East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston Upon Hull

Home , Broomfleet, Driffield, Huggate, Riplingham, Yorkshire Wolds, Youlthorpe

East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach

Summer 2010 Consultation

East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City Council

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Consultation Document Regulation 25 (2008)

Consultation Summer 2010

Notice This report was produced by Atkins Limited for East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council for the specific purpose of The Joint Minerals Development Plan Document.

This report may not be used by any person other than East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council without East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council’s express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council.

Document History

JOB NUMBER: 5049925 East Riding & Hull CC DOCUMENT REF: Draft Report JMDPD JMDPD v.1.0 For Client Comment AH, LT, AH, RB JD 03/04/09 RB, YP v.1.1 For Issue AH, LT, AH, RB JD JD 10/05/10 RB, YP

Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

This report has been produced for the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council by Atkins Ltd.

If you would like a summary of this document in a different format such as large print, Braille of tape, or in a different language, please contact your Council’s Information Centre on East Riding of Yorkshire 01482 393939 Or email [email protected] City of Kingston upon Hull 01482 300 300 Or email [email protected]

The Joint Authorities are keen to obtain the views of everyone with an interest in minerals planning on the issues raised in this Consultation version of the Joint Minerals Development Plan Document. A response form is provided and further copies can be downloaded from our respective websites.

www.eastriding.gov.uk and www.hullcc.gov.uk

Alternatively, responses can be made online through the websites. The consultation period ends on Wednesday 14th July 2010, and completed response forms should be sent for the Attention of Richard Barker to;

Atkins Limited, The Axis, 6th Floor West, 10 Holliday Street, Birmingham, B1 1TF Electronic Response to: [email protected]

For further information contact either: Andy Wainwright at the East Riding of Yorkshire Council offices on 01482 393730 or Anthea Hoey of Atkins Ltd on 01392 352900

Independent advice and support Planning Aid provides free, independent and professional advice on planning issues to community groups and individuals who cannot afford to pay a planning consultant. Yorkshire Planning Aid also provides a programme of community planning, training and education activities.

Planning Aid contact details Address: Yorkshire Planning Aid, The Studio, 32 The Calls, Leeds, LS2 7EW Telephone: 0113 204 2460, or For general planning advice contact the Planning Advice Helpline: 0870 850 9808) Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.planningaid.rtpi.org.uk

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Contents Section Page List of Abbreviations iv 1. Introduction 1 The Joint Minerals Development Plan Document (JMDPD) 2 Sustainability Appraisal 6 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) 7 2. Background to the Proposed Plan 13 Introduction 13 Spatial Picture 13 Geology of the Joint Area 15 Current Picture of the Minerals Industry 17 3. Minerals Objectives and Core Strategy Policies 20 Minerals Objectives 20 Developing Minerals Core Strategy Policies 22 Safeguarding 25 Planning for the Supply of Mineral Resources 30 4. Aggregate Minerals 31 Introduction 31 Sand and Gravel 34 Crushed Rock 42 Extraction outside Preferred Areas and Areas of Search 48 Borrow Pits 48 Recycled and Secondary Aggregates 50 Imported Aggregates 51 Marine Aggregates 52 5. Non Aggregate Minerals 57 Clay 57 Industrial Chalk 60 Peat 62 Silica Sand 65 6. Energy Minerals 68 Coal 68 Exploration Boreholes 74 Appraisal Boreholes 75 Production and Distribution 76 Underground Storage of Natural Gas 77 7. Development Management Policies 80 Introduction & Background 80 Development Management Policies 82 8. Site Allocations 93 Introduction 93 Defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas 93

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Buffer Zones 96 Candidate Preferred Areas for Sand and Gravel Working 98 Candidate Areas of Search for Sand and Gravel Working 99 Candidate Areas of Search for Crushed Rock Working 100 Candidate Preferred Areas of Clay Extraction 101 Candidate Areas of Search for Industrial Chalk 102 9. Monitoring and Implementation 103 Introduction 103 Monitoring 103 Performance Indicators 104 Implementation 110 What Happens Next 110

List of Tables Table 4.1 - Guidelines for Aggregate Provision in Yorkshire and Humber Region 2005-2020 32 Table 4.2 - Joint Area Sub-Regional Apportionment for Aggregate Provision, 2001 to 2016 33 Table 4.3 - Aggregate Reserves and Landbank Position at end of 2008 33 Table 8.1 - Candidate Preferred Areas for Sand and Gravel Working 99 Table 8.2 - Candidate Areas of Search for Sand and Gravel Working 100 Table 8.3 - Candidate Areas of Search for Crushed Rock 101 Table 8.4 - Candidate Preferred Area for Clay Extraction 102 Table 8.5 - Candidate Area of Search for Industrial Chalk 102 Table 9.1 - Monitoring Indicators 104

List of Figures Figure 1.1 - Joint Area for the JMDPD 1 Figure 1.2 – Plan Preparation Process for the JMDPD 4 Figure 1.3 - ERYC Local Development Framework (LDF) 9 Figure 1.4 – Kingston-upon-Hull City Council Local Development Framework (LDF) 10 Figure 2.1 – Simplified Geology 15 Figure 4.1 - Sand and Gravel Deposits 35 Figure 4.2 - Chalk and Limestone Deposits 43 Figure 5.1 - Brick Clay Deposits 58 Figure 5.2 – Silica Sand Deposits 66 Figure 6.1 - Oil and Gas Licences 72

Appendices Appendix A A.1 Site Assessments Appendix B B.1 Lists and Inset Maps of Proposed Site Allocations Appendix C C.1 Response Form

iii

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

List of Abbreviations

Term Meaning

AMR2008 Aggregates Monitoring Report 2008 prepared by Yorkshire and Humber Region Aggregates Working Party BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BGS British Geological Survey CBM Coal Bed Methane CLG Communities and Local Government DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DM Development Management DPD Development Plan Document EC European Community ERY East Riding of Yorkshire ERYC East Riding of Yorkshire Council EU European Union

FBA Furnace Bottom Ash FRA Flood Risk Assessment HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment I and O Issues and Options

JMDPD Joint Minerals Development Plan Document JMLP Joint Minerals Local Plan (Adopted 2004) KHCC Kingston upon Hull City Council

LDD Local Development Document LDF Local Development Framework LDS Local Development Scheme LNR Local Nature Reserves LPA Local Planning Authority LSP Local Spatial Planning MNR Marine Nature Reserves MPA Mineral Planning Authority MPS Minerals Policy Statement

NE Natural England NNR National Nature Reserves ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister iv

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Term Meaning PCPA Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004)

PFA Pulverised Fuel Ash PPS Planning Policy Statement RSS Regional Spatial Strategy (for Yorkshire and the Humber) RIGS Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites SA Sustainability Appraisal SAC Special Areas of Conservation SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SINC Site of Interest for Nature Conservation SPA Special Protection Areas

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest TCPA Town and Country Planning Act (1990) YHA Yorkshire and Humberside Assembly YHRAWP Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Aggregates Working Party

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

1. Introduction

1.1 This consultation document is the second formal stage in the preparation of the Joint Minerals Development Plan Document (JMDPD), prepared jointly by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) and Kingston upon Hull City Council (KHCC). This follows the Issues and Options Report (undertaken in accordance with Regulation 25 of the previous plan-making regulations1) which was subject to public consultation in June 2008. The Options contained in the Issues and Options Report was subject to an initial Sustainability Appraisal (SA) published in May 20082. 1.2 This document has been produced in line with the Development Plan making system for England3, and will help inform the final version of the JMDPD. It will be subject to consultations with the local community, key stakeholders, minerals industry operators, and local partners. The consultation is in accordance with the ERYC and KHCC Statements of Community Involvement (SCI). This consultation document has been subject to a further stage of Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and other Habitats Regulations Assessment screening; this will ensure that the final JMDPD is the most appropriate having gone through an objective process of assessing alternatives and consultation. 1.3 The aim of the JMDPD is to set out the objectives and spatial approach for mineral development within the administrative areas of the two Authorities and provide the key policy framework for minerals development management in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004 (and associated regulations). Once adopted, the JMDPD will replace the existing saved policies within the Joint Minerals Local Plan that was adopted in 2004. 1.4 The plan area covered will be referred to as the ‘Joint Area’, and the two Authorities will be referred to as the ‘Joint Authorities’. The extent of the Joint Area is shown in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1 - Joint Area for the JMDPD4

1 The Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 as amended 2 Summary of Assessment of Strategic Options ERYC and KHCC. JMDPD. Sustainability Appraisal May 2008 3 As set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004, Planning Policy Statement 12 (‘Local Spatial Planning’), and the 2004 Regulations. 4 Source: East Riding of Yorkshire Council 1

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

The Joint Minerals Development Plan Document (JMDPD)

1.5 The JMDPD will aim to reconcile the objectives of protecting the environment and local communities while meeting the need for minerals and ensuring that minerals development contributes to wider sustainability aims. Consequently, minerals must be worked in a planned fashion over time, in order to make optimum use of a finite resource. In line with the emerging RSS for Yorkshire and Humber; the JMDPD will look forward to 2026. 1.6 The aim of the JMDPD is to update the JMLP, setting out the objectives and spatial approach for mineral development within the administrative areas of the two Authorities and providing the key policy framework for minerals development management. The JMDPD will address detailed policy on safeguarding and supply for key minerals, and identify Site allocations and criteria based Development Management Policies against which proposals for minerals development will be determined. 1.7 Although the JMDPD is being prepared jointly, mineral related planning applications will continue to be processed by the Authority in which they occur. The two Authorities, as respective MPAs are responsible for all mineral planning matters throughout their areas. This responsibility includes the processing of all planning applications for the winning and working of minerals and associated development, together with the production of a JMDPD for the forward planning of such activities. 1.8 The proposed JMDPD will been prepared for Hull and East Riding and will identify sufficient specific sites or preferred areas to meet East Riding’s share of the Yorkshire and Humber RSS sub-regional apportionments for aggregates. Planning Background 1.9 Planning Policy Statement 12 ‘Local Spatial Planning’ (PPS12) sets out the Government’s policy statement on local spatial planning, which plays a central role in the overall task of place shaping and in the delivery of land uses and associated activities. 1.10 The new plan-making system aims to ensure community involvement in policy making and contributing to the achievement of sustainable development which is a statutory objective. The aim being to deliver positive social, economic and environmental outcomes with the active collaboration of a wide range of stakeholders and agencies that help to shape local areas and deliver local services. 1.11 Under the new plan-making system, the preparation of development plan documents is subject to the New Regulation 25 which requires notification of each of the specific consultation bodies5, and the public with an interest in the subject of the document. This will ensure that stakeholders have an involvement in the creation of the final document. 1.12 Work for the preparation of the JMDPD commenced prior to the new Regulation 25. It will be completed in accordance with, and having regard to the following;

5 listed in the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (as amended) 2

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

• the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) • the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations (2008) • National Planning Policy Statements (including PPS12), • the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (RSS), • local strategies, • the latest version of each Authority’s Core Strategy • the Strategic Environmental Assessment, • the Habitats Regulations Assessment and, • the Sustainability Appraisal. The Plan-Making Process 1.13 Under the new planning system (PPS12 – Local Spatial Planning), the plan preparation process for the JMDPD is required to undergo the steps set out in Figure 1.2, explained further below: 1.14 Development Plan Documents need to be prepared on a sound Evidence Base to provide an understanding of the Joint Area in respect of its communities, its character, its needs and key issues, the pressures for change and its future potential and challenges. 1.15 The evidence base for the preparation of this document comprises of two elements: • Participation: The views of the local community and others who have a stake in the future of the Joint Area; and • Research/fact finding: The background information from a wide variety of sources, including updated national policy guidance, the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy, the Sustainable Community Strategy for each Authority, and other information being assembled for the respective Authorities own LDFs.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Figure 1.2 – Plan Preparation Process for the JMDPD

Evidence gathering

Issues and Options Consultation (former Reg 25) June 2008

Preferred Approach Consultation document on the JMDPD (under New Reg 25) May – July 2010 (This document and subsequent processes under the New Regulations)

Public participation Public participation Pre-submission Document December 2010 – January 2011 Sustainability Appraisal Sustainability Appraisal

Submission of JMDPD to Secretary of State

Independent Examination September 2011

Binding Report in examination Representations Representations and participation and participation December 2011

Adoption February 2012

Monitoring and Review

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Issues and Options Consultation– prepared under Old Regulation 25 1.16 An Issues and Options Report was prepared and subject to consultation in May and June 2008. Copies of the report were sent or made available to a wide range of consultees, including all parish councils in the joint area, adjoining Local Authorities, statutory consultees, mineral operators, environmental and other interest groups. 1.17 A workshop on the Issues and Options Report was held on 12th June 2008 at the Treasure House in Beverley. The workshop was advertised in Council press publications, on the East Riding and Hull websites and by posters being sent to all consultees and displayed in the Council Offices and libraries. 1.18 The key issues discussed at the workshop included: • Which minerals warrant safeguarding? • Should minerals be safeguarded in environmentally sensitive areas? (e.g. National Landscape Designations). • In addition to safeguarding, are buffers around known resources also required? • What is appropriate level of supply? • Are there enough deposits to maintain local supply? • What happens if supply is not met locally 1.19 The responses to the Issues and Options consultation are reviewed within this document. A brief overview of the responses suggests a general support; however in some cases alternative or additional suggestions were made. These have been taken into account in the preparation of this document. Where consultee responses indicate conflicting interests, it is the MPAs’ role to balance these conflicts and produce a document with acceptable and sound policies. 1.20 Analysis of the responses to the Issues and Options Report may be viewed at http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/ and www.hullcc.gov.uk/. This Consultation Document 1.21 This preferred approach consultation JMDPD is prepared under new regulation 25 of the planning system. The outcomes of the Issues and Options Consultation, information from the evidence gathered, the SA, and the AA have helped inform the proposed matters set within this document. This document will be subject to a 8 week consultation period, and will also be subject to SA. The comments received from the consultation and the SA will feed into the pre-submission document. Pre-submission Document 1.22 Following on from this consultation version of the JMDPD, a pre-submission document will be prepared. The pre-submission document is a draft of the final JMDPD which will be submitted to the Secretary of State. The pre-submission document will include the comments from the consultations, and the outcomes of the SA and AA. The document will be subject to a 6 week consultation period.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

1.23 Consultation on the pre-submission document is to ascertain the legality and soundness of the JMDPD: whether it is justified, whether it is effective and whether it is consistent with national policy. The comments from this consultation will feed into the final submission document to the Secretary of State. This stage is not for the submission of new material to change policy in the JMDPD but to ensure that all procedures have been properly followed to ensure that the final JMDPD is sound. Submission to the Secretary of State 1.24 The examination process starts on submission of the final JMDPD to the Secretary of State and ends on the issue of the draft report to the MPA for ‘fact check’. An Inspector acting on behalf of the Secretary of State may hold early exploratory / pre- examination meetings to clarify any significant issues relating to the soundness of the JMDPD. Any fundamental concern the Inspector may have in respect of the soundness is clarified at the pre examination meeting. Independent Examination 1.25 Under the new planning system, the Inspector may hold hearing sessions. The Inspector at this stage will apply tests of soundness rigorously. The inspector can make recommendations for changes to the DPD or determine that the DPD or process has not met the requirements of the new planning system thereby making the document ‘unsound’. Binding Report 1.26 Once the Inspector has determined that the document is sound, at this stage, the Inspector will not be able to recommend changes in a binding report unless the inspector can be sure the plan as changed would not be vulnerable to challenge on the grounds that the proper procedures had not been followed (in particular in relation to the SA process and proper community involvement. Monitoring and Review 1.27 Following any changes required by the binding report the DPD becomes the adopted JMDPD which is then subject to monitoring and review, to ensure that its objectives are met. Monitoring is essential for an effective strategy and will provide the basis on which the contingency plans within the strategy would be triggered. Sustainability Appraisal

1.28 Under the new plan making system the JMDPD is required to be subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA). The SA process tests how the plan will aid the development of sustainable communities. Section 19(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004 requires that the JMDPD is compliant with the requirements of the European Directive 2001/42/EC (known as the Strategic Environment Assessment or SEA Directive), and to undertake a full Sustainability Appraisal (SA). 1.29 The objective of the SEA Directive is: “To provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans… with a view to promoting sustainable development, by ensuring that, in accordance with this Directive, an environmental

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

assessment is carried out of certain plans… which are likely to have significant effects on the environment.” (Article 1) 1.30 SEA Directive requires that the SEA Environmental Report should be incorporated into the SA report as one combined approach. The SA involves several stages, and is a cyclical process, with outcomes from each stage being fed back into emerging version of the JMDPD. 1.31 The key role of the SA is to provide a sound evidence base for the JMDPD and form an integrated part of the plan preparation process. The SA takes a long term view on the potential effects of the JMDPD, taking into account the full range of environmental sustainability, social and economic effects, to promote positive outcomes and minimise any negative impacts. The SA will also inform the evaluation of alternatives. 1.32 The first stage of the SA was preparation of a Scoping Report. The purpose of the Scoping Report is to set the context and strategic objectives for the remaining stages of the SA. It also establishes the baseline for measurement of subsequent progress towards achieving the sustainability objectives. 1.33 Consultation on the Scoping Report was undertaken from 26th November 2007 to 7th January 2008. The SA Scoping Report and feedback received was used in the preparation of the Issues and Options Report. 1.34 The contents of the Issues and Options Report were in turn subject to initial SA to test how the options identified therein performed against the sustainability objectives identified in the Scoping Report. The outcome of this initial SA has fed into the preparation of this consultation version of the JMDPD. 1.35 Further stages of SA will be applied to this document and the pre-submission document. 1.36 The Scoping Report on the SA and other SA reports can be viewed at http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/ and www.hullcc.gov.uk/. Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Background 1.37 Under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations) a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is being undertaken of the DPD in order to see whether its proposals could have the potential to result in adverse effects upon a ‘European Site’. These are sites that have been designated for their international nature conservation interests and include: • Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated under European Council Directive 92/43/EEC(a) on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive); • Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated under the European Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive); and, • The UK Government (in the accompanying circular to Planning Policy Statement 9) as a matter of policy has chosen to apply the habitats regulations assessment procedures in respect of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites),

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

candidate SACs (cSACs) and potential SPAs (pSPAs) even though these are not European sites as a matter of law. HRA Screening / Full 1.38 A HRA screening determines whether a project or plan is likely to have a significant effect on a European site. Should an HRA screening find that there are likely significant effects on a European site, either alone, or in combination, that project or plan must be subject to a full Habitats Regulations Assessment under Parts II and VI of the Habitats Regulations. If it cannot be ascertained that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the European site, the project/plan will have to pass the tests of Regulation 62 and will have to ensure compensatory measures are delivered as necessary in accordance with Regulation 66. JMDPD Habitats Regulations Assessment 1.39 A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening of ‘likely significant effects’ to European sites has been undertaken of the JMDPD in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 1.40 The results of the HRA screening have concluded that it is not possible to determine whether there are likely to be significant effects on European sites for the following candidate areas of search/ core policies/ development management policies: There is the potential for significant effects to: • the Humber Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site as a result of 4 of the 7 areas of search in the Plan (AOS3, AOS4, AOS6 and AOS7); and • Hornsea Mere SPA as a result of one area of search (AOS1). 1.41 All other proposed allocation sites and policies were concluded to have no likely significant effects on any of the European sites. 1.42 For those sites where likely significant effects may occur, further consideration and assessment will need to be given if relevant proposals are brought forward. This will require developers to provide the Competent Authority (in this case ERYC and HCC in consultation with Natural England) with a thorough ecological assessment of the likely effects upon the relevant European site or sites so as to allow the Competent Authority the ability to carry out a Habitats Regulations Assessment. 1.43 Any development that cannot demonstrate that it would not have a significant adverse effect upon the integrity of a site of European or International importance to nature conservation, or that impacts can be adequately mitigated, will be refused. This is in accordance with the precautionary principle enshrined within the Habitats Regulations. Where there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest and the authority is unable to conclude no adverse effect on the integrity of a site, the authority will notify the Secretary of State who will consider calling-in the application for his/her determination. In these situations compensatory measures to protect the European site must be put in place. This plan therefore ensures that the Competent Authority will give consideration to European sites in order to inform development management decisions.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Relationship with Other Planning Documents 1.44 When adopted, the JMDPD will form part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) for the area. The LDF is the collection of local development documents (LDDs) that will be produced by the Local Planning Authorities which collectively delivers the spatial planning for the area. Both ERYC and KHCC are also in the process of producing DPDs that will cover other planning matters within their areas. Details of the progress and proposed time tables for the production of these documents can be found within the Local Development Schemes (LDS) at www.eastriding.gov.uk and www.hullcc.gov.uk. 1.45 The documents that will make up the ERYC LDF and the KHCC LDF are illustrated in Figures 1.3 and 1.4 respectively.

Figure 1.3 - ERYC Local Development Framework (LDF)

Core Strategy (DPD) Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Allocations

Annual Monitoring Bridlington Town East Riding LDF Report Centre Area Action (AMR)

Joint Minerals Local Development Supplementary

Scheme (LDS) Planning Joint Waste

Proposals Map Development Plan Documents (DPD) (DPD) Plan Documents Development

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Figure 1.4 – Kingston-upon-Hull City Council Local Development Framework (LDF)

Core Strategy (DPD) Statement of Community Involvement

Site Allocations

Annual ) Hull City Monitoring Council LDF Report Proposal Map

DPD (AMR) (

City Policies Local Development Scheme Joint Minerals (LDS) Documents Development Plan

Supplementary Planning Documents Joint Waste (SPD)

Newington & St Andrews Area Action

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Format and Content of this Document 1.46 Chapter 2 sets out the background and the spatial picture of the Joint Area and provides an overview of the planned and future need for mineral working. 1.47 Chapter 3 sets out the proposed Minerals Core Strategy Policy for each Authority. The proposed policies seek to conserve minerals resources through safeguarding and promoting their efficient use. The proposed policies seek to maintain supplies of all types of mineral resources in the Joint Plan Area including aggregates, non aggregates and energy supplies, both through the extraction of indigenous minerals, use of recycled materials and through the supply of minerals from outside the plan area. 1.48 Chapter 4 Aggregate Minerals contains the proposed approach to safeguarding aggregates resources and securing provision within the framework of the Minerals Core Strategy Policy and JMDPD Objectives. 1.49 Chapter 5 Non Aggregate Minerals sets out the proposed approach to safeguarding of non-aggregates mineral resources and securing provision within the framework of the Minerals Core Strategy Policy and JMDPD Objectives. 1.50 Chapter 6 Energy Minerals contain the proposed approach to the securing provision of Energy Mineral within the framework of the Minerals Core Strategy Policy and JMDPD Objectives. 1.51 Chapter 7 presents the proposed overarching Development Management (DM) Policies that will shape future minerals working in the Joint Area, including the Preferred Areas. The DM policies address sustainability issues, and the impacts from development proposals. DM policies will be relevant to the applicant in the preparation of planning applications and to decision-makers in the consideration of such applications as they relate to mineral workings within the Joint Area. 1.52 Chapter 8 Site Allocations identify the proposed areas to be safeguarded, candidate Preferred Areas and Areas of Search for aggregates, and for some non aggregate minerals. 1.53 Chapter 9 sets out the Monitoring and Implementation strategy – outlining ‘how’ the JMDPD will be monitored and reviewed to ensure that its objectives are met. Chapters 3-6 of this document provide details of the past consultation responses to the Issues and Options Report, and include references to the findings of the SA Scoping Report and the initial SA. Where applicable, the chapter then contains a proposed preferred policy approach for each topic referred to. What Happens Next 1.54 The value and effectiveness of the proposed JMDPD will be enhanced through the effective participation of stakeholders. The Joint Authorities (ERYC and KHCC) are keen to obtain the views of everyone on this consultation document. This is so that the final document is informed by your views. 1.55 Consultation on this document will commence 19th May 2010 and end over a eight week period, the closing date 5.00pm on Wednesday 14th July 2010.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

1.56 Once the consultation period is complete, the responses received will be analysed and fed into the next stage (the pre-submission joint Minerals document) that will also be subject to further consultation before examination and adoption. 1.57 Please use the response form that accompanies this document to make your comments. Further copies of the response form can be downloaded from the Councils’ respective websites. Alternatively responses can be made on-line through the websites.

The completed forms should be sent to ERYC and KHCC consultants at the following address:

Atkins Limited Richard Barker The Axis, 6th Floor West 10 Holliday Street Birmingham B1 1TF Electronic Response to: [email protected]

Anyone requiring further information before responding should contact either Andy Wainwright at the ERYC offices (Tel: 01482 393730) or Anthea Hoey of Atkins on (Tel. 01392 352900). All responses to the Draft JMDPD Preferred Approach Consultation Document Regulation 25 (2008) will be taken into account when developing the final document and a summary of the responses will be published after the end of the consultation period.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

2. Background to the Proposed Plan Introduction

2.1 This section provides a spatial picture of the plan area, its emerging development needs, its geology and the current pattern of minerals working and supply. This forms the context for the spatial approach that will shape the future of mineral working and supply within the plan area for the period to 2026. Spatial Picture

2.2 The Joint Area covers approximately 2,500km2 and the East Riding of Yorkshire is one of the largest Local Authority areas in England. The topography is varied. Much of the western area lies within the Vale of York and has a flat and gently undulating nature. The south-west corner, around Goole, forms the northern parts of the Ouse and Trent Levels, where the topography is regarded as extraordinarily flat. The Yorkshire Wolds rises as a locally prominent escarpment, forming a central spine to the area. East of the Wolds, the land falls within the catchments of the River Hull and across to the coast. This broad shallow basin of Holderness is low-lying and undulating. The Humber Estuary forms the southern boundary to the area. 2.3 Physical features, such as rivers and the coast have had, and continue to have, an important influence on how land in the Joint Area is used. Significant parts of the Joint Area are low lying and vulnerable to tidal flooding from the Humber and/or from rivers and other watercourses. Parts of the Joint Area’s coastline are the fastest eroding in Northern Europe. 2.4 Over half a million people live in the Joint Area and over 200,000 people work within it. The population of the Joint Area is distributed across a wide range of settlements of various sizes. Over half of the population lives in Hull and the adjoining East Riding settlements of Anlaby / Willerby / Kirkella, Cottingham and Hessle. This represents the single largest urban area in the Joint Area. 2.5 Almost a quarter of the population live in the other larger towns in the East Riding, namely Beverley, Bridlington, Goole and Driffield. The remaining population live within a dispersed area across a wide variety of smaller towns, villages and hamlets. 2.6 Settlements across the Joint Area vary considerably in character. Hull is one of the region’s major cities with significant and varied residential, industrial and commercial areas. The historic core of Hull reveals its strong maritime heritage. Places like Bridlington, Withernsea and Hornsea, have a clear coastal influence whilst towns such as Pocklington and Driffield have a strong rural association. The Joint Area has a wealth of historic features, within and outside settlements. Parks, gardens, estates, battlefields, listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments and other sites of archaeological interest all contribute to a diverse heritage. 2.7 The area’s transport infrastructure provides important local, regional, national and international links for the movement of people and goods. Road, rail and water links connect the Joint Area into the national motorway, rail and inland water networks. The Humber Estuary and the Ports of Hull and Goole add an international dimension

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

to these links. The Humber Bridge, a unique feature in the local landscape, provides an important road link connecting the north and south banks of the Humber. 2.8 Levels of transport provision and accessibility vary considerably across the Joint Area. Public transport services are better on core routes within and between the main centres. In more remote and peripheral areas, reliance on private transport and community services increases. Traffic congestion in the City and in some of the larger towns at peak times is increasingly apparent. The effective movement of people to and from work, education, leisure, shopping and health facilities is important for people’s quality of life and for an efficient economy. This is mirrored by the need to provide effective transport of goods for business and economic development. 2.9 Environmental diversity is evident through the area’s range of natural features, wildlife and landscape. The natural environment represents a major ecological, economic and social asset and resource for the area. The significance of species and habitats in the area is reflected through the presence of many nationally and internationally designated nature conservation areas. The Humber Estuary, the coast and the Lower Derwent Valley are particularly prominent in this respect. Nature conservation interests extend across the whole area, in the countryside and within our built-up areas. Wildlife sites and corridors are increasingly recognised as being valuable features in urban areas. 2.10 The visual character of the countryside varies considerably across the Joint Area. The character of the landscape reflects its broad physical characteristics and features, whilst designated Heritage Coasts reflect the contribution of the coast to the natural beauty of the area. The area’s environment also provides important resources. A relatively high level of good quality agricultural land is important for food production. Groundwater supplies are an invaluable source of water for public supply, industry and agriculture as well as sustaining the base flow of rivers. Planned & Emerging Development Needs 2.11 The strategic policy framework for the Joint Area is contained in the Yorkshire and Humber Plan which is the Region Spatial Strategy adopted May 2008. Hull with the adjoining major Haltemprice settlements in the East Riding is recognised as a key Regional City in the settlement hierarchy, where most of the future development will be focussed. Other growth areas are the Principal Towns in the East Riding; Bridlington, Beverley, Driffield and Goole. Together these settlements are envisaged to provide around 2,000 net additional dwellings every year between 2008 and 2026. 2.12 Further commercial and employment development is planned to provide jobs and improved trading conditions for the Joint Area’s economy. 2.13 Major transport infrastructure works that are proposed include • improvement of the A63 Castle Street in Hull to improve freight movement to the docks • capacity improvements on the Hull docks branch line and the North Humber mainline from Hull to Selby.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

• In East Riding, proposed transport schemes which will have an influence on easing freight movement include: Beverley Southern Relief Road and capacity improvements to the A164 (Humber Bridge to Beverley). Geology of the Joint Area

2.14 The Joint Area has significant deposits of a wide range of minerals, of which the most important are sand and gravel, chalk, clay, silica sand and peat. There are also potential resources of oil, gas and coal. This section briefly describes the type, distribution and working of minerals within the area. 2.15 Comprehensive information on the precise nature and distribution of all the minerals within the area is not available. The majority of the known information relating to the geology has arisen from the British Geological Survey and from reports provided by mineral operators within the Joint Area. Figure 2.1 illustrates in simplified form the surface geology of the area.

Figure 2.1 – Simplified Geology

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Solid Geology 2.16 Exposure of the solid geology underlying the area occurs in the upland areas of the Yorkshire Wolds; elsewhere extensive drift deposits predominate. 2.17 Chalk of the Upper Cretaceous period underlies a significant part of the Joint Area. The chalk forms the northern extent of deposits that can be found in an arc running from southern England through East Anglia, and through the East Riding of Yorkshire, terminating in Flamborough Head. Within the Joint Area workable chalk deposits are found in the Yorkshire Wolds. 2.18 West of the Wolds, lie two major areas underlain by much older rocks formed during the Triassic period. A band of Mercia Mudstone (formerly known as Keuper Marl) runs north to south between Stamford Bridge and Youlthorpe in the north, extending south beyond the Humber into North Lincolnshire. 2.19 The other Triassic formation comprises Sherwood Sandstone (formerly known as Bunter Sandstone). This is found in the remainder of the Plan area west of the Mercia Mudstone, and forms part of a larger deposit running parallel to, and east of, the Pennines. 2.20 Between the Triassic and Cretaceous formations lay a number of much narrower deposits formed during the Jurassic period. Together, these deposits form a significant band running northwards from south of the Humber. As they extend north the bands narrow, with the majority terminating in the vicinity of Market Weighton leaving only Lower Lias to continue in a north westerly direction following the western boundary of the Yorkshire Wolds. The other formations located within this band are, west to east, Middle Lias, Upper Lias, a significant band of Inferior Oolitic limestone lying east of Scunthorpe, Great Oolitic limestone and thin wedges of clay formations from the Middle and Upper Jurassic periods. The Trent Valley, the northern extreme of which lies within the Joint Area, mainly comprises a layer of Quaternary deposits underlain by the Mercia Mudstone described previously. 2.21 The solid geology of the Joint Area also includes hydro-carbon deposits, comprising coal, oil and gas. Drift Geology 2.22 Much of the solid geology of the Joint Area is overlain by drift deposits which in some cases reach a depth of 30 metres. The main areas of drift are the alluvial and glacial deposits of the Vale of York, and the Holderness Plain which comprise extensive boulder clay and sand and gravel deposits. Alluvium is also found in the Trent Valley. 2.23 Parts of the Joint Area are covered by sand and/or gravel deposits. The most significant of these are glacial sands and gravels such as those found near Brandesburton and Keyingham. Not all of the deposits within the Joint Area are economically workable. 2.24 Peat is found in large deposits in the western area of the Trent Valley and in the low lying areas in the vicinity of the River Ouse, on Goole Moors. In both cases these extensive deposits cross the ERY boundary into Doncaster Metropolitan Borough and the North Lincolnshire Council area.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Current Picture of the Minerals Industry

2.25 The diversity of the Joint Area’s geology has not only influenced the landscape and its patterns of settlement and land use, but has also resulted in the development of a wide range of quarries and mines that have exploited the underlying resources. 2.26 Current mineral working activity within the Joint area, including the minerals handling facilities in Hull is described below. Sand and Gravel 2.27 In December 2006 there were six sites extracting sand and gravel. The most important areas for working are near Gransmoor and Brandesburton with smaller scale operations near Keyingham. Other workable deposits are found at North Cave and Newton on Derwent. Chalk 2.28 In December 2006 there were six operational sites extracting chalk for aggregate and industrial uses within the Joint Area. These sites are located in the Yorkshire Wolds, and are distributed from Riplingham and Swinescaif, just west of Hull, as far north as Greenwick and Huggate, in the west part of the Wolds, and Lowthorpe north-east of Driffield. The other locations are Partridge Hall and Huggate. There is also an active quarry at Middleton near Lund. As an aggregate, the use of much of the chalk won is limited due to its softness and susceptibility to frost. However, it is used as a bulk fill for new road schemes and in other developments where fill material is required. 2.29 In addition, there are high quality chalk deposits worked at Lund, Melton, Huggate and Beverley where the mineral is quarried for a range of specialist uses. These include as a filler or extender in the paper and other industries. Clay 2.30 Broomfleet is the main site where brick clay is extracted in the Joint Area. Here the alluvial clays are used in tile manufacturing at the clayworks factory. Elsewhere some clay is also extracted as a secondary mineral at sand and gravel quarries. This clay is used for engineering purposes, including for flood defence works along the Humber, and as a low permeability liner material for waste disposal sites. The increasing demand for clay for engineering purposes is a trend that seems likely to continue. Peat 2.31 There is one site with planning permission for peat extraction in the Joint Area, Goole Moors. Goole Moor has been the subject of a range of conservation designations reflecting its high ecological value. Following an agreement reached in April 2002 between The Scotts Company (UK) Limited (owner of the site and major peat extractor on the Moors) and Natural England, large areas of the Moors were sold (both leasehold and freehold) to Natural England. This has enabled restrictions to peat working on the Moors to be put in place resulting in the protection and enhancement of these highly valued sites. The site at Woodmansey is no longer active and has been developed for leisure purposes.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Marine Dredged Aggregates 2.32 The United Kingdom is second only to Japan in the production of marine aggregates. There are six main dredging areas off the coasts of England of which the area off the Humber is one of the most important. The North Sea is shallow in this area, generally with a depth of less than 20m. The sea bed comprises a mixture of gravels, sandy gravels and gravelly sands. Elsewhere there are sand banks. A number of licences for dredging have been granted, and the BGS report that there is potential for more. 2.33 Local authority planning control does not extend to the areas worked for marine aggregates; as control extends only to the low water mark. Instead, licences for dredging are considered by DEFRA during which the environmental impact of the dredging is assessed. Further changes to the control of marine extraction as set out in the government’s Marine and Costal Access Bill (2008-09) are under consideration. Local authority planning controls in relation to marine extraction are limited to the siting, environmental issues and some development aspects of the wharves where the minerals are unloaded. Within the Joint Area these facilities are all at Hull. Oil and Gas 2.34 Little public information exists on the occurrence of oil and gas resources within the Joint Area. However, there have been a number of exploratory wells sunk over the last 40 years, and in the 1980s production commenced at Caythorpe west of Bridlington. The reserves here are now being worked out and proposals for electricity production have been put forward, because the pressure is no longer sufficient to feed into the national pipeline grid. 2.35 From knowledge of the solid geology it is reasonable to expect that further commercially viable deposits do exist, and much of the area including the Humber Estuary is, or has been in the past, covered by Department of Trade and Industry licences allowing companies to search for oil and gas. Further on-shore exploration licences have recently been awarded by the Government. In addition to on-shore and estuarine prospecting areas there are extensive off-shore areas licensed for both exploration and production. 2.36 Imported gas is landed at a number of locations along the coast of the East Riding including a major pipeline at Easington which carries gas imported from Langeled, Norway. These pipelines are linked direct into the national pipeline grid, which is currently being extended further inland. There are some pipelines have associated with existing gas storage facilities at Atwick and Aldbrough. In addition there are proposal for a further facility at Whitehill near Withernwick (subject to completion of a legal agreement). Coal 2.37 There is currently no coal working in the Joint Area, but permission for deep mining associated with the Selby Coalfield in North Yorkshire extends right up to the ERY boundary along the River Derwent, and workable seams are known to continue under the river. The permission for deep mining also extends over the area extending from

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Goole Moors in the south east to Goole in the north and Rawcliffe and Cowick in the west.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

3. Minerals Objectives and Core Strategy Policies Minerals Objectives

3.1 The JMDPD needs to be based on a set of objectives to give a clear statement of what it is trying to achieve. The objectives provide the context for the overall themes and direction for minerals planning in the plan area, and also for the formulation of policies and proposals. 3.2 The Issues and Options Report sought views on a draft set of objectives for the JMDPD.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report There was a mixed reaction to the draft set of objectives in the Issues and Options Report. Of the 25 overall respondents, 7 (39%) agreed with the objectives, 11 (61%) disagreed; and 7 (28%) had no comments. Suggested considerations for a revised set of objectives were:- • A sustainable minerals strategy must seek to ensure that minerals development does not take place in those areas which would cause irreparable harm to irreplaceable environmental assets. The objectives should not only relate to the protection of the environment but a clear intention to direct minerals away from those areas of environmental importance; • The importance of Coal Bed Methane should be reflected by a specific policy or an insert into a policy to reflect its importance as an alternative source of energy in line with Government’s energy policy; • Define mineral safeguard areas to prevent needless sterilisation of mineral resources and safeguard rail heads, wharfage and storage handling; and provision to meet sub-regional apportionment. • to maintain adequate and steady supply of minerals to meet sub regional apportionment to East Riding and the required land bank during and at the end of the plan period in accordance with national policy; • The objectives require restoration to a biodiversity after use taking account of the wider context of the surrounding area. • Reference should also be made in the offshore dredging to include protection of the marine environment; • An outright presumption against landfill may compromise restoration schemes as many of the mineral sites are reliant on the importation of selected materials to achieve restoration • Objective should be the ‘supply of aggregates and needs’.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal The draft Minerals Objectives were not assessed as such in the initial SA. However the Scoping stage of the SA presents the sustainability objectives for the plan area which the Minerals DPD must address.

3.3 The options considered for the proposed Objectives in the Minerals DPD related to the topics covered, and whether or not to have a Core Minerals Objective. Taking into account responses from the Issues and Options consultations, National and Regional guidance and the objectives in the Scoping Stage of the SA, the draft objectives for the JMDPD have been revised as follows:-

Objective OBJ 1 The core minerals objective is To promote the most appropriate use of all mineral resources in the interests of the community, the local economy, and the environment. This will be achieved by the following set of strategic mineral objectives; 1. To prevent the unnecessary sterilisation of sand and gravel, chalk, limestone, clay and silica sand mineral resources by other forms of development by defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas; 2. To contribute towards providing an adequate and steady supply of aggregates by identifying locations for extraction of aggregate minerals sufficient to maintain a landbank during and at the end of the plan period in accordance with Government requirements; 3. To contribute towards providing an adequate and steady supply of aggregates by safeguarding facilities for the importation and handling of aggregates in accordance with Government advice; 4. To minimise the demand for primary aggregates by encouraging the recycling of aggregate materials; 5. To contribute towards providing an adequate and steady supply of brick clay for brick and tile manufacture and for other local needs by identifying locations for extraction sufficient to maintain a landbank during and at the end of the plan period in accordance with Government advice; 6. To contribute towards meeting the need for energy by providing a framework for decisions about proposals for future development for oil and gas extraction, storage and transportation, and for exploitation of coal and coal bed methane; 7. To minimise the impact on the environment and local communities from all mineral working and associated activities by providing clear guidance to mineral operators on making planning applications and

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

best practice in the implementation of permitted schemes, and ensuring that minerals sites are restored to the highest standards of beneficial after use; 8. To promote the introduction by DEFRA of a robust monitoring system to monitor the effects of off shore minerals dredging on coastal erosion on the Holderness Coast.

3.4 These objectives will be applied alongside the overall objectives contained in the respective Core Strategies for the East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull. They will provide the context for the policies in the JMDPD, and an outline of the means by which the policies will help achieve the objectives. Developing Minerals Core Strategy Policies

3.5 The East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston Upon Hull City Council are each developing their own Core Strategy as part of their respective LDFs in their roles as Unitary Authorities. These will eventually provide planning guidance for other land uses such as housing, employment, the built and natural environment. Each Council’s Core Strategy will contain a minerals policy. 3.6 The Issues and Options Report sought views on a draft Minerals Core Strategy Policy to embody the approach to sustainable minerals development in the plan area.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report. The draft Minerals Core Policy in the Issues and Options Report was relatively simple; more in the form of a short list of key measures for achieving sustainable minerals development within the joint area. There was no specific content directly relevant to the joint plan area. • There was a mixed response to the suggested wording of the draft Minerals Core Policy in the JMDPD Issues and Options Report, however most people were supportive of it • It was suggested the policy should place more emphasis on protecting natural (biodiversity) and historic assets • All mineral resources with potential economic value should be safeguarded • 'Preferred areas' for future mineral working should be identified • 'Areas of search' for future mineral working should also be identified • The degree of detail included in the policy needs to reflect the individual circumstances of the East Riding

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal The draft Minerals Core Policy was not assessed as such in the initial SA. However the SA Scoping Report provides an important context for the Minerals Core Policies by identifying the overall sustainability objectives for the plan area which the Minerals Core Policies must address.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

3.7 Having regard to the consultation responses, to the National and Regional policy context, the following Minerals Core Strategy Policy wording is proposed for each authority. 3.8 In the East Riding of Yorkshire the Minerals Core Strategy Policy needs to address issues regarding safeguarding and supply of a wide range of minerals, embracing aggregate, non aggregate, and energy minerals and balancing the impacts of minerals related development against other interests.

Proposed East Riding of Yorkshire Minerals Core Strategy Policy (policy HQE9 within the East Riding Core Strategy) Sustainable minerals development will be achieved by the following:- A. Identifying Safeguarding Areas for sand and gravel, crushed rock, limestone, industrial chalk, clay and silica sand in the Joint Minerals DPD. B. Within the Safeguarding Areas non mineral development which would adversely affect the viability of exploiting the underlying deposit in the future, or which would be incompatible with the operation of a quarry will not be supported except where it can be demonstrated that; 1. The underlying mineral is of no commercial value, and unlikely to be so in future, or 2. The non-mineral development is of a temporary nature and can be completed and the site restored to a condition that does not inhibit extraction within the timescale that the underlying mineral is likely to be needed; or 3. There is an overriding case for allowing the development to proceed; or 4. In the case of Sand and Gravel Safeguarding Areas, proposals will be required to demonstrate that an assessment has been made of the potential for prior extraction and the sand and gravel will be extracted accordingly prior to the non mineral development proceeding.

C. Encouraging additional capacity for aggregate recycling with regard to environmental and market considerations. D. Subject to the outcome of any future reviews of national or regional policy guidance, provision will be made for the supply of aggregates by identifying Preferred Areas and Areas of Search in the Joint Minerals DPD to allow production of sand and gravel to be maintained at an average level of 0.52 million tonnes per year to 2026, and production of crushed rock to be maintained at an average level of 0.33 million tonnes per year to 2026. E. Outside the Preferred Areas and Areas of Search proposals for extraction of aggregates will need to show; 1. There is a need to disturb land outside the identified areas in 23

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

order to maintain the landbank, or 2. Resources would otherwise be sterilised, or 3. The proposals would result in important benefits to the environment or local communities without significantly increasing the size of the landbank, or 4. The proposal is for a borrow pit.

F. Providing for the future supply of clay to meet the requirements of the existing processing works at Broomfleet by maintaining a landbank of at least 25 years production.

G. Providing for the future supply of industrial chalk to meet the respective requirements of the existing processing works at; Bracken Quarry, Lund Greenwick Quarry, Huggate Melton Whiting Works, Melton Queensgate, Beverley having regard to the scale of capital investment and the need to secure longer term supplies. H. Ensuring that proposals for future development for oil and gas extraction, storage and transportation, and for exploitation of coal and coal bed methane demonstrate that adequate provision has been made for mitigation of all environmental impacts during the anticipated lifetime of the development. I. Ensuring that the need for all mineral resources is met in a manner which safeguards the natural assets and heritage of the plan area and the quality of life of its communities through policies to apply within the plan area, and through influencing the decisions of others concerning the effects of off-shore minerals dredging on coastal erosion on the Holderness Coast. J. Seeking to maximise the contribution of minerals development to the communities, economy and environment through the restoration and after use of mineral sites.

3.9 The Minerals Core Strategy Policy for Kingston upon Hull needs to address making provision for recycling of aggregates, safeguarding existing facilities for the supply of aggregates from elsewhere, addressing issues related to proposals for development of oil and gas, and balancing the impacts of minerals related development against other interests.

Proposed Kingston upon Hull Minerals Core Strategy Policy (Policy CS 11 within the Hull Core Strategy) Minerals

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

1. Provision would be made for aggregates recycling in Hull and existing facilities for aggregates handling will be safeguarded, particularly in locations accessible to the rail network, the River Hull, and the Humber estuary. Details will be set out in the Joint Minerals Development Plan Document 2. Future development for oil and gas extraction, storage and transportation should demonstrate that adequate provision has been made for the mitigation of environmental impacts during the anticipated lifetime of the development.

3.10 Between them these policies seek to conserve minerals resources through safeguarding and through promoting their efficient use. They address the ongoing supply of all types of mineral resources to the Joint Area including aggregates, non aggregates and energy supplies, both through the extraction of indigenous minerals, use of recycled materials and through the supply of minerals from outside the Joint Area. It seeks to do this in a way that protects the environment and local communities, and provides for the proper restoration and beneficial after use of former mineral sites. 3.11 Both of these policies have been included in the respective Hull and East Riding Core Strategy preferred approach consultations, but we are aware that this document is likely to be read by a more specialist minerals audience. Therefore we are also requesting feedback on the proposed Policy for each authority through this document. In particular, we would like feedback on whether you consider the proposed core strategy policy for each authority provides a suitable framework for minerals development, within which the Joint Minerals Development Plan Document can be developed, and if not why?

Safeguarding

3.12 Government guidance is that minerals are a valuable but limited resource that can only be worked where they naturally occur. Safeguarding of viable or potentially viable mineral deposits from sterilisation by surface development which would preclude their possible extraction at some future date is an important component of sustainable development. Government policy in Minerals Policy Statement ‘Planning and Minerals (2006)(MPS1) states that planning authorities should safeguard mineral deposits that are or may become of economic importance against other types of development. Mineral Safeguarding Areas should be defined in DPDs. 3.13 It is important to note that the safeguarding of mineral resources is not an indication that the resource will necessarily be worked at some time in the future. Neither does safeguarding necessarily preclude other, non-mineral forms of development from taking place over or in close proximity to mineral resources where it is deemed necessary. 3.14 Safeguarding does however provide a mechanism for ensuring that in such instances, the importance of the minerals can be balanced against the importance of the proposed development. Where the mineral is deemed of sufficient importance, 25

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

either an alternative location needs to be found for the surface development, or, if practical, the mineral is extracted first. It should also be noted that the safeguarding process is very much distinct from the identification of new locations for mineral working. 3.15 This recent guidance implies that a wider approach needs to be taken to safeguarding in future than has hitherto been the case. The current policy position on mineral safeguarding in the ERY is contained in the adopted Local Plans and involves defining Mineral Consultation Zones around existing workings. Within the Mineral Consultation Zones a policy applies that seeks to only allow surface development where any possible limit that it might impose on the underlying deposit can be overcome by the use of conditions. This policy position, whilst useful, does not achieve the long term approach to mineral safeguarding now advocated in national guidance. 3.16 The Issues and Options Report sought views on the approach that should be taken to safeguarding of the minerals resources found in the plan area. The consultation sought views on options as to which specific minerals should be safeguarded. Views were also sought on options for the possible extent of safeguarding, with a range suggested from just immediately around existing permitted quarries to the full extent of the known resources for each mineral. 3.17 A further aspect of the extent of safeguarding raised in the Issues and Options consultation was whether or not it would be appropriate to introduce a ‘buffer zone’ around safeguarded mineral deposits, and if so how far the buffer should extend. Another issue raised was whether or not minerals safeguarding was appropriate within areas with national and international nature conservation designations.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report On the issue of the types of minerals to be safeguarded, most respondents expressed the view that all minerals resources with the potential to be of economic value in the future should be safeguarded to some degree. Specific suggestions were made for sand and gravel deposits in and around the North Cave area, the Oolitic limestone deposit, clay used for specialist applications, coal, high grade chalk and silica sand. A further suggestion was that any active and disused quarries with potential to supply material for the repair of historic buildings might also be safeguarded. On the issue of the possible extent of safeguarding, most respondents favoured a wider approach and none supporting restricting safeguarding to just the immediate area around existing quarries. The workshop participants expressed the view that each different type of mineral warranted a different approach to safeguarding. The majority of respondents favoured the use of buffer zones, with the view expressed that individual cases needed to be judged on their own merits and on a site by site basis. Those not favouring this approach considered them unnecessary, rather than undesirable. Mixed views were received on the question of whether minerals safeguarding was appropriate within areas with national or International nature conservation designations. The responses ranged from safeguarding only specific resources in areas with national and international nature conservation designations to the

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report exclusion of safeguarding designations from any such sensitive areas.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal The options assessed related to the varying extent of mineral safeguarding, ranging from only safeguarding existing permitted quarries and known resources associated with those permitted quarries, through to an option which seeks to safeguard all mineral resources that have the potential to be of economic value in the future. The options scored progressively better in sustainability terms the greater the extent of safeguarding. The option of safeguarding within areas recognised for their international or national nature conservation interest results in a number of minor positive effects against SA objectives related to the need for minerals.

3.18 The preferred policy approach will be to introduce Mineral Safeguarding Areas for each of the types of mineral identified as being of current or potential economic importance within the plan area, but for the approach on the extent of safeguarding to be determined having regard to the individual characteristics and extent of each type of mineral. Accordingly this topic will be dealt with separately under the heading for each different type of mineral. 3.19 With regard to the question of whether safeguarding is appropriate within national and international nature conservation designations, the proposed policy approach is generally not to restrict the proposed extent of safeguarding areas within such designated areas. This is because of the clear consideration that safeguarding does not imply any presumption that planning permission for mineral extraction will be forthcoming, and that it does not remove the overriding importance of conserving the designated area or the need to address all possible impacts associated with any form of development therein. However there may be situations where mineral operations already take place in proximity to national or international nature conservation designations or other sensitive sites where it is necessary to maintain a standoff from the quarry to prevent potentially conflicting land uses from coming into close proximity. This can be achieved by introducing Buffer Zones, and is considered of most relevance for chalk quarries which are longer term and may involve blasting. This is addressed further below in the sections on extraction of chalk for crushed rock in chapter 4, and extraction of industrial chalk in chapter 5. 3.20 The Issues and Options Report also raised the issue of whether minerals transport and handling facilities, such as docks and rail heads should be safeguarded and the approach to be adopted for facilities for processing and handling recycled and secondary aggregates. In each case the options were whether safeguarding should be restricted to facilities in current use, or whether those with potential for such use should also be safeguarded. For facilities for processing and handling recycled and secondary aggregates, the options were also whether safeguarding should be restricted to those in existing quarries, or should extend to other sites as well. The topic was also raised in the workshop session.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

3.21

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report All respondents supported safeguarding of minerals transport and handling facilities, with a greater proportion preferring that facilities with potential for such use should be safeguarded as well as those currently in use. It was pointed out that safeguarding does not necessarily establish a presumption for granting planning permission. One respondent pointed out that the government is actively encouraging greater use of inland waterways for the movement of aggregates. On the question of safeguarding facilities for processing and handling recycled and secondary aggregates, only one respondent thought safeguarding should be restricted to existing quarries only, all others thought a wider approach was appropriate. Some respondents commented that it was still important to be selective, and avoid safeguarding existing facilities that were unviable, or whose operation was detrimental in some way, for example, the impact on the landscape, or certain ecosystems.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal The options assessed were to have no safeguarding of minerals transportation and handling facilities, to safeguard only facilities currently in use, or in addition to also safeguard facilities which have the potential to be used for minerals transportation and handling. The option not to promote safeguarding of rail or water transportation facilities is expected to negatively affect most of the SA objectives. These negative effects are based on the prediction that the option may limit mineral supply, thus affecting the economy, and promote road transportation, with associated dis-benefits for natural resources and amenities. However the option to safeguard the widest range of rail and water transportation facilities is predicted to have significant positive effects against many of the SA objectives including ‘Need for minerals’, ‘Local economy’, and ‘Housing and employment development’. Safeguarding of Minerals processing facilities The options assessed were - to safeguard only those facilities which are located at existing quarries, or to safeguard a wider range of processing facilities. The first option is expected to have some minor positive effects related to the supply of minerals, maintaining the local economy, supporting the construction industry, providing recycled aggregates, protecting heritage sites and protecting the landscape and countryside. The second option has a mixed range of effects. Significant positive effects are predicted for SA objectives relating to the ‘Need for minerals’, ‘Local economy’, ‘Housing and employment development’ and ‘waste and recycling’. However, negative affects, four of which are significant, are associated with the possibility that mineral processing activity may be extended to a wider geographical area and therefore affecting a larger area in terms of local amenities, minerals related traffic, air quality, natural habitats and species, heritage sites, the landscape and agricultural land.

3.22 The preferred policy approach will be to safeguard existing capacity for minerals transport and handling in the JMDPD. Sites for processing and handling recycled and 29

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

secondary aggregates will be dealt with through the emerging Joint Waste DPD that ERYC and KHCC are producing. Planning for the Supply of Mineral Resources

3.23 Because of the importance of minerals in contributing to the economy and the quality of life through their utilisation, Minerals Planning Authorities are required to make provision for the future supply of certain minerals which occur within their areas by providing guidance on the location of where future mineral extraction is likely to be most acceptable is an important aspect of plan making. This is done by defining areas for future mineral working. This can take the form of Preferred Areas where resources are known to exist and where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated, subject to the usual tests of environmental acceptability and the use of planning conditions attached to planning approvals. Where there is less certainty about the mineral resource, Areas of Search may be defined. These are generally broader areas within which planning permission for particular sites could be granted to meet any shortfall in supply should suitable applications be made. Different requirements apply to each type of mineral, and the requirements for each mineral will be addressed under the individual headings.

Minimising the Impact of Mineral Workings and Associated Development. 3.24 It is recognised that extracting, processing, storage and transporting minerals can give rise to impacts on local communities and on the environment. At the same time, these activities make a positive contribution in terms of providing needed facilities or resources, employment and opportunities for local environmental enhancements. ‘Development management’ is the term given to the determination of planning applications, and this is the primary means whereby the impact of minerals related development is controlled. Chapter 7 sets out a series of development management policies against which proposals for minerals extraction and related development will be assessed.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

4. Aggregate Minerals Introduction

4.1 This chapter sets out the proposed approach to safeguarding aggregates mineral resources and securing provision for future supply of aggregates within the framework of the Minerals Core Policies and Objectives. 4.2 Aggregate minerals are defined as those used in the building and construction industries. Aggregates are derived from a variety of different sources. Primary aggregates are naturally occurring materials extracted from the ground. In the Joint Area these comprise sand and gravel, crushed chalk, and limestone. Aggregates can also be derived from by-product wastes and synthetic materials, and these aggregates are referred to as Secondary Aggregates. Recycled aggregates are derived from the crushing and other processing of waste materials arising from construction and demolition work. A further source of aggregate that contributes to supply in the Joint Area is the marine-dredged sand from the North Sea that is landed at Hull. 4.3 Aggregates are needed for new development and to maintain existing buildings and infrastructure. It used for a variety of purposes including asphalt and other roadstone, concrete, and other uses including building sand, gravels, rail ballast and fill materials. Spatial Approach for Aggregates 4.4 Aggregate minerals are a relatively low value/ high bulk product that typically are not transported far except by rail or by boat. They need to be widely available to the construction industry not just for new development but also to maintain existing development. The distribution of aggregate supply therefore needs to reflect the existing and planned pattern of development as far as possible given geological constraints. In the Joint Area the main focus for development is the City of Hull, but development is also required in each of the larger settlements in the East Riding of Yorkshire; Beverley, Bridlington, Driffield and Goole, and to a lesser extent to the smaller settlements and rural areas as well. The proposed spatial approach for aggregates therefore seeks to achieve a supply and distribution pattern across the various components of supply; primary aggregates, secondary aggregates, recycled and marine that reflects the existing settlement hierarchy and future spread of development in the Joint Area. Guidance on Aggregate Safeguarding and Supply 4.5 The issues of safeguarding and supply for each of the key aggregate resources in the Joint Area, and those imported into the plan area to meet a strategic supply are addressed against this proposed spatial approach. Information about the occurrence of aggregate minerals in the plan area is derived from the maps and publications of Mineral Resource Information published by the British Geological Survey (BGS) in 2005. 4.6 Government guidance is that Mineral Planning Authorities ensure that proven resources are not needlessly sterilised by non mineral development. Aggregate 31

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

minerals are amongst the important resources that should be safeguarded. The primary means of achieving this is by the definition of Mineral Safeguarding Areas. Mineral Safeguarding Areas draw attention to the existence of the underlying mineral when proposals for surface development are being planned, so that their existence can be adequately and effectively considered in land use planning decisions. 4.7 In addition Mineral Planning Authorities should make provision in their LDFs for an adequate and steady supply of aggregates for the construction industry to meet the needs of society. Aggregates supply policy is expressed through government guidelines for aggregates provision which sets out the amounts for the period 2005 - 2020 for each of the English Regions. Table 4.1 shows the guideline amounts for each type of aggregate for the Yorkshire and Humber Region. Table 4.1 - Guidelines for Aggregate Provision in Yorkshire and Humber Region 2005-2020 Guidelines for Aggregate Provision in Yorkshire and Humber Region 2005-2020 Land-won sand and gravel 78 million tonnes (mt) Land-won crushed rock 212mt Marine sand and gravel 5mt Alternative materials, including secondary and recycled aggregates 133mt Net imports to England 3mt Source - National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, 2005-2020 (2009)

4.8 For land-won sand and gravel, and crushed rock, the guideline figures are apportioned between the constituent Mineral Planning Authorities in each Region, and divided by the number of years to produce an annual apportionment, or assumed rate of supply. This is called the sub-regional apportionment rate, and the figures are included in the Regional Spatial Strategies. However, the sub regional apportionment of the figures the Region aggregate provision set out in Table 4.1 above has yet to be published. 4.9 The maintenance of an adequate and steady supply of aggregates is achieved through a requirement for Mineral Planning Authorities to make provision in their LDFs for a landbank, or stock of mineral planning permissions which together allow sufficient aggregate minerals to be extracted at the apportionment rate for a defined period. 4.10 The length of the landbank should be used as an indicator of when new planning permissions for aggregate minerals extraction are likely to be needed. The indicator landbank period for sand and gravel is at least 7 years supply, and for crushed rock it is at least 10 years. 4.11 LDFs should aim to maintain the landbank throughout the plan period, including provision for the respective landbanks to be in place at the plan’s end date. 4.12 The Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy was adopted in May 2008. The sub regional apportionments for the Joint Area for sand and gravel, and for crushed rock are set out in Table 4.2. 32

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Table 4.2 - Joint Area Sub-Regional Apportionment for Aggregate Provision, 2001 to 2016 Joint Area Sub-Regional Apportionment for Aggregate Provision, 2001 to 2016 RSS Sub Regional Annual Apportionment Apportionment Rate Sand and gravel 8.3 million tonnes 0.52 mt per annum Crushed rock 5.3 million tonnes 0.33 mt per annum Source – The Yorkshire and Humber Plan. May 2008 4.13 The state of the landbank is monitored each year by the Yorkshire and Humber Region Aggregates Working Party. Figures for the East Riding are combined with those for North Lincolnshire due to the need for commercial confidentiality. 4.14 The position with regard to permitted reserves and the landbanks for sand and gravel and for crushed rock as at the end of 2008, are set out in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 - Aggregate Reserves and Landbank Position at end of 2008 Reserves Landbank Apportionment (M tonnes) (Years) (2001-2016, mt pa) Sand and Gravel East Riding 3.27 4.2 0.52 North Lincolnshire 0.26 Crushed rock East Riding 1.6 3.3 0.33 North Lincolnshire 0.16 Source – YHRAWP AMR2008 4.15 This shows that at the end of 2008 the landbank for sand and gravel below the indicator level of ‘at least 7 years’ at which further permissions are required in order to maintain supplies. The landbank for hard rock is already well below the indicator level of ‘at least 10 years’. The overall current trend has been that the demand for minerals is increasing; annual sales of sand and gravel grew from 0.8 million tonnes in 2000 to 1.3 million tonnes in 2007. Sales dropped back to 1.0 million tonnes in 2008 as a result of the onset of the current recession, but we must be prepared for further growth as the economy gradually recovers. Sustained demand can be anticipated into the future in order to provide supplies for the planned and emerging development needs outlined above. 4.16 It is clear therefore that the JMDPD will need to identify further resources of both sand and gravel and crushed rock to meet the demand for aggregates in the plan period. This can be done by identifying Preferred Areas for future working where mineral resources are known to exist, together with Areas of Search, where information about mineral deposits is less certain. 4.17 As the labels imply, Preferred Areas are defined more precisely than Areas of Search, however for both designations their extent should not be taken as

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

necessarily representative of the boundaries for any planning applications which may be received, or consents which might be issued. 4.18 The issues of safeguarding and supply are addressed for each element of aggregate supply in turn. Sand and Gravel Sand and Gravel Safeguarding 4.19 Sand and gravel deposits in the Joint Area are shown in Figure 4.1 below. They principally occur in the lower lying ground to east and west of the Yorkshire Wolds. The area to the east of the Wolds contains mainly glaciofluvial deposits. The deposits are fairly dispersed, with the most extensive deposits being in the Catwick - Brandesburton area, and stretching north and south from Bridlington. West of the Wolds there is a larger deposit of glaciofluvial sand and gravel at Pocklington, with smaller patches further south. In addition, a large part of the area west of the Wolds contains glaciolacustrine deposits of sand and gravel, although it becomes more patchy and dispersed further west. 4.20 All deposits are of variable quality, but the sand and gravel layers are relatively shallow, so prior extraction is feasible to a greater or lesser extent. This is particularly so as the extraction process for sand and gravel does not involve blasting, and if required, processing can be carried out away from the extraction site. Most sand and gravel deposits are located away from the larger strategic settlements where future development pressures will be greatest, but there are exceptions at Catwick – Brandesburton and Pocklington.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Figure 4.1 - Sand and Gravel Deposits

4.21 The relative remoteness of most deposits does not necessarily mean that they are not at potential risk from being sterilised by surface development. There are examples of sand and gravel deposits having been rendered unworkable due to being crossed by the route of a pipeline, or by planning permission having been granted for small scale residential or commercial development on or close to the deposit. 4.22 A further consideration is that many of the sand and gravel deposits occur in areas that are liable to flood. Sand and gravel extraction is noted in Planning Policy Statement ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (PPS25) as being a water-compatible development, and therefore need not be excluded from taking place within areas that are liable to flood. Most forms of surface development are vulnerable to flooding and therefore unlikely to be proposed, but there are exceptions, including water and sewage infrastructure and pipelines, various recreation uses and MoD installations. The degree of prior extraction that is feasible will be restricted in flood prone areas. To here 4.23 The approach and responses to the general topic of minerals safeguarding presented in the Issues and Options Report is outlined above in chapter 3. The relevant responses on sand and gravel safeguarding are set out in the box below.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report The Issues and Options consultation responses generally supported a wider approach to mineral safeguarding than is currently the case in ERY area, where safeguarding is limited to areas immediately surrounding existing quarries. The following factors were raised in the discussion sessions of the workshop held during the Issues and Options consultation: the limited availability of detailed knowledge about the quality of sand and gravel deposits in the ERY area, their shallow depth making prior extraction easier to achieve, and most importantly the recognition that local supplies are becoming increasingly hard to find. The area around the North Cave area was highlighted as an important resource which has supplied the local area for many years and hence justifies safeguarding.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal Safeguarding of sand and gravel was not assessed separately from safeguarding of any other mineral. Overall the SA found that it was preferable for safeguarding to be wider in extent than the Mineral Consultation Zones in the adopted Local Plans in the ERY.

4.24 The above factors were taken into account in formulating the preferred approach to defining Sand and Gravel Safeguarding Areas in the Joint Area. Two possible approaches were considered: first a wide ranging approach, and second a more restricted approach. 4.25 Under the wider approach, the full extent of both glaciofluvial deposits and glaciolacustrine deposits of sand and gravel would be defined as Sand and Gravel Safeguarding Areas, 4.26 The alternative approach would be to limit the extent of the Sand and Gravel Safeguarding Areas to selected parts of the deposit, say to those parts where current knowledge indicates that the quality is better, where current operator interest is focussed, and where development pressures are considered most likely to occur, say at Catwick – Brandesburton and Pocklington. This option would also include safeguarding the area around existing sand and gravel workings and around areas identified for future sand and gravel working on the plan. 4.27 Irrespective of the option chosen, the proposed approach to safeguarding would require those seeking surface development to justify their location choice by reference to alternative locations available outside the safeguarded area, or if this is not possible to investigate the possibility of prior extraction in association with the proposed surface development, and only allowed to proceed if having regard to all other relevant planning considerations, there is an overriding justification for the development. 4.28 Taking account of these factors it was decided to propose the wider approach to sand and gravel safeguarding. Accordingly the preferred policy approach is that; • Sand and Gravel Safeguarding Areas will be defined for the full extent of the sand and gravel deposits defined in the BGS Resources Map, and • around existing sand and gravel quarries and sites, and 36

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

• areas identified for future sand and gravel extraction elsewhere in this plan, except where already sterilised by surface development. 4.29 The proposed Sand and Gravel Safeguarding Areas are listed in Chapter 8 (Site Allocations) and are illustrated in Appendix B1.1. 4.30 The proposed East Riding Minerals Core Strategy Policy includes the proposed approach to the control of non mineral development within all Mineral Safeguarding Areas. Because of the relatively shallow nature of sand and gravel deposits, within Sand and Gravel Safeguarding Areas the policy also makes provision for an assessment of the potential for prior extraction of the underlying sand and gravel in advance of surface development taking place. 4.31 Further information about the procedure for the operation of the Mineral Safeguarding policy is provided in Chapter 8. Sand and Gravel Supply Management 4.32 Provision for future supply is made through identifying locations for future working, either as Preferred Areas or Areas of Search, depending on the certainty of knowledge about the quality of the deposit, and the likelihood of extraction proceeding. The adopted JMLP identified both Preferred Areas and Areas of Search for aggregate sand and gravel extraction. 4.33 As explained above the amount of resources that need to be identified to maintain supplies of sand and gravel is determined by reference to both the Regional and Sub Regional apportionments defined in National Guidelines for Aggregate Provision and the RSS. Both the Regional and Sub Regional sand and gravel apportionment amounts are in the process of being reviewed but it is not known when the outcome of the review will be available. 4.34 Minerals Policy Statement 1 ‘Planning and Minerals’ (MPS1) advises that the sub regional apportionments should not be regarded as inflexible. The preparation of LDFs should be a means of testing the environmental and practical implications of the apportionments. Account should be taken of other relevant factors, including for instance the recent and current pattern of production. 4.35 Views were sought in the Issues and Options consultation on whether the Joint Minerals DPD should use the apportionment levels for aggregates in the RSS or whether local conditions warranted either a higher or lower rate. The supply of aggregates was also a key issue at the workshop the discussion was structured around the following questions; • What is appropriate level of supply? • Are there enough deposits to maintain local supply? and • What happens if supply is not met locally?

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report Almost all respondents favoured using the RSS aggregate apportionment levels, although some doubt was expressed about whether there were enough deposits of sand and gravel to maintain local supply. Among the key considerations in favour of adopting the RSS apportionment rate for sand and gravel was the ongoing review which would take account of environmental constraints which could inform future joint minerals plans, but would not be available in time to properly inform the definition of a different apportionment rate in this plan. Another important factor that related both to sand and gravel, and to crushed rock was recognition of the contribution that might be made towards reducing transport of aggregates from further afield by seeking to maximise self sufficiency of local supplies. Concern was expressed about the possibility that increasing reliance on marine aggregates would in time exacerbate erosion of the coastline.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal Of the three options assessed using the RSS apportionment levels is predicted to perform better overall than either a higher or a lower rate. SA objectives relating to Need for minerals, Local economy and Housing and employment development are all expected to benefit from matching supply with the sub-regional apportionments. Using a lower rate is expected to result in more positive effects, but these are counterbalanced by more adverse effects, against SA objectives concerning the Local economy, Housing and employment development, Road traffic and Flooding. The option which seeks to increase supply above the sub-regional apportionments is expected to result in mainly negative effects. The assessment predicts that a potential higher level of supply, as provided by this option, may have negative effects for a range of amenities and the natural environment. These effects are likely if there is an increase in demand for minerals and mining companies respond by increasing the rate of extraction and mineral processing in the area. It should be noted that Minerals Policy Statement 1 states that aggregate supply apportionments should not be regarded as inflexible. The amounts should be tested during the preparation of LDF’s to assess the environmental and practical implications of the apportionments. Account should also be taken of other factors such as the current pattern of production.

This may mean that one of the options of having either a higher or a lower rate might emerge as performing better overall during the course of the plan process and the decision on which option should be taken forward may need to be revised accordingly.

4.36 There is considered to be insufficient knowledge of the possible effect of environmental constraints on supplies from within the plan area when compared with the impacts of importing materials from elsewhere to adequately inform a proper calculation of different apportionment rates for the Joint Area to those identified in the adopted RSS. There is a commitment in the RSS that the outcome of the current

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

review of sand and gravel sub regional apportionment methodology and rates will be used to inform a future version of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan. Any change could be incorporated into future versions of the JMDPD. 4.37 ERYC will seek to maintain its contribution to the supply of sand and gravel throughout the plan period, having regard to wider policies for the protection of local communities, the environment including European sites of nature conservation importance, and the ongoing development needs of the plan area as defined in the respective LDF’s. This commitment is contained in the proposed East Riding Minerals Core Strategy Policy. The policy wording makes provision for any future changes in the apportionment rate to be accommodated in the implementation of the policy. 4.38 The calculations for the amount of sand and gravel resources that needs to be identified in order to maintain supplies over the plan period has been undertaken with the current sub regional and sub area apportionment rates as shown in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 - Calculation to Show the Amount of Sand and Gravel Resources that need to be Identified in the Minerals DPD Permissions required to maintain production at 0.52 million 9.36mt tonnes per annum (mtpa) throughout the plan period, (Apportionment Rate x 18) Less permitted reserves (as at end of 2008) 3.27 mt Sub total 6.09mt Add amount to provide for 7 year landbank at the end of the plan 3.64 mt period (apportionment rate x 7) Total resources to be found 9.73 mt Source – Table 4.3 above Deciding Where Future Sand and Gravel Extraction Should Take Place 4.39 The JMLP identified both Preferred Areas and Areas of Search as sites for future working for sand and gravel. The methodology for selection for both Preferred Areas and Areas of Search took account of planning and environmental constraints identified from a range of sources, together with information from operators. The environmental constraints were applied in a series of sieves taking account of higher order statutory designations such as SPAs, and working through to local site specific constraints such as public footpaths. The boundaries for Preferred Areas were drawn more precisely than for Areas of Search. The JMLP site selection methodology included provision to achieve a geographic spread of supply within the plan area. 4.40 The Issues and Option Report sought views on the range of factors against which the selection of sites for future mineral working should take into account. Reference was made to the methodology used in the Joint Minerals Local Plan, and suggestions invited for amendments thereto. The Issues and Options Report also invited comment on whether there should be any preference given to extensions to existing quarries or to the establishment of new quarries in identifying locations for future mineral working.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report Many of the suggested amendments to the factors for selection of Preferred Areas made by respondents to the Issues and Options Report are already incorporated into the JMLP methodology, but the responses indicated that greater emphasis should be given to impacts on the amenity of sensitive development other than residential, such as schools, not just from the sites themselves, but also from the access routes to and from the sites. Close attention was also required during the selection process to environmental constraints including Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Site of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC), Local Nature Reserves (LNR) and Marine Nature Reserves (MNR). A suggestion was put forward that a buffer zone may be appropriate around sites designated for local nature conservation interest, in the same way as for sites of higher level nature conservation interest. In addition the likely duration of the extraction operation was suggested for consideration. The importance of mineral operators as a source of detailed information about the quality of the deposit was emphasised. As for as the selection methodology for Areas of Search the responses were broadly similar to those for Preferred Areas. There was no clear preference for extensions to existing sites over the opening of new sites, as most agreed that this choice depended on local circumstances and that no general rule could be applied. Proposals that offered benefits post restoration were seen to be more significant.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal The SA/SAE did not differentiate between different types of mineral in its consideration of the range of factors or constraints to be taken into account in the selection of locations for future mineral working and their relative weighting. The options assessed related to all minerals equally. Four different options for the relative weighting of environmental and cultural assets in the selection of locations for future mineral working were assessed. They were:- A) Seek to avoid harm to designated sites and areas, with greatest weight given to national and international designations and lesser weight given to sites and areas of local significance. B) As Option A but give the same weight to all levels of designation.

C) Require that the environmental and cultural qualities of all potential locations for mineral development are considered, regardless of whether they are formally designated.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal However, all four options also produce negative effects, albeit of differing magnitude, against SA objectives concerning the Need for minerals, Local economy and Housing and employment development. The reason for this result is because the options are expected to restrict the development of the mining industry within the area, but to the benefit of local amenities, wildlife, communities, landscape and heritage. The option to identify Preferred Areas and Areas of Search without giving priority to either extensions of existing quarries or to the opening of new quarries and to treat each site on its merits, scores substantially better than the other two options under this heading. It is expected to produce significant beneficial effects for all SA objectives except the objective for Waste and recycling. The rationale behind this result is based on the option supporting the development of the mineral industry whilst having due consideration for the effects associated with it. The options to give preference to either extensions to existing quarries or to new quarries as a matter of policy are both expected to produce overall negative effects; minor negative effects are predicted for both options against SA objectives relating to air quality, water quality, flooding, wildlife, heritage assets and agricultural land.

4.41 The suggested alterations to the criteria for assessing Preferred Areas and Areas of Search have been incorporated into the selection methodology as described in Chapter 8. The site selection also incorporates the proposed spatial approach for aggregates of maintaining a geographic spread of supply within the plan area. 4.42 A number of sites have been nominated for consideration as sites for extraction of sand and gravel. These are presented and assessed in Chapter 8. 4.43 The candidate sites will be subject to consultation and a final selection made in the pre-submission version of the JMDPD. The selection will seek to ensure that sufficient resources are available within Preferred Areas to meet anticipated requirements until at least 2026. Beyond that Areas of Search are proposed in order to provide flexibility in meeting the landbank requirement at the end the plan period. However there is no assumption that Preferred Areas will need to all be commenced or worked out before sites within Areas of Search are released for extraction. Sites within Areas of Search will be determined by reference to the state of the landbank at the time applications are considered. No consideration will be given to remaining resources available in un-consented Preferred Areas. 4.44 Within these areas the following policies are proposed;

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy AGG1 –Preferred Areas for Sand and Gravel

In the Preferred Areas for sand and gravel, there will be a presumption in favour of granting planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel.

Policy AGG2 – Areas of Search for Sand and Gravel

In the Areas of Search for sand and gravel, there will be a presumption in favour of granting planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel provided there is a need for the resources in order to maintain the landbank.

Crushed Rock

4.45 This section only addresses the safeguarding and supply of chalk and limestone for aggregate purposes. The approach for industrial chalk is contained in Chapter 5. Crushed rock in the plan area is derived from chalk and limestone. Generally the quality of the chalk deposits for aggregate use is poor. Small quantities are sold for low grade aggregate applications such as fill and sub base roadstone. Most chalk extracted in the plan area is used for industrial purposes, and therefore not subject to the aggregate provision and landbank requirements set out in MPS1. The limestone deposit in the Joint Area is of good quality, but limited in extent. Safeguarding 4.46 Deposits of chalk and limestone are shown in Figure 4.2 below. Chalk occurs very extensively in the plan area being the underlying mineral for the whole of the Yorkshire Wolds. The Joint Area also contains Lincolnshire Limestone dating from the Middle Jurassic Period. This bed outcrops in a narrowband along the south west edge of the Wolds between the Humber River and Newbald. This deposit has been historically worked for aggregate limestone, again mainly for lower grade applications, but nevertheless interest has been expressed by operators in this deposit as a potential source of crushed rock in the future. The Yorkshire Wolds area is considered to be of high landscape value and is currently a Local Plan designation, and is also proposed to remain as such in the preferred approach Core Strategy.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Figure 4.2 - Chalk and Limestone Deposits

4.47 Within the context of the general approach to safeguarding in the Issues and Options consultation as outlined in chapter 3 above, the following views were expressed on the approach to safeguarding chalk and limestone deposits for aggregate use.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report Given the extensive occurrence of the chalk deposit, and its poor quality for aggregate purposes, respondents to the Issues and Options Report and participants at the workshop considered that there would be limited benefit in safeguarding deposits significantly beyond the area surrounding existing crushed rock quarries. Some suggested that a possible extension might be to define an equivalent margin around areas of chalk identified for future extraction for crushed rock in the plan. There was support for safeguarding the limestone seam to the south west of the Wolds. This was seen as a largely untapped resource which might have a role in supplying material for applications that require a specification below the high quality limestone imported from West and North Yorkshire, and above the poor quality and relatively soft local chalk.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal Safeguarding of crushed rock resources was not assessed separately from safeguarding of any other mineral. Overall the SA found that it was preferable for safeguarding to be wider in extent than the Mineral Consultation Zones in the adopted Local Plans in the ERY.

4.48 The widespread occurrence of the chalk deposits within the ERY area and the relatively low rate of extraction for aggregate use by comparison with the size of the deposit together with relatively low grade aggregate that it yields, are all important considerations in formulating the preferred policy approach to chalk safeguarding. In view of these factors the preferred policy approach for safeguarding of chalk for crushed rock uses is as follows: - safeguarding of chalk for aggregate use will be limited to the area surrounding existing quarries and areas identified for future working for crushed rock. 4.49 By contrast, the deposit of Lincolnshire Limestone suggested in the Issues and Options consultation as worthy of consideration for safeguarding is relatively localised in extent. Some extraction has already taken place, but this is limited in extent. Part of the deposit underlies the settlement of South Cave, so is already sterilised by surface development. The preferred policy approach for safeguarding of limestone for crushed rock uses is that except for the parts under the built up area of South Cave, the whole of the outcrop of Lincolnshire Limestone along the south west of the Wolds will be safeguarded, including specifically the area around existing quarries and around any area identified for future aggregate working in the plan. 4.50 The East Riding Minerals Core Strategy Policy sets out the proposed approach to the control of non mineral development within all Mineral Safeguarding Areas. For both chalk and limestone the deposits are relatively deep, and therefore there is limited scope for prior extraction where surface development is proposed within the safeguarded area. The requirement to assess the potential for prior extraction in advance of any permitted surface development does not apply to chalk and limestone Safeguarding Areas. In addition where chalk or limestone extraction takes place or Preferred Areas for chalk or limestone are proposed in close proximity to a national or international nature conservation designation or other sensitive area, or where a Safeguarding Area for chalk or limestone abuts such an area, Buffer Zones may be introduced. 4.51 Within Buffer Zones a policy will apply to restrict development which would be incompatible with the ongoing or future operation of a chalk or limestone quarry or processing plant. The Buffer Zone policy and further information about the procedure for the operation of the Mineral Safeguarding Policy is provided in Chapter 8. Crushed Rock Supply Management 4.52 As with sand and gravel, guidance for the provision of resources for crushed rock is determined through both the Regional and Sub Regional apportionments defined in National Guidelines for Aggregate Provision and the RSS. 4.53 MPS1 advises that the sub regional apportionments should not be regarded as inflexible. The preparation of LDF’s should be a means of testing the environmental

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

and practical implications of the apportionments. Other relevant factors should be taken into account, including for instance the recent and current pattern of production. 4.54 Views were sought in the Issues and Options consultation on whether the Joint Minerals DPD should use the apportionment levels for crushed rock in the RSS or whether local conditions warranted either a higher or lower rate. 4.55 The supply of crushed rock was also a key issue at the workshop the discussion was structured around the following questions; • What is appropriate level of supply? • Are there enough deposits to maintain local supply? and • What happens if supply is not met locally?

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report Almost all respondents favoured using the RSS crushed rock apportionment rate. There was recognition of the complexity of the factors involved in the determination of the apportionment rates, which were difficult for individual mineral operators to judge objectively. Self sufficiency was seen as contributing to reducing transportation, but there was considered to be insufficient knowledge of the possible effect of environmental constraints on local supplies when compared with the impacts of importing materials from elsewhere to adequately inform a proper calculation of different apportionment rates to those identified in the adopted RSS.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal As with sand and gravel, the SA/SE found that using the RSS apportionment levels is predicted to perform better overall than either a higher or a lower rate. There was a caveat added in the light of the advice in MPS1 states that apportionments should not be regarded as inflexible. The amounts should be tested during the preparation of LDF’s to assess the environmental and practical implications of the apportionments. Account should also be taken of other factors such as the current pattern of production. This may mean that one of the options of having either a higher or a lower rate might emerge as performing better overall during the course of the plan process and the decision on which option should be taken forward may need to be revised accordingly.

4.56 The preferred policy approach is that ERYC will seek to maintain its contribution to the supply of crushed rock throughout the plan period, having regard to wider policies for the protection of local communities, the environment, including European sites of nature conservation importance, and the ongoing development needs of the plan area as defined in the respective LDF’s. This commitment is contained in the ERY Minerals Core Policy. 4.57 The National Guidelines for Aggregate provision are currently being reviewed. The East Riding Minerals Core Strategy Policy wording makes provision for any changes in the regional apportionment rates for crushed rock to be accommodated in the implementation of the policy.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

4.58 The calculations for the amount of crushed rock resources that need to be identified to maintain supplies over the plan period has been undertaken with the current sub regional and sub area apportionment rates as shown in Table 4.5. 4.59 The calculations for the amount of permitted reserves of crushed rock exclude those of quarries which are unlikely to produce significant quantities of crushed rock for aggregate use i.e. those with whiting works processing plants. Table 4.5 - Calculation to Show the Amount of Crushed Rock Resources that need to be identified in the Minerals DPD Permissions Required to Maintain Production at 0.33 mtpa 5.94mt Throughout the Plan Period, (Apportionment Rate x 18) Less permitted reserves (as at end of 2008) 1.6 mt Sub total 4.34mt Add amount to provide for 10 year landbank at the end of the plan 3.30 mt period (apportionment rate x 10) Balance to be found 7.64 mt Source - Table 4.3 above Deciding Where Future Crushed Rock Extraction Should Take Place 4.60 Unlike the position with sand and gravel, there is insufficient robust information about the occurrence of viable resources of crushed rock for aggregates. Therefore the JMLP identified only Areas of Search for future working for crushed rock. The methodology for selection of Areas of Search took account of planning and environmental constraints identified from a range of sources, together with information from operators. The environmental constraints were applied in a series of sieves taking account of higher order statutory designations such as SPAs, and working through to local site specific constraints such as public footpaths. The boundaries for Areas of Search are drawn less precisely than for Preferred Areas. The JMLP site selection methodology included provision to achieve a geographic spread of supply within the plan area. 4.61 The Issues and Option report sought views on the range of factors against which the selection of sites for future mineral working should take into account. Reference was made to the methodology used in the JMLP, and suggestions invited for amendments thereto. The Issues and Options Report also invited comment on whether there should be any preference given to extensions to existing quarries or to the establishment of new quarries in identifying locations for future mineral working.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report Many of the suggested amendments are already incorporated into the JMLP methodology, but the responses indicated that greater emphasis should be given to impacts on the amenity of sensitive development other than residential, such as schools, not just from the sites themselves, but also from the access routes to and from the sites. In addition the likely duration of the extraction operation was suggested for consideration. Another suggestion was that a buffer zone may be appropriate around sites designated for local nature conservation interest, in the same way as for sites of higher level nature conservation interest. 46

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report There was no clear preference for extensions to existing sites over the opening of new sites, as most agreed that this choice depended on local circumstances and that no general rule could be applied. Scope for local benefits post restoration was seen as more important.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal The SA/SAE did not differentiate between different types of mineral in its consideration of the range of factors or constraints to be taken into account in the selection of locations for future mineral working and their relative weighting. The options assessed related to all minerals equally. Four different options for the relative weighting of environmental and cultural assets in the selection of locations for future mineral working were assessed. They were; A) Seek to avoid harm to designated sites and areas, with greatest weight given to national and international designations and lesser weight given to sites and areas of local significance. B) As Option A but give the same weight to all levels of designation.

C) Require that the environmental and cultural qualities of all potential locations for mineral development are considered, regardless of whether they are formally designated.

D) As Option C but require that any new minerals development should achieve a net gain in environmental quality for the site. All four options are expected to produce overall positive effects against the SA framework, with Options C and D producing more significant effects than Options A and B. However, all four options also produce negative effects, albeit of differing magnitude, against SA objectives concerning the Need for minerals, Local economy and Housing and employment development. The reason for this result is because the options are expected to restrict the development of the mining industry within the area, but to the benefit of local amenities, wildlife, communities, landscape and heritage. The option to identify Preferred Areas and Areas of Search without giving priority to either extensions of existing quarries or to the opening of new quarries and to treat each site on its merits, scores substantially better than the other two options under this heading. It is expected to produce significant beneficial effects for all SA objectives except the objective for Waste and recycling. The rationale behind this result is based on the option supporting the development of the mineral industry whilst having due consideration for the effects associated with it. The options to give preference to either extensions to existing quarries or to new quarries as a matter of policy are both expected to produce overall negative effects; minor negative effects are predicted for both options against SA objectives relating to air quality, water quality, flooding, wildlife, heritage assets and agricultural land.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

4.62 The suggested amendments have been incorporated into the methodology for identifying Areas of Search including the future areas of working for crushed rock. The level of geological information for deposits of crushed rock is no better now than it was when the JMLP was prepared therefore it is appropriate to identify only Areas of Search as future areas for working crushed rock aggregates. 4.63 A number of sites have been nominated for consideration as sites for extraction of crushed rock. These are presented and assessed in Appendix C. Further details are given in chapter 8. 4.64 The candidate sites will be subject to consultation and a final selection made in the pre-submission version of the JMDPD. 4.65 Proposed Policy AGG3 will apply within Areas of Search for crushed rock. Policy AGG3 – Areas of Search for crushed rock

In the Areas of Search for crushed rock, there will be a presumption in favour of granting planning permission for the extraction of crushed rock provided

• there is a need for the resources in order to maintain the landbank, and • the detailed site specific requirements set out in Appendix B

Extraction outside Preferred Areas and Areas of Search

4.66 In order to focus future extraction of aggregates within the identified Preferred Areas and Areas of Search it is necessary to have a policy restricting future aggregate outside these designations. The policy to apply outside identified areas for aggregate working was not raised as such in the Issues and Options consultation, because the options are limited to the range of considerations which might apply to exceptions. 4.67 Options consideration has addressed the range of factors that should be included in the policy for proposals outside areas for future mineral working. These have been derived from the responses to other aspects of the plan as described in more detail elsewhere. They relate to the importance of ensuring adequate and steady supply of aggregates; the importance of avoiding the needless sterilisation of resources, the scope for mitigating environmental impacts and achieving environmental improvements in association with mineral operations, and where the proposal is a borrow pit. 4.68 The proposed policy approach for proposals outside Preferred Areas and Areas of Search is contained in the ERY Minerals Core Policy. Borrow Pits

4.69 ‘Borrow pits’ are temporary mineral workings opened locally to supply material for a specific construction project, normally a large project where a substantial amount of aggregate needs to be supplied over a relatively short period. Examples are road building schemes or the construction of a reservoir, although their use in association with smaller projects is not unknown. In most cases it is preferable to open up a borrow pit close to the project site to ensure the availability of the necessary supplies 48

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

and to avoid the need to import material by lorry from further afield. It also provides an opportunity to release otherwise unviable deposits. These considerations are particularly important in the plan area where operational quarries may not be available in the locality of a specific construction project.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report This issue was not raised as such in the Issues and Options consultation. The options are limited to the range of criteria that should be met in the operation of a borrow pit. These are defined to achieve a balance between the flexibility in the sourcing of aggregates for specific construction projects and the need for the developer to demonstrate that the borrow pit represents the most suitable source of mineral to meet the specific demand, whilst demonstrating that adequate environmental safeguards can be implemented effectively and the site restored to a high standard afterwards.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal Options related to Borrow Pits were not assessed in the initial SA.

4.70 The proposed policy for borrow pits is set out below. In considering proposals for borrow pits, the MPA will need to be satisfied that the borrow pit represents the most suitable source of material to meet the specific demand involved, and that both working and restoration can be achieved without unacceptable environmental impacts. Restoration and aftercare proposals will be expected to be to as high a standard as for normal mineral workings.

Policy AGG4 – Borrow Pits

Proposals for borrow pits to serve construction projects will be permitted provided:-

i. material from the pit is only used in connection with the specific project with which it is associated and its life is limited to that of the development project in question; ii. extraction from the site will cause less environmental damage than would result from using material from a permitted source of supply, taking into account the availability of secondary and recycled aggregates; iii. the pit is sited and operated so as to minimise environmental damage; iv. Provision is made for the prompt restoration of the pit following extraction, preferably using only materials from elsewhere on the construction site.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Recycled and Secondary Aggregates

4.71 Recycled aggregates consist of aggregate materials that are recovered from construction and demolition processes and from excavation waste on construction sites. These materials arise locally throughout the plan area from construction activities wherever they take place. 4.72 Secondary Aggregates are those materials suitable for aggregate use which are a by- product of another mineral extraction, or some other industrial process. They include colliery spoil, Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA), Furnace Bottom Ash (FBA) and blast furnace slag. Arisings are obviously concentrated where coal is mined, and where large power stations or incinerators are located. 4.73 The main sources of secondary aggregates for the plan area are arisings from the coal and power generation industries such as PFA from Drax power station to the west, and also from the steel plant at Scunthorpe. 4.74 Common to both recycled aggregates and secondary aggregates is the need for the material to meet the technical specifications for the project under construction. There are national measures in place to address this issue and it is national and regional policy to increase the use of recycled and secondary aggregates as substitutes for primary aggregates wherever possible. The national guidelines for aggregate provision in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region assume that some 30% of total aggregate provision will be from these sources. 4.75 In the Joint Area, it remains the case that secondary and recycled aggregates have difficulty in competing with cheaper primary aggregates, where most of the primary crushed rock supplies are low quality, and hence comparatively cheap. 4.76 There are two aspects associated with addressing this issue; transportation of materials arising outside the plan area, which is dealt with below under imported aggregates, and the provision of suitable sites for the processing of recycled aggregates that arise within the plan area. 4.77 The issue of finding sites for recycled and secondary aggregates was raised in the Issues and Options Report in the context of promoting the efficient use of mineral resources.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report All respondents agreed with the overall aim of promoting the efficient use of mineral resources but the focus was primarily on other means of achieving this, such as through the Landfill Tax and Aggregate Tax and through more attention to specification, all of which are outside the remit of planning control. There was no suggestion that the approach in the JMLP for finding sites for processing of recycled and secondary aggregates should be altered.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal The options assessed were either; A) to avoid the inclusion of policies and rely on the market and national policy mechanisms such as the Aggregate Levy, the Landfill Tax and the 50

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal management of the supply of minerals to influence how efficiently resources are used; or B) to encourage efficiency through measures such as limiting the use of high quality materials only for appropriate purposes, minimisation of mineral waste and utilisation of that waste for beneficial purposes, tailoring policies to the characteristics of the Joint Area’s minerals. Both of the options assessed under this heading are expected to result in overall beneficial effects against the SA framework, with no adverse effects predicted. Option B performs considerably better than Option A, with significant beneficial effects against many of the SA objectives, in respect of the need for minerals, local economy, housing and employment development, amenity, road traffic, air quality, waste and recycling, biodiversity and habitats, heritage assets, countryside and landscape quality and agricultural land.

4.78 Providing suitable locations for the processing of recycled aggregates and storage of secondary aggregated is a challenging process. Processing and sorting requires a site with good transport links, with space for processing stockpiles and loading. The emerging Joint Waste DPD that ERYC and KHCC are producing will address the issues of safeguarding of current facilities for supply of recycled and secondary aggregates and the location of new facilities. 4.79 Existing mineral working sites may offer potential to accommodate such facilities. In considering such proposals, however, it is important to pay attention to a number of related issues including the possible prolonging of the operating life of the quarry, and the impact on restoration, as well as the possible impact on nearby development from intensified activity. 4.80 Proposed Policy AGG5 seeks to provide the means to balance the requirement for more capacity against these considerations. Proposals for processing of recycled and secondary aggregates beyond the operational life of the quarry will be determined in accordance with policies in the Joint Waste DPD (once adopted).

Policy AGG5 Recycling and Secondary Aggregates at existing mineral sites

Processing of recycled and secondary aggregates at existing minerals sites will be allowed if i. it will not prolong or increase existing environmental impacts; and ii. it will not prejudice any restoration scheme.

Imported Aggregates

4.81 The Joint Area is a net importer of aggregates and will continue to be, primarily as a result of the limited resources present within the area, and to a lesser extent because of the environmental constraints. The majority of imported aggregates are from 51

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

elsewhere in the region, and these sources are dealt with below. A significant and growing source of imported aggregates is marine aggregates and stone from Norway, which are landed at docks in Hull. Marine Aggregates

4.82 Marine aggregates are dredged in a number of places off the East Yorkshire coast, and elsewhere off the north east coast of England. Since 2003 between 0.2 and 0.3 million tonnes per annum were landed for supply to the Joint Area and beyond (Source: AMR08). The national guidelines for aggregate provision in Yorkshire and Humberside for the period 2005 to 2020 assumes that 5 million tonnes (mt) of total aggregate supply will come from Marine Aggregates. The regional apportionment does not provide a figure for predicted landings on a county specific basis, but the great majority of landings will be at the purpose-built wharves located in Hull operational docks. 4.83 Although the JMLP confirms that MPA’s broadly support the increase in marine won aggregates envisaged, the plan does not identify or safeguard present or future sites for the handling of marine aggregate. 4.84 The Issues and Options Report sought views on whether a more proactive approach should be adopted towards the safeguarding of existing capacity for landing of marine dredged aggregate, and the possible need for further capacity.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report There was support amongst respondents to the Issues and Options consultation for safeguarding of existing wharves, and support for further capacity if needed during the plan period. Safeguarding of existing facilities was seen as an important priority as this would avoid the need to construct new facilities. It was pointed out that any strategic development should avoid conflict with the development zone in Hull, and potential flood risk areas. The importance of good links with the road transport system was emphasised. Possible benefits identified were a contribution to the regeneration of the Hull docks, and addressing a perceived shortage of wharf capacity, possibly by providing a deep water quay to serve the wider region. Concern was expressed about the possible impact on the marine environment and fishing industry of Humber from any new facilities and also the possible effect on the coastal physical processes arising from the dredging activity.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal The options assessed were A) Review present policy for marine aggregate landing and handling development in order to provide more capacity for importing marine aggregates.

B) Identify and safeguard potential sites for marine aggregate landing and handling development.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal

C) Presumption in favour of safeguarded sites being granted planning permission, subject to meeting defined planning and environmental criteria.

D) Do Nothing. In terms of overall effects against the sustainability framework, Option C performs best and Option D worst. Whilst Option C performs well against SA objectives relating to meeting needs for minerals, maintaining the local economy and supporting development, road traffic, air quality and maintaining the countryside and agricultural land, it results in minor negative effects against those SA objectives related to increasing aggregate recycling, improving water quality and protecting biodiversity. These negative effects are associated with the increase in water transportation which supports the import of primary aggregates and potentially threatens water ecology. Mixed effects are also predicted against the SA objectives as a result of Option A. The option results in significant benefits for those SA objectives relating to meeting needs for minerals, maintaining the local economy and supporting development, road traffic, air quality and agricultural land. However, negative effects, most of which are minor, are expected against SA objectives relating to Amenity, Recreational activities and healthy lifestyle, Waste and recycling, Water quality and Biodiversity and habitats. Option D, which is the Do Nothing option, results in only minor or no obvious effects against all of the SA objectives, thus presenting no significant adverse or beneficial effects. The assessment indicates that those options which promote the expansion of rail and water mineral transportation are expected to present the best opportunities for supporting sustainability.

4.85 The impact on coastal physical processes is independent of any direct influence by the MPAs since conventional planning control does not extend beyond the low water mark. Licences for marine dredging are currently processed through DEFRA. A new system of control of all activities within territorial waters is being introduced in the Marine and Costal Access Bill, which will significantly increase the scope for further scrutiny of all proposals for off shore activities. 4.86 Hull has a long maritime history, with a number of current and historical docks being located along the banks of the Rivers Hull and Humber. The principal docks are currently located to the east of the city including Alexandra, Queen Elizabeth and King George docks. The docks have become an important gateway for passenger services to Europe and for the importation and export of container goods. The docks also handle a variety of minerals including coal and aggregates, Alexandra dock lands marine dredged aggregates and Queen Elizabeth dock is principally used for the importation of stone from Norway. Associated British Ports the owners of the docks are currently developing a masterplan in liaison with HCC to set out the current and future uses at the ports. 4.87 Safeguarding of the capacity for handling imported and marine aggregates at existing wharves is now part of government policy in MPS1. Accordingly proposed Policy AGG6 makes provision for these current uses at the Alexandra Dock and the Queen

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Elizabeth dock to be safeguarded. It is likely that Hull will remain the focus for marine aggregate development. Policy AGG6 – Safeguarding of wharves used for the importation and processing of marine aggregates and other imported minerals

Proposals for the redevelopment of the existing wharf sites at Alexandra Dock and the Queen Elizabeth dock which would prejudice their use as wharves for the importation and processing of marine aggregates and other imported minerals will not be permitted.

Proposals for development close to the existing wharf sites used for the importation and processing of marine aggregates and other imported minerals which would prejudice the operation of the wharves for these purposes by reason of their sensitivity to impacts on amenity arising from the operation of the wharves will not be permitted.

4.88 An increased role for marine won aggregates could lead to a demand for new facilities, or the intensification or expansion of existing sites. Existing facilities are located in Hull's eastern docks and in the lower river Hull corridor. 4.89 Proposed Policy AGG7 makes provision for any future expansion of facilities. Policy AGG7 – Marine Aggregates Development

Marine Aggregates Development associated with the landing storing and transporting of marine won aggregates will be allowed if;

i. It will not adversely impact on the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC, Ramsar site and SSSI, and ii. it will not adversely affect the local transport network, and iii. it will not adversely affect the amenity or operation of existing land uses.

4.90 ERYC and KHCC are members of the East Coast Offshore Minerals Forum, a body of elected representatives from coastal local authorities in the region, a principal role of which is to act as a focus for consideration of marine won aggregates in this area. The Authorities will maintain their role in this respect, and where possible will seek to be involved in the marine aggregates licensing process. They will continue to seek the highest standards of environmental safeguarding and operational good practice with a view to monitoring the role which marine aggregates can play, within a sustainable environmental context. Other Imported Aggregates 4.91 Other minerals handling facilities include the Melton Bottom railway sidings which are located in the East Riding, the Dairycoats rail depot in Hull and Hull Docks Branch Railway adjacent to Queen Elizabeth Docks. The Melton sidings handle industrial chalk in relatively small quantities; there is an aspiration to develop the capability of these sidings to include general freight capacity. The Dairycoats depot provides the main gateway for rail borne imports of hard rock to the area. In the case of the Hull Docks Branch Railway, the line handles a variety of minerals including coal and aggregates but the principal line capacity is taken up by general freight distribution. 54

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

4.92 The JMLP recognises the importance of rail depots, although it does not make specific provision for safeguarding them or associated processing and transport facilities. However it does state that the MPAs will give favourable consideration to the expansion of facilities, or the construction of new facilities where needed. 4.93 MPS1 advises that rail depots used for the transportation of aggregates should be safeguarded and provision made if required for further expansion of facilities. 4.94 The Issues and Options Report sought views on whether the existing policy approach in the JMLP should be reviewed in order to contribute to the maintenance of existing capacity and provide for further capacity if a demand was identified. Suggestions for the policy to be applied within any safeguarded sites were invited.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report Respondents to the Issues and Options Report and participants at the workshop supported the proposal to safeguard the existing rail depot, but there was no indication that further facilities would be required in the foreseeable future. Reasons in support of safeguarding the existing facility were that this would help reduce road transportation, promote greater competition, provide additional transport capacity without a proportionate increase in traffic impacts, and the contribution towards reduction in carbon emissions. It was pointed out that identifying suitable sites for new rail depots was difficult, as most potential sites are already exploited. If a suitable site was identified, there was support for a presumption in favour of planning permission being granted applying to the site.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal The options assessed were; A) Review present policy for rail depots suitable for importing aggregates in order to provide positively for more capacity.

B) Identify and safeguard potential sites for rail depots.

C) Presumption in favour of safeguarded rail depot sites being granted planning permission, subject to meeting defined planning and environmental criteria.

D) Do Nothing.

Of the four options assessed under this heading, Option C, which promotes the development of new rail depots on safeguarded sites for importing aggregates, is expected to perform the best overall, with significant positive effects predicted against 8 of the SA objectives: However, the other three options also perform well, with no adverse effects and a number of significant beneficial effects.

4.95 In the light of national guidance on aggregates transport, local freight transport policies and aspirations and the responses to the Issues and Options Report and the

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Sustainability Appraisal, the preferred policy approach is to safeguard the capacity of the existing rail depots for aggregate transportation through a general policy. The need for additional rail depots will be kept under review and provision made any in future revisions of the DPD if required. Any proposals which arise in the meanwhile will be assessed under the policies in the development management chapter and elsewhere in the development plan document.

Policy AGG8 Safeguarding of rail depots used for the importation of aggregates and other minerals

Proposals for the redevelopment of the existing rail depots at Hull Docks Branch, Melton Bottom and Dairycoats which would prejudice its use for the importation of aggregates and other minerals will not be supported.

Proposals for development close to rail depots used for the importation of aggregates and other minerals which would prejudice their operation by reason of its sensitivity to impacts on amenity arising from such use of the rail depot will not be supported.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

5. Non Aggregate Minerals

5.1 Non-aggregate minerals are those minerals which are not used in the construction industry. Non- aggregate minerals which occur in sufficient quantities to be worked commercially within the Joint Area are: • clay • industrial chalk • peat, and • silica sand 5.2 Non aggregate minerals are generally speaking higher value and lesser bulk than aggregate minerals. In addition most non aggregate minerals require greater investment in processing and tend to be supplied over a wider catchment area but in smaller quantities than aggregates. The pattern of supply is therefore more governed by the geological occurrence of the deposits and their historic utilisation. The proposed spatial approach therefore reflects the availability of suitable deposits for each type of non aggregate mineral and seeks to provide continuity of supply focussing primarily on existing investment, but also making provision for further investment where this can be justified by a balance of regional need against local benefits and local impacts. The exception is peat, where national priorities have already determined that further supplies will not be derived from the areas which have been recognised for their European nature conservation interest. Any future supply will be limited to those few remaining areas which fall outside the designated area. 5.3 The proposed policy approach for each of the above non-aggregate minerals is set out below.

Clay

5.4 Within the Joint Area there is an important deposit of brick clay at Bloomfleet, which has been worked for over 100 years and is used in the manufacture of a range of roofing tiles and bricks. These deposits are illustrated in Figure 5.1 below. Elsewhere in the plan area, there is also clay found in association with sand and gravel sites including Keyingham, and Newton on Derwent. This clay is good quality but is more suitable for engineering of landfill sites and for flood defence works.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Figure 5.1 - Brick Clay Deposits

5.5 Clayworks represent considerable levels of investment in processing facilities to produce tiles and brick and therefore require extensive reserves in order to provide long term security for the investment required. 5.6 The JMLP confirms the importance of ensuring that the resources of clay are not sterilised by other forms of development and that a secure and uninterrupted supply of clay is maintained for the works. However there is no specific policy. Instead the JMLP states that any applications for further working of clay will be considered against the general development management policies. 5.7 Government guidance in MPS1 advises that a positive approach should be made to safeguarding deposits of brick clay of suitable quality, and MPAs should make provision for sufficient permitted reserves to support the actual and proposed investment in plant and equipment, both new and existing. The level of provision advised is the equivalent of 25 years of production. 5.8 The Issues and Options Report sought views on the approach that should be taken to the safeguarding and supply of clay for brick and tile making in the plan area. The options were to introduce new policies to address safeguarding, to continue to rely on

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

the general development management but not to recognise any period of supply; to include provision for a 25 year period of supply, or some other approach.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report There was a small majority amongst the respondents to the Issues and Options consultation in support of introducing new policies to address safeguarding of clay and ensuring a 25 year period of supply for roofing tiles and bricks. The proponents of having new policies to address safeguarding and ensuring a 25 year period of supply of clay for roofing tiles and bricks pointed out that large investment for factory production is required. Long life and large resources is vital to encourage long term commitment. It was suggested that the length of the payback was likely to be significantly longer than the period of 25 years in the guidance.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal Introducing a more proactive approach to both the safeguarding and supply of clay for roofing tiles and bricks performs better in the assessment than continuing to rely on the general development management policies and not recognising any period of supply. The latter approach was deemed likely to limit the supply of clay to meet demand and restrict the development of the mineral industry resulting in significant negative effects against the SA objectives relating to meeting needs for minerals, maintaining the local economy and supporting development.

5.9 In the light of Government guidance, the responses to the Issues and Options consultation, and the outcome of the initial SA, the preferred policy approach to safeguarding and supply of clay for roofing tiles and bricks is as follows. Safeguarding of Clay 5.10 The Boothferry Local Plan Adopted April 1999 includes a Minerals Consultation Zone for part of the clay deposit in the immediate vicinity of the clayworks that covers an area slightly in excess of current planning permissions. 5.11 Much of the area is liable to flood, so there are limited pressures for surface development. Clay extraction is a relatively low key operation, and is unlikely to conflict with the limited types of development that may take place in flood prone areas. However, given the limited extent of the MCZ in order maintain future supplies it is proposed to extend the safeguarded area. 5.12 Accordingly the preferred policy approach is to define a Clay Safeguarding Area for the Bloomfleet clay works. The Clay Safeguarding Area is referred to in Chapter 8 Site Allocations and the proposed extent is shown in Appendix B. 5.13 The East Riding Minerals Core Strategy Policy sets out the proposed approach to the control of non mineral development within all mineral Safeguarding Areas. 5.14 Further information about the proposed procedure for the operation of the Mineral Safeguarding policy is provided in Chapter 8. 59

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Supply of Clay 5.15 In line with national guidance on provision for the supply of clay in Annex 2 of MPS1, the proposed East Riding Minerals Core Strategy Policy contains the commitment to maintain a landbank of at least 25 years supply for the existing clay works at Broomfleet. This will be done by identifying areas considered as being the most appropriate locations for future clay extraction close to the Broomfield clayworks. There is a current application for planning permission for the extension of the existing clay quarry adjacent to the works. If approved the proposal would provide sufficient resources to last for a further 50 years supply at current rates of extraction. 5.16 This site has also been nominated for consideration as a Preferred Area for clay extraction. The site is referred to further in Chapter 8 and illustrated in Appendix A. 5.17 Elsewhere in the plan area, given the nature of the occurrence of engineering clay in association with sand and gravel deposits, it is not considered practical to identify safeguarding areas or preferred areas. Any deposits will already be safeguarded in conjunction with the sand and gravel safeguarding areas and policy proposed in Chapter 4. 5.18 Applications for the working of engineering clay at existing sand and gravel sites and within sand and gravel preferred areas will be considered against the Development Management Policies set out in Chapter 7, and the site specific requirements in Appendix B as appropriate. Industrial Chalk

5.19 Chalk is the most extensive mineral deposit in the plan area, it underlies the Yorkshire Wolds. Whilst some chalk is used for aggregate purposes as described in Chapter 4 above, the majority of material won is from high quality deposits where the mineral is worked for a range of specialist industrial uses, including lime production, and chalk whiting for paper and plastics. There are quarries and works for processing industrial chalk at Greenwick, Lund, Melton and Beverley. Some industrial grade chalk is also extracted from the chalk quarry at Huggate. 5.20 As with clay, industrial chalk requires considerable investment in processing facilities in order to render the chalk suitable for the specialist uses to which it is put. 5.21 Whilst there is no specific requirement to maintain a landbank for industrial chalk, Government guidance is that MPAs should ensure an adequate and steady supply for all minerals, and emphasises that longer term provision needs to be made where large scale capital investment is involved, such as is the case with the utilisation of industrial chalk. In addition the chalk deposits should be safeguarded from being sterilised by surface development. 5.22 In the JMLP there is no specific guidance about ensuring an ongoing supply of reserves for industrial chalk works. The plan does however contain a policy which recognises the importance of capital investment and securing supplies to meet long term demand. 5.23 It is possible that further supplies may be required during the JMDPD plan period to provide for continuing supply. This may involve increased or continuing transportation from satellite sites.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

5.24 The Issues and Options Report sought views on the appropriate approach to the safeguarding and supply of industrial chalk be followed in the final version of the JMDPD.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report The Issues and Options consultation responses were broadly in favour of the present approach in the JMLP, but there was also support for the strengthening of safeguarding and provision of ongoing supply, if required, as advised by recent guidance. It was pointed out that the use of processed chalk enables both industrial and agricultural applications. There should therefore be more specific safeguarding policies in line with the aggregate policies. Some reservations were expressed about safeguarding mineral deposits within designated areas. Provision for ongoing supply would require either Areas of Search or Preferred Areas for industrial chalk to be identified in order to provide a degree of certainty for both the mineral operators and the local community.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal Any proposals for the extraction and processing of industrial chalk are expected to result in a considerable number of both medium and minor adverse effects for those SA objectives relating to amenity, natural heritage, mineral related road traffic, air quality, waste and recycling, biodiversity, heritage sites, landscape and agricultural. However, at the same time, extraction and processing of industrial chalk is also expected to benefit SA objectives relating to meeting needs for minerals, maintaining the local economy and supporting development.

5.25 In the light of national and regional guidance, the responses to the Issues and Options Report, and the SA, the preferred policy approach towards the safeguarding and supply of industrial chalk is set out below. Safeguarding of Industrial Chalk Deposits 5.26 It is proposed that Industrial Chalk Safeguarding Areas should be defined around existing quarries and any areas that may be identified for future working of industrial chalk. It is recognised that most of the existing quarries likely to be identified as Industrial Chalk Safeguarding Areas occur in the Wolds which are noted as areas of landscape importance. However it is important to realise that the safeguarding policy does not carry any presumption that planning permission for mineral working will be forthcoming, rather it provides a means of weighing up the relative importance of the underlying mineral against that of the proposed surface development before any decision is made on the latter. The safeguarding policy also operates to prevent sensitive non mineral development being permitted in close proximity to an operating quarry or site identified for future supply that might inhibit the subsequent extraction process. 5.27 The East Riding Minerals Core Strategy Policy sets out the proposed approach to the control of non mineral development within all mineral Safeguarding Areas. In addition, where chalk extraction takes place or Preferred Areas for chalk are proposed in close 61

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

proximity to a national or international nature conservation designation or other sensitive area, or where a safeguarding area for chalk abuts such an area, Buffer Zones may be used. 5.28 Within Buffer Zones, a policy will apply to restrict land uses or development which would be incompatible with the ongoing or future operation of a chalk quarry or processing plant. The Buffer Zone policy and further information about the procedure for the operation of the Mineral Safeguarding Policy is provided in Chapter 8. Supply of Industrial Chalk 5.29 In view of the large capital investment involved in the processing plant for industrial chalk, and the importance maintaining local supply, the East Riding Minerals Core Strategy Policy includes provision for the respective requirements for supply of each existing industrial plant to be maintained having regard for to the scale of capital investment and the need to secure longer term supplies. 5.30 There is no specific landbank advice for the supply of industrial chalk, and the supply requirements will need to be assessed separately for each plant. The aim will be to maintain a landbank of at least 25 years supply for each processing plant based on an average of the last 3 years’ production. It is recognised that not all chalk extracted at a site with an industrial chalk processing plant can be used for the industrial purposes. Lesser grade chalk extracted from the quarry may only be suitable for aggregate use. The landbank calculations for both the supply of Industrial chalk and crushed rock aggregates will need to take this into account. 5.31 During the Issues and Options consultation period, one nomination was made for additional resources to supply the agricultural lime production plant in Greenwick Quarry. This represents a continuation of the existing pattern and accordingly it is proposed that an Area of Search is identified within which planning permission for extraction of chalk will be granted, subject to acceptability against policies elsewhere in the development plan. The proposed Area of Search for Industrial Chalk is identified in Chapter 8. Any further nominations made during the preparation of the JMDPD will be considered on the same basis. 5.32 Within Areas of Search for Industrial Chalk, the policy approach in Policy NAM1 is proposed. Policy NAM1 – Areas of Search for Industrial chalk

In the Areas of Search for industrial chalk, there will be a presumption in favour of granting planning applications for the extraction of chalk provided there is a need for the resources in order to supply an existing processing plant in the immediate locality

Peat

5.33 Government guidance seeks to limit or prohibit further peat working in environmentally sensitive locations. In the south west of the Joint Area, there are significant areas of peat bog at Goole Moor which provide a rich yet most threatened wildlife habitat. Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moors SSSI, at nearly 2000 hectares is the largest lowland raised mire in England and together with parts of Hatfield Moor

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

SSSI has been recognised as being of European importance under the Habitats Regulations. Parts of the site, including two areas of Goole Moor, were declared a National Nature Reserve (NNR) in 1995, known as the Humberhead Peatlands. Peatlands are rich in archaeological material which seldom survives elsewhere; ancient boats, bodies, track ways, and organic remains which have vanished from dry sites, all endure in peat bogs. They are also a rich source of information about past environments and climate change. 5.34 The area has been worked for peat for over 1,000 years. Since the introduction of the planning system, the working continued under planning permissions granted in the 1940s. Since that time, the traditional handworking methods for individual or small scale production were replaced by modern machine cutting and milling for horticultural purposes leaving large areas devoid of vegetation and unable to regenerate as a peatland habitat. 5.35 In 1994, the predecessor to Natural England secured an agreement whereby further extraction has ceased over much of the permitted area. In addition, the planning consent covering the Goole Moors peat working was reviewed in 1997 under the provisions of the 1995 Environment Act. As a consequence, measures to restore and regenerate much of the extracted peatlands through management of drainage and vegetation are now being implemented. The remaining permitted areas can only be worked on a small scale. 5.36 Minerals Planning Policy Guidance was issued in 1995 in MPG13 ‘Guidelines for Peat Provision in England’. The guidance seeks to promote the availability of non- peat alternative materials for soil improvement and other horticultural uses, and to restrict further peat supplies only from sites in the UK which have already been considerably damaged and which meet restricted selection criteria set out in the guidance note. 5.37 An Habitats Regulations Assessment under the Habitants Regulations was carried out in respect of the Moors in 2003 on behalf of ERYC acting jointly with Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and North Lincolnshire Council. 5.38 Being drawn up within the guidance contained in MPG13 and the outcome of the Habitats Regulations Assessment, the policies of the JMLP with regard to peat are concerned with the management of these existing permissions rather than the allocation of sites for future working. The JMLP included a policy that no further peat working would be allowed outside the area already with planning permission unless the land was of little or no nature conservation, archaeological or paleo-ecological interest. The supporting text confirmed that the Joint Authorities would seek the voluntary revocation of outstanding planning permissions for peat working where this would affect the integrity of a European site. 5.39 The Issues and Options consultation sought views on whether the existing policy approach in the JMLP should be continued or whether any change of policy was required. If a change was favoured, respondents were asked for suggestions as to what alternative approach should be taken.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report Most respondents to the Issues and Options consultation favoured the continuation of the JMLP policy approach. There were suggestions that the policy should be strengthened to allow no exceptions for any further working outside the consented area, due to the environmental importance of the peat bogs and the wider availability of alternatives to peat. Other factors that supported restrictions on further peat working were the importance of the archaeological remains within the peat deposits at Goole Moor, and the potential role of peat lands to act as a carbon sink.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal In the initial SA limiting the cutting of peat is expected to benefit all SA objectives relating to community and the natural environment, but produce minor adverse effects against the SA objective relating to meeting the need for the material.

5.40 In the light of the cessation of working in all significant parts of the peat areas in the plan area the JMLP sought to restrict any further working to where there was ‘little or no’ nature conservation, archaeological or paleo-ecological interest. In the JMDPD it is proposed to strengthen this policy by requiring demonstration that any such interest in the land is ‘insignificant’, and that any proposals are subject to Habitats Regulations Assessment. Policy NAM2 - Peat Working

Peat working and associated development outside the areas already with planning permission will only be allowed if it can be demonstrated that the land is of insignificant nature conservation, archaeological or paleo- ecological value. In addition, any proposals for future peat working will be required to be subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment.

5.41 The MPAs will continue to seek the voluntary revocation of planning permissions for peat extraction and will review and update all planning permissions for peat extraction, in order to bring conditions up to a modern standard for operation and restoration. 5.42 The government has recommended that no compensation will be payable when bringing permissions up to modern standards, but it has also stated that there are to be no blanket revocations of permissions, although modifications or revocation could be necessary under the Habitats Regulations if continued working would affect the integrity of an SPA or SAC. This would be determined by a review of any permission affecting the designated site. 5.43 The MPAs will support the development of products and markets that are an alternative to peat.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Silica Sand

5.44 Silica sand is also known as industrial sand; it contains a high proportion of silica as quartz and is an essential raw material for the glass and foundry casting industries. It is also used in the manufacture of ceramics and chemicals, and for filtering water. Silica sand is a high value resource which means it serves a wider geographical market than other types of sand. 5.45 Silica sand is a scarce resource. Government guidance on silica sand contained in Minerals Planning Guidance ‘Provision of silica sand in England’ (1996) (MPG15) advises • that it is a mineral of national importance, • that there is a need to protect unworked deposits against sterilisation by other forms of development except where there are overriding planning reasons for releasing this land for other purposes, and • is important that an adequate and steady supply of silica sand is maintained. 5.46 The guidance also advises that provision for an adequate and steady supply of silica sand should be made by maintaining a landbank within areas where silica sand is currently produced. The length of the landbank should be at least 10 years calculated on the basis of an average of the last 3 years production. The landbank requirement might be extended to 15 years where significant new capital investment in plant or site development is involved. 5.47 The principal silica sand deposit within the plan area occurs close to Newbald, to the west of the Wolds. This deposit has several smaller outlying outcrops, the largest being slightly to the North West. The deposits are illustrated in Figure 5.2 below. There are no silica sand processing works in East Riding. The nearest silica sand works are to the south of the Humber near Messingham in North Lincolnshire, where silica sand is processed for coloured glass manufacture, and for foundry sand and other incidental uses. Other deposits are worked nearby at Haxey for mortar sand production.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Figure 5.2 – Silica Sand Deposits

5.48 There is no indication at this stage that there is any intention to establish a silica sand works on the deposit within the Joint Area. However the deposit does have long term potential, either for in-situ exploitation should a works be established, or for extraction and supply to the works in North Lincolnshire or elsewhere. 5.49 The Issues and Options Report did not raise the question of a policy approach to silica sand as such, but the mineral was identified in the responses to the questions about mineral safeguarding.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report In the Issues and Options consultation silica sand was identified as a specialist mineral deposit that warranted being safeguarded from non mineral development that would prevent future extraction.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal Safeguarding of silica sand resources was not assessed separately from safeguarding of any other mineral. Overall the SA found that it was preferable for safeguarding to be wider in extent than the policy approach in the JMLP.

5.50 Accordingly it is proposed to designate a Silica Sand Safeguarding Area for the undeveloped extent of the silica sand deposit as identified on the BGS Resources Map.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

5.51 The East Riding Minerals Core Strategy Policy sets out the proposed approach to the control of non mineral development within all Mineral Safeguarding Areas. 5.52 Further information about the procedure for the operation of the Mineral Safeguarding policy is provided in Chapter 8.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

6. Energy Minerals

6.1 Energy minerals are defined as those which may be burnt to produce energy. In the context of the Joint Area, they are oil, gas and coal. Peat is not included as an energy mineral. 6.2 The Energy Act 2008, alongside the Planning Act 2008 and Climate Change Act 2008, provide the legislative framework for the long term challenges of security of energy supply, recognising at the same time the important implications for climate change 6.3 The Energy Act introduces measures to reflect the availability of new technologies such as carbon capture, requirements for infrastructure to maintain a security of supply such as offshore gas storage and to ensure there is adequate protection for the environment. Many of the measures in this regard are the subject of national and international initiatives. Nevertheless there are implications for the plan area in respects of both coal, and oil and gas. 6.4 The Climate Change Act introduced a new approach to managing and responding to the issues of climate change in the UK, by setting legally binding targets, creating powers to help achieve those targets, strengthening the institutional framework. Two of the fundamental aims of the Act are to improve the UK’s carbon management to help the transition towards a low-carbon economy, and to demonstrate international leadership and commitment to climate change. 6.5 There are no target guidelines for energy minerals. It is government policy to allow the market to establish appropriate levels of production for oil, gas and coal. 6.6 The characteristics of energy minerals are broadly similar to that of non aggregate minerals in that the pattern of supply is primarily shaped by the occurrence of the resources and the availability of specialised facilities for their utilisation. The proposed spatial approach for energy minerals in the plan area seeks to contribute towards the continuity of supplies in the context of the national market focussed on where energy minerals are exploited recognising that investment decisions are made on a wider strategic basis. In planning terms, oil and gas can be treated in virtually the same way as both minerals are the subject of the same government guidance, and in broad terms, subject to similar operational constraints, and addressing storage as well as supply. Coal is treated separately. Coal

6.7 The eastern part of the Joint Area is underlain by deep coal deposits which are or have been worked from mines located in adjacent areas. These are the Selby Coalfield to the west in Selby District, North Yorkshire; and Thorne Colliery to the south west within Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council. Both collieries have a chequered history of working and at present only Thorne colliery is in production. A large proportion of the underground reserves for the Thorne colliery lie beneath the East Riding of Yorkshire area and the recoverable reserves remaining are significant. 6.8 Within the framework of the Energy White Paper, it is the government’s policy to maximise the economic recovery of all fossil fuels, including coal. 68

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

6.9 The Energy Act requires that future development of coal is based on collaboration between stakeholders in the coal and power industries and Government to secure the long term future of coal fired power generation, to optimise the use of national coal resources where recovery is economic, and to stimulate investment in clean coal technologies. Considerable investment has already been made in enabling existing coal-fired power stations to comply with new EU emissions legislation. 6.10 Although prepared before the introduction of the Energy Act, the overall guidance on supply in Minerals Planning Guidance ‘Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal’ (1999) (MPG3), is consistent with the approach outlined above. MPG3 emphasises security, diversity and sustainability of energy supply, customer choice, competitive pricing, energy efficiency and environmental protection. It also emphasises the importance of coal to the national economy and the fact that it is therefore a mineral of strategic importance. 6.11 MPG3 does not set out any targets for supply, but advises that it is for individual operators to determine the level of output they wish to aim for in the light of market conditions, and for MPAs to determine the acceptability of individual projects in accordance with the principles of the land use planning system, balancing the impacts on the environment and local communities against potential benefits, such as local employment and opportunities for landscape and amenity improvements during the period of working and afterwards through restoration. 6.12 MPG3 states that minerals local plans should indicate those areas where coal extraction and the disposal of colliery spoil are likely to be appropriate, subject to development management criteria being met. Minerals local plans are also to indicate areas of restraint where such development would not be appropriate or where the coal resources must be safeguarded for future working. Equally, other development plan policies should ensure that provision for other development does not unnecessarily sterilise coal resources, nor allow development to encroach on existing mineral operations and thus increase the level of environmental impact to an unacceptable level. 6.13 Deep mining can cause different problems, notably subsidence, reduction in the water table and ground water pollution. New surface development, with associated infrastructure and spoil can have more wide ranging impacts. Common to both is the need to have infrastructure in place to transport coal from the point of extraction to where it is used for power generation. 6.14 Any proposals for coal mining in the plan area therefore have the potential to create significant impacts, and must be subject to close and stringent scrutiny to ensure that all possible effects are identified and quantified, that appropriate design and adequate mitigation proposals are made and that any residual impacts can be justified in terms of the wider benefits within the approach of national energy policy, and the availability of alternative sources or means of extraction. 6.15 Whilst the JMLP did not envisage any plans for further applications for coal working of the resources below the Joint Area, it nevertheless included a criteria based policy listing the material considerations in terms of potential impacts and benefits associated with proposals for deep coal mining.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

6.16 It stated in the supporting text that the MPAs would ensure that any deep coal mining operations undertaken from surface installations elsewhere, did not result in subsidence within the plan area and would be subject to an Habitats Regulations Assessment, particularly in the vicinity of the Lower Derwent Valley SPA/Ramsar Site /SAC, Skipwith Common SAC and Thorne Moor SAC. 6.17 The JMLP did not identify any locations where coal mining might occur or be most likely to be found acceptable. This is because the quantity of coal lying under the JMLP area which is likely to be economically workable is not adequately proven, and there was therefore a lack of certainty about the environmental effects of deep coal mining under the area. 6.18 The Issues and Options report sought views on whether this approach was appropriate for the period to be covered in the JMDPD.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report Most respondents thought that the JMLP approach was appropriate. There were two suggestions for changes; firstly that greater emphasis might be given to drainage and flooding issues, and secondly that the plan should consider restricting coal mining for power stations because of the CO² implications. The Coal Authority stated that the changing energy markets and economic values of coal would suggest that a flexible approach should be used to allow for potential new mining opportunities between now and 2026. The Coal Authority would wish to ensure that there was sufficient flexibility through criteria based policies to facilitate appropriate future proposals. The Coal authority also sought measures to prevent the unnecessary sterilization of coal resources. Composite Energy Ltd pointed out that the government’s energy policy seeks to encourage the extraction of coal bed methane from deep coal seams as part of a strategy for cleaner coal technology. Areas of East Riding are underlain by deep coal reserves which have the potential for gas extraction. There is therefore a need for the emerging LDF to address the extraction in accord with national energy policy, either by a specific policy or an insert into a policy to reflect its importance as an alternative source of energy. Suggested wording for the policy was given.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal An approach to the future control of coal extraction which seeks to avoid detrimental impacts on the plan area, in particular local amenities and the Lower Derwent Valley SPA/Ramsar site is predicted to result in an overall benefit for sustainability. It is therefore expected to perform well against those SA objectives relating to local amenity, air and water quality, biodiversity and providing opportunities for recreation and healthy lifestyles. The proposed approach to the future control of coal extraction also scores well against SA objectives relating to meeting needs for minerals, and maintaining the local economy.

6.19 Coal Bed Methane is released in significant quantities when coal is distressed or fractured by mining. Further gas is released throughout the life of the mine, and after the mine has been abandoned. Not only is this an environmental hazard because 70

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

methane is one of the main greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, but it is also a potentially important energy resource. There is growing recognition of the scope for utilising Coal Bed Methane and plants are operating elsewhere in North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and South Wales. 6.20 Coal Bed Methane extraction is normally developed in conjunction with surface coal mining works, but techniques are being introduced which enable free standing exploitation of CBM through drilling in a similar way to the exploitation of oil and gas. 6.21 Proposed Policy EM1 seeks to provide the framework for the determination of any proposals for deep coal mining within the plan area within the scope available from national energy policy and guidance in MPG3. Because of the similarities with the drilling for oil and gas, proposals for the free standing exploitation of CBM will be dealt with under the policies for oil and gas set out below. Policy EM1 Deep coal mining

Proposals for the extraction of coal by deep coal mining, including any surface development will only be supported where all the following requirements can be met;

i. the level and likely incidence of subsidence can be monitored and controlled to effectively minimise impact on the environment and local communities ii. the potential for transport of coal and spoil by non road transport has been fully explored, and where possible such other modes are fully utilised iii. adequate arrangements exist on site to support the maximum practicable reuse of colliery spoil as secondary aggregate, and for the disposal of all residual spoil likely to be generated over the lifetime of the operation iv. the potential for capture and utilisation of coal bed methane has been fully explored, and measures put in place to achieve the maximum practicable capture and use of coal bed methane emissions associated with the deep coal mining, v. the effects on nature conservation interests, heritage, the landscape, surface water drainage and areas liable to flood, and local communities can be mitigated to an acceptable degree and are outweighed by benefits to the local economy, including local employment and the effect on local businesses, and vi. the proposals include an acceptable scheme for the restoration of the site to a beneficial afteruse. The scheme should provide details of the timescale for both operational activity and restoration.

Oil and Gas 6.22 Onshore oil and gas has been produced in substantial quantities from onshore sources in the UK since the 1940s. Oil and gas development broadly consists of

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

three phases – exploration, appraisal and production. Each phase requires a separate planning permission and there is no presumption in favour of consent for subsequent stages if an earlier stage is permitted nor do possible effects of a later stage not yet applied for, constitute grounds for refusal of an earlier stage. 6.23 There is also a system of licensing that operates alongside the planning regime. Licensing is operated by the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR). Once a licence is granted, planning permission must be obtained before the Secretary of State will allow the drilling of a well, or development of an oil or gas field. 6.24 A significant proportion of the Joint Area, including the Humber Estuary, is covered by licences which are illustrated in Figure 6.1 below. There have been a number of boreholes sunk in the East Riding for exploratory purposes since the 1970s. One site, at Caythorpe west of Bridlington, is in commercial production, although it has recently converted to on-site generation of electricity instead of gas export to the national network, as a result of declining gas pressure. Figure 6.1 - Oil and Gas Licences

6.25 With the increasing value of gas, further exploration and possibly development of resources during the JMDPD plan period can be anticipated. 6.26 Exploration can be undertaken using a variety of techniques, but nearly always from the surface. In the majority of cases some form of seismic survey is undertaken, 72

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

either vibroseis, using a team of vehicles which send controlled vibrations into the ground, or a sequence of small explosive charges are detonated. In both cases the objective is to examine the reflected seismic pattern in order to detect the presence of geological structures with hydro-carbon potential. Such exploration may be followed by a test borehole. Both forms of seismic survey have the potential to cause disturbance through noise and vibration near residential areas, or when undertaken during night time. 6.27 Drilling a borehole normally takes between 6 and 8 weeks, and associated activities will cover an area of up to 1 hectare. During this period, activity is intense with site preparation works to provide access, services, drainage, pollution control etc. Drilling must be undertaken 24 hours a day, and therefore for the duration of activity there is significant potential for impacts on local amenities. Once completed the drilling rig is usually removed, and if nothing is found, the borehole will be capped and the site restored. If oil and gas are found then the borehole is sealed and fitted with draw-off and safety valves prior to testing of the find. 6.28 Where exploratory boreholes show that further appraisal is appropriate, more boreholes may be needed to test the extent of the geological structure involved, and additional infrastructure may be required to support the appraisal. This additional development has further potential to create environmental impacts, and to extend the working over a wider area. 6.29 Oil and gas production wells and associated infrastructure may originate as a result of the development and upgrading of an earlier exploration or appraisal borehole site, or they may be developed on a new site following the conclusions of the appraisal stage. Pipelines up to 10 miles in extent are subject to planning permission. Longer pipelines require authorisation from the Government under the Pipelines Act 1962 or the Planning Act 2008 although the considerations applied are the same. 6.30 Government advice in the annex to MPS1 is that MPAs should include policies in their DPDs that clearly distinguish between the three phases of oil and gas development, highlighting any environmental or other constraints on production or processing sites. 6.31 The JMLP includes policies in respect of appraisal and exploration boreholes for oil and gas production. Under these policies, the JMLP required that Exploration Boreholes be located in the least sensitive environmental part of the geological prospect. In terms of site selection, account is taken of the potential to retain the borehole for long term appraisal and development. 6.32 The JMLP only seeks to permit Appraisal Boreholes if the extent of the structure being appraised is demonstrated and can be proven to be required to determine the quality, extent and characteristics of the deposit. Short and long term mitigation measures are also required and sites should be restored in accordance with a scheme agreed with the MPA. Permanent oil and gas production development is required to have adequate measures to mitigate its environmental impacts reflecting its long term or permanent nature. 6.33 The Issues and Options Report sought views on whether it was appropriate to continue the JMLP policy approach in the JMDPD. Suggestions for any changes were invited. 73

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report Out of the 25 overall respondents, 9 answered this question. 8 of respondents supported a continuation of JMLP policy approach. There was one suggestion for a refinement that reference might be made to modern directional drilling.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal Assessment of the proposed approach to the future control of oil and gas exploration and extraction is expected to produce significant positive effects for SA objectives relating to meeting needs for minerals and maintaining the local economy. Although a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not required, applications for borehole exploration and appraisal are expected to have regard to EIA requirements. New production facilities will need to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement where appropriate. This approach performs well against SA objectives relating to meeting needs for minerals, maintaining the local economy and against most of the environmental and social objectives, apart from the objective relating to Local amenity, where residual effects are more likely.

6.34 The proposed Minerals Core Strategy Policies (for Hull and the East Riding) address the strategic approach to be made to proposals for future development associated with oil and gas. Proposed Policies EM2, EM3 and EM4 (see below) provide further details of the considerations to be taken into account at each stage of oil and gas development. These policies continue the JMLP approach with minor refinements to reflect recent National Guidance in the Annex to MPS1. Directional drilling is an alternative technique that can be employed in situations where vertical drilling is not practical or might cause more disturbance. It might therefore be considered as a means of mitigation in overcoming environmental or other constraints to vertical drilling. Exploration Boreholes

6.35 The development of an exploration borehole involves a range of potential environmental impacts, and planning applications must be detailed and comprehensive in their content. The MPAs are supportive of onshore oil and gas exploration, and subject to the protection of the environment, will normally give favourable consideration to proposals for exploratory boreholes.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy EM 2 Exploration boreholes

Proposals for exploration boreholes will be supported if the following requirements are all met:- • They are located in the environmentally least sensitive part of the geological prospect avoiding impacts to features of national, regional and local interest, and where adequate mitigation, including the possibility of directional drilling, is provided to ensure that they do not cause disturbance to the occupiers of residential properties, or other sensitive land uses, • They include measures to avoid pollution of ground water, aquifers, and private water supplies, • Site selection takes account of the potential for the borehole to be retained for long term appraisal and development in terms of the above considerations and any long term impact on the landscape, • It makes adequate provision for mitigation of further environmental impacts if the borehole is retained for long term appraisal and development; and • The proposals include an acceptable scheme for the restoration of the site to a beneficial afteruse. The scheme should provide details of the timescale for both operational activity and restoration.

6.36 It is intended that Policy EM2 will be applied to proposals for any additional exploration boreholes which may be required following initial grant of planning permission for such a borehole. The grant of planning permission for an exploratory borehole will not commit the MPAs to any subsequent grant of permission for appraisal or production related development. Appraisal Boreholes

6.37 Appraisal borehole drilling is intended to test the extent of the geological structure. This stage of oil and gas development extends the working over a wider area and has further potential to create environmental impacts. Consequently it is important that the likely extent of working is established and presented clearly with any planning application for appraisal boreholes. This is in order that the implications can be assessed, and so that the location of possible additional boreholes which may be needed can be judged.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy EM3 Appraisal boreholes

Proposals for the drilling of appraisal boreholes will be supported if the following requirements are all met:-

• It is required to determine the quality, extent and characteristics of the deposit • They are located in the environmentally least sensitive part of the geological prospect avoiding impacts to features of national, regional and local interest, and where adequate mitigation, including the possibility of directional drilling, is provided to ensure that they do not cause disturbance to the occupiers of residential properties, or other sensitive land uses, • They include measures to avoid pollution of ground water, aquifers, and private water supplies, • Site selection takes account of the potential for the borehole to be retained for long term development in terms of the above considerations and any long term impact on the landscape, • It makes adequate provision for mitigation of further environmental impacts if the borehole is subsequently retained for development, and • the proposals include an acceptable scheme for the restoration of the site to a beneficial afteruse. The scheme should provide details of the timescale for both operational activity and restoration.

Production and Distribution

6.38 Oil and gas production wells and associated distribution infrastructure may originate as a result of the development and upgrading of an earlier exploration or appraisal borehole site, or they may be developed on a new site following the conclusions of the appraisal stage. Where previous boreholes are developed for production purposes, the MPAs will wish to review the mitigation proposals submitted previously and, where necessary, will wish to see these improved taking into account their effectiveness and the scale of the proposed development. 6.39 In all cases the full implications of the proposed development will need to be considered, including measures to mitigate potential impacts from operational processes and traffic.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy EM4 Oil and gas production and distribution.

Proposals for oil and gas production and distribution will be supported if the following requirements are all met:- • It can be demonstrated that both surface development and the routing of associated pipelines are located in the environmentally least sensitive part of the geological prospect avoiding impacts to features of national, regional and local interest, • Adequate mitigation is provided to ensure that operational processes including gas flaring, or other arrangements for the disposal of unwanted gas, and other noisy activities do not cause disturbance to the occupiers of residential properties, or other sensitive land uses, • They include measures to avoid pollution of ground water, aquifers, and private water supplies, • Adequate arrangements are made for the control of all traffic generated by the development, and the potential for transport of oil or gas for export by non road transport has been fully explored, and where possible such other modes are fully utilised, and • the proposals include an acceptable scheme for the restoration of the site to a beneficial afteruse. The scheme should provide details of the timescale for both operational activity and restoration.

Underground Storage of Natural Gas

6.40 The UK is becoming increasingly reliant on sources of imported gas to meet demand, so facilities are needed for the storage and transportation of imported gas. 6.41 A number of pipelines for imported gas make their landfall along the coast of the East Riding, including the Langeled gas pipeline importing gas from Norway at Easington, a short distance north of the mouth of the Humber estuary. Salt cavern gas storage facilities are based at Atwick and Aldbrough and a resolution to approve (subject to completion of a legal agreement) a further gas storage facility at Whitehill near Withernwick was granted planning permission in 2007. An extension to double the capacity of the Aldbrough site was granted planning permission in 2007. 6.42 The pipelines themselves are not strictly classed as mineral development, but the associated creation of storage caverns in underlying deposits of salt can be regarded as mineral development, particularly as they are so dependant on the quality of the salt deposit. 6.43 Gas storage caverns can only be created in suitably thick homogeneous salt strata, which are free of major faulting systems. The deep salt deposits under the East Riding of Yorkshire are amongst the few locations in the UK where such salt deposits occur. Sites along the coast offer the best prospect, because the salt strata thins

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

towards the west. The strata along the coastline between Bridlington and Withernsea are considered most suitable for forming underground gas storage caverns. 6.44 Following exploration and appraisal of the salt deposits the caverns are created through a process known as solution mining. Water is pumped down a pipe inside a well into the salt. The water dissolves the salt, creating brine which flows back up the well. This process continues until the caverns reach the planned size and disposition. Following this the brine is slowly pushed out by injecting gas from the pipeline system. 6.45 The caverns themselves are very deep underground, typically some 1.5 to 2km below the surface. 6.46 Surface development comprises well heads, of which there may be several, processing plant and monitoring equipment. The impact of the development is greatest during construction. 6.47 Facilities close to the coast can be prone to threats from coastal erosion, which can lead to a requirement for coastal defences to be provided to safeguard the facility. There is therefore the potential for relatively small installations to lead to further development along previously undeveloped stretches of coastline. Coastal defences themselves can have consequences elsewhere along the coast because they alter the pattern of the sea’s behaviour. The introduction of directional drilling has meant that the surface features do not need to be vertically above the storage caverns, and therefore provides flexibility in the siting of wellheads and gas processing plants. 6.48 Annex 4 of MPS1 provides guidance on the issues to be addressed in policies for the underground storage of gas. Planning Policy Statement 7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ (2004) and PPG20 ‘Coastal Planning’ (1992) also include relevant guidance. 6.49 The Holderness Local Plan Adopted April 1999 contains a policy (U4) that indicates gas storage development will only be permitted where essential for the national interest, there are no significant adverse effects on roads and the environment and there are no long term implications for coastal defence. 6.50 Views were sought in the Issues and Options consultation whether this policy should be carried forward into the proposed JMDPD.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report EON an energy company who have interests in the potential underground gas store at Withernwick supported the criteria approach in the Holderness District Wide Local Plan policy, but suggested slightly different policy wording. Another respondent pointed out that the question of need was addressed at national level in the Annex to MPS1 and should therefore not be required. Therefore any new policy should concentrate on spatial and environmental impact.

Results from initial Sustainability Appraisal The assessment of the option for future policy approach to the underground storage of natural gas was based on the continuation of the approach in the Holderness Local Plan. 78

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

The Assessment found that continuing this approach is expected to produce significant positive effects for SA objectives relating to meeting needs for minerals and maintaining the local economy and against most of the environmental and social objectives, apart from the objective relating to local amenity, where residual effects are more likely.

6.51 Policy EM5 seeks to incorporate these responses together with advice in national guidance and experience from the operation of the Holderness Local Plan policy. Policy EM5 Underground storage of gas and related surface development

The formation of caverns for the underground storage of gas and related surface development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that • Arrangements are in place to minimise the impacts of construction on the local road network, any nearby sensitive land uses, and features of national, regional and local interest, • It can be demonstrated that both surface development and the routing of associated pipelines are located in the environmentally least sensitive part of the geological prospect avoiding impacts to features of national, regional and local interest, • It can be demonstrated that the location of the well heads and gas processing facility do not raise any implications for coastal defence during their expected lifetime • adequate mitigation is provided to ensure that operational processes including gas flaring do not cause disturbance to the occupiers of residential properties, or other sensitive land uses, and They include measures to avoid pollution of ground water, aquifers, and private water supplies.

6.52 The Planning Act 2008 defines underground gas caverns over 43 m3 in capacity or with a flow rate of 4.5 million m3 per day or greater as nationally significant infrastructure projects for which planning applications are to be determined by the Infrastructure Planning Committee. Proposed Policy EM5 will apply to any proposals for underground gas storage caverns and associated surface development below these thresholds.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

7. Development Management Policies Introduction & Background

7.1 The JMDPD will be implemented through the use of development management policies that are specific to the minerals issues raised in this document. National policy set out in Planning Policy Statement ‘Local Spatial Planning’ (2008) (PPS12) states that development management policies should focus on topic related issues such as protecting residential amenity, protecting and enhancing nature conservation, highways and transport issues and addressing visual impact etc rather than an exhaustive set of use related development management policies. Such policies are required to be positively worded; criteria based policies which anticipate every development management eventuality. 7.2 The policies set out within this chapter aim to establish the key criteria against which minerals proposals will be judged. This chapter therefore provides a means of implementing the proposed Minerals Core Strategy Policy for each Authority by setting out the considerations against which decisions can be made on planning applications for minerals development. 7.3 It is intended that when considering proposals for minerals development, national and regional level planning policy and guidance will be relied upon to provide an overarching policy context. In some instances however, this high level guidance provides an generic overview on the various planning and environmental topics. Therefore whilst this guidance is of particular importance, it is considered appropriate to provide local level policies to ensure that development proposals can be assessed in a robust manner. The proposed Development management policies set out within this chapter do not therefore seek to unnecessarily repeat national and regional policy, but provide up to date, topic specific policies which reflect the local circumstances for the Joint Area. It is also intended that they provide a sound base for those involved in developing and determining proposals for minerals development. Minerals Development & Minerals Working – Definition 7.4 This chapter applies to all types of minerals and mineral development in East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull. The term ‘mineral development’ applies to any development primarily involving the extraction, processing, storage, transportation or manufacture of minerals. The term ‘mineral working’ or ‘mineral extraction’ refers to the winning and working of minerals and ancillary development; for example processing plants, site offices and weighbridges. The Development Management Process 7.5 Development Management is the general term given to the processing of planning applications and related matters, including the enforcement of planning control. Planning applications should contain justification for the development, details of how operations will be managed and any measures proposed to reduce or remove adverse effects. ERYC and KHCC as MPAs will consider all the environmental, economic and community issues which are relevant to each planning application for minerals development.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

7.6 Sufficient information must be provided with planning applications so that the likely effects of the minerals development proposed, together with proposals for appropriate control or mitigation can be considered. The type of information that should be provided in support of applications for minerals development will be published on the two authorities’ Adopted Local Lists. 7.7 Applicants are encouraged to discuss their proposals with the MPA before submitting a planning application. Early discussions will help to identify potential impacts from proposals and enable the development of possible measures to avoid or minimise them. Applicants will be advised if their proposals are unlikely to be acceptable. The MPA may suggest that applicants take advice from statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England about the need to carry out detailed assessment work. Consultation with statutory and other bodies, such as local interest groups, will help to identify potential impacts of a proposed development, improve the quality of the planning application submission and the decision on the planning application. The Statements of Community Involvement (SCI) produced by the ERYC and KHCC provide information on how consultation on planning applications will be carried out. Environmental Impact Assessment 7.8 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is often required for major developments that are ‘likely to have significant impacts on the environment’. Most proposals for mineral extraction are likely to fall within this definition. An EIA will identify the likelihood of significant impacts occurring as a result of the development proposed, will address how these can be mitigated and consider alternative ways in which the development could be carried out. 7.9 All proposals for minerals development should be ‘Screened’ with the MPA to determine whether or not they require an EIA. The Screening process helps to identify whether the proposal is likely to have significant environmental effects. If an EIA is required, a Scoping Request should be submitted to the MPA to enable an agreement to be reached on what issues should be addressed by the EIA. An Environmental Statement (ES) must accompany a planning application for minerals developments that have been deemed EIA development. Habitats Regulations Assessment 7.10 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) are required by law for all projects that are not directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of European Sites but are likely to have a significant effect on such sites (Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010). In the Joint Area, there are 5 Special Protection Areas (SPAs), 8 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and 2 ‘Wetland of International Importance’ sites (Ramsar sites). It is national policy that the government applies the HRA procedures to Ramsar sites, even though these sites are not European Sites (contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 ‘Biodiversity and Geological conservation’ (2005). An HRA will identify whether the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect, either alone or in combination with other projects or proposals, on the specifically affected SPA, SAC or Ramsar site.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Material Considerations 7.11 Every planning application for development is determined on its merits and should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan (of which this proposed JMDPD will form a part) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. When planning applications are determined, all relevant policies in the Development Plan will be taken into account and used as the basis for decision-making. The policies contained in the Development Plan shall be read as whole; thus a proposal that is in accordance with one policy may not be acceptable if it is contrary to other polices. Material considerations include issues such as the impacts on local communities, national planning guidance and the need for development. 7.12 There are no firm rules about the range and type of material considerations or the weight which should be attached to them in individual decisions. This is because: • Material considerations are subject to change in light of Government guidance and court judgements; • The Development Plan Document cannot explain which considerations may be material to a particular planning decision because the circumstances of each planning application may be different; and • The weight given to material considerations when making decisions on planning applications will be affected by individual circumstances.

7.13 In summary, the policy in the Development Plan Documents for the East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull area should be read as if it were accompanied by the following caveats: “This policy is subject to all other relevant policies in the Development Plan and to all other material considerations”.

Monitoring & Enforcement 7.14 The effective monitoring of operational sites is important. Requirements for the monitoring of impacts such as dust and noise may be controlled through planning conditions. However, it is important that the MPA act as an independent regulator to increase confidence amongst local communities. Efficient and effective monitoring and enforcement can often identify potential problems early and before they are perceptible to local residents. This can ensure that such problems are resolved quickly and satisfactorily.

Development Management Policies

7.15 The proposed policies set out below aim to establish a key set of topic related criteria against which proposals for minerals development will be judged.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy DM1 – Impacts of Minerals Development Minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that there is a clear need for the development proposed and that the impacts on communities and the environment can be controlled to within acceptable levels. In determining applications for minerals development, the following will be considered:

i. The proposed order and method of working, the overall programme of extraction and the proposed restoration and aftercare of the site;

ii. Impacts upon the local area from noise, dust, fumes, illumination and traffic generated by the development;

iii. Impacts upon wash-lands and floodplains, ground water, surface water, drainage, water courses and water bodies;

iv. Impacts on the quality, appearance, character and distinctiveness of the landscape and any features which contribute to these attributes (including trees, hedgerows, ancient and other woodland);

v. Impacts on the natural environment, biodiversity and geological conservation interests;

vi. Impacts on the historic landscape, sites or structures of existing or potential architectural or historic interest and their settings, including Heritage Coasts;

vii. Impacts on the use, quality and integrity of land and soil resources (including land stability and the best and most versatile agricultural land);

viii. Impacts upon open space, the rights of way network and outdoor recreational facilities;

ix. Impacts upon tourism, the local economy and other socio-economic factors;

x. Cumulative impacts arsing from interactions between mineral developments and between mineral and other forms of development; and

xi. Any other matter relevant to the planning application.

7.16 Proposed Policy DM1 is the primary policy for determining planning applications for minerals development. This policy covers a wide range of potential impacts which may arise from minerals working and applies equally to on-site, off-site and cumulative impacts.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

7.17 If planning permission is granted for minerals development, planning conditions and legal agreements will often be attached to regulate the operation of the development. Planning conditions can be used to agree/control specific details about parts of a proposal (for example, a landscape and restoration scheme) or to ensure that effects on local communities and the environment are controlled and/or reduced (for example, specified hours of working). Planning legislation and policy goes a long way towards protecting communities and the environment, but controls are also placed on developments through other mechanisms such as European regulations and pollution control regimes set out under environmental legislation. Where adverse effects cannot be adequately controlled or prevented, planning permission will be refused.

Responses from consultation on Issues and Options Report The Issues and Options Report questioned what approach the proposed JMDPD should take towards protecting the interests of local communities. Whilst it was recognised that MPS1 and MPS2 provide useful, wide ranging guidance, the favoured option was to rely on national guidance but supplement this by developing policies which seek, wherever possible, to achieve positive benefits for local communities through the management and restoration of minerals sites. Consultation with local communities at an early stage was highlighted as a preferred method of ensuring that community benefits are achieved. In addition to ensuring the overall quality of life for local communities through the development and implementation of high quality, well monitored site management practices, it was considered that a number of key positive benefits could also be achieved through restoration and after use. Such benefits include improved leisure and amenity provision in association with nature conservation improvements such as nature trails and outdoor pursuits such as walking and fishing and improved links to the public rights of way network.

7.18 Responses to the Issues and Options Report also considered that site management and restoration should be undertaken on a site by site basis rather then through the development of a framework requiring the delivery of specific benefits across all sites. It was considered that there are too many site specific issues which affect the management and restoration of mineral sites and therefore a framework approach would be unlikely to control site activities and deliver site restoration/after uses in the best interests of communities and the environment. It is however recognised that there needs to be some overall spatial targets when considering restoration and after uses in order to help deliver biodiversity targets. This could most likely be achieved through the involvement of statutory bodies such as Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) at an early stage in the planning application process for mineral development proposals. 7.19 The comments raised through the Issues and Options consultation have been reflected in the development of the following proposed policies, in particular Policies DM2 to DM5 inclusive.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy DM2 – Protecting Residential Amenity & Other Sensitive Uses

Minerals development that would be likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residents and other sensitive users of the surrounding area through noise, vibration, dust, air quality or lighting will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that adequate mitigation can be provided to protect that amenity.

7.20 Although minerals development is a temporary use of land (albeit often long lived), if quarries and associated facilities are not managed to high standards, the effects of the development can occur both during the operational lifetime of the development and beyond. Possible impacts such as noise, vibration and dust from quarry traffic, mineral extraction and processing plant, visual impacts from the development as a whole, debris from the site and increased traffic movements (in particular from HGV’s) can cause concern and nuisance for the residents of those properties near to mineral operations. It is therefore important that these impacts are kept to a minimum if residential amenity and standards of living are to be maintained throughout the lifetime of the mineral development and beyond. 7.21 There are many ways in which quarry operators can ensure that the operations on site do not have an adverse impact upon the amenities of those people living nearby and other sensitive uses such as schools. These can involve the operation of both the quarry and specific plant at agreed times during the day with no weekend working, the use of water bowsers on site during dry weather and sheeting of vehicles to suppress dust and debris, control over the number and timing of HGV movements and the creation of screening and bunds through landscape planting to help lessen the visual impacts of the development throughout the lifetime of the quarry. 7.22 Mineral operators can also lessen the impacts of the development by giving careful consideration to the method by which the quarry is worked. The development of sensitive extraction phasing can be used to ensure that working closest to residential areas and other sensitive uses is minimised or does not take place until new screen planting, or other mitigation measures have been put in place and been given time to mature. The choice of route for traffic created by the site can also play a significant role in reducing impacts on local communities. Such quarry management measures can be agreed through careful negotiations between the MPA and quarry operators and can be controlled through planning conditions and legal agreements. 7.23 MPS2 advises that where mineral workings are proposed in close proximity to residential properties and landscaping proposals may not be sufficient to provide adequate protection to residents; adequate separation distances (or stand-offs) which ensure that mineral working on the site cannot take place within a specified distance of such properties can be agreed. In developing such standoffs, issues including the nature and duration of the proposed activity, the potential for mineral sterilisation, the

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

types of impacts likely and the alternative mitigation measures available should all be taken into consideration.

Policy DM3 – Restoration & Aftercare

Proposals for mineral development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that an appropriate restoration scheme would be followed to ensure that the site is restored in a manner which is sympathetic to the character, appearance and setting of the locality. Such restoration should be capable of sustaining an appropriate after use. Restoration should be carried out at the earliest opportunity. Where appropriate, progressive restoration will be required.

Proposals will be required to demonstrate the expertise and commitment necessary to secure a high standard of restoration and aftercare for an appropriate period of time, to be agreed with the MPA.

The restoration and aftercare of minerals sites should also seek to meet the following planning objectives:

i. The development of restoration schemes which meet Biodiversity Action Plan targets and support existing biodiversity projects in line with flora and fauna originally present on the site; ii. The creation or improvement of geo-diversity; iii. The creation, improvement or re-instatement of high quality agricultural land; iv. The provision of leisure and recreation facilities in the countryside; and v. The improvement of public access to the countryside.

Policy DM4 - Best & Most Versatile Agricultural Land

Proposals which would result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land will only be supported if:

i. The loss would be temporary and there would be no overall loss of soil quality following final restoration; or ii. There is a need for the mineral which cannot be met in a suitable, alternative location.

7.24 The restoration of mineral sites to either their former use or a new use can usually meet one or more planning objectives such as improving biodiversity during restoration and creating public access, leisure and recreation and community uses following restoration. It is imperative that sites are restored immediately after cessation of operations, and where possible, restoration should be progressive throughout the working of the site. This ensures that worked parts of the site can be 86

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

bought back into use whilst extraction operations on other parts of the site are ongoing. This will ensure that the overall impact of the mineral working is kept to a minimum. The restoration of sites should be addressed at the outset, as part of the planning application. 7.25 Sites should be restored in a way which is sympathetic to the character of the area and that will positively enhance the site and contribute to the landscape in which it is set. The East Riding has a very high proportion of the best and most versatile agricultural land. As this is an important resource, both locally and nationally, there will be a strong presumption against a permanent loss of such land and mineral restoration schemes which seek to restore sites to good quality agricultural land will be encouraged. 7.26 Applicants will be expected to demonstrate that they have both the technical and financial competence to restore and maintain the site thereafter in accordance with their proposed restoration schemes. Where operators have a good track record of high quality restoration and after care, it will be important that they demonstrate this in their discussion with the MPAs and/or through their planning submissions. 7.27 On all occasions where the proposed means of restoration is through the part or complete infill of the minerals void using waste materials, the MPAs will have due regard to the appropriate policies contained within the Joint Waste Development Plan Document being prepared by ERYC and KHCC once it is adopted. Policy DM5 - Public Rights of Way

Where a minerals development is proposed which will have an impact upon a public right of way, the applicant will be required to demonstrate how the affected route will be safeguarded to ensure that public access can continue either through a footpath/bridleway diversion or through the temporary/permanent stopping up/ extinguishment of the route where it can be demonstrated that the route is either unused or has only limited use.

7.28 Footpaths or bridleways often pass adjacent to or through areas proposed for mineral working. Where such public rights of way are affected, proper arrangements will need to be made for their formal diversion, whether on a temporary or permanent basis. The retention of rights of way used by the public is of importance in both the local context, to ensure that local residents have pedestrian access to the surrounding environment and also in the strategic contest of ensuring continued access to the countryside for all in line with proposed Policy DM3. 7.29 The Issues and Options Consultation document questioned what approach should be taken to protecting natural resources through development management polices within the proposed JMDPD. The overall theme of the responses indicated that whilst existing, higher level policies/guidance should be used; the proposed JMDPD should also set out a strategy which seeks to protect the specific landscape, ecological and geological features of the Joint Area through specific policies. This has been reflected in the proposed Policies DM6 and DM7.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy DM6 - Sites with National Designations There will be a presumption against permitting minerals development which is likely to prejudice the purpose of the following nationally designated sites and their settings unless the reasons for development outweigh the likely adverse effects of the proposed development, taking into account the requirements of the relevant legislation and guidance: i. Site of Special Scientific Interest; ii. Scheduled Monuments; iii. Heritage Coasts; iv. Listed Buildings; v. Historic Parks & Gardens; vi. Historic Battlefields; vii. National Nature Reserves; viii. Ramsar Sites; ix. Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS); x. Special Areas of Conservation; xi. Special Protection Areas; xii. European Sites; and xiii. Sites identified under the National Nature Reserves (NNR) or Geological Conservation Review (GCR)

In all cases, applications will be subject to rigorous examination. Where such development does proceed, the MPA will where appropriate use conditions or legal agreements to secure all compensatory measures necessary.

7.30 Nature conservation and biodiversity interests need to be taken into account when considering mineral development proposals which are situated within, or are likely to have adverse effects upon national, regional and locally designated sites. Proposals for mineral development which would impact upon such designations must be subject to a rigorous examination of their potential effects and will only be permitted where the reasons for development outweigh the likely adverse effects of the proposed development. 7.31 Proposals which affect designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves will be considered in light of the MPA’s enhancement duties under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) as well as the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. 7.32 Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Heritage coasts and other nationally designated, historically important designations and their settings will be given strong protection from mineral development. Emphasis will be placed on the physical preservation in situ of such features and designations. 7.33 Where the reasons for development can be shown to outweigh harm and no alternative can be practically identified, prior to the grant of planning permission, the

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

MPA will ensure that adequate mitigation measures are put in place to offset, as far as possible, the adverse impacts created. Such mitigation is likely to include adequate and appropriate compensatory measures. If such mitigation/compensatory measures cannot be provided, then planning permission will normally be refused. 7.34 Opportunities for nature conservation and biodiversity enhancement measures on both minerals and other site (adjacent or detached) shall be sought through the restoration of mineral sites in all cases in line with proposed Policy DM3. Policy DM7 - Impact on Landscape & Townscape

Minerals development will only be supported if due regard is given to the likely visual impact of the proposed development, its impact on and the need to maintain and enhance the distinctive character of the landscape and townscape of the Joint Area. If considered necessary by the MPA, additional landscaping, screening and planting, including a requirement to plant in advance of development commencing, and to maintain such planting will be required as part of the development proposals.

7.35 Applicants should as far as possible take full account of the potential visual impact of their proposals for mineral development and design their schemes accordingly. This may include pre-development landscaping and planting works and/or appropriate design, phasing, and maintenance. Developers should also consider appropriate ongoing mitigation measures which could be implemented and maintained as appropriate throughout the lifespan of the mineral working. Policy DM8 - Water Resources

Minerals development will only be supported where it is unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on surface or ground waters and where due regard will be given to water conservation and efficiency.

Minerals development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in any net increase in surface water run-off or an increase in the potential run-off of pollutants to water resources.

Policy DM9 - Flooding

Proposals for minerals development within an area greater than 1ha or located within Flood Risk Zones 2, 3a and 3b shall be accompanied by a flood risk assessment. Proposals for development which lie within areas of high flood risk e.g around the River Hull and the River Humber and which are therefore likely to create an unacceptable risk of flooding will not be permitted unless acceptable mitigation measures are proposed.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

7.36 Mineral workings or the disposal of mineral wastes can have an adverse effect on surface and underground waters, drainage and watercourses. Tipping of mineral waste on river or stream banks and particularly on their flood plains may lead to the pollution of watercourses and aquifers and the flooding of other areas. 7.37 Proposals for mineral working should address the likely effects of the proposed development on surface waters and groundwater in terms of changes to flow, the water table and water temperature and quality. Although the Environment Agency is responsible for pollution control, it is important to consider the impact on water resources as far as it might affect land use and planning generally. 7.38 Proposals should demonstrate how water would be conserved through appropriate water efficiency and sustainable drainage measures as part of any planning submission. 7.39 Planning has a positive role to play in ensuring that flood risk is properly taken into account in the planning of developments and that adequate measures are taken to reduce the risk of flooding. Mineral working in floodplain areas can have both beneficial and detrimental impacts. It is recognised that in some cases, mineral workings may assist in reducing the risk of flooding and account will be taken of this in assessing proposals. However, to prevent an increase in flood risk, it is necessary to maintain the capacity of existing floodplains and the free flow of floodwater. The increased risk of flooding associated with mineral working can be avoided through a number of measures. These include, avoiding overloading watercourses by segregating working areas from rivers, lakes, ponds etc, ensuring that surface water flows are not impeded by structures, bunds and stockpiles and providing additional flood water storage areas. 7.40 In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25 ‘Development and Flood Risk, (2006) (PPS25) planning applications for development over 1ha in size and located in flood zones 2, 3 and 3a must be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Applications which are not accompanied by a FRA will be refused. Only in exceptional circumstances (in accordance with the Exception Test set out in PPS25) will a minerals development be permitted where it has been identified that a flood risk would occur as a result of the minerals development proposed. 7.41 Proposals should also include appropriate measures to minimise any increase in flood risk or any detrimental impacts on the availability and quality of water resources. Policy DM10 - Transportation

Minerals development involving significant levels of transportation by road will be supported where: i. The highway network is of an appropriate standard for use by the traffic to be generated by the proposed development; ii. Arrangements for the site access and traffic movements generated by the proposed development would not have any unacceptable impact upon highway safety, residential amenity or the environment; and iii. It has been demonstrated that there is no practicable alternative for the use of road-based transport that would have a lower impact on local

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

communities and the environment.

Where temporary access roads are required to serve a mineral site, proposals should demonstrate that as far as practically possible, the least environmentally damaging route has been identified.

Where agreed highway improvements are required to accommodate the proposed development by planning condition or legal agreement, such improvements will be normally required to be completed before any operations commence, or in accordance with an agreed timetable for implementation.

7.42 The movement of minerals from mineral workings has the potential to cause significant impacts on the local road network through traffic volumes, vehicle types and sizes and from issues such as noise and vibration, dust, debris and structural damage. As vehicles are often travelling over significant distances, impacts are not just confined to the immediate vicinity of the site but may affect roads and settlements located along mineral haulage routes. 7.43 This proposed policy seeks to ensure that, where possible, the effects of traffic generated by mineral development is minimised, particularly in relation to the effects on local communities, the environment and the local road network. Road transport can often be the only practical form of access to mineral workings. Other opportunities such as rail, water-based transportation, pipelines and conveyors do however exist and may be suitable for some operations within the Joint Area. Planning applications for mineral development should therefore demonstrate that all options for transporting minerals from the proposed site have been explored. Where non-road forms of transport have been discounted, the reasons for this should be clearly demonstrated. 7.44 Where non-road transport is not a realistic option for new or extended minerals sites, in conjunction with the MPAs (and where appropriate, local communities), the applicant will be expected to consider developing transport plans which deal with issues such as traffic routing, hours of movement and considerate driving. This will help to minimise the environmental impacts of transporting minerals and supplement/underpin the transport related conditions attached to a planning consent. 7.45 In certain cases, where minerals proposals are otherwise acceptable, the local road network may not be sufficient to cope with the additional volume and type of vehicle movements which would be created by the proposed development. It may therefore be necessary to improve the road network through the widening of carriageways, improvement of junctions etc. Such improvements can be agreed through careful negotiations between the MPA, the local Highways Authority and quarry operators and can be controlled through planning conditions and obligations. Policy DM11 - Planning Obligations

In addition to the imposition of necessary and reasonable conditions, the MPAs will seek to use legal agreements (also known as planning obligations) 91

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

to ameliorate harm or to secure relevant and legitimate local benefits which outweigh the harm of minerals development. Such obligations will be developed through discussions with applicants. 7.46 In order to minimise the effects of mineral developments, it is important that as part of their development proposals, applicants consider measures which will compensate for any environmental damage or impacts on local communities that the development may cause. Where properly used, planning obligations can enhance the quality of a development and enable development to go ahead which might otherwise be refused. 7.47 Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) empowers MPAs to seek planning obligations from developers to secure compensation such as: • Conserving or enhancing areas of open space, landscape or wildlife value; • Specific community benefits or facilities; or • Financial contributions to such schemes. 7.48 Planning obligations must be relevant to the proposed development. Planning obligations may relate to matters other than those covered by a planning permission, provided that there is a direct relationship between the permission and the obligation. They should not be sought where this connection does not exist or is too remote. Obligations should therefore be necessary, relevant to planning, directly related to the proposed development and fairly and reasonably related to the scale and kind of development in all other respects. 7.49 The MPAs will seek to negotiate with developers early in the planning application process to ensure that appropriate measures can be agreed and controlled by planning obligations to minimise the impacts of proposals.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

8. Site Allocations Introduction

8.1 In order to implement the proposed East Riding Minerals Core Strategy policy and spatial strategies for each type of mineral set out above the following minerals site allocations are proposed as candidates for inclusion in the final version of the JMDPD. • Mineral Safeguarding Areas for sand and gravel, crushed rock, industrial chalk, clay and silica sand • Buffer Zones for chalk and limestone • Preferred Areas for Sand and Gravel • Areas of Search for Sand and Gravel • Areas of Search for Crushed Rock • Area of Search for Industrial Chalk In each case the relevant objectives are referred to in the supporting text below. 8.2 It is important to note that there is no presumption that planning permission for the winning and working of minerals will automatically be granted in any of the designated areas or sites when the proposed JMDPD is adopted. Defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas Safeguarding of Sand and Gravel Deposits 8.3 It is proposed to introduce a Minerals Safeguarding Area for Sand and Gravel Deposit which will encompass the extent of Glaciofluvial and Glaciolacustrine Deposits which occur outside urban areas, the proposed safeguarding areas are illustrated on Drawing Reference MSA01 located in Appendix B. Safeguarding of Crushed Rock Deposits 8.4 Crushed Rock comprises Limestone and Chalk deposits. There are currently no active Limestone quarries in the East Riding; therefore, mineral has to be imported to the Joint Area. The Limestone deposit is limited in extent so it is proposed to safeguard the entire deposit of Limestone and the Areas of Search related to the Limestone. 8.5 Given the relative abundance of chalk deposits and its occurrence in a rural setting with limited development pressures it is proposed to adopt a selective approach, introducing safeguarding areas around all existing chalk quarries and Areas of Search for Crushed Rock. 8.6 The Mineral Safeguarding Areas for existing crushed rock quarries are defined having regard to the following considerations; • The location and extent of planning permission for existing mineral workings and any permissions for future mineral working 93

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

• The anticipated life of the mineral working • Geological evidence defining the resource including site investigation, the presumed extent of the deposit and/ or interpretation of BGS mineral resource data • The position of any physical and topographic features and barriers, such as rivers, field boundaries and roads etc. • The need to introduce and maintain buffer zones between conflicting land-uses • Defining a realistic boundary around site with planning permission for mineral working. 8.7 The proposed Safeguarding Areas for Crushed Rock are illustrated on Drawings Reference MSA02 to MSA05 located in Appendix B. Safeguarding of Brick Clay Extraction 8.8 It is proposed to introduce Minerals Safeguarding Area for Clay Deposit will encompass the entire extent of the deposit shown on the BGS Mineral Resources map which is illustrated on Drawing Reference MSA06 located in Appendix B. Safeguarding of Industrial Chalk Deposits 8.9 In order to maintain security of supply for the Industrial Chalk processing facilities it is proposed to introduce a Mineral Safeguarding Area for quarries and production units exploiting deposits of industrial grade chalk. Given the extensive distribution of the chalk deposits and its occurrence in a rural setting with limited development pressures it is proposed to adopt a selective approach, introducing safeguarding areas around all existing industrial chalk quarries, mineral processing facilities and around proposed Areas of Search for Industrial Chalk. 8.10 The proposed Mineral Safeguarding Areas for Industrial Chalk are defined having regard to the following considerations • The location and extent of planning permission for existing mineral workings and any permissions for future working area • The anticipated life of the mineral working • Geological evidence defining the resource including site investigation, the presumed extent of the deposit and/ or interpretation of BGS mineral resource data. • The position of any physical and topographic features and barriers such as rivers, field boundaries and roads etc. • The need to introduce and maintain buffer zones between conflicting land-uses • Define realistic boundaries around sites with planning permission for mineral working. 8.11 The proposed Minerals Safeguarding Areas for Industrial Chalk are illustrated on Drawings Reference MSA07 to MSA11 located in Appendix B.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Safeguarding of Silica Sand Deposits 8.12 Currently, there are no active silica sand quarries in the Joint Area. However, silica sand is considered an important industrial mineral and the extent of the deposit is limited. It is proposed to safeguard the entire silica sand deposit shown on the BGS Mineral Resources map excluding the parts within built up areas. The proposed Minerals Safeguarding Areas for silica sand are illustrated on Drawing Reference MSA012 located in Appendix B. Procedure for Application of Safeguarding Policy in Relation to MSAs 8.13 The proposed East Riding Core Strategy Policy will apply within all mineral safeguarding areas in accordance with the following procedure. Applicants should consider the implications of the Minerals Safeguarding Areas at an early stage in formulating their development proposals. The responsibility for demonstrating that mineral resources will not be sterilised by a proposed surface development rests with the prospective developer. 8.14 Inclusion of a site within a Mineral Safeguarding Area does not mean that there is a presumption in favour of mineral working within the safeguarded area, or against surface development. The purpose of Mineral Safeguarding Areas is to highlight the existence of the underlying mineral deposits so that its potential importance, both now and in the long term, can be balanced against the merits of the proposed surface development. 8.15 Decisions on the surface development should be taken in the light of the policies in the Development Plan and also in the proposed East Riding Core Strategy Policy. 8.16 The proposed East Riding Core Strategy Policy should be applied to planning applications for non mineral development, and notifications of intention to install service infrastructure, such as a pipelines, or underground cables etc., but certain types of development are excluded from this policy: The following types of development are excluded:- • Development in accordance with the allocations of the Development Plan • Applications for infilling development in settlements not covered above • Householder applications (i.e. within the curtilage, which does not result in a change in the number of dwellings but is not permitted development) • Details submitted as reserved matters, unless application of the policy is expressly reserved at the outline stage • Applications for new or improved accesses, where the length is less than 20m • Minor works including fences, bus shelters, private garages, • Development requiring planning permission by virtue of a Direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning Permitted Development Order 1995 (or subsequent legislation) • Overhead power lines less than 33kv;

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

• Minor development on camp sites of less than 280m2 and development for which only temporary permission is sought • Individual residential caravans for not more than 5 years. 8.17 NB it is important to recognise that some specific types of industrial process may be sensitive to minor levels of atmospheric dust. Where potentially sensitive industrial uses are to be located within a safeguarding area close to an active mineral operation, it is recommended that the requirements of the industry concerned are considered to confirm whether it will be compatible with ongoing mineral extraction. Buffer Zones

8.18 Chalk and Limestone have special considerations because they are often longer term mineral operations than sand and gravel, and often involve blasting. For this reason there are some situations where Buffer Zones might be useful in combination with Mineral Safeguarding Areas to assist in providing a standoff from existing chalk or limestone quarries, or Preferred Area in close proximity to a national or international nature conservation designation or other sensitive area, or where a safeguarding area for chalk or limestone abuts such an area. 8.19 It is not considered appropriate to have Buffer Zones around sand and gravel quarries, or clay quarries, because the operations are relatively low impact, or can be more closely controlled by conditions. 8.20 Within Buffer Zones a policy will apply to restrict development which would be incompatible with the ongoing or future operation of a chalk quarry or processing plant. In this respect Buffer Zones are different from Safeguarding Areas because they do not include provision to consider the value of the underlying mineral deposit, only the possible incompatibility between the proposed development or land use and the operation of an existing or potential quarry. 8.21 The necessary width of the Buffer Zone varies depending on the nature of the mineral working and the sensitivity of the feature being buffered. In addition, due to the historical juxtaposition of some sites with neighbouring land uses, it is not always possible to secure a consistent Buffer Zone width. 8.22 The need for Buffer Zones may change with time. Additional areas may be a necessary consequence of granting of planning permissions for extensions to mineral development or the construction and use of new plant. 8.23 It may be possible to reduce the extent of a Buffer Zone and so reduce the distance between quarrying activities and other development through the construction of amenity bunds or the planting of trees. 8.24 Buffer Zones are proposed for Queensgate Quarry and for Melton Whiting Quarry. The Buffer Zones are illustrated on Drawings Reference MSA10 and MSA11 located in Appendix B. Policy SA1 Non-mineral development in buffer zones

Within the Buffer Zones shown on the Inset Plans, development will not be supported where it would constrain existing mineral development or possible future mineral development by reason of its sensitivity to impacts on amenity.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Methodology for Selection of Preferred Areas and Areas of Search Preferred Areas 8.25 The JMLP sets out the criteria for the identification of ’Preferred Areas' and ‘Areas of Search’ to identify those areas for potential mineral development. As detailed in Chapter 4 the Issues and Options consultation sought views on the approach to the selection of candidate Preferred Areas and Areas of Search. The methodology has been updated to take account of the comments made by respondents of the Issues and Options consultation and recommendations from the Sustainability Appraisal of that report. 8.26 Candidate Preferred Areas have been proposed in this version of the JMDPD for aggregate sand and gravel and brick clay extraction. Insufficient information is currently available to identify Preferred Areas for aggregate crushed rock. The identification process has involved several sources of information; geological data; planning and environmental constraints identified from a range of sources; and information received from operators. The latter has been provided during the Issues and Option consultations and in the main is based on site specific and detailed mineral appraisals. 8.27 The list of environmental constraints which were considered in this the identification process included the following statutory designations; • Designated and proposed Special Areas of Conservation • Designated and proposed Special Protection Areas • Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and • Designated and proposed Ramsar Sites and National Nature Reserves. 8.28 A range of broader considerations were also considered, including; • Proximity to and relationship with residential development and other sensitive uses • Proximity to the primary road network • The landscape and visual characteristics of the area in question • Best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) • The nature of the deposit and relationship with flood plains • Saved District Local Plan policies and designations. 8.29 Next, a range of other designations were also considered where these might be affected by allocated areas and these included • Scheduled Monuments • Listed Buildings • Registered Parks and Gardens • Archaeological sites.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

8.30 Finally, consideration of site specific constraints such as public footpaths has been made. The boundaries of the Preferred Areas have been drawn more precisely than for Areas of Search (discussed below). These should not be taken as necessarily representative of the boundaries for any planning applications which may be received, or consents which might be issued. Areas of Search 8.31 Within this document, candidate Areas of Search have been proposed. These are areas where there is a reasonable expectation of minerals being present in viable quantities, and where the MPAs expect any new proposals for sand and gravel, crushed rock and silica sand to be made in the medium to longer term. 8.32 The identification of candidate Areas of Search has involved the same sieve analysis as applied to candidate Preferred Areas, using a wide range of information on environmental constraints and the occurrence of minerals. 8.33 The BGS Mineral Resource Map provides the only publicly available data on the occurrence of minerals in the plan area, so the Areas of Search have been defined with reference to this map and the information supplied by operators. Where appropriate the boundaries of the candidate Areas of Search have been drawn so as to encompass a range of sites put forward through the Issues and Options consultation 8.34 It should be recognised that the boundaries of candidate Areas of Search do not necessarily coincide with the areas for which planning permission might be granted. Potential conflicts with designated sites and areas have been avoided where possible through their exclusion from Areas of Search, and the definition of boundaries has had regard to the broad constraints identified. Candidate Preferred Areas for Sand and Gravel Working

8.35 A key function of the JMDPD is to make provision for sufficient minerals to be made available to meet the identified needs of the plan area. Chapter 4 sets out how the provision for an adequate and steady supply of Sand and Gravel will be made through identifying Preferred Areas and Areas of Search. 8.36 In order to maintain a healthy market and ensure continuity of supply, planning consents will be required for further sand and gravel extraction during the course of the plan period. It is therefore proposed to identify Preferred Areas for the extraction of sand and gravel with an appropriate spatial distribution to supply the plan area. 8.37 Proposals for the extraction of sand and gravel within Preferred Areas will be considered against Policy AGG1 subject to acceptability against policies elsewhere in the development plan. 8.38 During the Issues and Options consultation operators, landowner and other interested parties nominated a total of 14 sites, of which 9 sites were for Sand and Gravel extraction. These have been assessed alongside unimplemented Preferred Areas from the JMLP. 8.39 Site selection has involved evaluation of the candidate sites against the site selection methodology in consultation with the Joint Authorities. Overlying this appraisal framework is the proposed spatial approach for aggregates as described in Chapter 98

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

4. This spatial element of the selection takes account of issues relating to the principle of extraction in the wider area, as follows; • The location of site and its proximity to the areas and markets where the material is likely to be required. The aim will be to have a geographical spread of site to serve the main locations of future development and construction activity, including maintenance of the existing built-up areas • The relationship of the candidate sites to current extraction activities, other candidate Preferred Areas and any potential cumulative impact from working sites in combination or series • Where the site represents a last opportunity to extract minerals from an area because of relationship with other operation currently approaching the end of the working lives, or future surface development. 8.40 These considerations are applied using careful judgement, and have influenced the overall spatial distribution of sites within the Joint Area and the phasing of extraction. The selection will seek to ensure that sufficient resources are available to meet anticipated requirements as defined in Table 4.4 (above). 8.41 The proposed candidate Preferred Areas for Sand and Gravel Working are listed in Table 8.1 and referred to in more detail in Table A.1 at Appendix A.

Table 8.1 - Candidate Preferred Areas for Sand and Gravel Working Site Name and JMDPD Reference Number Potential Yield (mt) PA01 Willowcroft Farm, Catwick 0.675

PA02 Dryham Farm/ Plantation Farms North 5.57 cave Total Resources 6.245

8.42 The sites listed in Table 8.1 will provide sufficient reserves to meet the apportionment rate for the Joint Area, for the whole plan period to 2026, but not enough for the whole of the 7 year landbank beyond 2026. Any outstanding balance will be made up from sites within the Areas of Search for sand and gravel or from further nominations following the consultation on this document. Candidate Areas of Search for Sand and Gravel Working

8.43 Areas of Search comprise broad areas of land where knowledge of the mineral resources may be less certain than for Preferred Areas, but where there is a reasonable expectation of minerals being present in viable quantities. 8.44 During the Issues and Options consultation operators, landowner and other interested parties were invited to put forward proposed sites. In total 14 sites were put forward for consideration, of which 9 sites were identified for Sand and Gravel extraction.

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

8.45 The Nominated sites and the unimplemented Areas of Search from the JMLP have been evaluated in line with the consideration set out in the site selection methodology above. 8.46 The candidate Areas of Search for Sand and Gravel Working are listed in Table 8.2 and referred to in more detail in Table A.2 at Appendix A.

Table 8.2 - Candidate Areas of Search for Sand and Gravel Working Site Name and JMDF Reference Number Potential Yield (mt) AOS01 Leven and Brandesburton Unknown AOS02 Gransmoor and Lissett Unknown AOS03 North Cave Est. 4.0 AOS04 Preston Road, Est. 0.8 Sproatley

AOS08 Pollington Est. 1.3 Total resources Est. 4.8 +

8.47 Proposals for sand and gravel extraction within the Areas of Search for Sand and Gravel Working will be considered in the context of the Policy AGG2 subject to acceptability against other policies elsewhere in the development plan. 8.48 There is some overlap between the candidate Preferred Areas and Areas of Search for sand and gravel. It is envisaged that further refinement will be undertaken for future versions of the JMDPD and in subsequent plan reviews, taking into account additional information which may come forward through monitoring and the demand scenario and permitted reserves at that time. Candidate Areas of Search for Crushed Rock Working

8.49 Areas of Search comprise broad areas of land where knowledge of the mineral resources may be less certain than for Preferred Areas, but where there is a reasonable expectation of minerals being present in viable quantities. Proposals for crushed rock extraction within the Areas of Search will be considered in the context of Policy AGG3 and subject to acceptability against other policies elsewhere in the development plan. 8.50 The JLMP identified two Areas of Search for Crushed Rock Working, these are an area broadly drawn round the existing operation at Swinescaif Quarry, South Cave and at Greenwick Quarry, Huggate which also produces and processes Industrial Chalk products. 8.51 As part of the Issues and Options consultation operators, landowner and other interested parties were invited to put forward proposed sites, in total 14 sites were put forward for consideration, of which 3 sites were identified as sites for the production of Crushed Rock for aggregate.

100

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

8.52 Two of the nominations were extensions to existing chalk quarries. One of the areas is a proposed extension to an existing quarry which was identified in the JMLP as an Area of Search; the second chalk nomination is a proposed extension which was not identified for mineral extraction in the JMLP. 8.53 The third nominated area has been put forward as a new site for the extraction of limestone. Limestone resources are very limited in the East Riding of Yorkshire; the mineral is restricted to a narrow outcrop which runs parallel to the western flank of the Wolds between North Newbald and Melton in the South. 8.54 The Nominated sites and the unimplemented Area of Search from the JMLP have been evaluated in line with the consideration set out in the site selection methodology above. 8.55 The candidate Areas of Search for Crushed Rock are listed in Table 8.3 and referred to in more detail in Table A.3 at Appendix A,. Table 8.3 - Candidate Areas of Search for Crushed Rock Site Name and JMDF Reference Number Potential Yield (mt) AOS05 Greenwick Quarry, Huggate Est. 1.5 AOS06 Riplingham & Swinescaif, South Cave Est. 2.5 AOS07 Castle & Drewton Farms, North Cave Est. 10 Total Resources Est. 14

8.56 Greenwick Quarry produces both aggregate and agricultural lime, so not all production will be used for aggregate. The potential yield for Greenwick Quarry in Table 8.5 assumes a continuation of the historical split of 30% aggregate to 70% industrial chalk noted in the JMLP for total production within the plan area. 8.57 Nevertheless, even after this adjustment, the amount of resources contained within the candidate Areas of Search for crushed rock is more than adequate to meet the supply requirements for the plan area as set out in Table 4.5 above. Not all resources within Areas of Search will necessarily be granted planning permission during the plan period. Land will only be released as required to maintain the landbank and where the proposals comply with other policies elsewhere in the Development Plan. Candidate Preferred Areas of Clay Extraction

8.58 A key function of the proposed JMDPD will be to make provision for sufficient minerals to be made available to meet the identified needs of the plan area. Chapter 5 explains how the Preferred Areas are to be used as the main tool to make provision to ensure an adequate and steady supply of Clay for the brick and tile manufacturing industry and for the local economy. The main operational tile works at Broomfleet produces pantiles to national and international markets. 8.59 The JLMP did not identify Preferred Areas for Clay extraction. It is understood the operation currently has reserves equivalent to 13 years production. However, a

101

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

planning application is currently being considered for an extension area to supply the brickworks. 8.60 During the Issues and Options consultation operators, landowners and other interested parties were invited to put forward sites for extraction, of which 1 site was identified for Clay extraction. This site has been assessed against the site selection methodology and in the light of the need to ensure ongoing supplies of clay for the works. 8.61 The candidate Preferred Area for Clay Extraction is listed in Table 8.4 and referred to in more detail in Table A.4 at Appendix A The proposed East Riding Core Strategy Policy contains the commitment to maintain a landbank of at least 25 years supply for the existing clay works at Broomfleet.

Table 8.4 - Candidate Preferred Area for Clay Extraction Site Name And JMDF Reference Number Potential Yield (mt) PA03 Tongue Lane, Broomfleet 12.0

Total Resources 12.0

Candidate Areas of Search for Industrial Chalk

8.62 A significant proportion of the chalk worked in the plan area is for Industrial uses. The JLMP did not identify any Areas of Search for industrial chalk, because the supply situation at the time was considered sufficient for the plan period. One of the Areas of Search for Crushed Rock was at Greenwick Quarry, Huggate, which produces both industrial chalk products and crushed rock. 8.63 During the Issues and Options consultation a nomination was received for an extension area to Greenwick Quarry. Given the site has a dedicated processing plant which produces Industrial Chalk products, it is proposed to identify the site as candidate Areas of Search for Industrial Chalk. 8.64 The candidate Area of Search for Industrial Chalk is listed in Table 8.5 and referred to in more detail in Table A.3 at Appendix A. Policy NAM1 will apply within this Area of Search. Table 8.5 - Candidate Area of Search for Industrial Chalk Site Name and JMDF Reference Number Potential Yield (mt) AOS05 Greenwick Quarry, Huggate Est. 3.5 Total Resources Est. 3.5

8.65 The potential yield for Greenwick Quarry in Table 8.5 assumes a continuation of the historical split of 30% aggregate to 70% industrial chalk noted in the JMLP for total production within the Joint Area.

102

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

9. Monitoring and Implementation Introduction

9.1 PPS12 Local Spatial Planning requires the support of policy development with a comprehensive evidence base, to integrate policies with the policies and strategies of other organisations and to focus on implementation via agreed delivery mechanisms. Monitoring is a key feature of the spatial planning system. 9.2 Monitoring of policies help to ensure that they are up to date, reflect changing circumstances at national, regional and local levels as well as contributing effectively to the delivery of sustainable development. 9.3 Government guidance identifies five key inter-related tasks for monitoring to ensure that monitoring presents a comprehensive picture of all major aspects of the JMDPD production and implementation. These are; • Review process in the preparation of the DPD against the timetable and milestones set out in the LDS • Assess the extent to which policies are being implemented • Explain why policies may not have been implemented, take steps to ensure their implementation or amend or replace the policies • Identify the significant effects of implementing policies and whether these effects are as intended; and • Set out whether policies are to be amended or replaced. Monitoring

9.4 Monitoring is essential for an effective strategy and will provide the basis on which the contingency plans within the strategy would be triggered. The delivery strategy should contain clear targets or measurable outcomes to assist this process. 9.5 MPAs have a statutory obligation to ensure a robust monitoring system to follow a programme of monitoring of policies as it relates to mineral sites. There must be clear arrangements for monitoring and reporting results to the public and civic leaders. 9.6 One of the principal mechanisms for undertaking monitoring is the preparation of a JMDPD Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). 9.7 The AMR will report on the JMDPD in a clear format which will be accessible to the public and other stakeholders. Monitoring will be a repetitive process that will be undertaken regularly and reported annually in the AMR. 9.8 It is proposed that the AMR will provide a collation of all information regarding sales and reserves of aggregates, and an assessment of how effective the policies and proposals are in meeting the objectives set out in the JMDPD once adopted. The AMR will report on the extent to which the policies are being implemented, and if not, the reasons why, as well as the impact policies are having on other targets set at national, regional or local level and whether any policies need to be replaced, as well as assessing progress and performance in relation to the overall monitoring 103

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

objectives. The AMR will not revise or amend policies, but will set out the steps the MPA will take to address those issues, for example, bring forward a review. Performance Indicators

9.9 Government guidance on monitoring advises: that a structured approach is required when developing and implementing the use of indicators. Appropriate consideration should be given to their purpose when assessing the performance of policies within a plan area. 9.10 In compliance with statutory requirements for monitoring, performance indicators would be developed (in line with CLG indicators) which will provide a consistent basis for monitoring the performance of the Strategy against the Strategy Objectives and core policies in line with sustainable development principles. 9.11 The indicators will provide information that can be used to highlight specific performance issues of policies and the significant effects related to sustainability which may inform other DPDs. As well as provide the basis for identifying where the strategy needs to be strengthened, maintained or changed, the indicators will help monitor performance against the objectives of the regional planning guidance including; • Production of Primary Land-Won Aggregates • Production of Secondary/Recycled Aggregates 9.12 The performance targets will be linked to output indicators, which will provide a benchmark for measuring policy implementation. 9.13 The timescale for measurement of the indicators (the target period) will be twelve months to coincide with the AMR. Table 9.1 - Monitoring Indicators

Policy Implementation Indicator Target Lead actors Support roles actions East Riding Core Strategy Policy (Policy HQE9 in East Riding Core Strategy) A. Policy contained in 100% ERYC Safeguarding ERY Core Strategy of mineral and Mineral deposits Safeguarding Areas shown on LDF proposals map B. Mineral MSA referencing Internal ERYC safeguarding procedure procedure areas established established Number of nil ERYC applications within MSAs where procedure is missed

104

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy Implementation Indicator Target Lead actors Support roles actions C. Additional Progress Content of Hull CC ERYC capacity for formulation of waste DPD aggregate detailed policy recycling through the Waste DPD

Establish base line All sites current Hull and EA, Recycling of existing capacity identified and ERY operators capacity Councils recorded D. Sand and Preferred Areas for Sufficient for ERYC YHRA re gravel sand and gravel current apportionment Apportionment identified in apportionment rate Rate and Minerals DPD rate to 2026 Landbank Areas of Search Sufficient for 7 ERYC YHRA re for sand and gravel years x apportionment identified in apportionment rate Minerals DPD rate

Amount of At least 7 years ERYC, YHRA Annual reserves with pp supply at Mineral Monitoring for extraction of for current operators Reports sand and gravel apportionment rate D. Crushed Areas of Search Sufficient for ERYC YHRA re Rock for crushed rock current apportionment Apportionment identified in apportionment rate Rate and Minerals DPD rate to 2036 Landbank (2026 + 10 years)

Amount of At least 10 ERYC, YHRA Annual reserves with pp years supply at Mineral Monitoring for extraction of current operators Reports crushed rock apportionment rate D. Extraction Planning All decisions in ERYC Planning outside applications for line with Inspectorate Preferred extraction of policy/nil Areas and aggregates outside appeals Areas of Preferred Areas allowed Search and Areas of Search

105

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy Implementation Indicator Target Lead actors Support roles actions F. Supply of List of Preferred Identified ERYC, clay Areas/Areas of Areas + Mineral Search//amount of reserves with operator reserves with pp pp for for extraction extraction at Bloomfleet contain sufficient clay for at least 25 years supply at current extraction rate (average of last 3 years production) G. Supply of List of Preferred Identified ERYC, industrial Areas/Areas of Areas + Mineral chalk Search//amount of reserves with operators reserves with pp pp for for extraction extraction contain sufficient industrial chalk for at least 25 years supply at current extraction rate (average of last 3 years production) for each of listed processing works. H. Oil and gas, Number of All decisions in ERYC Planning coal and coal planning line with Inspectorate bed methane applications policy/nil development determined appeals allowed I. Recognising Adoption of suite of All decisions in ERYC Planning natural assets development line with Inspectorate and heritage of management policy/nil plan area and policies appeals quality of life allowed of communities of the plan area J. Restoration Quarries with Nil sites not ERYC, and afteruse of restoration restored within Mineral mineral sites schemes agreed/ agreed operators implemented timetable

106

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy Implementation Indicator Target Lead actors Support roles actions Kingston upon Hull Minerals Core Strategy Policy (Policy CS 11 within the Hull Core Strategy) 1. Additional Progress Content of Hull CC ERYC capacity for formulation of waste DPD aggregate detailed policy recycling through the Waste DPD

Establish baseline All current sites Hull and EA, Recycling of existing capacity identified and ERY operators for aggregate capacity Councils recycling recorded

1. Safeguard Identify existing All current sites Hull and EA, Recycling existing facilities used for identified and ERY operators facilities for importation and capacity Councils aggregate handling of recorded importation aggregates and and handling establish baseline of existing capacity.

Monitor annual No net loss of Hull and EA, throughput capacity ERY Councils, Aggregate handling operators 2. Oil and gas Number of All decisions in Hull CC Planning development planning line with Inspectorate applications policy/nil determined appeals allowed Other policies AGG1 and Number of All decisions in ERYC Planning AGG2 planning line with Inspectorate Preferred applications for policy/nil Areas and extraction of sand appeals Areas of and gravel in allowed Search for Preferred Areas sand and and Areas of gravel Search

AGG3 Number of All decisions in ERYC Planning planning line with Inspectorate applications for policy/nil extraction of appeals crushed rock in allowed Areas of Search

107

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy Implementation Indicator Target Lead actors Support roles actions AGG4 Borrow Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning pits applications line with Mineral Inspectorate approved/refused policy/nil operators appeals allowed AGG5 Applications for All decisions in ERYC., Planning Recycled or processing of line with Mineral Inspectorate secondary recycled or policy/nil operators, aggregates secondary appeals Aggregates aggregate allowed recycling approved/refused operators in mineral sites ;

AGG6 Retention of No net loss of Hull CC, Planning Safeguarding existing wharves existing Wharf Inspectorate Wharves and aggregate capacity operators handling capacity AGG7 Marine Applications for All decisions in ERYC, Planning Aggregates development line with Wharf Inspectorate development associated with policy/nil operators landing, storage appeals and transportation allowed of marine dredged aggregates approved/refused ;

AGG8 Retention of No net loss of ERYC and Planning Safeguarding existing rail depots existing Hull CC, rail Inspectorate Rail depots and aggregate capacity depot handling capacity operators NAM1 Areas of Number of All decisions in ERYC Planning Search for planning line with Inspectorate industrial applications for policy/nil Chalk extraction of appeals Industrial chalk in allowed Areas of Search

NAM2 peat Relevant All decisions in ERYC Planning working applications line with Inspectorate approved/refused policy/nil appeals allowed EM1 Deep coal Relevant All decisions in ERYC Planning mining applications line with Inspectorate approved/refused policy/nil appeals allowed

108

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy Implementation Indicator Target Lead actors Support roles actions EM2, EM3 and Relevant All decisions in ERYC Planning EM4 applications line with Inspectorate Exploration, approved/refused policy/nil appraisal and appeals production allowed and distribution of oil and gas (and Coal Bed Methane) EM5 Relevant All decisions in ERYC Planning Underground applications line with Inspectorate storage of gas approved/refused policy/nil and related appeals surface allowed development DM1 Impacts Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning of Mineral applications line with KHCC/ Inspectorate Development approved/refused policy/nil Mineral appeals operators allowed DM2 Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning Protecting applications line with KHCC/ Inspectorate Residential approved/refused policy/nil Mineral Amenity & appeals operators Other allowed Sensitive Uses DM3 Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning Restoration & applications line with KHCC/ Inspectorate Aftercare approved/refused policy/nil Mineral appeals operators allowed DM4 Best & Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning Most Versatile applications line with Mineral Inspectorate Agricultural approved/refused policy/nil operators Land appeals allowed DM5 Public Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning Rights of Way applications line with KHCC/ Inspectorate approved/refused policy/nil Mineral appeals operators allowed DM6 Sites with Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning National applications line with KHCC/ Inspectorate Designations approved/refused policy/nil Mineral appeals operators allowed

109

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

Policy Implementation Indicator Target Lead actors Support roles actions DM7 Impact on Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning Landscape & applications line with KHCC/ Inspectorate Townscape approved/refused policy/nil Mineral appeals operators allowed DM8 Water Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning Resources applications line with KHCC/ Inspectorate approved/refused policy/nil Mineral appeals operators allowed DM9 Flooding Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning applications line with KHCC/ Inspectorate approved/refused policy/nil Mineral appeals operators allowed DM10 Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning Transportation applications line with KHCC/ Inspectorate approved/refused policy/nil Mineral appeals operators allowed DM11 Planning Relevant All decisions in ERYC/ Planning Obligations applications line with KHCC/ Inspectorate approved/refused policy/nil Mineral appeals operators allowed

Implementation

9.14 The implementation of policy will involve partnership of a number of agencies including statutory consultees, government, departments, local authorities, local communities / public and the minerals industry responsible for applying the principles of sustainable use of resources and the highest environmental standards of mineral extraction. What Happens Next

9.15 The value and effectiveness of the proposed JMDPD will be enhanced through the effective participation of stakeholders. The Joint Authorities (ERYC and KHCC) are keen to obtain the views of everyone on this consultation document. This is so that the final document is informed by your views. 9.16 Consultation on this document will commence 19th May 2010 and over an eight week period, the closing date 5.00pm on Wednesday 14th July 2010. 9.17 Once the consultation period is complete, the responses received will be analysed and fed into the next stage (the pre-submission joint Minerals document) that will also be subject to further consultation before examination and adoption. 9.18 Please use the response form that accompanies this document in Appendix C to make your comments. Further copies of the response form can be downloaded from the Councils’ respective websites. Alternatively responses can be made on-line through the websites. 110

Joint Minerals Development Plan Document Preferred Approach Summer 2010 Consultation

The completed forms should be sent to ERYC and KHCC consultants at the following address:

Atkins Limited The Axis, 6th Floor West 10 Holliday Street Birmingham B1 1TF Electronic Response to: [email protected]

111