Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Background Paper
Minerals safeguarding
January 2016
Purpose of background paper
This background paper summarises the evidence used to identify the planning
issues that surround the safeguarding of the County’s surface and
underground mineral resources. This is based on national planning policy and
guidance .
Other background papers supporting the Minerals Local Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aggregates;
Safeguarding;
Archaeology;
Biodiversity;
Brick clay;
Hydrocarbons – oil and gas;
Industrial Dolomite;
Landscape;
Flood Risk;
Site Selection.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
Index
Page
1.
Introduction
1
2.
Mineral resources in Nottinghamhsire
1
3.
Detailed mapping
7
4.
Implementation
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
12
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
1.
Introduction
Why safeguard minerals?
1.1
Minerals provide vital raw materials for developing and sustaining our modern society
– whether this is for construction, manufacturing, agriculture or energy. Mineral
resources are however finite and can only be worked where they occur. We must
therefore try to conserve these resources for the long term by avoiding minerals
being unnecessarily sterilised by other development such as housing, retail or
industry which can often be located elsewhere.
1.2
The concept of safeguarding minerals is not new, but the actual weight given to
conserving minerals resources has generally been much weaker than that given for
other natural assets. To redress this imbalance Government policy now requires all
mineral planning authorities to define minerals safeguarding areas (MSAs) in detail
on the policies map that accompanies Local Plans.
1.3
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Chapter 13) states that:
“in preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should define Minerals
Safeguarding Areas and adopt appropriate policies in order that known locations of
specific mineral resources of local and national importance are not needlessly
sterilised by non-mineral development…and define Minerals Consultation Areas
based on these Minerals Safeguarding Areas”.
1.4
The NPPF also discusses that policies should be set out to encourage the prior
extraction of minerals, where practical and environmentally feasible, if it is necessary
for non-mineral development to take place and goes on to state that:
“local planning authorities should not normally permit other development proposals
in mineral safeguarding areas where they might constrain potential future use for
these purposes”.
1.5
MSAs do not imply that mineral extraction is acceptable and neither do they preclude
other development – their purpose is simply to ensure that mineral resources are
taken into account when they are at risk from being lost to other development.
1.6
The County Council’s approach to safeguarding and development management
policies is set out in the Minerals Local Plan.
2.
Mineral resources in Nottinghamshire
2.1
Nottinghamshire is rich in mineral resources. In fact over 180,000 hectares or nearly
90% of the County are underlain by minerals according to the mineral resource map
published by the British Geological Survey (BGS) - (see Plan 1) and this excludes
minerals that can only be worked by underground methods such as deep mined
coal, oil and gas and some gypsum deposits. Minerals may be finite but they are not
always scarce and this has important implications for defining practical safeguarding
options.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
1
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
2
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
2.2
Whilst the County’s mineral resources are vast, there are huge variations in the
geographical extent and rates of exploitation for individual minerals. There are
minerals where resource depletion is a real risk in the not too distant future, whilst
other minerals are so extensive that only a very small fraction of the resource is ever
likely to be worked. This means that safeguarding the entire resource is unrealistic.
2.3
For the purposes of safeguarding, Nottinghamshire has eight distinct mineral
resources. These are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alluvial Sand & Gravel;
Industrial Dolomite;
Glaciofluvial Sand and Gravel;
Sherwood Sandstone;
Magnesian Limestone;
Mercia Mudstone (brick clay);
Gypsum;
Coal;
Hydrocarbons – oil and gas
2.4
The BGS resource map provides the best/most up to date information that is
generally available but in most cases only a small fraction of the mineral deposit has
actually been fully drilled and tested. There will be many areas identified as a
‘proven resource’ on this map that are barren or unsuitable for economic,
environmental and other reasons.
2.5
For each mineral the general approach that the County Council has taken was to
firstly consider the option of safeguarding the entire resource based on the BGS
map or as refined by the industry, where this information was available. In this
respect information from the minerals industry allowed a significant refinement of the
areas to be safeguarded for brick clay, gypsum and deep mined coal.
2.6
The next option considered the merits of a more restricted approach. This included
limiting safeguarding areas to potential extensions and known replacement sites, or
to eliminate whole resources or parts of a resource. The former option, for some
extensive minerals such as Sherwood Sandstone offers a practical way of limiting
safeguarding to areas where issues/conflicts might actually occur.
2.7
A summary of potential safeguarding options considered for each mineral is set out
in Tables 1a and 1b below. These options were based on a detailed assessment
which profiled each mineral in terms of the geology, extraction, main uses, future
prospects and reasonable safeguarding options.
2.8
The actual areas that will be safeguarded is the ‘minimum’ for the reasons set out
below (Plan 2).
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
3
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
Table 1a - Safeguarding options - summary of main findings for building,
construction and industrial minerals
Mineral Type
Alluvial sand and gravel
Potential
safeguarding
Main findings
options
All* Part None
√
Extensive major resource but
high extraction & depletion rate.
- Main river valleys**
Alluvial sand and
gravel- Minor tributaries
√
√
Glaciofluvial sand and gravel
√
√
Sherwood Sandstone
√
√
Lower Magnesian
Limestone -Aggregate
√
Lower Magnesian
Limestone - Industrial
dolomite
Lower Magnesian
Limestone – building
√
Scattered resource, very limited
potential, except at East Leake.
Extensive, slow depletion rate,
resource variable, no geological
data to refine.
Quite extensive, slow depletion
rate – only one quarry.
√
√
Very scarce, nationally
important.
√
√
Upper Magnesian
Limestone – aggregate
√
Mercia Mudstone
brick clay
√
Gypsum
√
Very limited potential, resource
poorly understood.
Quite extensive, very slow
depletion rate.
.
Resources too thin to be of
economic interest.
Industry has refined area to
known economic prospects
within a vast resource.
Scarce, nationally important
resource - industry has refined.
Key: √ potential option(s) considered reasonable.
* All of resource means as defined by industry if less than total geological resource.
** Includes Trent, Idle and Soar,
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
4
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
Table 1b - Safeguarding Options - Summary of Main Findings - Energy Minerals
Mineral
Potential
Safeguarding
options
All* Part None
Coal - Surface mined
√
Coal - Deep mined
√
√
√
Oil
√
√
Coal Bed Methane
√
Shale gas
Reasons
Quite extensive, heavily worked.
Prior extraction possibilities
relatively high.
Industry refined to known minetake areas. However,
safeguarding risks limited to
certain types of development.
Limited resource and depleted –
safeguarding risks very low.
Resource potential as yet
unknown. Industry has refined
resource. Safeguarding risks
low.
Resource potential as yet
unknown at national and local
level – safeguarding risks very
low and uncertain.
Key: √ potential option(s) considered reasonable.
* All of resource means as defined by industry if less than total geological resource.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
5
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
6
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
3.
Detailed mapping
3.1
This section considers the factors which will define the detailed extent and
boundaries of minerals safeguarding areas on the policies map.
Designated sites
3.2
Designated sites include local and national nature reserves, sites of special scientific
interest (SSSI) and scheduled ancient monuments (SAM). Designations can be of
local, national and international importance which is reflected in the varying levels of
protection given to them from development that may harm them. This suggests that
there is little point safeguarding mineral resources within them especially for the
higher status sites. However, the BGS guidance advises that these sites should not
be excluded without justification. This is because if they were subject to major
development proposals it would be appropriate to consider mineral safeguarding
alongside all other planning issues that will need to be taken into account. It can be
concluded that there are no local circumstances in Nottinghamshire to suggest that
minerals within designated areas should be exempted from safeguarding.
Urban and other built up areas
3.3
The BGS guidance advises that significant quantities of mineral can exist beneath
major urban regeneration projects reclaiming brownfield sites. It may therefore be
appropriate to safeguard mineral resources which are relatively scarce such as
surface mined (opencast) coal and sand and gravel. In Nottinghamshire such
opportunities are mostly limited to surface mined coal which coincides with land
damaged by past coal mining and old heavy industries.
3.4
The exposed coalfield in Nottinghamshire is peppered with former surface coal
workings ranging from small old shallow workings dating back to at least the 1940s
to much larger and deeper more modern schemes. If extraction in built up areas is
likely to happen in the future, then past extraction patterns should provide the
evidence to back this up. A desk top survey based on the Coal Authority Map 1
reveals that most coal extraction has avoided built up areas, but a few examples
exist. Some date back to the 1940s and their origins are not always clear. Others
are linked to the reclamation of former colliery sites, the most recent being
Moorgreen Colliery which was reclaimed to a country park and industrial site in the
late 1990s. In this example the industrial development was on land that was not
actually worked for coal.
3.5
In the main, opportunities for reclaiming old colliery sites within the exposed coalfield
have, however, all but disappeared. Future opportunities will be limited to other
brownfield regeneration sites or incidental extraction associated with development
that involves significant earth moving activity and ground stabilisation. The existence
of such sites has not been assessed, but historic patterns suggest that such
proposals are likely to be rare.
1
Carried out by Nottinghamshire County Council February 2009.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
7
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
3.6
The amount of coal likely to be won under these circumstances will probably be
small scale and of no strategic importance. This is in contrast to the open
countryside where millions of tonnes of coal are economically recoverable and
where any future large-scale surface coal mining will be located. The case for
safeguarding surface coal within urban and other built up areas is weak, but remains
a possible option.
3.7
In December 2013, the County Council resolved to grant planning permission for a
new surface mine to extract an estimated 1.275 million tonnes of coal and 250,000
tonnes of fireclay at Shortwood.
3.8
Apart from coal, opportunities for mineral extraction on any scale in urban areas will
be rare. The creation of a water based development such as a marina within a sand
and gravel resource is perhaps one possibility. In practice, however, the revenue
from the mineral recovered is likely to form an essential part of the scheme’s
viability, so in that sense safeguarding is not a real issue as the minerals are not at
risk of being lost. For other minerals, options might be limited to development that
involves major earth moving operations, but again there is likely to be a strong
commercial incentive to sell any potential mineral recovered. Overall in
Nottinghamshire the possibility of prior extraction is considered to be weak.
3.9
The above information suggested that MSAs should disregard urban areas in
Nottinghamshire, at least for surface coal mining and sand and gravel and other
minerals could also be excluded. The issues are one of practicality. In technical
mapping terms including all urban areas on the proposals map will be the simplest
but risks giving a false impression to the reader. The option to deal with this situation
by way of development management policies within the Minerals Local Plan is
considered to be the preferred route.
Mineral resources at risk from adjacent development
3.10 Minerals are not just at risk of being sterilised by development immediately on top of
them. For any sensitive development such as housing, minerals will in practice be
sterilised well beyond the development boundary to preserve amenity and for health
and safety reasons. The BGS guidance notes that this should be taken into
account. There is no specific guidance on how far MSAs should extend beyond the
boundary to take account of this risk but the guidance does quote some examples.
These suggest a resource buffer zone of around 200-250 metres for most surface
minerals increasing to 500 metres for deep workings and those requiring blasting.
No zones are proposed for underground minerals.
3.11 For most surface minerals in Nottinghamshire a 250 metre zone beyond the resource
boundary is considered to be appropriate. This ties in with Government policy and
guidance on the environmental effects of mineral extraction which acknowledges
that the impact of dust is most likely to be experienced within 100 metres of its
source, although its impact could potentially be felt further away. A distance of up to
500 metres may be appropriate for any or all of the following:
•
•
opencast gypsum;
aggregate limestone;
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
8
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
•
•
industrial dolomite; and
surface coal mining.
Safeguarding resources adjacent to the County
3.12 Mineral resources do not stop at administrative boundaries (see Plan 3) so
development near the boundary of one area could sterilise minerals in an adjacent
area. The BGS guidance recommends that buffer zones can relate to safeguarding
resources just outside the County. Whilst this makes sense there are practical
difficulties as adjacent authorities are likely to be at different stages in developing
their safeguarding policies and may adopt different approaches to the same mineral.
3.13 Overall this is not likely to raise any significant issues – the main risk is where the
mineral resource in the adjacent Authority does not extend into Nottinghamshire so
without a buffer zone it may not be fully safeguarded from development on this side
of the County boundary.
Consultation procedures with District Councils
3.14 The mineral safeguarding procedure is essentially an upgrade of the statutory
mineral consultation area (MCA) arrangements that have existed since the early
1980s. These require District Councils to consult the County on development
proposals which fall within a potential mineral resource area identified on maps
produced by the County Council. The County Council then has the opportunity to
advise the District Council on any minerals implications and, if appropriate, object or
seek changes to the proposal to minimise the loss of mineral.
3.15 MSAs should provide a stronger and more consistent basis for liaison between the
District Councils and County Council. Whilst District Councils do not define MSAs
they are obliged to show them on their policies maps within their Local Plan when
they have been adopted by the County Council. The MSA policies will then apply to
all relevant development and must be taken into account in the decision making
process.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
9
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
10
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
Safeguarding mineral transport and processing infrastructure
3.16 National guidance requires mineral planning authorities to safeguard existing or
potential future facilities such as wharves and railheads which are involved in the
transport, storage, handling and processing of minerals, in particular aggregates,
cement and coal. Establishing suitable transport links for bulk materials can be
important to promote movement of material by rail and inland waterway and so
thereby contribute to sustainable development. These issues are likely to be most
significant in major metropolitan areas, especially London, which rely heavily on long
distance imports.
3.17 Since the closure of the remaining collieries in Nottinghamshire, rail transport of
minerals is currently limited to the movement of coal into the County to feed the
power stations. Sand and gravel and desulphogypsum are transported by barge
from the Trent Valley in north Nottinghamshire to Yorkshire. As the wharves are in
relatively remote floodplain locations, the risk of them being sterilised by other
development is very low.
3.18 The scope for any major increase in the use of barge and rail transport over the next
10-20 years is limited bearing in mind the current supply patterns. For example rail
transport of aggregates is restricted to the long distance transport of crushed rock
such as from Leicestershire and Somerset to London which is on a scale well
beyond that which could be sustained from sand and gravel quarries. Overall there
is no need to identify and safeguard such facilities in Nottinghamshire, unless new
proposals are identified as part of the wider evidence gathering and consultation on
the new Minerals Local Plan.
District/Borough Council Local Plans
3.19 The adopted MSAs must be acknowledged in each District/Borough Council Local
Plans. MSAs will inevitably overlap with other local designations/ allocations which
could result in a policies map that in some areas is very difficult to interpret and as
the Minerals Local Plan (which identifies MSA’s on its Policies Map) forms part of the
development plan for the area it is suggested that each District/Borough Council
ensure that they incorporate text into their Local Plans which points the reader in the
direction of the Minerals Local Plan in this regard.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
11
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
4.
Implementation
4.1
This section looks at how MSAs, once defined, can be safeguarded from other
development. There are two opportunities to do this. The first and arguably the most
critical is to consider minerals safeguarding when District/Borough Councils are
putting forward new areas and allocations for development in their Local Plans. The
second opportunity is to assess individual proposals when submitted as planning
applications. Both situations are considered below after first looking at some of the
general issues that apply to safeguarding mineral resources.
4.2
Unlike most designations, MSAs do not include land where an equal level of
protection can or should be applied. Resources within MSAs range from those
which justify a very high degree of protection to those where the future minerals
planning situation is so uncertain that little or no protection is justified. Most areas
will probably fall somewhere in between. The minerals resource situation within any
given area will not, however, generally be apparent until it is assessed in response
to a possible risk of being lost to other development. This means that safeguarding
policies must be flexible as they will need to deal with a wide range of
circumstances.
4.3
Government Policy and the BGS guidance is however more focused on
safeguarding resources that are nationally important and limited in extent. The need
to safeguard these resources is more obvious, plus refining MSAs down to land
where there is a real extraction potential is a practical proposition. For these
minerals any development within a safeguarding area is likely to raise concerns.
District/Borough Council Local Plans Allocations
4.4
District/Borough Council allocations will usually be the focus of future development
and therefore the most likely place where any mineral safeguarding issues will first
arise. The ideal time to consider mineral safeguarding will be when these allocations
are put forward in a draft Local Plan. This allows mineral safeguarding to be
assessed alongside all other planning issues in order to reach a balanced decision
that will have looked at a range of options and sites. Where allocations are
subsequently adopted this should mean that any future planning applications that fall
within them can be taken as not raising any mineral safeguarding issues regardless
of whether or not they fall within an MSA. The exception would be where the
development was proposed to follow mineral extraction, albeit such examples are
likely to be very rare.
4.5
It will of course be some years before all adopted District/Borough Council
allocations will have taken mineral safeguarding into account. Currently most will not
have done so potential conflicts are possible. That said there would still have been
opportunities for representations to have been made by interested parties should
mineral safeguarding issues have been apparent when existing allocations were
proposed. Furthermore as most major development sites tend to be within or
adjacent to existing settlements the actual risks of coinciding with land that is
suitable for mineral extraction is probably quite low. In practice this suggests that
mineral safeguarding risks within existing allocations are unlikely to be significant.
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
12
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
Prior Extraction
4.6
Building on former quarry floors is nothing new and there are many examples in
Nottinghamshire where old brick pits, limestone and sand quarries have been
developed for housing, retail or industry. However, this was rarely, if ever, planned
from the start. In most cases the quarries started life in the open countryside, were
then absorbed into built-up areas which, once quarrying ceased, transformed them
into prime development sites. However, the option of turning prime development
land into a quarry before it can be built on will rarely be an attractive proposition for
the developer, future occupiers, or surrounding neighbours alike. Apart from the
lengthy delays, the quarried land will most likely be less valuable and/or more costly
to develop especially if the quarry has to be backfilled with waste. Furthermore as
most new development sites are within or adjacent to existing built up areas mineral
extraction could easily result in unacceptable environmental impacts.
4.7
The most recent significant examples of planned prior extraction in Nottinghamshire
all relate to surface coal mining. Many comprise extraction along new road lines and
in advance of colliery tipping. In these examples the mineral extraction was not
essential to achieve the necessary landform but presumably may have contributed
towards financing the scheme as well as recovering mineral that would have
otherwise been lost. Whilst further road construction is always possible, colliery
tipping within the surface coal resource has long since ceased. Some of the more
urban colliery site regeneration schemes might also fall into this category, but such
opportunities are likely to be very scarce in the future. Whilst the case for future
prior extraction of surface coal mining on a significant scale looks weak it remains a
potential option.
4.8
For other minerals ‘prior extraction’ is limited to two main situations. First there can
be incidental recovery of minerals as part of the earthworks associated with the main
development. This has included development in the Sherwood Sandstone which
can be easily screened and sold off site. Secondly, proposals to create new water
areas such as marinas or irrigation ponds will typically be in sand and gravel
deposits. In these examples mineral extraction is an essential part of the
development both in terms of creating the new landform and helping fund the
earthmoving operations. What is significant about all the above examples is that
they are very much driven by economics and occurred without a minerals
safeguarding policy being in place.
4.9
In Nottinghamshire prior extraction is unlikely to be a significant issue or yield any
strategically important quantities of mineral. For many minerals it is not a realistic
option under any foreseeable circumstances.
Development Exemptions
4.10
Not every development proposal within or close to an MSA represents a risk to
future minerals extraction. For example, most householder planning applications to
extend properties and infill development are unlikely to raise concerns so can be
excluded from the process. The main risks will come from proposals to extend built
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
13
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016
up areas and new development in the open countryside. To keep consultations to a
minimum, following categories of development are exempt.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Development which is in accordance within adopted District Development
Plan allocations which took into account minerals sterilisation and where prior
extraction is not feasible or appropriate;
Temporary development;
All householder planning applications, except for new dwellings;
All applications for advertisements;
Infill development;
Reserved matters applications;
Prior notifications (telecoms, forestry, agriculture, demolition).
Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan
14
Safeguarding background paper Jan 2016