leicestershire and rutland minerals local planpolitics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s7271/master...

Leicestershire and Rutland Minerals Local Plan – Monitoring and Key Issues Report

LEICESTERSHIRE AND RUTLAND

MINERALS LOCAL PLAN

MONITORING AND KEY ISSUES REPORT

MAY 2003

a

Mountsorrel Quarry


C O N T E N T S

Page

Preface ………………………………………………………………….

1

1

Introduction …………………………………………………………..

Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis …………………………………………………………..

Further Considerations ………………………………………….

Key Issue …………………………………………………………

2

2

2

4

4

2

General Matters ………………………………………………………

5

Summary …………………………………………………………..

Analysis ……………………………………………………………

Further Considerations ….……………………………………….

Key Issues ….……………………………………………………

5

6

9

10

3

Sand and Gravel ……………………………………………………..

11

Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis …………………………………………………………..


Key Issues ………………………………………………………

11

12

16

17

4

Igneous Rock …………………………………………………………

18

Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis ……………………….…………………………………..

Further Considerations ……..……………………………………

Key Issues ………………………………………………………..

18

18

21

21

i

a


Page

5

Coal ………………………………………………………………………

22

Summary …………………………………………………………..

Analysis ……………………………………………………………

Further Considerations …………………………………………..

Key Issues ………………………….……………………………

22

22

25

25

6

Other Minerals ………………………………………………………..

26

a. Limestone …………………………………………………………… Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis …………………………………………………….……..


Key Issues ………………………………………………………

b. Brickclay ……………………………………………………………. Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis ……………………………………………….…………..


Key Issue …………………..……………………………………

c. Fireclay ……………………………………………………………… Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis ……………………………………………………………


Key Issue …………………………………………………………

d. Ironstone …………………………………………………………….. Summary ………………………………………….……………….

Analysis ……………………………………………………………


Key Issue …………………………………………………………

26

26

26

29

30

30

30

31

32

32

33

33

33

35

35

35

35

35

36

36

ii


Page

e. Gypsum ……………………………………………………………..

Summary …………………………………………………………

Analysis …………………………………………………………..


f. Oil and gas …………………………………………………………. Summary …………………………………………………………

Analysis …………………………………………………………..


Key Issue ……………………………………………………….. Other Minerals …………………………………………………………

Summary …………………………………………………………

Analysis …………………………………………………………..


36

36

36

37

37

37

37

37

38

38

38

38

38

7

Other Minerals Developments …………………………………..

39

a. Borrow pits ………………………………………………………… Summary………………………………………………………….

Analysis …………………………………………………………..


Key Issue ….…………………………………..…………………

b. Mineral exploration ……………………………………………….. Summary …………………………………………………………

Analysis …………………………………………………………..

Further Considerations …………………………………………

c. Mineral stocking areas …………………………………………… Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis …………………………………………………………..


39

39

39

39

40

40

40

40

41

41

41

41

41

iii


Page

d. Surface disposal of mineral waste ………………………………

Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis ……………………………………………………………


e. Removal of material from mineral working deposits ………. Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis ……………………………………………………………


f. Associated industrial development …………………………….. Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis ……………………………………………………………


42

42

42

42

42

42

43

43

43

43

43

44

8

Resource Conservation ……………………………………………

45

a. Substitute materials ……………………………………………….. Summary …………………………………………………………..

Analysis ……………………………………………………………


Key Issue …………………………………………………………

b. Safeguarding mineral resources ……………………………….. Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis …………………………………………………………...


Key Issue …………………………………………………………

45

45

45

45

46

46

46

46

47

47

9

Implementation and Monitoring …………………………………

Summary ………………………………………………………….

Analysis ………………………………………….………………..


48

48

48

48

iv


Page

Appendices

1. Existing Policies …………………………………………………..

2. Site Projections …………………………………………………..

50

68

Map and Sales Chart ……………………………………………….

72

v


MONITORING AND KEY ISSUES REPORT

PREFACE 1. The Minerals Local Plan (MLP), which was originally adopted in 1986, was subject

to a previous review process that commenced in April 1989, and resulted in the adoption of the current MLP in March 1995.

2. The period covered by the present MLP runs to the end of 2006, and it was

indicated that it will endeavour to commence a review of the Plan 5 years after adoption, in order to ensure that its policies and proposals remain relevant in the light of changing circumstances. This procedure is in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 12: Development Plans (PPG 12), which advises that in view of their status in determining planning applications, plans should be as up-to-date as possible and therefore subject to effective monitoring and regular review.

3. PPG 12 also advises that plan reviews present a positive opportunity for local

authorities to make plans slimmer and more focused, through a consideration of what policies and/or proposals have proved useful. Evidence that policies or proposals have served no useful purpose may therefore be a trigger for their removal. The opportunity also arises for site allocations where development has not yet received planning permission to be reassessed, and if appropriate, the less sustainable site allocations replaced with more sustainable ones, having regard to any revised national policy guidance.

4. The findings of the monitoring report, steered by local circumstances, will largely

influence the scale of the amendment required to update the MLP, i.e. whether to replace or alter it. PPG 12 indicates that replacement will be justified where a review has indicated that the existing plan is substantially out-of-date and the scale of alterations therefore needed is fundamental. Alterations to plans are more likely to be appropriate where a partial rolling forward of the plan is needed, or where forecasts and assumptions have changed, or where additional policies are needed to deal with previously unforeseen issues. A sustainability appraisal will form part of the replacement/alteration process.

5. The monitoring report reviews each chapter of the existing MLP by way of a brief

summary, an analysis which looks at the performance of the plan policies, and an identification of areas for further consideration, from which the key issues are drawn. The report also takes into account relevant policy developments that are likely to be influential in future MLP policy framing and strategies.

6. The main findings of the report are then carried forward to form the basis of the

initial consultation stage in the review of the MLP, through the presentation of key issues. The existing MLP policies and site projections based on reserve assumptions are detailed in the appendices to this report.

Page 1


CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION


Restored RookeryQuarry, Bardon Hill

Coal and Clay Extraction, Albion Site

Water area in recreational use,Heather Quarry


INTRODUCTION

Summary Chapter 1 sets out the role of the MLP and its status in the wider planning context. It covers the following areas: a. Reason for Reviewing the Plan. b. Publicity and Procedures. c. National and Regional Policy Framework. d. Statutory Planning Background. Analysis Since its adoption in May 1995, circumstances affecting and influencing the MLP have moved on, to the extent that it would now appear timely to set in motion a process of review. This would accord with the previous approach of a 5 yearly review of the MLP, and with the statement made in Chapter 2 in relation to the Plan Period. There have been significant changes made by government to the national policy guidance concerning mineral matters over the last 5 years. This has seen the review of the following Mineral Planning Guidance Notes (MPGs): • MPG1 – General Considerations and the Development Plan System, 1996; • MPG2 – Applications, Permissions and Conditions, 1998; • MPG3 – Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal, 1999; • MPG4 – Revocation, Modification, Discontinuance, Prohibition and Suspension

Orders & Compensation Regulations, 1997 (this MPG previously covered the review of mineral workings);

• MPG5 – Stability in Surface Mineral Workings and Tips, 2000 (this MPG previously

covered aspects relating to the General Development Order); • MPG7 – The Reclamation of Mineral Workings, 1996; Four new MPGs have also been introduced since the MLP was adopted. The most relevant of which insofar as Leicestershire and Rutland are concerned is MPG14 – Environment Act 1995: Review of Mineral Planning Permissions, 1995. MPG 6, a key guidance note that steers the MLP in terms of aggregate provision, is also being reviewed. A review of MPG 1 is likely to follow, which could trigger reforms to the whole MPG system. MPG11, which presently covers The Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings, is also undergoing a major review and expansion to potentially cover the full range of environmental effects of mineral working.

Page 2


A draft consultation document for a new MPG on oil, gas and coalbed methane was circulated towards the end of 1999. This would look to consolidate and expand existing advice contained in Circular 2/85. Amongst the new/replacement PPGs that have been introduced since 1995, PPG9: Nature Conservation, provides advice relating to the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and its associated Regulations. These impose a duty on “the competent authority” (which can include MPAs), to require an Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken where European Designations are likely to be effected by a proposal. The regulations also have requirements with regard to a review of existing planning permissions and other consents, which are likely to cause such designations to be effected. A revised version of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995(GPDO) also came into force shortly after the MLP was adopted. New Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations came into force on 14th March 1999, following the implementation of Directive 97/11/EC. These Regulations consolidated previous ones, which implemented the requirements of Council Directive 85/337/EEC in respect of development projects. Circular 02/99, also gives guidance relating to the new regulations. In November 2000, “The Amendment Regulations” came into force, and these now apply the 1985 and 1997 EC Directives on Environmental Impact Assessment to all categories of statutory reviews of conditions attached to existing permissions for the winning and working of minerals. Local Government reorganisation in 1997 affected Leicestershire and Rutland in that Leicester City and Rutland Councils became unitary authorities. The scope of the review of the MLP will therefore have to take these changes into account. To date the City Council has included appropriate minerals policies in its Unitary Development Plan. These reflect the very low level of mineral activity within the City boundary. Conversely, Rutland County Council, which has significant mineral activity (and reserves) within its boundary, is preparing a joint Structure Plan with Leicestershire County Council and has recently adopted a District wide Local Plan. Rutland County Council has decided to prepare a joint MLP with Leicestershire County Council for the provision of mineral policy planning and the current review is being progressed along these lines. The government in December 2001 issued the Green Paper on Planning Reform, and this indicated fundamental changes to the planning system. Although the Paper indicated that MLPs (and WLPs) would be retained in some form, the extent to which a clear framework for the supply of minerals will be provided at either the regional, sub-regional or local level is one of the areas that remains unclear. The extent to which the proposed new Local Development Frameworks will impact on mineral policy planning is now becoming clearer, and transitional arrangements are likely to be put in place to guide development plan progress, until the new Planning Act takes full effect. On October 2nd 2000, the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 came into force. This incorporates into domestic law the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights, and through various articles, establishes absolute and qualified rights. These are recognised as having considerable significance in the planning and environmental context.

Page 3


With regard to guidance at the regional level, this is currently contained within an updated Regional Planning Advice Note 8 (RPG8) which was issued in 2002. Government in May 2002 released a White Paper looking at the establishment of Regional Governing Bodies. In terms of strategic planning advice, the MLP should generally conform to the policies and proposals contained within the Structure Plan (SP). At present the MLP and SP share the same plan period but this is also due to change following the SP review as this will look forward to 2016. An EIP was held into the SP during summer 2001, and proposed modifications were approved in May 2002. Following announcements relating to the proposed new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, it appears that Structure Plans are likely to be abolished in the future. Further Considerations Considerable changes have been introduced to mineral planning since the existing Plan was adopted in 1995, especially in terms of new and revised legislation and guidance. In order to maintain an up-to-date Plan, regular reviews need to incorporate these changes, so that it can remain an effective tool in the decision-making process. Although no policies are included in Chapter 1, the text will need considerable review in the light of the changes indicated above. The review will also have to take on-board the joint working arrangements of the County Councils, and consider the timing of the next Plan Period. Key Issue

1.1

Chapter 1 – Procedure Do you consider that 2016 would be an appropriate date for the end of the next Plan Period with reviews on a 5 yearly basis?

Page 4


CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2 - GENERAL MATTERS

Towpath Site Restoration Works

Lake feature at Cossington Site

Swainspark Railhead



GENERAL MATTERS

Summary Chapter 2 of the MLP relates to national planning policy in setting the framework intended to steer and control mineral development within the Counties. It contains polices 1 – 14 and provides advice on the following areas: a. Plan Period The MLP covers a period to 2006 (incl.), in association with the current SP and MPG 6. b. County Contribution The MLP recognises the requirements of MPG 1 and MPG 6 in terms of an apportionment of the Regional Contribution, having regard to the nature and extent of local minerals. c. Landbanks The MLP also recognises the requirements of MPG 1 and MPG 6, in relation to landbank provision, on the understanding that a landbank of 7 years should be maintained in the case of sand and gravel, and a longer unspecified period for hardrock. MPG 10 makes provision for between 10 and 25 years in relation to reserves for the manufacture of cement. Reference is made to Minerals and Waste Disposal Policy 1 of the SP which also relates to the need to release sufficient land. d. Submission of Applications Policy 1 provides a comprehensive list of matters to be covered when submitting a planning application. The supporting text examines several of the areas to be covered, and the role of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure. e. Environmental Considerations Policy 2 of the MLP covers the assessment of proposals for mineral extraction and related buildings. It lists factors that will be taken into account for assessing such proposals, including: operational and economic needs; environmental impact; design and siting; and, the provisions of the development plan. Policy 2 elaborates on Minerals and Waste Disposal Policy 2 of the SP. Policy 3 relates to environmental considerations and indicates instances where mineral working will not normally be allowed by virtue of the impact on environmentally sensitive areas. This policy also elaborates on Minerals and Waste Disposal Policy 2 of the SP. The supporting text discusses a comprehensive range of issues to be addressed in relation to interests of acknowledged importance. Policy 4 covers transportation, and seeks to encourage forms of transport other than the use of roads. It also refers to the use of traffic management and routeing controls. Policy 5 refers to the imposition of planing conditions for the purpose of protecting the environment. Measures to control the effects of mineral operations are set out in a checklist covering 19 different matters.

Page 5


Policy 6 covers planning obligations and includes a list of 13 matters that may be included in such agreements made under Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. Policy 7 relates to the setting up of liaison committees. Policy 8 is in respect of former mineral sites and the re-establishment of operations in otherwise disused or abandoned workings. Policy 9 refers to the review of mineral planning permissions, and relates mainly to the 1981 Minerals Act. Policy 10 relates to Derelict Land and seeks to encourage mineral proposals which would contribute towards its clearance. f. Reinstatement and Land Uses After Mineral Working Policy 11 covers the imposition of restoration and aftercare conditions and gives a list of 9 matters to be considered. It seeks to return sites to a beneficial use in the shortest possible time, emphasising importance of phased restoration at the larger sites. Reference to Minerals and Waste Disposal 3 of the SP is included. Policy 12 looks at after-use in more detail, identifying preferred after-uses for particular areas of the Counties. It also gives an indication of preferred after-uses for the sites identified in the proposals maps. Policy 13 provides advice on the disposal of waste materials in the connection with the winning and working of minerals, and lists criteria for judging and controlling such proposals. Policy 13 aimed to provide interim guidance pending the preparation of the Waste Local Plan. Policy 14 seeks to secure the restoration of sites at the lower level, where site conditions allow and there is no identifiable need for a waste disposal facility. Analysis The review of the SP looks to amend the plan period to 2016. This would have the effect of extending the SP beyond the current MLP plan period by 10 years. Although it is not essential that the plan periods are the same, it is helpful, as there is an over-arching relationship between policies in the plans. Rolling forward of the MLP period to 2016, following this initial review stage would be preferable therefore. References in the MLP are to the current, approved SP policies. These have been revised in the Deposit Draft of the SP review in terms of their headings and numbering and also in terms of their content. This reflects an increased emphasis on sustainability and the encouragement and promotion of sustainable development and bio-diversity. Consequently, if the SP review is approved along the lines of the Deposit Draft, then the current SP references within the MLP will be outdated and in need of review.

Page 6


Policy 1 aims to encourage the submission of a comprehensive package of information in support of mineral planning applications by way of a checklist. MPG 2 outlines the information that should be included at the application stage, which in most cases is also likely to be influenced by the EIA Regulations. Any effect on human health should also be investigated and included. Although the emerging Waste Local Plan (WLP) contains a similar, albeit updated policy, one suggestion is that this matter could now be covered in a table format within the supporting text. Policy 2 is a useful mechanism to provide focus on a key area to be addressed in mineral development proposals, the necessity to secure a suitable balance between environmental concerns and the need for the mineral development. Some updating may be necessary ref. WLP Policy 7 and flooding issues, otherwise policy should remain largely unchanged. Policy 3 has proved useful in the protection of important sites, i.e. interests of acknowledged importance. Given the recent notification of the R. Mease as a candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 now apply to the entire R. Mease catchment area. As this covers a large part of the north western area of Leicestershire where mineral activity is common, it is recommended that the SAC be included in the criteria of this policy. This would alert applicants etc. of the need to carry out an initial assessment of any affects on the designation. Some updating and strengthening will therefore be necessary ref. the above and WLP Policy 8, otherwise policy should remain largely unchanged. Policy 4 this policy continues to have an important role to play in encouraging forms of transportation for minerals other than by road. It should be recognised though that the bulk transportation of minerals by rail for example can potentially give rise to other concerns. Some updating may be necessary to strengthen traffic management measures, ref. WLP Policies 9 and 10, policies in the Local Transport Plan (including Area Wide Weight Restrictions) and the new PPG 13, otherwise policy should remain largely unchanged. Policy 5 the checklist in this policy has proved useful when imposing planning conditions to cover the protection of the environment. Annex C of MPG 2 presents advice on the use of mineral planning conditions and other best practice guides have also been produced. Some updating and strengthening in line with current best practice and revised guidance and advice will be necessary, particularly with regard to the local amenity aspect ref. emerging MPG11 and WLP Policy 11, otherwise policy format should remain largely unchanged. Policy 6 it is useful to have policy support relating to the use of planning obligations in instances were particular controls cannot be achieved through the use of planning conditions. Although the matters to be considered for coverage are currently listed in the policy, taking account of the legal context and the current review of planning obligations, these matters would probably now be more appropriately covered in the supporting text. Policy could be amended accordingly. Policy 7 a high proportion of the Counties’ mineral sites have liaison committees in place. Some of these are long-standing whilst others have been set up more recently under Section 106 Agreements associated with consolidating planning permissions. It is difficult to judge how influential this policy has been in their instigation however. Reference is made to the establishment of liaison committees under the terms of the previous policy relating to planning obligations and this may also have played an

Page 7


important role. Consideration should therefore be given to the future requirements for a dedicated policy, given the coverage in Policy 6, and in the light of the Inspector’s decision to delete a similar policy in the Proposed Modifications to the WLP. Policy 8 this policy was included specifically to address concerns surrounding mineral activity at particular sites at the time of the preparation of the existing MLP. Since that time, no further use has been made of the Policy. Any resumption of mineral working in old sites which do not now have the benefit of planning permission following the implementation of the Interim Development Order and Environment Act review procedures, will be treated as a new proposal. In these circumstances the future inclusion of this policy needs revisiting. Policy 9 this policy relates to the previous review provisions under the terms of the 1981 Minerals Act, and consequently is now of little benefit, following the introduction of the statutory review procedures by the Environment Act 1995. Given this position the policy no longer serves any useful purpose in its existing form but could be amended to advise on how the Review of Old Mineral Permissions will be dealt with under the new statutory provisions. Policy 10 this policy seeks to encourage controlled mineral operations for the purposes of reclaiming derelict land. Particular mention in the supporting text is made of coal related operations and despoiled former colliery land. This aspect has become a recognised feature and integral part of modern mineral extraction proposals, especially opencast coal via the revised MPG3. The inclusion of a dedicated policy has not proved especially worthwhile however, and its future should be questioned. The inclusion of appropriate wording in the criteria in Policy 1 and/or 2 would now probably serve the intended purpose better. Policy 11 this policy has proved effective in enabling the County Councils to provide controls during the important restoration and aftercare stages of mineral extraction. Phased extraction and restoration programmes have allowed sites to be restored more quickly and with less disruption during operations. Valuable soil resources have also been protected in a number of cases and aftercare schemes have secured the satisfactory establishment of intended after-uses. The policy could be amended however, in order to influence restoration designs at an early stage, to facilitate the establishment of after-uses which generally meet local bio-diversity aims, provide for the creation of woodland and heathland areas in appropriate cases, and also allow for increased public access. Policy 12 this is also another important policy that has facilitated the establishment of beneficial after-uses on restored mineral workings. Amendment and updating of the policy to include a favourable approach towards the establishment of after-uses that better reflect local strategies and policy developments, including local bio-diversity aims and the new National Forest etc. would be an improvement. Policy 13 this policy sets out interim guidance on the land use aspects of waste disposal at mineral workings, pending the adoption of the Waste Local Plan (WLP). Given the progress now made on the WLP and the policy coverage it provides on this matter, consideration should be given to the deletion of this policy from the MLP, providing that existing controls covering restoration and importation are adequate. Policy 14 covers the encouragement of lower level restoration, in cases where there is no conflict with the water table or particular need for a waste disposal facility. Glacial sand and gravel sites in particular lend themselves to this approach. Although this policy has been successfully used in Leicestershire, consideration should be given to

Page 8


including it under the restoration criteria provided in Policy 11 and under the terms of Policy 2. Reference is made within Chapter 2 to some 4 PPGs and 6 MPGs. Of these, half have since been reviewed or replaced by more contemporary versions. Reference is also made to 2 government circulars and both of these have now been replaced (ref. Planning obligations and EIA). Since the adoption of the MLP, primary legislation has also been introduced in the form of the Environment Act 1995, which has a direct link to policy 9 and its supporting text. The Environment Agency, an important consultee on mineral working proposals, has also come into being post MLP adoption. With regard to EIA, this topic area has emerged forcefully in recent times in connection with mineral extraction proposals. There is now in place an updated set of regulations and associated circular, which were further added to by revised regulations dealing specifically with the review of old mineral workings in November 2000. This raft of legislation has the effect that, given the nature of mineral development within the Counties, almost all future mineral working proposals will require an Environmental Statement (ES) to be prepared. This aspect therefore probably requires greater emphasis than is currently the case within the MLP. Further Considerations General: Although the text references in Chapter 2 will need updating, it is considered that the overall existing policy framework will not require major change, as the main issue areas surrounding mineral related planning matters are appropriately covered. Some reorganising of policy matters involving the creation of revised chapters, amendment to policy content and additional supporting text should however be considered. Policy 1: Whether policy should be retained along similar lines or replaced by a table in the supporting text. Policy 2: To retain policy in similar format, following updating and potential expansion. Policy 3: To retain policy in similar format following updating, including a greater emphasis towards nature conservation interests, with particular reference to the R. Mease cSAC. Policy 4: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. Policy 5: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. Policy 6: Whether policy should be deleted and the criteria moved to the supporting text. Policy 7: Whether policy should be deleted. Policy 8: Whether policy should be deleted.

Page 9


Policy 9: Policy to be amended in light of new ROMP procedures. Policy 10: Whether policy should be deleted and text added to criteria in Policy 1 and/or Policy2. Policy 11: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. Policy 12: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. Policy 13: Whether policy should be deleted and text added to reference WLP advice. Policy 14: Whether policy should be deleted and text added to criteria in Policy 1 and/or Policy2. Key Issues

2.1

Chapter 2 – General Matters Should specific reference to the R. Mease candidate Special Area of Conservation consultation area be included in an updated Policy 3?

2.2

Are the current restoration and after-use policies adequate to facilitate the enhancement of land following mineral extraction, including the establishment of more diverse habitats?

Page 10


CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 3SAND AND GRAVEL

Extraction at Cossington Site

Lockington Processing Plant Area

Extraction and cell formation, Shawell Quarry



SAND AND GRAVEL

Summary a. Production This section takes account of national, regional and county production figures, and gives a breakdown of the sales figures for the 10 years up to 1993. Broad details of the expected operational lives of the 9 working sites are included. b. Demand Forecasts This section focuses on MPG 6 and the provision to be made over the 15-year period to 2006. Regional demand and County (sub-regional) apportionment of this figure, as endorsed by the Regional Planning Forum and the Aggregates Working Party, is discussed. This figure is currently 10.6%, which equates to some 1.484Mt of sand and gravel per annum, and this is carried forward to predict the 7-year landbank provision of permitted reserves. c. Level of Additional Land Releases Using the 10.6% figure and the 7-year landbank provision, an amount of additional reserves that are required to meet the sub-regional contribution have been calculated, by using the permitted reserves figure as at 1.1.92. The additional requirement for the plan period was calculated at 12.16Mt. It is stated that the 9 active sites are more than capable of meeting the requirement to produce approximately 1.5Mt per annum, and that fewer larger sites could easily achieve the required output. On this basis, it is viewed that it is not necessary to maintain the same number of operating units. The MLP lists 6 of the 9 sites which are still expected to be in operation at the end of the Plan period, but says that 2 of these are unlikely to be running by 2013, unless consideration is given to further extensions at the MLP review stage. Three new sites have been identified for inclusion as replacement sites for those expected to become exhausted during the plan period. d. Location of Additional Land Releases Policy 15 identifies extensions to sand and gravel sites and makes provision for areas to be worked as extensions to, or in conjunction with the existing plant areas located at: i. Tamworth Road, Hemington ii. Slip Inn Quarry, Ashby Parva iii. Welford Road, Husbands Bosworth iv. Gibbet lane, Shawell. The policy also covers the release of the above sites and conditions that must be met to facilitate their release. A detailed description and reasoned justification allied to the extension sites is included in the supporting text. Policy 16 looks at the provision of new sand and gravel sites at the following locations: i. Lockington Grounds ii. Brooksby iii. North Kilworth

Page 11


This policy sees the new sites as replacements, and their release will therefore be connected to existing ones becoming worked out, unless an overriding need can be demonstrated for the release of additional resources. The policy also highlights the need for supporting statements and lists site specific considerations at the 3 new sites, in addition to a general advanced planting requirement. A detailed description and reasoned justification relating to the release of the new sites are provided in the supporting text, including the desirability to maintain an even distribution of operations within Leicestershire. The areas identified for release are intended to meet requirements to 2006, whilst aiming to ensure the viability of any new plant and enable a comprehensive working and restoration scheme to be devised. It is not expected that all the land proposed for release will be worked during the plan period. Estimates provide a total figure of some 16.57Mt of sand and gravel that would be released from the new sites (including the extension sites). e. Other Areas Policy 17 relates to proposals for sand and gravel extraction outside the areas identified on the proposals map i.e. unallocated sites. These will not normally be permitted unless they comprise a small-scale extension to an existing quarry or it can be demonstrated that demand cannot otherwise be reasonably met. Analysis In relation to countywide production, figures in the AM survey reports highlight that sand and gravel sales fell in Leicestershire by approximately 25% in 2000, compared to 1995. Figures for the 3 years up to 2000 have generally been lower than those previously experienced, with 1999 being particularly low. An officer reassessment of the expected life of the sites, based on the most recent public reserve information, included in planning applications and ROMP schemes, indicated that 3 sites, i.e. Syston, Hemington, and Rothley would largely be worked out by the end of 2001. This has proved to be the case, and it is understood that the Cossington site will be completed during the next year. Of the remaining five sites, it is believed that Huncote, Husbands Bosworth and Shawell have sufficient reserves for working to continue beyond the end of the current Plan Period (12/2006), whereas Cadeby and Ashby Parva (Slip Inn) will be nearing exhaustion of currently permitted reserves at this time. The allocated extensions at Hemington, Ashby Parva and Husbands Bosworth have been approved and taken into account in the above assumption. Of these, Hemington has now been worked out, extraction at Ashby Parva is well advanced and the Husbands Bosworth site has now moved into a second (western) area. The planning permission at the ‘mothballed’ Narborough Road south site will expire in December 2002. Looking at the new sites identified in the MLP, Lockington has been permitted and commenced working in 2001, and this has a life in the region of 12 years. Planning applications have been submitted for the sites at Brooksby and at North Kilworth. Leicestershire County Council resolved to grant planning permission for the Brooksby site in March

Page 12


2002, whilst the original North Kilworth application was subsequently withdrawn. Although a fresh application for this site has been mentioned, if one is not received during the current Plan Period, then consideration should be given to its future inclusion in the next Plan. In the light of the above information, and the current status of the sites, it is projected that 7 or 8 sites are likely to be operating at the end of the Plan Period. Indications are, based on average sales (1995-2000) and Company estimates, that these sites would be capable of producing in the region of 1.760Mt per annum - well in excess of the present 1.484Mt Regional requirement. In terms of permitted reserves, the landbank currently sits at around 9 to almost 13 years, as indicated in the following table.

Sub-Regional Apportionment

(Mt/annum)

Average Sales 1998 – 2000 (Mt/annum)

Estimated Permitted Reserves @12/00

(m/t)

Landbank Based On Apportionment

(years)

Landbank Based On Average Sales

(years)

1.484 1.068 13.763 9.274 12.8878

Source: EMRAWP Surveys. At the end of the Plan period, assuming the following production scenarios: • The Lockington Site by the end of 2001; • The Shawell extension by the end of 2004; • The Brooksby Site by the end of 2003; • The North Kilworth Site by the end of 2004. then this will give an estimated landbank of some 8 – 11+ years as indicated in the table below.


(Mt/annum)



(m/t)


(years)


(years)

1.484 1.068 12.252 8.256 11.472 Sources: EMRAWP Surveys, and MLP and Planning Application data.

Although the distribution of the reserves would not be equally split between the 7/8 sites assumed to be working at the end of the Plan Period, on the information available, a reasonable spread is likely. This is identified in Appendix 2. A résumé of the spread of the reserves at the 8 sites potentially working at the end of the Plan Period can therefore be considered:

Cadeby – a Company reassessment of the reserve position was carried out in 2000, and this significantly affected site projections. Any longer term future for the site would depend on additional resources being released. Huncote – this site has the longest expected life span of all the sand and gravel sites in Leicestershire, taking it well beyond the next plan period. No further developments are therefore expected here. The site has recently been the subject of an Environment Act Review.

Page 13


Husbands Bosworth – estimates are that this site will extend just beyond the end of the plan period, taking into account the allocated area which was approved in 2000. Any longer term future for the site would depend on additional resources being released. Shawell – historically the largest site in Leicestershire, in terms of both production and reserves. Included in this site estimate is the remaining allocated extension (South Lodge), which extends the life of the site towards the end of the next Plan Period. It is not clear whether any further reserves exist adjacent to this site. Ashby Parva – this site is currently working an allocated extension area, which forms the last remaining extraction area. Due to a lack of certainty concerning the remaining reserve position, it is unclear however, exactly when the mineral will be exhausted. Lockington – this new allocated site also extends beyond the plan period by some margin. It forms part of a much larger deposit area. Potential extension areas could exist therefore although the protection of the recognised ecological interests is a major consideration. The remainder of the Hemington deposit was processed at the site during 2001. Brooksby – an allocated site, which was recently granted planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement. A potentially large site that could be worked well towards the end of the next plan period. Site development is intrinsically linked with the proposed Rearsby Bypass. It is understood that potentially workable reserves exist adjacent to the site. North Kilworth this new site has had some difficulties in overcoming standing objections in connection with groundwater resources, resulting in the first planning application being withdrawn. Further areas of potentially workable reserves are also understood to exist in the area. If this site does not become active during the remainder of the plan period due to technical reasons, then it may be necessary to consider withdrawing it from the Plan.

In looking at future sand and gravel provision, it is difficult to predict with any certainty at what level (if any) landbank requirements will have to be set, given the longstanding review position of MPG 6. Given the current political climate, it could well be that the current 7-year landbank is reduced in order to encourage the push for greater recycling and use of substitute materials, and in order to complement the aggregates tax. If the above scenario is taken forward, and future extraction is concentrated at the main sand and gravel sites detailed above, then a significant amount (if not all) of Leicestershire’s sand and gravel needs could potentially be met from these operating units. This position could continue for the remainder of this Plan Period and the initial part of the next Plan Period. In practice this would reduce the need to release any additional land for the immediate future, i.e. until beyond 2006. Whilst it is acknowledged that the lead in times for new sites (and sometimes extensions) are ever increasing, it is not envisaged, therefore, that any new sites are required during the remainder of this Plan Period but may be required during the first part of the subsequent Plan Period, in order to look forward to 2016. It is anticipated that these will take the form of acceptable extensions to existing sites or replacement new sites for worked out units.

Page 14


In the light of the above, and given the downward trend in sales of sand and gravel within Leicestershire over the last 6 years, it could be that the apportionment figure needs to be revised i.e. lowered to reflect recent sales trends, or indeed the national and regional forecasts revised as in the latest MPG 6 consultation paper (July 2002). The table and chart below indicate the recent trend in sand and gravel sales in Leicestershire and at the Regional and National levels.

SAND & GRAVEL SALES (Mt)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

ENGLAND* 65.48 59.07 63.01 61.24 62.95 63.20

EAST MIDLANDS 13.22 11.42 11.43 10.14 10.51 10.09

LEICESTERSHIRE 1.68 1.64 1.67 1.03 0.91 1.26

Source: EMRAWP Surveys/*Business Monitor PA1007 (land won).

East Midlands Region Sand & Gravel Sales

Derbys

Leics

Lincs

Northants

Notts

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000Year

Tonnes

Page 15


With regard to the above position, consideration should be given to an amendment of the wording of Policy 17 Sand and Gravel (Unallocated Sites), to give a stronger presumption against such development and in order to encourage recycling initiatives. Further Considerations General: Although it is difficult to decide on any precise way forward in planing for the longer-term reserve requirement, given the current situation regarding national and regional forecasts, sub-regional apportionment and landbanks, at this moment in time, we are faced with meeting a 7-year landbank provision. As discussed above, this could potentially be met at the end of the current Plan period (2006), and immediately beyond, by the established and allocated sites. Key points to consider therefore are outlined below and are advanced in the context of a desire to encourage a more sustainable use of primary won aggregates and the wider promotion of recycled/secondary aggregate initiatives; • the healthy landbank situation for the remainder of the current plan period and

immediately beyond; • a reduction of Leicestershire’s sand and gravel figure to reflect actual sales and

give more encouragement to recycling initiatives; • the likely way forward into the next plan period (upto – 2016), having regard to the

landbank position and any revised national / regional guidance. Involving a possible streamlined approach to the allocation of any new sites;

• a consolidation of and extension to, where practicable and acceptable, the main

existing sand and gravel sites in order to meet future production requirements from a concentration of established sites;

• future inclusion of the North Kilworth Allocation and the Shawell Extension; • a controlled programme of release of new sites following the initial stages of the

next plan period; • a stronger presumption against unallocated sites. Policy 15: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. Policy 16: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. Policy 17: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment.

Page 16


Key Issues

3.1

Chapter 3 – Sand & Gravel Additional sites are potentially required, in order to meet future reserve requirements. Should an approach that seeks to consolidate existing sites with appropriate extensions and a limited release of any new sites be adopted, or should new sites provide the main bulk of future supply?

3.2

Where should any new sand and gravel sites be located, and is it still relevant to include the unworked allocation areas at Gibbet Lane, Shawell and North Kilworth in the MLP?

Page 17


CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4 -IGNEOUS ROCK

Croft Quarry and processing plant

Bardon Hill Quarry overview Cliffe Hill Quarry stockpile

Blast-hole drilling, Mountsorrel Quarry



IGNEOUS ROCK

Summary a. Production National and County production of igneous rock increased significantly throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s. This rise was in direct response to an increased demand nationally, and in particularly from the south-east of England. In County terms the increase was met largely from the older, extensive reserve areas at the major sites, which were later to be consolidated into modern permissions. In 1992 there were 7 operational quarries within Leicestershire, producing around 52% of the Region’s total crushed rock output. The 1993 Aggregates Monitoring survey revealed that 61% of Leicestershire’s igneous rock was exported from the County, and that the amount transported by rail had risen to 22%. Permitted reserves at the beginning of 1992 were sufficient for 22 years based on average production over the 5 years up to 1993. Reserves were not evenly spread across the sites however, and several had less than 15 years remaining. b. Demand Forecasts The regional production of crushed rock between 1992 and 2006 was anticipated at 505Mt. Leicestershire’s contribution to regional production rose from 38% in 1983 to over 51% in 1992/3. The sub-regional apportionment figure for Leicestershire is set at 47.8% (based on average production over the five years up to 1993), giving a requirement over the plan period of 241.4Mt at an annual average of 16.1Mt. c. Meeting Demand Requirements The MLP identifies a total requirement of some 563.4Mt over the plan period, taking into account the 47.8% apportionment figure and a landbank of 20 years at 2006. Permitted reserves amounted to 530.6Mt giving a potential shortfall of 32.8Mt. Reference is made to Minerals and Waste Policy 6 of the SP (resource Management Policy 10 of the deposit draft SP), which indicates a presumption against new sites for hard rock quarries in favour of suitable extensions to existing sites. No specific provision is therefore made in the MLP for future igneous rock extraction and any new greenfield sites are discounted given the level of permitted reserves. Analysis There have been several significant developments affecting the provision of igneous rock in Leicestershire during the 1990s. These have involved the formation of a joint venture company in 1996, Midland Quarry Products Ltd., by ARC Ltd. and Tarmac plc. Camas Aggregates and Bardon Ltd followed this shortly afterwards with the creation of Aggregate Industries. This has led to a rationalisation in the production of igneous rock and consequently the number and status of operating units within Leicestershire. As a result, extraction is currently concentrated at 4 main sites: Bardon; Cliffe Hill; Croft; and, Mountsorrel. Whitwick and Groby quarries are currently “mothballed” although coating and concrete plants are maintained, and extraction at Charnwood has recently ceased.

Page 18


In terms of igneous rock sales, 1994 saw this peak at just under 17Mt. This figure has since declined to its present level, around 13.5-14Mt, which has remained very constant for the last 5 years. The table and chart below indicate the course of igneous rock sales over the period 1990 – 2000, comparing Leicestershire output with national igneous sales figures and total regional crushed rock production (incl. Limestone etc.).

IGNEOUS ROCK SALES YEAR *ENGLAND

(Mt) LEICESTERSHIRE

(Mt) LEICESTERSHIRE

AS % OF ENGLAND

SALES

LEICESTERSHIRE AS % OF

REGIONAL CRUSHED ROCK PRODUCTION

1990 26.52 15.88 59.88 47.60 1991 23.13 13.40 57.92 45.10 1992 25.24 15.40 61.00 51.80 1993 24.78 16.14 65.15 51.80 1994 25.13 16.71 66.48 49.30 1995 24.65 15.55 63.08 49.00 1996 21.53 13.99 64.97 48.40 1997 20.34 13.63 66.99 44.30 1998 17.23 13.83 80.26 44.70 1999 20.80 13.61 65.42 44.80 2000 20.44 13.70 67.03 46.60

Source: EMRAWP Surveys/*Business Monitor PA1007 (land won)

Although not exhaustive, the 1997 Aggregates Monitoring Survey indicates that 52% of Leicestershire’s igneous rock was exported from the County (61% in 1993), and that the amount transported by rail had fallen to 13% (22% in 1993). This probably reflects a constricting market during the mid-1990s, which became more focussed on local outlets. (Similar results from the 2001 AM survey were not available for this report but early indications suggest that the amount transported by rail has increased considerably).

C O N T R IB U T IO N O F IG N E O U S R O C K S A L E S T O T O T A L R E G IO N A L C R U S H E D R O C K O U T P U T

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0

Y e a r

%

C O UNT Y P R O D UC T IO N

Page 19


As indicated in Appendix 2, the 4 main sites presently operating are all understood to have a large stock of reserves. These projections range from over 23 years to over 35 years (@12/2000). The inactive quarry at Groby also has a similar life span, but is unlikely to come on-stream in the foreseeable future. The projections are based on public information previously supplied by the operating companies, and any substantial changes thereto would require clear, substantiated evidence. Permitted reserves across all 7 sites (12/00) amount to some 449.14Mt, giving a landbank figure of 27.90 years, using the 16.1Mt/per annum apportionment figure. This is some 30.5Mt in excess of the 418.6Mt, based on the requirement for the remainder of the Plan Period (6 years) plus a 20-year landbank, which has been historically used. More recently however, a 15-year landbank has been thought to be appropriate for crushed rock (ref. Derbyshire MLP and Inspector’s report of the Somerset MLP). The overall shortfall figure (mentioned in c. above) has therefore now been erased and an excess of some 30Mt identified. This change has resulted from Company reserve reassessments, rationalisation of working practices, and lower than anticipated output since the early ‘90s peak. Looking ahead to the potential end of a new Plan Period in 2016, the assumptions in Appendix 2 indicate that all sites would still be working, and by using the 16.1Mt apportionment figure and reserve data, also indicate a landbank of around 13 years at this time. Although this is not far removed from the contemporary 15-year landbank provision, the scenario predicts that the likely spread of reserves at the sites, would potentially require consideration being given to the longer-term working at Croft, Cliffe Hill, Bardon and Whitwick quarries. The landbank situation would be altered, however, if a revised apportionment figure was used that more accurately reflected Leicestershire’s actual contribution to Regional Crushed Rock. Based on an average from the last 5 years (‘96-2000), this would give an apportionment figure in percentage terms of 45.76, which is equal to some 231.088Mt at an annual average of 15.4Mt. This figure still appears high however given actual sales figures shown in the above table. These indicate an annual average of 13.752Mt based on the last 5 years sales, and consequently an increased landbank figure of 32.66 years can be calculated. These figures would appear to be more reasonable, as the actual annual output from Leicestershire’s sites has only ever reached 16.1Mt on 2 occasions. Notwithstanding the above, and even taking the worst case scenario which allows for an annual output of 16.1Mt, the County landbank for igneous rock stands at 27.90 years. If the total reserve is reduced slightly in the light of circumstances at Charnwood Quarry, the effects on the overall landbank provision are minimal. Given the above position, it is not perceived that any proposals for new hard rock sites or extensions to existing sites are likely to come forward in the foreseeable future, although this position may need to be addressed towards the end of the next Plan Period. Resource Management Policy 10 of the Deposit SP goes some way to confirming this. No policies are currently included in MLP in respect of igneous rock however, and this may be one area that the review visits, in order to strengthen and reaffirm the SP stance. During the remainder of the plan period Bardon Quarry is due for review under the terms of the Environment Act 1995, with reviews of Cliffe Hill, Mountsorrel and Croft scheduled to take place over the period 2007 – 2010.

Page 20


Further Considerations General: As in the case of other primary aggregates, it is difficult to decide on any precise way forward in planing for the longer-term reserve requirement, with MPG6 presently under review. However, no firm commitment to the level of hard rock provision is given in the current MPG6, and although a figure of 20 years has been used in the past, 15 years has been considered more appropriate recently. On this basis, the information above indicates that such provision could easily be met at the end of the current Plan Period (2006), and well beyond, by the existing sites. Key points to consider therefore are outlined below: • the large level of permitted reserves held at the existing sites – sufficient to meet

current apportionment requirements into the next Plan Period; • the spread of reserves across the sites, and the future working plans of the 3 major

operating Companies; • a reduction of Leicestershire’s igneous rock figure to reflect the recent sales trend

and give encouragement to recycling initiatives; • the way forward into the next plan period (2006 – 2016), having regard to the

landbank position and any revised national/regional guidance requirements; • the introduction of an igneous rock policy that seeks to provide a continued

presumption against new sites and inappropriate extensions to existing units. Key Issues

4.1

Chapter 4 – Igneous Rock In looking at any future provision for igneous rock, how should potential longer-term reserve deficiencies be addressed in a sustainable manner and the restoration of large sites be achieved?

4.2

It is proposed to introduce a specific igneous rock policy. How robust should the approach to any new sites and inappropriate extensions to existing sites therefore be?

Page 21


CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 5

COAL

Coal workings at Hicks Lodge

Restored Areas at Coalfield North Site

Albion Site - Coal being despatched by rail

Coal extraction at Albion Site



COAL

Summary a. Deep Coal Mining Policy 18 covers deep coal mining proposals and identifies safeguards which the Counties would wish to see imposed in the event of applications for further deep mined coal extraction. Supporting text sets out the position with regard to the South Derbyshire and Leicestershire and North East Leicestershire Coalfields. b. Opencast Coal Mining A summary of the situation in respect of opencast activities during the early 1990s is given, together with national, regional and local production levels and trends. Reference is made to MPG3 (1994) and Minerals and Waste Disposal Policy 5 of the SP - the main local policy controlling opencast operations. Text also refers to the one major ‘coal only’ site approach, in relation to the effects of cumulative impact within the coalfield area. Policy 19 covers joint coal and fireclay opencast operations and details circumstances where proposals are likely to be acceptable. The practice of joint working in the Ashby Woulds area is discussed, in terms of the adverse impacts and benefits that may result. The importance of the Ashby Woulds Regeneration Strategy is also highlighted. Analysis The Coal Industry has undergone significant review and restructuring since the MLP was previously drafted. Briefly, these changes have seen the privatisation of British Coal, the establishment of RJB (Mining) UK - now UK Coal, across the Central Region and the emergence of the Coal Authority. A further downsizing of the coal industry has occurred in response to a contracting market for coal, resulting in a further reduction in deep-mined capacity. Locally, the premature closure of the Asfordby Mine has been experienced in recent times. March 1999 saw the publication of a revised MPG3. This provides advice to MPAs to ensure that the extraction of coal and disposal of colliery spoil only takes place at the best balance of community, social, environmental and economic interests, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The new guidance advises on national land use policy and sets out a series of tests that coal extraction or colliery spoil disposal proposals should meet. The advice conveys the view that there should normally be a presumption against development but recognises the contribution of coal to energy diversity and supply. It states that this general approach should form an overall framework, and be incorporated into development plan policies as soon as possible. However, the government also believes that the MPAs’ assessment of the environmental acceptability or otherwise of individual proposals should normally prevail. At present there are no specific opencast coal policies in the MLP. Reliance is placed upon Minerals and Waste Disposal Policy 5 of the SP - Resource Management Policy 11 of the deposit version of the replacement SP. This new policy follows the general approach in the revised MPG3.

Page 22


A main consideration therefore is whether to include any opencast coal specific policies within the review of the MLP, or rely upon the SP policy as at present. The revised MPG3 does however contain some 30 paragraphs dedicated to Development Plans, and concludes that MLPs should carry forward the policies contained in the SP and set out clear criteria against which individual proposals will be assessed. It also says that MLPs should indicate appropriate areas - either broad areas of search, the extent of the shallow coalfield and its’ constraints, or a combination of the two. In the light of the above advice, it would now appear appropriate to strengthen the SP policy with MLP policy(ies) and appropriate map(s). It is considered these should principally address the wider coalfield area and any constraint designations but due to the difficulties involved, not attempt to identify specific future working areas. As detailed in the following table and chart, however, Leicestershire is not a major producer of opencast coal and its general importance should not therefore be overstated. What should be recognised as an important factor though is the context of the relatively small extent of the workable reserve area within North West Leicestershire, and the pressures that this brings - especially the potential for both cumulative impact due to site concentrations and joint fireclay working arrangements. The cumulative impact aspect is recognised in the current supporting text, which refers to one major ‘coal only’ site (approx. 1Mt) being operational at any one time - in effect the former British Coal sites. Whilst this source of large sites has seemingly now expired there is still the potential for major sites to come forward. The retention of this text or its inclusion within a policy could therefore be an issue for further discussion. With regard to joint coal and fireclay operations, Policy 19 of the MLP provides a general presumption in favour, subject to environmental concerns and certain criteria. Leicestershire was the main producer of fireclays when the MLP was drafted and this position remains unaltered. Although fireclay is covered separately in Chapter 6 of the MLP, MPG3 advises that policies should make provision to enable the working of other mineral deposits from coal sites. Specific mention is made of fireclay resources, which can be viably worked in a co-ordinated approach and not therefore unnecessarily sterilised – this has also figured in a recent DTLR research project ("Brick Clay: Issues for Planning" DTLR and British Geological Society, HMSO November 2001). The inclusion of this approach within the MLP, along the lines of an updated Policy 19, should also form the basis of further debate. The impact that joint working can have in terms of the resultant large stockpiles and stocking areas and prolonged time-scales should be recognised however.

Page 23


OPENCAST COAL SALES (Mt)

Year England Regional Leicestershire 1990/91 12.088 3.824 2.069 1991/92 11.686 2.721 1.274 1992/93 10.068 1.931 0.483 1993/94 8.780 5.193 0.171 1994/95 7.660 4.741 0.318 1995/96 8.910 5.247 0.508 1996/97 8.400 1.406 0.301 1997/98 8.140 0.858 0.060 1998/99 6.960 0.928 0.128

Regional Totals: Up to 1992/93, Central West Region; 1993/94 - 1995/96, Central Region; 1996/97 onwards, West Central Region

All statistics from Planning Officers' Society Publications.

Opencast Coal Sales

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

ENGLAND (Mt) REGIONAL (Mt) LEICESTERSHIRE (Mt)

Page 24


At present, Policy 18 of the MLP covers deep coal mining and the first part of Resource Management Policy 11 of the deposit SP review covers “extraction of coal and colliery spoil disposal”. The closure of the Asfordby Mine in August 1997 saw deep coal mining come to an end in Leicestershire for a second time. Although reserves exist in the North East Leicestershire area, it is considered extremely unlikely that they will now be exploited or that any further deep mining and associated colliery spoil disposal proposals will come forward in the Counties. Given this position it is believed that a deep coal mining/colliery spoil disposal policy is now unnecessary in the MLP. As a fallback position, however, Resource Management Policy 11 in the deposit version of the replacement SP covers this aspect. Further Considerations General: The main consideration revolves around the level of future opencast coal and deep mined coal/spoil disposal policy advice. Key points to consider therefore are: • the inclusion of detailed policy controls in the MLP, to be used in the assessment

of future opencast coal proposals; • the provision of appropriate maps, displaying either broad areas of search, the

extent of the coalfield and local constraints or a combination of the two; • the level of control advanced in respect of any future major opencast coal

proposals, including the level at which a is recognised as “major”; Policy 18: Whether policy should be deleted. Policy 19: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. Key Issues

5.1

Chapter 5 – Coal It is intended to include a specific opencast coal policy in the MLP. What format should this take?

5.2

Is it now appropriate to delete Policy 18 (Deep Coal Mining), whilst retaining Policy 19 (Fireclay and Opencast Coal) in an updated format?

Page 25


CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 6 - OTHER MINERALS

Desford Brickworks and Stocking Area

Stocking area, Cloud Hill Limestone Quarry



OTHER MINERALS

This chapter titled Other Minerals, covers: Limestone; Brickclay; Fireclay; Ironstone; Gypsum; and, Oil and Gas. a. Limestone Summary At the last MLP review date, 5 of the 6 limestone quarries were operational (Woolfox Quarry was temporarily closed). Following Local Government Reorganisation, 4 of these quarries are now dealt with by Rutland County Council. These include Ketton Quarry, the largest operation, where the stone is used solely in connection with cement manufacture. Average annual production over the 5 year period up to 1993 was 3.2Mt of which approximately 52% was used for aggregate purposes. In the light of these figures, the Regional Planning Forum endorsed a contribution of 4.2% towards the regional aggregate requirement. This equates to 21.2Mt over the plan period at an average of 1.41Mt per annum. Estimated permitted reserves at the end of 1993 were 105Mt, equating to some 33 years production. The spread of the reserves indicated a projected working life at each site of over 15 years. Further areas within Rutland also have the benefit of planning permission for limestone extraction, and these are now listed as dormant sites under the terms of the Environment Act 1995. There are also 13 dormant ironstone sites with the ability to work limestone as an aggregate, within Leicestershire and Rutland. One of these, at Thistleton, has since been the subject of an appeal relating to a new scheme of conditions. The Ketton site was detailed in MPG10 Provision of Raw Material for the Cement Industry (1991), as having sufficient reserves (both limestone and clay) for 30 years so no provision was made in the MLP in this respect. Policy 20 covers the provision of limestone, and is restrictive, in that only extensions to existing operations will normally be granted. The extensions should only be necessary however to maintain continuity of supply, and be environmentally acceptable. Analysis Policy 20 is still very relevant given that the current overall reserve figure although reduced, stands at some 64.39Mt, of which total aggregate reserves account for 47.68Mt (EMRAWP 2000). The reduction from the previous figure has been due largely, to significant reserve reassessments at the sites. Although there is no specified landbank provision for crushed rock aggregates, 15 years has been used recently and appears to have been accepted as a reasonable time-scale (see Igneous Rock Chapter for more details). This may however be subject to change when revised guidance is eventually issued, and a more definite figure possibly put forward. Given the above aggregate reserve of nearly 48Mt, the following landbanks can be calculated:

Page 26



(Mt/annum)



(m/t)


(years)


(years)

1.41 1.50 47.68 33.8 31.79 Source: EMRAWP Surveys. Aggregate landbank projections, which look forward from the end of the current Plan Period in 2006, therefore give landbanks of 27.82 and 25.79 years respectively for apportionment and average sales. Taking a further 10 years production off of these figures to account for the next Plan Period up to 2016, it can be seen that a landbank around 16-18 years would result (post 2016). If current production levels and apportionment figures are maintained then this may be an issue to be addressed during the next Plan Period up to 2016. Notwithstanding these projections, it is shown in the assumptions detailed in Appendix 2, that the spread of reserves is not equally split across the sites however and consequently, life expectancies ranging from approximately 7.5 years to over 50 years are projected (@12/2000). These figures take into account recent, Company reserve reassessments undertaken at several of the sites, which have seen the amount of permitted reserves reduce significantly. These figures highlight the need for debate to be opened on future working options at those existing sites with potential reserve deficiencies. Such debate would fall under the provisions of Policy 20, and necessarily include clear corroboration of any revised reserve figures and guidance relating to landbank provision. In general terms, limestone aggregate sales have remained fairly constant at around 1.25 – 1.50Mt over the last five years, although comparatively this is a relatively small amount, equating to around 10% of Leicestershire and Rutland’s total crushed rock production. It is also worth noting that in addition to aggregate production, an element of limestone from all 6 operating units is processed for industrial purposes. By far the largest industrial stone producer is Ketton Quarry, which uses its limestone, in conjunction with on site clays, almost entirely for the manufacture of cement at the adjacent works. Following a Company reassessment of the site’s reserve, it is understood that these provided sufficient material for around 8 years only (@ 12/2000) at current production rates. Subsequently, the Company has had a planning application for an extension to its quarry workings approved following a public local inquiry. When combined with changes to production techniques, the additional reserves will allow extraction to continue for an additional period of approximately 12 years. This translates into a total projected landbank at the end of the current Plan Period of some 17 years, as highlighted in Appendix 2. Having regard to MPG10, this states that a landbank of 15 years is appropriate (or 25 years in the case of further significant investment) for a site such as Ketton. Despite the recent approval therefore this remains an issue that has to be addressed in order to maintain the required landbank provision, during the early stages of the next Plan Period. Clay reserves at the site, which are also covered by the recent permission, are understood to be available in sufficient quantities well beyond the end of the Plan Period (clays are covered in more detail later).

Page 27


A valuable building stone resource is also worked at Clipsham Quarry. This “block stone” is used largely in the restoration and maintenance of buildings, of both local and national significance. It appears that the longer term working of this stone needs further consideration, in the light of present reserve estimates at the Quarry. It is acknowledged that there is an increasing demand for the use of local building stone, due mainly to repair and maintenance specifications in respect of works to the many individually listed buildings and in the conservation areas in and around Rutland. In order to meet this demand, further areas of land with suitable reserves may need to be identified at some future stage. In the light of the above information, it is considered that the approach delivered by Policy 20 is still relevant and one which should be carried forward. It is seen as being particularly relevant in safeguarding against unsuitable, speculative aggregate proposals - particularly in the eastern part of Leicestershire and in Rutland. It is also considered sufficiently flexible to maintain the required limestone production in accordance with landbank requirements. This Policy should therefore remain in a similar format and potentially become more robust in the light of revised national guidance. Recent limestone sales are detailed in the table and chart below and reflect the relationship to regional production.

LIMESTONE SALES

LEICESTERSHIRE & RUTLAND (Mt)

YEAR ENGLAND (Mt)

EAST MIDLANDSREGION

(Mt) Aggregate Industrial

COUNTIES AS % OF REGIONAL

SALES 1992 81.34* 20.75* 0.99 1.81 13.49 1993 84.12* 22.29* 1.35 2.11 15.52 1994 95.45* 24.89 1.55 2.08 14.58 1995 85.38* 25.88 1.26 2.25 13.56 1996 75.63* 24.16 1.30 1.97 13.53 1997 79.34* 24.87 1.18 1.87 12.26 1998 79.78* 25.18 1.50 2.05 14.10 1999 75.82* 24.16 1.57 1.85 14.16 2000 74.95* 24.87 1.43 1.98 13.71

Source: EMRAWP Surveys/*Business Monitor PA1007 (land won)

Page 28


Further Considerations General: Referring back to the conclusions dealing with sand and gravel and particularly igneous rock, it is believed that a similar approach should be pursued with respect to limestone in considering the options for planning for future provision. Reliance to a large extent, is again therefore, placed on the guidance that the revised MPG6 will give to the issue of aggregate provision. If a figure of 15 years is to be retained as a guide to landbank provision, then the information above and the assumptions in Appendix 2, indicate that such provision could be met at the end of the current Plan Period and potentially at 2016. The spread of reserves, however, (subject to ratification) indicates a need for further provision. Future working options need to be discussed therefore for the following sites: Breedon, Greetham and Woolfox in particular, and also possibly at Clipsham. Having regard to the provisions of MPG10, the approach to the future reserve position at Ketton Quarry is now less pressing in the light of the Inspector’s recent approval. However, this matter will still need to be addressed during the next Plan Period, up to 2016, and future working options will therefore need to be investigated. Key points to consider therefore are outlined below: • the level of permitted aggregate reserves held at the existing sites and their ability

to meet current apportionment/landbank provision at the end of the current Plan Period;

• a consolidation of the Counties’ limestone aggregate apportionment figure at a

maximum level of 1.41Mt per annum to reflect the recent sales trend and give encouragement to recycling initiatives;

• the way forward into the next plan period (2006 – 2016), having regard to the

landbank position, any revised national/regional guidance requirements, and demands for high quality building stone;

Limestone Sales

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Mt

Regional Total Leicestershire

Page 29


• consideration be given to the identification of future reserve areas at Breedon,

Clipsham, Greetham, Woolfox and Ketton in the MLP review; Policy20: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. Key Issues

6.1

Chapter 6 – Limestone In looking at future provision for limestone, how should potential longer-term reserve deficiencies be addressed in a sustainable manner? How should the importance of local building stone be reflected in the MLP?

6.2

Additional sites may also be required in order to meet future reserve requirements. Should an approach that seeks to consolidate existing sites with appropriate extensions and a limited release of any new sites be adopted, or should new sites provide the main bulk of future supply? Where should any new sites be located?

b. Brickclay Summary In 1989, during the preparation stages of the previous MLP Review, Leicestershire County Council conducted a survey of clay operators to establish the level of reserves in relation to future mineral requirements. Of the 9 clay sites surveyed, 7 were concerned with the manufacture of brick and clay products at dedicated works, at Shepshed, Glen Parva, Desford, Heather, Ibstock, Measham and Gypsy Lane. The 2 remaining sites being at: Ellistown where concrete pipes and bricks are manufactured, and at Ketton in Rutland, where clays are used solely in the manufacture of cement. The operational brickworks were reduced to 5, following the closure of the Gypsy Lane and Glen Parva sites in the early 1990s, and this remains the position today. Estimated reserves following the 1989 survey were 13 million tonnes, sufficient for 23 years based on average production between 1987-89. The reserves were not equally distributed between sites however, and it was considered that at 3 sites Shepshed, Desford and Ibstock, the level of permitted reserves were not adequate to meet requirements to 2006. This led to areas of search being identified in the MLP, which were to form the basis for extensions to these 3 sites.

Page 30


These areas were later embodied into Policy 21 of the MLP and identified on proposal maps. The policy also includes advice on the criteria to be met to facilitate the release of the allocated sites, i.e. advanced planting requirements, and a negative approach to the release of unallocated sites, having regard to the level of investment in plant and machinery at the site. Analysis To a large extent, the main objective of Policy 21 has been achieved, in that consolidating applications have now been approved for 2 of the allocated sites, Ibstock and Desford. These brought together IDO and ROMP schemes as well as applications for the allocated areas. At Shepshed, a ROMP assessment has been undertaken, and planning permission granted for an extension area that covers part of the allocated area. On this evidence, the Policy has enabled the process of consolidating the complex planning situations at some of the long established clay sites to be achieved. Consequently, a more simpler planning position is in place, with operations generally falling under one set of planning controls. With regard to the working position at the other 4 clay sites, it is understood that reserves at Ellistown and Ketton, would allow working to continue through the next 10 year MLP period, and well beyond 2016 (at current rates of extraction). At the Heather and Measham sites, however, it is estimated that current permitted reserves will not achieve this if present extraction rates are maintained, as reserves at both sites are anticipated to expire around 2015/16. Permitted reserve estimates at the Counties’ 7 clay sites, based on information contained in recent planning applications, IDO and ROMP schemes and referenced to the original 1989 survey information, amount to a total of some 27.419Mt (at 12/00). This equates to approximately 31.82 years total production (using average sales over 1990-2000). The figures indicate that these reserves are distributed across the 7 sites such that potential future working ranges between 15 and 35 years, with only 2 of the sites having below 20 years life. These projections are displayed in Appendix 2. In the light of the above assessment, it is not envisaged that additional land will require to be released during the remainder of this MLP period. Notwithstanding this, it is proposed to undertake a fresh survey of all clay operators in order to clarify the reserve positions at the Counties’ sites and allow base data to be reassessed. This will assist in the future provision of clay reserves and any allocated sites that may need to be brought forward. Also, as the reserve position at Shepshed is now firmly established for a period of some 30 years, consideration needs to be given to the continued inclusion within the MLP, of the remaining unused part of the allocated area at this site. The reserve position at the Heather site will become clearer following the impending Environment Act review. In the wider context, the information in the following table, which details brickclay sales over the period 1990 – 2000, demonstrates that the Counties’ operations have consistently produced over 40% of the Region’s brickclay during the 1990s, although production declined slightly during 2000. Given the current operating climate, however, which has generally become more settled over the recent period, it is believed that this level of production is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Page 31


Brickclay Sales

England (Mt)

Regional (Mt)

Leicestershire& Rutland

(Mt) As %

of England As %

of Region

1990 14.357 1.985 0.888 6.19 44.74 1991 11.916 1.864 0.833 6.99 44.69 1992 11.037 1.640 0.732 6.63 44.63 1993 9.883 1.807 0.817 8.27 45.21 1994 11.396 1.885 0.853 7.49 45.25 1995 12.510 2.023 0.870 6.95 43.01 1996 10.828 1.873 0.879 8.12 46.93 1997 10.514 1.905 0.858 8.16 45.04 1998 11.351 2.163 0.896 7.89 41.42 1999 10.352 2.459 1.084 10.47 44.08 2000 9.577 2.051 0.770 8.04 37.54

Leicestershire Totals Sourced from Business Monitor PA1007 & EMRAWP Surveys1985 with Derbyshire. 1987 & 1988 with Northamptonshire.

Further Considerations General: The reserve position at Ibstock, Desford, Shepshed, Ellistown and Ketton is considered to be sufficient for output at the current rate to be maintained well into the future. It is not therefore an issue of concern for this review process. Whilst the current position of permitted reserves at the 2 remaining sites, Measham and Heather, is not as long term, indications are that reserves are plentiful for the remainder of this Plan Period and almost all of the next one. Any future extension areas to these sites would be more appropriately considered therefore during the following Plan Period. It is intended to undertake a survey of all clay operators during the forthcoming months, in order to re-establish reserve figures, with a view to dealing with any particular reserve deficiencies during the next Plan Period. Policy 21: Policy to be updated and retained in part, pending the position at the Shepshed site. Key Issue

6.3

Chapter 6 – Brickclay Policy 21 requires updating. Would an updated version of part (d) of Policy 21 suffice for the next Plan Period in the light of a survey of clay operators?

Page 32


c. Fireclay Summary When the previous MLP review was conducted, there were 5 fireclay operations in the Counties, at, Donington Island, Woodville, Moira Pottery, Hicks Lodge and Little Casterton in Rutland. Total permitted reserves from the 1989 clay survey, including those in stockpiles, were estimated at around 9Mt. This equated to sufficient for a period approaching 29 years, based on average production over the 3-year period up to 1989. It was considered that all of the existing operations had an adequate level of reserves to meet their requirements to 2006, and in most cases well beyond. Due to a long-term decline in the demand for refractory clay products, a large percentage (87% over 1987-1989) of the Counties’ fireclays have, and continue to be, used for the manufacture of bricks, pipes and tiles. In response to the 1989 survey, it was resolved in the MLP that apart from in exceptional circumstances, proposals to extract fireclay alone would not be permitted. This stance was covered in Policy 22, which sets out criteria relating to such circumstances i.e., the necessity to ensure the life of long-term plant investment, the requirement to address any need for particular clay qualities not stockpiled, or in cases where substantial environmental improvement can be achieved. Analysis The fireclay sales position has changed significantly, especially in the Ashby Woulds area, over the last 10 – 12 years. This is mainly as a result of market fluctuations that have seen the continuation of a downward trend in fireclay product sales, and a major rationalisation of reserves and producing sites. Although Leicestershire remains the most important fireclay producing area in the Country, both in terms of the quantity and quality of clays, the use of a very substantial amount of the fireclays for non-refractory products is set to continue for the foreseeable future. The status and nature of the fireclay sites has moved on considerably due to these changes, and the following is a brief resume of their present status (12/00):

Donington Island continues to be an important stocking and blending area and following rationalisation of the stocks, it is estimated that approximately 1.69Mt remain on site, with annual sales in the order of 0.20Mt. Permission for the clay stocking facility expires at the end of 2012.

The Woodville operation is now incorporated into the New Albion scheme, and it is estimated that some 0.19Mt are currently in stock and that around 0.42Mt remain to be extracted over the next 5 years. The retention of a specialist clay stockpile at Woodville is limited to the end of 2003. Any remaining clays extracted at Albion will be transported to Donington for stocking and blending. The New Albion scheme has also seen the restoration of the Moira Pottery site.

The Hicks Lodge clays have now all been extracted and some 0.62Mt are stockpiled on site, these will be despatched over the remaining life of the opencast operation (Final restoration of the site is due by 07/05).

Page 33


The Little Casterton operation in Rutland remains at a low-level of production, with approximately 10,000 tonnes of clay being won each year. This works specialises in high quality handmade products and has sufficient reserves to continue at its current rate of production for approximately 25 years.

It is apparent from the above, and in the light of the information available, that in the short to medium term there will be sufficient reserves to meet production requirements. In the medium to long term (e.g. towards the end of the next MLP period), however, current indications are that there is likely to be a shortfall in supply. Sustaining the type and quantities of clays required, to meet future needs of local and distant works, could therefore lead to a requirement for more clays to be exploited. This is recognised as a sensitive issue, as in order to address the legacies resulting from the combined effects of a decline in fireclay operations and the demise of the coal industry, environmental improvements steered by the Ashby Woulds Regeneration Strategy, have helped to transform derelict landscapes to a mix of new sites and after-uses. These have also been influenced by the emergence of National Forest initiatives. At a national level, a recent DTLR research project ("Brick Clay: Issues for Planning" DTLR and British Geological Society, HMSO November 2001) highlighted the problem of diminishing fireclay stocks, and a reducing level of opportunity to exploit further reserves during joint coal and clay workings, due to the present climate surrounding opencast coal operations. A breakdown of fireclay sales figures is given below. Due to disclosure problems, it is not possible to give a full production picture. Generally, however, the East Midlands is the largest regional producer with Leicestershire being the main contributor at County level.

Fireclay Sales

Year GB (Mt)

Leicestershire & Rutland (Mt) As % of GB

1990 0.892 0.330 37.00 1991 0.867 0.389 44.87 1992 0.572 0.218 38.11 1993 0.479 0.229 47.81 1994 0.679 0.360 53.02 1995 0.708 0.307 43.36 1996 0.536 0.180 33.58 1997 0.338 0.000* 0.00 1998 0.577 0.000* 0.00 1999 0.545 0.414 75.96 2000 0.595 0.000* 0.00

Counties Totals

1993, 1994 & 1995 with Derbyshire & Northamptonshire. 1999 with Northamptonshire *Figures withheld to avoid disclosure. All figures sourced from business monitor pa1007.

Page 34


Further Considerations General: Having regard to the above information, and particularly the medium to longer term shortfall scenario, this is an area which will require a thorough investigation being undertaken. It is important that consultation involves interested parties at the local and wider level, and in particular, reflects the context of regeneration initiatives affecting Ashby Woulds. As in the case of Brickclays, it is proposed to undertake a survey of operators to establish a more definite reserve picture. Policy 22: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. Key Issue

6.4

Chapter 6 – Fireclay How should the long-term provision of valuable fireclay reserves be addressed, having regard to local amenity and regeneration initiatives?

d. Ironstone Summary Policy 23 of the MLP states that proposals for the establishment of ironstone operations will not normally be permitted. The last ironstone extraction took place around 1974 and given the continued use of imported iron ore and the continual decline of the steel industry, it is not envisaged that any future workings will commence. Analysis Following the introduction of the Environment Act 1995, some 13 ironstone sites in the eastern part of Leicestershire and in Rutland were included in the first list of mineral sites and registered as dormant. Since the list was produced in January 1996, one of the sites, which covers land at Market Overton and Thistleton, has been pursued. A new scheme of conditions is now finally approved for part of this site following an appeal and public inquiry. The proposal relates not to the extraction of ironstone but the overlying minerals, principally low-grade limestone, which was also covered by the original planning permission.

Page 35


With regard to the dormant sites, central government is encouraging local authorities to adopt an approach, which seeks to investigate the serving of Prohibition Orders. Following adjustments to the compensation regulations, this is now considered the favoured way of dealing with these old and outdated permissions - the main intention being to prevent inappropriate and speculative development from coming forward. It is proposed that this approach be subject to further investigation. Further Considerations General: The option referred to above of pursuing Prohibition Orders in respect of the old ironstone permissions is one where central government appear to be looking to local authorities to take the lead. There are obvious benefits to the local environment and communities to be gained from such an approach being followed through, as this would remove the threat of speculative limestone extraction from coming forward. The limestone landbank position should also be a factor which carries significant weight to this argument. Embarking on this approach would have considerable resource implications. Policy 23: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. Key Issue

6.5

Chapter 6 – Ironstone Should an investigation into the serving of Prohibition Orders in respect of old ironstone sites be pursued?

e. Gypsum Summary Following an appeal decision in 1980 the new mine at Barrow upon Soar was approved together with an underground extraction area covering some 3,450 hectares. Policy 24 of the MLP seeks to restrict further proposals for the working of gypsum. Analysis The planning permission covering the underground extraction of gypsum at the Barrow mine site is now subject to a new scheme of conditions approved under the ROMP process. Information included as part of the review submission indicates that the site has reserves in the region of 20Mt, which at the current rate of extraction would provide the works with mineral for a period of approximately 30 years. In the light of this information it is considered that further gypsum extraction should presently be resisted.

Page 36


Further Considerations Policy 24: To retain policy in similar format following updating and minor amendment. f. Oil and Gas Summary Oil production began in Leicestershire almost 50 years ago. The mid 1980s saw the peak of exploration activity for the on-shore oil and gas industry, however, following the granting of exploration licences from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). This led to exploratory operations being pursued, particularly in and around the Vale of Belvoir. Since that time, the number of new wells has gradually declined. Policy 25 of the MLP deals with oil and gas proposals and currently looks to treat each one on its merits in line with the general principles established in MLP policies 2 and 3. Analysis The early 1990s saw a consolidation of the oil exploration and evaluation activities within Leicestershire, and this culminated in the exploitation of a small oilfield to the south of Long Clawson. Only two small sites, Long Clawson “A” and “C”, remain in an operational capacity and these have recently been granted approval for a further 10 years until July 2010, when it is expected that the associated reserve will be exhausted. A further approval for exploration purposes was granted in 1998 for a site which lies to the north east of Wymeswold, but to date this site has not commenced. A planning application has also recently been approved for an exploration well to the south east of Woodhouse in Charnwood Borough, following the granting of a further exploration licence by the DTI. National policy in respect of oil and gas is contained in Circular 2/85 although this is in the process of being replaced with a new expanded guidance note, MPG 17, which also covers the exploitation of coalbed methane. The draft version of the guidance note reiterates the planning system’s role in relation to energy policy and states that development plans should make positive provision for oil, gas and coalbed methane exploration, subject to environmental acceptability. It also states that local policies should distinguish clearly between the 3 stages of exploration, appraisal and development in respect of oil and gas developments. Subject to new national policy guidance finally being produced, Policy 25 or any succeeding oil, gas or coalbed methane policy contained in the MLP should be revised accordingly, although it is not presently known when the final version of MPG 17 will be produced. Further Considerations Policy 25 to be updated and retained, to reflect government guidance. The scope of the policy could also be widened to advise upon coalbed methane and exploration activities.

Page 37


Key Issue

6.6

Chapter 6 – Oil and Gas Is it appropriate to broaden Policy 25, to encompass coalbed methane exploitation and all hydrocarbon exploration activities, to reflect emerging national guidance?

Other Minerals Summary Policy 26 covers the working of any other minerals on a case by case approach, in the light of the general criteria contained in Policies 2 and 3. Analysis This policy was basically provided as a safeguard against any unforeseen circumstances coming forward. It is fair to say that it has not been widely used. Such circumstances are considered to be adequately covered by the main criteria policies and therefore this policy is probably duplicating controls. Further Considerations This policy is unlikely to be used in the future and could therefore be deleted. It is considered that adequate cover is provided by other policies.

Page 38


CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 7OTHER MINERALDEVELOPMENTS

Ketton Cement Works

Despatch area, Ellistown Pipeworks

Bardon Concrete Plant

Restoration of Hemington Borrow Pit



OTHER MINERAL DEVELOPMENTS

Chapter 7 of the MLP covers Other Mineral Developments, which tend to be of a more minor nature and scale, but nevertheless have the potential to generate their own environmental problems. a. Borrow Pits Summary Policy 27 covers the establishment of temporary borrow pits and is a favourable policy subject to the application of 6 basic criteria. Amongst other things, these relate to areas covering: supply; proximity; access and transportation; protection of local amenity and the environment; restoration; and, alternative supply from existing consented sites. Analysis Previously, the development of borrow pits has been almost entirely associated with new road schemes, although the general decline in road building has resulted in fewer schemes coming forward over recent years, several new road schemes have been earmarked. Time constraints are often a critical factor in the determination of these schemes, due to the overall time constraints imposed on the road building contract. Contractors and/or applicants should therefore ensure that sufficient allowance is made within their time-scales, to enable a full and detailed assessment to be undertaken of any proposal. The restoration of borrow pit sites has been a particular issue in the past, especially at those sites located within an airport safeguarding zone, due to the increased potential for bird-strikes where some form of water based restoration is proposed. In such cases, the restoration scheme has sought to design out features that would attract wildlife. The CAA is also in the process of issuing a guidance note on the hazard of bird strike. The advantages and disadvantages of future borrow pits should therefore be considered in the light of these developments, which should be referenced in any revision of the policy. It is considered that in general terms, the content of the remainder of the policy is still appropriate, although necessary amendments relating to the requirements of sustainable development will have to be incorporated. Further Considerations Policy 27 Policy to be updated and retained. Provision should be included in the criteria relating to timing of submissions, and in respect of water based restoration within airport safeguarding zones.

Page 39


Key Issue

7.1

Chapter 7 – Borrow Pits Policy 27 is to be retained, are amendments which reflect sustainability concerns and restoration proposals for water based after-uses within airport safeguarding zones appropriate additions?

b. Mineral Exploration Summary Policy 28 seeks to judge exploration operations on their merits without prejudice to consideration of further proposals for mineral development. Permissions will only be granted for temporary periods, and full restoration will be required upon completion. Interests of acknowledged importance are given specific protection. The supporting text refers to certain small-scale and temporary exploratory operations that were permitted development by virtue of the now replaced GPDO 1988. Reference to exploration for oil and gas is also included, and acknowledges that restoration provisions in respect of these sites needs to be sufficiently flexible to enable further developments, should hydrocarbons be encountered. Analysis In the main, mineral exploration activities, subject to certain controls and limitations, are permitted development and covered by Part 22 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. An article 7 direction is also available to the MPA in relation to the longer period of exploration provided by Class B of Part 22 of the GPDO. In effect therefore, the number of exploration proposals likely to be judged against Policy 28 is considered to be very low. Petroleum exploration is an exception however, as this is specifically excluded from the GPDO. These operations involve more substantial equipment to undertake the deep drilling, and are generally concentrated into an intense albeit relatively brief period. Unlike the previous GPDO, no specific mention is made with regard to the exploration for coal in Part 22 of the GPDO. Given the above position, it is considered that petroleum exploration could be covered in an expanded and all encompassing oil, gas and coalbed methane policy i.e. Policy 25, as discussed above. If this option is pursued, and taking into account the permitted development rights pertaining to general mineral exploration operations, the future benefit of a dedicated exploration policy is seen as limited. Reference to exploration activities could also be made, however, within general policies 1 and 2, ensuring that any which come forward are considered on a par with other mineral developments and judged against relevant criteria.

Page 40


Further Considerations Policy 28: Consideration should be given to the need to retain this policy. Petroleum exploration could be covered under an expanded oil and gas policy, with other mineral exploration being included in the general mineral development policies of the MLP. c. Mineral Stocking Areas Summary Policy 29 relates to mineral stocking areas and looks to restrict such areas to locations which do not give rise to unacceptable levels of environmental disturbance and visual intrusion or compromise highway safety. The supporting text recognises the historic problems of clay stocking areas, particularly within Ashby Woulds. Analysis In the main this policy looks to control the provision of mineral stocking areas that operate as separate units, i.e. stand alone sites not situated within a larger mineral working, which would otherwise provide appropriate planning controls. This policy was very relevant as a safeguard control to the Donington Island operation at the time of the MLP review. Since then, however, the planning position at the site has been rationalised through the grant of 2 new planning permissions and the provisions of the Environment Act 1995. Consequently, it is considered that the relevance of Policy 29 to this site has diminished. With regard to future stocking requirements, it is not envisaged in the foreseeable future that any proposals on a similar scale to the Donington Island clay stocking and blending area are likely to come forward. However, considering the contribution made by Ashby Woulds clays to production at both the local and national level, and the potential for additional stocking areas to be required at mineral sites elsewhere in the Counties, a future need for guidance on this issue will probably arise. The continued inclusion of a specific stocking area policy in the next MLP is therefore appropriate. Alternatively, the approach highlighted previously could be adopted, whereby stocking proposals are encompassed into the more general policies covering mineral development. Further Considerations Policy 29: Consideration should be given to the need to retain this policy in an updated format, or delete it and cover minerals stocking in the general mineral related development policies of the MLP.

Page 41


d. Surface Disposal of Mineral Waste Summary Policy 30 provides advice on the disposal of mineral waste and covers two main areas. Part a. relates to the criteria to be taken into account when assessing proposals, and part b. includes more detailed advice on specific environmental considerations. The supporting text emphasises the importance of key considerations when assessing proposals, and refers to the role of MPG 3 in the disposal of colliery spoil. Analysis Disposal of mineral waste on the site from where it was derived is covered under Part 21 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO 1995, as long as it is confined to land used for a mine or on ancillary mining land already used for tipping. These development rights are subject to certain size and height limitations. In all other cases the disposal of mineral waste requires planning permission. Consequently, mineral waste disposal activities are usually an integral part of a planning application for mineral extraction and as such can be judged as part of that operation. Separate mineral waste disposal sites are now very rare, especially following the demise of the deep mine coal industry. The Environment Act 1995 also sought to deal with the older mineral waste disposal consents as well as those for mineral extraction under the ROMP provisions. The relevance of a separate policy for mineral waste disposal in the next review of the MLP therefore needs to be considered. Again, one option to take this issue forward would be to amend the text in the main MLP policies so that they included reference to mineral waste disposal. Further Considerations Policy 30: Consideration should be given to the need to retain this policy in an updated format, or delete it and cover disposal of mineral waste proposals in the general mineral development policies of the MLP. e. Removal of Material from Mineral-Working Deposit Summary Policy 31 sets out 3 factors which proposals will be judged against in addition to the general principles contained in policies 2 and 3. These include need, potential reclamation opportunities and operational arrangements e.g. duration and transport. The accompanying text makes reference to advances in technology, which may in some cases mean that previously tipped materials can now be recovered and viably worked. The tip washing of former colliery spoil heaps is also referred to, as this figured more frequently during the early 1990s. Permitted development rights contained in the former GPDO relating to the removal of material from mineral working deposits are mentioned, together with references from MPG 1 regarding policy formulation considerations.

Page 42


Analysis The general position regarding the reworking of mineral-working deposits remains unchanged under the terms of the 1995 GPDO. A noticeable change is the position towards the reworking of former tip sites, and this reflects a more widespread approach which has seen a gradual decline in these operations. This decline being due largely to viability and market issues, and the shortage of suitable sites. Tip reworking requires planning permission unless it is covered by Part 23 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO, which permits the removal of material from any bona fide stockpile (Class A) and from tips up to a given area and age (Class B). As in the case of mineral exploration, an article 7 direction procedure is available to the MPA in respect of the Class B development. The last tip working took place at the former Nailstone and Desford Colliery sites in the early 1990s, and the likelihood of operations recommencing on a similar scale is remote. However, it is not inconceivable that small-scale operations relating to old tip sites could come forward. Such operations would however, potentially involve the disturbance of naturally re-generated sites that may have developed considerable conservation importance. In this respect the merits of retaining a separate policy relating to the removal of material from mineral working deposits, or adopting a similar approach to that suggested for the deposit of mineral waste proposals above, has to be judged. The key issues would involve the sustainable use of reclaimed materials (whether for energy or aggregate use), and the level of environmental disturbance likely to be generated. Further Considerations Policy 31: Consideration should be given to the need to retain this policy in an updated format, or delete it and cover the removal of material from mineral working deposits in the general mineral development policies of the MLP. f. Associated Industrial Development Summary Policy 32 deals with this subject under 3 main headings: the assessment of proposals; the determination of applications; and, planning conditions. In the assessment of proposals, particular regard will be given to any environmental and transportation effects, there will also need to be clear overall environmental advantages provided by the close link with the mineral development. Planning conditions will seek to link the working and restoration of the industrial development with the associated mineral site. Analysis Part 19 of the GPDO grants planning permission for certain types of ancillary mining development. Class A provides for a limited range of development without the prior approval of the MPA, Class B covers a wider range of development subject to the prior approval of the MPA, and Class C grants permission in relation to safety aspects of a mine or adjacent surface land.

Page 43


Ancillary mining developments for the treatment, preparation and use of minerals are usually required at the majority of mineral working sites and sometimes these are complemented by industrial developments for the processing of minerals. There are obvious operational benefits from having these activities located in close proximity to the source of the mineral, and in addition there may be certain environmental benefits, particularly related to transportation. However, the predominant countryside location for such developments would not normally be encouraged and this is recognised at the strategic policy level. For such developments to be justified, therefore, it should be demonstrated that there are overall environmental benefits as a result of the particular project. These “net benefits” would have to be of a sufficient scale to offset any adverse impact relating in particular to visual intrusion, noise, dust, odour and traffic generation. The restoration of associated industrial sites should not prejudice the restoration of the whole mineral working following the exhaustion of the local reserve. It is considered that it is important to carry forward a similar policy to the existing Policy 32, in the review of the MLP, in order to guide and control associated industrial development. Further Considerations Policy 32: Policy to be updated and retained.

Page 44


CHAPTER 8

CHAPTER 8RESOURCE

CONSERVATION

Recycling Operations at Ellistown Pipeworks

Materials for Recycling Meadow Lane, Syston

Screening of Inert Waste at Woolfox Quarry



RESOURCE CONSERVATION

This chapter deals with Resource Conservation and concentrates on substitute materials and safeguarding mineral resources, through policies 33 and 34. a. Substitute Materials Summary Policy 33 covers the use of substitute materials and seeks to encourage their use in preference to naturally occurring minerals, subject to technical, economic and environmental constraints. The supporting text deals with the national advice and other studies, which were current at the time of the MLP preparation, concerning the use and future role of these materials. Analysis The use of secondary aggregates and recycled materials is a key area of minerals planning that should be encouraged by policy, to allow industry to pursue opportunities for further development. Schemes seeking to increase the use of these alternative supplies should, therefore, be embraced subject to valid environmental concerns being taken into account. Central government advice, through the review of MPG6, looks to increase the amount of secondary aggregates and recycled materials that contribute to total aggregate usage. Indications are that previous levels of supply of secondary aggregates are questionable in the longer term and more likely to diminish, as the industries and manufacturing processes which supply these materials find themselves in decline. Improvements in industrial processes also mean a reduction in their availability. The role of recycled aggregates is fundamental therefore in aiming to reduce the amount of natural aggregates that are consumed. It is considered that recycled aggregates (construction and demolition waste, road planings and rail ballast) are likely to form the main alternative supplies in Leicestershire and Rutland. In order for MLP policies to be influential at the local level by proactively encouraging the greater use of alternative materials, in a sustainable manner, it is important that revised national planning advice also sets realistic targets for their contribution. Key issues such as environmental and transportation concerns, economic and technical constraints, and effective measures to divert materials from landfill and exempt sites, also need to be addressed. It is considered therefore that a favourable policy for alternative materials proposals, subject to environmental controls, should be built upon the existing policy in the MLP. Further Considerations Policy 33: Policy to be retained, updated and strengthened.

Page 45


Key Issue

8.1

Chapter 8 – Substitute Materials It is intended to retain Policy 33 following updating and strengthening to further encourage the use of substitute materials. Is this an acceptable approach? Should more direct links with District Wide Local Plans be made to further encourage recycled materials usage?

b. Safeguarding Mineral Resources Summary Under the above heading, Policy 34 covers a) Mineral Consultation Areas, b) Provision of Reserve Information and c) Extraction in Advance of Surface Development. Part a) of the policy indicates that Leicestershire County Council will update and refine the mineral consultation areas notified to the District Councils and request any proposals which have sterilisation implications to be referred to it. Under part b) Leicestershire County Council may also request the District Council to obtain reserve information from a developer if the position is unclear as to the existence of minerals which may be affected by a particular proposal. Part c) covers extraction in advance of surface development and is a favourable policy, having regard to the general principles set out in policies 2 and 3 and subject to meeting certain criteria. Analysis This policy echoes guidance provided by MPG 1 and covers two main areas, those relating to mineral consultation areas and those related to advance extraction. A key element to the success of these policies is the resource information and the extent to which this is updated and made available to interested parties. This is an onerous task to perform well in the first instance and then monitor and keep up to date, and consequently places a considerable amount of pressure on the MPA’s limited staffing resource. On the other hand, for the policies to function smoothly, the information should be in a more reliable form than at present. The preferred way forward, which would allow the MPA to confidently discharge its duty and advise interested parties with any degree of confidence would be, therefore, to use the digital map based geological information. This could be utilised in conjunction with the information collected by BGS from their survey of mineral activities in Leicestershire and Rutland. Appropriate maps could then be produced as part of the MLP review and be made available to the District Councils for their local plans.

Page 46


Further Considerations Policy 34: Policy to be retained and updated - use of digitally based geological information and BGS survey information should be facilitated to allow this to proceed. Key Issue

8.2

Chapter 8 – Safeguarding Mineral Resources It is intended to retain Policy 34 following updating and potential use of BGS digitally based geological information. Would this help in utilising mineral consultation procedures more efficiently?

Page 47


CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 9 IMPLEMENTATIONAND MONITORING

Monitoring Visit During Towpath Site Restoration Works

Monitoring Inspection at Lockington SiteNoise Monitoring in Progress



IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING

The final chapter of the MLP deals with Implementation and Monitoring, and includes policies on Enforcement and Plan Review. Summary Policy 35 states that the County Councils will take appropriate steps to rectify matters in the event of unauthorised development or the breach of any planning permission or legal agreement. The text refers to legislation that introduced new enforcement powers but also indicates that an approach to resolve most matters without the need to take any formal action is preferred. Analysis With regard to Policy 35, Leicestershire County Council adopted a dedicated enforcement policy statement in 1998 and revised it in 1999. The statement has regard to the requirements of PPG 18, Enforcing Planning Control: A Good Practice Guide for Local Planning Authorities and the Leicestershire Development Plan. The policy statement sets out the approach to statutory enforcement duties and details the stance that will be taken in ensuring compliance with planning controls. It is now less important therefore for the MLP to continue to provide guidance, indicating when the Authority will implement its enforcement powers. This stance is supported by the approach adopted in respect of the Waste Local Plan, where the equivalent policy was struck out by the inspector. A similar approach could now be taken in respect of the MLP, in the light of this decision. Further Considerations Policy 35: Whether policy should be deleted and text added to reference the Enforcement Policy Statement and advice in PPG18 and MPG4. Summary Policy 36 states that a second review of the plan will be prepared within 5 years from adoption. The supporting text highlights the problem of changing circumstances and the uncertainty that these can bring to forward planning. A list of influential circumstances that should be closely monitored is provided. Analysis A large proportion of the changing circumstances that have to be taken into account during the stages of the review process have been highlighted throughout this monitoring report, on a chapter by chapter basis. Also, in addition to the PPG 12 requirements to undertake 5-yearly reviews of local plans, relevant changes in the wider context that may necessitate a review would include:

Page 48


• policy changes at national, and regional level including the issue of any new

planning guidance, the review of other relevant development plans and the emergence of Local Development Frameworks,

• changes affecting the overall pattern of supply and demand and any

transportation developments, • changes in the information regarding the reserve position and the use of

alternative materials, • changes in the industry’s working techniques including restoration opportunities, • any changes likely to affect the quantity of reserves with planning permission

including those at allocated sites. Close monitoring, including the continued involvement in the work of the EMRAWP, and reference to other relevant published survey information will assist the County Councils to identify specific programmes of action, which can then be taken forward. As with policy 35 however, the Inspector for the WLP also deleted an identical policy to this one following objections from GOEM amongst others. A textual statement referring to the above circumstances and advice contained in PPG 12 should therefore form the basis for this topic in any review. Further Considerations Policy 36: Policy to be deleted.

Page 49


Appendix 1

Existing Policies


Policy 1 Submission of Applications Proposals for the winning and working of minerals and, where appropriate, for other mineral-related developments will not normally be permitted unless a full supporting statement (setting out the implications of the proposed development) has been prepared for consideration by the County Council. The statement shall include details, where appropriate, of the following matters: (a) extent, quantity and quality of the mineral reserve; (b) an assessment of the need for the working and the markets to be served; (c) estimated annual production; (d) estimated time scale of extractive, infilling and restoration operations; (e) anticipated employment levels; (f) layout of the site, including means of access and the siting and design of

buildings and fixed plant; (g) mobile plant and machinery to be used; (h) method of working, including depth, direction and phasing; (i) existing usages of the site and existing ground levels; (j) depth and nature of topsoils, subsoils and overburden; (k) stripping, storage, and respreading of soils and overburden; (l) transportation, including the mode of transport to be used, an assessment of

traffic to be generated and likely routeing; (m) measures to protect local amenity, particularly by the suppression of noise, dust

and vibration; (n) effect on the ecology of the site and surrounding area; (o) effect on archaeological features and their setting; (p) screening and landscaping works; (q) effect on existing surface and groundwater drainage systems and floodplains and

measures to protect water resources against pollution; (r) proposals for restoration and after-use, including finished levels, field boundaries,

tree and hedgerow planting, drainage and the removal of plant; (s) methods of filling, quantity, type and source of fill and materials proposed; (t) proposed aftercare (including cultivation, fertilizing, seeding and under drainage)

particularly where restoration is likely to take place within 12 months of the commencement of working;

(u) any other material considerations as appropriate to particular sites. Policy 2 Assessment of Proposals (a) Proposals for Mineral Extraction

The assessment of all proposals for mineral extraction will take account, where appropriate, of the following factors: (i) Operational and economic needs including:

(a) the demonstrated need for the mineral to be worked; (b) employment implications and the effects on the general economy; (c) the extend, quantity and quality of the mineral reserve which it is

proposed to work; (d) whether, in the case of aggregates, demand can reasonably be met

from within the landbank, or in the case of all other minerals from existing areas with the benefit of planning permission in Leicestershire or from sources elsewhere;

(e) whether the proposal will make use of the existing processing plant;

Page 50


(ii) The likely impact on the overall environment in respect of which particular consideration will be given to:

(a) the effect on, and relationship to, sensitive nearby land uses (in

particular residential properties) by reason of noise, dust, fumes, general disturbance or any other nuisance;

(b) the extent and quality of agricultural land to be taken and any other disruptive effect on agriculture;

(c) the visual impact on the landscape; (d) the effect on woodlands and on topographical features; (e) the effect on statutory nature conservation sites and other sites of

more local scientific interest; (f) the effect on known archaeological features, ancient monuments or

other sites of archaeological, historical or architectural interest and their setting;

(g) the effect on water resources, possible dewatering of the natural ground water, the means of water supply and drainage;

(h) transportation implications including the nature and volume in particular the impact at the proposed point of access to the site from the public highway; the effect on the local environment; and the highway capacity of roads between the operation and the specified road network (as set out in the approved Structure Plan for the County);

(i) the effect on public rights of way and sites of particular importance to sports and recreation;

(j) the effect on the installations of statutory undertakers; (k) other environmental factors as appropriate;

(iii) The provisions of the development plan and any supplementary planning

guidance, being policies and proposals of local planning authorities for the area.

(a) Proposals for Building etc.

Proposals for buildings, plant and other forms of construction or engineering works will be assessed in the light of the following considerations: (i) the siting and visual appearance of the development including its height,

scale and colour; (ii) screening of the development; (iii) the extent to which the development will contribute to an improvement in

the efficiency of mineral working; (iv) the character of the surrounding area; (v) the design of the development and the anticipated generation of noise and

dust or any other nuisance. Policy 3 Environmental Considerations

Unless there is an overriding need or the impact can be alleviated by appropriate measures, proposals for mineral workings will not normally be permitted in the following instances:

Page 51


(a) the development would result in the irreversible loss of significant amounts of the

best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a); (b) the development would have an adverse effect on the character of Areas of

Particularly Attractive Countryside and other areas of local landscape value; (c) the development would result in the loss or damage to ancient woodlands; (d) the development would adversely affect the effectiveness of local land drainage

systems and floodplains, derogate groundwater sources and resources and provide inadequate protection for water quality;

(e) the development would adversely affect proposed and designated National

Nature Reserves, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, Ramsar Sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated because of their ecological interest, unless an overriding national need can be shown and there is no other suitable site for that particular purpose; or sites of county and district level ecological interest or Local Nature Reserves, unless an overriding national or local need can be shown;

(f) the development would adversely affect proposed and designated Regionally

Important Geological Sites (RIGS) or Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated because of their geological interest, unless an overriding national need can be shown or a suitable substitute site of equal or greater value can be proposed; or sites of county and district level geological interest unless an overriding national or local need can be shown or a suitable substitute site of equal or greater value can be proposed;

(g) the development would adversely affect a scheduled ancient monument or other

nationally important archaeological site or its setting or amenity value; (h) where insufficient capacity is available on the local or wider road system for the

traffic that is expected to be generated unless satisfactory improvements can be implemented;

(i) the development including its associated traffic movements would have an

unacceptable impact on local residential amenity; (j) the cumulative effect of the proposed development would be environmentally

unacceptable; (k) the development would adversely affect land or buildings in recreational use and

serving a particular community unless suitable alternative provision is made close enough to serve the same community;

(l) the development would adversely affect public rights of way unless adequate

arrangements can be made to safeguard the existing routes or to provide acceptable alternatives.

Page 52


Policy 4 Transportation

The County Council will encourage, wherever practicable, the use of rail, canal, conveyor and pipeline as a means of transportation for minerals rather than the use of roads. In this respect, the County Council will normally support applications for grant under Section 139 of the Railways Act 1993 for the construction of new or modernization of rail facilities which will reduce the amount of modernization of rail facilities which will reduce the amount of minerals transported by road, and under Section 140 of the Railways traffic by inland water. The County Council will restrict heavy lorry roads by means of traffic management or other appropriate measures such as voluntary lorry routeing agreements with operators entered into under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Policy 5 Planning Conditions for Protection of the Environment In granting planning permission for the winning and working of minerals and other mineral-related developments, the County Council will attach conditions aimed at ensuring that such development has the least detrimental effect on the environment in general, and on local residents in particular. Conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in respect of the following matters: (a) the commencement and duration of the permission (which will often be a shorter

period than the 60 years deemed duration specified in the Town and Country Planning (Mineral operations and residential development and other sensitive areas;

(b) the establishment of a Buffer Zone (within which activities will be restricted)

between surface mineral operations and residential development and other sensitive areas;

(c) the physical support of highways, railways, waterways and other facilities; (d) the protection of surface development from the effects of subsidence resulting

from underground mineral workings; (e) the protection of water courses, waterways, land drainage systems, the

effectiveness of the floodplain and underground water resources; (f) the control of noise arising from mineral operations by means of appropriate

design and operating methods, which shall include the effective silencing of all vehicles, machinery and plant employed on mineral extraction and processing sites, the formation of temporary baffle embankments at appropriate locations and the location and organization of on-site operations so as to minimize any impact on nearby properties;

(g) the control of emissions into the atmosphere of dust, smoke, and fumes by all

measures, which shall include the appropriate design of all fixed plant and machinery (including loading bays and hoppers) and the watering of haul roads, soil and overburden mounds and other exposed materials and stockpiles particularly during dry weather;

Page 53


(h) blasting operations to ensure that all reasonable measures are taken to minimize

the disturbance to the public and the risk of damage to property outside the site by reason for ground vibration and air pressure waves, such measures to include limitations on ground vibration and air overpressure (to be monitored by machines at or near the site), regulation of the times of blasting, arrangements for public warning and the prohibition of secondary blasting;

(i) the regulation of the hours during which mineral operations will be allowed to

take place; (j) prevention of the transference of mud and dirt onto the public highway by

measures including the provision of wheel cleaning facilities and suitably metalled access roads and the sheeting of laden vehicles;

(k) the retention, wherever practicable, and proper protection of trees, woodlands,

hedgerows and other landscape features; (l) the implementation of a suitable landscape scheme, which may include the

planting both on and off site of appropriate trees and shrubs to be carried out prior to the commencement of operations and maintained throughout the life of the mineral operations until the completion of restoration, and/or the phased construction and removal of earth mounds;

(m) the siting and appearance of plant and machinery and associated buildings; (n) site access and the provision of on-site parking and loading areas; (o) the system of transporting excavated material between extraction areas and

processing areas, such that within a given mineral working the use of the public highway is normally excluded;

(p) the protection or diversion of statutory undertaker installations; (q) the retention and protection of features of ecological and geological interest; (r) the preservation in situ of known sites of county or local archaeological

importance or, where this is unjustified, the investigation and recording of the interest;

(s) the protection of public rights of way. Policy 6 Planning Obligations The County Council will seek to secure planning obligations where appropriate in order to achieve control over mineral operations and their ultimate restoration, which cannot otherwise be adequately imposed by the normal use of conditions attached to a planning permission or are not adequately covered under other relevant legislation. Matters to be covered by such agreements may include where appropriate to the proposed development:

Page 54


(a) the relinquishment of existing planning permissions; (b) where mineral extraction is only the means towards achieving a development of

another type, the restriction on mineral extraction pending the approval of the other type of development;

(c) the establishment of a liaison committee; (d) the relevant provision of public infrastructure and facilities for public benefit; (e) the funding and implementation of off-site planting; (f) the management of protected areas of ecological or geological interest; (g) the provision and use of noise, dust and blast monitoring equipment; (h) the funding of an archaeological investigation; (i) the routeing of vehicle movements; (j) the funding and implementation of off-site highway improvements; (k) the improvement of rights of way (both on and off-site); (l) the provision of a restoration bond; (m) management of the site following restoration and aftercare for an agreed period

to ensure the long-term beneficial use of the site. Policy 7 Liaison Committees The County Council will seek to set up Liaison Committees, where appropriate, to act as a forum for discussion between the mineral operator, the County Council, District Councils, Parish Councils and other bodies as may be considered appropriate. Policy 8 Former Mineral Workings Proposals for the re-establishment of mineral workings in otherwise disused or abandoned sites which do not have the benefit of planning permission will be considered in the light of policies relating to the establishment of new workings. Policy 9 Review of Mineral Working Sites The County Council will continue to review all mineral working sites in the county and will identify any inadequacies in existing planning controls attached to such sites for the proper protection of the environment both during and after mineral working. The County Council will, in respect of identified inadequacies, seek the co-operation of other parties concerned to secure a mutually acceptable solution. Where necessary, the County Council will seek to obtain an early improvement to the appearance of mineral workings which have temporarily or permanently ceased by the use of powers set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Policy 10 Derelict Land Reclamation Whenever compatible with the other policies of this Plan, the County Council will encourage proposals for mineral extraction which contribute to the clearance of derelict land.

Page 55


Policy 11 Restoration and Aftercare Conditions In granting permission for the winning and working of minerals and other mineral related developments, the County Council will attach conditions aimed at ensuring the high quality restoration of worked-out mineral operations at the earliest opportunity. Conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in respect of the following maters: (a) the restoration of the site to a specified landform. Where it is not feasible to

submit detailed restoration proposals at the application stage, then such details will be required at specified stages in the development. In the special case of rock quarries of a long-term nature, a restoration scheme will be required at a specified time in the future before operations cease;

(b) the planting of trees, shrubs and hedges to compensate for those removed

during mineral working and in order to create an attractive new landscape;

(c) the phased extraction and restoration of mineral operations, wherever practicable, in order to ensure that the period over which land is out of beneficial use is kept to a minimum;

(d) the retention of topsoil and subsoil on the sit for ultimate restoration;

(e) the stripping, storage, replacement and treatment of topsoil and subsoil;

(f) the contouring and grading of restored land;

(g) the installation of a drainage system, where necessary;

(h) a programme of after-care for an appropriate period after restoration has been completed for sites restored to agriculture, forestry or amenity use;

(i) the removal of all buildings, plant, structures, machinery and hardstandings used in connection with the mineral working operations after the completion of mineral extraction.

Policy 12 After Use (a) The best and most versatile agricultural land will normally be restored to an

agricultural use. (b) The County Council will seek to ensure that appropriate sites which could lead

to the creation of lakes, particularly within the Trent and Soar Valleys, are restored in a way which would support the fulfillment of demand for water recreation.

(c) Every opportunity will be taken to increase the woodland cover of the County

through the restoration of mineral workings, with an emphasis being placed on the use of appropriate broad leaved species. Forestry and woodland planting will be particularly encouraged within the National Forest together with related nature conservation and recreation afteruses where appropriate.

(d) The County Council will encourage the creation of new habitats for wildlife through the restoration of mineral workings.

Page 56


(e) Proposals for land based recreational afteruses on lower quality agricultural

land, particularly formal facilities on the urban fringe and land extensive uses in the countryside which do not include substantial built development, will be acceptable where opportunities for the creation of water areas, woodland or habitats for wildlife are less favourable.

(f) The County Council will seek to ensure that proposals for the restoration of mineral workings include a revised network of rights of way which is at least as extensive as that occurring before workings begun and that any opportunities for improved access to the countryside are taken, especially to secure an improved bridleway network.

(g) It is proposed that the sites identified in the plan for sand and gravel and brickclay extraction be restored to a land form to facilitate the following uses:

Tamworth Road, Hemington - water recreation and/or nature

conservation Slip Inn Quarry, Ashby Parva - agriculture and/or forestry Husbands Bosworth - agriculture and/or forestry Shawell - agriculture and/or forestry Lockington Grounds - water creation and/or nature

conservation and/or agriculture Brooksby - mainly agriculture with some woodland

and nature conservation North Kilworth - agriculture and/or forestry Shepshed - forestry Desford - agriculture and/or forestry together with

related informal countryside recreation Ibstock - agriculture and/or forestry. Policy 13 Disposal of Waste Materials (a) Assessment of Proposals Proposals for the winning and working of minerals which involve the disposal of

waste materials will be assessed in the light of the following considerations:

(i) the need for such a waste disposal facility;

(ii) the nature and character of the site, the proposed after-use and alternative landforms and after-uses possible if landfill were not to take place;

(iii) the nature of the material to be tipped;

(iv) the effect on land water supplies or ground and surface water quality;

(v) the desirability of using more hydrogeologically secure sites for the

disposal of non-inert waste so as to release inert filling material for use in more sensitive areas;

(vi) the effect on, and relationship to, residential properties and the need

to reduce environmental disturbance to acceptable levels;

Page 57


(vii) the avoidance of danger t aircraft movements by virtue of bird-strike hazard

(viii) the effect on the highway network and the local environment of

additional traffic movements which would be involved due to the importation of fill material;

(ix) the feasibility of restoring the site within a reasonable period of time.

(b) Environmental Considerations

Proposals for the disposal of waste materials will not normally be permitted in the following instances: (i) there is no demonstrable need for the disposal facility sufficient to

justify the environmental impact that is likely to arise; (ii) there is no prospect of either environmental improvement or the

establishment of a more beneficial use after waste disposal operations have been completed;

(iii) the proposed after-use would be incompatible with the provisions of

the development plan and any supplementary planning guidance applicable to the area;

(iv) there would be danger to aircraft movement by virtue and bird-strike

hazard; (v) valuable proven mineral reserves would be sterilized; (vi) the proposal would cause demonstrable harm to interests of

acknowledged importance as set out in Policy 3.

(c) Planning Conditions In granting planning permission for the disposal of waste materials, conditions

will be imposed, where appropriate, in respect of the following matters in addition to those specified in Policies 5 and 11: (i) the general types of material which can be deposited; (ii) the phasing of infilling operations; (iii) the retention of materials suitable for use as cover material together with

any suitable soils brought onto the site for use in the covering down of waste materials and site restoration;

(iv) capping of the void following completing of waste tipping operations.

Page 58


Policy 14 Lower Level Restoration The County Council will require restoration at a lower level without importation of fill material, where the base of the excavation is above the level of the water table and the excavated area can be shaped to contours and gradients which enable an acceptable landform to be created and the agreed after use for the site to be achieved unless there is a demonstrable need for a waste disposal facility which can be provided in an environmentally acceptable manner or the importation of material could lead to a higher standard of restoration being achieved. Policy 15 Sand and Gravel Sites (Extensions) (a) Proposed Sites

It is proposed to release land for sand and gravel extraction to be worked as extensions to, or in conjunction with, the extraction of minerals using existing plant areas located at: (i) Tamworth Road, Hemington (Inset 1) (ii) Slip Inn Quarry, Ashby Parva (Inset 7) (iii) Welford Road, Husbands Bosworth (Inset 9) (iv) Gibbet Lane, Shawell (Inset 10)

(b) Release if Sites

Proposals for sand and gravel extraction from these sites will normally only be permitted provided that: (i) a full supporting statement has been submitted containing satisfactory

details regarding the proposed development particularly related to the amelioration of impact or residential amenity, the transportation of material to the plant site, and working and restoration proposals.

(ii) extraction follows on after the cessation of sand and gravel extraction from

existing permitted areas supplying the plant site. (iii) in respect of the site at Hemington, appropriate measures are taken to

protect an important ecological area and to screen workings along Tamworth Road.

(iv) in respect to the site at Husbands Bosworth, appropriate measures are

taken to avoid risk to groundwater resources and supplies to protect water levels in the canal and to minimize the visual impact of workings from the canal.

(v) in respect of the site at Ashby Parva/Dunton Bassett, appropriate measures

are taken to protect important landscaped features and habitats in the vicinity.

Page 59


(c) Advanced Planting

Prior to the grant of any planning permission the County Council will encourage advanced planting both on and off the above sites in order to ameliorate the impact of the eventual operations.

Policy 16 Sand and Gravel (New Sites) (a) Proposed Sites

It is proposed to release land for the establishment of three new sand and gravel extractive operations at: (i) Lockington Grounds (Inset 2) (ii) Brooksby (Inset 4) (iii) North Kilworth (Inset 8)

(b) Release of Sites

Proposals for sand and gravel extraction from these sites will normally only be permitted: (i) as replacement for a worked out pit unless it can be demonstrated that

there is a sufficient need to release additional resources, the demand for which cannot otherwise be reasonably met.

(ii) where a full supporting statement has been submitted containing

satisfactory details regarding the proposed development particularly related to the amelioration of impact on residential amenity, the transportation of material to the plant site, and working and restoration proposals.

(c) Factors in Respect of Specific Sites

The County Council will give particular consideration to the following factors in respect of specific sites: Lockington Grounds - protection of Lockington Marshes SSSI and

two scheduled ancient monuments. Brooksby - the restriction of operations at least until the

Rearsby and Syston Northern Bypasses have been completed.

North Kilworth - highways improvements to the B5414 (Pincet

Lane) and its junction with the A50; a routeing agreement to prevent vehicles traveling to the south along Pincet Lane.

(d) Advanced Planting

Prior to the grant of any planning permission, the County Council will encourage advanced planting both on and off the site in order to ameliorate the impact of the eventual operations.

Page 60


Policy 17 Sand and Gravel (Unallocated Sites) Proposals for sand and gravel extraction outside the areas identified on the proposals map will not normally be permitted unless; (a) the development comprises limited, small scale extensions to existing quarries,

or (b) it can be demonstrated that demand cannot otherwise be reasonably met. In the case of either (a) or (b), proposals will be assessed in accordance with the general principles set out in Policies 2 and 3. Policy 18 Deep Coal Mining If having had regard to all relevant policies contained in this local plan and the Leicestershire Structure Plan, it is decided to grant planning permission for deep mined coal extraction, the County Council will ensure that adequate safeguards are imposed (or seek to obtain legal agreements with regard to the following: (a) dirt disposal (b) subsidence (c) the environment (during both construction and operational period) concerning for

example, appearance of buildings, traffic, dust, noise, other pollution. (d) landscaping (e) rail traffic (f) implications of recruitment of labour (g) contribution to infrastructure and other costs (including road improvements) (h) the protection and management of interests of nature conservation importance

and the creation of new wildlife habitats (i) the protection and management of sites of archaeological interest. Policy 19 Joint Coal and Fireclay Opencast Operations Proposals for the joint extraction of coal and fireclay by opencast operations will normally be granted provided that the environmental impact and other effects of the proposed development can reasonably be kept to an acceptable level and where: (a) the sterilization of valuable clay reserves is avoided; (b) it will not be necessary to stockpile clays over large surface areas; and

Page 61


(c) the proposal will substantially improve the environment or reclaim derelict land. Where materials other than fireclay are associated with opencast coal, proposals for their extraction will normally be permitted provided that this does not prejudice the final satisfactory reinstatement of the land. Policy 20 Limestone Planning permission for limestone quarrying will normally only be granted where the proposal is to extend an existing operational quarry to ensure continuity of supply, provided hat the environmental impact and other effects of the proposed development can reasonably be kept o an acceptable level. Policy 21 Brickclay (a) Proposed Sites It is proposed to release land for brickclay extraction to be worked as extensions

to, or in conjunction with, the extraction of minerals using existing plant areas located at:

(i) Shepshed Brick and Tile Works (Inset 3) (ii) Desford Brickworks (Inset 6) (iii) Ibstock Brickworks (Inset 5)

(b) Release of Sites

Proposals for brickclay extraction from these sites will normally be permitted provided that: (i) a full supporting statement has been submitted containing satisfactory

details to safeguard the environment and ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site;

(ii) extraction follows on after clay extraction has substantially ceased within

existing permitted areas supplying the brickworks.

(c) Advanced Planting

Prior to the grant of any planning permission, the County Council will encourage advanced planting both on and off the above sites in order to ameliorate the impact of the eventual operations.

(d) Unallocated Sites

Proposals for brickclay extraction outside the areas identified on the proposals map will not normally be permitted unless it is necessary: (i) to ensure the life of long-term plant investment; or

Page 62


(ii) to compensate for variations in the quality of deposits within areas which

already have the benefit of planning permission. In the case of either (i) or (ii), proposals will be assessed in accordance with the general principles set out in Policies 2 and 3.

Policy 22 Fireclay Proposals to extract firelay alone will normally only be permitted where: (a) it is necessary to ensure the life of long-term plant investment; (b) particular qualities of clay are required which cannot otherwise reasonably be

obtained from existing permitted areas or stockpiles; or (c) substantial environmental improvement can be achieved. Policy 23 Ironstone Proposals for the establishment of ironstone operations will not normally be permitted. Policy 24 Gypsum Proposals for surface or underground gypsum workings will nor normally be permitted. Policy 25 Oil and Gas Proposals for oil and/or gas exploitation will be treated on their merits in the light of the general principles set out in Policies 2 and 3. Policy 26 Other Minerals Proposals to work minerals other than those referred to above will be treated on their merits in the light of general principles set out in Policies 2 and 3.

Page 63


Policy 27 Borrow Pits Proposals for the establishment of temporary borrow pits will normally be permitted provided that each of the following applies: (a) it is required specifically to supply major construction works; (b) material is transported to the construction project without the use of the public

highway system; (c) proposed operations are located in close proximity to the construction project and

are so designed to reduce to acceptable levels visual and noise intrusion and disturbance to local residents;

(d) the site can be satisfactorily restored without the use of imported materials other

than that generated by the construction project itself; (e) material cannot reasonably be supplied with less environmental disturbance from

existing sites with planning permission for mineral extraction; (f) the proposed operations would not cause demonstrable harm to interests of

acknowledged importance as set out in Policy 3. Policy 28 Mineral Exploration Proposals for exploratory operations will be treated on their merits. Any permission granted for such operations will be without prejudice to the consideration of further proposals for mineral development. Any permission granted for exploratory operations will be for a temporary period only and will require the full reinstatement of the site following completion of operations. Proposals for exploratory operations will not normally be permitted where they would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance as set out in Policy 3. Policy 29 Mineral Stocking Areas Proposals for mineral stocking areas will normally only be permitted where: (a) the stockpiles are located and/or appropriate measures can be taken so as to

reduce to acceptable levels any disturbance to residential development and other sensitive areas by the generation if noise, dust, or any other nuisance;

(b) the stockpiles are located and either treated or screened as appropriate so as to

reduce visual intrusion to acceptable levels; and (c) the proposed point of access to the site from the public highway and the road

system used to reach the site are adequate to cater for the anticipated level of traffic to be generated.

The height of the stockpiles will be restricted where necessary in order to ensure that such areas do not become dominant landscape features.

Page 64


Policy 30 Surface Disposal of Mineral Waste (a) Assessment of Proposals

Proposals for the surface disposal of mineral waste will be assessed in the light of the following considerations:

(i) the visual appearance of the development; (ii) noise and dust generation;

(iii) effect on land drainage and water supply systems of the area; (iv) effect on important ecological habitats;

(v) effect on important sites of archaeological interest;

(vi) sterilization of unworked mineral deposits;

(vii) current and future use of the land.

(b) Environmental Considerations

Proposals for the surface disposal of mineral waste will not normally be permitted where they would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance as set out in Policy 3. The use of agricultural land and areas of particular scientific interest for the surface disposal of mineral waste will be limited so far as may be reasonably practicable having regard to all material considerations.

Policy 31 Removal of Mineral from Mineral Working Deposits Proposals for the removal of material from mineral working deposits will be assessed in accordance with the general principles set out in Policies 2 and 3, taking particular account of the following factors: (a) the need for, and importance of the mineral to be removed; (b) the potential for reclamation of the site after the deposits having been reworked; (c) the proposed operational arrangements, including the duration of the operation,

transport to the processing plant and waste disposal. Policy 32 Associated Industrial Development (a) Assessment of Proposals The County Council will assess proposals for ancillary development for the

minerals industry in close proximity to extraction sites, with particular regard to their environmental and transportation effects.

Page 65


(b) Determination of Applications Permission will normally only be given where there are clear overall

environmental advantages in a close link between the industrial and mineral developments.

(c) Planning Conditions

In granting planning permission for such associated industrial development, the County Council will normally attach conditions requiring that the use of buildings and plant cease on the cessation of the mineral extraction to which the development is linked and that the buildings and plant then be demolished, the site cleared and the land restored in accordance with an approved scheme.

Policy 33 Substitute Materials The County Council will encourage the use of substitutes for naturally occurring minerals and, in particular, seek to use the waste materials for its own reclamation schemes, road construction and other works as far as this is technically and economically possible, and environmentally acceptable. The County Council will support initiatives which increase the use of substitutes for naturally occurring minerals, provided that the proposals are environmentally acceptable. Policy 34 Safeguarding Mineral Resources (a) Mineral Consultation Areas The County Council will update and refine the mineral consultation areas notified

to District Councils based on the latest available information. The County Council will request that applications for development within such areas and which could have the effect of sterilizing proven mineral resources of economic importance be referred to it by District Councils for consultation.

(b) Provision of Reserve Information Where mineral reserves are believed to exist but are not proven, the County

Council may request the District Council to obtain from the proposed developer information in respect of the existence or otherwise of the mineral deposit before any application for development is determined.

(c) Extraction in Advance of Surface Development

Proposals for the extraction of minerals in the advance of approved surface development which would otherwise permanently sterilise proven mineral reserves will normally be permitted provided that they are consistent with the general principles set out in Policies 2 and 3 and that: (i) the proposed surface development would permanently sterilize a significant

quantity and quality of mineral;

Page 66


(ii) mineral extraction can be completed and the site restored in an acceptable

timescale to allow the subsequent development to proceed in accordance with an agreed programme;

(iii) the site can be restored in a suitable manner and to an appropriate

standard to allow the development to take place without materially affecting its viability;

(iv) there would be no serious environmental impact.

Policy 35 Enforcement The County Council will take appropriate steps to rectify matters in the event of unauthorized development and non-compliance with planning conditions or the terms of any legal agreements. Policy 36 Plan Review The County Council will prepare a second review of the plan within five years from the adoption of this document.

Page 67


Appendix 2

Site Projections


Sources: Planning Applications, ROMP Schemes and EMRAWP Surveys (based on average sales 1996-2000 and reserve figures @12/2000).


Page68

Sand & Gravel Projections

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

Cadeby Huncote H.Bosworth

Shawell AshbyParva

Syston Rothley Hemington Cossington Lockington Brooksby N. Kilworth

Permitted Reserves Remaining Allocations Lead In Time End of Current Plan Period End of Future Plan Period


Sources: Planning Applications, ROMP Schemes and EMRAWP Surveys (based on average sales 1996-2000 and reserve figures @12/2000).* Average sales figures for 1986-1990 used. Assumes no working at Groby and Whitwick during remainder of Plan Period.


Page69

Igneous Rock Projections

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

Charnwood* Groby Whitwick* Bardon Cliffe Hill Croft Mountsorrel

Permitted Reserves End of Current Plan Period End of Future Plan Period


Sources: Planning Applications, ROMP Schemes and EMRAWP Surveys (based on average sales 1996-2000 and reserve figures @12/2000).(Ketton projection assumes new production method from 1/2003).


Page70

Limestone Projections

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

Breedon Cloud Hill Ketton Greetham Clipsham Woolfox




Source: planning applications, IDO and ROMP schemes, 1989 survey

Page71

Brickclay Projections

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

Ibstock Measham Desford Heather Shepshed Ellistow n Ketton



MAP AND SALES CHART


0.000

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

Mt

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Year

Leicestershire Minerals Sales 2000

Fireclay Opencast Coal Brickclay Sand & Gravel Limestone Igneous Rock

Source: Business Monitor PA1007Planing Officers Society's "Opencast Coalmining Statistics" Publication


Page73

Leicestershire and Rutland Minerals Sales 2000

leicestershire and rutland minerals local planpolitics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s7271/master...

Documents