(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered planning policy for quarries.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the issue of planning policy for quarries to Westminster Hall today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate.
I would like to declare at the very outset that, like many hundreds of my constituents, I will be impacted by the development that I am going to refer to. My South Leicestershire constituency has been home not just to me and many hundreds of my constituents, but to many quarries throughout the years. In 2022, a new proposal from Tarmac was floated for a mega-quarry in the hamlet of Misterton, which will have a huge impact on residents in Lutterworth, as well as the villages of Walcote, Cotesbach, Kimcote and Kilworth—to name just a few.
In engaging with that proposal, I have come to understand just how outdated, inconsistent and, in some places, inadequate the planning guidance for quarry operations has become. Nowhere is that clearer than the guidance on air quality. The documents that local authorities are expected to follow do not reflect comparable environmental standards in developed countries, the latest science or the reasonable expectations that residents like mine hold about their air that they and their children breathe.
I have had regular meetings with residents and the Misterton and Walcote residents group to examine the proposals for the mega sand and gravel quarry. I am pleased to say that some of those residents are here today. Three main concerns have emerged: the first is the scale of the proposed development, which covers 74 hectares—the equivalent of 104 full-sized football pitches—and will extract 400,000 tonnes of sand and gravel a year for at least 20 years. It has caused understandable concern over dust, noise and the movement of heavy goods vehicles, especially given that the site is directly opposite a proposed flagship housing development. There is an interesting potential conflict here, because Leicestershire county council is, rather unusually, the promoter of that housing development, as well as being the minerals authority tasked with approving the proposed quarry on the doorstep of its own proposed development.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. That is an everyday reality for my constituents in Epsom and Ewell: we have a chalk pit and residents are faced with dust, noise and traffic. Three agencies are involved: the Environment Agency, Surrey county council and Epsom and Ewell borough council. They all have different and sometimes overlapping responsibilities, so residents find it difficult to raise issues, and some just fall through the cracks. Does the hon. Member agree that the current system for regulating pits and quarries is too complex for residents to navigate and get their issues resolved?
Alberto Costa
As the hon. Lady will hear in the remaining parts of my speech, I entirely concur with her comments.
Given that the proposed quarry site is not allocated in Leicestershire county council’s minerals plan, which runs until 2031, we can understand why a group such as the concerned residents present today would try to seek the advice of a professional minerals planner to review the proposals, consider the data and write a report that the residents group could use as the basis for their representations to Leicestershire county council, as the appropriate local planning authority, on Tarmac’s proposal. What surprised me, as their Member of Parliament, was that it was nearly impossible to help them find someone in the industry willing to produce a report that the residents association could use. Why? Because virtually every qualified planner we approached—and there were a great deal—cited potential conflicts of interest with Tarmac. In fact, Tarmac is such a big beast of industry that it took nearly a year to find a planner willing to produce and put their name to an impartial report reviewing Tarmac’s Misterton quarry application.
I am concerned that ordinary groups of residents who want to hire a specialist barely stand a chance because of Tarmac’s influence on the industry. Does the Minister share my concern that local communities often struggle to access independent, impartial technical advice, particularly where the applicant is a large and influential company in the industry? If the Minister is unable to answer any of the questions I put to her today, I would be grateful if she would answer in writing, not least because the residents association would be most grateful.
On air quality, I have a specific concern about the regulation 25 notice issued by Leicestershire county council to Tarmac. Forgive me, Dr Murrison, for the highly technical nature of some of my speech. That relies on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2021 background model, which produces artificially low PM2.5 figures that no longer reflect the current conditions on the ground. We now have local post-pandemic monitoring data from Harborough district council, showing that background PM2.5 levels in rural areas close to Misterton are already at or above the Government’s future legal target. Even Tarmac’s own consultants—Vibrock—reported significantly higher background levels than those quoted by the county council.
Does the Minister agree that, to ensure evidence-led decision making, it is imperative that baseline data should be up to date and, if more recent local data exists, it should be used? Does she consider that, where a proposed major industrial development has the potential to increase community exposure to PM2.5, a mandatory period of local monitoring should be undertaken to establish a reliable baseline before permission is considered?
The main guidance that developers and local authorities rely on comes from the Institute of Air Quality Management. Although the IAQM is a respected professional body that works closely with regulators, it is important to recognise that it is a membership organisation and, therefore, potentially vulnerable. For example, its members may also have commercial interests in consultancy firms that deliver air quality services to clients seeking planning consent, such as Tarmac.
The most relevant document used as guidance for developers and local authorities is the IAQM’s 2016 “Guidance on the assessment of mineral dust impacts for planning”. It is fundamentally used as the de facto industry standard by all who work in the industry, including developers, consultants and local authorities, but that guidance is now nearly a decade old. The document sets the industry standard for how dust, particulates and emissions must be modelled or evaluated when a quarry is proposed.
Last year, I wrote to the IAQM, raising concerns shared by my constituents, such as whether the IAQM guidance adequately distinguishes between nuisance dust and finer, more harmful PM10 and PM2.5 particles; whether the 250-metre screening criterion remains appropriate for fine particulates, given the emerging evidence showing that those dangerous particles can travel considerably further; and how well it aligns with forthcoming legal PM2.5 targets, with which the Minister will no doubt be familiar. The IAQM has since contacted me and put a note on its website to say that the guidance on assessment of mineral dust for planning is now under review. That note says:
“The 2016 IAQM Guidance on the Assessment of Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning is now nine years old and as such there are some elements of the document that are dated”.
I repeat:
“there are some elements of the document that are dated”—
this is the document being used—
“and the focus of assessment is changing.
A full review is being carried out by an IAQM Working Group established specifically with regards to this guidance.”
Is the Minister’s Department liaising with the IAQM to ascertain when the review will be completed and a report published?
With the guidance now formally under review, developers and planning authorities need clarity on the interim approach, such as the one faced by the residents in my constituency. The Government’s own interim planning guidance on PM2.5, published by DEFRA in October 2024, already encourages local authorities to take the 2028 interim and 2040 targets—10 micrograms per cubic metre annual mean—into account in planning decisions. Dr Murrison, I promised you that this speech would be full of technical details, and I hope that I am not letting you down.
Given the legally binding obligations under the Environment Act 2021 and Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations (2023), can the Minister confirm, either today or by follow-up letter, how planning authorities should apply the most up-to-date scientific evidence and statutory air quality objectives when assessing quarry applications, especially given that the relevant IAQM guidance is under review, as I have just outlined?
The IAQM guidance to which I am referring is used by developers and planning authorities to assess air quality impacts, particularly in relation to fine particulate matter such as PM10 and PM2.5. I welcome the fact that it is under review, but I wonder: had the residents group not informed my team, and had my team and I not written to the IAQM to raise the concerns of South Leicestershire residents, would the review be under way now? The 2016 primary guidance documents from the IAQM, which are now under review, are used by the industry, and I understand that overall it is very good guidance, but in key areas it is behind current scientific understanding of the risks of respirable dust particle behaviour and the Government’s own commitments under the 2021 Act and the clean air strategy 2019. The guidance is also far too subjective, offering scope for varied interpretations and approaches.
We now know that PM2.5 particles—those fine particulates that penetrate deep into the lungs—can travel much farther than previously assumed. The use of a 250-metre screening threshold, still applied in the current guidance, significantly underestimates risks, because it treats those dangerous particles as behaving in the same way as nuisance dust. Evidence from recent legal cases, including the Corby litigation, which was depicted in the Netflix hit series “Toxic Town”—I encourage listeners and viewers to watch that—has shown that those particulates can travel well beyond 250 metres, exposing far more people to harm than our assessments currently acknowledge.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a very technical speech, but it is bringing to light the challenges in the planning process. Although the situation in Scotland is devolved, I recognise quite a lot of what he is saying. He is talking powerfully about the impact of air quality on people, but it also affects nature and wildlife. In my constituency there is a proposal to extend a quarry at Lucklawhill in Balmullo, and the local community is concerned about the impact on the nature around it. Does the hon. Member agree that there does not seem to be a way to properly recognise that when planning is considered?
Alberto Costa
I absolutely agree, and I sympathise entirely with the hon. Lady. I would go further. I made the point earlier about finding suitable experts who are able to apply their technical expertise to help campaign groups or MPs to rebut planning applications on a technical basis. They are simply not there, for fear of a conflict of interest given their commercial interests with large-scale developers. The hon. Lady makes an important point and has put it on the record.
The UK has committed, through regulation 4 of the Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations 2023, to achieving an annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic metre by 2040, with an interim target for 2028. That is a legally binding obligation, and rightly so, but we will not meet it if the standards we use to assess air quality for quarries are not up to date with the latest scientific evidence. If we keep relying on outdated guidance, we will keep underestimating the risks to public health, particularly for children, older people and those with respiratory conditions who live near quarry sites.
Furthermore, when key guidance is issued by professional bodies rather than statutory authorities, it is far harder for us as lawmakers, and for the public, to scrutinise and challenge their work. That can lead to accountability issues. At the same time, the reliance on organisations such as the IAQM places a significant burden on them, and they may lack the resources or mandate to keep up with changing scientific and legal requirements. Accordingly, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm, either today or by follow-up letter, whether she believes it is right for professional bodies like the IAQM to set air-quality guidance for quarries, as opposed to the relevant statutory public bodies, given the possibility of a conflict of interest between public health goals and financial gain.
Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that the guidance that underpins air-quality assessments is independently reviewed, regularly updated and aligned with statutory obligations on air quality and public health? In addition, the regulatory framework for quarry safety could be strengthened. The Quarries Regulations 1999 focused primarily on workplace safety, but do not require the same structured pre-emptive risk management that is now standard in other high-risk sectors. Would it not make sense for quarry operations to be brought under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, for which the Minister has ministerial responsibility? She knows that the CDM regulations are not just best practice but required under the 2015 statutory instrument, which requires comprehensive risk assessments, formal hazard identification and clearly defined duties of care for all parties involved. Those measures are now standard practice across the construction industry.
Quarries present many of the same hazards as large construction sites, including airborne dust, heavy plant machinery, vehicle movements and complex site operations, but under the current framework there is no consistent requirement for structured design or risk assessments, no formalised application of the “as low as reasonably practicable” principle, and no robust mechanism for protecting the public from involuntary risk. Incorporating operations into the CDM framework could deliver more rigorous and consistent risk assessments, clearly documented mitigation strategies, legal accountability for duty holders and, crucially, better protection both for workers and for the surrounding public. Does the Minister agree that environmental protection, worker safety and public health will benefit if we treat quarrying operations as the major industrial undertakings that they are?
Finally, I hope the Minister will agree that targeted reforms, the clarifying of interim assessment standards and the modernising of safety regulations will deliver better outcomes for the industry, for workers and, most importantly, for all our constituents, wherever they may be.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I intend to start calling Front Benchers at 10.28 am, which means we are oversubscribed, so I will impose an indicative limit on speeches of four minutes, an exemplar for which will be Adam Jogee.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate and giving me the opportunity to speak about the impact of quarries once permission for them has been granted. Newcastle-under-Lyme has regrettably been tarnished in this place for far too long by the events at Walley’s quarry landfill site. I look forward to the day, as do my neighbours back home, when we can finally put this disgraceful situation behind us.
When Walley’s quarry was granted a licence to operate as a landfill site, the assumption was that the site would be managed safely, responsibly and with the local community in mind. But we know all too painfully that that did not happen. Odour complaints began many years ago, but from 2020 onwards they surged to intolerable levels. The experiences of my constituents were beyond comprehension: respiratory irritation, headaches, disrupted sleep and mental health strain, with children unable to play outside, elderly residents housebound and families unable to open their windows. That is not to mention the disgraceful experience of my young constituent Matthew. I pay tribute to him, his mother Becky Currie and their family for all they have done to shine a light on the disgraceful situation at Walley’s quarry.
It is clear that the impact of the hydrogen sulphide emitting from Walley’s quarry was not just a nuisance; it was a public health crisis that the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme were forced to live with. Although we cannot go back in time, we must ensure that our experiences are not repeated anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Walley’s quarry reveals a fundamental gap in the UK’s planning system. Even when technically compliant, planning permission does not guarantee that a waste site in a former quarry will remain safe or tolerable for those who live around it. Too much trust was placed in conditions that lacked enforceability and, in our case, an operator who consistently failed to do the right thing. In my working life I have never seen cowboy operators as irresponsible, as greedy, as reckless and—to put it bluntly—as criminal as those in the details I shall share with the House today.
I have received news that Nigel Bowen, who was once responsible for the operations at Walley’s quarry, died last month. I of course acknowledge the impact on his family, but I am also concerned about what this means for the criminal investigation. We cannot be in a situation where people who know what happened, who can provide answers and who must be held accountable avoid justice for whatever reason. I hope that the criminal investigation reaches its conclusion sooner rather than later.
I have received reports, which I have raised with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, that the former operators at Walley’s quarry owe in the region of £80 million. I urge all relevant authorities to go after every single penny, because the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme deserve no less.
The Environment Agency has been clear in its assessments. It recorded repeated breaches by the operator, identified poor management, and concluded that Walleys Quarry Ltd had failed to demonstrate that it could control fugitive landfill emissions. Between 2021 and 2024 the Environment Agency undertook more than 180 inspections—far more than would be considered normal for a landfill site—and still the problems persisted.
The problem is not simply a bad operator or political leaders at all levels of government who fail to act when needed; it is a system that allows a badly managed site to continue operating for years, even as the harm grows and enforcement escalates. Planning permissions granted decades ago no longer reflect modern environmental standards, population densities or public health evidence, and the law does not make it easy to intervene when things go wrong. Two weeks ago we celebrated a year since Walley’s quarry was closed down, and I am grateful to all those who campaigned so hard to help to make that happen.
Local planning authorities must require far more vigorous assessments of the long-term environmental and public health risks associated with converting quarries into waste sites. Before any waste site is granted permission, operators must provide fully protected bonds or trust funds that are capable of covering decades of aftercare. When companies collapse, the public must not inherit their liabilities.
I have two specific requests of the Minister. First, no quarry with the potential to become a landfill site should be opened within 500 metres of any homes, and no planning application should be approved. Secondly, I urge Ministers to create an excess of supply for the responsible disposal of gypsum. All planning permissions for landfills should require separate stable non-reactive hazardous material cells to be constructed, because this will help to deter the mixing and misclassifying of such waste. What happened at Walley’s quarry must never be allowed to happen again.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for his highly technical and broad speech, and particularly for his points about the environmental concerns about quarries.
I want to talk about Whitehall farm and the surrounding area, in which there have been several applications for gravel extraction by Cemex. That part of my patch used to be entirely in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency but, as a consequence of the boundary review, is now on the border between it and Windsor. The area is a wholly inappropriate place to build a gravel pit for a whole range of reasons. The need for gravel extraction at the site remains to be seen, bearing in mind that we are expecting the River Thames scheme, which will produce a lot of aggregate as part of the construction process. The traffic in the area is highly stretched, to say the least. Inappropriate HGVs going down small roads in Egham with level crossings are already causing traffic carnage.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The picture the hon. Gentleman paints is very familiar to me. There was recently an application on the edge of a village in my constituency. The heavy lorries would cause vibrations on the narrow roads. However, as well as the environmental impact, there is the economic impact on rural areas, where agriculture is trying to diversify. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a tension between the tourism industry and the need to diversify, and the impact of quarries, which discourages people from coming to an area?
Dr Spencer
That is a very good point. Of course we need aggregates to be produced, particularly for the construction sector. I find it confusing that there has been such a push for the site at Whitehall farm. Industry and the residential sector need to work with each other. We need industry because people want jobs, but there are egregious examples, such as the one I mentioned in my constituency, that just do not make sense. I will expand on that point later. To go back to the issues with Whitehall farm, the broader traffic impact would be highly problematic, as would the pollution impact, particularly for a local school that is downstream. There would also be a flooding risk if gravel extraction goes ahead.
Aside from all the problems with the site, which I have been campaigning against, it is a really good example of the importance of community and elected representatives working together to stop something that does not work. Over the years, several applications have been made for the site, and I have worked closely with other elected representatives and the community group to oppose them. I pay particular tribute to Residents Against Gravel Extraction and Professor Moreton Moore, who has done a huge amount of technical work to fight against the site, and local councillors, particularly Councillor Jonathan Hulley, who has worked to oppose the developments. I am pleased that, as a consequence of the boundary review, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) will join us. I know that he will also work to prevent the site.
It is clear from the intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire said that this issue affects a lot of constituencies. The best defence against inappropriate development is close working among community groups and elected representatives. Will the Minister comment on how Labour changes to planning infrastructure will hamstring our ability to stand up for our local residents?
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve, Dr Murrison. Back in October, I went to Laxton and met with the parish council, a fine bunch of people. One of the main issues was the impact of the nearby Wakerley quarry. People turned up because it is affecting their homes and their lives. Residents told me about blasting, the noise, and cracks appearing in their houses. In older homes especially, people said their houses actually shake.
I have met residents since that meeting; they have complained to Mick George, which runs the quarry, and to Burghley, which owns the site, but they feel ignored. Their complaints have not been dealt with. I am trying to get a meeting with Mick George and when I raised the issue with North Northamptonshire council, I was told that everything is being reported properly and no action is needed. Here is the problem: when planning permission was granted, people were given all sorts of promises about monitoring and limits. When what is on paper and what residents experience are so far removed from each other, we have to rethink what we are doing.
We may need quarries to build the homes of the future, but companies have a duty to be good neighbours. Being a good neighbour is not about reports and assurances; it is about listening and doing the right thing. I will continue to seek those meetings to ensure that the residents of Laxton are heard. In the meantime, I suggest that those companies and those that run the site do the right thing by their people and their neighbours.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing the debate, which is vital to me and my constituents.
Over the past six years, since being elected in 2019, I have been fighting against a proposal for an aggregate quarry down Hamble Lane in my constituency, which was recently given permission by the planning inspectorate on appeal. In the four minutes that I have to speak, I want to get across to the Minister that the planning system is fractured, disjointed and weighted against local communities. It does not take into account the true nature of quarries or the stuff that they produce; it does not take into account air quality or water run-off that will go into the River Hamble. The Planning Inspectorate is also culpable in not looking at regulations set down by locally elected planning authorities. In my case, it has been acknowledged in local planning authority notices that the Hamble Lane highway—which has one lane going in and out that 200 lorries a day will have to use—is already oversaturated and at capacity, and yet the minerals and waste authority has granted that permission.
We have a slightly strange process in Hamble that I want to outline briefly. As I said, we will have 200 lorries a day, but there has been a lack of consultation by Cemex, the company proposing the quarry. I will go as far as to say that Cemex are cowboys and bullies of local communities. There was not one physical consultation with people during covid, the company treats the community with utter disdain, and it treats the planning process as one of its personal toys that it can afford to challenge and manufacture. The Minister needs to be aware of that.
The quarry in Hamble is being proposed 50 metres from a primary school and 100 metres from a secondary school. That was not taken into account at all by the planning system. Physical highways data has not been taken account of since covid, but since then hundreds of houses have been built on Hamble Lane. That was not taken into account. Even more concerning is what happened after the regulatory committee of the minerals and waste authority refused the quarry: when 300 of my constituents turned up to attend the final meeting, the minerals and highways authority chose not to defend the reasons for refusal of democratically elected councillors without telling me or a single person in the community. That meant it went to an appeal.
My local residents group, the Hamble peninsula residents group, has done a fantastic job in raising funds to defend the appeal, but it was based on flawed data. At no time in my six years as an MP have I been consulted and no one on my local council—I have been working very closely with the Liberal Democrat administration on Eastleigh borough council—has been consulted. That is not good enough.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The hon. Member’s situation sounds very familiar to me. In my constituency, in the middle of Kingsteignton, we have a large clay quarry called Zitherixon, whose operators are trying to extend their permission for mining, even though it has been established for some 300 years and planning permissions are somewhat ancient. Does the hon. Member agree that, however the mining is permitted, whether by appeal or by planning some time ago, those doing it must be held to the most modern and best possible environmental and residential standards for local people?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. His situation sounds very similar to mine. I do not blame the Minister, as she has inherited a system that has been in place for decades, but what confidence can local people have in maintaining high standards when they are not in the guidance? What confidence can local people have in challenging the impact of quarries if the democratic body that refused permission in the first place is overturned by an unelected inspector, with the rug pulled out from under the local authority?
Will the Minister commit to meet me to discuss the circumstances of this case? There is a clear democratic deficit in the way in which this has been granted. It was handled by officers who superseded locally elected councillors. We are going to seek a statutory review, but that is now at the cost of the local community. That is not good for local people. People feel absolutely let down in Hamble, as they do across the country. I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to meet me in the coming months to discuss this case specifically.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing this debate. It goes without saying that quarries are integral to our infrastructure. My constituency is home to many quarries, and I have been able to visit Bardon Hill, Cloud Hill and Breedon on the Hill. Quarries can be difficult for residents, whether that is navigating the planning process or dealing with issues once they are opened. Lorry queuing dominates my casework at the moment. Since becoming the MP for North West Leicestershire, I have been contacted repeatedly by constituents about huge queues of lorries, sparking safety concerns. Earlier this month, a constituent shared that lorries have been parking on the island of a main road into Coalville, as well as on local pavements. The lack of a response from authorities is frustrating. There appears to be little redress when issues arise, leaving residents worried when new proposals are put forward.
On particulates and air pollution, North West Leicestershire district council’s latest air quality report covers data from 2022. It specifically mentions high levels of nitrogen dioxide and fine particulates of PM2.5 near to Bardon quarry. As a former health scrutiny member of Leicestershire county council, I know that this type of pollution is much higher near our quarries in Leicestershire. We must therefore consider the impact on local people when we go through the planning process. These pollutants can cause residents concern, for in addition to the associated dust and the smells generated from this type of heavy industry, nitrogen dioxide levels have been exceeded 216 times on the monitoring site. We need a new planning system, but we must also be able to deal with the impact of existing quarries. I would welcome the Minister’s response on how we deal with that going forward.
I do, however, want to give people some faith that quarries can be good neighbours. Whitwick quarry has an understanding with local residents. When there are flood alerts, the quarry will stop pumping water into the local brook. The operators send out text alerts when there are going to be blasts and explosions, and they wash the wheels of the lorries down before they leave the site to minimise the dust dragged on to the street. We also have the opportunity brought by Bardon quarry leasing a private line that connects to the Ivanhoe line, which could potentially be reopened to passengers in the future. In the long term, we need to look at the balance between the resilience that hardcore material provides us and the impact that quarries have on local people. Being good neighbours should be the focus of managing planning going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for leading the debate. I will give a Northern Ireland perspective, but first, I want to say that quarries bring economic life to communities. They create jobs. All the debate so far has been about the negatives, although we cannot ignore those either. Back home, I always try to find ways of going forward in relationships both with local people who have concerns and with the quarries so that they can continue their work. Quarries can cause noise pollution, environmental impacts, and health risks. It is crucial that the planning policy is correct and properly analysed, and that is why we are having this debate.
Back home in Northern Ireland, we have a range of active quarries. First, there is North Down, a quarry in Newtownards, in my constituency. It is an operational quarry site, supplying stone and aggregates. There is also Whitemountain Quarries, which is listed on the Ballystockart Road in the Comber and Newtownards area. Those quarries are part of a materials and contracting business, supplying ready-mixed concrete. The rock that was brought to build and reinforce the roads around London came from the Ballystockart quarry. Many years ago, I was able to be with those working there one night at 12 o’clock when the stone came across, and they were also doing the roads. Quarries play an intricate and important role in our lives. There are also historical quarries, such as the ones at Scrabo Hill, where there are old sandstone quarry workings, Killynether Wood old quarry and South quarry. Ballygowan quarry, beyond Comber and Newtownards, is one of the largest quarries in the area.
I want to focus on planning policy—it is so important and ensures that the construction process is done properly. For example, materials such as sand, gravel and other finite natural resources are widely used in Northern Ireland and further afield, and planning policy helps to ensure that resources are identified, managed and protected, so that they are available for current use and are managed properly. As an elected representative, I have worked with North Down Quarries. The guys were arriving every morning at half-past 5 or 6 o’clock in the morning, and they were sitting by a row of houses until the quarry opened. After negotiation with the quarry owners and lorry drivers, we ensured that for those neighbours who had concerns, those concerns were alleviated.
Neighbourhood notification allows for greater integration between developers and communities, especially when it comes to managing the impacts of noise, dust and other disturbances. The inclusion of local communities in the decision-making process helps to provide balance, along with protecting the wellbeing of residents. Neighbourhood notifications can also warn residents about blasting, heavy machinery and truck traffic. Dealing with the vibrations of machinery can severely disrupt lives, especially for people who work from home. There can also be damage to property, as has been mentioned, and many people plan their day based on expected noise or vibrations.
The enforcement of rules is critical. The Minister is not responsible for Northern Ireland, but regular and clear communication about quarry operations can help to maintain a long-term, positive relationship between the quarry and the community. That can be essential for future expansion or continued operation. Back home, planning provides clear benefits in relation to protecting the environment and communities, while ensuring correct resource use. However, as we have witnessed in Northern Ireland, there can be huge delays, leading to higher costs and waiting for the unknown. That must also be taken into consideration, for the betterment of public services and for local communities.
Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland how we do planning back home? It is not that we are better than anybody else—we are not—but it is about asking: how do we do this in a way that can help us to move forward, and bring quarries and communities together?
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for so fully introducing the debate. It is of real interest to me. I am always amazed, when I go to cities, that so much of what we see above ground was once below ground. I want to speak about two quarries in Edinburgh South West, and my speech might be a bit more positive than some of the others we have heard.
Back in April, I had the opportunity to visit Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West. It is operated by Tarmac, and that site demonstrates what a collaborative approach between operators, planners and the community can achieve. Ravelrig extracts about 450,000 tonnes of stone every year, and that stone has built the foundations of the Queensferry crossing, filled countless roads across the region—I think some more of it may be needed to fill the potholes—and helped to underpin Scotland’s renewable energy infrastructure, including wind turbines.
Behind the impressive scale of that operation, there is an incredible ethos. The quarry’s processes are powered largely by electricity, keeping its carbon footprint remarkably low. About 90% of the stone is used within 11 miles of the site, genuinely minimising the environmental impact of transporting that heavy stone. Not all stone from Edinburgh quarries has stayed so local, however. The stone used for statue of Nelson at Trafalgar Square was extracted in Edinburgh. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is not here to hear me say that, because it is from her constituency.
When the city considered the planning extension for Ravelrig, it did so through a framework of conditions—31 in total. That ensured that the community and environment were not afterthoughts, but integral to the decision. The conditions eventually agreed on will limit blasting times, restrict operating hours, cap HGV movements and put rigorous noise, dust and wildlife protections in place. They also set clear restoration timelines, and expect Tarmac to put forward a financial guarantee to make sure that it happens, so that it cannot walk away from it.
I am proud of the work that Balerno community council has done to broker this agreement with Tarmac, and I look forward to working with it to make sure that Tarmac keeps its side of the bargain. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire: although those in the community council were not quarry experts, they had to become experts quite quickly—a daunting task, but one they absolutely embraced. That is what planning for quarries should look like; it should be focused on engaging with local residents.
On the issue of restoration, another quarry in my constituency is a great example of what restoration could look like. Hailes quarry was a quarry between 1750 and 1920; at its peak, it employed around 150 people, and its stone was used to construct much of the New Town, as well as the fantastic St Cuthbert’s parish church in nearby Colinton. Thanks to the Wester Hailes community enterprises, it is now a fantastic public park. I find myself there every Sunday to support the local junior parkrun. There have been lots of requests made of the Minister this morning, but I will put a nice one in: it would be great to see her at the junior parkrun. I am sure that she would be very welcome to run it alongside the children, if she has the energy to do so.
Other former quarries in Edinburgh have now been converted to fantastic attractions, including what is now an international climbing centre and an outdoor surf arena—I guess the Minister could also go surfing at a quarry while she is in Edinburgh. The standard of restoration that we see across Edinburgh, particularly that of Hailes Quarry Park, is what we should aim for. Quarries are necessary, as we have heard, and they can be run responsibly, but planning policy must always ensure that collaboration, community benefit and long-term restoration are built in right from the start, not treated as optional extras.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. When I first supported my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) in applying for this debate, there was an ongoing planning application in Silsden in my constituency, to reopen a local quarry at Horn Crag. I am pleased to say that since then the application has been rejected—not only at the initial stage, but on appeal. While Horn Crag quarry may no longer be a current threat to Silsden, the whole experience throws up many issues relating to quarries and our wider planning system.
I met a number of Silsden residents, my neighbours on the ground, who had fought tooth and nail to have their voices heard by Bradford council and the Planning Inspectorate. It was only after considerable effort on their part that their concerns—about the environment, the impact on nature, air quality, complex site operations, ecology, drainage, potential water pollution challenges and congestion through Silsden and Addingham—were heeded.
It is easy to understand their passion and anger when we consider the broader planning context in Silsden. The town has been inundated with hundreds of new homes in just the last 10 years, and many of those strongly opposed proposals went through without Bradford council even batting an eye. Many were expecting the Horn Crag quarry application to be simply another case of the council ignoring local wishes. People might accuse those Silsden residents of nimbyism, but when the Isherwood family made a proposal for a new farm shop on the outskirts of the town, which was well supported by many local people, it was rejected by the same planning authority that had no issue with approving a huge number of new houses across Silsden.
While stopping Horn Crag quarry was a definite win for those residents, it will not be enough to restore local people’s confidence in our planning system. That is why I think it is really important that we continue to have these debates in the Houses of Parliament, to explore how the planning system for quarries can better reflect local views and provide assurance to local planners that schemes are suitable. It is clear, from the many contributions that we have had today, that the system is currently not fit for purpose. It is also clear that many quarry applications are not sufficiently considering the impacts on air quality, water quality, noise and vibration.
What has not yet been mentioned in the debate is the possibility of requiring a bond when quarry developers put forward an application. That money, which will have been negotiated by a local authority in putting the bond in place, will then be able to provide financial reassurance that, if a quarry operator goes bust, restoration and aftercare can still take place. However, when bonds are being negotiated, they are not being negotiated robustly enough to deal with current economic pressures and inflationary challenges. When things go wrong, the bond should be there to provide reassurance. It is frustrating that, when landfill sites are not considered, bonds are not put in place at the start, and I would like the system to reflect that.
I am concerned that the legislation currently going through the House is not dealing with the challenges. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill that has been put forward by this Labour Government, alongside the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, is actually having negative implications on environmental mitigation, as well as the ability of local people to have their say as part of the planning application. No one wants to say no to any development, and of course quarries are needed, but we must ensure that we have robust ways to manage their undesirable consequences, and that local people are brought along as part of that process. At the moment, I feel that they are not. I am just glad that, in the case of Silsden, common sense prevailed.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Thank you for squeezing me in, Dr Murrison. In the limited time that I have, I want to put on record that the experiences of my constituents in Preesall are echoed by communities right across the country, as we have heard in the debate. Preesall saw a proposal for a quarry to extract sand and gravel. Thankfully, we are in a similar situation to that of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), as the quarry application has been turned down, but we are now waiting to see whether the developer will appeal.
The community feels that it has all the necessary arguments on HGV movements on narrow country lanes and health data from the Over Wyre Medical Centre on the proportion of residents with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, who could be adversely affected. The proposed quarry site is within a kilometre of a primary school, and there is another school just 2 km away. We know that when children’s lungs are developing, they are more vulnerable to the kind of things that will be floating around in the atmosphere, with the potential health implications. The health issues combine with having HGVs on narrow country roads and the implications of unstable ground and an area historically associated with localised flooding.
Paul Holmes
It is actually worse than that, is it not? In my case, the quarry is 50 metres from a local school. Parents are already talking about taking their children out of two very successful schools, which adds to the pressure on communities and the associated infrastructure.
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point—it does have an economic impact on the area. Preesall is located in a beautiful corner of Lancashire, with the Wyre estuary on one side and Morecambe bay on the other. Who will want to visit this beauty corner of Lancashire if the landscape is littered with quarries? It will have an impact on our tourism offer.
All in all, this issue is concerning to my local residents, and I want to put those concerns on record today. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa); I know he has been pursuing this debate for a long time. When I supported his application to the Backbench Business Committee, I was unsure where my local application would end up. While I hope this is the end of it for my constituents, the reality is that we do not know. Current planning applications for quarries are not fit for purpose.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing this important debate, which is of real concern to not only his constituents but those of Members around the country. As a child growing up in Somerset, I well remember the occasional roar of the neighbouring Dulcote quarry, which is now worked out. I no longer live near a quarry, so I do not experience the very genuine issues and concerns of those who do. In particular, significant concerns have been raised about respirable silica dust, especially when the particulate matter is PM10 or smaller, which means that it is fewer than 10 micrometres across.
Studies by the Health and Safety Executive have shown that respirable silica dust, inhaled over prolonged exposure—for example, by workers who do not receive proper protection—is potentially carcinogenic. It can lead to silicosis and other respiratory diseases. Environmental impacts from the dust, which could affect local residents, are therefore a concern to those who spend time near quarries.
HSE studies of those environmental effects in 2002 and 2003 led it to conclude that no cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that the levels of environmental exposure to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause the occupational disease. Notwithstanding that finding, the impact of dust in residential environments is a genuine concern rightly held by many residents, and a potential hazard.
As we have heard, the new Environment Act targets would reduce PM2.5 concentration levels to no more than 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040. People also suffer wider immunity impacts from the dust, noise, vibration and flyrock that quarries emit. The fact that PM10 and PM2.5 pollutants can travel further than 250 metres and that IAQM guidance is under review emphasises those effects and immunity impacts.
We must also remember that quarries are vital to the building of homes and other needed infrastructure. According to the Mineral Products Association, UK quarries produce 177 million tonnes of aggregates and support thousands of valuable jobs. On housing, the Liberal Democrats differ from the Government in that our ambition is for 150,000 council and social rent homes per year—but, to the extent that new homes are needed, we agree that quarrying in the UK needs to continue apace rather than be curtailed.
None the less, health and wellbeing of the public is the main priority of the Liberal Democrats, and must be the main concern in this debate. We would therefore pass a new clean air Act to cover not just quarries, but all air pollution, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency, including funding for local pollution centres and a new vehicle scrapping scheme for cleaner transport.
Clean air is important not just around quarries, but across all our communities. While life expectancy in Somerset and the south west is higher than in other regions of the UK, in my constituency it differs by 10 years from one side of my hometown, Taunton, to the other.
A report from Public Health England in 2018 attributed 250 deaths to black carbon—unburnt fuel from motor vehicles. As with quarries, there is little people can do about these sort of environmental health factors, but they still shorten people’s lives, sometimes by years. Therefore, as well as controlling quarries, we must do all we can to encourage people to replace their cars with zero emission vehicles at reasonable costs that they can afford. The Government must hold firm against the Conservatives and Reform, who seem no longer to care about that air pollution or the related deaths it causes. Flirting with climate deniers, the Conservatives want to reverse a position they once held, announcing that they will continue burning petrol in vehicles around people’s homes, schools and neighbourhoods.
While it is welcome that the Government have set out a delivery plan for nature’s recovery, we are waiting for a commitment to a new clean air Act and for them to get on with giving regulators the powers and resources they need. Instead, we are seeing unacceptable cuts to DEFRA—and therefore to the Environment Agency, which among other things regulates quarries—of 1.9% in real terms this year.
I turn now to the issue of buffer zones around quarries, which some hon. Members have raised. While imposing a buffer zone on an existing quarry—such as requiring a distance to residential properties to perhaps a kilometre—could detrimentally affect its operations, the imposition of some sort of environmental limit, as planning permissions already do, is an entirely reasonable proposition.
Some have argued that introducing a buffer zone could be devastating for the thousands of jobs in the sector. If that is the case, it would be equally devastating, not to mention reckless, to suggest no buffer zones or limits at all between quarries and residential properties. Presumably, even the most ardent quarrier is willing to stop when they reach someone’s garden wall or the threshold of their front door. Therefore, in a very real sense, the question is where to draw the line.
The Canadian example has much to commend it. For example, over the 600 metres under the Canadian rule, 100 dB from quarrying—a common level of noise from a building site—would degrade to around 40 dB. That is a typical level for background noise in residential areas—it is a little higher in cities. It has to be recognised, of course, that topography and other factors play a part in those calculations. Subject to assessment, Liberal Democrats would set in planning policy a buffer zone of 600 metres to 1 km for new quarrying consents. Local communities, through their elected councillors, should be empowered to impose such a zone and to make exceptions to it only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Sadly, the Government are going in entirely the wrong direction on the voices of local people being heard in planning.
Dr Arthur
In my experience of dealing with Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West, a 600-metre line on a map is not always the best way to proceed, because the impact of blasting on properties varies considerably depending on the underlying geology and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the policy needs a bit more rigour than a simple 600-metre line around a quarry?
Gideon Amos
I accept that further assessment is needed before the policy is finalised, but the experience in Canada shows that the distance is appropriate for reducing noise. At the moment, no buffer zone at all is set as standard, as I have pointed out. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not be the quarrier I described quarrying up to someone’s front door, but a buffer zone of some sort is needed.
Clear and understood safeguards, such as a buffer zone, or something similar to the 21-metre back-to-back standard for houses, give people more confidence in the planning system and enable them successfully to live side by side with development, but under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Secretary of State will remove decisions from local councillors and the people who elect them. A new direction will force councillors to report to the Secretary of State and get his permission before they can refuse anything more than 150 homes, and we are told that there is more centralisation, and more community and nature bashing, to come this week in forthcoming announcements on the planning system.
We need quarries and we need development, but unless the Government change direction, we will have forgotten the most important lesson: that we develop for our environment and for people, not in opposition to them. In a world where a staggering 73% of global wildlife has been lost in the last 50 years, we need to save the remnants of nature for everyone’s sake, and we need people’s voices, and the safeguards they desire, to be heard in the process.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to take part in this debate about planning policy for quarries. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate. I appreciate that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have local examples and experience of this issue, and I thank those who spoke before me for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents.
Our quarries and mineral extraction sites are of great economic importance to the UK. Nationally, we are rich in key mineable materials such as lithium, nickel, tungsten and rare earth alloys. Furthermore, we are a nation in need of more homes to help make the dream of home ownership a reality for people up and down the country; we are in need of more buildings; and we are in need of more infrastructure. Quarries are a key factor in providing many of the materials that our nation needs to build more of those things. Having said that, the Government already have 2,000 active quarries at their disposal, and I am not sure what number the Minister would need to get close to the Government’s increasingly distant target of 1.5 million new homes.
Despite that, it is important to recognise that no two quarries are the same, and that their context—be that their economic value, social impact or environmental footprint—is always of great importance when considering planning permission. That is why the national planning policy framework has long made it clear that those factors are critical to assessments of the planning conditions for quarries. The current draft says that, in areas of mineral extraction including quarries, minerals planning authorities must always keep the health of local communities and people in mind, alongside the potential impact on
“the natural and historic environment”.
That includes making sure that
“unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations”
are accounted for, ensuring that their impacts are mitigated and controlled.
It is always important that such safeguards are in place when a new quarry is proposed or when opportunities for expansion are explored. The application of these safeguards, namely the health and safety aspect, is currently governed by the Quarries Regulations 1999, which include an approved code of practice. The regulations define our quarries as
“an excavation or system of excavations made for the purpose of, or in connection with, the extraction of minerals or products of minerals, being neither a mine nor merely a well or borehole or a well and borehole combined”.
We are, therefore, talking not just about small sites or eyesores, but about vast landscapes of machinery, dust, industry, and health and safety risks.
In 2024-25, falling from a height, being trapped by something collapsing or overturning, and contact with moving machinery accounted for 65 fatal accidents at work in the UK, or 67% of the top five most common fatal accidents. All those kinds of accidents have been recognisable health and safety concerns in quarries, and the 1999 regulations sought to prevent their number from being higher.
There must be safeguards to protect the local people and local communities who suffer health and safety risks from quarries without ever even working in them. For example, it is important that proper safety procedures are discharged when planning permission is granted for quarries. That includes proper adherence to paragraphs 135 and 137 of the approved code of practice on the 1999 regulations. The code states in respect of regulation 16:
“Barriers are appropriate where it is reasonably foreseeable that members of the public, including children, are likely to trespass on the site and could suffer injury if they did so… where there is evidence of persistent trespass by children which places them at significant risk, sophisticated metal paling fences may be required.”
It is not just the quarry site itself that should be considered when a quarry is proposed; consideration of the impacts on local people and their local area must extend to transport concerns. The approved code of practice makes it clear that
“Where site vehicles cross a footpath or turn onto a public highway, particular consideration needs to be given to safeguarding the public. This may involve discussions with the planning, highway or police authority.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) presented a Bill on this very topic in 2023. I recall his concerns about small rural roads—rural infrastructure that is completely unsuited to the task—facing 100 or more lorries a day. I know that many hon. Members from across the House have shared or could share examples and figures to much the same effect, and I hope the Minister is listening to those examples closely.
In assessments of planning applications for quarries or anything else, the views of local people are not a burden; they are among the most important factors. Putting local people and local concerns high up the agenda is a long established and democratic precedent that successive Governments have followed. However, I fear for local voices under the current Administration. As the Government railroad their Planning and Infrastructure Bill through Parliament, it is increasingly clear that the planning system that they are not just envisaging and planning for but actively creating is one in which it is much harder to raise local concerns.
As I mentioned at the start of my speech, it is vital that the economic benefits of quarries are properly realised. That is especially the case when more homes are needed right across the country in the light of the Government’s failure to build anything close to the target for their first year in office. However, His Majesty’s Opposition do not believe that local people and local democracy should suffer for that. The Government are eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between themselves and local people. That is why we are clear that local voices, and not just those in Whitehall, must play a key role in any planning decisions. Having heard the important testimonies of Members from both sides of this House, I believe that is especially the case for developments such as quarries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate, his constituents for attending, and all hon. Members who have spoken. A number of hon. Members have raised concerns about the development of quarries and referred to specific planning applications in their constituencies. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific cases, but I hope that the position I am about to set out will provide some reassurance.
I recognise that proposals for new or extended quarries are often controversial and unpopular locally. Once permitted, minerals extraction at individual sites can often take place over very many years, so if it is not planned for and managed in an appropriate manner, communities living nearby can be faced with the impacts associated with the development for a long time.
However, I want to reassure hon. Members that the planning system provides a robust framework to make sure that the impacts of minerals development are appropriately considered and addressed through both the plan-making and decision-making processes. Chapter 17 of the current NPPF sets out policies on facilitating the sustainable use of minerals to support that. In relation to plan making, the framework is clear that planning policy should
“set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality.”
Samantha Dixon
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on.
In relation to decision making, the framework requires mineral planning authorities to
“ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety”.
The cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites or a number of sites in a locality should also be taken into account. Mineral planning authorities should also make sure that
“any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”.
As well as policies specifically on minerals, the NPPF includes policies in relation to air quality, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and pollution. They make it clear that both planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air pollution.
Samantha Dixon
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on with my speech.
The NPPF further states:
“Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality…Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects…of pollution on health, living conditions”—
Samantha Dixon
I am not going to take any interventions.
The NPPF continues:
“and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development.”
That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes).
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I am desperately sorry, and I am not usually this kind of politician, but a number of Members have raised specific issues and contributed lived experiences, which relate directly to what the Minister is saying, yet she is not giving way. I seek your advice on how we can interact with the Minister and get some answers from her.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Whether the Minister gives way is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Minister.
Samantha Dixon
Thank you, Dr Murrison.
I know that the issue of increased HGV movements and congestion is important to hon. Members. Although quarry development can often result in additional HGV movements, where necessary, access roads can be constructed and routeing agreements can be made to reduce the impact on local roads, residents and the environment.
Dr Spencer
Brilliant. I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am glad that she has reflected on the importance in our democracy of Members being able to raise points with Ministers—something that I mentioned in my speech in terms of local representation. Given that she is explaining, in effect, that the system is perfect and there is nothing to see here, could she comment on why so many Members decided to participate in the debate?
Samantha Dixon
I will come to that point in due course.
Proposals in respect of transport impacts should be supported by a detailed transport assessment, which is considered as part of the decision-making process. Further information to support the implementation of the policies set out in the national planning policy framework is provided in planning practice guidance.
To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, I should highlight the fact that the Government are about to launch a consultation on a revised national planning policy framework, including a clearer set of national policies for decision making on mineral extraction and other matters. This is a great opportunity for all Members and the communities they represent to engage. In the light of the concerns that they have raised today, I encourage them to take part in that consultation.
Samantha Dixon
With your indulgence, Dr Murrison, I would like to continue.
As part of the planning application process, applications and supporting information, including statutory environmental assessments where required, are consulted on with stakeholders and the public. Where issues are identified, the imposition of conditions can assist in mitigating impacts to acceptable levels. Where planning conditions are breached, including during quarry operations, and issues arise as a result, the mineral planning authority has powers to take action to make sure issues are addressed.
Although much of today’s debate has focused on the negative impacts of quarrying, I would like to thank the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for recognising the vital role that quarries play in providing the raw materials needed to support our society. The Government have an ambitious growth agenda, which cannot be delivered without a sufficient supply of minerals to feed our construction and manufacturing sectors. The intrinsic link between growth and the provision of minerals is recognised in the national planning policy framework, which is clear that we need a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. The framework also sets out that, when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy, except in relation to coal extraction.
Importantly, what distinguishes quarries from most other forms of development is that their location is driven by geology, which is fixed. In this context, minerals can be worked only where they are found, which influences where quarries can be located. Working of minerals is a temporary land use, and all planning applications for extraction will require an approved restoration and aftercare scheme. The NPPF indicates that mineral planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity, to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions.
Robbie Moore
Great, that is very kind of the Minister. Seven days ago, the Campaign to Protect Rural England commented that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is working its way through the House, will have a detrimental impact on environmental regulation and reduce the influence of local people and their ability to have their views heard when quarry applications are put forward. I wonder whether the Minister might like to comment on that.
Samantha Dixon
I refer to my earlier comments about the consultation due to be launched on the national planning policy framework, which I hope the CPRE and all local communities will participate in.
Restoration also offers the opportunity to enhance the environment. Possible uses of land, once minerals extraction is complete, include the creation of new habitats and biodiversity, and use for agriculture, forestry and recreational activities, such as surfing centres.
I conclude by once again thanking the hon. Member for South Leicestershire and other hon. Members for participating in this debate. I want to reassure them that the Government take planning policy for quarries and the concerns that they and others have raised very seriously. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire has set out a number of issues and put a number of questions to me—
Samantha Dixon
I will just finish my sentence. I would be most grateful if the hon. Member for South Leicestershire set out his specific concerns to me in writing, so that I can make sure that a response to every point he has raised is forthcoming. Similarly, I would encourage other Members to write to set out their concerns.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for giving way. She will recall that in my speech I did not attack the Government at all, so I am not sure why her tone this morning is quite dismissive of other Members of Parliament. I think she should reflect on that. I asked specifically whether a Minister in the Department would meet with me about my case and she has not answered that. I wonder if she could, please.
Samantha Dixon
Dr Murrison, it is not my intention to offend anybody. I have previously referred to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. If he writes to me, I am sure his concerns can be addressed in the appropriate way.
The Government do take these issues seriously, as is reflected in our robust planning framework, which protects communities and the environment while enabling industry to get on with the job of providing the minerals that we need to build 1.5 million new homes and new infrastructure, and to support our growing economy.
Alberto Costa
To conclude, there is no doubt that quarrying plays an extremely important role in delivering the homes, roads and infrastructure that our country needs, as the Minister has said and I acknowledge. That cannot and must not, however, come at the expense of the health of the people of our country. The residents of Misterton, Walcote, Lutterworth and the surrounding villages, as well as all our constituents, are asking us to pay attention to the latest science and heed the lessons of the past, particularly on air quality.
I am grateful to the residents who travelled here today: Liz and Nick Marsh, Paul Mann, and to those who have taken part in the Misterton with Walcote residents group, including Adrian Lott, Graham Jordan, Paulette Murrell, Mark Denton and Richard Nunn, among others unable to be here. I also thank Lord Bach of Lutterworth for his strong support. I am grateful that the Minister said she will respond to the technical issues I raised; I will send her a letter shortly.
We all want to ensure that vital mineral extraction proceeds responsibly. I am grateful to all MPs who have spoken on behalf of their constituents. Local communities must have confidence in the process and confidence that public health is firmly at the heart of planning decisions, while allowing for the building of infrastructure, with the necessary mineral extractions that entails.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered planning policy for quarries.