Written evidence from Staffordshire County
Council (ARSS 92)
SUMMARY
This submission relates to the consideration of the
Inquiry relating to ensuring appropriate co-operation between
local planning authorities on matters relating to waste management
and minerals development formerly covered by regional spatial
strategies.
It is acknowledged that there is a need for local
co-operation to plan appropriately for the provision of minerals
particularly those minerals essential to construction as well
the provision of facilities to manage waste.
Local groups should be formed to address issues of
cross border movements of minerals and waste to assist local planning
authorities in determining appropriate levels of provision and
where that provision is appropriate.
Local groups should involve industry and environmental
groups and the work of the groups should be undertaken so that
it serves to inform and advise local authorities and their communities
on strategic matters for minerals and waste development.
1. BACKGROUND
TO SUBMISSION
1.1 Staffordshire is one of the significant mineral
producing areas in England with 59 sites with permitted reserves.
Quarries in Staffordshire produced 10% of English land won sand
& gravel in 2007 and 9% of English clay used for brick, tile
& pipe manufacture.
1.2 It is estimated that 4.2 million tonnes of
controlled waste is produced in Staffordshire and there are approximately
250 waste management facilities in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
combined. Through the legacy of quarrying, Staffordshire has significant
landfill capacity but new facilities are being developed to ensure
that more waste is managed as a resource rather than sent to landfill
for disposal.
1.3 Mineral resources produced in Staffordshire
are part of an essential supply of raw materials to communities
outside the area as well as within the county and similarly, waste
facilities in Staffordshire manage wastes produced in areas outside
the county.
1.4 The Town & Country planning system provides
the context within which some very difficult decisions have to
be made relating quarry and waste management development. Some
local communities benefit greatly from the outcome of those decisions
but others do not. None of these essential developments are a
welcome neighbour.
1.5 The Regional Spatial Strategy provided targets
for the provision of aggregate minerals used for construction
and the management/disposal of waste. These targets were used
to determine adequate provision.
1.6 The "Open Source" Planning Green
Paper refers to repatriating the determination of the amounts
of minerals required back to Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities,
subject to national environmental standards to ensure that each
authority makes its provision in a fair and sustainable way. The
Paper does make an exception, however, for nationally strategic
deposits of minerals where responsibility for determining
amounts would rest with the Secretary of State. What constitutes
such a deposit and on what basis the Secretary of State would
determine their provision remains to be clarified. Furthermore,
the extent to which contributions to an adequate and steady supply
of minerals can be made by imports from Europe and elsewhere including
marine resources needs to be assessed.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR LOCAL
CO -OPERATION
BETWEEN MINERALS
AND WASTE PLANNING
AUTHORITIES
2.1 In Staffordshire, it is acknowledged that
there is a need for Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities to
work together where there are cross border movements of minerals
and waste involving the needs of one area having to be met by
its neighbours. It cannot at present be seen how this will happen
without some form of targets and a strategic overview of provision
will be necessary but it is considered that this should be undertaken
at a local level. The aim of local co-operation should be to ensure
an appropriate balance between the real needs of communities for
mineral resources and management of their waste and the effects
on communities living alongside quarries, mines or waste facilities.
2.2 There are a number of existing joint working
examples and they are as follows:
(a) Lead authorities providing services to others
as in Greater Manchester;
(b) Sub regional arrangements as in the West
Midlands eg Joint working between the Black Country Local Planning
Authorities and joint working on waste planning between Staffordshire
County and Stoke-on-Trent City Councils;
(c) Arrangements funded centrally by CLG as in
the case of the Aggregates Working Parties (AWPs); and
(d) Arrangements funded locally by partners working
at the regional level such as the Technical Advisory Body for
Waste (TABs).
2.3 None of the above examples are fully representative
of all the stakeholders likely to be involved in determining future
provision. The bodies most closely aligned with stakeholder involvement
are the AWPs and TABs who both have industry and government representatives
and some environmental interests represented. AWPs have been in
operation since the 1970s and TABs since the late 1990s. However,
these bodies: (a) were, as their names suggest, advisory technical
bodies with no executive powers, policy making responsibilities
or political representation, which (b) reported to regional decision-making
bodies. In Wales, however, the two AWPs with a wider stakeholder
base are also policy making bodies.
2.4 The AWP/TAB model involving Mineral and Waste
Planning Authorities, industry and environmental bodies should
be used as a basis for local co-operation. Local groups could
either:
(1) Provide minerals and waste technical advice
and data sharing; or
(2) In addition to (1), provide policy advice
and a forum for sharing best practice
2.5 Local co-operation groups could evolve to
address minerals and waste issues separately as the membership
of each group might need to be different according to the issues
that are relevant to the local authority areas.
2.6 Without decision making responsibilities,
local groups would need to be report back to their constituent
planning authorities and consideration would need to be given
to mechanisms for dispute resolution, on the basis that they would
be dependent upon a number of bodies to implement any policy recommendations.
It is anticipated that groups would work together to:
Assist in providing local forecasts of requirements
for minerals and waste management provision based on technical
work arising from the Local Enterprise Partnerships;
Agree the basis of monitoring matters such as the
consumption and production of aggregates and the provision of
waste management capacity;
To identify options for mineral working and waste
management that could assist individual authorities in addressing
issues within their areas;
To encourage best practice in the prudent use of
resources in a way that contributes to a low carbon economy; and
Provide a forum for liaison with other similar groups.
2.7 Based on experience in Staffordshire, a key
aim for any joint working partnership or local co-operation group
would be to operate openly in bringing together the concerns of
communities and businesses in the area that the group would serve.
There may also be potential opportunities to work alongside Local
Enterprise Partnerships.
2.8 An essential requirement for the effectiveness
of these local groups would be the participation of industry,
particularly in terms of providing information about the operation
of existing sites or facilities. Whilst respecting the needs for
commercial confidentiality, it would be an aim for the groups
to improve the availability and presentation of information for
local strategic decision making.
2.9 In the absence of regional targets, house-building
is to be incentivised by financial payments to the local authority.
Given that minerals and waste developments are at least equally
controversial in their own ways, proposals should be given to
possible means of incentivising their development. Moreover, "Open
Source Planning" recognises that areas which consume minerals
may need to make their own arrangements for future supplies with
producing areas although it does not define how this will work
in practice. Clearly, those areas where production is taking place
will experience disproportionate amounts of environmental harm
to those areas receiving supplies for future development needs.
If the receiving areas were able to collect funds from development
using minerals they could hold it in a fund which producing areas
could draw down to pay for compensatory works in areas affected
by mineral extraction. Alternatively, revenues raised from the
Aggregates Levy could be focussed more directly on those communities
affected by aggregate mineral operations.
September 2010
| 
