| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate and on his speech on the future of quarrying at Longstone Edge. He is lucky to have such magnificent countryside as that part of the Peak district in his constituency. It is right that he should be extolling its beauty and defending its interests. He has raised a very important issue.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I must of necessity avoid commenting on the particular circumstances of an individual case, as it may come before the Secretary of State on appeal. Should an appeal be lodged with my Department on any planning matter, Ministers have a legal responsibility to all parties involved to act impartially and with an open mind.
As has been drawn to our attention, the Peak district national park authority, which is the mineral planning authority, is also considering enforcement action against the operator. I understand that it centres on the interpretation of the original planning consent to which the hon. Gentleman referred and the extent to which that consent allows for the removal of limestone. The enforcement process, too, involves a right of appeal to my Department and adds to the circumspection with which I must address the case.
I do, however, want to make it clear to the House at the outset that the Government recognise and understand the very real concerns raised locally about quarrying
and its impact on the environment. Successive Governments--not least those formed by the hon. Gentleman's party, as well as the current Government--have sought to respond to those concerns and to achieve a sensible balance between the interests of the economy and the construction industry on the one hand and the environment on the other. That is reflected in primary legislation. I shall return to the legislative aspect in detail later in my speech, as it is important to set out clearly the purposes of the reforms of recent years.
I must emphasise that the task of reviewing mineral planning permissions and of monitoring how they are worked and restored throughout their lives is one properly for local government to perform. It is the local mineral planning authority--in this case, the Peak district national park authority--and the quarry operator, in this case, RMC Roadstone Ltd., to which both government and local people rightly look for improvements.
As I said, the Government recognise and understand the passions that quarrying raises. As the hon. Member will know, in recent years, successive Governments have accorded the reform of old quarrying permissions considerable priority. I should like to remind the House of the progress that has been made.
The modern reform of the mineral planning system began as far back as 1976, with publication of the Stevens committee report. The committee's recommendations formed the basis of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981, which is now consolidated within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and is the cornerstone of modern mineral planning legislation.
The 1981 Act introduced a duty on mineral planning authorities--which, in current terms, are the counties, unitaries and national park authorities--to review and make orders updating mineral permissions, and established that the minerals industry should itself bear part of the costs under the "polluter pays" principle. However, the 1981 Act's provisions for review and updating of conditions did not work well in practice.
Mineral planning authorities were reluctant to risk incurring compensation liabilities that were difficult to assess in advance of using their order-making powers. The shortcomings of the 1981 Act were recognised. Consequently, two further pieces of legislation were enacted to address those shortcomings.
The first measure was the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. In that Act, the then Government legislated to reform interim development order planning permissions. Those are the earliest remaining mineral permissions in the United Kingdom and were granted under interim development orders between 1943 and 1948, chiefly to meet wartime needs and the demands of post-war reconstruction. Those permissions had few, if any, planning conditions attached to them, and in many cases records of their existence had been lost. Under the 1991 Act, IDO permissions had to be registered with local mineral planning authorities and then submitted to those authorities for updating of their working and restoration conditions.
All IDO permissions remain valid and cannot legally be revoked without compensation, which is consistent with the wider general principles of planning and property law. There is no compensation for the cost of complying with new conditions, but our planning guidance makes it clear that conditions imposed on active sites should not
The reforms have worked well over the years, and they are delivering real benefits as older quarries are brought up to modern environmental standards.
The Environment Act 1995, to which the hon. Member referred, built on that earlier success and made provision for similar reforms to deal with permissions that were granted between 1948 and 1982. Those are known as old mineral permissions, and the Longstone Edge complex of quarries comes into that category. All OMPs are subject to initial review and updating of conditions. I am sure that the House will agree that it is important that, once modernised, mineral permissions do not slip back again. That applies to all permissions, not only to IDOs or OMPs. I am sure that no hon. Member would like to be confronted continuously with the issue.
The Environment Act 1995 therefore provides for periodic reviews--at 15-year intervals--of all mineral permissions, irrespective of the date on which they were granted, to ensure that, once modernised, they are kept in line with current environmental standards and best practice. That is a particularly important aspect of the reforms, and one that has clear benefits.
The initial review task for OMPs granted between 1948 and 1982 is much more substantial than that for pre-1948 IDOs, as the 1995 legislation covers permissions granted over nearly 35 years. Therefore, to spread the work load in bringing the old permissions up to date, the review of active sites is taking place in two consecutive phases, each of three years.
Phase I, which is now in progress, deals with sites where the predominant permission or permissions were granted before 31 March 1969. Phase II, which is due to begin in October 1998, will deal with sites where the predominant permission was granted after that date, but before 22 February 1982. However, all sites wholly or partly within national parks, sites of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty are treated as phase I sites. That means that the most environmentally sensitive sites should have the protection of new conditions in the first half of the review programme.
Clearly, a number of old mineral permissions were granted on terms at least as broad as IDO permissions. Their lack of detail and limited operating conditions would not be allowed if they were being granted today. However, the permissions remain valid.
In the case raised by the hon. Member I well understand how frustrating it must be to residents of the area that old mineral permissions are, by today's standards, so loosely worded. That is why the review process is so necessary--to ensure that active sites, such as Longstone Edge, are worked under proper modern standards.
I emphasise that the review's purpose is certainly not to allow operators to exceed the terms of their original permission. On the contrary, the purpose is to ensure that old permissions are subject to modern-day operating and restoration conditions. For active sites, owners or
operators must submit new schemes of working and restoration conditions for the mineral planning authority's approval, by the date that it specifies.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire asked about phased restoration. All reviews should impose proper restoration conditions, but the level of detail appropriate will vary according to the circumstances of the particular case. More detail should be provided for sites with a short life--for example, for sites where mineral operations will cease, or restoration is due to start, within five or 10 years of the review. For sites that will continue for a longer period, it may be preferable to have conditions that require the mineral operator to submit detailed schemes for final landforms and contours, and for the necessary aftercare when a particular operational phase has been reached, or by a set date.
There should also be provision to ensure that the mineral operator will propose and implement a scheme for final restoration and aftercare arrangements should the site cease operation for any reason before the end of the time limit. The precise details of the conditions are, of course, a matter for the mineral planning authority to determine in the first instance.
There is no compensation for new restoration and aftercare conditions, or for conditions that do not restrict working rights. Those include, for example, modern environmental conditions--such as wheel-washes and sheeting of lorries to provide for the cleanliness of roads leading to and from the public highway and of vehicles leaving the site.
The aim of the review process is to ensure environmentally sound outcomes while not prejudicing economic viability. Traffic conditions could therefore include control of access to and from the highway, display of on-site signs showing recommended vehicle routes and improvement of visibility where access roads join the public highway. Where such problems cannot be resolved, it may be appropriate to impose conditions limiting the rate of output, to preclude substantial future traffic increases, or prohibiting night-time working. Such conditions must be used flexibly. Those that significantly restrict the rate of output in such a way as to prejudice the quarry's economic viability to an adverse degree would give rise to liability for compensation.
The point on compensation is important. For modern conditions that restrict working rights, compensation will be payable only if, in the opinion of the mineral planning authority, the effect of the restriction would be such as to prejudice to an unreasonable degree either the economic viability of the operation or the asset value of the site. As ever in planning, the test is one of reasonableness.
Some quarry sites are dormant under the 1995 Act. They are sites where no substantial mineral working or substantial depositing of mineral waste has occurred between 1982 and 1995. Work cannot restart until a new scheme of full modern operating and restoration conditions has been approved by the mineral planning authority. There is no compensation for the cost of complying with conditions imposed on dormant sites.
The Department has published full guidance on how to operate the 1995 minerals reforms in mineral planning guidance note 14. That document was published after extensive consultation with industry and local authorities, and copies were supplied to all mineral planning authorities. It is a material consideration which must be taken into account when old permissions are reviewed.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has made clear in correspondence with the hon. Member about the case that he has raised, the Peak district national park authority, as the mineral planning authority, is directly responsible for making progress on the matter. I hope that it will do so with application and imagination.
The 1995 Act seeks to maintain an equitable balance between the rights of those who hold long-standing valid planning permissions and the proper protection of the environment and amenity. In the Government's view, the way to proceed is for the Peak district national park authority to complete its review of the Longstone Edge permissions under the 1995 legislation and ensure that they conform to proper modern conditions. That would involve neither revocation nor payment of compensation, provided that the authority did not seek to impose conditions that restricted working rights to such an extent that the economic viability of the operation or the asset value of the site was prejudiced to an unreasonable degree.
"fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation."
3 Dec 1997 : Column 327
For dormant sites--a site where there has been no substantial working for two years between May 1989 and April 1991--full modern conditions may be imposed without compensation. Full planning guidance is given on the operation of the 1991 Act in mineral planning guidance notes 8 and 9.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |