Developer: “But we really need the homes, there is a housing crisis Chris!”
Me: “What are we going to build them with?”
Developer: “No builder has told me that they can’t buy bricks…”
Me: “Yet.”
10 years ago a mineral sterilisation appraisal, mineral resource assessment, mineral consultation zone assessment, or whatever other variation of key words an MPA had opted for, followed a fairly standard pattern:
Site in mineral safeguarding area
Assessment Undertaken
The non-minerals proposal either doesn’t sterilise viable minerals, or, on balance any sterilisation can be outweighed by the benefits of the non-minerals scheme.
Alternatively, the assessment finds that minerals will be sterilised and there are no exceptional circumstances warranting that. The non-minerals scheme is modified, prior extraction takes place, or, the site is deemed unsuitable for non-minerals development.
Now, however:
- Non-minerals scheme in a safeguarding area is submitted to the LPA, with no prior consultation or advice from a minerals specialist
- MPA (sometimes) consulted
- MPA object
- Developer becomes confused, disorientated and angry
- Developer calls a mineral specialist and asks them to make it all go away
Giving rise to this issue, in my opinion, are the two ever present spectres of our industry, the Skills Gap (in both private and public sectors) and the undermining of minerals in the wider planning context.
It is entirely reasonable for someone who has never been told what a mineral is, let alone why they are important, to see the requirement to avoid sterilisation as massively irritating and perhaps even obstructive to what is a very genuine housing and wider development crisis. Likewise, the pressure placed on a planning officer to read, interpret and draw a professional conclusion on a MSA with no specific training or support must also be crushing and perhaps often quite frightening.
But, this situation hasn’t happened overnight and wont be fixed overnight. Until there is a basic level of understanding as to what a mineral is and why it matters, there will be a steady march towards either the dissolution of mineral safeguarding entirely, or the erosion of its powers until it is nothing other than a formality to appease an Inspector at EiP.
Acknowledging my facetious opening (don’t worry its 2025 and all of the popular barristers are doing it in their posts, so I can too), there does need to be a shock to the system. Mineral planners are small in number and cannot use their mass to lobby in the same way house-builders can, so we must stick to and defend the purposes of safeguarding whenever and wherever we can.
This is not for a second a suggestion to prioritise minerals always and over everything else, we are just one part of a complex delivery mechanism for development, and we should continue to balance the need for non-minerals development sensitively and always keep an even keel when passing our judgement.
What do you think? – How do we shock the system and start taking safeguarding seriously again?
