The Review of NPPG4: Land for Mineral Working

Listen

THE REVIEW OF NPPG4 LAND FOR MINERAL WORKING

CHAPTER 7. GUIDELINES FOR PRIMARY AGGREGATES

7.1. NPPG4 (1994) states that "planning authorities should provide for an adequate and steady supply of aggregate for the construction industries, with a landbank in permitted reserves equivalent to at least 10 years extraction at all times for an appropriate local market area". (para. 51). This policy statement generates perhaps more discussion than any other section of the planning guidance:

  • what is an 'adequate and steady supply' and is this still a valid policy objective?;
  • is a landbank an essential tool in forward planning for the supply of aggregates, and if so, is '10 years extraction' an appropriate level to maintain?; and
  • what is an 'appropriate local market area' and how does this reflect administrative boundaries and geographical variations in supply and demand?

7.2. The policy objective of providing an 'adequate and steady supply' is well debated. For example, the QPA maintains that there can be no other viable policy approach if the construction industry is to meet society's legitimate needs. However, many environmental organisations argue that such a system takes no account of the finite nature of aggregate resources, and that given the Government's strong commitment to sustainability, it is unreasonable to 'fit' the environment around a supply requirement.

7.3. Determining the level of 'adequate' supply is equally problematic. The most recent national Aggregates Monitoring Survey (1997) was abandoned due to the poor response rate, and the Scottish Executive is currently considering how the Survey of Aggregate Working in Scotland could be carried out more effectively in future. Almost half of the responding local authorities have undertaken their own surveys or have attempted to make some assessment of need (either generally or in relation to specific proposals). For example, one authority carried out a questionnaire based survey in 1992 (although this was not found to be particularly helpful in identifying future areas for extraction). Another authority carried out surveys of mineral workings in 1992 and 1996 and is about to undertake a further survey this year. This includes questions on annual output and on volumes of consented reserves.

7.4. The applicant for a recent quarry in Aberdeenshire suggested the following condition to provide information on production levels:

"From the commencement of this consent, the operator shall maintain records of monthly output/production from the quarry, and shall make them available to the Planning Authority any time on request. All records shall be kept for at least 5 years.

Reason: in order that the Planning Authority can monitor the output of the site"

7.5. Although the condition is welcomed, it is recognised that this 'piecemeal approach' does not provide consistent information which can be used to identify the need for future areas for extraction. Whilst other authorities have adopted a similar approach, this will only apply to new consents or reviews and will take some time to provide comprehensive information on production, reserves and distribution.

7.6. Some companies do not respond to requests for information, citing a policy of non-participation on the grounds of confidentiality. It is felt that this seriously limits the degree to which overall outputs and reserves can be calculated. A number of authorities explained that surveys had been recently commissioned as part of the structure planning process.

7.7. One authority explained that the only attempt to establish information about the Market Area on a joint basis (through the former East of Scotland Minerals Planning Consortium) about five years ago failed as a result of the unwillingness of operators to provide information, the lack of clear obligations for participants to do so and the lack of overall leadership. Consequently, the Authority takes the approach of employing consultants to undertake survey work, and there is no ongoing working relationship with neighbouring authorities for minerals planning. Another authority expressed concern that the lack of co-operation between neighbouring authorities is risking a shortage of aggregates locally in the near future.

7.8. Whilst understanding the reasoning behind this, a number of operators expressed concern that planning authorities are carrying out aggregates surveys when they have limited understanding or control over the minerals industry. Survey work undertaken for one Structure Plan was strongly rejected by the QPA during the consultation as being deeply flawed, but it had nevertheless been used to shape policy in the final document. It has been suggested that it is actually inappropriate for planning authorities to attempt this, and contradicts the recommendations set out in NPPG4 (para. 8 states that the determination of the best means of meeting the demands of the market is a decision best left to the commercial judgement of the minerals industry).

Example 7.1: A Review of the mineral resources of Perth and Kinross (1999)

To assist the Planning and Development Department in reviewing their Structure Plan policies on mineral working, Perth and Kinross Council began their own survey to obtain accurate information on the Authority's mineral resources. However, this proved unsuccessful, as operators were reluctant to participate on the grounds of confidentiality. A decision was then taken to commission the British Geological Survey to undertake the work on the understanding that the local authority would only have access to the aggregated figures and not to the production levels of the individual operators.

The main objectives of the study were "to provide a comprehensive up-to-date account of the county's mineral resources, assess current and predict future requirements for all commodities and establish the criteria for ensuring adequate and sustainable aggregate landbanks for the next ten years". The final report includes the following information for each mineral type:

  • geology, nature and extent of resource;
  • an economic assessment, including factors likely to affect commercial viability (e.g. overburden thickness, extraction methods and environmental conflicts);
  • a market analysis, including anticipated future demands in current and alternative markets;
  • an analysis of the levels and locations of extraction necessary to ensure continuity of aggregates supply for ten years.

Whilst operators have expressed concerns over the accuracy of the study, the local authority is confident that the work has provided a useful basis for developing planning policy. At a recent Inquiry, the validity of the results was also accepted by the Reporter reviewing the case.

7.9. Irrespective of the above concerns, there is overwhelming support for the introduction of a new system for collecting, collating and publishing aggregates data. Without a better understanding of Scottish aggregate supply and demand issues, it is commonly felt that forward planning for aggregates extraction will be severely hampered. Views on the extent to which the Scottish Executive should be involved in this are mixed. One authority suggested that whilst the system should be co-ordinated by the Executive to ensure consistency, resources should be make available to enable local authorities to collect the information, to capitalise on existing links with operators.

7.10. The NPPG4 approach to aggregates provision is based upon the local determination of levels of demand and supply. This differs from other methods, including the English MPG6 approach where econometric modelling is used to forecast national demand, which is then translated into regional guidelines that are then sub-apportioned down to the local authority level. The Regional Aggregates Working Parties (RAWPs) play a fundamental role in the implementation and monitoring of this system. The RAWPs have a core membership drawn from the local authorities, the aggregates industry and central government. They collect and analyse data and comment on its implications for national, regional and local policies. Some of the work of the RAWPs depends on the provision of commercially sensitive material by operators, which can be discussed on the basis of mutual confidence that it will not be disclosed more widely.

7.11. The strategic nature of the English minerals planning system is strongly supported by many involved in minerals planning both sides of the border. This is reflected in the recent government consultation paper on MPG6 (October 2000), which recommends the continuation of the present system, including RAWPs, forecasts and sub-regional apportionments. Admittedly, there are concerns over the econometric forecasting methodologies, and it has been suggested that a simpler forecasting system should be adopted, based on 5 year forecasts with a simple extrapolation beyond for the balance of the 15-20 period (subject to 5 year review). However, it is felt that supplementing these forecasts with some form of regional resource assessments measured against a range of standard planning constraints, will provide a sound basis for future aggregates planning in England.

7.12. In discussing the potential need for a review of the NPPG4 guidance on primary aggregates, frequent parallels are drawn with the English RAWP system. For example, the QPA is actively promoting the establishment of a Scottish RAWP or Aggregates Round Table, comprising operators, planning authorities and representatives of the Scottish Executive. It is suggested that this body could meet twice yearly, discuss principally aggregate supply and demand issues, and advise as a technical body on a non-executive basis. As it develops, the RAWP could also oversee the next Aggregates Monitoring survey thereby providing a useful vehicle for addressing concerns over the confidentiality of information. Several respondents also suggested that the Scottish approach to waste management and planning (i.e. a National Waste Strategy and Area Waste Groups) could provide a suitable model for a more strategic approach to aggregates planning. The establishment of a RAWP system is also supported by a number of local authorities.

7.13. A more strategic approach to minerals planning would also help to resolve the uncertainty over the definition of 'local market areas', particularly as minerals market areas bear little resemblance to administrative boundaries, and some local authorities rely on other authorities for their minerals supply. The questionnaire responses revealed a number of approaches to defining the 'local market area'. In many cases, the market area overlaps local authority boundaries, and is defined either as the Structure Plan area or on the basis of the distance that it is economic to transport aggregates (based on NPPG4 guidance and discussions with operators). The extent to which the Review of Strategic Planning in Scotland, and its emphasis on re-evaluating Structure Plan boundaries, together with improving the spatial emphasis of national guidance, might influence this approach should be monitored as the debate progresses.

7.14. One authority suggested that the local market area is a 'meaningless concept in the Central Belt and in practice, difficult to define'. Some authorities liase informally, others rely on the joint working procedure established for the preparation and review of Structure Plans. One joint structure plan team suggests that the Structure Plan based approach to joint working for minerals and definition of market areas should be applied elsewhere and complemented by a national perspective on cross regional flows. However, there was some dissent about the effectiveness of this at the local level, with one authority more supportive of regional apportionment, based on three broader areas of Highlands and Islands, the Central Belt, and Borders / Dumfries and Galloway.

7.15. One authority defines the local market area on the basis of informal discussions with operators and work done by the Lothian Market Area Group. Liaison through the Scottish Minerals Officers Forum is also seen as a useful means of encouraging joint working with neighbouring local authorities.

7.16. Another authority suggested that the lack of definition of the 'appropriate market area' has led some authorities to formulate policies which suggest that resources can only be won from within their boundaries, as they are principally required there. This is viewed as a misapplication of the proximity principle which could have serious economic consequences. The authority suggests that the Review of Strategic Planning is an opportunity to provide much clearer information about market areas and that a strategic review of this nature, similar to that currently being considered for housing, should be undertaken.

THE LANDBANK SYSTEM

7.17. A landbank is a stock of land with planning permissions for the winning and working of minerals, usually expressed in terms of the supposed amount of mineral that can be recovered from the permitted area. A landbank is also defined on the basis of assumptions about annual production rates. It is a concept to be treated with caution, as it does not take account of the geographical locations of permitted reserves within the specified area, variations in availability of particular qualities of materials or the planning status of permitted reserves.

7.18. Perhaps unsurprisingly given previous discussions with regard to the availability of data, existing information on landbank levels is limited. A number of respondents were unable to provide any information in relation to this. For example, one authority will not be including a landbank policy in their forthcoming development plan as the Council does not have the commercial and technical information necessary to identify existing and future landbank levels (to date, there have been no representations from operators objecting to this).

7.19. Based on the responses received, existing individual landbank levels appear to vary between 14 and 50 years for sand and gravel and between 10 and 30+ years for crushed rock. No authority was aware of difficulties in maintaining a 10-year landbank, although one Council did refer to a local shortfall for consented sand and gravel reserves. This has been attributed to a shortage of recent applications, plus refusal of permission for one (now the subject of an appeal). Whilst adding crushed rock reserves to the total aggregate landbank 'improves the situation', the 'technical correctness' of this is queried.

7.20. The research has revealed some uncertainty with regard to the level at which an aggregates landbank should be maintained during, and at the end of, the plan period. Similar concerns were raised during the review of the current approach to aggregates planning in England (e.g. should a 20 year landbank be identified at the beginning of the plan period to ensure a 10 year landbank at the end?). Whilst all respondents stated that the requirement at the end of the plan period was 10 years, responses with regard to the requirement at any point during the life of the Plan, included 10 years, 10+ years and 15 years.

7.21. The extent to which the present landbank system provides a proper compromise between the need for security and sustainable extraction is subject to much debate. Many operators argue that a landbank is essential given the (increasing) length of time taken to obtain planning permission for aggregates extraction. This is a view supported by the majority of questionnaire respondents. Others argue that landbanks institutionalise existing patterns of supply, sometimes from locations that are less than ideal in planning and environmental terms. It is also argued that landbanks 'blunt' the implementation of new policy tools including new planning policies and revised assessments of the need for quarrying 10 (CPRE, 2001). Some operators also argue that large reserves held by major companies reduce the prospects for smaller companies to get planning permissions for sites and, therefore, have potential to limit competition. Local authority respondents were divided in their views as to whether landbanks lead to pressure to permit extraction in locations where it would not otherwise be allowed. Only one respondent felt that landbank provision overrides other policy constraints.

Example 7.2: Development plan landbank policies

The way in which the landbank concept is translated into development plan policies varies across authorities. With the exception of the Tayside Structure Plan, which was finalised in 1993 before NPPG4 was published (although it was approved in 1997), all of the extant plans contain landbank policies.

The Ayrshire Structure Plan states that it is the intention of the three Ayrshire councils within the Structure Plan area to 'identify and agree' a 10-year landbank supply of aggregate minerals. Since the plan was approved in 1999, it is perhaps surprising that a landbank was not identified as part of the plan.

The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan states that a survey of aggregate operations conducted in 1997 suggested that there was an adequate supply of aggregate minerals to last until 2012. Although this is the basis for the area's current landbank, the plan does state that consideration needs to be given to ensuring that a supply is available beyond 2012.

The Fife Structure Plan states that there is a sufficient supply of crushed rock aggregates to maintain a 10 year landbank until 2002. The Council have reviewed the landbank position for all construction aggregates through the Minerals Subject Local Plan. It is the Council's policy only to support those new mineral extraction proposals which are required to predominantly meet a Fife market need.

The Highland Structure Plan states that in 1995/96 a landbank supply of 14 years for sand and gravel and a 17 year supply of hard rock was identified within the region. Having this supply identified means that it is unlikely that the region will need to grant permissions for new extraction sites in the foreseeable future. However, the Plan does indicate that there would be areas possibly suitable for extraction should the need arise.

The Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Structure Plan expresses the "desirability of sustaining a landbank" for both sand and gravel and hard rock when considering planning applications. For sand and gravel, the landbank desired is the standard 10 years but for hard rock the plan states that a 20-year supply should be maintained.

7.22. Whilst consensus on the subject is unlikely, there is considerable support for the view that although any landbank will only be depleted in accordance with demand for aggregates, it is possible that a large landbank may favour the use of primary aggregates and provide less of an incentive to develop the use of alternative materials. A key question posed during the consultation on revising MPG6 was 'can the landbank system be defined more clearly to provide stability and certainty for the smaller operator without being used to justify excessive forward permissions?'

KEY ISSUES
  • there is considerable debate about continuing with 'ensuring an adequate and steady supply of aggregates' as an overriding policy objective.
  • there was broad agreement that the system has delivered an adequate supply of aggregates. However, industry representatives also pointed out that whilst the system has worked so far, there could be a problem ten years from now, as a result of current policy restrictions. Any review of NPPG4 should take into account long term prospects, as well as performance to date.
  • irrespective of the above, there is a clearly identified need for an improved system for collecting, collating and publishing aggregates data. Such a system could be implemented and monitored by a co-ordinating 'RAWP-type' body.
  • a more strategic approach to minerals planning, possibly including national forecasts and regional apportionments, would also help to resolve the uncertainty over the definition of 'local market areas'.
  • there is considerable support for the view that landbanks are necessary to ensure 'adequate and steady supply', although there is some confusion over the interpretation of the guidance on landbanks provided in NPPG4. Opinions on the continued validity of the landbank system are divided.

Page updated: Tuesday, March 28, 2006