MPA's response to Norfolk County Council's Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework -Minerals Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

MPA's response to the Peak District National Park Authority's Local Development Framework - Core Strategy Preferred Approaches consultation.

MPA highlights that it feels strongly that, whilst the responses to the questions posed in the consultation will be of relevance when considering the future of the Regional Aggregate Working Parties, the conclusions of the research commissioned on the subject by CLG in 2007-2008 are of much greater significance.

MPA's response to Northumberland County Council's Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Minerals and Waste Consultation.

MPA's response to Essex County Council's Mineral Development Document: Site Allocations Issues & Options Consultation.

MPA consultation response to Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit on their Joint Minerals and Waste DPD. The main concern was the approach towards mineral safeguarding. Comments were also raised on the use of the term ‘setting’ in Policy MWC1.

MPA response to the Core Strategy Policy Directions Consultation. A number of issues were raised. In particular stressing the importance of mineral safeguarding and that Mineral Planning Authorities need to do more than avoid other forms of development in MSAs. Comments were also made on the approach towards allocating sites.

MPA response to the Management Plan Draft Version 2 consultation.

MPA response to Durham’s Minerals Safeguarding consultation. Issues were highlighted on their approach to mineral safeguarding. In particular a reminder that there is no absolute presumption against mineral working in designated areas and Minerals Planning Authorities making a judgement of what might be required in the foreseeable future and safeguard those resources.

MPA members continue to be of the view that any infrastructure needs that should arise as a consequence of minerals development cannot be covered by a one-size-fits-all CIL system which is tailored to the circumstances of built development.

Mineral Products Association members are of the view that key aspects of the proposals for dealing with stalled ROMPs in Wales are disproportionate to any threat that an uncompleted review might pose and carry unreasonable potential implications for both mineral operators and the Welsh economy.

MPA's response explains that our members are seriously concerned about the manner in which this consultation has been conducted.

MPA response to the West Midlands RSS Phase 3 Revision Options Consultation. A number of issues were raised. In particular the approach towards mineral safeguarding and the confusion over what should be safeguarded. The MPA strongly supported a continuation of apportioning future supply by existing methods.  

MPA response to the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation. Issues were highlighted on the approach towards mineral safeguarding and landbanks.

MPA consultation response to Monmouthshire on their Local Development Plan Pre-Deposit (Preferred Strategy). Issues were raised in relation to the minerals section in particular safeguarding, landbank and restoration.

MPA consultation response to Powys Council regarding their UDP Further Proposed Modifications June 2009. MPA queried why Powys had not included a modification to ensure sand and gravel resources are safeguarded. A requirement under a formal direction from Welsh Assembly Government (WAG).

MPA response to Conwy on their Local Development Plan Deposit Proposals. The main concern was the approach towards mineral safeguarding. In particular highlighting the need for safeguarding resources even if no allocations for hard rock are required.

MPA consultation response to Nottinghamshire on their Minerals Safeguarding Draft Background Paper. A number of issues were highlighted on this background document. Among them some confusion between MSAs and buffer zones. Also prior extraction is not about making propositions attractive to developers it is about ensuring irreplaceable resources are not sterilised.

MPA's response to the partial review of the South East RSS Review of Policy M3 - Primary land-won aggregates and subregional apportionment.

In this MPA response we fully support the comments made by both the Mendip Quarry Producers and officers of Somerset County Council and must join them in registering our own formal objection to the proposals. In particular, the MPA is of the view that there can be no justification for the significant increase in CO2 emissions that will result directly from the restrictions on the A362 (Order 2 – Ref:KAD/TRO/CORY).

MPA consultation response to Cardiff Council on their Deposit Local Development Plan. The main concerns were surrounding the approach towards landbanks. There were also issues with the proposed approach towards mineral safeguarding.

MPA response to Lake District National Park Authority on their Draft Core Strategy Policies consultation. Comments were made on the mineral extraction and mineral safeguarding policies. The main concern highlighted was the suggested approach of only safeguarding building stone and slate resources.

MPA response to Warwickshire on their Core Strategy Revised Spatial Options Consultation. A number of concerns were highlighted on the quantity of mineral required to meet apportionment and maintain landbanks, Mineral Safeguarding Areas, transport and the how criteria for site allocations/applications should not be the same.

MPA consultation response to Pembrokeshire Coast on their Deposit Local Development Plan. The main concerns highlighted were in relation to minerals supply, with no mention or policy on apportionment and maintaining landbanks. There were also flaws in the approach towards mineral safeguarding.

MPA response to Kirklees Council on their LDF Core Strategy Options Consultation. The concerns highlighted were surrounding the lack of evidence/figures presented by Kirklees on reserves and the quantity of minerals, which will be required to meet their apportionment and maintain landbanks.

MPA consultation response on the Refined Options Core Strategy. Issues were highlighted on the Peak District NPA approach towards mineral safeguarding and limiting restoration and after-use solely to the improvement of biodiversity and landscape.

MPA consultation response to Bridgend on their Local Development Plan Pre-Deposit Proposals. The main concerns highlighted where in relation to minerals supply, landbank and mineral safeguarding.

MPA consultation response to Rhondda Cynon Taf on their Local Development Plan Deposit Draft. The issues raised where in relation to landbank and mineral safeguarding.

Mineral Products Association response to Essex Minerals Development Document (MDD) Further Issues and Options Consultation.

QPA response to Brecon Beacons National Park Local Development Plan (LDP) Preferred Strategy. Comments on the document highlighted concerns with lack of accordance with national policy. 

QPA response to the Isle of Wight Island Plan Submission Core Strategy consultation. A concern raised was the minerals policies lack of clarity.

QPA response to Staffordshire’s Minerals Core Strategy Issues and Options 2 consultation.

QPA response to Northamptonshire County Council Core Strategy Proposed Submission. Numerous comments made on safeguarding, landbank and restoration.

QPA consultation response to the JSPU Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Submission Draft. The main issue was the approach towards safeguarding of sand and gravel deposits

Consultation response to the joint Core Strategy Proposed Submission. QPA is concerned by the inadequate policy coverage within their Core Strategy in relation to minerals.

In this consultation QPA makes the point that it disagrees with paragraph 3.6 and would question why it is important to avoid over-provision. The number of quarries operating at any one time is a function of the market for their material, not the amount of permitted reserves. This will not unnecessarily result in a less sustainable supply of aggregate.

In this response QPA makes a number of suggestions. In paragraph 3.7, Sub paragraph 5 implies that the needs of the natural and built environment should always take priority over the need for minerals, but QPA feels that is inconsistent with many statements in MPS1.

QPA believe that the Call for Solutions document has highlighted many of the problems that lie at the heart of the dissatisfaction that our members feel with the current planning application process.

Overall, the QPA believe that the objectives of the Strategy have been poorly defined in the Statement of Reasons and no sound and credible evidence base has been presented upon which justification for those objectives can be founded. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that the proposed restrictions will achieve the objectives of the Strategy. Therefore the QPA position is one of objection to the draft Order.

The QPA welcome the consultation and the attempts to give World Heritage Sites an appropriate level of protection when compared with that already afforded to many other less significant interests under the English planning system.

QPA believe that the work done to produce the consultation document is very significant in maintaining the momentum of the search for a more rounded and forward-looking methodology on which to base sub-regional apportionment of the national aggregate guidelines. However we do not believe that a case has been made to support replacement of the current methodology, with any of the options which the document contains.

QPA's response makes clear that the transition to the new system must be properly managed to take into account that the planning system uses a well established hierarchical approach to assess the weight that should be attached to heritage designations based upon the current categories. That hierarchy must be maintained.

This response stresses that QPA is broadly satisfied that the Revised Guidelines can fulfil their principal function in providing for an adequate and steady supply of aggregate materials. QPA believes that only where the Guidelines are clearly shown not to be in accord with the objectives of MPS1 should they be reviewed.

QPA consultation response to Cumbria County Council in respect of their Submission Draft Core Strategy and Submission Draft Development Control Policies. QPA questioned their landbank provision and safeguarding approach in the DC polices.

QPA response to Wiltshire County Council and Swindon Borough Council on their recent consultation. Comments were made regarding the Submission Draft Minerals Core Strategy Development Plan Document. QPA highlighted concerns of how the plan is not in accordance with national policy.

The QPA sets out its strong opposition to the support that the consultation document gives to the Environment Agency as the Government's Preferred Option as principal competent authority