067 Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding Development Plan Document (DPD): Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) Consultation Representation Form Please return your completed form by email: [email protected] OR by post: Cornwall Council, Local Plans Team, Pydar House, Pydar Street, Truro TR1 1XU OR by hand: New County Hall reception (Truro) or any Cornwall Council One Stop Shop before 5pm on Monday 19 December 2016 Fair Processing Notice The feedback you provide in this questionnaire will enable Cornwall Council to finalise the Minerals Safeguarding DPD and will be retained for the life of the plan. Your full name and any comments you provide will be published online and in hard copy. Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 requires all representations received to be submitted to the Secretary of State so your information will be shared with the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Planning Inspectorate. By completing this form and submitting it to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of your personal data by Cornwall Council and that any information received by the Council, including personal data (but excluding personal contact details and any signatures), may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. Publication will not include any information which you provide on the Equality Monitoring Form which will be retained for up to three months from the close of the consultation. Part 1 Your contact details You must complete this page for your representation to be accepted. The Council cannot accept anonymous representations. Name: John Coxon Organisation (if applicable): Emery Planning Address: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Postcode: Email Address: Telephone number: If an agent, the individual or organisation you are representing: Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd 1 Please let us know whether you wish to be notified via the address/email address you have provided (or other specified address/email address) of the following for the emerging Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD: (i) The submission of the emerging Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD for independent examination under section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; Yes (ii) The publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out an independent examination of the emerging Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD under section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; Yes (iii) The adoption of the Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD. Yes Part 2 Your comments You may append additional sheets if you need more space to respond to any of the questions. 1. Do you consider that the Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD Pre- Submission Consultation document meets the legal and procedural requirements? No comment Please specify your reasons below No comment 2. A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers to be ‘sound’ – namely that it is: positively prepared, justified, effective and is consistent with national policy. Do you consider the Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD Pre-Submission Consultation document has met these tests? No Please specify your reasons below Policy MS1 Policy MS1 allows non-mineral development in a number of circumstances, including "where there is overriding need for the non-mineral development" (MS1(e)). We consider that this is inconsistent with national policy, which is clear that mineral resources should be safeguarded. Paragraph 142 of the NPPF states: 2 “Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long-term conservation.” Paragraph 144 then states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should “not normally permit other development proposals in mineral safeguarding areas where they might constrain potential future use for these purposes”. A development need, such as the housing need of a particular settlement, may override the need for the minerals resource, but if it also could be met in another location without impact upon minerals then that is a material consideration which must be taken into account. We therefore consider Policy MS1(e) should be amended to make it clear that there must be a compelling need for the development that cannot be met in another location. Our proposed amendment is set out below: "e. there is overriding need for the non-mineral development, that cannot be met in another location; or" Policy MS1 should also make allowance for development where it can be demonstrated that future minerals development would not be environmentally acceptable, for example where it would cause significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring uses. We therefore consider that an additional criterion should be included as follows: "g. It can be clearly demonstrated that it is not environmentally acceptable to extract the mineral prior to non-mineral development taking place." Proposals maps: Buffer zones Paragraph 65 of the DPD sets out buffer zones for each MSA. We assume that these have been incorporated within the MSAs shown on the proposals map; however clarification on this point should be made at paragraph 65. It would be wholly unacceptable if these buffer areas are not included within the MSAs shown on the proposals map. Notwithstanding, we object to the blanket buffer zones that appear to have been applied, which are not justified. We cannot see any justification for a blanket 250m buffer, applied without indiscriminately without due consideration of the site specific characteristics of each area. When defining the boundaries of the MSA, and in particular any buffer area, consideration should be given to key factors such as existing infrastructure (i.e. roads), development and topography. No such assessment appears to have taken place. 3 We object to the blanket 250m buffer zone which has been applied to the China Clay area, and specifically in relation to our client’s site to the north of St Austell. A site location plan is enclosed. The proposals map identifies that the areas to the north of our client’s land are operational areas (C31 and C32). However the buffer zone extends into our client’s land. We consider that the MSA boundary in this location is not justified. The key purpose of a buffer is to avoid development adjacent to or adjoining an MSA sterilising the potential to extract minerals. It is clear that the existing residential development immediately to the east would serve to prevent any encroachment of minerals development further to the south, and therefore our client’s land serves absolutely no purpose as a buffer. A planning application and appeal for residential development on our client’s land has been determined (ref: APP/D0840/A/09/2113075), with no harm identified in relation to residential amenity or impact upon the operational mineral area. A copy of the appeal decision is enclosed. This clearly demonstrates that there is no requirement for our client’s land to be included as a buffer to the MSA. We therefore consider that our client’s land should be removed from the MSA as shown on the proposals map. However as an absolute minimum, the policy should clarify that a far less stringent approach to the policy should be taken within the buffer areas than the actual areas identified as mineral resources. Please note that the enclosed documents are attached with this e-mail. 3. Please set out below any concern(s) you have with the Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD Pre-Submission Consultation document including any change(s) you consider necessary to address this concern(s). You will need to say how the change(s) will address your concern(s) and it would be helpful if you could put forward your suggested revised wording to the policy or text and any evidence to support the change(s). Please also state which paragraph(s) or part(s) of the policy your concern(s) and change(s) refers to. Paragraph / Concerns, changes and reasons/evidence part of policy Policy MS1 Policy MS1 For the reasons set out above, we consider Policy MS1(e) should be amended to make it clear that there must be a compelling need for the development that cannot be met in another location. Our proposed amendment is set out below: "e. there is overriding need for the non-mineral development, that cannot be met in another location; or" Policy MS1 should also make allowance for development where it 4 Paragraph / Concerns, changes and reasons/evidence part of policy can be demonstrated that future minerals development would not be environmentally acceptable, for example where it would cause significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring uses. We therefore consider that an additional criterion should be included as follows: "g. It can be clearly demonstrated that it is not environmentally acceptable to extract the mineral prior to non-mineral development taking place." Proposals map / MSA buffer zones Paragraph 65 / Paragraph 65 should clarify that the buffer zones have been Proposals incorporated within the MSAs shown on the proposals map. map / MSA buffer zones We consider that the buffer zones around all of the MSAs should be reviewed, with consideration given to key factors such as existing infrastructure (i.e. roads), development and topography. We consider that our client’s land as shown on the attached site location plan should be removed from the China Clay MSA. However as an absolute minimum, the policy should clarify that a far less stringent approach to Policy MS1 should be taken within the buffer areas than the actual areas identified as mineral resources.