Durham County Council

County Durham Local Development Framework

Technical Consultation Report Identifying Mineral Safeguarding Areas & Safeguarding Mineral handling, Processing and Transportation Infrastructure in County Durham

Publication date: 10 July 2009

Contents Page 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 How to comment? 3 3.0 Background Information 3 What are Mineral Safeguarding Areas? 4 How do MSAs relate to existing Mineral Consultation Areas? 4 What approach has been taken in Neighbouring Local Authority areas? 5 4.0 Consultation Questions 6 What information should we use to define Mineral Safeguarding Areas? 6 Refining the boundaries 6 What minerals found in County Durham are or may become of economic 8 importance? Vein Minerals 9 5.0 Proposed Approach to safeguarding economically important 9 minerals. Magnesian Limestone and Dolomite. 10 Carboniferous Limestone. 14 Igneous Rock (Dolerite) 17 Sand and Gravel (Fluvial and Glacial) 19 Permian Yellow Sands (Basal Permian Sands) 23 Silica Sand (Moulding Sand) 24 Natural Building and Roofing Stone 26 Brick making raw materials 28 Coal (opencast coal) 31 6.0 Other matters. 34 Safeguarding railheads, wharfage and associated storage, handling, 34 processing facilities for the bulk transport of minerals Concrete batching, the manufacture of coated materials, other concrete 35 products

List of Figures Figure 1 Magnesian Limestone 10 Figure 2 Magnesian Limestone Options 12 Figure 3 Minerals Local Plan - High Grade Dolomite Reserve 13 Figure 4 Carboniferous limestone 14 Figure 5 Carboniferous Limestone Options 15 Figure 6 Igneous 17 Figure 7 Igneous Options 18 Figure 8 Sand and gravel 19 Figure 9 Sand and Gravel Option A 21 Figure 10 Sand and Gravel Option B 21 Figure 11 Sand and Gravel Option C 22 Figure 12 Permian Yellow Sands Options 24 Figure 13 Silica Sand Options 25 Figure 14 Namurian Sandstone in County Durham 26 Figure 15 Natural Building and Roofing Stone Sites in County Durham 28 Figure 16 Brick Making Options 30 Figure 17 Principal and Subsidiary Coal Resource Areas 31 Figure 18 Open Cast Coal Option A 33 Figure 19 Open Cast Coal Option B 33

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This reporti has been prepared in order to consult key minerals related stakeholders on our approach to safeguarding: 1. economically important minerals, (see section 3 to 5); 2. existing, planned and potential railheads, wharfage and associated storage, handling, processing facilities for the bulk transport of minerals (see section 6); and 3. existing, planned and potential sites (including rail and water served) for concrete batching, the manufacture of coated materials, other concrete products and the handling, processing and distribution of substitute, recycled and secondary aggregate material, (see section 6).

The safeguarding of mineral resources and these mineral transport, processing and handling facilities are a key requirement of Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1) ‘Planning and Minerals’ (paragraph 13 of MPS1). In addition the report specifically requests that the minerals industry and other interested parties provide information to help the Council to identify and refine the boundaries of minerals safeguarding areas (MSAs).

1.2 Given the specialist nature of this subject the consultation report is being targeted at the minerals industry and their trade organisations. However, once draft MSAs and other safeguarded facilities have been identified in association with the minerals industry, wider consultation will occur. Please note as a technical consultation report, the report unavoidably contains detailed technical information relating to the geology of County Durham and both current and historic mineral working.

2.0 HOW TO COMMENT?

2.1 Comments and suggestions relating to our approach to minerals safeguarding and which areas should be safeguarded can be made by letter to the address below, or by email to: [email protected]. Our postal address where responses should be sent to is:

Minerals Safeguarding Areas’ Consultation Planning Policy Team, Room 4/121 Regeneration and Economic Development Durham County Council County Hall Durham DH1 5UQ

2.2 We would welcome your comments by no later than Friday 11 September 2009.

2.3 If you wish to discuss this matter or arrange a meeting with planning officers, please contact either Jason McKewon (0191 383 3071) or Rick Long (0191 383 3774).

3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

3.1 From the 1 April 2009 a new Unitary Council was created for County Durham. The new Unitary Durham County Council is required to prepare a county-wide Local Development Framework (LDF). The new LDF will include a number of spatial planning documents, including a Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD), which will set out the

i Please note a significant proportion of the information in this consultation report draws directly from the British Geological Survey (BGS) report, ‘Mineral Resource Information for Development Plans ‘Durham and the Tees Valley: Resources and Constraints’, Technical Report WF/00/6, British Geological Survey/Department of Environment Transport and Regions, 2000. 3

Council's spatial planning policies and proposals for all types of development including minerals and waste.

What are Mineral Safeguarding Areas?

3.2 MSAs are a new planning designation which must be identified and included on Local Development Framework (LDF) Proposals Maps. The intent of MSAs is to safeguard proven deposits of minerals which are, or may become of economic importance within the foreseeable future, from unnecessary sterilisation by surface development. Unlike other mineral planning designations which allocate land for development i.e. Site Specific Allocations, Preferred Areas or Areas of Search, where there is a varying degree of presumption that extraction may be appropriate, Government guidance is clear that there is no presumption that resources defined in MSAs will be worked.

3.3 It is very important that the minerals industry and their trade organisations are involved and provide their views on how MSAs are designated. This is because, once they are designated MSAs will enable safeguarding to be a material consideration and provide land which does not have planning permission for mineral working, but which is underlain with economically important mineral resources, some protection from sterilisation. Similarly, where MSAs are designated around existing mineral sites or potential mineral site allocations, safeguarding will be a material consideration with the presumption being that such areas should be protected from sterilisation.

3.4 Government guidance states that new planning documents should not normally include policies and proposals for non-minerals development e.g. new residential development, in MSAs, or other sensitive developments around safeguarded mineral areas, where such policies would affect the potential for future extraction of minerals. However, it may be appropriate to develop policies for prior extraction of minerals, where practicable, within safeguarded areas: for example extraction before non-mineral development takes place subject to safeguards to protect the environment and amenity of local communities. This is the current approach of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan, (see Policy M15 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan).

How do MSA’s relate to existing Mineral Consultation Areas?

3.5 Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) have previously been designated by the County Council in the adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000). The current MCA's provide a mechanism which allowed the former District Councils to consult the County Council on certain types of planning applications for non-mineral developments within the boundary of a MCA, and which would be likely to affect the winning and working of minerals.

3.6 Once defined and shown on the Council’s new LDF proposals map, MSAs will replace the MCAs in the existing Minerals Local Plan. Further information on MSAs and MCAs is set out in

• Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1) 'Planning & Minerals (CLG), November 2006, • Planning and Minerals Practice Guide (CLG), November 2006; and • A Guide to Minerals Safeguarding in England, British Geological Survey/CLG, October 2007.

What approach has been taken in neighbouring Local Authority Areas?

3.7 Before considering the County Council’s emerging approach it may be useful to consider the scope of progress in adjoining planning authorities. To date very limited work has been undertaken by other planning authorities in the North East of England. Only Northumberland County Council has progressed MSAs to an advanced stage. The Northumberland County Council Minerals and Waste Development Plan Documents which were submitted to the Secretary of State in June 2007 included extensive MSAs for whinstone, sand and gravel, limestone and coal (with associated clays). Unfortunately, these areas have not progressed beyond the submission stage due to the withdrawal of these documents on grounds unrelated to safeguarding prior to the planned Examination. Further work on MSAs is planned by Northumberland County Council during 2009.

3.8 In terms of the Tyne & Wear Unitary authorities the most advanced work on MSAs is by Sunderland City Council. The City Council’s Core Strategy Preferred Options Report (December 2007) included a policy on MSAs (CS18). This policy indicated that MSAs will be defined around mineral deposits that are considered to be of current or future economic importance in the broad locations of Eppleton, Great Eppleton, Pittington Hill and Springwell to safeguard the deposits against unnecessary sterilisation by development. The broad extent of the proposed MSAs, are set out on their Preferred Options report Key Diagram. The City Council intends to delineate the detailed boundaries of the MSAs and prepare a criteria-based policy for the assessment of mineral sites and exploration in their Other Allocations DPD.

3.9 We are not aware of any detailed work on this issue by any of the other unitary councils in Tyne & Wear. Durham County Council did, however, submit comments to Gateshead Borough Council in response to their issues and options report and the Submission Newcastle Core Strategy DPD suggesting that MSAs needed to be defined. In addition the Inspector who held an exploratory meeting in relation to Newcastle’s Submission Core Strategy highlighted that Newcastle City Council’s failure to address mineral safeguarding in their Core Strategy was a fundamental issue of soundness.

3.10 North Yorkshire County Council submitted a Minerals Core Strategy DPD to the Secretary of State in January 2008. The submission document contains a core policy and supporting text relating to the protection of mineral resources. The supporting text indicates that the County Council will produce a Local Development Document setting out specific Minerals Safeguarding and Consultation Areas, which will be based on the general extent of the resource shown on the Proposals Map. Paragraph 5.15 of the submission document indicates that the County Council will draw on the following criteria to define safeguarding and consultation areas: • the extent of key areas of minerals resources, particularly aggregates, silica sand and clay and significant infrastructure such as rail linked facilities; • the location of Preferred Areas, Areas of Search, including any such proposed areas not taken forward at this stage, and extant planning permissions for mineral development; • the extent to which development of the resource may be constrained by other factors, such as nationally or internationally designated areas; and • the wider development strategy for the County identified in RSS and LDFs. Unfortunately, these areas have not progressed beyond the submission stage due to the withdrawal of these documents from the examination process.

3.11 Cumbria County Council’s Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Generic Development Control Policies DPDs have reached an advanced stage. Both documents were subject to an examination in 2008 and the Inspector’s report has now been received declaring both documents sound. The Core Strategy indicates Cumbria intend to identify minerals safeguarding areas for sand and gravel, hard rock resources, natural building and roofing stone, gypsum and shallow coal resources. Work to identify the detailed boundaries of these areas has yet to be progressed. Cumbria County Council intends to identify these areas through work on its Site Allocations DPD later in 2009.

4.0 Consultation Questions

What information should we use to define Mineral Safeguarding Areas?

4.1 British Geological Survey guidanceii advises Mineral Planning Authorities to identify MSAs on the basis of the best available geological information for the authority’s area.

4.2 The approach we are proposing to take is to rely upon information produced by the British Geological Surveyiii and any other information made available to us by mineral operators submitted in response to this consultation. In addition we will also rely upon information produced by other bodies. For example, English Heritage is undertaking a study to identify sources of building stone which could be considered important for conservation purposes.

Question 1 Do you agree that this approach is soundly based. Are there any other information sources we should have regard to? (If you disagree please fully state your reasons).

Refining the boundaries

4.3 Before we look at the approach to specific minerals we would welcome your thoughts on how we should refine the boundaries of MSAs once they have been broadly identified.

A) Approach to protecting mineral resources and mineral sites from encroaching non-minerals development

4.4 Government guidance indicates that “…It should be kept in mind that, in addition to proposed development within an MSA incompatible development that is allowed close to a MSA may lead to sterilisation of part of the resource’, (MPS1 practice guide). The British Geological Survey guidance describes how different buffers could be used to reflect the differences in potential impacts from differing forms of minerals extraction: • 500 metre buffer around hard rock quarries, which generally require blasting, in order to protect local communities from noise and vibration; • 250 metre buffer around soft rock sites where no blasting is necessary; • 50 metre buffer around brick clay sites which are generally worked on a smaller scale, using mobile plant with no requirement for blasting. In some respects this approach has similar parallels with the approach the County Council took to protecting settlements and groups of 10 or more dwellings in Policy M37 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan.

ii 'A Guide to Mineral Safeguarding in England', British Geological Survey/Communities & Local Government, October 2007. iii DETR/BGS ‘Counties Series’ Mineral Resource Maps and BGS Mineral Resource line work at 1:100,000 scale. In addition we also intend to have regard (if necessary) to the 1989 report 'An assessment of the potentially workable sand and gravel resources in County of Durham' produced for the Department of the Environment (DOE) by Engineering Geology. 6

4.5 We would welcome your views as to whether we should safeguard land beyond the defined mineral resource boundary in order to provide a basis for protecting the mineral resource from non-minerals development. In any event we believe that it is important to safeguard existing mineral sites from non-minerals development.

Question 2 i) Should we define two areas on the proposals map i.e. the safeguarded mineral resource area and a wider MSA designation which encompasses the safeguarded mineral resource and a buffer? iii) If we were to buffer the safeguarded mineral resource area how large should any buffered area be? We are currently considering adopting: • 500 metres around hard rock sites which generally requires blasting i.e. magnesian limestone, carboniferous limestone and Igneous Rock (dolerite). • 250 metres around soft rock sites such as sand and gravel (fluvial, glacial and moulding sand). • 50 metres around brick clay sites. Do you agree with these buffers? (Please fully explain your answer).

B) Urban Areas and areas subject to environmental designations

4.6 British Geological Survey guidance sets out how planning authorities should take into account other planning considerations in defining MSAs. The guidance advises that mineral safeguarding should not be curtailed by any other planning designations, such as urban areas and environmental designations without sound justification. It states that defining MSAs alongside environmental and cultural designations will ensure that the impact of any proposed development on mineral resources will be taken into account alongside other environmental designations. In urban areas the guidance states that MPAs should define MSAs where they consider this will be of particular value. It also indicates that in some instances however the definition of MSAs beneath urban areas may not be necessary. MSAs in urban areas may not be appropriate when resources occur widely elsewhere within the plan area or where working methods are likely to be unacceptable in urban areas.

4.7 Urban Areas - We wish to make our new MSAs as realistic and practical as possible and avoid unnecessary complications in safeguarding minerals. We therefore believe that it would be unnecessary to safeguard mineral resources underlying urban areas as such mineral resources are already sterilised by non-minerals development with very little prospect of future working. Similarly we also believe that it would be unnecessary to safeguard mineral resources underlying any strategic sites allocated for non-minerals development in the County Durham LDF from the new MSAs.

4.8 Environmental Designations - Our current view is that it would not be appropriate to exclude MSA designation from areas subject to environmental designations as this would preclude consideration of mineral resource issues if such areas were subject to pressure for development. However, we are particularly interested in whether MSAs should extend into areas already protected by international and national designations such as the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and areas designated as European (Natura 2000 sites) or international nature conservation sites (Ramsar Sites). This is because the protection afforded to these areas should prevent inappropriate non- minerals development in accordance with Government policy.

Question 3 i) Do you think that we should take into account environmental designations in defining mineral safeguarding areas? (Please fully state your reasons). You are invited to choose from the four options set out below:

Option A) - Only International designations such as the Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas designated under the EU Habitats and Wild Birds Directives and Ramsar sites to protect wetland habitats of international importance and cultural heritage designations such as the Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site should be considered. Option B) - As option (A) together with national landscape designations such at the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and biodiversity designations such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and cultural designations such as Historic Battlefields and Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest should be considered. Option C) - All international, national and local environmental designations should be considered. Option D) - It is not appropriate to consider environmental designations in designating MSAs.

C) Previously worked mineral sites

4.9 We would welcome views as to whether we should remove any former mineral sites which have been previously worked from the areas we eventually identify for mineral safeguarding. In our view removing previously worked sites from our new MSAs will allow us to identify the real extent of the potential mineral resource which needs to be safeguarded.

Question 4 Should we remove previously worked areas from our new MSA’s. Do you agree with this approach, if not why not?

What minerals found in County Durham are or may become of economic importance?

4.10 County Durham has a complex and varied geology and is rich in mineral resources. BGS guidance advises Mineral Planning Authority’s to consider which minerals are or may become of economic importance in the foreseeable future. We have had regard to BGS information and current and historic mineral production information and accordingly, we consider that County Durham contains the following range of economically important minerals: • Sand and Gravel (including fluvial, glacial sand and gravel, outcrops of basal Permian sand and also silica sand (sometimes known as Moulding Sand); • Magnesian Limestone (including areas recognised as containing High Grade Dolomite suitable for use in the steal and chemical industries); • Carboniferous Limestone; • Igneous Rock (dolerite); • Coal (worked by opencast methods) • Brick making raw materials including fireclay; and • Building Stone.

Question 5 Have we identified all of the economically important minerals in County Durham? (If you disagree please fully state your reasons).

Vein Minerals

4.11 We would welcome your views as to whether the vein minerals which are found in County Durham should be classed as currently or potentially of economic importance in the foreseeable future. We recognise that County Durham contains a major part of the North Pennines Ore field which has had a long history of metal mining, notably for lead, with associated by product silver, zinc, fluorspar, barium minerals (barite – BaSO4 and Witherite BaCO3), but we are not aware of any current interest in the further working of such minerals.

• Fluorspar - BGS information indicates that underground mining has removed the most accessible deeper reserves of fluorspar. The county’s last fluorspar mine ceased production in 1999. • Barium Minerals - BGS information indicates that 'there is some scope for the exploration for further reserves to the west and east of the existing workings at Close House mine' in Lunedale. This mine closed following a landslip in 2002. BGS information also indicates that while there are good grounds for supposing that ore bodies of witherite and barytes may exist, future exploration or mining is extremely unlikely. • Ironstone – BGS information indicates that iron ores occur within many of the vein deposits in the North Pennines and were extensively worked in the past, particularly during the 19th century, however, none of these deposits are now of economic significance.

Question 6 a) Do you agree that vein minerals in the North Pennines ore field are no longer of economic significance and that it is now not necessary to safeguard any dormant or currently unworked vein mineral sites? (If you disagree please fully state your reasons).

5.0 Proposed Approach to safeguarding economically important minerals

5.1 BGS guidance advises that Mineral Planning Authorities should decide on how the physical extent of the mineral resource area to be safeguarded should be determined. The guidance advises that 'the issues vary with the extent and configuration of the geological deposit and that if the deposit is large it may not be appropriate to safeguard the entire resource'. It also advises that, initially defined areas will need to be refined in discussion with the industry and other stakeholders, given that the industry often has the best local knowledge about the quality and viability of working local geological formations. Through their exploration programs or by in pit exploration, they may be able to provide additional information about the location of resources or may provide data to refine or reduce areas'.

5.2 For some minerals we have identified alternative options for safeguarding different minerals (see below). They are offered as a starting point for consultation and will be worked up further following this consultation exercise.

We would welcome the submission of additional information from mineral operators and industry trade organisations which would help us identify new areas or refine or reduce areas.

Magnesian Limestone and Dolomite

Figure 1: Magnesian Limestone Outcrop in County Durham.

5.3 The Permian Magnesian Limestone resource extends in a narrow, easterly dipping belt, up to 300 metres in thickness from Nottingham to Newcastle. A major part of the outcrop occurs in County Durham and forms the area known as the East Durham Limestone Plateauiv.

Table 3.1 Mineral Qualities - Magnesian Limestone. Limestone Formation Type Value Uses Lower Raisby Hard limestone Relatively strong, Suitable for concreting durable & frost aggregates and coated road- resistant base materials Dolomitic parts Generally weaker & Sufficiently frost-resistant for more porous use as road sub-base and fill Lower magnesian Suitable for use and filter limestone aggregates aggregate, building stone and armour stone Middle Ford Overlying dolomites & Mostly relatively Not suitable for aggregate use, dolomitic Limestones soft and porous apart from granular sub-base or fill applications Upper Seaham, Limestones Generally only suitable for low Roker & grade aggregate applications, Concretionary such as granular sub-base road Limestone stone or fill

5.4 Most quarrying in County Durham is from the Raisby formation which outcrops on the western margin of the escarpment and dips to the east. We understand that parts of the Raisby formation at Thrislington Quarry and the area directly to the east of the quarry is notable for its relatively high purity and consistent quality. It is recognised as a resource iv The East Durham Limestone Plateau is the County Character Area name for this area. 10

of national importance. Although we also understand that the purity and chemical quality of magnesian limestone varies over small lateral and vertical distances, even within the scale of quarries. Other parts of the sequence are generally of lower purity and chemical quality.

5.5 The Magnesian Limestone resource in County Durham is highly variable, both regionally and locally, in its physical, mechanical and chemical properties and thus its suitability for particular applications. It also varies in thickness and lithology and contains dolomites and limestones. Some are good enough to make good quality aggregates and is widely quarried for a range of construction applications, others are sufficiently low in impurities have been used in industrial applications such as the manufacture of sea water magnesia and as a flux in steelmaking and are relatively scarce in Britain. County Durham is recognised as one of the few sources of high quality dolomite for industrial applications in England.

Current and historic working

5.6 Magnesian Limestone and high grade dolomite have been worked extensively in County Durham from a number of sites.

Table 3.2: Magnesian Limestone - current planning permissions. Magnesian Limestone quarries - with planning permission enabling extraction to occur Crime Rigg Quarry, Sherburn.* Witch Hill Quarry, Sherburn. Thrislington Quarry, Cornforth.* Bishop Middleham Quarry, Cornforth. Raisby Quarry, Coxhoe. Aycliffe Quarry, Newton Aycliffe. Old Quarrington Quarry, Quarrington Hill.* * also extracts sand (Basal Permian Yellow sands).

Table 3.3: Active Phase 1 Sites requiring the approval of new scheme of working conditions. Magnesian Limestone quarry requiring the approval of new scheme of conditions Hawthorn Quarry.

Table 3.4: Dormant or Registered Interim Development Orders Sites which are dormant or are registered as Interim Development Orders (IDOs) requiring the approval of new scheme of conditions Tuthill Quarry, Haswell. East and West Cornforth Quarry’s. Old Town Quarry, Midridge. Running Waters Quarry, Old Leasingthorn Quarry, Bishop Rough Furze Quarry south of Cassop. Auckland. Thrislington Quarry.

5.7 Thrislington Quarry also extracts dolomite of sufficient quality to be used in the steel industry.

Figure 2: Magnesium Limestone Safeguarding Options.

Question 7 a) Which option for the safeguarding of Magnesian Limestone and high grade dolomite do you favour? (Please let us know if you consider that an alternative option or approach would be more appropriate).

Option A - Safeguarding the entire magnesian limestone resource. Safeguarding the entirety of the lower, middle and upper magnesian limestone would mean safeguarding a very large area of the County. Parts of magnesian limestone resource contain minerals of little economic importance and in addition parts of the resource are overlain by thick layers of glacial drift and therefore would be unlikely to ever be worked.

Option B - Safeguarding only active and dormant magnesian limestone (with buffer around sites). Safeguarding only the active and dormant sites would mean that only areas which currently have planning permission would be safeguarded. Whilst protecting existing permissions this option would not meet the requirements of MPS1.

Option C - Safeguarding the outcrop of lower magnesian limestone whilst buffering the eastern edge of the lower magnesian limestone outcrop to take into account the likelihood of quarries working down into the lower magnesian limestone resource. This option would mean the most economically important part of the magnesian limestone succession in County Durham would be safeguarded together with both active and dormant sites. The BGS report on mineral resources indicates that the Lower Magnesian Limestone (Raisby Formation) is the most economically important part of the resource, producing minerals suited to a wide range of uses including concreting aggregates and coated road-base materials. The rocks of the Middle and Upper Magnesian Limestones are generally only suitable for low-grade aggregates and agricultural lime: applications that can be met by rocks found within the Lower Magnesian Limestone. Much past and present quarrying activity has focussed on the Lower Magnesian Limestone. As part of this option we would also seek to safeguard areas of high grade dolomite suitable for use in industrial applications. The area to the east of Thrislington Quarry (see map) was originally identified in the existing Minerals Local Plan as a High Grade Dolomite reserve (see also Policy M18 and inset map 10 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan). b) Views are invited on the extent of the area which should be recognised as containing high grade dolomite of suitable quality for use in the steel and chemical industries and which should be safeguarded.

Figure 3: Area identified under Policy M18 of Minerals Local Plan as a High Grade Dolomite Reserve.

Carboniferous Limestone

Figure 4: Outcrop of Carboniferous Limestone in County Durham

5.8 This mineral outcrops in the west of the County in both Weardale and Teesdale. According to BGS information most limestone beds while numerous, they are usually less than 10 metres in thickness and therefore to thin to support modern quarrying operations (These sites have been excluded from the BGS minerals resource maps). The Great Limestone at the base of the Millstone Grit has been identified as the most economically important carboniferous limestone resource in the County. This limestone outcrops in Teesdale and along the valley sides in Weardale.

Mineral Qualities - Carboniferous Limestone. Type Value Uses Carboniferous Limestone. Harder & more durable than More suited to particular heavy duty Magnesian Limestone. uses e.g. sea defence works.

Current and historic working

5.9 The Great Limestone has been worked at a number of quarries within both Weardale and Teesdale for both cement manufacture and aggregates. It is by far the thickest (between 12-23 metres) and most uniform carboniferous limestone in the County.

Current Planning Permissions : Carboniferous Limestone quarries with planning permission enabling extraction Hulands Quarry, Bowes. Kilmondwood Quarry, Bowes. Broadwood Quarry, Frosterley. Heights Quarry, Eastgate. Newlandside Quarry, south of Stanhope.

Active Phase 1 and IDO sites. Quarry requiring approval of new working and restoration conditions Harrow Bank Quarry, Eastgate.

Dormant Sites requiring approval of new working and restoration conditions. Scuttershill Quarry, Westgate. Puddingthorne Quarry, Lanehead. Parsons Byers Quarry, Stanhope. Greenfield Quarry, Lanehead. Side Head Quarry, Westgate. Carriers Hill Quarry, Killhope. White Hills Quarry, Ireshopburn. Bollihope (Jopler Sykes), (L20) and (L21) Frosterley.

5.10 Up until 2002 carboniferous limestone was also worked at Eastgate Quarry and used to produce cement at the nearby Eastgate cement works. Following the closure of the cement works in 2002, extraction ceased and this site is now being restored. In addition up until recently carboniferous limestone was worked at Selset Quarry in Lunedale, this site has now closed and is in aftercare following the end of working in December 2005.

5.11 British Geological Survey mineral resource information and the Durham and Tees Valley mineral resource map (BGS/DETR, 2000) shows the extent of the principal outcrops of carboniferous limestone (with the exception of thin limestone beds, (see above). The identified extent of carboniferous limestone is significant and extends to 5,759 ha.

Figure 5: Carboniferous Limestone Safeguarding options

Question 8 Which option to safeguard carboniferous limestone do you favour? (Please let us know if you consider that an alternative option or approach would be more appropriate).

Option A - Safeguard the entirety of the carboniferous limestone resource. This would mean safeguarding a very extensive area including outcrops in Weardale and Teesdale both within and outside the North Pennines AONB which could potentially become of economic importance in the future.

Option B - Safeguarding only active and dormant carboniferous limestone sites (with buffer zone around sites).This option mean only a small part of the resource would be protected. Whilst protecting existing and dormant permissions this option would not protect the carboniferous limestone resource which lies outside of these sites which could potentially become of economic importance in the future.

Option C - Safeguarding only part of the carboniferous limestone resource together with active and dormant sites (with buffer zones around sites) The key element of this option is to safeguard outcrops of carboniferous limestone where they occur within a certain distance of the principal roads in this area. The roads that we have identified being A689 (main east-west road in Weardale to Alston), B6276 (Middleton in Teesdale to Brough) and the A66 and A67). We have buffered these roads by a distance of 3,000 metres in order to safeguard the major outcrop areas where working is currently permitted and being worked, where carboniferous limestone has been worked in the past and dormant sites, together with areas potentially accessible from the existing road network. This approach would not, however, safeguard any outcrop more than 3,000 metres from the principal roads within this area, although this may not be an issue given the rural open countryside nature of this area. Planning policy will mean most new non-minerals development in this area will occur within or adjacent existing settlements thereby precluding the majority of potentially sterilising development from occurring except agricultural development.

Igneous Rock (Dolerite)

Figure 6: Igneous Rock Outcrop in County Durham

5.12 Outcrops of igneous rocksv of several geological ages and compositions occur in County Durham.

Mineral Qualities – Dolerite. Type Value Uses Dolerite Exceptionally hard and durable. Suitable for concreting aggregates and coated road-base materials.

Current and historic working

5.13 In terms of economic use only the dolerite of the Great Whin Sill is considered to remain of economic importance. The most significant outcrop of dolerite associated with the Great Whin Sill is that which outcrops extensively in a band running to the north west of Middleton in Teesdale. A number of smaller outcrops of the Great Whin Sill lie to the west of Middleton in Teesdale in an east-west band from Lune Moor to Warcop Fell. In addition a number of narrow vein like intrusions (dykes), both associated with the Great Whin Sill, and of more recent age, also occur in the area, although while these narrow vein like intrusions have been worked in the past they are now recognised by BGS as being too narrow to support modern day quarrying.

Current Planning Permissions. Quarry Force Garth Quarry, Forest in Teesdale.

Dormant Sites. Middleton Quarry, Holwick. Park End Quarry, Holwick. Crossthwaite Quarry, Holwick. Greenfoot Quarry, Stanhope*. Greengates Quarry, Lunedale*. Cockfield, Teesdale. *Dolerite has also been worked from both the Little Whin Sill at Greenfoot Quarry near Stanhope and at Greengates Quarry from the Greengates Dyke in Lunedale. In addition Palaeogene Dykes have also been worked as sources of roadstone and aggregates at several locations although none is worked today.

v Igneous rocks are formed by being intruded as molten rock into the surrounding country rock. 17

5.14 Existing permitted reserves at Force Garth Quarry are extensive. The 2004 North East Regional Aggregates Working Party (NERAWP) Annual Aggregates Monitoring Report indicates that over 20 million tonnes reserves remained within this quarry, sufficient to last over 80 years at recent production rates. We currently estimate that this site contains approximately 19.35 million tonnes (year ending 31.12.2007).

5.15 The Durham and Tees Valley mineral resource map shows the extent of the principal outcrops of dolerite (with the exception of the narrow intrusions, (see above)). The identified extent of dolerite outcrop is significant and extends to 2,115 ha within the North Pennines AONB.

Figure 7: Igneous Rock Safeguarding options

Question 9 Which option to safeguard igneous rock (dolerite) do you favour? (Please let us know if you consider that an alternative option or approach would be more appropriate).

Option A - Safeguard entire resource outcrop. This would mean safeguarding a large area of mineral resource within the North Pennines which would be very unlikely to ever be sterilised by built development.

Option B - Safeguard Force Garth Quarry only (with buffer zone around this site). This would safeguard extensive permitted reserves. This may be all that may be needed in the long term i.e. next 80 years. Existing permitted reserves at Force Garth Quarry are significant and more than sufficient to meet forecast needs during the plan period and in the long term.

Option C - Safeguard Force Garth Quarry and dormant sites within resource area (with buffer zone around these sites). This option would safeguard Force Garth Quarry and a number of dormant sites (see table 3.11) where working could resume subject to modern working and restoration conditions being submitted by operators and agreed by the Council – provided that permitted reserves remain to be worked. 18

Sand and Gravel (Fluvial and Glacial)

Figure 8: Sand and Gravel in County Durham

5.16 The sand and gravel resource in County Durham is generally divided into two broad categories, superficial, or ‘drift’ deposits of Quaternary agevi, which are economically the most important and bedrock deposits i.e. the Basal Permian Yellow Sands (considered separately).

Mineral Qualities - Sand & Gravel. Type Value Uses Sand Used for material which is coarser than 5mm fine aggregate in concrete, in mortar and in asphalt Gravel Used for material which is finer than 5mm coarse aggregate in concrete.

Current and historic working

5.17 Available information indicates that, in the past, both fluvial and glacial sand and gravel deposits have been worked throughout the County, although no fluvial or glacial deposits are currently worked. The only deposits currently being worked are Basal Permian Yellow Sands from three quarries on the East Durham Limestone Plateau. Several operators have however discussed proposals for new working with the Council including one site which would extract fluvial sand and gravel and one site which would work glacial sand and gravel.

Current Planning Permissions : Quarries Thrislington Quarry Crime Rigg Quarry Old Quarrington Quarry

vi Quaternary deposits are sediments that were deposited during the Quaternary period of earth history, between 2.5 million years ago and the present day. The Quaternary is divided into two periods: the Pleistocene Period dates from 2.5 million years ago till 11,500 years ago and the Holocene which continues to the present day. These deposits are widespread over County Durham. They conceal the bedrock in many of the upland valleys and cover substantial areas of the lowland parts of the County. 19

Developing an approach to sand and gravel safeguarding

5.18 The BGS mineral resource report for County Durham and the Tees Valley shows the extent of sand and gravel resources in County Durham. The identified resource areas are categorised into the following categories:

1. river sand and gravel resources; 2. concealed river sand and gravel in assessed areas; 3. glacial sand and gravel resources; 4. concealed glacial sand and gravel resources in assessed areas; and 5. beach and dune deposits.

5.19 The resource areas identified above (excluding beach and dune deposits) are extensive comprising 12,737 ha of the County. Analysis of historical maps indicates that sand and gravel has been worked in the past from both fluvial and glacial deposits. The BGS report indicates that the variability of sand and gravel deposits together with their possible concealment within or beneath boulder clay means that compared with other bulk minerals, it is more difficult to infer the location and likely extent of potentially workable resources from geological maps. The BGS report indicates that two sources of information have been used to show the distribution of sand and gravel on the BGS resource map:

1. From where BGS sand and gravel resource assessment has been undertaken; and 2. From available BGS geological maps, supplemented by the work of other investigations where available (Engineering Geology, 1989).

5.20 We do not consider it necessary to safeguard beach and dune deposits (found along the length of the Durham coast). While we acknowledge that such deposits have been worked elsewhere in the region (at Druridge Bay in Northumberland and in the Tees Valley at North Gare) available information does not suggest that areas along the County Durham have been worked in the recent past or are of current or future economic interest in the future. We believe that mineral operators instead will target other sand and gravel resources which may be less problematic in terms of their environmental designations.

Figure 9: Sand and Grave Safeguarding Option A

Figure 10: Sand and Grave Safeguarding Option B

Figure 11: Sand and Grave Safeguarding Option C

Question 10 Which option to safeguarding sand and gravel do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider that an alternative option or approach would be more appropriate).

Option A - Safeguard the entire resource area. This approach would have the advantage of helping to safeguard a significant area of land and help prevent sterilisation. Extensive mineral safeguarding areas may be needed given the current shortfall in permitted reserves and to meet the long term requirement for ongoing sand and gravel production. Safeguarding extensive areas also provide the best solution to providing future resources, given uncertainty of the quality of particular deposits. The disadvantage of this approach is the extent of land which would be safeguarded, which may in some quarters be seen to limit opportunities for new built development. We do not consider that this is a significant problem as mineral safeguarding areas would be only one of many constraints that need to be considered by the new unitary planning authority.

Option B - Safeguard all active and dormant sites only (with buffer zone around sites). While this option would safeguard existing and dormant permissions, it would not safeguard all sand and gravel resources which could mean that potentially economically important sand and gravel resources could be sterilised.

Option C - Safeguard a large proportion of the sand and gravel resource area (with buffer zone around sites). This option is similar to Option A, it would seek to safeguard most sand and gravel resource areas, but not areas already underlain by settlements and other built development (large parts of the resource are already sterilised) or areas previously worked out.

Permian Yellow Sands (Basal Permian Sands)

5.21 The Permian Yellow Sands (Basal Permian Sands) outcrop intermittently along the base of the Magnesian Limestone Escarpment and dip to the east under the Magnesian Limestone. At outcrop the formation is discontinuous and forms ridges of various height. When they were deposited, the sands formed hills on the land surface and the crests of such hills are visible in a number of exposures. The only source of known information identifying deposits of Permian Yellow Sands at accessible depths was published by Engineering Geology in 1989.vii

Mineral Qualities - Permian Yellow Sands (Basal Permian Sands). Type Value Uses Permian Yellow Fine - medium grained aggregate, Mainly worked as a source of building sand, with Sands. yellow. some also being used as asphalting sand.

Current and historic working

5.22 Resources at outcrop are limited and the sand area is now only worked in association with the overlying Magnesian Limestone both at the escarpment edge (e.g. Crime Rigg Quarry) and where they have been exposed in the floor of quarries i.e. Thrislington and Old Quarrington Quarry's.

Current Planning Permissions Thrislington Quarry. Crime Rigg Quarry. Old Quarrington Quarry.

Developing an approach to safeguarding Permian Yellow Sands

5.23 We have not been able to develop alternative options for this mineral. This is due to the limited information which is available on its location and due to the fact that the majority of this mineral lies underneath magnesian limestone and is inaccessible other than in instances where extraction of overlying magnesian limestone occurs. The approach we have taken is to identify the mineral at outcrop and at accessible depths using the areas identified by Engineering Geology in 1989.

vii An Assessment of the Potentially Workable Sand & Gravel Resources of County Durham, (Engineering Geology/Department of the Environment, 1989). 23

Figure 12: Basal Permian Sand Safeguarding Option

Question 11 Our proposed approach to safeguarding basal Permian sand is to safeguard known outcrops of this mineral together with where this mineral is believed to occur at accessible depths.

Do you agree with this approach to safeguarding Permian Yellow Sands? (Please let us know if you consider that an alternative option or approach would be more appropriate).

Silica Sand (Moulding Sand)

5.24 Silica Sand (Moulding Sand) occurs within the Millstone Grit in the North Pennines.

Mineral Qualities - Silica Sand Type Value Uses Silica Sand. Naturally bonded foundry sands. Poorly cemented, friable Foundries or other industrial and contains kaolinite. purposes.

Current and historic working

5.25 Silica Sand was used in the past at Eastgate Cement Works (now closed) to optimise the chemistry of the feed for the manufacture of cement, and also in the foundry casting industry as it is naturally bonded, containing sufficient clay to give the mould strength without the addition of a bonding agent.

Current Planning Permissions Weatherhill Quarry.

5.26 Small amounts of silica sand (moulding sand) are worked intermittently at Weatherhill Quarry, north of Stanhope. It is understood that production of silica sand is relatively low and that existing permitted reserves are more than sufficient to meet needs over the plan period and within the foreseeable future.

5.27 The BGS mineral resource report for County Durham and the Tees Valley shows the extent of silica sand resources in County Durham. The resource area is extensive and is identified on the map below as option A. (It also appears that silica sand has also been worked from quarries from outside of the outcrop which means that the identified resource area is not a good indicator of where the resource has previously been worked. The BGS information is, however, the best indicator of where resources lie).

Figure 13: Safeguarding Silica sand Options

Question 12 Which option do you prefer to safeguard silica sand (moulding sand)? (Please let us know if you consider that an alternative option or approach would be more appropriate).

Option A - Safeguard the entire resource area. This approach would mean safeguarding the entirety of the outcrop.

Option B - Safeguard Weatherhill Quarry (with buffer zone around site). This approach would only safeguard the existing site and prevent encroaching development.

Option C - Safeguard Weatherhill Quarry (with buffer zone around site) and an additional area to allow long term working. This approach would safeguard the existing site whilst seeking also to safeguard additional parts of the outcrop within 500 metres of the existing planning permission, thereby providing scope for further working in the long term. In our view the north eastern extent of this outcrop provides the best basis for further working in the long term given the extent of the area.

Natural Building and Roofing Stone

Figure 14: Outcrop of Namurian rocks in County Durham

Mineral Qualities - Building Stone. Type Value Uses Sandstone. Hard, durable, frost resistance with desired Repair, restoration and erection of new buildings and aesthetic qualities. other built structures i.e. stone walls.

5.28 Sandstones of Carboniferous age, primarily the Stainmore Group (Namurian geological age) are the principal building stone resources in County Durham. They satisfy the accepted criteria for building stone use such as strength and frost resistance (low porosity), durability and hardness (well cemented and resistant), size of block based upon thickness of bed, and aesthetic qualities such as colour and texture. In the past Dinantian sandstones have also been extensively employed as building stones in farms and villages in the Durham Dales from locally quarried Dinantian Rocks. In addition coal measures sandstones have also been used.

Current and historic working

5.29 A continuing supply of building stone for new building work and for restoration is important to maintain local vernacular architecture. Demand for stone is currently concentrating on sandstones of uniform colour (buff, pale yellow and grey) and fine to medium grain size.

5.30 Building stone outcrops commonly in several parts of West Durham, particularly in Teesdale where it remains an important local industry. The Namurian sandstones of County Durham constitute the principal source of building stone and are used both within the County and beyond.

Namurian sandstone Quarries in County Durham. Quarry. Nearest Town. District. Baxton Law Hustanworth Wear Valley Dunhouse Staindrop Wear Valley Stainton Barnard Castle Teesdale Shipley Banks Barnard Castle Teesdale Dead Friars Stanhope Teesdale Windy Hill Eggelston Teesdale Catcastle Staindrop Derwentside Lingberry Staindrop Teesdale

5.31 Coal measure sandstones have been widely used as building stones. The finest examples of their use within the County are Durham Cathedral and Castle, though they were widely used across the coalfield. Millstone Grit sandstone is also worked at Harthope Head Quarry in Weardale.

Developing an approach to safeguarding Natural Building and Roofing Stone

5.32 The BGS mineral resource report for County Durham and the Tees Valley does not show the extent of the building stone resource in County Durham. The given reason being that quarries are often small and based upon resources of local significance i.e. strength, durability, aesthetic qualities and textural consistency. The only information we have is the broad extent of the Namurian sandstones in County Durham which covers an extensive area of the County (see figure 3.8). Therefore it may not be possible to identify safeguarding areas, other than safeguarding existing permitted reserves. However, consideration will be given to safeguarding additional areas, identified by the minerals industry where a robust case is made.

5.33 MPS1 advises that English Heritage and the minerals industry should make mineral planning authorities aware of important sources of building stone that they consider should be safeguarded. This includes important historic heritage quarries where it can be shown that the quarry was the original source of stone used in the construction of historic building or monument or that the stone is technically compatible with material in the structure to be repaired and that stone from the quarry, is, or will be required for restoration or conservation purposes in the absence of viable alternatives. We therefore need advice from English Heritage and the minerals industry on those areas and disused quarries which should be safeguarded as important sources of building stone for historic conservation purposes.

Figure 15: Existing Natural Building and Roofing Stone Sites.

Question 13 We would welcome your views on how we should safeguard natural building and roofing stone sites. Should we just seek to safeguard existing sites and additional sites identified by operators together with historic heritage quarries identified by English Heritage?

Brick making raw materials

Mineral Qualities - Coal Measures Mudstone, Coal Measures Seatearths and Brick Clay. Type Value Uses Coal Measures Kaolonite rich materials with carbon contents of less than 1.5% along Produces red bricks. mudstone (brick- with less than 0.2% sulphur. shale). Coal measures They display a wide range of mineralogical compositions and Supplements brick seatearths properties. Fireclays consist of clay minerals kaolonite and mica, clay to produce buff (fireclay). together with fine grained quartz. Contain low carbon, sulphur and iron coloured bricks. content. Brick clay. Glacial clay of quaternary age. Produces facing bricks.

Current and historic working

Current Planning Permissions : Quarries. Eldon. Long Lane, Todhills. Birtley Quarry.

5.34 Coal measures mudstone is currently extracted at two dedicated sites in the County supplying both Eldon and Todhills brickworks. An extension to the existing brick clay pit at Eldon Brickworks was permitted in March 2008, thereby providing an additional 31 years of permitted reserves. A succession of sites have been worked in the vicinity of Todhills brickworks, with clay currently been worked at Long Lane Quarry, adjacent to the brickworks. The Long Lane permission, permitted in 1999 runs to 2018, thereby providing at least ten further years of mineral. An allocation (area of search) is currently identified in the County Durham Minerals Local Plan to meet the long term requirements 28

at this site. Glacial lake clay is currently worked at Birtley Quarry, supplying clay to the adjacent Union Brickworks in Gateshead Borough. The Union Brickworks permission runs to 2020, thereby potentially providing at least twelve further years of mineral reserves for this site.

5.35 Historically, fireclay has been extracted from opencast coal sites in Durham. Several fireclays within the Lower Coal Measures are of economic interest for brick manufacture, most notably those associated with the Tilley and Busty seems, but also the Victoria and Brockwell. However, only a small proportion of opencast coal sites normally produce fireclay. This is usually either due to variable quality of fireclays, or may be the result of operational or planning restrictions. Up until the 2nd world war, before the advent of opencast mining, all fireclay was extracted by underground mining. The last two fireclay mines in County Durham near Bishop Auckland closed in 1975.

5.36 Currently, no fireclay is extracted in County Durham with existing fire clay resources currently being used at Todhills Brickworks now being sourced from opencast coal sites in Northumberland.

Developing an approach to safeguarding Brick making raw materials

5.37 Although coal measures mudstones are widespread in the Durham coalfield, the occurrence of those which meet the requirements of the brick making industry are more limited. BGS information indicates that brick clays must have consistent firing and forming properties which minimise production problems. In coal measures mudstones, materials with carbon properties less than 1.5% are preferred, along with less than 0.2% sulphur. BGS information indicates that clays of this type with the coal measures tend to be restricted vertically and will comprise only a small part of the sedimentary horizon. Glacial lake clay of quaternary age is found in the Team Valley. Historically, a succession of sites, have been worked in this area for brick making purposes. Glacial lake deposits differ from the coal measure mudstone deposits. Again we understand that the Union Brickworks requires mineral of particular technical properties.

5.38 Given the specific requirements of the brick making industry for mineral of particular technical properties, the brick making industry is best placed to identify potential mineral safeguarding areas for both glacial clay and coal measures mudstone, and we therefore request the submission of potential safeguarding areas from the brick making industry. Such safeguarded areas could potentially provide a long term resource for each brick manufacturing plant. This would be in addition to existing permitted reserves, existing Minerals Local Plan allocations and any further mineral resources required to meet Government targetsviii. Given that fireclay resources are now only worked in association with opencast coal we consider that this mineral needs to be safeguarded as part of the safeguarding approach we adopt to opencast coal.

viii Annex 2 of Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1) 'Planning and Minerals' refers to the requirement for a 25 year supply of brick making raw materials for each brick manufacturing plant. 29

Figure 16: Brick Clay and Shale sites

Question 14 Our proposed approach is to safeguard existing permissions, allocations identified in the County Durham Minerals Local Plan, additional allocations identified as part of work to prepare the County Durham Local Development Framework and any additional areas identified by the brick making industry for long term safeguarding, (with buffer zone around sites and allocations). In our view this option would help safeguard brick making raw material needs in the long term.

Do you agree with our approach if not why not?

Coal (opencast coal)

Figure 17: Outcrop of Principal and Subsidiary Coal Resource Area

5.39 The exposed coalfield in County Durham occupies a broad outcrop over 715km2 in area in the centre of the County. East of a line through Ferryhill and Pittington and extending to the offshore area, coal bearing strata dip beneath the overlying Permian rocks to form the concealed coalfield. The coals of Durham cover a range of rank from coking coals in the west to high-volatile bituminous coals in the east. Opencast activity has been mainly confined to the exposed Lower and Middle coal measures, the main concentration of coals of economic interest being between the Bottom Marshall Green seam and the High Main seam.

Current and historic working

5.40 The Durham and Northumberland coalfield is reported as the first British coalfield to be developed commercially. During the 19th and 20th centuries the coalfield of Durham was extensively worked by deep mined methods. Exhaustion of reserves during the 20th century and economic factors has led progressively to the closure of all the mines and large-scale deep mining came to the end with the closure of Vane Tempest Colliery in 1993. With the closure of the small Park Drift mine, near Willington in 1999, all underground mining has ceased and production is now all by opencast mining. BGS information indicates that future commercial interest is likely to be confined to sites suitable only for opencast extraction.

5.41 The exposed coalfield in Durham has been extensively worked by opencast mining since the second world war, although production of opencast coal has declined significantly over the last 20 years from approximately 1,200 thousand tonnes in 1987/88, with a recent peak in production of over 1,400 thousand tonnes in 1991/92 to less than 100 thousand tonnes in both 2005 and 2006.

5.42 In the post war period areas affected by opencast coal working has spread to cover a significant proportion of the exposed coalfield with over 120km² having been worked, utilised for soils storage or had approval for working. The last active opencast coal site in the County, Stoney Heap near Leadgate ceased extraction in August 2007.

Developing an approach to safeguarding coal

5.43 The BGS mineral resource report for County Durham and the Tees Valley shows the extent of areas of coal found at shallow depths. Two specific areas are delineated: the principal resource area (containing thick closely spaced coals) and the subsidiary resource area (containing widely spaced coals). The principal resource area extends to 60,383 ha, the subsidiary resource area extends to 3,443 ha. Within these areas 6,604 ha are identified as areas which have been worked for opencast extraction. In addition a further 49.1 ha were worked during the period 2000-07 at Southfield, near Bishop Auckland and 47.5 ha at Stoney Heap near Leadgate. Unfortunately, it appears that many of the previously worked opencast coal sites may not be able to be discounted as containing no further reserves, the BGS report indicates that, ‘the extensive nature of these former opencast coal sites does not imply that the coal resource has been exhausted. The economics of coal extraction have changed with time, allowing coals with higher overburden ratios to be extracted. Some sites, or parts of sites, have been worked on more than one occasion and may be worked for deeper coal in the future’, although the BGS report also states that, ‘modern sites worked within the last 25 years are likely to have exhausted the economically recoverable resources’.

5.44 While we hold information as to the location of both the principal and subsidiary coal resource areas, information as to the location of economically recoverable reserves of coal is limited. It is clear however, from the response we have received to the call for mineral sites undertaken during 2005 and 2008 that there is continued interest from operators in working a variety of sites across the exposed coalfield. It is also our view that only the industry knows the location of areas which may contain reserves of coal which may become of economic importance in the foreseeable future.

5.45 A complicating factor in developing an approach to the safeguarding of coal is that the exposed coalfield is also a settled landscape, many of the settlements within the exposed coalfield having developed around former collieries and colliery villages. Such areas effectively sterilise significant parts of the exposed coalfield by virtue of the presence of built development and the need to ensure adequate stand off distances and effective protection of local communities and the environment.

5.46 As stated above (within the section relating to brick making raw materials) fireclay can be worked in association with coal where it is found with the right technical properties. The issue of fire clay sterilisation should therefore be considered in association with coal through the preparation of a mineral assessment report as part of any planning application which considers the risk of sterilisation.

Figure 18: Coal Safeguarding Option A

Figure 19: Coal Safeguarding Option B

Question 15 Which option do you prefer for safeguarding opencast coal? (Please let us know if you consider that an alternative option or approach would be more appropriate).

Option A - Safeguard all of the principal and subsidiary resource area. This option would safeguard these resource areas in their entirety including land already sterilised by built development and previously worked opencast coal sites.

Option B - Safeguard a proportion of the principal and subsidiary resource area. These areas would be refined to exclude all existing settlements and previously worked opencast coal sites. The main disadvantage of this option is that it would still represent a large proportion of the exposed coalfield.

Option C - Safeguard only areas identified by the opencast coal industry and landowners which are believed to contain economically recoverable coal resources. The disadvantage of this option is that it may not safeguard all potentially recoverable coal resources only those areas which the industry and landowners identify. These areas may also be construed incorrectly as areas where working would be allowed.

Please note only option A and option B is mapped. Option C is dependent on the coal industry and landowners identifying specific areas.

6.0 Other matters

Safeguarding railheads, wharfage and associated storage, handling, processing facilities for the bulk transport of minerals

6.1 Minerals Policy Statement 1 ‘Planning and Minerals’ requires that existing, planned and potential railheads, wharfage and associated storage, handling, processing facilities for the bulk transport of minerals are safeguarded. In our view safeguarding existing transportation infrastructure, which is currently used, or could be used for the transport of bulk materials, and potential infrastructure will be important in order to help promote the movement of mineral by rail and so thereby contribute to achieving sustainable development.

Rail transhipment facilities and rail alignments 1. The only existing mineral railhead in the County is located at Thrislington Quarry. This is connected to the rail network via a small rail line connecting with the East Coast Mainline. The County Council considers that this should be safeguarded. Currently this line is protected by saved Policy M39 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan. 2. The Weardale Railway line is currently open for passenger traffic from Stanhope to Wolsingham. Once it is fully reopened from Bishop Auckland and extended from Stanhope towards Eastgate it is seen as key for the public to come and visit and stay in the North Pennines. The Weardale Railway line also has the potential to be used for mineral transhipment. Our current view is that the Weardale railway should be safeguarded with the proviso that safeguarding will not prejudice the use of the line for passenger traffic. Currently this line is protected by saved Policy M39 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan. 3. The Ferryhill-Cornforth-Raisby Quarry alignment has the potential to connect the East Coast Mainline with Raisby Quarry. Currently this alignment is protected by saved Policy M39 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan. Our current view is that this alignment should continue to be safeguarded.

4. A rail freight terminal is proposed at Tursdale connected with the potential reopening of the Leamside Line. Our current view is the proposed Tursdale rail freight facility should be safeguarded with the proviso that safeguarding will not prejudice the use of the site for transhipment of other goods. In addition our current view is that the Leamside Line should also be safeguarded. Currently the Leamside Line is afforded protection by saved Policy M39 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan.

Question 16 a) Do you agree that the following existing facilities and railways and potential rail alignments and facilities should be safeguarded: i) Thrislington rail head and rail line; ii Weardale Railway Line; iii) Ferryhill-Cornforth-Raisby Quarry alignment; iv) Leamside Line; and v) Proposed rail transhipment facility at Tursdale. b) Are there any other existing, potential or planned mineral rail facilities or alignments which should be safeguarded? If yes please specify and provide details.

Port of Seaham 6.2 County Durham’s only port is the Port of Seaham located on the North Sea Coast. It is understood that the Port is not currently used for the bulk transhipment of minerals.

Question 17 Should any part of the port of Seaham be safeguarded for mineral transhipment? (If yes, please provide details and explain why safeguarding is necessary?)

Concrete batching, the manufacture of coated materials, other concrete products 6.3 Minerals Policy Statement 1 ‘Planning and Minerals’ requires that existing, planned and potential sites including rail and water served for concrete batching, the manufacture of coated materials, other concrete products and the handling, processing and distribution of substitute, recycled and secondary aggregate material should be safeguarded.

6.4 A number of existing mineral sites are understood to contain a range of mineral processing facilities for the manufacture of coated materials (asphalt plants), other concrete products and other minerals. A number of sites also contain other facilities including secondary aggregate facilities. In addition a range of non-minerals sites also recycle secondary aggregates.

Known mineral Sites with mineral processing facilities Quarry Plant/facility/operation Status Operator Force Garth Coated road stone – Asphalt Plant Inactive Cemex Heights Coated road stone – Asphalt Plant Active Aggregate Industries Hulands Coated road stone – Asphalt Plant Active Aggregate Industries Raisby (Coxhoe) Coated road stone – Asphalt Plant Active Tarmac Northern Thrislington Kilns for production of calcined material Active Lafarge Aggregates Concrete Plant Sand recovery plant Kilmond Wood Concrete plant Inactive Cemex Secondary aggregates recycling Quarrington Secondary aggregates recycling Active Tarmac Northern

Aycliffe East Secondary aggregates recycling Active Stonegrave

Question 18 Given that these facilities all lie within operational mineral quarries and are unlikely to be vulnerable to potentially sterilising development do any of these facilities need to be specifically safeguarded? (In replying please specify which site or sites and explain why).

6.5 A number of waste sites are known to undertake secondary aggregates recycling.

Known waste sites with secondary aggregates recycling facilities/operations Waste site Plant/facility/operation Status Operator Joint Stocks Secondary aggregates recycling Active Premier Waste Burn & Hewitt, Thornley Secondary aggregates recycling Inactive Burn and Hewitt Constantine Farm Secondary aggregates recycling Active William Marley Tomlinsons Secondary aggregates recycling Active R H Tomlinsons Tonks Secondary aggregates recycling Active Tonks Ward Bros, Thistle Road Secondary aggregates recycling Active Ward Brothers Shaw Bank Secondary aggregates recycling Active F R Jackson Tanfield Old Brickworks Secondary aggregates recycling Active Coltons

Question 19 Do these sites provide valuable recycled minerals which should be safeguarded? (In replying please specify which site or sites and explain why).

6.6 A number of concrete plants which are potentially ancillary to mineral sites have been identified.

Concrete Plants potentially ancillary to mineral sites 1066 William the Concreter, Twizzell Dykes Farm. Cemex Ready Mix, Thornley Ind Est, Salters Lane, Shotton Colliery. Cemex Ready Mix, Union Brickworks, Birtley. Cemex Readymix, Main St, Crookhall, Consett. Cemex Readymix, Rear of BSC, Cumbie Way, Newton Aycliffe. Cemex Readymix. Littleburn Ind Est, Langley Moor. Cemex UK Materials Ltd, Durham Plant, Littleburn Ind Est, Langley Moor. Forticrete Ltd, Thornley Station Ind Est, Shotton Colliery. Micromix RM Concrete, Greenland Lodge, Hamsteels Lane, Esh, Durham. Mixamate Concrete NE, 24, Karles Close, Newton Aycliffe. Mixamate Mixed on site concrete and screed, Littleburn Ind Est, Langley Moor. Newmix, 78 Oakfields, Hunwick. Sherburn Stone Co Ltd, 15 Front Street, Sherburn. Tarmac Ltd, Hemelite Blocks, Littleburn Ind Est, Langley Moor. Tarmac Ltd, Romanway Ind Est, West Auckland. Thomas Armstrong (Concrete Blocks) Unit G1, Park Rd, Blackhill, Consett. Waltons, Chilton Lane, Chilton Quarry, Ferryhill. Wear Mini Mix, 3 New South Terrace, Birtley.

Question 20 Should these sites be safeguarded? (In replying please specify which site or sites and explain why).

Question 21 Are there any other sites which should be considered for safeguarding? (In replying please specify which site or sites and explain why).