Appendix 1. Proposed Response to Minerals and Waste Development
Framework – Preferred Options.
Vision
The overall vision is supported.
Spatial Strategy for Minerals
The Committee is asked to consider the information in paragraphs 5.2 to
5.10 of the Committee report and decide how it would wish to respond to
that part of the preferred strategy which would allow mineral extraction
to continue in the Nene Valley. In addition:
‘The Borough Council strongly supports the protection of the unworked valleys
such as the River Ise.
Regardless of the appropriateness of the strategy it is, however, unclear how
the subsequent proposed allocation of sites would accord with the strategy of
focusing on the pre-glacial and glacial deposits since approximately two thirds
of the estimated capacity of 16.81 million tonnes of sand and gravel is actually
from river deposits and almost 50% (8.2 million tonnes) consists of river sand
and gravel on land within or adjacent to the Borough. The selection process of
individual sites therefore lacks clarity although it would appear that if sites
have met the site assessment criteria set out in Technical Appendix E of the
Preferred Options document they have been put forward as proposed sites
irrespective of whether they are in the valley or are glacial deposits.’
Spatial Strategy for Waste
The overall strategy of developing a sustainable network of waste
management facilities serving neighbourhood, local, sub-regional and, where
appropriate, regional and national catchments is supported as well as the
focus on the urban spine. There is, however, a lack of clarity regarding the
proposed ‘significant integrated waste management facility’ to serve the area
bounded by Kettering, Wellingborough and Rushden. There is no indication of
possible sites or an explanation of what form or scale this facility might take.
Whilst the Preferred Options document indicates that the submission plan will
identify such a location it is considered that there should be more discussion
prior to that stage of the plan making process. It will be particularly important
to ensure that the site can be properly integrated with the housing and
employment growth being identified by the districts. Wellingborough for
example will be consulting of the Preferred Options for the Site Specific
Proposals Development Plan Document in the new-year and if such a facility
was to be accommodated within Wellingborough, this could significantly affect
the master planning of the relevant sites.
Provision for Sand and Gravel
The approach of rolling forward the annual requirement beyond 2016 is
supported as this accords with Government guidance. It would be right to
have a review of the Core Strategy if there are reviews of national and
regional figures.
Policy CS1 sets a requirement to provide 0.97 million tonnes per annum of
sand and gravel which is equivalent to 19.36 million tonnes. The plan,
however, seems to identify only 16.81 million tonnes and therefore needs to
clarify how the outstanding requirement will be met.
Waste Generation Forecasts
The County Council’s forecast diverges from regional policy in that it assumes
some growth in waste post 2026. This approach is, however, considered to be
reasonable bearing in mind the level of growth that will take place in the area.
Notwithstanding this, however, it is considered that there should remain an
aspiration to seek no growth in waste generation and that measures should
therefore be taken to promote behavioural change.
Encouraging the Consumption of Recycled and Secondary Aggregates
and Minimising the Use of Primary Aggregates
The aim of policy CS7 is strongly supported. There are however concerns
regarding the effectiveness and practicality of monitoring this requirement.
Whilst there is an adopted Supplementary Planning Document on this matter
there is so far no evidence that it is being successfully implemented.
Minerals Safeguarding Areas
Whilst the overall aim of Policy CS8 is supported, clarification is required on
what implications, if any, there may be for the proposed Sustainable Urban
Extension to the East of Wellingborough.
Safeguarding Northamptonshire’s Waste Management Network
Policy CS13 raises significant concerns in potentially preventing development
within 250m of the Sidegate Lane Landfill Site. This may have significant
implications for the planning of the Sustainable Urban Extension to the East of
Wellingborough as identified in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial
Strategy. The Borough Council would welcome early discussions on this
matter as the intention is to include an expanded site within the Preferred
Options for the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document early
next year.
Waste Minimisation in new Development
Whilst the aim of policy CS14 is strongly supported, there are concerns
regarding the effectiveness and practicality of monitoring this requirement.
Whilst there is an adopted Supplementary Planning Document on this matter
there no evidence so far of whether it is being successfully implemented.
Integration and Provision of Waste Management Facilities
Policies CS15 and CS16 are supported.
Restoration and After Use of Minerals and Waste Development
Policies CS17 and CS18 are supported in as far as they seek appropriate
restoration and after use of sites. The approach of seeking biodiversity
enhancements and improvements in flood risk management is particularly
welcomed. Policy CS18 states that ‘sites for mineral extraction in river valleys
will not be restored to a predominantly water based form’. The Borough
Council would like confirmation that there would be sufficient resources of
inert fill available to ensure that this is possible.
It should also be more clearly stated that after use must be in accordance with
the relevant policies in the Local Development Framework (North
Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and other relevant Development Plan
Documents). The Borough Council would not wish to see inappropriate
development in the open countryside.
Encouraging Sustainable Transport Movements
Policy CS19 is supported as it seeks to minimise transport movements and
maximise sustainable alternative modes. The encouragement of carbon
offsetting is also welcomed. It should be considered whether there should be
a preference for contribution to local carbon offsetting schemes.