Skip to main contentAccessibility Statement

East Midlands Aggregate Working Party (EMAWP)

The EMAWP provides technical advice about the supply and demand for aggregates (including sand and gravel and crushed rock) to the mineral planning authorities in the East Midlands working with the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) to do so.

EMAWP brings together representatives from the aggregates, secondary aggregates and recycling industry and the mineral planning authorities and formally meets three times a year. ​The current secretariat for EMAWP, under a contract with DLUHC, is North Northamptonshire Council.

Annual Reports

2019 to 2022

Meeting agenda and minutes

Minutes of East Midlands AWP – Friday 19 May 2023

Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams

Chair: Stephen PointerNottinghamshire County Council
Secretariat: Mark ChantNorth Northamptonshire Council



Mike Daley

Lincolnshire County Council

Tom Evans

Peak District National Park Authority

Oliver Meek

Leicestershire County Council

Leo Oliver

Leicestershire County Council

Christina Emmett

Leicestershire County Council

Laura Burton

North Northamptonshire Council/West Northamptonshire Council (also representing Rutland County Council)

Mark North

Mineral Products Association (MPA)

John Bradshaw

MPA & Tarmac

Josh White

MPA & Hanson

Kris Furness

MPA & Breedon

Kirsten Cunningham

Aggregate Industries

Niamh Murphy


Maria Cotton

MPA & Breedon

John Carlon

British Aggregates Association (BAA)



Richard Leonard

Lincolnshire County Council

Paul O’Neil

Leicester City Council

Richard Stansfield

Derbyshire County Council

Chris Nicoll

MPA & Hanson

Tim Claxton

Aggregate Industries

Mark Kelly


Martin Clayton


Lee Weatherill

MPA & Marshalls



Introductions and apologies


Minutes and actions of last meeting


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


Progress on AM2022


Annual Report


Aggregates Guidelines


Feedback from NACG/Secretaries meeting with DLUHC


Industry Update


MPA’s Update (Plans and significant applications for aggregates)




Date of next meeting

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.


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 


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

Last updated 16 June 2023