« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
THE REVIEW OF NPPG4 LAND FOR MINERAL WORKING
CHAPTER 4. CLARITY OF POLICY INTENTIONS AND OVERALL EASE OF USE
4.1. Generally, NPPG4 is seen as a clearly written, well laid out, understandable and concise document. There is also consensus that all minerals should continue to be covered by one NPPG, unless there is an obvious need for updated or specialised guidance (as with NPPG16 and opencast coal) and that given the strength of supporting legislation (e.g. The Environment Act, the EIA Regulations and the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) (Regulations), NPPG4 is not the place for more detailed prescription.
4.2. The majority of local authority respondents felt that the distinction between policy and advice is sufficiently clear. This however, runs counter to more recent concerns about this issue, as highlighted in the Consultation Paper on the Review of Strategic Planning in Scotland. The Review suggests that there may be scope for renaming the NPPG series to National Planning Policy Statements (NPPSs) to ensure that they are recognised as statements of policy.
4.3. In terms more specifically of NPPG4, as it is an 'older' NPPG, the key policy messages are highlighted in bold, an approach supported by a number of respondents. However, one authority felt that this could also cause confusion, arguing that both policy and advice are highlighted in bold within the text (an example cited of the latter is the 'advice' that planning authorities should consult SNH on proposals for peat extraction). There are mixed views on the adequacy of the supporting and explanatory information. Whilst a number of respondents felt that the balance was 'about right', the following issues were highlighted in relation to the need for further explanation:
- the interpretation of 'national' interest;
- the relationship with English planning guidance (MPGs) and Welsh advice (e.g. with regard to cross-boundary movements of minerals) , and with European policies, strategies and Directives;
- the links with the National Waste Strategy and planning for the production of recycled and secondary aggregates; and
- methodologies and techniques for defining preferred areas.
4.4. Similarly, there are differing views on whether or not sections of guidance are ambiguous and confusing. Whilst many respondents did not highlight any areas of 'uncertainty', the following queries were raised:
- does identification of three distinct search areas for coastal quarries, in conjunction with the statement that further superquarry numbers should be constrained to three, suggest that there should be at least one coastal quarry per search area?;
- are separate 10 year landbanks required for sand/gravel and crushed rock or is a combined landbank appropriate?
4.5. It was also suggested that whilst NPPG4 states that it is not for the planning system to 'deliberate on arguments of need and demand' (para. 8), such an involvement is implied elsewhere in the guidance (e.g. the need for planning authorities to provide for 'an adequate and steady supply of aggregate', para. 51).
4.6. Inevitably, inconsistencies with more recent policy, advice and legislation were highlighted, particularly with regard to the treatment of natural heritage issues (NPPG14). One respondent to the local authority questionnaire noted that the introductory paragraphs (1-12) are very general, and have more recently become factually dated (e.g. the references to the first UK Strategy for Sustainable Development and to the importance of coal extraction). They also criticised reliance on general phraseology at the outset of the NPPG. Overall, they viewed the main policy statement to be too open to interpretation, with a lack of firm guidance, requiring value judgements to be made on the part of local planning authorities. Significantly, there is a perception that NPPG4 contains stronger statements on economic need and that the stance is a 'presumption in favour', and that this conflicts with a 'presumption against' stance of more recent NPPGs (including NPPG1 and NPPG16). Whilst both NPPGs clearly state a presumption in favour of development that accords with the development plan, this is an important issue which merits further consideration.
4.7. Perhaps the most important issue raised in relation to the overall use of NPPG4, concerns the institutional structure necessary to ensure the successful delivery of NPPG4's stated objectives. There is general agreement amongst the range of NPPG4 'users' that a firmer support structure is needed to identify and manage 'sustainable' levels of minerals extraction. Whilst this is most commonly highlighted in relation to planning for the supply of aggregates (see section 7), there is a general feeling that the Scottish Executive should adopt a stronger and more proactive role in monitoring and reporting on levels of minerals production and demand, and ensuring that mineral extraction is planned for by local authorities in a consistent and transparent manner. Although sometimes reluctant to provide information on the grounds of confidentiality, industry representatives suggested that the statistical bulletins which the Scottish Executive used to produce, but which have since been discontinued, were particularly helpful. Provision of more strategic guidance and information is seen to be particularly important post-local government organisation and is linked to the wider review of the strategic planning system in Scotland. There is also a perception that the weak implementation of policy or guidance in Scotland can lead to greater pressure to extract Scottish minerals.
4.8. Inevitably, parallels are drawn with the more 'top down' and interventionist minerals planning system in England, particularly in relation to aggregates planning. Whilst the current review of English minerals planning is likely to recommend that this system be maintained, there is considerable debate regarding the need for individual planning authorities to be able to test regional and authority level proposals against local circumstances and to then feed their views back into the regional and national processes. It has also been suggested that the minerals planning system needs to be 'loosened' up further and that the whole process needs to become 'bottom up' to respond adequately to local circumstances.
4.9. Irrespective of the outcome of debates 'south of the border', and of the applicability of these arguments to minerals planning in Scotland, there is clear support for a stronger institutional framework to enable the effective reflection of NPPG4 in development plans and development control decisions.
KEY ISSUES
- it is felt that NPPG4 should continue to cover all mineral types (with the exception of opencast coal) unless future planning issues or changing market conditions dictate otherwise.
- it is generally felt that the distinction between "policy" found in NPPGs and "advice" contained in PANs is sufficiently clear.
- there is a perception that the NPPG4 stance is a 'presumption in favour' and that this conflicts with a 'presumption against' stance of more recent NPPGs (including NPPG1 and NPPG16).
- there is a general consensus that a stronger institutional framework is required to ensure the effective implementation of NPPG4 (in its current or modified form).
« Previous | Contents | Next »