Want* Vs Need, there is an endemic in our sector; fundamentally, an inability to discern one from the other.
*(The use of of the word ‘want’ in this article is not used flippantly or dismissively)
An entirely reasonable starting position for a quarry, or waste, operator is to envisage a new scheme that overcomes an operational issue that they are grappling with, that grows their business or they can see will future-proof their organisation and they accordingly throw extensive resources and time into designing it.
However, there are 149 uses of the word ‘need’ in the NPPF (I don’t have time to do PPG) with no paragraphs dedicated to caring about an applicant’s ‘desires’ or operational challenges.
Need in the context of the NPPF and PPG is about society’s needs, not a businesses.
As such, the planning system is fundamentally set up to deliver society’s needs, not an applicant’s wants; that’s where planners (such as MPG) come in, to articulate an applicant’s desires into proposals that deliver on wider economic, social and environmental benefits.
This is not to say that operators cannot have what they want, but to highlight that from day one they should be engaging with suitably qualified planners to corral their, entirely reasonable, operational visions into a Development Plan compliant scheme.
There is usually a direct link between a mineral operator’s needs being met and social / economic benefits being delivered. Identifying that link and conveying it to decision makers should be a top priority, well before spending five or six figures on concept and design work.
I am acutely aware that this is verging on stating the bleeding obvious, but often going back to first principles delivers the greatest results. Bear this one in mind.
