Greater Manchester Minerals Plan: Defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas In Greater Manchester

Transcription

1 August 2010 Planning for Minerals in Greater Manchester Greater Manchester Minerals Plan: Defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas In Greater Manchester A G M A

2 DEFINING MINERAL SAFEGUARDING AREAS IN GREATER MANCHESTER A consultation paper on assessing the best information about minerals in Greater Manchester This is the third consultation as part of the preparation of a Minerals Plan for Greater Manchester. This consultation concentrates on safeguarding primary minerals but the Minerals Plan will ultimately cover a much broader range of issues, including the use of recycled aggregate, sustainable transport of minerals and locations of depots, wharfs and other minerals related infrastructure. Please let us have your views on the questions raised in this report by 27th August For information about how to respond to this consultation, please see Appendix 1 on page 25. National minerals planning policy 1 requires Mineral Planning Authorities to define Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) in order that proven resources are not needlessly sterilised by non-minerals development. This report outlines: - What information is available on mineral resources in Greater Manchester; and how it is proposed to use this information in developing Mineral Safeguarding Areas. It seeks: - Views on the options for defining MSAs for the following resources: - Glaciofluvial sand and gravel - Carboniferous Millstone Grit (sandstone) - Brickclay - Peat - Surface mined coal (shallow coal) and fireclay Any further information on mineral resources that stakeholders may have. 1 Paragraph 13, Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals

3 1. Why do we need to safeguard minerals? Defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas for Greater Manchester Developing Options for Minerals Safeguarding Glaciofluvial sand and Gravel Carboniferous Millstone Grit (Sandstone) Brick clay Peat Surface mined coal (shallow coal) and Fireclay within the Pennine Coal Measures Formation Appendix 1: Information about this consultation...25

4 Developing Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) 1. Why do we need to safeguard minerals? 1.1 Minerals play a vital role in contributing to the economic success of our society. They are essential raw materials for construction, manufacturing, transportation, agriculture and energy. However, minerals are a finite resource and they must be used in a sustainable way to ensure they are conserved for future use. 1.2 Sterilisation of mineral resources can occur when other development, such as housing or industry, is developed on top of a mineral resource. Minerals can only be worked where they are found and, therefore, they should not be needlessly sterilised by other development. 1.3 Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals (MPS1) requires Mineral Planning Authorities (MPA) to define Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) in Development Plan Documents. An MSA is an area of known mineral resource that is of sufficient economic or conservation value to warrant protection for generations to come. 1.4 MSAs for Greater Manchester will be identified through the development of the Joint Minerals Development Plan Document. This document will then be adopted by each of the ten Greater Manchester authorities as part of their Local Development Framework (LDF). 1.5 The purpose of this document is to help identify what parameters should be used to define MSAs for the Minerals Plan. The minerals plan will identify MSAs for the following mineral resources: Glaciofluvial sand and gravel Carboniferous Millstone Grit (sandstone) Brickclay Surface mined coal (shallow coal) and fireclay within the Pennine Coal Measures Formation Peat 1.6 Therefore this document will only address these resources. 3

5 2 Defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas for Greater Manchester. 2.1 British Geological Survey (BGS) guidance suggests that MSAs should be based on the best geological information existing at the time the designation takes place. As a basis for this, the BGS have produced Mineral Resource Maps which delineate the mineral resources of current, or potential, economic interest. In addition, The Coal Authority has prepared Coal Resource Maps to assist MPAs in defining safeguarding areas for coal. 2.2 The BGS resource maps and information from The Coal Authority have been used as the starting point for developing MSAs. In order to refine these, this paper presents a variety of options for each resource type, accompanied by a series of maps. The aim is to identify the most appropriate boundaries for MSAs. 3 Developing Options for Minerals Safeguarding 3.1 Detailed information on the geological make up of Greater Manchester can be found in the background document Identifying and Protecting Mineral Resources in Greater Manchester 2. The following section provides a brief description of each of the mineral resources for which MSAs are required and potential safeguarding options. 4 Glaciofluvial sand and Gravel 4.1 Sand and gravel deposits within Greater Manchester tend to be confined to Superficial drift deposits of glacial and post glacial origin. They occupy areas where modern day river systems (e.g. Rivers Irwell and Mersey) began to establish themselves following the retreat of the ice sheets. Covering large areas of Rochdale, Bury and Trafford, these sands and gravels are derived from the erosion of local bedrock and, as such, mudstone and coal fragments can be common making economic extraction difficult. Most notably, glaciofluvial sand and gravel deposits are currently being worked at Pilsworth South in Heywood and Astley Moss in Salford. 4.2 Historically, working of sand and gravel occurred in small, local pits supplying local need for aggregates. The ever increasing use of concrete and concrete products in construction has led to an increased demand for aggregates. However, local sand and gravel sites have been unable to match the volume and quality demands of the construction industry, and have reduced in number over the last century. 4.3 Sand and gravel from within greater Manchester is mainly used as bulk fill in engineering projects. It does not tend to be of the high quality required for the concrete industry

6 4.4 Known future extraction of Glaciofluvial deposits is currently limited to potential extensions to existing operations. There has been no data submitted by industry to develop any other deposits. Safeguarding Options Glaciofluvial sand and gravel. 4.5 The following options have been developed to consider the best approach to formulating MSAs for glaciofluvial sand and gravel. 4.6 Option 1 Safeguard the entire resource This would require safeguarding the entire resource as detailed in the BGS Report 3 for Greater Manchester. This would include safeguarding deposits which may be overlain by existing developments, may be small and unworkable or not likely to be of any real economic interest. Map: Glaciofluvial Sand and Gravel MSA Option 1 3 Mineral Resource Information in Support of National, Regional and Local Planning: Greater Manchester. Commissioned Report CR/05/182N 5

7 4.7 Option 2 Safeguard the entire resource outside the urban area, and limit safeguarding in the urban area to regeneration and brownfield site development over 5ha in size 4. This would only safeguard sites within the urban area that may come forward for redevelopment over the plan period; which are of a size at which minerals extraction may be viable and for which BGS highlights potential resources. This option would avoid safeguarding the entire urban area, and would highlight those areas which may realistically be developed. However, there is still the issue that there may not be any real economic interest in the deposit. Views are sought from industry on the potential to develop those areas highlighted. Map: Glaciofluvial Sand and Gravel MSA Option 2 4 This is based on the potential economic viability of the site i.e. they would need to be of this size to be able to work the site to achieve a suitable quality and quantity of material. 6

8 4.8 Option 3 Safeguard areas outside the urban area and international designations. Areas covered by international designations are already protected from development, therefore there is no need to safeguard these through MSAs. Urban areas in Greater Manchester are well developed and there is little potential for new mineral extraction sites to come forward in such locations due to local constraints and development potential of the deposits. In addition, no detailed information is known on the economic viability of such deposits, therefore there seems little benefit is safeguarding these areas as this would place the emphasis on developers coming forward to demonstrate that there is no viable deposit in that location worth working. Map: Glaciofluvial Sand and Gravel MSA Option 3 7

9 4.9 Option 4 - Limit safeguarding to extensions to resource around existing quarries. This option would safeguard only those areas which are currently worked for sand and gravel. This would limit safeguard to existing deposits which may be almost worked out and could miss safeguarding other economic deposits as highlighted by the BGS report. This approach would fit better with identifying sites specific policies or areas of search. Map: Glaciofluvial Sand and Gravel MSA Option 4 Question 1: Which options for safeguarding glaciofluvial sand and gravel do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider an alternative option would be more appropriate). Option 1 Safeguard the entire resource Option 2 Safeguard the entire resource outside the urban area, and limit safeguarding in the urban area to regeneration and brownfield site development over 5ha in size. Option 3 Safeguard areas outside the urban area and international designations. Option 4 - Limit safeguarding to extensions to resource around existing quarries. Further information is sought from industry on the viability of developing deposits identified in the urban area and the need to safeguard these. 8

10 For the following mineral resources it has been assumed that, due to the adverse environmental and social impacts associated with the extraction of the materials, it is not appropriate to do so in the urban area. Carboniferous Millstone Grit (Sandstone); Brickclay; and Peat. Question 2: Do you agree with this statement? If not, can you provide information to support the identification of an MSA for sandstone, brick clay or peat in the urban area? 5 Carboniferous Millstone Grit (Sandstone) 5.1 The sandstones of the Millstone Grit and Pennine Coal Measures of Greater Manchester have traditionally been used as a source of building materials. Whilst abundant in the sub-region, most sandstones are too weak and porous to make good quality aggregate for road stone and concrete, but may often be suitable for fill and for the production of manufactured sand to produce reconstituted stone products. 5.2 Sandstone has also been used as a traditional building stone in Greater Manchester. The oldest rocks that were quarried for building stone and flagstone are from the Millstone Grit Group with principal quarries working Huddersfield White Rock, Kinderscout Grit, and Rough Rock. Quarrying of the Pennine Lower to Upper Coal Measures sandstones (e.g. Ouzel Nest Grit and Worsley Delf Rock) has also been widespread. 5.3 There are currently 7 working quarries working the carboniferous sandstones in Greater Manchester. Most produce blockstone or a range of masonry products and some also produce crushed aggregate for engineering projects requiring lower specifications. 5.4 Known future extraction of carboniferous millstone deposits is currently limited to potential extensions to existing operations. There has been no data submitted by industry to develop any new deposits. Safeguarding Options Carboniferous Millstone Grit (sandstone) 5.5 The following options have been developed to consider the best approach to formulating MSAs for Carboniferous Millstone Grit (Sandstone). 9

11 5.6 Option 1 Safeguard the entire resource This would require safeguarding the entire resource as detailed in the BGS Report for Greater Manchester. However there are a number of factors which need to be considered against such an approach including the following: - Methods of extraction (blasting) not being compatible with land uses within urban area, e.g. housing. - Length of time required to extract mineral could result in significant delays to projects. - The deposits may not be of any real economic interest. - Deposits of this mineral in greater Manchester tend to be low specification and occur extensively elsewhere within the Plan area outside the urban area. Map: Sandstone MSA Option 1 10

12 5.7 Option 2 Safeguard the entire resource outside the urban area. The BGS evidence shows that there is an extensive sandstone resource across Greater Manchester. Therefore, it may be appropriate to identify only that resource that lies outside the urban area as an MSA. This is because of the limited potential for mineral extraction in the urban area in Greater Manchester; potential delay to projects; and uncertainty regarding the economic potential of the deposit within the urban area. Map: Sandstone MSA Option 2 11

13 5.8 Option 3 Safeguard areas outside the urban area and international designations. Areas covered by international designations are already protected from development, therefore there is no further need to safeguard these. The BGS evidence shows that there is an extensive sandstone resource across Greater Manchester. Therefore, it may be appropriate to identify only that resource that lies outside the urban area as an MSA. This is because of the limited potential for mineral extraction in the urban area in Greater Manchester; potential delay to projects; and uncertainty regarding the economic potential of the deposit within the urban area. Map: Sandstone MSA Option 3 12

14 5.9 Option 4 Limit safeguarding to extensions to resource around existing quarries. This option would safeguard only those areas which are currently worked (include currently inactive sites). This would limit safeguarding to existing deposits which may be almost worked out and could potentially miss safeguarding other economic deposits as highlighted by the BGS report. This approach would fit better with identifying sites specific policies or areas of search. Map: Sandstone MSA Option 4 Question 3: Which options for safeguarding carboniferous millstone grit do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider an alternative option would be more appropriate). Option 1 Safeguard the entire resource Option 2 Safeguard the entire resource outside the urban area, and limit safeguarding in the urban area to regeneration and brownfield site development over 5ha in size. Option 3 Safeguard areas outside the urban area and international designations. Option 4 Limit safeguarding to extensions to resource around existing quarries. Further information in sought from industry on the viability of developing deposits identified in the urban area and the need to safeguard these. 13

15 6 Brick clay 6.1 Brick clay is a term used to describe 'clay and shale' used in the manufacture of structural clay products such as facing and engineering bricks, pavers, clay tiles and vitrified clay pipes. Brick clays are essentially mudstones of different geological ages and compositions. In Greater Manchester, brick clay has been produced for local consumption from small brick pits for over two hundred years. Historically, a variety of clays were extracted for common brick making including glacial till, the Triassic Mercia Mudstone and mudstone from the Pennine Lower and Middle Coal Measures. The Pennine Coal Measures were also sources of Fireclay, a fine-grained seatearth that commonly underlies coal seams, and was mined along side the coal for use in pipe making. As such MSAs for fireclay are dealt with alongside surface mined coal. 6.2 The demand for brick clay has lessened over time due to changing engineering practices and an increased reliance on aggregates, including concrete products. However, it should be noted that brick clay may be required to supply bricks with specific properties, such as colour for example, for the repair of historic buildings. 6.3 Brickwork factories are expensive to set up and Minerals Policy Statement 1 requires the Minerals Plan to consider the extraction of brick clay close to brickworks and the need to provide a stock of permitted reserves to support the levels of actual and proposed production, this normally requires a minimum 25 year supply of brick clay to ensure viability. Furthermore, there may be a need to provide for a supply of clay for local use such as repair of heritage buildings. There are brickworks operated by Wienerberger in Denton and Cheadle 6.4 Known future extraction of brick clay is currently limited to potential extensions to existing operations. There has been limited data submitted by industry to develop new or extend any existing deposits. Safeguarding Options - Brickclay 6.5 The following options have been developed to consider the best approach to formulating MSAs for brickclay: 14

16 6.6 Option 1 - Safeguard the entire resource This would require safeguarding the entire resource as detailed in the BGS Report for Greater Manchester. However there are a number of factors which need to be considered against such an approach including the following: Length of time required to extract mineral could result in significant delays to projects. The deposits may not be of any real economic interest Minimal interest has been expressed in developing new quarries for this mineral resource Map: Brick clay MSA Option 1 15

17 6.7 Option 2 - Safeguard the entire resource outside the urban area, and limit safeguarding in the urban area to regeneration and brownfield site development over 5ha in size, and for which there is known industry interest. This would only safeguard sites within the urban area that may come forward for redevelopment over the plan period and which are of a size at which minerals extraction may be viable and for which the BGS map and industry have identified as offering potential resource. This option would avoid safeguarding the entire urban area, and therefore would highlight those areas which may realistically be developed. Information from industry would be required to develop this option further. Map: Brick clay MSA Option 2 16

18 6.8 Option 3 - Safeguard areas outside the urban area and international designations. Areas covered by international designations are already protected; therefore there is no further need to safeguard these. Urban areas in Greater Manchester are well developed and there is little potential for new mineral extraction sites to come forward in such locations due to local constraints and development potential of the deposits. In addition, such deposits in the urban area are likely to have been worked historically as shown by the BGS map, and there is no detailed information on the economic viability of remaining deposits. Therefore, this would place the emphasis on developers coming forward to demonstrate that there is no viable deposit in that location worth working which may deter other forms of development. Map: Brick clay MSA Option 3 Question 4: Which options for safeguarding Brickclay do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider an alternative option would be more appropriate). Option 1 - Safeguard the entire resource Option 2 - Safeguard the entire resource outside the urban area, and limit safeguarding in the urban area to regeneration and brownfield site development over 5ha in size, and for which there is known industry interest. Option 3 - Safeguard areas outside the urban area and international designations. Further information in sought from industry on the viability of developing deposits identified in the urban area and the need to safeguard these. 17

19 7 Peat 7.1 There are two main types of peat bog deposits within Greater Manchester. These are (i) raised bogs, characteristic of flat underlying topography and found on plains and broad valley floors and (ii) blanket bogs, which occur mainly in upland areas where conditions are suitably cool and wet. 7.2 The distribution of peat deposits in Greater Manchester is focused on the upland moorland areas to the north and east of Tameside, Oldham, Rochdale, Bury and Bolton. In addition, peat deposits occur in the low lying mosslands around Chat Moss to the south and west of the sub-region. 7.3 In Greater Manchester, only the lowland bogs are currently exploited for peat, most of which is intended for horticultural use. Although other deposits exist within Greater Manchester, extraction only takes place in the Chat Moss area to the west of Salford and south of Wigan. 7.4 A Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan has been developed for lowland mossland (lowland raised bog), this was reviewed in In addition, the importance of mossland habitat has been recognised within Bolton s, Salford s and Wigan s Unitary Development Plans, with specific policies protecting the mossland resource. 7.5 In March 2010, Government proposed a new target that the amateur growing media market should be peat-free by 2020, which coincided with the Act on CO 2 peat campaign. This target will not be imposed through legislation; instead, Defra will work together with the UK horticultural industry to achieve the target and this approach is supported by the Horticultural Trades Association. 7.6 Defra is working on new targets for professional growers which should be out in summer In autumn 2010, Defra will develop a new policy framework for peat protection. 7.7 It is also recognised that there is currently sufficient permitted peat extraction sites within the North West therefore the Minerals Plan will not seek to identify any new sites. Safeguarding Options: Peat 7.8 The following options have been developed to consider the best approach to formulating MSAs for Peat: 18

20 7.9 Option 1- Safeguard the Entire resource This would require safeguarding the entire resource as detailed in the BGS Report for Greater Manchester. Map: Peat MSA Option 1 19

21 7.10 Option 2 Only safeguard resource which is not covered by an international designation. This would only safeguard the resource identified by BGS which lies outside of international designations. International designations are already afforded protection and are unlikely to come forward for non-minerals development, therefore there is little point in identifying them as MSAs. Map: Peat MSA Option 2 Question 5: Which options for safeguarding Peat do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider an alternative option would be more appropriate). Option 1- Safeguard the Entire resource Option 2 Only safeguard resource which is not covered by an international designation. 20

22 8 Surface mined coal (shallow coal) and Fireclay within the Pennine Coal Measures Formation. 8.1 Greater Manchester lies predominantly within the South Lancashire Coalfield. Coal seams are mainly present in the Pennine Lower and Middle Coal Measures, with a few additional coal seams in the lower part of the Pennine Upper Coal Measures. Coal seams are numerous with in excess of 36 named seams, which vary laterally in both thickness and composition. 8.2 Remaining coal resources are potentially extensive, however future extraction is likely to be restricted to opencast mining methods. Future potential for such sites is further restricted by a number of factors including the steep dip of the strata in the east of the sub-region, often thick sequences of drift deposits (up to 50m) across the coal field, and the lack of thick seams in the basal part of the Lower Coal Measures rendering much of the northern and eastern flank of the coal field (that which is furthest away from significant urban development) uneconomic. 8.3 The Pennine Coal Measures mudstones are now the principal brick clay resource in North West England. In Greater Manchester, only one active quarry at Harwood, Bolton produces high quality brick clay for use in facing, engineering and paving bricks. However, additional potentially extensive resources occur within the Pennine Coal Measures throughout Greater Manchester. For such deposits to be economical to work, it has been suggested that they would need to be extracted in conjunction with surface coal, therefore safeguarding of both these resources has been combined to ensure that both issues are considered. Safeguarding Options - Surface mined coal (shallow coal) and Fireclay within the Pennine Coal Measures Formation. 8.4 The following options have been developed to consider the best approach to formulating MSAs for surface mined coal and fireclay: 21

23 8.5 Option 1 Safeguard entire resource This would require safeguarding the entire resource as detailed in the BGS Report and the Coal Authority s Surface Resource Plan for Greater Manchester. However there are a number of factors which need to be considered against such an approach including the following: Length of time required to extract mineral could result in significant delays to projects. The deposits may not be of any real economic interest No interest has been expressed in to extract this mineral resource from sites not already identified/worked. The number/type of developments which would be affected by such a policy Viability of deposits Environmental impact of developing such operations in an urban centre. Map: Coal MSA Option 1 22

24 8.6 Option 2 Safeguard the entire resource outside the urban area, and limit safeguarding in the urban area to regeneration and brownfield site developments over 5ha in size, and for which there is known industry interest. This would only safeguard sites within the urban area that may come forward for redevelopment over the plan period and are of a size at which minerals extraction may be viable and for which the BGS map has identified as offering potential resource. This option would avoid safeguarding the entire urban area, and therefore would highlight those areas which may realistically be developed. Information from industry and the coal authority would be required to develop this option further. Map: Coal MSA Option 2 23

25 8.7 Option 3 Safeguard areas outside the urban area and international designations. Areas covered by international designations are already protected, therefore there is no further need to safeguard these. Urban areas in Greater Manchester are well developed and there is little potential for new mineral extraction sites to come forward in such locations due to local constraints and development potential of the deposits. In addition, such deposits in the urban area are likely to have been worked historically if viable as shown by the BGS map, and there is no detailed information on the economic viability of remaining deposits, therefore safeguarding these areas would place the emphasis on developers coming forward to demonstrate that there is no viable deposit in that location worth working which may deter other forms of development. Map: Coal MSA Option 3 Question 6: Which options for safeguarding Surface Coal and Fireclay do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider an alternative option would be more appropriate). Option 1 Safeguard entire resource Option 2 Safeguard the entire resource outside the urban area, and limit safeguarding in the urban area to regeneration and brownfield site developments over 5ha in size, and for which there is known industry interest. (is this size appropriate for all developments? Do the coal authority not say they can work smaller? Option 3 Safeguard areas outside the urban area and international designations. Further information in sought from industry and the Coal Authority on the viability of developing deposits identified in the urban area and the need to safeguard these. 24

26 Appendix 1: Information about this consultation Duration of the Consultation The consultation starts on 6 th August 2010 and finishes on 27 th August 2010 Enquiries The Minerals Planning Team can be contacted on or planningteam@gmmineralsplan.co.uk How to Respond Please send any responses to: The Planning Team Urban Vision Partnership Ltd (GMGU) 2 nd Floor, Emerson House Albert Street Eccles, M30 0TE planningteam@gmmineralsplan.co.uk List of Questions on which responses are sought. QUESTION 1: Which of the four options for safeguarding glaciofluvial sand and gravel do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider an alternative option would be more appropriate). QUESTION 2: Do you agree with this statement. For the following mineral resources it has been assumed that, due to the adverse environmental and social impacts associated with the extraction of the materials, it is not appropriate to do so in the urban area: Carboniferous Millstone Grit (Sandstone); brick clay; and peat. If not, can you provide information to support the identification of an MSA for any of the following in the urban area. QUESTION 3: Which of the four options for safeguarding carboniferous millstone grit do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider an alternative option would be more appropriate). QUESTION 4: Which of the three options for safeguarding brick clay do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider an alternative option would be more appropriate). QUESTION 5: Which of the two options for safeguarding peat do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider an alternative option would be more appropriate). QUESTION 6: Which of the three options for safeguarding surface coal and fireclay do you prefer? (Please let us know if you consider an alternative option would be more appropriate). 25