The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

THE REVIEW OF NPPG4 LAND FOR MINERAL WORKING

CHAPTER 10. DEVELOPMENT PLANS

10.1. Paragraphs 89 to 98 of NPPG4 set out action required by local authorities in formulating Structure and Local Plans. The policy states that Structure Plans should aim to ensure that mineral working is not simply dismissed as a result of its environmental impacts. Structure Plans should also highlight more sensitive areas where development should be restricted, or their impacts managed with particular care. Policies should:

• safeguard mineral deposits from development which would inhibit their subsequent extraction;
• define preferred areas for mineral working, in relation to other strategic priorities and subject to detailed evaluation in Local Plans or individual applications;
• define areas where, because of landscape, environmental and other considerations, proposals to work minerals are likely to prove difficult to reconcile with other policy considerations; and
• set the framework for Local Plans including priorities for development control.

10.2. In terms of Local Plans, planning authorities are expected to reflect national and regional policy as well as responding to local circumstances. NPPG4 notes that it may be appropriate to identify sites for safeguarding future working, and where this is not feasible, broader search areas should be defined to guide Industry decisions. Plans should also include policies on restoration and where possible, beneficial after-use. NPPG4 emphasises the potentially significant environmental effects on ancillary operations, and recommends that planning authorities include policies on the siting of such operations to control issues such as noise and visual intrusion. Local Plans should include policies and identify areas which:

• safeguard mineral deposits from development which would inhibit their subsequent working;
• consider, where appropriate, rephasing other development to enable mineral working to take place;
• indicate sites, or define areas of search, where planning authorities would favour mineral working;
• indicate sites or areas where other considerations are likely to militate against mineral working;
• guide developers on the amelioration of significant environmental effects;
• encourage the removal of all minerals in a single operation from any site where this is economically feasible;
• provide for the reclamation of sites to beneficial after-use;
• provide an explicit development control framework; and
• provide for regular monitoring and preparation of environmental audits; provide for the re-use of materials in waste tips and construction wastes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

10.3. Much of the literature on minerals planning relates to the role of development plans. Some of this is based on the English experience, having been triggered by the DETR review of MPG6. This is combined with some more specific views on minerals planning in Scotland from stakeholder organisations, and wider reviews of, and comments on, the Scottish development plans system.

10.4. In discussing the plan system in England and Wales, the QPA ¹⁵ states that a development plan should contain:

(a) a provision based on the current agreed sub regional apportionment figure for the local authority area;
(b) an appropriate landbank for throughout the plan period (i.e. on a 'rolling' basis); and
(c) if the plan comprises site-specific allocations drawn precisely to the arithmetic of provision, there should be some form of flexibility allowance to account for both geological doubts and unforeseen fluctuations in demand.

10.5. In more general terms, the QPA has also lobbied for the preparation of development plans to be speeded up and simplified and called for a more consistent approach to policy making to help make the aims of the plan easier to understand. The Association also recently made a representation to the Scottish Executive ¹⁶ with regard to planning delays in Scotland, calling for more control over procedures at the local level by the Scottish Executive, to speed up procedures and ensure a closer fit with national guidance.

10.6. These assertions are supported to a certain extent by recent research commissioned by the (former) Scottish Office, which reviewed development plans in Scotland ¹⁷. The findings noted that although development plans are the keystone of planning in Scotland, many are out of date, and there is considerable scope for improving the efficiency of their preparation process. Countering assertions by the QPA, the research also showed that the public local inquiry is not a major cause of delay. Whilst consultation and participation were noted as key strengths of the process, the research also called for more clarity in terms of 'ownership' of development plans, to clarify its role in reflecting community, developer and other stakeholder views. Similar criticisms of the development planning system have also contributed to the development of a recent Consultation Paper by the Scottish Executive entitled the 'Review of Strategic Planning in Scotland' ¹⁸.

10.7. Other organisations have made suggestions as to how the development planning process could better reflect the full range of views on minerals planning in Scotland. For example, SNH recently set out their policy on Minerals and the Natural Heritage in Scotland's Midland Valley (2001) ¹⁹. In their view, development plan policies should:

• aim to balance minerals extraction with sustainability, including identifying landbanks based on assumptions regarding increasing rates of recycling and secondary aggregates;
• identify and maximise opportunities for natural heritage enhancement and creation as well as protection and maintenance;
• sequentially seek to avoid environmental impacts by protecting environmental resources;
• address potential cumulative impacts; and
• encourage operators to enter into discussion with Scottish Natural Heritage.

10.8. Friends of the Earth take the emphasis on sustainability one step further, by contending that environmental aspects of sustainability are not applied across policy frameworks, but are left to the policies defined by environmental agencies ²⁰. They also support the development of local forums, bringing together industry, planning authorities, waste managers and government representatives to collaborate on minerals policy making.

10.9. SEPA suggests that, in keeping with the established planning practice of judging each application on its merits, a criteria or sequential type approach might offer a more systematic and just system of locational decision-making within Local Plans. Whilst this approach has already been adopted by some local authorities, different criteria are being used by different authorities, thereby resulting in an inconsistent approach. SEPA therefore proposes that a criteria or sequential based approach to local decision-making is advocated at the national policy level, along with clearly defined thresholds (maybe as part of an accompanying PAN). It is thought that this will promote greater consistency in decision-making and facilitate the approach of considering applications on a case by case basis.

10.10. Although industry and NGO recommendations are not necessarily at odds, they nevertheless highlight the different priorities which are being put forward for improving the development plan process. Considering the issues from an academic perspective, Stead and Nadin (1999) ²¹ suggest that there has been limited progress to date in establishing environmental resource management as a central part of the UK planning system. They note that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find sites that are environmentally suitable for development, and call for a greater emphasis on spatial planning at a strategic level to co-ordinate local policy and integrate with the land use planning system.

10.11. The regional level development planning process in England, has also been criticised by Cowell and Murdoch (1999) ²², who state that it lacks the flexibility that is required for dealing with complex cases such as minerals developments. In particular, they emphasise the potential discrepancies between strategic level policies, and the need to build local partnerships between developers and communities as the most effective means of managing environmental change. They also note that reliance in plans on technical assessments and calculations can reduce the transparency of plans, in turn acting as a barrier to local communities becoming meaningfully involved in the process.

10.12. The Scottish Executive's consultation paper on the review of strategic planning also reflects this, noting that "there was also a general view that many structure (and local) plans rested content with the NPPGs and did not advance policy development or interpret and apply the guidance to suit their particular circumstances".

10.13. In summary therefore, the literature review revealed a number of different views on development planning for minerals. Industry consensus that there is a need to streamline and speed up the process is supported by the wider literature on development plans in general and the Review of Strategic Planning in Scotland. However, at the same time, assertions by non governmental organisations that the policy framework could go further in providing a greater emphasis on sustainable resource management, could be viewed as being at odds with arguments for the simplification of policy making. Overall, there is a consensus that development plans could provide a more innovative approach to minerals planning, which at the same time is more transparent and consistent for the purposes of effectively encouraging collaboration and the involvement of both industry and local communities in policy making.

Emerging Policy

10.14. With respect to the introduction of legislation and policy since the publication of NPPG4, there has been little fundamental change to the role of development plans in setting the policy framework for minerals development in Scotland. The primacy of the development plan within decision making has been maintained by the 1997 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. This means that decisions should be made in accordance with development plans, unless other material considerations are significant enough to warrant a departure.

10.15. Subsequent policy on natural heritage set out in NPPG14 notes the importance of conserving wild land, as well as the comparative importance of safeguarding areas which have been locally designated for nature conservation, and the wider countryside. It suggests the use of the precautionary principle in dealing with development issues in relation to natural heritage. In turn, this broadening of the debate on designated sites to include wider issues and more extensive areas of land, has implications for the way in which search areas are defined in development plan policies.

10.16. NPPG10: Planning and Waste Management (1996) also extends the criteria that should be used to inform policies on search areas or site selection in structure and Local Plans. In particular, it states that planning policies should provide for the reworking of mineral waste deposits and the recycling of demolition and construction wastes. More recently, the National Waste Strategy for Scotland ²³ asserts the need for more explicit policy reference to recycling, where possible supported by the identification of areas for their storage and processing. This is also supported by policy set out in the Scottish Strategy for Sustainable Development ²⁴.

10.17. Various aspects of PAN50 (1996) and its Annexes could also be taken into account in NPPG4's advice in relation to development plans. Planning authorities could, for example, make reference to the need to use dust assessment studies in determining applications. However, most of the issues identified in PAN50 relate more specifically to the development control process, and as a result they are explored more fully in the next section.

10.18. Some more positive aspects of minerals planning, including examples of good practice have emerged in policy and advice documents which have been produced since NPPG4 was finalised. These vary, but include references in NPPG15: Rural Development (1999) to the benefits of minerals development in communities where the local economy is declining and the need to tailor policies in relation to different types of rural area. Similarly, PAN60: Planning for Natural Heritage (2000) uses good practice in restoration and aftercare of extraction sites to highlight positive approaches to environmental management.

ADEQUACY OF GUIDANCE FOR PLAN PREPARATION PURPOSES

10.19. As highlighted above, the literature on development plans and minerals policy has reflected wider critiques of the system. Most of the discussion has focused on inefficient practice, and time delays. At the same time, the literature and emerging policy have both emphasised the need to broaden policy guidance, whilst at the same time requiring plans which are easier to understand and are accessible to a wider range of stakeholders (including both Industry and communities).

10.20. Building on this aspect of the debate, industry representatives consulted during the course of the research highlighted a number of key concerns about the effectiveness and appropriateness of development plan policies in Scotland. Fundamental to these concerns, was the view that whilst NPPG4 sets out reasonable guidance on the content of structure and Local Plans, this is often not reflected at a local level, particularly in relation to the identification of preferred areas/areas of search. There is also a perception that policy is formulated on the basis of flawed, or insufficient data. For example, whilst NPPG4 recommends that Industry should be involved in defining search areas, operators argue that in practice this has not been achieved. In turn, they believe that this has led to the definition of areas that do not contain suitable deposits of minerals. Furthermore, development plan coverage is patchy at best. There are few approved mineral subject local plans in Scotland, leaving a policy vacuum in many parts of the country where minerals are a key issue. Some plans have taken a very long time to prepare, whilst others have been abandoned.

10.21. A number of NGOs and statutory consultees agreed with industry representatives that local authorities are often preparing policy on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate information.

10.22. Aside from several quite focused concerns, many of the local authority respondents felt that NPPG4 contains sufficient guidance to allow Structure and Local Plans to be prepared and that the process currently works well. One authority emphasised that NPPG4 had been particularly helpful during plan preparation in relation to issues associated with the green belt and scenic areas. Another authority however, asserted that there is not clear enough guidance in NPPG4 on the following topics:

• safeguarding communities; and
• how deposits should be identified that are worthy of protection from possible sterilisation (e.g. new housing development within 500 metres).

PREPARATION OF MINERALS SUBJECT PLANS

10.23. Although the Review of Strategic Planning suggests that waste planning is removed from mainstream development plans in preference of the preparation of specific waste subject plan, the extent to which this should be applied to non-opencast minerals planning remains open to debate at this stage. With regard to opencast policy making, the review suggests that any such change should be delayed for some time to allow recent changes in response to NPPG16 to 'bed down'. However, there may be scope for further consideration of this approach as an integral part of any review of NPPG4, to build on the momentum for change which the review is likely to provide.

10.24. With the exception of opencast coal, three Minerals Subject Plans have been prepared to date (Borders, South Lanarkshire and North East Fife). However, there are a number of additional cases where officers believe that these plans would be of benefit, but that preparation work would be hampered by a lack of resources and information or political concerns over the level of public concern that this process would trigger.

INFORMATION USED TO INFORM POLICY MAKING

10.25. A number of local authorities have made significant efforts to gather information to inform policy making. For example, one authority drew from an operator survey to help inform the policy making process. However, it was stated that "the co-operation of operators was difficult to obtain then, but recently it has proved even more difficult to obtain their assistance".

10.26. Another authority also raised concerns about the lack of information either provided in NPPG4 or available from Industry for informing policy decisions. They stated that "we know a lot about environmental constraints and concerns. We know very little about workable reserves. The Industry will not share this information. Minerals will therefore never be plan led."

10.27. One Structure Plan team emphasised their confidence in their own survey, which they feel secured high levels of Industry co-operation. However, at the local level, some planning authorities within the Structure Plan area were less convinced that the survey provided an accurate portrayal of current and future circumstances. One stated: "limited information is held. The Structure Plan team carried out a survey of operations during 1998. This is incomplete and confidentiality and the voluntary nature of the survey resulted in less than full returns". Industry representatives were also sceptical about the accuracy of the survey findings. This provides an insight into the contentious nature of gathering accurate and comprehensive information on private sector activities for the purposes of policy formulation.

POLICY CONFLICTS AND DIFFICULTIES IN DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF AGGREGATES PROVISION

10.28. Only one authority reported that any policy conflicts or difficulties in determining the level of aggregates provision. There are no preferred areas identified in either the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan (1999), or the East Ayrshire Local Plan. During the consultation process, an objection was raised by South Lanarkshire Council in relation to the lack of provision of appropriate sites within East Ayrshire. This was perceived as putting additional pressure onto sites in South Lanarkshire. The Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Team contended that "preferred areas" for aggregates and sand and gravel were not defined at the strategic level as high levels of consented reserves already existed. The Local Plan was therefore based on this assertion.

10.29. Several authorities did raise concerns that their preferred areas often coincided with environmentally sensitive areas.

DESIGNATION OF SITES/PREFERRED AREAS

10.30. Generally, the research has revealed that local authorities face considerable difficulties in identifying preferred areas and areas of search as they lack information on mineral resources, reserves, demand, supply and technical constraints. It has also been suggested that as the approach to environmental designations/other constraints changes so frequently, it would be impractical to identify areas suitable for extraction on a plan.

10.31. The 'stakeholder' discussions highlighted conflicting views about the identification of preferred areas for extraction. Industry representatives expressed concern about the information used to define these areas. NGOs felt that boundaries are often misused by Industry and interpreted as areas where there is a presumption in favour of development. The latter group supported the alternative approach of defining areas where restrictions should indicate a presumption against development.

10.32. One authority stated that the identification of preferred areas had been based on a crude assumption that they are those areas not covered by nature conservation or scenic designations. The authority is concerned about this approach, as it can be unresponsive to local circumstances, and it can often be the case that a site in a non-designated area is less appropriate than a site within a designated area.

10.33. Another authority argued that the inadequate nature of supporting information means that it can be very difficult if not impossible to define preferred areas for all types of minerals. Furthermore, at the Local Plan level, a similar lack of accurate data can make decisions difficult to defend. One authority has not identified preferred areas in the recent Structure Plan on the grounds that this is unnecessary given the abundance of the Region's mineral resources.

DEVELOPEMENT PLANS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH NON-STATUTORY POLICY

10.34. Industry representatives expressed concern that there is considerable confusion over the role and status of non-statutory guidance. There is a perception that local planning authorities are tempted to produce non-statutory guidance as a substitute for Mineral Subject Plans which, given their status, are harder to progress. This in turn has clear implications for the need for statutory consultation on minerals policy formulation.

10.35. These experiences would imply that there is a need for development plan policies to acknowledge and respond to related policy guidance. The issue is also likely to be the subject of increased attention, as a result of the Review of Strategic Planning in Scotland. The Consultation Paper states that the Executive envisages greater use being made of supplementary guidance. Whilst not specifically mentioning the use of such guidance for minerals, it does state that it "…has the advantage of being more focused and quickly prepared with consultation arrangements - which should be an integral part of the process of preparing guidance - better tailored to the particular circumstances which the guidance is addressing." ²⁵

COMPARATIVE FINDINGS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE AND LOCAL PLANS

10.36. The analysis of development plans illustrated the traceable impact which NPPG4 has had on policy formulation. It also highlights the differential uptake of advice at the strategic and local level.

Structure Plans

10.37. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the analysis of Structure Plans showed that more recent plans were considerably more consistent with NPPG4 than earlier policies. In particular, the Tayside Structure Plan, which predates NPPG4, reflected less of the policy detail which is recommended in the guidance.

10.38. Each of the Structure Plans reviewed adopts differing approaches to their responsibilities to minerals as outlined in NPPG4. NPPG4 is quite clear in the requirements that it imposes on Structure Plans, the main ones being

• to safeguard mineral deposits;
• to define preferred areas;
• to define areas in which development would be inappropriate because of environmental and other considerations; and
• to set the framework for Local Plans including the priorities for development control.

10.39. However, the extent to which the Structure Plans meet these requirements varies. Some of the plans do not mention the context from which the polices are developed.

Locational considerations

10.40 All of the Structure Plans reviewed contained policy that is designed to protect many designated and non-designated areas from development. They also all have a hierarchical system that determines the level of protection that is to be afforded to a site. In general, internationally designated sites are afforded the highest level of protection followed by nationally designated then locally designated sites.

10.41. Most of the plans simply define the areas that are to be protected from development rather than define the areas that are to be protected specifically from minerals extraction. Although the wording of how the sites are to be protected varies slightly between the plans, in general the level of protection is very similar. The approach taken to the protection of the environment is slightly different in the cases of the Tayside Structure Plan and the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Structure Plan. The Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Structure Plan sets out a four-tier protection policy specifically in relation to minerals. This contains all of the areas that are mentioned in NPPG4 and some others that are of importance to Aberdeenshire such as coastal sand dune systems. The Tayside Structure Plan also takes a slightly different approach to the other plans. The plan has policies directly relating to mineral extraction that protect internationally and nationally designated sites, although locally designated sites are not mentioned. The plan also contains policy to protect Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings and prime agricultural land amongst others.

Operational considerations

10.42. Within NPPG4, consideration is also given to impacts on visual amenity, noise, dust, water, transport and restoration and aftercare provisions. Again, the degree to which the Structure Plans incorporate these considerations in their policies varies. Some of the plans recognise that mineral workings can have adverse effects on visual amenity and the other impacts mentioned, but have no policy to mitigate against these impacts, whilst some make no mention of the potential problems and other plans contain restrictions if the workings become too intrusive.

Policy guidelines for individual minerals

10.43. NPPG4 contains policies for a number of different types of minerals. As the plans reviewed are varied in their geographical location and geological makeup, the types of mineral within them also varies. However, aggregate minerals are common to each of the areas and as such there are policies regarding them in each of the plans.

10.44. As illustrated by Example 7.2, the way in which the landbank principle is adopted differs in each of the structure plans. With the exception of the Tayside Structure Plan, all of the extant plans contain aggregate landbank policies.

10.45. The plans contain little specific policy regarding other mineral types as outlined in NPPG4, beyond safeguarding resources from development as part of a wide ranging policy applying to the full range of mineral types in each area.

Local Plans

10.46. The role that Local Plans take compared to Structure Plans should be quite different with regard to NPPG4. Whilst Structure Plans should provide overall policy, the Local Plan should provide much more prescriptive, detailed information.

10.47. Of the case study local authorities, South Lanarkshire and North East Fife have prepared a Minerals Subject Local Plan. The other local authorities each have their minerals policies contained within specific sections or as part of the analysis of a specific area within the Local Plan. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the analysis showed that overall, the Minerals Subject Local Plans provided much more detailed coverage than the wider policies were able to accommodate. However, the South Lanarkshire Plan, though currently being contested within the consultation process, also takes the policy guidance further than its equivalent for North East Fife, perhaps as a result of additional advice which has emerged since 1994 (the latter was finalised just after NPPG4 had been published).

Locational considerations

10.48. The protection of designated and non-designated sites within the Local Plans is very similar to the approach taken in the Structure Plans. Levels of protection are tiered, with internationally recognised sites at the top, nationally recognised a level below and locally recognised sites receiving the least stringent protection.

10.49. Other than in the Aberdeenshire plan, the other plans contain little specific advice on which areas would be unsuitable for mineral extraction. The Aberdeenshire Local Plan contains the same four-tiered system for the determination of minerals applications that is contained in the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Structure Plan. The other plans contain the information about which areas will be protected (international, national and local designations) but it is a presumption against general 'development' rather than a presumption against minerals workings as such.

Operational considerations

10.50. As with the Structure Plans, the coverage of impacts such as visual amenity, noise and dust vary. These conditions for mineral workings form a major part of the development control framework that NPPG4 states Local Plans should develop.

10.51. The South Lanarkshire Plan is very specific in the conditions that it attaches to mineral developments. It contains all of the potential issues mentioned in NPPG4 and attaches conditions to developments in order to minimise these effects.

10.52. Other plans are less prescriptive. The Lochaber Local Plan takes a site-specific approach to the area covered by the plan. It contains brief references to different impacts that mineral workings may have and; for the individual sites, mitigation measures are mentioned. However, the plan does not contain any overall policies that are designed to reduce the impacts mentioned in NPPG4.

10.53. Restoration and after-use is another aspect of the development control framework that NPPG4 suggests should be set out in Local Plans. However, the importance attached to restoration again varies across the plans. East Ayrshire, Lochaber, South Lanarkshire and North East Fife each state that it will be necessary for developers to lodge a bond with the authority to ensure that restoration will take place once the extraction phase is completed. The Perth and Kinross Highland Area plan makes no mention of restoration bonds but does state that "a strategic framework for mineral applications is provided within the Structure Plan" which would appear to explain the absence of policy regarding restoration, aftercare and after-use within the document.

Policy guidelines for individual minerals

10.54. Whilst the determination of an adequate and steady supply of aggregate minerals is a key part of NPPG4, the Local Plans tend to refer back to the strategic level when tackling this issue. The South Lanarkshire plan also uses figures developed as part of the structure planning process to define its landbank supply. In East Ayrshire, the plan takes the same approach to the Ayrshire Structure Plan in that it defines as an objective, the need to " work with the other Ayrshire Authorities to identify a 10 year land bank for the supply of aggregate minerals". The Lochaber Local Plan goes further, stating that for its market area it has an adequate landbank for 47 years supply of sand and gravel and nine years supply of hard rock .

10.55. Some plans provide more detail than others on the minerals available in their area and where minerals working would be favoured. The plans providing the greatest detail about available minerals are the South Lanarkshire Plan, the North East Fife plan and the East Ayrshire Plan. Each contains quite detailed analysis of the types of minerals available for extraction within the plan area. Whilst they do not define search areas, they do indicate sites that would be suitable for extraction. The Lochaber plan does not define all of the minerals that are available within the plan boundaries but it does indicate sites that would be suitable for expansion and some new sites that would be suitable for minerals development. The Perth and Kinross Highland Area plan makes reference specifically to the existence of Barytes within the area, but is perhaps less comprehensive than the other plans in terms of coverage of the wider range of potential resources in the area.

KEY ISSUES

• on the whole, development planning advice has been viewed as generally acceptable.
• development plans have been criticised as being unwieldy and too slow to prepare. The debate on minerals policy making is no exception to this.
• despite this, NPPG4 itself is generally considered to provide adequate advice for the preparation of Local and Structure Plans.
• there are several key issues which could be the subject of an extended policy focus, including the growing emphasis on recycling, other aspects of sustainable minerals planning and a more holistic approach to resource management.
• policy formulation relies on the availability of accurate and up to date information. Many authorities do not feel well equipped to make policy decisions on the basis of their own judgement or knowledge of the market.
• a number of authorities have experienced difficulties in terms of the designation of preferred areas. This suggests that a key objective of NPPG4, balancing environmental protection with market requirements, is not being realised in practice.
• there is some confusion over the role and status of non-statutory guidance.

]

« Previous | Contents | Next »