Minerals Local Plan Background Document

Worcestershire County Council: June 2014

Consultation Statement

Nicholas Dean, Marianne Joynes, Rebecca Schofield, Sarah Button

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. First Stage Consultation ...... 33 Publicity activities ...... 33 Methods used ...... 34 Events with Partners ...... 38 Other activities ...... 39 Consultation on relevant appraisals and assessments ...... 39 Consultation on the evidence base ...... 39 Summary of activities under the duty to cooperate ...... 40 3. Second Stage Consultation ...... 55 Publicity activities ...... 55 Methods used ...... 57 Events with Partners ...... 62 Consultation on relevant appraisals and assessments ...... 63 Consultation on the evidence base ...... 64 Summary of activities under the duty to cooperate ...... 65 Discussion with Minerals Industry ...... 81 Cemex and Tarmac ...... 81 Tarmac ...... 81 Salop Sand and Gravel ...... 82 Coal Authority and CoalPro ...... 82 Appendix A: A summary of the legislative and regulatory requirements ...... 84 Appendix B: Direct mail/e-mail distribution list: first stage consultation ...... 86 Appendix C: Direct mail/e-mail distribution list: second stage consultation ...... 90 Specific consultees: ...... 90

1. Introduction

1.1. This Consultation Statement, provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken during the preparation of the Worcestershire Minerals Local Plan and sets out:  which bodies were invited to make representations during the preparation of the Minerals Local Plan,  how they were invited to make these representations,  a summary of the main issues raised and  how those issues have been addressed.

1.2. Officers are committed to addressing issues raised at any point in the development of the Minerals Local Plan up until the statutory period of representations prior to submission of the plan to the Secretary of State. However, it can be more difficult for comments made outside formal consultation periods to be addressed in the same way and they are unlikely to be included in the Response Document produced after each consultation.

1.3. This Consultation Statement document sets out the main consultation activities undertaken and summarises the issues raised. If at any stage you feel your comments have not been adequately addressed we would urge you to discuss the matter with us.

2. The Minerals Local Plan must be prepared in legislative and regulatory requirements. Second Stage Consultation 2.1. The second formal stage of consultation on the Minerals Local Plan began on 11th November 2013 and ran until 31st January 2014.

2.2. This consultation included:  A portrait of Worcestershire giving an overview of the minerals found in Worcestershire and identifying the key issues affecting the county  A draft vision and objectives for what the Minerals Local Plan should aim to achieve  A spatial strategy diagram which set out very broadly what type of development the County Council would like where  Details of how much of each mineral we need to provide and when, including alternative methods considered in making this calculation and options for when it should be provided  Ideas about how minerals should be worked, setting out the issues to be considered when developing criteria to manage working practices  Ideas about where minerals should be worked, setting out the issues to be considered when developing location criteria for all mineral workings and identifying 'areas of search' for aggregates and an 'opportunity area' for clay  Ideas about how mineral workings should be restored, setting out issues to be considered when developing principles for all workings and a proposed approach to identifying key considerations and restoration priorities for each individual 'area of search'

 Details of how minerals should be safeguarded for future use including alternative options to consider

2.3. A variety of consultation and engagement methods were therefore used to meet these different objectives:  Consultation document, summary document and questionnaire;  Open day drop-in sessions;  Stakeholder workshops offered; and  Online quiz. More details about these methods are outlined later in this section.

Publicity activities

Worcestershire County Council Website 2.4. All relevant documents were included in a dedicated section on the Council's website with the shortlink www.worcestershire.gov.uk/minerals. This link was included in all public notices, press releases, via social media posts, and in letters and emails.

2.5. The consultation was also listed on the Council's "consultation portal" and was publicised in two articles posted to the front-page news section of the Council's website during the consultation.

Public notices 2.6. Public notices were placed in newspapers covering the county:  Bromsgrove and Droitwich Advertiser (13th November 2013)  Evesham Journal (14th November 2013)  Kidderminster Shuttle/Times (14th November 2013)  Ludlow & Tenbury Wells Advertiser (14th November 2013)  Malvern Gazette and Ledbury Reporter (15th November 2013)  Redditch Advertiser and Alcester Chronicle (13th November 2013)  Stourbridge News/County Express (14th November 2013)  Worcester News (14th November 2013)

Press releases 2.7. Two rounds of proactive media activity, tailored by news patch, were undertaken during the consultation period with press releases being sent to all County newspapers and radio stations. 11 articles appeared in local media.

2.8. Press releases were also sent to other organisations and stories were carried in the following publications:  Worcestershire County Association of Local Councils, CALC Update, Issue 42 (8th November 2013)  Wychavon's Strategic Partnership and LSPs newsletter, Communicate (December 2013)  NFU's weekly email newsletter to all members in the West Midlands (from 15th November for several weeks) and the regional pages of NFUOnline.com.

Direct mail 2.9. On 11th November 2013, an email was sent to all contacts on the Council's Minerals Planning Database who had opted to be contacted by email (394 email addresses) and all other contacts on the database were sent a letter (113 postal addresses). Both of these included details of and links to the summary and main consultation documents, questionnaire, open days, and background documents.

2.10. Following further consideration of the contacts who had registered an interest in the Minerals Local Plan, it was felt that there may be additional contacts who it would be desirable to inform about the consultation. All contacts on the SCI and Waste Core Strategy consultation database had previously been sent the "Get involved in Planning" Questionnaire but a number of contacts either did not respond, or responded but did not request to receive information on minerals policy. These contacts were considered and three groups were identified:  "white group" – this group were not considered essential to the development of the Minerals Local Plan and were not contacted again.  "blue group" – this group were considered important to be involved in the development of the plan. This group were added to the Minerals consultation database but given the option to be removed on request.  "pink group" – this group were considered to have a potential interest in the development of the Minerals Local Plan. This group were sent the "Get Involved with Planning" questionnaire again but not automatically added to the Minerals consultation database. The "blue" and "pink" groups were sent letters or emails on 12th December 2013 which contained the same information as the 11th November letters and emails with additional details of why they were receiving the communication. 122 letters and 49 emails were sent to blue group, and 165 letters and 52 emails were sent to the pink group.

2.11. A full list of consultees is set out in Appendix C.

Social Media 2.12. Twitter: 7 social media messages were posted through the County Council Twitter channel over the consultation linking through to dedicated website section. The Council had approximately 9,000 followers at this time.

Methods used

Open days 2.13. Three open days were held near the beginning of the consultation period to give the public a chance to find out more about the second stage consultation, look at the background documents, and ask officers questions. The event was publicised in the consultation leaflet and in all publicity on the consultation in general.

2.14. A number of key pages from the consultation document were produced at poster scale, and all of the Areas of Search were also printed at a large scale. Background documents, the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment, and large-scale geological maps of the county were also available for the public to peruse during the events. Though we attempted to direct the public to the digital copies of the documents, a number of printed consultation

documents, summary documents and paper questionnaires were available for the public to take away.

2.15. Worcester Open Day was held on Saturday 30 November 2013, 10:00 - 15:30, at Worcestershire Countryside Centre. There were 7 attendees. This event deliberately coincided with a well-attended fun run in the park, the Worcestershire Christmas Market (the County Council car park serves as a park and ride for Christmas shopping weekends) and a rugby match, all of which were expected to attract passing interest in the consultation.

2.16. The main interest on this day came from Longdon/Queenhill, with parish councillors and residents from the Longdon, Queenhill and Holdfast Parish expressing concern about an existing application on a site near Holdfast.

2.17. Bromsgrove Open Day was held on Wednesday 4 December 2013, 14:00 - 20:00, in the Spadesbourne Suite at Bromsgrove District Council Office. There were 21 attendees. This event was added to the schedule on the request of the Cabinet Member for Economy, Skills and Infrastructure and deputy leader of the council as there was local interest in the plan. Attendees at this event included Bromsgrove District Council, Gloucestershire County Council, local residents, and representatives from a number of parish councils (Bentley Pauncefoot, Belbroughton, Hagley). The main areas of interest were concerns about landfills in former quarries and potential links with housing proposals.

2.18. Kidderminster Open Day was held on Saturday 7 December 2013, 10:00 - 16:00, at Kidderminster Library. The Open Day was advertised on hoardings outside and inside the Library. There were 3 attendees. All attendees at this event were members of the public.

2.19. The number of attendees in itself does not indicate the success of these open days as many in-depth conversations were held about detailed aspects of the plan. People were primarily interested in learning about resources and sites in their areas, and some looked at Areas of Search maps in detail. Following specific questions, electronic links and detailed maps were emailed to answer individual queries. A number of attendees took full consultation or summary documents and questionnaires away with them. There were also a lot of general questions asked about the consultation and the minerals local plan.

Workshops 2.20. We proposed to hold two types of workshop during the consultation period:  An industry workshop aimed specifically at operators to get an industry perspective and to focus on technical issues and deliverability.  A green infrastructure workshop aimed at organisations involved in delivering and managing green infrastructure in and around the county to focus on the implementation and deliverability of our restoration aspirations.

2.21. These workshops did not take place as no expressions of interest were received for either event.

Consultation Documents 2.22. We produced a main consultation document which set out the processes we had undertaken and options we had considered to arrive at the proposed approaches. The consultation document included:

 A portrait of Worcestershire giving an overview of the minerals found in Worcestershire and identifying the key issues affecting the county  A draft vision and objectives for what we think the Minerals Local Plan should aim to achieve  A spatial strategy diagram which set out very broadly what type of development the County Council would like where  Details of how much of each mineral we need to provide and when, including alternative methods considered in making this calculation and options for when it should be provided  Ideas about how minerals should be worked, setting out the issues to be considered when developing criteria to manage working practices  Ideas about where minerals should be worked, setting out the issues to be considered when developing location criteria for all mineral workings and identifying 'areas of search' for aggregates and an 'opportunity area' for clay  Our ideas about how mineral workings should be restored, setting out issues to be considered when developing principles for all workings and a proposed approach to identifying key considerations and restoration priorities for each individual 'area of search'  Details of how minerals should be safeguarded for future use including alternative options to consider.

2.23. The consultation document included 44 questions some of which were technical in nature and others which were more general. The questionnaire could be completed online or returned to our dedicated email address or freepost mailing address.

2.24. As the main consultation document was lengthy (327 pages including Appendices), we also produced a summary document. The summary document was composed of extracts from the main consultation document and gave an overview of the issues the new Minerals Local Plan will address and how we used the comments made on the first consultation on the Minerals Local Plan to develop the approaches proposed.

2.25. The summary document was intended to give a good overview and enough information to help readers decide which sections they might want to look at in more detail. It set out some of the consultation questions in full, and signposted the reader to the main consultation document where the detailed information was required to answer the questions.

2.26. Both documents were available in a "page turner" version, a downloadable PDF, or in printed form on request. 10 copies of the main document and 6 copies of the summary document were posted out on request. Printed documents were also made available in the county's libraries and at County Hall reception.

2.27. We received 30 questionnaire responses and 36 general responses by letter or email that did not use the questionnaire format for a total of 66 responses. This gives an overall response rate of 8.9%.

2.28. The comments received to the second stage consultation were broadly constructive and positive. The restoration-led approach was especially lauded by conservation organisations, though the minerals industry expressed some reservations and we anticipate that some refinement of the areas of search and the methodology employed to determine them will be necessary. We received very useful feedback from industry respondents regarding ways in which we may strengthen our approach as we begin to draft policies. Local Authorities within and neighbouring Worcestershire also brought a number of important cross-boundary issues to our attention that will require further work. These include projected housing development and demand for aggregates, crushed rock provision, and sustainable transport. Individuals and parish councils expressed concern about particular sites, and ensuring that Worcestershire's local character is captured and expressed in the draft plan.

2.29. There was general agreement with the "issues that need to be addressed through policy criteria" which were identified in tables 5, 10 and 24. Some respondents identified issues that they would like to see strengthened or added, and these will be addressed as we develop the draft policies. Monitoring was identified as a cross-cutting issue in the responses we received, and we will be looking at how monitoring requirements could be incorporated into the draft policies at the next stage of consultation.

2.30. Below is a brief summary of the key issues that arose in each section of the consultation:

Portrait of Worcestershire Respondents broadly agreed with the Portrait of Worcestershire, but in this section and in others, respondents indicated that we could do a better job identifying the things that make Worcestershire unique. Some people recommended that specific sites or locations be included, and we realise that we will need to do a better job conveying Worcestershire's local character in the draft plan.

Vision and objectives Most responses were in general agreement with the vision and objectives. We received a number of suggestions for amended wording to help clarify our intentions, especially around the historic environment, and some respondents would like to see the objectives become more locally specific.

How much mineral will we make provision for? Respondents expressed a number of views regarding our proposed approach to meeting our landbank. Some consultees have suggested that we take different approaches to sand and gravel which will have some landbank at the start of the plan period and crushed rock which we currently have no landbank for. We are considering the comments we have received to establish the most appropriate way forward.

Cross-boundary issues, crushed rock provision, and protection of AONBs all also figured heavily in responses to this section.

There were also concerns expressed about the conversion factor we used to calculate the amount of mineral in resource areas, and about the reliability of information used for one particular resource area. We will undertake further work to refine these estimates and will produce a revised version of the Analysis of Mineral Resources in Worcestershire in due course.

When will minerals be worked and when will our reserves meet national targets? Consultees clarified that national policy regarding landbanks does not set targets. We acknowledge that this is correct and we mis-used the term "targets", but as we have used this terminology throughout the second stage consultation, we continued to use it in the Consultation Response Document in order to remain consistent with the consultation documents and the questionnaire. We will refine our terminology for the draft plan.

How will minerals be worked? Proximity of mineral workings to "sensitive receptors" caused some concern, along with the removal of the now-outdated "sieve test" approach. The rationale for the removal of the sieve test is outlined in Appendix 1 of the main consultation document, along with a detailed explanation of changes to the regulatory and national policy context since the adoption of the 1997 Hereford and Worcester Minerals Local Plan. These changes mean that we have had to re-think our approach to identifying constraints and establishing "buffer zones" as the policy context is substantially different than it was in 1997.

Where will minerals be worked? Respondents expressed concerns about the protection of Worcestershire's AONBs and other landscapes, and concern that visual impact has not been addressed satisfactorily in the second stage consultation. There was also concern expressed from industry and the public about how any proposed sites outside of the areas of search will be handled. We will be refining the areas of search based on the comments received during this consultation, and we believe that some of our earlier assumptions will need to be revisited.

Respondents have also specifically asked that we consider Nitrate Protection Zones, agricultural land quality and source protection zones in preparing our draft policies.

How will mineral workings be restored? Responses to the restoration-led approach were generally positive, and were met with special acclaim from conservation organisations. Industry respondents expressed more reservations, however, and a number of suggestions were received for ways to refine the approach as we develop the draft plan.

We are considering several ways to further refine the areas of search and ensure delivery of the restoration priorities which may include spatial masterplanning, concept planning, or 'corridor plans' in order to better convey the restoration-led approach. This approach will be informed by the responses received, and we plan to explore these options further with the members of the Green Infrastructure Partnership working group which has helped inform the development of the Green Infrastructure aspect of the Minerals Local Plan to date.

Several respondents suggested that further clarity is needed about how restoration priorities should be balanced or prioritised if more than one issue is identified for a particular area.

How will we safeguard minerals for the future? There was general agreement with our proposed approach to safeguarding minerals and mineral infrastructure, but we expect that our approach will be further refined as we develop draft policies.

Next steps We are planning a series of meetings to address respondents' requests and concerns before beginning to draft policies. Cross-boundary issues, including crushed rock provision, sustainable transport, demand forecasting linked to local development plans and potential AONB impacts all require further cooperation with surrounding authorities. A number of respondents have also offered their expertise and access to their data to help us to fill gaps in our knowledge, particularly around the Mercia Mudstone (clay) and building stone resources in the county. We are embarking on a phase of further information gathering to ensure our evidence base is as robust as possible, and to ensure we have fulfilled our duty to cooperate as we begin to prepare the draft wording for the next consultation.

Online Quiz 2.31. The interactive quiz which was developed for the first stage consultation remained active on our website during the second stage consultation. The quiz asked 'general knowledge' questions about what minerals are used for, how much is needed to build a house, how far minerals are transported, what activities are going on locally and which local recreation facilities were previously mineral workings, with an invitation to provide their contact details if they would like to be involved in participating in future Minerals Local Plan consultations.

Events with Partners

Worcestershire Green Infrastructure Partnership 2.32. A presentation about the consultation was made at the Worcestershire Green Infrastructure Partnership meeting on 29th January 2014, highlighting the role of Green Infrastructure in the emerging Minerals Local Plan. Although the meeting was close to the end of the consultation period, partner organisations were encouraged to make individual responses as soon as possible.

1000 years of building with stone 2.33. An Officer attended a meeting of the Steering Group for the project on 21st November 2013, explained the Second Stage Consultation and discussed the part the project could contribute to the Plan and how, it, in return could enable demand for building stone to be met.

2.34. On 13th March 2014 an Officer met volunteers for the project, explained the Minerals Local Plan and the council's support for the 1,000 years project and how the project would be used within it.

2.35. A brief update on the responses to the Second Stage Consultation on the Plan and reference to the continued commitment to encouraging building stone development in the county was reported to a further meeting of the Steering Group on 13th June 2014.

West Midlands Regional Technical Advisory Body for waste (RTAB) 24/01/14 2.36. The Minerals Local Plan and Second Stage Consultation were explained to the RTAB. Relevant Waste Core Strategy policies and the need for "urban quarries" and the free movement of Construction and Demolition waste through the Green Belt were discussed. The need for the Plan to emphasise the value of this waste and to ensure delivery of aggregates from recycled Construction and Demolition waste was stressed. The poor quality of data on this waste stream was agreed.

Worcestershire Planning Officers Group (WPOG) 04/02/2013 and 08/03/2013 2.37. Brief presentations and question and answer sessions about the MLP were made at the WPOG meeting of Development Management Officers on 4th February 2013 and the WPOG meeting of Policy Officers on 8th March 2013; discussions focussed on restoration considerations and the wider implications of and links between mineral and housing development. .

Consultation on relevant appraisals and assessments

Sustainability Appraisal (SA) 2.38. An Initial Sustainability Appraisal was prepared by the Council and was published for consultation alongside the Minerals Local Plan Second Stage Consultation. This exceeds the six week minimum period which is required for consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal. It was publicised through all direct mail correspondence, the public notices and the minerals pages in the council's website.

2.39. The three statutory consultees for Sustainability Appraisal were also informed specifically. These bodies are Natural England, Environment Agency and English Heritage.

2.40. Comments were received from two of the three statutory consultees: Natural England and English Heritage. No specific comments were received from the Environment Agency on the SA itself but related issues were referred to in the Agency's response to the Consultation as a whole..

2.41. Natural England were supportive of the initial SA and did not give any detailed comments for inclusion or further consideration. English Heritage were broadly supportive and highlighted some issues for continued or further inclusion, such

as suggesting the inclusion of specific objectives and monitoring indicators for the historic environment within the SA.

2.42. A further response was received from a member of the public, stating that the consultation was "too complex to comment on properly".

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) 2.43. A Habitats Regulations Assessment Scoping Report was prepared by the Council and was published for consultation alongside the Minerals Local Plan Second Stage Consultation. It was publicised through all direct mail correspondence, the public notices and the minerals pages in the council's website.

2.44. The statutory consultee for Habitats Regulations Assessment was also informed specifically. This body is Natural England.

2.45. Comments were received from Natural England. Natural England was supportive of the approach taken to the HRA, and gave further information about Natural England's project to make finalised Conservation Objectives for all European sites available online. They suggested that soil compaction should be recognised as an environmental impact which could occur as a result of the extraction of any materials. They advised that requirements for project-stage HRA highlighted in the Scoping Report should be written into the Minerals Local Plan.

2.46. A further response was received from a member of the public, stating that the consultation was "too complex to comment on properly".

Equality Impact Assessment 2.47. An Equalities Impact Assessment desktop screening was prepared by the Council and was first published for consultation alongside the Minerals Local Plan First Stage Consultation. This was not revised for the Second Stage Consultation but remained available for comment.

2.48. No comments were received.

Consultation on the evidence base

2.49. It is essential that the Minerals Local Plan is based on robust evidence. To develop this evidence base a suite of background documents will be developed to support and inform the emerging policy framework.

2.50. The background documents which were available for comment alongside the Second Stage consultation were:

 Background Document: Coal in Worcestershire  Background Document: Salt and Brine in Worcestershire  Background Document: Clay in Worcestershire  Background Document: Building Stone in Worcestershire How much of each mineral do we need to make provision for?  The Local Aggregates Assessment for Worcestershire – June 2013  The Draft Local Aggregates Assessment for Worcestershire – October 2012  Background Document: Ensuring adequate and steady supply of industrial and energy minerals What are the other local issues?  Background Document: Contributing towards Worcestershire's priorities - which sets out how the minerals local plan could contribute towards the Council's corporate priorities and the priorities of the Sustainable Community Strategy.  Background Document: Minerals and Climate Change – which considers the contribution that the Minerals Local Plan could play to reducing Worcestershire’s climate change emissions and planning for and adapting to climate change.  Background Document: The Malvern Hills Acts - which sets out the unique legislative framework regarding mineral working in the Malvern Hills.  Profile documents for Environmental Character Areas – these detail the mineral and environmental context in the Environmental Character Areas which form the basis for the Worcestershire Green Infrastructure Framework. There are 30 Environmental Character Areas.

2.51. No comments were received on any of the background documents specifically, although some responses to the main consultation referred to the Local Aggregates Assessment and the Analysis of Mineral Resources.

2.52. The background documents will be reviewed as necessary and further background documents will be produced during the development of the Minerals Local Plan.

Summary of activities under the duty to cooperate

2.53. A more detailed summary of the discussions held with each of the bodies we have a duty to cooperate with is set out in the Annual Monitoring Report.

2.54. Following the close of the First Stage Consultation in January 2013, the following activities have been undertaken:

13 on 8th March 2013. being proposed in district wide Local Plans. Informal links established.

Herefordshire and Awareness raised and broad Worcestershire Development issues of mutual interest raised, Management Officers Group particularly with regard to liaison procedures over possible future Presentation and discussion mineral and housing on 4th February 2013. development sites. Informal links established. Bromsgrove District Council:

Contacted by direct mail No response received to regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Consultation. Officers attended the open day held in Bromsgrove and subsequently asked for clarification of whether there were any minerals issues for any of the proposed development sites. WCC officers compared each site with known mineral resources and provided a commentary on each of the proposed development sites (10th December 2013). This identified one site which would require further assessment and advised on what the assessment should address. Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Redditch Borough Council: No response received to Second Stage Consultation. Contacted by direct mail regarding Second Stage Consultation.

Informally consulted on Water Response received noting that Transport Paper, Winter there are no commercial or 2014. cruising waterways within Redditch Borough's boundary.

Infrastructure Study and Strategy as an information source. WFDC supported the vision, objectives and strategic restoration priorities. It supported the approach to identifying areas of search and safeguarding minerals.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

South Worcestershire Authorities:

Contacted by direct mail Response received to Second regarding Second Stage Stage Consultation. South Consultation. Worcestershire made many comments, broadly focused on:  The need for policy criteria  Adequate and steady supply of minerals, impact of housing numbers on demand, phasing of working and delivery milestones, concern at lower target after 2016  Preference for identifying specific sites or preferred areas  Appropriateness of protecting and enhancing Worcestershire's key economic sectors  Need for references to sustainable transport and community engagement in the vision  Maximising use of secondary and recycled materials, acknowledging imports and exports and comprehensive working of permitted reserves  The need for high environmental standards throughout site life  Transport, traffic impacts and the use of sustainable modes of transport

 Methodology for identifying areas of search,  Desire to input into restoration priorities and profiles  Implications of mineral overlap with South Worcestershire site allocations for housing or employment land  Potential impact on Malvern Hills, AONBs, Abberley Hills, Green Belt, landscape character  Appropriateness of "restoration-led" approach  Need for more information on safeguarding resources and infrastructure assets.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Surrounding Shropshire: Minerals Planning Authorities Meeting held 11th March 2013 No issues of conflict identified. – discussed proposed Agreed to continue discussions approaches by both counties as approaches develop, but no to plan making, green areas of concern or conflict at infrastructure and present. Agreed both counties environmental networks, are proposing appropriate levels Local Aggregates of production. The only Assessments, building stone significant possible issue of and waste. cross-border supply is that Shropshire's high-quality roadstone may be supplying part of Worcestershire's need but this reflects normal workings of the market due to the special nature of the material.

Contacted by direct mail No response received to regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Consultation.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Herefordshire:

April/May 2013 – Email Discussion regarding the discussion regarding the two methodology led to agreement counties' crushed-rock sales to maintain the RAWP data which have been "apportionment" to 2016, merged for many years, followed by average of past 10- making it difficult to establish years sales on the assumption an average of past 10 years that 2/3 of crushed rock has sales in the Local Aggregates been produced by Herefordshire Assessment. and 1/3 by Worcestershire.

June 2013 – email exchange Discussion of wording and regarding mineral sharing data regarding the development in the Malvern legislative context of the Hills and Herefordshire's Malvern Hills led to minor Core Strategy policies M3 amendments to policy wording and M4. and agreement that no conflict is anticipated between the emerging Worcestershire Minerals Local Plan and Herefordshire's emerging Core Strategy over mineral development in the Malvern Hills or the emerging plans and minerals issues generally. 17th July 2013 – meeting with Agreed that there are no an update on the status of conflicts or matters of concern Minerals Planning Policy between the councils' timetables preparation in both counties, or approaches, and that both status and principles of Local counties would proceed on the Aggregate Assessments, basis of supplying the discussion of any WMRAWP sub-regional complementary or conflicting apportionment up to 2016 issues or matters of concern, followed by average of past 10- data availability and sharing. years sales.

Agreed that WCC intends to plan for supplying its share of both sand and gravel and crushed rock, but reliant on industry to make applications. WCC does not seek to rely on other counties contributions to meet its LAA requirements, but if the market were to look to quarries in Herefordshire to meet some of this need, Herefordshire Council agrees that its landbanks and productive capacity are capable of supplying some of those

needs without difficulty and it would not object to this.

Agreed that WMRAWP's AMR is the best source of data. For crushed rock, agreed to maintain the principle that 2/3 crushed rock production from Herefordshire and 1/3 from Worcestershire as a realistic way to aim for future supply. In the long term, 10 years supply average will become meaningful and usable.

Agreed that there were no conflicts between the 2 counties' approaches to the LAA.

Agreed that future meetings would be useful to ensure compatibility between approaches and the use of data.

Contacted by direct mail No response received to regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Consultation.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Warwickshire: No response received to Second Stage Consultation. Contacted by direct mail regarding Second Stage Consultation.

Informal discussions between officers about the content and progress of both counties' Plans were held at the WMRTAB meetings.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Gloucestershire:

February 2013 – email WCC confirmed the sites shown exchange confirming sites in were correct and that there were

Worcestershire to appear in no longer any operational maps in Gloucestershire's quarries producing crushed rock Minerals Local Plan. or building stone in Worcestershire.

17th June 2013 – see "Joint See below meeting" section below.

Contacted by direct mail Response received to Second regarding Second Stage Stage Consultation. Consultation. Gloucestershire suggested that preferred areas or specific sites may be required to provide certainty to both industry and communities, demonstrate deliverability and avoid putting pressure on neighbouring authorities. Gloucestershire highlighted that potential development near to the county boundary could have cross-boundary implications which need to be considered at the next stage of plan preparation.

Informally consulted on Water Gloucestershire replied stating Transport Paper, Winter that they had no specific 2014. comments, but referred us to their Transport Evidence Paper background document.

Staffordshire:

Contacted by direct mail No response received to regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Consultation.

Informal discussions between officers about the content and progress of both counties' Plans were held at the POS Mineral and Waste Learning Project Meetings and WMRTAB meetings.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

West Midlands conurbation

"county" as Mineral Planning Authorities:

Contacted by direct mail No response received to regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation from Consultation. any of the West Midlands Unitary Authorities.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Joint meeting:

17th June 2013 – Hosted by General discussion of these Worcestershire County issues did not result in any Council and attended by: specific actions. Agreed that  Gloucestershire ongoing dialogue is necessary. County Council (and South West RAWP representative),  Warwickshire County Council, and  Herefordshire Council Discussion of: status of MLP in each county (mineral types, timetable, broad principles, matters of mutual interest); status of Local Aggregate Assessment preparation and principles; any complementary or conflicting issues, matters of concern, and cross boundary initiatives; data sharing; working together effectively.

West Midlands Resource Informal confirmation and Technical Advisory Body: re-assertion of RTAB support for earlier regional policy stance A brief presentation was that C and D recycling made an given to and discussion held important contribution to with the WMRTAB meeting aggregate supply and that such on 24th January 2014. facilities were appropriate in both urban and Green Belt locations. West Midlands Aggregate Working Party:

18th October 2013 - Meeting Noted WCC's close working of "West Midlands" Planning relationship with Herefordshire Authority officer but separate LAAs produced.

representatives at Noted that Worcestershire's LAA Birmingham City Council has gone to Cabinet. Other Offices. Confirmed role of LAAs in the region may be AWP in giving advice on produced jointly (i.e. Shropshire Local Aggregate Assessment with Telford & Wrekin, (LAA) production, compliance Staffordshire with Stoke on with guidelines and 'fair share Trent, West Midlands unitary of burdens'. Also discussed authorities) potential for establishing non-aggregate minerals group.

Other Aggregate Working Parties:

The following Aggregate Response to Second Stage Working Parties were Consultation received from East contacted by direct mail of England AWP. regarding Second Stage Notwithstanding any comments Consultation: that individual members of the  East Midlands AWP AWP may make on the Plan, the  East of England AWP EEAWP does not believe that  Greater London the content of this Plan will have Authority AWP any significant impact on the  London AWP AWP area.  North East AWP  North Wales AWP No response received to  North West AWP Second Stage Consultation from other AWPs.  South East AWP  South Wales AWP  South West AWP  Yorkshire and Humber AWP Other authorities Surrounding Authorities:

All surrounding Local Response to Second Stage Planning Authorities were Consultation received from contacted by direct mail Tewkesbury Borough Council. regarding Second Stage Their comments focused on Consultation. cross-boundary impacts from mineral working, such as flooding and surface water management, landscape impact, biodiversity and transport, and the need to make appropriate provision throughout the plan period to prevent undue pressure on surrounding authorities. They also highlighted potential demand from development in

Gloucestershire.

No response received to Second Stage Consultation from other surrounding Local Planning Authorities.

All surrounding Local No responses received. Planning Authorities were informally consulted on the Water Transport Paper in Winter 2014.

The Planning Officers Society Mineral and Waste Learning Project (4 meetings p.a.):

The content and progress of Potential matters of mutual members' Mineral Plans is interest and concern are formally discussed at every discussed at every meeting. meeting.  Bedfordshire Authorities (Central Bedfordshire, Bedford & Luton Boroughs),  Bradford, Derbyshire/Derby,  East Sussex/Brighton & Hove,  Essex,  Hampshire,  Hertfordshire,  Lincolnshire,  Northamptonshire,  Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire,  Staffordshire,  Surrey,  West Berkshire,  West Sussex/South Downs NPA The Environment Member of the Minerals See below. Agency Green Infrastructure Steering Group (see below)

the Water Framework Directive and Flood Risk betterment, and supported the vision as being progressive and positively worded. They also supported the draft objectives, but suggested that explicit reference to 'Flood Risk' and 'betterment opportunities' would highlight their importance. Similarly, they supported the proposed policy issues, suggesting that future policy wording should commit to 'betterment opportunities'. They also highlighted that the 'sequential test' would need consideration and guidance in emerging policy, but that a balance will be needed between locating workings in low flood risk areas and providing opportunities for meaningful flood alleviation. They supported the progressive approach to assigning restoration priorities to areas of search, but suggested flexibility would be needed to take account of site-level conditions which may not align with strategic priorities.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

English Heritage Member of the Minerals See below. Green Infrastructure Steering Group (see below)

highlighted that clarity will be needed to show how appropriate areas/sites have been identified ensuring the protection, conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. They welcomed the opportunity to work with us to ensure a positive legacy for the historic environment as a result of minerals development and restoration, and encouraged consideration of the historic environment as an overarching restoration principle. They also commented fully on the Sustainability Appraisal.

Informally consulted on Water No response received Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Natural England Member of the Minerals See below. Green Infrastructure Steering Group (see below)

Contacted by direct mail Response received to Second regarding Second Stage Stage Consultation. Natural Consultation. England supported the section on the Environment in the Portrait of Worcestershire, particularly the inclusion of green infrastructure, and welcomed the environmental aspects of the draft vision and draft Objective 6. Natural England particularly supported the inclusion of policy criteria on the natural and historic environment, but suggested that Green Infrastructure and soils could also be included. They fully supported the GI-led approach to restoration. They also commented fully on the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment.

Informally consulted on Water Natural England responded to Transport Paper, Winter say that "As a general principle 2014. the use of any waterways for

transporting minerals should ensure protection and enhancement of the environment".

The Mayor of Did not respond to the "Get N/A London involved in Planning" leaflet. No issues have been identified which require co-operation with the Mayor of London, therefore not consulted by direct mail regarding Second Stage Consultation. Civil Aviation Contacted by direct mail Responded to Second Stage Authority regarding Second Stage Consultation setting out CAA's Consultation. areas of interest. No issues of conflict identified. The Homes and No issues have been No response received to Communities identified which require Second Stage Consultation. Agency co-operation with the Homes and Communities Agency. However, added to "blue group" and contacted by direct mail for Second Stage Consultation. Clinical The Primary Care Trusts New single point of contact Commissioning have been disbanded and established to act as conduit for Groups (CCGs) new Clinical Commissioning all liaison over health matters. Groups set up. These are:  South Worcestershire CCG  Redditch and Bromsgrove CCG  Wyre Forest CCG National Health See above See above Service Commissioning Board Office of Rail Contacted by direct mail No response received to Regulation regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Consultation. Transport for London No issues have been N/A identified which require co-operation with Transport for London. Not consulted. Integrated Transport Added to "blue group" for No response received to Authority: Centro Second Stage Consultation Second Stage Consultation. and contacted by direct mail. Highways Agency Contacted by direct mail Responded to Second Stage regarding Second Stage Consultation highlighting the Consultation. Highways Agency's

responsibilities in Worcestershire, requesting to be consulted as policies are developed to ensure adequate consideration is given to impacts on the Strategic Road Network. WCC Highway WCC Highways were not No response received at time of Authority sent the Second Stage publication. Consultation in error. Subsequent discussion led to an individual contact being identified and the consultation material was forwarded on 12th June 2014 for comment.

Informally consulted on the No response received. Water Transport Paper in Winter 2014. The Marine No issues identified which Response received to Management require co-operation with the consultation, recommending Organisation Marine Management reference to marine aggregates Organisation. be included within the Plan and highlighting information sources. Following the "Get Involved in Planning" questionnaire, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) requested not to be consulted, stating that "the remit of the MMO’s work reaches up to the mean high water springs mark along the coast and within any stretches of tidal river. Our maps indicate that there are no rivers within Worcestershire that are under tidal influence and as such this area is outside of the MMO’s remit. We therefore do not feel it necessary to be consulted on any of the areas covered by the questionnaire."

On 12th December 2013 we wrote again to the MMO, highlighting the Duty to Cooperate and setting out that although we do not anticipate the plan affecting marine and tidal issues, there

may be areas of interest for the MMO such as imports from marine dredged sand and gravel or aspects of our Habitats Regulations Assessment. Worcestershire Contacted by direct mail No response received to Local Enterprise regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Partnership Consultation.

Informally consulted on the No response received. Water Transport Paper in Winter 2014. Greater Birmingham Contacted by direct mail No response received to and Solihull Local regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Enterprise Consultation. Partnership Informally consulted on the No response received. Water Transport Paper in Winter 2014. Worcestershire The Worcestershire No response received to Local Nature Partnership was remodelled Second Stage Consultation from Partnership into a wider range of groups LNP itself, although many of its during this time. One of the members are represented in the most relevant to the MLP is Minerals Green Infrastructure the newly formed Local Steering Group (see below). Nature Partnership. Contacted via LNP secretary (listed as one of the Worcestershire County Council contacts in Appendix C) regarding Second Stage Consultation.

Minerals Green Infrastructure Steering Group

2.55. A steering group was established to assist with embedding the Green Infrastructure approach in the Minerals Local Plan. The group consists of:  English Heritage  Environment Agency  Forestry Commission  Natural England  Nature After Minerals/RSPB  Worcestershire Wildlife Trust  Worcestershire County Council: o Strategic Planning & Environmental Policy o Ecology o Landscape o Development Management o Water/flooding

o Countryside Access & Recreation o Historic Environment Not all participants have been able to attend all meetings, but all have been included on email circulations with agendas, minutes and draft documents for comment.

2.56. A number of meetings were held between the First Stage and Second Stage consultations to develop the Green Infrastructure approach:

Meeting of 30th January 2013:  Exploratory meeting to discuss the pros, cons and practicalities of using GI principles and restoration potential to drive the development of the Minerals Local Plan. The group supported taking an innovative GI approach to minerals.

Meeting of 10th April 2013:  Group members had contributed information to inform "Environmental Character Area Profiles". Officers had also been developing Areas of Search, and were using the issues and priorities from the Environmental Character Area profiles to establish the strategic priorities for each Area of Search.  Two mock-examples were presented to the group to critique. An early draft of the vision and objectives was given to the group alongside a table setting out considerations under each objective showing which were likely to be addressed through policy criteria and which might be strategic priorities for areas of search. These were then looked at as a "primary", "secondary" or "tertiary" priorities (working terms) for each of the areas. The group helped make amendments to the strategic priority groupings and suggested ways in which priority levels could be established.  The group agreed that a habitat approach would be better than a species approach, and that landscape changes need to either be consistent with existing landscape character or be wholly different, not piece-meal degradation.  Officers were to commence work on developing the areas of search and profiles. The group asked to be sent drafts and to meet to discuss and refine them in batches, preferably covering diverse areas of search in the first batch to try and iron out most of the major issues up front.

priorities, whether minerals sites could deliver the priorities, and the need to bring out important issues in each Area of Search. o Further discussion looking at the examples raised points which needed to be refined in the method or data used, as well as individual points of interest for individual areas of search.  The group agreed that a sub-group would meet to discuss landscape and heritage issues and methodology and report back.  The group agreed that minerals officers would liaise with water interests to finalise methodology for water aspects.  The group agreed that WCC's Environmental Policy team would consider the biodiversity aspect to finalise the methodology.  The group agreed that WCC Minerals officers would pick up on the advice from these subgroups and consult the whole group on final methodology and worked examples through email and file sharing.

Discussion with Minerals Industry

Cemex and Tarmac 2.57. A meeting was held on 16th July 2013 with representatives from Cemex and Tarmac. This gave a brief introduction to the Minerals Local Plan, the minerals covered, timetable and next consultation stage, and broad principles.

2.58. Discussions looked at:  the nature of and any likely changes to the minerals industry which could affect Worcestershire;  the nature of and likely changes at mineral site level, such as minimum size of workings, new production methods, plant, campaign working and water transport;  what Worcestershire-specific issues should be addressed in the Minerals Local Plan;  what other issues should be taken into account from other Mineral Planning Authorities;  issues which should be addressed regarding sand and gravel, crushed rock and other minerals;  any complementary or conflicting issues, matters of concern and cross boundary issues to be aware of;  data availability and sharing;  ways to work together effectively and appropriately; and  competition commission investigations.

2.59. Outcomes and actions included agreement to discuss:  possible pre-application proposals with the Development Management section and operator's agents in parallel with the Plan process,  The proposed emphasis on a restoration led approach further, if necessary, following the next consultation,  specific matters raised by individual companies individually if requested,  matters of concern to minerals operators as a group at a specific seminar.

Tarmac 2.60. A meeting was held on 7th February 2014 between Worcestershire County Council's Minerals and Waste Policy team, Development Management team and PleydellSmithyman Ltd (representing Tarmac). This meeting looked at the relationship between the emerging Minerals Local Plan and future site development at Clifton Gravel Pit.

2.61. Discussions looked at:  Tarmac's existing operations in Worcestershire, likely lifetime left at those sites and plans for future extraction;  Site investigations already undertaken and likely to be required;  Ground water, particularly relating to a nearby SSSI and private water supplies;  Access arrangements, amenity and restoration issues;  Potential for restoration of the Clifton site for recreation purposes;  Likely timescale of an application in relation to submission or adoption of the Minerals Local Plan.

Salop Sand and Gravel 2.62. A meeting was arranged with Salop Sand and Gravel including a site visit at Chadwich Lane Pit for 18th September 2013. The agenda for this meeting was the same as for the meeting with Cemex and Tarmac.

2.63. Worcestershire County Council officers attended the meeting, but representatives from Salop Sand and Gravel did not arrive and the meeting was not held.

2.64. A meeting was held at Worcestershire County Council's offices on 7th February 2014 between Worcestershire County Council's Minerals and Waste Policy team, Development Management team, Mr Parton of Salop Sand and Gravel and PleydellSmithyman Ltd (Salop Sand and Gravel's agent). This meeting looked at the relationship between Mr Parton's operations and potential future plans, the requirement for restoration plans and restrictions to infilling as a restoration option in the future.

Coal Authority and CoalPro 2.65. A meeting was held on 13th August 2013 with representatives from the Coal Authority and CoalPro. This gave a brief introduction to the Minerals Local Plan, the minerals covered, timetable and next consultation stage, and broad principles.

2.66. Discussions looked at:  the nature of and any likely changes to the minerals industry which could affect Worcestershire;  the nature of and likely changes at mineral site level, such as minimum size of workings, new production methods, plant, campaign working and water transport;  what Worcestershire-specific issues should be addressed in the Minerals Local Plan;  what other issues should be taken into account from other Mineral Planning Authorities;

 issues which should be addressed regarding coal;  issues which should be addressed regarding other minerals associated with coal;  any complementary or conflicting issues, matters of concern and cross boundary issues to be aware of;  data availability;  ways to work together effectively and appropriately; and  competition commission investigations.

2.67. Outcomes and actions included:  Only surface working of coal is conceivable in Worcestershire at present. Alternative hydrocarbon extraction techniques are theoretically possible but likely to be unviable;  Although some coal strata are geologically present, at best the deposits are very thin, in practice all commercial surface deposits may have already been worked out, meaning that there is no coal resource for future extraction in the county;  Coal hazards however are important and have been mapped in Worcestershire. The areas affected should be "safeguarded" to ensure that the ground conditions can be assessed and any remedial action undertaken before other development is permitted;  Policies should be included to enable coal and related minerals to be developed if applications come forward, subject to the provisos in the NPPF.

2.68. Appendix A provides a summary of the requirements which relate to consultation requirements and cooperation with other bodies.

2.69. This is a working document that will be updated as the Minerals Local Plan is developed. The final consultation statement will be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the Minerals Local Plan and will present the information required under section 22(1)c of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

3. First Stage Consultation

3.1. The first formal stage of consultation on the Minerals Local Plan began on 9th October 2012 and ran until 11th January 2013.

3.2. This consultation had two main objectives:  to raise the profile of the Minerals Local Plan and build the mailing list for future rounds of consultation; and  to help in establishing an understanding of the issues and local context.

3.3. A variety of consultation and engagement methods were therefore used to meet these different objectives:  Consultation leaflet and questionnaire;  Open morning drop-in session;  Stakeholder workshop; and  Online quiz. More details about these methods are outlined later in this section.

Publicity activities

Worcestershire County Council Website 3.4. All relevant documents were included in a dedicated section on the Council's website with the shortlink www.worcestershire.gov.uk/minerals. This link was included in all public notices, press releases, social media posts, letters and emails.

3.5. The consultation was also listed on the Council's "consultation portal" and was publicised on the residents homepage.

Public notices 3.6. Public notices were placed in newspapers covering the county:  Bromsgrove Advertiser (17th October 2012)  Evesham Journal (18th October 2012)  Kidderminster Shuttle (18th October 2012)  Kidderminster Times (18th October 2012)  Ludlow Advertiser (18th October 2012)  Malvern Gazette (19th October 2012)  Redditch Advertiser (17th October 2012)  Stourbridge News (18th October 2012)  Worcester News (18th October 2012)

Press releases 3.7. Press releases were sent to all County newspapers and radio stations at the beginning of the consultation and before the open morning, however none chose to run the story.

Direct mail 3.8. An email including details of the consultation leaflet, questionnaire, open morning, workshop and quiz was sent to all contacts on the Council's Minerals

Planning Database who had opted to be contacted by email. All other contacts on the database were sent a copy of the consultation leaflet and questionnaire by post.

3.9. The database was developed by contacting all parties registered on the consultation database for the Statement of Community Involvement and Waste Core Strategy and asking whether they would like to be involved in consultation on the Minerals Local Plan. Of the 1300 people contacted approximately 520 requested to be contacted about the Minerals Local Plan. This was comprised of 301 'Specific Consultees', 86 'General Consultees' and 126 other interested parties. A full list of consultees is set out in Appendix B.

3.10. In addition, a total of 137 organisations that the council considered could have a particular interest in the plan were sent a copy of the "Get involved in Planning" leaflet and sent a reminder letter on 23rd October 2012.

3.11. This database will be developed during the preparation of the Minerals Local Plan and anyone who expresses an interest will be invited to join. The online quiz was intended as a tool to help to increase the number of interested parties registered on the database.

Social Media 3.12. Facebook: A link to the consultation webpage and quiz were posted on the "Worcestershire" facebook page on 29th October 2012. At this time the page had approximately 280 followers and was being 'talked about' by 14 people. The link to the minerals webpage itself received 3 'likes'.

3.13. Twitter A link to the consultation webpage and quiz were posted on the Council's "WorcCC" Twitter feed on 22nd October with an additional tweet on 9th November to publicise the open-morning. The Council had approximately 3,200 followers at this time.

Methods used

Consultation Leaflet 3.14. The primary method of consultation at this stage was a short booklet that gave a brief introduction to what minerals are and why we need them, why people should get involved and what the Minerals Local Plan will aim to achieve. It also gave some local context outlining the minerals found in Worcestershire and likely levels of future provision. The consultation leaflet included seven questions, some of which were technical in nature and others which were more general. The questionnaire could be completed online or returned to our dedicated email address or freepost mailing address.

3.15. 37 responses were received through this method and covered the following main issues:  Information on mineral resources including additional locations, the quality and quantity of resources, economically viability including site size and minimum amounts of material  New techniques, technology or changes in the economy could affect economic viability, particularly for coal resources

 Potential for the use of recycled aggregates  The amount of minerals to be provided  Issues that should be considered, including: o Amenity impacts; o Traffic and sustainable transport; o National and local economic benefits; o Green Infrastructure; o The potential for multifunctional benefits from site restoration; o Biodiversity gain and protection of designated nature conservation sites; o Geological conservation; o Historic environment; o Landscape; o Ecosystem services; o Wetland restoration; o High quality agricultural land; o Nature Improvement Areas; o Climate change; o Protecting the Abberley Hills; o Water issues, including groundwater and other water resources, flood risk and flood storage, the Water Framework Directive; o Waste re-use and landfill; o Public access networks, informal recreation, The Severn Way; o Building stone; o The National Planning Policy Framework; o Parish and Neighbourhood Plans; o The "sieve test" and constraints; o Green Belt; o Restoration, aftercare and long-term management  Information sources relating to: o The National Planning Policy Framework, o Malvern Hills Acts, o best practice Minerals Local Plans, o other Local and Parish Plans, o AONB management plans, o England Biodiversity Strategy and local Biodiversity Action Plans, o River Severn Basin Management Plan, o Nature After Minerals, o Geological records and geodiversity action plan, o Green Infrastructure, o the Strategic Stone Study Database, o Archaeology, o Tame Valley river restoration, o Rowney Green Bog Special Wildlife Site

3.16. The consultation responses are recorded in full in the Response Document "Feedback on First Stage Consultation" (April 2013) along with the Council's initial response to these comments.

Open Morning 3.17. Officers held an open morning at Worcester Woods Country Park from 9.30- 12.00 on Saturday 10th November so that members of the public, Parish

Councils and other interested parties could ask any questions and raise any issue that they thought should be considered in the development of the Minerals Local Plan. There was no need to book places at this event.

3.18. The event was publicised in the consultation leaflet and in all publicity on the consultation in general. Specific links were also put on the Council's twitter feed and front page of the Council's website in the week before the event to raise awareness. A press-release was published but no publications chose to carry the story.

3.19. The open-morning was attended by members of the Earth Heritage Trust, Worcestershire CPRE, Upton upon Severn Town Council, Ripple Parish Council, Hanley Castle Parish Council, Wolverley Parish Council, Longdon Parish Council and the Upton Partnership and four members of the general public. Some of the attendees were part of more than one of these organisations. 30 copies of the consultation leaflet were also distributed to members of the public attending the Countryside Centre activity morning and cafe. Four people registered on the consultation database and two registered to attend the workshop sessions.

3.20. The issues raised at this event have been recorded in the Response Document "Feedback on First Stage Consultation" (April 2013) alongside the other comments made on the consultation. The main issues raised related to:  the restoration of sites including concerns that the use of the word 'restoration' could be misleading and support for the potential for working and worked quarries to be used for educational purposes;  current and future supply including questions about the current situation and how future provision will be calculated;  a current application for sand and gravel extraction at Holdfast, near Upton on Severn. Several of the issues raised such as the consideration of flooding and impacts on the wider economy including tourism also have relevance as broad concepts to be considered during the development of the plan.

Workshop 3.21. A morning workshop was held 9.30 – 12.00 on Wednesday 21st November 2012. The event was publicised in the consultation leaflet and in all publicity on the consultation in general. Key stakeholders were also contacted directly with telephone invitations to all local authorities in Worcestershire, all adjoining Mineral Planning Authorities, mineral operators which have known interests in the County and the organisations which are statutory consultees for the sustainability appraisal.

3.22. The workshop was chaired by the Council's Minerals and Waste Policy Manager and facilitated by officers from the Planning and Economic Development unit. It was attended by five County Councillors, 3 other council officers and participants from the following organisations:

Local Authorities  Bromsgrove District Council (Councillor and officer)  Herefordshire Council  Malvern Hills District Council

 Warwickshire County Council  Wyre Forest District Council

Town and Parish Councils  Bourneheath Parish Council (2)  Upton Parish Council

Local residents  Mrs Spooner  Mrs Inchbald

Operators  Cemex  Tarmac

Other interests  Earth Heritage Trust  English Heritage  Environment Agency  Malvern Hills AONB Partnership  Nature After Minerals  Worcestershire LEP  Worcestershire Wildlife Trust

3.23. The workshop was structured into two sessions:

 Spatial Strategy: There was a short presentation about the council's proposed approach, then delegates were split into five groups to discuss a) whether they supported a restoration-led approach and if so what objectives should drive this and b) what other considerations should lead the strategy.

A restoration-led approach was broadly supported, but would need to be holistic, flexible and to take into account other factors. Implementation and enforcement were key concerns.

 Impacts of mineral workings: The groups were asked to identify their main concerns in relation to mineral workings and to discuss potential ways that they could be addressed through policy.

It was clear from the issues identified and discussion taking place that an integrated approach needs to be developed that engages with a variety of stakeholders, regulators and other bodies. This approach would need to take account of a variety of factors including impact on environmental character, flooding issues, hydrology, impacts on tourism and pollution control. The potential for a 'River Severn' plan to deliver such an approach was suggested. Other issues discussed included the merits of traditional building stone and the need to consider landfill carefully.

3.24. The feedback from this event was positive, with stakeholders from a variety of different groups saying that they were satisfied with the discussion. There was some concern that industry and residents should not be asked to discuss these things together, however the majority of attendees felt that meeting different interests was useful. Following the event one delegate also tweeted about his attendance, further raising the profile of the Minerals Local Plan.

3.25. The issues raised at this event have been recorded in the Response Document "Feedback on First Stage Consultation" (April 2013) alongside the other comments made during the consultation.

Online Quiz 3.26. To raise awareness of mineral planning in the County a short online quiz was developed. The quiz asked 'general knowledge' questions about what minerals are used for, how much is needed to build a house, how far minerals are transported, what activities are going on locally and which local recreation facilities were previously mineral workings, with an invitation to provide their contact details if they would like to be involved in participating in future Minerals Local Plan consultations. At least 9 people undertook this quiz1 and 2 requested to be involved in future consultations.

Events with Partners

Worcestershire Partnership Environment Group (WPEG) 2 3.27. A presentation about the MLP consultations was made at the WPEG meeting on 5th December 2012. The group suggested that the principles of Green Infrastructure (GI) that are being developed through the sub-regional GI Strategy should be integrated into the Minerals Local Plan. Partner organisations were encouraged to make individual responses if appropriate.

Worcestershire Planning Officers Group (WPOG) 3.28. A brief presentation about the MLP consultations was made at the WPOG meeting of Development Management Officers on 4th February 2013 and the WPOG meeting of Policy Officers on 8th March 2013.

Worcestershire Parish Conference: Autumn 2012 3.29. Officers had a stand at the exhibition before the 8th Worcestershire Parish Conference which ran 6-9pm 31st October 2012. All Parish Councils in Worcestershire were invited to attend this event. About 20 people showed interest in the Minerals Local Plan either asking questions or taking copies of the consultation leaflet.

1 This is the number of people who clicked "submit" after taking the quiz. There was no requirement to do this unless participants wished to join the consultation database, so it is possible that more people took the quiz but are not recorded. 2 This group consists of representatives from all Local Authorities and Local Strategic Partnerships in Worcestershire, Hereford and Worcester Chamber of Commerce, The Duckworth Trust, Earth Heritage Trust, Act on Energy, Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, Worcestershire Friends of the Earth Network, British Waterways, English Heritage, Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Natural England, Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, Worcestershire Primary Care Trust, University of Worcester, Worcester College of Technology, Country Land and Business Association, Worcestershire Biodiversity Partnership, Worcestershire Pollution Group.

Other activities

'Have your say' Roadshows 3.30. Worcestershire County Councillors and senior officers held a set of roadshows to give residents a chance to help shape future delivery of council services. The specific themes were localism and roads, but officers were also briefed on other issues including the Minerals Local Plan consultation so that they could inform anyone they thought may be interested. The roadshows were held in Bromsgrove, Worcester, Malvern, Wyre Forest, Redditch and Pershore town centres between 9th and 30th November 2012.

Consultation on relevant appraisals and assessments

Sustainability Appraisal 3.31. A Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report was prepared by the Council and was published for consultation alongside the Minerals Local Plan First Stage Consultation. This exceeds the five week minimum period which is required for consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report. It was publicised through all direct mail correspondence, the public notices and the minerals pages in the council's website.

3.32. The three statutory consultees for Sustainability Appraisal were also informed specifically about the Scoping Report. These bodies are Natural England, Environment Agency and English Heritage.

3.33. Comments were received from each of the three statutory consultees. They provided constructive feedback on how the proposed approach could better reflect sustainability issues. This included signposting to additional plans, policies and programmes which should be reviewed, and suggesting amendments and additions to the proposed SA framework to allow a more nuanced consideration of particular issues which might otherwise have been lost within too broad an analysis.

Equality Impact Assessment 3.34. An Equalities Impact Assessment desktop screening was prepared by the Council and was published for consultation alongside the Minerals Local Plan First Stage Consultation. It was publicised through all direct mail correspondence, the public notices and the minerals pages in the council's website.

3.35. No comments were received.

Consultation on the evidence base

3.36. It is essential that the Minerals Local Plan is based on robust evidence. To develop this evidence base a suite of background documents will be developed to support and inform the emerging policy framework.

3.37. In summer 2012 background papers were published3 on:

 Coal in Worcestershire Consultation document  Salt and Brine in Worcestershire Consultation document  Clay in Worcestershire Consultation document

3.38. They were made available for comment during the consultation period and will be reviewed as necessary during the development of the Minerals Local Plan.

3.39. The following background documents were prepared by officers and were also made available for comment during the consultation period:  The Draft Local Aggregates Assessment for Worcestershire  Ensuring adequate and steady supply of industrial and energy minerals  Background Document: Contributing towards Worcestershire's priorities which sets out how the minerals local plan could contribute towards the Council's corporate priorities and the priorities of the Sustainable Community Strategy.  Background Document: The Malvern Hills Acts which looks at the unique legislative framework regarding mineral working in the Malvern Hills.

3.40. Only one comment was received, relating to the use of imperial units in the Salt and Brine document.

Summary of activities under the duty to cooperate

3.41. A more detailed summary of the discussions held with each of the bodies we have a duty to cooperate with is set out in the Annual Monitoring Report.

3.42. Leading up to and during the First Stage Consultation in January 2013, the following activities were undertaken:

Body Method of engagement Outcomes Worcestershire Herefordshire and Awareness raised, Local Authorities Worcestershire Planning Policy arrangements for formal and Officers Group: informal liaison agreed. Discussion focussed on: A brief presentation about the  the importance of mineral MLP consultations was made at development in enabling the the meeting of the WPOG Policy physical construction of new Officers on 8th March 2013. development, and  links to and implementation of the county Green Infrastructure policy. Herefordshire and Discussion focussed on: Worcestershire Development  opportunities the restoration

3 In summer 2012 Worcestershire County Council welcomed three budding young planners into the minerals planning team for a fortnight each. The volunteers were each tasked with preparing background evidence on a particular topic for the emerging Minerals Local Plan. The quality of the papers they prepared was such that we have published the reports they prepared for consultation with only minor editing.

Management Officers Group: of sites offered, and  the likely location of new A brief presentation about the mineral workings. MLP consultations was made at the meeting of the WPOG Development Management Officers on 4th February 2013. Worcestershire Partnership:

A brief presentation about the Awareness raised, Minerals Local Plan was made arrangements for formal and at the Worcestershire informal liaison agreed. Partnership Environment Group Discussion focussed on: (WPEG) on 5th December 2012.  the environmental (particularly with regard to flood management) and recreational opportunities the restoration of sites offered, and  links to and implementation of the county Green Infrastructure policy. Bromsgrove District Council:

A meeting was held on 21st Bromsgrove officers agreed to September 2012. A briefing note pass invitation to Minerals to introduce the Minerals Local consultation workshop up to Plan and anticipated timetable BDC councillors. Bromsgrove was circulated. officers also supported the idea of an officer steering group approach to drafts of later consultations. Any complementary or conflicting priorities were discussed. Discussion of housing allocation sites and potential cross-over with Mineral Consultation Areas – at first glance didn't appear to be a major conflict, but WCC will comment in detail on request. There are nationally important Silica Sand reserves in Bromsgrove district, but not in problematic areas for BDC future development. Bromsgrove DC did not identify any particular current or anticipated concerns arising from mineral working in their district. Green belt could be a significant

issue when considering restoration/afteruse, some post restoration uses can only be permitted by the district council. The potential for joint SPDs restoration could be discussed in the future if appropriate.

Contacted by direct mail No formal response received to regarding First Stage First Stage Consultation. Consultation. An Officer and a Councillor from Bromsgrove District Council attended the First Stage Consultation workshop. Redditch Borough Council:

A meeting was held on 24th Redditch officers agreed to pass September 2012. A briefing note invitation to Minerals to introduce the Minerals Local consultation workshop up to Plan and anticipated timetable RBC councillors. was circulated. Any complementary or conflicting priorities were discussed. Discussion of Redditch's site allocations and minerals safeguarding noted that minerals assessment has been carried out at Tack Farm, results to be sent to WCC. Prior extraction may be required if it is a workable deposit (following receipt of results, prior extraction will not be required). Noted that the Minerals Local Plan will need a safeguarding policy/protocol, and that BGS report is a good starting point. The MLP will have a spatial strategy with restoration priorities, some after-uses would be determined by RBC – the potential for joint SPDs could be discussed in future if appropriate. Security of supply was discussed and the potential to jointly respond to other MPA consultations could be explored if necessary. WCC suggested that Redditch Local Plan should consider

geodiversity alongside nature conservation, and should make reference to the Waste Core Strategy.

Contacted by direct mail No response received to First regarding First Stage Stage Consultation. Consultation. Wyre Forest District Council:

A meeting was held on 23rd Invitation to attend MLP August 2012. A briefing note to consultation workshops was introduce the Minerals Local extended to WFDC officers and Plan and anticipated timetable members. WFDC supported the was circulated. idea of an officer steering group approach to drafts at later stages. Any complementary or conflicting priorities were discussed. Flooding and water quality are big issues for Wyre Forest. Development around Stourport in areas with mineral deposits will need to be considered in MLP development and responding to WFDC's development documents. Wyre Forest has a GI strategy which aims to fit GI around development sites, but could be updated once MLP has progressed further if necessary. Prior extraction requirements were discussed, not considered to be a significant issues as most allocated sites are previously developed land. Cross-over with SuDS requirements and the possibility of borrow pits was discussed. Green belt could be a significant issue when considering restoration/after-use and will need careful liaison. WCC supported the listing of all geological sites in Wyre Forest's DPD. The potential for joint SPDs re restoration could be discussed in the future if appropriate. WFDC highlighted a number of

their policies and other useful documents. Security of supply was discussed and the potential to jointly respond to other MPA consultations could be explored if necessary. Waste issues were discussed.

Contacted by direct mail No formal response received to regarding First Stage First Stage Consultation. Consultation. Officers from Wyre Forest District Council attended the First Stage Consultation workshop. South Worcestershire Authorities:

A meeting was held on 27th The types of minerals in South June 2012 with officers from Worcestershire were discussed. Wychavon and Worcester City Any complementary or (Malvern Hills sent apologies conflicting priorities were and would liaise with Worcester discussed. City following the meeting). A Restoration options and the briefing note to introduce the potential to tie in to Green Minerals Local Plan and Infrastructure were discussed, anticipated timetable was such as agriculture, horticulture, circulated. forestry, and informal recreation. Noted that landfilling would be dependent on geology and is discouraged by the WCS. Noted that Landscape Character Assessment needs to be considered. Discussed the potential for fixed plant with "feeder" sites, depending on economics and transport issues. Some SWDP site allocations could be in mineral safeguarding areas. Districts should be using the existing MLP proposals map until better data is produced. WCC requested details of any concrete batching plant operating under district permissions. Effects on transport network from mineral development particularly need to be considered. SWDP will be a demand factor

for the MLP to take into account. Mineral safeguarding and consultation areas was identified as a key area of work. Security of supply was discussed and the potential to jointly respond to other MPA consultations could be explored if necessary. South Worcestershire would support involvement in an officer steering group. Evidence documents were highlighted. Memoranda of Understanding could be produced for specific issues if required.

Contacted by direct mail Response received to regarding First Stage consultation welcoming the Consultation. Officers from development of the Minerals Malvern Hills District Council Local Plan. South attended the First Stage Worcestershire recognised the Consultation workshop. role of the county council as MPA and that minerals form an important part of South Worcestershire's economy. They identified a number of areas that the Minerals Local Plan should address and responded to each of the specific consultation questions. Surrounding Shropshire: Minerals Planning Authorities Contacted by direct mail No response received to First regarding First Stage Stage Consultation. Consultation. Officers from Shropshire had booked places on the consultation workshop but were unable to attend. Herefordshire:

A meeting was held on 28th Agreed that development in June 2012. A briefing note to Herefordshire could be a introduce the Minerals Local demand factor for the MLP to Plan and anticipated timetable take into account, but not likely was circulated. Herefordshire's to be high as relatively little Core Strategy timetable was housing proposed near to also discussed. Worcestershire. No issues of potentially significant conflict between the two counties with regard to

minerals planning have been identified, and joint planning for the provision of waste management facilities in the JMWMS has been successful. Data issues, an overview of the active mineral sites in both counties and the status of the regional apportionment were discussed. The pros and cons of developing a joint evidence base, or shared assumptions and a separate plan were discussed, and it was agreed to share evidence where possible. Agreed that producing a joint plan was not likely to be viable due to timetable and resource issues and differences in structure and priorities of the two councils. Both councils agreed to consider whether any of these options might be viable.

Contacted by direct mail No formal response received to regarding First Stage First Stage Consultation. Consultation. Officers from Herefordshire attended the consultation workshop. Warwickshire:

A meeting was held on 16th Worcestershire noted crushed August 2012. A briefing note to rock data and provision introduce the Minerals Local difficulties and outlined the other Plan and anticipated timetable mineral types which are was circulated. The meeting important in Worcestershire. was followed by site visits to Warwickshire previously Mancetter Quarry and Middleton suspended work on MLP to Hall RSPB reserve (former concentrate on Waste Core quarry). Stategy, which is due to be submitted September 2012. Warwickshire gave an overview of their existing sites, landbank levels and sites previously proposed. Safeguarding issues were discussed, and it was noted that there are examples of retaining plant and transporting from satellite sites in both counties. Cross-boundary considerations

might include water transport, depending on source and destination, and habitats and landscapes. Agreed that any cross county initiatives will need to be recognised. No complementary or conflicting priorities were identified, agreed to continue "ideas exchange".

Contacted by direct mail No formal response received to regarding First Stage First Stage Consultation. Consultation. Officers from Warwickshire attended the consultation workshop. Gloucestershire:

Contacted by direct mail No response received to First regarding First Stage Stage Consultation. Consultation. Officers from Gloucestershire had booked places on the consultation workshop but were unable to attend. Staffordshire:

Contacted by direct mail No response received to First regarding First Stage Stage Consultation. Consultation. Officers from Staffordshire had booked places on the consultation workshop but were unable to attend. West Midlands conurbation "county" as Mineral Planning Authorities:

Contacted by direct mail No response received to First regarding First Stage Stage Consultation from any of Consultation. the West Midlands conurbation Mineral Planning Authorities. West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body:

The consultation and progress Awareness raised at meeting of on the emerging plan and issues 25th September 2012. being considered was reported to the WMRTAB members Discussion at meeting of 3rd (Warwickshire CC, Shropshire December focussed on: CC, Coventry City Council,  the importance of recycled Birmingham City Council, Construction and Demolition Derbyshire CC, Dudley Council, (C and D) waste to mineral Flintshire Council, Herefordshire supply,

Council, Sandwell Council,  the need for "urban quarries" Staffordshire County Council, (C and D recycling depots) Stoke City Council, Solihull and District Council, Telford Council,  problems of data collection. Walsall Council, Wolverhampton Council, the Environment Agency, National Industrial Symbiosis Programme, Biffa UK, Greenwatt UK, Robert Hopkins Ltd, the East Midlands RTAB, the South Wales RTAB Friends of the Earth) at their meetings of:  25th September 2012 and  3rd December 2012 West Midlands Aggregate Working Party:

There were no meetings of the N/A West Midlands Aggregates Working Party during this period.

Other Aggregate Working Parties:

The following Aggregate No response received to First Working Parties were contacted Stage Consultation from any of by direct mail regarding the First the Aggregate Working Parties. Stage Consultation:  East Midlands AWP  East of England AWP  London AWP  North East AWP  North Wales AWP  North West AWP  South East AWP  South Wales AWP  South West AWP  West Midlands AWP  Yorkshire and Humber AWP

The Convenor of the AWP secretaries and secretaries of  East Midlands AWP  North Wales AWP  North West AWP  South Wales AWP  South West AWP  Yorkshire and Humber AWP were all contacted by email and sent a reminder letter on 23rd October 2012. Discussions with the POS Mineral and Waste Learning Group suggested that the other AWPs were either not significant with regard to Worcestershire or not operational and unable to reply. Other surrounding All surrounding Local Planning No response received to First authorities Authorities were contacted by Stage Consultation from any of direct mail regarding the First the surrounding authorities. Stage Consultation. The Environment A meeting was held on 7th Matters discussed included: Agency August 2012 as a preliminary  Assessing need, informal meeting to air ideas. increased recycling and Several aspects of the zero carbon context Environment Agency's remit  Biodiversity offsetting were represented at the  Groundwater recharge meeting:  Flexibility for new  Planning liaison technologies  Water framework  Climate change

directive  Temporary land use -  Flood risk management opportunity for landscape  Biodiversity scale biodiversity gain.  Hydrogeology. Particularly water, wet A brief introduction was given to meadow, wet woodland. the Minerals Local Plan. Poor quality soil can mean good botany.  Restoration  Benefit of voids  Hydraulic continuity - water protection problems or local water supply issues (wells)  Flood risk, SFRA should lead to application specific FRAs  Impact of bunds on flood storage  Ability for restoration to offer flood storage  Birdstrike/airport issues  Visual impact of voids/lakes  Developer contributions  Restoration management by natural processes  Land ownership  After-use: examples - rock climbing facilities at restored sites can keep people off sensitive faces elsewhere. Water skiing on a new lake will mean little damage, much better than using sensitive existing lakes.  Enhancing degraded rivers (presentation): o Break down barriers between gravel pits and river o Low/no cost to minerals companies (income from extra resource) o Improves fish populations in pits and rivers o More difficult if the river is navigable, but could still link site

and river.  Hydropower and hydrothermal energy schemes Potential information sources and some examples of good and bad practice were highlighted. EA were willing to take part in stakeholder groups and comment on early consultation drafts. EA highlighted that the MLP should address operational phase and restoration phase, and restoration opportunities need to be built into operational phase.

Contacted by direct mail Response received to First regarding First Stage Stage Consultation. The Consultation. Attended the First Environment Agency provided Stage Consultation workshop. comprehensive comments on groundwater, biodiversity, flood risk issues, the interaction with waste and mineral needs, and commented on the outcome of group discussions at the consultation workshop. They also commented fully on the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report. English Heritage Contacted by direct mail Response received to First regarding First Stage Stage Consultation. English Consultation. Attended the First Heritage commented on each of Stage Consultation workshop. the aspects covered by the consultation questions, highlighting information on building and roofing stone, welcoming the commitment to addressing the historic environment and highlighting further data sources for policy preparation. They stated their willingness to continue to input into the development of the Plan, its supporting evidence and policy framework. They also commented fully on the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report. Natural England Contacted by direct mail Response received to First

regarding First Stage Stage Consultation. Natural Consultation. England highlighted Green Infrastructure and Nature Improvement Areas as issues for consideration. They also commented fully on the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report. The Mayor of Sent a copy of the "Get involved N/A London in Planning" leaflet but did not reply. No issues have been identified which require co-operation with the Mayor of London, therefore not consulted by direct mail regarding First Stage Consultation. Civil Aviation Contacted by direct mail No response received to First Authority regarding First Stage Stage Consultation. Consultation. The Homes and Sent a copy of the "Get involved N/A Communities in Planning" leaflet but did not Agency reply. No issues have been identified which require co-operation with the Homes and Communities Agency, therefore not consulted by direct mail regarding First Stage Consultation. Primary Care Worcestershire and Wyre Forest No response received to First Trusts PCTs and West Midlands Stage Consultation. Strategic Health Authority were contacted by direct mail and sent a reminder letter asking if they would like to be added to our consultation database on 23rd October 2012. Office of Rail Contacted by direct mail No response received to First Regulation regarding First Stage Stage Consultation from the Consultation. Office of Rail Regulation. However, Network Rail provided additional consultee details for any proposals to work minerals near the railway. Transport for No issues have been identified N/A London which require co-operation with Transport for London, therefore not consulted by direct mail regarding First Stage Consultation. Integrated Sent a copy of the "Get involved N/A Transport in Planning" leaflet but did not Authority: Centro reply. Were contacted by email

and sent a reminder letter on 23rd October 2012. Not consulted on the First Stage Consultation. Highways Agency Contacted by direct mail Response received to First regarding First Stage Stage Consultation highlighting Consultation. the Highways Agency's responsibilities in Worcestershire, requesting to be consulted as policies are developed to ensure adequate consideration is given to impacts on the Strategic Road Network. WCC Highway Sent a copy of the "Get involved N/A Authority in Planning" leaflet but did not reply. Not sent the First Consultation document. The Marine No issues identified which N/A Management require co-operation with the Organisation Marine Management Organisation.

The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) requested not to be consulted, stating that "the remit of the MMO’s work reaches up to the mean high water springs mark along the coast and within any stretches of tidal river. Our maps indicate that there are no rivers within Worcestershire that are under tidal influence and as such this area is outside of the MMO’s remit. We therefore do not feel it necessary to be consulted on any of the areas covered by the [Get Involved in Planning] questionnaire." Worcestershire Contacted by direct mail No response received to First Local Enterprise regarding First Stage Stage Consultation. Partnership Consultation. Attended the First Stage Consultation workshop. Greater Contacted by direct mail No response received to First Birmingham and regarding First Stage Stage Consultation. Solihull Local Consultation. Enterprise Partnership

4. Second Stage Consultation

4.1. The second formal stage of consultation on the Minerals Local Plan began on 11th November 2013 and ran until 31st January 2014.

4.2. This consultation included:  A portrait of Worcestershire giving an overview of the minerals found in Worcestershire and identifying the key issues affecting the county  A draft vision and objectives for what the Minerals Local Plan should aim to achieve  A spatial strategy diagram which set out very broadly what type of development the County Council would like where  Details of how much of each mineral we need to provide and when, including alternative methods considered in making this calculation and options for when it should be provided  Ideas about how minerals should be worked, setting out the issues to be considered when developing criteria to manage working practices  Ideas about where minerals should be worked, setting out the issues to be considered when developing location criteria for all mineral workings and identifying 'areas of search' for aggregates and an 'opportunity area' for clay  Ideas about how mineral workings should be restored, setting out issues to be considered when developing principles for all workings and a proposed approach to identifying key considerations and restoration priorities for each individual 'area of search'  Details of how minerals should be safeguarded for future use including alternative options to consider

4.3. A variety of consultation and engagement methods were therefore used to meet these different objectives:  Consultation document, summary document and questionnaire;  Open day drop-in sessions;  Stakeholder workshops offered; and  Online quiz. More details about these methods are outlined later in this section.

Publicity activities

Worcestershire County Council Website 4.4. All relevant documents were included in a dedicated section on the Council's website with the shortlink www.worcestershire.gov.uk/minerals. This link was included in all public notices, press releases, via social media posts, and in letters and emails.

4.5. The consultation was also listed on the Council's "consultation portal" and was publicised in two articles posted to the front-page news section of the Council's website during the consultation.

Public notices 4.6. Public notices were placed in newspapers covering the county:  Bromsgrove and Droitwich Advertiser (13th November 2013)

 Evesham Journal (14th November 2013)  Kidderminster Shuttle/Times (14th November 2013)  Ludlow & Tenbury Wells Advertiser (14th November 2013)  Malvern Gazette and Ledbury Reporter (15th November 2013)  Redditch Advertiser and Alcester Chronicle (13th November 2013)  Stourbridge News/County Express (14th November 2013)  Worcester News (14th November 2013)

Press releases 4.7. Two rounds of proactive media activity, tailored by news patch, were undertaken during the consultation period with press releases being sent to all County newspapers and radio stations. 11 articles appeared in local media.

4.8. Press releases were also sent to other organisations and stories were carried in the following publications:  Worcestershire County Association of Local Councils, CALC Update, Issue 42 (8th November 2013)  Wychavon's Strategic Partnership and LSPs newsletter, Communicate (December 2013)  NFU's weekly email newsletter to all members in the West Midlands (from 15th November for several weeks) and the regional pages of NFUOnline.com4.

Direct mail 4.9. On 11th November 2013, an email was sent to all contacts on the Council's Minerals Planning Database who had opted to be contacted by email (394 email addresses) and all other contacts on the database were sent a letter (113 postal addresses). Both of these included details of and links to the summary and main consultation documents, questionnaire, open days, and background documents.

4.10. Following further consideration of the contacts who had registered an interest in the Minerals Local Plan, it was felt that there may be additional contacts who it would be desirable to inform about the consultation. All contacts on the SCI and Waste Core Strategy consultation database had previously been sent the "Get involved in Planning" Questionnaire but a number of contacts either did not respond, or responded but did not request to receive information on minerals policy. These contacts were considered and three groups were identified:  "white group" – this group were not considered essential to the development of the Minerals Local Plan and were not contacted again.  "blue group" – this group were considered important to be involved in the development of the plan. This group were added to the Minerals consultation database but given the option to be removed on request.  "pink group" – this group were considered to have a potential interest in the development of the Minerals Local Plan. This group were sent the "Get Involved with Planning" questionnaire again but not automatically added to the Minerals consultation database. The "blue" and "pink" groups were sent letters or emails on 12th December 20135 which contained the same information as the 11th November letters and emails with additional details of why they were receiving the communication.

4 The NFU also sent an email about the consultation to all their members in Worcestershire. 5 In error, the letters send on 12 December were dated 11 November.

122 letters and 49 emails were sent to blue group, and 165 letters and 52 emails were sent to the pink group.

4.11. A full list of consultees is set out in Appendix C.

Social Media 4.12. Twitter: 7 social media messages were posted through the County Council Twitter channel over the consultation linking through to dedicated website section. The Council had approximately 9,000 followers at this time.

Methods used

Open days 4.13. Three open days were held near the beginning of the consultation period to give the public a chance to find out more about the second stage consultation, look at the background documents, and ask officers questions. The event was publicised in the consultation leaflet and in all publicity on the consultation in general.

4.14. A number of key pages from the consultation document were produced at poster scale, and all of the Areas of Search were also printed at a large scale. Background documents, the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment, and large-scale geological maps of the county were also available for the public to peruse during the events. Though we attempted to direct the public to the digital copies of the documents, a number of printed consultation documents, summary documents and paper questionnaires were available for the public to take away.

4.15. Worcester Open Day was held on Saturday 30 November 2013, 10:00 - 15:30, at Worcestershire Countryside Centre. There were 7 attendees. This event deliberately coincided with a well-attended fun run in the park, the Worcestershire Christmas Market (the County Council car park serves as a park and ride for Christmas shopping weekends) and a rugby match, all of which were expected to attract passing interest in the consultation.

4.16. The main interest on this day came from Longdon/Queenhill, with parish councillors and residents from the Longdon, Queenhill and Holdfast Parish expressing concern about an existing application on a site near Holdfast.

4.17. Bromsgrove Open Day was held on Wednesday 4 December 2013, 14:00 - 20:00, in the Spadesbourne Suite at Bromsgrove District Council Office. There were 21 attendees. This event was added to the schedule on the request of the Cabinet Member for Economy, Skills and Infrastructure and deputy leader of the council as there was local interest in the plan. Attendees at this event included Bromsgrove District Council, Gloucestershire County Council, local residents, and representatives from a number of parish councils (Bentley Pauncefoot, Belbroughton, Hagley). The main areas of interest were concerns about landfills in former quarries and potential links with housing proposals.

4.18. Kidderminster Open Day was held on Saturday 7 December 2013, 10:00 - 16:00, at Kidderminster Library. The Open Day was advertised on hoardings

outside and inside the Library. There were 3 attendees. All attendees at this event were members of the public.

4.19. The number of attendees in itself does not indicate the success of these open days as many in-depth conversations were held about detailed aspects of the plan. People were primarily interested in learning about resources and sites in their areas, and some looked at Areas of Search maps in detail. Following specific questions, electronic links and detailed maps were emailed to answer individual queries. A number of attendees took full consultation or summary documents and questionnaires away with them. There were also a lot of general questions asked about the consultation and the minerals local plan.

Workshops 4.20. We proposed to hold two types of workshop during the consultation period:  An industry workshop aimed specifically at operators to get an industry perspective and to focus on technical issues and deliverability.  A green infrastructure workshop aimed at organisations involved in delivering and managing green infrastructure in and around the county to focus on the implementation and deliverability of our restoration aspirations.

4.21. These workshops did not take place as no expressions of interest were received for either event.

Consultation Documents 4.22. We produced a main consultation document which set out the processes we had undertaken and options we had considered to arrive at the proposed approaches. The consultation document included:

4.23. The consultation document included 44 questions some of which were technical in nature and others which were more general. The questionnaire could be completed online or returned to our dedicated email address or freepost mailing address.

4.24. As the main consultation document was lengthy (327 pages including Appendices), we also produced a summary document. The summary document was composed of extracts from the main consultation document and gave an overview of the issues the new Minerals Local Plan will address and how we used the comments made on the first consultation on the Minerals Local Plan to develop the approaches proposed.

4.25. The summary document was intended to give a good overview and enough information to help readers decide which sections they might want to look at in more detail. It set out some of the consultation questions in full, and signposted the reader to the main consultation document where the detailed information was required to answer the questions.

4.26. Both documents were available in a "page turner" version, a downloadable PDF, or in printed form on request. 10 copies of the main document and 6 copies of the summary document were posted out on request. Printed documents were also made available in the county's libraries and at County Hall reception.

4.27. We received 30 questionnaire responses and 36 general responses by letter or email that did not use the questionnaire format for a total of 66 responses. This gives an overall response rate of 8.9%.

4.28. The comments received to the second stage consultation were broadly constructive and positive. The restoration-led approach was especially lauded by conservation organisations, though the minerals industry expressed some reservations and we anticipate that some refinement of the areas of search and the methodology employed to determine them will be necessary. We received very useful feedback from industry respondents regarding ways in which we may strengthen our approach as we begin to draft policies. Local Authorities within and neighbouring Worcestershire also brought a number of important cross-boundary issues to our attention that will require further work. These include projected housing development and demand for aggregates, crushed rock provision, and sustainable transport. Individuals and parish councils expressed concern about particular sites, and ensuring that Worcestershire's local character is captured and expressed in the draft plan.

4.29. There was general agreement with the "issues that need to be addressed through policy criteria" which were identified in tables 5, 10 and 24. Some respondents identified issues that they would like to see strengthened or added, and these will be addressed as we develop the draft policies. Monitoring was identified as a cross-cutting issue in the responses we received, and we will be looking at how monitoring requirements could be incorporated into the draft policies at the next stage of consultation.

4.30. Below is a brief summary of the key issues that arose in each section of the consultation:

60 identifying constraints and establishing "buffer zones" as the policy context is substantially different than it was in 1997.

Respondents have also specifically asked that we consider Nitrate Protection Zones, agricultural land quality and source protection zones in preparing our draft policies.

Several respondents suggested that further clarity is needed about how restoration priorities should be balanced or prioritised if more than one issue is identified for a particular area.

embarking on a phase of further information gathering to ensure our evidence base is as robust as possible, and to ensure we have fulfilled our duty to cooperate as we begin to prepare the draft wording for the next consultation.

Online Quiz 4.31. The interactive quiz which was developed for the first stage consultation remained active on our website during the second stage consultation. The quiz asked 'general knowledge' questions about what minerals are used for, how much is needed to build a house, how far minerals are transported, what activities are going on locally and which local recreation facilities were previously mineral workings, with an invitation to provide their contact details if they would like to be involved in participating in future Minerals Local Plan consultations.

Events with Partners

Worcestershire Green Infrastructure Partnership 4.32. A presentation about the consultation was made at the Worcestershire Green Infrastructure Partnership meeting on 29th January 2014, highlighting the role of Green Infrastructure in the emerging Minerals Local Plan. Although the meeting was close to the end of the consultation period, partner organisations were encouraged to make individual responses as soon as possible.

1000 years of building with stone 4.33. An Officer attended a meeting of the Steering Group for the project on 21st November 2013, explained the Second Stage Consultation and discussed the part the project could contribute to the Plan and how, it, in return could enable demand for building stone to be met.

4.34. On 13th March 2014 an Officer met volunteers for the project, explained the Minerals Local Plan and the council's support for the 1,000 years project and how the project would be used within it.

4.35. A brief update on the responses to the Second Stage Consultation on the Plan and reference to the continued commitment to encouraging building stone development in the county was reported to a further meeting of the Steering Group on 13th June 2014.

West Midlands Regional Technical Advisory Body for waste (RTAB) 24/01/14 4.36. The Minerals Local Plan and Second Stage Consultation were explained to the RTAB. Relevant Waste Core Strategy policies and the need for "urban quarries" and the free movement of Construction and Demolition waste through the Green Belt were discussed. The need for the Plan to emphasise the value of this waste and to ensure delivery of aggregates from recycled Construction and Demolition waste was stressed. The poor quality of data on this waste stream was agreed.

Worcestershire Planning Officers Group (WPOG) 04/02/2013 and 08/03/2013 4.37. Brief presentations and question and answer sessions about the MLP were made at the WPOG meeting of Development Management Officers on 4th

February 2013 and the WPOG meeting of Policy Officers on 8th March 2013; discussions focussed on restoration considerations and the wider implications of and links between mineral and housing development. .

Consultation on relevant appraisals and assessments

Sustainability Appraisal (SA) 4.38. An Initial Sustainability Appraisal was prepared by the Council and was published for consultation alongside the Minerals Local Plan Second Stage Consultation. This exceeds the six week minimum period which is required for consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal. It was publicised through all direct mail correspondence, the public notices and the minerals pages in the council's website.

4.39. The three statutory consultees for Sustainability Appraisal were also informed specifically. These bodies are Natural England, Environment Agency and English Heritage.

4.40. Comments were received from two of the three statutory consultees: Natural England and English Heritage. No specific comments were received from the Environment Agency on the SA itself but related issues were referred to in the Agency's response to the Consultation as a whole..

4.41. Natural England were supportive of the initial SA and did not give any detailed comments for inclusion or further consideration. English Heritage were broadly supportive and highlighted some issues for continued or further inclusion, such as suggesting the inclusion of specific objectives and monitoring indicators for the historic environment within the SA.

4.42. A further response was received from a member of the public, stating that the consultation was "too complex to comment on properly".

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) 4.43. A Habitats Regulations Assessment Scoping Report was prepared by the Council and was published for consultation alongside the Minerals Local Plan Second Stage Consultation. It was publicised through all direct mail correspondence, the public notices and the minerals pages in the council's website.

4.44. The statutory consultee for Habitats Regulations Assessment was also informed specifically. This body is Natural England.

4.45. Comments were received from Natural England. Natural England was supportive of the approach taken to the HRA, and gave further information about Natural England's project to make finalised Conservation Objectives for all European sites available online. They suggested that soil compaction should be recognised as an environmental impact which could occur as a result of the extraction of any materials. They advised that requirements for project-stage HRA highlighted in the Scoping Report should be written into the Minerals Local Plan.

4.46. A further response was received from a member of the public, stating that the consultation was "too complex to comment on properly".

Equality Impact Assessment 4.47. An Equalities Impact Assessment desktop screening was prepared by the Council and was first published for consultation alongside the Minerals Local Plan First Stage Consultation. This was not revised for the Second Stage Consultation but remained available for comment.

4.48. No comments were received.

Consultation on the evidence base

4.49. It is essential that the Minerals Local Plan is based on robust evidence. To develop this evidence base a suite of background documents will be developed to support and inform the emerging policy framework.

4.50. The background documents which were available for comment alongside the Second Stage consultation were:

What minerals are found in Worcestershire?  Background Document: Analysis of Mineral Resources in Worcestershire – which sets out the methodology for analysing the available information about the mineral resources which are present in the county in order to evaluate the likelihood of them being suitable and commercially attractive for exploitation during the lifetime of the plan.  Background Document: Coal in Worcestershire  Background Document: Salt and Brine in Worcestershire  Background Document: Clay in Worcestershire  Background Document: Building Stone in Worcestershire How much of each mineral do we need to make provision for?  The Local Aggregates Assessment for Worcestershire – June 2013  The Draft Local Aggregates Assessment for Worcestershire – October 2012  Background Document: Ensuring adequate and steady supply of industrial and energy minerals What are the other local issues?  Background Document: Contributing towards Worcestershire's priorities - which sets out how the minerals local plan could contribute towards the Council's corporate priorities and the priorities of the Sustainable Community Strategy.  Background Document: Minerals and Climate Change – which considers the contribution that the Minerals Local Plan could play to reducing Worcestershire’s climate change emissions and planning for and adapting to climate change.  Background Document: The Malvern Hills Acts - which sets out the unique legislative framework regarding mineral working in the Malvern Hills.  Profile documents for Environmental Character Areas – these detail the mineral and environmental context in the Environmental Character Areas

which form the basis for the Worcestershire Green Infrastructure Framework. There are 30 Environmental Character Areas.

4.51. No comments were received on any of the background documents specifically, although some responses to the main consultation referred to the Local Aggregates Assessment and the Analysis of Mineral Resources.

4.52. The background documents will be reviewed as necessary and further background documents will be produced during the development of the Minerals Local Plan.

Summary of activities under the duty to cooperate

4.53. A more detailed summary of the discussions held with each of the bodies we have a duty to cooperate with is set out in the Annual Monitoring Report.

4.54. Following the close of the First Stage Consultation in January 2013, the following activities have been undertaken:

Body Method of engagement Outcomes Worcestershire Herefordshire and Awareness raised, broad issues Local Authorities Worcestershire Planning of mutual interest identified, Policy Officers Group particularly with regard to the contribution mineral workings Presentation and discussion could make to recreation sites on 8th March 2013. being proposed in district wide Local Plans. Informal links established. Herefordshire and Awareness raised and broad Worcestershire Development issues of mutual interest raised, Management Officers Group particularly with regard to liaison procedures over possible future Presentation and discussion mineral and housing on 4th February 2013. development sites. Informal links established. Bromsgrove District Council:

sites (10th December 2013). This identified one site which would require further assessment and advised on what the assessment should address. Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Redditch Borough Council: No response received to Second Stage Consultation. Contacted by direct mail regarding Second Stage Consultation.

Informally consulted on Water Response received noting that Transport Paper, Winter there are no commercial or 2014. cruising waterways within Redditch Borough's boundary.

Wyre Forest District Council: Response received to Second Stage Consultation, supporting Contacted by direct mail the restoration-led approach and regarding Second Stage close links with Green Consultation. Infrastructure, and highlighting the District Council's Green Infrastructure Study and Strategy as an information source. WFDC supported the vision, objectives and strategic restoration priorities. It supported the approach to identifying areas of search and safeguarding minerals.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

South Worcestershire Authorities:

working and delivery milestones, concern at lower target after 2016  Preference for identifying specific sites or preferred areas  Appropriateness of protecting and enhancing Worcestershire's key economic sectors  Need for references to sustainable transport and community engagement in the vision  Maximising use of secondary and recycled materials, acknowledging imports and exports and comprehensive working of permitted reserves  The need for high environmental standards throughout site life  Transport, traffic impacts and the use of sustainable modes of transport  Methodology for identifying areas of search,  Desire to input into restoration priorities and profiles  Implications of mineral overlap with South Worcestershire site allocations for housing or employment land  Potential impact on Malvern Hills, AONBs, Abberley Hills, Green Belt, landscape character  Appropriateness of "restoration-led" approach  Need for more information on safeguarding resources and infrastructure assets.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Contacted by direct mail No response received to regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Consultation.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Herefordshire:

17th July 2013 – meeting with Agreed that there are no an update on the status of conflicts or matters of concern Minerals Planning Policy between the councils' timetables preparation in both counties, or approaches, and that both status and principles of Local counties would proceed on the Aggregate Assessments, basis of supplying the discussion of any WMRAWP sub-regional complementary or conflicting apportionment up to 2016 issues or matters of concern, followed by average of past 10- data availability and sharing. years sales.

Agreed that there were no conflicts between the 2 counties' approaches to the LAA.

Agreed that future meetings would be useful to ensure compatibility between approaches and the use of data.

Contacted by direct mail No response received to regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Consultation.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Warwickshire: No response received to Second Stage Consultation. Contacted by direct mail regarding Second Stage Consultation.

Informal discussions between officers about the content and progress of both counties' Plans were held at the WMRTAB meetings.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Gloucestershire:

February 2013 – email WCC confirmed the sites shown exchange confirming sites in were correct and that there were Worcestershire to appear in no longer any operational maps in Gloucestershire's quarries producing crushed rock Minerals Local Plan. or building stone in Worcestershire.

17th June 2013 – see "Joint See below meeting" section below.

Informally consulted on Water Gloucestershire replied stating Transport Paper, Winter that they had no specific 2014. comments, but referred us to their Transport Evidence Paper background document.

Staffordshire:

Contacted by direct mail No response received to regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Consultation.

Informal discussions between officers about the content and progress of both counties' Plans were held at the POS Mineral and Waste Learning Project Meetings and WMRTAB meetings.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

West Midlands conurbation "county" as Mineral Planning Authorities:

Contacted by direct mail No response received to regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation from Consultation. any of the West Midlands Unitary Authorities.

Informally consulted on Water No response received.

Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Joint meeting:

18th October 2013 - Meeting Noted WCC's close working of "West Midlands" Planning relationship with Herefordshire Authority officer but separate LAAs produced. representatives at Noted that Worcestershire's LAA Birmingham City Council has gone to Cabinet. Other Offices. Confirmed role of LAAs in the region may be AWP in giving advice on produced jointly (i.e. Shropshire Local Aggregate Assessment with Telford & Wrekin, (LAA) production, compliance Staffordshire with Stoke on with guidelines and 'fair share Trent, West Midlands unitary of burdens'. Also discussed authorities) potential for establishing

non-aggregate minerals group.

Other Aggregate Working Parties:

No response received to Second Stage Consultation from other surrounding Local Planning Authorities.

All surrounding Local No responses received. Planning Authorities were

informally consulted on the Water Transport Paper in Winter 2014.

The Planning Officers Society Mineral and Waste Learning Project (4 meetings p.a.):

Contacted by direct mail Response received to Second regarding Second Stage Stage Consultation. The Consultation. Environment Agency supported the draft spatial portrait, suggesting greater reference to the Water Framework Directive and Flood Risk betterment, and supported the vision as being progressive and positively worded. They also supported the draft objectives, but suggested that explicit reference to 'Flood Risk' and 'betterment opportunities' would highlight

their importance. Similarly, they supported the proposed policy issues, suggesting that future policy wording should commit to 'betterment opportunities'. They also highlighted that the 'sequential test' would need consideration and guidance in emerging policy, but that a balance will be needed between locating workings in low flood risk areas and providing opportunities for meaningful flood alleviation. They supported the progressive approach to assigning restoration priorities to areas of search, but suggested flexibility would be needed to take account of site-level conditions which may not align with strategic priorities.

Informally consulted on Water No response received. Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

English Heritage Member of the Minerals See below. Green Infrastructure Steering Group (see below)

Contacted by direct mail Response received to Second regarding Second Stage Stage Consultation. English Consultation. Heritage welcomed references to background data. They noted that traditional building and roofing stone is fundamental to maintaining built heritage. They welcomed references to the historic environment throughout and particularly the specific objective, but suggested that a reference could be included within the vision. They highlighted that clarity will be needed to show how appropriate areas/sites have been identified ensuring the protection, conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. They welcomed the opportunity to work with us to ensure a positive legacy for

the historic environment as a result of minerals development and restoration, and encouraged consideration of the historic environment as an overarching restoration principle. They also commented fully on the Sustainability Appraisal.

Informally consulted on Water No response received Transport Paper, Winter 2014.

Natural England Member of the Minerals See below. Green Infrastructure Steering Group (see below)

Informally consulted on Water Natural England responded to Transport Paper, Winter say that "As a general principle 2014. the use of any waterways for transporting minerals should ensure protection and enhancement of the environment".

The Mayor of Did not respond to the "Get N/A London involved in Planning" leaflet. No issues have been identified which require

co-operation with the Mayor of London, therefore not consulted by direct mail regarding Second Stage Consultation. Civil Aviation Contacted by direct mail Responded to Second Stage Authority regarding Second Stage Consultation setting out CAA's Consultation. areas of interest. No issues of conflict identified. The Homes and No issues have been No response received to Communities identified which require Second Stage Consultation. Agency co-operation with the Homes and Communities Agency. However, added to "blue group" and contacted by direct mail for Second Stage Consultation. Clinical The Primary Care Trusts New single point of contact Commissioning have been disbanded and established to act as conduit for Groups (CCGs) new Clinical Commissioning all liaison over health matters. Groups set up. These are:  South Worcestershire CCG  Redditch and Bromsgrove CCG  Wyre Forest CCG National Health See above See above Service Commissioning Board Office of Rail Contacted by direct mail No response received to Regulation regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Consultation. Transport for London No issues have been N/A identified which require co-operation with Transport for London. Not consulted. Integrated Transport Added to "blue group" for No response received to Authority: Centro Second Stage Consultation Second Stage Consultation. and contacted by direct mail. Highways Agency Contacted by direct mail Responded to Second Stage regarding Second Stage Consultation highlighting the Consultation. Highways Agency's responsibilities in Worcestershire, requesting to be consulted as policies are developed to ensure adequate consideration is given to impacts on the Strategic Road Network. WCC Highway WCC Highways were not No response received at time of Authority sent the Second Stage publication. Consultation in error.

Subsequent discussion led to an individual contact being identified and the consultation material was forwarded on 12th June 2014 for comment.

On 12th December 2013 we wrote again to the MMO, highlighting the Duty to Cooperate and setting out that although we do not anticipate the plan affecting marine and tidal issues, there may be areas of interest for the MMO such as imports from marine dredged sand and gravel or aspects of our Habitats Regulations Assessment. Worcestershire Contacted by direct mail No response received to Local Enterprise regarding Second Stage Second Stage Consultation. Partnership Consultation.

Minerals Green Infrastructure Steering Group

4.55. A steering group was established to assist with embedding the Green Infrastructure approach in the Minerals Local Plan. The group consists of:  English Heritage  Environment Agency  Forestry Commission  Natural England  Nature After Minerals/RSPB  Worcestershire Wildlife Trust  Worcestershire County Council: o Strategic Planning & Environmental Policy o Ecology o Landscape o Development Management o Water/flooding o Countryside Access & Recreation o Historic Environment Not all participants have been able to attend all meetings, but all have been included on email circulations with agendas, minutes and draft documents for comment.

4.56. A number of meetings were held between the First Stage and Second Stage consultations to develop the Green Infrastructure approach:

Meeting of 28th May 2013 and 11th June 2013:  A method statement setting out how strategic priorities, secondary priorities and tertiary priorities had been derived and a method for applying these to the Areas of Search were provided for group discussion: o Each aspect was discussed and the group made suggestions for refining the methods or the data used.  Draft examples of Area of Search profiles were provided for group discussion: o The group agreed that the level of detail was appropriate. o The group discussed the interplay of the priorities, whether it was appropriate if the method resulted in some areas having lots of primary priorities, whether there was potential for conflict between priorities, whether minerals sites could deliver the priorities, and the need to bring out important issues in each Area of Search. o Further discussion looking at the examples raised points which needed to be refined in the method or data used, as well as individual points of interest for individual areas of search.  The group agreed that a sub-group would meet to discuss landscape and heritage issues and methodology and report back.  The group agreed that minerals officers would liaise with water interests to finalise methodology for water aspects.

 The group agreed that WCC's Environmental Policy team would consider the biodiversity aspect to finalise the methodology.  The group agreed that WCC Minerals officers would pick up on the advice from these subgroups and consult the whole group on final methodology and worked examples through email and file sharing.

Discussion with Minerals Industry

Cemex and Tarmac 4.57. A meeting was held on 16th July 2013 with representatives from Cemex and Tarmac. This gave a brief introduction to the Minerals Local Plan, the minerals covered, timetable and next consultation stage, and broad principles.

4.58. Discussions looked at:  the nature of and any likely changes to the minerals industry which could affect Worcestershire;  the nature of and likely changes at mineral site level, such as minimum size of workings, new production methods, plant, campaign working and water transport;  what Worcestershire-specific issues should be addressed in the Minerals Local Plan;  what other issues should be taken into account from other Mineral Planning Authorities;  issues which should be addressed regarding sand and gravel, crushed rock and other minerals;  any complementary or conflicting issues, matters of concern and cross boundary issues to be aware of;  data availability and sharing;  ways to work together effectively and appropriately; and  competition commission investigations.

4.59. Outcomes and actions included agreement to discuss:  possible pre-application proposals with the Development Management section and operator's agents in parallel with the Plan process,  The proposed emphasis on a restoration led approach further, if necessary, following the next consultation,  specific matters raised by individual companies individually if requested,  matters of concern to minerals operators as a group at a specific seminar.

Tarmac 4.60. A meeting was held on 7th February 2014 between Worcestershire County Council's Minerals and Waste Policy team, Development Management team and PleydellSmithyman Ltd (representing Tarmac). This meeting looked at the relationship between the emerging Minerals Local Plan and future site development at Clifton Gravel Pit.

4.61. Discussions looked at:  Tarmac's existing operations in Worcestershire, likely lifetime left at those sites and plans for future extraction;  Site investigations already undertaken and likely to be required;  Ground water, particularly relating to a nearby SSSI and private water supplies;  Access arrangements, amenity and restoration issues;  Potential for restoration of the Clifton site for recreation purposes;  Likely timescale of an application in relation to submission or adoption of the Minerals Local Plan.

Salop Sand and Gravel 4.62. A meeting was arranged with Salop Sand and Gravel including a site visit at Chadwich Lane Pit for 18th September 2013. The agenda for this meeting was the same as for the meeting with Cemex and Tarmac.

4.63. Worcestershire County Council officers attended the meeting, but representatives from Salop Sand and Gravel did not arrive and the meeting was not held.

4.64. A meeting was held at Worcestershire County Council's offices on 7th February 2014 between Worcestershire County Council's Minerals and Waste Policy team, Development Management team, Mr Parton of Salop Sand and Gravel and PleydellSmithyman Ltd (Salop Sand and Gravel's agent). This meeting looked at the relationship between Mr Parton's operations and potential future plans, the requirement for restoration plans and restrictions to infilling as a restoration option in the future.

Coal Authority and CoalPro 4.65. A meeting was held on 13th August 2013 with representatives from the Coal Authority and CoalPro. This gave a brief introduction to the Minerals Local Plan, the minerals covered, timetable and next consultation stage, and broad principles.

4.66. Discussions looked at:  the nature of and any likely changes to the minerals industry which could affect Worcestershire;  the nature of and likely changes at mineral site level, such as minimum size of workings, new production methods, plant, campaign working and water transport;  what Worcestershire-specific issues should be addressed in the Minerals Local Plan;  what other issues should be taken into account from other Mineral Planning Authorities;  issues which should be addressed regarding coal;  issues which should be addressed regarding other minerals associated with coal;  any complementary or conflicting issues, matters of concern and cross boundary issues to be aware of;  data availability;  ways to work together effectively and appropriately; and

 competition commission investigations.

4.67. Outcomes and actions included:  Only surface working of coal is conceivable in Worcestershire at present. Alternative hydrocarbon extraction techniques are theoretically possible but likely to be unviable;  Although some coal strata are geologically present, at best the deposits are very thin, in practice all commercial surface deposits may have already been worked out, meaning that there is no coal resource for future extraction in the county;  Coal hazards however are important and have been mapped in Worcestershire. The areas affected should be "safeguarded" to ensure that the ground conditions can be assessed and any remedial action undertaken before other development is permitted;  Policies should be included to enable coal and related minerals to be developed if applications come forward, subject to the provisos in the NPPF.

Appendix A: A summary of the legislative and regulatory requirements

The Minerals Local Plan (MLP) for Worcestershire is a statutory Development Plan Document (“DPD”) within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Local Plan) (England) Regulations 2012 (“the Regulations”). Before the Council can adopt the Minerals Local Plan it has to be submitted it to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

Duty to co-operate in relation to planning of sustainable development: The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (local development) (as amended by the Localism Act 2012) 33A and The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 Part 2 require local planning authorities to cooperate with the following bodies in the preparation of development plan documents, other local development documents and any activities that relate to strategic matters and support the preparation of these development documents:  Local Planning Authorities,  The Environment Agency,  English Heritage,  Natural England,  The Mayor of London,  Civil Aviation Authority,  The Homes and Communities Agency,  Each Primary Care Trust,  Office of Rail Regulation,  Transport for London,  Each Integrated Transport Authority, in the case of the West Midlands this is Centro,  Each Highway Authority  The Marine Management Organisation  Local Enterprise Partnerships

The duty to co-operate requires constructive and active engagement on an ongoing basis. In doing this the local planning authority must also have regard to the development plan documents, other local development documents and marine plans of these organisations, as well as any activities that relate to strategic matters6 and support the preparation of these development documents.

Co-operation may include considering the preparation of agreement on joint approaches or preparing joint local development documents.

Preparation of the Minerals Local Plan Regulation 18 The Town and County Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 requires the Council to notify the following groups that it proposes to prepare a Minerals Local Plan and invite then to make representations on what it ought to contain:

6 A 'Strategic Matter' is a sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas. This includes infrastructure and 'county matters' such as minerals and waste development (defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

 Specific consultation bodies which the Council considers may be interested. These are the Coal Authority, the Environment Agency, English Heritage, the Marine Management Organisation, Natural England, Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, the Highways Agency, relevant authorities that are in or adjoining Worcestershire, Primary Care Trusts, Homes and Communities Agency, sewerage undertakers, water undertakers and any persons licensed under the electricity act, gas act or to whom the electronic communications code applies.  General consultation bodies which the Council considers appropriate. These include voluntary bodies and bodies which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic, national or religious groups, disabled persons or persons carrying on business in the area.  Residents or others carrying out business in Worcestershire which the Council considers appropriate.

Submission of documents and information to the Secretary of State Section 20(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Regulation 22(1)c of The Town and County Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 require a statement setting out the following to be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the Minerals Local Plan:  Which bodies and persons the LPA invited to make representations under regulation 18 (see above)  How they were invited to make representations  A summary of the main issues raised  How these issues were taken into account It also requires the council to identify the number of representations made on the local plan which the Council proposes to submit to the Secretary of State and to provide a summary of the main issues raised.

Appendix B: Direct mail/e-mail distribution list: first stage consultation

Specific Consultees  Cleeve Prior Parish Council  Abberley Parish Council  Clent Parish Council  Abberton Parish Meeting  Clifton-on-Teme Parish Council  Abbots Morton Parish Council  Coal Authority  Acton Beauchamp Group Parish Council  Cofton Hackett Parish Council  Alcester Town Council  Cookhill Parish Council  Alfrick & Lulsley Parish Council  Cotswolds District Council (3)  Alvechurch Parish Council  Coventry City Council  Alveley & Romsley Parish Council  Cropthorne Parish Council  Arrow with Weethley Parish Council  Crowle Parish Council  Ashton-under-Hill Parish Council  Daventry District Council  Astley & Dunley Parish Council  Defford & Besford Parish Council  Badsey & Aldington Parish Council  Derbyshire County Council  Barnt Green Parish Council (3)  Dodderhill Parish Council  Bayton Parish Council (2)  Dodford with Grafton Parish Council  Beckford Parish Council  Dorsington Parish Council  Belbroughton Parish Council (2)  Drakes Broughton & Wadborough with  Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council Pirton Parish Council  Beoley Parish Council  Droitwich Spa Town Council  Berrow Parish Council  Dudley MBC  Bewdley Town Council  Dumbleton Parish Council  Bickmarsh Parish Council  Earls Croome Parish Council  Bidford on Avon Parish Council  East Staffordshire Borough Council  Birlingham Parish Council  Eastham Parish Council  Birmingham City Council  Eckington Parish Council  Birtsmorton Parish Council  Eldersfield Parish Council  Bishampton & Throckmorton Parish  Elmbridge Parish Council Council  Elmley Castle Parish Council  Blaby District Council  Elmley Castle, Bricklehampton &  Boraston Parish Meeting Netherton Parish Council  Bournheath Parish Council (2)  Elmley Lovett Parish Council  Brecon Beacons National Park Authority  English Heritage  Bredicott Parish Meeting  Environment Agency (2)  Bredon & Bredon's Norton Parish Council  Essex County Council  Bretforton Parish Council  Evesham Town Council  Broadheath Parish Council  Far Forest Parish Council  Broadwas & Cotheridge Parish Council  Feckenham Parish Council  Broadway Parish Council  Fladbury Parish Council  Bromsgrove District Council (3)  Flyford Flavell Grafton Flyford North Piddle  Bromsgrove District Council & Redditch Parish Council Borough Council  Forest of Dean District Council  Broome Parish Council  Frankley Parish Council  Broughton Hackett Parish Meeting  Gloucester City Council  Bushley Parish Council  Gloucestershire County Council (2)  Cannock Chase Council  Great Comberton Parish Council  Castlemorton Parish Council  Great Witley & Hill Hampton Parish  Catshill and North Marlbrook Parish Council Council (2)  Grimley Parish Council  Chaceley Parish Council  Guarlford Parish Council  Chaddesley Corbett Parish Council  Hagley Parish Council  Charlton Parish Council  Hallow Parish Council  Cheltenham Borough Council  Hampton Lovett & Westwood Parish  Cherwell District Council Council  Childswickham Parish Council  Hanbury Parish Council  Chipping Campden Town Council  Hanley Castle Parish Council (2)  Church Lench Parish Council  Hanley Parish Council  Churchill & Blakedown Parish Council  Harborough District Council  Churchill Parish Council  Hartlebury Parish Council

 Harvington Parish Council  Offenham Parish Council  Hatfield & District Group Parish Council  Office of Rail Regulation  Heaton Planning  Ombersley & Doverdale Parish Council  Herefordshire Council  Overbury & Conderton Parish Council  Highways Agency  Oxford City Council  Hill and Moor Parish Council  Oxfordshire County Council  Hill Croome Parish Council  Pebworth Parish Council  Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council  Pendock Parish Council  Hindlip, Martin Hussingtree and Salwarpe  Pensax Parish Council Parish Council  Peopleton Parish Council  Hinton-on-the Green & Somerville Parish  Pershore Town Council Council  Pinvin Parish Council (3)  Holt Parish Council  Powick Parish Council  Honeybourne Parish Council  Powys County Council  Hunnington Parish Council  Redditch Borough Council (3)  Inkberrow Parish Council  Redmarley D'Abitot Parish Council  Kemerton Parish Council (2)  Ripple Parish Council  Kempsey Parish Council  Rochford Parish Council  Kenswick & Wichenford Parish Council  Rock Parish Council  Kidderminster Foreign Parish Council  Romsley Parish Council  Kington & Dormston Parish Council  Rous Lench Parish Council (2)  Knighton-on-Teme Parish Council  Rugby Borough Council  Knightwick & Doddenham Parish Council  Rushock Parish Council  Leicester City Council  Rushwick Parish Council  Leicestershire County Council  Saleway Group (Himbleton, Hadzor,  Leigh and Bransford Parish Council Oddingly, Huddington)  Lichfield District Council  Salford Priors Parish Council  Lickey and Blackwell Parish Council  Sandwell MBC  Lindridge Parish Council  Sedgeberrow Parish Council  Little Comberton Parish Council  Severn Stoke & Croome d'Abitot Parish  Little Malvern & Welland Parish Council Council (2)  Severn Stoke and Croome d'Abitot Parish  Little Witley Parish Council Council  Longdon Queenhill and Holdfast Parish  Severn Trent Water Ltd (3) Council  Shrawley Parish Council  Lower Broadheath Parish Council  Shropshire Council  Lower Sapey Parish Meeting  Snowshill Parish Meeting  Madresfield Parish Council  Solihull MBC  Malvern Hills District Council (5)  South Derbyshire District Council  Malvern Town Council  South Littleton Parish Council  Malvern Wells Parish Council  South Northamptonshire Council  Mamble Parish Council  South Oxfordshire District Council  Marston Sicca (Long Marston) Parish  South Staffordshire Council Council  Spetchley Parish Council  Martley Parish Council  St Peter's the Great County Parish Council  Mathon Parish Council  Stafford Borough Council  Milson and Neen Sollars Parish Council  Staffordshire County Council (2)  Monmouthshire County Council  Stanford with Orleton Parish Meeting  Natural England (2)  Stock and Bradley Green Parish Council  Naunton Beauchamp Parish Council  Stockton Parish Meeting  Network Rail (1)  Stockton-on-Teme Parish Meeting  Network Rail Commercial Property  Stoke Bliss, Kyre and Bockleton Parish  Newland Parish Council Council  North and Middle Littleton Parish Council  Stoke on Trent City Council  North Claines Parish Council  Stoke Prior Parish Council  North Warwickshire Borough Council  Stone Parish Council  North West Leicestershire District Council  Stoulton Parish Council  Northamptonshire County Council  Stourport-on-Severn Town Council  Northway Parish Council  Stratford-on-Avon District Council  Norton and Lenchwick Parish Council  Strensham Parish Council  Norton-Juxta-Kempsey Parish Council  Stroud District Council  Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council  Suckley Parish Council  Oadby and Wigston Borough Council  Suffolk County Council

 Swindon Borough Council  Warwick District Council  Tamworth Borough Council  Warwickshire County Council (3)  Tanworth-in-Arden Parish Council  West Malvern Parish Council  Telford and Wrekin Council  West Oxfordshire District Council  Tenbury Town Council  White Ladies Aston Parish Meeting  Tewkesbury Borough Council  Whittington Parish Council  The Coal Authority  Wick Parish Council  The Shelsleys Parish Council (2)  Wickhamford Parish Council  Tibberton Parish Council  Wiltshire Council  Tutnall & Cobley Parish Council  Wolverhampton City Council  Twyning Parish Council  Wolverley & Cookley Parish Council  Upper Arley Parish Council  Worcester City Council  Upton on Severn Town Council  Worcestershire County Council (26)  Upton Snodsbury Parish Council  Worcestershire Regulatory Services (2)  Upton Warren Parish Council  Wychavon District Council (1)  Vale of White Horse District Council  Wyre Forest District Council (4)  Walsall Council  Wyre Piddle Parish Council  Walsall MBC  Wythall Parish Council  Warndon Parish Council (2)

General Consultees  Malvern Hills Conservators  Abberley & Malvern Hills Geopark  Mineral Products Association  Avon Navigation Trust  Mr Peter Luff MP  Avoncroft Museum  Mrs Nicole Sinclair MEP  Beckford Nature Reserve  National Planning Casework Unit  Belbroughton History Society  National Trust  British Aggregates Association  Nature After Minerals  British Ceramic Confederation  NFU West Midlands  British Horse Society  North East Aggregates Working Party (2)  British Ready-mixed Concrete Association  North Wales Aggregates Working Party  Bromsgrove Society  North West Aggregates Working Party  Canal and River Trust  Older People's Forum in Evesham  Charter Trustees of Kidderminster  Older People's Forum in Pershore  Civil Aviation Authority  Older People's Forum in Redditch  Communities First Herefordshire and  Pershore Civic Society Worcestershire  Ramblers Association  Confederation of British Industry  Robin Walker MP  Confederation of UK Coal Producers (2)  Romsley & Hunnington History Society  Cotswold Drainage Ltd  RSPB (Midlands Region)  Cotswolds Conservation Board  Severn Rivers Trust  Country Land and Business  South East of England Aggregates  CPRE (Worcestershire) (2) Working Party  Department for Communities and Local  South Wales Aggregates Working Party Government  South Wales Aggregates Working Party  Diocesan of Worcester (2)  South West Aggregates Working Party  Droitwich History & Archaeology Society  South Worcestershire Archaeological (2) Group  Duckworth Worcestershire Trust  South Worcestershire Land Drainage  East Midlands Aggregates Working Party Partnership  East of England Aggregates Working  Sport England Party  The Inland Waterways Association  Friends of the Earth (Redditch)  The Mining Association of the UK  Greater Solihull and Birmingham Local  The Stone Federation of Great Britain Economic Partnership  The Woodland Trust  Herefordshire & Worcestershire Earth  Vale of Evesham Civic Society Heritage Trust  West Mercia Police (3)  Herefordshire and Worcestershire  West Midlands Aggregates Working Party Chamber of Commerce  West Midlands Conservative MEP Team  Kidderminster Charter Trustees  West Midlands Regional Aggregate  Lickey Hills Society (2) Working Party  London Aggregates Working Party  Worcester Wychavon Rotary Club  Malvern Civic Society  Worcestershire County Association of  Malvern Hills AONB Partnership Local Councils

 Worcestershire Historical Society  Worcestershire Local Economic  Worcestershire Local Nature Partnership Partnership  Worcestershire Wildlife Trust (2)  Yorkshire and the Humber Aggregates Working Party

Other interested parties  Morgan Technical Ceramics Ltd  Accurate Cutting Services Ltd.  Mr & Mrs Knowles  AMEC  Mr C Narrainen  Asda Stores Limited (2)  Mr D MacDonald  Atkins Global  Mr E Duke  Barton Willmore Partnership  Mr Heath  BE Group  Mr P Bladon  Berkley Contract Services Ltd  Mr P Knott  Betts Ecology  Mr Peter Spalton  BNP Paribas Real Estate (2)  Mr R Latham  Brett Group  Mr S Field  Carter Jonas LLP (2)  Mr S Wyatt  Cemex UK (2)  Mrs C Boughton-Thomas  Charcon Construction Solutions  Mrs Dell  Co-operative Group Ltd  Mrs E Morgan  Costain  Mrs EM Jones  Crest Strategic Projects Ltd  Mrs G Sanderson  Croome Estate Trust  Mrs L Bryan  David L Walker Ltd  Myers Group  DK Symes Associates  N K Reader  Dr A Judge  Overbury Estate  Drivers Jonas Deloitte  Peter Morgan  Eden Hall  Profin Protective Finishing Limited  Entec UK Ltd  RA Watkins  Foley Gardens  Recycle 91  Framptons  Robert Hitchins Ltd.  Frank P. Matthews Ltd.  Royal Mail Group Legal (Real Estate)  George Law Ltd.  RPS Planning (2)  Go Greener Ltd (T/A Mailes Waste  RWE npower Management)  Savills (3)  Grafton Barn  Smiths Concrete Ltd  Gregory Gray Associates  Smiths Gore  Hanson UK  Smiths of Bletchington  Harris Lamb  Somerfield  Hickman Stanmore  Sparc Systems Ltd.  Hills Group  SSG Quarries  Hutton Stone  Stansgate Planning Consultants Ltd  J Cullen Thermals Ltd  Tarmac Ltd (2)  Kim MacDonald  Terence O'Rourke Ltd  Land & Mineral Management Limited  The Concrete Centre  Land & Mineral Resource Consultants Ltd  Tweedale Ltd (3)  University of Derby Corporate  Lawrence Recycling  Wall, James, Chappell  M & M Timber Co. Ltd.  Whiting Landscape Ltd.  M Biddle  Wienerberger Ltd  M Victory  Wildmoor Quarry (Cinetic Sand) Ltd  Mercia Waste Management  Micro Hydro Association

Appendix C: Direct mail/e-mail distribution list: second stage consultation

Key: Unmarked = Sent consultation information on 11th November 2013. Marked  = "blue group" sent consultation information on 12th December 2013 – this group were considered important to be involved in the development of the plan and were added to the Minerals consultation database but given the option to be removed on request. Marked  = "pink group" sent consultation information on 12th December 2013 – this group were considered to have a potential interest in the development of the Minerals Local Plan and were sent the "Get Involved with Planning" questionnaire again but not automatically added to the Minerals consultation database.

Specific consultees:  Bromsgrove District Council (6, including 1  and 2 )  Abberley Parish Council  Broome Parish Council  Abberton Parish Meeting  Broughton Hackett Parish Meeting  Abbots Morton Parish Council  Buckland Parish Council   Acton Beauchamp Group Parish Council  Burford Parish Council   Alcester Town Council  Bushley Parish Council  Alfrick & Lulsley Parish Council  Castlemorton Parish Council  Alvechurch Parish Council  Catshill and North Marlbrook Parish  Alveley & Romsley Parish Council Council  Arrow with Weethley Parish Council  Chaceley Parish Council  Ashton-under-Hill Parish Council  Chaddesley Corbett Parish Council  Astley & Dunley Parish Council  Charlton Parish Council  Aston Subedge Parish Meeting   Childswickham Parish Council  Badsey & Aldington Parish Council  Chipping Campden Town Council  Barnt Green Parish Council  Churchill & Blakedown Parish Council  Barnt Green Youth Parish Council  Churchill Parish Council  Bayton Parish Council  Cleeve Prior Parish Council  Beckford Parish Council  Clent Parish Council  Belbroughton Parish Council  Cleobury Mortimer Parish Council   Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council  Clifton-on-Teme Parish Council  Beoley Parish Council  Coal Authority (3, including 1 )  Berrow Parish Council  Cofton Hackett Parish Council  Bewdley Town Council  Collington Parish Council   Bickmarsh Parish Council  Colwall Parish Council   Bidford on Avon Parish Council  Cookhill Parish Council  Birlingham Parish Council  Corse Parish Council   Birmingham City Council  Cotswold District Council  Birmingham City Council (Planning)   Cradley Parish Council   Birtsmorton Parish Council  Cropthorne Parish Council  Bishampton & Throckmorton Parish  Crowle Parish Council Council  Defford & Besford Parish Council  Boraston Parish Meeting  Dodderhill Parish Council (2)  Bournheath Parish Council  Dodford with Grafton Parish Council  Bredicott Parish Meeting  Dorsington Parish Council  Bredon & Bredon's Norton Parish Council  Drakes Broughton & Wadborough with  Bretforton Parish Council Pirton Parish Council  Bridgnorth District Council (Director of  Droitwich Spa Town Council Planning)   Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council  Broadheath Parish Council  Dumbleton Parish Council  Broadwas & Cotheridge Parish Council  Earls Croome Parish Council  Broadway Parish Council  Eastham Parish Council  Bromsberrow Parish Council   Eastnor & Donnington Parish Council 

 Eckington Parish Council  Lickey and Blackwell Parish Council  Eldersfield Parish Council  Lindridge Parish Council  Elmbridge Parish Council  Linton Parish Council   Elmley Castle Parish Council  Little Comberton Parish Council  Elmley Castle, Bricklehampton &  Little Hereford Parish Council  Netherton Parish Council  Little Malvern & Welland Parish Council  Elmley Lovett Parish Council  Little Witley Parish Council  English Heritage  Longdon Queenhill and Holdfast Parish  English Heritage (West Midlands)  Council  Environment Agency (3, including 1 )  Lower Broadheath Parish Council  Evesham Town Council  Lower Sapey Parish Meeting  Far Forest Parish Council  Madresfield Parish Council  Feckenham Parish Council  Malvern Hills District Council (6, including  Finstall Parish Council  2 and 1 )  Fladbury Parish Council  Malvern Town Council  Flyford Flavell, Grafton Flyford & North  Malvern Wells Parish Council Piddle Parish Council  Mamble Parish Council  Forest of Dean District Council  Marston Sicca (Long Marston) Parish  Forthampton Parish Council  Council  Frankley Parish Council  Martley Parish Council  Gloucestershire County Council (2)  Mathon Parish Council  Great Comberton Parish Council  Mickleton Parish Council   Great Witley & Hill Hampton Parish  Milson and Neen Sollars Parish Council Council  National Air Traffic Services Ltd (2,  Grimley Parish Council including 1 )  Guarlford Parish Council  National Grid (2)  Hagley Parish Council  Natural England (2, including 1 )  Hallow Parish Council  Naunton Beauchamp Parish Council  Hampton Charles Parish Council   Network Rail (3, including 1 )  Hampton Lovett & Westwood Parish  Newland Parish Council Council  North and Middle Littleton Parish Council  Hanbury Parish Council  North Claines Parish Council  Hanley Castle Parish Council  Northway Parish Council  Hanley Parish Council  Norton and Lenchwick Parish Council  Hartlebury Parish Council  Norton-Juxta-Kempsey Parish Council  Harvington Parish Council  Offenham Parish Council  Hatfield & District Group Parish Council  Ombersley & Doverdale Parish Council  Herefordshire Council (2, including 1 )  Overbury & Conderton Parish Council  Highley Parish Council   Pebworth Parish Council  Hill and Moor Parish Council  Pendock Parish Council  Highways Agency  Pensax Parish Council  Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council  Peopleton Parish Council (Planning Policy and Regeneration)  Pershore Town Council  Hindlip, Martin Hussingtree and Salwarpe  Pinvin Parish Council (2) Parish Council  Powick Parish Council  Hinton-on-the Green & Somerville Parish  Quinton Parish Council  Council  Redditch Borough Council (6, including 2  Holt Parish Council  and 2 )  Homes and Communities Agency (1,  Redmarley D'Abitot Parish Council including 1 )  Ripple Parish Council  Honeybourne Parish Council  Rochford Parish Council  Inkberrow Parish Council  Rock Parish Council  Kemerton Parish Council  Romsley Parish Council  Kempsey Parish Council  Rous Lench Parish Council (2)  Kenswick & Wichenford Parish Council  Rushock Parish Council  Kidderminster Foreign Parish Council  Rushwick Parish Council  Kington & Dormston Parish Council  Saleway Group (Himbleton, Hadzor,  Kinlet Parish Council  Oddingly, Huddington)  Kinver Parish Council   Saintbury Parish Meeting   Knighton-on-Teme Parish Council  Salford Priors Parish Council  Knightwick & Doddenham Parish Council  Sambourne Parish Council   Leigh and Bransford Parish Council  Sedgeberrow Parish Council  Leysters and Middleton-on-the-Hill Parish  Severn Stoke and Croome d'Abitot Parish Council  Council

 Severn Trent Water (4, including 2 )  Twyning Parish Council  Shrawley Parish Council  Upper Arley Parish Council  Shropshire Council  Upton on Severn Town Council  Shropshire Council (Director of  Upton Snodsbury Parish Council Development Services)   Upton Town Council  Snowshill Parish Meeting  Warndon Parish Council (2)  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (2,  Warwickshire County Council including 1 )  West Malvern Parish Council  South Lenches Parish Council  West Mercia Police (Malvern, Worcester  South Littleton Parish Council and Wychavon)   South Staffordshire Council (2, including  West Mercia Police (Redditch, 1) Bromsgrove and Wyre Forest)  Spetchley Parish Council  West Mercia Police Estates Service  St Peter's the Great County Parish Council  West Mercia Police Headquarters  Staffordshire County Council (3, including  Western Power Distribution 1)  Weston Sub Edge Parish Council   Stanford with Orleton Parish Meeting  Whitbourne Parish Council   Staunton Parish Council   White Ladies Aston Parish Meeting  Stock and Bradley Green Parish Council  Whittington Parish Council  Stockton-on-Teme Parish Meeting  Wick Parish Council  Stoke Bliss, Kyre and Bockleton Parish  Wickhamford Parish Council Council  Willersey Parish Council   Stoke on Trent City Council (Planning  Wolverley & Cookley Parish Council Policy)  Worcester City Council (3, including 2   Stoke Prior Parish Council and 1 )  Stone Parish Council  Worcestershire County Council (Chief  Stoulton Parish Council Executive)   Stourport-on-Severn Town Council  Worcestershire County Council  Stratford-on-Avon District Council (Conservation & Landscape Officer)  Strensham Parish Council  Worcestershire County Council  Studley Parish Council  (Countryside and Access)   Suckley Parish Council  Worcestershire County Council  Tanworth-in-Arden Parish Council (Countryside Business Manager)  Teddington Parish Council   Worcestershire County Council  Tenbury Town Council (Countryside Greenspace Manager)  Tewkesbury Borough Council  Worcestershire County Council (28,  Tewkesbury Borough Council including 4  and 4 ) (Environmental Health and Housing)   Wychavon District Council (3, including 1  The Shelsleys Parish Council )  Thornbury Parish Council   Wyre Forest District Council (9, including 6  Tibberton Parish Council and 2)  Tirley Parish Council   Wyre Piddle Parish Council  Tutnall & Cobley Parish Council  Wythall Parish Council

General consultees:  British Gliding Association   British Horse Society  Agricultural Lime Association   British Lime Association   Al Madina Islamic Centre   British Marine Aggregate Producers  Avon Navigation Trust Association   Beckford Nature Reserve  British Ready-mixed Concrete Association  Belbroughton History Society  British Stone   Bewdley Civic Society   British Telecom   Brecon Beacons National Park Authority  British Waterways (4, including 4 ) (Planning Policy)  Bromsgrove Society  Bredon Hill Rotary Club   Canal and River Trust  British Aggregates Association  Charter Trustees of Kidderminster  British Association for Shooting and  Chartered Institution of Waste Conservation  Management   British Cement Association   Communities First Herefordshire and  British Ceramic Confederation Worcestershire  British Geological Survey 

 Community First  Land Access and Recreation Association  Community Forum    Confederation of British Industry, West  Lickey Hills Society Midlands Region   London Aggregates Working Party  Confederation of British Industry, Minerals  Longdon and Eldersfield Marsh Group Conservation Trust   Confederation of UK Coal Producers  Madinatul Uloom-Ai-Islamiya   Construction Industry Research &  Malvern Civic Society Information Association   Malvern Hills AONB Joint Advisory  Cotswolds Conservation Board Committee  CPRE   Malvern Hills Conservators  CPRE (Redditch Group)   Malvern Rotary Club   CPRE (Worcestershire)  Micro Hydro Association  Crown Estate Commissioners   Mineral Products Association (3, including  Cyclists' Touring Club of Great Britain 2 )  Deaf Direct   Ministry of Defence (2, including 2 )  Defence Estates (Defence Infrastructure  Mobile Operators Association  Organisation)   Muslim Welfare Association   Defra, Rural Development Service   National Federation of Demolition  Department of Communities and Local Contractors  Government (National Planning Casework  National Stone Sand & Gravel Association Unit)   Department for Communities and Local  Negotiating Platform for Silica  Government (Policy Advisor)  NFU West Midlands  Department of Energy and Climate  North East Aggregates Working Party Change  North Wales Aggregates Working Party   Department of Trade and Industry   North West Aggregates Working Party  Department of Transport   Office of Government Commerce   Diocesan Board (Worcester Church of  Older People's Forum in Droitwich Spa  England)  Older People's Forum in Evesham  Disability Action   Older People's Forum in Kidderminster   Droitwich History & Archaeology Society  Older People's Forum in Pershore  Droitwich Spa Rotary Club   Older People's Forum in Redditch  Duckworth Worcestershire Trust  Older People's Forum in Worcester   East Midlands Aggregates Working Party  Open Spaces Society (2, including 1 )  Over 55's (Malvern)   East of England Aggregates Working  Pershore Civic Society Party (2, including 1 )  Planning Inspectorate   Ethnic Elders Luncheon Club   Redditch Irish Society   European Aggregates Association   Romsley & Hunnington History Society  Federation of Small Businesses   Rowney Green Association  Forestry Commission (2, including 2 )  Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors   Freight Transport Association (Midlands)  Rural Hub (Chair)    Rural Hub (Director)   Friends of the Earth (Redditch)  Salt Association (2, including 1 )  Friends of the Earth (UK)   Severn Rivers Trust (2, including 1 )  Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP  Silica & Moulding Sands Association (2 Executive  including 2 )  Greater London Authority Aggregates  Severn Navigation Restoration Trust  Working Party   South Droitwich Residents Group   Health and Safety Executive   South East Aggregates Working Party   Health Protection Agency   South Wales Aggregates Working Party  Hereford & Worcester Fire & Rescue (2) Service   South West Aggregates Working Party  Hereford and Worcester Fire Brigade  South West Aggregates Working Party (2,  Herefordshire & Worcestershire Earth including 1 ) Heritage Trust  South Worcestershire Archaeological  Herefordshire and Worcestershire Group Chamber of Commerce  South Worcestershire Land Drainage  HSE Linewatch  Partnership  Industrial Minerals Association - Europe   South Worcestershire Land Drainage  Institute of Quarrying  Partnership (Malvern & Worcester City  Kaolin & Ball Clay Association UK Area)   Kemerton Conservation Trust 

 South Worcestershire Land Drainage  West Midlands Aggregates Working Party Partnership (Wychavon Area)   Wildmoor Residents Association  Sport England (3, including 3 )  Worcestershire Coalition of Independent  Stone Federation Great Britain  Living   Teme Valley Biodiversity Group   Worcestershire Council for Voluntary  Teme Valley Geological Society Youth Services   The Central Mosque and Community  Worcestershire County Council (Progress Centre  in Sight Group)   The Ethnic Minority Redditch Group   Worcestershire Federation of Women's  The Inland Waterways Association (2, Intitutes  including 1 )  Worcestershire Federation of Young  The Mining Association of the UK Farmers Clubs   The Polish Roman Catholic Community in  Worcestershire FWAG  Redditch   Worcestershire Greenpeace Network   The Redditch Chinese Association   Worcestershire Historical Society  The Redditch Indian Association   Worcestershire LEP  The Rotary Club of Worcester   Worcestershire Partnership   The Stone Federation of Great Britain  Worcestershire Waterways   Upton-upon-Severn Civic Society  Worcestershire Wildlife Trust  Upton-upon-Severn Rotary Club   Yorkshire and the Humber Aggregates  Vale Landscape Heritage Trust  Working Party  Vale of Evesham Civic Society

Other interested parties:  Britannia Aggregates Ltd   British Library   A Judge (member of the public)  Cannock Chase Council (Planning Policy)  A.E. Oscroft & Son   C Boughton-Thomas (member of the  Accurate Cutting Services Ltd public)  Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd  Carter Jonas  ADAS Consulting   Carver Knowles   Adstone Construction Ltd   CB Richard Ellis   AECOM   Cemex UK  Aggregate Industries UK Ltd  Central Trains   Allen Newport Ltd   Centre for Radiation Chemicals and the  AMEC Environment   Armchair   CENTRO   Asda (Pershore)  Chadwich Lane Quarry   Asda Stores Limited (Bromsgrove)  Chadwich Lane Quarry Limited   Associated Concrete Solutions Ltd   Chambers Runfold   ATE Wales   Charcon Construction Solutions  Atkins Consultants  Cheltenham Borough Council (Planning  Avoncroft Museum Policy)  B Carter (member of the public)  Cherwell District Council (Planning Policy)  Ballast Phoenix   Civil Aviation Authority  Barton Willmore Partnership  Cleanaway   Bathgate Silica Sand Ltd   Colas Ltd   BBT Thermotechnology UK Ltd   Co-operative Group Ltd (Ombersley Road,  BE Group Worcester)  Benniman Ltd   Costain Infrastructure Support Services  Berkeley Strategic Land   Cotswold Drainage Ltd  Berkley Contract Services Ltd  Country Land and Business  Bestco Surfacing Ltd   Coventry City Council (Planning Policy)  Betts Ecology  CPI Mortars   BIFFA Waste Services   Crest Strategic Projects Ltd  Blaby District Council (Planning Policy)  Croome Estate Trust  Bloor Homes, J.S. Bloor (Services) Ltd   David L Walker Ltd  BNP Paribas Real Estate (2)  David Walker Chartered Surveyors   Borough Green Sandpits Ltd   Daventry District Council (Planning Policy)  Bovis Homes Ltd   Day Aggregates Ltd   Boyer Planning   Deme Building Materials Ltd   Breedon Aggregates  Derbyshire County Council (Development  Brett Group Plan Team)  Brian Hill Haulage & Plant Hire Ltd 

 Development Land & Planning  J & J Franks Ltd  Consultants Ltd   J Clubb Ltd   DK Symes Associates  J Cullen Thermals Ltd  Docklow and Hampton Wafre Parish  J Wainwright & Co Ltd  Council   John Carr (Liverpool) Ltd   DPDS Consulting Group  Joy Mining Machinery Ltd (Worcester)   Drivers Jonas Deloitte (2, including 1 )  JPE Holdings Ltd   DTZ Pieda Consulting   K MacDonald (member of the public)  Dunhouse Quarry Co Ltd   Karen Lumley, MP   E Duke (member of the public)  Kendall Brothers (Portsmouth) Ltd   E Roberts (member of the public)  Kent Jones and Done   East Staffordshire Borough Council  L Bryan (member of the public) (Planning Policy)  L.G. Harris & Co Ltd   EATON - Aerospace Division   Lafarge Aggregates Limited (2, including 1  Entec UK Ltd  and 1 )  Erith Haulage Company Ltd   Lambert Smith Hampton   Essex County Council  Land & Mineral Management Ltd (2,  Eurovia Roadstone  including 1 )  Eutectic Co. Ltd   Land & Mineral Resource Consultants Ltd  F Fawcett (member of the public)  Landscape Design Associates   F M Conway Ltd   Lawrence Recycling  First City, The Property Consultancy   Leicester City Council (Planning Policy)  Foxley Tagg Planning Ltd   Leicestershire County Council (Minerals  Framptons Planning Developments & Policy)  Francis Flower   Leominster Reclamation and Architectural  Frank P. Matthews Ltd. Salvage  Fusion Online Ltd  Lhoist UK Ltd   George Law Ltd  Lichfield District Council (Planning Policy)  Gerald Eve Chartered Surveyors and  Liz Lynne, MEP  Property Consultants   Lovell Johns Ltd   GL Hearn Planning   Lower Severn Drainage Board   Gloucester City Council (Planning Policy)  Lucas Land and Planning   Gloucestershire Sand and Gravel Co. Ltd  M & M Timber Co. Ltd   M Biddle (member of the public)  Gregory Gray Associates  M V Kelly Ltd   GRS Roadstone Ltd   M Victory (member of the public)  Grundon Sand & Gravel Ltd   Maile Skips   H Tuckwell & Sons Ltd   Malcolm Harbour, MEP   Hadley Recycling & Waste Management   Manby & Steward   Halcrow Group Ltd   Mansfield Sand Co Ltd   Hallam Land Management   Marchington Stone   Hallmark Hulme   Mark Garnier, MP  Hanson UK (2, including 1 )  Marrons Solicitors   Harborough District Council (Planning  Marshalls Plc  Policy)  Marwalk Developments Ltd   Harleyford Aggregates Ltd   Mason Richards Planning   Harriet Baldwin, MP  Mercia Waste Management  Harris Lamb  MetNet   Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy  MFG Solicitors   Harsco Metals Group Ltd   MHF UK Ltd   Hartlebury Quarry   Mid-Essex Gravel Pits (Chelmsford) Ltd   Heaton Planning  Midland Portable Buildings   Hills Group  Midland Quarry Products   Hills Minerals and Waste Ltd   Mike Nattrass, MEP   Hills Mineral & Waste   Miller Homes Limited   HM Prison Service   Mineral Industry Research Organisation   Home Builders Federation   Minerals Valuers Office   Home Office PL (Sites and Planning  Monier Redland Section)   Montagu Evans   Hope Conservation Trust   Moorhouse Sand & Gravel Pits   Hugh King & Co   Moreton C Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd   Humberts   Morgan Technical Ceramics Ltd  Huntsmans Quarries Ltd   Morris & Perry (Gurney Slade) Ltd   Hutton Stone Co Ltd (2, including 1 )

 MPA Cement   Rail Freight (Users & Suppliers) Group Ltd  Mr & Mrs GR Knowles (members of the  public)  Ramblers Association (2, including 1 )  Mr Clive Narrainen (member of the public)  Recycle 91  Mr Hickman (member of the public)  Recycling Solutions   Mr P Bladon (member of the public)  Refined Bitumen Association   Mr S Wyatt (member of the public)  Remix Dry Mortars Ltd   Mr Shiftit   Roadstone Dublin Ltd   Mrs Dell (member of the public)  Robert Hitchins Ltd (2, including 1 )  Mrs E Morgan (member of the public)  Robert Turley Associates Ltd   Mrs EM Jones (member of the public)  Robin Walker, MP  Mrs G Sanderson (member of the public)  Rotherham Sand & Gravel Supply Co Ltd  Myers Group   N Inchbald (member of the public)  Rowberry Group Ltd   Nathanial Lichfield & Partners   Royal Mail  National Trust (S Barker)   RPS Group PLC   National Trust (West Midlands Regional  RPS Planning Office)  RSPB (Midlands Region)  Nature After Minerals  Rugby Borough Council (Planning Policy)  Needham Chalks Ltd   RWE npower  Nicole Sinclair, MEP (2, including 1 )  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (2,  Northamptonshire County Council including 1 )  North Bromyard Group Parish Council   S Field (member of the public)  North Tewkesbury Land Consortium   Safeguarding, DE Operations - North   North Warwickshire Borough Council  Sajid Javid, MP (Planning Policy)  Salop Sand & Gravel Supply Co Ltd   North West Leicestershire District Council  Savills (Planning Policy)  SB Heath (member of the public)  North Worcestershire Land Drainage  Sea Aggregates Ltd  Partnership (Wyre Forest, Redditch &  Sewells Reservoir Construction Ltd  Bromsgrove Area)  Sibelco UK   Northumberland Quarries   Singleton Birch Ltd   Northwood (Fareham) Ltd   Smith & Sons (Bletchington) Ltd  Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum   Smiths Concrete Ltd  Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council  Smiths Gore (Planning Policy)  Social Enterprises in Waste and Recycling  Oadby and Wigston Borough Council (SEWAR) Herefordshire & Worcestershire (Planning Policy)   Oakfield Farm Products Ltd   Somerfield (Malvern)  Oakland Ecology  Somerset Wildlife Trust  Office of Rail Regulation  South Derbyshire District Council  Overbury Estate (Planning Services)  Oxford City Council (Planning Policy)  South Gloucestershire Council (Planning  Oxfordshire County Council (Minerals and Policy) Waste Planning Policy)  South Northamptonshire Council (Planning  P D Edenhall Ltd Policy)  P Knott (member of the public)  South Oxfordshire District Council  P Spalton (member of the public) (Planning Policy)  Pencroft Ltd   Sparc Systems Ltd  Peter Luff, MP  Springfield Farm Ltd   Philip Bradbourn, MEP   SSG Quarries  Phillips Planning Services Ltd   St. Modwen Developments  Phipps & Pritchard   Stafford Borough Council (Forward  Planning Issues  Planning)  Powys County Council (Local  Stansgate Planning Consultants Ltd Development Plan Team)  Steetley Dolomite Ltd   Profin Protective Finishing Limited  Stewart Vick Associates   R C A Regeneration  Strong Farms Ltd   R Collard Ltd   Stroud District Council (Planning Strategy)  R Jenkins (member of the public)  Strutt and Parker   R Latham (member of the public)  Suffolk County Council (Strategic  R Watkins (member of the public) Environmental Assessment Officer)  R.J.D Ltd   Swindon Borough Council (Planning Policy)

 Tamworth Borough Council (Development  Weights Farm  Plan Team)  Welsh Assembly Government   Tarmac Group   West Midlands Conservative MEP Team  Tarmac Ltd (3, including 1 )  West Midlands Labour European Office   Telford and Wrekin Council (Planning  West Midlands Planning and Policy) Transportation Sub-Committee   Terence O'Rourke Ltd  West Oxfordshire District Council  The Bengali Group  (Planning Policy)  The Bennie Group   White Young Green Planning   The Bird Group of Companies Ltd   Whiting Landscape Ltd  The Concrete Centre  Wienerberger Ltd  The Cotswold Reclamation Company  Wildmoor Quarry (Cinetic Sand) Ltd  The Land Trust   Wilson Bowden PLC   The National Trust   Wiltshire Council (Spatial Planning)  The Woodland Trust  Winchcombe Reclamation  Three Counties Planning Consultancy   Wolverhampton City Council (Planning  Tony Rowley Associates Ltd on behalf of Policy) Lechmere Estate  Wolverhampton City Council (Planning  Trefigin Quarries Ltd  Services)   Tudor Griffiths Group   Woodkirk Stone   Tweedale Ltd  Woodland Trust   United Asphalt   Worcester Environmental Federation   University of Derby Corporate  Worcester Muslim Welfare Association   Vale of White Horse District Council  Worcester Reclamation Ltd (Planning Policy)  Worcester Wildlife Trust   Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Plc  Worcestershire Association of Local  Vinci Construction UK  Councils   Volker Dredging Ltd   Worcestershire Biological Records Centre  Volker Laser    W Clifford Watts Ltd   Worcestershire County Association of  Wall James Chappell Local Councils  Walsall Council (Planning Policy)  Worcestershire Regulatory Services (4,  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council including 3 )  Wardell Armstrong   Worcestershire Residents Against  Warwick District Council (Planning Policy) Incineration and Landfill Committee   Warwickshire Wildlife Trust  Wye Valley Reclamation  Webbs of Wychbold   Wyre Forest Recycling Services Limited 