LEICESTERSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN
(SUBMISSION DRAFT)
STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
Prepared under Regulation 22 (1) (c) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
2018
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Sustainability Appraisal
4. Issues (2013)
5. Consultation Draft (2015)
6. Consultation on Potential Additional Sites for Sand and Gravel (2015)
7. Pre-Submission Draft (2016)
8. Consultation on Potential Additional Sites for the Disposal of Inert Waste (2017)
9. Pre-Submission Proposed Changes (2017)
10. Conclusion
Appendices
Appendix 1: List of Documents Referenced in Statement of Consultation
Appendix 2: List of Consultees and Key Stakeholders
Appendix 3: Issues (2013) - Letter to Statutory Consultees and Key Stakeholders and press notice
Appendix 4: Consultation Draft (Regulation 18 Consultation) (2015) - Letter to Statutory Consultees and Key Stakeholders and press notice
Appendix 5: Consultation on Potential Additional Sites for Sand and Gravel (2015) – Letter and List of Consultees
Appendix 6: Pre-Submission Draft (Regulation 19 Consultation) (2016) - Letter to Statutory Consultees and Key Stakeholders and press notice
Appendix 7: Comments Received on Pre-Submission Draft (2016) and Council’s Responses
Appendix 8: Consultation on Potential Additional Sites for the Disposal of Inert Waste (2017) – Letter and List of Consultees
Appendix 9: Pre-Submission Proposed Changes (Regulation 19 Consultation) (2017) - Letter to Statutory Consultees and Key Stakeholders and press notice
Appendix 10: Comments Received on Pre-Submission Proposed Changes (2017) and Council’s Responses
1. Introduction
1.1 Leicestershire County Council is responsible for minerals and waste planning in the administrative area of Leicestershire (outside the City of Leicester). The Council is reviewing its current planning policies dealing with mineral extraction and waste management.
1.2 The Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan will eventually replace the Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (DPD), the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD (both of which were adopted in October 2009), together with remaining saved policies in the Leicestershire Minerals Local Plan (1995) and the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan (2005).
1.3 The Minerals and Waste Local Plan includes a spatial vision, strategic objectives, and core policies which set out the key principles to guide the future winning and working of minerals and the form of waste management development in the County of Leicestershire over the period to the end of 2031. The Development Management Policies set out the criteria against which planning applications for minerals and waste development will be considered. A monitoring framework is included to examine the efficacy and effects of the policies.
1.4 This statement sets out how Leicestershire County Council has involved the public and other stakeholders in the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. It has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 22 (1) (c) of the Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.
1.5 This statement outlines the key public consultation periods undertaken as part of the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. These were Issues (2013); Consultation Draft (2015); Pre-submission Draft (2016); and Pre-submission Proposed Changes (2017). This report also explains the range of consultation activities undertaken in developing documents for these stages.
1.6 In accordance with Regulation 22 (1) (c), this statement sets out for each of the three public consultation periods: i. Which bodies and persons were invited to make representations at each stage; ii. How those bodies and persons were invited to make representations; iii. A summary of the main issues raised; and iv. How those main issues have been addressed
1.7 The report outlines the arrangements which were made for the publication of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan under Regulation 19 of the Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. In accordance with Regulation 22 (1) (c), Chapters 7 and 9 set out the
4
number of representations made pursuant to Regulation 20 and a summary of the main issues in those representations.
1.8 A list of Statutory Consultees and Key Stakeholders that have been consulted in the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan can be found within Appendix 2 of this document.
1.9 As part of the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, engagement has been carried out in accordance with the duty to co- operate, as introduced by the Localism Act 2011. This is detailed in a separate document entitled Duty to Cooperate Report.
5
2. Background
2.1 To date the following work has been undertaken as part of the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan:
consultation between November 2013 and January 2014 on issues;
consultation between July 2015 and August 2015 on draft policies and proposals;
consultation between September 2015 and October 2015 on potential additional sites for sand and gravel;
consultation between July 2016 and September 2016 on the Pre- Submission Draft;
consultation between January 2017 and February 2017 on potential additional sites for the disposal of inert waste; and
consultation between November 2017 and December 2017 on Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission Draft.
Statement of Community Involvement
2.2 All stages of consultation have been carried out in accordance with the County Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The SCI sets out the standards to be achieved by the County Council in involving the community in the preparation, alteration and continuing review of planning policy documents and the determination of planning applications. The current SCI was adopted in March 2015.
6
3. Sustainability Appraisal
3.1 Sustainability Appraisal (SA) has been integral to the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. This section outlines consultation undertaken on the various stages of the sustainability appraisal.
3.2 Leicestershire County Council has prepared several reports as part of the SA of the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan. An initial Scoping Report was published in 2013 to accompany the Issues Document. An interim Sustainability Assessment was published in 2015 to coincide with the Consultation Draft Plan. A further SA was prepared in 2016 in support of the Pre-submission draft Plan and in 2017 in support of proposed changes to the Pre-submission draft Plan.
3.3 The latest SA presents the results of assessment of the minerals, waste, and development management policies in the draft plan document. Many of these policies have been revised as plan preparation has proceeded. As a result, evaluation of significant policy alternatives has occurred earlier in the SA, however this report provides a summary of the principal alternatives considered and why a preferred option was selected and others were not taken forward.
Consulting on the SA
3.4 When preparing the initial SA Scoping Report and defining the framework for the assessment the County Council undertook a specific consultation involving key stakeholders. Detailed responses were received from the three statutory consultees covering the documents listed in the review of relevant plans and programmes and factual information in the sustainability baseline. Two requests for changes to SA Objectives were received and all requests for changes referred to above were implemented before the consultation in 2015.
3.5 At the subsequent consultations in 2015, 2016 and 2017, the respective Interim SA Reports were available during consultation on the corresponding Plan report.
3.6 At the 2015 stage, Natural England were satisfied that the SA met the requirements of the SEA Directive and associated guidance. Specific comments on the SA related to: • The lack of reference to the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy • The failure to consider the implications of the non-inclusion of an allocation at Lockington. These matters were addressed in the SA Report accompanying the Pre- submission draft plan.
7
4. Issues Consultation
4.1 As the first stage in the production of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, the County Council published the following documents in November 2013:
Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Issues Document;
Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review - Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment: Scoping Report.
4.2 The bodies with contact details listed in Appendix 2 were consulted by email or letter with a request for any comments to be provided by 24th January 2014. The documents, together with a summary leaflet and a response form, were made available on the County’s website. The consultation exercise was also publicised by means of an advertisement placed in local newspapers.
4.3 A copy of the letter sent to statutory and key stakeholders publicising the consultation, and the advertisement placed in local newspapers is included in Appendix 3.
The main issues raised in the representations
4.4 A total of 70 groups and individuals responded to the Minerals and Waste Issues Consultation document. 28 of the responses were from councils (3 from District Councils; 12 from Parish Councils; 6 from adjoining Councils; and 7 from other councils), 12 from industry (7 from mineral companies and 5 from waste companies), 9 from statutory consultees, 2 from County Council Departments, 14 from other organisations, 2 from landowners and 3 from private individuals.
4.5 There were some 706 ‘representations’ in all from the above respondents. The Issues document posed 61 questions. The questions that elicited the higher number of responses related to the spatial vision and strategic objectives (27 responses), waste sites safeguarding (23), key issues (20), future provision of aggregates (19), reclamation and aftercare (18), woodland (17), extensions to existing sand and gravel sites (17) and non- strategic waste sites (16).
How the main issues raised were addressed
4.6 The preparation of the Consultation Draft Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan document took into account the comments received on the Issues document. The comments made in respect of each question and the way in which the Council has responded are set out in Appendix 2 of the 2015 Consultation Statement.
4.7 The following is a summary of the Council’s responses to the main issues raised in respect of the Issues document: The plan will cover the period to 2031 and incorporate allocated sites rather than in a separate document.
8
Strategic Objectives will be amalgamated and amended. They will include objectives, inter alia, to coordinate and work with all relevant organisations (in particular Leicester City Council and Leicestershire Local Authorities); to safeguard waste management facilities; to protect the natural, built and historic environment; to provide a net gain in biodiversity; to reduce the impact of developments on climate change; to ensure that restored areas are subsequently managed and maintained; and to support green infrastructure projects and strategies such as the National Forest and Charnwood Forest Regional Park. The provision of sand & gravel, and crushed rock will be based on average sales over the last 10 years. However, the situation will be carefully monitored and, if higher production rates continue for an extended period, then the overall requirement will need to be re- evaluated. Priority will be given to extensions to existing sites. New sites will be permitted where existing sites cannot provide sufficient sand and gravel or if they result in significant benefits over allocated areas. Specific sites will be identified. Extensions to four out of the five existing sites will be allocated. The extension to Lockington Quarry and the proposed new site in the vicinity of Wyfordby and Freeby are not considered to be suitable. The plan will address how provision is to be met beyond those sites allocated. Priority will be given to extensions to existing rail-linked rock quarries. Specific areas for future rock extraction will not be identified given the limited information available on potential rock resources. Additional permissions will be granted in particular circumstances in order to maintain supply. A minimum of 25 years of permitted reserves will be required at existing brickclay sites. Additional brickclay resources will normally be released as close as practicable to the brickworks that it is to be supplied. The establishment of a stocking and blending facility within the Donington Island Site will be proposed, subject to mitigation measures. Areas where Gypsum extraction would be acceptable will be identified. The circumstances where proposals for the extraction of building and roofing stone would be acceptable will be indicated and reference will be made to the Leicestershire Strategic Stone Study. Proposals for the extraction of coal will be determined in accordance with the NPPF. Particular matters that will be taken into account when assessing such proposals will be indicated. No specific sites will be identified but the extent of surface mining potential area will be shown on accompanying Mineral Safeguarding Plans. Extant policies on ‘oil and gas’ and ‘new energy production technologies’ will be merged. The policy on mineral safeguarding will be amended to remove reference to ‘current or future economic importance’ and make reference to a fuller list of ‘exempt development’. The approach towards mineral safeguarding will be included in a single policy as opposed to three separate policies. Reference will be made to the submission of Mineral Assessments. The Plan will be accompanied by maps with details of MSAs for each borough/district. Provision will be
9
made for buffer zones around resource areas. MSAs will exclude mineral deposits other than surface coal within settlements with a population over 1000 and an area over 20 hectares. A policy will be included to safeguard associated mineral infrastructure. Council’s municipal waste data will be used as the starting point for projecting future municipal waste arisings. A mid-range growth scenario will be used to predict arisings. Current targets from the Municipal Waste Strategy will be retained. The figure suggested in the Issues document will be used as the starting point for projecting future C&I waste arisings. The rates published by DEFRA will be used to project the future C&I waste arisings. A slightly lower recycling figure for 2031 will be used. The estimate calculated from the WRAP study will be used as the starting point for predicting future C&D waste arisings. No rate of change will be applied to C&D arisings. The continuation of 52% recycling will be used as the minimum target for C&D waste. Separate provision will be made for hazardous waste in the plan. An annual increase of 0.57% will be applied to hazardous waste arisings up to 2031. Provision will be made for sufficient facilities to deal with the levels of hazardous waste arising in the County. The approach to calculating the level of agricultural waste as set out in the issues document will be used. A specific policy on radioactive waste will be included. The landfill target will be reduced over the plan period but this is a maximum not a minimum. Provision will be made for sufficient facilities to deal with the levels of waste arising in Leicestershire. No waste sites will be allocated. The spatial strategy for locating strategic waste sites will remain directed towards the main urban areas. Existing policies on ‘non inert’ and ‘inert’ landfill will be merged and amended to incorporate incineration (without any energy or heat recovery) so that one policy covers waste disposal. The plan will include a policy to safeguard existing and permitted waste facilities from encroachment and redevelopment. The plan will include an amended version of the model policy related to sustainable development, incorporating reference to reducing the effects on climate change. The policy on health and amenity will be merged with flooding and water resources to create one single policy covering the local environment and community protection. The policy will seek to protect people and local communities from the potential adverse impacts of minerals and waste management development. Safeguarding policies will seek to ensure that there is sufficient distance between minerals and waste sites and other forms of development or sensitive land uses (for example, housing) in order to avoid potential adverse impacts. The policy on cumulative impact will be amended to refer to the effects of a number of developments, not just waste or minerals related. The policy on Local Environment and Community Protection will indicate that separation distances will be applied where appropriate, neither specifying what the distance would be nor prescribing in what circumstance they would be appropriate.
10
A new policy in respect of biodiversity/geodiversity will cover international, national and local sites of biodiversity/geodiversity interest A new policy on the historic environment will replace existing policies in order to accord with the requirements of the NPPF. Existing policies on transportation will be merged into one policy which seeks to minimise the effects of traffic generated by minerals and waste developments. The policies in respect of information requirements, planning conditions and planning obligations will be removed. The policy in respect of restoration will, amongst other matters, refer to net gain in biodiversity; give greater direction to the local habitats that the Council wishes to see created; seek greater public access on restored sites; and seek innovative restoration of hard rock quarries in Charnwood Forest, which would provide for biodiversity, public access, educational activities and recreational pursuits.
11
5. Consultation Draft
5.1 The Consultation Draft Plan built on the previous stage of consultation and engagement. It was not statutorily required under planning regulations however, it was considered important to consult the community and key stakeholders on a draft document, including a full suite of draft policies, prior to moving towards the formal submission of the document.
5.2 Although it was a non-statutory stage, consultation was carried out in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, and followed the principles set out in the Statement of Community Involvement (March 2015).
5.3 The consultation took place between 3rd July 2015 and 28th August 2015. The consultation specifically included the following: written communication (by e-mail or letter) to consultees informing them of the consultation and how to access the associated documentation; electronic copies of the consultation document, along with all supporting documents (including response forms), made available to view and download from the County Council website; publicising the consultation by means of an advertisement placed in local newspapers.
5.4 A copy of the letter sent to statutory and key stakeholders publicising the consultation, and the advertisement placed in local newspapers is included in Appendix 4.
The main issues raised in the representations
5.5 A total of 35 written responses to the Consultation Draft Plan were received (excluding internal responses). These comprised 14 from councils (including 4 from Leicestershire District Councils and 5 from Leicestershire parish/town councils), 7 from the minerals/waste industry, 5 from statutory consultees, 7 from interest groups, 1 from a utilities company and 1 on behalf of a landowner. Of these, 5 respondents had no comments to make and 2 respondents had no objections to the Consultation Draft Plan.
5.6 The total number of comments (including internal responses) was 361. The following aspects of the plan received the most comments: restoration (43); allocations for sand and gravel extraction (38); biodiversity/geodiversity (20); strategic objectives (19); local environmental protection (14); and strategic waste sites (12).
5.7 A total of 74 supportive comments were received. The areas with the most supportive comments were: strategic objectives - 6; Policies DM12 (restoration) – 5; M11 (mineral safeguarding) and DM10 (rights of way) – 4 each; and Policies M2 (sand and gravel allocations), M4 (crushed rock),
12
M8 (building stone), W5 (locating waste), and DM1 (sustainable development) – 3 each.
5.8 The following aspects had the most responses objecting to them or seeking some change: DM12 (restoration) – 13; strategic objectives – 10; spatial characteristics and DM7 (biodiversity) – 7 each; M2 (sand and gravel sites) – 7; M10 (oil and gas), DM3 (strategic green infrastructure) and DM5 (landscaping and countryside) – 5 each.
How the main issues raised were addressed
5.9 All comments received were considered by the County Council during preparation of the Pre-Submission Draft of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, and changes made to the document where considered appropriate. Full details of all comments received and the County Council's responses to those comments (including where changes to the document were, or were not, considered appropriate) are provided in document order in Appendix 3 of the Consultation Statement 2016.
5.10 The following is a summary of the Council’s responses to the main issues raised in respect of the draft Consultation document: Having assessed the suitability of the potential additional sites put forward for sand and gravel extraction, the following additional allocations will be made: Cadeby Quarry (Newbold Road extension); Shawell Quarry (Cotesbach extension); and Shawell Quarry (Eastern extension). Policy M3 in respect of unallocated sand and gravel areas will be amended to differentiate between extensions and new sites; and to provide some clarification in respect of potential benefits. Policy M5 (Brickclay) will be amended to give priority to proposals for extraction to be worked as extensions to existing sites with associated brickworks. The Plan will be updated to take account of government policy announcements in respect of oil and gas and the offer of additional Petroleum Exploration and Development Licences covering parts of the County. Whilst there is no new evidence to suggest that the County is favourable for exploitation compared to other areas of the country, the process of hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking' associated with unconventional hydrocarbon developments such as Shale Gas exploitation, will be covered in more detail in the Pre-Submission Plan. No substantial changes will be made to the spatial strategy for waste given that it follows the approach set out in the adopted Waste Core Strategy and has been supported by appeal decisions. The text in respect of flood zones will be amended to reflect the requirements of the NPPF more accurately. Policy DM3 will be amended to refer to the National Forest Company’s Guide for Developers and Planners, and the Company’s Design Charter. In respect of biodiversity, the aspiration in the Plan to provide net gains in biodiversity will be reinforced to reflect national guidance. Reference will be made to Living landscape Projects, Local Wildlife Sites and Travel Plans in the Plan.
13
The Plan will give guidance as to what habitats would be acceptable in restoration schemes in different areas of the County. Some re-wording of the policy related to restoration will be made to address the importance of rivers as wildlife corridors and the benefits of good restoration on overall levels of flood risk.
14
6. Consultation on Potential Additional Sites for Sand and Gravel
6.1 A number of potential additional sites for sand and gravel extraction were put forward in response to the consultation on the Plan between July and August 2015. The County Council sought views on these additional sites in September 2015 in order to assist in deciding whether they should be included in the next stage of the preparation of the Plan.
6.2 The consultation took place between 28th September 2015 and 30th October 2015. The consultation specifically included the following: communication by e-mail to consultees informing them of the consultation and how to access the associated documentation; electronic copies of information provided in respect of the potential sites made available to view and download from the County Council website.
6.3 A list of the consultees together with a copy of the letter sent to them regarding the consultation is included in Appendix 5.
6.4 A total of 11 written responses to the consultation were received from the following bodies: District Councils (2): Hinckley & Bosworth; North West Leicestershire Parish Councils (2): North Kilworth; Shawell External Consultees (4): Environment Agency; Highways England; Historic England; Natural England; Internal Consultees (3): Archaeology; Ecology; Highways
6.5 Having assessed the suitability of the potential additional sites put forward for sand and gravel extraction in the light of the responses received, the following additional allocations were made in the pre-submission draft plan: Cadeby Quarry (Newbold Road extension); Shawell Quarry (Cotesbach extension); and Shawell Quarry (Eastern extension). The Council’s assessment of the potential sites and the reasons for allocating, or not, the sites put forward for sand and gravel extraction is set out in the document, ‘Assessment of Sand and Gravel Sites’ (May 2016).
15
7. Pre-Submission Draft
7.1 The consultation on the Pre-Submission Draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan took place between Friday 29th July 2016 and Friday 23rd September 2016. It was carried out in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, and the relevant documents were available for inspection at County Hall. In accordance with Regulation 22 (1) (c), this statement sets out the number of representations made and a summary of the main issues raised in those representations.
7.2 The consultation included the following: written communication (by e-mail or letter) to consultees informing them of the consultation and how to access the associated documentation; electronic copies of the consultation document, along with all supporting documents (including response forms), made available to view and download from the County Council website; publicising the consultation by means of an advertisement placed in local newspapers.
7.3 A copy of the letter sent to statutory and key stakeholders publicising the consultation, and the advertisement placed in local newspapers is included in Appendix 6.
Responses received
7.4 A total of 26 written responses to the Pre-Submission Draft Plan were received. These comprised 9 from councils (including 2 from Leicestershire District Councils, 2 from Leicestershire parish/town councils and 5 from adjoining City/County/District/Parish Councils), 7 from the minerals/waste industry, 4 from statutory consultees, 3 from interest groups, and 1 each from a utilities company, on behalf of a landowner and from a local resident. Of these, 3 respondents (Erewash BC, Natural England and Carlton PC) had no specific comments to make.
7.5 The total number of comments was 151. The following aspects of the plan received the most comments: allocations for sand and gravel extraction (15); strategic objectives (15); waste management capacity (14); and mineral safeguarding (13).
7.6 Some 34 supportive comments were received. The areas with the most supportive comments were: strategic objectives – 12; spatial vision, M4 (crushed rock), M11 (mineral safeguarding), W5 (locating waste), and DM1 (sustainable development) – 2 each.
7.7 The following aspects had the most responses objecting to them or seeking some change: strategic objectives – 8; W1 (waste management capacity) – 7. The following each had 3 responses: Ch.3 Minerals Provision, M2 (sand and gravel sites), Cadeby (SA2), Husbands Bosworth (SA3), Shawell (SA4), Additional sand and gravel sites, M10 (oil and gas),
16
W3 (Strategic Waste Facilities), W4 (Non-Strategic Waste Facilities), W8 (Waste Disposal), DM9 (Transportation by road), DM12 (restoration).
Main issues raised
7.8 Some of the key issues raised during the consultation included the following:
Policy M1: Supply of Sand and Gravel Aggregate Insufficient provision has been made for sand and gravel over the plan period. Giving priority to extensions is contrary to national policy. Production and most of reserves are in the control of one operator which affects competitiveness.
Policy M2: Supply of Sand and Gravel Aggregate from Sites The MWPA should not seek their own objectives for restoration. The inclusion of an appropriate stand-off distance from watercourse as an additional requirement for certain sites. Further assessment should be undertaken for certain sites in relation the impact on heritage assets. 3 additional sites have been put forward, namely northern extension to Lockington Quarry; Pincet Lane, North Kilworth; and land at Freeby.
Policy M5: Brickclay Landbanks for individual brick factories.
Policy M10: Oil and Gas The policy should be amended to cover the risk to public health; seismic activity; and the impacts identified by affected local communities. Some of wording is unclear and unnecessary.
Policy M11: Safeguarding of Mineral Resources Policy & M12: Safeguarding of Existing Mineral Sites and Associated Infrastructure The policies fail to adequately protect known mineral resource and associated infrastructure. The safeguarding documents should provide clearer guidance on the location of mineral resources.
Policy W1: Waste Management Capacity The Plan should make provision for a proportion of Leicester City’s C&I waste and there is no recognition of the need to cater for the landfill of Leicester City’s waste. The County Council has failed to cater for the complexity of the residual waste management industry. There are significant levels of arisings over and above that being planned for. The plan does not make sufficient facilities to manage waste arising, in particular for inert waste landfill. The methodology of working from a derived estimate of arisings to an inert landfill requirement is inadequate.
17
Policy W3: Strategic Waste Facilities The preferred locational strategy is not appropriate insofar as it relates to residual waste treatment. The policy is too rigid on location.. There is an opportunity to make more efficient use of existing operational facilities. The policy is not acceptable to the public living in urban areas or viable in current industrial terms. The plan should identify specific sites for strategic waste facilities.
Policy W8: Waste Disposal The policy does not comprise a rational basis for decision making. 4 sites have been put forward for the disposal of inert waste: proposed extension to Husbands Bosworth Quarry; Lockington Quarry (northern extension), Ibstock Quarry (Ibstock) and Pincet Lane Quarry (North Kilworth).
Policy DM7: Sites of Biodiversity/Geodiversity Value A net gain in biodiversity should only be sought ‘where possible’. The policy is contrary to Natural England and the Forestry Commission’s Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees.
Policy DM8: Sites Historic Interest It is inappropriate to put a blanket presumption against minerals and waste development that is detrimental to the significance of a heritage asset. The policy assumes that all assets have the same significance and should distinguish between designated and non-designated assets.
Policy DM12: Restoration, Aftercare and After-use The policy should be supportive towards net gain in biodiversity, but should not require it as part of a development proposal. There needs to be some flexibility in that priority habitat after uses may not be appropriate in all circumstances. The Plan should not enforce prescriptive criteria which would be contrary to farm viability and modern agricultural practices.
How the main issues raised were addressed
7.9 All comments received were considered by the County Council and it was concluded that changes should be made to the Pre-Submission Draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
7.10 Full details of all comments received and the County Council's responses to those comments (including where changes to the document were, or were not, considered appropriate) are provided in document order at Appendix 7. The following is a summary of the Council’s responses to the main issues raised in respect of the Pre-Submission Draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan:
18
Policy M1: Supply of Sand and Gravel Aggregate It is recognised that the allocations are not sufficient to meet the shortfall due to insufficient suitable areas having been put forward. Policy M3 however provides for the release of sites outside allocated areas provided that they satisfy certain criteria. Extensions are preferred over new sites as they can be more sustainable as mineral reserves are maximised and environmental impacts can be less than setting up new greenfield sites. The control of individual sites is not considered a material planning consideration provided that it does not affect the steady and adequate supply of aggregates.
Policy M2: Supply of Sand and Gravel Aggregate from Sites It is considered appropriate for the plan to indicate what restoration would be acceptable at particular sites. An assessment of the effect on the water environment will be necessary for all sites. A Proposed Change has however been put forward regarding the provision of an appropriate stand-off distance from the watercourse adjacent to the allocation at Cadeby. The impact on heritage assets will be addressed at planning application stage and any development would have to be in line with Policy DM8. The 3 additional sites that have been put forward are not considered suitable for extraction.
Policy M5: Brickclay It is considered that Policy M5 reflects the wording in the NPPF regarding landbank requirements for individual brick factories.
Policy M10: Oil and Gas The policies in the Plan, in particular DM2, seek to protect communities from adverse impacts from the development of hydrocarbons. Policy M10 already states that particular regard has to be had to impacts on water resource, seismicity, local air quality, landscape, noise & lighting. It is considered that the policy is in line with the Planning Policy Guidance. It covers the points that the County Council believe are relevant to the consideration of a proposal for shale gas fracking.
Policy M11: Safeguarding of Mineral Resources Policy & M12: Safeguarding of Existing Mineral Sites and Associated Infrastructure It is not accepted that the policies fail to adequately protect known mineral resource and associated infrastructure. The Safeguarding Maps have been produced in a manageable form to accompany the Plan. GIS layers will be supplied to District Councils for development management purposes.
Policy W1: Waste Management Capacity The City Council have yet to produce their future estimated waste projections together with an assessment of existing waste processing capacity in the City. It is not however considered that significant quantities of waste from the City are disposed of in the County.
19
Proposed Changes have been put forward in respect of the provision to be made for inert waste. Policy W1 states that the figures are a minimum target. The provision of new waste management capacity will be monitored annually.
Policy W3: Strategic Waste Facilities The Council considers that the locational strategy is sound. The policy should be read in conjunction with other policies in the Plan which seek to protect the amenities of residents and the wider environment. The policy seeks to direct strategic waste facilities to the most sustainable locations by reducing the distance that waste has to travel Policy W5 indicates the intended locations for waste facilities.
Policy W8: Waste Disposal Proposed Change has been put forward regarding the provision to be made for the disposal of inert waste. Proposed Change has been put forward regarding inert waste disposal at Husbands Bosworth and Ibstock Quarries. It is not considered appropriate to allocate land at Lockington and Pincet Lane, North Kilworth for the disposal of inert waste.
Policy DM7: Sites of Biodiversity/Geodiversity Value It is considered that sites should deliver a net gain in biodiversity. The policy accords with the NPPF.
Policy DM8: Sites Historic Interest It is considered that the policy is in accordance with the NPPF which indicates that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets.
Policy DM12: Restoration, Aftercare and After-use It is considered that the Plan should seek net gains in biodiversity. It is considered that the Plan should give some guidance as to what habitats would be acceptable in the broad areas of the County. It is not considered that the Plan is overly prescriptive regarding the restoration requirements for agricultural land.
20
8. Consultation on Potential Additional Sites for the Disposal of Inert Waste (2017)
8.1 Two potential additional sites for the disposal of inert waste were put forward in response to the consultation on the Plan between July and September 2016. The County Council sought views on these additional sites in January 2017 in order to assist in deciding whether they should be included in the submission Plan.
8.2 The consultation took place between 30th January 2017 and 24th February 2017. The consultation involved communication by e-mail to consultees informing them of the consultation and providing them with information in respect of the potential sites.
8.3 A list of the consultees together with a copy of the letter sent to them regarding the consultation is included in Appendix 8.
8.4 A total of 3 written responses to the consultation were received from the following bodies: District Councils (1): North West Leicestershire Internal Consultees (2): Ecology; Rights of Way
8.5 Having assessed the suitability of the potential additional sites put forward for inert waste disposal in the light of the responses received, the following additional allocations were made in Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission Draft plan: Ibstock Quarry; and Husbands Bosworth Quarry. The Council’s assessment of the potential sites is set out in the updated Sustainability Assessment (2017).
21
9. Pre-Submission Proposed Changes (2017)
9.1 Consultation on Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission Draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan took place between Friday 10th November 2017 and Friday 22nd December 2017. It was carried out in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, and the relevant documents were available for inspection at County Hall. In accordance with Regulation 22 (1) (c), this statement sets out the number of representations made and a summary of the main issues raised in those representations.
9.2 The consultation included the following: written communication (by e-mail or letter) to consultees informing them of the consultation and how to access the associated documentation; electronic copies of the consultation document, along with all supporting documents (including response forms), made available to view and download from the County Council website; publicising the consultation by means of an advertisement placed in local newspapers.
9.3 A copy of the letter sent to statutory and key stakeholders publicising the consultation, and the advertisement placed in local newspapers is included in Appendix 9.
Responses received
9.4 A total of 21 written responses to the Proposed Changes to the Pre- submission Draft Plan were received. These comprised 10 from councils (including 2 from Leicestershire District Councils, 4 from Leicestershire parish/town councils and 4 from adjoining City/County/District/Parish Councils), 2 from the minerals/waste industry, 6 from statutory consultees, and 3 from utilities companies. Of these, 13 respondents (Rotherham MBC, Cadent Gas, Nottinghamshire CC, Whitwick PC, Castle Donington PC, The Coal Authority, Anglian Water Services, Public Health England, Historic England, Highways England, Natural England, Blaby PC and Rugby PC) had no specific comments to make.
9.5 The total number of comments was 9, relating to PC1 (paragraphs 4.7 & 4.8); PC2 (Table 8); PC3 (paragraph 4.53); PC4 (W8); PC9 (Inset Map SA3); and PC11 (Inset Map SA7). One respondent provided a general comment, and another commented on content of the Pre-Submission Draft Plan, not the Proposed Changes.
9.6 One supportive comment was received for PC9: SA3 (amendment of Inset Map for Husbands Bosworth to allow restoration to be achieved in part with inert waste). Six objections were received to PC1 – PC4 (policy W8 and explanatory text), and PC9 (Husbands Bosworth) and PC11 (Ibstock Quarry) in relation to the requirements on the Inset Maps. Otherwise the responses were concerned with providing informatives.
22
Main issues raised
9.7 Some of the key issues raised during the consultation (not previously already raised on the Pre-Submission Draft Plan) included the following:
PC1 – PC3: Inert Waste Disposal Capacity The Waste Needs Assessment is out of date and based on inappropriate assumptions about inert waste recycling and growth in arisings, so the calculated shortfall is too low. More sites than identified are needed and more urgently.
PC8: Policy W8: Waste Disposal Inadequate regard to the potential impact of HGV movements on local communities.
PC11: Appendix 1 The requirements in Box SA7 (Ibstock Quarry) should include an hours of operation condition, measures to prevent HGVs travelling though the village and clarity on the duration and method of working.
How the main issues raised were addressed
9.8 All comments received were considered by the County Council and it has been concluded that the Minerals and Waste Local Plan is appropriate for submission.
9.9 Full details of all comments received and the County Council's responses to those comments are provided in document order at Appendix 10. The following is a summary of the Council’s responses to the main issues raised in respect of the Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission Draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan:
PC1 – PC3: Inert Waste Disposal Capacity The site allocations have the potential to provide a greater shortfall than identified in the Waste Needs Assessment and the terms of policy W8 would allow additional site(s) to come forward if necessary. Care must be taken to avoid over provision of landfill, which is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy.
PC8: Policy W8: Waste Disposal The traffic implications have been assessed and any proposal would have to meet the requirements of policy DM2.
PC11: Appendix 1 The additional matters are controlled by other Plan policies and for the detailed planning application stage.
23
10. Conclusion
10.1 In moving towards submission of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, the County Council considers it has complied in relation to consultation and engagement with that which is required under the regulations and in the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. The engagement and consultation carried out has appropriately informed the content of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
24
Appendix 1: List of Documents Referenced in Statement of Consultation
The following documents are available to download from the Council’s website:
Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) (October 2009); Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD (October 2009); Leicestershire Minerals Local Plan (1995); Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan (2005); Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Issues document (2013); Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Consultation Draft (2015); Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Draft (2016); Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Proposed Changes (2017); Statement on the Duty to Co-operate; Statement of Community Involvement (March 2015); Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review - Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment: Scoping Report (2013); Interim Sustainability Appraisal (2015); Sustainability Appraisal (2016); Updated Sustainability Appraisal (2017); Consultation Statement (2015); Consultation Statement (2016)
25
Appendix 2: List of Consultees and Key Stakeholders
The following lists set out specific consultation bodies, general consultation bodies and other consultation bodies that were consulted as part of preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. This list is not exhaustive.
Local Government
Leicestershire Local Planning Authorities
Blaby District Council Melton Borough Council Charnwood Borough Council North West Leicestershire District Council Harborough District Council Oadby and Wigston Borough Council Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council
Leicestershire Parishes
Blaby District
Aston Flamville Parish Meeting Kirby Muxloe Parish Council Blaby Parish Council Leicester Forest East Parish Council Braunstone Town Council Leicester Forest West Parish Meeting Cosby Parish Council Lubbesthorpe Parish Meeting Countesthorpe Parish Council Narborough and Littlethorpe Parish Council Croft Parish Council Potters Marston Parish Meeting Elmesthorpe Parish Council Sapcote Parish Council Enderby Parish Council Sharnford Parish Council Glen Parva Parish Council Stoney Stanton Parish Council Glenfield Parish Council Thurlaston Parish Council Huncote Parish Council Whetstone Parish Council Kilby Parish Council Wigston Parva Parish Meeting
Charnwood Borough
Anstey Parish Council Rothley Parish Council Barkby and Barkby Thorpe Parish Seagrave Parish Council Meeting Barrow upon Soar Parish Council Shepshed Town Council Beeby Parish Council Sileby Parish Council Birstall Parish Council South Croxton Parish Council Burton on the Wolds, Cotes and Swithland Parish Meeting Prestwold Parish Council Cossington Parish Council Syston Town Council East Goscote Parish Council Thrussington Parish Council Hathern Parish Council Thurcaston and Cropston Parish Council Hoton Parish Council Thurmaston Parish Council Mountsorrel Parish Council Ulverscroft Parish Meeting Newtown Linford Parish Council Walton on the Wolds Parish Council Queniborough Parish Council Wanlip Parish Meeting Quorn Parish Council Woodhouse Parish Council Ratcliffe on the Wreake Parish Council Wymeswold Parish Council Rearsby Parish Council
26
Harborough District
Allexton Parish Meeting Knaptoft Parish Meeting Arnesby Parish Council Laughton Parish Meeting Ashby Magna Parish Council Leire Parish Council Ashby Parva Parish Meeting Little Stretton Parish Meeting Billesdon Parish Council Loddington and Launde Parish Meeting Bitteswell Parish Council Lowesby and Cold Newton Parish Meeting Blaston Parish Meeting Lubenham Parish Council Bringhurst, Drayton & Nevill Holt Parish Lutterworth Parish Council Meeting Broughton Astley Parish Council Marefield Parish Meeting Bruntingthorpe Parish Council Medbourne Parish Council Burton Overy Parish Council Misterton with Walcote Parish Council Carlton Curlieu Parish Meeting Mowsley Parish Meeting Catthorpe Parish Meeting North Kilworth Parish Council Claybrooke Magna Parish Council Noseley Parish Meeting Claybrooke Parva Parish Council Owston and Newbold Parish Meeting Cotesbach Parish Council Peatling Magna Parish Meeting Cranoe Parish Meeting Peatling Parva Parish Meeting Dunton Bassett Parish Council Rolleston Parish Meeting East Langton Parish Council Saddington Parish Meeting East Norton Parish Meeting Scraptoft Parish Council Fleckney Parish Council Shawell Parish Council Foxton Parish Council Shearsby Parish Council Frisby Parish Meeting Skeffington Parish Meeting Frolesworth Parish Meeting Slawston Parish Meeting Gaulby Parish Meeting Smeeton Westerby Parish Council Gilmorton Parish Council South Kilworth Parish Council Glooston Parish Meeting Stockerston Parish Meeting Goadby Parish Meeting Stoughton Parish Council Great Bowden Parish Council Swinford Parish Council Great Easton Parish Council Theddingworth Parish Council Great Glen Parish Council Thorpe Langton Parish Meeting Hallaton Parish Council Thurnby and Bushby Parish Council Horninghold Parish Meeting Tilton on the Hill and Halstead Parish Council Houghton on the Hill Parish Council Tugby and Keythorpe Parish Council Hungarton Parish Council Tur Langton Parish Council Husbands Bosworth Parish Council Ullesthorpe Parish Council Illston on the Hill Parish Council Welham Parish Meeting Keyham Parish Meeting West Langton Parish Meeting Kibworth Beauchamp Parish Council Westrill and Starmore Parish Meeting Kibworth Harcourt Parish Council Willoughby Waterleys Parish Council Kimcote and Walton Parish Council Wistow and Newton Parish Meeting Kings Norton Parish Meeting
Hinckley & Bosworth Borough
Bagworth & Thornton Parish Council Nailstone Parish Council Barlestone Parish Council Newbold Verdon Parish Council Barwell Parish Council Osbaston Parish Council Burbage Parish Council Peckleton Parish Council Cadeby Parish Council Ratby Parish Council Carlton Parish Council Shackerstone Parish Council Desford Parish Council Sheepy Parish Council Earl Shilton Town Council Stanton under Bardon Parish Council
27
Groby Parish Council Stoke Golding Parish Council Higham on the Hill Parish Council Sutton Cheney Parish Council Market Bosworth Parish Council Twycross Parish Council Markfield Parish Council Witherley Parish Council
Melton Borough
Ab Kettleby Parish Council Gaddesby Parish Council Asfordby Parish Council Garthorpe Parish Council Barkeston, Plungar and Redmile Parish Grimston, Saxelbye and Shoby Parish Council Council Belvoir Parish Council Hoby, Rotherby, Ragdale and Brooksby Parish Council Bottesford Parish Council Kirby Bellars Parish Council Broughton and Old Dalby Parish Knossington and Cold Overton Parish Council Council Buckminster Parish Council Scalford Parish Council Burton and Dalby Parish Council Somerby Parish Council Clawson, Hose and Harby Parish Sproxton Parish Council Council Croxton Kerrial and Branston Parish Stathern Parish Council Council Eaton Parish Council Twyford and Thorpe Satchville Parish Council Freeby Parish Council Waltham on the Wolds and Thorpe Arnold Parish Council Frisby on the Wreake Parish Council Wymondham Parish Council
North West Leicestershire District
Appleby Magna Parish Council Lockington-Hemington Parish Council Ashby de la Zouch Town Council Long Whatton and Diseworth Parish Council Ashby Woulds Town Council Measham Parish Council Belton Parish Council Normanton le Heath Parish Meeting Breedon on the Hill Parish Council Oakthorpe, Donisthorpe and Acresford Parish Council Castle Donington Parish Council Osgathorpe Parish Council Charley Parish Council Packington Parish Council Chilcote Parish Meeting Ravenstone and Snibston Parish Council Coleorton Parish Council Snarestone Parish Council Ellistown and Battleflat Parish Staunton Harold Parish Meeting Council Heather Parish Council Stretton en le Field Parish Meeting Hugglescote and Donington le Swannington Parish Council Heath Parish Council Ibstock Parish Council Swepstone Parish Council Isley cum Langley Parish Meeting Whitwick Parish Council Kegworth Parish Council Worthington Parish Council
Adjoining Planning Authorities
Corby District Council Northamptonshire County Council Daventry District Council North Warwickshire Borough Council Derbyshire County Council Nottinghamshire County Council East Northamptonshire District Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Council East Staffordshire Borough Council Rugby Borough Council Erewash Borough Council Rushcliffe Borough Council Kettering Borough Council Rutland County Council Leicester City Council South Derbyshire District Council
28
Lichfield District Council South Kesteven District Council Lincolnshire County Council Staffordshire County Council Newark and Sherwood District Warwickshire County Council Council
Adjoining Parishes
Derbyshire
Aston on Trent Parish Council Overseal Parish Council Breaston Parish Council Rosliston Parish Council Castle Gresley Parish Council Sawley Parish Council Draycott and Church Wilne Parish Shardlow and Great Wilne Parish Council Council Elvaston Parish Council Smisby Parish Council Hartshorne Parish Council Stanton by Bridge Parish Meeting Linton Parish Council Ticknall Parish Council Lullington Parish Meeting Weston on Trent Parish Council Melbourne Parish Council Woodville Parish Council Netherseal Parish Council
Lincolnshire
Allington Parish Council Skillington Parish Council Colsterworth, Gunby and Stainby South Witham Parish Council Parish Council Denton Parish Council Stoke Rochford and Easton Parish Council Long Bennington Parish Council Woolsthorpe by Belvoir Parish Council Sedgebrook Parish Council Wyville cum Hungerton Parish Council Skellingthorpe Parish Council
Northamptonshire
Ashley Parish Council Lilbourne Parish Council Brampton Ash Parish Council Marston Trussell Parish Meeting Braybrooke Parish Council Middleton Parish Council Clay Coton Parish Meeting Rockingham Parish Meeting Clipston Parish Council Sibbertoft Parish Council Cottingham Parish Council Stanford on Avon Parish Meeting Dingley Parish Council Sulby Parish Meeting East Carlton Parish Council Sutton Bassett Parish Meeting East Farndon Parish Council Welford Parish Council Great Oxendon Parish Council Weston by Welland Parish Council Gretton Parish Council Wilbarston Parish Council
Nottinghamshire
Alverton and Kilvington Parish Meeting Orston Parish Council Colston Bassett Parish Council Ratcliffe on Soar Parish Meeting Costock Parish Council Rempstone Parish Council East Leake Parish Council Stanford on Soar Parish Council Elton on the Hill Parish Meeting West Leake Parish Council Flawborough Parish Meeting Upper Broughton Parish Council Gotham Parish Council Staunton Parish Meeting Granby cum Sutton Parish Council Sutton Bonington Parish Council Hickling Parish Council Thrumpton Parish Meeting
29
Kingston on Soar Parish Council Whatton in the Vale Parish Council Kinoulton Parish Council Widmerpool Parish Council Langar cum Barnestone Parish Council Willoughby on the Wolds Parish Council Normanton on Soar Parish Council Wysall and Thorpe in the Glebe Parish Council
Rutland
Ashwell Parish Council Market Overton Parish Council Barrow Parish Meeting Oakham Town Council Barleythorpe Parish Meeting Ridlington Parish Council Belton in Rutland Parish Council Stoke Dry Parish Meeting Braunston in Rutland Parish Stretton Parish Council Council Brooke Parish Meeting Teigh Parish Meeting Caldecott Parish Council Thisleton Parish Meeting Greetham Parish Council Uppingham Town Council Langham Parish Council Wardley Parish Meeting Lyddington Parish Council Whissendine Parish Council
Staffordshire
Clifton Campville with Thorpe Constantine Parish Council
Warwickshire
Atherstone Town Council Mancetter Parish Council Austrey Parish Council Monks Kirby Parish Council Bentley and Merevale Parish Newton and Biggin Parish Council Council Burton Hastings Parish Council Newton Regis, Seckington and No Man’s Heath Parish Council Caldecote Parish Council Pailton Parish Council Churchover Parish Council Polesworth Parish Council Clifton upon Dunsmore Parish Stretton Baskerville Parish Council Council Copston Magna Parish Council Willey Parish Council Grendon and Dordon Parish Council Withybrook Parish Council Harborough Magna Parish Council Wolvey Parish Council Hartshill Parish Council Wibtoft Parish Council
Other Waste Planning Authorities
Birmingham City Council Nottingham City Council Bristol City Council Peterborough City Council Buckinghamshire County Council Reading Borough Council Cheshire West and Chester Council Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Coventry City Council Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Derby City Council Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council Sheffield City Council Essex County Council Stoke-on-Trent City Council Kent County Council Surrey County Council Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Lancashire County Council Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council Leeds City Council Warrington Borough Council Liverpool City Council Wolverhampton City Council London Borough of Bexley Worcestershire County Council
30
North Lincolnshire Council
Government Bodies, Organisations, and Departments
Statutory Consultees
Civil Aviation Authority Leicester and Leicestershire Economic Partnership Coal Authority Leicestershire Police and Crime Commissioner English Heritage Local Lead Flood Authority Environment Agency Local Nature Partnership Health Protection Agency Natural England Highway Authority Network Rail Highways England NHS (Leicestershire and Lincolnshire Area Team) Homes & Communities Agency Office of Rail Regulation
Leicestershire County Council Consultees
Archaeology, Ecology and Geology Public Rights of Way Chief Executive (Community Waste Management Planning) Green Infrastructure
Other Government Consultees
British Geological Survey Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service Department for Business, Innovation Leicestershire Police and Skills Department for Environment, Food Leicestershire Together and Rural Affairs Department of Energy and Climate Loughborough University Change Forestry Commission Ministry of Defence Health and Safety Executive Sport England Leicestershire & Rutland Association of Parish and Local Councils
Non-Governmental Bodies
Utilities
Anglian Water Severn Trent Water British Telecommunications Western Power Distribution National Grid Company
Industry
1st Choice Skip Hire Heaton Planning A C Shropshire Hillcrest Limited A E Burgess Hinckley Scrap Metals Ltd Acorn Recycling Holwell Works Acresford S&G Hughes Craven Aggregate Industries Hull & Sons Air Products Ibstock ALP Ambrose iGas
31
Andrew Caton Intercare Andrew Granger J & A Young (Leicester) Ltd Anthony Northcote Planning J & F Powner Architects Co-Partnership J M Clarke (Welland Waste) Arkwright Hill Farm J P & P Bailey (Wiggs Farm) Augean J10 Planning BAA JH Walter Bakers Waste King West Barton Wilmore Kings Hill Cremations Beech Tree Farm, Sproxton Labwaste Bellway Homes Lafarge-Tarmac Berry Bros LSPS Biffa Marriott Hardcastle Biogen Greenfinch Mather Jamie Bloor Homes Melton Waste Recyclers Breedon Aggregates Merriman British Ceramic Confederation Mick George Limited British Gypsum Midland Quarry Products Browne Jacobson Midland Skip Hire Bullimores Mineral Products Association C. Walton Ltd Mineral Surveying Services Cannon Hygiene Mr Lovatt, Sutton Lodge Farm Casepak New Earth Solutions Cemex Osiris Charis Consultancy Planters Charles Brown & Son R S Properties Charnwood Forest Brick Robert Doughty CoalPro Roger Tym Colliers CRE RPS Planning Cosby Spinneys Farm Savills David Jarvis Scott Wilson David L Walker Limited Silverdell De-Pack SITA Dickerson Group SLR Direct Car Spares Smith Stuart Reynolds DLP Planning Consultants Soars Lodge Farm (W.T.Clarke) DTZ Pieda Consulting Stephen Bowley Consultancy E.W.Middleton & Sons Strutt and Parker East Midlands Aggregates Working Tapton Estates Party East Midlands Metals Taylors Skip Hire Egdon Resources UK Ltd Tom Toon & Daughters Enderby Metals UK Coal Ensor Holdings Vellams Metals Eurokey Veolia F P McCanns Wanlip S & G Fairhurst Wastecycle FCC Environmental Wavin Fisher German Wigston Car Breakers Flying Spares William Davis FOCSA Williams Recycling Geoplan Wimpey Gill Pawson WYG Group Hanson Hanson Brick
32
Other Consultees
Bowline Climbing Club Loughborough Friends of the Earth British Mountaineering Council Michael Lambert Campaign to Protect Rural England Michael Lee Canal and Rivers Trust Mike Shearstone County Land & Business Association Mr S Leary Coventry Airport National Farmers Union Design Council National Federation of Builders East Midlands Airport National Forest Company Fields in Trust National Forest Charitable Trust Friends of the Earth Nature after Minerals Freeby Estate Nuneaton Friends of the Earth Leicestershire Asian Business Open Spaces Society Association Philip Sullivan Leicestershire Bridleways Ramblers Association Leicestershire Business Voice Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Leicestershire Footpath Association Woodland Trust Leicestershire Quarries Vision Project Leicestershire Wildlife Trust
33
Appendix 3: Issues (2013) Consultation Letter and Press Notice
«email» Date: 22nd November 2013 My Ref: MWLP/20131122 Your Ref: Contact: John Wright Phone: 0116 305 7041 Fax: 0116 305 7353 Email: [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam,
CONSULTATION ON LEICESTERSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN – ISSUES DOCUMENT
The County Council has commenced a review of the current planning policies dealing with mineral extraction and waste management in Leicestershire, which were adopted in 2009. As the first stage in this review, a consultation document has been prepared which identifies a range of key issues that are likely to influence the future strategy for minerals and waste planning in the County. This, together with a summary leaflet and a response form, can be viewed on the Council’s website at www.leics.gov.uk/minerals_and_waste_local_plan.
It is important to get involved at this stage. The consultation provides you with an opportunity to comment on how the County Council is approaching the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and ensure that the Council is aware of the important issues it faces in planning for mineral extraction and waste management. A number of questions are posed in the Issues Document on which your views are particularly sought. The comments received from this consultation will assist the County Council in preparing a new Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Following consideration of comments received, work will start on the preparation of a plan to be submitted eventually to the Secretary of State for examination by an independent inspector. There will an opportunity to make further representations on the Plan before it is submitted.
I would be grateful to receive any comments you wish to make by 17:00 on 24th January 2014.
Yours faithfully,
John Wright (Team Leader, Planning)
34
PRESS NOTICE
35
Appendix 4: Consultation Draft (2015): Consultation Letter and Press Notice
Date: 3rd July 2015 My Ref: MWLP/20150703 Your Ref: Contact: John Wright Phone: 0116 305 7041 Fax: 0116 305 7353 Email: [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam,
CONSULTATION ON LEICESTERSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN
The County Council has published a consultation draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan for Leicestershire. The draft Plan has been prepared following consultation on an Issues document between November 2013 and January 2014. The responses received on the Issues document have been used to inform the preparation of the latest document.
It is important to get involved at this stage. The consultation provides you with an opportunity to comment on draft policies and proposals related to the winning and working of minerals and waste management development in the County for the period to 2031. After consideration of any representations received on the draft Plan, work will start on the preparation of the pre-submission draft plan. There will then be a further opportunity to make representations on the Plan before it is formally submitted to the Government for an independent public examination.
The draft Plan and a response form can be viewed on the Council’s website at www.leics.gov.uk/minerals_and_waste_local_plan together with supporting evidence including the Sustainability Appraisal of the emerging policies and proposals.
I would be grateful to receive any comments you wish to make by 17:00 on 28th August 2015.
Yours faithfully,
John Wright (Team Leader, Planning)
36
PRESS NOTICE
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
LEICESTERSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION
Leicestershire County Council has published draft policies and proposals related to mineral extraction and waste management in the County for the period up to 2031.
For further information on this consultation exercise, to view the full consultation document and to make comments on the draft Plan visit the Council’s website (www.leics.gov.uk/minerals_and_waste_local_plan) (access to internet facilities is provided at Leicestershire libraries).
Alternatively, please contact the Planning, Historic and Natural Environment Group (Chief Executive’s Department) at County Hall, Glenfield, Leicester, LE3 8RA (telephone 0116 3057041; e-mail [email protected]).
If you wish to make comments, these should be made by 17:00 on 28th August 2015.
Following consideration of comments received, work will start on the preparation of a plan to be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination by an independent inspector. There will an opportunity to make further representations on the Plan before it is formally submitted.
37
Appendix 5: Consultation on Potential Additional Sites for Sand and Gravel – Consultation Letter and List of Consultees
«email» Date: 28th September 2015 My Ref: MWLP/S&G/20150928 Your Ref: Contact: John Wright Phone: 0116 305 7041 Fax: 0116 305 7353 Email: [email protected]
Dear Sir/Madam,
FUTURE SAND AND GRAVEL PROPOSALS
The County Council is in the process of preparing the Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Consultation on draft policies and proposals has recently closed.
A number of potential additional sites for sand and gravel extraction have been put forward in response to the consultation on the Plan, namely: Cadeby Quarry – Newbold Road extension Lockington Quarry – Northern extension Shawell Quarry – Cotesbach extension Shawell Quarry – Eastern extension Pincet Lane, North Kilworth - New quarry Eye Valley, near Freeby – proposed Area of Search Information provided in respect of these sites can be viewed on the Council’s website at www.leics.gov.uk/proposed_sand_and_gravel_sites.
My purpose in writing to you now is to obtain comments on these additional sites in order to assist me in deciding whether they should be included in the next stage of the preparation of the Plan. I would stress that the County Council has not made any decision yet regarding the suitability of any of these sites for inclusion in the Local Plan. There will be a further opportunity to make representations on the Plan before it is formally submitted to the Government for independent public examination.
I would be grateful if you could provide me with your comments by 30th October 2015. Please contact me if you have any questions or queries.
Yours faithfully,
John Wright (Team Leader, Planning)
38
List of Consultees
District Councils Harborough DC Hinckley & Bosworth BC Melton BC North West Leicestershire DC
Parish Councils Cadeby PC Cotesbach PC Freeby PC Husbands Bosworth PC Kegworth PC Kimcote & Walton PC Knaptoft PC Lockington-Hemington PC North Kilworth PC Peckleton PC Shawell PC
External Consultees Environment Agency Historic England Natural England Highways England East Midlands Airport Severn Trent Water
Internal (LCC) Consultees Archaeology Heritage Ecology Highways Local Lead Flood Authority
39
Appendix 6: Pre-Submission Draft (2016): Consultation Letter and Press Notice
Date: 28th July 2016 My Ref: MWLP/20160728 Your Ref: Contact: John Wright Phone: 0116 305 7041 Email: [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam,
PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION ON LEICESTERSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN
The County Council has published a pre-submission Minerals and Waste Local Plan for Leicestershire. The Plan has been prepared following the most recent consultation on a draft document between July 2015 and August 2015. The responses received on the draft document have been used to inform the preparation of this document.
This consultation provides you with the final opportunity to comment on draft policies and proposals related to the winning and working of minerals and waste management development in the County for the period to 2031. After consideration of any representations received on the Plan, the Plan will be formally submitted to the Government for an independent public examination.
The pre-submission Plan and a response form can be viewed on the Council’s website at www.leics.gov.uk/minerals_and_waste_local_plan together with supporting evidence including the Sustainability Appraisal of the emerging policies and proposals.
I would be grateful to receive any comments you wish to make by 17:00 on 23rd September 2016.
Yours faithfully,
John Wright (Team Leader, Planning)
40
PRESS NOTICE
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
LEICESTERSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION
Leicestershire County Council has published its pre-submission policies and proposals related to mineral extraction and waste management in the County for the period up to 2031.
For further information on this consultation exercise, to view the full consultation document and to make comments on the Plan visit the Council’s website (www.leics.gov.uk/minerals_and_waste_local_plan) (access to internet facilities is provided at Leicestershire libraries).
Alternatively, please contact the Planning, Historic and Natural Environment Group (Chief Executive’s Department) at County Hall, Glenfield, Leicester, LE3 8RA (tel. 0116 3057041; e-mail. [email protected]).
If you wish to make comments, these should be made by 17:00 on 23rd September 2016.
Following consideration of comments received, the plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination by an independent inspector.
41
Appendix 7: Comments Received on Pre-Submission Draft (2016) and Council’s Responses
Para/Policy Respondent Summary of Representation* NOTE: The representations have not all LCC Response No. been reproduced in full. Please refer to submitted representations for a complete record. GEN REP3 No comments Noted Erewash BC GEN REP4 Notification of National Grid infrastructure within Leicestershire. Noted National Grid GEN REP6 Natural Natural England has already provided comments on various drafts of the Noted England Minerals and Waste Local Plan. We have nothing to add at this stage which hasn’t been covered in previous correspondence. GEN REP9 Carlton Carlton Parish Council supports the pre-submission draft of the Noted PC Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan and has no comments to offer on this document. GEN REP21 EA We consider the submitted Plan to be legally compliant, sound and complies Noted with the duty to co-operate. GEN REP25 Overall may we offer our support to the content of the plan which we find a Noted Ibstock Brick pleasure to read in an easily digestible format. 1.5 REP8 Biffa Paragraph 1.5 states that “the County Council will need to co-operate with Noted Waste the [Leicester] City Council on issues that may affect matters across both Services boundaries.” We note that Leicester City Council is producing its own Plan. Allied to this point, Strategic Objective 4 includes the objective “to co- ordinate and work with all relevant organisations, in particular Leicester City and Leicestershire Local Authorities to ensure the local plan addresses planning issues that cross administrative boundaries.” The City sits in the middle of Leicestershire and as the largest urban area produces significant quantities of LACW and commercial and industrial wastes. Whilst LACW is fully managed by Biffa, with the biodegradable fraction managed at the Wanlip AD plant, and some C&I waste is managed within the City boundary
42
at sites such as Casepak, Sunningdale Road, there remains a quantity of C&I waste that will need recovery or disposal outside of the City. Newhurst is ideally located to provide recovery capacity for this waste. 1.5 REP26 Under the requirements of ‘Duty to Co-operate’ we would like continue to Noted Leicester work closely with Leicestershire County Council to ensure that both City Leicester City’s local plan and the Leicestershire County waste and minerals plan meet the requirements of ‘soundness’ as part of the legal requirements for local planning. We are hoping to formally consult Leicestershire County Council on the proposed emerging options for the replacement Leicester Local Plan towards the end 2016. As part of this consultation will set out the future estimated waste projections for Commercial & Industrial, Construction & Demolition and Hazardous as well as an assessment of existing waste processing capacity in the City. We will not be providing data at this stage for municipal waste as this will be based on future housing requirements which we are not in a position to agree until later in the plan making process. We will however be conducting a specific call for waste sites exercise looking at potential sites for waste facilities. 2.23 REP19 Mick MGL supports the Spatial Vision and the aims of the Leicestershire M&WLP, Noted George in particular the intention to meet the economic and social needs of present and future generations. 2.23 REP20 We are of the view that the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority (MWPA) Concerns about Tarmac will be unable to meet the spatial vision. Whilst we are supportive of the provision of sand and gravel addressed Trading Ltd inclusion of extensions to a number of existing sand and gravel sites, we separately below. have concerns that an insufficient provision of mineral facilities has been planned for to meet predicted demand over the whole Plan period. The Spatial Vision is therefore considered unsound as it is not positively prepared to reflect this demand nor will it be deliverable and it is therefore not effective. 2.23/24 REP25 The overriding objectives as established in the Spatial Vision and the 10 Noted Ibstock Brick listed Strategic Objectives provide a sound basis off which to build the plan. 2.24 REP20 Whilst we support the strategic objective to make sufficient provision of Concerns about (Objective 1) Tarmac minerals facilities in Leicestershire we are of the view that this objective is provision of minerals addressed separately
43
Trading Ltd not met by the Plan. We consider this Objective to be unsound as below. insufficient provision has been made to reflect predicted demand and maintain an effective landbank over the Plan period. 2.24 REP19 Mick MGL supports Strategic objective 1 to make sufficient provision for Noted (Objective 1) George minerals to meet national and local requirements. 2.24 REP17 DM DM OpCo Limited is concerned that in planning for waste capacity equal to Concern unwarranted. (Objective 2) OPCO waste generation the County Council has failed to cater for the complexity Strategy allows for recycling and Limited of today’s residual waste management industry. DM OpCo Limited contend recovery facilities as that allowance must be made for multiple tiers of processing. There is a mentioned provided danger that the proposed approach will stifle competition and innovation, to they are in the detriment of novel technologies that are capable of pushing waste up accordance with the the waste hierarchy. spatial strategy. 2.24 REP19 Mick MGL objects to Strategic Objective 2 to the extent that sufficient provision Waste planning (Objective 2) George of waste facilities is limited to Leicestershire. MGL believes provision this authorities that received or exported should be with a capacity ‘at least’ equal to the waste generated within significant amounts of Leicestershire. waste from and to It is evident that there will be a significant need to cater for landfill of Leicestershire have Leicester City’s waste as there are no landfill facilities within the city’s been contacted as boundaries, particularly for inert waste. This receives no recognition in the part of the Duty to Cooperate. No Plan. authority, other than Proposed Change: “To make sufficient provision of waste facilities in the Leicester City, has County of Leicestershire with capacity at least equal to the waste generated indicated that within the County of Leicestershire.” movements into Leicestershire are necessary to manage their waste. Over the last 10 years, however, on average less than 10,000 tonnes of the City’s waste has been disposed of in the County per annum. This is not considered a significant quantity.
44
2.24 REP17 DM DM OpCo Limited consider Strategic Objective 3 to be laudable. However, Concerns about (Objective 3) OPCO insofar as it relates to the treatment of residual waste, we do not consider provision for residual waste addressed Limited that the underpinning policies are geared to its delivery. separately below. DM OpCo Limited consider LCC to be naive to the commercial challenges involved in the delivery of new residual waste infrastructure, putting academic principle ahead of practical delivery. The result is that residual waste will continue to be sent to landfill and treatment facilities beyond Leicestershire. DM OpCo Limited opine that the County Council has failed to plan positively prepared and consider that the plan is in-effective insofar as it deals with the treatment of residual waste. 2.24 REP19 Mick MGL objects to Strategic Objective 3 because this is not justified on the Change not (Objective 3) George available evidence. The Objective does not recognise that sustainable considered necessary. Para.5.14 indicates locations for sand and gravel sites include places where they minimise the that, to help achieve travel by road to market. A local gravel pit is very sustainable even if it is sustainable not able to switch modes to rail or water. development, new Proposed Change: “To provide mineral sites and waste management mineral extraction facilities in the most sustainable locations so that movement other than by should be located in close proximity to road is maximised, mineral and untreated waste transportation is markets. minimised, the development of previously developed land is encouraged and the needs of local communities and industry are met.” 2.24 REP19 Mick MGL supports Strategic objectives 4-10 Noted (Objectives George 4-10) 2.24 REP18 Derbyshire County Council (and on behalf of Derby City Council) welcomes Noted (Objective 4) Derbyshire and supports Strategic Objective 4 of the Pre Submission Draft Plan which County seeks to, ‘To coordinate and work with all relevant organisations, in Council particular Leicester City Council and Leicestershire Local Authorities, to ensure that the Local Plan addresses planning issues that cross administrative boundaries.’ 2.24 REP20 In addition to cross administrative boundaries within the Leicestershire The objective refers (Objective 4) Tarmac Districts, consideration also needs to be given to cross boundary issues with to ‘all relevant organisations’. This Trading Ltd other neighbouring Minerals and Waste Authorities. This duty to cooperate will include
45
should take account of the identified dependence that other Authorities neighbouring minerals have on the provision of mineral resource from the County (as identified at and waste authorities. The Duty to paragraph 3.14 of the MWLP Pre-Submission Draft) and for the Cooperate Statement management of waste within Leicestershire particularly at sites located sets out what the close to county boundaries (for example at Shawell). In this regard, the County Council has Objective is considered unsound as it has not been positively prepared nor done more fully. is it effective as it has not been based on cross boundary strategic priorities. It is not considered that these relationships/Duty to Co-Operate have been adequately demonstrated/addressed through the Pre-Submission Draft or Local Aggregate Assessment. The Plan does not make sufficient provision for Leicestershire’s own needs and therefore insufficient provision has been made to meet demand from outside the County. 2.24 REP17 DM DM OpCo Limited consider Strategic Objective 3 to be laudable. However, Concerns about (Objective 5) OPCO insofar as it relates to the treatment of residual waste, we do not consider provision for residual waste addressed Limited that the underpinning policies are geared to its delivery. At best DM OpCo separately below. Limited consider LCC to be naive to the commercial challenges involved in the delivery of new residual waste infrastructure, putting academic principle ahead of practical delivery. The result is that residual waste will continue to be disposed to landfill and burnt in incinerators. DM OpCo Limited opine that the County Council has failed to plan positively prepared and consider that the plan is in-effective insofar as it deals with the treatment of residual waste. 2.24 REP20 We support the objective to safeguard mineral resources, sites and Noted. (Objective 6) Tarmac infrastructure from inappropriate development. It is our view that the Concerns about safeguarding Trading Ltd proposed safeguarding documents could be a much more effective tool with documents addressed some modification. separately below. 2.24 REP20 Strategic Objective 9 is in our view overly onerous on developers and Disagree. The (Objective 9) Tarmac operators and will potentially stifle new sites/development coming forward. objective accords with Para. 143 of NPPF and Trading Ltd We also consider the Objective is not consistent with National Policy Para.37 of NPPG (specifically paragraph 109). Whilst it is accepted that the MWPA may wish (Reference ID: 27- to achieve these objectives, the strategy and subsequent policies should 037-20140306) and is seek them where appropriate. The requirements should be proportionate to consistent with the
46
the operations and all restoration requirements/objectives for recreational, thrust of para.109 of economic and community gain weighed in the overall planning balance as the NPPF. opposed to being a necessity. 2.24 REP22 NFC The National Forest Company supports Strategic Objective 10 as set out in Noted (Objective paragraph 2.24. The Strategic Objectives form the foundation for the 10) detailed policies in the document and therefore this reference to The National Forest gives strong support to the continuing need to create the Forest through minerals and waste planning, which is strongly welcomed. 2.24 REP17 DM New Earth Solutions previously sought the addition of a new Strategic Disagree. The point is OPCO Objective; “To support development that would improve the operational covered by objectives 3 and 7. Limited efficiency and performance of established minerals and waste facilities where this would give rise to economic, social and environmental benefits’. As the operator of the sole residual waste treatment facility in Leicestershire, we believe that such a critical piece of the County’s infrastructure should be supported. We consider that such an objective would be consistent with paragraphs 7 and 14 of the NPPF. 3.3 REP25 The paragraph provides a description of ‘Landbanks’ explaining these are Paragraph 3.4 Ibstock Brick the sum of all permitted reserves however no clarification is provided to indicates that the recommended explain in this introductory text that Landbanks differ for various minerals landbank period and whereas some may be a County aggregate of reserve, a mineral such varies depending on as clay Landbank is specific to every individual Brick Factory. the nature of the The text could be clarified to the extent as suggested above to clearly mineral. identify that landbanks vary dependant on the type of mineral. 3.4 (& M5) REP25 The plan does not accurately reflect the content of the NPPF and the Policy M5 reflects the Ibstock Brick Planning Practice Guide which clearly state the individual landbank wording in the NPPF (para.146). requirements for brick factories. Whilst the paragraph does identify the minimum term of 25 years for brick clay it does not explicitly state this is for every individual brick factory. The text should be modified to be explicit that the 25 years is the minimum land bank for each individual brick factory and in no way an aggregate in an area. 3.4-6 REP19 Mick MGL believes these paragraphs which deal with the merits of extensions to The Plan indicates George quarry sites over new sites significantly misleads on national policy and that extensions are preferred over new
47
guidance. The text is therefore unsound by being not consistent with sites as they can be national policy. This is because the paragraphs leave out reference to the more sustainable as mineral reserves are principle that each site (whether an extension or a new site) must be maximised and treated on its merits (PPG 27-010). It also leaves out the consideration that environmental large landbanks should not stifle competition. MGL therefore believes that impacts can be less the plan is unsound because it does not treat sites on their merits having than setting up new pre-empted such a consideration by adopting a preference for extensions greenfield sites. Potential new sites over new sites, even to the extent that the mpa is unwilling to identify were not provision for the entire plan period even though extending sites does not automatically provide for full provision. There is a clear case for the allocation of new sites discounted. They in order to make full provision, and this has been discounted. The were assessed along with extensions to paragraphs therefore do not adequately reflect national policy and existing sites but guidance. none were found to be environmentally acceptable. 3.12 REP19 Mick MGL wishes the Plan to note that all of the five active sites are in the control The site operator of George of one operator – Tarmac. Only Slip Inn Quarry is in the hands of another the active sites is identified in Table 3 of operator and this is inactive. This means that all of the current production the LAA. The control and the vast majority of permitted reserves plus all of the proposed of individual sites is allocations are all in the control of one operator. This is a unique position for not considered a a major aggregates producing county and is worthy of mention in the Plan material planning since it fundamentally affects the way policy should be developed. As such, consideration provided that it does it goes to soundness in forming what should be a significant part of the not affect the steady robustness of the evidence base for the Plan. and adequate supply of aggregates. 3.16 REP20 The MWLP states that the MWPA will monitor whether the County The situation will be Tarmac experiences, ‘higher production rates over an extended period’ (paragraph monitored annually through the Council’s Trading Ltd 3.16) through the use of the LAA. Clarification should be made on the Annual Monitoring period of time that the situation would be monitored for and the trigger Report and the Local point for a review of Policy M1. Aggregate Assessment (see para.3.27). 3.18 REP18 Although currently sufficient sites have not been identified to meet the Noted Derbyshire shortfall in the requirement for sand and gravel over the Plan period, it
48
County appears that Policies M1 and M2 provide the flexibility to ensure that this Council shortfall will be met. At this time, therefore, it appears that there should be no fundamental implications for Derbyshire in terms of its quarries having to provide for any shortfall in Leicestershire over the Plan period. M1 REP19 Mick MGL strongly objects to this policy. The LAA addresses George The level of provision of 19.04 Million tonnes is likely to be less than the level of future provision and required when considered in relation to projected growth. The Plan concludes that it is acknowledges that demand in future is likely to be higher than recent appropriate to base it averages, but proposes to do nothing about it. It is regrettable that the on average sales over County Council is unable to quantify any growth in aggregates demand, the last 10 years. The even though there is evidence over the last three years of significant growth LAA has been endorsed by the East in demand. Midlands Aggregates The County Council unjustifiably does not make provision for the whole plan Working Party. period. There is a deficit of nearly 2 Million tonnes which could be remedied Para.3.16 indicates by the allocation of a new site. that the situation will be carefully Because the plan underprovides sand and gravel it is not deliverable over monitored. the plan period. In particular, Strategic Objective 1 which seeks to make Para.3.26 recognises sufficient provision for minerals to meet national and local requirements is that the allocations shown not to be met, which is a major failure of the Local Plan. are not sufficient to It is clear that there is a persistent shortfall in production and reserves for meet the shortfall due to insufficient suitable the plan period, and there is a need for further allocations beyond those areas having been put sites currently allocated. forward. Policy M3 The Policy of ‘giving priority’ to extensions against new sites is in the provides for the context of Leicestershire against national policy. Paragraph 27-010 of PPG release of sites outside allocated says of preferring extensions over new sites, that “The suitability of each areas provided that proposed site, whether an extension to an existing site or a new site, must they satisfy certain be considered on its individual merits…” However, the principal reason given criteria. for not allocating the North Kilworth site is because it is not an extension. New sites have not The County Council has taken a general preference in national guidance and been excluded on principle. The made it an inflexible rule. MGL does not deny that in general terms it makes proposed site at North sense to get the most out of existing investment and infrastructure before Kilworth was not turning to new sites, but in the context of an acknowledged shortfall even found to be after all suitable extensions have been allocated, there is a clear need to environmentally acceptable.
49
allocate a new site, and the priority for extensions has to give way to need. Whilst all the existing The County Council has also not given any regard to the distribution of sites are in the control of one operator, all reserves throughout the landbank, and the fact that all of the production are active sites and and the vast majority of reserves are in the control of one operator. NPPF none of the permitted para 145, bullet 7 says, “ensuring that large landbanks bound up in very reserves are being few sites do not stifle competition”. Coupled with NPPF’s desire (paragraph held back. 7) that sustainable development should be “contributing to building a The proposed merger of Tarmac and strong, responsive and competitive economy”, this makes competitiveness a Lafarge was examined planning matter. by the UK MGL argues that the uncompetitiveness of having in excess of 90% of the Competition reserves tied up with one operator (and potentially all reserves going Commission. No remedies were forward) is equivalent to having all those reserves tied up in one site, and is required so far as thus contrary to national policy. The policy aim of M1 is satisfied if a new Leicestershire site is allocated once suitable extensions have been allocated. operations were Planning policy needs to be carefully framed so as not to erect an artificial concerned in order to barrier to new entrants to the aggregates market by only allowing address any perceived competition concerns. extensions to existing incumbents’ sites. Thus MGL does not believe that is it possible or in accordance with national guidance to have a locational strategy which excludes new sites on principle. Proposed Changes: The County Council will ensure a steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel for aggregate purposes by: (i) making provision over the plan period (2015 to 2031) for the extraction of some 19 million tonnes of sand and gravel; (ii) maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years based on the past 10 years average sales. M1 REP20 Policy M1 is considered to be unsound. The NPPF advises that LAA’s should, The LAA addresses Tarmac ‘take account of published national and subnational guidelines on future the level of future provision and Trading Ltd provision which should be used as a guideline when planning for the future concludes that it is demand for and supply of aggregates’. Without having regard to published appropriate to base it data – specifically the AMRI dated 2014 - we do not consider that the Plan on average sales over is consistent with National Policy. In light of the evidence of increased the last 10 years. The demand for sand and gravel, we do not consider that the Plan has been LAA has been endorsed by the East
50
positively prepared to make provision for sufficient sand and gravel supply. Midlands Aggregates Policy M1 seeks to make provision for at least 19 million tonnes of sand and Working Party.
gravel over the Plan period. Notwithstanding the extent of the requirement over the Plan period (which we consider to be higher than indicated), permitted resource and allocations only amount to 16.7 million tonnes. The Plan is therefore not effective in achieving this policy. We support the MPA in their approach and preference being given to Noted.
extensions to existing operations prior to new greenfield sites. We support the general approach to ensure that sites are worked and Noted. Prior restored at the earliest available opportunity. However, we consider that extraction is cover by recognition should also be given to circumstances where mineral may need Policy M11. to be prior extracted. Prior extraction can prevent unnecessary sterilisation which may occur in advance of it being practicable to work a wider area of mineral. 3.25 REP20 Whilst we are supportive of the inclusion of extensions to a number of Disagree. It is Tarmac Tarmac’s existing sand and gravel operations, we are concerned with the considered appropriate for the Trading Ltd MWPA seeking their own objectives for restoration. Whilst these may be plan to indicate what desirable, it is for Tarmac to consider the opportunities balanced against restoration would be what is achievable with the wishes of the landowners. acceptable at particular sites. M2 REP14 Highways England notes that there are currently five active minerals sites in Noted Highways Leicestershire, with four sites earmarked for extension. The extensions at England three of these sites are relatively small in scale and therefore it is considered that they would not have significant impacts upon the operation of the SRN, whilst the largest site, for 4 million tonnes (Mt) of potential reserves of minerals at Shawell, was granted planning permission in 2015. M2 REP19 Mick MGL strongly objects to this policy. The purpose of the George MGL objects to the last paragraph of the policy which ties planning policy is to ensure that, as far as permission for extensions to the cessation of working in previously practicable, extension permitted areas unless there are operational reasons not to do so. areas follow on from MGL cannot think of a situation where an extension would be worked worked out areas. together with an earlier part of a site unless there were operational reasons to do so, which begs the question of why this proviso is necessary,
51
especially since no justification for the paragraph is included in the supporting text. MGL suggests therefore, deletion of the last paragraph of the policy as superfluous. M2 REP20 We support the MWPA’s identified strategy for minerals provision to be Noted. Tarmac made through the working out of existing sites and as extensions to existing
Trading Ltd sand and gravel sites. We support the proposed allocations for extensions to Brooksby Quarry, Husbands Bosworth Quarry, Cadeby Quarry and Shawell Quarry. We support the general approach to ensure that sites are worked and restored at the earliest available opportunity. However, we consider that Noted. Prior extraction is cover by recognition should also be given to circumstances where mineral may need Policy M11. to be prior extracted. Prior extraction can prevent unnecessary sterilisation which may occur in advance of it being practicable to work a wider area of mineral. M2 REP20 It is considered that Policy M2 is unsound. The Plan states there is a Para.3.26 recognises Tarmac requirement to plan for a minimum of 19 million tonnes of sand and gravel that the allocations are not sufficient to Trading Ltd across the Plan period. Currently the Plan does not allocate sufficient meet the shortfall due resource to fulfil the identified shortfall nor does it provide sufficient to insufficient suitable flexibility in the event that there is a down turn in production from one of areas having been put the allocated sites. In this regard, we do not consider that the Plan is forward. Policy M3 positively prepared or effective. provides for the release of sites outside allocated areas provided that they satisfy certain criteria. M2 (SA1 REP21 EA A number of the Allocated Sites given in Appendix 1 are located adjacent to Box SA1 already Brooksby) watercourses. For this reason we request an additional requirement be mentions the need for ‘protection of a added to the list of criteria for these sites. The additional criteria for the corridor of natural sites should be: An appropriate stand-off distance from the watercourse open space alongside adjacent to the site will be agreed. the Rearsby Brook.’ M2 (SA2 REP12 The deletion of the site to the south of Newbold Verdon is welcomed. There The proposed Cadeby) Historic remains the potential for impact upon both Newbold Verdon Hall (Grade I) extension areas are 1.5km distant from England and associated structures / buildings and the moat to the south, which is a Newbold Verdon Hall
52
scheduled monument. There may also again be the potential for the further and the moat. There loss of Ridge and Furrow. are no records of potential ridge and A greater understanding of the contribution of setting to the appreciation furrow within the and understanding of the significance of the designated heritage asset is extension areas. required to demonstrate that an allocation here would be sound. This may These matters will include the importance of designated views, and the relationship with the nevertheless have to wider agricultural and rural landscape. be addressed at planning application We also recommend that the County Archaeological advisor is consulted for stage. The plan needs their view in relation to potential ridge and furrow and that you are guided to be read as a whole by that advice. and any proposal would have to be in line with Policy DM8. Para.3.25 indicates that all sites need to have an assessment of the results of a pre-determination archaeological investigation of the site and protection from significant adverse impacts. M2 (SA2 REP15 In the Consultation Draft version of the Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Noted Cadeby) Hinckley & Local Plan (2015) there was an allocation for the extension of the existing Bosworth BC Cadeby Sand and Gravel Extraction Site to the north of Brascote Lane which has now received planning permission. The Submission Draft includes an additional allocation to the east of Newbold Road, this site is identified as countryside within the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016) but does not conflict with policies in the current Local Plan. M2 (SA2 REP20 Environmental assessment work will dictate the necessity of providing a A buffer zone to Cadeby) Tarmac buffer zone to Beech Spinney. The bullet point should be reworded as Beech Spinney is necessary in order to Trading Ltd follows: protect this area of • A buffer zone to Beech Spinney should be provided if required. woodland. Access to the area will be maintained as existing through the retention Improved public access accords with
53
and/or reinstatement of footpaths. Discussions will be had with the the NPPF (para.75), landowner regarding after uses. However, it is not considered reasonable or strategic objective 9, and policies DM10 and justified to require ‘improved’ public access. DM12. M2 (SA2 REP21 EA A number of the Allocated Sites given in Appendix 1 are located adjacent to The watercourse lies Cadeby) watercourses. For this reason we request an additional requirement be outside the allocated area. Para.3.25 states added to the list of criteria for these sites. The additional criteria for the that an assessment of sites should be: An appropriate stand-off distance from the watercourse the effect on the adjacent to the site will be agreed. water environment will be necessary for all sites. Proposed Change has however been put forward as suggested. M2 (SA3 REP12 There is the potential for further archaeological survival at this site. We also Bosworth Hall is Husbands Historic consider that there may be designed views from Bosworth Hall (Grade II*); located 200m from the extension area’s Bosworth) England the proposed allocation may result in harm to significance through setting north-western impacts. boundary. The Hall Further loss of ridge and furrow at this site would be detrimental to stands in a small significance of designated heritage assets and the historic landscape of enclosed treed and Leicestershire. woodland park. The Hall is visually Further assessment should be undertaken in relation to this site and the screened from the design and setting of Bosworth Hall, to demonstrate that an allocation here extension by Lodge would be sound. The Sustainability Appraisal and Assessment of Potential Spinney woodland. A Sand and Gravel sites are insufficiently detailed in relation to this site, small quantity of ridge and furrow lies in contrary to paragraph 182 of the NPPF. western part of the We also recommend that the County Archaeological advisor is consulted for site. Box SA3 already their view in relation to potential ridge and furrow and that you are guided mentions need for by that advice. ‘assessment of the effect on the setting of Bosworth Hall’ and ‘appropriate management of non- designated heritage assets’. M2 (SA3 REP20 It is not considered viable or reasonable to require hedgerows be managed This area has been highlighted by Natural
54
Husbands Tarmac in a traditional hedgerow management style. England as having Bosworth) Trading Ltd It may be possible to provide a wildlife/habitat corridor linking the Gravel Pit hedgerows lacking this form of Spinney and the River Welland. However, it is not proposed to include a management. woodland link. The woodland link is It is requested that an alteration to the text be made to allow the potential considered for restoration using inert waste. The Husbands Bosworth Quarry site appropriate in order currently imports inert waste for restoration. Waste input volumes at the to provide a net gain to biodiversity. site have a strong correlation with general economic activity and house Tarmac previously building in the Market Harborough / south Leicestershire area. Waste input Proposed Change has levels have increased from 2012 -2016 (60,000 tonnes in 2012 up to been put forward 117,000 tonnes in 2014 and over 200,000 tonnes in 2015) in response to regarding the importation of inert increased demand levels for inert waste disposal in south Leicestershire/ waste to the site for north Northamptonshire market area. There is a real prospect that future restoration as demand for inert waste disposal could be maintained, and the ability to requested. include an element of inert infill will improve the restoration options for the proposed northern extension area. M2 (SA3 REP21 EA A number of the Allocated Sites given in Appendix 1 are located adjacent to Box SA3 already Husbands watercourses. For this reason we request an additional requirement be mentions the need for ‘protection of a Bosworth) added to the list of criteria for these sites. The additional criteria for the corridor of natural sites should be: An appropriate stand-off distance from the watercourse open space alongside adjacent to the site will be agreed. the River Welland’. M2 (SA4 REP2 The nearest extraction site to us is at Shawell, with its access to the main As part of any Shawell) Withybrook public highway being at the Gibbet A5/A426 (not the A427) roundabout. planning application, a Transport PC Although there has been no evidence of Shawell lorries then coming Assessment would be through the villages regularly, we and other surrounding villages always required to minimise have that concern, and it’s based on our experience with Magna Park. The the impact of HGV last Magna Park extension included a S106 agreement that basically traffic. The plan excluded all vehicles over 2.5 tonnes from a triangle bounded by the A5, indicates (para. 5.76) that the County M69, M6 and A426. However there was an anomaly and they are permitted Council may seek to to use the B4027 (previously the A427), and this is causing significant use routeing problems. agreements to control We’d like to suggest that all transport vehicles going to/from the Shawell the impact of road haulage. It has not site keep out of the triangle bounded by the A5, M69, M6 and A426 unless previously been
55
they’re making or returning from a direct delivery within that area. considered necessary or appropriate to control HGV movements related to Shawell Quarry beyond the A5/A426 roundabout. M2 (SA4 REP4 Site identified as being crossed by or within close proximity to Gas Tarmac recognises Shawell) National Grid Transmission pipeline apparatus. that the high pressure gas main running parallel to A426 will require protection on the western side of the site. M2 (SA4 REP12 The reduction in size of the Cotesbach extension is welcomed. The reliance Box SA4 already Shawell) Historic on assessment and mitigation at application stage, as described within the mentions the need for ‘appropriate England site assessments, for the two sites adjacent to the motorway is not management of non- sufficient and does not comply with the NPPF in order to ensure a sound designated heritage plan. Assessment must be carried out prior to allocation to assess assets’ and suitability. ‘assessment of Further assessment should be undertaken in relation to this site to assess potential for and its suitability in order to demonstrate that an allocation here would be impact upon significant sound; the Sustainability Appraisal and Assessment of Potential Sand and archaeological Gravel sites are insufficiently detailed in relation to this site, contrary to remains, including paragraph 182 of the NPPF. evidence associated with the Tripontium (Caves Inn) Roman settlement.’ M2 (SA4 REP20 It is not considered viable or reasonable to require hedgerows to be The requirements are Shawell) Tarmac managed by traditional hedgerow management methods. in line with the NPPF (para.114) which Trading Ltd Measures will be taken to protect the SSSI, it is not proposed to enhance it. states that LPAs Reference to ‘enhancement’ should be removed from the second bullet should plan positively point. for the creation, It may be possible to provide a wildlife/habitat corridor linking existing enhancement and woodland areas between Gibbet Lane and the A5. However, it is not management of networks of proposed to include a woodland link. biodiversity.
56
This area has been highlighted by Natural England as having hedgerows lacking this form of management. Measures to enhance the SSSI are proposed ‘where appropriate’. The woodland link is considered appropriate in order to provide a net gain to biodiversity. (Tarmac’s scoping request document (Nov15) shows proposed vegetation link between Gibbet Lane and A5.) M2 REP19 Mick MGL requests the addition of another category of site – new sites, and Site is not considered George requests that the North Kilworth proposal is included in order to rectify the suitable for extraction. Site has shortfall in aggregates provision. Making up a shortfall in provision by been excluded mainly looking to windfall applications is not sound. as a result of MGL has offered further evidence in these representations which seeks to comments from show why there is no reason for not allocating this site as a sand and gravel Highways. (See reserve and inert waste disposal site for Leicestershire. The stated Assessment of Sand and Gravel Sites objections melt away on further examination and the company believes document for more there is no substantive reason for the exclusion of this most sustainable information.) aggregates site. M2 REP20 We object to the exclusion of a northern extension to Lockington Quarry as Site has been Tarmac a suitable allocation. We consider that the MPA should allocate the 3.6 mt excluded mainly as a result of comments Trading Ltd northern extension to Lockington Quarry to meet the shortfall. from Natural England The MWPA’s evidence base (specifically the Sustainability Appraisal and regarding the Assessment of Potential Sand and Gravel Sites) for excluding the Lockington potential impact on North site as an allocation in the plan is based upon the original 7 mt Lockington Marshes
57
northern extension and does not correctly represent the evidence generated SSSI. (See through the Scoping Opinion that there is no objection in principle from Assessment of Sand and Gravel Sites Natural England to the 3.6mt northern extension scheme for Lockington document for more Quarry. Tarmac therefore strongly object to the non-inclusion of the 3.6mt information.) Lockington North extension as a proposed allocation and believe that there is no evidence base or justification for the MWPA to exclude the proposed allocation from the plan, particularly given the shortfall in available resource over the Plan period. We do not consider that the exclusion of an extension to Lockington Quarry is justified. The evidence presented by the MPA is misrepresented given that there is a clear written formal consultee response from Natural England confirming there is no objection in principle to the extraction of sand and gravel in respect of the 3.6mt northern extension for Lockington Quarry. M2 REP24 We consider the Assessment of Sand and Gravel sites May 2016 to have Land not considered Freeby been inaccurate in regards to the comments made regarding the site at suitable for extraction. Land has Estate Freeby and the site was subsequently unreasonably discounted. been excluded mainly as a result of comments from Natural England and Highways. (See Assessment of Sand and Gravel Sites document for more information.) M3 REP16 The wording of part (i) of the policy makes it clear that only one of the This is not necessary. NWLDC three criterion have to be satisfied. This could result in existing sites , such Paragraph 1.12 states that individual policies as that at Lockington, being considered favourably even though the should not be Consultation Statement suggest otherwise Furthermore, the policy does not interpreted in provide for resisting sites on environmental or other grounds and nor does isolation. it include any cross reference to any other appropriate policies in the plan. In respect of (iii) this raises questions as to the suitability or deliverability of the allocations. As such it is considered that this means the allocations in M2 are not effective. It is considered that the policy should include either a cross reference to
58
other policies or include reference to environmental or other impacts to ensure that the policy is more effective. M3 REP19 Mick This policy is objected to. The policy is intended George MGL wishes its proposal for Pincet Lane/North Kilworth to be allocated. to assist in delivering a steady and However, should it not be, it would have to pray in aid this policy but this adequate supply of would be very difficult as it is currently formulated. It could only “join the sand and gravel. end of the queue” following the end of working at a particular site, which Existing active sites might not be in the same market area. have a total potential Secondly, MGL would have to establish that there were no potential production capacity in excess that required extensions at the site it wished to replace. This is almost impossible since on an annual basis. the answer would lie with the operator of the quarry who could always The County Council mothball his quarry and claim that another extension was in progress of therefore does not development. The mpa is effectively putting a ceiling on supply contrary to consider that it is necessary or national policy by limiting the number of sites in operation which is wholly appropriate to grant unreasonable. permission for a new No environmental reason is advanced for this approach. NPPF emphasises quarry unless it is a the benefits of mineral working including (but not limited to) the economy direct replacement for by requiring it be given great weight in decision making (para 144 bullet 1). an exhausted site. PPG para 27-084 also emphasises that there is no maximum landbank level and each application must be treated on its own merits. This strongly implies that acceptable new proposals cannot be limited to like-for-like swaps for sites which are becoming exhausted. Production capacity and sales should be allowed to rise or fall with demand and not be artificially held back to existing sites, which are in any case showing signs that they are not adequate to provide for demand within the plan period. Proposed Changes: Planning permission will be granted for sand and gravel extraction for aggregate purposes outside allocated areas provided that the proposal: (i) is required to maintain production or is needed to meet an identified shortfall in the landbank; or (ii) would offer significant environmental benefits as a result of the exchange or surrender of existing permissions or be significantly more acceptable overall than the allocated sites.
59
M3 REP20 We support Policy M3 and the priority being given to extensions to existing Noted Tarmac sites and replacement of existing permitted sites to meet the landbank in Trading Ltd preference to new greenfield sites. 3.39 REP18 It appears that Leicestershire has sufficient reserves of crushed rock to Noted Derbyshire enable the position regarding movements of this mineral to remain similar County over the Plan period. There should therefore be minimal implications for Council Derbyshire in this respect, i.e. the status quo should be maintained to a large extent. M4 REP13 Midland Quarry Products Ltd, a wholly owned Hanson company, operates Noted Midland Cliffe Hill quarry. The site provides an important source of aggregate to the Quarry local and wider markets. The company is currently examining opportunities Products to extend the quarry to secure additional mineral reserves. An area to the east of the current mineral extraction area is currently being investigated and could potentially offer an extension to the existing workings thus securing the long term future of the quarry and retention of the workforce. It would also mean that mineral could be worked and processed using existing infrastructure i.e. processing plant, rail facility etc. thus avoiding its undue sterilisation. Accordingly the company supports and welcomes Policy M4 as it provides clear policy on extensions to existing rail linked sites. M4 REP20 We support Policy M4 in maintaining crushed rock supply and prioritising Noted Tarmac extraction as extensions to existing rail linked operations. Trading Ltd 3.48 REP18 Through previous liaison Derbyshire County Council (DCC) has identified a It is not considered Derbyshire strategic cross border issue regarding the supply of brickworks in necessary to make specific reference to County Leicestershire with brick clay from an active quarry, Waingroves, within the importation of Council Derbyshire. brick clay from The Leicestershire Pre Submission Draft Plan sets out, in Chapter 3, Derbyshire. Many information about the supply of clay to the five brickworks within the Plan brickworks import area. It does not include reference to clay that is supplied from outside the some clay for blending in order to Plan area. In the interests of clarity, these movements should be produce the required acknowledged in Chapter 3. Additionally, it would be helpful if annual range of bricks. tonnages of clay extracted were included for each of the quarries as well as Paras.3.51-2 set out the total permitted reserve figure to enable a more detailed lifespan to be the current situation regarding the supply
60
estimated for each quarry. of clay related to Whilst there are presently no requirements for additional clay reserves at operations in Leicestershire. This Waingroves to support brick manufacture in Leicestershire, this situation situation will be kept may change in the future and therefore reference should be made to the under review. need to monitor, in co-operation with DCC, the level of reserves and exports used to support brickmaking in Leicestershire. 3.48 REP25 The importance of longevity of clay supply to support the on-going Noted Ibstock Brick investment and development is, we feel, never more apparent than now and we thank you for accurately representing the importance of the brick sector in the plan. M5 REP22 NFC The National Forest Company welcomes the amendments made to this Noted Policy since the last consultation. The Policy is now considered sound. M6 (SA5 REP22 NFC Amend Box SA5 as follows: It is not considered Donington Add an additional bullet to read - Assessment of alternative locations for the appropriate to require detailed consideration Island) storage of some of the clay stocks as part of the rationalisation of the of locations for a stocking and blending area. permanent facility to Amend bullet 4 to read - Provision of a phased landscaping scheme be required as part of following consultation with local stakeholders. any permission for a Amend bullet 7 to read - Restoration to include species-rich grassland, temporary extension of the life of the wetland and native deciduous woodland. existing facility. Local stakeholders will be consulted on any proposals – it is not necessary to refer to this. Proposed Change has been forward in respect of bullet 7 as suggested. M7 (SA6 REP12 There does not appear to be an assessment of this site within the Box SA6 refers to the Marblaegis) Historic Assessment of Potential Sand and Gravel sites. The proposed site is an area need for an assessment of the England of high archaeological potential as evidenced by nationally important measures to be put in remains at East Leake. We note that the Sustainability Appraisal, page 196, place to protect above states that all works will be below ground at a depth which would not affect ground buildings.
61
archaeological remains, this assertion requires clear and verifiable supporting evidence in respect of subsidence and archaeological impacts. Further assessment should be undertaken in relation to this site to assess its suitability in order to demonstrate that an allocation here would be sound in accordance with the NPPF; to include clear and verifiable supporting evidence in respect of subsidence and archaeological impacts. M7 (SA6 REP21 EA A number of the Allocated Sites given in Appendix 1 are located adjacent to This is not necessary Marblaegis) watercourses. For this reason we request an additional requirement be as workings will all be underground. added to the list of criteria for these sites. The additional criteria for the sites should be: An appropriate stand-off distance from the watercourse adjacent to the site will be agreed. M9 REP16 The NPPF advises (paragraph 147) that Minerals planning authorities should As stated in NWLDC “indicate any areas where coal extraction and the disposal of colliery spoil para.3.70, the County Council does not have may be acceptable”. Policy M9 does not do this as such and it is not clear the technical or whether those areas identified on the Minerals Safeguarding map would or commercial would not be acceptable. The failure to indicate where coal extraction may information relating to be acceptable falls short of what the NPPF expects and raises questions as the quality and extent to the effectiveness of the plan in respect of this issue. of reserves to enable the identification of The plan should indicate clearly those areas where coal extraction and specific areas for disposal of colliery spoil will be considered acceptable so as to provide future coal working. certainty and to ensure that the plan is effective. M10 REP1 LCC Add: The policies in the Labour (iii) evidence is provided that comprehensively assures against risk (a) to Plan, in particular DM2, seek to protect Group public health and (b) to the community from seismic activity communities from (iv) evidence is provided to demonstrate that following consultation, the adverse impacts from planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully the development of addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing hydrocarbons. Our amendment is based on the National Planning Policy towards wind In respect of risk from hydrocarbon farms which states that “following consultation, it can be demonstrated that extraction, there are the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been other regulators who fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. Whether the have responsibility. proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning Public health as a planning issue has to judgement for the local planning authority” (NPPF Paragraph:033 Reference be tied to the effects
62
ID:5-033-150618) of any development - As a consistent policy we believe this level of consultation equally applies to the policy already states that particular emerging shale gas energy technology applications and in particular where regard has to be had health and environmental sustainability is in question. to impacts on water We note that Policy M10 states that particular consideration will be given to resource, seismicity, other aspects but monitoring and regulating seismicity from hydraulic local air quality, fracturing rests with the Oil and Gas Authority using a system of regulation landscape, noise & lighting. which has not been tested in the UK for to shale gas extraction. Health is Monitoring and also a planning issue but is not directly tied to Policy DM2 within the Plan regulating seismicity which sets out other protection measures. from hydraulic The relevance of securing public acceptance of applications is heavily tied to fracturing rests with the Oil and Gas health concerns we established in Authority. http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/site/view/1233 establishing a large A policy of community proportion (84%) of peer reviewed studies indicating public health hazards, backing is not elevated risks and adverse health outcomes in established fracking areas. consistent with national planning policy. The NPPF policy in respect of wind farms is not advocated anywhere else. For shale gas, the NPPF has a positive policy with which this would be inconsistent. M10 REP11 Egdon The Policy as currently worded fails to meet the tests of soundness, namely The NPPG (ID: 27- Resources that it is not justified and not consistent with national policy. 106-20140306) sets out an expectation UK Ltd Setting a requirement that planning permission for exploration, appraisal, that local plans should and production of conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons will only include criteria-based be granted if the wellsite and facilities are sited in “the least sensitive policies for the location from which the target reservoir can be accessed” is ambiguous, location and unrealistic and difficult to prove or disprove. It would provide both the assessment of hydrocarbon operators and the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) with a degree of extraction. Criterion flexibility if the wording were amended to state that planning permission for (i) aligns with this exploration, appraisal and production will be granted on sites where any guidance although proposals would also
63
adverse environmental effects can be effectively mitigated. need to be assessed The requirement in the policy that operations are a temporary length of against the DM Policies. Information time is superfluous since this is an inherent characteristic of minerals should be provided on development. how the site has been At the production stage, an operator will only produce hydrocarbons where selected and the it is economically and commercially viable to do so. If it is possible and extent of the cost-effective to fully exploit the hydrocarbon reservoir, an operator will do geographical area of search for the oil or so. As a result, and in order to be consistent with the PPG, it is proposed gas in order to that the requirement to ensure consistency with an overall scheme should demonstrate that be deleted. facilities are located It is unclear from the policy what “particular consideration” actually means to minimise adverse impacts. in practical terms or why it is needed in respect of development involving The policy seeks to hydraulic fracturing. make it clear that the The final sentence in the policy is confusing and unnecessary. This sentence various stages of seems to merely replicate the terms of the Act and the associated development are, by Regulations. their nature, temporary. We propose that Policy M10 is amended to read as follows: “Planning The Policy covers the permission will be granted for the exploration, appraisal and points that the County production of conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons (oil Council believe are and gas) provided that any adverse environmental effects arising relevant to the consideration of a from the development can be effectively mitigated. proposal for shale gas The proposed location of hydrocarbon development involving fracking, and reflects hydraulic fracturing will have regard to impacts on water resources, the planning seismicity, local air quality, landscape, noise and lighting impacts.” requirements of section 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015. M10 REP16 The policy as worded does not make it clear that any exploration site which This is not necessary. NWLDC is not financially or technically viable should be returned back to its original Paragraph 1.12 states that individual policies state. It is recognised that Policy DM12 (Restoration, Aftercare and After- should not be Use) deals with this to some degree but it would be helpful for Policy M10 to interpreted in include across reference to DM12 to make the policy more effective. isolation. DM12 will Include a cross reference in Policy M10 to Policy DM12 in order to provide apply to the clarification that sites which are not financially or technically viable will need restoration of hydrocarbon
64
to be restored back to their original state. operations. 3.87 REP25 The phrase ‘needlessly’ sterilised is used. Mineral which is safeguarded and The NPPF uses the Ibstock Brick which meets the tests of safeguarding should not have a measure applied to phrase ‘needlessly sterilised’ in respect the retention pertaining to a ‘need’ argument. If they are safeguarded, they of mineral are ‘needed’. safeguarding Remove the word ‘needless’ from the policy. (Para.143 3rd bullet) 3.89 REP20 We have no objection to the MPA producing separate Minerals and Waste The Safeguarding Tarmac Safeguarding Documents for each of the District Authority areas and Maps have been produced in a Trading Ltd consider these to be helpful in determining Planning Applications in manageable form to proximity to mineral workings. However, these documents currently provide accompany the Plan. only broad/strategic level information on known mineral resource and could GIS layers will be provide clearer guidance on the location of such mineral resource, supplied to District particularly active and future workings and ancillary infrastructure in order Councils to enable them to include MSAs for them to be effective. on their Policies Maps and for development management purposes. 3.90 REP25 The paragraph refers to the extensive outcrop of brick clay in the County See comment above. Ibstock Brick and therefore consideration that it is not necessary to safeguard all the In the event that an entirely new brick resource but instead to draw a line around the existing sites to define the factory is permitted, safeguarding area. Referring to the relevant safeguarding map the scale is the MSA will be small meaning the boundaries of the site are not easily discernible. reviewed with a view The Mineral Planning Authority should extend the safeguarding to identify to safeguarding the extent of the Resource in proximity to each of the brick factories on a resources that could be utilised by the new plan of appropriate scale so to ensure that no ambiguity exists regarding works. the boundaries. This should also serve to allow identification of resource adjacent and in close proximity to the site which should be safeguarded. The resource map should also identify those areas which could accommodate new sites so to facilitate the potential for entirely new brick factory facilities to be placed in areas of large unrestricted resource. 3.94 REP20 Paragraph 3.94 identifies MSA ‘buffer zones’ which are extensions to known See comments above. Tarmac mineral resource to ensure residential development doesn’t encroach on Trading Ltd existing or future extraction areas to protect amenity. It is our view that the
65
current MSA plans within the safeguarding documents are too strategic and at too large a scale to be effective in ensuring development does not encroach on resource. 3.95 REP20 We disagree with paragraph 3.95 that only shallow coal resources should be The County Council Tarmac considered as a viable resource for prior extraction to allow for remains of the opinion that, apart from Trading Ltd development. In accordance with the NPPF (paragraph 143), all known surface mined coal, mineral resource should be safeguarded in this manner and its prior the opportunities for extraction sought where practicable before sterilisation from other forms of mineral extraction on development. Currently this approach is not consistent with national policy. any scale in urban areas will be rare. 3.96 REP20 The MWLP identifies the MPA’s intention to define Mineral Consultation Paragraph 3.97 says Tarmac Areas (paragraph 3.96) to become a useful tool for District Authorities in that the County Council will define Trading Ltd assessing applications for non-mineral development. Without the defined MCAs covering the MCA’s it is considered that Policy M11 could not effectively be implemented. resources within the MSA, mineral sites and associated infrastructure. 3.98 REP20 We seek further clarification on paragraph 3.98 regarding, ‘a realistic A judgement will be Tarmac judgement about the likelihood of mineral being worked in an made by the County Council based on Trading Ltd environmentally acceptable manner… the County Council will not seek to information contained prevent development where it is unlikely that extraction of the mineral in the submitted could occur in the future’. How will these judgements be made and by mineral assessment. whom? There should be some reference to consultation with mineral Mineral operators with operators prior to a judgement regarding the workability of a known a known interest in resource affected may resource being questioned. be consulted. Table 4 REP20 We support the approach to make certain forms of development exempt No change considered Tarmac from safeguarding. However, this needs to be done with caution. We would necessary. ‘Intensification’ of use Trading Ltd suggest that criteria (b) be amended to recognise that in addition to would include change intensifying activity, there should also be consideration of a change in to residential use. sensitivity of the existing building/land use. For example, the change of use to residential uses has a greater potential for adverse impact/conflict between uses which would not necessarily result in an ‘intensification’ of use. M11 REP13 Minerals can only be worked where they are found and so it is important Noted
66
Midland that such resources are safeguarded for potential future development. Quarry Midland Quarry Products supports Policy M11 Products M11 REP15 Hinckley and Bosworth welcome the inclusion of Mineral Safeguarding Areas Noted Hinckley & and will ensure that the County Council is consulted at all instances where Bosworth BC these could be impacted. M11 REP20 We are supportive of the MPA’s recognition of the importance of Noted. Tarmac safeguarding mineral resource and consider there is clear intention that it
Trading Ltd has been positively prepared to safeguard known mineral resource. See previous However, we currently consider that the Policy is unsound as it is not comments in respect consistent with national policy as it fails to adequately protect known of para.3.89. mineral resource and associated infrastructure. In addition, the proposed safeguarding documents are not effective in delivering the overall objective. M11 REP20 Criteria i) of Policy M11 identifies that planning permission will be granted See comments above Tarmac for development that is incompatible with safeguarding mineral within a in respect of para.3.98. Trading Ltd mineral safeguarding area if the applicant can demonstrate that the mineral concerned is no longer of any value or potential value. As per our comments above, it needs to be clear who would be consulted upon this assessment and who makes the judgement over the viability of the resource. M11/12 REP18 Proposals for safeguarding of minerals and minerals infrastructure would Noted Derbyshire appear to be compatible, in overall terms, with those proposed for County Derbyshire in the emerging Minerals Local Plan. Council M12 REP13 The company generally supports Policy M12. Noted Midland Quarry Products M12 REP20 We support the general principle of this policy. However, we currently Para.3.101 indicates Tarmac consider the policy to be unsound as it is not consistent with national policy that the sites and facilities to be Trading Ltd and fails to protect mineral sites and associated infrastructure in accordance safeguarded are with the NPPF (paragraph 143). As per the above comments, the identified in the safeguarding documents should incorporate existing and proposed mineral published operations including the presence of existing supporting minerals safeguarding
67
infrastructure. We would suggest this policy and the safeguarding documents. documents would be much more effective if they included specific OS based site plans (as per the identified waste developments) as defined Mineral Consultation Areas for permitted and active mineral workings as well as associated infrastructure. We have concerns that a number of Tarmac’s existing and proposed minerals activities are not covered/protected by these documents (for example the rail link from Mountsorrel Quarry) due to their strategic nature. Given the relatively small number of active sites within Leicestershire, defining Mineral Consultation Areas should not be overly onerous and would ensure that District Authorities have effective tools in directing new development. M13 REP20 We support the general approach of Policy M13. However, the policy is The Policy is only Tarmac considered unsound as it is not effective. We would suggest that the policy intended to cover ‘County Matter’ Trading Ltd should include some flexibility and recognition that not all associated developments that industrial development is located on or adjacent to mineral sites. There are are ancillary industrial some circumstances where ready mixed concrete and asphalt plants for development within or example are better located close to end markets/construction projects. in close proximity to Policy M13 should make some allowance for these circumstances and we mineral sites. Remote ready mixed would suggest wording as follows: concrete and asphalt Planning permission for ancillary industrial development within or in close plants will be proximity to mineral sites will be granted provided that it is demonstrated determined by local that there is a close association with the mineral site and there are planning authorities in accordance with their environmental benefits in providing a close link with the extraction site. Local Plan. Where permission is granted, the operation and retention of the development will be limited to the life of the permitted reserves. There may be exceptions where associated industrial development is more market orientated (for example coated road stone and ready mix operations) and more sustainable to be located in proximity to infrastructure projects to which they will serve. Planning permission for ancillary industrial development will be granted in these circumstances provided there is clear justification for their location and the proposed development is environmentally acceptable. M14 REP20 We are supportive of the MPA’s approach to include a policy on Borrow Pits, Proposals to supply
68
Tarmac particularly given the supply circumstances and finite resource position the local market or Trading Ltd within Leicestershire. However, we consider that the Policy is currently continue beyond the life of the unsound as it has not been positively prepared to achieve the most infrastructure project sustainable form of development. The policy should make allowance for will be considered mineral/material to supply the local market or for the site to be retained against Policy M3. beyond the life of the infrastructure project it is intended to serve. In some circumstances there could be good sustainability reasons (including those which contribute to the climate change agenda such as a reduction in carbon emissions) why it would be appropriate to allow mineral to be supplied to local markets following the Borrow Pits purpose of supplying material to the infrastructure project. For example: where the site has good established HGV access point onto the strategic highway; with on-site mineral processing facilities; and is located in close proximity to areas planned for significant housing growth. We would request that the final sentence of the policy is amended to remove reference to the mineral only supplying a specified project. It should be reworded, ‘where planning permission is granted, conditions will be imposed to ensure that operations are time-limited.’ M15 REP20 We consider that the Policy is currently unsound as it has not been It is not considered Tarmac positively prepared to achieve the most sustainable form of development that any change is warranted. The Trading Ltd nor is it is consistent with national policy (The Waste Hierarchy). It is wording is the same considered that the final sentence of Policy M15 should be reworded to as Policy MDC25 in read, ‘planning permission for the reworking of mineral waste will be the adopted Minerals granted’. Proposals under this policy are for the sustainable management of Core Strategy & DC a waste stream and should be supported regardless of environmental Policies. improvements. This would be in accordance with national policy for waste management (contained within the National Planning Policy for Waste – Waste Hierarchy at appendix A). M17 REP20 Unlike Policy M14 relating to Borrow Pits and Policy M3 for unallocated sites, Disagree for the Tarmac Policy M17 is much more relaxed in its approach to mineral supply outside reasons set out in paragraph 3.110. Trading Ltd of allocated sites. It is our view that this policy is unsound as it is not justified or effective as it undermines the policy tests for new or extensions to existing quarry sites or extending Borrow Pit operations in respect of
69
controlling the release of finite mineral resources and controlling supply to open markets (i.e. there is no requirement to justify where or what the end use of the mineral will be for). There are also no environmental controls on potential mineral extraction. It is suggested that the policy should be reworded as follows: Planning permission for the extraction of minerals as a necessary element of other development proposals on the same site will be granted provided that: i) the site is in close proximity to the construction project it is to serve; ii) there are no unacceptable environmental or other impacts resulting from mineral extraction; iii) there are adequate interim reclamation measures to allow for possible delays or non-implementation of the primary development; iv) the mineral extraction is of a limited nature and short duration. 4.1 & W1 REP17 DM DM OpCo Limited is concerned that in planning for waste capacity equal to See comment in OPCO waste generation the County Council has failed to cater for the complexity respect of objective 2 above. Limited of today’s residual waste management industry. DM OpCo Limited contend that allowance must be made for multiple tiers of processing. There is a danger that the proposed approach will stifle competition and innovation, to the detriment of novel technologies that are capable of pushing waste up the waste hierarchy. 4.5/Table REP17 DM DM OpCo Limited consider that the County Council would be failing in its Biffa remain 6/W1 OPCO duty it were not to plan positively for residual waste treatment capacity. committed to the delivery of the Limited The consented Charnwood Incinerator would be capable of treating 350ktpa Newhurst Energy of residual waste each year – but could not be justified on the basis on the Recovery Facility – shortfall in capacity set out in table 6 alone. To date, we are not aware of see their response any evidence to indicate that the proposal is moving forward. Even if the below. project was to commence we would anticipate a build and commissioning Additional provision for residual waste has period of c. 4 years. been provided in the LCC’s previous spatial strategy failed to deliver any other residual waste County through the capacity and we are not aware of any sites being promoted for such permission granted
70
purposes through the Local Plan process. DM OpCo Limited is therefore for an extension of alarmed to see the County Council sticking with the same approach – which the life of the Albion Landfill facility until in reality has led to significant quantities of residual waste, over and above the end of 2017. that treated at the Cotesbach MBT, being sent for disposal to landfill or burnt in incinerators outside of the County. 4.5 REP8 Biffa We are pleased to note that the plan now acknowledges the Newhurst Noted Waste Energy Recovery Facility and the 350Ktpa of capacity that this facility will Services provide towards meeting the shortfall in recovery capacity and landfill diversion capacity in the County. We note that paragraph 4.5 includes an undertaking to review the Local Plan if this facility does not come forward by 2020/21. We wish to inform the Inspector that Biffa are committed to delivering this facility and that the planning consent is now implemented. 4.5 REP20 The MWLP identifies shortfall in capacity for C&I recycling, C&I and LACW See comments above Tarmac recovery, C&I and LACW disposal/landfilling, C&D landfilling, Hazardous regarding the Newhurst Energy Trading Ltd Waste management facilities and agricultural waste facilities. The MWLP Recovery Facility. identifies that new facilities are required to handle these waste streams. Proposed Changes The MWLP relies on permitted facilities to meet some of the shortfall have been put (certainly in the short term). Significant reliance is placed on sites which forward in respect of have not as yet become operational (most notably Newhurst). However, the provision to be made for C&D waste. there has been no allocations for further waste developments to manage The provision of new the shortfall. Whilst we support the recognition within the sub text that, if a waste management permitted facility had not become operational by 2021, further review of the capacity will be Plan would be required. This action following non-compliance with a monitored annually (see Table 13). target/indicator should be taken forward within the Monitoring and Implementation section of the Plan. 4.7 REP20 Paragraph 4.7 identifies that based upon the findings of the Waste Needs Proposed Changes Tarmac Assessment there will be no growth in arising’s. It is questionable whether have been put forward in respect of Trading Ltd during periods of economic growth that levels of C&D waste will generate no the provision to be growth in arisings and therefore a constant figure can be used continually made for C&D waste. across the Plan period. We would suggest that the increased landfill levels (as advocated in paragraph 4.18 of the waste needs assessment) The importation of experienced in Leicestershire indicate there are significant levels of arising’s inert waste is continuing at Slip Inn over and above that being planned for. It should be noted that Slip Inn Quarry.
71
Quarry is not operational (for mineral extraction or infill) and should not be included as predicted landfill capacity (table Q Appendix 1 to the Waste Needs Assessment). 4.7 REP20 Paragraph 4.7 makes reference to ‘exempt’ sites which use inert waste for The situation Tarmac landscaping, engineering and restoration schemes and therefore become regarding ‘exempt’ sites is addressed in Trading Ltd ‘exempt from Environmental Permitting’. The Industry has seen a significant para.4.18 of the shift in the EA stance to such schemes following the Methley Judgement and Waste Needs it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain ‘recovery’ or ‘exempt’ permits. Assessment. In light of the Methley Judgement, the EA are now asking operators to demonstrate that a proposed recovery operation would otherwise be undertaken using non-waste materials. The EA are requesting that this is demonstrated either by providing a financial viability justification that the scheme could be undertaken using non-wastes or demonstrate an irrevocable statutory requirement (i.e. planning) that the scheme must be undertaken. The revised Guidance being prepared by the EA seeks that the requirements for waste recovery sites are on par with the requirements for landfill/disposal permits. This is likely to have implications for restoration and may have a ‘knock on effect’ to inert waste disposal requirements. It is questioned whether this has been acknowledged or factored into the Plan. 4.8 REP20 We support reference in paragraph 4.8 to the proposed extension/allocation Comments noted Tarmac at Brooksby Quarry being able to meet some of the shortfall in inert waste regarding Brooksby. Proposed Change has Trading Ltd landfill capacity. It is proposed to continue importing inert waste as part of been forward any future planning application. Opportunities also exist for continuation of regarding the inert waste landfilling at Husbands Bosworth Quarry (also a proposed continued importation extension/allocation within the Plan) and at Lockington Quarry. of inert waste to Husbands Bosworth. It is not considered appropriate to allocate land for extraction (and subsequent infilling) at Lockington – see comments regarding M2 above. Table 8 REP19 Mick Mick George Ltd (MGL) objects to the Table 8 assessment of inert waste Proposed Change has
72
George landfilling need and to the lack of provision for it. been put forward The principal objection is the methodology of calculating inert landfill need Regarding Table 8. which proceeds from unreliable assumptions and is inconsistent with the market data on landfill deposits. The plan is thus not Positively Prepared in that it fails to make provision for sufficient waste capacity for the plan period. For the same reason it is not Justified, and failing to make provision also means the Plan is not Effective. MGL propose that Table 8 is changed to the following, Year Gross Requirement Capacity Shortfall/ New facilities (tpa) (tpa) Surplus (tpa) required (no. & tpa) 2020/21 739,000 640,000 - 99,000 0 2025/26 739,000 240,000 - 499,000 5 of 100,000 2030/31 739,000 90,000 - 649,000 7 of 100, 000
W1 REP8 Biffa The plan is based on the premise that provision will only be made for an The City Council have Waste amount of waste equivalent to the County’s own arisings. The County and yet to produce their future estimated Services the City Council has a legal duty to co-operate on this issue as required by waste projections for 2011 Localism Act and we consider that the Plan should be more explicit C&I waste together and should make provision for a proportion of Leicester City’s C&I waste with an assessment of based on the results of the needs assessment. existing waste processing capacity in the City. W1 REP17 DM DM OpCo Limited consider that Policy W1 would benefit from a supporting It is not considered OPCO paragraph to make it clear that ‘… to manage the equivalent of predicted that any change is necessary. Limited waste arisings …’ should be interpreted as making additional allowance for multiple tiers of processing and refinement where this would lead to waste being diverted from landfill and pushed up the waste hierarchy. W1 REP19 Mick MGL wishes the Policy W1 to be amended to make clear that provision will The City Council have George be made for predicted disposals rather than just arisings since it is clear yet to produce their future estimated that Leicester city will not, by reason of not having any mineral workings in waste projections for which to deposit inert waste, be able to accommodate its own inert waste C&D waste together for disposal within its own borders. with an assessment of existing waste
73
processing capacity in the City. W1 REP19 Mick The Policy states that provision will be made for a sufficiency of facilities to Inert landfill at George manage waste arising. However, in the case of inert waste, the Plan does Brooksby is allocated by virtue of Policy M2 not propose to do that. Only one new site is mentioned although not and its reference to formally allocated (Brooksby extension) and that will not eliminate the the requirements of identified deficit in voidspace to the end of the plan period but only to Box SA1. Proposed around 2026. Thereafter, there are no proposals for new voidspace. The Changes have been policy consequently lacks the provision of site allocations, in particular for put forward in respect of the provision to be inert waste landfill. made for inert waste. W1 REP20 We have concerns that the current strategy is only planning for waste Policy W1 states that Tarmac capacity equal to waste generation. By adopting this approach, there is no the figures are a minimum target. Trading Ltd flexibility for innovative and co-located waste management facilities which stifles the waste objectives of moving waste up the waste hierarchy (as advocated by the National Planning Policy for Waste Statement). Nor is there recognition that during periods of higher economic growth there is likely to be an increase in waste generation from more households, industry and the construction industry. The waste strategy should affirm that targets for recycling and recovery (represented by tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) are not ceiling figures but minimum targets for waste management. W1 REP26 Leicester City Council supports the aim of Leicestershire County Council, to Noted. Leicester ensure that enough waste facilities are provided to meet the future waste Policy W1 indicates that new arisings City Council need of the County up to 2031. However as mentioned above, the council forecasts will be suggests that the future waste projections should be based on the emerging published in the HEDNA. Council’s Annual Monitoring Reports. 4.14-20, W3 REP17 DM DM OpCo Limited strongly objects to the preferred locational strategy, Disagree. The Council & Key OPCO insofar as it relates to residual waste treatment. We challenge: The failure considers that the strategy is sound. Diagram Limited of the County Council to consider and assess all reasonable alternatives; It is not considered The County Council’s definition of ‘sustainable locations’; in particular the that the facility at County Council’s over reliance on the 2007 Entec Study; The track record Cotesbach is in an of delivery or otherwise when it comes to the delivery of additional residual acceptable location for waste treatment capacity. further expansion.
74
It is considered that there is an opportunity to make more efficient use of existing operational facilities, such as the Cotesbach MBT which enjoys excellent transport links including to the towns of Lutterworth, Market Harborough and a network of Waste Transfer Stations. The MBT technology employed by New Earth at Cotesbach performs very well in sustainability terms, with a lower carbon footprint than disposal to landfill or other forms of recovery. The facility currently treats circa 50ktpa but there is latent capacity within the plant that would allow for an increase in tonnage (accompanied by on-site improvements), which would necessitate it being viewed as a strategic facility. Notwithstanding the fact that this would help to offset some of the identified shortfall in capacity to 2020/21, the policies as drafted would appear to restrict any further increase in throughput and negate the wider sustainability benefits. Indeed an application (ref: 2013/0809/03) was refused on 13th May 2013 and appeal (ref: APP/M2460/A/13/2210096) for an increase in the throughput capacity to 75ktpa was dismissed on 22nd October 2014, this was on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to the locational strategy enshrined in the adopted Local Plan. 4.22 REP10 Notts The County Council acknowledges and welcomes the additional text within Noted CC Chapter 4 which clarifies the potentially strategic role of smaller, more specialist waste facilities; something which the County Council previously commented on. W3 REP1 LCC Delete: , provided that they are within the Broad Locations for Strategic The policy should be Labour Waste Facilities indicated on the Key Diagram, namely in or close to the read in conjunction with Policy W5 (which Group urban areas of Loughborough/Shepshed, Hinckley/Burbage and Coalville lists types of locations and close to the urban area of Leicester, taking suitable) and other This strategic waste policy is neither acceptable to the public living in urban policies in the Plan (in areas nor viable in current industrial terms. The industry has developed particular Policy DM2) which seek to protect significantly since the proximity principle was originally proposed. Whilst it the amenities of is remains desirable for waste to be treated local by non-strategic means residents and the (See W4), the plan is not effective for strategic waste which is now wider environment. effectively controlled by a limited number of large international companies Policy W5 does not list who operate plant regionally or nationally and address household and residential areas as somewhere where
75
commercial waste together. Current operators of strategic waste processing facilities should go. require access to strategic transport routes not necessarily cited within The policy seeks to direct strategic waste urban areas where congestion and environmental concerns dominate. facilities to the most Plans for major or strategic waste facilities are, needless to say, highly sustainable locations unwelcome to those living in adjacent residential areas. by reducing the The amendment is ill-founded on the so called proximity principle. The term distance that waste “proximity principle” is taken from EU Directives which requires has to travel by placing facilities close “communities to take more responsibility for their own waste” and to where waste transposed to UK waste regulations (The Waste (England and Wales) arises, which is in the Regulations 2011). It is described in those regulations in relation to a main urban areas. network of facilities that enables household waste to be disposed or recovered “in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate technologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and human health”. W3 REP16 This policy relies upon the principles of policy W5. Whilst Policy W5 is Policy W5 indicates NWLDC considered to be acceptable in its own right, the reliance upon Policy W5 the intended locations for waste facilities. together with the reference in Policy W3 to general locations rather than specific sites raises questions as to the effectiveness of the plan in respect of this issue and results in uncertainty for local communities. The plan should identify specific sites for strategic waste facilities. This will provide certainty for all concerned and will ensure that the needs of the area are likely to be met in a planned and coherent manner. W3 REP20 We consider that Policy W3 is unsound as it is not effective, not positively It is not considered Tarmac prepared (promoting the most sustainable forms of development) and not appropriate to allow new waste facilities Trading Ltd consistent with national policy (promoting sustainable development as anywhere in the advocated by the NPPF and the waste hierarchy). This policy seeks to County. ensure the management of LACW and C&I waste streams and in doing so is The proposed wording too rigid on location as opposed to securing sustainable and deliverable is not considered to waste management facilities that could be co-located with complimentary be appropriate. waste facilities. The criteria at paragraph 4.24 identifies what could constitute a sustainable strategic waste facility. However, such prescriptive locational criteria does not allow all available opportunities to be taken forward when suitable sites could be located outside of these areas and
76
benefiting from good transport links, other industrial/employment uses in proximity to ensure that there would not be any conflicts with sensitive land uses. It is our view that there should be an exception to the policy which does not discount sites outside of the ‘broad locations for strategic waste facilities’ if they can meet the strategic waste development criteria advocated in paragraph 4.24 and the requirements of proposed Policy W5 (Locating Waste Facilities). This approach is taken within Policy W4 (Non-Strategic Waste Facilities – part d). We would suggest removal of the locational requirement so that the policy read: ‘Planning permission will be granted for new strategic waste facilities ,including extensions to existing waste facilities which would in combination with the existing use(s) create a strategic facility, taking account the principles set out in Policy W5’. W3/4 REP15 The Draft Plan appears to be identifying Hinckley as an area where waste Policy W5 indicates Hinckley & management facilities could be located as it’s a centre of population. the intended locations for waste facilities. Bosworth BC Although this appears to be a sensible approach it is unclear where these sites could be located in practice. When considering new sites for such uses the Borough Council request to be engaged at an early stage in the process to identify whether there are any suitable sites within the locality. W4 REP16 This policy relies upon the principles of policy W5. Whilst Policy W5 is Policy W5 indicates NWLDC considered to be acceptable in its own right, the reliance upon Policy W5 the intended locations for waste facilities. together with the reference in Policy W4 to general locations rather than specific sites raises questions as to the effectiveness of the plan in respect of this issue and results in uncertainty for local communities. The plan should identify specific sites for non- strategic waste facilities. This will provide certainty for all concerned and will ensure that the needs of the area are likely to be met in a planned and coherent manner. W4 REP19 Mick This policy is supported. Noted George W4/5 REP17 DM The interaction between policies W4 and W5 is very unclear and unhelpful It is not considered OPCO as both allude to different sets of locational criteria. For instance, it is that the facility at Cotesbach is in an Limited unclear how the policies would be applied to a proposed extension to an acceptable location for
77
existing non-strategic site – such as the Cotesbach MBT facility - sitting further expansion. outside of the locations set out in W4(i)-(iii). If the implication is that improvements cannot be delivered through the extension of existing non-strategic sites, such as the Cotesbach MBT, DM OpCo Limited would challenge the sense of these policies, as it is undoubtedly more sustainable to harness existing infrastructure particularly where latent capacity exists. 4.30 REP20 We disagree with the statement within paragraph 4.30 which states that It is not considered Tarmac waste facilities at mineral sites would only be acceptable for the duration of that any change is necessary. Trading Ltd mineral operations. As advocated within the same paragraph, mineral sites for waste uses tend to be well located to arisings and due to existing infrastructure benefit from co-location. There may be circumstances where it would be appropriate for longer term uses on previous mineral sites, given their proximity to the highway network, established infrastructure/ access points and proximity to other permanent industrial uses that may be present on site (for example, as is the case at Shawell Quarry and at Cadeby Quarry). W5 REP17 DM It is considered that the ‘and’ at end of provision (iii) should read ‘or’; in the It is not considered OPCO interest of transparency and clarity. that any change is necessary. Limited W5 REP19 Mick This policy is supported. Noted George W5 REP20 We support Policy W5 and the recognition that mineral sites can be good Noted Tarmac locations for waste facilities. Trading Ltd W7/W9 REP17 DM DM OpCo Limited is disappointed that the County Council has ignored New The policy does not OPCO Earth Solutions request for a provision supporting new investment in exclude mechanical and biological Limited existing facilities where this would improve operational efficiency or lead to treatment (MBT) environmental or amenity enhancement. The County Council’s response facilities. suggests that this has been addressed in emerging Policy W7, but this does not convey the same message. Indeed the ‘and’ at the end of provision W7(iii) would imply that this should only apply to proposals for ‘energy recovery’, to the exclusion of technologies such as MBT. If this is not the
78
County Council’s intention it is respectfully requested that this Policy be reworded. 4.50 REP8 Biffa We note that paragraph 4.50 states that “notwithstanding the reduced The amount of landfill Waste reliance on landfill, it is still likely to be needed for the foreseeable future”. capacity will be monitored and Services Landfill will always be required, not just for the foreseeable future. It is the reported in the AMR. only method of waste management for those waste streams that cannot be re-used, recycled or managed in recovery facilities. It is also an essential method for disposing of waste from Energy from Waste Facilities during period of planned and unplanned down time. The number of landfill sites has reduced significantly in recent years and whilst Leicestershire currently has sufficient capacity, as time moves on and other sites outside of the County close, the existing sites will come under pressure to increase inputs and will fill at a faster rate. It is important that this is monitored and if necessary replacement landfill capacity identified. W8 REP19 Mick MGL objects to this policy. Proposed Change has George The policy is a set of criteria for waste disposal sites, which do not cohere been forward to W8 regarding the as a rational basis for decision making. For example, if waste cannot be provision to be made managed in a more sustainable way, then it follows there is a need for the for the disposal of development and criterion iii) is not necessary. Also, criterion iii) contains inert waste. the word ‘overriding’ but this is not applicable in the context of inert waste disposal using the MGL approach to the assessment of need. For the same reason, it is not likely that in the case of inert waste disposal there will be any adverse effects on existing landfill sites because the need is so great. The Policy needs to be re-written to accommodate the changed situation for inert waste disposal if the company’s arguments are accepted. Proposed Changes: Planning permission will be granted for new or extended waste disposal facilities where: i) it is demonstrated that the waste cannot be managed in a more sustainable way; ii) environmental benefits will be secured by the development; iii) there is a need for the development established through Policy W1 W8 REP19 Mick MGL wish to promote two sites suitable for the disposal of inert waste. Proposed Change has
79
George These sites are Ibstock Quarry (Ibstock) and Pincet Lane Quarry (North been forward Kilworth). regarding inert waste disposal at Ibstock Quarry as suggested. It is not considered appropriate to allocate land for extraction (and subsequent infilling) at Pincet Lane – see comments regarding M2 above. W8 REP20 This policy would be a key consideration for extending existing infill It is important that Tarmac operations. In general terms we do not object to the policy. However, it is new developments are not approved Trading Ltd considered that criteria (iv) is unsound as it is not justified nor which could delay the deliverable/effective. restoration of other Criteria (iv) requires deletion as by default an extension to the infill sites. operations could delay the final restoration of existing landfill or land raise sites. It is difficult to demonstrate that waste may not be diverted away from existing sites, it is difficult commercially to manage and would be difficult for the authority to monitor. W9 REP20 Waste management safeguarding is dealt with more comprehensively within It is not considered Tarmac the District Safeguarding Documents which we support. However, we necessary to include reference to the waste Trading Ltd consider this should go further. The individual site plans should indicate streams managed at what waste streams are managed by the site to become a more useful tool safeguarded sites. in assessing what the potential for impact would be if new development is The latest position proposed in proximity. This should also include whether it is an active regarding waste operation or permitted operation for waste management. This could be kept management capacity will be provided in the under review and updated as necessary if safeguarded sites continually fail Annual Monitoring to come forward for development. They should not preclude other forms of Report. sustainable development coming forward if there is no clear/reasonable prospect of a site being developed. The sub text to the policy and the safeguarding documents should ensure the onus is on the prospective developer proposing development in close proximity to the waste development to determine the potential for impact in
80
consultation with the waste operator. 5.6/7 REP21 EA Additional justification text for Environmental Impact Assessment to include It is not considered Water Framework Directive necessary to include specific reference to A new justification paragraph should be added, for example 5.8 and be as the Waste Framework follows:” Within the EIA there should be a consideration and implementation Directive within the of the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). This will section dealing with involve demonstrating that the development will not lead to a deterioration Environmental Impact in the WFD status or potential of any given waterbody and, where possible, Assessment. the development will contribute towards achieving good ecological status or potential of the waterbody.” DM1 REP13 Midland Quarry Products supports Policy DM1 as it accords with the Noted Midland overarching presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in Quarry the National Planning Policy Framework Products DM1 REP20 We are supportive of the inclusion of Policy DM1 and the positive approach Noted Tarmac to sustainable development as advocated by the NPPF. Trading Ltd DM3 REP20 Policy DM3 states, ‘the design and layout of new development should take The Policy accords Tarmac account of and provide opportunities to create and enhance green with existing adopted policies (Policies Trading Ltd infrastructure provision, and improve accessibility to these assets’ and, MCS14 and WCS11). ‘planning permission will be granted where proposals reflect the National Forest Strategy by making provision for the planting of woodland, habitat creation, the creation of new leisure and tourism facilities and/or for public access’. With the inclusion of these paragraphs we consider the Policy to be unsound as it is not justified and effective. We would suggest that these are requirements to be sought ‘where possible’. Whilst the Plan should plan positively to seek such benefits from minerals and waste developments, they cannot be categorical to require them. These benefits should be achieved where possible but should not be overly onerous to stifle new development coming forward. Operators have to balance the requirements of the Plan/MWPA in addition to the landowner requirements and responsibilities for ongoing aftercare. DM3 REP22 NFC The National Forest Company welcomes the amendments made to this Noted
81
Policy since the last consultation and the requirement for development to comply with our Planting Guidelines and Design Charter. DM4 REP20 Minerals can only be worked where they are located. The policy should Para.5.42 recognises Tarmac acknowledge the temporary nature of minerals and associated waste that mineral development would Trading Ltd operations, which in accordance with paragraph 5.42 are acknowledged as be acceptable in acceptable uses within a Green Wedge. In order to operate sites, it may be Green Wedges, but necessary to affect current levels of leisure value. However, this is short that waste term as mineral operations are temporary operations and some developments are less acknowledgement of long term potential gain (through restoration benefits) appropriate. should be provided. Currently the policy is unsound. It is not considered positively prepared as it is not consistent with achieving sustainable development (i.e. locating waste sites close to source – paragraph 5.42). It is considered that criteria ii (retain the current level of leisure/amenity value) should be removed from the policy. Criteria iv should be amended to require public access improvements ‘where appropriate’. They may be achieved (following discussions with landowners) through restoration. However longer term/permanent waste operations may not be conducive in proximity to public access. DM5 REP22 NFC The National Forest Company supports this policy which expects the Noted provision of woodland planting and in particular the reference to planting in advance of the commencement of development. Given the time taken for woodland to establish and provide screening, early planting is considered necessary. DM7 REP20 Policy DM7 is considered unsound as it is not in accordance with National It is not considered Tarmac Policy. The first paragraph should be amended to seek, a net ‘gain in that any change is warranted. Sites Trading Ltd biodiversity where possible’ to accord with paragraph 109 of the NPPF. should deliver a net Nationally Important Sites of Biodiversity Conservation Value gain in biodiversity. It is unclear what constitutes an ‘inappropriate minerals and waste development’. This sentence should be removed. The last sentence should be removed, ‘and the development will be required to deliver a net gain in biodiversity through the creation of priority habitat(s)’. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF seeks net gain in biodiversity ‘where possible’. The mitigation hierarchy outlined in the NPPF is satisfactory for
82
seeking protection/enhancement of biodiversity assets where they are appropriate. The hierarchy requires avoidance, mitigation or compensation i.e. equal to the biodiversity levels that will be lost rather than requiring net gains in all circumstances. DM7 & 5.53 REP23 Whilst the Woodland Trust welcomes the fact that there are no areas of The wording accords Woodland ancient woodland allocated for development as part of the plan, we are with the NPPF (para.118 5th Bullet Trust deeply concerned about the language used in Policy DM7 and Paragraph Point). 5.53 as it runs contrary to Natural England and the Forestry Commission’s Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees. By stating that biodiversity net gain can be achieved following the loss of ancient woodland Policy DM7 sets out that compensation for ancient woodland loss is possible and that this can be considered as part of the planning balance, contrary to the standing advice. Policy DM7 and Paragraph 5.53 should be amended to read that ‘Irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland cannot be recreated and as such their loss cannot be compensated for’. We would request the following wording is used: ‘Substantial harm to or loss of irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland should be wholly exceptional’. DM8 REP12 The amendments to the final sentence in relation to restoration following Noted Historic our response of 26 August 2015 are strongly welcomed. England DM8 REP20 Policy DM8 is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy. It is considered that Tarmac It is inappropriate to put a blanket presumption against minerals and waste the policy is in accordance with the Trading Ltd development that is detrimental to the significance of a heritage asset. The NPPF which indicates policy assumes that all assets have the same significance and should that great weight distinguish between designated and non-designated assets. In this regard, should be given to the the second paragraph, ‘there will be a presumption against….convincing conservation of justification’ should be removed. heritage assets. The NPPF (paragraph128) requires a proportionate assessment to be undertaken by Applicants to describe the significance of heritage assets affected inclusive of the contribution made by their setting. The level of detail reflective of the assets importance. Currently the third paragraph of
83
Policy DM8, ‘Proposals for minerals and waste development affecting heritage assets or their setting will be expected to….’ is onerous on applications for development with potential to affect non designated heritage assets. The first sentence should be reworded to read, ‘proposals for minerals and waste development affecting designated heritage assets or their setting will be expected to…’ It will not be appropriate in all circumstances to require field evaluation or ‘post permission works’ to determine or mitigate the effect on heritage assets. The desk based assessment will determine what level and extent of further evaluation work will be necessary. Part ii of the policy should be amended to require field evaluation, and post permission mitigation works ‘where proved necessary’ in accordance with paragraph 128 of the NPPF. 5.73 REP10 Notts Comments made at the previous stage of consultation in relation to It is acknowledged CC highways still stand (requesting that Nottinghamshire County Council as that there will be a need to consult local highway authority be consulted on any future applications that could highway authorities have cross border transport implications). in neighbouring areas where a development gives rise to cross-border transport issues.
DM9 REP5 Barrow It states the facts quite correctly, that a huge percentage of the igneous Policy DM9 will apply upon Soar rock needed nationally, including in the South East, is extracted in in respect of any future developments PC Leicestershire, Mountsorrel Quarry being one of the main producers. This related to igneous rock passes through the Barrow railhead. The report also quantifies the rock or gypsum. The tonnage of Gypsum which is mined from under Barrow. policy indicates that Bearing in mind the facts as are laid out, no mention is made of an planning permission assessment of the road network and its ability to cope with the heavy will be granted for minerals development lorries that such extractions necessitate. I particularly refer to Slash Lane where it is which is continually being damaged by HGVs and the dangers created to demonstrated, inter cyclists and pedestrians along the route that the lorries have to take. alia, the highway If, as suggested, the Mountsorrel Quarry, the Gypsum mine and the network is able to accommodate the associated cement workings will continue to operate until 2030 and beyond traffic that would be then the upgrading of the access road is crucial to mitigate the impact on generated. local residents.
84
DM9 REP 7 The policy does not take into cross-county issues with regard to The County Council Stephen transportation. Although it references Rutland’s Transport and Minerals will expect to be consulted by adjoining Peattie Core Strategy it does not take account of those areas that border other planning authorities counties as we have in Wymondham where HGV transportation severely where a development affects local residents. Nor does it take into account existing sites and the gives rise to cross- fluctuations in use of those sites over time. There is no definition of what border transport ‘acceptable’ is or to whom. issues. The County Council will have The policy should clearly state that any transportation by road must be on regard to Policy DM9 the County’s lorry network or via suitable links to A-class roads and that when consulted and the use of all C-classification roads or roads through residential areas must may seek to use be avoided (even if this means taking a longer route). It should particularly routeing agreements to control the impact state the criteria for what ‘acceptable’ is, to whom and the means by which of road haulage (as this should be tested. Furthermore, it should include a condition for any indicated in para. road users who want to use the County’s roads but whose 5.76). The County origin/destination is outside the County. Council cannot however require other authorities to impose conditions or enter into such agreements. DM9 REP14 Highways England also notes that the consultation document indicates that Noted Highways planning applications for mineral and waste development will be expected England to show sustainable non road-based options for transporting minerals and waste where possible. This is welcomed by Highways England as a means of minimising the impact of HGVs on the road network. DM9 REP26 Policy should include reference to specific or cumulative impact of sites on DM9 indicates that Leicester the City highway network which may need future highways assessment. In the highway network should be able to City Council addition, the supporting text should highlight areas of the county network accommodate the where City have a service level agreement to operate and maintain traffic that would be signalised junctions which may need to be assessed as part of any planning generated. The application. ‘highway network’ is not confined to roads within the County and will include routes within the City where appropriate.
85
It is not considered necessary or appropriate to highlight areas of the county network where the City has a service level agreement to operate and maintain signalised junctions. Para.5.73 indicates that applicants will be advised to contact the Highway Authority where appropriate. DM10 REP25 The wording of the policy indicates that in the event of a pathway or PROW It is not considered Ibstock Brick being ‘disrupted’ there is a requirement for diversion. It is not necessary to that the proposed change is warranted. divert a pathway for mere ‘disruption’ activities which could be a simple as Disruption is defined a haul road located alongside the path ‘disrupting’ the users. as ‘disturbance or Suggest that the word ‘disrupt’ is appropriately substituted to one which problems which clearly identifies the circumstance in which mitigation of an impact on a interrupt an event, path would need to give way to closure and diversion. activity, or process.” Operations should not Suggest…..’Where severance of the right of way is unavoidable and it is disrupt the use of a unsuitable to use appropriate crossing places……’ public right of way unless appropriate mitigation has been provided. 5.88 REP20 As per comments regarding biodiversity, the MWPA should seek net gains in Disagree. It is Tarmac biodiversity ‘where possible’ in accordance with paragraph 109 of the NPPF. considered that the Plan should seek net Trading Ltd Paragraph 5.88 should include ‘where possible’ as opposed to requiring all gains in biodiversity. development to attain a ‘net gain’ in biodiversity. It may not be appropriate in all circumstances to require developers to create ‘one of the priority habitats set out in the Leicestershire BAP’. Applications have to be considered on their own merits weighing in the previous use and the wishes of the landowners following development. The requirement to provide a BAP habitat as part of restoration should be removed from paragraph 5.88 and replaced with ‘opportunities to provide BAP priority habitat will be
86
encouraged’. 5.90 REP20 Para 5.90 makes reference to Midlands Style hedge laying, it should be It is considered that Tarmac stated that this will not always be practicable or viable with modern farming Midlands Style hedge laying can sit Trading Ltd methods. The sentence should be amended to ‘encourage opportunities’ but perfectly well with it cannot be a requirement on operators as part of restoration. modern farming. 5.100 REP20 Paragraph 5.100 makes reference to ‘restoration to agricultural use is only It is not considered Tarmac likely to be appropriate where the agricultural quality of the original land is that the Plan is overly prescriptive regarding Trading Ltd high’. This is not the case in all circumstances and it may be appropriate to the restoration reinstate to agricultural land if that was the previous land use. It should requirements for also be noted that it possible to achieve low level agricultural restoration agricultural land. without the requirement for infill, as evidenced by the extensive restoration at Brooksby Quarry, Husbands Bosworth Quarry, Cadeby Quarry and Shawell Quarry. Circumstances regarding the levels of inert fill are changing and demand is currently high following more economic buoyant times and the current levels of activity within the building industry. The Plan should not enforce prescriptive criteria which would be contrary to farm viability and modern agricultural practices. For example, requiring the reinstatement of smaller field sizes. The restoration of sites has to be balanced against the desires of the landowners for the future use of the land post restoration. DM12 REP5 Barrow Under the section "Providing for minerals’ in the section on sand and gravel, The plan should be upon Soar it singles out the need for Restoration and aftercare, whilst it does not seem read as a whole and Policy DM12 will apply PC to make the same provision for the extraction of Igneous rock and Gypsum. to any future igneous rock or gypsum developments. DM12 REP22 NFC The National Forest Company welcomes the proposed spatial approach to Noted specifying which priority habitat should be incorporated in restoration
proposals and the identification of native deciduous woodland as being the preferred habitat to be created within The National Forest. The Policy refers to a minimum 5 year period of aftercare. The National No change is Forest Company considers that the period of aftercare should be tailored to considered necessary. the priority habitat being created and that a universal 5 year period is not Para.5.86 states that the County Council appropriate for all habitats. While the successful establishment of grassland will seek to negotiate
87
may be achieved within a five year management period, woodland requires longer periods where maintenance over a longer period to ensure the many benefits are realised. this is necessary. The NPPG states that the The National Forest Company considers that for restoration schemes which mineral planning focus on woodland, a 10 year aftercare provision should be expected as a authority cannot minimum, allowing time for the trees to establish and for protective tree require any steps to guards to be removed within the aftercare period. be taken after the end of a five year aftercare period without the agreement of the minerals operator. DM12 REP20 Policy DM12 is currently unsound as it is not consistent with national policy It is not considered Tarmac and the policy is overly onerous on operators and not deliverable. that the Policy is too prescriptive. Trading Ltd The policy should be supportive towards net gain in biodiversity. However, It is considered that should not require it as part of a development proposal. In accordance with the Plan should give the NPPF (paragraph 109), there should be no net loss in biodiversity. some guidance as to The policy should be supportive towards priority habitats identified. what habitats would However, there needs to be some flexibility in that these after uses may not be acceptable in the broad areas of the be appropriate in all circumstances. This part of the policy should be County. amended to seek these propriety habitats ‘where possible’. The Policy accords The policy should remove reference to ‘traditional hedge laying technique’ with the NCA Profile and the requirement for historic field patterns as it is overly onerous, not 94 for the Leicestershire Vales consistent with modern farming practices and creating an unnecessary which encourages the constraint to land being brought forward for mineral development where use of traditional landowners would be unwilling to adopt such practices . ‘Midlands-style’ hedge The policy should support innovative restoration of the hard rock quarries laying to manage but it should not be required by the MWPA. This is overly onerous on hedgerows. The policy does not operators and landowners and does not take account of the ongoing require innovative management over the long term. restoration but is something that the County Council will seek. 6.2 REP18 Under the Duty to Cooperate, DCC will welcome the opportunity to continue Noted and agreed. Derbyshire to work with Leicestershire County Council to discuss future provision of County aggregate, in particular the future movements of aggregate between
88
Council specific areas. Although, as explained above, it appears that there are currently no reasons why movements of sand and gravel and crushed rock between Derbyshire and Leicestershire will not continue at the current rate for the foreseeable future, this will need to be kept under review and discussed on an ongoing basis. 6.2 REP20 As referred to in comments above under Policy M1, it is considered that The AMR will Tarmac further clarity needs to be provided over the review mechanism for sand determine whether there is a need to Trading Ltd and gravel supply. Whilst we acknowledge the production of an Annual undertake a partial or Monitoring Report and Local Aggregate Assessment will review the situation, full review of the it needs to be clear when the ‘trigger point’ for a Plan review is required or Local Plan. what actions will be taken if the sales continue to exceed apportionment levels. It is suggested using the three year rolling average is included as an indicator of sales. Once the average is indicating higher than the apportionment figure, there should be a further column within the monitoring section/tables which indicates what action will be taken to remedy policies not meeting the objectives of the Plan. Waste Needs REP8 Biffa Table 3.12 refers to Wanlip AD plant as being capable of operating at Noted. Although Assessment Waste 50,000tpa and assumes that, given current input rates, there is 20,000tpa Wanilp AD is a specialist facility, it Services of spare recovery capacity in the plant. As detailed in the plan, the plant does nevertheless takes approximately 30,000tpa of solid organic waste. The remaining provide some capacity is taken up by liquid organic wastes. As a result, there is no spare operational recovery capacity at the plant although there is capacity at our 120,000tpa facility at capacity in the Poplars, Cannock for organic wastes. The plan should note that any spare County. capacity at an AD plant is specialist capacity only for organic wastes such as food and this should not be included in general recovery capacity. Waste Needs REP19 Mick LCC’s methodology, using out of date or regional/national data, does not The Waste Needs Assessment George accord well with the levels of deposits that the industry is managing in its Assessment has been amended in respect of landfills in Leicestershire. C&D waste. The Waste Needs Assessment applies a factor for achieving a Waste Directive C&D waste recycling target of 70% by 2020. This is unnecessary for two reasons. Firstly, a recent Defra report (MGL Annexure IB-3) shows that the C&D recycling rate is already (2012) 89% in England. Secondly, the target excludes Excavation waste which is the vast majority
89
of deposits. LCC’s methodology of working from a derived estimate of arisings to an inert landfill requirement is manifestly inadequate. It would in MGL’s opinion, be more realistic to work backwards from the levels of inert waste disposal, for which we have firm data, and for which there is a real and pressing need. Waste Needs REP26 Looking at the Leicestershire County Council’s waste needs assessment we New waste forecasts Assessment Leicester notice that the data for housing growth appears to be based on the 2014 will be published in the Council’s Annual City Strategic Housing Market Area Assessment, this document is currently in Monitoring Reports. the process of being replaced by the Leicestershire Housing and Employment Market Area Assessment (HEDNA) and therefore it would be expected that this be used as the main basis for housing projections. Waste Needs REP26 Looking at the initial work carried out by ourselves and Leicestershire Noted Assessment Leicester County Council into waste capacity within Leicestershire, it is still City acknowledged that about 30,000 tonnes of Leicester City’s municipal waste is exclusively processed at the Wanlip Anaerobic Digester operated by Biffa Leicester. The City will need to continue to use this facility in the future & will work with the County Council over its continued operation. Waste Needs REP26 Leicester City Council supports the content of the waste needs assessment Noted Assessment Leicester but has the following comments to make about specific sites mentioned: - City B R E synergy Limited: The waste needs assessment mentions a site referred to as B R E synergy Limited on Gwendolen Road as a processor hazardous waste arising in Leicestershire. Following complaints in relation to residential amenity the Operator stopped operating earlier this year and it is unlikely that they will restart operating within City in the immediate future so city capacity in the future. A R Aggregates Urban Quarry: A R Aggregates Urban Quarry is identified as a significant exporter of waste from Leicestershire. Temporary planning has been granted for an additional 3 years in July 2016 increasing the permitted capacity to 120,000 tonnes. Leicester City Council will review its continued operation prior to expiry of the temporary permission.
90
Appendix 8: Consultation on Potential Additional Sites for Disposal of Inert Waste – Consultation Letter and List of Consultees
«email» Date: 30th January 2017 My Ref: MWLP/Waste/201701 Your Ref: Contact: John Wright Phone: 0116 305 7041 Fax: 0116 305 7353 Email: [email protected]
Dear Sir/Madam,
LEICESTERSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN -FUTURE PROPOSALS FOR INERT WASTE DISPOSAL
The County Council is in the process of preparing the Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Consultation on the pre-submission draft plan took place last year.
Two potential sites for the disposal of inert waste have been put forward in response to the consultation on the Plan, namely: Ibstock Quarry Husbands Bosworth Quarry Information provided in respect of these sites is attached.
My purpose in writing to you now is to obtain comments on these sites in order to assist the Council in deciding whether they should be included in the Plan to be submitted to the Government for independent public examination. I would stress that the County Council has not made any decision yet regarding the suitability of these sites for inclusion in the Local Plan.
I would be grateful if you could provide me with your comments by 24th February 2017. Please contact me if you have any questions or queries.
Yours faithfully,
John Wright (Team Leader, Planning)
91
List of Consultees
District Councils Harborough DC North West Leicestershire DC
Parish Councils Ellistown & Battleflat PC Husbands Bosworth PC Ibstock PC
External Consultees Environment Agency Historic England
Internal (LCC) Consultees Heritage Ecology Highways Landscape Local Lead Flood Authority Rights of Way
92
Appendix 9: Pre-Submission Proposed Changes (2017) - Consultation Letter and Press Notice
Date: 10th November 2017 My Ref: MWLP/20171110a Your Ref: Contact: John Wright Phone: 0116 305 7041 Email: [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam,
LEICESTERSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN: CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED CHANGES
The County Council has published Proposed Changes to the pre-submission draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan for Leicestershire. The Proposed Changes have been prepared following representations received on the draft plan consultation which took place last year.
This consultation provides you with an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Changes. After consideration of any representations received, the Local Plan will be formally submitted to the Government for an independent public examination.
Please note that representations must relate to the proposed changes only and not to any other part of the Local Plan. All representations received (including those already made on the pre-submission draft Plan) will be placed before the Inspector appointed to examine the Plan.
The Proposed Changes and a response form can be viewed on the Council’s website at www.leicestershire.gov.uk/environment-and- planning/planning/minerals-and-waste-local-plan/pre-submission- consultation together with supporting evidence including an updated Sustainability Appraisal of the emerging policies and proposals.
The closing date for receipt of any comments you wish to make is 17:00 on 22nd December 2017.
Yours faithfully,
John Wright (Team Leader, Planning)
93
PRESS NOTICE
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 LEICESTERSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED CHANGES Leicestershire County Council has published proposed changes to its pre- submission policies and proposals related to mineral extraction and waste management in the County for the period up to 2031. For further information on this consultation exercise, to view the proposed changes and to make comments on them visit the Council’s website www.leicestershire.gov.uk/environment-and- planning/planning/minerals-and-waste-local-plan/pre-submission- consultation (access to internet facilities is provided at Leicestershire libraries). Alternatively, please contact the Planning, Historic and Natural Environment Group (Chief Executive’s Department) at County Hall, Glenfield, Leicester, LE3 8RA (tel. 0116 3057041; e-mail. [email protected]). If you wish to make comments, these should be made by 17:00 on 22nd December 2017. Following consideration of comments received, the plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination by an independent inspector.
94
Appendix 10: Comments Received on Pre-Submission Proposed Changes (2017) and Council’s Responses
Proposed Respondent Summary of Representation* NOTE: The representations have not all LCC Change been reproduced in full. Please refer to submitted representations for a Response complete record. GEN REP27 No comments on the proposed changes. Noted Rotherham MBC GEN REP28 Whilst the Parish falls just north of the county it is regularly, directly and The proposed site Colston invariably adversely impacted by many of the developments being planned allocations involve extensions to Bassett PC in Leicestershire not least in the volumes of traffic that consequentially existing sites and become funnelled into largely inappropriate lanes and constricted village therefore a centres. There appears to be no understanding of the impact on continuation of surrounding, adjacent and sometimes even remotely outlying areas that current production mineral extraction, waste disposal and of late massive housing expansion levels not increases. DM9 causes. Any increase in heavy traffic flow to or from developments in North requires site Leicestershire bordering on the Parish either rat-running or short-cutting access through an already constricted and difficult village centre would not be arrangements to accepted. All proposed access routes to all developments adjacent to the be appropriate to the proposed Parish and the impact of transportation methods should be correctly development and assessed. The Parish is happy to work with and support managed for transportation development both locally and adjacent. Appropriate access is a pre- not to have an requisite, which the Plan does not seem to have captured, making its unnecessary delivery questionable. impact on residential areas and minor roads. GEN REP29 The site allocations do not have any major accident hazard pipelines that Noted Cadent Gas belong to Cadent. GEN REP10 Notts No comments on the proposed changes. Noted CC
95
GEN REP30 No comments on the proposed changes. Noted Whitwick PC GEN REP31 No comments on the proposed changes. Noted Castle Donington PC GEN REP32 No comments on the proposed changes. Noted The Coal Authority GEN REP33 No comments on the proposed changes. Noted Anglian Water Services GEN REP34 Public No comments on the proposed changes. Noted Health England GEN REP12 No specific comments, but wish to ensure that previous comments will be Noted Historic taken forward and submitted to the Inspector and would welcome an England opportunity to agree a Statement of Common Ground. In respect of SA6 it must be ensured that, effectively the land would not collapse as a result of deep workings below the surface and that the LPA have satisfied themselves on this matter prior to moving forward with the proposed allocation. GEN REP14 As none of the proposed changes affect the Strategic Road Network no Noted Highways comments to provide. England GEN REP6 Natural No comments on the proposed changes. Noted England GEN REP35 Blaby No comments on the proposed changes. Noted PC GEN REP37 Rugby A comprehensive assessment of the cumulative impacts of development Noted BC along the A5 and the identification of any potential mitigation is considered essential. However, there are no comments on the proposed changes. PC1 (paras REP19 Mick The assumptions in the Waste Needs Assessment (WNA) on which the The annual total
96
4.7 & 4.8) George paragraphs are based are not sound in respect of inert waste, for the figures given are reasons set out below. Consequently the calculated shortfall in capacity is greater than LCC have identified too low; there will be a greater need of new facilities and sooner than from the EA WDI. expected. Using a 10 year The Need for Up-to-Date Figures: The WNA only calculates average average (in line deposits to 2014 when more recent information is available to 2016. It thus with the LAA does not use the best available data and is not a robust analysis as required convention - to account for by NPPW paragraph 2 bullet point 1. Updated information and its periods of implications for averages of inert deposits are reproduced below. fluctuation) this gives a figure of Inert Waste Disposals in Leicestershire 2005-2016 630 ktpa including 2016 figures and ,000 tonnes Non-Inert Inert Total Inert 5 yr without an Disposals Landfills Disposals Average adjustment for diversion of the 2005 546 587 1,133 recyclable 2206 445 386 831 element. As PC1 2007 507 267 774 states the new 2008 181 492 673 site allocations have the potential 2009 116 368 484 to provide 2010 126 350 476 additional capacity 2011 156 417 573 of 600 kpta, and PC1 acknowledges 2012 90 672 762 819 that a further site 2013 87 724 811 819 may be needed by 2014 141 732 873 819 2030/31. W8 2015 54 731 785 819 would allow for this to come 2016 42 822 864 819 forward, or if Source: EA Waste Interrogator necessary the plan could be The five year average deposits which have not varied a great deal in that reviewed. Care must be taken to time are 819 ktpa or 50% greater than the average calculated by the WNA, avoid over and is a much more up-to-date and realistic figure to use since it is not provision of influenced by recession. Moreover, the data shows the essential need for landfill, which is at dedicated inert facilities since deposits now far outstrip inert inputs into non- the bottom of the waste hierarchy.
97 hazardous sites (95% of all inert deposits). In addition the EA data shows Further change is that 98% of inert deposits comprised soils and 96% of all waste originated not considered necessary. in Leicestershire. Recycling Rates: The WNA says at para 4.10 that of the 77 ktpa C&D Comments are average deposits between 2008 and 2014, a 70% recycling rate should be noted, but make applied equating to 54 ktpa and makes a deduction for this diversion from no difference to landfill in the calculation of waste need. This is a fundamental the proposed changes, which misunderstanding of the Landfill Directive requirement for recycling C&D for the reasons waste. Defra data shows that over 90% recycling of C&D waste already given above would occurs nationally. Moreover the recycling rate calculation must be made on still provide the basis of waste generated, not on final deposit. This means that the C&D sufficient capacity for inert waste waste inputs to Leicestershire sites will be residual quantities for which the landfill. recycling rate has already been applied, so part of the less than 10% which is not recycled, not the 100% to which a 70% recycling rate should apply. The corollary is that any further progress in recycling this residue will be marginal. In any event the equivalent current deposit is 16 ktpa, which most probably represents quantities of mixed loads with too little C&D content to make further treatment viable. Therefore no reduction to the overall waste need should be applied to take account of Landfill Directive recycling targets.
Growth in Waste Arisings: The WNA mentions the Regional Plan rate of No change is 2% pa until 2006 followed by 1% pa to 2015, and in the absence of no considered better information growth is expected to be zero. This flies in the face of the necessary. The evidence of the recent past deposits which have grown by an average 10% NPPG (ID: 28 - pa for the past five years. It is likely that this will not continue at this rate, 033-20141016) states that waste but a statistical link between housing completions (using them as a proxy planning for all construction activity) and deposits in inert landfill sites (not inert authorities should waste into non-hazardous sites) has been computed which produces a start from the correlation coefficient of +0.74486 over the last 10 years (2007-2016) basis that net arisings of C&D which is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Using the range waste will remain of future planned housing completions in Table 12 of the LAA 2016 of constant over between 3,775 and 4715 dwellings pa the range of future waste deposits time. will be between 711 ktpa and 837 ktpa. A mid-point would be 774ktpa,
98
which it is suggested should be the rate used to forecast future need rather than the WNA rate of 530 kpta, which is far too low. The statement in para 4.8 should therefore be amended to read that there is a shortfall of inert waste disposal capacity by 2030/31. More sites will be needed. PC2 (Table REP19 Mick Following theanalysis in relation to PC2 considers that Table 8 fundamentally No change is 8) George under-provides for inert waste landfill capacity and suggests a change as considered necessary. The follows: plan has to be Year Gross based on a Requirement Capacity Shortfall/ New facilities particular point in (tpa) (tpa) Surplus (tpa) required (no. & tpa) time and the changes would not 2020/21 774,000 400,000 - 374,000 4 of 100,000 result in further 2025/26 774,000 240,000 - 534,000 6 of 100,000 provision being 2030/31 774,000 90,000 - 684,000 7 of 100,000 proposed for the reasons given above. PC3 (Para REP19 Mick This policy now needs to read that an additional seven sites will be needed, There appear to 4.53) George rather than three. Four are needed urgently. The EA’s waste capacity data be some discrepancies (below) shows that at the end of 2016 there was just 3 years’ capacity at between this table remaining sites and the majority was at Ellistown. It is also possible on the and the sites and basis of the latest capacity data that the shortfall at 2020/21 will be larger capacities than forecast by the WNA. By 2020 it is expected that only Ellistown and accounted for in Husband Bosworth will still have capacity in the order of about 400kpta. the WNA. No change is considered Site Name Capacity Capacity t Site Input Life necessary for the m3 Type 2016 yrs reasons given Ellistown 1,329,191 1,993,787 Inert 306,450 6.5 above. Huncote 392 588 Inert 24,402 0.0 H. Bosworth 220,706 331,059 Inert 100,473 3.3 Lockington 100,000 150,000 Inert 261,147 0.6 Slip Inn 63,044 94,566 Inert 129,230 0.7 Total 1,713,333 2,570,000 Inert 821,702 3.1
Requests changes outlined above are made and further provision is made
99
for at least 684 ktpa of inert waste landfill capacity by 2031.
PC4 (W8) REP38 The Plan is unsound in that the lack of adequate regard to the potential The traffic (and Harborough impact of HGV movements on local communities that would result from the other) implications of the proposed DC proposed developments for an additional landfill area and Policy M2 allocations have extension to sand and gravel working at Husbands Bosworth Quarry would been assessed be in accordance with NPPF policies and could be considered to be and are sustainable. considered to be Further detail is needed regarding the impacts of the proposed in principle acceptable. Any developments on local communities and how these are to be mitigated, to proposal would reassure that the implications of the volumes of HGV movements locally have to be in line have been fully taken into account and routeing and restrictions considered with Policy DM2, prior to the proposed allocations. The communities at Shawell, Cotesbach and the proposed change to DM2 and Husbands Bosworth also need to be satisfied that environmental issues would not make such as noise, dust, vibration and visual intrusion have been duly any difference to considered. what it requires. As a minimum insert “to the satisfaction of the County Council” after “demonstrated” in Policy DM2. PC9 (SA3) REP20 Strongly supports the amendment of the Inset Map and text to allow For the reasons Tarmac restoration of Husband Bosworth to be achieved, in part, with the given in response to Tarmac’s Holding Ltd importation of waste, which reflects previous submissions of the need for comments on the disposal of inert waste from buildings projects in the south Leicestershire Pre-Submission /north Nottinghamshire area, and therefore contributes positively to the Draft on these plan objectives for the waste management needs of the county. points, no change Takes issue, however, with the following criteria in Box SA3: is considered necessary. The provision (through restoration) of a net gain to biodiversity above that currently consented on areas already subject to restoration requirements; As part of the above, the creation of a woodland to link Gravel Pit Spinney to existing woodland adjacent to the River Welland; and Retained hedgerows incorporating elements of tradition hedgerow management. Disappointed that Tarmac’s previous comments that it is not considered
100
viable or reasonable to require hedgerows be managed in a traditional hedgerow management style have not been taken on board. Considers that the first criterion is over-prescriptive and unsound, as it does not properly accord with the NPPF advice of seeking net gains to biodiversity “where possible”. The words “should incorporate” an element of traditional hedgerow management and “to include a woodland link” have not taken account of Tarmac’s concern that these elements may not be deliverable, or viable from a landowner perspective (when taking the land back). Viability and deliverability are important threads running through the NPPF and if the plan’s policies and supporting text are too categorical and onerous or lack sufficient flexibility, the wider objectives, in this case of meeting the need for suitable waste management needs, could be jeopardised. Considers that the words “where possible” and/or “where practicable” would greatly assist in making PC9 and Box SA3 sound. PC11 (SA7) REP4 A high voltage electricity transmission overhead line crosses SA7. Buildings The overhead line National Grid should not be constructed beneath this line, because of the amenity of only impinges on the very north- potential occupiers and because National Grid needs quick and easy access eastern boundary to carry out maintenance of its equipment. Land beneath and adjacent to corner of SA7 and the line route should also be used to make a positive contribution to the is unlikely to be development of the site for example for nature conservation, open space affected by and landscaping areas. More information is available in National Gird buildings or changes in ground guidelines “A Sense of Place’. The statutory clearances between overhead levels. lines, the ground and built structures must not be infringed. The live electricity conductors are designed to be a minimum height above ground. Where changes are proposed to ground levels beneath an existing line they must not result in safety clearances being infringed. PC11 (SA7) REP16 There are a number of residential properties in close proximity to SA7. It is The quarry NWLDC welcome that the proposed allocation effectively includes a ‘buffer’ around already has an hours condition the edges of the allocation, rather than pushing up directly against these and similar will be residential areas. it is also recognised that the current use of the site (as a considered for quarry) involves a certain level of disturbance. However, there should be a landfilling at the requirement for an hours of operation condition. planning application stage.
101
Use of the existing quarry access is supported and this would allow vehicles DM9 requires to avoid travelling through Ellistown, which would not be supported due to transportation not to have an the likely impact upon residential amenity. The issue of HGV movements unnecessary through Ellistown is already a concern to local residents, and SA7 therefore impact on needs to include clear measures to prevent HGVs from travelling through residential areas. the village to ensure that the situation is not exacerbated. The requirement for no infilling operations to take place at Ibstock Quarry Noted
as the same time as infilling at Ellistown Quarry is fully supported, as this There are 1.5t to will prevent the doubling of HGV traffic in the local area and is an essential 1.0cum of inert criterion for allocation of the site. waste and the There should be some clarity in the Plan as to how long the site would rate of infilling would be 125,000 potentially be used as a waste disposal site and how it would operate tpa (see Table M alongside the existing quarry use. It is understood that 4 million tonnes of the WNA). The could be imported over the plan period, but it is not clear how this relates to detailed schemes the 5 million cubic metres (and growing) capacity that the quarry is said to for working and have. restoration (to reflect the Box The requirement seeking restoration as a condition of any planning SA7 requirement) permission is supported. This would seem a suitable method of ensuring will determine that the long term environmental impact of the development is satisfactory overall volumes and is an essential criterion for allocation of the site. and timescales at the planning application stage. PC11 (SA7) REP21 EA The new proposed site at Ibstock is noted. An EPR permit may be required Noted for the new designation at this site. The site is situated in flood zone 1 and the Lead Local Flood Authority may want to be consulted in their role to look at surface water management on the site. M1 & M4 REP36 The word “some” in Policy M1 and Policy M4 is too vague and therefore These comments Braunstone could be the subject of legal challenge, potentially undermining the do not relate to the proposed TC soundness of the plan, and should be replaced with quantifiable wording. changes.
102