Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan Review

Hertfordshire Minerals Development Plan Document

Site Selection Process

January 2009

Introduction

The county council is the minerals planning authority for Hertfordshire and has a statutory duty to prepare and review minerals development plan documents for the area. The minerals development plan document will contain strategic policies, setting out the county councils vision and objectives for minerals planning, development control policies –those used to determine planning applications and also site specific details for preferred areas for future mineral extraction.

In line with National and Regional guidance, the county council is required to maintain a ‘landbank’ of at least 7 years aggregates supply from (i.e. 7 x 1.99mt = 13.93million tonnes) from sites with planning permission. However, current national planning guidance requires Core Strategies to cover a period of 15 years and so in order to plan for aggregate provision effectively the county council should identify sufficient sites from which aggregate extraction is preferred to sustain the seven year landbank during the 15 year period and also demonstrate the likelihood of additional sites coming forward thereafter.

In order for sites to be identified in the most sustainable way, a method for site selection has been devised, which was used as part of the previous minerals local plan process. The method used was considered robust by the independent Planning Inspector who undertook the Local Plan Inquiry in 2004/05 and so forms the basis of this site selection methodology.

This consultation forms part of the preliminary stages of pre-production and evidence gathering for the forthcoming minerals development plan document process. The County Council is keen to seek the views of the minerals industry, landowners, District and Borough councils, Town and Parish councils and other interested parties (such as the Environment Agency and CPRE) on the proposed methodology for mineral site selection.

Your views are important to us, so please take some time to consider the site selection process set out below and answer the questions within the document.

1.The framework for site selection strategy

1.1In 1998, as part of the previous minerals local plan review, the county council drew up a detailed “Framework for Site Selection Strategy” to guide the process of finding sites for inclusion in the Plan. The framework document sets out key principles and states that site selection exercise will:

Assess all known sand and gravel areas in the county
Identify areas likely to contain workable reserves of economically viable minerals
Identify specific sites, preferred areas and, if appropriate, areas of search for mineral working consistent with Government advice
Carry out a staged evaluation of mineral resources
Carry out a landscape character assessment for the county as a whole
Include a ‘sieve’ based approach to site selection incorporating a ‘sustainability assessment’ of potential sites and including certain key sustainability minerals principles, namely;

Avoidance of mineral sterilisation
Minimising the impact of working and transport impacts
Protecting the water environment
Preventing excessive environmental and cumulative impacts
Safeguarding valuable landscape areas
Seeking landscape improvement of derelict land
Taking into account the potential afteruse of sites
Applying other major policy constraints and local policy constraints
Applying site specific constraints
Assessing the implications for policies and proposals of statutory undertakers and other similar agencies
Treating impacts on adjoining uses, including residential areas, as a key constraint
Carrying out a comparative evaluation of short listed sites, including further informal consultation with the industry, district councils and the environment agency etc.

1.2The framework for site selection does not limit assessment to those sites which have previously been suggested by industry or landowners. The site selection exercise aims to assess all potential locations in the county, i.e. all known mineral bearing land. This approach has three advantages;

It ensures that all potential sites are evaluated, so that the sites that are the best (or least bad) in planning and sustainability terms can be identified;
It provides a stronger basis for establishing whether or not the county as a whole can meet its regional obligations within environmental limits; and
It ensures that the process is driven by the county council, not by interested mineral companies and landowners.

1.3It is intended that both industry and landowners will be invited (on a without prejudice basis) to provide information on any areas of which they have detailed knowledge, they will also be consulted at other stages of the site selection process.

2.Identifying potential locations: the general method

2.1The method for identifying the most sustainable sites consists of a progressive narrowing down of options. Each stage of the process is referred to as a ‘sieve’, because at each stage some locations will be caught by the criteria of the assessment, while others will fall through and be subject to further assessment.

2.2The stages are summarised below;

Sieve 1 – resource assessment: identifying where economically viable sand and gravel deposits are likely to be found.
Sieve 2 – assessing the areas passing through sieve 1 against a series of major planning constraints.
Sieve 3a – assessing the surviving areas against more detailed and local constraints and issues.
Sieve 3b – assessing the areas passing through sieve 3a against a detailed set of sustainability criteria, and undertaking a comparative assessment of all surviving sites to identify those which appear most sustainable for inclusion in the draft plan.

These sieves are described in more detail in the following section.

3.Sieve 1 – Resource Assessment

3.1Sand and gravel deposits are not found throughout the whole of the county and the deposits that do occur vary in quality so that some are more economically viable than others – due to quality, quantity, accessibility etc.

3.2The area of gravel bearing land in the county will be determined from published geological maps and assessment reports produced by the British Geological Survey. The most recent publish data is from 1993.

3.3Sieve 1 is primarily a desk top study and is split into two stages. Stage one identifies where sand and gravel deposits occur and then stage two identifies those areas that are considered the most economically viable for extraction.

3.4Areas where, in prevailing market conditions, the financial investment that would be needed to bring them into production would be likely to be justified are considered viable. The criteria used to identify those areas are;

There should be a minimum resource of 1 million tonnes available;
There should be a minimum mean thickness of sand and gravel of 5 metres gross (i.e. including any material near the top or bottom of the deposit which may not be capable of full extraction);
The maximum ratio between overburden/interburden (i.e. the layers of materials other than sand and gravel that lie above or within the sand and gravel deposits) and the deposit itself should be 1:1;
There should be a maximum fines content (i.e. the proportion of silt and clay within the deposit) of 15%.

To pass through sieve 1, areas had to satisfy all four of these criteria, these areas are ‘resource blocks’.

Question: Do you consider the criteria for determining the economical viability of sites suitable?

4.Sieve 2 – Planning Assessment: major constraints

4.1The resource blocks identified from sieve 1 will be subjected to an assessment against major ‘mappable’ planning constraints derived from national and strategic policy. This mapping exercise will be carried out using a Geographical Information System. The objective of this stage is to eliminate areas from further consideration if there are immediate overriding constraints against mineral workings. The constraints used are derived from national and strategic policies.

4.2The constraints suggested are;

Areas subject to national or statutorily- defined policies for protecting interests, e.g.

Landscape designations such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and major HistoricParks and Gardens;
Ecological designations such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves;
Archaeological designations such as Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

Built up areas, including sites with planning permission for other development (if greater than 5 hectares).

It is suggested that areas that fall into either of these categories will be eliminated from further consideration.

Question: Are there other major planning constraints that you consider should lead to site elimination?

4.3Constraints assessed at this stage will not include Metropolitan Green Belt or agricultural quality land. Areas in the Green Belt will not be eliminated because government policy states that mineral extraction is not necessary unacceptable in the green belt provided that high environmental standards are maintained and sites are well restored. High grade farmland will not be eliminated because government policy states that such land should be protected against irreversible loss; and in the long term mineral extraction need not lead to irreversible loss of good quality land.

Green belt and agricultural quality land are therefore constraints to be applied at later stages of the sieving exercise.

5.Sieve 3A – Planning Assessment: Detailed and Local Constraints

5.1Those sites passing through sieve 2 will then be assessed against more detailed criteria of local planning issues and constraints. The object of this sieve is to eliminate from further consideration those areas which are judged to be subject to overriding objection to the principle of mineral working. This sieve may also reduce the size of the areas taken forward rather than eliminating them completely.

5.2The suggested constraints for this level of testing are set out in a site assessment matrix (appendix 1); the general headings for these constraints are as follows;

Landscape / Highways & Transportation / Economic/Development issues
Ecology / Pollution / Greenbelt
Cultural Heritage / Nearby or Sensitive Uses / Ownership
Water and Hydrology / Recreation / Other mineral issues
Agriculture / Services

5.3It is anticipated that information on these constraints will be provided from a wide range of sources including the Councils own expertise, district and borough council information, the environment agency and other sources of relevant environmental and sustainability information.

5.4This sieve is intended to be more detailed than sieve 2 and requires local knowledge as well as mappable information to be used to make a judgement about the areas concerned. Not all of the constraints tested in this sieve are mappable (i.e. available on GIS) and require a more subjective assessment. For example the assessment of the possible impact of extraction on the landscape involves reasoned justification and assessment of the ability of the landscape of each area to absorb mineral extraction; while assessment of the suitability of each area in terms of traffic and highways impacts has to be established through detailed consideration of a range of factors, not all of which are directly mappable. Information on these constraints will be collected via responses from the relevant bodies.

5.5The presence of a sieve 3A constraint may not lead to its automatic exclusion from further consideration as many of the constraint do not give rise to an overriding objection in principle to mineral extraction. The constraint may be overcome by the imposition of relevant planning conditions at the development control stage of the process if and when a full planning application was to be submitted.

5.6Sieve 3A will involve an exercise of judgement regarding the nature and severity of particular constraint or combinations of constraints that are present on any particular area.

5.7Sieve 3A will also draw heavily on the Landscape Character Assessment which identifies a series of landscape character areas across southern Hertfordshire. The areas passing through this sieve are assessed as to the suitability of the landscape for mineral extraction, having regard to a wide range of landscape considerations, and the extent to which mineral extraction might provide and opportunity for landscape improvements in the longer term. The visibility of the location and the potential impact of mineral extraction on the landform and on the scale of the landscape are to be included. Any sites coming forward which are not within the landscape character assessments coverage will be assessed separately against the same criteria.

5.8The conclusions reached on landscape terms will be fed into the overall process of area assessment.

Question: Do you consider the Sieve 3A criteria and process suitable? Are there other factors that should be considered at this stage?

5.9It is proposed that sites making it through sieves 1, 2 and 3a will then be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environment Assessment) and compared against each other.

6Sieve 3 b – Sustainability Appraisal and Comparative Evaluation of sites

6.1This stage will look in closer detail at each site and determine which sites should be excluded due to overriding constraints and sustainability issues. The matrix suggested determining this is set out in appendix 2. The assessment will be made against the sustainability objectives listed and judgement made against the indicators.

Question: Do you consider the sustainability objectives listed in appendix 2 as a suitable list to judge potential mineral sites against?

Question: Are there additional objectives or indicators that you would wish to see used?

Question: Is the sieve based approach considered acceptable in both environmental and sustainability terms?

7Other considerations

7.1It is suggested that the following considerations be taken into account when carrying out the comparative evaluation of sites that fall through the sieving process;

Sterilisation: The minerals Development Plan Document should retain a policy to avoid unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resources. In particular, where potential locations for extraction are identified which are under pressure from other forms of development, either directly or on adjacent land, greater weight should be given to identifying these locations in the plan.
Cumulative impact: The following criteria approach should be adopted in identifying sites: (a) that cumulative impact be measured in terms of impact from existing workings (including the potential impacts from dormant workings); and (b) that sites should be avoided where any cumulative impact in terms of the capacity of the environment to absorb working is exacerbated by any significant adverse legacy of historic working.
Extensions and cumulative impact: The site selection process should only give more weight to site extensions, or sites in the same locality as existing workings, where it can be demonstrated that effective mitigation can be achieved.
Size and distribution of sites: The site selection process should concentrate on the minimum number of larger sites required to meet the county's contribution to the region's needs. If more than one site is required then there should be a preference for the widest possible geographical distribution, taking into account appropriate measures to mitigate the effects of extraction within an area and the impact on the highway network.
Restoration by filling: Subject to the other identified criteria, the site selection process should give priority to sites that can be satisfactorily restored without the need for waste disposal operations. Sites which can only be restored satisfactorily using imported waste may also be acceptable, where this can be demonstrated to be the best environmental option for the waste.
Agricultural land and Landscape value: Sites which do not represent the best and most versatile land or are not considered to be of high landscape value in terms of their characteristics and which offer more opportunities for sustainable minerals development should be afforded greater weight.
Access: Sites offering the most sustainable options in terms of access should be given a higher weighting.
Relationship to sensitive land-uses: Greater weight should be given to sites where any adverse environmental effects can be minimised in terms of their impact on other sensitive land-uses and in particular residential uses.
Floodplains: Potential locations in the floodplain should be given less weight.

Question: Do you consider the comparative evaluation criteria suitable to determine the most sustainable areas for future working? Are there any other criteria that should be used to compare the sites falling through the sieving process?

8.Consultations

8.1It is anticipate that a number of both general and specific consultations be undertaken at differing stages of the site selection process in order to inform each sieving stage. It is also intended to make a formal ‘call for sites’, to ensure all potential locations for mineral extraction are considered as part of the assessment of options for preferred areas and/or sites.

Question: At what stage do you consider it most appropriate to carry out targeted (industry and interested party) consultations and wider general stakeholder consultations?

If you have any other comments you wish to make about the proposed site selection methodology, please take this opportunity to let us know.