Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence from CBI Minerals Group

Summary

We strongly welcome the pro-growth thrust of the NPPF but we are concerned that sustainable development is not sufficiently clearly defined. The NPPF fails to take sufficient account of the importance of National and European environmental legislation and guidance in the planning system.

We strongly support the Government’s expectation that NPPF will deliver a system where the default answer to development is “yes”.

We think the core planning principles as expressed in paragraph 19 of the draft NPPF are generally clearly and appropriately expressed.

There should be recognition of the need for government departments and agencies to work together in delivering the Government’s aim of achieving a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

We are concerned that the NPPF does not adequately address the need for local authorities to co-operate on a sub-national level in respect of the steady and adequate supply of minerals.

We are concerned that the NPPF contains some significant policy changes for which there is no clear evidence base to justify the changes.

The CBI Minerals Group is pleased to have the opportunity to submit comments to the Committee on the draft National Planning Policy Framework. These comments are made in respect of the six questions posed.

1. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions?

We strongly welcome the pro-growth thrust of the NPPF but we are concerned that sustainable development is not sufficiently clearly defined. The NPPF is silent on the important role other legislation and guidance plays in delivering (or not as the case may be) sustainable development. Increasingly, National and European environmental legislation dictates where development can take place and there is a need for determined co-operation between all government departments working together to ensure the government’s expectation that the planning system will deliver a sustainable future for the country can be achieved.

We welcome the recognition in paragraph 100 of the NPPF that minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth but we believe it is essential that this recognition should be stated “up front” in the introduction to underscore the importance of a steady and adequate supply of minerals for securing sustainable development. The NPPF should recognise the special nature of mineral development in that minerals can only be extracted where they occur in economic quantities. The definition of sustainable mineral development must recognise this key locational criterion. This becomes more critical for the rarer industrial minerals which predominantly are located in National Parks and AONBs.

We are concerned about the loss of current important technical guidance contained, for example, in MPS2 in relation to dust and noise. Clear guidance of sufficient weight is an essential tool in helping to secure new permissions. We are concerned that paragraph 102 bullet 7 appears to be proposing, for example, that local authorities develop their own set of noise limits which could lead to major inconsistencies across the country.

2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?

The decision on what is and what is not sustainable development is core to the success of the NPPF in delivering the governments aim to build the economy and to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities. We support the Government’s hope that the NPPF will deliver a system where the default answer to development is “yes”. However, we think there is a need for more clarity within the NPPF on the definition of sustainable development. On the one hand the document sets out the criteria in paragraph 10 for delivering sustainable but on the other it throws up barriers to development which we believe are not sustainable. For example, paragraph 16 (repeated in paragraph 170) states that development likely to have a significant effect on sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directive would not be sustainable, yet the legislation recognises that there may be imperative reasons of overriding public interest, which could be of a social or economic nature, sufficient to override the harm to the site.

In so far as minerals are concerned, we believe the NPPF should explicitly state that development which meets the Government’s objective for minerals as set out in paragraph 100 is sustainable.Sustainable minerals development means balancing the need for the minerals to support economic growth against the impact of working them where they occur.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?

We think the Core planning principles as expressed in paragraph 19 of the draft NPPF are generally clearly and appropriately expressed. We do think however that bullet 5 of paragraph 19 is somewhat confusing. While we recognise the need to seek to protect and enhance environmental and heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance we do believe allocations of land for development should not only prefer land of lesser environmental value but also land of lesser heritage value. This is particularly important in respect of minerals development because as stated above unlike other forms of development minerals can only be worked where they occur.

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments?

No, the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning policy is far from clear. For example the NPPF is silent on its relationship to the new Marine Planning Regime. This is of concern to the minerals sector because marine dredged aggregates make an important contribution to the supply of essential raw materials to the construction industry. This is recognised in the current mineral planning guidance (MPS1).

We are concerned that the NPPF pays little regard to the impact the vast amount of National and European environmental and other legislation and guidance has on the process of delivering development. There should be recognition of this and the need for government departments and agencies to work together in delivering the Government’s aim of achieving a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?

We welcome the recognition of the vital role played by the national and regional aggregate guidelines and the aggregate working parties in planning for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates. We are concerned that paragraphs 44 to 47 appear to be suggesting that the “duty to co-operate” would apply only to neighbouring authorities or in the case of two tier authorities between district and county councils. In the case of nationally important minerals there should be a duty for distant authorities to co-operate on a national on sub-national level. For example, the steady and adequate supply of high quality silica sands in Norfolk is essential to maintain glass manufacturing in Yorkshire.

6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based?

We are concerned that the NPPF contains some significant policy changes for which there is no clear evidence base to justify these changes. Paragraph 101, bullet 3 contains a major change regarding land-bank policy for three key minerals, namely silica sand, brick clay and cement. The justification for these changes as set out in pages 45 to 47 of the Impact Assessments is misguided. For example:

It has been demonstrated in research work undertaken during the preparation of MPS 1 that the brick manufacturing industry requires a stock of permitted reserves sufficient for 25 years of production at each manufacturing plant. Put simply, without this stock of permissions the investment needed for the maintenance of existing and the development of new brick manufacturing capacity cannot be justified. The availability of a long term supply of the brick clay is a major factor in corporate investment strategies and since much of the brick industry in the UK is owned and controlled at a European level, any dilution of this land-bank policy is likely to lead to a reduction of manufacturing capacity within the country and an increased reliance on imports.

The NPPF would shorten the requirement on Mineral Planning Authorities to provide land banks of raw materials for cement manufacture from 25+ years to 10+ years for a new kiln, and from 15 years to 10 years for an existing kiln, respectively. No justification has been given for this and it appears to be an oversight. With new cement kilns costing in the order of £150 million; 10+ years supply would never support the building of a new kiln. Furthermore, the on going cost of environmental improvements for existing kilns might not be economically justifiable with a reduced land bank provision of 10 years.

9 September 2011