East Midlands Aggregate Working Party (EMAWP)

Minutes of East Midlands AWP - Friday 6 December 2024 

Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams

Attendees

Apologies

1. Introductions

1.1 Members were welcomed to the meeting by the Chair.

2. Minutes and actions of last meeting

2.1 No comments on the minutes. Minutes agreed.

3. Local Aggregates Assessments

3.1 The Chair invited those MPAs that were not able to present their LAAs at the October meeting to present their latest update.

3.2 Leicestershire

Leo Oliver (LO) introduced on behalf of Leicestershire County Council. Sand and gravel sales are down 15% from 2022. Reasons for the decrease are considered to be the after effects of Covid, cost of living, and political uncertainty etc. Reserves are 2.99 million tonnes giving a landbank of just under 3 years. Despite the absence of allocations in the Local Plan, sites are continuing to come forward as planning applications.

3.4 There are currently 5 igneous sites of which 4 are rail linked, there are also 2 active limestone quarries. The 10 year average is 12.63mt and the 3 year is 11.07 million tonnes. Sales in 2023 were 9.52mt which is a 17% decrease compared to 2022. Reserves are currently 286mt giving a 22.4 year landbank based on the 10 year average. The reserve for Croft was previously supplied incorrectly, so a recalculation of reserves has been undertaken and the correct figures are in the LAA. As mentioned at previous meetings the fire at Mountsorrel has impacted on extraction and sales. Therefore it is felt the 3 year average was not considered appropriate.

3.5 Lincolnshire

Richard Leonard (RL) introduced on behalf of Lincolnshire County Council. RL confirmed that at present the LAA has not been completed due to staffing constraints and the focus on the Local Plan, however it is hoped a draft will be completed in the New Year. Data has been provided to assist with the drafting of the Annual Report however the provision figure has not yet been finalised. Sand and gravel sales in 2023 was 2.306mt down on 2022 (2.453), this follows the 3 year trend of declining sales. This gives a 10 year average of 2.368mt and a 3 year average of 2.507mt. Sales figures show a continuation of the trend for material to be exported from Lincolnshire due to industry decisions.

3.6 Limestone aggregate sales in 2023 were 1.399mt down from 2022 (1.5mt), this sees a stabilisation of sales in recent years. The 10 year average is 1.061mt but this masks a recent significant increase in sales as sales in 2014 were 0.38mt increasing to a high in 2022 of 1.502mt. The 3 year average currently sits at 1.432mt. Exports seems to have driven this growth with material mostly being exported to the East of England.

3.7 Previously the LAA used the 3 year average for crushed rock and 10 year for sand and gravel, but this is still to be finalised for 2024. The Chair confirmed that he will discuss the sign off of the Lincolnshire LAA with the Secretariat when it has been received and after circulation to members.

4. Update on Draft Annual Report 2024 (2023 data)

4.1 Mark Chant (MC) confirmed that most of the data has now been received for the Annual Report, but as the document is a complex document it will still take time to finalise the report. Once the Lincolnshire LAA is completed the final details in relation to the LAA rate and the secondary and recycle aggregates can be added to the report. In the meantime Laura Burton (LB) is working get the maps updated. MC welcomed comments/corrections/feedback from members and asked that it is sent to LB as soon as possible that we can complete the report as soon as possible.

4.2 MC highlighted that the Annual Report would not be completed in time to submit it to MHCLG by the end of the year. Niamh Murphy (NM) confirmed that MHCLG would prefer to receive the document a little late but finalised, therefore a draft report is not required to be submitted before the end of the year. NM confirmed that other AWPs are also slightly delayed due to it taking slightly longer than estimated for BGS to supply MPAs with the sales data.

4.3 The Chair confirmed that a completed report will be circulated to members before it is submitted to MHCLG so that members do have a final opportunity to comments on the document.

4.4 David Payne (DP) flagged up the reserves section and that looking in the appendix there is a large number of sites with a 2042 end date. DP suggested that more in relation to 2042 should be added to the commentary text in the Annual Report as there is a need to renew these sites and it’s a pressing issue for the region.

4.5 Tom Evans (TE) confirmed that the PDNP are trying to address this issue through the Local Plan but asked the industry representatives when they are planning to start submitting applications to extend the end dates. DP confirmed that the MPA have taken legal advice on ways to extend beyond 2042 and that the advice has been provided to MHCLG. At present there is not enough clarity to start progressing extending the sites. Kirsten Cunningham (KC) confirmed that they are currently reviewing all sites in their portfolio and checking all end dates, they will then phase applications for extending sites rather than submitting all at once.

4.6 The Chair agreed that the issue should be recognised and that we would look to add some text to the report. The Chair asked MHCLG is there is going to be any guidance issued as it is a national issue/concern. NM confirmed that it was on the agenda but that work in relation to the NPPF has taken precedence. TE asked if there was to be a wider consultation on any PPG, as in the PDNP they have a number of sites that are not producing material and if rolled forward would just continue to artificial inflate the landbank. NM advised she would seek further advice in relation to the process and update when more information is known.

5. MHCLG update

5.1 The Chair thanked NM for attending the meeting and is grateful to hear the latest updates. NM confirmed that the NPPF is still due to be published before the end of the year alongside a government response.

5.2 NM confirmed that all BGS Form A data has been distributed. The Form B still has a final few responses required from Authorities. BGS are now working on quality assurance and are working on drawing up tables to provide information. The survey timescale is currently running approximately 3 months behind schedule so at present the survey report is expected to be published around March 2025.

5.3 The Chair asked whether the plan was still to use the survey data to look at future aggregate apportionments. NM confirmed that was still the plan but the General Election had delayed things. A consultation on the methodology will take place, although at present it is not known in what form the consultation will be.

5.4 LO had heard that the NPPF was expected next week, NM could not provide an exact date but anticipated it being published before Christmas. LO asked whether another NPPF would be expected afterwards, NM confirmed a wider planning reform is being considered. LO asked whether Minerals and Waste would be in the NDMPs, NM confirmed it was likely.

6. Industry update

6.1 DP highlighted some useful documents that the MPA has recently published that he would send to the Secretariat to circulate. A brief overview of the documents are published below.

Economic and Market Briefing

• UK economy: The UK economy lost momentum in the third quarter of 2024, with GDP growth of 0.1% compared to Q2. This marked a sharp slowdown from the rate of growth in the first half of 2024. More expansive public spending is poised to provide a temporary boost to the economy next year, but also drive up inflation to 2.6% according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, more than a percentage point higher than assumed back in March, which could delay monetary policy easing. This could have a considerable bearing on the magnitude of the economic upturn next year and influence the prospective revival in key areas such as housing.
• Construction: The construction sector in Great Britain showed signs of stabilising in 2024Q3, including in new housing, where indicators such as mortgage approvals have improved. However, affordability remains the primary drag and housebuilders continue to await evidence of a more sustained upturn in housing demand. Growth in new contract awards this year has been driven largely by infrastructure projects, particularly significant energy developments like the Hornsea Project Three offshore wind farm last month. New contracts in other sectors have been limited by the wider caution to invest. The CPA forecasts a 2.5% recovery in construction output in 2025, led by rebounds in private housing and private housing repair, maintenance and improvement.
• Mineral products markets: The Budget on October 30 has added a fresh layer of uncertainty to the anticipated market recovery, particularly on housing and roads. Risks of slower than expected interest rates cuts by the Bank of England next year and the lowering of stamp duty thresholds from April 2025, adds to existing affordability pressures. Capital spending increases next year for schools, hospitals, prisons, rail projects and potholes are welcome, but the cancellation of five National Highways projects will undermine roads delivery. Our latest market forecast published in September illustrates a gradual recovery in mineral products demand in 2025, from a low base, contingent on a broader economic and housing recovery.
• In focus: Government's industrial strategy: The Industrial Strategy aims to boost investment in high-growth sectors, fostering sustainable and inclusive economic growth. The MPA consultation response emphasises the critical role of the mineral products industry and why it should play a central role in the final version of the Strategy.

7. MPA’s update

7.1 PDNP - TE - No significant applications and the Local Plan Reg 18 consultation has now closed. There are approximately 140 minerals comments to work through.

7.2 Derbyshire - Note provided by email. The Minerals Local Plan has now been submitted and at present they are awaiting the name of their Inspector.

7.3 Leicestershire - LO - No significant applications and no changes in relation to the Local Plan.

7.4 Lincolnshire - RL - No further updates on the Local Plan, officers are still working through the responses received. There are a large number of planning applications being received on allocated and unallocated sites, as well as a number of applications that are twin tracking the site for planning permission alongside progressing it in the local plan.

7.5 Northamptonshire (North and West)/Rutland - MC - No changes since the last meeting in relation to applications or Local Plan.

7.6 Nottinghamshire - EB - No changes in relation to the Minerals Local Plan. Mill Hill from the Local Plan is currently at planning application stage for a sand and gravel site. Ratcliffe on Soar is currently at application stage for the extraction of gypsum as a significant resource was found onsite and they are working on undertaking prior extraction.

8. Agenda of Business and Work Program 2025/2026

8.1 MC confirmed that the agenda of business and work programme are for next year, the documents do not need to be finalised until the May meeting but should any members have any comments on either document they are welcomed.

8.2 The Chair asked about the tendering process for the secretariat going forward in 2025/26. NM confirmed that the intention was to procure a new 4-year contract but due to time constraints they have had to look at extending the current contracts for another year. At the moment they are discussing with current suppliers to check they are happy with the agreements. The Chair expressed the hope that MC and LB would be considering accepting the one year extension. MC confirmed that if the contract had gone through a tendering process the current secretariat might not have been in a position to tender, but it was likely that with a one year extension it would continue.

9. AOB

9.1 The Chair highlighted that the next scheduled meeting is the middle of May and by then the whole process of survey and LAA work would have commenced again.

The Chair signed off the meeting by wishing all members a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

10. Date of next meeting

Friday 16 May 2025 - 10am via Teams 

East Midlands Aggregate Working Party Agenda

6 December 2024 10am to 12pm Virtual Meeting on Microsoft Teams

Chair: Stephen Pointer (Nottinghamshire County Council)Secretariat: Mark Chant (North Northamptonshire Council)

1. Introductions and apologies
2. Minutes and actions of last meeting
3. Local Aggregate Assessments (For those authorities not in a position to present their LAA to members at the October meeting)
   Each MPA gives short presentation on their latest Draft LAA (2023 data) focusing on:
   - Key findings
   - LAA provision figures for calculating landbank et al - how are they justified?
   - Landbanks - are these robust?
   - Any issues arising from the demand and supply balance - are these fully addressed?
   - How have or will comments made by members been or be addressed?
   - If 2023 data LAAs are outstanding when likely to be produced?
   AWP members will respond. Secretariat to issue formal advice following meeting based on minuted outcome.
4. Update on Draft Annual Report 2024 (2023 data)
5. MHCLG update
6. Industry update
7. MPA’s update (Plans and significant applications for aggregates)
8. Agenda of Business and Work Plan 2025/2026
9. AOB
10. Date of next meeting - suggested Friday 16 May 2025

Minutes of East Midlands AWP - Friday 11 October 2024 

Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams

Attendees

Apologies

1. Introductions

1.1 A round table of introductions was undertaken.

1.2 Darl Sweetland (DS) introduced himself as the Anglian Water representative that will attend meetings.

2. Minutes and actions of last meeting

2.1 No comments on the minutes. Minutes agreed.

2.2 Mark Chant (MC) confirmed that the work programme and agenda of business that was discussed in the May meeting was submitted to MHCLG at the end of May as required.

3. Local Aggregate Assessments

3.1 The Chair highlighted that some authorities were a little delayed this year with the production of their LAAs. Each MPA was requested to give a short presentation on their latest Draft LAA or where drafts are not yet published any indications on when the draft can be expected to be published.

3.2 Derbyshire - No representative from Derbyshire County Council was present. Laura Burton (LB) confirmed that the 2024 LAA has been completed and circulated to AWP members. Only one comment was received from members and this was an update on the operator of a site rather than in relation to the content of the LAA. Derbyshire are now finalising their LAA.

3.3 Leicestershire - Oliver Meek (OM) from Leicestershire provided an update. OM confirmed that Leicestershire are a little behind on the production of their LAA due to staffing capacity issues experienced over the summer. No figures can yet be provided in detail, but Leicestershire are working on drafting their LAA and hope to have the draft for circulation early in November. Christina Emmett (CE) confirmed that headline early figures look to show sales are reducing.

3.4 Malcolm Lawer (ML) highlighted that Leicestershire might want to note in their LAA that Mountsorrel had a fire in 2023 and that the site was only operating at 50% of capacity which is likely to have impacted sales figures.

3.5 Lincolnshire - Richard Leonard (RL) from Lincolnshire provided an update. RL confirmed that Lincolnshire had also been experiencing staff issues and are behind on the production of the LAA. Lincolnshire are looking to recruit more staff but focus has been on the Local Plan rather than the LAA. The LAA is now a priority and Lincolnshire have been working with BGS to finalise the figures. Sales figures are now confirmed so work is underway on looking at the provision figures. Early indications show sales are fairly consistent and lots of applications are being received that would assist with the landbank.

3.6 Northamptonshire West and North - MC from North Northamptonshire introduced. Sales of sand and gravel have fluctuated in recent years. 2023 sales were very similar to those in 2022, just 4,000t lower. 10-year average sales figure is 0.47 Mtpa, the adopted MWLP provision rate is 0.50 Mtpa. Landbank is 8 years therefore there are sufficient permitted reserves to maintain the government required landbank of at least 7 years.

Supply contribution from sand and gravel sites in Northamptonshire is currently relatively limited - 4 sites permitted, all active sites. The total reserves for these sites are around 4 Mt. The relatively limited supply of sand and gravel sites is of concern to us. Believe it’s because of 2 reasons:

• The large straightforward river valley sites in the Nene Valley with significant reserves have been exhausted
• Structural changes in the aggregates industry with more multi-national companies and a move to bigger production units, seem to be making Northamptonshire a less attractive investment for the bigger players compared to other locations

If sites (allocated or non-allocated) do not come forward for extraction there will continue to be some reliance on imports. To change this situation requires the industry to invest in Northamptonshire. If there is a continued under-performance against provision, then it has to be assumed that the provision figure for sand and gravel is too high and it would be realistic for there to be a downward adjustment.

Sales of crushed rock have largely increased year on year and in 2020 sales peaked to the highest levels in the last 10 years. However, since this high point sales have fallen annually likely due to the impact of the Covid-19 virus pandemic on the economy. Sales fell by 22% between 2022 and 2023 due in-part to relatively lower production levels at Wakerley. 10-year average sales figure is 0.80 Mtpa, the adopted MWLP crushed rock provision rate is 0.39 Mtpa. Landbank is 29 years therefore there are sufficient permitted reserves to maintain the government required landbank of at least 10 years.

The supply contribution of limestone sites is firmer than for sand and gravel. There are 12 permitted sites - 5 are active. Extraction at the large Wakerley quarry will ensure a consistent supply into the future.

It should be noted that Wakerley is currently being worked well over what was anticipated when permission was granted and this over-production is unbalancing the average sales figures significantly. If the level of crushed rock production anticipated at Wakerley continues, and there is no decline in production at the other locations, then the 10-year annual average sales will continue in 2024 to be significantly higher than was identified in the MWLP. This will need to be taken into account when considering the LAA provision figure.

A continued supply of sand and gravel and crushed rock will be needed to support housing and infrastructure proposals in Northamptonshire. The level of construction however is not likely to be any greater than that experienced previously and hence it is not necessary to factor in any additional growth to the provision rates. Taking into account the sales trends also, the provision figures to be used in 2023 for determining planning applications and calculating the landbank will be the same as those in the MWLP:

• Sand and gravel 0.50 Mtpa
• Crushed rock 0.39 Mtpa

3.7 Nottinghamshire - The Chair from Nottinghamshire introduced. Nottinghamshire were a little later on drafting the LAA but LB from the Secretariat noted it has been circulated and members are currently able to submit comments. When comparing the figures from 2019 to 2023 there has been a decrease in sales with sand and gravel sales in 2023 being 0.87mt, this reduction is likely due to the flooding suffered by a number of operators. Sherwood Sandstone did see a small increase from 0.18 in 2022 to 0.23 in 2023. There are permitted Crushed Rock sites but these are currently not operational.

The sand and gravel 10 year average is 1.29mt and the 3 year is 1.16mt, the recent Local Plan had a provision figure of 1.7mt. The current landbank for sand and gravel is 16 year and Sherwood Sandstone is 23 years.

Sturton Le Steeple a major Nottinghamshire site is expected to resume workings in 2025 which should hopefully help increase sales. River Valley sales have seen a sharp decline in sales but this is due to flooding issues.

Construction projects in the county are becoming increasingly uncertain with no funding in place and no set dates for projects being firmed up.

3.8 Rutland - MC introduced on behalf of Rutland Council. Rutland has 4 crushed rock quarries, 2 are active. Reserves cannot be published for confidentiality reasons. Sales have generally increased annually although decreased between 2019 and 2020 as one site neared exhaustion and the impact of the pandemic on the economy. Production has since picked up, however between 2022 and 2023 sales decreased by 15%. This may in-part be due to one quarry nearing the end of its life. 10-year average sales figure is 0.30 Mtpa. Landbank is 44 years therefore there are sufficient permitted reserves to maintain the government required landbank of at least 10 years.

There are indications of future growth in construction activity in Rutland, albeit on a relatively small scale, for which a continued supply of crushed rock will be needed. It is not likely that the demand for crushed rock in Rutland will be any greater than that experienced previously and as such it is not necessary to factor in any additional growth to a provision rate. There are no major infrastructure projects planned in the county that would result in a significant increase in demand for mineral resources. Taking into account these factors and sales trends, the provision figure to be used for determining planning applications and calculating the landbank will therefore be 0.28 Mtpa (the emerging RLP provision rate). MC noted the LAA had been circulated to the AWP and no comments had been received.

3.9 The Chair thanked all those authorities who submitted their LAAs before the meeting. It was noted that some authorities LAAs have been delayed this year but the aim should still be to have a completed set of LAAs by the end of the year.

4. Update on draft annual report 2024 (2023 data)

4.1 LB highlighted that the annual report was a little behind compared to last year and that there were still a number of gaps in the report. The draft report will be submitted to MHCLG at the end of October so if anyone has pressing feedback or would like amendments before it is submitted they need to contact LB asap. The gaps in data will need to be filled before the final report is submitted before the end of the year and maps will be added once data is finalised. LB will contact individual MPAs to check and confirm data and is continuing to work to get a finalised document ready for the December meeting. The Chair encouraged members to work to fill in gaps as soon as possible.

4.2 DS commented via the chat that a large scale project, the NSIP at Mallard Pass (solar farm) might need to be included in the Rutland LAA. The Chair said this would be considered.

5. NACG and Secretaries Meetings

5.1 The Chair highlighted some of the discussions that had taken place at the NACG meeting. The 2023 survey data was discussed, and early indications give an overall reduction in sand and gravel sales nationally when compared to 2019. Crushed Rock figures are more variable across the country but also do seem to be trending downwards compared to 2019. Discussions looked at what is driving this reduction and the economy, Covid and the use of recycled aggregates were all highlighted as possible reasons from the reduction. The reports are currently going through final checks and it is hoped they can be published soon.

5.2 Further discussion took place around the alignment of surveys across all AWP so a consistent form is used nationally. And MSAs were discussed to see how its working for MPAs, how it could work better and also to if it was possible for future MHCLG guidance to include information on implementation of MSAs.

5.3 Further discussions took place around the future of aggregate planning and provision with the possibility of sub national aggregate forecasts being used which could in future replace LAAs. The change in government and drive for housing might see the 2023 figures used as baseline to progress the changes.

5.4 MC highlighted that the guidelines were circulated for views a year ago with two options being given. There is now a potential additional third option being proposed which would see more direction of provision at MPA level, rather than simply at national and regional level. MC also flagged that the AWP secretariat contracts are planned to be put out for tender in the near future with four year contracts anticipated to commence next April.

5.5 Niamh Murphy (NM) confirmed that two options were previously presented to senior officials however with a third option now added; further discussions with take place and advice will be given to ministers but the timeline for this is to be confirmed. NM confirmed that a business case is currently being written for the AWP secretary contract and a procurement process will commence soon.

5.6 David Payne (DP) flagged the link between the AWP contracts and the different guideline options. Regional planning bodies used to make decisions in relation to provision but without the regional structure of the regional planning bodies it is not clear how a more local figure with be supplied - it is potentially politically fraught. The MPA feel that MHCLG should provide the figures for all and the MPA will encourage MHCLG to proceed in that direction, which could also take the pressure of MPAs. The Chair highlighted the need for local testing and assessment of the provision figures and the decisions taken with the guidelines will impact on the possible work required by AWP secretaries.

6. MHCLG update

6.1 NM confirmed that The British Geological Survey (BGS) have now distributed all Form A data received from major operators (as well as data collected directly by MPAs for all other operators of sites within their area) back to MPAs. MPAs have been asked to now review this data and raise any issues with BGS or confirm they are happy with the figures as they are as soon as possible so that BGS can progress the draft survey report.

A Survey steering group was held on 8 October where BGS presented provisional data. The group also discussed the survey timetable and BGS advised they are running behind schedule in terms of production of the draft report, but it is positive that MPAs have been sent Form A data to assist with preparation of LAAs and so that the AWP secretaries can draft AMRs.

6.2 NM reported that the government consultation ‘Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system’ closed on 24 September and officials are currently analysing responses. The consultation response and revised Framework will be published later this year. The government will complete their wider set of planning policy changes through consulting on National Development Management Policies and bringing forward the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

6.3 DP highlighted the need for some of the development management policies to be minerals specific as one size fits all policies will not work with minerals.

6.4 ML flagged up some difficulties around the EA permitting process, it is not a democratic process like planning applications, the EA need to take a more pragmatic approach to the process or there is going to be a risk to landbanks. NM confirmed that Christina does meet with the EA, so she will feed back the concerns for future meetings and provide updates at a later date. DP highlighted that is always planning that gets the blame for holding up development but uncertainty around permitting timescales is causing issues for the industry. ML highlighted that if the EA mention a derogation agreement, the industry often get held to ransom and the EA do not assist in the process. The situation is challenging and becoming worse. Kirsten Cunningham (KC) highlighted the permit when received is often not for the life of the quarry, but that generally a number of processes after the decision notice is issued are time consuming and add further delays therefore potentially restricting permitted reserves.

7. Industry update

7.1 DP highlighted that the MPA are currently drafting their annual survey report. Early indications show a depletion of sand and gravel reserves, due to applications not coming forward and those that do also not being granted permission. There is an indication of uncertainty amongst operators that is impeding sites coming forward.

7.2 DP confirmed that no legal advice has been received but MPAs have been citing Finch in relation to minerals. The ruling was in relation to fossil fuels but some MPAs are linking it to aggregates. Advice from MPA is to cover the ruling off in the EIA, where climate change would be considered anyway, and not to ignore the ruling completely. ML flagged this ruling up as a potential trip wire for minerals planning applications, there must be dialogue between the industry and the MPAs on this subject to avoid causing any delays to the planning applications.

7.3 DP confirmed that the MPA is working alongside POS to create on guidance on BNG as it has currently been implemented without specific minerals guidance. OM flagged up that DEFRA in the last couple of days had published a template for phased developments which could be more suited to minerals.

7.4 Chris Nicoll questioned how authorities are resourcing BNG, are applications received up to the required standard etc. The Chair confirmed that Nottinghamshire are well resourced to undertake the work but at present the work load is very low. MC confirmed that one of the Northamptonshire authorities are progressing with BNG much quicker than the other. However, there is a national shortage of ecologists which is slowing down the process as well as the identification of offsetting sites etc. The Northamptonshire authorities have not yet received any BNG minerals applications.

7.5 OM highlighted that compared to unitaries and districts that BNG applications are much lower for county authorities. Leicestershire have not had many applications that would be eligible for BNG and only one has reached the end of the process with a decision notice issued. Leicestershire do provide BNG advice to their districts under an SLA and there is a challenge around the number of ecologists that can undertake the work; there are vacancies at Leicestershire as well as across the country.

7.6 ML raised concerns around the implementation of BNG, it does not apply to S73 or ROMP etc. but one authority has suggested that it would apply to consolidation application. So further guidance be issued this might need to be included. DP highlighted that consolidation is an anomaly, there is no guidance at present but discussions are ongoing with MHCLG. DP confirmed that any MPA guidance on BNG would not have any legal weight but are hoping that MHCLG will take on board what is set out in the proposed MPA guidance and possibly include it in any future published BNG guidance.

8. MPAs update

8.1 PDNP - TE - No significant applications and the Local Plan is now out to consultation.

8.2 Derbyshire - Note provided by email. Current target is to submit the Local Plan in November 24.

8.3 Leicestershire - OM - Minerals Local Plan was adopted in 2019, a recent review has highlighted that it is not currently required to be updated. Expected that review would take place in 2027 under the new plan making framework. No significant applications at present however a large green field site is expected to be received soon.

8.4 Lincolnshire - RL - Reg 18 consultation on Local Plan containing policies and sites was completed on 24 September. Work now underway to process a significant number of responses. There has been a delay to the plan process due to staffing capacity, work needed on site assessments as well as political interest. There is resistance and concern amongst residents. Elections and devolution will be taking place in 2025 so the timing of a Reg 19 consultation will have to fit in around these. There is lots of applications being received on allocated and unallocated sites as well as a number of applications that are twin tracking the site for planning permission alongside progressing it in the local plan.

8.5 Northamptonshire (North and West) - MC - More movement on sorting a potential way forward of the plan in Northamptonshire. Hoping for agreement in the next six months. An application was refused at Heyford by members and an appeal is expected. Devolution progressing in Northants with the area proposed to include West and North Northants, Bedford, Luton, Central Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes. Not sure at present if there will be an elected mayor.

8.6 Nottinghamshire - SP - Adopted plan is adequate and is now starting deliver sites to consent. Mill Hill from the Local Plan is currently at planning application stage but is awaiting further information. As previously mentioned Sturton Le Steeple is due to soon recommence extraction.

9. AOB

9.1 DS flagged up that Anglian Water have identified a shortage of water in the East Midlands area, there is currently a requirement they have to supply residential properties but they are currently declining business requests. They have implemented an assessment process to see what sites would be connected and it could impact minerals sites. Anglian Water are encouraging the use of existing facilities as new facilities might not be provided with a water link. There is a requirement to reduce demand by 9% by 2038 so this current process likely to be in place until 2030 at least.

9.2 KC asked if work is being done to reduce householder demands for water. DS confirmed that work is being under taken to reduce demand through things like grey water usage but at present there is lots of push back from housebuilders. New building regs are required to help implement the reduction on water demand.

9.3 The Chair reminded those authorities yet to submit their LAAs for circulation to do so as soon as possible so that we can still have a completed set of LAAs by the end of the year.

10. Date of next meeting

10.1 Friday 6 December 2024 - 10am via Teams.

East Midlands Aggregate Working Party Agenda

11 October 2024 10am to 12pm Virtual Meeting on Microsoft Teams

Chair: Stephen Pointer (Nottinghamshire County Council) Secretariat: Mark Chant (North Northamptonshire Council)

1. Introductions and apologies
2. Minutes and actions of last meeting
3. Local Aggregate Assessments 
   Each MPA gives short presentation on their latest Draft LAA (2023 data) focusing on: 
   - Key findings
   - LAA provision figures for calculating landbank et al – how are they justified?
   - Landbanks - are these robust?  
   - Any issues arising from the demand and supply balance – are these fully addressed?
   - How have/will comments made by members been/be addressed?
   - If 2023 data LAAs are outstanding when likely to be produced?
   AWP members will respond. Secretariat to issue formal advice following meeting based on minuted outcome.
4. Update on Draft Annual Report 2024 (2023 data)
5. NACG Meeting Secretaries Meeting
6. MHCLG Update
7. Industry update
8. MPA’s update (Plans and significant applications for aggregates)
9. AOB
10. Date of next meeting - suggested 10am Friday 6 December 2024

Minutes of East Midlands AWP - Friday 17 May 2024 

Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams

Attendees

Apologies

1. Introductions

1.1 Oliver Meek (OM) advised that Stephen Pointer was unavailable for today’s meeting and that he would be standing in as Chair for this meeting. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and a round table of introductions was undertaken.

2. Minutes and actions of last meeting

2.1 No comments on the minutes. Minutes agreed.

3. EMAWP Work Programme 2024/25/ Agenda of Business 2024/25

3.1 Laura Burton (LB) advised these are the same documents that had been circulated to members for the December meeting. The documents follow the same format as previous years documents, but they do have to be finalised by the end of the month so any comments members have on the documents would need to be sent to LB ASAP.

4. Progress on AMS 2023

4.1 Richard Leonard (RL) – Lincolnshire – Authority is currently tight on resources and a colleague has been undertaking the survey. Form B and the list of sites surveyed have been returned to BGS and as the 15 May 11 surveys out of 17 had been received. The rest are being chased and reminders have been sent, but they are the trickier sites that in the past have required the use of estimated figures.

4.2 Emma Brook (EB) – Nottinghamshire - Had a good response and was awaiting for a small operator. EB confirmed after the meeting that there is only one survey outstanding. It is likely Nottinghamshire will have to use an estimate for this site. Awaiting to hear from BGS for the other sites.

4.3 Christina Emmett (CE) – Leicestershire – Responses received from 2 operators over 4 sites, now waiting for the data to be sent from BGS for the other sites.

4.4 Tom Evans (TE) – Peak District National Park – 4 surveys have been returned, currently waiting on 5 further sites but these are smaller non aggregate building stone sites.

4.5 Derbyshire provided a written update in advance of the meeting – 2 completed returns out of the 5 that have been sent out. Heidelberg also sent us their return direct as well as to BGS which was very helpful.

4.6 Mark Chant (MC) – Rutland – One survey is outstanding but have recently been provided sales figures in a letter so its just the reserve that needs firming up.

4.7 MC - Northamptonshire (West & North) - 4 surveys outstanding and reminders have been sent. 2 have responded to say they need more time and 2 haven't responded at all and will be chased further. Heidelberg had provided their survey responses direct as well as to BGS which was useful.

4.8 Mark North (MN) highlighted that survey returns in the EMAWP appear fairly successful, but should authorities need assistance the MPA is able to help talk to members to encourage survey responses.

4.9 TE asked about the BGS data and what authorities had received. Niamh Murphy (NM) confirmed that BGS were still receiving data which they are currently checking and they will circulate to MPAs for further checks as soon as they can.

5. Feedback from the Secretaries / NACG meetings with DLUHC

5.1 MC noted that DLUHC will be starting work on the procurement necessary for the new secretariat contracts which will commence in 2025. NM explained that the meetings were mostly relaying information, but areas discussed were the minerals surveys, work on aggregate provision, confidentiality, updates to the guidance on secondary and recycled aggregates and the possibility of regional planning hubs. 

5.2 The Chair asked for more information in relation to regional planning hubs. NM confirmed the idea was raised to address resource issues and the North Wales example was provided as an example of how it worked. MC confirmed the idea was put forward by SEEAWP but the discussion did not really get anywhere and considered would need strong central government guidance for it to be rolled out. NM confirmed that the action from the discussion was for to DLUHC to discuss the idea but there is no action at present.

5.3 MN confirmed that the MPA had been pushing for a number of years to get planning hubs to build capacity and create a career progression structure. Whilst there are still minerals planners with experience left creation of hubs will allow this knowledge to be shared and the MPA will continue to encourage the movement towards regional hubs.

5.4 The Chair expressed concerns of the use of hubs and considered that local authorities would not like to give up their decision-making powers, although somewhere like the East Midlands Combined Authority could be suitable to have a hub? MN thought that he would not envisage local areas losing powers, advice would come from the hubs but local areas would make decisions, the aim would be to take make better use of resources that are currently under pressure.

5.5 TE confirmed that he previously worked in Wales as part of a hub and that local residents did get a little confused as to who was making decisions although it was the local area that took any decision, but regional hubs would need explaining to local residents.

5.6 MC highlighted that North Northants is currently working as a semi regional hub undertaking all minerals work for North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire Councils as well as Rutland Council. Decisions are still taken by the local area but staff do have to get to know the different styles and processes of each authority as there is currently different arrangements for each of the authorities that a service is provided for.

6. DLUHC update

6.1 NM confirmed that the NPPF update was published on 19 Dec 2023 and work is currently still ongoing in relation to development management policies.

6.2 The chair asked if there was any indication on the timescales for responses to the recent Accelerated Planning System consultation. NM confirmed she would ask for a timeline.

6.3 After the meeting NM provided an update from the relevant team at DLUHC: “The consultation closed on 1 May and we are now analysing the responses. A government response will be published in due course”.

7. Industry update

7.1 MN drew attention to the RTPI/MPA conference and confirmed that booking was now open. Micheal Bingham is the Key Note speaker for the event. The MPA have undertaken their annual survey which they are currently hoping to publish the data in Qtr 2. MN drew members attention to the new document that has just been published Construction Aggregates: Primary, Recycled and Secondary Aggregates in 2022. Note web link to this document was circulated to all members after the meeting.

8. MPAs update

8.1 RL – Lincolnshire - Local Plan is still currently on track and a Preferred Approach consultation will be in July. Document will include proposed policies and proposed allocation. Work is currently being undertaken to finalise all the supporting documents. DM team is particularly busy as low on resources but also as lots of the proposed allocations have also been submitted for planning permission.

8.2 EB – Nottinghamshire – MLP was adopted in 2021 and there is still no need to renew at present. Note. After the meeting EB updated with the following: application submitted for a new sand and gravel quarry at Mill Hill in Barton in Fabis. The site sits across the border of Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City and therefore both authorities will be making a decision on the relevant part of the application. It is expected to extract 2.05 million tonnes within Nottinghamshire and 0.5 million tonnes in Nottingham City, therefore totalling 2.55 million tonnes. The site is allocated within the adopted Minerals Local Plan (MP2p) and is a key site for the Plan, with this the only new site allocated for sand and gravel. There is strong local opposition to the site.

8.3 Leo Oliver (LO) – Leicestershire – No current plans to update the Local Plan. There are currently a number of significant applications which include a sand and gravel application at One Ash which will produce 140,000tpa and have a life span of 8 years; extension to Lockington for 3.3mt which would extend life of site by 15 years; Mountsorrel for 75mt of granite which would extend life of the site by 18 years and take the site through to 2058, has received over 1000 objections; and Cliffe Hill Ext which would provide 30mt of granite and provide ten years of materials.

8.4 TE – PDNP – No current applications for aggregate sites. Issues and Options has been drafted and the whole plan is due to be out for consultation later in the year.

8.5 Derbyshire provided a written update in advance of the meeting – The Minerals Local Plan should be submitted to the Inspectorate in November 2024 with the examination public hearings likely to take place next spring.

8.6 MC – Rutland – minerals is included within the wider Local Plan and work is still ongoing on preparation of a reg 19 document.

8.7 MC – Northamptonshire (West/North) – No decision has been taken on how to progress the Local Plan. An extension at Harlestone was approved under delegated powers; Heyford, an allocated site, is due to go to committee next week, recommendation is approval but it has generated a number of objections.

9. AOB

9.1 LB highlighted that this was to be the last meeting attended by NM. Thanks were given from the Chair and the Secretariat for MNs service to the AWP over a number of years.

10. Date of next meeting

10.1 Date proposed to be Friday 11 October 2024.

East Midlands Aggregate Working Party Agenda

17 May 2024 10am to 12pm Virtual Meeting on Microsoft Teams

Chair: Stephen Pointer (Nottinghamshire County Council) Secretariat: Mark Chant (North Northamptonshire Council)

1. Introductions and apologies
2. Minutes and actions of last meeting
3. EMAWP Work Programme 2024/25 / Agenda of Business 2024/25
4. Progress on AMS 2023
5. Feedback from the Secretaries/NACG meetings with DLUHC
6. DLUHC update
7. Industry update
8. MPA’s update (Plans and significant applications for aggregates)
9. AOB
10. Date of next meeting - Friday 11 October 2024 

Minutes of East Midlands AWP - Friday 8 December 2023 

Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams

Attendees

Apologies

1. Introductions

1.1 The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and a round table of introductions was undertaken.

2. Minutes and actions of last meeting

2.1 Mark Chant (MC) confirmed that letters endorsing LAA’s have been sent to most MPA’s now, Derbyshire is the only MPA to have not had their letter yet. Michelle Spence (MS) confirmed the Derbyshire is currently undergoing a restructure and a large proportion of staff have left or are leaving. From January Richard Stansfield will be the only Policy staff member left and he is currently on sick leave. Laura Burton (LB) confirmed that Derbyshire had been sent the comments from the LAA consultation and the Secretariat are awaiting a reply as to whether any changes to the LAA are required.

2.2 Minutes agreed.

3. Update on Draft Annual Report 2023 (2022 data)

3.1 MC confirmed the content is complete, LB had the last figures confirmed on Wednesday so it was a quick turnaround to get the document shared later the same day. MC explained that the Annual Report will be submitted to DLUHC by Christmas so if any members do require changes they need to be sent to LB by 18 December. MC explained that although the content is complete work needs to be undertaken to make the document accessible so that it can be published on the North Northamptonshire website, so the final version will have a difference in the styling.

3.2 The Chair confirmed that the Annual Report reflects the survey work and LAA’s from each individual MPA and agreed the current draft Annual Report should be submitted to DLHUC. The Chair thanked MC and LB for pulling all the data together and getting it published by the deadline.

4. DLUHC Update

4.1 Niamh Murphy (NM) provided an update in advance of the meeting which was read to members by MC during the meeting:

AM2023

• The contract for the 2023 Aggregate Minerals Survey has been awarded to British Geological Survey (BGS) and the inception meeting was held on 16 November. BGS are now working on the methodology report, and we are planning to hold a Steering Group meeting to agree this in January.
• We are planning for both survey forms A and B to be issued on 1 March, with a return deadline of 1 May. This should ensure that data is provided in a timely fashion to support the preparation of LAAs.
• We will provide a further update following the Steering Group meeting in January but are happy to answer any questions in the meantime.

Planning Reforms

• The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill has now gained royal assent so has become the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023.
• An updated NPPF was published on 5 September 2023 and policy changes, relevant to planning decisions for onshore wind, took effect immediately upon publication. The amendments were to chapter 14 of the NPPF.
• Our formal response to the other proposals in the consultation will also be published later in 2023 after considering comments received from our December 2022 consultation.
• Future changes to the NPPF will be published in due course, and its content will depend on the implementation of the government’s proposals for changes to the planning system, including the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act.
• Any future changes to the NPPF will be subject to a full public consultation which will provide an opportunity to submit comments on the proposals.

NACG

• As we held the last NACG meeting in July, the next one is due to be held early in 2024 (January / February).
• At this meeting we will continue to discuss topics relevant to all / many AWP regions including: AM2023 progress, updates to guidelines for aggregate provision, data confidentiality and sharing, long term crushed rock supply, Annual Monitoring Reports covering 2022 data, and more.

4.2 The Chair highlighted some of the things to expect in the New Year including changes to the NPPF and he notes the discussions on Sub National Guidelines which he is pleased to see the AM2023 is being used as a base for. The Chair is pleased to see that things seem to be more orderly and resourced at DLHUC and hopes to see it continue.

4.3 MC highlighted that normally surveys are sent out in January whereas the proposal is to circulate the survey in March. Despite this slight delay the aim is still to meet the deadline of having all LAA’s circulated in advance of the October meeting so they can be discussed at the meeting.

4.4 MN explained that he felt that DHLUC were trying to not overload on surveys and despite the slight slippage in procure is happy that there is one survey rather than two surveys. He would be particularly pleased if the survey did lead on to new national guidelines.

4.5 The Chair explained in previous years the AWP had also undertaken their own survey during the National Survey but with the changes at DLHUC he is happy this year not to undertake further survey work.

4.6 Kirsten Cunningham (KC) confirmed that she did not see the reduced timescales for survey returns to be a problem.

4.7 MN referred to the Planning Fee increase, the industry knew the increase was coming but ended up being caught on the hop by it being brought in so quickly. MN expressed his concerns that fees are not being ring fenced for just the planning department and thus instead leak to other Council budgets. The Chair agreed with MNs concerns but explained it would be difficult to change the Councils Financial Officers approach to the fees.

5. Industry Update

5.1 Mark North (MN) circulated an update after the meeting:

UK economy

UK GDP growth has showed greater resilience this year than most had expected, but 14 consecutive interest rate hikes are now slowing the economy more markedly. The latest PMI business surveys showed a significant deterioration in private sector activity in September across all three main sectors of the economy. Taken literally, the PMIs depict an economy having moved into recession-mode over the summer. Whilst it is likely not quite that bad yet, it is certainly consistent with ongoing economic stagnation.

Construction

A loss of momentum across key construction sectors in 2023 appeared to worsen in September as output dropped at its fastest rate in more than three years. Housing fell to levels comparable to 2009, hampered by the squeeze in household incomes which has prompted house builders to scale back construction plans. According to the recently-published autumn 2023 forecast from CPA, construction output will not return to growth until 2025. Longer-term, the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2 has revived concerns over the government’s commitment to major infrastructure projects.

Mineral products sales volumes in GB for 2023Q3

Demand took another step backwards since mid-July, driven by weaker housebuilding activity and delays to key infrastructure projects amid persisting cost and planning challenges across key subsectors, particularly in roads. On a quarterly basis, the sales volumes of ready-mix concrete and sand & gravel recorded the sharpest falls, down 15% and 12.2% respectively, the largest individual quarterly decreases in over a decade. For ready-mixed concrete, the magnitude of the decline is comparable to 2009Q1, when macroeconomic and construction conditions had been severely impacted by the global financial crisis. Mortar sales dropped by 8.7%, while in contrast, pockets of regional growth helped to avert back-to-back quarterly declines in asphalt and crushed rock sales. Asphalt sales grew by 1.6% and crushed rock by 0.3%.

5.2 MN confirmed at the meeting that there is a loss of momentum across key areas of construction and construction has dropped at the fastest rate in the last 3 years. Current predictions are that the UK will not see growth again until 2025. The cancellation of HS2 is causing a lack of confidence in the Government’s approach to infrastructure projects. Figures for construction are returning to levels last seen in 2009.

5.3 KC agreed that 2024 is expected to be hard on the industry, the cancellation of HS2 is causing uncertainty and the industry would just like a period of stability and consistency.

6. MPA’s Update

6.1 MS – Derbyshire – Carried out Reg 19 earlier in the year and are now working to fix the unsoundness issues. Objections were received from Historic England (HE) who asked for three sites to be withdrawn which would have a significant impact on supply. Currently trying to work with HE to come up with a solution. There are a number of staff at all levels leaving the service which is causing delays in moving the plan forward. A new LDS will be drafted soon.

6.2 Rory Bradford (RB) – Peak Park – No new aggregate applications been received lately. A Minerals Issues and Options document is likely to be out to consultation in late spring.

6.3 Oliver Meek (OM) – Leicestershire – No Local Plan update. A major application has been received for the extension at Mountsorrel a rail linked quarry. Application is for 75mt of granite which increases the life of the site by 18 years and takes it up to 2058. Has been out to consultation and have 1000+ objections from residents.

6.4 MC – Rutland – Extension at the Bullimores Greetham Quarry has recently been approved. The Local Plan which includes minerals and waste is currently out to consultation until Jan, at present no minerals comments received.

6.5 MC – Northamptonshire (N&W) – The West has two application sites awaiting determination. Heyford (an allocated site) has been in some time but has been delayed by transport issues which now look to be resolved, so aiming for a February committee. Harlestone (extension to an existing site) so far has not had any issues raised and if a committee is needed it is also likely to go to the February meeting. Local Plan discussions are becoming firmer and hopefully by the May AWP a clear way forward can be reported upon with likely key dates. However with the planning changes, starting on the plan might be delayed but there is work that can hopefully be undertaken in the meantime such as a call for sites and an update to the waste needs assessment as examples.

6.6 Richard Leonard (RL) – Lincolnshire – Delays to the Local Plan due to staffing issues with a number of staff members recently retiring. Still aiming for a Preferred Approach document to be out to consultation in Summer 2024. Currently in discussions with operators as a result of the call for site process. No notable applications currently received but a number are expected over the next 12/18 months. Currently Lincolnshire are involved in a number of NSIPs for solar farms.

6.7 Stephen Pointer (Chair) – Nottinghamshire – Plan was adopted in 2021 and no plans to review until 2026 at the earliest. Currently awaiting submission of an application at Mill Hill as a scoping has been issued. Also seem to be received a number of large scale solar farms which do impact on the MSA in the Trent Valley so are making the relevant representations.

6.8 MN felt that safeguarding could be a concern as applicants would say the site is temporary but in that case all fixtures must be removed when the site is finished. Quarries near solar farms could causes issues with dust landing on the solar panels and thus impact on quarry operations.

7. Agenda of Business and Work Plan 23/24

7.1 The Chair confirmed that the Agenda of Business and Work Plan are requirements of the contract with DLHUC.

7.2 MC explained that both the Agenda of Business and Work Plan for 23/24 are due to be approved at the May meeting but have been circulated early so that members can provide any comments or feedback on either document between now and the May meeting.

8. AOB

8.1 MN thanked MC and LB for their efforts as the secretariat, he attends several AWPs and the EMAWP runs very well and timeliness of papers certainly make his job easier. The Chair echoed the sentiments and thanked MC and LB for meeting all the deadlines.

8.2 LB updated the group that Martin Clayton will be retiring at the end of the year. The Chair wished Martin all the best in his retirement and asked LB to send an email thanking Martin for his membership of the AWP. MN confirmed that John Bradshaw will be replacing Martin at Longcliffe, at present Tarmac have not confirmed who their representative will be on the AWP.

9. Date of next meeting

9.1 The Chair asked members to hold the suggested date of Friday 17 May 2024, however depending on the coming national changes it might be that an additional meeting is added to the Work Plan.

9.2 The Chair wished all members a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

East Midlands Aggregate Working Party Agenda

8 December 2023 10am to 12pm Virtual Meeting on Microsoft Teams

Chair: Stephen Pointer (Nottinghamshire County Council) Secretariat: Mark Chant (North Northamptonshire Council)

1. Introductions and apologies
2. Minutes and actions of last meeting
3. Update on Draft Annual Report 2023 (2022 data)
4. DLUHC update
5. Industry update
6. MPA’s update (Plans and significant applications for aggregates)
7. Agenda of Business and Work Plan 24/25
8. AOB
9. Date of next meeting – suggested Friday 17 May 2024

Minutes of East Midlands AWP – Friday 6 October 2023

Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams

Attendees

Apologies

1. Introductions

1.1 Oliver Meek (OM) advised that Stephen Pointer (SP) was currently on annual leave and that he would be standing in as Chair this meeting. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and a short round table of introductions was undertaken. 

1.2 Richard Leonard (RL) advised that going forward he will now be the Lincolnshire representative that will attend meetings. 

1.3 John Carlon (JC) introduced himself at the BAA representative.

1.4 David Payne (DP) advised he was attending the EMAWP for the first time as a stand in for Mark North, but that he regularly attends other AWPs including SEEAWP and London.

1.5 Carol Barnett (CB) was attending the meeting the first time as the representative from Derbyshire. 

2. Minutes and actions of last meeting

2.1 No comments on the minutes. Minutes agreed.

3. Local Aggregates Assessments

3.1 Each MPA was requested to give a short presentation on their latest Draft LAA.

3.2 Derbyshire

CB from Derbyshire County Council introduced. Confirmed that that 2023 LAA has been completed and circulated to AWP members. Comments from PDNP have been included in the production of the LAA. The LAA provision rate for sand and gravel is 0.97 mtpa based on the most recent 10-year average. Based on this rate, there are sufficient permitted reserves to maintain a landbank of over ten years, more than the Government required seven-year landbank. Additional reserves will, however, have to be identified in the Minerals Local Plan to maintain supply over the Plan period to 2038. Five allocations proposed Elvaston (extension) Swarkestone (two extensions), Foston and Sudbury (new sites). The provision rate for crushed rock is 12.97mtpa (9.64 for Derbyshire and 3.33 for the PDNP). It is based on the most recent three-year average. The proposed figure for Derbyshire allows for the continued compensation for the progressive loss of production from the PDNP. Based on this provision rate there are sufficient permitted reserves to maintain production for over 65 years, more than the Government required minimum ten-year landbank. 
  
3.3 JC highlighted the 65 year landbank was substantial and asked whether the sites were spread between a number of operators. CB confirmed that they are spread across a number of different operators. 

3.4 DP highlighted the end dates of 2042 for Derbyshire and questioned whether it should be included within the LAA. As the 65 year landbank is theoretical as end dates would need to be extended beyond 2042. The Chair raised whether the 2042 concerns should be included in all LAAs going forward. JC confirmed that the BAA are very concerned about 2042 and that work needs to be programmed in now and not left to the last minute. 

3.5 Nottinghamshire

Emma Brook (EB) from Nottinghamshire County Council introduced. Sales of all aggregate total 1.52mt which is an increase on 2021. 10 year sales average for sand and gravel is 1.35mt and 0.31mt for sandstone, both figures are lower than those included in the adopted minerals local plan. The landbanks currently sit at 15.2 years for sand and gravel and 25.4 for sandstone. No crushed rock figures are provided as there is only one permitted site which is dormant, so it would give an unrealistic landbank figure. One comment was received during the consultation and figures for adjoining authorities will be updated in the LAA. 

3.6 Lincolnshire

RL from Lincolnshire introduced. Sand and gravel sales fell to 2.45mt from a peak in 2021. This gives a 10 year average of 2.32. This gives a landbank of 9.6 years. Limestone has seen a sizeable increase in sales, increasing to 1.5mt. This is well above the 10 year average of 0.96 therefore the 3 year average will be used to pick up the recent increases. The 3 year average is 1.355 which gives an 11.5 year landbank. The county has sufficient minerals resources until the end of the plan period in 2031 but will allocate additional reserves in the new minerals plan. 

3.7 Leicestershire

Leo Oliver (LO) from Leicestershire County Council introduced. Sand and gravel sales fell to 0.26mt, a 64% decrease, landbank is currently around 2 years. Crushed Rock 7 active sites of which four are rail linked. Sales in 2022 where 13.5mt which gives a 10 year average of 12.99 and 3 year average of 11.47. Reserves sit ate 304mt which provides a 23 year landbank. Further extraction at Husbands Bosworth was approved in early 2023 for sand and gravel extraction. The planning application for Mountsorrel Granite Quarry is awaiting validation but would if approved provide 75 million tonnes and extend the life of the quarry until 2058 (extension of 18 years). 
 
3.8 Leicester City 

Paul O’Neill provided an update. Leicester City are preparing a Waste Local Plan, however focus has been on the city-wide local plans which has now been submitted for Examination. Aiming for a call for sites and Issues and Options in June/July 2024.

3.9 Northamptonshire West and North

MC from the North Northamptonshire introduced. Sales of sand and gravel have fluctuated in recent years. 2022 saw a slight increase in sales, up 6% on the previous year.

10-year average sales figure is 0.47 Mtpa, the adopted MWLP provision rate is 0.50 Mtpa. Landbank is 9 years therefore there are sufficient permitted reserves to maintain the government recommended 7-year landbank.

Supply contribution from sand and gravel sites in Northamptonshire is currently relatively limited and is of some concern and believed to be because:
1. The large straightforward river valley sites in the Nene Valley with significant reserves have been exhausted.
2. Structural changes in the aggregates industry with more multi-national companies & and a move to bigger production units, seem to be making Northamptonshire a less attractive investment for the bigger players compared to other locations.

Sales of crushed rock have largely increased year on year. In 2020 sales peaked to the highest levels in the last 10 years however between 2020 and 2022 sales fell by 14%, likely as a result of the impact of the pandemic on the economy.

10-year average sales figure is 0.73 Mtpa, the adopted MWLP crushed rock provision rate is 0.39 Mtpa. Landbank is 14 years therefore there are sufficient permitted reserves to maintain the government required 10-year landbank.

The supply contribution of limestone sites is firmer than for sand and gravel. Extraction at the large Wakerley quarry will ensure a consistent supply into the future.

It should be noted that Wakerley is currently being overworked and this over-production is unbalancing the average sales figures significantly.  However the LAA will continue to use the adopted MWLP 0.39 Mtpa figure for crushed rock. For sand and gravel it will remain 0.50 Mtpa as per the MWLP adopted figure. 
MC noted the LAA had been circulated to the AWP and no comments had been received.

3.10 Rutland

MC introduced. Rutland has three crushed rock quarries, two are active. Reserves cannot be published for confidentiality reasons. Sales have generally increased annually although decreased between 2019 and 2020 as one site neared exhaustion and the impact of the pandemic on the economy. Production has since picked up and in 2022 sales increased by 22%. 10-year average sales figure is 0.28 Mtpa. Landbank is 37 years therefore there are sufficient permitted reserves to maintain the government required 10-year landbank. MC noted the LAA had been circulated to the AWP and no comments had been received.

3.11 MC thanked all authorities for submitting LAAs before the meeting. Those that have been circulated for comments in time will receive letters endorsing the LAA. Those that have not yet completed their period for comment with be finalised via email once the period for comment has passed. 

4. Update on Draft Annual Report 2022 (2021 data)

4.1 MC thanked all authorities for submitted data to assist with the production of the Annual Report. Laura Burton (LB) would like comments and feedback on the report so that a draft report can be submitted at the end of October. The gaps in data will need to be filled before the final report is submitted before the end of the year and maps will be added once data is finalised. LB will contact individual MPA’s to check and confirm data. 

5. NACG and Secretaries Meetings

5.1 MC highlighted subjects discussed at the recent meetings. Survey returns were discussed but does not seem to be such an issue within the EMAWP area. Discussions took place around infrastructure capacity and major projects and what the definition of these should be. DLHUC to consider and issue guidance. Data confidentiality was discussed and information on the subject was provided by the MPA. Work on progressing the 2023 survey is moving forward, including procurement.

5.2 Niamh Murphy (NM) confirmed that DHLUC are looking to get guidance from BAA in relation to confidentiality and will look to settle on a common approach that will then be circulated.

5.3 OM highlighted that SEEAWP had raised concerns over the hard rock provision of rail linked quarries in Leicestershire. DLHUC have had discussions with Leicestershire and Leicestershire have provided information. NM confirmed that SEEAWP are content with the information provided from Leicestershire but have asked for further information from the South West AWP area. 

6. DLUHC Update

6.1 NM confirmed that there has been progress with the procurement for the 2023 survey and that BGS have been awarded the contract subject to final checks. The contract will start in the next few weeks to allow time for preparatory work to be undertaken. Data collection will include Scotland for the first time and there will be a steering group which will be set up shortly. 

6.2 NM reported that the planning reform bill has completed report stage and the aim is for royal assent in November with consultation to take place next year. The plan making reform consultation closes on 18 October.

6.3 NM confirmed a number of comments were received on the guidelines for aggregate provision document and these have been collated. Further consultation is needed and findings will be presenting internally to get a steer on how to proceed. 

6.4 In relation to the plan making consultation DP asked whether NM and Christina Davey (CD) will be dealing with the questions that are specifically relating to minerals. NM confirmed that CD has been involved already and will continue to be involved in relation to the minerals specific questions.

6.5 OM confirmed that at a recent POS meeting it was decided a co-ordinated response should be put together with an internal deadline of 10th October; further contributions would be welcomed. 

6.6 TE asked about the BNG 10% that has been recently pushed back, guidance is to come but will it include minerals. NM confirmed that it will set out BNG from minerals sites and CD has been involved in the process. 

7. Industry Update 

7.1 DP highlighted that the latest update released suggests economic recovery is not expected until 2025 with primary aggregate predicted to fall by 5% in 2024. Generally, it is a depressed picture, however these are national figures so there might be differences regionally.

7.2 DP highlighted that 2042 has been discussed by members and legal advice has been commissioned. The MPA are in discussions with DHLUC, but legal guidance does suggest there is no legal impediment to extending the life of the quarries. 

7.3 DP confirmed that a HPSV fact sheet is being produced and will be available next year.

7.4 DP highlighted that there are concerns about water extraction and end dates of the sites. It is a subject that does need to be looking into and addressed.

7.5 DP confirmed that the MPA is in discussions with DHLCU around BNG as the metric is designed for housing. Natural England were asked to provide a minerals specific metric, but they went with just the one metric for all. The MPA have been working with POS to provide some guidance for minerals which has been provided to DHLUC and DEFRA. DP also highlighted that BNG should only apply to the extension area of sites and not the whole red line plan. Work has been undertaken to provide case studies on BNG with retrospectively applying the metric which shows restoration does meet BNG requirements, however the issue would be in the landowner wished for the site to be returned to agriculture which would make achieving 10% difficult.

7.6 DP highlighted that the Quarries and Nature Awards will be run again in 2024. The UK minerals forum has also been reconvened and the 45th meeting will soon be taking place with industry, MPAs, Government and NGOs in attendance.

7.7 Mark Kelly (MK) highlighted that the cancellation of HS2 will have ramifications for the industry. 

7.8 JC confirmed that BAA have been undertaking similar work to the MPA. BAA are relieved to see BNG has been delayed. BAA are hopeful that BNG will only apply to new developments and not extensions in time or ROMP applications. BAA agreed the metric is not suitable for minerals development as the metric is for permanent sites. 

7.9 JC confirmed that BAA are also in discussions with members around 2042 sites and are seeking feedback from them whilst awaiting the government guidance. 

7.10 Josh White (JW) confirmed that Hanson has now been rebranded as Heidelberg, but business is as usual.

8. MPA’s Update

8.1 Derbyshire and PDNP – CB – Mineral Local Plan, aiming to submit next Spring with an EIP later in the year and aiming for adoption in 2025. 

8.2 Nottinghamshire – EB –Minerals Local Plan was adopted in 2021 so focus has now moved to a Joint Waste Local Plan, reg 19 plan is currently out to consultation. No major applications 

8.3 Lincolnshire – RL – Updating Minerals Local Plan. I&O was last year, Preferred Approach has been delayed slightly but aiming for consultation in summer 2024. Will be contacting industry very soon to gain additional information for the sites received at the call for sites stage. It is expected that a large number of applications will be expected over the next 18 months. Currently involved in a number of NSIP projects.
 
8.4 Leicestershire – LO – Minerals Local Plan was adopted in 2019, a recent review has highlighted that it is not currently required to be updated. Major applications previously mentioned at para 3.7.  

8.5 PDNP – TE – ROMP site was approved in March at Beelow (effectively an extension to Doveholes). Minerals topic paper was out to informal consultation and responses were received from the MPA and local parishes, comments have been taken on board. The Local Plan review does ask questions in relation to 2042 and is expected to be out to consultation next year.

8.6 Northamptonshire (North and West) – MC – No firm decision on how to take forward a new local plan although discussions are taking place. With the changes to the planning system, it would mean that any work on a new plan would not meet the cut off to meet transitional arrangements, so a delay to starting the process of a new plan may have to take place to ensure that  work is not wasted. The West currently has two applications on allocated sites at Heyford and Harlestone. 

8.7 Rutland – MC – Minerals and Waste included within a wider Local Plan and is due to have the draft plan go at cabinet next month. A planning application for new crushed rock site at Greetham is due to be determined in November.

8.8 OM asked if there is any political preference for single or joint plans? MC confirmed that his preference would be for joint, however this would be likely to extend preparation periods as each stage would need sign off in both authorities. 

8.9 DP asked everyone’s thoughts on the 30 month timeline. OM confirmed that individual authorities plus groups like POS and RTAB will be commenting on the proposed timeline. A recent meeting flagged that minerals extraction licences can take some time to achieve which would delay timescales if needed for call for sites. MC felt the proposals would cause MPA’s to play it safe to meet deadlines and could cause issues for authorities that need sign off from two different authorities. OM questioned whether it was known what the consequence of not meeting the timescale would be? JC confirmed that BAA feel the 30 months is just an arbitrary figure.  

9. AOB

9.1 LB highlighted that the new WDI has been published. However, there was a lot of data missing from Northamptonshire with only four sites listed. The EA have confirmed they will be republishing the updated WDI so those that have already downloaded should check and download again when it is updated. 

9.2 LO highlighted that the Minerals and Waste Learning Group have recently met and have produced some very useful summary slides on all the planning changes.

9.3 Kris Furness (KF) asked RL if Niall Kelly has been in contact over some issues with sites listed in the LAA. RL and KF to liaise outside meeting and provide an update to the secretariat if changes are required to the LAA. 

10. Date of Next Meeting

10.1 Friday 8 December – 10am via Teams

East Midlands Aggregate Working Party Agenda 

6 October 2023 10am to 12pm Virtual Meeting on Microsoft Teams 

Chair: Stephen Pointer (Nottinghamshire County Council) Secretariat: Mark Chant (North Northamptonshire Council)

1. Introductions and apologies
2. Minutes and actions of last meeting
3. Local Aggregate Assessments
   Each MPA gives short presentation on their latest Draft LAA (2022 data) focusing on:
   •    Key findings
   •    LAA provision figures for calculating landbank et al – how are they justified?
   •    Landbanks - are these robust?
   •    Any issues arising from the demand and supply balance – are these fully addressed?
   •    How have/will comments made by members been/be addressed?
   •    If 2022 data LAAs are outstanding when likely to be produced?
   AWP members will respond. Secretariat to issue formal advice following meeting based on minuted outcome.
4. Update on Draft Annual Report 2023 (2022 data)
5. NACG Meeting/ Secretaries Meeting
6. DLUHC Update
7. Industry update
8. MPA’s update (Plans and significant applications for aggregates)
9. AOB
10. Date of next meeting – suggested 10am Friday 8 December 2023

Minutes of East Midlands AWP – Friday 19 May 2023

Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams

Attendees

Apologies

1. Introductions

1.1 The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and a round table of introductions was undertaken.

2. Minutes and actions of last meeting

2.1 Tom Evans (TE) clarified that para 6.2 was in relation to cement production not as an aggregate quarry.

2.2 No other comments on the minutes. Minutes agreed.

3. EMAWP Work Programme 2023/24 / Agenda of Business 2023/24

3.1 Mark Chant (MC) explained that the Agenda of Business and Work Programme are an administrative requirement of the AWP contract and include deliverables and key milestones. If anyone does have comments on either document they need to be submitted to Laura Burton (LB) in the next few days as both documents need to be submitted to DLHUC before the end of next week.

3.2 The Chair highlighted that the Work Programme is similar to last year and that each of the three meetings have a purpose. The December meeting is lighter on agenda items but the Chair still felt it was a useful meeting to have to wrap up the Annual Report and any other issues.

3.3 Mark North (MN) supported the work programme and felt it was a nice clear document. MN also felt that the December meeting was worthwhile as it allowed a chance to iron out any final issues with the Annual Report. MN also offered assistance with any authorities that have not been able to get responses to surveys from MPA members.

4. Progress on AMS 2022 data

4.1 Nottinghamshire – Still have a few operators that are being chased for survey responses.

4.2 Northamptonshire – All surveys have been returned. Sales for sand and gravel have increased by 6% whereas crushed rock sales have fallen by 8%. The Northamptonshire LAA is complete and will be circulated for comments next week.

4.3 Rutland – All surveys have been returned and crushed rock sales have increased by 22%. The LAA is complete but circulation is delayed so that wording fits with the Local Plan that is also progressing.

4.4 Derbyshire – No representative attended the meeting.

4.5 Peak District National Park – 11 sites have returned surveys, there are eight outstanding. Those outstanding are smaller operators which are often more problematic to get responses from.

4.6 Leicestershire – Reminders have been sent to those that have not yet returned the survey. No analysis has been undertaken as yet.

4.7 Lincolnshire- One MPA operator has not yet returned the survey but they have been given a short extension in time. Crushed rock sites are broadly run by smaller operators and it is more difficult to get responses from them.

4.8 The Chair agreed that it was often the smaller operators that it is more difficult to get a response from but that all MPA’s should work to get the LAA’s finished by the deadlines set out.

5. Annual Report

5.1 MC confirmed that the template for the Annual Report provided by DLUHC has not been amended. The deadlines remain the same as last year with the Draft Annual Report to be sent to DLUHC by the end of October and the Final Annual Report to be submitted by the end of December.

5.2 The Chair raised that Lincolnshire had concerns about the Secondary and Recycled section of the Annual Report. Mike Daley (MD) asked if other MPA’s had the same concerns in relation to the section of the Annual Report. MD confirmed that Lincolnshire felt that there were lots of different sources of data used for secondary and recycled aggregates and it felt very ad hoc. LB to circulate the note written previously by Lincolnshire for members to comment on.

6. Aggregate Guidelines

6.1 The Chair confirmed that talks have been under way over the guidelines and how AWPs will disaggregate the figures. MC confirmed that a discussion document was circulated to MPAs after the NACG meeting, asking for officer and not member views. MC confirmed that a number of MPAs in the East Midlands did respond to the paper.

6.2 Niamh Murphy (NM) confirmed that a number of helpful comments had been received by DLUHC from the East Midlands as well as elsewhere. A smaller task and finish group will be meeting in advance of the NACG meeting in July to discuss the comments.

6.3 MC highlighted the Northamptonshire felt that guidance needs to be clear in respect of disaggregation below regional level and that the 3 and 10 year averages should no longer be referred to. He also noted that disaggregation appeared to be reasonably straightforward before the regional planning system was in place and not having a regional planning system should not be seen as a barrier to disaggregation.

6.4 MN agreed that once a method of disaggregation is found that the disaggregated figures should be used and not made voluntary. MN suggested those with knowledge of disaggregation pre the regional system should share their thoughts with DLHUC.

6.5 The Chair asked how it was previously done. MC confirmed that consultants came up with broad figures including at county level which were taken to individual AWPs to discuss, possibly suggest amendments and then agree in principle if necessary. The Chair agreed that a system that allowed moderation would be useful.

6.6 MD agreed that moderation would be appropriate. Lincolnshire export material to lots of other authorities, so using sales alone would disadvantage the Lincolnshire residents. Therefore an opportunity to consider local issues would be supported. The Chair agreed that the figures need to be useful and that the AWP will need to play a part in that.

7. Feedback from NACG/Secretaries meeting with DLUHC

7.1 The Chair confirmed that the main focus of the NACG meeting was the Aggregate Guidelines, however, ever there was also a presentation from DfT and discussions on the NPPF.

7.2 NM confirmed that there had been 26,000 responses to the NPPF consultation, this means it is progressing slower than planned. The LURB is at committee stage but has also progressed slower than expected as there has been lots of amendments but still working towards Royal Assent. NM highlighted that the Environment Outcomes Consultation and the Infrastructure Levy Consultation are both open until 9 June.

7.3 NM confirmed that DLUHC have started the process for the 4 years survey, approval is in place to tender for the work and it is hoped a supplier will be in place by August. This will bring it back in line to a 4 yearly cycle. NM also highlighted that BAA are holding a webinar with their members on 25 May to explain why they should return annual surveys.

7.4 MN highlighted the Planning Fees consultation that sees a 35% increase for major applications. MPA have made comments asking that fees are ring fenced to the Planning Teams. MC noted that last time around Directors of Finance had to sign off the ring fencing, however there was no point in keeping the money if they are then told, for example, to lose a staff post or now pay for their IT systems. MC suggested that it could be useful for DLHUC to request key data (such as number of staff in each planning authority) so they can see which authorities are being under-resourced.

7.5 Oliver Meek (OM) confirmed that he has responded in relation to S73 applications, in that the fee is only a few hundred pounds despite significant work needing to be done. The fee does not even cover the press notice.

7.6 Kirsten Cunningham (KC) highlighted that she was disappointed to see it was a blanket 25 and 35% increase. It would have been a good chance to look at each individual application fee separately to make sure the fee covers the work.

8. Industry Update

8.1 MN supplied an update that was circulated in advance of the meeting.

UK economy

The economy may just about eek out another small expansion in 2023Q1, yet the current situation can hardly be seen as “positive”. The total level of economic output has been stagnant since July 2022, as the twin drags of high inflation and tighter financial conditions are negatively impacting affordability and confidence in the economy, which in turn, is holding back household spending and business investment decisions.

Construction

Uncertainty over new project starts has risen significantly on the back of high cost pressures, hesitancy from clients due to economic instability and labour constraints. According to data from Glenigan, the value of underlying work starting on-site during 2023Q1 fell by 46% compared to the same period a year earlier, with the largest decline seen across the residential sector where starts dropped by more than half. ONS output data indicates that the slowdown is increasingly being felt across most areas of new construction work, with recent growth being solely driven by repair and maintenance.

Mineral products sales volumes in GB: 2023Q1

All markets for mineral products rebounded at the start of the year from a weak level after the sharp momentum loss in the second half of 2022. Sales of asphalt rose 1.8% in 2023Q1 on a quarterly basis, ready-mixed concrete was up 9.8% and primary aggregates by 3.3%. Mortar, meanwhile, saw a rebound of 6% after a steep drop at the end of last year, which was partly weather-affected. The 2023Q1 upturn is welcome and indicates that the downturn in sales volumes has stabilised, but it does not alter the outlook for this year which remains weak. This reflects the impact of cost pressures and weaker investment over the past year, and the vulnerability of mineral products demand to project delays and cancellations.

8.2 MN confirmed that the outlook remains weak due to cost pressure, weaker investment and delays and cancellations of projects. MN drew attention to the MPA Annual Survey that has been previously circulated that shows graphs in relation to sales and permitted reserves and it provides stark reading for the East Midlands especially in relation to crushed rock. All regional have the same issue to some extent and it is a worrying trend.

8.3 MN also drew attention to the Smart Regulation in the Minerals Product Sector document which has been sent to DLHUC and the Regional Overview of Construction and Products Market document which has been circulated to members. MN also reminder members about the MPA/RTPI conference taking place on 15 June in London although it also has a hybrid option.

8.4 KC added that having Christina Davey at DLUHC was a positive. She also noted that replenishment is falling behind sales but they are in discussions with local authorities.

8.5 John Bradshaw (JB) highlighted that 2042 is a current concern as not sure what will happen to sites post that date. MN confirmed that DLUHC are aware of the 2042 issues and there has been discussion between Christina and MPA members. They are currently seeking clarification on the correct mechanism to extend post 2042 and hopefully guidance will be issued soon. MN highlighted that the Derbyshire Local Plan goes until 2038 and has not mentioned 2042, so the MPA are actively seeking advice on how to proceed.

8.6 MC confirmed that he would support 2042 sites only if they are in relation to specific minerals or locations. He would not want a blanket extension as this would prevent getting rid of the large number of Ironstone permissions in the county.

8.7 Josh White (JW) confirmed that Hanson are also concerned about 2042 and looking in to the way forward.

8.8 Kris Furness (KF) welcomed the work being done by the NACG in relation to Aggregate Guidelines but it would be useful if further work could be done when assessing the aggregates, for example considering the sites that are included in a landbank in more details. Areas often have large landbanks which implies that operators could still open sites and sell minerals, but there is often a gap between what’s on paper and the reality on the ground.

9. MPA’s update

9.1 Leicestershire – No major change since last meeting. The document that considered if a review was required has now been taken to cabinet and it concluded that no review is required. Start point for the new plan is likely to be end of 2024. There are a number of application currently live or at scoping stage.

9.2 Lincolnshire – I&O had 31 sites comes forward. A targeted consultation in relation to sites then took place which included parish councils. However the information was shared with residents which then generated a large number of objections and FOI requests. Due to losing a member of staff and the large number of objections the plan process has slowed down and is likely to be delayed by a year.

9.3 Nottinghamshire – No review of the Minerals Plan as was only adopted in 2021, working towards a review in 2026. Major applications at Southern Extension to Cromwell and North of Cromwell. Scoping has also been received for the large site at Mill Hill ahead of a submission in the next few months.

9.4 Northamptonshire (North and West) – Still looking for agreement on how to take the adopted plan forward and whether it will be a joint plan or two separate plans. No new planning applications, still have the application for the long-standing allocation at Heyford which is likely due at committee in July.

9.5 Rutland – Draft Local Plan is still currently due to be published later this year and will cover minerals and waste. Expecting a change in political control following the recent council elections and this could, as such changes can often entail, lead to a potential delay in publication.

9.6 Peak District National Park – Local Plan review is ongoing, Topic Paper has now been published and informal comments are invited. I&O will be circulated later this year and PDNP do try to cover the 2042 issue.

10. AOB

10.1 MN thanked the secretariat for the production of the papers, the Chair agreed that the group is working well and hopes that is will continue in the same fashion.

11. Date of next meeting

11.1 Next meeting scheduled for 7 October. The Chair encouraged all MPAs to work to submit LAA’s before the October meeting so they can be discussed in full at the meeting.

East Midlands Aggregate Working Party Agenda 

19 May 2023 10am to 12pm Virtual Meeting on Microsoft Teams 

Chair: Stephen Pointer (Nottinghamshire County Council) Secretariat: Mark Chant (North Northamptonshire Council)

1. Introductions and apologies
2. Minutes and actions of last meeting
3. EMAWP Work Programme 2023/24 / Agenda of Business 2023/24
4. Progress on AMS 2022
5. Annual Report
6. Aggregate Guidelines
7. Feedback from the Secretaries/NACG meetings with DLUHC
8. Industry update
9. MPA’s update (Plans and significant applications for aggregates)
10. AOB
11. Date of next meeting - Friday 7 October 2022