Comment

Representation ID: 426

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Pegasus Grab Hire Ltd

Agent: Emery Planning

DLP80 Mineral Production – Requirements

3.23 In respect of construction aggregates and secondary and recycled aggregates, Policy DLP80 states as a
minimum the council will aim to maintain permitted production levels throughout the plan period.

3.24 The Dudley Minerals Study 2023 identifies Dudley as a likely net importer of secondary and recycled
aggregates and highlights the importance of safeguarding and retaining existing secondary and recycled
aggregate capacity within the borough to maintain this position.

3.25 What is more, table 2.1 of the Dudley Minerals Study (2023) identifies sites within the borough managing
recycled and secondary aggregates. Table 2.1 is reproduced below for ease of reference.

3.26 Our client’s current operations at Bott Lane clearly make a significant contribution to the borough’s capacity for managing recycled and secondary aggregates. The specialist and progressive nature of the
plant and systems that they have invested in also make a significant contribution to carbon reduction in
the Borough.

3.27 Policy DLP80 seeks to maintain the current level of production of secondary and recycled aggregates over
the plan, however this would not be possible without the continued operation of the existing facility at
Bott Lane, beyond the timeframe of the existing temporary planning permission, especially as our client’s
facility alone has almost double the capacity of the other facilities set out above combined.

Comment

Representation ID: 568

Received: 13/01/2024

Respondent: Surrey County Council

Regarding mineral resources, the MWPA welcomes details provided in the Dudley Draft Local
Plan to provide sufficient minerals over the plan period and efforts to maintain the production
of secondary and recycled aggregate, in line with national policy set out in the NPPW 2014
and National Planning Policy Framework 2023.
Further to this, the latest national Aggregates Monitoring Survey, published by the UK
Government in 2019 identified no land-won sand and gravel or marine dredged aggregate
movements between Surrey and any plan-area in the West Midlands, although this may
change in the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 608

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Worcestershire County Council

Policy DLP80 Mineral Production - Requirements
Part 3 of policy DLP80 states that new development “will be encouraged” to be resource-efficient. We question whether this is too weak for policy. A stronger approach would be to state that new development “must” be resource-efficient, and require developments to demonstrate how they will satisfy this. This could include a presumption that recycled mineral products will be used unless it can be demonstrated that this is not possible.
Whilst Part 4 of policy DLP80 refers to working with the wider West Midlands Aggregate Working Party, paragraph 18.5 of the Justification only refers to working with the West Midlands Metropolitan Area (WMMA). We recognise the close relationship between WMMA authorities, and the fact that this grouping works together to produce an LAA. We look forward to considering the LAA as a member of WM AWP at such time as it is prepared and would encourage annual updates going forward. However, we question whether paragraph 18.5 should also refer to the WM AWP, which includes other MPAs. The WM AWP is mentioned briefly in paragraph 18.6, but this is only in relation to one specific business.
Paragraph 18.7 states that “The evidence base has not identified any parts of Dudley Borough that merit being designated as Minerals Safeguarding Areas (MSA - i.e., any workable primary mineral reserves)”. For clarity, the word “reserve” should apply only to those resources that have planning permission, and that “resources” may be a more appropriate word here. Whilst we agree that, in practical terms, this approach makes some sense, it may not be consistent with national policy. Paragraph 210 of the NPPF does not distinguish between “workable” minerals and “non-workable” minerals. It merely requires the safeguarding of mineral resources of local and national importance (without qualification). If evidence from the BGS or elsewhere suggests that such resources exist, then the NPPF may require them to be safeguarded. The Black Country Minerals Study: Dudley minerals Update (October 2023) states, at paragraph 2.1.2, that “Due to the predominantly urban nature of the Black Country, the only BCA with viable mineral resources is Walsall (sand and gravel, brick clay, fireclay). All other mineral resources and permitted mineral reserves within Dudley, Sandwell and Wolverhampton have now been worked and remaining mineral sites are in the process of being restored.” We note that the Planning Inspectors who examined the Minerals Locals Plans in Worcestershire (2022) and Herefordshire (2023) required the proposed MSAs in both counties to be extended to cover all mineral resources of local or national importance, regardless of whether they underlaid predominantly urban areas or were otherwise already sterilised, and regardless of any viability sieving. Paragraph 18.8 refers to “…mineral resources and sites that are expected to be producing, processing or transporting minerals and mineral products within Dudley Borough will be protected from other types of development that could compromise their continued operation over the plan period.” (our emphasis). This suggests that resources do exist and raises the question of whether they should be defined as MSAs.

Comment

Representation ID: 762

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

Inclusion of the canal network within relevant policy and justification text will enable developers to identify canal- related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly. The Trust therefore requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct