Oxfordshire County Council Policy on Soft Sand Extraction

1.    All applications for mineral working should be considered against Policy M1 of the Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2011 (1998) (SP), which states:

‘The County Council will grant planning permission for mineral working in appropriate locations having regard to the need to:

a        maintain a landbank of permitted reserves for aggregates throughout the Plan period in line with Government guidance;

b        meet Oxfordshire’s agreed share of sand and gravel requirements;

c)       ensure a steady supply of materials for local markets.’

       (A Review of the SP is being carried out.  However, whilst the Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016, Deposit Draft (2003) should be taken into account in considering planning applications, relatively little weight should be given to it at this stage.)

2.    Applications for new soft sand workings should in particular be considered against Policies PE2 and SD1 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (1996) (MWLP).

3.    Policy PE2 states:

‘Planning permission for mineral working will not be granted outside the areas identified in the Plan unless:

(a)     the working would be acceptable under policy SD2; or

(b)     (i)    the proposal satisfies the policies of the Structure Plan and this Local

       Plan, and

(ii)   in the case of sand and gravel, the apportioned supply from the county cannot be met from within the areas identified, or

(iii)  in the case of other minerals, the demand cannot be met from within areas which are identified in the Plan.’

4.    Policy SD2 only applies to proposals for small extensions to existing operations.  In the case of an application for a new site for soft sand working, parts (b) (i) and (ii) of Policy PE2 apply.  However, there are no areas identified for soft sand working in the current MWLP.  The critical factor issues are therefore whether the apportioned supply (ie the need for the mineral) can be met from existing permitted areas, and whether the proposal satisfies other relevant policies of the SP and MWLP.

5.    Policy SD1 states:

       ‘Separate landbanks will be maintained for sharp sand and gravel and for soft sand at levels which accord with current Government advice and with the current regional apportionment.’

6.    Government guidance in MPG6 ‘Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England’ (1994) is that in the case of sand and gravel Mineral Planning Authorities should aim to maintain a landbank sufficient for at least 7 years extraction.  The landbank is the total reserves in the county with permission for working.  Permitted reserves of soft sand in Oxfordshire totalled 1.534 mt at the end of 2002 (the most recent date for which information is currently available).  Since the end of 2002, the County Council has resolved to permit a further 0.3 mt of sand at Tubney Wood, although this is subject to a legal agreement which has not yet been finalised.

7.    The MWLP gives an annual rate of supply of 0.2 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) for soft sand to be used as the basis for calculating the duration of the landbank.  On this basis, the reserves at the end of 2002 plus the Tubney Wood ‘permission’ represent a landbank of 9.2 years at the end of 2002; equivalent to approximately 7.7 years now.

8.    However, the MWLP annual rate of supply figure was based on the 1994 Government guideline figures for aggregates provision and sub-regional apportionment of those guidelines.  Those have been superceded by the Government’s ‘National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, 2001-2016’ (June 2003).  A sub-regional apportionment of the new guideline figures for the South East region has been proposed by SEERA, giving a figure of 1.74 mtpa of all sand and gravel for Oxfordshire.  However, this apportionment has not yet been finalized.  Furthermore, the Oxfordshire sand and gravel figure has not yet been split between soft sand and sharp sand & gravel; this will be done through the forthcoming review of the MWLP.  There is therefore no up-to-date soft sand apportionment for Oxfordshire.

9.    MPG6 advises that where the Development Plan does not reflect current guidelines, landbanks should be calculated using the last three years for which production figures are available.  Average production of soft sand in Oxfordshire over the years 2000-2002 (the last three years for which figures are available) was 0.293 tpa.  Using this figure as the Oxfordshire apportionment, the reserves at the end of 2002 plus the Tubney Wood ‘permission’ represent a landbank of 6.3 years at the end of 2002; equivalent to approximately 4.8 years now.

       (Figures for production in 2003 and permitted reserves at the end of 2003 should be available soon.  If there have been any significant changes in production or in assessments of reserves, this landbank figure may change.)

10.  This shows that the current level of permitted reserves of soft sand is significantly below the level required to meet Government guidance on landbanks.  On this basis, currently a planning application for a new soft sand working would accord with Policy PE2 (b) (ii).  The critical issue would then be whether the proposal satisfied the other relevant policies of the SP and MWLP.

11.  The explanatory text following Structure Plan Policy M1 states:

‘13.8 In deciding whether a site is appropriate, the Council will take account of local circumstances, Government advice in PPGs and MPGs, the restoration and after-use proposals for the site and development plan policies in particular which seek to safeguard:

(i)    the best and most versatile agricultural land;

(ii)   archaeological remains, historic buildings and areas;

(iii)  Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and other areas of nature conservation importance;

(iv)  the water environment;

(v)   features of landscape importance, especially in AONBs, where mineral working is unlikely to be acceptable;

(vi)  buffer zones between mineral workings and neighbouring land uses which are sensitive to nuisance;

(vii) the safety and convenience of all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.’

‘13.9 Policies to safeguard important environmental features/areas are set out in Chapter 7 ‘Conserving and enhancing the environment’.  Chapter 6 ‘Transport’ addresses the safety and convenience of all road users.  The Council’s approach to mineral related development in the Green Belt is set out in Chapter 5 at paragraph 5.17.’

12.  Chapter 4 of the MWLP contains policies on protecting the environment, although not all of these will be relevant to all applications.  Policy PE1 is a general policy, which states:

       ‘Proposals for mineral workings will be considered in the light of the criteria below:

(a)   the protection of local residential, landscape and natural amenities;

(b)   the provision of adequate buffer zones to protect residential and natural amenities;

(c)   buildings of architectural and historical importance and their setting are not significantly damaged;

(d)   that satisfactory access can be provided onto roads which can safely accommodate the proposed traffic without material harm to the environment;

(e)   where archaeological sites do not need to be preserved, appropriate provision is made for the recovery and recording of remains before extraction takes place;

(f)    sites important for nature conservation, other than covered by Structure Plan policy M9(d), are not seriously damaged;

(g)   woods, copses and belts of trees which are important in the landscape are protected;

(h)   a high standard of restoration and landscaping is provided;

(i)    water supplies and resources are protected and pollution avoided, and hydrological studies are provided where necessary;

(j)    the networks of public rights of way are protected;

(k)   that every care is taken in the siting, design and landscaping of processing plant to minimise the effects on the local area;

(l)    when considering applications for mineral development, the County Council will consider the feasibility of the restoration and aftercare proposals.’

Peter Day

18.08.04