telford)
Worcestershire c c c ------
Herefordshire 14.60 14.4 15.00 12.20 11.00 11.79 11.54
Staffordshire 160.91 160.10 160.50 159.70 159.65 189.84 197.92 200.27 202.14 188.61 Warwickshire 30.20 29.91 29.10 21.60 21.00
West Midlands 5 ------Conurbation
TOTAL CRUSHED 298.88 320.41 320.60 307.50 296.15 326.44 314.00 307.474 304.32 316.58 ROCK RESERVES
5 Includes Birmingham, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Solihull and Stoke-on-Trent 16 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Monitoring 2016
Period
Sand and Gravel Reserves
Herefordshire 5.1 6.148 5.15 2.92 2.87 2.76 2.66 2.75 6.57 6.01 Worcestershire 4.1 3.021 3.65 4.49 3.85 2.50 0.54 4.296
Shropshire 13.02 12.23 14.42 13.77 13.55 12.86 13.95 12.27 10.43 11.29
Staffordshire 82.9 82.88 79.22 73.77 71.79 66.98 62.26 68.09 67.867 63.63
Warwickshire 5.0 4.756 3.95 3.12 4.51 4.33 4.96 4.44 3.87 6.69
West Midlands 2.39 5.21 5.06 4.61 4.65 4.58 5.39 4.85 5.18 5.86 Conurbation
TOTAL SAND & 114.2 GRAVEL 112.51 111.45 102.69 101.22 95.32 92.57 94.91 90.95 94.51 5 RESERVES C: Confidential
6 One operator returned a reserve figure range and so the highest figure of the range has been used. 7 Estimates provided for three sites due to non-return of surveys 17
Table 5: Landbanks for aggregates (2016)
Permitted 2016 Aggregate Average Annual Sales Landbank as at 31/12/2016 Reserves at Sales (million 2007 – 2016 (million (years) (based on 10 years 31/12/16 (million tonnes) tonnes) average sales) tonnes)
Crushed Rock
Shropshire (and 2.69 114.44 2.39 47.81 Telford)
Worcestershire
Herefordshire 0.72 202.14 0.98 206.3 Staffordshire
Warwickshire
West Midlands - - - - Conurbation
TOTAL CRUSHED 3.92 316.58 3.37 93.94 ROCK LANDBANK
Sand and Gravel
Herefordshire 0.13 2.75 0.13 21.15
Worcestershire 0.39 4.29 0.60 7.15
Shropshire (and 0.74 11.29 0.668 16.9 Telford)
18 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Permitted 2016 Aggregate Average Annual Sales Landbank as at 31/12/2016 Reserves at Sales (million 2007 – 2016 (million (years) (based on 10 years 31/12/16 (million tonnes) tonnes) average sales) tonnes)
Staffordshire 4.94 63.63 4.48 14.20
Warwickshire 0.33 6.69 0.51 13.15
West Midlands 0.58 5.86 0.49 11.98 Conurbation
TOTAL SAND & 7.11 94.51 6.88 13.74 GRAVEL
19
Overview
3.8. The total sales, reserves and landbank for the West Midlands as a whole for 2016 are set out in Table 6.
Table 6: Overview
Landbank as at Average Annual Reserves 31/12/2016 (years) Sales 2007 – 2016 (based on 10 years (million tonnes) (million tonnes) average sales)
Crushed Rock 3.37 316.58 93.94
Sand and Gravel 6.88 94.51 13.74
3.9. The sections below provide a summary of each reporting area.
Herefordshire
Crushed Rock
3.10. There are only two producers of crushed rock in Herefordshire. Data contained in AMSs (DCLG), shows that Herefordshire is a significant importer of crushed rock. The need for mineral operators to obtain the correct specification for market products such as ready-mix concrete can dictate some of this movement, where such materials are not available from local deposits.
3.11. Due to the small number of operators, data for reserves and sales of crushed rock remains confidential. Therefore the overall picture for crushed rock permitted reserves and sales is unclear due both to commercial sensitivities and because of a sequence of discontinuities in the time series data for sales. This is due to changes in the amalgamation of data across several different groupings of counties over the ten year period. In order to get a time series for sales across a consistent grouping of counties, figures have been combined for Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire. However Worcestershire now has no operational crushed rock quarries.
3.12. The combined crushed rock landbank for Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire using ten years sales data is approximately 220 years. While the figure for Herefordshire alone cannot be publicly shared, all the available data suggests that the West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
landbank of permitted reserves in Herefordshire is likely to be significantly over the minimum level required by the NPPF (10 years minimum).
Sand and Gravel
3.13. There is one significant quarry producing sand and gravel in Herefordshire. Due to the openness of the operator, who has more recently, agreed that the data can be made public, it is possible to understand a reasonable level of detail about sand and gravel reserves, supply and potential demand within the county. However, there is not a complete ten year time series for Herefordshire separately from Worcestershire. Trends indicate that sales have not recovered since their fall in 2008/9. However, is it reasonable to assume that this is as a result of a downturn in the economy, rather than solely a lack of product availability within Herefordshire.
3.14. Using calculated figures for the ten year sales data, the sand and gravel landbank at the end of 2016 for Herefordshire, is approximately 21 years.
Shropshire
3.15. In 2016 there were 10 permitted sites for sand and gravel working in Shropshire, 5 of which were operational (see Appendix 1). There is also a further site where a resolution has been made to grant planning permission, but where consent has yet to be issued. The majority of the material produced is used locally within Shropshire to supply the construction industry with building sand, concrete and concrete products.
3.16. The majority of sand and gravel working in Shropshire is now from glacial or bunter deposits which are of more variable quality than river terrace materials which have now been largely worked out. Sand and gravel deposits in Shropshire frequently contain a high proportion of sand and more limited quantities of gravel and often suffer from clay and lignite contamination. These characteristics mean that deposits often require additional processing to generate a saleable product. In addition, about 70% of sand and gravel reserves, is contained in three site commitments which have remained unworked for over 5 years. In the case of two of these sites, the mineral operators and landowners concerned have confirmed that there is a clear intention to work these sites during the Plan Period.
3.17. The latest available data shows that 0.53mt of sand and gravel was produced in Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin in 2016, which is a 27% drop from 2015 figures, below both the 10 year
21
rolling average for sand gravel sales (0.63mt) and the 3 year average (0.66mt). The landbank based upon the ten year average sales data at the end of 2016 was approximately 17years.
3.18. The area administered by Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin Councils also produced 2.69 mt of crushed rock in 2016 against a 10 year average of 2.39 mt. The area is currently responsible for producing over half of the regional target for crushed rock. Production of crushed rock from a single site in Telford & Wrekin contributes about a quarter of the annual production. Crushed rock is mainly used as engineering fill, roadstone and asphalt in road construction and maintenance. High specification aggregate is exported by both road and rail to a wider regional and national market area. In 2016 there were 8 permitted sites in Shropshire, 4 of which were operational, and 1 permitted and operational site in Telford & Wrekin.
3.19. The latest available data indicates that crushed rock production in Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin in 2016 was above the 10 year trend (2.39mt) but below the 3 year trend (2.86mt).
3.20. Aggregates monitoring data for 2016 indicates that 50% of production supplies markets within Shropshire and 29% supplies markets in other parts of the West Midlands region. However, the high polishing resistance of some crushed rock resources in Shropshire supports export to a larger market area, including by rail transport and about 21% of production supplies national markets outside the West Midlands, particularly the north-west (11% of production). These trends are expected to continue.
3.21. The landbank of permissions for crushed rock working has remained consistently above the minimum target level of 10 years. The permitted landbank of permissions was equivalent to about 47 years’ production in 2016.
Worcestershire
3.22. There are two distinct types of sand and gravel deposits in Worcestershire consisting of bedrock deposits, (the solid sands of the Kidderminster Formation and Wildmoor Formation) and surface deposits (river terrace deposits of the rivers Severn and Avon and glacial deposits found in association with boulder clay).
3.23. In 2016 there were 6 sand and gravel sites in Worcestershire, three were "active" (in production for some time during the year), two "inactive" (worked in the past and contain permitted reserves) (see Appendix 4) and one was permitted during 2016 but had not
22 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
commenced operation. One site classed its permitted reserves as “non-aggregate uses”8. 30 sites have been proposed in response to "calls for sites" for the emerging Minerals Local Plan in 2014 and 2015, these are being assessed.
3.24. Approximately half of the sales of sand and gravel extracted in Worcestershire remains within the County with the second largest proportion, approximately one third, remaining within the West Midlands area.
3.25. The permitted sand and gravel landbank of permissions at the end of 2016 was equivalent to 241.74 years’ production at 2016 levels. This is above the landbank of approximately 7.15 years, calculated using the 10 year average sales figure.
3.26. Worcestershire has no operational crushed rock quarries, with the last site ceasing production in 2010 and currently undergoing restoration. There has been very limited market interest in working crushed rock in Worcestershire for many years and there are multiple factors relating to crushed rock resources in Worcestershire which may make it difficult for them to be worked9. No sites for crushed rock have been proposed in response to "calls for sites" for the emerging Minerals Local Plan in 2014 and 2015.
Staffordshire
3.27. During 2016, there were 17 operational sand and gravel sites, 2 of which were producing sand only. Sales of sand and gravel in 2016 increased by around 120,000 compared to that of 2015. Sales in 2016 were 0.46 million tonnes greater than the 10 years sales average for 2007 – 2017 but 0.06 million tonnes less than the level of provision made in the Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire.
3.28. Reserves at the end of 2016 were 63.63mt, a decrease of 4.23 million tonnes compared to the preceding year. During 2016, additional reserves were permitted at Seisdon Quarry.
3.29. Sales figures for crushed rock worked for aggregate purposes in Staffordshire are confidential because there is only a single quarry producing crushed rock aggregates. Sales
8 In the 2015 annual survey returns, one of Worcestershire's sites classed its permitted reserves as "non-aggregate" and therefore they have not been included in Worcestershire's figures for permitted reserves in this report, but it is possible that the material could be reclassified and sold as aggregate in future. 9 See Worcestershire County Council's Minerals Local Plan background document "Strategic cross boundary issue: Crushed rock supply in Worcestershire - Summary of action undertaken under the duty to cooperate" (September 2016) at www.worcestershire.gov.uk/mineralsbackground.
23
are therefore combined with crushed rock sales data for Warwickshire and Herefordshire so that the data can be reported.
3.30. The combined crushed rock landbank for Herefordshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire using ten years sales data is 206.3 years.
3.31. The sand and gravel landbank was equivalent to 14.20 years in 2016 based on the latest 10 year sales average.
Warwickshire
3.32. Sand and gravel extracted from the Quaternary deposits have been extensively exploited and traditionally have provided an important source of aggregate for asphalt and concrete. Extraction has focussed on the river terrace deposits along the Tame and Avon along with some pre-glacial deposits around Warwick and Coventry. Glaciofluvial sand and gravel deposits also represent a valuable resource, particularly in the east of the county around Rugby and in the north west of the county around Coleshill.
3.33. Warwickshire saw a continuation of the very low level of sales for sand and gravel in 2016, with a slight increase from 2015 figures at just 0.332mt. Only two sites were producing during this year at Brinklow and Wolston Fields although a third site at High Cross is re- opening shortly. A large extension was approved at Brinklow Quarry for 3.4 million tonnes and the figures have been included in the totals; the Section 106 agreement is expected to be signed in 2017. Based on the 10 year average (and including the recent Brinklow permission) the landbank is approximately 13 years.
3.34. The results of the last Collation of the Aggregate Minerals Survey carried out through the British Geological Survey10 in 2009 shows that of Warwickshire’s output of 0.280 million tonnes, all was used either within Warwickshire (69%) or in the West Midlands region (31%). The production comprised 5% of the West Midlands overall figure.
3.35. The destinations and indicative breakdown of sales are provided in Fig. 4 below.
3.36. The permitted sand and gravel landbank of permissions was equivalent to 13 years’ production in 2016 when based on 10 years average sale.
10 Collation of the results of the 2009 aggregate minerals survey for England and Wales (Communities and Local Government, British Geological Survey -National Environment Research Council and the Welsh Assembly Government). 24 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
3.37. In terms of hard rock, there is a regionally important resource of hard rock which is restricted to the outcrop known as the Nuneaton Inlier, containing some Precambrian to Ordovician age rocks. They form a narrow outcrop of hard rock which extends from Bedworth to Nuneaton and Atherstone11 and these provide one of the few sources of high strength hard rock, known as Diorite, for crushed rock aggregates in central England. These rocks have a high polished stone value (PSV) content and are used mainly for roadstone and rail ballast.
3.38. There is now only one operating quarry in the county at Mancetter in North Warwickshire. Due to reasons of confidentiality, sales are aggregated along with sites in Staffordshire (one site) and Herefordshire (two sites). There is a theoretical landbank of 25 million tonnes but the likelihood of the site coming forward appears remote at present.
3.39. Warwickshire’s sales of crushed rock are generally for the local market. From the results of the Collation of the Aggregate Minerals 2009 BGS Survey, 71% of crushed rock produced in Warwickshire was used in the county. The remainder was exported to other parts of the West Midlands region.
3.40. The combined crushed rock landbank for Herefordshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire using ten years sales data is 219 years compared to 84 years using the 2005 – 2020 apportionment figures.
West Midlands Metropolitan Area (WMMA)
3.41. Sand and gravel resources are spread across the West Midlands Conurbation, but viable resources exist only in Solihull and Walsall, with the former providing more than 90% of primary sand and gravel from the Conurbation.
3.42. Solihull is the only authority of the West Midlands Conurbation with operational mineral sites consisting of three sand and gravel quarries. One of which, Stonebridge Quarry (formerly known as Packington Quarry) was granted an extension during 2015, hence there has been a slight increase in reserves for the area. Where known, most of the sand and gravel sales went to destination within the Conurbation, or elsewhere in the West Midlands.
3.43. The permitted sand and gravel landbank of permissions in the WMMA was equivalent to 11.98 years production in 2016. This is approximately equal to a landbank of 11.58 years, calculated using the 2005 – 2020 apportionment figures.
11 Warwickshire Strategic Stone Study – A Building Stone Atlas of Warwickshire published 2011 (English Heritage)
25
4. Secondary and Recycled Aggregates
4.1. A significant proportion of the wastes recycled for aggregate use are recycled at demolition/ construction sites using mobile processing plant and indeed often reused on-site. Monitoring this particular source of alternative aggregates has not proved possible at a local level and the introduction of site waste management plans (SWMPs) required for some construction projects failed to address this issue and as such, the legislation requiring the production of SWMPs was repealed in 2013.
4.2. In general, the production of recycled aggregates mirrors the economy. When the economy is in a positive position, there is more demolition/building work being undertaken and so more recycled aggregate being produced and used. The opposite is true during an economic downturn. Production rates of recycled aggregate cannot therefore be easily predicted or relied upon.
4.3. With the demise of large sections of heavy industry in the region, notably iron making and coal mining, the scope for processing by-products as secondary aggregates has declined considerably. There is however still some usage of materials from power stations (although under threat as mixed fuels are introduced and coal firing reduces), ceramics and glass industries.
4.4. The best available data for recycled and secondary aggregates is that provided through analysis of information contained in the Environment Agencies Waste Data Interrogator (WDI). The WDI has been used to identify the amount of CD&E waste produced and handled at licenced waste facilities within each Waste Authority and is presented by sub-region in Table xx below. It is likely to only represent a proportion of the recycled aggregates in circulation. The most up-to-date data available from the Environment Agency Waste Data Interrogator is from 2016. For ease of repetition, the data has included all waste categorised as Inert in the WDI, this will include wastes which may not be suitable for use as recycled aggregate. This data provides a high level view of CDEW in the West Midlands. Assumptions on the way waste has been managed are based on the type of facility at which the waste waste managed. These have been categorised in to the following categories
• Recycling/Treatment
• Reclamation/Reuse
• Transfer 26 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
• Landfill
4.5. CD&E materials will be used for engineering works and restoration/recovery projects as well as creating secondary aggregates. In Herefordshire, the amount of CD&E managed in 2016 was 110,011 tonnes, which is comparable to the levels produced at 110,656 tonnes. The majority, 59%, was managed through recycling/treatment facilities, with 31% through transfer and 8% on land.
4.6. In Shropshire, the amount produced was 422,685 tonnes compared to 322,174 tonnes managed, indicating that the area exports more that is produces. In Telford and Wrekin, the opposite is seen with just 132,000 tonnes produced compared to just over 182,000 tonnes managed. In both areas, the most popular management option was landfill at 34% and 41% respectively. Shropshire also had high level of recycling at 23%, with Telford managing around 29% on land. Treatment in both areas was 18%.
4.7. The level of CD&E produced in Staffordshire was just over 907,000 tonnes compared to 1.652mt handled. This indicated the area to be a significant importer of this type of material. Around 41% of CD&E this was managed at landfill sites, with 29% being managed on land. A further 18% was managed at treatment facilities.
4.8. The same can also be seen for Warwickshire with over double that managed than produced. The area produced just over 1.099mt and managed over 2.137mt. Around 66% of the material managed was through landfill with 18% at treatment facilities, and 11% on land.
4.9. Levels of CD&E were relatively equal in Worcestershire with just over 582,000 tonnes produced and 548,000 tonnes managed. 58% of waste managed was through landfill sites and 16% on land.
4.10. Combined, the Met areas produced around 1.795mt and managed around 2.148mt. Birmingham produced the most CD&E with production around 788,000 tonnes, with Sandwell and Walsall being the smallest producers at 89,000 tonnes and 86,000 tonnes. Solihull managed the highest level of CD&E, handling around 554,000 tonnes compared to the 111,000 tonnes it produced. The majority of waste, 45%, was managed through landfill with 27% at transfers facilities and 22% through treatment sites.
Authority Amount Produced (tonnes) Amount Managed (tonnes)
27
Authority Amount Produced (tonnes) Amount Managed (tonnes)
Herefordshire 110,656 110,011
Shropshire 422,685 322,174
Staffordshire 907,536 1,652,866
Telford and Wrekin 132,032 182,414
Warwickshire 1,099,467 2,137,048
Birmingham City 788,745 435,699
Coventry 255,513 127,902
Dudley 248,443 368,980
Sandwell 89,263 308,103
Solihull 111,658 554,566
Walsall 86,539 560,28912
Wolverhampton 215,150 93,014
Total Mets 1,795,312 2,148,533
12 It has been drawn to the attention of the AWP Secretary that the ‘Amount Managed’ figures for Sandwell and Walsall are not strictly correct, because one receiving site appears to have been coded to the wrong WPA in the 2016 Interrogator.
28 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Authority Amount Produced (tonnes) Amount Managed (tonnes)
Worcestershire 582,946 548,728
Total 5,050,633 7,101,794.
Shropshire (and Telford)
4.11. Figures for secondary and recycled materials used as aggregates are currently only collected nationally and sub-nationally. The most recent information indicates that 4.37 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste was generated in Shropshire, Staffordshire and Telford & Wrekin in 2005 (Survey of Arisings and Use of Alternatives to Primary Aggregates in England [CLG 2007]). Of the material generated, 1.58 million tonnes (36%) was recycled as aggregate and 0.15 million tonnes (3%) was recycled as soil. A further 2.26 million tonnes (53%) was used as engineering material and 0.38 million tonnes (8%) was landfilled as waste. However, it is unclear whether this performance is applicable to Shropshire, since Staffordshire’s economy is much larger and may therefore obscure trends in Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin specifically: Environment Agency waste data suggests that about 0.4 million tonnes of inert waste generated in the two areas was handled at licensed waste management facilities in 2016 largely in Shropshire and neighbouring areas. Municipal waste data for 2016 indicates that about 7,000 tonnes of recycled aggregates were recovered from municipal recycling centres and a further 16,500 tonnes of incinerator bottom ash (IBA) was recovered from the energy recovery facility in Shrewsbury.
4.12. Construction and demolition waste is a high density, low value material which, due to transport costs and distances in a predominantly rural area, cannot be moved more than short distances on a cost effective basis. The latest available data indicates that around 97% of construction waste generated in Shropshire in 2012 was managed within the county. Of the construction and demolition waste which was used as engineering material or landfilled in 2005, it is estimated that a further 0.24 million tonnes could potentially be recycled as aggregate (derived from CLG 2007).
29
4.13. Within Shropshire (excluding Telford & Wrekin) there are 29 recycling sites which handle construction and demolition waste. However, only a proportion of the potentially recyclable waste is processed
4.14. Active sites are as follows:
Operator / Site Address Comments
Shifnal Unit 26 Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Transfer Lamledge Lane Station Ind. Estate, Shifnal, Shropshire, TF11 8SD
M N Choudary Unit 1 Waste Transfer & Recycling Lamledge Lane Industrial Estate, Lamledge Lane, Shifnal, TF11 8SD
Samco Apley Estate Waste Transfer & Recycling (Norton) ltd Yard, Windmill Lane, Norton, Shifnal
Peter Griffiths Lowe Cottage Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Farm Transfer Station Lowe Cottage Farm, Lowe, Wem, Shropshire, SY4 5UE
Tudor Griffiths Wood Lane Co-Disposal Landfill Site (including recycling activity) Transport Ltd Landfill Site Wood Lane Landfill Site, Wood Lane, Colemere, Ellesmere, Shropshire, SY12 0HY
Veolia E S Waymills Civic Amenity & Waste Transfer Station Shropshire Ltd Industrial Estate, Whitchurch
30 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Operator / Site Address Comments
Ches & Son Unit G10, Wem Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Skip Hire Industrial Estate, Soulton Road, Wem SY4 5SD
A R Richards Warrant Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Ltd hangar, Tern Hill
PTS Skip Hire Unit 2, Parry's Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Yard, The Oaks, Shawbury Heath SHREWSBURY SY4 4EA
Tudor Griffiths TG Waste Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Transport Ltd Transfer Station Maesbury Road, Oswestry, Shropshire, SY10 8NR
Veolia E S Glovers Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Shropshire Ltd Meadow, Maesbury Road, Oswestry, Shropshire
Mr Gwynfor Ifton Colliery Transfer Station taking Non-Biodegradable Wastes Davies Ifton Heath St Martins Shropshire SY11 3DA
Loosemores Battlefield Transfer Station taking Non-Biodegradable Wastes (Transport) Transfer Station Limited Loosemores Yard, Battlefield, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY4 3DE
Veolia E S Battlefield Civic Amenity and Transfer Station Shropshire Ltd Integrated Waste 31
Operator / Site Address Comments Management Facility, Vanguard Way, Battlefield, Shrewsbury
Harry Price Buildwas Inert landfill and recycling of secondary aggregates Sand & Gravel Quarry, Ironbridge, Telford
H Evason & Co Dorrington Inert Recycling Quarry, Dorrington, Shrewsbury, SY5 7ED
E- On Uk Plc Devil's Dingle Inert landfill Landfill
E- On Uk Plc Ironbridge A Inert landfill
Mr W Cullis land adjacent to Sorting skip waste and storage of recyclable waste and non- (Budget Skips) Engine House, recyclable waste prior to recovery/disposal elsewhere Cruckmeole, Nr Hanwood
Mark Price Skip part of Sorting skip waste and storage of recyclable waste and non- Hire Cruckmeole recyclable waste prior to recovery/disposal elsewhere Brickyard, Hanwood, Shrewsbury
GA Recycling The Shed, Non-hazardous waste transfer, recovery and recycling and as a Boreatton base for a skip hire business Lodge, Near Baschurch
Wades Skip Land at Waste transfer station for sorting and recycling in connection Hire Monkmoor with an existing skip hire business Farm Industrial Estate Monkmoor Shrewsbury
ADH Transport Boreton Farm, Recycling operation comprising sorting, crushing and baling of (Mr Andrew Boreton, Cross waste materials Hunt) Houses, Shrewsbury
Dorset Skips Dorset Farm, Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station
32 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Operator / Site Address Comments Queen Street, Shrewsbury Shropshire SY1 2JS
Mr George L M S Skips Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Wilkie Transfer Station Bromfield Garage, Bromfield, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 2BT
Veolia E S Craven Arms Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Shropshire Ltd HWRC Long Lane, Craven Arms, Shropshire
J McGrath J McGrath Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Stn (Tenbury) Ltd Transfer Station Temeside, Temeside, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 1JH
Steven J Old Timber Storage and processing of inert waste materials Weaver Yard/Railway (Woofferton) Sidings at Ltd Station Road, Woofferton, Near Ludlow
Worcestershire
4.15. There were no industrial processes in Worcestershire which were known to produce secondary aggregates in 2016. However, there is potential for some provision of secondary aggregates in the future13. There is no reliable information to establish the level of production or use of recycled aggregates in Worcestershire, although the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy (2012) estimates construction and demolition waste arisings of 419,520 tonnes per annum which could potentially provide recycled aggregate.
An Energy from Waste Plant was under construction in 2016 at Hartlebury, near Kidderminster, and commenced operation in 2017. This plant is predicted to produce 40,000 tonnes per annum of incinerator bottom ash which may be capable of being used as secondary aggregate, although further processing would be required to enable this. An application for an Incinerator Bottom Ash Processing and Recovery Facility at Hill and Moor Landfill Site was under consideration in 2016 (planning permission was granted in January 2017). This facility is tied to the life of the Hill and Moor Landfill Site and is limited to processing 50,000 tonnes per annum of Incinerator Bottom Ash. 33
Herefordshire
4.16. In November 2015 planning permission was granted for an inert waste recycling facility at a former sand and gravel quarry site at Lugg Bridge. The 30 hectare quarry ceased to operate in 2005 and the largely worked out site has since reverted back to agriculture with lakes. The area for the recycling facility previously housed plant and storage/stockpile areas for the quarry output of graded sand and gravel. In 2013 permission was granted to use the area as a storage and haulage yard for new or ‘as-dug’ construction materials. Another permission was also granted in 2013 for the continuation of the already existing read-mix concrete plant by the former quarry operator.
4.17. The new recycling facility accepts inert material arising from construction and demolition projects for processing. This will enable materials to be screened to produce recycled aggregate, hardcore and screened soils for use at other development sites and for general sale. The facility can accept up to 264,000 tonnes per annum of inert waste for processing and recycling. In 2016, the sales total for recycled and secondary materials for aggregate uses amounted to 65,197 tonnes. The majority (92%) was sold within the county, whilst the remaining 7% was equally split between destinations in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Shropshire and south east Wales.
Staffordshire
4.18. A survey was carried out by Staffordshire County Council but no data was returned by industry.
West Midlands Conurbation Birmingham
Birmingham has a significant number of secondary and recycled aggregates production sites, which are listed in the table below. Information on the capacity of some sites was obtained as part of the evidence on waste produced for the Birmingham Development Plan in 2009 and 2010, and further evidence was gathered for the 2015 LAA, but capacity information is not available for all of the sites.
Operator / Site Address Comments
209–211 Secondary and recycled aggregate facility, also RMX concrete Aggregate Walsall Road, plant on same site. Site accepts concrete, masonry, bricks, tiles Industries Perry Barr, and ceramics, mixed C&D, road planings asphalt cobbles and Birmingham Birmingham, paving slabs, spent railway ballast and stone and produces B42 1TY graded aggregates.
34 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Operator / Site Address Comments 253 Bordesley Armac Green Road, One of two sites operated by the same demolition contractor in Demolition Birmingham, the West Midlands, the other is in Solihull. B8 1BY c/o Civil Amenities Site producing secondary aggregates for the block industry, Depot, foam concrete and road construction from incinerator bottom Ballast Tameside ash sourced from municipal energy from waste plants. Phoenix Drive, Castle Processing involves recovery of recyclable metals, and most of Bromwich, the rest is useable aggregate. The processing capacity of the Birmingham, site is 75,000 TPA. B35 7AG 251 Bordesley Green Rd, One of several recycling facilities in this location. Site accepts C & J Bordesley asphalt, brick, used foundry sand, mixed CD and E waste, Recycling Green, concrete and whole tyres and produces capping, sub-base, Birmingham, aggregates for concrete and pipe bedding. B8 1BY Blews St, Demolition contractor which provides a recycling service for City Aston, their clients. Company website indicates that the recycling Demolition Birmingham, operations are based around their demolition contracts, most of Contractors B6 4EP which are in the West Midlands.
One of the first ‘urban quarries' to be developed in the West Midlands by local demolition contractor Coleman and Company. Shady Lane is where the company's head office is based and also includes a recycling facility although their main recycling operation is at Meriden Quarry in Solihull. Shady Lane Shady Lane, site has capacity of up to 120,000 TPA according to the Coleman and Great Barr, company website. The Shady Lane facility produces various Company – Birmingham, graded recycled aggregate products from excavated soil, Shady Lane B44 9ER including clay, building sand, and graded granular (Type 1) fill materials of various specifications. Website indicates they also carry out on-site recycling of waste for use on-site by the client, and that they also produce high volumes of clean, good quality, certified recycled aggregate for sale from this - products are sold from Meriden Quarry site.
Demolition contractor which provides a recycling service for their clients, including management of site waste. Technical Arden House, work undertaken for the Birmingham Development Plan Arden Rd, indicates that they process brick, mixed CD&EW and concrete DSM Saltley, and sell graded aggregate, and that three-quarters of the Birmingham, crushing operations are carried out on-site. Capacity estimated B8 1DE to be 35,000 TPA, based on estimated annual throughput of mobile plant in 2009/10.
194 Yardley Demolition/ excavating contractor which also recycles C&D F C Rd, waste. Operations are mostly carried out on-site. Aerial
35
Operator / Site Address Comments Richardson Birmingham, photographs show sorting and processing of material being B27 6LR carried out on this site, but it is small and constrained by housing development so on-site capacity is likely to be limited.
Lafarge Tarmac's ‘in-house’ road planing company which processes road planings from the Highways Agency and local highway authorities (under contracts) into high quality secondary aggregates, and supplies the end products to asphalt manufacturers, the construction industry and other Adderley private sector customers. The facility in Birmingham is one of National Road Road South, only three in England so it is likely to be accepting road Planing Saltley, planings from a wide area. Contracting brochure available (Tarmac) Birmingham, online indicates that these sites together produce 0.5 million B8 1AD tonnes of recycled road planings each year. Capacity is estimated to be around 100,000 TPA based on the assumption that the capacity of the replacement facility proposed at Small Heath Sidings in 2014 (since superseded by a proposal to relocate to Washwood Heath Sidings) is similar to the existing.
15 - 17 Green Demolition contractor which recycles construction and Lane, demolition waste (primarily brick and concrete) into aggregates. PBM Bordesley Site is very small and according to their website they do on-site Contractors Green, recycling and crushing, so this is probably their main office/ Ltd Birmingham, depot for plant and equipment rather than where the recycling B9 5BU actually takes place.
Site accepts demolition hardcore, rubbish and green waste and produces graded aggregates, capping, sub-base, pipe bedding, 34 Redfern crushed concrete and brick and concrete fines. Evidence T & T Rd, Tyseley, produced for Birmingham Development Plan indicates that the Aggregates Birmingham permitted capacity is 75,000 TPA, but actual operational throughput is likely to be a lot less than this judging by the inputs recorded in the Waste Data Interrogator.
One of two materials recycling facilities operated by Weir Waste Services in the West Midlands. Their site in Sandwell (Trinity Street MRF, Oldbury) is larger, but handles C&I waste rather than construction and demolition waste. Evidence Doris Rd, gathered for the Birmingham Development Plan indicates that Bordesley Weir Waste the recycled materials produced at this site are general fill, Green, Services capping, aggregates for concrete, and sub-base and that the Birmingham, permitted capacity of the site is 75,000 TPA. The company B8 1BY website indicates that the two materials recycling facilities in Birmingham and Sandwell have the capacity to process up to 500,000 TPA of waste, although most of this is probably RDF and other materials rather than recycled aggregates.
36 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Coventry
4.19. There is only one known aggregates recycling site in Coventry (see below). However, data has not been collected from this site for monitoring purposes, so it is not possible to estimate the production capacity for recycled aggregates.
Operator / Site Address Comments
The Recycling Centre, This is a large waste recycling facility (MRF) which handles Stonebrook significant quantities of construction and demolition waste, Tom White Way, website indicates that the MRF is capable of recycling 75,000 Waste Longford, tonnes of waste per annum, though this presumably includes Coventry, CV6 more than just construction and demolition waste. 6LN
Dudley
4.20. Dudley produces Industrial By-Products; Demolition and Construction Materials; and Stockpiles or Other Reserves from the following sites:
Operator / Site Address Comments
Lister Road Dudley MBC Council Depot, Waste Care, Lister Road, Dudley MBC does not sell the furnace bottom ash – its contractor Lister Road Netherton, operating the facility being responsible for its removal. Energy from Dudley DY2 Waste Plant 8JW
Oak Farm Clay Pit Himley (Quarry), Formerley owned by Wienerberger Ltd (who had mothballed the Environmental Crooked site and not extracted brick clay for several years) - now owned Ltd, Oak Farm House Lane, and operated by Himley Environmental Ltd (planning permission Quarry Himley, ref P13/1264 refers). Dudley DY3 4DA
Ketley Quarry WCL Ltd have permission for infill and restoration of this brick WCL Ketley Dudley Road, clay quarry (owned by Hinton Perry and Davenhill) – including for Quarry Ltd Kingswinford the production of secondary and recycled aggregates.
Bloomfield Bloomfield Recycling Road, Tipton
37
Operator / Site Address Comments
Planning permission (ref P13/0893) was granted retrospectively M & A Doocey Oak Lane, during January 2014 to produce recycled aggregate from Ltd Kingswinford imported waste (excavated road stone from road repairs etc) to use on-site in producing concrete.
12-14 Dudley Central Pegasus Grab Trading Temporary permission for on-site recycling which expired in Hire Ltd Estate, Shaw 2016. Road, Dudley, DY2 8QX
Sandwell
4.21. Sites in Sandwell producing recycled/ secondary aggregates are listed in the table below. The most significant site is the Bescot Rail Depot, which deals with recycled and reprocessed track ballast, in 2015 the depot dealt with 135,012 tonnes. The track ballast is exported for off-site use in other parts of the UK. The only other site in Sandwell that may be producing secondary aggregates is the Wednesbury Asphalt Plant.
Operator / Site Address Comments
Bescot Rail Sandy Lane, The site deals with recycled and reprocessed track ballast, Depot Wednesbury which is used on the national rail network.
Coating plant, producing full range of asphalt products for construction of roads and other paved areas. MQP website Smith Road, indicates that their asphalt plants use secondary materials Wednesbury Wednesbury, (including waste resin foundry sand from foundries in the West Asphalt Plant West Midlands). Products are therefore made partly from secondary (MQP) Midlands, materials, but no information is provided on annual production WS10 0PB or whether any of the secondary aggregates are produced on- site or are sold off-site.
Solihull
4.22. There are three recycling facilities at existing quarries and landfill sites in Solihull as listed below.
Operator / Site Address Comments
Armac Former Arden Operational landfill site with ancillary recycling operation by a Demolition Brickworks, demolition contractor (also have another site in Birmingham).
38 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Operator / Site Address Comments Coventry Recycling operation is subject to a temporary permission linked Road, to the end date for the landfill site, and is required to cease in Bickenhill, B92 November 2019. 0DY Coleman and Company's main recycling site based at Meriden Quarry, for pre-treating inert waste prior to disposal into the Cornets End Coleman and landfill as part of the restoration programme, site also produces Lane, Company - high quality recycled aggregates for sale. It only has a Meriden, Nr Meriden temporary permission for this use, which is required to cease in Coventry, Quarry December 2026 (linked to the phasing of the quarry). The CV77LF Meriden facility recycles 250,000 TPA according to the company website Quarry Area NRS Waste Care Ltd recycling facility for the storage, crushing, G, screening and re-use of selected construction and demolition NRS Waste Birmingham waste materials. Temporary permission to July 2027 or when Care Road, infilling and restoration of remainder of Area G is completed, Meriden, whichever is the sooner. CV77PL
Walsall
4.23. There are no quarries in Walsall producing secondary aggregates as by-products. There are seven sites within Walsall with permission for the production of aggregates from construction and demolition waste and industrial by-products as identified within the table below, but only five of them were operating in 2016. Of the operational sites, one is a coating plant and another is a temporary waste recovery operation linked to a land restoration scheme, neither of which is likely to be producing any aggregates for off-site sales. Total capacity of the non- operational sites is estimated to be around 35,000 tonnes per annum, and total capacity of the operational sites (excluding the coating plant and the land disposal site) is estimated to be around 100,000 tonnes per annum. Sales of material are estimated to have been approximately 38,000 tonnes for aggregate use during 2015 and 25,000 tonnes for landfill engineering and restoration and soils production No information is available on actual production in 2016 but production for aggregate use is likely to have been similar to production in 2015..
Operator / Site Address Comments
Branton Hill Non-operational site. Former recycling facility at a sand and Quarry, Off Branton Hill gravel quarry which was operating under a CLEUD issued in Chester Road, Quarry 2000 (BC61721P). Operations at the quarry ceased in 2013 and Aldridge, site was still inactive in 2016. . An application for a new quarry Walsall, West haul road and the relocation of the recycling area was approved 39
Operator / Site Address Comments Midlands, in 2013 (11/0943/FL). The new haul road has been partly built, WS9 0NS but the relocation of the recycling area has not been implemented and the quarry has not re-opened. Supporting information with the application indicates an annual throughput for the recycling facility of around 25,000 TPA..
Non-operational site. Site closed in 2011 and was still vacant and inactive in 2016 but has a current planning permission for aggregates recycling granted in 2007 (07/2477/FL/E6) and no Coppice Lane, new permissions have been granted. Supporting information Coppice Lane Aldridge, provided with the application suggested an annual throughput of (Former Bace Walsall, West up to 75,000 TPA, but the site is small and the maximum Groundworks) Midlands, operational capacity of the site is significantly less than this, WS9 9AA around 10,000 TPA based on average inputs recorded in the Waste Data Interrogator when it was operational. The above capacity figure for recycling / production of secondary aggregate includes an estimate of the site capacity.
Operational in 2016. Site has planning permission for aggregates storage and recycling granted in 1992 (BC34476P). The original Off Bescot operator was demolition contractor DSM Demolition (based in A B Waste Road, Walsall, Birmingham) who in later years used it only intermittently as an Management, West ‘overspill’ site. A B Waste relocated their (unlawful) aggregates Bescot Midlands, recycling operations to the site early in 2014. The annual Triangle South WS1 4ND throughput capacity of the site is not known for certain but is estimated to be around 50,000 TPA, based on information provided with the original planning application.
Operational in 2016. Coating plant for production and supply of bituminous mixtures and coated chippings for roads and other paved areas, with an ancillary aggregate recycling centre on-site, Express which received planning permission in 1999 (BC53350P). No Asphalt information currently available about annual production of Darlaston secondary and recycled aggregates, or whether any of the (Aggregate secondary and recycled aggregates produced are sold off-site, as Industries) the site has never been surveyed, although it is likely that most are being used on-site in the manufacture of coated products, so annual production for external sales is assumed to be nil.
Operational in 2016. This is a material recycling facility (MRF) developed by Interserve to process waste generated by the Interserve Group’s construction projects and other operations in Brickyard the Midlands. It can therefore recover aggregates from C&D Road, waste as well as raw materials from C&I waste. Planning Interserve Aldridge, permission was granted in 2010 with modifications approved in MRF Walsall, West 2011 (09/1823/FL and 11/0493/FL) and the facility became fully Midlands, operational in 2012. The estimated capacity in the planning WS9 8SR application was around 50,000 TPA of C&D waste. Returns made in response to previous AWP surveys and annual inputs recorded in the Waste Data Interrogator 2012 – 2016 suggest that operational throughput is around 50,000 TPA in total and that 40 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Operator / Site Address Comments nearly all of the waste processed is Inert C&D waste.
Willenhall Operational in 2016. This is a very small secondary aggregates Trading processing operation within an industrial estate, operating under Estate, off a planning permission granted in 2003 (02/2344/FL/M1). It G & B G Eastacre, specialises in recovery of aggregates from industrial and quarry Morris Willenhall, wastes. The production capacity is very small and is limited by Walsall, West the constraints of the site. An estimate of the annual throughput Midlands, has been included in the overall site capacity above, based on a WV13 2DL return made in response to the 2014 AM Survey.
Operational in 2016, but operations are expected to cease in 2017 as this is a temporary permission. Material produced at this site (up to 37,500 TPA according to the planning application) is for non-aggregate use for landfill engineering/ restoration. The recycling on this site is being carried out under a permission granted in 2014 (14/0191/WA), for the specific purpose of M & A Doocey Land off generating suitable material for infilling former mining voids. All Civil Winterley the material produced at this site is therefore assumed to have Engineering Lane, Rushall, been deposited on-site, and nothing is assumed to have been Ltd, Land off Walsall, West exported for sale off-site. Material produced at this site (up to Winterley Lane Midlands 37,500 TPA tonnes in total according to the planning application) is for non-aggregate use for landfill engineering/ restoration. Inputs recorded in the Waste Data Interrogator 2014 – 2016 have been around 30,000 tonnes in total (nearly 15,000 tonnes in 2014, just over 16,000 tonnes in 2015 and just over 300 tonnes in 2016).
Wolverhampton
There are five secondary and recycled aggregates production sites in Wolverhampton, which are listed in the table below.
Operator / Site Address Comments
Recycling facility and depot operated by demolition contractor Noose Lane, Dismantling which specialises in demolition and industrial dismantling of all Willenhall, and types of buildings and structures and related works. Their main Wolverhampton, Engineering recycling activity appears to be concrete crushing, but the West Midlands, Services company website does not explain what the end products are WV13 3AE or give any indication of annual throughput.
Spring Road, Ettingshall Coating plant, producing full range of asphalt products for Ettingshall, Asphalt Plant construction of roads and other paved areas. Company Wolverhampton, (MQP) website indicates that the plant uses quarried stone from Cliffe West Midlands, Hill (Leicestershire), but that their coating plants also use
41
Operator / Site Address Comments WV4 6JP secondary materials (including waste resin foundry sand from foundries in the West Midlands). Products are therefore made partly from secondary materials, but no information is provided on annual production or whether any of the secondary aggregates are produced on-site or sold off-site.
Recycling facility and depot operated by demolition contractor, they carry out on-site and off-site recycling for developer Mc Auliffe clients. According to their website McAuliffe have had support House, from WRAP to invest in specialist recycling plant and McAuliffe Northcott Road, machinery and WRAP has assisted with the specification of Engineering Wolverhampton, their recycled products. Evidence for the Birmingham West Midlands, Development Plan indicates that the end products are capping WV14 0TP materials (6F2 and 6F1) and granular fill (‘vibrostone’ 50-90mm aggregate) and annual throughput is around 80,000 TPA.
Opened in 2011, produces aggregates from road sweepings SITA 30 Neachells and gully emptyings. Press releases issued at the time indicate Wolverhampton Lane, that the capacity of the plant is 40,000 TPA (50,000 TPA Depot and Wolverhampton, according to SITA), and that the process recovers sand, Transfer West Midlands, washed aggregate and compostable material for re-use by Station WV11 3QQ SITA's customers in road construction, pipe bedding materials or blended with rock salt and used as grit on roads.
Recycling plant operated by Lafarge Tarmac - one of 70 in the country according to the aggregates and asphalt brochure published on their website. The brochure states that the aggregates and asphalt they supply now has up to 50% Millfields Road, recycled content and that their facilities produce around 1.5 Tarmac Ettingshall, million tonnes of high quality recycled aggregates each year. Recycling, Wolverhampton, Website does not indicate what products are made at the Ettingshall West Midlands, Wolverhampton facility but Tarmac produce a wide range of WV4 6JP graded aggregates for different uses, including recycled concrete fines and ballast and capping and fill materials, and it is implicit from the brochure that many of the products include some recycled content.
42 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
5. Transport
5.1. There is a need to record the location and throughput tonnages of rail depots. Operations for despatch are located in Shropshire (but not currently active) and for reception, in Birmingham and Walsall.
5.2. The rail-linked depot facilities in the West Midlands operating in 2016 are listed below:
• Washwood Heath Sidings, Birmingham (CEMEX) – aggregates receiving depot identified on the Network Rail map of Rail Served Aggregates Handling Sites (October 2013). This facility includes an aggregates distribution depot, a RMX plant, a coating plant and a facility for manufacture of railway sleepers. The manufacturing facility produces 600,000 pre-stressed railway sleepers per annum, providing 75% of Network Rail’s sleeper requirements and all of London Underground's requirements. In addition, the coating plant provides around 25% of the West Midlands conurbation's requirement for asphalt, and the distribution hub handles 300,000 tonnes of aggregate products per annum.14 Part of the sidings is earmarked for location of the main construction depot for the HS2 project, which will mean that the existing facilities on the site will need to be relocated, although the original proposed land-take has been scaled back. It was announced in the local press in November 2016 that Tarmac are proposing to develop a new coating plant on part of the disused sidings not affected by HS2. 15
• Small Heath Sidings, Birmingham (Tarmac) – aggregates receiving depot identified on the Network Rail map of Rail Served Aggregates Handling Sites (October 2013) and also on the Network Rail map of Strategic and Supplementary Freight Sites (October 2011). Planning permission was granted in 2014 for a new rail-linked coating plant for processing, storage and distribution of road planings (maximum annual throughput = 100,000 TPA). This was proposed to replace the existing Tarmac National Road Planings facility in Saltley which is due to be relocated to make way for other development. It appears that the development at Small Heath Sidings will not
14 Information published on Birmingham City Council website – see: HS2 Consultations web page: http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/hs2consultations
15 Birmingham Mail 21.11.16: http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/commercial-property/old-railway-sidings- earmarked-new-12198639
43
now go ahead because Tarmac are proposing to develop their new asphalt plant at Washwood Heath Sidings (see above).
• Bescot Rail Depot, Bescot Sidings, Sandwell (Network Rail) - (see 4.17 above) this is a facility for storage, recycling and distribution of rail ballast, and is one of seven such facilities operated by Network Rail across the rail network, which are not shown on Network Rail’s map of Rail Served Aggregates Handling Sites (October 2013). Recycled aggregates produced from spent rail ballast and other re-used/ recycled materials formerly used in the rail network are offered for public sale at the Network Rail (Birmingham) Depot at Aston Church Road in Birmingham.16 The Waste Data Interrogator data 2007 – 2015 indicates that the Bescot Sidings facility has a significant annual throughput capacity of around 175,000 TPA. In April 2017 Network Rail announced that Bescot Sidings is its preferred location for development of a new rail sleeper production facility to replace the existing facility at Washwood Heath.17
• Walsall Cement and Aggregates Depot, Fairground Way (Breedon Group) – this was originally a bulk cement distribution facility only, but has recently (2015) expanded to include a RMX plant and aggregates distribution depot. The site is shown on the Network Rail map of Rail Connected Cement Handling depots (February 2013). The upgraded facility has the capacity to import up to 330,000 TPA of aggregates by rail from sites in Derbyshire. It is operated by Breedon Group, who took over the former operator, Hope Construction Materials in 2016.
16 See Railway Recycling microsite: https://www.railwayrecycling.co.uk/
17 Express & Star 06.04.17: https://www.expressandstar.com/news/business/2017/04/06/bescot-chosen-by-network-rail- for-new-sleeper-factory/, Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd 05.06.17: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds/sleeper-factory- plans-will-secure-manufacturing-jobs-in-the-west-midlands/ 44 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Appendix 1: AWP Membership
Aggregate Working Party Representatives
Chairman Adrian Cooper Team Leader, Environment & Economic Policy Shropshire Council The Shirehall Abbey Foregate Shrewsbury SY2 6ND Tel: 01743 252568 [email protected]
Secretary Carolyn Williams Group Leader: Minerals & Waste Planning Unit Urban Vision Partnership Ltd Civic Centre Chorley Road Swinton Salford M27 5ASTel: 0161 604 7746 [email protected]
Government Representatives
Department for Eamon Mythen Communities and Planning for Minerals and Sustainable Waste Management Team Local Government DCLG Planning Directorate: Infrastructure and Environment Division Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Tel: 0303 44 41654 [email protected]
45
Local Government Representatives
Warwickshire County Council Tony Lyons
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council David Piper
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Maurice Barlow
Staffordshire County Council Matthew Griffin
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Mark Watkins
Worcestershire County Council Marianne Joynes
Herefordshire Council Victoria Eaton
Telford & Wrekin Council Sarah Clifton
Shropshire County Council Andrew Williamson
Walsall Borough Council Dawn Sherwood
Coventry City Council Robert Haigh
Stoke on Trent City Council Tom Lewis
Birmingham City Council Brian Dore
Wolverhampton City Council Tom Podd
Industry Representatives
Mineral Products Association Mark North
Tarmac Nick Atkins
Cemex Shaun Denny
Hanson Keith Bird
British Aggregates Association (BAA) – Breedon Trefor Evans / Peter Huxtable Aggregates
Other Representatives
Environment Agency Jim Davies
46 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Appendix 2: AWP Meeting Minutes
West Midlands Aggregate Working Party Minutes of Meeting Monday 23rd May 2016 11:00 – 13.00 - Birmingham Attendees:
Adrian Cooper Shropshire (Chair) AC
Brian Dore Birmingham BD
David Piper Dudley DP
Dawn Sherwood Walsall DS
Gavin Ashford Telford GA
Hannah Sheldon-Jones Urban Vision (Secretariat) HSJ
Joanne Mayne Stoke JD
Jonathan Evans Urban Vision JE
Marianne Joynes Worcestershire MJ
Mark Watkins Sandwell MW
Matthew Griffin Staffordshire MG
Rob Haigh Coventry RH
Shaun Denny Cemex SD
Tony Lyons Warwickshire TL
Victoria Eaton Herefordshire VE
Apologies:
Harjot Rayet Telford
Jo Davies Breedon Aggregates
Keith Bird Hanson
Kelvin Hall Shropshire
Mark North Mineral Products
47
Mark Page Hanson
Maurice Barlow Solihull
Nicholas Hall Herefordshire
Nick Atkins Tarmac
Tim Claxton Aggregate
No response/Tentative Response:
Andrew Ambrose A L P Ambrose
Eamon Mythen CLG
Jim Davies Environment Agency
Paul Wilcox Warwickshire
Peter Huxtable British Aggregates
48 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Item 1 - Introduction and Apologies
Adrian Cooper (AC) opened the West Midland’s Aggregate Working Party (AWP) Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA) meeting. AC welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited members to introduce themselves for record keeping.
Item 2 – LAA Development
i. Purpose 2.1 AC set out the purpose of this LAA meeting which is specifically referred to in the agreed AWP timetable. The purpose of which is to support the preparation of LAAs and ensure greater consistency among the AWP regions. LAAs are seen as increasingly important and are expressly mentioned within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
ii. Updates from members on their LAA preparation progress 2.2 Dawn Sherwood (DS) has taken stock from last year’s LAA and has prepared information tables. DS asks if it be helpful for Walsall to circulate these tables for consistency, it is important for all members to use the same data. 2.3 AC responds that it would be useful. Action: DS to circulate tables 2.4 AC asked DS if the timetable and collection of information from survey returns are from this year. 2.5 DS responded saying they are looking at trends for housing from this year as a way to assess needs going forward. Last year’s housing/employment trends were not published, but this year more substantial information has been collected, however, there are still significant gaps. 2.6 DS states that Walsall is a consumer of aggregates. Staffordshire has some trends data already, and everyone should be using the same data across the West Midlands to establish demand. 2.7 Vicky Eaton (VE) states that Herefordshire only has 3 quarries. As a consequence they are unable to publish information due to commercial confidentiality. 2.8 AC asks if operators have been contacted to ask permission to publish. 2.9 VE responds, yes, but they do not wish information to be published. 2.10 AC asks if data can be combined with Shropshire’s returns so they can be annonomised to an extent and published. 2.11 Tony Lyons (TL) agreed that Herefordshire can merge their results with Warwickshire if needs be. 2.12 Matthew Griffin (MG) asked that Herefordshire should not be merged with Shropshire, as it would be useful to preserve Shropshire’s figures. Suggested that Herefordshire merge with Worcestershire. 2.13 Marianne Joynes (MJ) suggests merging Herefordshire with Worcestershire. Worcestershire has 4 or 5 quarries so could merge without confidentiality issues. But that means combining Herefordshire’s Sand and Gravel (S&G) with one authority and the Crushed rock (CR) with another. 2.14 Agreed that Herefordshire investigate merging with Worcestershire and Staffordshire as appropriate. 2.15 VE confirms that from the 2015 Herefordshire crushed rock data, there are no significant changes or upturns compared to the previous year’s returns. The new proposed bypass could have an effect. 2.16 AC agrees that the bypass could equal a couple of hundred thousand tonnes over the lifetime of the project.
49
2.17 MG gave an update on Staffordshire. There is nothing unusual from previous years for primary aggregates. No secondary or recycled returns have been received. MG targeted specific sites for returns, but with no success. The power station will be closing in June 2016. 2.18 TL states there has been a poor response received for this year’s survey in Warwickshire. 2.19 DS suggests that estimates will need to be made where returns are poor. DS has made assumptions with missing figures, and has tried chasing on several occasions. Complications around permitting with some sites. 2.20 MG does not have the time or capacity to chase outstanding returns due to the large number of sites. 2.21 AC states there is an issue with time and people power available to chase operators and the benefit this actually brings. Assumptions will have to be made to give a broad indicator of the market for now. 2.22 David Piper (DP) gave an update for Dudley. 7 forms were sent out, 6 have been received, and DP is chasing the remaining site. 2.23 Mark Watkins (MW) gave an update for Sandwell. 1 survey was sent out and the response has been received. 2.24 Brian Dore (BD) gave an update for Birmingham. Lots of requests have been sent out, but no returns as of yet. 2.25 MJ states that secondary/recycled aggregate producers have no incentive to respond and will have already responded to Environment Agency. 2.26 Gavin Ashford (GA) asked if we don’t get responses from industry how do Mineral Planning Authorities (MPA) know what to safeguard. Should the MPA be selling the virtues of the survey to industry? Secondary/Recycled (S/R) producers are not members of the MPA. Is there a regulatory body? 2.27 DS has tried contacting demolition bodies, but has had no luck. 2.28 AC said that some S/R producers are members of EIA but only the large operators. AC agrees that there is not much incentive for them to respond. Suggests using EA data returns as a proxy, this data is not very reliable, but it’s the only option if industry is not responding to surveys. 2.29 AC’s biggest concern is how to meet the demands of the big urban areas. How do we meet local demand without bringing in large amounts of primary aggregates from further afield? No one is expecting self sufficiency in urban areas, but urban areas need to contribute through S/R aggregates. 2.30 GA asks that if the operators don’t respond, is there a way to find out who the end users are? Or if we already know the end users of S/R aggregates could we contact them for information on S/R aggregates? 2.31 AC responds saying no, as this is not registered or tracked in any way. Scale is an issue as there could be a large number of operators. Also, there are often concerns with costs. It is a case of doing the best we can to gather the information. 2.32 BS says it would be useful to bring aggregate source into planning permissions. 2.33 AC responds that this is not practical, it has already been attempted under waste management plans but it did not work in practice, and they have since been dropped. 2.34 DP says returns are often inaccurate. 2.35 AC thinks all these points are helpful to understand the issues before creating the LAA’s. 2.36 MG says Staffordshire has increasing demand of about 5 million tonnes (average), which has come down. Some interest being shown by industry in new permissions and applications but nothing
50 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
concrete yet. Will maintain a list of secondary aggregate sites, but detailed information is not forthcoming. Demand in sand and gravel sales appear to have increased to more than 4.5Mt in 2015. Note 1.5Mt was permitted in the county during 2015 and there are nearly an additional 10Mt (associated with 3 sites) subject to approval but awaiting completion of legal agreements. We aim to update our list of recycling sites, identifying those sites that are operational. 2.37 Joanne Mayne (JM) has made some assumptions, but these are not accurate and is working with MG to sort this out. 2.38 TL’s Warwickshire 2015 figures are collated and ready to be sent out. Need to liaise with other authorities about CR data. TL plans to complete the LAA within the next month or so. A number of planning permissions are currently in the pipeline, with sites waiting to know about allocations, one site is for over 3 million tonnes. There is more interest from operators in the county. With their S/R surveys, 10 were sent out, and only 1 has returned. However, a number of sites are facing enforcement issues and so are unlikely to respond. Warwickshire need to progress their LAA because of plan consultation. More interest in S&G even though the output figures are low. There are 2 S&G sites, operators are allowing publication of the data. With C&D waste sites, TL sent 9/10 requests, and only had 1 response from an operator who currently has a planning application in for review. 2/3 of the sites are taking enforcement action for breach of conditions, therefore a response is not expected. No unusual trends, everything is the same as the past few years. 2.39 DS asks if enforcement is due to breach of conditions. TL says it is. 2.40 Rob Haigh (RH) gave an update for Coventry, which has no primary production. Secondary production from the 7 sites provided good returns last year. RH chases outstanding operators with a phone call, if there is still no response, a monitoring officer visits the site and asks for data operators, which has a high success rate. 2.41 AC asks if Birmingham has a monitoring officer to help up their return rate. 2.42 BD says lots of monitoring occurs but there is only 1 officer. 2.43 DS has no dedicated monitoring person. 2.44 AC says this is a cost/resource issue with some authorities. A good tip if it can be done, but many authorities don’t have dedicated monitoring staff. 2.45 DP’s response from operators has been consistent with past returns. Six out of seven sites returned. Seventh said they will not be responding, last year’s figures have been used as an estimate. This is an adequate response for this year, but if this is an ongoing issue then figures will be skewed. 2.46 MW says Sandwell’s second largest aggregate site on Victoria Street has been left vacant. Network Rail’s site has responded, they ship aggregate across the country. Third site has enforcement action ongoing so not expecting a return. No large scale housing sites. Not very much to go on. 2.47 GA has nothing to report. 2.48 MJ is not sure if S/R form was sent out for Worcestershire. May need to look at EA figures. There is an assumption built into the national apportionment figures, which will be quoted within the LAA. 2.49 AC has concerns over whether enough S/R aggregate is produced in the West Midlands to meet the national expectations. 2.50 MJ says Worcestershire has one site for fill sand, would this be classed as an aggregate? 2.51 Shaun Denny (SD) thinks a fill sand business would struggle unless the product was sold very locally. 2.52 AC believes that if it is being sold offsite then you could count it depending on the end use. 2.53 MJ suggests perhaps they are selling to keep planning permission for now, there are some enforcement issues.
51
2.54 AC advises that it is best not to include in LAA given uncertainties. 2.55 AC provides an update for Shropshire. Almost all primary aggregates data has been returned. Very locally responsive to circumstances. Quantity of aggregate consumption varies. The level of development has increased significantly but this is from being very little following the recession. Level of development varied and rather patchy, with some areas completing 56 houses over 2 years and others 600. For S/R aggregate figures, AC will use EA data but will keep a list of active S/R sites. EA data will put reports a year behind as we have to wait on EA releasing data in September/October. CR figures for Shropshire last year were high, expecting the same this year. Expecting rail movements to start happening in the next year or so. Possibly may get another production site, meaning there will be 4. There is a slight upward trend, but nothing dramatic, wouldn’t expect to rise at that level forever. No definitive figures yet. 2.56 MG asks if Shropshire are expecting crushed rock to vary. 2.57 AC responds no, but there is an issue with High Specification Aggregate (HSA) which will soon be distributed by rail, which will increase the market and will likely increase sales. Sales of aggregates in Shropshire is increasing in line with markets.
iii. Future demand 2.58 AC says it has been agreed to take projected housing growth demand as proxy for aggregate demand. Although changes in housing completions can directly impact on this. There has been an upturn in business, so it can be an indirect relationship, but housing demand is probably a reasonable indicator of demand. Are areas working out targets for current plans? 2.59 DS says Walsall’s next round of plans will determine where growth will go. Next core strategy due in 2026. 2.60 VE says Herefordshire’s plan runs until 2031. 2.61 AC says this should provide good data on growth going forward. 2.62 MG is currently monitoring housing numbers. North Yorkshire has looked at adding projected housing growth to 10 year average sales as a way to predict aggregate usage. Staffordshire did not consider this appropriate for their area. Need to regularly review sales and reserve figures and keep an eye on landbank, in order to review plans if needs be. The robustness of landbanks needs a supported approach, inspectors are aware of change to local plans, with many authorities completing partial reviews. Trying to keep things simple and flexible. See paper at Appendix 1 (representation made by the Mineral Products Association in respect of the new MLP for Staffordshire). 2.63 At a recent MPA conference attended by AC and other members, the Government proposed a review of plan processes with the aim for plans to go from preparation to submission (and hopefully adoption) within two and half years. This change would affect the scope of what can be achieved and the nature of a plan due to resource constraints. This is likely to mean fewer site allocations as they are often controversial and require lengthy consultation with the public. 2.64 SD thinks industry see site allocations as extremely useful. But we can live without them if there is a responsive policy in the plan to provide for industry to respond in good time. Action: AC to circulate any literature from the MPA conference 2.65 AC thinks that looking ahead it’s reasonably predictable, and there is currently adequate flexibility to handle short term changes. 2.66 MG says that as we have just come out of a heavy recession; the industry is still finding its feet. Industry needs more time to recover and to identify sites. A lot of current activity is looking at
52 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
existing sites. Site search areas are controversial. Need to find capacity if sites don’t come forward or they get dropped. Industry needs time to establish a position. Staffordshire have been looking at a controversial site in plan. How will sites be replaced when they aren’t taken forward, secondary won’t meet demand? 2.67 SD does not think there is a huge amount of appetite for additional production capacity because of cost. Trying to maintain what we have is of importance. Industry does not want to invest in new sites/new capacity due to the high initial costs. Will look to maintain existing capacity. In Cemex’s case aggregate is used in concrete plants, therefore production needs to be located in close proximity to plants. 2.68 AC says minerals are currently being worked outwards; but sites are more expensive further away from urban areas due to increased transportation costs. Strategic geography must be thought out, the most proximate/easiest to produce aggregate is already in production or has already been worked out. The main markets are in larger urban areas. Over time we are going to work our way out of these areas. 2.69 DS says Walsall has S&G, but it’s in the area where people want housing and so it may not be worked out. 2.70 AC says sites that are currently not cost effective may become more competitive. 2.71 SD’s experience is that building more railheads rather than new quarries can be quicker and cheaper for sites that are away from urban areas. It is easier to get planning permission and requires less capital investment, depending on where it’s located. Derbyshire and Leicestershire are going down this route. 2.72 AC agreed that trains can increase market reach of a quarry and allows further transportation of materials cost effectively. 2.73 SD thinks rail will be more important in coming years as it becomes more cost effective. 2.74 AC says the West Midlands have plenty of S&G reserves but they are not near markets. It is costly to put in infrastructure and lots of environmental designations. This raises interesting questions about hard rock, which is all currently on rail. 2.75 SD thinks this will increase preference for hard rock quarries with existing rail access as they are able to meet demand. 2.76 TL has found it straight forward to get housing completion figures from boroughs for Warwickshire. Planning Inspectorate did not have great interest in completion figures. Told to talk about 10 year average, this is due to lack of methodology. 2.77 SD does not think the Inspector is disinterested, rather there is no other method agreed or tested to date. 2.78 AC says that when covering this issue in the LAAs, local circumstances are going to make the LAAs slightly inconsistent. But we should try and aim for a consistent level of detail. 2.79 DS thinks there will be an issue for Walsall, due to an increasing supply to Birmingham, how will the Birmingham shortfall be met? The M5 & M6 mean material can be transported in very easily. Staffordshire is going to be heavily relied on for supply. CR is mostly from Shropshire and the East Midlands. 2.80 AC says this represents a Duty to Cooperate issue between the East and West Midlands. An element of sub-national planning is needed. AC asks TL what kind of engagement is had with Leicestershire? 2.81 TL replies that there are limited conversations but there will be a quarry straddling both areas with a planned sizeable extension. More communications planned going forward. Limited communication
53
with Northamptonshire as not a lot of cross border communication during the last survey in 2009. Warwickshire has fairly robust discussions with Gloucestershire. 2.82 MG asks when will the BGS 2014 survey data be released. 2.83 AC has not heard anything recently, but will chase Eamon and notify the AWP as soon as any information becomes available. Action: AC to ask Eamon about progress with the BGS 2014 survey 2.84 JM thinks housing figures are likely to rise in the future. Figures are a step behind and likely to be influenced by Cheshire East and the development of HS2. 2.85 AC agrees that construction of HS2 and increase in housing associated with development of HS2 will impact greatly on aggregate demand. 2.86 RH says Coventry’s plan was submitted in April, examination is expected this summer with adoption next year. Plan will last until 2031. Massive upturn in housing planned for (42,500), with a spike in delivery towards the end of plan. How will Super SEP effect aggregate demand? 2.87 AC thinks there will be an effect but can’t be sure of the extent of the effect. HS2 will make Crewe a potential commuter territory into London with HS2. It’s a case of trying to work out what’s going to happen in practice. 2.88 MG says there have been discussions at the Planning Officer’s Society (POS) group. There will be a need for devolved areas to plan for aggregate demand. All unknown at the moment for Staffordshire. But other areas are having to think about natural resources, it is difficult to know what to do until we know what is expected. 2.89 AC suspects that combined authorities will need to act more like a city region, with rural areas meeting demand of urban areas. Until we have structure to engage, we can’t make any progress yet. 2.90 RH informs the group that devolution looks at transport in part. The focus is on combined authorities and is based on strategic transportation. Strategic planning is not yet on the radar. 2.91 GA suggests using housing development as a proxy for aggregates. If you know travel times for sites you know the markets. 2.92 AC says that where rail heads come in you need a good sized rail head. To serve a railhead you will need more than one supplier to make it worthwhile. Are you going to get delivery points to where it’s needed? Can then build up and use trains. It can give you a broad range of what your demand might be. 2.93 SD says trains are complicated as costs are worked out differently to HGV movements. Once on a train aggregates are cheap to move around the country. Infrastructure is expensive, so it only works where existing rail heads exist. Operators prefer to use trucks, which are cheap to source, rather than spending millions to set up new/improved rail infrastructure. 2.94 MJ says Worcestershire has chased housing and new business data from all districts, not yet had a full response. MJ has made assumptions of 50 tonnes per house to see what it would be. Over the last 10 years its 9-25%. 2.95 AC is concerned with use of 10 year average figures; because if 10 year sales and production falls then landbank requirements shrink meaning new sites aren’t needed. At what point do you plan for the future? Are we only responding to commercial trends? 2.96 SD agrees that the 10 year average is going to be a problem. Housing completions are on the rise but 10 year averages are down due to the recession. Industry has to keep close eye on LAA’s. Review of plans never quite work because resources are never in place for an adequate review. A big concern when authorities continue using 10 year average, unless everyone agrees it’s a 54 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
reasonable proxy. Industry becomes reluctant to move forward as we end up planning for decline by default. 2.97 AC thinks building rates are a good proxy when planning for demand. 2.98 SD says the issue going forward with using the 10 year average is that it is affected by depression, and yet we are having to plan for more housing. 2.99 AC asks if anyone picked up on the mineral development as economic growth issue. The MPA conference recently discussed aggregate development as a driver for economic growth with a 16% influence on GDP. No part of British industry is immune from mineral production Strategic plan justified if aggregates are a base for a large section of the economy. There’s a just reasoning for intervention because of the scale. Having proactive planning for this sector should be supported in principle. Balance between environmental and economic issues. 2.100 MJ says she used this argument in Worcestershire’s Draft plan. 2.101 AC says this is a facilitation role for economic development.
iv. Formatting of LAA’s 2.102 AC does not envisage an absolute format. There will be local differences and areas won’t focus on the same issues, however we do need to have the same level of detail. AC asks if there are any comments on the draft Executive Summary which has been put together by MJ and DS. Does it need amending? AC thinks it’s useful. 2.103 MG made a comment on the front page with regards to annual production capacity, it would be useful to indicate plan provisions on the front page with details of demand as it’s easier to identify rather than search the document. 2.104 AC says that agreeing the formatting of LAAs should make the annual report easier to write as the information will be consistent. Keeping LAAs short will be helpful, need to keep to an agreed formatting. This is a snapshot; the table should be used without adapting. AC asks members to look at the revised format when distributed by MG and provide any comments within a week. Action: MG to modify and send around to the AWP for comment. AWP members to make comments by 31st May. 2.105 AC asks if there are any other LAA formatting comments. 2.106 MG would like to see details of operational capacity, planning applications etc. Possibly format industry returns to highlight possible future changes. Need to highlight future changes to pattern of supply in region. See BGS report, “An evidence based approach to predicting the future supply of aggregate resources in England” (see rundown charts). 2.107 AC thinks this is a sensible idea. Members need to flag up changes or upcoming planning permissions which will affect production. We have a couple coming in which will make a difference to the patterns of supply. 2.108 MG says market reports look at nationally produced figures, which are skewed by high development in the south east. Need to West Midlands figures. Is this something we can pick up in the regional/annual report? 2.109 AC says the 2013 report lacks detail, and it doesn’t look forward. The new Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) needs to take more detail from LAA’s to detail possible future demand. Needs to tell us where we are going, we need to anticipate future demand and trends in the 2015 report. 2.110 MJ had a return that was not used in the LAA. 2.111 AC asks MJ to contact him separately to discuss this.
55
Action: MJ to contact AC about LAA returns. 2.112 AC stresses that going forward; all LAAs need to feed into the AMR rather than the other way round. The West Midlands AMR needs to draw together a wider picture from the AWP areas. The links need to be made stronger. All members should try to stick to our timetable, and don’t publish until all LAAs are complete. Action: All members to circulate LAAs for comment in July. 2.113 MG says that some members are forced to publish due to Local Plan delivery. MG asks what to do if destination information has not been provided. Assuming that we don’t need to answer this if we haven’t received anything. 2.114 AC responds that this is correct.
Item 3 – Date of next meeting
3.1 AC asks Hannah Sheldon-Jones (HSJ) to arrange a meeting for September. 3.2 HSJ asks if members are happy to continue meeting in Birmingham and if BD is able to host again. 3.3 BD is able to host and asks HSJ to liaise separately with him to make arrangements. 3.4 Members are happy to meet in Birmingham again. Action: HSJ to arrange meeting for September.
Item 4 – AOB
4.1 AC invited members to discuss any topics not yet covered for the aggregate portion of the agenda. No other comments were raised.
Item 5 – Non-Aggregate’s
5.1 MG raises a point about the clay tables distributed by AC in advance of the meeting. We have included monitoring indicators in our plan. Can we do this as a group? 5.2 AC says the map has been produced to look at supply across regions and AC is currently engaging with the Clay Federation/British Ceramic Confederation. Hoping they may attend the next AWP meeting planned for September. There are some cross boundary and duty to cooperate issues. 5.3 DP asks how the clay map was created. 5.4 DS responds saying the map was created from easting and northing data supplied by West Midlands areas. 5.5 DP notes that the map includes active and closed sites, need to distinguish between the two. 5.6 DS agrees as the original table included all information of operational and closed sites. Action: AC and DS to update the Clay Map to distinguish between closed and operational sites. Those that have been demolished need removing from the map.
56 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
West Midlands Aggregate Working Party Minutes of Meeting Monday 6th October 2016 10:30 – 13.40 - Birmingham Attendees:
Adrian Cooper Shropshire (Chair) AC
Brian Dore Birmingham BD
David Payne Mineral Products Association DP
Harjot Rayet Telford HR
Keith Bird Hanson KB
Lee Brownsword British Ceramic Confederation LB
Mike Halsall Urban Vision (Secretariat) MH
Marianne Joynes Worcestershire MJ
Mark Watkins Sandwell MW
Matthew Griffin Staffordshire MG
Rob Haigh Coventry RH
Ranjit Sagoo Warwickshire RS
Shaun Denny Mineral Products Association SD
Tom Lewis Stoke TL
Victoria Eaton Herefordshire VE
Apologies:
Eamon Mythen CLG
David Piper Dudley
Joanne Mayne Stoke
Jim Davies Environment Agency
Jo Davies Breedon Aggregates
Mark North Mineral Products
Maurice Barlow Solihull
57
Nicholas Hall Herefordshire
Nick Atkins Tarmac
Paul Wilcox Warwickshire
Tim Claxton Aggregate
Tony Lyons Warwickshire
58 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Item 1 - Introduction and Apologies
1.1 AC welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited members to introduce themselves for record keeping. Mike Halsall (MH) announced apologies.
Item 2 – Minutes of last meeting
2.1 Matthew Griffin (MG) requested changes to paragraphs 2.66 (trim down to just highlight future challenges of new sites after reserves are depleted) and 2.106 (just highlight future changes to LAAs could include operational sites in each area to get idea of future capacity issues) – no other changes requested – minutes approved subject to changes. Action: MH to update Minutes, finalise and circulate
Item 3 – Annual Surveys i.) 2014 Annual Report – Ratification 3.1 MH ran through the key figures of 2014 report and asked if any changes are required to the report. 3.2 MG queried the relevance of apportionment figures within Table 5. The group agreed that apportionment figures should be removed and referred to within the main body of text instead. 3.3 MG also noted that the LAA figure for Shropshire within Table 5 appears incorrect. Action: MH to update report accordingly 3.4 David Payne (DP) noted that conclusions should be drawn regarding the sub-regions contribution to regional supply. 3.5 AC said he will discuss this with MH and find a solution. AC also highlighted that AWPs should be reporting across boundaries and reporting to see trends. 3.6 MH suggested that cross boundary reporting can be discussed at the AWP Secretaries meeting on 20th October and reported back to next WM AWP meeting. 3.7 DP noted that an industry report has been produced on supply options with organisations looking at forecasting and will forward to MH for distribution. Actions: AC and MH to discuss additional text on WM contribution to regional supply for future reports (2016 onwards) MH to request that cross boundary reporting be added to Agenda of AWP Secretaries Meeting DP to forward industry report to MH for circulation
ii.) 2015 Annual Report – Update 3.8 MH provided update and draft 2015 report progress and explained still needing additional information from two authorities. 3.9 DP and Ranjit Sagoo (RS) requested that the 2015 report figures be checked against the figures within the latest draft LAAs. 3.10 MG requested that reporting text from individual authorities be consistent and should cover the same topic areas for ease of comparison. Actions: MH to check 2015 report figures against LAAs and request any additional text from authorities to ensure consistent reporting information.
59
Item 4 – LAAs 4.1 AC highlighted that the agreed timetable for AWPs has slipped and so three will be presented at the meeting and comments sought afterwards. i.) Shropshire / Telford 4.1 AC presented the LAA for Shropshire and Telford and then invited questions / comments. 4.2 Marianne Joynes (MJ) queried whether it is worth highlighting that exports from Shropshire occur and are likely to continue. 4.3 Shaun Denny (MPA) highlighted that three inactive sites always appear within reports and queried whether it is worth relying on these figures moving forward. 4.4 AC explained that the authority is not reliant on the sites in the sense that they are not stopping alternative sites coming forward and at least one site is expected to come online shortly. 4.5 DP said the graphs and demand v supply analysis are very clear and useful DP requested that ‘target’ be removed from the landbank heading as this is not a target, but a minimum requirement. 4.6 Keith Bird (KB) noted that ‘Million’ tonnes is missing from executive summary tables. ii.) Warwickshire 4.7 RS presented the LAA for Warwickshire and then invited questions / comments. 4.8 DP questioned whether the drop in sales between 2008/9 was due to a site being mothballed or closed. 4.9 SD explained that this was a site closure and that the drop does not relate to a decrease in demand within Warwickshire – this should be highlighted within the text. The LAA shows that completions area up. 4.10 DP highlighted that all plans should allow for windfall sites as landbank is not a target figure. 4.11 DP suggested that arrows be included within all LAAs in the executive summary to highlight changes in figures compared to previous year. 4.12 MJ explained it was too late to add to Worcestershire’s 2015 LAA but will add to next year’s report. 4.13 MG and AC will add to Staffordshire’s and Shropshire’s and Telford’s. 4.14 SD asked whether the LAA would be consulted upon more widely by the Council and asked how all LAA consultation could be opened-up to all of the industry. The group discussed this and decided would be too late to action anything for 2015 reports but would be considered for next year’s reports. Consultation through MPA would only involve 85% of industry – needs to be all-inclusive. Actions: All authority representatives to think of potential methods of consultation for LAAs so that all of industry can be involved. AC to investigate using RTAB website for consultations and for uploading AWP Agendas and Minutes. iii.) Staffordshire 4.15 MG presented the LAA for Staffordshire and then invited questions / comments. 4.16 AWP members suggested more time is required to enable them to digest the contents of the LAAs. Action: Any comments to be provided to MH on all three LAAs by 21st October. Item 5 – Progress on Development Plan 5.1 Telford – Local Plan EiP programmed for November. There is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and MPA. 5.2 Stoke – Producing a joint Local Plan with Newcastle Under Lyme with an Issues consultation having taken place in Spring 2016. They are commissioning an Open Space document with Spatial Options consultation due in 2017.
60 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
5.3 Coventry – Currently in EiP period for Local Plan with comments being made by MPA. There are no minerals working sites within Coventry, all secondary agg. Main mods are expected on the plan. 5.4 Sandwell – Undertaking a review of the Joint Core Strategy, mainly focussed on housing, not minerals. Issues and Options consultation is programmed for consultation in March 2017. 5.5 Worcestershire – A full consultation on draft plan took place Dec 2015 – March 2016, including a call for sites. An additional consultation may be required next year. 5.6 Herefordshire – Consultants are producing a minerals and waste Local Plan. Evidence base, Issues and Options and a second Call for Sites programmed for 2017. A first Call for Sites has already taken place. 5.7 Staffordshire – Have consulted on modifications following hearing sessions which took place in March and April. The Inspectors report is awaited and adoption is programmed for the New Year. 5.8 Warwickshire – Seeking approval for publication of Local Plan, hoping to commence in November. Eight minerals sites are being put forward within the Plan. 5.9 Birmingham – SoS instructed Council to cease work on the Local Plan in May after being found sound – waiting for a final decision. 5.10 Shropshire – Adopted site allocations last year. Inspector requested a partial review which will commence in 2017. A call for housing, employment and minerals sites is due for consultation in early 2017. 5.11 Solihull – Aiming to publish a draft Preferred Option for Local Plan review in November/ December. Will identify a need to provide between 7.2 and 8.6Mt of primary sand and gravel across Met Area. Preferred Areas providing 2.5Mt with balance being provided within Areas of Search within Solihull and Walsall. 5.12 MH provided an update from CLG that the minerals and waste planning function has been moved into Local Plans with Nick Tennant and Peter Latham responsible for coal, waste, and non-energy minerals and gypsies and travellers. Eamon Mythen will be concentrating on Local Plan intervention. Christopher Bazeley – Rose has joined the team and will be working across an array of policy areas i.e. minerals and waste; land stability; planning for Gypsy and Travellers and local plans when necessary. Christopher will attend some AWP meetings. The AM2014 (National Collation) is delayed due to new Ministers having to review this. Item 6 – Update from Industry 6.1 DP provided an update covering the following. 6.2 POS / MPA are discussing changes required to LAA guidance and would appreciate any feedback from AWP members on current guidance. 6.3 There is a minerals planning survey being undertaken of MPA members which can be circulated to AWP members when finalised. 6.4 There is a campaign on raising awareness of the importance of safeguarding wharves and railheads etc. from increasing development pressures, particularly for housing in the south east. 6.5 AC mentioned that he had raised concerns regarding such safeguarding issues within a consultation response to the West Midlands Land Commission and asked MH to forward consultation details to DP to allow MPA to also respond. Action: MH to forward West Midlands Land Commission consultation to DP. Item 7 – British Ceramic Confederation Update 7.1 Lee Brownsword (LB) presented an overview of the ceramics industry. 7.2 The BCC represents 100 membership organisations. 7.3 A diverse range of products are provided from clay – brick, tiles, drainage, pipes, breaks, wind turbine components, kiln linings, toilets, etc. 7.4 All clay related manufacturing processes involve firing processes.
61
7.5 The BCC has fewer than 10 staff with a very small resource for minerals and so do not have the resources for detailed examination of supply and demand like MPA. Members highlight concerns to BCC and then BCC act to make a representation. 7.6 Most clay extraction sites are co-located with manufacturing facilities such as brickmakers. 7.7 Significant capital is required for investment in kilns etc. with up to 30% of production costs also directed towards energy consumption which is highly intensive. 7.8 Members often raise safeguarding concerns from other developments on both extraction and manufacturing sites. 7.9 BCC is working with MPA on the cutting red tape review. 7.10 Concerns that the proposal changes to the emissions trading scheme post-2020 currently being put forward by UK Government would be damaging to the sector and would mean sites having to purchase a greater proportion of allowances to protect other energy intensive industries such as steel manufacturing. 7.11 A third of manufacturing has been lost since the recession began and there has been a surge of imports in recent years. 7.12 MG highlighted a need for supply/demand of clay resources to be monitored. Staffs supplies clay to W.Mids conurbation but no mechanism in place to establish if any demand/supply issues. 7.13 It was discussed whether an industry survey might be a route to provide further information. BCC will discuss further with its members and feedback to the group. Item 8 – Any issues to be raised at AWP Secretaries / CLG meeting – 20th Oct? 8.1 Provide feedback of suggestions for LAA improvements. 8.2 Any further AM2014 update? 8.3 Co-ordinating reports on a national scale (as discussed earlier). Item 9 – Date of next meeting 9.1 Next meeting to be Spring Action: MH to send invitation request through liaison with Brian Dore.
62 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Appendix 3: Glossary
Apportionment - currently set by the 'National and regional requirements for aggregate provision in England 2005-2020', a specified amount of aggregates to be produced annually on a sub-regional basis. Core Strategy/Local Plan - a plan setting out the spatial vision for the Local Planning Authority area, the spatial objectives and strategic policies to deliver that vision. Duty to co-operate - introduced by the Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires Local Authorities and other public bodies to co-operate on planning issues. High Specification Aggregate - natural and artificial coarse aggregates which meet the physical test criteria for Polished Stone Value and Aggregate Abrasion Value. Licence Application Area - areas which are in the process of being developed for new licence dredge areas. These areas are subject to a full environmental impact assessment and public consultation before permission is granted by the Marine Management Organisation. Licence Option Area - awarded by the Crown Estate following a successful tender by a company seeking to develop a new dredging area. The company is permitted to explore the area for viable resources during a period of 5 years, during which the licence application process must be completed. Licenced Dredge Area - active licenced dredge areas. Local Development Framework - a set of Local Development Documents which include the Local Development Scheme, Statement of Community Involvement and Local Plan.
63
Appendix 4: Acronyms
AM Annual Monitoring
AMR Annual Monitoring Report
AWP Aggregate Working Party
BAA British Aggregates Association
BGS British Geological Survey
BMAPA British Marine Aggregate Producers Association
CDEW Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste
CLG Communities and Local Government
HSA High Specification Aggregate
LDF Local Development Framework
MDF Minerals Development Framework
MLP Minerals Local Plan
MPA Mineral Products Association
MPAs Mineral Planning Authorities
MPG Minerals Planning Guidance
MPS Minerals Planning Statement
Mt. Million Tonnes
NCG National Co-Ordinating Group
NFDC National Federation of Demolition Contractors
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
RPB Regional Planning Body
RPG Regional Planning Guidance
RSS Regional Spatial Strategy
RTAB Regional Technical Advisory Body
UDP Unitary Development Plan
64 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Appendix 5: Active, Inactive and Dormant Aggregate Mineral Workings 2015
Active, Inactive and Dormant Aggregate Mineral Workings in 2016 (material in dormant sites not surveyed). Active
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Shropshire
Wood Lane Quarry SJ 422 328 Sand and Gravel -
Norton Farm SJ 497 075 Sand and Gravel -
Bromfield Quarry SO 481 773 Sand and Gravel -
Gonsal Quarry SJ 484 044 Sand and Gravel -
Bridgwalton Quarry SO 689 920 Sand and Gravel -
Haughmond Hill Quarry SJ 542 148 Crushed Rock -
Clee Hill Quarry SO 599 762 Crushed Rock -
Llynclys Quarry SJ 264 242 Crushed Rock -
Bayston Hill Quarry SJ 493 091 Crushed Rock -
Leaton Quarry N/A Crushed Rock - Staffordshire
Captains Barn Farm SK 950 455 Sand and 2027 Gravel/Sandstone
Croxden SK 033 417 Sand and 2023 Gravel/Sandstone
Freehay SK 015 411 Sand and 2025 Gravel/Sandstone
Weavers Hill SJ 794 203 Sand and 2022 Gravel/Sandstone
Rugeley SK 010 181 Sand and 2031 Gravel/Sandstone
Barton SK 195 155 Sand and 2030 Gravel/Sandstone
65
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Newbold Quarry SK 205 195 Sand and 2029 (Tucklesholme) Gravel/Sandstone
Uttoxeter SK 097 351 Sand and 2016 Gravel/Sandstone
Four Ashes SJ 927 097 Sand and 2021 Gravel/Sandstone
Pottal Pool SJ 973 147 Sand and 2034 Gravel/Sandstone
Saredon Quarry SJ 944 080 Sand and 2028 Gravel/Sandstone
Seisdon SO 700 950 Sand and 2018 Gravel/Sandstone
Alrewas SK 175 125 Sand and 2027 Gravel/Sandstone
Cranebrook SK 070 064 Sand and 2023 Gravel/Sandstone
Hints/ Hopwas SK 163 462 Sand and 2016 Gravel/Sandstone
Shire Oak SK 063 042 Sand and 2019 Gravel/Sandstone
Weeford SK 133 026 Sand and 2042 Gravel/Sandstone Solihull
Berkswell Quarry SP 226 810 Sand and Gravel 13/09/2022
Meriden Quarry SP 231 812 Sand and Gravel -
Stonebridge Quarry SP 208 833 Sand and Gravel 25/06/2027 Telford
Leaton quarry SJ 615 114 Crushed Rock/Igneous 31/12/2040
Hadley Quarry SJ 685 110 Brick Clay 31/12/2032
Warwickshire Brinklow SP 422 787 Sand and Gravel -
66 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Bubbenhall SP 363 713 Sand and Gravel -
High Cross SP 465887 Sand and Gravel -
Wolston Fields SP 274 442 Sand and Gravel -
Mancetter SP 310 952 Diorite -
Jees and Boon SP 367 886 Diorite -
Worcestershire
Clifton Quarry (Tarmac) SO 845 460 Sand and gravel 31.12.2030
Wildmoor Quarry SO 950 759 Sand 2042 Herefordshire
Leinthall Earls Quarry SO 344 268 Crushed Rock - (Breedon Aggregates)
Perton Quarry SO 359 239 Crushed Rock -
Wellington Quarry SO 350 247 Sand and gravel - (Tarmac)
Inactive
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Shropshire
Sleap Quarry SJ 480 265 Sand and Gravel -
Morville Quarry SO 685 936 Sand and Gravel -
Conyburg Wood Quarry SJ 550 060 Sand and Gravel -
Buildwas Quarry SJ 647 041 Sand and Gravel -
Farley Quarry SJ 629 017 Crushed Rock -
Callow Quarry SJ 387 050 Crushed Rock -
Coates Quarry SO 602 994 Crushed Rock -
Lea Quarry SO 590 980 Crushed Rock -
Blodwell Quarry SJ 257 229 Crushed Rock -
67
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Staffordshire
Trentham SJ 750 380 Sand and Gravel 2042
Moneymore SK133 026 Sand and Gravel 2042
Kevin SK 086 465 Limestone 2028
Wardlow/ Wredon SK 087 572 Limestone 2046 Walsall
Branton Hill SK 065 001 Sand Feb 2042 Worcestershire
Chadwich Mill (Pinches SO 966 755 Sand 30/11/2019 Quarry)
Stanley Evans (Veolia) SO 950 763 Sand ROMP required by March 2017
Ryall's Court Quarry SO 385 241 Sand and gravel 31/12/2026 (Cemex) (planning permission granted but development not commenced during 2016)
Herefordshire
Shobdon Quarry SO 339 260 Sand and Gravel -
Dormant
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Staffordshire
Hilton Park SJ 952 045 Sand and Gravel 2042
Poolhouse Road SO 853 927 Sand and Gravel 2042
Whittington Hall Lane SO 870 820 Sand and Gravel 2042 Telford
Donnington Wood SJ 713 114 Brick Clay 21/02/2042 Quarry (East of A4640,
68 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Redhill Way) Shropshire
Cound Quarry SJ 550 060 Sand and Gravel -
More Quarry SO 325 933 Crushed Rock -
Nantmawr Quarry SJ 253 242 Crushed Rock -
69
Appendix 6: Monitoring of Planning Applications
Planning Applications for primary aggregate extraction determined 1 January to 31 December 2016
Authority/Council Application Address Detail Status Number
Solihull 2015/52804 Adjacent and 1.8 million tonnes of Granted south of Common sand and gravel 20/10/16 Farm, Chester Road, Middle Bickenhill
Worcestershire 15/000006/CM Clifton Quarry Application for an Permitted extension to Clifton 12.7.2016 Quarry for an estimated 2.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel.
Worcestershire 15/000013/CM Ryall’s Court Application for a Permitted Quarry new site at Ryall 23.5.2016 Court Farm for an estimated 1.4 million tonnes of sand and gravel. Part of this site was allocated as a Preferred Area in the County of Hereford and Worcester Minerals Local Plan 1997.
Staffordshire SS.15/13/627 M Seisdon Quarry Additional Permitted Aggregate reserves 28/7/16 (Sand and Gravel) 0.69mt
70 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Planning Applications for primary aggregate extraction pending as at 31 December 2016
Authority/Council Application Address Detail Status Number
Staffordshire L.14/03/817 MW Alrewas Quarry 4.2mt sand and Pending decision gravel
Staffordshire L.15/04/805-808 Hints/Hopwas 1.8mt Sand and Pending MW Gravel decision
Staffordshire L.16/05/809 MW Shire Oak 1.6mt Sand and Pending Gravel decision
Staffordshire L.15/15/802 MW Cranebrook 0.75mt Sand and Pending Gravel decision
Walsall BC64995P Branton Hill 1.2mt Sand Pending Quarry, decision Off Chester Road, Aldridge, Walsall WS9 0NS
Worcestershire 09/000085/CM Strensham Application to Pending extract 430,000 decision at 31st tonnes of sand and December 2016. gravel from a new quarry at Strensham. The application is subject to a holding objection from the Highways Agency. This site was allocated as a Preferred Area in the adopted County of Hereford and Worcester Minerals Local Plan 1997.
Warwickshire RBC/16CM004 Brinklow Quarry 3.4 mt Sand and Approved Gravel subject to S106 Highwood Farm Agreement Coventry Road 07.06.16 Brinklow Rugby CV23 0NJ
71
Appendix 7: The West Midlands Local Government Areas
72 West Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, Salford, M27 5AS Registration Number: 5292634. Registered in England
Commercial in Confidence
Urban Vision is a joint venture with Salford City Council
73