Localism - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents



WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE MINERAL PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION (LOCO 065)

SUMMARY

¾  An adequate and steady supply of mineral products (aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, mortar, industrial and agricultural lime, silica sand and recycled and secondary aggregates) is essential for the construction and manufacturing industries, to the UK economy, and our everyday lives.

¾  Of the 2 billion tonnes of all materials we use every year in the UK, mineral products (at 280 million tonnes or 14%) are the biggest material flow.

¾  Every year the UK mineral products industry supplies over £5 billion worth of materials, directly and indirectly employs over 60,000 people and underpins the vast £110 billion construction sector.

¾  Land-won indigenous non energy minerals, particularly aggregates and other non aggregate minerals are therefore an essential component of supply.

¾  On average, MPA members deliver one million tonnes of mineral products every working day, more than oil, gas and coal combined.

¾  The major non energy mineral products flows are aggregates both primary and secondary.

¾  These kinds of flows have to be managed for this vital supply to national infrastructure to be maintained. It will not happen purely on the basis of local decision making, some form of national requirement to supply both local and more distant markets from local sources is vital to avoid unsustainable and unsteady supply.

¾  The opportunities for community input that are already incorporated into the planning process are comprehensive. The introduction of third party rights of appeal would add another layer of uncertainty and a significant barrier to economic recovery.

¾  There is a danger that decentralisation and localism may result in result in councils (Mineral Planning Authorities - county and unitary councils) failing to provide for and permit new minerals developments due to the increased power of local communities to object to mineral development.

¾  The current plan-led system is unfit for purpose and is failing to deliver plans in a timely manner. Anything which could add to the time taken for plans to be adopted will create inertia which will act as a drag on the economy and its recovery.

¾  Minerals are not evenly distributed and can only be worked where they naturally occur, which may be distant from the end market and use, and a wider strategic perspective to supply and planning for future provision is therefore essential.

¾  For aggregates (crushed rock, sand and gravel) a managed supply system at national (England and Wales) level has operated for over 30 years, and should continue to operate, with appropriate modifications, under a more localist regime.

¾  There is a need for continued Government action and oversight of local authority (and mineral planning authority) performance to ensure a secure and steady supply of aggregates and other non aggregate minerals. This could include:

¾  Inclusion of clear statements, including in the proposed National Planning Framework on need ensure a secure and steady and adequate supply of aggregates and other non aggregate minerals from a range of sources.

¾  Continued [financial and policy] support for Aggregates Working Parties (AWPs) to undertake their joint technical, monitoring and advisory role, with coordination at national level.

¾  Ensuring, including through the Planning Inspectorate, that Mineral Planning Authorities continue to make adequate provision and permit developments, and for aggregates they reflect technical advice from AWPs in development plan documents.

¾  Rigorous maintenance of minimum landbanks as set out in existing minerals policy and guidance.

¾  Local ring-fencing of an increased proportion of the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund to ensure benefits accrue to the communities closest to mineral workings.

BACKGROUND AND DETAILED COMMENTS

The Mineral Products Association submitted written evidence to the Committee's inquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (letter and enclosure of 15 September 2010). The comments we made in that submission are relevant to the Localism Inquiry, in that they concern the minerals, predominantly aggregates, supply system in the future, including the working of the planning system.

Value of Minerals to the economy

The economy depends on an adequate and steady supply of mineral products. Minerals products (described in our summary) are essential to construction and manufacturing industries, to our economy and our everyday lives. Of the 2 billion tonnes of materials we use every year in the UK, mineral products (at 280 million tonnes) are the biggest material flow.

Every year the mineral products industry supplies over £5 billion worth of materials, directly and indirectly employs over 60,000 people and underpins the vast £110 billion construction sector. Every £1 invested in construction generates £2.84 in total economic activity - construction relies on mineral products.

Distribution of primary materials

Minerals are not evenly distributed, and as primary raw materials can only be extracted from where they occur.

Some nationally significant minerals with specialist uses are very restricted, and travel to distant markets. Primary aggregates (crushed rock, sand and gravel) vary in their distribution throughout the UK, with sand and gravel being widely spread, and crushed rock more unevenly spread (figures 1 and 2).

Inter-regional flows of crushed rock are significantly larger than for sand and gravel, because of the overall larger demand for crushed rock, particularly for roadstone, and because regions such as the South East, London, the East of England and parts of the North West have only minor, or inferior quality, crushed rock resources. In addition, the consistency and extent of some hard rock deposits permits their working on a very large scale, enabling much wider geographical areas to be served economically by rail. The transfer of crushed rock between regions is more complex and uneven than for sand and gravel. It reflects the combined pattern of the extent of crushed rock resources and markets/population (demand). London and the South East also have substantial landings of marine dredged sand and gravel.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate major movements of materials within in England, and major imports from outside of England and from marine sources.

Managed Aggregate Supply System

Local supply of some materials cannot fully meet the pattern and scale of demand and a system of long distance supply has developed.

The managed aggregates supply system (MASS)[21] has operated for more than 30 years, evolving in the post war years due to concerns about increasing demand for construction aggregates, imbalances in supply and demand at national level, the need to assess resources and forecast demand, and the social and environmental impacts of mineral working.

In the period of intense rebuilding of Britain, following the Second World War, concern grew about the ability of the aggregates industry to maintain an adequate supply of minerals for construction, particularly in the South East of England.

As a result, the Government appointed an advisory committee under Sir Ralph Verney in 1972 and he published his recommendations in a report in 1976 which led to the MASS as we know it today.

The system that Verney established effectively addressed the imbalances in supply that existed post-war and led to a structure in which the geological location of aggregates deposits were overlaid on other factors and allowed for a planning regime that ensured a steady and adequate supply of minerals.

The system allows the Government to identify those parts of England where the geology shows that aggregates are present and, using data from production and sales volumes to forecast future demand, to apportion tonnages of future supply to those areas that can support them. This provision is then sub-apportioned to Mineral Planning Authorities (counties or unitary councils) following the advice of Aggregate Working Parties of council officers and industry representatives. Minerals development plan documents then set out policies to provide for their supply including identifying area and sites. Monitoring enables a landbank of permitted reserves to be maintained. The plan-led system helps to provide certainty to investors that helps maintain supply.

What MASS does not do is to force Mineral Planning Authorities to produce the proposed tonnages, but rather to make provision for doing so: aggregates will only ever be produced in sufficient quantities to support demand, which varies from year to year.

Mineral Supply and Localism

For aggregates, MASS evolved in England and Wales to address the need to ensure an adequate and steady supply, addressing the regional imbalances between supply and demand. Maintaining the managed system under localism will be as, if not more important.

The MASS has been shown to perform relatively well over the years, evidenced by a high rate of success for planning applications. It is also relatively cheap and cost effective. If the fundamentals were changed, it is likely there would be less certainty for investors, higher planning costs and lower likelihood of planning permission being granted.

However, slow progress in delivering Mineral Development Plan Documents is a major concern, with only 15 new-style Core Strategies adopted in England to date. The necessary degree of certainty for investors and communities intended by the plan-led system is still lacking. The principle is right but the operation of the system is not fit for purpose.

With greater responsibilities on local councils (including Mineral Planning Authorities) for setting planning policy (with less guidance from government), and increasing the ability of local residents to influence and object to developments and decisions in their locality, there is a real danger that development such as minerals extraction, often seen as a bad neighbour, will be resisted even more than currently, by residents and local politicians influenced by their constituents. This may be the case particularly where extraction in one location serves distant markets.

The coalition Government's current proposals to introduce third party rights of appeal combines the developer's twin nightmares of increased uncertainty and cost for no material gain. The current plan led process takes full account of the views of local communities which are tested again once a planning application is submitted. Third party rights of appeal will add another layer of uncertainty into the planning process. Combined with slow progress on adopting development plans and revocation of RSS, this will result in growing inertia in the planning system. The prospect of another step in what is already a demanding and expensive process may well deter developers from submitting applications in the first place just at the time the economy needs the private sector to help bring on new development to support the recovery.

There is a risk that the long-term planning and provision for minerals in development plans would also be undermined. MPAs may re-visit and challenge the aggregates apportionments in existing or emerging development plans. Already a number of MPAs have signalled this course of action following revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies.

This would result in local and potential nationally falls in production capacity, with impacts on construction and infrastructure, delivery of local development strategies, increased costs to consumers (including taxpayers), and increased distances minerals would be transported, mainly by road with the associated environmental and amenity impacts.

Similarly there is also a need for national policy to recognise the importance of non-aggregate (including industrial and specialist) minerals such as silica sand, and the need for continued provision to be made through the planning system, including from areas of high environmental quality and constraint.

There needs to be continued strategic planning for minerals supply. We are encouraged by the advice from the Department of Communities and Local Government Chief Planner (letter to Chief Planning Officers, 6 July 2010) that in the absence of RSS technical advice from the RAWPs should be used as the basis for planning for aggregates in the future. How this operates without RSS policy providing the statutory regional framework now requires further consideration and explanation so that all Minerals Planning Authorities help in delivery and do not seek to opt out.

Local incentivisation to communities to accommodate minerals development will also be essential, and more local targeting of funds raised through the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund would help in achieving this.

CONCLUSIONS

The two points in the Committee's Terms of Reference where we focus our comments are:

The action which will be necessary on the part of Government departments to achieve effective decentralised public service delivery;

What, if any, arrangements for the oversight of local authority performance will be necessary to ensure effective local public service delivery.

Minerals can only be worked where they occur. The economy depends on an adequate and steady supply of mineral products, particularly aggregates and other non aggregate minerals to ensure national requirements for a range of materials are met. Consequently there needs to be strategic planning for provision.

The MASS has been shown to perform reasonably well over the last 30 years, evidenced by a high rate of success for planning applications. It is also relatively cheap and cost effective. If the fundamentals were changed, it is likely there would be less certainty for investors, higher planning costs and lower likelihood of planning permission being granted.

The principle of the plan-led system is right but its operation is unfit for purpose. Slow progress in delivering Mineral Development Plan Documents is a major concern, with only 15 new-style Core Strategies adopted in England to date. The necessary degree of certainty for investors and communities intended by the plan-led system is therefore lacking.

Areas where continued action by Whitehall and oversight of local authority performance will be essential, although inevitably lighter touch than in the recent past, may therefore include:

¾  Inclusion of clear national policy statements, including in the proposed National Planning Framework, on the need ensure a secure and steady supply of minerals from a range of sources.

¾  Continued [financial and policy] support for Aggregates Working Parties to undertake their technical, monitoring and advisory role, with coordination at national level.

¾  Ensuring, including through the Planning Inspectorate, that Mineral Planning Authorities continue to make adequate provision and permit developments, and for aggregates they reflect technical advice from AWPs in development plan documents.

¾  Rigorous maintenance of minimum landbanks as set out in existing minerals policy and guidance.

¾  Local ring-fencing of an increased proportion of the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund to ensure benefits accrue to the communities closest to mineral workings.

October 2010


21   For further information see Gunn et al (2008) Managing Aggregates Supply in England-a review of the current system and future options and Hicks L (2008) Aggregates Supply in England-Issues for Planning
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/search.cfm?SECTION_ID=0&MIME_TYPE=0&SEARCH_TXT=aggregates+supply+in+england&dlBtn=go 
Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 9 June 2011