Policy MIN2 - Minerals Safeguarding

Comment

Representation ID: 12311

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Margaret Holyman

Stonnall Road Birch Lane

The land has not been previousley developed nor should it be as it is in a designated MSA site, it not served well by public transport and would need considerable investment in infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 12333

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Barry and Joan Richards

Number of people: 2

Dear Sirs.
We as long residents of Aldridge appose this plan for dozens of reasons mainly the damage it will do to Aldridge village with overcrowding, fewer available parking places, increased crime. There are many more which you will hear from this research.

Brownhills is surrounded by land unsuitable for farming whereas the land targeted is good arable farm farmland producing cereal crops in its entirety year on year. It is also rich in minerals which when exhausted can be turned back to farmland.

Comment

Representation ID: 12347

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Christine Leahey

Document Ref. Strategic Allocation WSA3, Site WAH237/ WAH235

The site is in a Mineral Safeguarding area and should be safeguarded as per the National Planning Policy Framework Section 17 "Safeguard mineral resources".
There is a huge need to safeguard our natural resources and this land should be retained for its original designation, agriculture and mineral.

Comment

Representation ID: 20993

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 11.1 - Not clear why only Walsall has mineral safeguarding. The policy itself should take account of site specific factor such as surrounding residents.

Support

Representation ID: 22291

Received: 21/01/2022

Respondent: Miss Jodi Stokes

10.0 MINERALS

Minerals Safegaurding

10.1 Draft Policy MIN2 (Minerals Safeguarding) states that:

“Planning applications for non-mineral development will only be supported in an MSA where the development will not compromise existing or future mineral working within the MSA, and the following conditions are met:

a. the development will involve the extraction of some or all of the mineral resource prior to development, where is practicable to do so; or
b. it can be demonstrated that the site does not contain any mineral resources of economic value; or
c. it can be demonstrated that the ‘prior extraction’ of minerals is not feasible”


10.2 We consider that draft Policy MIN2 is reasonable and complies with paragraph 210 of the NPPF. Whilst minerals areas are safeguarded, this ensures that other uses are able to come forward where mineral extraction is not appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 22453

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Ltd (Sharne Sahajpal)

Agent: Heatons

Mineral Safeguarding

Policy MIN 2 sets out the Authority approach to mineral safeguarding. The identification of
mineral safeguarding areas defined by mineral resource is supported. We also welcome the
emphasis on safeguarding when assessing development which falls within a defined mineral
safeguarding area to ensure development does not compromise future or existing mineral
working (part 3 of Policy MIN2). However, the reference to economic value of mineral resource
(part 3b) should be removed. The NPPF paragraph 210d refers to prior extraction ‘where
practical and environmentally feasible’ if it is necessary for non-mineral development to take
place. There is no reference to the need to demonstrate economic value of mineral in national
policy or guidance as this will change over time dependent upon resource availability, markets
etc. It is essential that there is sufficient supply and therefore the best use of resource needs to be made to secure their long-term conservation.

Paragraph 12.32 in the justification text refers to mineral sterilisation only occurring in regard to
development sites in excess of 5 hectares in size and those developments being accompanied by
supporting information to demonstrate that mineral resources would be needlessly sterilised.
We do not agree with this view and that is contrary to the approach set out within Policy MIN2.
The criteria for supporting information where prior extraction is not considered feasible further
weakens the position. Again, reference to viability and economic value is not considered to be in
accordance with the NPPF approach. In addition, the judgement on mineral extraction having
detrimental impact on neighbouring uses predetermines the findings of environmental
assessment work that may accompany a mineral extraction scheme. The approach to
safeguarding needs to be consistent with the overall aims of securing indigenous supply of
resource.

As part of Policy MIN2 of the BCP, mineral infrastructure sites are identified, listed and included
on both the Minerals Key Diagram and Policies Map. These sites include Tarmacs operations
across the Black Country. Our client would like to express their support for Mineral Safeguarding,
particularly for paragraph 7 of Policy MIN2 protecting the Mineral Infrastructure Sites from
incompatible development, including a 150m buffer from the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 23131

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.29 - 5.33 - The policy does not link to the site allocations and should set out how the criterion would be applied. Disputes the requirement for sites in an MSA to consider future extraction potential. The policy is worded so that there is a presumption for extraction contrary to the NPPF which seeks to safeguard whilst not creating the presumption that the resources defined will be worked. Criteria 4 doesn't take account of permitted development due to the reference to "other forms of development".

Comment

Representation ID: 23535

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

We are keen to understand more detail about the approach to minerals development within the Plan and specifically minerals safeguarding areas. It is not possible for Historic England to comment on large areas safeguarded for minerals development and to consider the potential impacts for the historic environment. Will there be proposed minerals allocations in further iterations of the Plan? How has the Plan provided a positive strategy for the historic environment with regards to this issue? We would welcome the inclusion of a clause relating to the protection of the significance of heritage assets including their setting. Of particular importance will be the need to safeguard archaeological deposits and to consider appropriate restoration strategies for when minerals development cease to operate on sites.

Object

Representation ID: 43888

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

12.1 Policy MIN2 refers to mineral safeguarding. It states that mineral safeguarding areas have been defined around mineral resources in Walsall Borough. It is unclear why only Walsall has been identified for mineral safeguarding areas. In addition, the policy should also be revised to take account of site specific factors including the potential impact on surrounding residents, which could in itself be so detrimental as to prohibit planning permission being granted for mineral extraction. This should be added as a specific criterion. The issue of impact on residential amenity from mineral extraction is identified in the justification to the policy but it needs to be moved into the policy text itself.

Comment

Representation ID: 46268

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Walsall Group of the Ramblers

Walsall Group of the Ramblers wish to make the following comments in the consultation phase of the Black Country Plan. (BCP).
[Our remarks focus on the perceived impact of the BCP on the Walsall Borough - other boroughs in the Black Country have similar Ramblers groups who may wish to comment with respect to their particular areas].
...
Our Concerns
We do however, have significant concerns that there are some of the areas of the Plan which may work to generate a negative effect on the Borough. Having such a considerable amount of open space in the east of the Walsall Borough, we cannot but feel it is inevitable that these areas will be impacted by future housing/employment demands in the Black Country, especially as more brownfield locations are occupied.
However, acceptance that this must be the case does not necessarily mean we are at all complacent about the revised National Planning Policy, nor are we unconcerned about the percentage of building land across the borough which is protected by Mineral Safeguarding Area, (MSA), restrictions.
Instinctively we feel that with some many houses planned in strategic areas, (3710), and also (515), in brownfield sites standing on MSA locations, that there will be an advancement of mineral extraction activities ahead of the building deadlines that not only have the potential to disrupt local existing footpaths for several years, but also indirectly impact on any proposed ones.
We also fear that the revised National Planning Policy will generate inappropriate building developments that whilst being contained within the confines of the Plan will generate areas of rapid urban decline/inaccessibility in the short-term thus further reducing available space to those wishing to actively travel in the borough.

(See Rep ID 11482 for the original submission)