MINERAL CONSULTATION AREAS IN HERTFORDSHIRE –
DRAFT SPD
1
INTRODUCTION
The role of this document
1.1
Much of Hertfordshire is underlain by sand and gravel resources which could,
potentially, help to meet the future needs of the local community for construction
materials. Allowing new building and other development in these areas could
‘sterilise’ the mineral deposits, either by making them inaccessible for extraction,
or by introducing new activities (such as new houses) into the area which would
not be compatible with mineral extraction nearby.
1.2
Protecting mineral resources from sterilisation is an important part of national
policy for minerals. It is also encouraged under Minerals Policy 5 of the new
Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan 2002-2016. The supporting text to that policy
explains that, as an interim measure, the County Council will identify Mineral
Consultation Areas in a Supplementary Planning Document, to be included in the
county’s minerals and waste development framework. In due course, these
provisions will be included in the new-style Development Plan Document that will
eventually replace the new Minerals Local Plan.
1.3
This Draft Supplementary Planning Document has therefore been produced to
help to identify the areas of the county where particular care is needed to prevent
the unnecessary sterilisation of sand and gravel resources, and to explain the way
in which the County and District/borough Councils will work together to protect the
resources in those areas.
1.4
These areas are referred to as ‘Mineral Consultation Areas’. In these areas,
before planning applications are decided the County Council will be given the
chance to consider whether individual development proposals would lead to
unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resources. This approach is consistent with
national and regional planning policies.
1.5
This Draft Supplementary Planning Document gives more background on the
definition, operation and significance of Mineral Consultation Areas, and suggests
various ways in which they might be defined in Hertfordshire.
1.6
An important point to bear in mind is that including land in a Mineral
Consultation Area does not mean that mineral extraction will necessarily
ever be allowed in that area. There is no presumption that the mineral resources
safeguarded by this means will ever actually be worked for minerals.
1.7
This Draft Supplementary Planning Document also provides for the protection of
depots for transporting aggregate minerals by rail. These depots have an
important long-term role to play in meeting society’s needs for these minerals, and
it is therefore important that they are not lost unnecessarily to other forms of
development.
1.8
Consultation on the draft supplementary planning documents will largely follow the
same process as draft development plan documents, except that there is no
1
requirement for an independent examination. A public consultation exercise and
stakeholder consultation will be undertaken on the draft SPD for 4 – 6 weeks.
Documents will be available at libraries, Council offices, and Council website and
advertised in local publications.
Specific bodies who will be consulted include; District/Borough Councils, Minerals
Industry representatives, Rail and water authority bodies and specific developers
(e.g. the House Builders Federation).
Questions on which views are sought
1.9
Under the present consultation exercise, the County Council is seeking the views
of consultees on all aspects of the Mineral Consultation arrangements set out in
this draft SPD. But in particular, the Council would welcome views on the following
points:
1
Should Mineral Consultation Areas be defined in broad terms (as for
example in Options 1 and 2 as described later in this document) or in more
site-specific terms (as in Option 3)? What are the reasons for your
preference?
2
Which of Options 1, 2 and 3 do you think would be the most appropriate for
defining the Mineral Consultation Areas, and why?
3
Are there any other options, apart from Options 1, 2 and 3, that you think
the County Council should evaluate?
4
If you would prefer one of these other options to Options 1, 2 and 3, what
are the reasons for your preference?
5
If Option 2 is chosen, what should be the size threshold for consultations
within urban areas (see paragraphs 3.3 and 4.2)?
6
Do you agree with the categories of ‘Excluded development’ set out in
Section 4? Are there any other categories of development that should be
added to the list of ‘excluded categories’ (i.e. which should be excluded
from the consultation process)? Should any of the suggested ‘excluded
categories’ be deleted from that list?
7
Do you agree with the principle of safeguarding an area of 250m around
the identified railheads in the county? If not, is there a different distance
that you think would be more appropriate?
8
Do you agree with the categories of ‘Excluded development’ for the
‘Railhead MCAs’ set out in Section 6? Are there any other categories of
development that should be added to the list of ‘excluded categories’ (i.e.
which should be excluded from the consultation process)? Should any of
the suggested ‘excluded categories’ be deleted from that list?
9
Are there any other existing or disused railheads or wharf sites in the
county which should be safeguarded, in addition to the three sites identified in
Section 6?
2
2
BACKGROUND TO MINERALS SAFEGUARDING AND
MINERAL CONSULTATION AREAS
What is a Mineral Consultation Area?
2.1
A Mineral Consultation Area, or MCA, is an area identified by the County Council
where planning applications for non-minerals development submitted to the
District/borough Councils may not be determined until the County Council has
been given the opportunity to comment on whether the proposal would
unacceptably sterilise mineral resources. In practice, the County Council may
narrow down this consultation requirement so that it applies only to more major
planning applications, and not (for example) to minor householder applications.
This is what is proposed in Hertfordshire - see Section 4 below.
The Purpose of Defining Mineral Consultation Areas
2.2
Sand and gravel are important ‘aggregate minerals’ - that is, minerals used in
construction. Like other commercial minerals, they are a valuable but finite
resource that can only be worked where they occur.
2.3
However, some forms of development (for example built developments such as
new housing or industry) can make these valuable mineral resources inaccessible
for future extraction, thus ‘sterilising’ them from potential future use. This
sterilisation can occur either directly - by building on top of the deposits - or
indirectly - for example, by building new houses close to a mineral deposit, and
thus preventing extraction because of the nuisance it would cause to the houses.
2.4
Government advice states that we should strive to promote sustainable means of
development. In this context, one of its stated objectives for minerals planning is
to safeguard mineral resources as far as possible1. As a general principle it is
therefore important to ensure that mineral resources are safeguarded from any
form of surface development which could prejudice their extraction at some future
date.
2.5
Minerals Policy Statement 1, issued by the government in November 2006, gives
the advice that the safeguarding of mineral resources can be achieved most
effectively through the co-operation of the County and the District/borough
Councils in exercising their respective planning powers over land with potential for
mineral extraction2.
2.6
Defining Mineral Consultation Areas, or MCAs, is identified as a way of ensuring
that District/borough Councils liaise with the County Council where surface
development is likely to affect, or be affected by, mineral working. In effect it is a
means by which the District/borough Councils are able to quickly identify where
planning applications have been received for surface development, which may
result in the sterilisation of proven mineral deposits. In such cases they would then
consult with the County Council before deciding whether or not to grant planning
permission.
1
2
MPS1, paragraph 9
MPS1, paragraph 13; MPS1 Practice Guide, paragraph 33
3
2.7
Accordingly by defining MCAs the County Council aims to prevent unnecessary
sterilisation of deposits of minerals which are, or may become, of economic
importance3.
2.8
It is important to note that including a site in an MCA does not mean that there
is a presumption in favour of mineral extraction at that site4, other than in
cases where that presumption is supplied by other means (e.g. through the
existence of a planning permission for extraction, or by identification of the site as
a Preferred Area in the Minerals Local Plan). But it is important to ensure the long
term protection of mineral reserves. Therefore development proposals which
would cause the sterilisation of mineral deposits on the proposed development
site, or which would prejudice the future working of minerals on adjacent sites, will
normally be opposed by the County Council, in accordance with Minerals Policy 5
of the Minerals Local Plan 2002-2016.
The Practical Significance of Defining Mineral Consultation
Areas
2.9
The significance of defining MCAs will vary depending on the various stakeholders
and their interests in the land in the MCA. The summary below lists the key
stakeholders and briefly defines how in practical terms MCAs may affect them.
(a) Developers and Landowners
2.10
For developers and landowners who wish to develop land that falls within an MCA
(other than for the ‘excluded’ development categories in Section 7 below), the
County Council will require them to demonstrate, in accordance with Mineral
Policy 5, that:
i)
the land affected does not contain potentially workable mineral deposits;
and/or
ii) there is an overriding need for the development; and
iii) the mineral cannot practically be extracted in advance.
2.11
Where development proposals are received which either do not address these
requirements, or fail to demonstrate satisfactorily that the development is covered
by one of the three ‘exclusions’ within the policy, the County Council will object to
the development proposal.
2.12
The responsibility for demonstrating that mineral resources will not be sterilised by
a proposed development rests with the prospective developer. It is therefore
recommended that developers should consider the implications of MCAs at an
early stage in the development process.
2.13
In appropriate cases, the County Council will encourage mineral extraction prior to
other development taking place where any significant mineral resource would
otherwise be sterilised, or where despoiled land would be improved following
restoration.
3
4
MPS1 Practice Guide, paragraph 32
MPS1 Practice Guide, paragraph 33
4
(b) The District/borough Councils
2.14
District/borough Councils must not determine an application for planning
permission in an MCA without first consulting the County Council. The legal
background to this is set out in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 (see Appendix 2).
2.15
Within MCAs consultation with the County Council is required for all development
proposals except for those that fall under the excluded development categories as
set out in Section 4 below. Consultation will be carried out by the District/borough
Council as part of its normal consideration of the application.
2.16
The County Council’s views on the sterilisation issue must then be taken into
account by the District/borough Council, along with the views of all other
consultees and respondents, when they make their decision on the application. An
objection from the County Council will not necessarily override all other
considerations. It will be for the District/borough Council to strike a balance
between any competing arguments.
2.17
It is a requirement of MPS1 that MCAs should be reflected in District/borough
Councils’ Local Development Documents. This may most easily and helpfully be
done by showing them on the proposals maps of relevant Development Plan
Documents.
(c) The County Council
2.18
It is the responsibility of the County Council to ensure the future protection of
valuable mineral resources. Accordingly the County Council, acting as the
authority responsible for minerals planning, encourages mineral extraction prior to
other development taking place where any significant mineral resource would
otherwise be sterilised, or where despoiled land would be improved following
restoration.
2.19
In accordance with Mineral Policy 5, when consulted on planning applications for
development within an MCA, the County Council will object to any development
proposals within them which would prevent or prejudice future mineral extraction
unless it is clearly demonstrated that:
i)
the land affected does not contain potentially workable mineral deposits;
and/or
ii) there is an overriding need for the development;
iii) and the mineral cannot practically be extracted in advance.
2.20
As the onus for demonstrating that a development will not sterilise resources rests
with the prospective developer (paragraph 2.12), it would be expected that the
County Council will object to any application in an MCA which is referred to them
which does not address the mineral sterilisation issue satisfactorily, or at all.
2.21
The County Council will normally aim to respond to such a consultation within 21
days of the receipt from the District/borough Council.
2.22
The Mineral Consultation Areas defined through this SPD will in due course (and
subject to any amendments judged to be appropriate at the time) be incorporated
into a statutory Development Plan Document within the County Council’s Minerals
and Waste Development Framework.
5
(d) Other Stakeholders
2.23
Other stakeholders, including householders or statutory bodies such as the
Environment Agency, will not be directly affected by the designation of an area as
an MCA, as this is purely a consultation arrangement between the County and
District/borough Councils.
(e) Mineral Operators
2.24
Where appropriate, mineral operators will be encouraged to extract any proven
mineral resources prior to any development proposal taking place; subject to other
environmental considerations and development plan policies.
2.25
However, the inclusion of a site within an MCA does not necessarily mean that
there is a presumption in favour of mineral extraction for that site. Inclusion of a
site in an MCA will not be regarded, of itself, as a relevant consideration in
deciding future locations for mineral working, beyond the Preferred Areas
identified in the Minerals Local Plan 2002-2016.
2.26
Mineral operators are requested to co-operate with prospective developers in
supplying information which might assist them in meeting the terms of paragraphs
2.10 - 2.13 above.
6
3
OPTIONS FOR DEFINING MCAS IN HERTFORDSHIRE
Options considered to date
3.1
Minerals can only be worked were they occur naturally and therefore it is
important to ensure they are adequately protected to safeguard their future
extraction.
3.2
Given the above, MCAs need to be defined to include the areas where viable
mineral deposits are at their greatest risk of future sterilisation by development.
The scope of the MCAs is therefore important to ensure that an appropriate
balance can be met in ensuring consultation takes place for minerals at the
greatest risk, to that of minimising areas that do not contain accessible mineral
resources.
3.3
The following options for defining the scope of the MCAs have been considered
by Hertfordshire County Council as the most realistic:
Option 1: The Sand and Gravel Belt
Identify the whole of the sand and gravel belt, as defined by the outer limits of
the ‘Minerals Areas’ shown on the 1996 version of the MLP Proposals Map, as
a single MCA. The sand and gravel belt has been defined based on work
undertaken by the British Geological Survey (BGS) to identify the principal
areas where sand and gravel are likely to be found. As Map 1 shows, it covers
most of the southern part of Hertfordshire, including a number of major urban
areas including Watford, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, Hertford/Ware, and
the settlements in the Lea Valley from Waltham Cross to Hoddesdon.
Development proposals in the main built-up areas would be excluded from the
consultation process by virtue of the first ‘exclusion’ listed in Section 4 below,
except that applications in urban areas on sites above XX hectares would still
be subject to the consultation process. This is to ensure that opportunities for
mineral extraction to take place ahead of development on major
redevelopment sites are not lost.
Option 2: The Sand and Gravel Belt excluding barren areas
This option is very similar to Option 1, but it excludes the two relatively small
areas within the sand and gravel belt which past BGS surveys have suggested
are barren, i.e. they do not contain sand and gravel resources. One of these
two areas lies between Radlett, Bushey and Borehamwood, while the other
liesd just south of Hemel Hempstead, The area of the MCA resulting from this
option is shown on Map 2.
As with Option 1, development proposals in the main built-up areas would be
excluded from the consultation process by virtue of the first ‘exclusion’ listed in
Section 4 below, except that applications in urban areas on sites above XX
hectares would still be subject to the consultation process. This is to ensure
that opportunities for mineral extraction to take place ahead of development on
major redevelopment sites are not lost.
7
Option 3: Viable Resource Blocks and Sites
As part of the work to prepare the Minerals Local Plan 2002-2016, an exercise
was undertaken on behalf of the County Council to identify the areas within the
county - both inside and outside the ‘sand and gravel belt’ - to identify in more
detail the areas containing sand and gravel resources which met certain
criteria which allowed them to be regarded as the most viable areas for future
mineral extraction. The process of defining these areas, or ‘Resource Blocks’,
together with the criteria used to help to define ‘viability’, was described in the
Minerals Local Plan Review ‘Key Issues Document’ published by the County
Council in 2001, and which provided the background to subsequent discussion
about the identification of Preferred Areas in the new Local Plan.
This exercise led to the identification of 25 potentially-viable Resource Blocks
within the sand and gravel belt, and a further eight such areas outside it.
In addition, consultation with the minerals industry in the early 2000s identified
a further eight sites, outside the identified Resource Blocks, which mineral
operators regarded as having significant potential for future mineral extraction.
These sites and areas are all regarded - either as a result of a desk-based
exercise carried out for the Council, or by the minerals industry - as containing
potentially viable mineral resources. They may therefore reasonably be
regarded as the most important areas where the unnecessary sterilisation of
resources should be avoided. Option 3 therefore proposes the identification of
these sites and areas as a set of separate Mineral Consultation Areas. The
areas concerned are shown on Maps 3 to NN. On these maps, the
boundaries of the potential MCAs have been deliberately drawn a little wider
than the known area of the mineral deposits, as the precise boundaries of the
mineral deposit cannot be known with certainty without more detailed
examination. To make them easier to operate, the MCA boundaries have been
drawn to coincide with mapped features on the ground, rather than simply
following the supposed alignment of the mineral deposit itself.
For completeness, Option 3 also includes the parts of sites where sand and
gravel extraction has already been permitted, but where the extraction has yet
to start - that is, the areas shown as ‘To be worked’ on the Inset Maps with the
new Minerals Local Plan. These areas are included within the potential MCAs
shown on Maps 3 to NN.
3.4
Through this Draft Supplementary Planning Document, views are now being
sought on which of these options would be the most suitable for the County
Council to adopt. That choice should take account of the findings of the
Sustainability Appraisal that has been undertaken of the three options, the
findings of which are summarised in Section 6 below.
3.5
The options described here are not necessarily the only ones that might be
possible for defining MCAs in Hertfordshire. Reasonable alternative suggestions
arising through the present consultation exercise, will also be considered, and will
be subjected to sustainability appraisal on the same basis as Options 1-3.
8
Sustainability Appraisal of the options
This section is subject to further review by Jacobs
3.6
The options described above have been assessed in terms of their sustainability
as part of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of this draft SPD. The full Sustainability
Appraisal Report is contained in a separate document. Its main conclusions are
summarised below.
Option 1
3.7
Option 1 would provide a single MCA covering most of the southern half of the
county, as demonstrated by Map 1. Accordingly it will incorporate some parts of
the county which are known to be barren of minerals and land already sterilised by
development (including several major urban areas), as well as areas of known
potential mineral deposits.
3.8
This blanket covering of the sand and gravel belt would therefore cover all
potential mineral deposits within the county, requiring consultation on all planning
applications across the southern half of the county (except where they fall within
excluded categories). Whilst this approach may minimise the likelihood of
sterilisation, this option may not be the most efficient as it ultimately does not
exclude barren and unfeasible areas.
3.9
Moreover, the number of planning applications on which consultation would be
required between the District/boroughs and the County Council on this issue
would be higher than necessary as it would include areas that are outside the
areas that are believed to be the most viable as mineral extraction sites.
3.10
In considering all the options, regard must be paid to the issue of ‘promoting good
governance’, which is identified in the national strategy for sustainable
development as one of the five guiding principles for use in the assessment of
sustainable development. It is considered that Option 1 would require high levels
of consultation that, of which only a small proportion would be likely to give rise to
serious mineral sterilisation issues. For this reason, this is considered to be the
least sustainable of the three options.
Option 2
3.11
Option 2 would include the whole of the sand and gravel belt, but exclude areas
known to be barren of minerals. It will therefore cover the same areas as Option 1,
but without the barren areas (see Map 2). As that map shows, in practice the
known ‘barren’ areas cover only a very small part of the sand and gravel belt.
Hence the difference between this option and Option 1 would be relatively small.
3.12
As with Option 1, this option would effectively minimise the likelihood of mineral
sterilisation. It would also lead to a slightly reduced number of planning
applications where consultation will otherwise be required, as compared with
Option 1. Whilst this would slightly improve efficiency in terms of the quantity of
planning applications that require mineral consultation, it may still include areas
that are known to be unviable as mineral extraction sites.
3.13
This option is considered to be subject to the same general disadvantages as
Option 1, but because it excludes two areas where any District/borough-County
9
consultation would be superfluous, it is considered to be slightly preferable to
Option 1.
Option 3
3.14
Option 3 identifies specific sites where there are known mineral reserves,
including a margin of 250m around their boundaries, which are also adjusted to
match with natural features on the ground (see Maps 3 to NN).
3.15
By basing the requirement for consultation on what are considered to be the most
viable resource blocks of unworked reserves, this option is likely to help minimise
sterilisation of the ‘best’ mineral resources, while reducing the number of planning
applications that require consultation by the District/borough Councils. Identifying
specific resource blocks will also help to provide a strong warning to developers
and the local planning authorities as to which are the areas where development
would be most likely to lead to the sterilisation of viable resources, thereby helping
to focus the aims of Minerals Policy 5 on to the areas where it is of the greatest
importance.
3.16
Incorporating a 250m margin around the boundaries of the mineral deposit
provides a margin for error in identifying the limits of the workable mineral seam.
3.17
Similarly a 250m margin will prevent development taking place on the edge of the
mineral deposit which could prevent the whole extent of the mineral deposit being
safely worked. By adjusting these margins to match with natural features on the
ground the consultation area would potentially be easier to identify and could also
assist in landscaping the area (e.g. by utilising existing tree buffers etc.) if and
when mineral working were ever to take place.
3.18
This is considered to be the most sustainable of the three options.
The County Council’s Preferred Option
3.19
The present consultation exercise is seeking views on the three options set out
above, and on any other options which may be suggested by consultees (see
paragraph 3.5). The County Council has not yet formed a final view on which
should be the selected option for defining MCAs.
3.20
However, the Council considers that it would be helpful to set out its initial views
on the relative merits of the three options.
3.21
The Council takes the view that having a broadly-based MCA - as in Options 1
and 2 - is of benefit because it gives a high degree of certainty that all
development proposals where there is any risk of sterilisation would be ‘caught’ by
the consultation process. Option 2 has the advantage over Option 1 that it could
reduce the number of applications referred to the County Council.
3.22
Adopting the more focused approach of Option 3 has the advantage that these
are the areas that have been assessed as being potentially the most viable
mineral resources, and they are therefore the areas where the sterilisation of
minerals is most likely to harm the future availability of suitable resources.
However, it has to be acknowledged that the definition of these areas was based
on the geological information available at the time of the earlier assessments, and
10
improved information is emerging all the time. It may be that there are other areas
of the county where additional information has become available, or will become
available in future, that may tip the balance in making a resource viable even if it
was not originally considered to be so. Option 3 is also considered to be likely to
be the most contentious because - although there is no presumption that
permission to work the sand and gravel in the MCAs will ever be granted - its
relatively high degree of ‘site-specificity’ could increase the scope for
misunderstanding because they may appear more like proposed extraction sites.
3.23
At this stage, the County Council takes the view that Option 2 should be regarded
as its Preferred Option. However, this conclusion will be reviewed in the light of
the responses to this consultation document.
11
4
EXCLUDED DEVELOPMENT
4.1
There are some types of development that would not normally bring about the
new sterilisation of the underlying mineral deposit - for example development
within urban areas (where the mineral deposits are already sterilised by the builtup nature of the area), or developments involving only temporary uses (which by
definition will not lead to the permanent or long-term sterilisation of mineral
deposits). Similarly, garages or extensions within the curtilage of an existing
building are unlikely to affect the possible future extraction of minerals.
4.2
In order to avoid an unnecessary influx of consultations on applications that are
unlikely to be objected to, it is proposed that some types of application should be
made exempt from consultation. Consultation will therefore be required on all
planning applications in the areas defined, apart from applications within the
following categories.
4.3
(i)
applications on land already built upon (except that applications on
sites above XXha in urban areas will still be subject to the
consultation process);
(ii)
applications for infilling development in towns and villages (subject to
the same exception above);
(iii)
applications for extensions or garages and similar structures within
the curtilage of an existing dwellinghouse;
(iv)
applications for development which is in accordance with the
provisions of an adopted local plan or other development plan
document;
(v)
‘reserved matter’ submissions pursuant to an outline permission;
(vi)
applications for a temporary dwelling or other similar installations;
and
(vii)
advertisement applications.
The County Council will be pleased to consider any additions to, or deletions from,
this list which may be suggested by respondents to this Draft SPD.
12
5
PROCEDURE
5.1
Once the Mineral Consultation Areas in Hertfordshire are formally defined through
the adoption of this SPD (with or without amendments in response to consultees’
comments), the County Council will notify the District/borough Councils of the
introduction of the formal consultation procedure, as required by Schedule 1
paragraph 7(4) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (see Appendix 2), and of
the categories of development that are excluded from the consultation
requirements.
5.2
Thereafter, when a planning application is received by a District/borough Planning
Authority that falls within an MCA, other than an application for development in the
excluded categories, the District/borough Council will be obliged to consult
Hertfordshire County Council as Mineral Planning Authority (MPA). The
District/borough Council will be required to supply a copy of the application to the
County Council for this purpose.
5.3
Within 21 days of receipt of the consultation (or a longer period if agreed between
the two Councils), the County Council will respond to the District/borough
Planning Authority indicating whether or not the County Council is raising an
objection to the proposal in accordance with the second part of Minerals Policy 5
of the Minerals Local Plan 2002-2016, and explaining the reason for their decision
to object, or not to object, to the proposal.
5.4
Any comments received from the County Council will be considered by the
District/borough Council in determining the application, alongside all other
representations.
5.5
Where the District/borough Council is minded to approve an application which has
been objected to by the County Council, they will inform the County Council of its
intensions and will not determine the application for a period of 21 days from their
notification. This period will allow the County Council to ask the Secretary of State
to call in the application where this is felt necessary.
5.6
Before the consultation arrangements come into full effect, the County Council will
ensure (if appropriate) that powers are available to relevant officers to respond to
consultations form the District/boroughs within the 21-day period.
13
6
SAFEGUARDING RAIL DEPOTS AND WHARVES
6.1
MPS1 urges local authorities to “safeguard existing, planned and potential rail
heads, wharfage and associated storage, handling and processing facilities for the
bulk transport by rail, sea or inland waterways of minerals, particularly coal and
aggregates”5. The accompanying Practice Guide notes that safeguarding these
facilities can contribute to sustainable development, and that this is particularly so
in London and other metropolitan areas that rely on the importation of significant
quantities of aggregate materials6.
6.2
Aggregates for onward transport to London can be delivered to rail depots or
wharves in the surrounding counties, such as Hertfordshire. Depots and wharves
in these counties can also receive material for more local use, thereby helping to
keep down the amount of local extraction that is needed to meet local aggregates
requirements.
6.3
In accordance with this national advice, Minerals Policy 10 in the Hertfordshire
Minerals Local Plan 2002-2016 states that existing and disused railheads and
wharves in the county will be safeguarded where they have the potential for the
import and export of minerals and secondary/recycled aggregates. It goes on to
say that the retention of these facilities - even if currently disused - will be
expected unless the facility has been or can be satisfactorily relocated, or is
demonstrated to be no longer viable for use as an aggregates depot or wharf.
6.4
There are no statutory provisions that allow for the safeguarding of depot and
wharf sites, in the same way as for safeguarding mineral resources. However, in
support of Policy 10, paragraph 3.10.2 of the Minerals Local Plan states that
Mineral Consultation Areas will be identified around the existing and disused
railheads and wharves in the county. The intention is that development proposals
within these ‘Railhead MCAs’ will be subject to the same consultation
arrangements as will apply in the other, ‘mineral sterilisation’, MCAs.
6.5
There are three such sites in the county at present - the railheads at Radlett
(Harper Lane), Stevenage (Langley Sidings) and Rye House, as shown on Maps
XX-ZZ. The maps show the MCAs as extending approximately 250m around the
depot and wharf sites proper. This is to allow consideration of the impact on the
depot use of development close to, but outside, those sites.
6.6
Any development proposals within the three MCAs shown on Maps XX to ZZ will
be subject to the same consultation procedure as for proposals in the MCA/s on
Maps 1-NN. However, proposals in ‘excluded’ categories (i) and (ii) in Section 4 of
this SPD will still be subject to the consultation in these three MCAs. This is
because such applications could have a direct bearing on the continuing potential
for use of the safeguarded areas as locations for the import or export of
aggregates.
6.7
The categories of development on which consultation will not be required within
the MCAs defined on Maps XX to ZZ are therefore these:
(a)
5
6
applications for extensions or garages and similar non-habitable
structures within the curtilage of an existing dwellinghouse;
MPS1 paragraph 13
MPS1 Practice Guide, paragraph 34
14
(b)
applications for development which is in accordance with the
provisions of an adopted local plan or other development plan
document;
(c)
‘reserved matter’ submissions pursuant to an outline permission;
(d)
applications for a temporary dwelling or other similar installations; and
(e)
advertisement applications.
6.8
The County Council will be pleased to consider any additions to, or deletions from,
this list which may be suggested by respondents to this Draft SPD.
6.9
When planning applications are received within the Railhead MCAs, the relevant
District/borough Councils - St Albans City for Radlett, Stevenage Borough for
Langley Sidings, and Broxbourne Borough and East Hertfordshire District/borough
for Rye House7 - will be expected to consult the County Council on the same basis
as for applications in the ‘minerals sterilisation MCAs’ (see paragraph 5.2 above).
Similarly, the County Council will respond on the same basis (paragraph 5.3).
6.10
In accordance with Minerals Policy 10 of the Minerals Local Plan 2002-2016, the
County Council will normally object to an application which directly affects the
existing or potential operation of one of the safeguarded depot sites, unless one of
the caveats in the policy (as summarised in paragraph 6.3) is met. In the area of
the MCA outside the depot site proper, the County Council will normally not raise
an objection to minor development which would have no bearing on the present or
future viability of the depot site. However, they may be expected to object to a
development which could threaten the depot site’s longer term viability, for
example by introducing an incompatible use close to the depot site.
7
The actual depot site at Rye House is wholly within East Hertfordshire District, but the MCA
extends into Broxbourne to the west of the depot site.
15
7
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
7.1
Once finally adopted this Supplementary Planning Document, whilst not having
development plan status, will exist within the Local Development Framework.
7.2
Accordingly as part of its preparation the SPD is required to go through a number
of consultation stages, including statutory consultation, before it can be formally
adopted. Following the production of this draft the SPD, together with the
accompanying sustainability appraisal report, will be placed on public consultation
for a minimum period of six weeks. This will allow the opportunity for formal public
participation, and for any comments to be sent to the County Council.
7.3
Following the period of public consultation any representations and feedback
received will be considered by the County Council’s planning and partnerships
panel. Amendments will be made where appropriate to address relevant
concerns. A final draft of the SPD will than be compiled for the approval of the
County Council’s planning and partnerships panel.
7.4
The final draft of the SPD will subsequently be submitted to the Council’s Cabinet
for formal approval and adoption. Notice will also be given in writing to the
county’s district/borough planning authorities as required under the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 Schedule 1 paragraph 7(4).
7.5
The intended timetable for the production and adoption of the SPD is set out
below:

public consultation on SPD in mid summer 2007 for a minimum of six
weeks

representations and feedback from public consultation considered by
Planning and Partnerships Panel in late summer 2007

Final Draft of SPD submitted to the Planning and Partnerships Panel in
autumn 2007 for approval

Final Draft of SPD submitted to Cabinet for approval and adoption in mid
winter 2007
16
Appendix 1: Summary of policy background
National policy
A1.1
The key national planning advice on minerals is set out in Mineral Policy
Statements (MPSs). These reflect the Government’s requirement to ensure
continuity in the supply of minerals whilst applying the principles of sustainable
development, as required by Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
A1.2
General advice in making provision for a steady supply of minerals is contained in
MPS1 (Planning and Minerals).
A1.3
MPS1 identifies that the planning system has an important role to play in
safeguarding proven deposits of minerals, which are, or may become, of
economic importance within the foreseeable future, from unnecessary sterilisation
by surface development. In two-tier planning areas (such as Hertfordshire), MPS1
identifies that safeguarding of mineral resources can be achieved only through the
co-operation of county and district/borough councils. It recommends that in such
areas the County Councils - who are responsible for planning for minerals - should
define Mineral Consultation Areas to provide a means of safeguarding mineral
resources through the development control process.
A1.4
It is important to note that there is no presumption that resources safeguarded
through the identified MCAs will actually be worked for minerals.
A1.5
MPS1 also requires relevant local planning authorities to safeguard existing,
planned and potential rail heads, wharfage, and associated facilities for the bulk
transport of minerals by rail or water.
Regional policy
A1.6
At the time of preparing this draft SPD, the new Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)
for the East of England (which includes Hertfordshire) is in the final stages of
preparation. Following a public examination of the Strategy in 2005-06, proposed
changes to it were published by the government in December 2006. It is hoped
that the Strategy will be formally adopted in mid 2007.
A1.7
National policies are not repeated in regional planning strategies, and so there is
no detailed policy on mineral safeguarding, or on safeguarding wharf and depot
sites, in the latest version of the RSS. However, Policy M1 (as proposed in
December 2006) requires local development documents to “identify and safeguard
mineral resources” to ensure that an appropriate level of supply can be
maintained in the region over the period to 2016. There is no amplification in the
text supporting this policy as to how this safeguarding might be achieved; that
advice is seen as being provided by MPS1 (see above).
Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan Policy
A1.8
In line with national policy the adopted Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan seeks to
resist development that may lead to the permanent loss of mineral resources that
are essential to the wider community. Minerals Policy 5 seeks to ensure that
appropriate weight is accorded to the prior extraction of minerals which would
17
otherwise be sterilised, or which would enhance land use proposals by improving
despoiled land. It also seeks to ensure that such areas are accorded priority
ahead of extraction outside the identified areas in the Plan to ensure timely
working of the mineral in co-ordination with other development.
A1.9
In full, Mineral Policy 5 (Mineral Sterilisation) states that:
Mineral extraction will be encouraged prior to other development taking
place where any significant mineral resource would otherwise be
sterilised, or where despoiled land would be improved following
restoration.
The County Council will object to any development proposals within, or
adjacent to areas of potential mineral resource, which would prevent, or
prejudice future mineral extraction unless it is clearly demonstrated that:
i)
ii)
iii)
the land affected does not contain potentially workable mineral
deposits; and/or
there is an overriding need for the development; and
the mineral cannot practically be extracted in advance.
A1.10 Paragraph 3.6.2 of the new Local Plan also states that “to assist with the
implementation of this policy, as an interim measure until such time as
Development Plan Documents are prepared, the County Council will identify
Mineral Consultation areas as a Supplementary Planning Document, for
subsequent inclusion in the Minerals and Waste Development Framework”. The
present draft document is a first step in this process.
A1.11 The safeguarding of railheads and wharves in Hertfordshire is provided for under
Minerals Policy 10 of the new Local Plan, which in full reads as follows:
Existing and disused railheads and wharves will be safeguarded where
they have potential for the exportation and importation of minerals and
secondary/recycled aggregates.
The retention of existing and disused railheads and wharves will be
expected unless
(a)
the existing or disused facility can be satisfactorily relocated within
the development proposals in terms of operational requirements
and environmental criteria; or
(b)
it can be demonstrated that the site is no longer viable for use as a
rail aggregates depot or wharf; or
(c)
the facility has been or will be replaced in an appropriate alternative
location.
Proposals for new or replacement aggregate terminals for rail and water
transport will be supported, subject to the suitability of the local road
network for secondary collection and distribution and taking into
account other environmental effects.
A1.12
Paragraph 3.10.2 of the Plan explains that “in order to promote more
sustainable modes of transporting minerals Policy 10 seeks to protect existing
and disused facilities to help maximise the opportunities for the use of rail or
water where it is appropriate.” It continues in the same terms as paragraph
18
3.6.2, quoted in A1.10 above: “To assist with the implementation of this policy,
as an interim measure until such time as Development Plan Documents are
prepared, the County Council will identify Mineral Consultation areas around
the existing and disused railheads and wharves in the county, as a
Supplementary Planning Document, for subsequent inclusion in the Minerals
and Waste Development Framework”. Once again, the present draft
document is a first step in this process.
19
Appendix 2: The legal background to the consultation process
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Schedule 1, paragraph 7(1) - as amended by
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 - provides the legal background to the
consultation arrangements set out in this SPD.
The full content of the relevant parts of paragraph 7 of the Schedule is as follows:
(1)
A local planning authority must not determine an application for planning
permission to which the consultation requirements apply unless it complies with
sub-paragraph (7).
(2)
The consultation requirements are … (b) consultation by a district/borough
planning authority with the county planning authority for their area of the
development is one to which sub-paragraph (4) applies. …
(4)
This sub-paragraph applies to … (b) a development in an area in relation to which
the county planning authority have given notice in writing to the district/borough
planning authority that development is likely to affect or be affected by the winning
and working of minerals, other than coal.
(5)
The consultation requirements do not apply … (b) in respect of a development to
which sub-paragraph (4) applies if the county planning authority gives a direction
authorising the determination of the application without compliance with the
requirements.
(6)
A direction under sub-paragraph (5) may be given in respect of a particular
application or a description of an application.
(7)
If the consultation requirements apply the local planning authority (a) must give
notice to the … county planning authority (the consulted body) that they propose
to consider the application; (b) must send a copy of the application to the
consulted body; (c) must not determine the application until the end of such period
as is prescribed by development order … .
In short, therefore, the requirement for the District/borough Council to consult the County
Council on applications within Mineral Consultation Areas arises once notification has
been given under sub-paragraph 7(a); while the right to exclude certain types of
application from the consultation process is given under sub-paragraphs 5 and 6.
20