Policy T31: Safeguarding of Existing Mineral Supply Infrastructure

Our objection is in respect of policy T31 – safeguarding of existing minerals supply infrastructure. We consider the policy is not sound as it does not provide for the effective safeguarding of this critical infrastructure.

This section and policy T31 of the Plan are of fundamental importance to AIUK in terms of our continuing ability to operate in Medway and import the aggregates that the Plan identifies as making a critical contribution to minerals supply into London and the South East. As an operator in the Plan area we believe the effective safeguarding of minerals supply infrastructure needs to be given the highest importance and based on experience elsewhere in the country it is our view that policy T31 needs to be strengthened

We have had recent experience in Kent where a major planning application for the re-development of a habourside area has been submitted which would lead to the loss of one of our aggregate wharves at Robin’s Wharf. Policy CSM 6 in Kent's MWLP lists the various safeguarded rail depots and mineral wharves, and Robin's Wharf is listed under this policy as a safeguarded site. However, Policy DM 8 of the same Plan then gives a list of exceptions when planning permission may be granted over safeguarded minerals infrastructure. The list is drafted such that an applicant only has to satisfy one of the criteria and critically at Northfleet this includes: "material considerations indicate that the need for development overrides the presumption to safeguard".

Our concern is that Medway's safeguarding policy T31 contains a similar exception. We could therefore find ourselves in a similar position to Robin's Wharf, if landowners/developers have other aspirations for sites. In addition the current wording of policy T31 allows for safeguarded sites to be overridden by other plan allocations but provides no requirement to make alternative provision.

The policy as written imposes no obligation to provide replacement capacity for the safeguarded infrastructure that would be lost. This is in sharp contrast to policy T34 which provides a robust safeguarding policy for waste management facilities in Medway.

Therefore to ensure that the capacity is effectively safeguarded we believe that a double test, as provided in policy T34, is required so that where the need for another development/allocation is considered more important than the safeguarded infrastructure then it can go ahead, but only if replacement capacity is provided or it can be demonstrated that the capacity is no longer needed.

Effective safeguarding of minerals infrastructure in areas that are reliant on imports to maintain minerals supply is becoming increasingly important. Clear and strong safeguarding policies are therefore critical to maintaining future minerals supply.

As a company we operate both rail depots and wharves in the plan area and we want them to be able to continue to contribute towards mineral supply in London and the South East. Developing new mineral supply infrastructure is not a straightforward process.

Please see below our proposed re-wording of policy T31, which follows the same format as policy T34 and we would also ask that a list of safeguarded sites is included in the Plan:

PROPOSED RE-WORDING OF POLICY T31

Policy T31: Safeguarding of existing minerals supply infrastructure

The following minerals supply infrastructure sites are safeguarded from non-mineral uses:
a. sites in existing lawful mineral supply use (including those with temporary permission); and,
b. land with extant planning permission for mineral supply use.
Proposals for non-mineral supply development in proximity to safeguarded sites must demonstrate that they would not prejudice the operation of the site, including through incorporation of measures to mitigate and reduce their sensitivity to the legitimate operation of the safeguarded site.
Proposals that would lead to loss of mineral supply infrastructure capacity, prejudice site operation, or restrict future development of safeguarded sites will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that either:
a. the mineral supply infrastructure capacity and/or safeguarded site is not required; or
b. equivalent, suitable, and appropriate replacement capacity is provided in Medway in advance of the mineral supply infrastructure use ceasing or the non-mineral supply permission being implemented; or
c. material considerations indicate that the need for the proposed development overrides the presumption for safeguarding and clause a) and/or clause b) above applies

Policy T31 provides inadequate safeguarding protection, particularly wharves and rail depots which are very difficult to replace. As the Plan identifies, wharves and rail depots are essential for the supply of aggregates to the Plan area and wider market. Recent experience with a major wharf in north Kent demonstrates that overly permissive caveats within policy undermines safeguarding. Clause C provides too much flexibility for development to occur which would prejudice operation and should be amended to refer to clause a and b being met (ref Policy T34 for waste) or use of 'and' rather than 'or' after clause C.

How can it be safeguarded if you plan to use it all?

agree

I live in Allhallows, and I strongly believe that mineral resources should definitely be safeguarded. Protecting these resources is crucial for ensuring that we have access to essential materials for future developments and maintaining local industries. Safeguarding them prevents unnecessary depletion and supports sustainable planning, which is especially important in our area where development pressures are high. Responsible management and protection of these resources are key to balancing growth with long-term environmental and economic benefits.