THE REVIEW OF NPPG4 LAND FOR MINERAL WORKING
CHAPTER 3. THE NEED FOR REVIEW
3.1. The first aim of the research was to evaluate the "continued relevance of NPPG4". This has to begin with consideration of whether NPPG4 should in fact be retained in its present form, and needs to be viewed within the wider debate regarding the scope and structure of the NPPG series, including the value of 'sectoral' guidance (e.g. minerals, renewable energy, waste) versus 'thematic' guidance (e.g. natural heritage, coastal planning).
3.2. As part of a series dealing with planning issues of national importance, Circular S1/1977 introduced National Planning Guidelines 'on the location of quarries for sand and gravel, and hard rock' (para. 2). The guideline divided the country into three broad zones based on a number of factors including the general landscape character of the area. It also recommended the establishment of landbanks and accepted, in principle, the establishment of an exporting coastal superquarry.
3.3. The National Planning Guidelines Series was stopped and replaced by the National Planning Policy Guidelines in the early 1990s. NPPG4 was amongst the first few policy statements to be prepared for the series. Both the Circular and NPPG4 were written prior to the publication of much of the generic national planning guidance that exists today, including policy on the protection of international and national designations, archaeology, flooding and open space. These topics were therefore addressed in NPPG4, where relevant to minerals planning. However, given the completeness of the NPPG series as it currently stands, it could now be argued that NPPG4 is no longer necessary. For example:
- the need to balance economic, social and environmental considerations is a key theme of the guidance on sustainability and land use planning (e.g. NPPG1) as is the need for wise use of resources and public participation in decision-making;
- generic guidance on the preparation of development plans, development control decisions and planning consultation procedures is provided elsewhere (e.g. NPPG1, and supporting PANS 37, 40 and 49);
- locational considerations such as the protection of the built and natural heritage are covered in thematic NPPGs (e.g. NPPG14 and NPPG18);
- the need for restoration and appropriate aftercare falls within the remit of sustainability and is supported by the advice included in a number of PANS (e.g. PAN 5O, 51and 56); and
- whilst the concept of a landbank is specific to minerals planning, the need to plan for the long term provision of strategic resources, subject to regular review, is well recognised (e.g. the cycle of development plan preparation).
3.4. However, whilst NPPG4 contains little guidance that cannot be found elsewhere, the document has been well received as it provides a useful summary of all relevant mineral planning policy considerations. This is particularly welcomed given the plethora of relevant policy guidance and 'good practice' advice. From the feedback gathered during the course of this research, it is likely that there would be considerable resistance if it were suggested that NPPG4 should be 'discontinued'. In addition, the following sections of this report provide evidence that NPPG4 has had a demonstrable "influence in shaping development plan policy and development control decisions".
3.5. If the 'continued relevance' of NPPG4 is accepted, an " assessment of the need for its review" is the next logical step. The extent to which revisions to the guidance are justified by more recent policy developments is questionable. For example, NPPG4 was drafted in the full knowledge of government policy with regard to sustainable development. Although more recent policy has emerged, the fundamental principles remain largely unchanged and continue to reiterate the need for balance between environmental, economic and social considerations (although given the increased emphasis on minerals conservation and the use of substitute materials, "Land for Mineral Working" may not remain an appropriate title for the guidance). Interpretations of 'sustainable minerals planning' within the current government policy context vary. Whilst this is discussed in more detail in section 5, it is likely that this topic would generate significant discussion in any review of NPPG4.
3.6. As demonstrated by the length and content of the policy checklist contained in Appendix 2, there is a raft of post-1994 policy and legislation with the potential to influence minerals planning in Scotland. This includes:
- the Scottish Executive's current review of strategic planning;
- publication/revision of further national planning guidance (including NPPG1: The Planning System; NPPG13: Coastal Planning; NPPG14: Natural Heritage; NPPG15: Rural Development; and NPPG16: Opencast Coal and Related Minerals);
- procedures for reviewing old mineral permissions under the Environment Act 1995;
- publication of the National Waste Management Strategy (1999) and the ongoing preparation of Area Waste Plans;
- the revised Directive on environmental impact assessment (97/11/EC) and implementing EIA (Scotland) Regulations;
- revisions to the EU Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (97/62/EC), including the formal designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs); and
- the outcome of the Lingerbay decision and its impact upon coastal superquarry proposals.
3.7. It is debatable as to whether any these policy developments, in combination, or in isolation, necessitate a review of NPPG4, particularly given the pragmatic approach generally adopted by NPPG 'users' in attributing relative weight to long-standing and more recent/emerging guidance. In addition, it would be unrealistic to expect any NPPG to continue to represent the up-to-date position across wide-ranging areas of policy. However, given the nature and extent of recent policy shifts, it would be useful to 'refresh' the guidance to reflect these 'evolutionary' rather than 'revolutionary' changes.
3.8. The 'hands on' use of the first version of NPPG4 has also inevitably led to suggestions for further improvement. A review of the guidance would also provide opportunity to clarify specific parts of the text that are causing some confusion, particularly given the wider drive to improve the efficiency of the planning system. Finally, revisions to the document could also take account of the parallel review of English minerals planning guidance, as appropriate, particularly as many of the identified key issues reflect those that are being faced in Scotland. This includes the calculation of need, mechanisms by which the supply of aggregates can be secured, the extent to which recent supply patterns are sustainable, and approaches to safeguarding valuable landscapes, habitats and other environmental resources. More detailed "recommendations for change" are included in sections 4 to 11.